This was all common knowledge for millennia (although our ancestors did not have the scientific data to back up conventional wisdom), and then suddenly in the last few generations we “forgot” it all. In reality, I think even those who deny the powerful role of biology on gender roles and gender inequality know it is true. They just prefer to pretend that that biological difference is not true because it conflicts with their moral goal of Equality.
Far too many today prefer the Pleasant Lie over the Harsh Truth.
"common knowledge" : It would have been nice to have had references cited.
Back in the '80s my feminist girlfriend would insist that we shared the same interests and abilities. After some life experience she shifted to "Umm, that they (our interests and abilities) were sourced from a common distribution". Except of course for our inconveniently complementary sexual preferences, which she put down to our different hormone status. Very much foreshadowing the assertions from the 2010s around transsexuals.
Eventually we split. I married and had a family with my spouse. She went on to live alone and childless. I feel sad for her.
Yes, gender roles evolved to protect women and children because they are absolutely essential for the survival of the species but physically vulnerable to predatory males (and other threats).
Tearing down gender roles only reduces the number of good men and leaves more women and children vulnerable to predatory males.
No, men are the foundation of material progress, technological, and organizational innovations. You can walk away if you want, but I intend to keep working to make the world a better place.
Gender does not exist. Only sex is real — and not only as empirical fact, but as ontology. Nearly all complex life divides into the polarity of male and female. To exist as life is to be sexed.
Thanks Bo/Noah. Sorry for spam but aren't we all tired of the endless recurrence? If we actually want to beat this thing (rather than profit from it [which I know goes against the Darwinian algorithm itself as you guys are still young so probably still striving for fitness points] couldn't a real consilience, rather than a fake heterodoxy, be better? We were all aligned in 2014. We could have saved people but instead charlatans have profited (not you).
You probably know of "The Central Dogma of Molecular Biology" which Google's AI, Gemini, informs me is:
Gemini: The central dogma of biology describes the fundamental flow of genetic information within a cell, stating that information moves from DNA to RNA to protein through a process called gene expression.
Generally outside my salary range, but seem to recollect this Wikipedia article provided some evidence that sometimes that process reverses -- from (phenotype) proteins to RNA to DNA:
Men and women are differently motivated. To attract a high-value mate, men must compete with other men for their rank in the male dominance hierarchy, which translates directly into men contesting each other for positions within organisations. In contrast, women are judged according to youth, beauty and chastity/fidelity, so are less motivated to do what it takes to climb the work hierarchy.
Accepting the biology, one must also acknowledge the psychology. Intelligence can improve behaviour and social outcomes. Men have felt threatened by not knowing for sure the paternity of babies born and cared for by them, leading to the 'imprisonment' of women in the home in some societies and their enslavement to the domestic and reproductive sphere (and consequently to many features of the patriarchal society.) Sharing by men of housework and childcare as well as what is possible in reproduction and birth would improve outcomes at the individual, family and social level and give more time and opportunities (freedom) to girls and women.
As you write: "Males produce small, motile sperm. Females produce large, immobile eggs. This basic division is universal among mammals. Chromosomes direct the process: most males have XY chromosomes, and most females have XX."
Interestingly, the XX/XY distinction is reversed for birds and lepidoptera.
I'm under the impression that the author of the article misunderstands the "gender construction" argument fundimentally. All that is said in this article may well be true, but gender still is a social construct.
That's not what social constructionism is. You have to either really not know what you're talking about, or be insane (or a platonist or something), to deny that concepts and ideas are socially constructed.
People exist in reality. They interpret this reality on their own terms, and then create concepts that are useful to them. The reason one four-legged wooden object is a table, and the other is a chair, is that people decide what the purpose of one and the other - and there were of course primitive societies which never developed either and had no word for them.
There are biological differences between individual human beings, biological differences between sexes, and all sorts of other differences. The way people choose to identify, interpret and group these differences into usable terms is social construction. That's why different societies have different ideas of what the roles of men and women are. Is the belief that, for example, men or women can or cannot be priests something contingent on objective reality?
"That's why different societies have different ideas of what the roles of men and women are"
The differences are shallow. In fundamental things, they are all the same. There are zero human societies where the basic women's role is to be warriors, and men's basic role is caring for little children.
