Originally posted by Tigeress
quote:
This is what I zeroed in on Benny...
The men are the problem. Like it or not, the women in the outfit affect the men and no, this is not a matter of education but a matter of biology.
That is the same old tired excuse some men have been spouting forever.
TIGERESS [/B]
Possibly, even probably, because it has been true forever?
Humans, when you get right down to it, are animals. (we are neither mineral nor vegetable)
Every species of animal(and for that matter, vegetable) on this planet has gender roles in their social structure, thats the way nature works.
Can you think of any other species which has deliberate female combatants?
Combatants, not 'breadwinners'.
Lionesses hunt, but do they protect the pride? (probably not the best example........lions may in fact be the exception to the general rule)
The wolf ***** is an essential part of the pack, and she will even fight for position within it, but does she put herself in a position to face off against a rival pack's alpha male? (Defense of herself or her young against an immediate and inescapable threat doesn't count btw)
Many primates will in effect have wars, Chimps for instance will deliberately seek out and attack other chimps not of their group.
Do the female chimps get involved in the fight?
Nature seems to think that females, as bearers of life, are far too valuable to risk in power struggles.
Is political/social correctness more or less right than nature?
I'm not particularly religious, but if I were, I would equate Nature to God's Will, is P.C more right than the way God intended things to be?
Did God, nature, the universe get it wrong? Or did we?
Both sides of the argument cannot be right.
P.C. without limits and constraints equals anarchy btw., there has to be lines drawn somewhere.
IMHO, taking PC and equality beyond the lines nature draws between the sexes is pure human arrogance, thinking we know better.