|He rides out of town, alone as a woman watches, wishing she could be with
him. Onto his next adventure-cleaning the bad guys out of a town, avenging
a friend, or fighting Indians, he's the quintessential loner-strong, as
quick with his fists as he is with the gun, and proud. He's the Hollywood
Western hero from the 1950's and 60's. This heroic figure glamorized by
Hollywood is nothing new. The only difference is the hero wore western
garb. Over two thousand years ago Homer eulogized Achilles and Hector-both
great warriors-- in his Iliad. The Romans admired the best fighters. A
thousand years later----the strongest, most loyal, and the most fierce
yet tender hearted knights became the heroes of a Medieval Europe. And
it didn't stop there. Each century took the place of the century before
it but nearly always common virtues of physical strength, courage, morale
character, and intelligence were admired by both men and women. Not just
in Europe or the U.S. but universally. The Japanese samurai, the Sioux
Indian Warrior or the Eskimo hunter--almost all cultures revered the hero
who embodied these universal strengths. And let me assure you, women went
for the heroes, and scorned the weak with few exceptions----if given a
choice that is. But that was then and now is now. We are now living in
the age of the anti hero. In the 1800's Charles Darwin introduced his theory
of the "Survival of the fittest". That is in simple terms...the strongest
genes survive to live on in future generations. I think he was wrong. At
least in today's world.
Let's look at the empirical evidence first. What do we see? I see many, perhaps most beautiful women pairing off with ugly, weak, unscrupulous men. Don't believe me? Take a look around you. And how many men in today's world are living off women compared to in the past? When Darwin wrote his theories on evolution is this what he really had in mind?
Okay then...that is the empirical data. Doesn't make sense but there you have it. The question is why. I have an answer for that which I am going to call my "Immodest Proposal" which you might disagree with.
Women in general have a nurturing instinct. If they didn't they wouldn't be women. After all, it was they who were intended to bring up the children. And let's face it, children are weak compared to adults. Women were designed by their Creator to nurture and care for the weak whether we call this creator God or swamp ooze. So what happens when women meet men who are weak, puny little munchkins? They want to nurture them. They feel sorry for them and believe..."Now if only I can do it right I can make that little munchkin come out right. I can change him." Or a man who is a drug addict, an alcoholic, or just a lazy bum? Once again, the natural urge to nurture comes out. Unfortunately even these men have dicks and are unblessed by sexual urges.
The stage is set for the weakest, least capable and most cowardly men to do one helluva lot of procreating. Didn't the same stage exist in the past-----say 2000 years ago? Sure it did but there were some very strong forces that existed to make sure it didn't happen that often.
Let's just examine for a moment a Sioux Indian village of 150 years ago. A wise man, a medicine man like Sitting Bull, was respected. A fierce warrior such as Crazy Horse was looked upon as a great chief. Both Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse endured the torture of the Sun Dance where the man going through the ordeal had slivers of bone stuck through the sinews of his chest. Ropes were attached to the slivers and the "dancer" was hoisted off his feet from the tepee poles and slowly loaded down with buffalo skulls until the bone slivers broke through his chest muscles and he crashed down onto the floor of the tepee. Men who went through the Sun Dance were regarded with awe. They got the best women.
It didn't end there. Warriors were expected to be honest, courageous in battle, as well as good hunters to provide for their families. Of course, not everyone had what it took to be a warrior. So what happened to the guys who as little boys growing up didn't exhibit the intelligence, or the strength or the courage to bring down the buffalo with his bow and arrow? Or who would prove to be cowardly in battle? Or who proved out to be a liar? He didn't get any women------that's what happened. And if he did, he got the women the other men didn't want. Chances are the warriors ended up telling him he had to work with the squaws doing women's work. Doing squaw's work was not considered heroic and the men doing it were not really considered men. By the other men or the women.
So what happens today? Guy knocks a gal up and can't hold down a job, the family goes on welfare. If a man is puny and stupid we excuse him by coming up with phrases such as "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" or "he is sensitive and well meaning". Guy beats a woman up, and people say--"Shit happens". A man behaves consistently like a dork and people say: "We are living in the 90's so that's okay."
I don't care if it was a feudal society, an Indian tribe, a village of igloos, or a Japanese castle, there was social order in most past cultures. Those responsible for upholding that social order told the men who didn't have what it takes, "You are a punk and since you are a punk you will be despised and our women just will not have a part of you." In today's world there is no such social order------supplanted instead by an aimless, wandering across vapors of lies, permissiveness, and self interest. Which leaves so many women giving into their natural instinct to nurture the weak and to try to make men out of them.
Sorry Mr. Charles Darwin, you stand refuted, at least for now. Looks like the most unfit genes are taking over. But you couldn't help it, Charles, since you didn't have Budweiser then. And had no way of predicting how things would go.
View My Stats