The Biological Roles of Men and Women
To what extent do you agree that the basic roles of men and women are as follows.
1) Men provide for and protect women.
2) Women provide babies and protect them.
If you are happy to accept these basic biological drives then:
- What happens if women do not want to be provided for or protected by men. Meaning, what do men do instead to fill this gap?
- What happens if women do not want to bear children or protect children. Meaning, what do women do instead to fill this gap?
Even though this is a massive generalisation please try and run with it and see how both men and women can substitute in something else for these basic biological drives.
PLEASE NOTE: I am not saying these drives define either men or women only that they are part of our collective biological features not merely social constructs. If you wish to argue that they are 100% social constructs go ahead I guess (but preferably in another thread).
1) Men provide for and protect women.
2) Women provide babies and protect them.
If you are happy to accept these basic biological drives then:
- What happens if women do not want to be provided for or protected by men. Meaning, what do men do instead to fill this gap?
- What happens if women do not want to bear children or protect children. Meaning, what do women do instead to fill this gap?
Even though this is a massive generalisation please try and run with it and see how both men and women can substitute in something else for these basic biological drives.
PLEASE NOTE: I am not saying these drives define either men or women only that they are part of our collective biological features not merely social constructs. If you wish to argue that they are 100% social constructs go ahead I guess (but preferably in another thread).
Comments (57)
How can biology alone determine a role unless your are only genetically an animal both physically and behaviourally?
Quoting I like sushi
If you cannot do this there is probably not much for us to discuss because:
Quoting I like sushi
Ok, so you believe there is some innate biological drive in adult males and females to act a particular way.
Quoting I like sushi
I think this is a stereotype and prejudice, not an actual reality. I know a women in my life who provides for and protects her man. She's a psychologist who makes all the money in the house while he's a stay at home 'entrepreneur' who hasn't started even one business in the 7 years they've been together. I've known of at least two women who've abandoned their kids when I was growing up.
But this judgement is anecdotal. Biological sex expectations cannot be determined by pop-psychology or philosophy. It can only be determined by good science. That means lots of studies that take bias into account, study cross culture outcomes, and are repeated despite looking for different outcomes.
If you want to talk about the social biases or expectations and whether society should have them, that's more a conversation which can be discussed here.
Assume there is something, small but just significant enough, if you think biology is separate from psychology.
If you need evidence that there are clear biological differences between men and women that play into their psychological make-up go seek it out if you wish. It is certainly messy and not particularly clear cut.
Quoting Philosophim
Not particularly.
Quoting I like sushi
So, if women do not have children and they have a drive to nurture and care for children, then how might this present itself in modern life?
And, if men possess a natural drive to provide and protect for their partners and children, then how might this drive present itself in the modern world if there are no women willing to have children?
If you are not interested in participating no problem.
But that's just biased speculation. I don't see that as good philosophy when the answer is clear that we need objective research to truly judge. Its in the same vein of, "We assume women are born to work in the kitchen and make sandwiches for men, what it be like if they could not be in the kitchen but still had that innate biological drive to make a man a sandwich?"
Quoting I like sushi
My participation is pointing out that this is not a reasonable topic to discuss and can only rely on prejudice and sexism if it continues. I'll leave it at that.
Biased opinion.
Surely there are women who "do not want to be provided for or protected by men".
But probably the more prevalent situation is "women who realize that an increasing number of men cannot be counted on to provide and protect."
Quoting I like sushi
They become Karens.
But hopefully, they just become old ladies with cats.
Let’s begin with the recognition that there exists variation within the human species, as well as within the female sex and the male sex. It is never one size fits all.
But there is biological evidence to show significant differences between males and females that translate to differences in attitudes and behaviors.
