Arts/Society What Are Your Thoughts On The Interaction Of Male / Female Relationship Of Marriage?

[spnadmin]

p/s My husband pointed out that A and B, taken together make C, and C might be the correct answer. So you can see he and I don't agree on how to word the post, but we made a joint effort on that. We are still speaking. I deliberately separated the two issues to be clear that sometimes choices have to be made in life. Putting A and B together leaves things blurred.

lol

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Here is the question. Which is more important to a marriage (however you define it)? a) Honesty and efforts made between partners regarding what they hope to gain as a couple from the marriage OR b) Making a sincere effort to correct personal flaws that bother our spouse, so that there is less interpersonal stress?

Good question.... I am thinking more A because B encroaches on trying to change people into they aren't. I believe you should marry someone because you want to be with them as they are, and not who you want to change them into. Honesty is definitely important, as is loyalty.

Love me.... Love my flaws... and there are many I'm sure!!! LOL

We don't have a choice on other people's personalities but we do have a choice on how we react to them. If you don't let the small nit-picky stuff about your spouse bother you, then it won't.

Sorry if I started a gender debate... it really is related to the interaction in marriage as it pertains to gender roles. I just don't see them as being pertinent in today's society as they once were. As long as people do what makes them happy and are not forced into a role by society or restricted from doing things based on their gender, then I am a-ok with that (even if I don't quite understand or grasp the draw to wanting to be being domestic myself). And as long as I am not ridiculed for following my own dreams...

 

[ExploringSikhi]

think about it, or I will have to start using pictures to illustrate points instead, they evolved, we are evolving.

Harry Ji, “artificial evolution” and biological evolution are not the same thing; I don’t see how they can even be compared. Computers, cars, airplanes and other tools created by humans to make our lives easier are changing, yes, but they are not living organisms. You can open up a computer, change the hard drive, upgrade the operating system, install a new box and voila, it isn’t even the same machine anymore, there is no memory of the past that affects its performance.

Living organisms are different, we do not shed off our past, it is ingrained in our DNA. Just because we have flying machines and centrally heated homes, does not mean that our genetic makeup has been altered, it is the same as it has been for hundreds of thousands of years, a few thousand years of civilization will not change anything.

The answer to your question is hidden in the above paragraph, all 'masculinity' and 'femininity' is simply evolution, they arose from facets that allowed us to survive in our environment, the man was the hunter, the woman was the nurturer, today, brute strength is irrelevant, both men and woman can pretty much do anything the other can do,

You are right in that masculinity and femininity have been defined for us by our prehistoric past, by the existence of gender roles and separate responsibilities. But just because we go to a supermarket to get our food rather than go out to hunt prey, it doesn’t mean that masculinity and femininity have no role to play in our 21st century existence. The purpose of human existence, as per evolution, is reproduction, that is the goal of every organism, to pass their genes on into the next generation. An organism that does not pass its genes on into the next generation is removed from the gene pool, the “bloodline” ends and they are forgotten, those that had a natural inclination for reproduction and had the means to do so lives on through their offspring.

For most people, reproduction is the greatest driving force behind their day-to-day lives, it powers everything we do. From the way we dress to the way we speak to the way we try to look (going to the gym, working out etc…) to the way we act, even what career path to follow, for most people, it is all to do with attracting the opposite gender for the purposes of procreation.

People may not talk about masculinity and femininity in public as much as before but that doesn’t mean their significance has decreased. What goes up must come down, this was true long before a formal theory of gravity was ever drafted, similarly, all of us have natural, internal inclinations towards certain traits in the opposite, they are for the most part beyond our control, masculinity and femininity have existed long before the words were created, masculinity and femininity still exist and will exist into the foreseeable future, at least until we can find a way to alter our genetic makeup.

I am not interested in a lecture from the past, I am talking about the now.

Harry Ji,
“Knowing where you came from is no less important than knowing where you are going.”
- Neil deGrasse Tyson.

are these traits really relevant today?

