Why do only females select males?

indeed
it is as the famed evolutionary biologist, dr gustav darwin once said....
Gustav said:
...there is zero assurance of a male's presence in an infant's life after its birth while a female's one is assured by virtue of the very fact of the birthing itself
Click to expand...


..so very eloquently
billvon said:
Why wouldn't it? Indeed it might be more beneficial since infants pick up some antigens from just being born and passing through the (not all that sterile) birth canal. If that were the case they would get a little more diversity from having two sources of antigens.
Click to expand...


a well made point since .."infants are (roughly speaking) equal part mother and father"
 
Last edited:
Gustav said:
indeed
a well made point since .."infants are (roughly speaking) equal part mother and father"
Click to expand...

Not entirely:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA

In sexual reproduction, mitochondria are normally inherited exclusively from the mother. The mitochondria in mammalian sperm are usually destroyed by the egg cell after fertilization. Also, most mitochondria are present at the base of the sperm's tail, which is used for propelling the sperm cells. Sometimes the tail is lost during fertilization. In 1999 it was reported that paternal sperm mitochondria (containing mtDNA) are marked with ubiquitin to select them for later destruction inside the embryo.
Click to expand...
 
I did a quick search and discovered this tidbit. Apparently there are some differences in the breast milk depending on whether the child is female, male or born premature. The male's body would not be able to know these differences as the development and timing of the milk is determined by the development of the child while it is in utero.

For example, if the baby is born pre-term, breasts produce milk that has a different composition, especially suited for a premature infant. In fact, for premature babies, breast milk can make the difference in life and death. Also, the newborn's first milk, colostrum, is in many ways different from the mature milk. It contains lots of antibodies, and acts as a laxative to purge the newborn's bowels from waste accumulated during the time in utero.

Additionally, research published in 2010 has found that breast milk for boys is DIFFERENT from breast milk for girls. The milk produced for boys has a higher fat and protein content than the milk for girls. Man simply CANNOT duplicate this wonder substance!
Click to expand...

http://www.007b.com/wonders_breastmilk.php
 
Gustav said:
yeah well
billvon pointed that out...
...as well indicating it is not really relevant in the current context.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_disease
The effects of mitochondrial disease can be quite varied. Since the distribution of the defective mitochondrial DNA may vary from organ to organ within the body, and each mutation is modulated by other genome variants, the mutation that in one individual may cause liver disease might in another person cause a brain disorder. The severity of the specific defect may also be great or small. Some minor defects cause only "exercise intolerance", with no serious illness or disability. Defects often affect the operation of the mitochondria and multiple tissues more severely, leading to multi-system diseases.
Click to expand...
Most mitochondrial function and biogenesis is controlled by nuclear DNA. Human mitochondrial DNA encodes only 13 proteins of the respiratory chain, while most of the estimated 1,500 proteins and components targeted to mitochondria are nuclear-encoded. Defects in nuclear-encoded mitochondrial genes are associated with hundreds of clinical disease phenotypes including anemia, dementia, hypertension, lymphoma, retinopathy, seizures, and neurodevelopmental disorders.[2]
Click to expand...
If something as basic as the mitochondria malfunction...it's bad...
Although I suppose you're right and this isn't relevant to context.
 
James R said:
In the traditional patriarchal nuclear family the mother frees up the father to go and earn a wage. She does the child care (unpaid), while he goes off to earn money to support the family. He is not expected to pay the mother for her child care.

Obviously you don't have children. Or, if you do, you really ought to find out how much effort your wife/partner actually puts in - and you should spend some time at home with your children.
Click to expand...

Firstly thank you so much for your lack of tact, if you have read ANYTHING O've written in the last few weeks you know my partner just misscarried our first child so thanks again jack ass.

Secondly do you tell your kids what a burden you oviously feel they are?

You "free up" someone from doing an onerious or irritating task in order to do a more pleasurable one, for instance i "freed pb up to spend more time with her family by spwnding my whole day cleaning everything up after christmas". why do you think spending time with your children is less enjoyable than ANY work no matter how much you love what you do. No one i know would prefer to be at work rather than with the kids. Hell pb and i had the argument about who works and who stays home but it was because both of us wanted to stay home with the child because that was the preferable option, not the otherway around. I pitty you
 
Asguard said:
Firstly thank you so much for your lack of tact, if you have read ANYTHING O've written in the last few weeks you know my partner just misscarried our first child so thanks again jack ass.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry to hear that, Asguard. Obviously my comments had nothing to do with that.

Secondly do you tell your kids what a burden you oviously feel they are?
Click to expand...

When did I say I feel children are a burden?

They are, of course, but there are compensations. That is, they are a burden if you're raising them and providing for them properly.

You "free up" someone from doing an onerious or irritating task in order to do a more pleasurable one, for instance i "freed pb up to spend more time with her family by spwnding my whole day cleaning everything up after christmas". why do you think spending time with your children is less enjoyable than ANY work no matter how much you love what you do.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. What I said was that if one or both partners want to work, then somebody has to look after the kids in the meantime.

Oh, and most paid work is child's play compared to caring for a young child.

No one i know would prefer to be at work rather than with the kids.
Click to expand...

Nobody will tell you that, maybe. There are such people though.

I pitty you
Click to expand...

Why? I have given you no details of my private circumstances. Are you making assumptions?
 
GeoffP said:
Probably because in for a penny, in for a pound. In mammalian species, the female has already invested a great deal in the in utero development. If anyone is going to support the investment further, it should be her.
Click to expand...


god!
that reeks of misogyny
i would like to reassure womankind by asserting that some of us would happily lactate if possible to help out and shit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top