What I find interesting about comments like this is how revelatory they are of the worldview of the people writing them. It's always interesting to see which facts about the primal human experience are left out when this kind of thing is discussed.
For example, I'm betting you're a male who likes women who's between the age of 20 and 45 and likely doesn't have children (I'm pretty sure on male between 20 and 45, but children could go either way).
Consider the assumptions present in: "Of course this also begs the question of what happens to a woman when she gets old and ugly? Where does she get her power from? She gets it from her man."
The assumption there being the only reason a man would protect a woman is because she's pretty and she's having sex with them, likely because the sexual relationship is the main way you're looking at women at this point in your life. Even if we assume women can only derive power from male proximity in nature, there's an obvious alternative answer to where she would derive power from: Her sons and grandsons. If she lives through her childbearing years, a woman in nature is far more likely to live to old age than her male mate: She has better resistance to famine, a better immune system, and if we assume the rigid gender role evo-psych of men = hunters and women = gatherers, she also engages in far less physically risky activities. Even if 'her man' is alive, the odds of him being crippled or simply unable to protect her from younger, fitter men are high. A 35 year old son or 18 year old grandson is far more valuable for protection, and far more stable: a man is always her son/grandson, whereas if we're assuming the red pillish evo-psych is true, 'her man' probably has wandering eyes and would like a younger woman and therefore should not be counted on to stick around once she dares to have wrinkles and saggy breasts. Additionally, a man who doesn't protect his mother is failing at one of the basic tests of belonging to a human tribe: Basic reciprocity. If a man won't give to the one person who took care of him when she gained nothing/he was at his most vulnerable, then how can his fellow hunters (who he's less attached to) trust that he'll reciprocate when they help him? This assumption also outright dismisses the bonds between say, a brother and a sister. Do you think most men wouldn't protect their sisters because they're not sex objects?
Older women are also far more able to keep contributing to the tribe than older men if we adhere to this strictly gendered idea of primitive humans. They can care for children while women in their prime gather, they can rear children whose mothers have died (and this is common due to the fatality rate of childbirth), they can take care of the sick, etc. A man who can't keep up with his male duties is far less useful - a man who is over 60 and has 60-80% of the speed and strength of his fellows, or a bad limb, or sensory impairments, is far less able to hunt than a woman over 60 is to caretake. They're more likely to live longer and therefore a better repository of historical knowledge.
Idk, I just always find it interesting which physiological and psychological aspects of humanity are ignored or unmentioned whenever someone is making some kind of argument about primal gender roles.
Bro you made many assumptions. First women today have plenty of power. A lot of times more so than men. I only refer to prehistoric times.
Men primarily drived survival in prehistoric times. Without a man a women could not survive. That doesn’t mean she couldn’t contribute it means she was not the primary driver. Women contribute a lot, but that contribution is in the end supplementary because it is not critical for survival and this definitely shapes evolved behavior. It means for survival a man is required for her, this is asymmetric for a man and you can see this in how women and men select mates. Men select based off of superficial markers for fertility. Women select more on practical markers for capability. This is because a women’s survival is dependent on the man’s capability while a man’s survival is not as much dependent on this.
Additionally please don’t make the argument personal. If you disagree attack the argument don’t attack or make assumptions about my character. Thank you.
I wasn't speaking of the modern day either; I was only addressing prehistoric times - specifically the time before agriculture since we're discussing humanity at its earliest points. Prehistoric =/= tribal, incidentally.
I brought up your identity because it's relevant to the assumptions that you're making, and specifically it's causing you to miss very wide aspects of the human experience that are very relevant to the discussion you want to have. I see this a lot in these discussions (and before you get upset, that includes from women: the bad feminist argument that prehistoric people were completely gender egalitarian or matriarchal is just as much wishcrafting). In this case, you're assuming that every single prehistoric human being approached power acquisition and gender relations the way you do.
I find these discussions intellectually dishonest: You very clearly have a point of view regarding male superiority and want to convey that using objective language to prove your rationality. I didn't make assumptions about your character, I made assumptions about your age and sex. I also did attack your argument, because it's a weak argument, and you didn't address my points at all. You're being evasive on purpose and attempting to pass yourself off as rational person making an objective argument, but you're completely ignoring extremely relevant facts and data and spewing things that are completely false.
