Evolution of the Female

I wasn't sure where to put this, but Philosophy seems appropriate enough, so..

It may seem odd that, in today's modern western world, the preferred sex for many expectant parents is still a boy. Maybe it's a kind of inherent attitude that males are physically stronger, and therefore seen as better investments for their families? Or, maybe it's because egotistical males feel that unless there's a male offspring to carry on his name, his genes will be some how lost for ever? Actually, that's kind of ironic really, considering a recent report done in Australia found that as many as one in five men may not be the biological fathers of the kids they're raising.

Ah, but I digress...

So, in our new technology driven world, where brains are more important than brawn and more women are opting to be single mothers, is this attitude changing?

In years gone by women were almost always financially dependent on men. He was "the man of the house"; going out each day to work as the family's sole breadwinner. Women were merely the baby makers and housekeepers whose non- domestic talents were almost always stifled by society's narrow patriarchal attitudes and traditions.

How could a woman possibly achieve academically or have a success career with a tribe of kids, a mountain of laundry and other household chores, while still keeping up her 'wifely duties' to her husband? Now days with all our modern appliances housework has become far less labour intensive, the women's liberation movement is in full swing, and of course the 'the pill' has allowed more women than ever before to enter a whole a new era of independence.

Of course, from a business point of view, it's really just good sense to employ women, particularly in 'white collar' positions, since studies suggest that females, generally, aren't only just as capable of the same tasks but are better at team building and communicating. Interestingly, researchers also conclude that women actually tend to make better investment decisions than men do. A survey, by investment site "Digital Look", found that women consistently earn higher returns for their investments. So, maybe it's just a process of sound economic evolution, that as the workforce becomes less labour intensive, more women should enter it?

Yes, Sir (Ma'am?), right now women are surely, economically speaking, the modern world's most under utilised resource, but is that all about to change forever, as we move further into the twenty first century and beyond?

In 1950 only one-third of western women of working age had a paid job. Today two-thirds have paid jobs, making up almost half of the western workforce.

More females, than ever before are enrolling in Universities. In fact, in Britain more women than men are now studying to become doctors and engineers.

By the end of the last century women hit the proverbial glass ceiling. It would seem now as if they are poised to smashed right through it leaving many a man at the bottom to sweep up the pieces, as they realise their full feminine potential. Could the world, right now, be on the verge of an estragon powered takeover?

But, realistically, how much further can the pendulum of change swing?

We've come a long way from they days when man was required to clubbed and dragged the evening meal back to the cave and fend off anything threatening with a shout and a big stick. However, while man is not longer traditionally the 'provider and protector', will many women still continue to instinctively look for those qualities in a mate?

Can a few decades of social engineering really undo millions of years of human evolution?

Footnote: Yes, I realise in some countries matriarchal tribes have and probably still do exist.

Alex, I think the dynamics here are so complicated that we do not fully understand them. Is the preference for a male child a cultural thing, or an inbuilt byproduct of evolution? I cannot say, but a strong argument can be made for the latter because of the way this preference seems to transcend cultural boundaries.

As for that stat about women earning higher returns on their investments, my guess is that it is more about being patient than being smarter. If you track investments made for the same purposes I would predict that the difference would level off. In other words, I think women tend to invest long term, and these types of investments usually have a higher yield than short term because there is less risk involved. Safer investment strategy results in a higher average yield. Do women who make short term investments have a correspondingly higher rate of return then men with the same investment strategy? That would indicate a gender based difference that would be worthy of comment.

This said, I do believe that women are underused in the business world, and that in a few years we should see women outnumbering men in the corporate environment. I foresee this because it only makes sense that women be represented proportionately to their population, and women outnumber men. Plus, women in general are better at dealing with stress because they are more inclined to talk about what they feel than men, who generally prefer to deal with stress in ways that negatively impact their health.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

Maybe it's a kind of inherent attitude that males are physically stronger, and therefore seen as better investments for their families? Or, maybe it's because egotistical males feel that unless there's a male offspring to carry on his name, his genes will be some how lost for ever?

So, in our new technology driven world, where brains are more important than brawn and more women are opting to be single mothers, is this attitude changing?

---

I wanted a boy because I didn't want to one day be in the same house with a PMSing teenaged girl. *ggls* My now ex-husband wanted a boy to "carry on his name." *rme*

Quote:

---

In years gone by women were almost always financially dependent on men. He was "the man of the house"; going out each day to work as the family's sole breadwinner. Women were merely the baby makers and housekeepers whose non- domestic talents were almost always stifled by society's narrow patriarchal attitudes and traditions.

