On Sat, 4 Mar 2000, gordon wrote:

> I was not arguing that squeemishness would be of benefit to anyone (although
> I would not dismiss that idea, either). My thought was simply that the male
> psyche is perhaps genetically endowed with a greater tolerance for scenes of
> animal death and gore.

I really doubt any genetic factor.  Being squeemish about food
is ridiculous and can only be supported in a society that
isolates its members from food production and then conditions
half of its members to be squealers.

(As for squealing, I once told a group of people  the
best way to separate an egg - you hold the yolk in your
fingers and allow the white to fall into a bowl below.
Wow.  I've never heard such squealing.  They would
eat the egg, but the thought of touching it - yewww!
<lol>)

>
> A squeemish paleolithic female might manage to survive, but a male born with
> an aversion to the bloody death of animals would do very poorly in a HG
> society. Such men would be less able to provide food and so would have
> little to offer by way of a primitive partnership between man and woman. I
> think it is safe therefore to assume that natural selection has left us with
> a male psyche that tolerates or perhaps even revels subconsciously in the
> sight of blood and dying animals.
>

I can't speak for the conditioning that goes on with boys, but
I have seen what happens with girls.  I saw it at an early age
and decided to avoid it - it's not a pretty thing.  When you
couple this with the urbanized view of animals as furry humans
you get previously unsupportable behaviors like vegetarianism
and squeemishness towards slaughter.

From your description of your friend it really doesn't
sound like she's got a problem with blood, per se (come
on, a female genetically being squeemish about blood?
You ever see what really goes on every month?) but
with the idea that her furry little buddies are going
to be dinner.  I would argue that this is the result
of a culture divorced from reality where people don't
think of the previously living animal that now comes
in conviently sized shrink wrapped packages.

As for the male psyche reveling in dying animals, well,
again I can't speak for the male psyche.  I can speak
about the hunter's psyche though.  A sadist would make
a very poor hunter.  Every instant that the animal is
dying is an instant that the animal could get away
or kill its hunter.  There is definitely a predatory
joy in hunting, and a gustatory delight in the following
meal.  There is no joy in a dying animal.  Successful
predators must make that moment as short as possible.
(Of course, from my modern human perspective, there are
definite ethical issues as well.)

> It may be true as you say that females were exposed also in some measure as
> they were involved in the preparation of food. However the difference
> between male and female in this respect would be relative rather than
> absolute.

Hey, animal guts are animal guts whether you pull them out
yourself or just toss them on the fire.

>
> Of course all this assumes our minds are not actually blank slates at birth.
>
I don't think they are, but I have seen the amazing
amount of baggage that gets placed in them from
day one.

Julie