theory_of_this comments on The science of sexual conflict

The science of sexual conflict

submitted 2 years ago by theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser from newstatesman.com

30 comments

new insightful fun

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 years ago (14 children)

[deleted]

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser[S] 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun - 2 years ago (13 children)

The question is not whether men and women are behaviourally identical, the question is whether the behaviour differences in men and women are natural or cultural. It is obviously not a common opinion amongst feminists that men and women are behaviourally identical.

It was obvious that the vast majority of people who believe in innate evolutionary behaviours believe there is an interaction between innate differences and culture.

It is obviously a common opinion among relevant scientists that men and women do have innately different behaviours. Absolute zero difference is not popular in the science community.

Not necessarily, I think that most evopsych claims are impossible to prove or disprove.

What scientific idea are you proposing instead for human behaviour?

Right, my suggestion is to go to the science that it refers to.

Surely we can have a general discussion without raising every paper?

So you’re left needing to prove that the antagonistic behaviour between the sexes (in humans) is due to evolution and not patriarchy.

Do you have a science paper to prove that?

[–][deleted] 2 years ago (12 children)

[deleted]

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser[S] 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun - 2 years ago (11 children)

You are again conflating differences with innate differences.

I'm saying I think there are innate differences and I think they are natural.

Even if it is slight in some traits.

Unless you believe that evolutionary psychology explains the entirety of human behaviour and that largely rejecting evolutionary psychology implies that there is one single idea or discipline that will explain the entirety of human behaviour.

I don't think evolutionary psychology explains everything.

But I don't think science needs to explain everything to be correct.

I also don't think that everything called "evolutionary psychology" is correct.

But I find work that argues towards absolute innate equality unconvincing and not supported by science.

Is not a claim. What are you asking for proof of?

Proof that all recorded sex conflict is down to patriarchy.

[+][deleted] 2 years ago (10 children)

[deleted]

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser[S] 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun - 2 years ago (9 children)

[+][deleted] 2 years ago (8 children)

[deleted]

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser[S] 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun - 2 years ago (7 children)

I think that virtually all of the hypotheses that you express over-rely on common sense (vs good sense) and that your frame of reference is most likely, at best, only 6% of human history, and that the entirety of those 12,000 years (as opposed to the 200,000 years of human history and pre-history) have been either within or peripheral to a subsistence system that is notorious for incentivising social stratification, especially in regards to the sexes.

I think there is evidence that humans are not blank.

I think we also accept there is plenty of evidence that evolution affects the behaviour in all other animals.

It's not wild bad speculation to think human behaviour is also influenced by evolution. I think that's commonly accepted in the relevant sciences.

The degree and forms are debated. That's fine.

When you’re talking about 200,000 years of human history, you need to question your most basic assumptions about how things work to allow the evidence to speak for itself. The fact that sexed division of labour most likely didn't exist until, at most, the Upper Palaeolithic Era (so, at most, the last 25% of human history), is very substantial evidence against your hypothesis of fundamental, natural differences in behaviour existing between the sexes.

Do you have evidence of this? I don't know of absolute egalitarian societies with no gender norms.

Do they vary? Sure. Are they very moderate in places? Sure.

Why would we evolve dimorphic bodies and sexual reproduction and then behave identically?

Pretty sure in nature dimorphic bodies are correlated with dimorphic behaviour.

Ultimately I think that at this point it's unknowable

I get that it's a hard topic but taking the hard blank position for all behaviour and all gendered behaviour seems a leap to me.

I know that it's very tempting to latch onto a belief system that explains things in a way that feels right, but

I mean I think a lot of this is awkward truths where "Feels right" looks like the wrong term. Some things are unpleasant but true.

Thinking bad behaviour is not wired into humans seems like wishful thinking. That doesn't mean "we're bad therefore we must do bad things." Rather than we have to act like humans are prone to "bad" behaviours. Rather than hoping we are perfect if it wasn't for a "bad culture."

[+][deleted] 2 years ago* (4 children)

[deleted]

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser[S] 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun - 2 years ago (3 children)

I've said I won't engage with you if you can't demonstrate you understand my argument(s) and this, for example:

Is so off the mark that I don't believe you do at this point.

Sorry I'm still not clear on how far off I am.

What do you think I am saying?

That men and women are hardwired to absolute roles?

The complementary economic roles for men and women typical of ethnographically documented hunter-gatherers did not appear in Eurasia until the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic

Thanks I'll take a look and get back to you.

They do say "We do not believe that this paper represents the last word on Neandertal socio-economics and division of labor. We fervently hope that it does not."

And the link between agriculture and social stratification, including how it relates to gender roles, is well documented so you should be able to find sources on your own.

Sure I can see that very small communities are likely to be unable to create much social stratification.

Agriculture allows larger communities and larger communities allows more demarcation.

Larger communities would surely find it easier and more efficient to have all kinds of roles that may sometimes fit physical or behaviour differences that may be gendered.

continue this thread

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (1 child)

I think there is evidence that humans are not blank. I think we also accept there is plenty of evidence that evolution affects the behaviour in all other animals.

So, I don’t believe humans are blank, but why focus on this when there is still sexism and misogyny. It were in a perfectly equal society where males and females were socialized exactly the same, there was no sexism or misogyny, and everyone could pursue whatever that wanted, I’m sure there would still some differences. I just don’t understanding with how things are now how you separate anything. I just feel like it’s people justifying whatever notions they have about the sexes as being natural (and, therefore, not able to changed). I don’t think there is anything scientific about it. It just people speculating on causes when there is no way to know.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser[S] 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun - 2 years ago (0 children)

So, I don’t believe humans are blank,

agreement

but why focus on this when there is still sexism and misogyny.

Well it's about working out the whys in order to get a better state.

Relying on an idealised version can lead to worse outcomes.

It were in a perfectly equal society where males and females were socialized exactly the same, there was no sexism or misogyny, and everyone could pursue whatever that wanted, I’m sure there would still some differences.

Yes.

I agree the differences vary and can be more or less.

Though there might be a situation where if you narrow lots of things some things widen. And some things can have an almost fashion cycle within limits. Memetic drift.

I just don’t understanding with how things are now how you separate anything.

I think there are ways science can progress.

For instance Dr Breedlove work. I don't think it's studied enough.

I don't think the science is going to say there are and ought to be rigid gender roles. Even if it does say there are some almost binary things, for example sexuality, and some propensities, for example aggression.

GCdebatesQT

MODERATORS