As an instance, let’s consider the hormone oxytocin, the mother-baby bonding hormone. A key “social molecule” active in the central nervous system, it’s found at similar plasma levels in males and females, but has evolved sex-dependent roles. It functions differently at the male vs. female amygdala, causing sex-dependent outcomes -
[i]… oxytocin treatment produces sex- and valence-dependent increases in amygdala activation when women view individuals identified as praising others but in men those who criticize them…
… oxytocin may act differentially via the amygdala to enhance the salience of positive social attributes in women but negative ones in men.[/i]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661324001700
(Oxytocin) has evolved some sex-specific functions at both neural and behavioral level -
[i]In women, oxytocin facilitates positive social judgments, social approach, kinship recognition, and altruism
In men, it facilitates negative social judgments, social avoidance, competitor recognition, and selfishness[/i]
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4941426/
These lists of sex-specific behaviors based on hormonal action do tend to support a natural, biological basis for the idea that females are nurturers and males are protectors.
Quoting I like sushi
Lol, a woman should bever be considered a "gap" to be filled.
Quoting I like sushi
Become that crazy auntie that everyone loves
Did the study ask if these men were single alone or with females. If oxytocin production in males was something sympathetic to something like pheromone interaction with females?
Good point. I'm sure the function of oxytocin is complex. Its negative effects are mitigated in the presence of women. I did find this -
Similarly, estratetraenol, a pheromone found in female urine, exerts a calming effect on men and heightens their sensitivity to female facial expressions. Studies examining the impact of estratetraenol exposure on men’s social cognition suggest that emotional reactions to touch are intensified under its influence. This indicates that exposure to estratetraenol might reshape men’s social cognition, particularly in sexual contexts, and potentially boost sexual motivation, thus facilitating behaviors associated with seeking a sexual partner.
3 Subliminal Impacts That Pheromones Have on Relationships
The exact opposite actually. Questioner is along the right path by pointing out actual science.
It is clearly a speculative question when it comes to a women's prevalance to nurture, as does a woman 'act out' such biological instincts if they do not have a child or are not exposed to children? Assuming there is something that remains how may this present?
I was looking for a bit more of a deep dive than 'crazy auntie'. So, what is it about a 'crazy auntie's' behaviour that makes it crazy? What is the craziness? What other ways may this present?
The old lady with cats makes sense to a degree, and I do think plenty of couples substitute children with pets.
Quoting Questioner
Regardless, if men seek women and there are not enough women how do they behave?
Quoting baker
Yes. This is not what the question is asking though.
Quoting baker
Undoubtedly true in some cases. But again, this is not what is being asked.
Quoting baker
What kind of behaviour is this? Perhaps the 'old lady with cats' shows a proclivity for nurturing. What is it that Karens do?
Also, what do men do if there is no one to provide for (woman and children) and therefore no need to protect them? How could this display itself otherwise in their behaviour?
Lighten up
If that is all you are going to contribute that is your choice. No big deal.
Enjoy your day.
Then men build machines or corporations. Men are problem-solvers. Despite the popularity of money and wealth, men who build things do it for its intrinsic meaning and importance.
Quoting I like sushi
They become rescuers of wildlife. They build wildlife conservation. They petition for the protection of natural habitats. They also fight for the preservation of natural landscapes.
So they would build something to protect and provide for is what you mean? I guess a business venture could function as a 'child' of kinds. Plenty of people refer to a business venture as their 'baby,' so perhaps there is something to this.
Quoting L'éléphant
Protection of vulnerable/innocent. Seems like a reasonable substitute. Nurturing animals woudl seem like the most obvious substitute to raising children.
Yes. Many of them go for broke just to keep a business alive. And we don't have to think in terms of corporations.
Building a prototype is more than building a machine. It's their brainchild. It's emotional for them.
Quoting I like sushi
Yes, again.
Hint: motherland
Are women, on average more skilled at child rearing than men, on average? Probably, by a small, but measurable amount. But the childrearing skill of women in the top and bottom 5th%ile, is extremely vast. In other words, the curves for women and men's childrearing prowess mainly overlap with a tiny sliver at yhe extremes that don't. It's a false premise.
It is a hypothetical question which means to look at the possible effects of possible biological drives on social roles. That is all.
