Sunday, January 18, 2009

Sure who ever said evolution was the truth?

So check the above link out. I do agree with her on the evolutionary thing but to address anthropologists as being social-biologists are a whole other thing. I don't remember any anthropologist in living history who has not distanced themselves from ranging human behaviour with that of the animal fact its ludicrous! Its the first rule of sociology/anthropology that nurture is stronger than nature, that's why its called anthropology/sociology in the first place. Because there's no such thing as nature, natural does not exist, culture is a man made phenomenon, there is nothing natural about man (which craps the hell out of philosophers who have to start somewhere), who knows what divinity is, there were a couple of social anthropologists who said such and such in and about during the Pacific War and they were influenced by American policy makers and theorists by the way, and they were in China, I doubt that their work could reach America. And I'm kinda sick and tired of people who are actually paleoanthropologists or biological anthropologists getting mixed up with social biologists, its just like saying I'm a Muslim therefore I am a 'T' (sooo can't say it, its sooo NOT P.C.).

Other than that, there are no explanations as to why humanity behaves the way they do, that is what anthropology is trying to show (in all probability her definition of an anthropologist could be so american that I don't get it) with its myriad of cultures, when someone says something, there is always always some society out there which can show otherwise. In fact I have a new theoretical line I'm thinking about and I hope people can look in to it and wonder with me.

Culturally and financially, females are usually at a lower position and rank than males, that is the first point, on a second note, financial power rests on the hand of the patriarch. The question or situation that I would like to posit is this, often, when a husband who has more financial stability than the wife would leave the wife with the money (commodity/land/etc.) and remarry with another woman whereby in turn she would make sure that the commodity be passed on her own offspring (which could be either male or female, most likely male). Isn't it more likely (because dumbass males have a way of explaining everything without the approval of females hehehe) that power among women rests between women themselves? The more nubile females versus the 'less' attractive females. God. Now I remember that discovery episode on attraction saying that older females are not sexually attractive because biologically they are reaching menopause. IN all probability this is because certain societies have shown too much television programs or the earlier bias and prejudice that tilt towards younger women. Stories, popular legends, and the definition of beauty itself varies from place to place. I give up, the answer is soo frickin obvious.

No comments: