perjantai 6. marraskuuta 2009

Miehestä ja naisesta, osa III

Seuraavat yksinkertaiset havainnot selittävät todella paljon miehen ja naisen luonteesta, pariutumiskäyttäytymisestä ja siitä, miksi miehet ovat edelleen yliedustettuina yhteiskuntien ja organisaatioiden johtoportaissa sekä samaan aikaan myös putoajissa. (Putoajat jäävät feministeiltä usein huomiotta, millä mahdollisesti halutaan estää tasapainoisen kokonaiskuvan muodostumista, ehkäpä alitajuisesti.)

Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.

I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced. ...

Later in this talk we will ponder things like, why was it so rare for a hundred women to get together and build a ship and sail off to explore unknown regions, whereas men have fairly regularly done such things? But taking chances like that would be stupid, from the perspective of a biological organism seeking to reproduce. They might drown or be killed by savages or catch a disease. For women, the optimal thing to do is go along with the crowd, be nice, play it safe. The odds are good that men will come along and offer sex and you’ll be able to have babies. All that matters is choosing the best offer. We’re descended from women who played it safe.

For men, the outlook was radically different. If you go along with the crowd and play it safe, the odds are you won’t have children. Most men who ever lived did not have descendants who are alive today. Their lines were dead ends. Hence it was necessary to take chances, try new things, be creative, explore other possibilities. Sailing off into the unknown may be risky, and you might drown or be killed or whatever, but then again if you stay home you won’t reproduce anyway. We’re most descended from the type of men who made the risky voyage and managed to come back rich. In that case he would finally get a good chance to pass on his genes. We’re descended from men who took chances (and were lucky). ...

Experts estimate Genghis Khan had several hundred and perhaps more than a thousand children. He took big risks and eventually conquered most of the known world. For him, the big risks led to huge payoffs in offspring. My point is that no woman, even if she conquered twice as much territory as Genghis Khan, could have had a thousand children. Striving for greatness in that sense offered the human female no such biological payoff. For the man, the possibility was there, and so the blood of Genghis Khan runs through a large segment of today’s human population. By definition, only a few men can achieve greatness, but for the few men who do, the gains have been real. And we are descended from those great men much more than from other men. Remember, most of the mediocre men left no descendants at all. ...

The women’s sphere consisted of women and therefore was organized on the basis of the kind of close, intimate, supportive one-on-one relationships that women favor. These are vital, satisfying relationships that contribute vitally to health and survival. Meanwhile the men favored the larger networks of shallower relationships. These are less satisfying and nurturing and so forth, but they do form a more fertile basis for the emergence of culture.

The essence of how culture uses men depends on a basic social insecurity. This insecurity is in fact social, existential, and biological. Built into the male role is the danger of not being good enough to be accepted and respected and even the danger of not being able to do well enough to create offspring.

The basic social insecurity of manhood is stressful for the men, and it is hardly surprising that so many men crack up or do evil or heroic things or die younger than women. But that insecurity is useful and productive for the culture, the system

Mies on sekä biologisesti että sosiaalisesti riskinottajan asemassa ja tämä tehtävänjako on ollut ilmeisen toimiva. Sen sijaan, että sukupuolikysymyksiä lähdettäisiin tarkastelemaan silmät tasa-arvoideologiasta leimuten, olisi minusta syytä ensin myöntää asioiden luonnollinen tila, mikä se on ollut, mikä se on nyt ja mihin se johtaa, ja vasta siltä pohjalta alkaa varovasti miettiä asiaa, rauhassa, mutustellen. Vasta sen jälkeen voidaan varovasti kysyä: "Mihin olisi hyvä pyrkiä?"

Lähde: Is There Anything Good About Men?

Ei kommentteja: