Monda

Sounds fascinating, Faramarz

Will definitely put it on my reading list. Thanks! 

My point is, no matter at which point in history of evolution we begin studying, female brain is relatively more adaptive to nurturing, than male. As we evolve, brain structures adapt to the changes/ roles/ needs... 

I am trying to make some interested commenters see that if a woman is no longer treating them as the king of their heart, is not because of women having too many choices (although women do have that too). Rather women may go from "oh gotta have him every minute of the day" to "oh it's you again sweetie", due to calming of the dopamine rushes. Our quality of bonding changes (from dopamine to sweeter/ truer oxytocin), which can disappoint a man into reacting by being a jerk :o) and then the woman reacts to his being a jerk, the bad cycle comes about and if you ask me someone's gotto split (OR learn about brains and hormones) ... bia o dorostesh kon.  

Hoshang jan, in either case...

Female role has always been that of the nurturer and spiritual protector of her man/men and children. Therefore, women are better conditioned at "Quality bonding" than men are. I mean men are apt enough in "Social bonding" (Vasopressin, brother hormone to testosterone and oxytocin, sees to that). Whereas women have vast reservoir of oxytocin (nurturing, earth mother, fluffy hormone, sister to estrogen, friend to dopamine/ feel good brain chemical). Heck we can release oxytocin even at the sight of our loved one/ lover! 

Hoshang jan, you educate me on Socialism, I'll continue on hormones.  Hang in there, they'll meet somewhere. Don't know precisely where :o) 

Pazeshkzad's short stories is a gem which I should never have lent to my cousin. I'll put it on the list of stuff that need be retrieved. 

Monda, A Completely Opposite View!

If you want to know about an opposite point of view, read Christopher Ryan’s latest book “Sex at Dawn.” He and his co-author, after much research with ancient tribes, chimps and other methods completely de-bunk the whole notion of monogamy, “sex in exchange for stuff” and lay out the following conclusion.

“Ryan and JethÁ's central contention is that human beings evolved in egalitarian groups that shared food, child care, and, often, sexual partners. Weaving together convergent, frequently overlooked evidence from anthropology, archaeology, primatology, anatomy, and psychosexuality, the authors show how far from human nature monogamy really is. Human beings everywhere and in every era have confronted the same familiar, intimate situations in surprisingly different ways. The authors expose the ancient roots of human sexuality while pointing toward a more optimistic future illuminated by our innate capacities for love, cooperation, and generosity.”

//www.ebooks.com/ebooks/book_info.asp?IID=544...

Monda jan, this "division " of labor between men & women was/is

actually based more on private property and state, than anything else. Or at least according to Engels ( and his writings are based on the works of American anthropologist Shuster[sp?]).

So Fredrick says while we had those "primitive" communal societies there was no private property and no state to enforce such ownership, and no nuclear family either. Everyone was free to love and make babies with however they wished. See his " Origins of Family and Private Property."

It's with the emergence of wealth accumulation that we start to have private property, as opposed to communal property, state and the family structure as we know it today.

Pezeshkzad's satire on Asghar Khan was in his collection of short stories " Anter'nasional Bacheh Por'roha," I looked for it but I can't find my copy. Does any one has a copy of it?

Not until you did HT

Actually most of our brain structures and hardwiring are still based on the patriarchal model of societies. Primitive, yet dominant, still today.

Considering how many millions of years human beings followed the old survival of the species driven dynamic- we have been in a transitional phase of brain development - since the industrial revolution (?) 

We know that survival of the species assigned Men to be the protectors and breadwinners while women were assigned to bear children and nurture the family. Balanced system. Until alternative ways of survival were discovered. Men no longer were physically needed to guard the cave/ home. So women got out there and produced more than children. Over time economic necessities allowed women in the work force... 

BTW, women were only physically weaker but not mentally. Female brain has the same number of cells, as male - packed densely into smaller skull.

I can vaguely remember Pezeshkkzad on Asghar Ghatel. Please refresh when you can.

Did anyone mention this thing called PATRIARCHY having

something to do with male "domination," and women's "weakness?"

P.S. As long as we're on Asghar Ghatel & stuff, does anyone remember Iraj Pezeshkzad's short story on Asghar Ghatel? It was not his best but hilarious as always!

This I call the cat power...

They made this symbol of jack-ass-ness, Bill O'Reilly, to back off from his initial and populous position. Watch for yourself:

Kazem, absolutely...

"Women I think are a lot more matter of fact about things and are happy to save their skins quickly".

Whether this is a matter of evolution or byproduct of feminism, it's the reality of today's life along millions of other issues as a result of modernity. 

