Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site homxb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!homxb!hrs
From: hrs@homxb.UUCP (H.SILBIGER)
Newsgroups: net.singles,net.women
Subject: Re: Why male dominance?
Message-ID: <1290@homxb.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 1-Mar-86 08:36:38 EST
Article-I.D.: homxb.1290
Posted: Sat Mar  1 08:36:38 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 2-Mar-86 02:30:50 EST
References: <1270@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 19
Xref: watmath net.singles:10585 net.women:9449

I am really surprised to read Seth Jackson's implication that
males hould be dominant because otherwise they would not
have evolved as dominant through history!

There are some historical reasons why males have become
dominantin most cultures.  These probably are their greater
physical strength and the fact that they do not bear their
young.

In the current era, in societies where physical strength is not
the criterion for survival, but mental ability is more important,
equality between men and women is (slowly) coming about.

What is a more interesting question, although academic as far
as the equality issue is concerned, is why we have such extreme
sexual diphormism in humans.  It is hard to think of any mammal
species where it is as great.

Herman Silbiger ihnp4!homxb!hrs