Yes... and that means that genders are social constructs; just that since men and women have dimorphic evolutionary utlities, the social constructs end up similar across different cultures. But even then, your characterisation is wrong - because there are plenty of societies with drastic variations in gender roles (and modern society is, of course, also a society). You're just engaging in goalpost-shifting.
Neuroscience and Cognitive Science have proven that ideas, beliefs and concepts are innate, not socially constructive. People and other animals are both with concepts and certain ways of thinking based on their demographic differences, they are not learned. And "Gender" has consistently been proven to be biologically real.
Social Constructionism is just another form of Solipsism and Hyper-Subjective Relativism.
Your thesis is that gender is a social construct. But you said, "Everything in this article could be true." The article says that gender differences fundamentally have a biological basis. They are two opposing paradigms.
And anticipating a likely response, I will say that some gender expressions (e.g., in clothing) do not challenge the fundamental fact that the brains of men and women are the result of adaptive natural selection that has given rise to dimorphic behaviors and emotions.
This was all common knowledge for millennia (although our ancestors did not have the scientific data to back up conventional wisdom), and then suddenly in the last few generations we “forgot” it all. In reality, I think even those who deny the powerful role of biology on gender roles and gender inequality know it is true. They just prefer to pretend that that biological difference is not true because it conflicts with their moral goal of Equality.
Far too many today prefer the Pleasant Lie over the Harsh Truth.
"common knowledge" : It would have been nice to have had references cited.
Back in the '80s my feminist girlfriend would insist that we shared the same interests and abilities. After some life experience she shifted to "Umm, that they (our interests and abilities) were sourced from a common distribution". Except of course for our inconveniently complementary sexual preferences, which she put down to our different hormone status. Very much foreshadowing the assertions from the 2010s around transsexuals.
Eventually we split. I married and had a family with my spouse. She went on to live alone and childless. I feel sad for her.
That is the frequent outcome for feminists.
TLDR: a tradition is an experiment that worked
Yes, gender roles evolved to protect women and children because they are absolutely essential for the survival of the species but physically vulnerable to predatory males (and other threats).
Tearing down gender roles only reduces the number of good men and leaves more women and children vulnerable to predatory males.
.....and men have always been expendable.
Many men today have walked away from that toxic paradigm., and have gone their own way.
No, men are the foundation of material progress, technological, and organizational innovations. You can walk away if you want, but I intend to keep working to make the world a better place.
Just keep in mind that your feminist pals in Congress made sure that three times more taxpayer funds are spent on breast cancer than prostate cancer.
You are right about men being the foundation of material progress, but they are also expendable, and feminist have added to that expendability.
WTF are you talking about?
I have no “feminist pals in Congress…” nor do I care about the ratio of taxpayer funds on breast cancer or prostrate cancer.
LOLZ
Biology isn’t Bigotry.
Therefore, Science can’t be Sexist.
“If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts.”
-Camille Paglia
An honest Feminist, that's rare
Gender does not exist. Only sex is real — and not only as empirical fact, but as ontology. Nearly all complex life divides into the polarity of male and female. To exist as life is to be sexed.
Indeed. I think that the first thing everyone opposing this madness should do, is always sayng/writing "sex", being gender only referring to grammar.
"The feminist conception of 'patriarchy' is woefully lacking. Examining patriarchy via evolutionary theory, where women take an active part in its creation, reveals a much more fascinating picture." https://www.paulawrightdysmemics.com/p/in-defence-of-reformed-patriarchy?utm_source=publication-search
Thanks. I like to tell feminists that if there was a patriarchy, women would fight wars, and men would be exempt.
Thanks Bo/Noah. Sorry for spam but aren't we all tired of the endless recurrence? If we actually want to beat this thing (rather than profit from it [which I know goes against the Darwinian algorithm itself as you guys are still young so probably still striving for fitness points] couldn't a real consilience, rather than a fake heterodoxy, be better? We were all aligned in 2014. We could have saved people but instead charlatans have profited (not you).
Sometimes i really wish Lamark was right.
🙂 He probably was, at least partly or sometimes.
You probably know of "The Central Dogma of Molecular Biology" which Google's AI, Gemini, informs me is:
Gemini: The central dogma of biology describes the fundamental flow of genetic information within a cell, stating that information moves from DNA to RNA to protein through a process called gene expression.