But hey, 200 years ago right after the industrial revolution the picture that a environmentalist would depict from the next 200 years impact of industrialism was much darker than what we are dealing with now. Could they foresee the rise of green energy this fast? Going back to the mentality of the self sufficiency of a farmer after proudly denouncing the farmers' life style?

Woman has more choices and as a result they are supposed to be happier, but they are not...You think how long it's going to take them to realize that divorcing all the traditional values won't be the answer. There will be a return to tradition at one point but not in a way that any of us can picture today.

Until then, I'll keep writing about it. We all must!

Aiyaiyay!

'Can't wait for that one and especially in the light of the fact that so many "eye-ranian" "men" play the most pathetic girlie games, to a point that I think I'm growing balls!

"Ceci n'est pas a very dirty post"

.

.

Thanks Hoshang!

Actually I did read introductory material on Marcuse, when you assigned him as homework to Angel. Enjoyed the clip very much as well.

What does Midwesty mean by one-dimensional though? He dashed away right before I meant to pose that question. Or maybe I did ask for his observations leading to that one-dimensional status. If one-dimensionality only refers to sexuality, then I beg to differ. There are many variants of gray, daily, in both genders. If it relates to money, I see variations in that realm too.

I agree about the one-dimensional reality promoted by the capitalism. I do link many of man's (or woman's) sufferings to exactly those values. In that respect, I have been observing many people designing creative alternative lifestyles, in order not to get trapped in the Hell that the politics and economics demand from us.

Honestly HT jan, right this moment I feel the urge to read more of Marcuse, more than watching my own words. Thank you so much for what you teach me here.

btw this is my first back issue since '92, so I've been good about stretching but apparently not good enough : )

Midwesty

I have nothing against the fact that everyone has choices, men or woman, and has nothing to do with what you have implied here.

Its good to be in a relationship with mutual respect, love and honesty, the problem is when either side or both break these rules.
When things do go wrong men tend to be much slower than women seeing the woods from the trees and still continue all glary eyed with their heads in the sand.

Women I think are a lot more matter of fact about things and are happy to save their skins quickly. Socially and economically the modern woman has the ability
to do that when perhaps in the past this was not a viable choice.

Some say this trait goes back to the times when the cave man often never came home (died or something) and so the women had to be more resilient and got on with it.

structural Differences in Brains of Male and Female...

would clarify matters, I think. If it still pours down tomorrow, and my cold persists, I will make a point to get on that topic. I think both males and females project too many of their ideals on the opposite gender, and for good reason. Our brains are built differently.

As much as generalizations can hurt judgments, once backed by solid research, we're freer and happier knowing where we stand in the big scheme of things (i.e. relationships).

So Brains (and Hormones) will follow. Hold your horses, please.

Kazem,

I feel your pain. But bottom line, wouldn't you be more comfortable and feel secure to see your woman is with you despite that she has choices?

Anahid,

Sorry to disappoint...I guess I am not macho enough to chuckle and enjoy the butterflies in my stomach
when a waitress pushes her boobs onto my face to get a better tip. I understand some men can handle that. I even admire that in those men. I honestly do. I think men should be playful with women but I haven't found the boundaries on where, whom and how much of playfulness is required. I essentially lack the talent.

Thanks Monda!

You got me, I was being stereotypical and also generalizing.

Thanks!

Monda jan, hope you'll strech enough next time!

As older as I get it seems I spent most of my working out time just streching, and even then, some times I still get cramps and sharp pains, they don't call it aging for nothing!

Mid-Westy is correct about one-dimensionality of men and basically today's life in general, not sure if him or any of you have read this little one by Herbert Marcuse, but it's agreat read,it's also been translated into Persian as "Ensan Tak Sahati"

"One-Dimensional Man"

//www.marxists.org/reference/archive/marcuse/works/one-dimensional-man/index.htm

No, I don't think Marcuse had Asghar Ghatel in mind as a proto-type!

And the saga continues...

The problem is that  all the freedom that men and women feel they have be it in a marriage or just a relationship nowadays, has somehow come to bite them in their fannies and works to their disadvantage sometimes. No that i have anything agaist these "liberties" but the results is the violation of the traditional boundaries and priciples that are potentially designed to maintain a certain level of respect within a union.

I agree with Kazem and that is such a shame. Unfortunately i think men are the ones who started this trend and they only have themselves to blame for it... Women by nature are more obedient creatures:)

Monda jan, I would have to go again to a mud bath if...

Monda jan, I would have to go again to a mud bath if I want to write about it since I don't remember enough from my previous experience to write about, my dear.

Midwesty

You got the wrong end of the stick. I never said women have lost their desire for a man's touch or what ever else comes after that.

