Recently one of my friends said something in jest (I hope!!) and it got me thinking. He said, a woman is old after 25, a man is never old. After my indignation died down, I thought about why women have a procreative shelf life while men do not. Why God or nature created these double standards? I am not willing to accept any philosophical or spiritual answers. Somehow this seems unfair; though I’m sure there is some genius reason behind it as there is behind every aspect of creation. I have other questions too, why are women created physically weaker than men (smaller statures, lesser muscle mass etc) but are expected to endure heavy physical hardships like pregnancy. In spite of this fact, it is also true that women have better immunity when compared to men. When there was a small pox epidemic in my grandmother’s village, more female children survived it than male. My grand mom says that nature has designed it this way so that more women surviving would mean easier continuation of the human race. If this was the case, then why didn’t the same nature have the wisdom to create a longer procreative shelf life for women than men? We need more of us if you guys still need to walk the earth in large numbers. Any theories? Anybody?
(P.S: Please do not tell me things like both men and women are required for procreation. I know that. I am only talking about the right ratio to speed things up. To state the obvious, more women and lesser men have the possibility of producing more progeny than more men and less women!!)
2 comments:
On ANu's request from BUZZ:
Nandith Nandakumar - It is not a flawed genesis. The fertile period for a woman is set b/w a certain age period when she is fittest and most healthy. Besides the human child is the weakest baby of all mammals, it needs a lot of care, effort in bringing up n rearing! So in order to compensate for all that -> imagine the consequence of having a kid at 75? you will die giving birth!
Also, shelf life is only applicable to the pregnancy rt; "FUN" can sustain all through ;)
anyways...thats my 2 cents worth!Edit8:37 pm
anuradha sivarajan - Fair point...does that mean men have no role in child rearing and hence are fertile throughout even if they die at 75 doing it!! I agree the 'FUN' can sustain though and somehow that cheers me up :-)) but u chose buzz to comment rather than the blog or fb!! :-(8:45 pm
Nandith Nandakumar - Duh this was there in a blog? paste it there.....or on fb..i can comment..
No i don't think in today's world the rearing is only a woman's job. The man too has to put in his fair share...and I see a lot of my guy friends helping out their wives and taking active participation. But historically and majority in the animal kingdom the female rears, nourishes and fends for the young one. So she has to be fittest to do all that....on your other point, why men can still do it, the reason is simple... the point of any species is the continuity of race through offsprings..so because of the vagaries of female fertile period and the chances of getting pregnant, it is best that atleast one mate is potent all the time. And at any point in time a threat to the species continuation is negated!
Hmm...say a female is fertile throughout and gives birth at 75 and dies, im sure the kids can be adopted by other females in the clan. It happens in some species of animals. I don't see why that can't be a workable option since in the animal kingdom, man is not only a social animal but has also created a highly evolved society with its own set of rules and norms. Maybe im pushing it, but considering the continuity of human civilization as the larger objective, female fertility forever (fff?) might still have been a good idea!!
Post a Comment