If you are of the mindset that men's and women's roles are 100% social constructs you can take that up in another thread. I am not insulting your intelligence though, so I think you can fathom that it is POSSIBLE that biological drives play out in our social behaviours and in the example outlined in the OP I am asking specifically about how these drives may play out if they are not fulfilled under the assumption they will play out in a signifcant manner.
Now that that is cleared up, what do you think? Other than what has already been suggested anything else spring to mind?
Ha ha for giggles. The nicest thing a woman can do is gift a man an aerosol spray bottle of her piss.
I am sure of this because I believe the science that supports it. I don't think we would have survived the ice age without innate drives.
Quoting I like sushi
I think the best example of how our social behaviors play out is politically. Programs that meet children's needs and those of working mothers have increased as the number of women elected has increased. The drive to care for others is there, whether a woman has a child or not. While the testosterone-driven behaviors of males can override their efforts to be civil.
Married men tend to have lower testosterone than single males, and when a man divorces, his testosterone level increases. Gentle, nurturing men tend to have lower testosterone levels.
I apologize for being difficult to understand. I don't dispute that there are real, biological differences between the average level of the sexes on many if not just about every measure. However, these very real, yet statistically small differences (compared to the differences within each group), are, in fact exaggerated by just about everyone (including the OP), which is hence the origin of the concept of "social roles" or more accurately: stereotypes. Given the relative sizes of the variances between the genders compared to within them, my point is where an individual falls on a measure, say aptitude for childrearing, is due more to where they place within their gender, than which gender they happen to possess, statistically. This effect is measured taking into account both biological and social influences, so doesn't distinguish between them.
Thus by my understanding, 1) biologic influences are definitely real, more importantly they are 2) multifactorial, such that 3) they include both gendered and nongendered effects, but most importantly 4) the nongendered biologic effects account for the majority of what we observe in individuals.
The question is IF there is a biological drive to bear and raise children for women that presents itself in societal roles how would this present in society if they did not fulfil this biological drive. Same for men regarding upperbody strength and predominance in role involving brute force; where women are massively lagging.
You are aware that testosterone has many benefits too. I have never heard that married men have lower testosterone? That is interesting if true.
Yes, the physical strength difference between the average man compared to the average woman is very small compared to the difference between the strongest man and the weakest man. Thus where any human falls on a strength measure has much more association with their relative strength within their gender than whether they are male or female.
As to the question of where does the natural drive to express oneself physically go in men with sedentary jobs? Probably similar to the way women with sedentary jobs express themselves physically. Ditto with childrearing feelings in the childless (women vs men).
That is a very clever/perverse way of not denying that men are on average significantly stronger than women.
Just because the disparity in strength between men is greater than in women, this does not mean the strength differences between men and women are not significant (which they factually are btw).
I guess you are a 100% social construct kinda guy. Not interested.
That is the science. I did not provide the link because it is AI. This field of science changed and changed. At the beginning of women's liberation, there was a push to prove that there are no differences between men and women other than who gives birth to the child. Then came the backlash, and there are several ways males and females are different, but these differences are not the same for everyone, like cookie-cutter copies of men and women.
Like in the video about trees I posted in another thread, there is not one model for men and another for women, but our emotional intelligence is hormonal and situational. When men watch football, their testosterone increases. Men and women tend to respond differently to crying babies, but the outcome is the same. The baby's needs are met. But the difference tends to be between a loving response and an irritated response. I want to stress that this is situational, not just a male or a female response. We are in a constant give-and-take with the universe.
Because of the differences between males and females, I believe it is very important that children have both a mother and a father. Each brings something different to the child. Nature has made the mother the most important to the child in the early stages of development, when, hopefully, the mother is producing milk and nursing the baby, and the father is providing a high-protein diet. When the mother hears her baby cry, she is apt to produce more milk. A hormonal reaction that men do not have. Nursing the baby causes the uterus to contract, and oxytocin is produced.