It's adorable that you think men can survive without women (condescension fully intended). This is pre agriculture. No domesticated animals. Every single one of those men spent at least a year completely dependent on a woman: birth to 12 months. No breast milk? No men. Older men are also going to be reliant on women for caretaking, as are sick men. What you mean when you say 'men can survive without women' is 'healthy men aged 15 to 50 can survive without women on a daily basis'. Yes, men can take care of the ill, but women can also build houses. To call women's contributions supplementary when nobody would reach the age of 3 without them is fantastic. Thank you for that. It's hilarious, and it makes it so clear what your informational sources are. Infants living aren't crucial for survival? You also ignore the social ties of early humans, which is ridiculous given we're a social species. The main dangers to early human women that weren't faced by early human men are childbirth and early human men. It's likely true that a woman benefited from male protection from other men, but it's untrue that this protection is only afforded via giving sexual access. A man will protect his mother. A man will protect his sister. Hell, you even said yourself that a woman got protection by bearing him children: Did you mean only sons? Do you think early human fathers would just shrug if someone tried to hurt their daughters because they weren't having sex with her? Women and men needed each other to survive, but that is a different argument from 'the only way a woman can receive male protection is by being young, hot, and giving it up.' Likewise, a sister will tend to her brother, a daughter will care for her aging father, and a mother will help her son with his children if his wife dies. Human bonds and gender relations go far beyond sexual relationships, even if they're important, and you just are completely ignoring that so that you can feel good. That's what this argument is actually about, and that's why I think it's intellectually dishonest.
And this is still granting you the foundations of the argument, which are also bad. Yes, it's very likely that gender roles have existed since homo sapiens sapiens evolved. It's also pretty likely those roles had at least some flexibility, since complete specialization requires a certain population density and nature is cruel and full of terrors. If your entire hunting party ends up TPKed, you want at least a few women who can hunt so they can teach the oldest boys left in the tribe and the knowledge isn't lost. Likewise, you want some of the men able to perform 'feminine' duties in case something happens to the women who know those things: If the men want their culture to continue and most of their women die, they're going to want the women they kidnap to be able to do things like know what plants are edible in their particular territory, etc. Humans are adaptable before we are anything else. Being overly rigid with roles when you live in groups of ~150 in a world where you have no writing, no domesticated plants or animals, and only basic stone tools isn't going to serve you. Efficiency and resilience are trade offs, and when you have very little margin for error and replacing members of the tribe is costly, it makes more sense to spread out knowledge and tasks so that there are fewer single points of failure. You probably want your medical experts teaching multiple students so that if one dies of a fever or in a hunting accident there are other options. You probably want more than one midwife, so your tribe isn't fucked if she dies. And so on.
Bro. No. This post is offensive and personal. It’s targetted as personal and an attack on my character. Using words like “adorable” is deliberate and calculated. I stopped reading the minute you tried justify your personal attack. I will not entertain this bullshit and it’s against the rules.
I came back cos I felt a bit guilty. You're right - I was condescending and I'm sorry
I think your model of men's social status being solely based on strength, and women's on beauty, is too simplistic to be useful. Even male chimpanzees' status isn't based solely on strength (social grooming and coalition building are also really important), and female chimpanzees' status is not based on the males they attract. Human societies are complex, and people can be useful to the group in a zillion different ways. Men were never only hunters/warriors, and women were never only wives/mothers. Even in societies where almost all food was from hunting it needed to be processed and preserved, and that work was very often done by women. A beautiful woman who takes shortcuts when preserving meat and runs the risk of poisoning the whole family does not make a good wife
The core of anyone's power is how useful they are to people around them. If you're beautiful that can be part of your usefulness, but if that's all you have to offer then you're not going to be very powerful
It's true that white working class people are the most likely to non engage politically for a variety of reasons, but it's also generalizing to say that working class PoC inherently care or adopt the same political ideas as the professional classes. Even among Black Southerners (who are very politically organized), whether someone agrees with modern social justice/intersectional frameworks is going to depend highly on other factors such as age and level of religiosity.
