Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Ask yourself, you are about to go into combat, would you rather have a squad of average men with you or average women backing you up? Note I said average, some men have no place near combat and there are women though as nails but as a rule, men are better at some activities. Its our MINDS that a different and not due to society but our genetics. Lets take a subject like engineering. I went to one of the top engineering universities in the country (I wasn't an engineer) but about 1/2 my friends were including my girlfriend there. They were practically begging any female to apply if they had anything close to the minimum entrance requirements. Female engineers were making more money and could basically work anywhere they wanted to in the country. This was a very hard program and a lot of students didn't make it, but the class was 7-1 males when when started and 11-1 at graduation. I knew one woman who graduated in my 4 years there, the rest all had to transfer out, including my then girlfriend. (I'll add here that my girlfriend has an I.Q. of around 156, glad I married her.) Is it society that makes engineering hard and non-desirable to women, despite the extra support they got in the program or is there something inherent about such subjects that most women are not just as good at as a whole? Again we are talking averages, I once met a brilliant woman who had a double doctorate, one in engineering, so its not that women can't do some things, just that on average they are not as good at them.
While undoubtedly there are influences on evolution going on today, evolution isn't really 'guided' it has no forethought. As such the current system of what attracts women to men won't change much despite there being benefits to do so in the long term. As long as men continue to lust after physically attractive women, women will continue to lust after the dominant men. Intelligence and 'societal worth' really play a small part in it. I know some devastatingly intelligent men who were lucky to find a date. Likewise I know very successful women who did so at the expense of children. In both cases, their dna is going to be lacking in the next generation behind those who had more kids.
Long story short, yes we are evolving, but trying to predict the direction based on what would be 'best' may be a disappointment.
|
I agree there are genetic differences, but they have evolved in response to humanity's past environment, which is quite different from the current environment. I wouldn't attempt to predict the future of evolution either since I don't know what the future environment will be like or for how long nor how evolution will respond. But society, which changes at a much faster rate, is already modifying gender roles in response to the modern environment and I think that process will continue for some generations.
Certainly people who have many children will influence the genome to a larger extent than people who have fewer, but reproductive fitness no longer has much of an effect on that, in addition to change in the entire meaning of reproductive fitness. Now it's more a matter of choice than fitness (maybe in evolutionary terms wanting to have more children = fitness, but I'm more referring to the
ability to reproduce, which most humans have more or less equally now in monogamous societies), and that's largely influenced by society. Then we could go into how much genetics influences society, but that's a whole other can of worms.