The Mtubi tribe given as an example, conveys that certain chores are shared, but,
"Men do the hunting, particularly when they are hunting with bow and arrow, but women and children play a key role when nets are used. Long nets are spread by the waiting hunters, and the women and children flush game into the nets. Men and women share roles as gatherers of vegetation, as well as child care. Since food and firewood is so plentiful, only a small portion of their day is spent hunting or doing chores, leaving an abundance of time for singing and storytelling. Women are in charge of building the huts and do most of the cooking.
at the end of the day......
In the evening, men gather around a central fire to take part in the dancing and singing; women and children must stay in their huts with the door closed."
which leaves no doubt the men are the leaders of the tribe.
reasonvemotion wrote:The Mtubi tribe given as an example, conveys that certain chores are shared, but,
"Men do the hunting, particularly when they are hunting with bow and arrow, but women and children play a key role when nets are used. Long nets are spread by the waiting hunters, and the women and children flush game into the nets. Men and women share roles as gatherers of vegetation, as well as child care. Since food and firewood is so plentiful, only a small portion of their day is spent hunting or doing chores, leaving an abundance of time for singing and storytelling. Women are in charge of building the huts and do most of the cooking.
at the end of the day......
In the evening, men gather around a central fire to take part in the dancing and singing; women and children must stay in their huts with the door closed."
which leaves no doubt the men are the leaders of the tribe.
That's your twisted interpretation. The women shut the men out of the huts for a bit of peace and quiet. ~Men are not allowed inside until they have shed their exuberance on a bit of dancing.
The women shut the men out of the huts for a bit of peace and quiet. ~Men are not allowed inside until they have shed their exuberance on a bit of dancing.
Do you realise how stupid you sound. This............ reduces me to laughter.
Your experience of women has obviously been with the "dominant" kind. Kiss her ass. You miss every point made because of this.
Read again.
women and children MUST stay in their huts with the door closed."
Felasco wrote:
Except that millions of years of evolution are yelling inside our private minds that this is not what we're supposed to be doing.
Has nothing to do with your rebuttal...
We are informed primarily by our culture, which, it is evident, is subject to change, far more quickly than any theory of evolution would allow.
As your statement is false because my statement is true, it has everything to do with my rebuttal.
Millions of years of evolution are NOT yelling at us, because human behaviour is primarily given by our cultural experience and our learning. Our genes are not telling us what we are 'supposed' to be doing, That is a typical naturalist fallacy.
You can be as fucking curious as you like but as you have not heard a word I have said there is very little point telling you anything.
Does that make you feel good. I bet you don't talk to the "partner" like that. She would smack you round the head and then you would have to kiss ass again. LOL
Male squirrels run around fighting with other male squirrels (thus weeding out weak genes from future generations) and trying to have sex with as many females as they can (thus creating as many strong gene babies as possible).
Male humans have acted pretty much like male squirrels throughout human history, and it continues to this day, with just a bit more polish. You and I are doing this dance now, as we beat our chests and try to holler louder than the other ape.
Point being, the roots of human male and female roles extend back to the eras before humans even existed. Please recall, we share something like 98% of our DNA with chimps. We are still profoundly part of the animal kingdom.
What's happening is that cultural changes only a few decades old are competing with programming that goes back many many millions of years, leading to profound confusion.
If cultural changes could fully account for human behavior, then whenever the most recent cultural fad changes, everybody would change along with it, everything would be fine, and there would be no problems or confusion.
Male squirrels run around fighting with other male squirrels (thus weeding out weak genes from future generations) and trying to have sex with as many females as they can (thus creating as many strong gene babies as possible).
Male humans have acted pretty much like male squirrels throughout human history, and it continues to this day, with just a bit more polish. You and I are doing this dance now, as we beat our chests and try to holler louder than the other ape.
Point being, the roots of human male and female roles extend back to the eras before humans even existed. Please recall, we share something like 98% of our DNA with chimps. We are still profoundly part of the animal kingdom.
What's happening is that cultural changes only a few decades old are competing with programming that goes back many many millions of years, leading to profound confusion.
If cultural changes could fully account for human behavior, then whenever the most recent cultural fad changes, everybody would change along with it, everything would be fine, and there would be no problems or confusion.
See if you can follow this, in a non patronising way.
We are not squirrels and neither are we apes. We rely on something that humans have long ago learned to do without. Not completely - but nearly so: instinctive knowledge.
A human baby has fewer instincts and less in the way of innate propensities of any animal on the planet. What makes humans unique is that they rely less on genetic memory and more on learning than any other living thing.
