A not insignificant part of the population thinks in terms of absolutes. Such people, although not necessarily having low intelligence, see the world in terms of black and white. There is no 50 shades of grey to them at all. They tend to be drawn towards ideologies which preach absolutes and they tend to become the leaders of such social, political, and religious movements.

Among right wing groups there may be such people who believe that females have strict roles in society and they should stay entirely in their place. One of the reasons why Hitler lost the war is because he felt that way about German women and he would not let them become a part of the war effort. This contradicted the western and Soviet systems where women were encouraged to work in war factories and shipyards (Rosie the riveter), and where female emancipation and equality was given a real boost.

Among leftist egalitarian absolutist thinkers they obsess that within all societies, class does not exist. That within every society, everybody is equal (unless they are favoured minorities, who are more equal). With lefties, races are all equal too. Every race is equally intelligent, with equal physical abilities, personalities, and beauty. Beauty is a sore point with socialist absolutists, as it infers that one person can be more attractive than another. That is why they deride beauty contests as "cattle shows."

Now these same leftist absolute thinkers have focussed upon gender. To them, men and women must be equal in every way. Unless there are equal numbers of engineers, infantrymen, fighter pilots, top scientists, and politicians, then something must be wrong with society.

Whereas most people (who do not think in absolutes) would grant that there are special men and women who may be drawn towards occupations normally the preserve of the opposite sex, they simply reject the idea that males and females are identical in every way except for a couple of biological differences. Which the absolutists would deny if they could get away with it.

It's ridiculous that we should have to talk about differences that have been known and accepted for millennia.

I think I agree with most of this, but particularly with the onset of puberty. Albeit, sex ed ought to be exclusively gender-based so as to allow women o say no, or choose who, when and where. and for young men to learn about informed enthusiastic consent, plus respect!

I think boys need exclusively normal heterosexual male teachers teaching them how to be the sort of boys that grow up into responsible, respectful men.

I am saying, there's no place in education for hedonistic gays, transgenders and lesbians. Not in any classroom. Or as role models for anyone! Sorry, no offence intended!

Our male teachers need to be the role models for the sort of men we want our male graduates to be. Yet, still be sensitive enough to realize, that some of the more effeminate in their charge may need special professional, non-religious counselling and 'Father Ostrich Style" protection from the less intelligent students and or their parents!

Boys seem to be falling further and further behind as the pendulum has swung too far one way with more females graduating from uni, than young men?

Something has changed for the worse and needs to be unchanged! The return of corporal punishment for repeat disruptive offenders perhaps? As opposed to those same students being given virtual carte blanche to assault teachers!

Ok, so Poverty breeds these elements! But that's never ever going to be addressed by the same old, same old, trickle-down economic paradigms of the antichrists in government!
Alan B.

Men and women are different, as are their younger selves, boys and girls. Be careful with treating them too differently though. There's been a lot of social change just so that there is less favoritism between men and women.

Best case senerio teaching boys and girls differently will accomplish it's intended goals and let both be more successful in their studies. But two other likely outcomes are
1) a change in teaching styles means to favor one or the other. Boys or girls. As the pendulum swings from favoring one over the other and back.
Or
2) that the different teaching paths will lead to men being directed down some studies and careers, while women be directed to different fields of study. The fight for equal pay and equal employment options will have been for nothing.

What it comes down to is the details. What would be done differently for male students, without showing favoritism.

well biology and design speaks for itself.

If we need to teach boys and girls differently because they are different, then surely we need to teach individuals differently for the same reason?

How do we do that?

Perhaps we need to place more emphasis on teaching boys more literature
and some of things that girls are good at and make the girls do more
sports and practical things. This would benefit both.
It does mean of course no co-ed schools at least till about 15 yrs.

Still, these differences are real and nothing can be done to change it.

When I joined the navy as a very young man, there were just 6 of us, trainee pilots, destined to fly off aircraft carriers if we were good enough to make it through training. We had a lot of introductive lectures, preparing us for the different life a young naval officer would lead to a civilian.

One old captain gave us a lecture on relationships, when you are going to spend a lot of time away on a ship. His advice on marriage was rather blunt. He stated that if a navy man wants to keep his wife, & live a happy life, then he should keep her barefoot & pregnant, at the kitchen sink.

