The real question I think

Posted by dogrock on Mar 13, 2002 at 19:53

Re: It's the onion mike (Natalie L. Smith)

In nearly all the animal programmes I've seen the male lion is portrayed as only interested in sex, handing around all day doing nothing, eating the food the female lions kill, dangerous to the young, throwing his weight around. A grumpy sort always ready for a fight. The impression given is that the female and their young would be better off without him, except for procreation alone, an almost clinical one. The female on the other hand has all the right attributes, looks after the young, gets the food, loving, caring, keeping he price together. I think a deeper analysis shows a completely different picture, and that the way its looked at does undermine what males, human or animal are about. My analysis extremely simplified is that the females would lose their territory to hyenas and many other species and die out. (Female lions will not kill hyenas, and will leave a kill even in numbers if surrounded by a pack of hyenas) one male lion will hold them off, and continually harrass all animals it see as a threat. The males aggression to protect the terrority is why lions survived in the first place. Some peole can't wait to get rid of that aggression in males (human this time), and some think males should be treated for it. The male and female lion represent a combination for survival. There is hardly an animal programme that recognises this fact. Wasn't able to read the website, so assuming this is still on the point.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup



[ Forum ] [ New Message ]