Interesting post, although the second clip is a bit long for now.
In the OP however I'm a bit confused, because it seems to suggest that women should be respected because they "incubate life".
So when they're not pregnant, or beyond getting pregnant (or infertile), they are disposable, because that justification then no longer exists?
Pregnancy is the only reason given in the OP to respect women, so when they are not "human incubators", or unable to be so, then what justification
remains to respect them by this reasoning?
And why should this make men, particularly "alpha males" more expendable via "sacrifice'?
What is meant here by sacrifice?
Sending them to war in the name of "tribalism" and the "conservative tribal chiefs"?
Why should men be happy with this?
Without their healthy seed there would be no female incubation.
So they are crucial to the process, and therefore just as worthy of preservation.
In fact men have no real biological clock, so by that reasoning one should rather send infertile and post-menopausal women to war, because their
procreative function is over in any case.
Men could still procreate at that age.
So why sacrifice alpha males?
This seems more like an argument by weaker heterosexual males to get rid of alpha male competition (send them to war, or another dangerous job), and
thus to have access to more women for themselves.
Not that I blame the weaker heterosexual specimens for trying to do this, since they sometimes do have quite a horrible time.
edit on 13-11-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)