The vast differences across cultures, with diverse strategies for social and gender roles cannot be explained by genes.
The simply fact that we differ only a few percentage points from our nearest genetic neighbours should tell you something. Human cultural differentiation cannot be explained by genes. In the 50,000 years since the dawn of abstract thinking sapiens, and since the 300 generations since the onset of civilisation, and much less for most humans cannot begin to explain why there exist such variety in examples where both men and women do equal shares of hunting and gathering, across a massive spectrum where gender roles are strictly observed, relegating men to the outside, hunting, whist women have the reserved role of hearth, child and gathering.
This wide spectrum of gender strategies are followed by cultures that have no discernible genetic differentiation - how could they, humans do not differ by more than a quarter of one percent, this has to account for hair and eye colour, stature, shape of skull etc..
The only conclusion is that whilst the ability to have culture is genetic, the contents of culture, and the strategies of civilisation, technologies of power, gender roles and so forth, are not explicable by reference to genes.
Culture is carried generationally by learning, laws books, art, and the panoply of material culture, adapting generation by generation extra-somatically.
Their is no human nature, there is human culture. If humans are confused, it is because they are not equipped to act by nature as other animals are, and learn a fresh their culture with each new generation. Some cultures are cold, others hot, in the words of Claude Levi-Strauss. We are in an historical point where cultural change is at its hottest, but we do not have a nature to fall back on.
So it's just coincidence that in terms of gender roles, we've been acting pretty much exactly like squirrels and apes for the vast majority of our history?
Female mammals have the equipment for having babies.
Thus, the other genetic job is left to men. Male mammals fight with other males to raise the odds that it will be the strong genes that continue in future generations.
The gender roles that humans have had in the vast majority of times and places throughout our history arise from many millions of years of biology, something far larger than mere culture.
So it's just coincidence that in terms of gender roles, we've been acting pretty much exactly like squirrels and apes for the vast majority of our history?
.
Nope. Read some anthropology. Or maybe you should start by paying a little bit af attention to your own lived experience.
Squirrels don't get married, they don't need education. They don't form into large scale societies, and don't kill each other with WDM. They don't listen to music, write poetry, nor do they exchange knowledge about their world to their children. Their lives do not change from generation to generation and their progress and change is pretty much at the mercy of differential survival rates, in a changing environment. Squirrels do not modify their environment. They do not plan ahead any differently from what their genes have programmed them to do, and this remains unchanged for a million years. They are not good at ad hoc adaptation.
The porn stuff was boring, but this is now an interesting thread. I have to agree and disagree with both, Felasco and Chaz, for the following reasons.
Felasco:
You are correct in your opinion that males and females are different genetically. They are not only different physically, but they actually think differently. And yes, these differences can be seen in, and are comparable to, our animal ancestors. But where you get lost is in your assumption that girls are good and boys are bad. That is bullshit.
You state that the males fight for the right to fuck the best female, but you fail to realize that the females do the same thing. Do you think that the female gorillas stand around in their pretty dresses saying, "Oh me, oh my, I hope that I get the handsome one." No. They beat the shit out of any female who thinks that they have a stronger right to choose a mate. Females also want to fight and fuck.
If you put three different young women in the same home, within a very short time, the more dominant female will actually cause a change in the menstrual cycle of the other females making them follow hers. Generally speaking, the mother's cycle is first, then the daughters in order of birth, unless one or more daughters are more or less dominant. They actually change their body cycles for the right to breed first.
Women are different from men, that does not make them better or worse, just different. There is very little that is as beautiful as an innocent young woman whose eyes shine with beauty and light, except for maybe an innocent young man, whose eyes shine with nobility and light. Women are not known for their nobility, but they are known for being vicious. To interpret men and women as good and bad is foolish, and guarantees that one has lost the ability to actually understand men and women. In my less than humble opinion.
Chaz;
I agree with a great deal of what you stated. Cultures and societies do most definitely dictate the roles of men and women, but they do not do this arbitrarily. Societies note the differences between men and women, the understandings, the capabilities, the physical, mental, and emotional differences, then they find ways to work these different aspects for the advantage of the society and culture. So in some respects, Felasco is correct--regarding these differences.
I also agree that there has been too much change too fast, and we have not caught up. The Industrial Revolution took men away from their homes, but this was not too bad. Then the two world wars, within one generation, caused severe problems. At this time, the male population was diminished, and the female population was removed from the home and sent to the factories. Historically, whenever war diminishes the male population, the next generation of males grows up and beats their way back into the position that their father's possessed. This generally involves a great deal of abuse toward women and children, but it restores balance.
