Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Charlie Brooker on why women should rule the world

49 replies

starkadder · 01/06/2009 21:12

A bit harsh maybe....and he wouldn't be allowed to say it the other way round, so...

but funny nonetheless...

here

OP posts:
monkeytrousers · 03/06/2009 20:20

opps - wouldn't say it in an essay, I mean

EvenBetaDad · 03/06/2009 20:35

Right OK I see now the 'kin selection' versus 'group selection' issue. You are proably right - not sure how to resolve that in my arguement.

What I was gong to say though about your comment about 'females driving the process' was that in humans I think human male competition is not about physical fighting of course but about competing to present resources to females.

The men compete to get resources and then the females choose the men with the most resources but of course there will be lots of choosy females fighting over the most resource laden men. Hence competition on both sides.

Perhaps explains the phenomenon of ugly rich men competing with each other to accumulate wealth and as a result seem to have lots of pretty girls chasing them. It is pretty hard to deny that does not happen. Just sit by the harbour side in Monaco!

monkeytrousers · 03/06/2009 21:28

Yea, it does explain an awful lot of human conflict.

I am just reading up on this now for a journal piece. About the swing of the pendulem in human cultures from mild polygamy, strong polygamy (where all females are 'mated' and only a very small percenatge of males are) to monogamy. The overwhelming evidence is that we are a predominenly monogamous species, but that men are attracted to the idea of variation and this can tip the scales for a few lucky men when they have the lions share of resourses.

Thing that's not often discussed in lay terms is that most men may like the idea of polygamy, but its actually men who are worse off by it. Women don't like it either too. The concept of mate guarding is very much central to patraichies though, perhaps the central element, but one, which again you don't hear about, liberal democracy has pretty much dismantled from its systems.

The idea that a state would help a woman leave an abuive partner and then subsidise her to brng up her kids is unheeard of in human history and really testifies to the degree of privledge we life in in the west.

Liberal democracy is pretty much a one man - one wife system - and one that facilitaes individual chjoice within that for both sexes. We are at, I think, the pinnicle of human equality. It's not perfect because people (men and women) aren't perfect but the systems reallyt are always striving towards fairness. In the contrext of history, we live very blessed lives, and flies in the face of fears of biological determinism reinforcing the status quo. It seems to be doing the very opposite. A testament to the human moral animal!

monkeytrousers · 03/06/2009 21:29

oops, sorry - got carried away..

EvenBetaDad · 03/06/2009 21:51

No, that was really interesting.

I do think though that the pendulum has begun to swing back a bit with increasingly extreme disparities between rich and poor in the West. I wonder if we might even go back to informal polygamy n the West. Would women feel it is better to share a rich man with other women than be monogomous with a poor one?

Me and DW think in fact that we see it hapening already beginning to happen among middle class teenage girls in the UK.

DW and I feel that middle class girls are beginning to get the message that being pretty and marrying a rich bloke is the way to go in a world where resources are so unevenly spread. It may even lie behind the 'pinkification' phenomenon in younger girls. It dismays us that the freedoms women fought for in teh 1960s/1970s are being in a sense thrown away by this phenomenon.

I suppose that for some girls with fewer and fewer or even no really serious job prospects marrying a rich bloke is a rational choice - alternatively, living off the state as you say or becoming a 'celebrity'.

Bit of a radicle theory and totally untested of course but would be interested to hear other peoples thoughts.

The Barbie Princess 'pinkification' phenomenon is often noted and discussed on MN and not heard a good explanation of why it is happening.

hannahsaunt · 03/06/2009 22:11

Don't say that! I want wonderful, emancipated, rounded (intellectually, won't stretch to presupposing on physical attractions ) women for my boys - not simpery pinky princesses.

EvenBetaDad · 03/06/2009 22:15

I know - so do we! Our lovely DSs need feisty challenging women like DW . Not pretty Princesses.

However, even our DSs have started saying pink is for girls. We feel like we are fighting a losing battle already.

monkeytrousers · 03/06/2009 22:25

I personally don't think there is anything wrong with pink. I think it's the 'natural' bias for girls liking feminine things that is leading the pinkification, not the other way around. That's not to say that kids should also have many other options too.