I put it to you that your entire argument is based on facts from many centuries ago, in todays world, what is a male trait, and what is a female trait, just one of each will do

Yes, very much so. Mail traits and feminine traits are the same today as they have been for thousands, if not millions of years. I will give a few physical and personality traits.
Physical: Masculine= wide chest, broad shoulders, defined arms, calves and quads (basically, lean body) and to a lesser extent, height (women tend to prefer men who are taller than them).
Feminine= wide hips (child-bearing), supple breasts, petite frame and height (men tend to go for women who are shorter than them).

Personality: Masculine= probably the number one masculine personality trait is decisiveness, it shows confidence and power, which combined demand respect, and make that particular man a leader. Men who are leaders and have high social status tend to do much better than men who are not leaders and do not have high social status.

Feminine= Empathy is a powerful feminine trait, it implies warmth and kind-heartedness, necessary qualities when it comes to raising stable children.

Now again, there is no such thing as an exclusively masculine or feminine trait, women have a certain level of decisiveness just like men have empathy, but feminine traits are, on average, present to a much more powerful degree in females than in males, just like masculine traits are much more powerful in males than in females.
I will try to dig it up for you if you want, but there is a science between masculinity and femininity in that the more masculine a male is, the more feminine of a mate he seeks out. The more feminine a female is, the more masculine of a mate she will seek out. So for example, a man who is 90% masculine and 10% feminine would be most attracted to a woman who is 90% feminine and 10% masculine (and vice-versa), whereas a man who is 60% masculine and 40% feminine would be most attracted to a woman who is 60% feminine and 40% masculine, a yin-yang of sorts, we try to find someone who will even us out. How masculinity and femininity are determined has much to do with testosterone and estrogen, but that is a whole different discussion.

We are not androgynous blobs of flesh, there are separate 2 genders, they have historically existed for largely different reason and they are not the same. Physical strength and speed may not have much to do with putting food on the table in the 21st century, but masculinity and femininity are as relevant today as ever in the great struggle for the survival of the human species.

 

[ExploringSikhi]

So how do you explain those people who slipped through the evolutionary cracks?? You know, those of us who refuse to accept our evolutionary lot in life as the subordinate?

I once again implore you to read my posts in their entirety before drawing conclusions. I have never once said that women should be forced to act as subordinates.

I really have no maternal instinct? Maybe a defective biological clock?? Changing diapers just doesn't appeal to me. If I stayed at home all day, I'd sooner watch tv or be on the net than scrub anything... or better even, go out for a walk or to the mall, to the gym... anything but scrubbing and cooking. I don't mind baking sometimes... but usually meals for me are frozen microwave things... I watch Hell's Kitchen and wonder how people actually like cooking... and then have to clean up the mess made from cooking!

Quite a few men and women today have no desire to reproduce, it is quite simply really: in the past, children were seen as an investment. The more offspring you had, the greater your chances of survival. Children were put to work really early, there wasn’t much (if any) formal education because most jobs required only physical strength and experience working with elders. Once they started working or hunting (depending on how far back in time we are going here), it meant more income/more food on the table, and the greatest benefit of all, someone to look after you in your old age when you don’t have the strength to feed yourself.

That has all changed over the course of a few decades, children are no longer seen as an investment, they are more a liability. Each child costs hundreds of thousands of dollars at the very least to raise, send to school, nurture and support into adulthood. And because of the nature of society in the west, they tend not to stay with you once they reach maturity and are increasingly placing their elderly parents into old people homes. It is sad to say it, but children aren’t good for much anymore, which is why a lot of people are turned off by the idea. My own brother, for example, does not want any, he sees them as a waste of time and money, a drain on his golden years. On the other side, I’d love a large family, I can’t see myself having any less than 3 kids, but I’d much rather have 4-5 (if I can find me a woman who is willing to have even more than that, I’ll be putting a ring on that finger asap!). We were brought into the world and raised by the same parents in the same environment, he has decided that children are a liability, I still see them as an investment (at least somewhat), which is why he doesn’t want any and I do.

