Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 37,191,467 times
Reputation: 40641
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by pathrunner
Nope. The "natural order" refers to biology, not culture.
It doesn't though. Most of the people on this forum commenting on "biology" left and right don't even have a BS in biology, never mind a MS. They call things "biology" when its sociological. If the so called "natural order" for humans dictated one way of being, we'd see all societies having the same general framework both now and in the past. We don't, and haven't, throughout history. There are and were very matriarchal societies. There were (probably still are) that have very different mating systems, from what we consider "normal", monogamy, to polyandry, polygamy, harems, and others. The mating systems are typical in response to distribution of resources across a landscape. So there is a biological component (environmental), but its not about human biology.
How can you say that it's entirely sociological when women are the ones with hormones, and who give birth (biology)? Many (not all) women are hard-wired to nest and nurture. I can't expect you, as a man, to understand that.
Of course, in some societies biological and sociology are intertwined, but the fundamental energy and structure is affected by biology. In those other societies you mention, many of them are not based upon a nuclear family with one man and one woman. They're based upon an entirely different set of circumstances and structure, which yes are sociological in nature, but there are always those who are going to be the nurturers and the hunter/warriors.
And now in this society, we have women who prefer to be hunter/warriors and men who prefer or by necessity end up being nester/nurturers.
If the so called "natural order" for humans dictated one way of being, we'd see all societies having the same general framework both now and in the past. We don't, and haven't, throughout history. There are and were very matriarchal societies. There were (probably still are) that have very different mating systems, from what we consider "normal", monogamy, to polyandry, polygamy, harems, and others.
Most societies have the same general framework: males in breadwinning roles and females in domestic roles.
There may be some societies that did not follow this pattern, but they are obscure and it is not confirmed where or if they existed.
Not sure I follow you. I was referring to male/female relationships and the usual biological way of relating to one another, especially when it comes to sex, childbirth and child rearing. I do understand and agree with your point about the history of race in our society.
Same principle.
While our biology does play a role (hormones), control and social structure have a great influence in how we behave and what we accept as the natural order. Technology has loosened much of the biological constraints, but natural order lagged greatly behind.
We see it today where often men are ridiculed for interest in nurturing situations, SAHD, nannies, daycare workers, men are ridiculed for being victims of domestic assault and sexual assault, they are ridiculed for not being masculine enough. The surveys and interviews with men and women in which a woman is the higher earner show embarrassment from both earners to which they will inflate or deflate their true earnings, women are often looked upon as freaks if they dont want children or dont like children, women are often still mocked for being aggressive in the male dominated professions, women are still often expected to be nurturers and play second fiddle to their male counterparts when it comes to careers, wants and needs and accomplishment, ideas. Because we want to fit in and be accepted. This is not biology, its remnants of social constraints or accepted natural order of things.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 37,191,467 times
Reputation: 40641
Quote:
Originally Posted by pathrunner
How can you say that it's entirely sociological when women are the ones with hormones, and who give birth (biology)? Many (not all) women are hard-wired to nest and nurture. I can't expect you, as a man, to understand that.
Many men are as well. Though society tends to make men downplay it. Less so today, but it still persists among many.
Oh, men have plenty of hormones. We actually all have all the hormones. I have estrogen, you have testosterone. Hormones though don't create societal structure. If that were the case, we'd see the same or similar structure across history. Heck, we don't even see it today across the globe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pathrunner
Of course, in some societies biological and sociology are intertwined, but the fundamental energy and structure is affected by biology. In those other societies you mention, many of them are not based upon a nuclear family with one man and one woman.
Correct. They're not based upon our cultural dynamics. It's not biological.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pathrunner
They're based upon an entirely different set of circumstances and structure, which yes are sociological in nature, but there are always those who are going to be the nurturers and the hunter/warriors.
Sure, and in lots of societies women fought, and gathered both animals for food as well. The anthropology of today is far more informed. Back in the 80s and 90s it was all about males, hunters and warriors; women gathered crops, processed food, and raised children. The picture painted in the field today, as the archaeological and anthropological evidence has evolved, is far more complex and nuanced.