Generally outside my salary range, but seem to recollect this Wikipedia article provided some evidence that sometimes that process reverses -- from (phenotype) proteins to RNA to DNA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_biology
So there's The Truth about Sex. Next up, The Truth about Race. After that, Armageddon.
Men and women are differently motivated. To attract a high-value mate, men must compete with other men for their rank in the male dominance hierarchy, which translates directly into men contesting each other for positions within organisations. In contrast, women are judged according to youth, beauty and chastity/fidelity, so are less motivated to do what it takes to climb the work hierarchy.
That women have to care, and that care is unpaid, is a message yet to be decoded from between the lines.
That's what Western Marriage Patter is/was for.
If there really was a patriarchy, women would fight wars, and men would be exempt.
Accepting the biology, one must also acknowledge the psychology. Intelligence can improve behaviour and social outcomes. Men have felt threatened by not knowing for sure the paternity of babies born and cared for by them, leading to the 'imprisonment' of women in the home in some societies and their enslavement to the domestic and reproductive sphere (and consequently to many features of the patriarchal society.) Sharing by men of housework and childcare as well as what is possible in reproduction and birth would improve outcomes at the individual, family and social level and give more time and opportunities (freedom) to girls and women.
Amen to all this!
As you write: "Males produce small, motile sperm. Females produce large, immobile eggs. This basic division is universal among mammals. Chromosomes direct the process: most males have XY chromosomes, and most females have XX."
Interestingly, the XX/XY distinction is reversed for birds and lepidoptera.
For more on that: https://richarddawkins.substack.com/p/is-the-male-female-divide-a-social
I'm under the impression that the author of the article misunderstands the "gender construction" argument fundimentally. All that is said in this article may well be true, but gender still is a social construct.
No it isn't, and Social Constructionism is a reality-denying pseudoscience. It's a form a solipsism too, total nonsense.
"Gender" (secondary sexual characteristics) is a biologically caused objective reality, it exists independently of what people think of it.
That's not what social constructionism is. You have to either really not know what you're talking about, or be insane (or a platonist or something), to deny that concepts and ideas are socially constructed.
People exist in reality. They interpret this reality on their own terms, and then create concepts that are useful to them. The reason one four-legged wooden object is a table, and the other is a chair, is that people decide what the purpose of one and the other - and there were of course primitive societies which never developed either and had no word for them.
There are biological differences between individual human beings, biological differences between sexes, and all sorts of other differences. The way people choose to identify, interpret and group these differences into usable terms is social construction. That's why different societies have different ideas of what the roles of men and women are. Is the belief that, for example, men or women can or cannot be priests something contingent on objective reality?
"That's why different societies have different ideas of what the roles of men and women are"
The differences are shallow. In fundamental things, they are all the same. There are zero human societies where the basic women's role is to be warriors, and men's basic role is caring for little children.
Yes... and that means that genders are social constructs; just that since men and women have dimorphic evolutionary utlities, the social constructs end up similar across different cultures. But even then, your characterisation is wrong - because there are plenty of societies with drastic variations in gender roles (and modern society is, of course, also a society). You're just engaging in goalpost-shifting.
Do you have any examples of what you're saying? "There are many societies with drastic variations in gender roles."
You are assuming that giving birth is the only innate difference between men and women, it isn't
You are just in denial of biological human nature, typical of leftists
Neuroscience and Cognitive Science have proven that ideas, beliefs and concepts are innate, not socially constructive. People and other animals are both with concepts and certain ways of thinking based on their demographic differences, they are not learned. And "Gender" has consistently been proven to be biologically real.
Social Constructionism is just another form of Solipsism and Hyper-Subjective Relativism.
Let's grant that. Ideas and concepts are innate. Respond to how the problem I presented in my last comment fits into that framework.
Your thesis is that gender is a social construct. But you said, "Everything in this article could be true." The article says that gender differences fundamentally have a biological basis. They are two opposing paradigms.
And anticipating a likely response, I will say that some gender expressions (e.g., in clothing) do not challenge the fundamental fact that the brains of men and women are the result of adaptive natural selection that has given rise to dimorphic behaviors and emotions.