The writing is on the wall, look at parts of the world where it is still useful to have children (Africa, South Asia etc…) and you’ll see that their birth rate is much higher than anything observable in the west (where children are no longer necessary for survival purposes).



Another thing, and this isn’t directed at you Akasha Ji, more at everyone on the forum, but Sikhism is a relatively small religion, less than 30 million adherents worldwide. As I understand it, Sikhs make up about 60% of the population of Indian Punjab, Hindus are about 35% and the remaining 5% are Christians/Muslims/non-religious etc… I will try to find the article if anyone is interested, but there were statistics released a while ago about how Sikhs in Punjab now have a sub-replacement level fertility rate in Punjab (a birthrate of less than 2.1, the Sikhs birthrate is about 1.9). Which means that there are not enough Sikh babies being born to replace the current generation. Couple this with the facts that Sikhs love to leave Punjab to immigrate to western countries and that Hindus in Punjab still have a replacement level fertility (if not slightly higher), it means that within a matter of decades, likely before the middle of this century, Sikhs will no longer be the dominant religious group of Punjab, their own homeland, the only place in the world where they constitute a majority of the population.

This is bad news, because as much as anyone may not like to admit it, numbers do matter, they matter a lot, in fact democracy is a numbers game. As the number of Sikhs decreases, so too will their overall political power as well as the relevance of the religion. A religion is spread by the adherents, no Sikhs= no one to propagate the faith, and if the fertility level remains below replacement level for long enough, the religion will eventually all but die out.

I am not expecting an answer for this question typed out in public by anyone, but how many people (male and female) reading this post have (or plan on having) enough children to replace themselves and their partner? How many of the older members on here have produced at least two children who turned out to be Sikhs (because things like interfaith marriages don’t always make this possible), the bare minimum to keep the Sikh population in the world constant in the next generation? If I converted to Sikhism (and I think it is a wonderful religion, so it is not out of the books), I would personally want to have as many children as possible, because as sad as it is, the way things are going, decline is the only thing in store when it comes to the future of Sikhism (from my own observations).

I joined the military as my career

Specialized as a submariner, which is STILL a male dominated specialty in the Navy and most countries don't even allow it! I was one of Canada's first 5 women to qualify!

I ride a motorcycle

I have skydived... numerous times

I applaud your determination, that is very impressive and you have every right to be proud of yourself.

My #1 BIGGEST pet peeve is being told by a man that I can't do something just because I am not a man!

I have not seen anyone on this thread say anything of the sort and if you are talking about me, I kindly ask you refrain from putting words in my mouth.

Have a nice day.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

I have not seen anyone on this thread say anything of the sort and if you are talking about me, I kindly ask you refrain from putting words in my mouth.

Have a nice day.

Nobody on here said that to me... not aimed at you or anyone on here... it was a generalization... because so many women in the world are put into that position where they are restricted by their husbands and not allowed to do things that he himself does. And some of them are Sikh...

In fact I remember a guy awhile back (that I had posted about on here) who added me on FB - I have since deleted him. But he claimed to be deeply religious (Sikh) and also said directly to me, that Sikhs should not 'allow' their women to work. The very fact he used the word 'allow' implies control over. The choice to work should be hers....

Unless the interaction of Sikh marriage puts men in control of women in a heirarchy (like Muslim / even Christian) but I have never found anything in Gurbani etc to support that... only the opposite... that women and men are equal. Hence this thread!

So it was just a generalization based on some situations I have come across...

 

[ExploringSikhi]

Nobody on here said that to me... not aimed at you or anyone on here... it was a generalization... because so many women in the world are put into that position where they are restricted by their husbands and not allowed to do things that he himself does. And some of them are Sikh...

In fact I remember a guy awhile back (that I had posted about on here) who added me on FB - I have since deleted him. But he claimed to be deeply religious (Sikh) and also said directly to me, that Sikhs should not 'allow' their women to work. The very fact he used the word 'allow' implies control over. The choice to work should be hers....

