And that your wife isn’t in the room
As nowadays the separation between work and home is a bit grey don’t get lazy!
…
It’s really interesting, but it’s unwise to draw any parallels between humans and chimps.
Also, how do you know chimps aren’t responding to social pressure? Just because they aren’t human doesn’t mean they don’t have a form of society to influence their behaviour and gender norms.
You missed my carefully selected use of the word “modern”
The Congo river created a barrier between different populations of a species of proto-chimps resulting the development of different species - chimps on the north and Bonobos on the south. Almost all of the threat from predators chimps face are not present for Bonobos on their side of the river. As such, their societies developed with very different structures. Chimps live largely by a might makes right perspective, something that was important to preserve due to the higher level of conflict that their environment forces upon them, both from predators and from other chimp groups trying to claim land that provides protections against predators. Bonobos have almost entirely eschewed that and have a much more complex social structure based on social capital. This has clearly been influenced by the societal need of their respective environments, but it’s also gone on long enough, with the traits being preferred considered important enough that they have been genetically selected for thus the creation of 2 distinct species. The differences between these two species are very similar to the differences between wolves and dogs. As such bonobos are considered one of the few examples of natural domestication.
Some people may take that as evidence that these behaviors are genetic, but I think the real take home is that if an environment selects for genetic traits that influence behavior you can be damn sure that society will strongly reinforce those behaviors as well.
6 Likes
And, unlike chimps, Bonobos have a matriarchal social structure. Which is perhaps the most relevant point for this thread
Bonobo females leave their pack when they reach adolescence to go out to find a new one. When the isolated female comes into contact with a new pack she gets welcomed in by the other females by fucking…bonobo scissoring.
Not the worst initiation
So can the animalistic “lizard brain” be socialised / repressed to such an extent where nearly all ancestral behaviours are totally repressed?
Should that be the goal for an “advanced” modern species, to totally and completely remove ourselves from the animal kingdom? Certainly heading in that direction. And where does that lead us to?
- Saw a documentary on the Bonobo’s years ago - filthy little bastards - They would do a dead rattlesnake if someone held its head.
What is a woman … by two men.
1 Like
Have you watched the whole program? This is just an excerpt. JBP joining The Daily Wire will make the Conservative elections look like left wing play-school in comparison.
I suppose this will always be if we can define men, how do we define women? Although it’s possibly wrong to conflate male with masculinity and female with femininity? Ah, deep stuff. But I found this very interesting, the feminist stance (or her’s at least)
‘What is a woman’ by two of the biggest bell ends on the planet
5 Likes
I don’t know whether we can define women or men but we can TheFine Young Cannibals
iyHo
That was a frustrating video to watch. Two people having a discussion in which neither is listening or even attempting to meet the other’s points.
The feminist speaker was particular shitty, in describing the experience of Trans women as ‘dressing up’. There is no need for that.
Personally I think Feminist trans sceptics need to find arguments beyond ‘prisons, sport and safe spaces’. Thats a tiny representation of female lived experience, and not a good reason to withhold tolerance towards trans people.
I’m pretty sure you did not even listen to the content…
2 Likes
There’s actually a pretty good explanation for something like that. It’s generally not good to dismiss ideas or people just based on who is originating them, but when the origin has a track record of making things up to suit his perspective and being very selective with facts in order to suit his pathetic agenda…
How do you know if Peter Sutcliff has relevant things to say about the issue of consent unless you waste…spend your time hearing him out? Why are you so biased? Are you too fragile in your perspective that you cannot accept it being challenged?