[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by knox

of course there is biology in everything, but glice has said before not EVERYTHING can be explained or carried out that way.

depression, agression, betrayal, promiscuity, etc etc. all have biological explanations, yet in a "civilized" society we don't take those as excuses. They simply don't explain everything, there are so many factors to analyse, culturally, environmentally, and even biologically to extents that we don't fully comprehend yet.

so why shouldn't the male participate more actively in the role of raising a child? - saying that because "he just isn't that way" is a cop out.

that's a bit of an outdated assumption dear, i know plenty of males who raise children. friend of mine has 5 kids (one his, 4 adopted), his wife is the main breadwinner and he does the children police. ok, enough with the anecdotal evidence-- more and more, because of socioeconomic changes (i even consider economy as much more impactful than "culture"), male parents are taking up greater roles in child rearing. of course some people try to naturalize their choices by saying "oh, i'ts in my genes not to give a shit". well to an extent that is true-- but only to an extent.

of course not all is explained by biology-- only maybe about 90%. economy & class provides 9% and the 1% extra is where we can alter course, more or less, provided we are aware and not completely plastered or numbed out with pills and tv.

1% with compound interest can accumulate to a whole lot in time. but let's not dream that we can reeducate the human population to be holy saints within the space of a generation. mao tried, and look what happened.