Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Nov 12, 2022 3:49 pm
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 12, 2022 3:16 pm
This reality is not about individual experience but of the statistically affirmed generality of the principals involved.
"Sure, but how do we distinguish cultural effects from biological ones. Up until the early 70's as near consensus, women were considered unable to do many things we now take for granted they can do. Which means their choices in the job market were limited and also there was a lot of social pressure to not be there and certainly not in many professions. That means they will be more dependent on men if there are children involved. It's a self-creating attitude. And what statistics are you working with? What studies are you basing this on? It would be helpful to see their protocols.
As I have already stated biology does not follow fashion, yes, the work/environmental context has changed and along with it attitudes about gender have changed somewhat. There are today more women graduate from university than there are males which means they will be making more money than many males. That said, their mating strategies have not changed, women marry either on the same economic level or above they do not marry down, unlike the male population where a successful male will marry down, perhaps marry a waitress. Considering that sexual selection is the female function this is going to affect the basic structure of society. Women still want greater security for both themselves and any children they might bear, which means their selection is heavily materially influenced. I know it does not sound very romantic but basically, the mating process is really the will of the species and these instincts are innate within our human biology. As to confirmation, that could be had by reading more basic biology, offhand I might quote Jorden Peterson, the renowned psychologist/sociologist he is on tick tock or possibly just google it he affirms the statistical evidence of these patterns.
"Part of my point here is we are barely out of a long period where women's potential abilities in all sorts of things were utterly hallucinated out of the picture. An utterly unreal image of women (men also) was presented as real and this still is something that is unraveling. [/quote]
You have to consider attitudes in the context of their times, when most work that was available was hard labor neither the female nor the male wanted women to be working in the mines or felling trees, there was still much of the setup of a primary culture where the men hunted and the women supported the male hunter, they were a unit neither could survive without the other.
There are always exceptions to the rule but the rule is well established. It is not an opinion; it is scientifically based. I know I was not brought up with a realistic view of what is involved, the romantic version is what most people are fed.
"Who would be feeding this and why if the biological is the truth and affecting how we think? [/quote]
Again, you have to consider this thing in the context of their times, it wasn't really debated it was the cultural norm.
Romance has its place but I think it would be better for the young to be in touch with reality, it just might give them the inspiration to measure up and apply themselves if they know the name of game. The romantic theme is what raises the mating of humanity up from the basic lust of animal procreation in general. Aye, but the population does consume a lot of porn which takes it back down to the animal level.
"Or maybe the idea of reality is actually a biased one and self-fulfilling. [/quote]
There is an old saying context defines, said another way environment defines. One adapts to the conditions one lives under.
"I don't think the answer women see men as, more or less, sources of money for the bills to support children is what is driving people. Or better put that leaves out so much that it is not realistic. To tell people that would be to undermine a lot of other needs and desires, plus have implicit messages to women about their own ability to contribute to those bills, should they want to. Once women were no longer seen in an unrealistic fashion, many moved into the workforce. After a few decades of this, they started expecting men to look more healthy and beautiful, [/quote]
You are thinking in terms of your own times just as everyone in the past has done. The civilization of your times informs you, but biology changes ever so slowly and despite the times. The same mating patterns are repeated over and over again, women do not marry economically down but on the same level or up, this is statistically validated.
As an aside, I don't think men and women are the same. I do think there are biological tendences and significant ones. But I really don't think in Western societies the explanations for what men and women want is that simple at all. Class and education levels have big effects, and some subcultures will be more like your description than others. But I don't think it is reality. And why would we be so romantic if this isn't a core need and something that happens underneath verbal thinking and often automatically, even in the very young.
[/quote]
The playing field changes but biologically the players remain the same, repeating the same patterns even when the context has turned the roles upside down. These instinctual patterns played out in today's context will cause considerable tensions within society and not all necessarily to the good.
