I believe that most women would also let their husbands die in order to save their child. Both parents become second class citizens when a baby is involved. The baby belongs to both of them, and is part of both of them, and is the future of both of them. Breeding partners can be replaced.Interesting point, but I'm not so sure.Looking at it with deeply historical goggles, men were the hunters, women the gatherers. From the time permanent settlements were around, women congregated around the the home, while men traveled for commerce, war, and food. Women gestate and are attached to a child for an extended period of time, men really just need to sow the field.Going back so far our goggles give us only a glimpse, one of the theories as to why humans are bipedal is that you lovely females insisted we participate in child care, and bipedalism evolved so the males could carry food back to mom and junior from greater distances, giving the earliest hominids a competitive advantage. If it weren't for women, we men would not be erect.And at the prehuman base is passing on the genes. It all tells me human males are least invested in their female partner, more invested in their progeny, and mostly invested in themselves, while females have a deep bond to the child via proximity during gestation and the early stages, and have found a higher success rate by keeping dad in the picture.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. M