I actually thought the fantasy image of women deciding the family structure and what men can and can't do was wonderfully feminist. Sadly detached from reality, but it would have been nice. Oh to live in a matriarchal society...
Give them a whip and put them in leather and I'm gonna need a tissue.
Originally Posted by Loire
And no, there's no proof (that I know at least) of a biological or evolutionary mechanism that somehow enforces monogamy in humans. I think it is an entirely societal custom. I doubt that people, or animals for that matter, are born natively monogamous. I think that they become so (well most) by following others example. And as with all other customs among humans, the religilous jumped on it and threw in a lot of hoopla about it. Just like they nicked all other customs for their own purposes. Seems like the religilous just can't help themselves meddling in other peoples lives.
There are many biological and evolutionary mechanisms that drive species to monogamous relationships. One of the main ones for humans is that human babies require a huge amount of care (for a large part due to our brain size), fathers caring for their children has a clear evolutionary advantage in that regard. There are also quite a few monogamous animal species, ranging from birds to fish. But ofcourse it isn't as simple as being 'born natively monogamous' there are always a lot more factors at play. And with humans its is extermely difficult to determine what is biological or cultural (or if there even is a meaningfull difference between the two). However, it should be clear to anybody that humans have a pretty strong tendency to form (temporary) monogamous relationships. Your view seems to be a bit simplistic to say the least.
Last edited by MortyM; June 15 2012 at 10:23:02 PM.
The only thing women get out of marriage is generous divorce settlements.
Well. One must give the GOP credit for its ingenuity.
1. Assure your party faithful that you're cracking down on illegal immigration, while not actually doing anything about it on the national level.
2. Promote job creation schemes that don't actually create careers, but benefit companies that tend to hire seasonal/temporary and immigrant labor.
3. Talk about the economy and JOBS, but keep pushing the gay marriage and abortion cards (especially in swing states), issues that Hispanics consistently oppose thanks to the Catholic Church and machismo culture. See Prop 8.
4. Float the idea of Marco Rubio as a vice-president choice, a Cuban who still looks white enough to be accepted by even the hardcore racist elements of your party. After all, it's not like you have a choice. You're not going to vote for the Kenyan, are you?
The whole strategy was never to rally your faithful, GOP. It was to crack the Hispanic support for Democrats in battleground states. It was so clever and beautifully orchestrated, I almost didn't catch it.
Well done, Karl Rove. (clap clap clap)
roh roh, fight da mirror powah
Federation Horticultural Corps
Yeah, but Obama's likely undone all their hard work on the hispanic vote with his immigration shenanigans today. It won't win him voters, but it'll force GOP candidates into employing rhetoric that will keep the otherwise GOP-sympathetic voters at home on polling day. You can see how dangerous Obama's strategy here is by Romney's and Rubio's responses to it. It's immigration, it's the tacit legitimisation of tens of millions of illegal immigrants, it completely bypasses congress, it's everything the GOP despises, and yet neither of them have criticised either the President or the action itself. All they've said is they think it might make the long-term picture a bit murky and that they'll listen to congress on the issue in the future.
Obama's completely knocked them for six today. If they attack his move on immigration, they alienate the at best allies of convenience in the hispanic vote (what mexican wants to vote for a rich white mormon, really?), if they don't, they alienate the right wing who have campaigned on an anti-immigration, pro-american jobs platform. Obama was even interrupted and heckled during his own rose garden announcement of the policy, and yet Romney can't bring himself to denounce something that by all rights is the antithesis of his platform.
It's kinda funny that they'll have to wait for the election to be over before railing against his unamerican communist position on immigration.
Originally Posted by Loire
The only calculated response Romney could make is to double down on immigration and completely eradicate any hope of hispanics voting for him, in order to attract the typically non-voting working class who view them as job stealing aliens.
Don't be silly. There's no 'monogamy gene', and that is what you were implying, and that's what you're implying still.There are many biological and evolutionary mechanisms that drive species to monogamous relationships. One of the main ones for humans is that human babies require a huge amount of care (for a large part due to our brain size), fathers caring for their children has a clear evolutionary advantage in that regard. There are also quite a few monogamous animal species, ranging from birds to fish. But ofcourse it isn't as simple as being 'born natively monogamous' there are always a lot more factors at play. And with humans its is extermely difficult to determine what is biological or cultural (or if there even is a meaningfull difference between the two). However, it should be clear to anybody that humans have a pretty strong tendency to form (temporary) monogamous relationships. Your view seems to be a bit simplistic to say the least.
The whole idea of monogamy as a 'natural or biological thing' falls down flat in the face of anthropological and archaeological evidence on primitive cultures and early hunter-gathered groups.
Since the men were the hunters then (and now), those men had (and have) the tendency to die a lot (as the activity is not without danger); so children were (and are) raised in extended (family) groups as a communal responsibility in those societies. Evolutionary survival of the fittest in the biological sense (i.e., males with the most surviving offspring, not physical fitness itself) extends to both animals and humans equally. Powerful men who were (are) good hunters and that can thus provide for larger numbers of offspring thus have more children and more wives as well. That's actually good in evolutionary genes as it guarantees the spread of the best genes within the population.
