Why the "feminization" or docility of both genders is a survival advantage

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by cosmictotem, Dec 22, 2014.

  1. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    I'm going to present a list of reasons for why humanity's traditional idea of masculinity and its role in the world has become outdated and out-of-step with the requirements and needs of modern society and, therefore, should no longer be promoted or defended. This is not a defense of a selection of feminists (not all) whom regard women doing everything that men do as advancement. I challenge that assertion based on my former statement that, in many cultures, the current idea of masculinity is outdated and has outlived its usefulness. Therefore women becoming more masculine in behavior is just as evolutionarily backward as many culture's idea of masculinity.

    1. Hyper-aggressive masculinity evolved during a time when humans had not domesticated livestock, had little means and weapons for controlling highly aggressive and robust wild animals but needed to procure nourishment. Men themselves (as our pre-human ancestors) therefore, needed to stay competitive to some extent with other wild animals. But since taming and domesticating much of the animal kingdom, such overt aggressive abilities are no longer required of modern humans. However, that doesn't stop humans from engaging in what some evolutionarists call "ghost behaviors" where a species will pattern certain past behaviors automatically despite the usefulness and environmental setting for such behavior being long gone. Despite our mastery of the other animals with our brains and technology, humans still seem to think modern equivalents of physically overpowering a wild animal or other human hidden in the form of rodeo, wrestling, ufc, football, etc, are all somehow useful and largely necessary masculine abilities to have today. However, if you view most or all of the competitive and aggressive modern sports objectively, there is little rational for their existence other than satisfying some outdated and un-examined instinctive need for competition.

    2. Wars. Defenders of proto-masculinity will cite protection of women and the species as a reason for the usefulness of an aggressive type of masculinity into the modern era and beyond. They claim humanity will always be aggressive toward each other and that therefore a counter aggressive tendency is necessary, forgetting that the only reason such aggression arise is because an opposing culture carries the exact same outdated view of masculinity as a "tough" and "aggressive" sub-culture always prepared for war. This is why wars continue to this day. It is this view of masculinity as inherently aggressive. Nothing prepares men to fight in a war for a cause more than getting men to box in a ring or smash into each other on a field for no reason other than being told "that's what men do." From there, it's easy to get them to march off to war. Hitler is said to have loved and promoted fisticuffs among the nazi youth. It's easy to see why. If you can get boys to invest their egos in the activity of violence as a symbol of their masculinity, you've prepared their minds to accept war. Don't think the interest in ufc and boxing and football and all the traditionally "masculine" and aggressive sports today don't have an impact on the wars of tomorrow. They do.

    3. Cooperation. Without cooperation and the ability to overcome our competitive and aggressive instincts, humans would not have risen out of the cave or formed more complex, evolutionarily advantageous societies. If our proto-human anscestors were still fighting over territory, instead of cooperating over its defense (as even chimpanzees do today), we would be nowhere as a species today. At every step, overcoming our aggression over a resource, was a step toward increased cooperation and a survival advantage. Competition, in any form and to the degree that it is engaged, is a danger to the competitors. You can get injured or killed competing over territory, food, mates, a drinking hole, etc. (Here please notice the correlation to competitive sports, which I asserted above was a metaphor for our competative aggressive behaviors in the past and the number of injuries (even deaths) associated with those activities. There is a direct connection.) It stands to reason that the more cooperative and less competative we become, the more we evolve toward improving our survival as a species. Look how aggressive and non-cooperative over resources a bear is. A bear can't even cooperate over resources within its own species. Is it any wonder why the bear has not evolved to dominant the planet? It can't cooperate on anything. The more we rely on and revert back to our outdated competative and aggressive behaviors, the more we inhibit our survival of our species. Even our successful management of wildlife depends on our ability to overcome our former aggressions toward other species and "cooperate" with those species on their own survival. Cooperation is always a step toward increased survival and competition is always a step away from increased survival.

    4. Women are no less susceptible to aggressive cultural attitudes than men. Anyone of any gender or race can accept the attitudes of any other gender or race. Culture is interchangeable regardless of gender or race. That women have traditionally been prone to less aggressively risky behavior is not a weakness but a strength. Any culture that chooses to be less aggressive, to avoid conflict, to cooperate more, is going to be less prone to injuries and death. Less prone to destructive wars that set progress back. It's that simple. With our current brains and technology, a feminized culture is still capable of the same level of survival if not better. In fact, it can be argued that we ARE a more "feminized" culture than we were when we were fighting over scraps of meat. This argument that "feminization" is bad is easily illustrated as bunk when you consider our prehistoric anscestors would have called anyone that came along and didn't corner a wild animal for food but instead raised crops and ate domesticated cows, a sissy. Right? Someone who didn't go out and kill their own wild boar would have been accused of "feminizing" the culture. Any step toward a more cooperative, less aggressive society is going to be labelled "feminizing." And the idea that women are not built for survival is nonsense. There are plenty of species more delicate than women. Does that mean they are not built for survival too? From the perspective of a Rino or Elephant, is the largest most muscular human built for survival? No! We're useless...if you count out the importance of cooperation. The fact is, humans of both genders should be more "feminized", not less. Men should get beyond their worship of aggressive and violent activities and women should get beyond selecting men who fit an outdated and destructive concept of masculinity. Is a polite, genteel society a step back in the evolution of human civilization compared to the monster truck rallies and ufc of today? Where is feminization an error? What? Do we want more wars? Many women like to complain about aggressive men and they are right. But there are many women who are relying on an outdated concept of attraction and are selecting these hyper aggressive men. These hyper aggressive men then reproduce and the next generation of women complain about hyper aggressive men. If you're selecting aggressive men, you are just as under the spell of an outdated masculinity as some men are.

    5. A "feminized" world is a more peaceful and cooperative world. As long as you understand that feminism is not wanting to do everything that typical masculine culture does (since some of what it does is engage in violence and war and justifying of violence and war), a "feminized" culture is going to see less boundaries between people. Those borders that divide nations are the left over effect of primitive aggressive, non-cooperation. I want a "sissified" culture if that means people will be putting less energy into violent sports and picking out weapons and devote more energy to watching science lectures or writing music. What can be achieved by teaching people how to fight but, ultimately, those skills being used for destruction? Nobody should be taught how to fight because nobody should be fighting.

Share This Page