One AI sentence-
"Oxytocin is a hormone and neurotransmitter produced in the hypothalamus and released by the pituitary gland, essential for childbirth, lactation, and social bonding."
Female social bonding and male testosterone bonding are different. Bonding happens, but the conversations in the two groups will be different.
Please keep our hormonal differences in mind. Get the information about hormones before making your argument. It might be harder for a woman to leave her child in a day care than for a man, because her hormones are different.
I am not saying that some women don't gladly leave their baby with someone else. I am saying that our hormones make this decision different for the average woman, who will have a different hormonal reaction to a crying baby than a man. If a woman does decide to leave her baby with someone else, this will be easier if she does not breastfeed the baby. I am not sure this is what is good for civilization.
If women were not hormonally different from men, I don't think we would have survived, and if we did survive, we may not have become civilized.
Yes, and thank goodness for the difference. Dishwashers are useful, but they don't do laundry as well as laundry machines designed to wash clothes.
Women's liberation did not liberate women to be true to their hormonal reality. Women's liberation made it taboo to be a natural woman, and it has demanded that she be like a man.
When the USSR "liberated women", the number of divorces and abortions increased, and more women and children fell below the level of poverty. With our own experience of "women's liberation," not only have divorces and abortions increased, but so has the number of women and children involved in crime, as victims and perpetrators.
Education, preparing our young for the military-industrial complex, has brought us to worsening social problems and cultural conflict that threatens the unity of the United States. About a decade after the National Defense Education Act was passed, the US announced a national youth crisis. The cost of medical care and educating our children has greatly increased, and we have a national child care crisis. I think any day now, we might begin to appreciate women and everything they do, and stop the damage done when the stay-at-home woman became "just a housewife". What women did for our civilization was very important, and we shot ourselves in the foot when we made her "just a housewife".
Quoting Athena
I haven't looked at the stats, but back in the day husbands could beat their wives and that was not a "crime". Now that it is, that might be one reason women are victims of more crimes. Isn't that a good thing? Crime stats are notorious for being mani[pulated not by human behavior, but by the justice system. If we legalized everything, there would be no crime.
Similarly, sexual liberation has probably led to more abortions (as has the legality of abortion). Do we really want to make abortion illegal again? Are the statistics about the number of abortions from when it was illegal accurate? I doubt it. Maybe we should go back to the days when Hester Prynne was forced to wear a scarlet "A".
I'll bet a lot of women whose husbands beat and abused them wanted to get divorced in the past, but were unable to, by law, or economic necessity, or custom. Was that a good thing?
Quoting Athena
Trump is bad enough, but our "cultural conflict" is less problematic than during the Civil War (or even the Viet Nam war). Social problems were worse in the Depression -- and even in the 50s and 60s when many states had racially segregated schools, buses, etc. "Worsening"? I suppose they've worsened in the past year, but in general, they've been improving with time -- in part because of the liberation of women.
Oh, I'm responding specifically to Sushi. My issue is there was no science given to focus on, so it was going to descend into sexist opinions. I am very aware of many provable sex differences, hormones being one of the least important differences.
Quoting Athena
To me it doesn't matter that there is difference, only acknowledging and observing there is based on scientific facts, not culture or feelings.
I disagree that "[gender] roles" are equal to, or should be conflated with, supposed "basic biological drives". Afaik, [I]males[/I] usually can impregnate females and [I]females[/I] usually can give birth to live babies – anatomy is functional opportunity, not 'destiny' – and a not insignificant fraction of either sex is sterile/infertile or homosexual or (involuntarily) celibate; ergo, "provide" and "protect" are socialized – complementary hetero-normative (i.e. [I]yinyang[/I]-like)– gender roles which are not 'determined' but are mostly only facilitated by biology (e.g. evolutionary psychology).
I guess they become incels and cat ladies, respectively; however, even in Western [I]Liberal[/i] Patriarchy, the majority of women are not [I]allowed[/i] these (anti-masculine / anti-natal) choices. :zip:
Quoting 180 Proof
No shit.
