Feminism was a illogical and immoral movement from the start. Betty Friedan said that marriage was like concentration camp for women. Yet women have traditionally been the ones fantasizing about getting married and having kids. So either women were so stupid that they fantasized about concentration camp like settings or the feminist movement exaggerated disadvantages women had like being "second class citizens." Cleary its the latter. Feminism, like a lot of immoral political movements, started off with many false premises and then demonized anyone who dared to point out the inconsistencies and hate that the movement engendered. To say "all men are rapists" as a prominent feminist did, or that, "all men should be beaten to a bloody pulp" really cannot be considered to be the expressions of an equality movement...
This and the OP make remind me of my contention that male and female is not the proper point of cleavage between good homemaker/child-raisers and runners of the country. There exists a bell shaped curve amongst females relating to their suitability in either role. There is also a similar curve that applies to males in relation to their suitability in the same two roles. Some men make good stay-at-home dads...some women make great CEOs. The whole thing about male superiority is total bullshit. Feminism is nothing more than a long delayed realization of this fact. The human brain exhibits bell shaped curves that we have yet to discover.
While, of course, there is much truth in your post,
it is a mistake if you're suggesting that the two bell curves would look the same.
They would not.
Each would be skewed in a different direction.
Nature cannot be denied.
1. "
The notion that females are more highly invested in their children than males is being confirmed by findings in biochemistry and neuroscience, as these disciplines clarify the role of hormones—particularly testosterone and oxytocin—in sexual and reproductive behavior. Like the male sex hormone testosterone, oxytocin is produced in the hypothalamus. But in most other respects, it is the anti-testosterone. Instead of fueling aggression, it promotes attachment, reduces fear, and leads to feelings of pleasure and well-being.
Testosterone appears in males at far higher levels than in females; oxytocin, on the other hand, is more prevalent in females. Women have many more oxytocin receptors in their brains than men do, and those receptors rev up during orgasm, childbirth, and breast-feeding—signaling that at a biological level, the boundaries most of us take as axiomatic between sexual pleasure, reproduction, and mothering are not all that clear.
2.
Oxytocin may explain what one woman, a journalism professor at New York University, meant when, in a recent essay, she described an
“
addiction” to her newborn baby that left her indifferent to work. Many [feminist] readers were perturbed: [this] was feeding the cult of motherhood, they said; maternal love is neither an interesting nor a useful subject for women today.
3. But surely it’s worth understanding the natural forces at work in our everyday experience.
Evolution selected for women who wanted to hold and nurse their infants. There may or may not be a “maternal instinct”— but there is a hormone that amounts to almost the same thing.
It inclines females to feed, cuddle, and fuss over their young, and leaves men at peace.
4. If that were evolutionary psychology’s whole story about women, then its experts would be proclaiming patriarchy as our destiny, which they don’t tend to do. In fact, as neuroscientists and geneticists piece together the human brain’s evolution, it’s becoming clear that, if it’s natural for a woman to go crazy over her babies, it’s also natural for a woman to run the State Department. The same human female brain that’s primed with oxytocin is, like the male brain, a fantastically complex machine, capable of reasoning, innovative problem solving, and maneuvering through hugely varied social environments—whether the PTA, a corporate headquarters, or Congress.
5. While biology may suggest that the human male can’t be expected to remain around for long, scientists are apt to describe
the brain as chemically and neurologically predisposed to certain behaviors, and, in humans, it is a mistake to underestimate the environmental pressure of social norms. The human record suggests that social norms, especially the universal one of marriage, can reinforce fathers’ ties to their children, which in turn might even become part of the male neural architecture. Recently,
neuroscientists have even discovered evidence that married men’s testosterone levels fall at the birth of their baby."
Femina Sapiens in the Nursery by Kay S. Hymowitz, City Journal Autumn 2009
, as postulated by the ideologists of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, was an archetype of a person with certain qualities that were said to be emerging as dominant among all citizens of the Soviet Union, irrespective of the country's long-standing cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity, creating a single Soviet people, Soviet nation.[1]