In discussion after the lecture most of us thought either he was joking, or was a bit too extreme.

Interestingly the older I get the more I appreciate the wisdom of his advice. Sorry girls.

yep alot of slander poked at those who take being a wife and mother serious. Most of those who do seem much happier than the nasty feminist who always wants to wear the pants and will never keep a marriage together unless they marry a lettuce leaf.

Newsflash Guys,

In today's world very few families can survive on
just one income. Many females work not because
they want to but because they don't have choice.

As for teaching our children?

I would think it is the environment that we create for
our children that has the greatest impact on the way
they learn and what they learn. And as they grow older,
their home environment, their interests, their peers
have the greatest influence over their behaviour.

By the time children reach the ages of 15 plus, the
differences between boys and girls are very subtle.
Understanding these subtle differences can help
educators guide their students in a positive way,
meeting them and their needs where they are.

.

Dear Peter (the author),

.

The differences that the evocation of your subject brings to my mind are more of the nature of anatomy and physiological psychology.

I am no expert on human ethology by any means, but I have personally observed a far greater degree of same-gender compatibility in children of both sexes prior to puberty than I have following puberty – especially among sisters.

I have in mind my own family, spanning three generations, which, naturally, may not be at all representative of the average Australian family. Nevertheless, I see no reason to think that it is totally different either.

Somehow, it seems to me that puberty has not only an important physiological effect on girls but also a very strong psychological effect, such, that two sisters living together in the same family (much more so than two brothers) who may have been perfectly compatible up until that point, thereinafter become almost as incompatible as the like poles of two magnets.

I should be interested to have your and any other online opinionator’s views and experiences on this if you and they would be kind enough to share them with me.

.

Look at the nuts and bolts of the sitution. If schools are to teach boys and girls differently, what does that mean for the schools themselves? Does that mean schools will be seperated into a school for boys, and a school for girls? Does that mean different curriculum for boys and girls? Where they are actually taught differently based on a different curriculum? Or does that mean nothing at all? Just an extra burden for teachers to carry with no actual tools and support to help them out?

I remember in school they taught about different learning styles, and how effective teachers try to incorporate all three types of learning styles so that the majority of the students have the best chance to learn and retain what they are taught. The three that were taught were listening, reading, and hands on. (Listen to the teacher, read from a textbook, and do the assignments for hands on).

If boys and girls are to be taught differently, then it might just mean to add a different method in the teaching curriculum, so that the subject matter has the best chance to be reached by most of the students. Anything more then that is asking for separate classes or separate schools for boys and girls just so the teachers have the time and resources to teach effectively and cover the material needed to be covered in a semester.

Talk about the details of the matter. What does this mean for the teachers and the schools.

Treat boys and girls differently. That's fine. Teach them differently, and the situation requires much more planning to achieve it.

It's refreshing to hear some good ole' fashioned home truths for a change.
There's no doubt that there are differences between males and females, always has been, always will be.
Those too gutless to admit it will come to regret their stance in the long run.
Nature does not allow people to be anything other than what they are at birth.
Nature has bestowed the miracle of creating life on the female of the species, as the norm.
We can deny and convince ourselves of many things but nature brings us back to the truth.
We are told that women 'have to work' today.
Bullsh!t!
Women have been lied to by week and unrealistic, patronising family and friends so as to give them a false sense of being.
It's very simple, if women truly did not want to work, they don't have to.
For example, instead of buying a house which is clearly un-affordable, don't.
Let's face it all the problems facing the younger generation today are of their own doing.
This begins from a young age.
Instead of steering our kids towards what is natural and achievable, we encourage the stupid and sometimes extreme challenges which are akin to defying nature.
There is no social or other reason or need for things like female mechanics, plumbers, carpenters and the list goes on.
Females have a place in life, it's just not that of men, that place is already taken.
It is basically arrogant and petulant to want to do jobs NATURALLY intended for men.
The more physical jobs are pretty much self explanatory.
It is unnatural for a female to be a mechanic, it has nothing to do with brains.
I once, whilst visiting a mechanic friend, observed him taking on a young female as a mechanic.
The one thing I went away with was every time some strength was needed for lifting something or anything, she had to call one of the guys to do it.
NO, stupid people and the very ones who are leading females up the garden path, promote the 'women can do anything' mantra.

continue................

