Is The Female The Highest Form Of Evolution?
(Just a note here at the beginning of this piece, I welcome comments. However, if your comment was obviously made before you actually read the article, it will be denied. Just reading the title is not enough qualification to comment on the issues herein.)
With so many men being interested in being women, and with so many men becoming more effeminate on the whole, one has to ask oneself, is the female form the highest form of human evolution?
In Asia, men are often so feminine that they are largely indistinguishable from women. This is a phenomenon not greeted with disgust by women, but by huge throngs of them cheering and throwing themselves at these unashamedly feminine male stars.
In the West too, the popularity of the feminine man is on the rise. Russel Brand, one of the hottest names in British Comedy, (who just happens to stuff up every time he steps on American soil,) is not only considered to be quite hot, chalking up impressive numbers of famous female conquests, but he is also quite a feminine chap. Aside from the facial hair, he is a slim waif of a man with eye liner and finery flowing from him like manna from heaven.
So, the question must be asked, are we trending towards a more feminized society? Will men in the future be less burly, less neanderthal in their appearance? Will our ideas of true masculinity change to embrace those who wear make up, frills and pleats? Will men's fashions start to step away from rough, stiff fabrics and embrace an altogether softer agenda? Will lace make a come back? Will another decade or two see men in skirts decked out in frou frou lace cravats, wearing nail polish and eye liner?
It's a possibility. Scientist have noted that our rampant use of various hormones in producing our foods is causing increasing incidences of androgyny in fish unlucky enough to live and spawn in rivers where run off is high. It is foolish to think that there will not also be some effect on the humans consuming the same type of food.
Whilst the two trends are quite separate, one being a biological trend caused by nutrition, the other being a form of social evolution, they can and I believe, are converging to create a society which is perhaps more androgynously feminine than ever before.
Whether or not this is a good thing is certainly up for debate. Whilst the population has always had a variance of male types in it, some being more feminine, some being more hyper masculine, if we lose the hyper masculine types altogether, it could change the way our societies function on a basic level. It could make us less aggressive and war like as a species. If hyper masculine males were regarded as being anomalies rather as gods to aspire to, our basic value system would have shifted quite significantly.
Do I think this will ever fully happen? Most likely not. There are still areas of the world in which men literally own women as property and in which no funny growth hormones have been introduced into the food supply. These areas of the world spawn hundreds of thousands of hyper masculine males, their genetics tailored for war simply by being the descendants of those who have been at war for many generations.
The question is, who will win? Will it be the more feminized societies, in which power is wielded economically, using hyper masculine males as mere grunts to die for the state where force is necessary? (One could argue that this is already the case in many Western societies.) Or will our baser instincts win out and will humans continue to evolve along the strict lines of gender differentiation that got us this far?
I don't claim to have any of the answers here, but I do believe that significant social evolutionary change is afoot, and that human society will look very different in the coming centuries.