im pretty interested in what makes people tick and what makes us do what we do whether it be social or instinctual so as i was taking a piss tonight i wondered, what makes us so defensive of our daughters?
i thought that well theyre ours but social and instinctual sense would tell us they are crucial for spreading the populus of the species which seems like a conundrum if our main goal as a species is to procreate.
so can anyone with a background in anthropology or psychology explain?
No
Yeah, I don’t feel like it either.
sounds like the same answers youd probaly give if someone asked if you were smarter than a 5th grader.
its because your daughter is part of your tribe…and you can’t let some weak kid procreate with her… Especially some kid who can’t provide for her… she needs a leader who is confident in his ability to survive and provide for her… So, its your responsibility to protect her until she finds someone else who can…
women eventually become attracted to attributes such as confidence, leadership, and other tools necessary for survival and protection…
while your son must prove he is a man and develop skills to provide for his future family…which is a problem in our society since a lot of boys never make it to manhood…its not something you can learn in a classroom …
Or… You’re jealous of the guy who’s screwing her.
'Cause I made that.
Because so many women mistake sex for love?
I dont have any formal training in anthro or psyche, but I’m going to hazard an educated guess/give my opinion
What you’re referring to is called a cooperation problem - in other words, what happens when that which is good/beneficial for society as a whole is not good for the individual. The classic example given of this is the free-rider.
Imagine a town that wants to build a mass transit system. Obviously, the fairest way to pay for this is to charge each rider according to their usage. But what if the fee was collected based on the honor system? Ie, nobody watching to see that you paid when you got on the bus, no turnstiles at the subway, everyone just went along on good faith, assuming that everyone would pay their fair share. Now, if ONE individual decides to shirk this responsibility and ride for free, there’s no harm. He’s such a small percentage of the overall ridership that his cost can easily be defrayed amongst the other riders. The problem comes in when 2, or 3 or 1,000 people all decide that they want to ride for free. The system isnt being supported and is unable to continue to operate.
Thus it’s your assumption “social and instinctual sense would tell us they are crucial for spreading the populus of the species which seems like a conundrum if our main goal as a species is to procreate” that is faulty. Our instincts, while they do provide for teh survival and thriving of the species, are first and foremost concerned with OUR OWN survival. As in ‘screw you, i wanna get mine.’ Even tho the best thing for a group of hunting animals would be to spread the kill around equally, each wolf/lion/whatever wants his belly to be full more than he wants to make sure that all of his pack gets an equal share.
Same thing with societal individuals and women; even IF the best thing is to “share them” (for lack fo a better phrase) the prevailing mentality is and always will be “screw you, go share with somebody else.”
EDIT to add - to sum it up in one sentence, if you’re speaking about INSTINCTS and not reason, rationality, etc etc, the individual will put his own wants, desires, needs in front of the groups wants, desires, needs 99.9% of the time (and theres only a .1% chance of an individual sacrificing himself for the group instinctively and not rationally)
Um, the historic view of women as a commodity?
Cultural norms that are learned? Honour, maybe?
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Um, the historic view of women as a commodity?[/quote]
i touched on that by using the phrase “share them” and actually had a whole other paragraph about it typed up, but deleted it cuz i felt i took the discussion off on a tangent
[quote]KBCThird wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Um, the historic view of women as a commodity?
i touched on that by using the phrase “share them” and actually had a whole other paragraph about it typed up, but deleted it cuz i felt i took the discussion off on a tangent[/quote]
Okay, well, tangent or not, I do have background in the areas mentioned, and I’m saying that the commodification of women and the children they bear is the answer to the question.
We want the best genetic line going. You have to prove your worthy to mix genetics. If society let their daughters have low standards, our lineage would be fucked.
Isn’t that the basis for natural selection?
[quote]RebornTN wrote:
We want the best genetic line going. You have to prove your worthy to mix genetics. If society let their daughters have low standards, our lineage would be fucked.