One very serious change which highlights my point, has been the structure of many physical activities in the work place.
One of the many sinister and devious changes that was made to accommodate women in jobs they were not meant to be in was, the good ole' cement bags.
All of a sudden after a lifetime of handling 20kg cement bags we are told that for health and safety reasons we are changing to 10kg bags.
Bulsh!t!
Just another lie to accommodate women, and this became the theme throughout the work place.
I don't see why being a woman is such a bad thing, and why being a man is better than a woman is so desirable.
There are a growing number of guys who have taken on the role of Mr MOM, because it's such a bludge.
They're hanging out with the guys more and are really enjoying the stress free and relaxed, lay back lifestyle, being a stay at home dad allows.
I for one see it as ducking your responsibility, the carer nurturer role IS by nature that of the mother.
She creates the baby, she has the means to feed it, NATURALLY, she is the one with the maternal bond, naturally.
So you can't see men and women as anything but different.
As far as education goes, if we are being honest, there should be more domestics in the female curriculum, and more trades in the males.
The two are as distinctly different as should be their upbringing and education.

A little story some might enjoy.

My son who is even more chauvinistic than me was managing the overhaul of a 6000 horse power generator on a navy ship. The big diesel had 6 cylinder heads, quite heavy, which were sent off for machining.

Mechanics in the RAN are still called stokers, & some are female. Needless to say, he does not approve of female stokers. He detailed 6 stokers, 2 to a cylinder head to get the things onto road transport. This entailed about 75 metres of passageways, & climbing 4 decks, up companionways rather like ladders, to the main deck, then down off the ship.

He chose the 6 he considered the least useful at mechanical tasks for this job, which included the 2 female stokers who in his opinion he was saddled with. As in civy street, ladies are allowed to lift less weight than men, & needed a block & tackle to lift a head.

Each of the male pairs took about 3 hours to complete moving a cylinder head onto a truck. The 4 men had 5 cylinder heads off the ship in that day. Not so the girls. they had only managed 2 decks. He could be called a sadistic bugger, but he left them at it for the 3 days it took them to get the thing off the ship.

He could not tell me if he was just being sadistic, or showing to senior officers that in his opinion girls had no place in the engine rooms of war ships. He did state, that while they were mucking with the cylinder head, they at least couldn't muck up anything important.

Hasbeen,

I love it, you are another of my heroes, having the guts or balls to say things I thought I would be the only one politically incorrect enough to say.
May your God bless you.
And what makes your story such a headliner is that it's true, priceless.
More of these "TRUTHS" and we will start to see the "house of females", crumble, under the sheer weight of the 'push back' by men AND women who are sick and tired of the unnatural demands by ignorant, petulant, maggots, pushing these unreasonable and unrealistic demands.
C'mon guys, and gal's, give us some reality checks, regail us with stories and excerpts of incidents where females have failed at something they clearly were not adept at.

.

Equal does not mean identical. Boy and girl, man and woman are by no means identical. They are not the same. They are different. They are complementary and equally important.

They should have equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities – not necessarily the same but not necessarily different either – depending on their personal dispositions, qualifications and availability.

As I see it, the so-called lack of gender-equality in the workplace is largely due to the lack of “availability” of women. They continue to assume their first and foremost role as mothers in the reproduction process and as the primary on-going carers and educators in their families.

Conciliating this role with important professional responsibilities requires a good dose of intelligence, organisation skills, strict discipline and expensive quality assistance from a reliable outside source.

Women, of course, also have to deal with surreptitious and insidious discrimination simply because they are seen as the “weaker sex” by a certain number of macho conservatives and misogynists. They rarely succeed in breaking through the glass ceilings that secure executive level leadership positions in the hands of Caucasian males.

And yet, females accounted for 58% of all domestic students enrolled in Australian Universities in 2016. The ratio is 100 females to only 72 males. The proportion of female postgraduates is higher than for undergraduates, accentuating the imbalance. Of the 42 universities in Australia 35 have more female than male students with two having more than 70% females. The gender gap is a worldwide phenomenon with the OECD reporting that women now account for 56% of students enrolled in higher education.