It is interesting to see that people can offer up thoughtful responses to something they believe is implied but when it comes to the question there are far fewer thoughtful answers offered.
What does being a 'cat lady' or 'incel' entail?
I would be reluctant to suggest that any one thing has contributed to anything else. Maybe one thing is more significant than many others though.
On point, Sis.
Just to be clear a difference can be "significant" yet significantly smaller than a different comparison. And what we're discussing is an excellent example.
That's fine. I was just a housewife. What do I know?
I do not know your meaning. If you are supporting the value of women who do not have college degrees and fantasic jobs, thank you. I do want to raise awareness, but I don't want to argue with people who are clueless about the value to society that women once were.
:lol: I think the best way to end thinking is to deny the truth of what is said. Because there can be multiple reasons for something, it does not make one of those reasons false. Right now, governments are alarmed by their declining birth rate.
I wish we could use AI because it supports what I said nicely and we might have conversation that is worth my effort. Every time I am confronted by this AI problem, I start wondering if I want return to the forum, especially when I stand alone with my argument, and I have the facts, but I can't use them.
Why in heaven's name do people want to deny the value of women that is based on our biological differences? This denial is a damn poor way to think about the present and our future, and it sure is not women's liberation!
If that is true, demonstrate your knowledge of biological differences and justify that it is the least important fact. Personally, I feel like a woman, and that is very important to me. I have no desire to be a man.
And what happens if a woman does want to be a woman and to have children and stay home to care for them? What happens if she wants a man to be a man?
You are not emulating your namesake, Athena, who was a virgin, childless goddess and (if I remember correctly) beat up Ares in the Iliad. Men ARE men -- we can't help it. But some of us prefer nurturing children to raking in the cash.
Arguments about nature vs. nurture are inconclusive. None of us would be what we are without both.
What concerns me most is the freedom to be a woman and to be valued as one. This involves so many things, including our language. A google search reveals today's feminist and language concerns are different from mine. My concerns are very old and come from my return to college. I did a research paper on middle-aged women and learned that I had a domestic language, good for raising children and socializing with other mothers, but not for academic papers or a career. There are huge differences between being a full-time homemaker or having a career, and I am arguing in favor of maintaining that difference for social and political reasons.
We had an industry that was based on the domestic model, and that is different from the business model. I don't mean all industry has a domestic model, but that some industry did. We had a door industry that was based on the domestic model, and that would be family values. It was sold to outsiders, and the shit hit the fan. The new owners lacked the soul of the people who first created the business, and they did not succeed because the residents refused to cooperate with outsiders who saw this as just an economic affair, not people sharing a goal and the benefit.
The same has happened to our largest hospital. The owners bought the hospital from the nuns who established it. Its economic problem is growing, and nurses and doctors are not staying. Do I need to say the nuns were women, and the priests did not take an active role in establishing a hospital?
What is changing is more than our attitude about male and female roles.
They are not matriarchal. They a matrilineal. A common mistake which leads to unfounded statements. Not in any way a stab at you - but it is wrong to claim the Cherokee did or do embody a matriarchy.
All that said, it was certainly more equitable than almost all other Native American societies.
It seems like more and more people read what they think not what is written on this forum. I was not saying it was or was not a major factor only that in every complex social situation (all of them) there is always more than one driving element.
This entire OP is set up to explore ONE element though. Thank you for grasping that at least instead of arguing against strawmen :)
I would like to go deeper though. I heard someone speculate about how video games and social media in general have possibly fostered something like the kind of drives I am referring to. The advent of AI has led to AI substitutes for partners (teenagers seem susceptible to this I reckon more than most).
NOTE: For anyone else reading this the point is not to stereotype it is to look at broader patterns of human bahaviour. Stereotypical virtue signalling is BORING.
Importantly, matrilineal may include the inheritance of property and titles that go to the woman, not the man. She has value as a woman who owns the home, and this gives her voice a degree of power. That is a whole lot better than having no more rights than a slave. The White pioneer woman's reality, which some pioneer women strongly objected to when the US was fighting against slavery, but the nation was ignoring the White woman's slavery, which was called marriage. While Cherokee women had a strong voice, including governing and war decisions.
