bboone
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2019
- Messages
- 125
Yes, if you look at economic success. India is arguably next in line, but lags behind China a lot. Arab states are very rich, but only because of oil, not production--and their population is very low anyway and thus poses no threat. Nonetheless, I still see westerners getting very upset about Saudi Arabs for doing essentially the same exact things that Americans do.
Northern China isn't part of East Asia?
You really don't know what Altaic means, lol. It's not even a language family like Indoeuropean is. The Japanese are just Chinese/Koreans who mixed with Ainus.
https://jaymans.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/global-genetic-distances-map.jpg
so if i said that an australian was european you wouldn't get what i meant? i know that japan isn't in the altai mountain range and although ethnicity and language aren't inherently correlated, esp nowadays, you could still talk about "altaic peoples", among which the japanese could be included. both the ainu and japanese languages have been included under altaic, but the argument isn't necessarily that sound. and yeah, you're right abt japanese racial make-up. china is obv in east asia so that was sloppy but i believe the contrast between northern chinese and for example southern chinese ethnic groups is large enough to warrant further subdivision
however, if i had to settle on a concrete definition of "masculinity", i'd define it relative to the degree to which members of the masculine sex differ from members of the feminine sex in their capabilities and physical features. there are of course huge and innumerable variables to take into account here, as women too can possess masculine attributes, n by such a definition could be considered more masculine than certain men (gabi garcia or any other roided up female athlete in relation to the avg buzzfeed journo). due to how complicated this can get i think it's better to settle on a simpler definition of masculinity which i believe most people can agree with. good parameters are capacity for endeavours of physical strength, physical stature, lean body mass in relation to weight, etc.
also, i'd say masculinity is much more a result of cultural and environmental circumstances than genetic ones, if you see it in terms of hormonal balances. as far as i know, testosterone levels etc usually seem to be too similar between different ethnicities to account for any significant differences in "masculinization". traits like body hair prob have more to do with receptor sensitivity, etc.. every "race" has the capacity for masculinity, but these traits we deem as masculine really seem to be facilitated by long-term (multi-generational of course) exposure to adverse climatic or martial circumstances that would promote sexual selection in favor of the men most capable of providing, which would be those possessing the traits listed above. if you look at dogs you can see extreme examples of the same thing - just look at the physical difference between a kangal and a boston terrier. yet i would assume their hormone levels are comparable
Last edited: