tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11850330.post1326841436652960085..comments2023-08-03T04:54:54.068-04:00Comments on Abacaxi Mamão: Monogamy and relative sizes of males and femalesAbacaxi Mamaohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06604184268628243496noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11850330.post-64072106145474438562007-08-21T00:14:00.000-04:002007-08-21T00:14:00.000-04:00"I guess that I associate monogamous societies as ..."I guess that I associate monogamous societies as ones in which men and women have more equality..." <BR/><BR/>It is not uncommon to approach this topic from the perspective of leveling the unequal playing field. But nature has its own unevenness which sometimes is unexpectedly skewed in favor of the female over the male. One such instance is elaborated on in Our Inner Ape by Frans De Waal. It has great insights into our nature based on our common ancestry. In it, he describes the bonobos, female bonobos are no stronger than males (p.88) yet bonobos have a female ruled system and they are very promiscuous. Even though there is a F:M ratio of 1:1 it isn't because they are monogamous nor do they have stable M-F relationships as we do but their bonds are mother to sons with top females securing higher places for their sons (p.68-9). What is interesting is that the female size is roughly what it is for human female to male, ie approximately 85% of the male size even though the bonobos are ruled by a top female (p.10)!<BR/><BR/>Equality, I think is a very human construct, and very out of balance with nature (for the most part).<BR/><BR/>Something to chew on.smoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16540322073693784985noreply@blogger.com