3 ms·

These mental differences do not confer dominance. This is obvious! Don’t fall back upon ye old patriarchal arguments splitting hairs on hippocampal endocrine ad

These mental differences do not confer dominance. This is obvious! Don’t fall back upon ye old patriarchal arguments splitting hairs on hippocampal endocrine adjustments. Physical prowess is no longer convincingly conferring a definitive route to dominance unless there’s a patriarchal overreach into coercion that defies growing universal regularities of equalities in bills of rights etc. The fact women give birth does in no way restrict them into submission. Please reject all patriarchal myths in order to discus partnership goals. Humans are not like other primates, we’re a mix of evolutionary and biological factors that result in a continuum rather than a strict dichotomy, humans fall somewhere between "tournament mating" species and "pair-bonding" species. We’re not locked into any certain gender dominant if you know endocrinology and evolution. There is no true dominant outcome once the mental playing field is leveled. Male aggression is uniquely equalized in feminine control.

rekabis 11mo ago
If you read my comments, at no point did I ever veer into anything approaching dominance. Having a physical advantage is not dominance. It is merely capability with regards to the objective in play, which is where the argument of division of labour comes into play. You want to have people play to their capabilities and (metaphorical) strengths. It’s how a society (or any cohesive unit of people, actually) maximizes its effectiveness and utility for everyone concerned. To not do so is akin to having two people paint a wall, and for the sake of appearances you have the tall one paint near the floor and the short person paint up near the ceiling. Unless other attributes significantly overcome the massive disadvantages of the height difference, it would be madness to force them to paint the wall like this.
- Marshferm 11mo ago
  There are no distinct advantages that confer dominance that affords such a construct as patriarchy. Hypotheticals regarding where optimums are best expressed are irrelevant in terms of a partnership future, they will be negotiated.

rekabis 11mo ago

If you read my comments, at no point did I ever veer into anything approaching dominance. Having a physical advantage is not dominance. It is merely capability with regards to the objective in play, which is where the argument of division of labour comes into play. You want to have people play to their capabilities and (metaphorical) strengths. It’s how a society (or any cohesive unit of people, actually) maximizes its effectiveness and utility for everyone concerned. To not do so is akin to having two people paint a wall, and for the sake of appearances you have the tall one paint near the floor and the short person paint up near the ceiling. Unless other attributes significantly overcome the massive disadvantages of the height difference, it would be madness to force them to paint the wall like this.

Marshferm 11mo ago
There are no distinct advantages that confer dominance that affords such a construct as patriarchy. Hypotheticals regarding where optimums are best expressed are irrelevant in terms of a partnership future, they will be negotiated.