Re: Why do women have MONTHLY periods?

From: Comm (no_at_spam.com)
Date: 03/29/05 

Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 03:37:27 GMT

"Sylvia Knörr" <sylvia.knoerr_NoSpam_@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:d2ae97$rga$04$1@news.t-online.com...
>
>
>> >> > IMO, it is a good thing that itīs hidden and not known to men AND
>> >> > women.
>
>> >> I disagree. I see no gender war among animals that still have estrus
> and
>> >> seasons.
>
>> > The reason why there is no gender war among animals is because they
> donīt
>> > have self-consciousness to question their gender roles, not because
>> > they
>> > have estrus.
>
>> Disagree. Humans don't have self consciousness to get into "gender
>> roles"
>> either - and not all humans HAVE gender roles at all. It's something
> taught
>> in some cultures (but not in every single culture).
>
> Well, physical differences effects that men and women canīt always do the
> same things - men donīt have pregnancies and canīt breast feed babies for
> instance.

Same for dogs, cats, dolphins, all mammals. That has absolutely nothing to
do with gender roles. Gender roles are illusions. Gender differences in
biology are real. One has nothing to do with the other. Think hard about
that.

In a modern urban society we can escape these differences to a
> certain degree, but for the largest part of human history we couldnīt,
> hence
> humans developed a gender-based division of labor.

Watch that. SOME humans did. Not all humans. The only difference between
my grandmother and my father or uncle or aunt was tone of voice. They each
could very easily do what the other did. I hammered nails and built screen
porches and brother planted flowers. Or vice versa. It never made a bit of
difference and anyone trying to say it did usually was considered nuts.
Anyone could wash dishes, sew, paint, build, etc. No roles at all. Each
could fight well, too.

Of course, this could be
> more ore less strict, divisive or egalitarian depending on the particular
> society.

Or not at all. Women have babies. So what? Cat females also have babies.
So what? When they are not doing that specific thing - they are no
different from the males. Some humans are the same.
>
>> >> Uh, where have you been? Most humans do not maintain good
>> >> relationships
>> >> with partners at all. What you said sounds like idealism. It's far
> FAR from
>> >> the reality of human history and gender relations.
>
>> > Of course, relationships are far from being perfect, but do you think
>> > it
>> > would be any better if humans had visible estrus?
>
>> Yes. People with sex on the brain all the time, even when they are not
> even
>> horny, are imo, the most boring and bored people on the planet. That's
>> where the whole idea of 'sex ruining the life' comes from in some of the
>> monotheistic religions. It doesn't ruin the lives of cats or dogs - who,
>> btw, have no gender roles.
>
> Depends on what you consider 'gender roles' at all. For me, it just means
> that males and females do different jobs in case they are social animals
> at
> all. Dogs are social animals, and as far as I know only the female dogs
> care
> for the puppies. Thatīs 'different gender roles' in my book, although the
> dogs just do what instinct orders them to do.

That means it's not a role. I do not ever confuse biology with culture.
For instance, "pair bonding" is NOT the same thing as "monogamy." One is
biological and mandatory. The other is social bull*** that never worked
anywhere.

They donīt have much of a
> choice about that.
> Humans on the other hand HAVE a choice. In some societies fathers engage
> in
> child raising business a lot and in others they donīt.

Dogs don't have to spend much time rearing puppies. And in some human
societies, humans don't have to spend much time either - they don't baby
their kids at all.
>
>> Everybody being in a state
>> > of sexual excitement and trying fervidly to mate - all at the same
>> > time?
>
>> Anyone that's horny 24/7 is not getting off.
>
> Although humans theoretically *could* mate whenever they want, we can see
> people doing many other things instead. Those who are REALLY horny 24/7
> are
> mostly young lads between 15 and 25 with temporary exuberant testosterone
> levels. :-)
>
>> > Chimps have it that way, and I donīt think it would be helpful in an
> urban
>> > society. :-)
>
>> Which chimps? Chimps do not have it that way. Definitely, cats and dogs
>> don't either.
>
> I think chimps, cats and dogs HAVE perceivable estrus.

Yes, they do. Which means they don't spend much time with "sex on the
brain" at all. They mate when they must mate. And they do it to mate.
>
>> >> Most societies are not monogamous. 50% of people that get married get
>> >> divorced in about 5 years. If that rate of failure occurred during
>> >> heart
>> >> transplants, they'd abandon the procedure.

I meant heart surgery.
>
>> > It need not be LIFELONG monogamy, but most people seek at least
>> > faithful
>> > relationships for a few years - long enough to raise a child.
>
>> No, 50% get divorced within 5 years - not long enough to raise a kid. As
>> soon as the women COULD free themselves from the men, they DID free
>> themselves. That's how that happened.
>
> This is true for industrialized societies where children can be raised by
> single mothers with the help of public support. This is a quite NEW
> phenomenon.

No it's not. Many societies never had the same set up - the whole village
raised the kids.

And perhaps you agree that children generally are better off
> when BOTH parents raise them.

Are they? Depends on the home. The book with hard data about the "family"
was cencored - it never came out.
>
>> >> > This detail had a big impact on human social life. As far as I know,
>> >> > humans are the ONLY primates with hidden estrus.
>
>> >> Yes, and humans have not really been around long enough for us to even
>> >> figure out if we are "successful" or not as a species. That might
>> >> have
>> >> been a signal of something gone very wrong. Take a look at the
>> >> world -
> and
>> >> its history.
>
>> > If you equate "successful" with longevity, yes. If you take the mere
> numbers
>> > of human population and the fact that humans live in virtually all
> corners
>> > of the globe, I would call us successful.
>
>> Nope. Humans have overpopulated the planet and in most of the world live
> in
>> miserable conditions.
>
> I was reading "success" as a biological term and not as a value
> assessment.

I'm using it as a biological term. Overpopulation is not healthy - many
species perished when they did that.

> For a biologist a species is successful when its individuals can spread
> and
> fill every available biological niche. Among mammals, humans are one of
> the
> most successful species next to rats.

Let's see how long this lasts then. We have not been around long ENOUGH to
know. Compare to insects. They ARE successful. Really successful.
>
>> If a nuclear war wipes us away
>> > from the face of the earth, I draw back my argument. :-)
>
>> We don't need that. We are overpopulated right now. Wait till the next
> 30
>> years.
>
> Okay. But if there wonīt be a severe decrease in numbers of human kind
> until
> then, I will still call us successful. :-)
> Whether humans behave reasonably or not is a quite different issue.
>
>