Title: | Topics Pertaining to Men |
Notice: | Archived V1 - Current file is QUARK::MENNOTES |
Moderator: | QUARK::LIONEL |
Created: | Fri Nov 07 1986 |
Last Modified: | Tue Jan 26 1993 |
Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
Number of topics: | 867 |
Total number of notes: | 32923 |
The following topic has been contributed by a member of the community who wishes to remain anonymous. Would you please enter the following note anonymously into Mennotes. I have already entered it into Womannotes and it has had some very interesting responses. I would like to get the Mennotes perspective. Thank you. ==================================================================== Six or seven years ago, I was taking a course on the Humanities as part of an undergraduate program at Boston University. One evening the instructor, a full-time Associate Professor at B.U., started the class with this question. "Why have men, through the millennia and in most present day cultures, found themselves in more responsible/visible/ necessary roles than their female counterparts." The examples used were traditional head of the household, hunter as opposed to gatherer, tribal chieftain, farmer versus housewife/mother and warrior/soldier versus nurse/camp follower. The instructor also mentioned the fact that in many cultures men were permitted more than one wife, yet few cultures allowed wives more than one husband. Also used as an example was the preference in many cultures to the birth of male children or the practice in some of those cultures of killing of female children. [Prior to flaming] All of the examples came with the usual disclaimer regarding generalizations and were used ONLY to set the discussion in motion. The discussion that followed, it was a three hour class, was very "lively" and most interesting. So interesting, in fact, that I'd like to re-open it here with the same question. BTW: The instructor had an opinion, which I'll put in later if there seems to be sufficient interest/need. So what say you... Why men???
T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
373.1 | LESLIE::LESLIE | Andy ��� Leslie | Wed Sep 20 1989 05:46 | 7 | |
Well, one reason was that men lived longer - it was hitorically common for women to be dead by 35, if not 30, having had umpteen children. As that has changed, the roles have equalised. - ��� | |||||
373.2 | Not that I agree with this.... | DPDMAI::MATTSON | It's always something! | Thu Sep 21 1989 16:28 | 5 |
re: multiple wives/women for men...This was because if a woman had been intimate with more than one man, and had become pregnant, she might not be sure who the father was. Whereas, a man, could be intimate with more than one woman, and possibly have children by all of them. But at least everyone knows who their parents are. | |||||
373.3 | AV8OR::EDECK | Fri Sep 22 1989 10:25 | 6 | ||
(Musing out loud...) If all property in a community was held in common and child rearing was done communally, would it matter if everyone knew who their parents were? | |||||
373.4 | PAXVAX::DM_JOHNSON | is there life before death? | Fri Sep 22 1989 11:17 | 3 | |
genetics. Inbreeding could be more prevalent in smaller communities. Dj | |||||
373.5 | ways around inbreeding | AV8OR::EDECK | Fri Sep 22 1989 16:57 | 9 | |
(Still musing) Dunno. I remember from anthropology that _some_ societies have social mechanisms that discourage inbreeding--the men have to capture a bride from outside the tribe, for example. (Conversely, there's other small communities that do encourage/demand inbreeding, like the Pennsylvania Dutch, who have a form of hereditary dwarfism that's reinforced by their inbreeding). |