Enjoying being a woman does not mean being abused. Obviously, an abusive situation is not desirable. It is delightful to talk about this and what our hormones have to do with our behaviors.
For me, @AmadeusD expanded my thinking on the subject when he argued that the Cherokee have been matrilineal. I hate it when I speak of the value of women and my resentment of women's lib that demands we all be as males, and someone talks about all the bad of our past, women being abused, and preventing them from having careers, etc. That did not happen the same way in the Cherokee culture.
A culture based on the Bible has some problems because it is patriarchal. How sad this is to have a body that wants children, when the men are not the husbands and fathers that a family needs. Without the economic and social conditions for good families, men and women may not be the ideal people that happy and healthy families need.
I had to look up "AI substitutes for partners". I would love to try an AI romance. Even better would be a robot as in the British TV series "Humans". What is wrong with an imaginary romance or best friend?
Too much generalisation. These days, women seem to be enjoying their freedom more than men. Protection is not a right word to describe the relationship. Relationship works under equality basis.
:sweat: Vague (and reasonable) condescension aside, thank you!
Quoting Athena
Or less than, as in plenty of current societies outside the west, unfortunately.
Quoting Athena
Profound. And my experience is that this is closer to a 'woman intuition' than anything regarding "ancient wisdom" or whatever the New Age like to say.
Quoting Athena
My understanding is a bit different to this on both counts, but then that'll be the case lol.
Protection is very much the right word for the relationships. And a woman with children is not a free person.
I like this Charokee proverb https://deanaohara.org/2012/08/21/cherokee-proverb-our-highest-calling/
Quoting I like sushi
Followed by
Quoting I like sushi
If you believe what I am referring to are merely social constructs then I had that covered in the OP. Otherwise, I woudl be very interested to see if yourself, or anyone else, can think of some other possibility as to how these kind of drives may registered in human bahaviour on both large and small scales. Obviously with such broad generalisations the larger scale has more validity than anecdotal instances.
Do we see more women moving into jobs that are favoured by men more? If not this would go against some people's views. There is evidence that women do prefer certain careers over men, but I am pretty sure (judging by some of the knee jerk responses) this will be flatout denied by some.
How about in leisure? Do men and women interact more now in leisure activities compared to the past? It seems so to me, and if so then what effects could this possibly have on general bahaviour in terms of drives I outlined in the OP?
Here is the hormonal experience of having to stay home and care for a sick child, https://www.google.com/search?q=effect+of+staying+home+with+a+sick+child+in+hormon+stress&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS990US990&oq=effect+of+staying+home+with+a+sick+child+in+hormon+stress&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRiPAtIBCjI3NzE5ajBqMTWoAgiwAgHxBdi91Fp4niKX&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Especially if the woman is a menial worker, she has less benefits and is more likely to be fired for missing work. And middle age is fun for a woman because as her children need her less, her parents are apt to need more help.
The only man I know who is devoted to caring for an aging father is gay. For me, that reinforces the belief that caregiving is a normal thing. I often cringe when I see how a father is caring for the children. :lol: They might go through all the right motions, but not as gently as the mother. I think this male-female difference is a good thing, and men are very important in raising children because they are different from women.
Your subject of gender differences in behaviors is so complex. Industrialization is changing our behaviors, and then high technology is changing everything again. And it is not just the differences between males and females, but also the hormonal effect of leaving a child in a day care center can have a harmful effect on the children. https://www.google.com/search?q=hormones+and+children+left+in+child+care+centers&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS990US990&oq=hormones+and+children+left+in+child+care+centers&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCjIwMjI3ajBqMTWoAgiwAgHxBRon281Qp5T68QUaJ9vNUKeU-g&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8.
I am not apt to take offense at this, I'm just curious - what makes you cringe? I realise this thread will be dead in four hours or so. Happy to move to the new place..