Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews
From: andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews)
Newsgroups: net.singles,net.women
Subject: Re: Why male dominance?
Message-ID: <179@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 2-Mar-86 20:30:28 EST
Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.179
Posted: Sun Mar  2 20:30:28 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 2-Mar-86 21:58:05 EST
References: <1270@decwrl.DEC.COM> <1290@homxb.UUCP>
Reply-To: andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews)
Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 26
Summary: 

In article <1290@homxb.UUCP> hrs@homxb.UUCP (H.SILBIGER) writes:
>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.
     A related theory is that, around the time of the advent of
written history, warrior cultures became dominant by conquering
other cultures by physical force.  Although some of these cultures
(e.g. the Celtic) had strong female figures, most of them had the
male warriors (who were not as bound to the home as women were in
most early societies) as leaders.
     This theory thus puts forward the opinion that men are not
"naturally" dominant, but that some cultures in which they did
happen to be dominant became successful by crushing other cultures.

>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.
     Could you please explain what "diphormism" is?  Is it a typo
for "dimorphism", and even if so, could you please expand on what
you mean?

--Jamie.
...!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews
"Look at this tangle of thorns"