4 ms·

Women and men have significant biological differences, and from my understanding of our evolution, they've had these significant differences for a much longer t

by jonfw 6y ago

Women and men have significant biological differences, and from my understanding of our evolution, they've had these significant differences for a much longer time that capitalism has existed. Evolution suggests that these biological differences result from differences in selection criteria, which supports the idea that men and women have served different roles over the majority of human existence. Very high mortality rates associated with child birth meant that ability to birth and care for children used to be a highly selective trait. It's modern medicine that has made child birth and caring for children a much easier and safer endeavor, and allowed women to prioritize other roles in their life.

claudeganon 6y ago
There’s little uniformity in women’s social and economic roles across the entire spectrum of human civilization, cultures, and history. Women have been equal members of communal tribes, religious and political leaders, agricultural and industrial laborers, fully subjugated and fully autonomous. Any attempt to place the diversity of these experiences into narrow, erroneous appeals to nature is so reductive as to be almost meaningless.
- epsylon 6y ago
  I love that you're being downvoted for saying something so utterly non-controversial. It's almost as if the fact that there were large matriarchal societies inhabiting America for centuries (arguably millenia) before the first European man set foot on the continent has never been taught to the average HN reader..
  - jonfw 6y ago
    "I know of many exceptions to your evolutionary argument, which makes it entirely worthless" It's not controversial, but it's missing the point. Nobody is arguing that ever single woman in our history preceding capitalism had to prioritize child care over leadership or labor. If you're talking about the role of women over time, you're talking about how it applies to averages. It'd be impossible to discuss this with any sort of scale if you had to reconcile every generality with it's various exceptions.

by jonfw 6y ago

claudeganon 6y ago

There’s little uniformity in women’s social and economic roles across the entire spectrum of human civilization, cultures, and history. Women have been equal members of communal tribes, religious and political leaders, agricultural and industrial laborers, fully subjugated and fully autonomous. Any attempt to place the diversity of these experiences into narrow, erroneous appeals to nature is so reductive as to be almost meaningless.

epsylon 6y ago
I love that you're being downvoted for saying something so utterly non-controversial. It's almost as if the fact that there were large matriarchal societies inhabiting America for centuries (arguably millenia) before the first European man set foot on the continent has never been taught to the average HN reader..
- jonfw 6y ago
  "I know of many exceptions to your evolutionary argument, which makes it entirely worthless" It's not controversial, but it's missing the point. Nobody is arguing that ever single woman in our history preceding capitalism had to prioritize child care over leadership or labor. If you're talking about the role of women over time, you're talking about how it applies to averages. It'd be impossible to discuss this with any sort of scale if you had to reconcile every generality with it's various exceptions.