Unless the interaction of Sikh marriage puts men in control of women in a heirarchy (like Muslim / even Christian) but I have never found anything in Gurbani etc to support that... only the opposite... that women and men are equal. Hence this thread!

So it was just a generalization based on some situations I have come across...

The guy sounds like a jerk, but thank you for clearing it up :winkingmunda:

I do not come from a Sikh background, but all the Sikhs I have known in my life (most of whom were born here in the west) have been pro-equality and have had no problem with allowing the female members of their family to work and do what they want.

I am of mixed Italian and Greek background, my father worked and my mother stayed at home for most of my childhood, except for a while when my father was injured and could not find work (he did labor), then he stayed home and my mom had to work and she hated it. She says she enjoys running her home much more than going out to work for someone else, for her the most satisfaction comes from raising her family and being the glue that kept everyone together.

I am all for women doing whatever work they want, but what I really dislike is this idea that if a woman stays at home, has kids, raises them, is a housewife, then she is wasting her life/is being made to submit/is being oppressed, that her life has no meaning. That doing things the conventional way shows lack of intelligence, that there is something wrong with wanting to be a loving mother/wife, I suspect it has a lot to do with this new attitude of "I don't need no man." It makes me cringe, just like "yolo", of course women need men, just like men need women, we are bound to each other, can't survive without each other, that is the way things have been set up, it is out of our control.

Anyone who thinks there is no satisfaction in being a housewife, that it is somehow oppressive, needs to speak to my mother.

 

[Harry Haller]

I am of mixed Italian and Greek background

you write like a Sikh, especially your last post, bravo,

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Personality: Masculine= probably the number one masculine personality trait is decisiveness, it shows confidence and power, which combined demand respect, and make that particular man a leader. Men who are leaders and have high social status tend to do much better than men who are not leaders and do not have high social status.

Feminine= Empathy is a powerful feminine trait, it implies warmth and kind-heartedness, necessary qualities when it comes to raising stable children.

What about women who are born leaders?? Mai Bhago for example?

Are you saying women are indecisive, lack confidence, and do not deserve respect?? And are you implying men are not kind-hearted??

Why can't someone (male or female) possess qualities from both examples?? Be a born leader, be confident, decisive, someone people look up to the leadership of, and yet also be kind hearted and empathetic??

Are you saying that women who are born leaders are not looked up to? And that men who are kind hearted and empathetic are looked down upon?

 

[ExploringSikhi]

you write like a Sikh, especially your last post, bravo,

Is that a good thing?

 

[ExploringSikhi]

What about women who are born leaders?? Mai Bhago for example?

Are you saying women are indecisive, lack confidence, and do not deserve respect?? And are you implying men are not kind-hearted??

Why can't someone (male or female) possess qualities from both examples?? Be a born leader, be confident, decisive, someone people look up to the leadership of, and yet also be kind hearted and empathetic??

Are you saying that women who are born leaders are not looked up to? And that men who are kind hearted and empathetic are looked down upon?

I don't even....

sure why not, that is exactly what I am saying lol

Come at me

 

[Harry Haller]

Harry Ji, “artificial evolution” and biological evolution are not the same thing; I don’t see how they can even be compared. Computers, cars, airplanes and other tools created by humans to make our lives easier are changing, yes, but they are not living organisms. You can open up a computer, change the hard drive, upgrade the operating system, install a new box and voila, it isn’t even the same machine anymore, there is no memory of the past that affects its performance

let me put it another way, things change, times change, people change

You are right in that masculinity and femininity have been defined for us by our prehistoric past, by the existence of gender roles and separate responsibilities. But just because we go to a supermarket to get our food rather than go out to hunt prey, it doesn’t mean that masculinity and femininity have no role to play in our 21st century existence. The purpose of human existence, as per evolution, is reproduction, that is the goal of every organism, to pass their genes on into the next generation. An organism that does not pass its genes on into the next generation is removed from the gene pool, the “bloodline” ends and they are forgotten, those that had a natural inclination for reproduction and had the means to do so lives on through their offspring.

