Ah, but only women get PG, so it's OK. They like females barefoot and PG. I am nearly finished with The Dawn of Everything and one of their points is the subordination of women in Western/European history in particular.
Ah, but only women get PG, so it's OK. They like females barefoot and PG. I am nearly finished with The Dawn of Everything and one of their points is the subordination of women in Western/European history in particular.
Recently I've seen several articles in the medical literature (e.g., JAMA) with the phrase "pregnant people" in the title. I looked up (google of course) to see whether anyone other than a woman could be pregnant, and the answer wasn't all that clear to me. Aside from its intrinsic interest, this bears on Sen. Blackburn's question to Ketanji Brown Jackson to define 'woman'. Brown's answer was "I'm not a biologist". Nowadays even a biologist might not be able to give a clear answer.
In the past few years I have seen couples announcing that "they" are having a baby. Perhaps the literature is attempting to recognize a change in view so that it is clear that it takes both a sperm and an egg to create a pregnancy. Just speculation.
Nice try, but even when a couple says "they" are having a baby, it's only "she" who is pregnant. In the medical literature it has to do with some people who have changed their gender identity. I haven't followed this in detail, but the titles of the articles caught my eye.
That's not what I am saying or the book is saying. What they do say is that when women had power, their lot was better and as in the example of Minoan Crete, not centered on warfare.
It has caused me to rethink several things. It has a large emphasis on non European history and seeks to put to rest the idea of the agricultural revolution. There is lots of info on the pre-European Americas.
I learned a lot and I like a book that makes me rethink. I have about five pages to go now in the conclusion. Perhaps I will see if they have any hope for us.
Yes! Of course it is speculative about human prehistory, but why not? The authors have some good insights. It gives pause to the thinking that males, because of superior muscle strength, must have been the movers and shakers of society. (My brief rephrasing)
Yes, but based on more recent archeological finds. It was also a nice review of what theories have existed in the past. I liked the emphasis on non-European societies. I am not quite finished and then more rethinking on my part. I did like that they gave women much more credit than they usually are given.
Ah, but only women get PG, so it's OK. They like females barefoot and PG. I am nearly finished with The Dawn of Everything and one of their points is the subordination of women in Western/European history in particular.
Recently I've seen several articles in the medical literature (e.g., JAMA) with the phrase "pregnant people" in the title. I looked up (google of course) to see whether anyone other than a woman could be pregnant, and the answer wasn't all that clear to me. Aside from its intrinsic interest, this bears on Sen. Blackburn's question to Ketanji Brown Jackson to define 'woman'. Brown's answer was "I'm not a biologist". Nowadays even a biologist might not be able to give a clear answer.
I thought that was the perfect answer to a trap question.
In the past few years I have seen couples announcing that "they" are having a baby. Perhaps the literature is attempting to recognize a change in view so that it is clear that it takes both a sperm and an egg to create a pregnancy. Just speculation.
Nice try, but even when a couple says "they" are having a baby, it's only "she" who is pregnant. In the medical literature it has to do with some people who have changed their gender identity. I haven't followed this in detail, but the titles of the articles caught my eye.
As I said, simply speculation.
So the answer for white women is to do some things radically. Either choose not to have children or only have girls.
That's not what I am saying or the book is saying. What they do say is that when women had power, their lot was better and as in the example of Minoan Crete, not centered on warfare.
Or refuse to have sex with men.
Have been thinking of reading that. Did you find it worthwhile?
It has caused me to rethink several things. It has a large emphasis on non European history and seeks to put to rest the idea of the agricultural revolution. There is lots of info on the pre-European Americas.
I clearly need to read it! Thanks.
Great! I have very little knowledge in those areas! Will be very interested! Thanks!
I learned a lot and I like a book that makes me rethink. I have about five pages to go now in the conclusion. Perhaps I will see if they have any hope for us.
Whether they do or not, we'd better!ЁЯШКЁЯСН
Yes! Of course it is speculative about human prehistory, but why not? The authors have some good insights. It gives pause to the thinking that males, because of superior muscle strength, must have been the movers and shakers of society. (My brief rephrasing)
Yes, but based on more recent archeological finds. It was also a nice review of what theories have existed in the past. I liked the emphasis on non-European societies. I am not quite finished and then more rethinking on my part. I did like that they gave women much more credit than they usually are given.
Thanks! That makes me more likely to read it.ЁЯШК