---

I wish I could be financially dependent on my man. I wish I had a "man of the house." I'm so sick of pussy-whipped men who can't or won't make a decision or stand up to their woman. I'm sick of men who don't think it's their responsibility to provide well for their family but would rather depend on the woman to be the breadwinner, leaving her no choice but to continue working if she decides to have a baby. I think housewives are looked down on by other women because of jealousy and/or narrow attitudes that taking care of your husband and child isn't as important or fulfilling as being a teacher, an accountant, etc.

Quote:

---

How could a woman possibly achieve academically or have a success career with a tribe of kids, a mountain of laundry and other household chores, while still keeping up her 'wifely duties' to her husband?

---

They tell women now that they can do it all, have it all and be it all. If that's what you want, go for it. I was working when my son rolled over for the first time, crawled for the first time, etc. I was heartbroken and bitter that I had to miss that. I had wanted to stay home. I think when you choose or are forced by econmic circumstances to continue working when you have a child you are making a huge sacrifice. Those women who seem to have a career, kids and a spotless house....I swear they're on crystal meth because there just aren't enough hours in the day. Something's got to give. I would bet that most of the time it's the "wifely duties" that suffer because she's just too freakin' tired and the kids because she doesn't get to spend much time with them!

Quote:

---

Of course, from a business point of view, it's really just good sense to employ women, particularly in 'white collar' positions, since studies suggest that females, generally, aren't only just as capable of the same tasks but are better at team building and communicating.

Yes, Sir (Ma'am?), right now women are surely, economically speaking, the modern world's most under utilised resource, but is that all about to change forever, as we move further into the twenty first century and beyond?

In 1950 only one-third of western women of working age had a paid job. Today two-thirds have paid jobs, making up almost half of the western workforce.

---

Every boss I've had since graduating from college has been a female.

Quote:

---

We've come a long way from they days when man was required to clubbed and dragged the evening meal back to the cave and fend off anything threatening with a shout and a big stick. However, while man is not longer traditionally the 'provider and protector', will many women still continue to instinctively look for those qualities in a mate?

---

You bet your ass they do! Even strong, independent women want to be pursued and captured. I love Dragon's muse's signature. "To be completely woman you need a master and in him a compass for your life. You need a man you can look up to and respect. If you dethrone him, it is no wonder that you are discontented, and discontented women are not loved for long." Marlene Dietrich

Of course, this is just my personal opinion and not fact. My feminism only extends to women being treated fairly if they want to participate outside of the home, which isn't to say that I always think they should, but they should at least have a choice.

Philosophically speaking (and experientially in some cases), I'm not sure if it's evolution or de-evolution that's taking place, but I see it every day taking place in one form and another. We know historically (or pre-historically) that matriarchs were not only the mothers of the tribe, but also the repositories and teachers of craft, knowledge, and what we might call spiritual values, except where they were ousted by "sky god" patriarchal dimwits. Today, in more and more ways, we are seeing the resurgence of a matriarchal society where the "men" are relegated (and often seem content) to being mono-mythic, unambitious (except at boys' games like war and sports, tinkering with machinery, etc.) "hanging outers." Women on the other hand are getting educations, rising in efficient jobs, from hard labor to management, adopting or redacting to spiritual leaderships of a pre-sky god nature (think pagan vs "Christian") and yet still maintaining their roles as mothers, grandmothers, etc.

What's at work here? Difficult to say. Progress or regression? Both, I suspect -- and despite being a Dom by nature and personality (thank goddess there is still room hopefully for male shamans LOL) -- but what seems to be happening in a large percentage is that men are sloughing off their obligations to society, family, civilization, etc. so they can basically goof off with their buds, get out of work, laze around, and generally not contribute through selfish attitudes and self-righteous "well, I'm a guy" 'tude. Which frankly disgusts me. LOL. I say, up with women! And if men want respect, they'd better start earning it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GreyJack

... evolution or de-evolution ...

---

Most interesting, I hadn't really considered that before.

