Human gender role universals

[rousseau]

After reading a bit of Dawkins' 'Selfish Gene' I started to get a better sense of what evolutionary selection at the gene level means. Without getting into too much detail about about the mechanism, the conclusion from gene level selection is that there are fundamental aspects of our biology that are intrinsic to being human:

e.g. we're always going to have sexual organs, limbs, eyes, and internal organs because these features are so important to reproductive success that, averaged out, the continuance of our species can't happen without them.

In other words, while some biological features like height, size, hair color, eye color, are changeable, the core of our physiology has to stay pretty much the same.

This got me to thinking about cultural universals, and specifically those related to our gender roles, that may be fundamental to the propagation of our species. The question is: are there elements of gender roles that need to stay constant over time, which cannot change?

So much like how there is some variance among biology, our culture is quite diverse, but the core set of reproducers has to stay pretty much the same?

What do you think?

 

[bigfield]

We've already entered a transhumanist era of history where we have overcome many biological necessities with technology. We've already stopped being human to some extent, and humans will continue to become less human as time goes by.

For instance, women in sedentary societies often spent much of their adult lives bearing and raising young children, but technology such as contraceptives and formula have emancipated them from that role and allowed fathers and professional carers to take on some of the work of child-rearing instead. Eventually the entire child-bearing process will be synthesised with incubators, gene-editing etc. Gender roles are ultimately irrelevant to the propagation of the species because we're outsourcing that job to machines.

Political struggles regarding gender roles will also probably be answered by technology, as well. There won't be any need to fight for reproductive rights when the pro-life position becomes obsolete; there won't be any need to fight for workplace equality when everyone is made redundant, and sexbots will solve a lot of problems related to violence and exploitation.

 

[fromderinside]

So much like how there is some variance among biology, our culture is quite diverse, but the core set of reproducers has to stay pretty much the same?

What do you think?

This sentence is at the core of your problem. Nothing has to stay anything. Most genetic variation in this category is stable, not universal, so variation will occur and usually be bred out, but , not always so .....

 

[ronburgundy]

After reading a bit of Dawkins' 'Selfish Gene' I started to get a better sense of what evolutionary selection at the gene level means. Without getting into too much detail about about the mechanism, the conclusion from gene level selection is that there are fundamental aspects of our biology that are intrinsic to being human:

e.g. we're always going to have sexual organs, limbs, eyes, and internal organs because these features are so important to reproductive success that, averaged out, the continuance of our species can't happen without them.

In other words, while some biological features like height, size, hair color, eye color, are changeable, the core of our physiology has to stay pretty much the same.

This got me to thinking about cultural universals, and specifically those related to our gender roles, that may be fundamental to the propagation of our species. The question is: are there elements of gender roles that need to stay constant over time, which cannot change?

So much like how there is some variance among biology, our culture is quite diverse, but the core set of reproducers has to stay pretty much the same?

What do you think?

Can you clarify whether you are arguing for an actual biological basis for some aspects of "gender roles" and sex-based behavioral differences, or are you assuming gender roles are entirely culturally created but merely analogous to biological traits in that some are so useful that all cultures will keep creating them?

 

[rousseau]

After reading a bit of Dawkins' 'Selfish Gene' I started to get a better sense of what evolutionary selection at the gene level means. Without getting into too much detail about about the mechanism, the conclusion from gene level selection is that there are fundamental aspects of our biology that are intrinsic to being human:

e.g. we're always going to have sexual organs, limbs, eyes, and internal organs because these features are so important to reproductive success that, averaged out, the continuance of our species can't happen without them.

In other words, while some biological features like height, size, hair color, eye color, are changeable, the core of our physiology has to stay pretty much the same.

This got me to thinking about cultural universals, and specifically those related to our gender roles, that may be fundamental to the propagation of our species. The question is: are there elements of gender roles that need to stay constant over time, which cannot change?

So much like how there is some variance among biology, our culture is quite diverse, but the core set of reproducers has to stay pretty much the same?

What do you think?

Can you clarify whether you are arguing for an actual biological basis for some aspects of "gender roles" and sex-based behavioral differences, or are you assuming gender roles are entirely culturally created but merely analogous to biological traits in that some are so useful that all cultures will keep creating them?

I don't think there's any doubt about a biological basis to gender rules, but I guess the question is how fluid gender roles actually are within that framework, and if there are some aspects of them that are essentially unchangeable.

After finishing The Selfish Gene I gleaned more perspective on this problem. In one of the chapters Dawkins frames various sexual strategies with game theory, and alludes to them reaching an equilibrium where most women are 'coy', and most men are 'faithful'. The gist of it was that parenthood/relationships takes more energy and commitment from women, and so typically they need to test a guy a bit to know if he's faithful. On the converse side, guys that aren't faithful are going to be rejected more often than guys who live out a woman's 'coyness'.

And so I'd expect this dynamic and all that it entails is something like a core, unchanging component of gender roles.

 

[untermensche]

What is a "gender role"?

Having a child and nursing a child are gender specific.

What other specific role is a "gender role"?

 

[repoman]