In Sikhism we live through our actions, and it is our actions that live on after we die, I myself have no kids..

For most people, reproduction is the greatest driving force behind their day-to-day lives, it powers everything we do. From the way we dress to the way we speak to the way we try to look (going to the gym, working out etc…) to the way we act, even what career path to follow, for most people, it is all to do with attracting the opposite gender for the purposes of procreation

well that explains why I look like a tramp most of the time, again, in Sikhism it is most important to view all women as sister, mother or daughter, maybe that is why within Sikhsim complete sexual equality is so important.Love is deemed more important than sexual attraction, true love, the love that transgresses looks and focuses on within.

Yes, very much so. Mail traits and feminine traits are the same today as they have been for thousands, if not millions of years. I will give a few physical and personality traits.
Physical: Masculine= wide chest, broad shoulders, defined arms, calves and quads (basically, lean body) and to a lesser extent, height (women tend to prefer men who are taller than them).
Feminine= wide hips (child-bearing), supple breasts, petite frame and height (men tend to go for women who are shorter than them).

hmmm I look like an egg with knitting needles for arms and legs

Personality: Masculine= probably the number one masculine personality trait is decisiveness, it shows confidence and power, which combined demand respect, and make that particular man a leader. Men who are leaders and have high social status tend to do much better than men who are not leaders and do not have high social status.

hahaha sorry , I am reading this to my wife who confirms I am the most indecisive person she has ever met, as for being a leader with confidence and power, uhmm no she is giggling and shaking her head, well I am not a leader, and I have a very low social status, but I think I am doing fine, do you mean much better financially? or with women? or in life in general, does this apply to say spirituality? or wisdom?

Feminine= Empathy is a powerful feminine trait, it implies warmth and kind-heartedness, necessary qualities when it comes to raising stable children.

your sole feminine trait is empathy??

Now again, there is no such thing as an exclusively masculine or feminine trait, women have a certain level of decisiveness just like men have empathy, but feminine traits are, on average, present to a much more powerful degree in females than in males, just like masculine traits are much more powerful in males than in females.

I display none of your masculine traits, and wife (thank you menopause) shows none of the female ones, being of Sikh thinking, traditional traits give way to pragmatic and Creator driven traits, as defined in the Mool Mantra. Maybe Sikhism is one of the few religions that empowers women to be equal, maybe that is why Sikh women have what you call male traits, maybe in Sikhism all traits are up for grabs

masculinity and femininity are as relevant today as ever in the great struggle for the survival of the human species

I don't think so, sometimes I even forget my wife is a woman, she is my best friend, my equal, there is no masculinity or femininity in our house, I wear her tights in cold winters, and she steals my socks.We laugh a lot, sometimes we get low, sometimes we clean, or walk the dogs, or cook, but there is no way I am playing some ridiculous game whereby we both adopt facets of personality that ceased to have any real merit long ago.

 

[Harry Haller]

Is that a good thing?

when your mind aligns with the truth, its always a good thing

 

[Ishna]

The traits themselves are neither masculine or feminine - they're just traits. It just so happens that generally, women display more of some traits, and men display more of others.

A good marriage, as someone has already pointed out earlier in this thread, is one where your traits and your partner s traits balance each other out.

In the West its easier to do this in minute detail because we have the liberty to take our time and select a suitable partner for ourselves. I suppose in the past it wasn't so easy and time was of the essence, so a generalised model was employed.

Some cultures, like the Punjabi culture, do currently try to adhear to these old marital models. However I see quite a shift of focus in the diaspora, where in my country the emphasis is on educating your children, male and female, as far as they can possibly go, and each aggressively pursuing careers.

Slowly but surely I'm sure the rest of the developing world will end up in a similar place.

 

[ExploringSikhi]

let me put it another way, things change, times change, people change

I have explained this as well as I could. Biological and artificial changes cannot even be compared. I did not make that rule.