There are more domestic undergraduate female students than males in 7 of designated 10 fields of education. The concentration is in three fields : society and culture, health, management and commerce. Males are dominant in only two fields, information technology, engineering and related technologies at both the undergraduate and postgraduate levels. This is the norm globally. The longer-term consequences for Australian society of this imbalance are considered to be serious and include potentially major cultural and wealth distribution changes.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

While there is every good reason to celebrate strong female participation in higher education, further proactive strategies are required to encourage more males to complete year 12 studies and attend universities.

If not, Scott Morrison’s fustian wish that “the rise of women should not come at the expense of men”, though it sounds quite admirable, will become an extremely difficult objective to achieve indeed :

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/scott-morrison-says-the-rise-of-women-should-not-come-at-the-expense-of-men

.

Banjo,

You're not a woman by any chance are you?
I've heard some pretty hard sells in my life but your last posting belongs on a feminist or 'me too' promo.
Firstly your argument is as hollow as the self righteous maggots you promote and are referring to.
Your opening paragraphs are simply a play on semantics, and hold no valid argument in support of women.
I'm not going to repeat the obvious.
You're so invested in this equality rubbish, you completely ignore the social costs.
The problems with society start from your kind of mindset.
I would like to know when did being a man become such a thing?
This equality thing is just not a starter, and no end of trying to be politically correct is going to change that.
Men by their very nature are the dominant of the human race.
Those who try to refute that will suffer for it.
Even the women know they are pushing sh!t uphill by their presumptuous push for equality.
I for one do not recognise a woman as an authoritative figure, only snags and neuters like yourself do. (if your a man)
This rubbish they keep putting out about getting a womans perspective as justification for hiring women, is just bollocks and a fabrication to justify the hiring of women in place of men.
Do you realise that if only the women with school age children left the workplace and went back to being what nature designed them to be; MOTHERS, the unemployment problem would be eradicated and a lot of families would be happy again.
So because of these selfish arrogant maggots, we see so many more people affected or displaced due to jobs being taken by women that would otherwise be filled by men supporting a family.
I applaud with a sigh of relief, every time I hear about another so called female, top level executive getting the arse from a senior management or CEO position.
Men are the dominant of the species and that is a fact of nature, trying to change that is by definition, UNNATURAL!

Dear Banjo,

Welcome back to posting.

You have been missed. Are you still in Paris?

Education to my parents was crucially important.
They came to this country as post World War II
refugees (displaced people) running from the
Soviet regime's occupation of their country.

They lost not only their country, but many members
of their family, their social position, and their
material goods. Therefore they wanted to instill
in their children something that could not be taken
away - that of a good education. My parents raised
me in the belief that I could do anything. I did not
have any sisters. I had two brothers. Both
of whom went on to higher learning, as did I.

I was born in this country, and am of a generation
that has grown up with the belief in
an - individualistic society
which should be highly open to change and experimentation.

Unlike the old system where men were expected to
abide by the "John Wayne" image of American manhood
of the 1950s. (This has less and less appeal to
both sexes today). The masculine role I find today
is now more ambiguous and more flexible,
more subject to interpretation by the individual.

Resolving this kind of ambiguity is part of the
challenge of social and cultural change.

Under the old system everyone knew what their roles
were, and most people then unquestioningly behaved
as they were supposed to. The system constrained people,
but it freed them from the need to make choices. There
are fewer constraints today, but the individual now
has the liberty (or the burden) to choose his or her
own path to fulfillment.

Men and women today are exploring a wide variety of
possible roles. To many all possible options are open
and equally acceptable for both sexes. To me and my
friends a person's individual human qualities, rather
than his or her biological sex is the primary measure
of that person's worth and achievement.

And that is something that is worth encouraging in our
society for our children's development and our country.

.

Dear ALTRAV,

.

Well, it’s good to see you’re fighting fit. I weigh in as a light-heavyweight these days. How about you ? I must say the last time I stepped into the ring was a long time ago. It was a against a guy called Wally Taylor at the Queensland amateur boxing championships in Brisbane. My trainer threw the towel in about halfway through the third round.

Wally was from sugar cane country up in Mackay. He punched like a sledgehammer. I can still feel his punch on my left hip. He ended up winning the title and went on to win the Australian title as well. I can’t say I did much better at the Darling Downs championships either. But never mind, I never did have the killer instinct. I always tended to let my opponents off the hook.

