- Who was St. Anastasius the Fuller?
- “A kiss is just a kiss”? Not for the lady-folk.
- A blast from the past — why doomsday devices and accidental nuclear war with Russia are still something to lose sleep over.
- Doctor Who news, via Solonor. Good news? Series 5 is a go. Bad news? A year’s delay.
- Is there anything good about men? Interesting examination of gender differences, gender politics, and inequality.
- Ten things you’re probably better off not knowing about your body.
- Never Trust Any Space Probe Over 30. V’ger … er, Voyager I was launched this week back in 1977, and it’s still operational more than 103 AUs away.
64 view(s)
There are many good things about men…however, this is *not* one of the better-thought-out theories I’ve ever read. It seems to predict that women select mates based on their ability to care fore their offspring and that men select mates based on the chance they have to produce offspring. So why are women attracted to bad boys? And why do men marry (and possibly support) women they can be reasonably certain won’t reproduce? And why do women bother to want anything other than to care for their children? And do “successful” men actually have better reproductive rates than average men? Because how many families of billionaires have nine kids, you know, versus people who have nothing *but* kids? And why do women in high-income families tend to hire people to help them handle the children when they could do it themselves? And why, in the past, were women prevented from entering certain professions, ones that might allow them to make enough money to hire someone else to watch the kids, allowing them to both generate income and reproduce? And what about gay people? Shouldn’t this theory predict that gay men will achieve less than straight ones, because their sexual drives shouldn’t drive them toward reproductive gain? –Lesbians must be completely off the map, inexplicable.
There’s probably a grain of truth to his idea that more men are risk-takers, but I think it has more to do with testosterone and a penchant for more abstract thinking than a wider distribution of generalized “intelligence.” But show me that the rates of mental retardation (after accounting for non-genetic factors, like alcohol) are significantly higher for men, and I’ll consider it.
Could it possibly be that the species is biologically concerned with its survival as a whole rather than just propogation of an individual’s genes?
Also, the figures I had in college for abuse were on the order of something like a thousand abusive males convicted of abuse to females, from a sex researcher…when did that change? Where are the facts, dammit?