In Sikhism we live through our actions, and it is our actions that live on after we die, I myself have no kids..




well that explains why I look like a tramp most of the time, again, in Sikhism it is most important to view all women as sister, mother or daughter, maybe that is why within Sikhsim complete sexual equality is so important.Love is deemed more important than sexual attraction, true love, the love that transgresses looks and focuses on within.



hmmm I look like an egg with knitting needles for arms and legs



hahaha sorry , I am reading this to my wife who confirms I am the most indecisive person she has ever met, as for being a leader with confidence and power, uhmm no she is giggling and shaking her head, well I am not a leader, and I have a very low social status, but I think I am doing fine, do you mean much better financially? or with women? or in life in general, does this apply to say spirituality? or wisdom?



your sole feminine trait is empathy??



I display none of your masculine traits, and wife (thank you menopause) shows none of the female ones, being of Sikh thinking, traditional traits give way to pragmatic and Creator driven traits, as defined in the Mool Mantra. Maybe Sikhism is one of the few religions that empowers women to be equal, maybe that is why Sikh women have what you call male traits, maybe in Sikhism all traits are up for grabs



I don't think so, sometimes I even forget my wife is a woman, she is my best friend, my equal, there is no masculinity or femininity in our house, I wear her tights in cold winters, and she steals my socks.We laugh a lot, sometimes we get low, sometimes we clean, or walk the dogs, or cook, but there is no way I am playing some ridiculous game whereby we both adopt facets of personality that ceased to have any real merit long ago.

Harry Ji, if that is what works for you and your wife, then more power to you! There are 7 billion people in this world, no two are exactly the same, of course there are going to be variations in taste and preferences, our genetic diversity is our greatest strength.

Everything I have mentioned thus far has to do with averages, the information is not mine nor did I make the rules. The argument is not against me, it is against evolution and scientific evidence.

You may not be decisive, your wife may not care, but the same does not apply to most people out there (unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise).

Your wife may not display feminine traits, you may not care, but again, the same does not apply to most people out there.

I am glad you two have found each other and that you are happy, but variations in taste/preferences are to be expected when you have a population of 7 billion people, and a few variances are not enough to undermine millions of years of mamillian evolution, natural selection, scientific evidence and data collected from surveying thousands of men and women around the world.

 

[spnadmin]

Re:

I am glad you two have found each other and that you are happy, but variations in taste/preferences are to be expected when you have a population of 7 billion people, and a few variances are not enough to undermine millions of years of mamillian evolution, natural selection, scientific evidence and data collected from surveying thousands of men and women around the world.

This might help

Critique of Evolutionary Psychology, by L. Gannon, in Psychology, Evolution and Gender, 4.2 August 2002, 173-218.

http://www.ou.edu/cls/online/LSTD5700behavior/pdfs/unit4_gannon.pdf

Empirical psychology has consistently questioned whether many gender-based assumptions made in the field of evolutionary psychology rise to the level of science, or that its conclusions qualify as scientific evidence.

Lighter reading on the topic in "It Ain't Necessarily So." by A. Gottlieb, New Yorker Magazine at http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/09/17/120917crbo_books_gottlieb?currentPage=1

Barash muses, at the end of his book, on the fact that our minds have a stubborn fondness for simple-sounding explanations that may be false. That’s true enough, and not only at bedtime. It complements a fondness for thinking that one has found the key to everything. Perhaps there’s an evolutionary explanation for such proclivities.

Lot's of other resources if anyone is looking.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Regarding evolution and where we are headed (in say, 5 million years or so) this may interest some of you:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...icts-males-extinct--says-process-started.html

Basically it's saying that the X chromosome in women (of which we have two) contain 1000 genes each... all healthy. But men have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. The Y chromosome is losing genes over time and now contains only 100. Even worse, is that genes can not be repaired by the other chromosome in men, because they are different... an X chromosome can not repair a Y. But in women, since they are both X, they can repair each other. This means eventually, the Y chromosome will be no more and that male gender will no longer be around!