So, I don’t mind sparring with you, ALTRAV. If it does you any good to let your steam off, that’s fine with me. You don’t risk anything here – not from me anyway. Better to spit out your hatred than to let it consume you from within.

Which, by the way, reminds me that the Tibetan Buddhists attach great importance to what they consider to be the three poisons : ignorance, hatred and narrow mindedness, that they believe to be responsible for all the sufferances of mankind and for his inability to reach Nirvana and escape the infernal cycle of death and rebirth. No god there, ALTRAV – just oriental contemplation and meditation.

Reverting now to our discussion, you wrote :

« Men are the dominant of the species and that is a fact of nature, trying to change that is by definition, UNNATURAL! »

I don’t think anyone is “trying to change that”, ALTRAV …

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

My understanding is that life on earth was triggered by the fortuitous encounter of matter and energy in a favourable environment which, after a long process of natural evolution and transformation, spanning billions of years, eventually produced human beings. That process has never ceased and, more than likely, will continue to exist long after we have gone.

As one can imagine, we human beings today must be quite different physically and mentally from that far distant ancestor, primeval man, when he first emerged from the ape family. Nature had obviously equipped him with the brain and the brawn he needed in order to survive. But in modern man, the culmination of natural evolution to date, the development of the “brain” has gradually outpaced that of the “brawn” simply because we no longer depend on it for survival.

So, as I see it, ALTRAV, though men continue to be “the dominant of the species”, as you say, their “domination” has very seriously declined, particularly in the Western world. Now, with less need for “brawn” and the continued natural evolutionary development of the “brain”, the female of our species has gradually emancipated herself and become more independent.

The result is more harmonious, better balanced male-female relationships based on mutual rights and responsibilities and mutual respect.

Looks like you've got a bit of catching-up to do, ALTRAV. Stay with us my friend.

.

Banjo,

I must confess not subscribing to any particular third party beliefs, such as Buddhism.
Raised a Catholic, but realised it was not a worthy endeavour, so slowly began believing in myself.
As for the belief that the male is the dominant species, it has to be so.
The idea of equality is a romantic notion by some but in nature we see a natural structure and order as a matter of fact.
Even though it appears you subscribe to this equality mantra, you will find it doesn't work.
As much as some females push for equality, it does not mean it should be so.
There are always those who are out of step with nature, either by birth or by choice.
These people, at best might be tolerated, but do not form mainstream human physique.
In life there cannot be equality of the un-equal.
By our very structure, form both physical and emotional, we are different so how can we be equal.
No it's a feminazi ideology that is a cancer and has spread throughout society, even to the point of infecting the males and changing their personality into something less masculine.
I use terms like, neuter and unnatural, because this equality farce is just that, unnatural.
We might have developed from monkeys, but it does not mean we keep developing in a wrong direction.
You are quite right by quoting the three poisons, because when applied to the idea of equality and the drivers of this cause or pilgrimage in the direct assessment of the females so inclined, we find that they do in fact display those exact flaws; ignorance, hatred and narrow mindedness.
We can debate, discuss, as much as we like, those who believe in going against nature, are doing exactly that for their own arrogant and ignorant reasons.
Females are causing so much long term, harm to a baby by rejecting it or compromising it by choosing to have a bloody job/career over the well being and healthy upbringing of her child/ren.
And I don't just mean their physical health, I mean mental or psychological.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

It’s nice to hear from you. Sorry I couldn't get back to you earlier, I had to wait several hours before I could post again.

Yes, I’m still living in Paris and haven’t been back to Australia for a few years now. I have less reason to do so. All my close family are no longer of this world. I guess I’m the last of the Mohicans :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_8zELeOsww

Happily, I still have my five lifetime friends who pass through Paris occasionally. They keep me in touch and I’m still on the electoral role in my little hometown on the Darling Downs where I vote by correspondence.

Thank you for that interesting note on your parents. It reminds me a little of the personal story of George, the eminent professor of mathematics who lectured for many years at Melbourne University, who is a staunch Roman Catholic and occasional poster here on OLO.

I appreciate and thoroughly agree with your comments on the changing mentalities regarding gender identity and the complexities involved. It is a positive evolution which I hope will help liberate those who suffer from the bigotry of ill-founded social convention and prejudice.

