Peter Hume,
What a lot of feminist speak.

As far back as recorded history, there has been marriage in nearly all societies, and children knew their mother and their father. This occurs in Aborigional tribes right through to Eskimos.

Outside my window are a pair of Magpies that are raising young in a nest. They have been doing this each year for a number of years. They are a male and a female. Only a feminist would think they are both female.

As for pictures on the wall, what is the difference between a woman walking down the street wearing suggestive clothing, and a picture of a woman wearing suggestive clothing.

Not much difference.

"It's a wise man who knows his own father."

Homer

Peter Hume,
And Homer knew who the mothers and the fathers and the children were in the Iliad and the Odyssey.

I can’t quite imagine a feminist writing the Iliad and the Odyssey.

Me neither; they weren't exactly in touch with their nurturing side.

And I admit that's the first time anyone has accused me of being a feminist.

The point is, the discovery of paternity must have happened at some time. The fact that biological paternity exists in birds doesn't mean that they understand the connection between males and offspring, and the same must have applied to people before they first understood the connection. How far back in time it first happened is a matter of speculation, but there is reason to think that it happened more recently rather than longer ago. I didn't say Homer didn't understand it, I said he referred to societies whose people didn't understand it.

My hypothesis is not feminist; on the contrary, it undermines feminist theory more than any other critique of it, by showing that if women should not be bound by the obligations of patriarchy, neither should men. The feminists are hoist with their own petard and herefore the key benefit to women of patriarchy - compulsion on men to pay for women's children - should also be abolished. What has enabled all that is offensive about feminism is the enforcement of a double standard by which women have the advantages of patriarchy - obligation on men to provide child support - without the disadvantages, while men have the disadvantages both ways.

Peter Hume, please read "The dark side of Altruism" New Scientist magazine.

Peter,

I've written before that a community of humans could be viewed as a living organism. One which instinctively seeks to continue its survival by the procreation of future generations. It has recourse to complementary genders to achieve this aim. How do you reason that leaving women to solely support and nurture future generations is going to suffice? (notwithstanding that advanced Western culture has significantly warped traditional gender roles)