Those with the capacity and inclination to learn such things (meaning academic theory and systems) who are born into working class communities or families are heavily encouraged to leave the working class behind and cut ties. The working class communities are intellectually strip mined, and the kids quickly learn their only chance at success relies very much on learning to hide where they came from unless they're trotting it out for sympathy points/scholarships, in which case you need to talk about your background but make clear that you've ~ transcended it. As a result the only people left in the working class as adults are those who couldn't learn academic theory.
Some exceptions I've seen are people like my mother who grew up higher-class but 'defected'. Another exception is occasional disabled members of the working class.
It has nothing to do with the intelligence or ability of the working class as a population and everything to do with the fact that people in that class who have certain abilities and types of intelligence are offered a way out that others aren't. (e.g. A mechanical genius is less likely to get this treatment than a kid reading several grades ahead ).
Most news stories are not primary sources. They're secondary at best. The exception would be things like stories from embedded reporters (e.g. Nellie Bly) but those are very uncommon at this point as they cost $ and the ROI is worse than summarizing what is said by other sources.
Try web dev or game mods - when I was her age that was what I did and a lot of the joy was making something that I could immediately 'see' worked or not and interact with + that other people could use and talk to me about.
Hah, I’m a web developer myself and that is exactly why I enjoy it so much! Immediate feedback based on what you’re coding. It’s kind of a fun little loop.
I'm working on a project with a friend that's going to involve back end and I was like 'this is BS where's my immediate dopamine I do front-end for a reason'.
> I've noticed that sight is what I like to call a greedy sense, in that if you have this high bandwidth data input it sort of blocks you from being able to pay attention to input from your other senses.
I'm visually impaired/low vision with some neurological visual issues but I pass as sighted and this is really it. Vision takes so much work - I'm definitely going to describe it as a 'greedy' sense + steal your bandwidth analogy.
The neural cost of vision is relevant to those who wear vision-correcting glasses, e.g. what's the neural impact of choosing to have non 20/20 vision in some daily situations? Or altering the duty cycle of the eye?
> when our eyes are open, our vision accounts for two-thirds of the electrical activity of the brain – a full 2 billion of the 3 billion firings per second – which was the finding of neuroanatomist R.S. Fixot in a paper published in 1957 .. half of all neural tissue deals with vision in some way.
> According to John Medina in his book Brain Rules, in the fight for more neural real estate that’s going on between our olfactory cortex and the visual cortex, vision is winning. He writes: “about 60 percent of our smell-related genes have been permanently damaged in this neural arbitrage, and they are marching toward obsolescence at a rate fourfold faster than any other species sampled.”
I have had a cat die unexpectedly (heart failure) and she was in the car on the way to the vet when she died. She held on in the back seat until I was able to pull over and be with her. She was looking for me. You owe it to be there.
How long did it take to not feel just truly awful? Like I said... Ive never experienced that much grief/pain from loss before. I am scared how bad it will be, or what to expect.
When I lost my cat of 13 years, the first few weeks were terrible. Even just the feeling of emptiness in the house. And everything reminded me of her. For 6 months I could not talk about her without crying. But it's OK to feel this. I would rather feel it than not. It's a reflection of the wonderful companionship we had.
In my experience, the actual death brings a feeling of relief. This has been my experience for both dying pets and family members. It’s hard but it’s a part of life. It’s gonna be alright.
It was my first time losing anyone/anything close to me as well.
I was acutely distressed for a good month and basically non functional for a week or so, which is embarrassing to admit, but this cat was with me through some really dark times when no people were there for me. I was holding her body and just wailing when we got home - I was a 30 something year old woman and I needed my mom to come over to manage what to actually do. There is no shame in the pain - it means you love your kitty.
I would recommend making arrangements for the body beforehand/having someone else around to take care of the immediate 'aftermath', as morbid as that is to think about. You aren't going to be in any shape to handle any logistics and seeing her body without 'her' in it WRECKED me.
Vets usually have information about cremation services. Some vets offer them on site, but some don't - check with your vet. There are also memorial options (urns, paw prints, etc.) that you might want to look through now as kitty is alive, because trying to decide how you want to remember them right after they go is just asking for ugly sobbing. Also figure out your budget because the last thing you want to do is pick something in the throes of grief and be unable to afford it. "I can't even afford to remember them properly" - > More crying.