From the strictly biological point of view men are now and always have been the more expendable of the sexes. True for humans and true almost universally across the animal kingdom. Put simply 1 male and 24 females can produce 24 offspring in a year 24 males and 1 female would take a few years longer. Therefore, it makes perfect sense for male roles should be riskier and woman would be more sheltered. It would also make sense in times of surplus to want to build up your risk taking, expendable, population.
Now we live in a much more enlightened time. Such considerations are beneath our notice. As women move into the professional workforce either because they want to, or one because it just takes two salaries to support a family, or more frequently because she's the sole support for the family one marvels at this "progress".
As women become the majority enrollees at college the worth of a college degree sinks. This isn't a sexist observation it is just true no matter how you measure it. The financial value of a BA verses a trade school degree is on the way to inverting. College courses are getting softer and less relevant and outside the very elite schools grade inflation is rampant. Look to history and culture, In the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe where the Medical profession was predominantly a feminine pursuit the wages for an MD were the rough equivalent of a factory foreman.
Please understand, this isn’t a diatribe against women! It is supply and demand. If you start with an economic model where one salaried occupation supports a family then you double the required salary needed you need to double the number of workers and jobs. This would place downward pressure on salaries and in real terms salaries have dropped as the pool of the employable doubled.
As for the feminization of society, I suspect it’s a bit overstated. It isn’t a man’s world, it isn’t a woman’s world, it’s just the world we’re stuck with. We can bend it a bit and change our hopes and ideals but we should be honest with ourselves about the consequences. Cultures expand their influence with their population. There is only one culture that is presently shrinking in size. Western ‘Civilization’ may be the home of the modern feminist movement but the irony would border on poetic if feminism led to the undermining of the only culture that nurtured it.

affectionately
Mad Lews

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad

...

As women become the majority enrollees at college the worth of a college degree sinks. This isn't a sexist observation it is just true no matter how you measure it. The financial value of a BA verses a trade school degree is on the way to inverting. College courses are getting softer and less relevant and outside the very elite schools grade inflation is rampant. Look to history and culture, In the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe where the Medical profession was predominantly a feminine pursuit the wages for an MD were the rough equivalent of a factory foreman.

...

---

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion, Mad--that it's women's fault that tertiary education is becoming undervalued.

Here, in Australia, many women and now choosing to become tradespersons--and I use that terminology simply because many women are now choosing to become plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc..

Yes, I agree that "The financial value of a BA verses a trade school degree is on the way to inverting." But I think it has little to do with women per se. Here, cash strapped universities compete for enrolments, and so the level of entry has dropped considerably. On the other hand, a couple of decades tightening regulations has discouraged many employers from taking on apprentices (here it's virturally impossible to sack an apprentice) and that has causes the number of tradies to simply drop quite dramatically. Supply doesn't always equal demand across the workforce and a shortage of anything will push the price up. Try trying to get plumber to come to your home, here in the land down under--and when you do manage to find one you better have your gold Amex handy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad

Please understand, this isn’t a diatribe against women! It is supply and demand. If you start with an economic model where one salaried occupation supports a family then you double the required salary needed you need to double the number of workers and jobs. This would place downward pressure on salaries and in real terms salaries have dropped as the pool of the employable doubled.

---

Now, this is a really interesting observation. I believe in some more forward thinking countries this problem is being addressed by men and women working shorter hours for the same hourly rate. What a great idea! Why should a man have to work 40 plus hours a week to come home too tired to enjoy his family? And, why should a woman be shackled to the home and not encouraged to use her intelligent and education?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad

Western ‘Civilization’ may be the home of the modern feminist movement but the irony would border on poetic if feminism led to the undermining of the only culture that nurtured it.

---

This reminds me of one of my favourite quotes. When asked, "What do you think of Western Civilisation?" Mahatma Gandhi replied: "I think it's a good idea".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion, Mad--that it's women's fault that tertiary education is becoming undervalued.

---

That’s not exactly what I said Alex, it’s a matter of supply and demand. The idea that “everyone” should have a tertiary education cheapens its worth that has nothing to do with gender. The fact that women were kept out of the education and work pool in prior times just means that they are the new majority entering these pools at a time of growing surplus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

Here, in Australia, many women and now choosing to become tradespersons--and I use that terminology simply because many women are now choosing to become plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc..

Yes, I agree that "The financial value of a BA verses a trade school degree is on the way to inverting." But I think it has little to do with women per se. Here, cash strapped universities compete for enrolments, and so the level of entry has dropped considerably. On the other hand, a couple of decades tightening regulations has discouraged many employers from taking on apprentices (here it's virturally impossible to sack an apprentice) and that has causes the number of tradies to simply drop quite dramatically. Supply doesn't always equal demand across the workforce and a shortage of anything will push the price up. Try trying to get plumber to come to your home, here in the land down under--and when you do manage to find one you better have your gold Amex handy.