This is still theory... but there is evidence it's already happening in nature... not just in humans. A breed of rat has already survived the loss of it's Y chromosome, inheriting another chromosome in it's place, creating a brand new species. This could happen to humans... or medicine could step in by that time and stop the decay of the Y chromosome.

But... should we interfere if that is what nature intends? Would that be messing with Hukam?? Women can actually create life without men even today. Using an egg from one woman and a cell from another, through IV fertilization two women can actually produce a child without a man, carry it to term and give birth. The same can not be said for men however. Who knows, along with the extinction of the male gender in 5 million years, maybe women will become asexual as an evolutionary way to keep the race going.

----

Not marriage related / gender roles etc. But since the idea of women 'accepting' a subordinate place as being the natural and feminine way of things, and men being the natural leaders - came up thorough the mention of evolution as dictating these roles... I just wanted to point out, that there is evidence that evolution is already working to change these roles!! And along with the physical changes happening at the microscopic level, changes in thought are inevitable as well!

So......live stuck in the past??? Or embrace change and the future, which is what nature (Hukam) is telling us???

 

[spnadmin]

Akasha ji

In my opinion, you have taken a correct view of what biology can explain and describe, which is something that 'evolutionary psychologists' are either unable to do. Or they are struggling to hold onto the idea of a stone age brain in a modern skull. Our biology does evolve, and with that the way we interact in our social worlds. Great points.

p/s the dailymail article may be over-the-top, but it makes the point that nothing is permanent.

 

[Harry Haller]

Your wife may not display feminine traits, you may not care, but again, the same does not apply to most people out there.

I am glad you two have found each other and that you are happy, but variations in taste/preferences are to be expected when you have a population of 7 billion people, and a few variances are not enough to undermine millions of years of mamillian evolution, natural selection, scientific evidence and data collected from surveying thousands of men and women around the world.

In Sikhism, the truth is a big thing, a really big thing, being true to yourself, being honest, being truthful to those around you. Would she prefer me to be more decisive? more manly? less of a clown? but that is who I am, I cannot change who I am, I can try and mask it and pretend I am someone else, but what does that achieve, if both parties put on a mask and pretend to don your male and female traits?

Would I prefer it if she were more feminine? if she looked at me adoringly, instead of with a mixture of amusement and affection, last night, whilst playing with the dogs, Bran, whacked me right in the eye with his paw, hard enough to give me a black eye, as I screamed and grabbed my eye, she was more concerned with the puppy, Oh look, he thinks your angry at him, daddys not angry with you, he is just silly. Silly??? the pain was unbearable, yet my dear nurse wife was fussing over the puppy. Yes, at that moment, I wished my wife had fussed over me a bit, but that would have been a lie, a game, to be fair, 20 mins earlier she had been bitten by the ferret, and I had laughed my socks off, Tristan and Iseult we are not......

It is not whether it works or not that is the issue, it is the lack of need for either of us to expect the other to play traditional male and female roles, yeah it can be hard, she is a community nurse, works hard and long, as well as having health problems, so she is tired a lot, so I do all the cooking, a lot of the cleaning, walk the dogs, as well as a 12-14 hour day, 7 days a week. To her, taking up the slack while she gets her health back is what she needs in a man, rather than the decisive, leader society feels she should have.

Do you know what my favourite question to people is? how would your life change if you lived on a desert island, or if you lived in a world with no other people, to most, hugely, because everything we do, say, is geared towards society, how we look in society, what does society think of us, my relatives, my friends, what will they all say.

My life would not change at all, because I could not care less what people think of me, try it, its quite liberating!

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Akasha ji

In my opinion, you have taken a correct view of what biology can explain and describe, which is something that 'evolutionary psychologists' are either unable to do. Or they are struggling to hold onto the idea of a stone age brain in a modern skull. Our biology does evolve, and with that the way we interact in our social worlds. Great points.

p/s the dailymail article may be over-the-top, but it makes the point that nothing is permanent.

