Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihu1m.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!ihnp4!ihu1m!gadfly From: gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: male/female differences Message-ID: <202@ihu1m.UUCP> Date: Wed, 16-Jan-85 00:43:58 EST Article-I.D.: ihu1m.202 Posted: Wed Jan 16 00:43:58 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 11-Jan-85 23:50:52 EST References: <74@mot.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 43 -- >> Here is an interesting argument if you like thinking about such >> things: >> A big difference between men and women is that men are naturally >> promiscuous and women are not. This is because a male can maximize >> the survival of his genes by having as many partners as possible. >> Promiscuity in women, on the other hand, with their >> few eggs, has no advantage: The limiting factor is gestation >> time, not number of partners. "Male promiscuity" is therefore selected >> for while "Female Promiscuity" is not. >> Alan Filipski That's awfully stupid. If it were that vital for a male to have many partners, it would be equally important for females to help them out in this regard. If said sexual promiscuity were vital for the survival of our species, that is. If it's a matter of intra-species competition, then the argument reduces to "promiscuous men will tend to have more children, who will then grow up to be more promiscuous--if they're male." And even Lamarck would have barfed at that one. What Mr. Filipski's pseudo-evolutionary claptrap wants to hide is the fact that any differences in promiscuity derive from enforced inequality of sexual privilege, only possible in a species mentally capable of knowing and caring who their kids are, and thus of maintaining cultural traditions of sexual coercion and restriction. Sure, the spread-the- genes argument holds for many polygamous mammals, but only because a dominant male maintains an exclusive harem of females and tries to prevent the less powerful males from spreading their genes at all. Humans could have a biological predisposition toward promiscuity (some species mate for life and do OK, so it's moot), but there's no rational evolutionary argument for males-only. The notion that men somehow "want it", "need it" or "do it" more than women is merely an excuse for the basest expressions of misogyny, and a miserable one at that. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 09 Jan 85 [20 Nivose An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***