At Random, Sex and So On

[elalacran]

My out of date copy of internet explorer has barred me from myspace and now from posting on my blog. (Is there some kind of lawsuit possible, discrimination against obsolete browsers, a digital analogue to age discrimination?)

I can still put up something here, so here goes, if the Admin will look the other way. Random thoughts.
----------------------------------------
That PBS Clinton documentary aired Mon and Tues brought up some nearly forgotten names. Lewinski, for example. I think it is deplorable what happened to that young woman. All her private life, her laundry, for goodness sake, opened up to public view like a rotten can of sardines. And all she did was to act naturally. "Naturally," meaning to rub herself up against a powerful charming man as her hormones prescribed. She was the victim. There's something dirty about rooting around in somebody else's sex life. You don't do that to your daughter (I hope) and it shouldn't have happened to Lewinski no matter who she was involved with. If you want to get your rocks off that way, buy a porn movie and watch pros who are paid for it.
----------------------------------------
This reminds me of something else. I recently heard an account of a man blaming his wife for having gotten pregnant which resulted in their marriage. Well, duh, wasn't pregnancy a two-party decision? For a man to ignore his role in a pregnancy is the pinnacle of male chauvinism and obliviousness.
---------------------------------------
Speaking of reproduction. I think we ought to give children the surname of their mothers and not their fathers. We KNOW who the mothers are; who the father was is always a tad uncertain. This would help a lot in tracing genealogies. As it is, genealogy is a house of built on sand.
---------------------------------------
It is reasonable for children to perpetuate their mother's family names through generations because children inherit more biologically from mothers than fathers. All cell organelles such as mitochondria and extra-nuclear DNA comes from the mother. Plus the X and Y chromosomes are not equivalent; the Y is smaller and carries fewer and less necessary genes than does the X. One cannot survive with only a Y chromosome and no X. Which brings up that hypothesis that is making the news that the Y chromosome is vestigial and will disappear.
----------------------------------------------------------

Picture a son confronting his father: all you gave me was one stinking Y chromosome! My sister got an X! You need to make it up to me!

[anonthemoose]

I'm afraid that is how it is with men and masculinity. Most of what we do, as manly men, has to do with compensating for our inadequacies, due to that tiny chromosome. We have "little Y" syndrome.

I haven't done any research on it, but I heard someone, generally reliable, say that there seems to be a bit of a drift away from the levels of testosterone enhanced sociopathic behaviors that made men successful in the past. It's obvious that we have a lot of drifting to do yet, but it gives me hope.

On the other hand, society continues to pay big money to see pretty violent and sociopathic behaviors, on individual, and small group levels. Large scale wars seem to be less favorably though.

Society tends to support and exaggerate gender tendencies.

I think we would be healthier and live longer if we admitted to ourselves and women that they are the superior sex/gender, regardless of what they may have been raised to believe.

Probably be fewer rapes and such also.

[elalacran]

The problem with surnames from the mother's side is that fathers are already separated enough from their children. Give them the mother's name and fathers become more like tomcats than they already are. Giving their name to a kid is a point of pride for them and ties them down, which is the point of all the cultural stuff about marriage and fatherhood.