On the subject of so-called “gender equality”, according to the United Nations :

« Gender equality is not only a fundamental human right, but a necessary foundation for a peaceful, prosperous and sustainable world » :

http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/gender-equality/

.

Dear Banjo,

I always read your posts with great pleasure and
not only learn so much from them but they brighten
up my day as well.

Thank You.

I remember George quite well. And also enjoyed
sharing thoughts with him.

.

Dear ALTRAV,

.

You wrote :

1. « I must confess not subscribing to any particular third-party beliefs, such as Buddhism »

Wisdom can be found anywhere, ALTRAV – even where you least expect it. Only wise men can learn from fools and only fools cannot learn from wise men.
.

2. « As for the belief that the male is the dominant species, it has to be so »

That is a declaration of a fatalist, ALTRAV, the belief that human beings are ruled by determinism, that we have no control over our lives.

Not according to the physicists :

http://evolutionnews.org/2014/12/no_determinism/
.

3. « There are always those who are out of step with nature, either by birth or by choice »

No, people are not “out of step with nature”, ALTRAV. Nature has propelled us human beings to a degree of evolution far superior to all other animal species and all other life forms. We are no longer at the same primitive level of development as, for example, the ape family from which we emerged about 7 million years ago.

It is nature that has made us the way we are. We no longer think or act like other animals. Just look at the apes. We have evolved and become civilised. The apes haven’t budged. They’re still the same. Do you think we should go back to living like apes, swinging in the trees ?

Men do not have to fight-off competitors to gain the right to copulate with females. Females are not under the “protection” of dominant males, confined to giving birth to babies, feeding and raising them until they can fare on their own.

We no longer live in a world of dinosaurs and pterodactyls, ALTRAV. Wake-up, my friend, you’re having a nightmare. We don’t live in caves, dress in animal skins and hunt with rocks and spears.

If anybody’s “out of step with nature”, ALTRAV, it’s you. Where have you been for the past 5 or 6 million years ?

Come on, wake-up. This is the 21st century … A.D !

.

Banjo,

you ask the wrong questions.
You believe in the wrong things.
You presume too much.
And you are out of touch with reality.
Take a look around you and you will see the very apes you believe no longer exist.
Mankind has not progressed at all, we just look better, dress better, live better, but we are still acting like the apes, at times even swinging from trees and other ape like activities and habits.
Our instincts and physique has not changed much at all.
The ape is still there deep inside, it comes out every now and then through certain types of people.
You see nature is a bitch, certain things have not changed since we evolved into homo sapiens.
The animal kingdom like all living things has always had rules no different than when the cells begin to develop when the egg and the sperm unite.
That act is the beginning of life.
How is it then that the formation of a living thing knows exactly what to do to develop into a living organism forming itself into a perfect human being.
Nature has the key to the DNA of all living organisms, whether flora or fauna.
Things change slowly over millions of years.
This latest generation has forced changes that are not in keeping with the natural rate of change, both in time and form.
In other words, where we were before today, was a slow and natural development and rate of change, and it occurred naturally without any external influence or forces, especially from the species themselves.
You are way off track when you say we have no control over our lives.
We DO have control over our lives, it's our DNA we have no control over.

continued.................

People choose to be disgusting animals they demonstrate they clearly are, that is the test of having control, or not, over their lives.
The formation of a queer is the result of an imbalance within the development of the egg as it undergoes it's growth into the formation of a child.
It stands to reason and by simple and pragmatic deduction, that any life form with deformities or flaws, such as in humans produce dwarfs or queers, just to name two, are not, because of their flaws, normal healthy human beings.
By the same logic, women also have a particular DNA, and as such have a pre-concieved specification, both physically and emotionally, which includes the caveat of child bearing and child rearing.
Remember, nature stipulated that she who gives birth to a child, must also nurture that child.
This is a law of nature, and any attempt to change that will result in problems.
And these problems are ever present and obvious today.

.

Dear ALTRAV,

.

In your last post, there is one instance where either you misread or misunderstood what I wrote, and another where you seem to have forgotten what you wrote yourself, or perhaps you did not fully understand the significance of what you wrote. Here are the details :
.

You wrote :

1. « Take a look around you and you will see the very apes you believe no longer exist »
I did not claim that apes no longer exist, ALTRAV. I wrote :
« Just look at the apes. We have evolved and become civilised. The apes haven’t budged. They’re still the same »
.

