3 ms·

> Would these results hold in a matriarchal society? I wrote up the following response and then realized that I was answering a different question than the one

by timmaxw 13y ago

> Would these results hold in a matriarchal society? I wrote up the following response and then realized that I was answering a different question than the one you asked. The following is an investigation of whether the tendency for child-raising to be "womens' work" is caused by genetic or cultural factors. This isn't directly related to the question of whether the personality traits are caused by genetic or cultural factors. I'm posting it anyway because I spent an hour writing it up and don't want to throw it away. I did some quick research and found that even in "matriarchical" societies, women are usually more involved in infant care than men. I started with this article: <http://metro.co.uk/2013/03/05/where-women-rule-the-world-matriarchal-communities-from-albania-to-china-3525234/> http://metro.co.uk/2013/03/05/where-women-rule-the-world-mat... and went down the list: * Regarding the Mosuo, this Wikipedia article: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo> writes that "Children of such relationships are raised by their mothers and the mothers' families." However, men are involved in raising their nieces and nephews. * While men are heavily involved in child-raising in Aka societies, this source: <http://books.google.com/books?id=21z2hbOuTcEC> http://books.google.com/books?id=21z2hbOuTcEC> writes that "The Aka are exceptional in comparison to other societies in that fathers are actively involved with infants and are second only to mothers in the amount of direct care to their infants." (pg. 5) * Despite the existence of sworn virgins, Albania is patriarchical, according to this article: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_sworn_virgins> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_sworn_virgins> * I wasn't able to find sources regarding childcare in Iceland or Meghalaya. In addition, the fact that there are so few matriarchical societies in the world is notable in and of itself. My hunch is that the reason why women are more involved in childcare than men is due to cultural factors which are caused by genetic factors. One could certainly imagine a culture in which as soon as a woman gives birth, she hands the infant off to the father, and then has no further involvement in its care. So there is no immediate reason why women must be the caregivers. But that hypothetical society would require that babies be bottle-fed, which is a recent invention; historically, children had to be breast-fed, and genetic factors are certainly responsible for the fact that women are much better than men at producing milk. So the women would have had to be involved in caring for their children at least at the beginning. This could lead to a cultural norm for women to remain involved in childcare even after it is no longer necessary to breast-feed. Of course, that's not to say that childcare should be "womens' work". Even if women do turn out to have a genetic propensity towards childcare, that doesn't mean that we as a society have to let that dictate our gender roles.

mapt 13y ago
Several elements persist throughout history before we can blame any sort of global culture or religion: 1) Incapacitation during late pregnancy and feeding infants 2) Differences in musculature and stature after puberty - two or three SD's sexual dimorphism 3) Differences in neurological activity of hormones - testosterone vs estrogens 4) Differences in how memetic evolution favors different ways tribes assign the highly limited egg+womb vessels versus the vessels for relatively unlimited sperm. A tribe that has the risky roles played by the egg+womb vessels will tend to reproduce less, particularly in tough times, than a tribe which assigns them to the sperm vessels. Matriarchal-warrior societies are fragile because a war which depletes 3/4 of the warriors also depletes 3/4 of the wombs, while a patriarchal-warrior society which depletes 3/4 of the warriors only ends up polyamorous for a generation or two. These four elements conspire throughout prehistory to make 'traditional female roles' the supermajority of scenarios, without any need whatsoever for a modern cultural warfare. Feminism, the notion that men and women can and should be similarly endowed with professional achievement, respect, and choices about their lives, is possible only because of a combination of a bunch of very recent changes in human society. They tend to be the ones associated with vastly lowered infant mortality, vastly lower pregnancy rate, vastly lowered rate of risky adult behavior like war & hunting, and the demographic transition: Baby formula is icing on the cake, ruminant domestication and lactose tolerance came long, long before (but still recently on evolutionary timespans). Feminism attacks the natural order of things - and that's great in the same way that antibiotics attacks the natural order of things - we get to do things we couldn't do before. It is a unique achievement to be celebrated that we have come so far beyond our "traditional"-ly limiting roots, when a woman can be a CEO and a single father can raise an infant. I am highly skeptical, however, of anyone who tries to retcon history, ignoring the above factors, to suggest that this hasn't been the natural order of things to some degree. --- The Patriarchy, on the other hand, is a real aspect of modern culture, in some societies much more than others. I believe David Graeber's explanation deserves some attention: Patriarchal urges to restrict and protect women beyond the scope of merely risky occupations, and the rise of heroic male chauvinism, is linked to the rise of fungible currency and its tendency to focus lendor-debtor relations into formal contractual relations between strangers - the only guarantee of which is slavery. Eventually the only type of slavery that was commoditized with standard value tended to be female sexual slavery. http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/Debt,_The_First_5000_Years http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/Debt,_The_First_5000_Years

by timmaxw 13y ago

mapt 13y ago

Several elements persist throughout history before we can blame any sort of global culture or religion: 1) Incapacitation during late pregnancy and feeding infants 2) Differences in musculature and stature after puberty - two or three SD's sexual dimorphism 3) Differences in neurological activity of hormones - testosterone vs estrogens 4) Differences in how memetic evolution favors different ways tribes assign the highly limited egg+womb vessels versus the vessels for relatively unlimited sperm. A tribe that has the risky roles played by the egg+womb vessels will tend to reproduce less, particularly in tough times, than a tribe which assigns them to the sperm vessels. Matriarchal-warrior societies are fragile because a war which depletes 3/4 of the warriors also depletes 3/4 of the wombs, while a patriarchal-warrior society which depletes 3/4 of the warriors only ends up polyamorous for a generation or two. These four elements conspire throughout prehistory to make 'traditional female roles' the supermajority of scenarios, without any need whatsoever for a modern cultural warfare. Feminism, the notion that men and women can and should be similarly endowed with professional achievement, respect, and choices about their lives, is possible only because of a combination of a bunch of very recent changes in human society. They tend to be the ones associated with vastly lowered infant mortality, vastly lower pregnancy rate, vastly lowered rate of risky adult behavior like war & hunting, and the demographic transition: Baby formula is icing on the cake, ruminant domestication and lactose tolerance came long, long before (but still recently on evolutionary timespans). Feminism attacks the natural order of things - and that's great in the same way that antibiotics attacks the natural order of things - we get to do things we couldn't do before. It is a unique achievement to be celebrated that we have come so far beyond our "traditional"-ly limiting roots, when a woman can be a CEO and a single father can raise an infant. I am highly skeptical, however, of anyone who tries to retcon history, ignoring the above factors, to suggest that this hasn't been the natural order of things to some degree. --- The Patriarchy, on the other hand, is a real aspect of modern culture, in some societies much more than others. I believe David Graeber's explanation deserves some attention: Patriarchal urges to restrict and protect women beyond the scope of merely risky occupations, and the rise of heroic male chauvinism, is linked to the rise of fungible currency and its tendency to focus lendor-debtor relations into formal contractual relations between strangers - the only guarantee of which is slavery. Eventually the only type of slavery that was commoditized with standard value tended to be female sexual slavery. http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/Debt,_The_First_5000_Years http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/Debt,_The_First_5000_Years