Lexi:"The younger generations today - don't
seem to consider the gender restrictions of the past. To
them all possible options are open and equally acceptable
for both sexes."

Except that young men shouldn't think about going to uni - that's female business these days. And young women so inclined shouldn't think about settling down to a life of married bliss, spitting out kids every couple of years, because they have to go to work to pay off their HECS debts.

Sounds idyllic...

Back to the topic, it appears that the male protective drive goes even deeper than I realised

http://www.livescience.com/16427-chivalry-crickets-animal-sex.html

"Males chivalrous enough to lay their lives down for their lovers can be found even among crickets, scientists now reveal."

and

"Prior research of cricket mating behavior was mostly conducted in the lab. This had suggested that male crickets guarded females to keep them from mating with rivals and prevent them from removing the sperm the males thrust into the females. Overall, the impression was that males dominated female partners through bullying. "

Does that sound familiar to anyone? Remove the word "cricket" and replace it with "human" and you have what sounds like a perfect Feminist analysis.

More from the article: "Prior research [...] suggested that male crickets guarded females to keep them from mating with rivals and prevent them from removing the sperm the males thrust into the females. Overall, the impression was that males dominated female partners through bullying.

To see what might actually happen in the wild, researchers [...] monitored with 96 infrared cameras and microphones during each spring 24 hours a day, with each cricket bearing a tiny numbered tag glued onto its back to help identify it. This helped the scientists view the everyday dramas the crickets faced — who each partnered with, how long specific males and females spent together, the amount of time each male spent chirping to attract mates, and fights that occurred when a male approached a burrow occupied by another male."

and, the kicker

""Relationships between crickets are rather different from what we'd all assumed," Rodríguez-Muñoz said. "Rather than being bullied by their mates, it seems that females are in fact being protected. We could even describe males as 'chivalrous.'""

Why? Well, Pericles nailed it (if you'll pardon the pun): "The male crickets are rewarded for their risky behavior, as their extended stays with females mean they get to have sex more often. They essentially trade a longer life span for a greater chance to father offspring with each of their partners."

Perhaps Feminists are really frustrated entomologists...

All of which leads us to the curious penchant for the female praying mantis to cannibalise her mating partner....apparently a more likely scenario when in captivity.

What do you make of that, Anti?

Go, you crickets.

>>Well, Pericles nailed it (if you'll pardon the pun):"The male crickets are rewarded for their risky behavior, as their extended stays with females mean they get to have sex more often. They essentially trade a longer life span for a greater chance to father offspring with each of their partners."<<

Now, if you simply add to that basic cricket-lore a little native human cunning, you can enjoy a long life as well.

How good is that?

The female redback spider and a few others do the post-coital cannibal thing too, Poirot. Apparently there's an advantage for some in being quick about one's business and getting out of Dodge on the next stage.

It's just not cricket.

Antiseptic,

Generally speaking things have changed for many
in our society. Traditional roles may well have
been functional in pre-industrial societies, but
they make less sense in a modern society where the
daily activities of men and women are far removed
from their simple origins. Two centuries ago, the
average woman had a life expectancy of about 45
years, and she had quite a few children between her
twentieth and fourtieth birthdays. Today, female
life expectancy seems to be given at seventy-eight
to eighty years, and the average woman has two
children during a five year period in her thirties.

Historical roles that kept a woman housebound today
seem increasingly irrelevant when she may live for
half a century after her last child is born.

Also these earlier traditions - say nothing about the strains
placed on modern women who want to play an
"instrumental" role, or on men who would prefer to
play an "expressive" one. Indeed, we shouldn't
overlook the dysfunctions to society of
presenting half the population from participating fully
in economic life. However, looking to the past - only
offers a plausible explanation of how traditional
gender roles and sexual inequalities - arose in the first place.

Under the old system, everyone knew what their roles
were, and most people 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 self fulfillment.