There was a scene in the movie "Don't Look Up" where Leonardo DiCaprio's character talks about losing the family dog. He says, "I've never cried so much before." That was pretty much my experience after losing my first dog. I felt pretty terrible for a day or two, but the grief went down over a week or so. My wife also pushed pretty hard for getting a new puppy, which helped with the "empty house" feeling.
You will feel awful, it's normal. It sucks a lot. And it's part of loving someone or something that much. I've done it 3 times now.
First time, it was probably a week or two before I stopped getting choked up or crying when I'd come around a corner expecting to see the dog, or hear the jingle of tags and it was just empty space. It was probably a month or so before it started feeling "normal" again, and we had a second dog at the time. She had lived 17 years, and when it was time she was barely able to stand or lay down properly. I still had doubts about whether I was doing the right thing, and even now almost 15 years later, I still feel guilty about the times leading up to then when I lost patience with her and her getting old. That experience was also the one that felt the strangest. Our vet had us do all the paperwork and payments up front so we weren't dealing with it after. It's a very strange feeling knowing you're paying someone money to kill your pet. I held her, told her how good of a girl she was and pet her the entire time. It hurt. We stayed for probably 20 minutes, but at a certain point you know they're just not there anymore and in a weird way you start feeling silly talking to and crying to a thing that isn't your pet anymore.
The second was the worst by far. She'd been steadily getting more aggressive for no reason we could understand for a few years. Our life circumstances at the time didn't really let us devote the time or money it would have taken to correct the problem. Looking back now, we should have given her up to someone or someplace that could do better than we could. One day, she just hauled off and maimed our other dog. In the middle of dealing with getting that dog surgery to preserve what limbs we could, I spent a terrible 2 weeks calling every rescue, shelter and option I could think of to try and find a home for her so we wouldn't have to put her down. In the end, we got nowhere, and we couldn't keep her and take the risk again. She was only 4 years old. It broke me for a solid month and was possibly the second worst thing I've ever had to go through in my life. She was terrified, confused and didn't deserve it and there was nothing we could do different. It's been about 6 years now, and I still sometimes have nightmares about her. About failing her and having to put her down. I can still see and hear her confused cries when it happened. It still hurts, but in this case it's less the loss and more everything that happened around it.
My last one was just this year. He'd survived being mauled by the previous dog, and went on to live to an incredible 17 years, despite losing a leg to that attack at the ripe old age of 11. We'd known it was coming for a while. About 3 years before hand the vet started getting concerned about his kidneys. He wouldn't eat the special diet so the vet figured it was better to just feed him what he would eat and let things run their course. No point in starving him early just to save some kidney function after all. On the day of, I left for work and he was happy and healthy and energetic. I came home and he would not leave me alone until I acknowledged his presence, which was unusual for him. He then went to lay down and refused to move or eat after that. We took him in to the vet and despite having just been to the bathroom 3 times in the last hour or so, he peed about a gallon all over the floor. The vet confirmed what we already suspected, that his kidneys were finally giving up. We weren't ready, but you never really are. Again just sat with him, petting, telling him how good he was. How much we would miss him. Thanking him for his loyalty. It took easily a month again before it started to feel at all normal to not have him around. It's been 6 months. I still miss him a lot. Like all of them, it's a dull ache now mostly. And even though I knew that I made the right decision, there are still days I doubt myself. Where the voice in the back of my head tries to convince me that he wasn't that bad and we should have paid for more testing and some meds and we killed him for nothing because he was fine that morning. But it was the right thing.
It doesn't get easier, but of all the doubts, regrets and nightmares I've had none of them have ever been about being there. All 3 of those dogs were absolutely devoted to us and there through so much hardship. The least I could do at the end was make sure I was there for them, and despite how hard it was I don't regret it for a moment. Being there helped me to. It's hard enough walking into a place with your pet, and walking out without them. I can't imagine how I would deal with walking in and turning them over and then just walking away.
You should think now (and maybe look at) what sort of options for the end care are available from your vet. Ours takes the body afterwards, and you have different options, the cheapest being a group cremation where you get nothing back. Then at least the company our vet uses offers individual services, ranging from just getting a paw or nose print casting back to getting ashes back. It helps to know ahead of time what your options are and what you want to do so you're not trying to decide on what will be a very hard day.
