Tuesday, June 22, 2010

A world with no men?

This is another of my two-pronged blogs...

Prong I:

You know how men have nipples, right? Okay, apparently that’s because in utero, we’re all female until proven male. That is, every foetus starts out as female, and only when the testosterone starts pumping into her does she change to male.

Prong II:

I’m not sure if Alan and Barbara Pease are well known in your respective countries. They wrote a book a dozen or more years ago called “Why Men Don’t Listen And Women Can’t Read Maps”. It discussed the differences in male and female brains, both in architecture and functionality. It was a fascinating read, though it was dismissed by some as pop psychology. What was important was that it resonated through its recognition factor.

One example it gave was showing differences between how a woman might ask for pancakes and how a man might. The “most female” example was along the lines of “You know, it’s a long time since I had pancakes”. The “most male” example was something like “Will you make me some pancakes?”

And here’s where the prongs meet...

My younger boy is on holidays now, and he was home with me today. He’s turning 7 soon. Lately I’ve noticed a tendency in him: he states out loud what is wrong with or missing from his life. “I guess no-one wants to play with me.” “I haven’t played Playstation all day.” “It’s a long time since I had pancakes.” That kind of thing.

It made me wonder. We grow up learning from the Bible that God is male and he created Adam first and then gave him somewhere to put that thing (okay, so I paraphrased, but that’s kind of a brutal stating of the paternalistic Christian ethos). But what if “being female” is really the norm for human beings outside the womb, too?

I have no doubt that the world would be vastly different were there never to have been human males. Better? Worse? I wonder what you guys think. Maybe you could humour me?

What do you think would be different if men had never existed? Would we still have war? If not, what might it be replaced by? What would we all live in? Would we ever have bothered with clothes?

Our operators are standing by...


Rozlyn Sparks said...

A world with just women would be an odd place. I doubt there would be less wars. Women have been known to be pretty catty and devious. I think the warfare would be different. LoL.

Men and woman are balance. Each have their own strengths and weaknesses and the world wouldn't work if there were just one of the species.

Smut Girl said...

I would miss the contrast of men. Especially the um...hard parts of them (or at least the ones with hardness capacity).

Would there still be war? Have you ever watched *any* of the Housewives shows on Bravo? I mean, take your pick. New Jersey, New York, Orange County, Atlanta. The words "Prostitution whore!" (and a table flip) come to mind.

Yes, there would still be war. I find that men pitted against men creates war ie violence, but if you step back and look at a lot of m/f relationships, the men can be the calming influences in those instances. They are the truth sayers, the calmer downers, the level headed ones. Not always, but in a lot of cases, yes. My man has never started a bar brawl. But um...I have.

There's my rusty two cents.


Willsin Rowe said...

Roz, I think I agree. War might well still exist, though it would take a different form. I've seen when women get all riled up and the fists start appears they hold absolutely nothing back. This almost comes back to my last blog about women and violence...

Sommer, I think men are the calming influence for several reasons: we have just one fat emotional button hidden in the folds of our brains. It's like the male clitoris, and it's probably just as hard for a woman to find ; ) And of course, the other reason we're calm in the face of a het up chick...we most likely still wanna bone her later...I mean, make love...that's what I meant...