---

Yup that is more or less the gist of my argument. Trade shortage drives up the price, trade surplus drives it down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

Now, this is a really interesting observation. I believe in some more forward thinking countries this problem is being addressed by men and women working shorter hours for the same hourly rate. What a great idea! Why should a man have to work 40 plus hours a week to come home too tired to enjoy his family? And, why should a woman be shackled to the home and not encouraged to use her intelligent and education?

---

You mean like the French, and Swedes? This brings up the question of “What is work?” and how does it relate to money? At a basic economic level, work is the ability to create value. money is a universal trading system for labor IE the creation of value. If you look at those ‘Progressive’ countries that dictate shorter working hours and regulate a higher pay standard you find unemployment rates in the double digits and up around 25% for those trying to enter the job market (the youth).

Yours
Mad Lews

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GreyJack

Philosophically speaking (and experientially in some cases), I'm not sure if it's evolution or de-evolution that's taking place, but I see it every day taking place in one form and another.

---

Biologically speaking there ain't no evolution of a single gender. With each new life there is a recombination of male and female genes, therefor it can't be evolution in the biological form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion, Mad--that it's women's fault that tertiary education is becoming undervalued.

Here, in Australia, many women and now choosing to become tradespersons--and I use that terminology simply because many women are now choosing to become plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc..

Yes, I agree that "The financial value of a BA verses a trade school degree is on the way to inverting." But I think it has little to do with women per se.

---

Yes, I'd concur that the absolute value of a B.A. or an M.A. .- its power on its own to get you a well-paid job- has dropped a good deal from what it was forty years ago, and not just in the arts and letters departments but also at law school and some economics tertiary programmes¨.This has happened at the same time as women entered widely in those professions and as women academic staff became more common, but I don't think one is a consequence of the other. It's funny, sometimes I get to hear girls in feminist discussions saying flatly "when women enter a work field or a level of decision that used to be male-only, the power and the pay move elsewhere" as a given truth, and as if this power shift were something totally impersonal or a hidden conspiracy triggered by the men. And this is used as a means of bringing home "hey, we're still female victims, still powerless in a way: let's get at the men!".That's simplistic, it's nothing of the kind. And it's obvious that high-level female political people have never been as many, and as successful, as in the last twenty years..

Plainly I think power has become more spread-out, if you look closely at the realities of company bosses, military people, leading journalists and political people today - and others in leading positions - they are less in command than their predecessors: less able to decide things "all by themselves" from their rooms and stick to the decision, because they very often have to lean on someone else, in a hard way (actual decision making) or a soft one (information, permissions, media relations).

---

Quote:

---

Now, this is a really interesting observation. I believe in some more forward thinking countries this problem is being addressed by men and women working shorter hours for the same hourly rate. What a great idea! Why should a man have to work 40 plus hours a week to come home too tired to enjoy his family? And, why should a woman be shackled to the home and not encouraged to use her intelligent and education?

---

I wish that was an appreciated idea here, but despite the fact that Sweden regularsly hits the top 5 on lists of "the most gender-equal countries in the world" the idea of pulling down on work hours in some phases of life, for women or men, is heavily resisted here; it's plainly passed off as a strategy for nobodies or commies. While everyone recognizes that working women have to pull a heavy burden as soon as they raise a family, because taking care of home and family is still so much a woman's "extra duty", the suggestion that this needs to be attacked by making it easier to work a bit less than full-time without the employer seeing you as second-rate or vaguely expendable is a no-no to many people in the debate here. Plainly you work 110% or you're seen as "not interested in your career" and putting some time aside to deal better with raising the kids isn't seen as an asset in your cv or working-life profile. Over time, this is not useful to either sex.

One of my favourite philosophers today, Janet Radcliffe Richards has written a short essay on just this subject. She's a feminist with quite a bite.

http://subsite.icu.ac.jp/people/fuller/Richards.htm

I think we have to have permanent affirmative action that gives women greater rights than men, if we ever want equality between the sexes. I base this simply on the fact that women in general have less testosterone than men in general and will therefore always be less aggressive.

I think that given the same situation, women will in general always be more likely to cede than a man and will therefore always get less. Women have less issues with dumb ass pride than men, which also will make them less likely to stand their ground.

I think it's genetic more than cultural. But not inevitable. I think we can master our genetic programming to shape this world like we want it.