Re: virus: Women don't have a civilizing effect on society
Sun, 15 Dec 1996 12:29:24 -0600 (CST)

On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, XYZ Customer Support wrote:

> The He-man does not have better genes, as many people believe and as
> Richard Brodie mentions in his book, "Virus of the Mind". He is just
> different.
> Women have never been a civilizing effect in society. Look at the
> history of religion: In the beginning all religions were female
> (matriarchal) based. They had goddesses instead of gods. When man
> went out to hunt of scavange, it was for the women and the children.
> It was only when men broke away from the bondage of women, did they
> become the domineering and war-like people they are today.
> Even still in today's male-dominant society, it wasn't a matter of
> men forcing themselves on the women, but the women making themselves
> available (or unavailable). If you watched PBS lately you would have
> seen this also: How the dominant male of the tribe gets the girl
> until the girls get tired of him. Then they shun him and he becomes a
> "poor little rich boy" (as PBS put it) -- an outcast. But even while
> the dominant male jealously defends his little harem, the females
> sneak off to make themselves available to the males of their
> choosing. The dominant male (he-man) gets used. He thinks it's his
> children he is fathering but it isn't.
> So what other purpose does sex have in evolution if what Brodie says
> is not correct?


The presence of a "disposable gender" has had a major effect in the
cultural evolution of humans. In particular, it can be viewed [along
with environment] as a major cause of chauvinist culture before the 20th

Today's society is not stably male-dominant; that is an artifact from the
19th century. This trait seems to be disintegrating in the absence of
environmental support.

/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/ Kenneth Boyd