View Single Post
  #178  
Old 05-27-2019, 10:24 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
It makes no sense ...

<snip>

... It's just undeniable that ...
Years back I read a very funny bit that gave a translation guide for reading papers. Basic idea was a list of phrases that should be read replacing them with "I have no support of ..."

Pretty much all sexually dimorphic species have significant difference in the roles filled by the different genders. This includes species with culture and our closest relative species like the chimpanzee, which includes male dominance, with males being much more physically aggressive, more likely to range more broadly and hunt, and with females more likely to spend more time gathering and nurturing with less physical conflict.

Human hunter-gatherer societies are thought by some to have had a more level playing field in group decision making and shared power than our nearest non-human primate relatives, with some hypothesizing that it allowed for some advantages to the groups that had less inequality, but agriculture's onset flipped that dynamic: the innate differences between human genders drove the development of increased sexual inequalities and the nature of cultural male/female expectations within the context of that development. Cultures did not just get dropped down from above; they emerged as a consequence, and across the world as agriculture displaced hunter-gathering, similar (not exactly the same mind you) stereotyped expectations of male and female behaviors and roles became the norms.

I doubt there is much to support a statement that males who completely reject the male stereotypes are more successful or "better" other than by defining "better" as not having internalized the stereotype. Many of the traits connected to the stereotype are those associated with success and leadership. Of course "toxic" anything is by definition when the dose of it is harmful, so that becomes a bit tautological and only can be meaningful when asking what is the "toxic dose" of internalization of the caricature.

It is actually quite remarkable and unexpected from a cross-species analysis that humans have the capacity to not have our genders define our roles and behaviors within our group behaviors. But while agricultural societies led to the innate physical and behavioral difference having huge impacts on cultural expectations and stereotypes, we are now in a very different time with our modern information-driven world being an environment that favors traits differently. One does better gathering the exact right bits of information than hunting to kill the big fact. In an information-driven world one who can manage the social groups is more valuable than one who dominates them with force.

We are fairly special and remarkable (although I doubt unique) as a species on this planet to have the ability to change our cultures as our cultures change our world and to flatten the differences in gender-related expectations and judgements (by selves and others). We can recognize that certain caricatures of gender-related roles and behaviors handicap our society from achieving more and harm various individual members of it of both genders.

Last edited by DSeid; 05-27-2019 at 10:25 AM.