Came up with a simple theory about the evolution of patriarchy. This is a contrast the church induced dominance, or the one sanctioned by the Vedas (yeah, they did it) and I now too little about Islam to comment.
Evolution is not always linear. There are many times when there is not one single way out to adjust to the environment. Like membranes against wings for flying, or large lungs and blowholes against gills for staying underwater. Whenever there is an obstacle, or competition, there are different ways to approach the problem.
This is how the genders evolved in the first place. in the beginning, instead of the two gametes of sperm and ovum, there was just a single type of gamete. Picking a random name lets call these cells gamma cells.
Gamma cells are personified to illustrate the point, the decisions were not conscious but were driven by natural selection. A random and slight shift in behavior was exaggerated by the environment...
So, gamma cells are fucking around, creating more gamma cells. What happens is that a gamma cell enters another gamma cell, they fuse, they fertilize, and then the embryo or whatever comes out...
To get the evolutionary edge over other gamma cells, there are two equally practical approaches. Make the gamma cells bigger to provide more nutrition for the offspring... make the gamma cells smaller so that it can find another gamma cell faster than its peers.
The smaller gamma cells became the sperm, and the larger became the ova. Obviously, the sperm started exploiting the larger ova right from the beginning.
Now evolution got more complex, so did people and psychologies started playing a major role. To look at how behavior affects evolution, which many may think is too trivial a force to have any actual impact over evolution - but look at the different behaviors of big cats towards they prey - there are stalkers, sprinters and attackers.
So while there ARE matriarchal societies, where females fuck around with many guys in the tribe, this is what I think happened for the vast majority o the world population, with reference to male dominance.
Females evolved this strategy of sexual crypsis - of hiding when their periods occurred - or when they were fertile. This first promoted monogamy (and then, amazingly enough, adultery)... basically the chick wanted her mate to hang around and pay more attention to their children. The guy wanted to fuck around, but stayed back because he wanted to make sure no one else got to fuck around with his wife (he would have let her roam free if it were not for sexual crypsis).
This lead to the evolution of the patriarchal system. The guys began to wear the proverbial pants in the house. They became physically stronger to protect their mates and provide for them... give them enough incentive to stay. Eventually, brute force was used as the only "incentive."
Come what may, the guy would stick by his chick...
This is mostly because the guy obviously does not want to waste time, energy and other resources over somebody else's kids.
That's why men are so possessive... that's why you guys try to hang out with girls as much as possible... to keep a guard over them and screen potential partners... and THAT'S why girls ask for time out with THEIR friends on their own.
This is all because of the "post liberation" thing. If you look at this in a rational way, and by rational I mean not from the individual's point of view, but to see what's best for the species, feminism was a bad, BAD move. Now that girls get to fuck around without being avoided by guys, and that they can raise kids without the need for financial support from men... thousands of years of evolutionary strategies for the men will go haywire. Not saying this is not good, it is damn near inevitable, but there are major changes heading our way, and we should have the balls to stomach it.
Things are changing like hell due to feminism, God giving brains to chicks was definitely a bad move. Not that anyone would claim that guys have terribly good brains - my theory that brains were a bad move in evolution really is starting to make more sense.
Are feminists, and actually, being a step ahead of what is going to happen, humanists, really saying that fuck us as we are, we can still make babies? Is this a downturn for human evolution? Like will technological advancement in the field of reproduction allow too many specimens of the gene pool to survive that should be weeded out? For example, what about impotent people still being able to reproduce through IVF, resulting in a possible future where more people are impotent, less girls get the sexual pleasure. If the feminist movement fuels the counter-movement of humanity, be careful girls, you might end up in a future without sexual gratification.
No comments:
Post a Comment