Also, they lack the capacity of facing real life when it is imperfect (=problems appear) because they lack capacity of solving problems and only know to flee from them, physically or with help of different more or less liquid substances. Leaves me baffled why they should be so deficiently created but one suggestion is because they were the first and trial creation. Women, as we are told, were created after, and must then be an upgraded model already, where the experiences with the first one are duly accounted for.

Women then do not have the illusion of being perfect per se, the world almost never lets us conveniently believe it. Consequently, we are used to life-long striving towards perfection or being better, and of course then also do become more perfect and happy with ourselves ideed, all the time. We can, consequently, survive changing a small habit for the sake of our beloved weak being, just to make him happy, because we love him be happy .

(May be a western view on things).
Love!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by akshar:
Also because man was the hunter and brought back the meat the women had to be nice to him or they didn't get any.

---

Newer anthropological studies show different. Because these earlier studies were done by men who also studied or even boasted eugenics, their findings were biased.

Now in this modern age, both men and women are anthropolgists and many athropolgy degrees undergrad and post-grad require women studies courses in their circulumn. Thus giving a new outlook and scientific criteria is improved by this.

Can anyone imagine hippy stoners as anthropologists, dissing the 'old boy's club establishment?" Yup.

Studies produced over the last decade show that women and children were segregated and this was the only informal settlement of human capacity. Men and young bucks wouldn't produce housing or even organize into communities. Women and children had produced tools, agricultural techniques, food storage systems, earliest irrigation systems, medicine practices and religious observances.

Men just basically were entertainment and sperm donors. Its proven that women would often go with 'assimilated' males on hunting expositions. Men who wanted to be a part of the formal women and children community produced skills that were unique and often wouldn't spread his seed to far. Shamans that had very elaborate burials were often women. Shamans with less noteworthy or celebrated graves were men.

Burials of pre-historic women were done with formality and in a sense of communal passage rites. Men of advanced age, their remains are usually far more tragic and uncermonial. Thus why male remains are often on front-page covers of magazines and journals. Its more exciting to see a corpe that holds a sad demise. Female's didn't have the same chances of dying in such a state.

Possibly this is why National Geographic skips publishing modern anthropological studies, insteads choses to heavily edit whatever it prints to fit the mold of what they want their loyal readers to learn. A good book to describe this intellectual fall-out phenomenom: "Daggers and Veils" by Linda Steet. She mocks much of the National Geographic sentiment and reverses 'Orientalism' in a manner that Edward Said didn't have the chitzpah to do. Linda Steet's book made me cringe.