Comments

  1. #1 jayh
    December 8, 2008

    hehe

    For what it’s worth, for most of recorded history, and indeed most of our evolutionary history, that was the norm.

    Females are valueable, males are expendable, and were freely expended in hunting and war.

  2. #2 BZ
    December 8, 2008

    jayh: Many cultures do not value females over males, infanticide often being higher in such cultures.

  3. #3 Rose Colored Glasses
    December 8, 2008

    Marriage is defined in According to Hoyle under ‘Pinochle’.

  4. #4 Joel
    December 8, 2008

    I have to agree with BZ the jayh. If females were valuable, I don’t think there would be the one (man) to many (women) relationship and women couldn’t be purchased like livestock.

  5. #5 the real me
    December 8, 2008

    “Many cultures do not value females over males, infanticide often being higher in such cultures”
    Which cultures?

    It seems that the cultures that value females over males are at the top of the economic success puzzle: the more money a culture has, the more superficial ‘rights’ women have to exploit men, and mens earnings via 1) inequitable, outdated divorce laws 2) imbalanced child support laws that favor women 3) social marketing schemes that target dissatisfied middle class women (Oprah, Hilary Clintons definition of a family as a woman and children,etc.)

    Academic positions like to maintain that infanticide is higher here and there because of males, but the reality is that highly ‘organized’ societies merely delay the infanticide until tghe males can be used as cannon fodder in matrilocal-supportive wars of conquest.

    Worse, the statistics are skewed in favor of promoting a false notion that men are more likely to be perpetrators than women–they found the “answer” first, and then filled in the blanks with definitional bias.

    From the latest DOJ:
    “Of all children under age 5 murdered from 1976-2005 —

    [* 31% were killed by fathers]
    [* 29% were killed by mothers]
    * 23% were killed by male acquaintances
    * 7% were killed by other relatives
    * 3% were killed by strangers”

    Hmm..something smells fishy…here is some discussion about the genesis of the definitional conflict:
    http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm99/cpt3.htm

    The reality of infanticide is that it is still remarkably high in the US and largely perpetrated by women, but the DOJ has accepted the matriarchal paradigm of “fathers” that includes “step-fathers”, and whatever other definition of “paycheck donor” that the pro-feminists have selected to define “father” with, and, like academics, completely ignores the fact that natural fathers account for the absolute lowest rates of infanticide perpetration, but because of the loose and biased definitions of ‘fetherhood’ and legal constraints against legal fathers, the bias only grows.

  6. #6 Joel
    December 8, 2008

    The real you, you seem to have some issues with women.

Current ye@r *