With
recent elections in the U.S. once again pulling out the rug from underneath
abortion rights, with the low priority given to teaching young women math and
science, with Hollywood actresses and musicians only as in-demand as their
youth or hacked iPhones permit, with Gamergate exposing details of a female
gamer’s private life, with pornography a multibillion dollar industry in the U.S.
alone, with catcalls par-for-the-course on city streets, with monotheism’s
long-standing tradition that treats woman across the globe like cattle, it seems
as though being a woman is as tough as ever. Certainly one might be inclined to
think that given the right to vote in democratic countries such as the U.S. that
women would vote for candidates who espouse women’s rights, but many women – indoctrinated
into a male worldview – can’t seem to stand the idea of too much freedom. The
consequence is that they get dominated for it.
I’ve long
tried to understand mankind’s continued attempts to subjugate or otherwise
dominate women. For every person who thinks we are an evolving species – where
‘evolving’ means the species is growing smarter, wiser or more fair – there is
every evidence to the contrary, especially if you are a woman. Could it be just
a matter of perspective as news agencies are now more often reporting that
which has always been taking place? Or, is the world really getting worse for
women despite all the progress made in the arena of women’s rights since the
turn of the century? Sure, everyone is running for the cure these days, but as
everyone knows, if testicular cancer were as common as breast cancer, testicular
cancer would have been cured by now. Why is being a woman such a curse? [Yes, I
do say ‘curse’ being a male, though I do think I am more of an impartial
observer than the next guy. There is also the fact that at least half of all
the women I have ever known have said at some point in their lives that they
would rather be a man.]
I’ve
thought about this at less than great length, I admit. Nonetheless, I imagine
what I am about to say is going to yank some chains. (Sorry, poor choice of
words there.) Why does the worldwide male population (generally) treat the worldwide
female population so poorly? I could think of only one single answer – it’s
good for the species. Before I continue with that thought, let me say that I
personally have little at stake in the human species; I have no children and
have no plans to have children primarily due to my misanthropic tendencies. So
when I say the subjugation or dominance of women is good for the species, that
doesn’t mean I like it or that I think this is the way it should be. However, there
is a reality to be faced here. From an evolutionary standpoint, I’m inclined to
wonder if it makes sense for one gender to be under the thumb of the other
gender. In this case, among Homo sapiens, it happens to be the case that men
dominate women. Why? Reproductive advantage.
Men have
taken an ‘is’ and turned it into an ‘ought.’ What I mean is that due to the
physical differences between men and women (men have more muscle mass and
invest less energy in creating a child) that men have become the dominate
gender, and gladly so. Because men can overpower women, both figuratively and
literally, they do. Because men can spread their genes farther and faster than
women, they do. And what is the effect? More children, which is exactly what
our genes want, to be passed on into the next generation. Remember, our genes
don’t care how. It is biologically advantageous (in terms of reproduction) that
men subjugate women. What would happen if the situation were reversed? Existing
societies may clue us in.
If you
think about societies in which woman are on more equal ground as men in terms
of rights, women tend to have children later in life and fewer of them, or even
not at all. The most industrial countries, which as a consequence tend to be more socially liberal,
generally have lower birth rates than those that are not industrialized. (At
the same time, many Third World nations have higher infant mortality rates but
their higher birth rates see more children survive per mother than not.) Women
understandably express an interest in freedom as the biological cost of having
a child is high, especially in a world where it seems there is less and less
involvement from fathers in raising children. The continued and focused
degradation of women across the globe is a stand against women’s rights, as
women’s rights infringe upon the rights supposed by males who believe they
should have easy access to women for sex, that is, for reproductive purposes.
But there is a mistake made by the global community of men; it’s their unconscious
belief that their genes are any more important than a woman’s.
This
belief is usually reinforced by religion but it is there even without it. I
could be wrong, but I lean towards thinking men hold their belief due to the
fact that they are more physically imposing than women; the differences between
the physiques of the two genders is hard to ignore. That and recent experiments
aside that are ready to combine the DNA of three people, the fact remains that traditionally,
it takes a set of genes from both a male and female to make a child. Granted,
if there isn’t anything biologically special about either parent, the offspring
stands to be unremarkable as well. This is where the belief held by men that
women should be subjugated falls apart.
If
biology has taught us anything, it’s that life is the rule on Earth, not the
exception. As this rule relates to human beings, realize that all the people on
Earth – now almost 9 billion – are the offspring of whomever the first Homo
sapiens were. Interestingly, for all the shaming of sex that societies around
the world have engaged in over the past few thousand years, there’s still a
whole lotta sex going around which is producing a whole lotta unremarkable
people. (This is why I find it annoying when parents talk about the miracle of
birth; I don’t think that which is common constitutes a miracle.) If you’ll
notice, the only people who bat an eyelash when a passenger jet crashes, for
instance, are the family and friends of the victims. This is mainly because the
rest of us recognize that there really are enough people on the planet. Granted,
recognizing this fact, whether consciously or unconsciously, doesn’t turn off
our sex drive and for a good reason: If some catastrophe were to befall the
entirety of the human race, there would no doubt be survivors and those
survivors would need to procreate (or be driven to by our genes). It’s right
about now you’re wondering what this has to do with the subjugation of women…
In order
to survive catastrophes, it is not merely the drive to reproduce that can save
the human population; the ingenuity of people is required as well. While men
like to think of themselves as the leaders of the world, think for a moment if
women had never been allowed to contribute to our understanding of the world:
·
American molecular biologist Carol M. Greider. On Christmas Day
1984, she discovered an enzyme -- telomerase -- that maintains and builds up
telomeres.
·
Mary-Claire King, a geneticist at the University of Washington,
discovered the gene that predisposes women to breast cancer.
·
Marie Curie wins the 1903 Nobel Prize in Physics for her theory of
radioactivity and the 1911 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for finding the elements.
·
Curie’s daughter, Irene Joliot-Curie was awarded the 1935 Nobel
Prize in Chemistry for creating man-made radioactive particles.
·
Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, a French virologist, performed much of
the fundamental work that led the discovery of HIV. Barre-Sinoussi’s work won
her the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine.
·
Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent
Spring drew from government reports and scientific studies to describe the
destruction that pesticides were wreaking on our environment and our health.
Carson was a trained marine biologist and zoologist.
·
Jane Goodall's work with chimpanzees was groundbreaking and
offered a glimpse into our own evolutionary roots.
·
Circa 370 CE, Hypatia of Alexandria was an early scientist who
wrote on the physical world and astronomy. Naturally, she was murdered by a
gang of Christians.
·
For more important women of science, click here.
This
really is the tip of the iceberg and we haven’t even begun to mention the
contribution of women to the various arts. Men, in their collective
assholishness, might argue that men would have made these discoveries anyway.
Of course, women could just as easily argue that given the chance, women would
have all of the discoveries that men have.
The need
for women’s rights is important insofar as people of various perspectives are
needed to solve problems and/or contribute to problem solving. Women should not
be regulated to mere breeding stock because they have more to contribute to
societies than their genes. Women’s rights, their equality under the law, is for
the sake of humanity’s long-term survival and for the flourishing of culture
(if we’re to care about that as well). We can already see where the
shortsightedness of a male-ruled world has led us and where male-dominated societies
such as the one ISIS has in mind would lead us. How much longer will we accept
teetering on the edge just so men can have their orgasms?
No comments:
Post a Comment