I don't think anyone can prepare you for it. I don't think you're ever going to be ready. It will be normal to hurt in ways you've never thought you could hurt. It will be normal to feel silly about hurting so much over an animal. It will feel like it will never be normal again. Then it will feel guilty when it does start to feel normal. In time, the pain comes in smaller and less frequent waves. Your memories will be dominated by the rest of the time you had with them, and not the worst day. You will inevitably be given a copy of "The Rainbow Bridge". It's schmaltzy and beautiful at the same time, and may or may not be comforting. If nothing else there's comfort in knowing it's something of a ritual to get it, and it reminds you that you are just one of a long line of people who have been brought to some of the highest of highs and the lowest of lows by a ridiculous 4 (or fewer) legged companion.
It is ok to be scared. It is ok to hurt. You won't want to do it, but at least for me I can't imagine not being there, and in the end I don't think you'll regret being there. It will suck a lot at first, and less as time goes on. Whether it's worth going through again is up to you of course, but it's probably worth thinking on the fact that every pet owner before you has done it, and most of them probably went on to own many more pets. I think there's something hopeful and positive in that. Good luck, I'm sorry for what's coming, and I hope the pain fades quickly for you so that you can remember the good times sooner.
Oh man I just googled the rainbow bridge Im not ready to read that yet it hurts too much. Thank you so much for your reply, I know this isn't a long reply but just know I read each word, and it really helped me digest this, somehow knowing other people go through the same thing helps a bit, I'm not sure why
I just took my cat in for an emergency (little idiot ate plastic and we had to see if she had a block in her when she was continuing to vomit blood) and got her examined, a shot of anti-nausea medication, imaging of her gi tract, and some bland food to take home (which had to be special as she's allergic to chicken protein) for $215. I thought that was pretty damn reasonable honestly.
For example, I'm betting you're a male who likes women who's between the age of 20 and 45 and likely doesn't have children (I'm pretty sure on male between 20 and 45, but children could go either way).
Consider the assumptions present in: "Of course this also begs the question of what happens to a woman when she gets old and ugly? Where does she get her power from? She gets it from her man."
The assumption there being the only reason a man would protect a woman is because she's pretty and she's having sex with them, likely because the sexual relationship is the main way you're looking at women at this point in your life. Even if we assume women can only derive power from male proximity in nature, there's an obvious alternative answer to where she would derive power from: Her sons and grandsons. If she lives through her childbearing years, a woman in nature is far more likely to live to old age than her male mate: She has better resistance to famine, a better immune system, and if we assume the rigid gender role evo-psych of men = hunters and women = gatherers, she also engages in far less physically risky activities. Even if 'her man' is alive, the odds of him being crippled or simply unable to protect her from younger, fitter men are high. A 35 year old son or 18 year old grandson is far more valuable for protection, and far more stable: a man is always her son/grandson, whereas if we're assuming the red pillish evo-psych is true, 'her man' probably has wandering eyes and would like a younger woman and therefore should not be counted on to stick around once she dares to have wrinkles and saggy breasts. Additionally, a man who doesn't protect his mother is failing at one of the basic tests of belonging to a human tribe: Basic reciprocity. If a man won't give to the one person who took care of him when she gained nothing/he was at his most vulnerable, then how can his fellow hunters (who he's less attached to) trust that he'll reciprocate when they help him? This assumption also outright dismisses the bonds between say, a brother and a sister. Do you think most men wouldn't protect their sisters because they're not sex objects?
Older women are also far more able to keep contributing to the tribe than older men if we adhere to this strictly gendered idea of primitive humans. They can care for children while women in their prime gather, they can rear children whose mothers have died (and this is common due to the fatality rate of childbirth), they can take care of the sick, etc. A man who can't keep up with his male duties is far less useful - a man who is over 60 and has 60-80% of the speed and strength of his fellows, or a bad limb, or sensory impairments, is far less able to hunt than a woman over 60 is to caretake. They're more likely to live longer and therefore a better repository of historical knowledge.
Idk, I just always find it interesting which physiological and psychological aspects of humanity are ignored or unmentioned whenever someone is making some kind of argument about primal gender roles.
reply