>Even more interesting is non-traditional forms of reproduction, such
>as in vitro gestation and male pregnancies. They could help erode even
>more of the old assumptions (if they ever get popular).
My only qualm about this is that many people seem to make the assumption that just because a desire is biological in nature, i.e. a woman's desire to have childen, that this desire is somehow wrong or needs to be changed. I certainly support any woman's desire to not have children, or even to remove any hormonal influences dealing with this desire; however, I don't think that makes the desire inherently wrong. Sexual desire is also an evolutionary tool, but I don't see anyone waiting in line to get rid of it.
>The downside is that we are the weaker sex; I'm not sure about the
>perturbation thing (never seen any data on it), but we have a higher
>mortality due to what appears to be a slightly less robust
>construction. That is why you find plenty of old widows but few old
>widowers.
I saw a very interesting show on TLC the other night about gender differences, and they came with an interesting reason why woman tend to live longer than men, even assuming identical lifestyles: historically, grandmothers are more important to families than grandfathers. Makes sense when you think about it.
Jocelyn Brown
jocelynb@mindspring.com