A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind

[Duncan Butlin]

SpheresOfBalance --- Thanks for the information on epigenetics, I will pay more attention to it in the future.

Who’s on top, man or woman? Physical strength means nothing. Woman has always been in charge of sex.  Only when a man physically overpowers her does she lose control, and that very rarely happens. Her power is to deny sex. Consider the female baboon.  She denies sex to the male for months.  Only when he has learnt to pick up babies and cuddle them does she allow him to approach. His strength is totally irrelevant, and our common ancestor with him is 25 million years ago. That’s how long women have been dominating men with their power of denial of sex.


Website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/

[Arising_uk]

Except we might be a primate more along the lines of the bonobo.

[Duncan Butlin]

Arising_uk --- Hi, I hope you are well? I love the bonobos (I’ve even let a mother bonobo, Diatou at Twycross Zoo, put my thumb in her mouth), but I am not sure how much the female controls the male for sex. Do you know? They have so much of it it must be hard to sort out who’s controlling whom.

I am in the middle of building a website for my Suffrageur Society (for married men to sign a pledge to be sexist, once in a while), and I am developing a logo. I wonder if you could comment on it?

logo.png (46.38 KiB) Viewed 2640 times

It’s meant to symbolise the dominant-submissive roles in a relationship -- particularly in the office environment. I think it applies even in a good conversation, though there are exceptions of course.

My website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/

[Arising_uk]

You're ignoring the point as usual Duncan. We are not Baboons.

[Duncan Butlin]

Arising_uk --- I’m sorry, I thought you were suggesting that bonobos were a better model for human behaviour than baboons. What you wanted to say was that both baboons and bonobos are equally irrelevant? The theory I’m working on is that if two species with a recent common ancestor share a trait, then that trait was probably present in the common ancestor too -- rather than the coincidence of the trait evolving twice in the separated species. The species split date is thus the last possible date for the evolution of the trait. That’s the theory, anyway.

I found that bonobos have a very similar eye contact protocol to our own -- despite them not having any white around their pupils -- so I assume that eye contact behaviour is at least 6 million years old, when we split apart from them.

I’d love your opinion of my Suffrageur Society logo.


My website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/

[Kennethjex]

Having just had a divorce...I can see a lot of the logic in there. But...there are "soul mates". Its certainly rare to see...but...when I do, it both ruins my day...and instils hope at the same time.