2. « You are way off track when you say we have no control over our lives »

I did not say that we have no control over our lives, ALTRAV. You did. You wrote : “As for the belief that the male is the dominant species, it has to be so”.

I disagreed that “it has to be so” and provided scientific evidence that there is no determinism in nature and that, contrary to what you declared, it does not "have to be so" because we have the ability to control our lives. I replied :

« That is a declaration of a fatalist, ALTRAV, the belief that human beings are ruled by determinism, that we have no control over our lives. Not according to the physicists : http://evolutionnews.org/2014/12/no_determinism/ »

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

There are two other statements that you made that, in my view, are incorrect :

1. « Mankind has not progressed at all, we just look better, dress better, live better, but we are still acting like the apes, at times even swinging from trees and other ape like activities and habits »

Of course, we still have much in common with apes, ALTRAV, but it is obvious that we human beings have made tremendous progress since we emerged from the ape family. There have been major anatomical and behavioural changes which, of course, could not have occurred or been perpetuated from generation to generation, without a certain degree of genetic modification. Perhaps the most important change has been the size and intellectual capacity of our brain which is three times the size of that of an ape and far more powerful.
.

2. « … the cells begin to develop when the egg and the sperm unite. That act is the beginning of life »

No, ALTRAV, that is not the "beginning of life". Life on earth began about 3.5 billion years ago. Since then, it has been relayed from generation to generation within each species – which is what you are referring to, the "relay of life" – not the "beginning of life".
.

Before signing off, I think I now have a fairly good understanding of your position on so-called “gender equality” and, hopefully, you have a fairly good understanding of mine.

To sum up : you consider that we should obey the laws of nature and act like animals. I consider that nature has developed us human beings with a far greater intellectual capacity and degree of autonomy (free will) than all other life forms and that so-called “gender equality” is simply a consequence of our unique natural development compared to that of all other life forms.

With that, ALTRAV, I bid you farewell on this thread and look forward to future discussions with you on whatever other topics we may find of mutual interest.

.

Banjo,

my response to #1, was more a metaphor.
My point is that people are still conducting themselves like apes, in this day and age.
They certainly don't look like apes, well not all of them.
#2. I have no idea why you are submitting these factors in what is a straight forward fact of nature.
This fact is not open to speculation and question or even consideration.
The male IS the dominant of the species, and this is not in doubt.
#3.You appear to have intentionally mis-represented this one.
You cannot sit there and promote the mistakes of things like queers and dwarfs.
You must not suggest that these two types of humans are the "norm".
They usually use words like "this a normal, healthy baby".
That is not the case when some thing other than normal or healthy is discovered, so even though the creation of this baby was down to nature, so was it's faults and flaws.
You can call it the relay of life but I choose to call it what has been referred to the beginning of life.
And don't play the superior card with me, you know very well I mean the beginning of THIS particular life.
So as you can see this is what I refer to 'out of step with nature by birth'.
Where-as when I say by 'choice', is simply one choosing to be treated as something they are clearly not.
I do not subscribe to the ridiculous notion that someone simply decides to be something other than what nature created, is many things and they are all bad, save me having to waste time typing them all.
And so it is that nature screwed up, something went awry in the development of the egg, and so we end up with these imperfect examples of homo-sepian.

continued.................

Thereby rendering them as, irrelevant.
When I say, "by birth", I am describing any living thing that does not conform to the specifications as laid down by the norms of nature of the day.
Why do you think doctors do a thorough examination of the new-born baby, and if they discover anything, ANYTHING, out of the norm, they immediately perform the necessary proto-col to confirm what is wrong, and to what extent.
They usually say, 'this is a normal healthy baby', if nothing is wrong or out of the ordinary.
Where-as they won't say that if there is something wrong or out of the ordinary.
Your refusal to accept there are flawed creations in the world is on you.
Because you refuse to see that these broken life forms are in fact failures of nature, and you promote them or do not acknowledge that they are not, true and complete examples of homo-sapiens, according to NATURE, then it is you who are out of step with nature by your complicity.
And so it is that mutations like queers and dwarfs are not the norms of nature, but the misfits or MISTAKES of nature!
You do know that such things existed didn't you?