But you're conflating who controls society and who is stronger. That's not true across all societies. There seems to be a very narrow view being promoted here that the physically strongest will rule. Absolutely not true historically across the globe. Look at some of the societies dominated by religion. The ones running it, in some cases priestess, were not ruling because of physical adeptness, but because of the belief they are ordained by gods. Nothing to do with their physical might as individuals or a group, but everything to do with culture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pathrunner
And now in this society, we have women who prefer to be hunter/warriors and men who prefer or by necessity end up being nester/nurturers.
That's not new, or just in this society. It's actually more respresentative of many older societies than ours.
Since it became common for women to work in the labor force, stark differences have arisen in the kinds of work men and women choose to do. 99% of kindergarten teachers are women, while 99% of HVAC workers are men, as just two examples.
Human nature doesn't change even though society changes. I find that fascinating.
There a couple of comflicting trends. In general when men pick a career or pick a degree they tend to be more focused on careers that and majors with a higher income potential. So there are far more men in Engineering than in Art History. In medical school, the specialities with the highest salaries tend to be the most male. Women also tend to dominate fields that involve caring for others whether it is being a vet or taking care of young children or a lot of the caring fields like say being a shrink. That said that monetary effect of guys picking careers and majors that pay better is completely being swamped by the sure number of women going to to college and grad school. Back in the 60's and 70's there was an assumption if we reduced the barriers that were preventing women from getting an education that men in women would achieve parity in education. That hasn't occurred at all. Now the gender gap in education is as large as it was in back in the 60's and 70's but it has been reversed in favor of women.
Human nature may not change but societial change is going to change how families will operate. Young single women make more money than young single men because they are on average a lot better educated than men. Additionally the high paying jobs that less well educated men used to have access to like working in factories have either been exported abroad or have been automated and replaced by machines in machines and robots, so there just isn't as many of those jobs.
There is a dislocation process happening for men. The rules and roles for women have changed dramatically in the past 40 years for women but not as much for men. The rules for men used to be pretty clear for men, it was a man's job to look after and to protect and provide women. That is breaking down because some men no longer have the means to do that as effectively as they did in the past because of falling real incomes for men since the 1970's. But also because somen women are pushing against these efforts claiming that they functioned as a guilded cage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenk893
We do not like independent women and never have. The only men I've seen who like women like that are (usually white) liberal men that play a passive role in their relationships. I've never seen a black man, persian, or latino enthralled with a woman whose independent. It's not our culture.
I agree that some men probably really don't like changing gender norms. The vision offered to men in the broader culture is just really bleak right now. The male characters in the more recent Marvel movies are mostly buffoons and the female characters are mostly Mary Sues. As the culture has gotten more feminized, feminist ideas that viewed gender relations as a zero sum game where men need to lose for women to rise have also been normalized and that is fueling a backlash. There is no positive vision being laid out to men for the future and when someone like Jordan Petersen tries to do that, he is vilified. So yes there is a reason Andrew Tate has gotten as big as he has. There is a reason the manosphere has gotten as big at it has did. I am not a big fan of Andrew Tate nor the manosphere, but I do understand their appeal. While the internet plaforms that are also now gate keepers to the culture are in the process of taking out the current Andrew Tate, his role will probably be filled by someone else shortly because that message he was advocating had a lot of traction. So I am expecting soon that we will get the next iteration(s)of another Andrew Tate type of character and I think there will be a substanial number of men who will not be interested in independent women.
But at the larger level, women have changed. Young women are dramatically better educated than young men right now and that is going to mean that women's roles in relationships have now changed. The only question to me that is up in the air is in what direction? I think some men will change to accommodate the change in women and they will do very well, but I think a substantial fraction of the men will also not change. My hunch is that this means a lot women don't ever get married and a lot more women if they have kids at all are going to be using their higher incomes to pay for their kids on their own especially if a lot of guys don't change and I think a lot of guys are not going to change.
Quote:
Based on Census Bureau historical data and Morgan Stanley forecasts, 45% of prime working age women (ages 25-44) will be single by 2030—the largest share in history—up from 41% in 2018.
Immigration might change things. People do bring the ideas from the cultures where they are raised and the immigrants are likely going to be arriving from cultures with growing populations and these people will likely have very different ideas about gender relations, but I also don't know to what extent immigration will happen either.
How can you say that it's entirely sociological when women are the ones with hormones, and who give birth (biology)? Many (not all) women are hard-wired to nest and nurture. I can't expect you, as a man, to understand that.
