| Soliloquy |
07-11-2007 10:35 AM |
That article really rubbed me the wrong way because not only did they fail to cite sources, it seemed like the twisted everything to further their personal agendas.
IN MY OPINION:
First off, we live in a patriarchal society propogated by society- not by basic human instincts. Think about it, if you turn on TV you will be hard pressed to find a show that does not contain a family where only the father works and the mother stays at home with the children. This particular father figure will carry on about sex and how is wife doesn't give him any, he will also favor is sons and lecture his daughters. If his son isn't stereotypically athletic or "manly" enough, the father will badger him. If his daughter is strong-willed and smart, the father will tease her. Seriously, a lot of shows have this basic concept. This just further enforces stereotypes about family lifestyle. You also don't even have to change the channel to see the marketing tools utilized by companies that also furthers the basic patriarchal concept. For example: A commercial dealing with cleaning products will almost exclusively feature females, while a product that requires some intelligence will feature males. If a commercial features the opposite of what I previously stated, it is generally for purposes of ridicule: i.e. a car insurance commerical where an inept female makes wrong choices until a male leads her to the company producing the commericial.
Now I say this is all based on society, NOT instinct, because there is proof that before western culture took over the world, matriarchal societies existed. There were numerous self-sustaining and successful Native American tribes where women where in charge. How do you explain that if, according to the authors, we are naturally dictated by the desire to allow men to rule/men to have multiple wives etc? In these Native American societies, it was WOMEN with multiple HUSBANDS, WOMEN who ran the show, and the WOMEN's tribal name was passed on. Truly, this is a more accurate way to create family lines because you will always know who your momma is, but you can never be fully sure who your dad is!!
Forms of media have always existed to further societal norms and gossip has been around since people could speak. Where do you think our ideas of beauty, that change every 20 years or so, come from? How are these evolutions explained by this study? According to the authors, these societal views of beauty should never change- since we all run on instinct given to us by our ancient counterparts. As Drolefile pointed out, heavier women were once considered gorgeous and genes adapted to create thicker women in (gee, thanks..ugh!). This isn't because of instinct, it was a reflection of the society that bore these concepts! Heavier women were more reveared in eras where poverty was prevalent in socio-econmoic status. This leads to my other point, blonde women were reveared because of their rarity, not because their hair indicated youth. Seriously, how many natural blondes do you know? Probably not a lot! Think of how uncommon it was when the geneotype first appeared! I am also pretty sure that I read in some book at school that some cultures would kill blondes because they suspected these people to be witches/devils due to their rarity. Stick a blonde in Africa, and the men will stare because of her uniqueness, not because they are programmed to find her attractive since her hair will tell her age :rolleyes:
Organized religion, both modern and ancient, furthers the patriarchal "complex." Now I'm not knocking the concept of spirituality or the validity of holy works, especially since I have a very strong Christian faith. However, it doesn't take much work to see how churches manipulate texts to ensure that men stay in power. I won't go much further into this for fear of beginning a fire-storm of a debate, but if some posters are willing to have a casual posting session about this I will continue!
*steps off of soapbox* :p
|