This didn't happen. Balance has not been restored. I think that there are reasons why it did not work this time, and that most of those reasons can be attributed to the rational mind. It is my personal belief that the rational mind is the greatest liar in the world, and the enemy that philosophy was created to counter. Following are the lies that I think caused this problem to stay out of balance:
1. The lie (mental) that men and women are the same. Everyone knows that there are physical differences, and most think that there are emotional differences, but we no longer understand that there are mental differences. I am not talking superiority of one over the other, I am talking about different ways of perceiving situations, different view points, different understandings. When we forgot these mental differences, we forgot how to use these differences within our society, so the strengths and weaknesses of each sex are no longer in balance. Instead, we have a competition for the perceived strengths, and can't find a way to counter the weaknesses.
2. The lie (physical) that formula can replace breast-feeding a baby. This idea was pushed by the government to get women into factories during the war, then was continued because of the convenience, and because it was believed to be more sterile. Now, people are trying to reverse this because they have discovered that formula does not even come close to replacing breast milk--there is also some concern about bonding. But they have completely missed the problem! Hormones and instincts are self balancing, just like life and ecosystems are self balancing.
When a woman becomes pregnant, her attention is consumed by her baby. When she delivers, this does not change for a good six months. Psychology has noted this as a natural phenomenon to preserve life, but still doesn't seem to have a clue as to how this works in balance. Before being pregnant, she would smell her husband and think, "Umm, man." Now she smells her baby and thinks, "Umm, baby.", and then smells her husband and thinks, "Eww, man." So while he is taking showers and putting on deodorant, she is hoping that he will leave so she can enjoy the baby. So what does this have to do with breast-feeding?
Nursing a baby is sexual, and it is stimulating. One can actually feel a tug on the uterus while breast-feeding as this organ is pulled back into shape. Mom is stimulated by nursing, so that she becomes more and more interested in dad. So two months after delivery, mom is looking good, and interested in dad. Dad is noticing that mom is looking good, has some big breasts, is always home, seems to be interested in him, and can't get pregnant. It's a freebee for another four months. This is not coincidence. Mom's instincts and hormones direct her to baby until life is assured, then back to dad to restore the family and balance. This does not happen with bottle feeding, there is nothing physical that counters mom's interest in baby and redirects her back to dad. By the time six months is up, there are all kinds of imagined slights and insecurities to separate the parties and diminish their bond. Can this be part of the problem with the breakdown of families? Absolutely, as hormones and instincts can be subtle, but they are powerful.
3. The lie (emotional) that men are powerful and women are weak. This is simply not true. Men are physically stronger in most ways, but that is not power. If a man falls into a well, most will laugh and ask if he was drunk; but if a baby falls into a well, the world stops and waits for its salvation. That is power!
After the world wars, there were fewer men, and many of those men were broken by war, so there were children and women without protection and resources. The government (US) rectified this problem by creating new agencies to help women and children. It seemed like the right thing to do, and maybe it was. But 70 years later, we are still viewing women and children as weak, needing assistance, and helpless. This attitude is a disservice to all because the government became a protector of women--and who did the government protect women from? Men. In our minds, women became the victims and men became the aggressors.
So now, if a wife becomes bored with her husband, she can take his family, his home, his business, and make him pay for this loss for 15 to 20 years. Does anyone not think this is power? She can do all of this while she is abusing his children, insulting his family, spending his money, and fucking his neighbor. She has every right! And if anyone says anything to her, she can always say that he was mean to her. People will buy that explanation completely. If he tries to stop her, the government will stop him, if he tries to keep his money, the government will jail him. Her behavior is not relevant because, after all, she is the victim here. Women are not weak, they just use different weapons, and these weapons are not recognized outside of the home.
Consider that if another country did this to men, it would be war. As it is, there seems to be a war on women and children--abuse is high--and there is a lot of suicide. Balance has not been restored, and it will not be as long as we believe these lies.
Chaz, I worked in law for many years, and find your advice to your son to be very wise, at least in these times.
chaz wyman wrote:Squirrels don't get married, they don't need education. They don't form into large scale societies, and don't kill each other with WDM. They don't listen to music, write poetry, nor do they exchange knowledge about their world to their children. Their lives do not change from generation to generation and their progress and change is pretty much at the mercy of differential survival rates, in a changing environment. Squirrels do not modify their environment. They do not plan ahead any differently from what their genes have programmed them to do, and this remains unchanged for a million years. They are not good at ad hoc adaptation.
None of this has anything to do with gender roles....