What I am saying however is this Idea of I am her man and she (naturally) thinks the sun rises and sets in my ......... no longer applies.

she will use what ever you can offer in or out of bed but deep inside you are no longer the only option. Many men have not yet caught up with this to their peril. 

Dear Anahid, thank you for reading it

and commenting. Have you considered writing Your mud bath experience?

Dear Monda, thanks for your blog, and to Midwesty...

Monda jan, thanks for sharing with us story of your mud bath. When I was super young, I took a mud bath in a city in Iran and that is as much as I remember. When I read your blog, I missed the soulful focus.  I saw the word but did not pay it enough attention and now your comment made me understand your point better.

Midwesty, you had me where you wrote:

"I always wonder why it's often men who get bored with their partners when it's women had to deal with a one-dimensional creature all the time."

I was still with you (obviously figuratively) where you wrote: 

"I think our deceptive appearances gives women the false idea that they might have finally found a multidimensional man (soulful eyes) or maybe it's the hope to find one?! Who knows? "

But, did you have to end your comment with:"However, I think millions of years of cohabiting with men has finally broke into the women's gene and now women are also becoming more and more single dimensional. " :(

kazem0574: Don't be fooled!

We all need to be on pedestal some times, if We deserve it, if we do something noteworthy, humane and important. Sorry to hear you are disappointed, about world becoming more of combined forces rather than his or hers.

Thank you for your honest comment. 

Oh btw it wasn't women fooling men into submission - it was the economy and politics of the times, in some cultures, pushing that agenda. 

Midwesty - Women

Can't vouch for all my sisters, but most of us appreciate your utterly predictable qualities - especially when expressed Honestly.

It's not always men who get bored/ disappointed with their partner, who gave you that idea? Some creatures do have soulful eyes, depending on where we're standing and who We are.

Are women becoming single-dimensional?! How do you see that? We all are very complex, men and women.

Thanks for your thoughtful feedback, I always learn from you. 

Kazem,

I liked your comment on other thread about Shariatmadari's interview but hardly can relate your comment with this blog rather a response somehow to my comment.

I am not a feminist, if you've read some of my articles you'll know. But feminism is hardly the image that can portray women and even harder to convert women to think that way. Nature is much powerful than any ideology.

I assure you even the toughest feminist woman can curl up to the touch of the right man.

Don't be fooled !

For a long time women have fooled men into thinking they are something we need to put on a pedestal and worship, as they are all so innocent pure and precious.
The truth of it is living in a man’s world they have had to give us that impression to survive. Now a days, its no longer a man’s world as much and they are showing their real colours. Many have good jobs, lots of legislation and support backing them up, so no longer the need to pretend. A guy I knew always used to say if women were physically the stronger sex they would beat the hibi gibies out of men on a daily bases.
Well in a manor of speaking they have started to, those guys who think they are the man and the little woman is at home waiting for their arrival. Think again she is already ahead of you and soon you’d be on the street.

Men...

We, live in the world of fantasies. We have a very visible push button, I hate to give credit to women's intelligence when it comes to discovering that button. We are simple creature and utterly predictable.

I always wonder why it's often men who get bored with their partners when it's women had to deal with a one-dimensional creature all the time.

I think our deceptive appearances gives women the false idea that they might have finally found a multidimensional man (soulful eyes) or maybe it's the hope to find one?! Who knows?

However, I think millions of years of cohabiting with men has finally broke into the women's gene and now women are also becoming more and more single dimensional.

اصلا دردم چی‌ بود؟

Dears, thank you for reading this. If I wrote it telegrafy was because I had to get off that laptop pronto. So I didn't get to clearly state my issue in that little story.

My issue being: As open-minded and accepting that I consider myself to be, especially toward those who are somewhat culturally unknown to me, yet host me so graciously  - under tad of stress I went back to my archaic value system. I associated that soulful Dalaak (and rightfully so by his facial features) with my image of Asghar Ghaathel. Chillingly cold aggressive eyes, thick black mustache exceeding the width of his lips, unshaven face and his ambivalent yet discomforting physical stance when Lisa and I entered that bathhouse...

Lisa noticed his soulful eyes, which I failed to see. The first ten minutes of watching him prepare the mud ever so professionally, making all efforts to be courteous to his client by his gentle yet firm motions. His style was still impersonal but calm/ unthreatening. My presence was about offering my friend safety if she needed it. I felt bad about that. 

By the way, I doubt that men would get kicks out of massaging just any women. Or am I wrong?

تقصیر ما آقایون چیه که همیشه به کار گل گماشته شده ایم؟

Lets get muddy

Thanks for the interesting read Monda jaan. Could you do me a favour and ask them if they need any new employee. Wage is not important.