An opinion written in comments section in reply to a news article regarding gender behavioral differences and women have less 'braggadocio' than men or being perceived weaker throughout history:
Opinion: due to expectations of most civilizations (not all) that women were caretakers of children and the agriculture/herbal tenders while the male physical strength was utilized for hunting larger game and war, it occurs to me that men had to develop a separate social culture and interpersonal relations communication that would emphasize the need to be 'confident', encourage 'boasting' (of the "big" catch) to enforce the perception (by others) of great strength. This 'strength' eventually became equated, physically or mentally as societal needs and roles changed. Women, on the other hand, required the passivity roles as primary child tenders, as well as for tending to the herbal/medicinal/agricultural needs within the homes. The social structure of those 'left behind' during war or long hunts (including seafaring) --- had to change. For example, becoming fixed in an agricultural location, the fears of unity during natural disaster would be addressed. Without brute physical strength, the teamwork development through encouraging strength amongst the crowd (rather than boasting of one's own, per se) needed to be developed (especially as child tenders). The constant worry of loss of the partner would bond in a much more humble and passive manner, as well as the obvious status of the lack of physical strength vs. that partner--- so the subjects of discussion would have to be about what the 'other' is capable of, rather than what 'she' can do personally. The results of organized religion over the last few millennia only emphasized these traits, eventually even placing the 'male' figure as the dominant in nearly all 'modern' faiths.
In my opinion, these are a few factors that eventually resulted in evolved traits over the last 8000 yrs or so, that bled in social perceptions. Thus, women would score higher on emotional intelligence, and women would be less likely to inflate their own abilities, while men were encouraged to inflate their abilities to 'find their rank' in societal positions. What I find interesting about he recent feminist movements of the last century is the publicity allowed for larger organized voices. However, in history, there was always the 'strong' and intelligent woman figure, in various queens, religious icons, warns (Matilda of Tuscany, Boadicea, Joan of Arc, etc.). In niche societies that are not as influenced by modern religion, the defined strong female may also be recognized for high intelligence (above others) and some still have reputations for being more cunning hunters than their male counterparts!
Opinion: due to expectations of most civilizations (not all) that women were caretakers of children and the agriculture/herbal tenders while the male physical strength was utilized for hunting larger game and war, it occurs to me that men had to develop a separate social culture and interpersonal relations communication that would emphasize the need to be 'confident', encourage 'boasting' (of the "big" catch) to enforce the perception (by others) of great strength. This 'strength' eventually became equated, physically or mentally as societal needs and roles changed. Women, on the other hand, required the passivity roles as primary child tenders, as well as for tending to the herbal/medicinal/agricultural needs within the homes. The social structure of those 'left behind' during war or long hunts (including seafaring) --- had to change. For example, becoming fixed in an agricultural location, the fears of unity during natural disaster would be addressed. Without brute physical strength, the teamwork development through encouraging strength amongst the crowd (rather than boasting of one's own, per se) needed to be developed (especially as child tenders). The constant worry of loss of the partner would bond in a much more humble and passive manner, as well as the obvious status of the lack of physical strength vs. that partner--- so the subjects of discussion would have to be about what the 'other' is capable of, rather than what 'she' can do personally. The results of organized religion over the last few millennia only emphasized these traits, eventually even placing the 'male' figure as the dominant in nearly all 'modern' faiths.
In my opinion, these are a few factors that eventually resulted in evolved traits over the last 8000 yrs or so, that bled in social perceptions. Thus, women would score higher on emotional intelligence, and women would be less likely to inflate their own abilities, while men were encouraged to inflate their abilities to 'find their rank' in societal positions. What I find interesting about he recent feminist movements of the last century is the publicity allowed for larger organized voices. However, in history, there was always the 'strong' and intelligent woman figure, in various queens, religious icons, warns (Matilda of Tuscany, Boadicea, Joan of Arc, etc.). In niche societies that are not as influenced by modern religion, the defined strong female may also be recognized for high intelligence (above others) and some still have reputations for being more cunning hunters than their male counterparts!
No comments:
Post a Comment