Of course, in some societies biological and sociology are intertwined, but the fundamental energy and structure is affected by biology. In those other societies you mention, many of them are not based upon a nuclear family with one man and one woman. They're based upon an entirely different set of circumstances and structure, which yes are sociological in nature, but there are always those who are going to be the nurturers and the hunter/warriors.
And now in this society, we have women who prefer to be hunter/warriors and men who prefer or by necessity end up being nester/nurturers.
First of all, pet peeve of mine, it's not that "women have hormones"...testosterone is a hormone. Men have hormones, too. (addressed far better by timberline, above, which I suspected would happen! )
But yes they are different in some essential ways that I assume evolution would have found it just...easier...adaptations that work tend to stick around.
However, there is a HUGE, huge way in which the evo psych stuff falls so very short. One of our greatest adaptations as a species is our social behavior, which specifically involves and requires that we enter life totally helpless compared to many species, and have these long childhoods...but that gives us time to learn all of the social rules about the world around us.
This is a really good, really cool thing...and also a terrible thing. Because it is, in my opinion, even quite a bit more powerful than our basic animal stuff including the whole protector/provider vs nurturer paradigm, and includes the possibility that we will learn and internalize incredibly maladaptive behaviors. Things that are the opposite of beneficial to us as individuals and/or to our offspring.
If "wiring" is a thing, then programming is even more of a thing. And it is possible, and often happens, that bad programming can get coded into one's psyche that requires a lifetime of work to debug, if it's ever done at all.
However, this situation also allows us the ability to adapt, which we must because we change our own environment so much. The most functional adaptations will survive and be passed along. This could very easily include changes to these roles, but it does not just boom! switch overnight. And anyways, we are a weird species! Who knows what we are capable of? Does anyone here believe that we will never figure out ways to completely create and incubate an infant without the need for a woman to be pregnant? What then? How long will it be, before natural pregnancy and childbirth could become unfashionable and obsolete? I've read Brave New World. I know where this leads! lol
So yeah, that natural gender role stuff, it's a thing but it isn't an absolute thing. There is no good reason to see it as the only way or even the best one, in an absolute way. And we are not quite like any other species on the earth, as we sit here typing away on this internet we created, it's rather silly to act like we are confined to the same behavioral rules as that of any other animal.
Not so much data but various anecdotes I've seen. Here is one that I saw recently. Wife earned much higher than husband, didn't respect him, had an affair where she called him a stupid animal, ended up divorced and the wife had to pay alimony and child support.
"Natural order" is just code for how patriarchal societies decided to structure themselves for the benefit of those in control.
Too much all or nothing thinking here. It is not one or the other it is both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pathrunner
Nope. The "natural order" refers to biology, not culture.
Technology has loosened the grip of the natural order due to birth control, jobs for women, etc.
Yes, the patriarchy sucks. It's getting better, but biology is what dictates the "natural order" of things. If men had more estrogen and women had more testosterone, there wouldn't be a patriarchy.
The order of things is influenced by both the underlying culture and biology. The more gender egalitarian the society is, the more likely women are voluntarily going to choose to go into helping professions involving children and animals. So if you look at the Scandinavian cultures, you have far fewer women deciding to go into math, cs and the hard sciences than in more patriarchal cultures like India, Pakistan and Iran. Culture has an influence but so too does our biology. There is no physical or mental limitation that prevents women from becoming a bike mechanic, but women just aren't as interested in machines and so they lack interest in doing it. Look at what toys small children play with and how they choose to play with them. Guys are into objects women are into people and relationships. some of this seems hardwired.
Not so much data but various anecdotes I've seen. Here is one that I saw recently. Wife earned much higher than husband, didn't respect him, had an affair where she called him a stupid animal, ended up divorced and the wife had to pay alimony and child support.
I am not trying to be sarcastic, but what does this video have to do with "independent' women? This video is about a high female earner who was married to someone she didn't respect because of arrogance, became more and more disenchanted and then had an affair that ruined her marriage, her life and happiness. I've seen the video before, probably here on C-D. It seems as though the woman wanted to be independent when it was actually simply a matter of being bored and wanting excitement while at the same time looking down on her spouse.
She never wanted to be independent. She was dissatisfied with her choice of husband and now she's unhappy being on her own. It sort of implies that an independent-minded woman can be, or is, selfish and self-serving to the detriment of others when that isn't the case with many women.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)