DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
MS Speaks
HTML https://msspeaks.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: MISCELLANEOUS
*****************************************************
#Post#: 3661--------------------------------------------------
Men's insecurity--is it biologically based?
By: agate Date: May 27, 2022, 2:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Are men insecure? I've just finished watching Lawrence of
Arabia, a movie that has not one woman in it--though a group of
them are heard ululating from some mountains briefly by way of
cheering on the thundering hordes of men racing around on camels
and shooting one another up --not to mention blowing up trains
and bridges. And now, as the war in Ukraine drags on, how many
women are involved in the actual fighting? We hear from women in
large numbers but they are wounded or bereaved women, women who
have lost everything or suffered in other ways. In spite of a
push towards equality of the sexes in the military, and the
existence of armies where women are involved in combat on a
nearly-equal basis with men, over the centuries war has been a
singularly masculine enterprise.
You have to wonder why that should be. Or maybe you don't have
to wonder. Maybe it's so obvious that pointing it out is
unnecessary. But men must be tragically insecure.
Men seem to do many of the things they're so fond of
doing--pummeling one another at football games, fighting wars,
getting into drunken brawls, fighting duels, committing more
murders than women, beating up on women, besting one another in
anything competitive (or going way out of their way
trying)--because, compared to women, they feel useless.
In a matter of seconds they can accomplish their biological
purpose in life. They can father scores of children. (Osaba bin
Laden had more than 20, for instance, and J. S. Bach fathered
20.) But beyond that biological purpose, what do they have to
offer? They can't nourish an infant with their own bodies.
Women's life work has been mapped out for us, traditionally,
just by our biology. We can nourish infants. We can, in fact,
get along quite well without men, and if we reproduce ourselves,
we can get along without men once that initial biological hookup
has occurred. So we keep on raising the kids and the grandkids,
etc., and our lives pass, while the men are left to do--what?
Because they have so little left to do that is biologically
necessary, they have to have busy work to fill up the time--a
way to occupy their lives. What I fail to understand is why they
couldn't have chosen more constructive activities while they
were rummaging about for things to do. Some have. There are
those who have become inventors or innovators, peaceable souls
who do creative or constructive things all their
lives--cartographers, explorers, clergy, teachers, artists or
musicians or thinkers/writers. But then are the ones so often in
the news because they have to be more macho.
They egg one another on. They compete. They love showing one
another up.
Not that women don't ever engage in cut-throat competition, and
literal or figurative back-stabbing. It's just that so many of
the most brutally competitive human activities have always been
dominated by men and have appealed to men far more than to
women.
It's time to get over it, guys. You don't have to own and be
adept with a firearm. You don't have to have served in the
military even if it looks as if just about every other male over
the age of 25 or so has seen military service--but that may be
mainly because this country has involved itself in any number of
wars in recent decades.
*****************************************************