Science Speaks but Society Cherry-Picks Ideals

One question I still have for modern science is – have they been able to discover why the female brain is smaller than the male? Granted, I utilize deduction a good bit so my non-scientific conclusion to the brain size issue is that: men are bigger and stronger (biologically) than the female gender…therefore their brains by necessity would be slightly larger. I have always thought that organs were in proportion to their bodies.

I cannot remember which thread we were in, but I believe we discussed context – and taking things in or out of context. I see this as a huge hurdle for the historian. i.e.: Social Darwinism was the social reaction to Darwin’s theory – but they only took what they wanted, or could use, to further support their schematic. In “The Descent of Man (1871),” Darwin addressed the different physicalities of non-Europeans and Europeans, he said:

But since he attained to the rank of manhood, he has diverged into distinct races, or as they may be more fitly called, sub-species… Nevertheless, all the races agree in so many unimportant details of structure and in so many mental peculiarities that these can be accounted for only by inheritance from a common progenitor; and a progenitor thus characterized would probably deserve to rank as man.[1]

Not only does Darwin credit the different races of human being as all being human, but he also extends the right of manhood to the ancient progenitor. This says that all races are human, and the species that we came from also as being human – for modern science, that could classify the Lucy specimen as more human than primate. Society shifted the concepts around to fit their liking and industrialism benefited more from deeming certain humans as unfit – because they could be paid less or nothing, taken advantage of like livestock, and worked to death without society batting an eye. If society allowed all races natural human rights, then their workforce would take a direct hit. Society read that same passage, but they focused in on the word “sub-species” to indicate that sub was below or not as good as.

I watched “Schindler’s List” last night to set the mood for my eugenics piece and to remind me how brutal and inhumane it is to look around and decide that a certain mass of people no longer have the right to take up space. This is why eugenics has such an ugly dating card – but the blame should fall on the human office, or the “what we do with our information,” and not the information itself. If eugenics were only “limited breeding” based on health factors it rather makes sense. i.e.: If I knew that I had a “bad” gene that could be passed down and would hinder or destroy my child’s life, then I would take necessary precautions to either not have children or ask science to alter the “bad” gene – I would not throw caution to the wind and leave it up to chance. I will even go farther, to address the overpopulation fear – there are too many people living on the earth, and with the growth rate of 1 birth every 8 seconds, and only 1 death every 10 seconds, the earth is in a world of trouble – at this moment the world population is 7,297,467,699+.[2] This is where it is an individual problem – why does one family need more than a normal amount of people? This is not 1862, and Farmer Elijah does not need thirteen young pups to man his field, nor do people have rational fears that their young children will not survive to ten years old. The individual responsibility is to keep one’s family at a reasonable size so that one can give each child a good life.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Darwin, Charles. “The Descent of Man (1871).” Darwin:  A Norton Critical Edition, Texts, Commentary. 3rd ed. Ed. Phillip Appleman. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001. pp. 175-254.

United States Census Bureau. “U.S. and World Population Clock.” 2016. Web. 8 Jan 2016. http://www.census.gov/popclock/

Picture c/o:  https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/47/22/82/4722825fcf7a9dbd67089499cb6ee153.jpg

[1] Darwin, “The Descent of Man (1871),” p. 245.

[2] Census, “World Population Clock,” 8 Jan 2016, 9:04 a.m.

Advertisements

Is Compassion Restricted to Femininity?

Good morning Fellow Wanderers…

I completed my fourth essay for HUMN 571 this week, using Margaret Mead’s Sex & Temperament in Three Primitive Societies as primary text with the assistance of Peggy Reeves Sanday and Francis L.K. Hsu as strong secondary sources. Once this session is closed, I will post my piece “Margaret Mead’s Hope for American Feminism,” but until then – my research presented interesting conjecture in regards to the abilities of human beings as separate biological entities, masculine and feminine.

The term “feminine intuition” has popped up throughout my life, but I had not – until recently – considered that this intuition is exclusive to women, hence, creating a proverbial chip on the shoulders of men whom are not, biologically, able to attain it. In this sense, “womb envy” may trump “penis envy.” Graver still as few are aware of biological indicators.

Do men have “masculine intuition” to combat the advantages in feminine consciousness, or are they immune to the pull of compassion? Experience says No, as I have witnessed compassionate males in action, yet…I wander…is compassion a choice? are males able to ignore their internal conscious easier than females?

Discussion much appreciated.

Works Cited

Hsu, Francis L.K. “Margaret Mead and Psychological Anthropology.” American Anthropologist, 82.2 (1980): 349-53. JSTOR. Web. 20 Feb 2016.

Mead, Margaret. Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies. Ed. Mary CatherineBateson and Helen Fisher. New York: Harper Perennial, 2001.

Sanday, Peggy Reeves. “Margaret Mead’s View of Sex Roles in Her Own and Other Societies.”American Anthropologist, 82.2 (1980): 340-8. JSTOR. Web. 20 Feb 2016.

Picture c/o:  http://lovelifetbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/question-mark-chalk-board-woman-thinking-e1430426978852.jpg