Isn’t that the basis for natural selection?[/quote]
x2
First, your daughter’s love for you is unconditional. It is the only true love you will ever experience (that of a child). The stronger the bond between father and daughter. The greater the knowledge she will have on male behavior.
I always thought it was the mother that prepared the daughter. Until I had a daughter. She knows everything there is to know about guys.
Been into MA for eleven years and loves it. Guys at her school are scared of her. That’s the result of good fathering.
[quote]RebornTN wrote:
We want the best genetic line going. You have to prove your worthy to mix genetics. If society let their daughters have low standards, our lineage would be fucked.
Isn’t that the basis for natural selection?[/quote]
Then the medieval dad would want the biggest, hairiest, most aggressive mate possible for his daughter. Instead, he’s selling her as an infant to the gout-ridden old man whose property adjoins his. Why?
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
We want the best genetic line going. You have to prove your worthy to mix genetics. If society let their daughters have low standards, our lineage would be fucked.
Isn’t that the basis for natural selection?
Then the medieval dad would want the biggest, hairiest, most aggressive mate possible for his daughter. Instead, he’s selling her as an infant to the gout-ridden old man whose property adjoins his. Why?
[/quote]
politics? greed?
we’re not talking about selling your daughter to an old guy who has money. that seems to be the opposite of what im saying actually because thats a display of how easy it is to get rid of a daughter whereas im talking about how hard it is to pass her off.
after reading what everyone has posted ive figured it to have something to do with just satisfying the own needs of the father as far as meeting characteristic criteria. what im saying is the father is just going to be looking for someone with certain values or attributes which are totally individualistic but for society theres a collective norm. mentally stable, good apperance, well behaved, similar interests, financially stable. and you probaly dont want him to come off as a douchebag either. i think what that all boils down to is the process of what Reborn and others have been saying.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
KBCThird wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Um, the historic view of women as a commodity?
i touched on that by using the phrase “share them” and actually had a whole other paragraph about it typed up, but deleted it cuz i felt i took the discussion off on a tangent
Okay, well, tangent or not, I do have background in the areas mentioned, and I’m saying that the commodification of women and the children they bear is the answer to the question. [/quote]
Not to put too fine a point on it, because i dont think we’re disagreeing at all, but I think that just rephrases the OP’s question from “Why don’t people share their women if doing so would benefit the species as a whole” to “Why dont people share their commodities if doing so would benefit the species as a whole.”
Because people - and any living organism, really - are inherently selfish concerned with their OWN survival and prosperity over that of the group, is the answer.
[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
We want the best genetic line going. You have to prove your worthy to mix genetics. If society let their daughters have low standards, our lineage would be fucked.
Isn’t that the basis for natural selection?
Then the medieval dad would want the biggest, hairiest, most aggressive mate possible for his daughter. Instead, he’s selling her as an infant to the gout-ridden old man whose property adjoins his. Why?
politics? greed?
we’re not talking about selling your daughter to an old guy who has money. that seems to be the opposite of what im saying actually because thats a display of how easy it is to get rid of a daughter whereas im talking about how hard it is to pass her off.
after reading what everyone has posted ive figured it to have something to do with just satisfying the own needs of the father as far as meeting characteristic criteria. what im saying is the father is just going to be looking for someone with certain values or attributes which are totally individualistic but for society theres a collective norm. mentally stable, good apperance, well behaved, similar interests, financially stable. and you probaly dont want him to come off as a douchebag either. i think what that all boils down to is the process of what Reborn and others have been saying.
[/quote]
Well, the thing about selling your daughter is that she needs to be unsullied (worth buying). And THAT is because the man who buys her wants to be assured that any children she bears are his (there’s your nature at work).
You can certainly believe whatever you like, based on anything or nothing at all. But finding a nice chap with “good apperance, well behaved, similar interests” is an historic novelty. That’s never before been the criteria that interests fathers and is frankly laughable looked at from the long view.