nunia
[个人文集]
加入时间: 2005/11/04
文章: 2184
经验值: 5079
|
|
|
作者：nunia 在 驴鸣镇 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org
Prof. Roy F. Baumeister wrote this essay 'Is there anything Good about man'?
My first reaction was 'Is he rich, is he handsome' are questions left for ladies. But after finishing the whole essay, I need to give it a second thought.
The most underappreciated Fact:
Today's human population is descended from twice as many women as men.
Another point worth noting:
Giving birth is a revealing example. What could be more feminine than giving birth? Throughout most of history and prehistory, giving birth was at the center of the women's sphere, and men were totally excluded. Men were rarely or never present at childbirth, nor was the knowledge about birthing even shared with them. But not very long ago, men were finally allowed to get involved, and the men were able to figure out ways to make childbirth safer for both mother and baby. Think of it: the most quintessentially female activity, and yet the men were able to improve on it in ways the women had not discovered for thousands and thousands of years.
This paragraph reminds me of a most liberating scientific invention for both sexes: contraceptive pill. Yet one unmentioned fact is that it killed midwives. The argument of 'pro life' vs 'pro choice' is made into headlines by politicians and religious fanatics alike. If life is sacred, so is the right to make up one's own mind and fsck the cloud at the same time
{ Editorial : The story behind the discovering and making the contraceptive pill is quite fascinating. 'The Marker Degradation - the decade of Sex Hormones ... }
And if for thousands and thousands years, women know nothing about contraceptive means, they must be blind NOT to see the evil in prostitution.
"cultures tend to use men for the high-risk, high-payoff undertakings" - that is totally untrue! High-risk, high-payoff undertakings are, by large, women and children. War machines employed more men and collateral casualties are women and children, dead or maimed or abandoned.
"What seems to have worked best for cultures is to play off the men against each other, competing for respect and other rewards that end up distributed very unequally. Men have to prove themselves by producing things the society values. They have to prevail over rivals and enemies in cultural competitions, which is probably why they aren't as lovable as women.
This may be true as seen by the frame work of the Western Civilization but it is not so from the Oriental point of view. I fondly remember the objection the Dean in 'The porterhouse blue' made against Lady Mary's idea of installing condom diespenser through out the campus: 'One can't put rubber between life and oneself!' By the same token, one can get rich for himself by making rubber stamps/ printing Bibles/ or refining natural gas/ or trumpeting western democracy so that one can go on with his ideal of liberty but one CAN NOT force his brothers who live undisturbed by and large under 'one ruler for one century' to change the way of his thinking by your force or your definitions of 'goods' or your currency exchange rate.
I must say that the author's conclusion 'What men are good for' is totally absurd based on his own fact "Today's human population is descended from twice as many women as men". Why men can't be satisfied with simple answers like 'men are good for writing long essays.' 'men are good for masterbating when no one is watching', 'men are good for professing but not teaching by example', 'Men are good for making rules and breaking them' and "women are good for nothing"
YES. We are good for nothing but screw you.
作者：nunia 在 驴鸣镇 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org |
|
|
Is there anything good about man?