As long as kids are allowed to explore options and dicover their own preferences, pink or no, thats the best we can do for the.

Girls liking pink on average more than boys just means they like pink more than boys - on average. I don't see any need to 'deconstruct' it.

edam · 03/06/2009 22:59

So how come today people think pink is for girls, blue for boys, when back in the Edwardian era it was the other way round, then?

If girls today 'like' pink on average more than boys, something more than natural preference is going on.

monkeytrousers · 03/06/2009 23:12

Why so? They see the same tv ad's boys do. They still choose their own preferences which are on average, distict from boys.

Choice for everything was severely limited and roles/social mores were just as severely proscribed. If anythingm what we see today is the real preferences of people (not just children).

But what is wrong with pink?

monkeytrousers · 03/06/2009 23:13

In Edwardian times choice for everything was severely limited and roles/social mores were just as severely proscribed.

monkeytrousers · 03/06/2009 23:14

god, typo hell

prescribed not proscribed

DaddyJ · 03/06/2009 23:40

So what's the sting, MT?

I thought it was a very thought-provoking and in many ways sensible analysis.
Thanks again for posting it!

monkeytrousers · 04/06/2009 09:12

I jusr meant that the title suggests that it may be all male bashing, so it might not be what some people expect.

monkeytrousers · 04/06/2009 09:16

re - pink - boys who like pink are statistically far more likely to be gay.

I knew that before I had DS and now DS shows a marked preference for pink and disney princesses. I have tried buying him boys toys. He still loves disney princesses more. To the dismay of his dad, but hey, that's who he is!

EvenBetaDad · 04/06/2009 09:45

monkeytrousers - I can tell you are tounge in cheek on the "statistically far more likely to be gay" comment.

DS2 loves his dolls house and making necklaces and I think it is nice. He does like 'boy stuff' too and that's who he is.

However, I had to have a stern man-to-man chat with DS1 the other day when he refused to wear a pink jumper that he looks nice in. He said all the other boys would laugh at him and say he is a girl.

I got out all my pink clothes out - ties, polo shirts, business shirts and jumpers.

I told him that if anyone said anything he could tell them his Dad wore pink things - he got the point.

monkeytrousers · 04/06/2009 16:33

Erm, actually I'm not. It is a bit more complicated than just liking pink - it's an overall preference for non-sex specific toys (and studies show that boys and girls do chose sex-specific toys on their own, which is how they got catagorised sex speciofic).

All boys like a dress up now and again.

edam · 04/06/2009 19:19

Of course gender roles were clearly delineated in Edwardian times, that's not the point. As pink was a boy's colour then, it proves that there is nothing innate about girls liking pink now - it's just society that tells them 'you are a girl, you must prefer pink'. They are responding to conditioning, not making a free choice.

monkeytrousers · 04/06/2009 19:36

Boys didn't have a choice then Edam, is what I'm saying. Choice as we know it now is a very very modern concept.

But again - wha's wrong with pink??

edam · 04/06/2009 20:54

Nowt, but society's insistence on pink being for girls and all the commercial pressure pisses me off.

monkeytrousers · 04/06/2009 21:47

But where is the malevolence? If there is none, where is the argument?

It just doesn't make sense for all we know about advertising, which follows people's proclivities, not the other way around.

Fair enough some people might not like pink, and think it trivialising, but that doesn't spell a conspiracy. It's just one preference fighting for validification over another. Being confident in your own choices is what matters.

DaddyJ · 06/06/2009 21:21

I was just reading a gushing article about just such a society where women rule the roost.
Unfortunately it's in German but if you google 'Mosuo' there seems plenty of English accounts, including this rather downbeat one.

Thought I'd post it here for future reference.

southeastastra · 06/06/2009 21:24

i think times are a changing now

as long as children are educated equally (mixed), we shall get on together

monkeytrousers · 13/06/2009 09:43

ah, it was you Daddy J - I found that thread you were looking for here

New posts on this thread. Refresh page