Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snoweel" data-source="post: 650178" data-attributes="member: 4453">Even though you use two question marks where protocol askes for either one or three, not the average of the two, I assume you're smart enough not to accidentally draw such a conclusion from my statements.Which leaves me thinking that you're resorting to deriding a strawman argument of your own dvice because you feel you're losing your grip on the debate.It's a fact that human beings care for their own children to an exponentially higher degree than they do for the children of others.Dynastism being one of the few forms of immortality available to us, not to mention the overriding power of genetic material to ensure its continuing propagation.Which is why you so carefully twisted my comment to suit your needs, I would expect. WTF are you talking about?!?!? All these factors have the ability to be both cause and effect.Are you saying these are the reasons that matriarchies don't dominate the world and that I've been unable to comprehend this fact?Once again, while they are causes, they are as much effects.The point remains - matriarchies' (and other matrilineal societies) only legacy is in the freakshow pages of history books.Something of an overwhelming coincidence, don't you think? I suppose you're a big fan of Douglas Adams (may he rest in peace).Those matriarchies were just so damned unlucky!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!You are aware that outside forces besiege every society, not just the matriarchal/matrilineal ones?Yeah. Because you definitely are, right? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> I think you know exactly what I'm saying, but in the off-chance that you really are st00pid, as opposed to the snide jerk I suspect you actually are, I'll re-hash.Human beings, regardless of gender, care far more for their own offspring than for others'. Exceptions aside.Women, regardless of patrilineage/matrilineage of the society, can be near certain of whether or not their children really are theirs, and will thus have a vested interest in their children's welfare on a personal level.Men, however, are faced with extreme uncertainty as to the assuredness of their paternity in a matrilineal society, and as evidenced wherever paternity is dubious, males mostly "couldn't be arsed" (to be vulgar), to have much to do with the raising of their young, particularly where other males are equally as likely to be the father of any particular child.Of course, this could be entirely the result of socialisation, but if the procreative drive is as linked to the desire to propagate genetic material as evolutionists would have us believe, then I'd say this attitude is as much to do with biology as it is to do with society.But just a couple of posts previously you said this:So which is it?Either you believe gender is distinguished solely by sex or you don't. I think we both know the answer to that one.And as for "society", you fail to realise that women comprise more than half of society. And since they do, they must surely take half of the blame for their alleged "oppression" at the hands of the other half.Or maybe claiming to be "oppressed" is nothing more than a clever way to exploit a particular social system (one that rewards victims for inaction?)And before you flame me for perceived callousness, I'm actually working to a point, which by now should be obvious.True, but what does this have to do with the debate at hand? Homosexuals and lesbians are largely on the periphery of heterosexual politics.Can you think of a single reason why such a society wouldn't respect secular prostitutes other than impersonation of holy men and women?I agree it's possible, but I can't for the life of me think how, in the context of sexual politics.</blockquote>

Verification