men and women

Why is it important for our survival that men and women get along??? Um… babies, perhaps?

Survival has not always required men and women getting along. Survival makes it without the niceties.

But doesn’t survival of a species require, among many other things, rapport within the species? And doesn’t rapport imply a certain amount of understanding, acceptance, leading to open, honest, communication between the genders that make up the species? Just asking… :slight_smile:

No, survival of a species doesn’t depend on that. There’s this species of scorpion in which the males and females don’t come into contact with each other for years, because the population is so sparse, and when they do the male just rapes the female and runs away.

So, the short, blunt, and accurate answer is ‘No, it doesn’t require that.’

At least not for that species of scorpion. :neutral_face:

But what would you say is the most fruitful approach: for men and women to get along and have babies together in a loving cooperative relationship, or for men to go around raping women and leaving them to fend for their offspring on their own?

I can say what is preferable.

But I don’t think the vast majority of the animal kingdom is bothered with the niceties, and they have survived for billions of years.

What do you mean “bothered”? And what is a nicety to you?

Let’s also keep this in perspective. What typically happens in the animal kingdom is not necessarily what’s good for humans.

Perspective: Humans are not distinct from the animal kingdom.

What are the niceties: Your Phrase;“Why is it important for our survival that men and women get along??? Um… babies, perhaps?”

Fact is that for most of the human past, speaking as an archaeologist and ancient historian, such niceties have not always been observed. This has not impeded the progress and survival of human evolution. So whilst it might be desirable, it is not as important as you think, nor is it necessary as such.
But looking ahead - it will not be long before artificial insemination is more common. Today a woman can get impregnated from a sperm bank, without having to “get on” with any man.

Looking back - it is the common habit of many hunter/gatherer tribes to gain wives through purchase and/or through raiding neighbouring tribes. You might say that this is not the nicest way of making a family, but as a strategy it is excellent in selective terms. First only the strongest men are able to get wives this way, either due to riches or brute strength, and the children are more likely to be healthier genetically due to widening of the gene pool due to exogamy - very important in small scale societies where tribes tend to have a limited range of genetic diversity.

As hunting and gathering represent 99% of human history I think it not far off the mark to suggest that “Getting along”, is probably very modern-centric, and based on a Judeo-Christian ideology of monogamy. Quite a limitation in the long duree of human history.
Polygamy is still widely practiced throughout the world, and buying brides is also very common. Getting wives through raids is less so common but I understand that the progeny from rape are still likely to be healthy and thrive.
Don’t get upset. I’m not recommending rape; buying wives; raids; or even artificial insemination. It’s just a fact that humans have evolved without the need to “get on” with each other. Sadly this can explain why it can be so difficult.

i just think it would be nicer if we got along better…the scorpions are interesting but i dont care too much about
their sex life…

What’s the nicety there? Babies? Getting along? Technically, a “nicety” is defined as a detail brought in for precision.

Is there any data to compare with? I mean, data on societies that have observed these niceties?

What you’re describing seems like a middle ground between two extremes: the modern-centric concept of “getting along” (as you call it) and utter chaos and anarchy where the only kind of “getting along” that happens is rape.

When I was answering the above question, I was thinking of “getting along” in contrast to “not getting along”–at all. As in, men and women just don’t talk to each other or interact in any way (except maybe for fighting and harming each other).

But seriously, are telling me that a world in which reproduction was carried out by men kindapping and/or raping women would fair better than one in which men and women consentually formed relationships together, had babies, and cooperatively helped each other raise the kids?

If you read what I say you will see that I covered this point twice.

Well, you seem to be suggesting that it is an advantage to rape and pillage neighboring tribes in order to secure the best chances of propagating your genes. I suppose it does take a really strong man to rape a woman (and we all know that wealth is genetic), but there are numerous flaws in your logic. I won’t go through them in this post, but I will say that, in my humble opinion, rape and pillaging are not options in the modern world. So while you may have a point in principle, I’m gonna stick to my position that in practice we have to find some alternative to rape/kidnapping if we’re going to survive in the modern world as it now stands (this applies to men and women in particular, but also to human relationships in general).

#-o

Please read back.
I take trouble to write what I think. Please take the trouble to read if you are going to respond.
And don’t make me look back!

HERE I LOOKED BACK:“Don’t get upset. I’m not recommending rape; buying wives; raids; or even artificial insemination. It’s just a fact that humans have evolved without the need to “get on” with each other. Sadly this can explain why it can be so difficult.”

Yeah, I read that. It doesn’t answer my question. I asked if you think a society that reproduces by pillaging and raping, or kidnapping, or buying etc. is an advantage compared to a society that reproduces by peaceful and humane means. You’re quote tells me that you’re not promoting such vulgar approaches (thank God), and it tells me that it’s possible for the species to get on with such an approach (which is not a surprise), but not that it’s the most effective.

What do you mean by “advantage”?

In evolution theory, when we talk about an “advantage,” we’re talking about a leg up, an extra bit of leverage that one group has over another. It usually means that in highly demanding environments, it’s a deal breaker.

In regards to raiding, raping, kidnapping, and buy wives, you said “You might say that this is not the nicest way of making a family, but as a strategy it is excellent in selective terms. First only the strongest men are able to get wives this way, either due to riches or brute strength, and the children are more likely to be healthier genetically due to widening of the gene pool due to exogamy”. This lead me to believe you thought of this strategy as an advantage over more peace and humane ones.

But it’s a common mistake to think that fitness for survival is equivalent to physical strength or social status. While raiding a village and chacing down the women might score you a chance of reproducing if you’re lucky enough to catch and rape one of them (or bring her back as spoils of war), I can imagine a male who scores women through his charm, wit, and social amicability. So while you’re chacing women down who are afraid of you, this guy’s got them flocking to him like a magnet. What counts as an advantage and what doesn’t?

I think that we have unnecessary standards, if you’re a manly man or a womanly man, or whatever who cares, homosexual, bi or just curious? If you are a fascist or a communist, you should have a right to believe in your beleifs stupid or not, but I don’t think anyone has ever had that sort of humanism. Now some things need to be brought to task, especially if they encourage bigotry but then doesn’t trying to force people to be something they are not fit that box? Can we all just live without being told how to think by idiots? Apparently not. The world will be a much better place when we accept that everyone is different, but at the same time we are all human. I long for that day in my lifetime, it wont happen, because idiots are the most vocal and rule the world and sadly always have done. It is the really intelligent that have to suffer under the idiocracy and so have they done always and so do they to this day. :frowning:

i agree…i dont have much hope for this acceptance of differences…

Is that the Royal “we”?
Actually an advantage is not always a deal breaker. Fact is that organisms carry traits that are advantages, neutral, and even disadvantageous; evolution not be a cause but an effect does not give a rat’s arse. As long as the organism continues to have viable progeny, they can do things that are selectively negative.
Humans, having the survival thing pretty much sown up tend to behave in ways all the time that do not affect their survival in any sense. And probably when the shit eventually hits the fan it will probably be for some reason no one was able to predict.
Humans have pursued a massively diverse set of social strategies whose concerns are only peripherally acquainted with basic survival, and that was the reason I piked you up on the “we all should get along so we can have babies” assumption; because that is not always how we have proceeded in the long history of human “progress”.