The science of sexual conflict

submitted by theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser from newstatesman.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser[S] 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (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."

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (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 - 4 fun -  (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.