Tamara writes: > one's cool over; it's just a modernised version of the old "wisdom" I > grew up with: "if there's only enough meat for one, then the man gets > it, because he works the hardest and deserves it the most. Next in line > are the children, because they're growing. Women can do without" > One way of looking at it is that if there is only enough meat for one, then there's not much food about, and the tribe had better restrict its numbers. The best way of doing this is making sure a woman's body fat is below a certain level (forget what), then she can't fall pregnant. There's a book I have (somewhere) called "Cannibals and Kings" which goes into this theory, and makes the necessity to restrict tribal numbers in times of shortage the reason for the (historical) low ranking of women. Made sense to me when I read it.
Kill off the number of men in warfare, the women can still easily repopulate. Restrict the woman's ability to conceive, you restrict tribe numbers. Doesn't apply today, of course, but gives one food (no pun intended) for thought. Noelene in Cooma Eating up so I have a good fat covering to withstand the cold - and for no other reason! At 60, I don't think I'm a risk to overpopulation! [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~nlafferty/ To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace-chat [EMAIL PROTECTED]
