*Yabby and I have clashed more times than I care to remember on this forum*

Well that is why I have a high regard for your intellectual abilities,
Poirot. Surely good debate should be about examining various
pespectives. None of us know everything. Just because we sometimes
agree to disagree, does not make me think less of you, in fact
exactly the opposite.

What we do have on OLO is some posters coming along and stating
their case, and then when its challenged, they throw their rattle
out of the pram and leave.

Personally I think I'm a bit like yourself in that I have an
inquisitive mind, but I actually enjoy being challenged, because
it means that I have to rethink my position and be able to justify
it. I'm always interested in learning something new and I do,
nearly every day.

'Could you please point me to the bullying intimidation in my last response to you?'

I wrote that after picking my jaw up off the ground by yabby’s absolutely mind-blowing huffy that I dared to negatively criticise some male animals, for heaven’s sake! The reverence on these gender threads for the sacred male ego – even animal ones – gets downright pathological at times.

I shouldn’t have lumped you in with this. Sorry. I unfortunately read yabby’s post straight after reading yours and was already feeling exasperated that you were not really addressing any of my points. It just appeared to me that you were pushing an is-so-is-so-is-so agenda that was sending me round in circles.

I agree with a lot of your points about paganism and Earth Mother female empowerment, but there are many perspectives on gender evolution, other than the men-quest/women-nest paradigm that deserve a hearing. To paraphrase anthropologist, Henrietta Moore, even when carried out by women, anthropology tends to order the world into a male idiom, because researchers are either men, or women trained in a male oriented discipline.

Even so, a lot of the androcentric tropes and paradigms of traditional anthropology have been successfully challenged by female anthropologists like Margaret Mead, Maria Gimbutas, Riane Eisler and many others. They also copped a lot of flack for research interpretations that stepped outside of the traditional – and very limited – patriarchal norm that women’s sexuality is primarily monogamous and locked into the nurturing instinct

under one god

With respect, I wish I could understand your stream-of-consciousness style. I'd respond to your posts more if I had some idea of what you are saying. :)

Killarney,

Good to see you've returned. Don't underestimate the power of your own comments in the fact that you received robust responses....it's because you had something to say that struck a chord that we responded - it's all good : )

Unfortunately we're fairly limited for space on OLO to give appropriate depth to our musings - 'men quest and women nest' is undeniably simplistic in its expression of the complexities of the machinations between the sexes.

My take on things is pretty well summed up in my last post. In modern industrial society, women have in the main gravitated to men's constructs. Institutions now take up the roles that family and close community did in times (not so) long ago. Women have been freed of their past maternal obligations in large measure, and now seek to have a foot in both camps. However, I often ponder the fact that that instead of offering their own unique wisdom and practice to society, they have only sought to imitate men. Where in modern industrial society can we glean anything uniquely female - aside from the peripheral service of presenting themselves for the commercialisation of their sex and vanities?

Where is the imagination and foresight of women, and what can women offer to enhance our world that isn't formulated upon the existing paradigm?

*I wrote that after picking my jaw up off the ground by yabby’s absolutely mind-blowing huffy that I dared to negatively criticise some male animals, for heaven’s sake!*

No huffy Killarney, debate on OLO does not huff me. What's good for
the goose is good for the gander too however, so I just point these
things out.

In the end, much of the evolution story is driven by biological
urges and self interest. Now there are some variations between
species, but on the whole, a large majority of females have the
overwhelming urge to have offspring and an overwhelming majority
of men have an overwhelming urge to have sex. Swopping resources
to feed the offspring for sex, is extremely common in nature,
particularly in our species.

Killarney <"I wrote that after picking my jaw up off the ground by yabby’s absolutely mind-blowing huffy that I dared to negatively criticise some male animals, for heaven’s sake!"

Oh yes indeed I feel your' pain Killarney, it happens quite alot on this forum :p
I have dared to criticise some of the male animals at times too :)
Don't give up though, because you sound very wise to me.

Yabby <"Swopping (sic) resources to feed the offspring for sex, is extremely common in nature, particularly in our species."

I think you are mistaking modern day male and female humans for prehistoric humans Yabby. I would suggest we have moved on a little now, sexually.

Well, women have anyway.

The 'sexual revolution' has happened and most women want to, and often demand to, enjoy a healthy sex life.

I don't know about you, but the 'offspring' have left the nest at our home, and childbearing is finished, but an enjoyable sex life continues...