I remember chuckling over some of the "old school" misogynistic scientists, who proclaimed that evolution might not have been as necessary in developing the brain of females, since it "obviously" didn't take any intelligence to survive and raise children - only to hunt and "use tools", which was supposedly the exclusive domain of men. Naturally, the idea that our female ancestors were a bunch of airheads, who survived only because they were incredibly cute, is roundly rejected these days.
But lately I seem to be hearing a similar idea - that men evolved to be brilliant, strong, and all-powerful....by themselves. I guess the folks saying this don't realize that you actually have to find a female ancestor willing to breed with those "all-powerful" men in order to be successful? Do they think that "survival of the fittest" means bachelors who were really good at hunting, but couldn't get a girlfriend? "Fittest" means, "best able to create offspring who will later breed".
2007-11-16
06:21:21
·
12 answers
·
asked by
Junie
6
in
Gender Studies