That was my point too... that the idea of men becoming extinct may be a bit left field and is still theory... but there is evidence to support that very well could happen since it's happened to other species already. Where we differ, is that because of our knowledge and determination, I bet before that time, scientists will step in to find a way to stop the further degradation of the Y chromosome to 'Save the Men'

It does make you think though...in terms of the bigger picture, as in survival of the species over millennia... which gender is really the stronger?? And I wonder if that Y chromosome lacking in genes even today, is at least part contributor to the fact that women on average, tend to live longer than men?

True, nature is always evolving... physically, even microscopically, and our changing thought patterns are only inevitable... even pertaining to gender roles and interactions in relationships.

 

[ExploringSikhi]

Re:
This might help

Critique of Evolutionary Psychology, by L. Gannon, in Psychology, Evolution and Gender, 4.2 August 2002, 173-218.

http://www.ou.edu/cls/online/LSTD5700behavior/pdfs/unit4_gannon.pdf

Empirical psychology has consistently questioned whether many gender-based assumptions made in the field of evolutionary psychology rise to the level of science, or that its conclusions qualify as scientific evidence.

Lighter reading on the topic in "It Ain't Necessarily So." by A. Gottlieb, New Yorker Magazine at http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/09/17/120917crbo_books_gottlieb?currentPage=1



Lot's of other resources if anyone is looking.

I am surprised we are having this discussion now. Evolutionary psychology and evolutionary biology, from my own readings, seem to go hand-in-hand. If we are doubting the psychology today, does that mean it is not long before people on this thread start doubting the validity of evolution itself? I would be very surprised if it did happen, considering that Sikhism teaches reason and logic, I get the feeling the only reason evolutionary psychology is now being doubted in this thread is emotional, but not wanting it to be true doesn't make it any more false.

I could just as easily link these:

http://www.pitt.edu/~machery/papers/Discovery_and_Confirmation_in_Evolutionary_Psychology_FINAL.pdf

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/is-evolutionary-psychology-worthless/

Here are 2 excerpts from that last link:
　
　
"Now I am known as a critic of evolutionary psychology, and I have been quite critical."
　
"I have to admit, though, that as the field has evolved, I’ve become less critical of it as a whole. That is, I think, as it should be!"
　
"Anyway, those who dismiss evolutionary psychology on the grounds that it’s mere "storytelling" are not aware of how the field operates these days. And, if they are to be consistent, they must also dismiss any studies of the evolutionary basis of animal behavior. Yes, there’s some dirty bathwater in evolutionary psychology, but there’s also a baby in there!"
　
Evolutionary psychology in a nut shell suggest that behaviors, like genes are selected for their ability to self replicate. It makes sense. If you had the unpleasant behavior of punching everyone you meet in the face you would likely be less sucessful at reproduction than someone who had the behavior of giving everyone they met a sincere smile. Some behaviors are hard wired in our biology.
　
But, because evolutionary psychology doesn't make any falsifiable predictions, it tends to get some criticism. It works backwards by taking what we observe today and hypothesizing what the cause for that mechanism was evolutionarily. There isn't anything wrong with that, most people wouldn't bash a detective for "working backwards" by looking at the clues, retracing footsetps and putting the pieces of the puzzle together in that way. There will always be people who disagree, heck there are still people today who think that the Earth is flat, but no other theory has stood the test of time like evolution and until we are presented with one that could, there is no logical reason to dismiss evolutionary biology OR psychology as false.

Akasha ji

In my opinion, you have taken a correct view of what biology can explain and describe, which is something that 'evolutionary psychologists' are either unable to do. Or they are struggling to hold onto the idea of a stone age brain in a modern skull. Our biology does evolve, and with that the way we interact in our social worlds. Great points.

p/s the dailymail article may be over-the-top, but it makes the point that nothing is permanent.

Nobody said it doesn't. But it's gonna take far more than a couple thousand years to make any significant difference.