Archaeological evidence of early humans points in that direction, and the same is and was found in primitive (hunter-gatherer) cultures by anthropologists (for example, nomadic Indians in North-America were basically polygamous societies, but there are examples from all over the world in which the practice was, or even still is common.
The idea of one-man-one-woman probably came round when humanity settled down and started farming and raising animals. With the relative abundance of food the emphasis became less on hunting prowess and (necessary) communal raising of the children (although the direct extended family remained important for a much longer period) mostly because there was less need for it. Even lesser men could afford one woman each, and women could afford to demand that the man takes care of herself and her children until she dies. And the latter is quite important. Put polygamy to men in general and you get a much more positive response than if you put the question to women in general.
In this case it isn't difficult to determine what is biological or genetic, or cultural at all. The whole idea of monogamy only makes sense as a cultural or societal thing. Biologically and evolutionary it makes little sense.
In fact, until quite a lot later, the polygamy aspect (in that a man could officially have more than one woman as his partner, which has less to do with the cultural tradition of marriage) took a lot longer to die out among powerful individuals within society. In England the King started a whole new religion simply to get a divorce and get another wife because the old one didn't suit him any more. For the poor and common folk there was really only one acceptable solution within society: have one and only one wife (and even then they still fucked around quite a lot).
Your argument for a biological or evolutionary mechanism for monogamy is as vacuous as your argument for me being a misogynist. Projecting your opinion on the matter and then throwing your hands up in the air saying it is all extremely difficult is just plain silly. Although I can understand that it is extremely difficult to understand for you personally.
FUCKING BREVITY. LOOK IT UP.
roh roh, fight da mirror powah
Federation Horticultural Corps
Funny thing is that most legal Hispanics support immigration reform.
Make entry shorter than forever, keep illegal entry to a minimum.
Despite what you may think i believe, enforcing the border is actually the job of all levels of government.
Also, I was being general on purpose. There was a tone that it would be impossible for R$ to comment on immigration without alienating the messicans
Last edited by Takon Orlani; June 16 2012 at 02:01:37 AM.
Obama did quite well on immigration, as was to be expected (yet another right-wing extremist heckled him during the announcement though. It appears that some common decency is still to much to ask from the Republicans), but by the looks of it now, the only reason this election will be close in November is because there's basically no limit to the money available for Romney to draw on. Without all that cash he wouldn't even stand a chance.
Talking about Romneybot: meanwhile, on the campaign trail, Romney has been caught spouting lies again: http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_new...acity-vol-xxii. He's become so brazen at it, almost no-one still bothers to report on it. Seriously, forget about magic underwear, Romney's basically out telling fairytales about some sort of magical Republican mystery land with Obama in the role of the evil witch/sorcerer. Reality itself has already been abandoned as inconvenient baggage.
It shouldn't surprise you most hispanics believe in tighter border controls and better regulation on legal immigrants, even most democrats believe that! The issue Obama has brought up is, cleverly, a separate one. It's the issue of those illegals already here, those that are already working, established, with families, contributing to society. If people challenge him and say he's basically enacted an open-door policy, he can point to the fact he has deported more people than Bush did, or that the tide of immigration has turned.
Obama has won this argument. He hasn't been easy on illegal immigrants and immigration has fallen, but at the same time he has been compassionate to those already established in the country. As I said, it won't win him any voters; immigration isn't a vote winner in any demographic (it's frankly insulting to think voting hispanics think of nothing but whether their cousin julio can get a green card), but it is definitely a vote loser for both parties. He has completely removed it from the table for the GOP.
If they attack him as opening the doors, he points to the truth as the opposite. If they say they're only leaving because they can't find work, he'll point out that all along they've been demanding illegal immigrants lose their jobs. If they attack his policy of not deporting established families and children, they'll look frankly xenophobic and lose the established hispanic vote. If they don't attack anything on immigration, they risk not energising whole swathes of the gop vote, particularly in big swing states like texas and california.
Not only is this policy right out of the book of the democrat voter's wet dreams, it is a political masterstroke. Even if Romney manages to avoid the issue, and he probably will, just getting by on talk of jobs, jobs and more jobs, it's likely to have an impact on a number of the smaller races.
Last edited by elmicker; June 16 2012 at 02:05:51 AM.
See, that's Obama's problem: he's got lots and lots of numbers that are favourable to his re-election. But Americans simply tune out when he tries to use them, and meanwhile Republicans keep pumping lies and misinformation into the air like there's no tomorrow. All in snazzy attack-ads those same Americans will respond to.
I agree that if the US people voted rationally and intelligently, this would be a hole-in-one for Obama and a difficult thing for the Republicans to parry. But they don't, and they don't seem to care either. With all the money involved in this election, it won't be about who has the best arguments, or the best supporting evidence, or the best numbers. It'll be about what is plastered non-stop on television. Now even more so than ever actually.
Because those bits of red tape make it harder to compete with the big boys who push this crap. Sacking people, well that's useful to a company big enough to see people as interchangeable widgets.