What roles does each gender play in society?

[CriticalThought]

From a biological perspective, it would appear that women evolved to be more versatile in their roles. They can generally perform both child care and work activities. whereas men are more specialized to do work. Speaking purely in biological terms, males on average have greater measurable physical strength and aggression than females. Females on average have superior dexterity, mutli-tasking abilities, and empathy. Women naturally have the ability perform multiple tasks while also doing something important like keeping an eye on a child while a man's focus is usually limited to one activity at at time. I would say these biological adaptions form the basis of gender roles.

 

[1069]

From a biological perspective, it would appear that women evolved to be more versatile in their roles. They can generally perform both child care and work activities. whereas men are more specialized to do work. Speaking purely in biological terms, males on average have greater measurable physical strength and aggression than females. Females on average have superior dexterity, mutli-tasking abilities, and empathy. Women naturally have the ability perform multiple tasks while also doing something important like keeping an eye on a child while a man's focus is usually limited to one activity at at time. I would say these biological adaptions form the basis of gender roles.

My dad was a single parent. He was a great parent.
My ex-husband (kids' dad) was arguably a better parent and a more stable influence in the kids' lives than I was.
I realize personal anecdotes can't be applied across the board, but there are many male single parents on this very forum- more male single parents than female ones, I believe.
I'm sure some of them do a good job.
I've seen no evidence whatsoever that women are better parents than men.
It's not about biological sex, it's about disposition.
Some people are natural nurturers/caretakers, and not all of them are female. Not by a long shot.

 

[CriticalThought]

My dad was a single parent. He was a great parent.
My ex-husband (kids' dad) was arguably a better parent and a more stable influence in the kids' lives than I was.
I realize personal anecdotes can't be applied across the board, but there are many male single parents on this very forum- more male single parents than female ones, I believe.
I'm sure some of them do a good job.
I've seen no evidence whatsoever that women are better parents than men.
It's not about biological sex, it's about disposition.
Some people are natural nurturers/caretakers, and not all of them are female. Not by a long shot.

I wasn't arguing that women are better parents, only that they are better mutlitaskers and more versatile than men in their roles.

 

[1069]

I wasn't arguing that women are better parents, only that they are better mutlitaskers and more versatile than men in their roles.

I've seen no real evidence of that, either.

:shrug:

 

[rathi]

There are many variables at work with human behavior that make it very hard to attribute it to genetics or environment. Other than physical differences, it is very difficult to prove what the root cause of behavior is.

 

[cpwill]

Aside from giving birth (and breastfeeding), there aren't any roles that can't be played by either gender.

experience and statistics seem to disagree. there is an entire legion of research on the damages that children incur (for example) when they do not have a male parent-figure. there isn't a sizeable enough population that they have had the same focus, but i would not be surprised at all to find similar figures for those who lack female ones.

 

[cpwill]

I've seen no real evidence of that, either.

:shrug:

:shrug: it's easy enough: It's official: Women really are better than men at juggling more than one task at once.


does it really surprise people here that much that men and women are different psychologically as they are physically? and that this gives them relatives psychological strengths and weaknesses?

 

[Hicup]

Gender roles= stupid.

There is nothing a man can do that a woman can't, and vis versa.

It's not what we do, it's how we do it, that separates the genders. Notwithstanding, child rearing; what motivates us to accomplish certain tasks, is very different.

Gender roles are circumstantial, and not broadly defined. Men, can do what women do, and women can do what men do, but it's one of those very few things that you know it when you see it, but you can't define it. The gender "role" is personal! I doubt someone can necessarily label a gender role, but you know it when you see it.

How's that for answering a question that doesn't have an answer, yet still acknowledging that genders have specific roles in society, they're just circumstantial.


Tim-

 

[1069]

:shrug: it's easy enough: It's official: Women really are better than men at juggling more than one task at once.

"It's official: Women really are better than men at juggling more than one task at once. At least, that's the claim being made by a team of British researchers."

Clearly it's not "easy enough", since that article proves absolutely nothing.

does it really surprise people here that much that men and women are different psychologically as they are physically? and that this gives them relatives psychological strengths and weaknesses?

It doesn't "surprise" me; I don't believe it's true.
I think I've been pretty clear on that; don't really know how to be any clearer.

 

[Andalublue]

Okay, since the evangelists and conservatives are going to stay a mile away from this thread, I guess I'll have to ask the obvious questions.

The Bible argues that a woman's role in society is to be the submissive helper to her husband, and the man's role in society is to be the leader of his household. Is there merit to this view outside of religion? Does marriage and family crumble if these roles are not upheld?

Clearly they don't as so many societies do not conform to these ideas of fixed gender roles, and never have.

Evolutionarily speaking, human males went off to hunt and human females stayed behind to look after the children. Are these roles of the male provider and female nurturer now obsolete or are they based in our very biology?

Well, this is the story that we are all taught, however where is the solid evidence to support the idea that men did the hunting and women did the nurturing? We are talking about pre-history, i.e. no documentary evidence available. Where is the archaeological evidence that roles were in any way strictly adhered to by our ancestors? I'm not saying they didn't, but I'm not taking it for granted just because that is what we've always been told.

 

[Andalublue]

It's not what we do, it's how we do it, that separates the genders. Notwithstanding, child rearing; what motivates us to accomplish certain tasks, is very different.

Gender roles are circumstantial, and not broadly defined. Men, can do what women do, and women can do what men do, but it's one of those very few things that you know it when you see it, but you can't define it. The gender "role" is personal! I doubt someone can necessarily label a gender role, but you know it when you see it.

How's that for answering a question that doesn't have an answer, yet still acknowledging that genders have specific roles in society, they're just circumstantial.


Tim-

How's that? Well, 'utterly' and 'incomprehensible' are the first two words that come to mind.

 

[1069]

Clearly they don't as so many societies do not conform to these ideas of fixed gender roles, and never have.



Well, this is the story that we are all taught, however where is the solid evidence to support the idea that men did the hunting and women did the nurturing? We are talking about pre-history, i.e. no documentary evidence available. Where is the archaeological evidence that roles were in any way strictly adhered to by our ancestors? I'm not saying they didn't, but I'm not taking it for granted just because that is what we've always been told.

In prehistory- and even in medieval times- so many people died so young that it really wouldn't have made sense for people to be locked into preconceived "gender roles".
The human race wouldn't have survived.
Many men were no doubt left alone to raise their children- including newborns- after their wives died.
And many women were left husbandless, to support and provide for their families by any means at their disposal.

experience and statistics seem to disagree. there is an entire legion of research on the damages that children incur (for example) when they do not have a male parent-figure. there isn't a sizeable enough population that they have had the same focus, but i would not be surprised at all to find similar figures for those who lack female ones.

Perhaps this is a relatively new idea.
If you look at literature throughout history, the heroes of epics and classic stories have one thing in common: they typically always lack a parent. Usually their same-sex parent.
Either that or else they've lost both parents and are orphaned altogether.

If you look at history, it is not uncommon that great historical figures- like their fictional counterparts- also lacked one or both parents growing up.

 

[Winston Smith]

Clearly they don't as so many societies do not conform to these ideas of fixed gender roles, and never have.



Well, this is the story that we are all taught, however where is the solid evidence to support the idea that men did the hunting and women did the nurturing? We are talking about pre-history, i.e. no documentary evidence available. Where is the archaeological evidence that roles were in any way strictly adhered to by our ancestors? I'm not saying they didn't, but I'm not taking it for granted just because that is what we've always been told.

I have a response to this, but I'm going to resist the temptation for now because I have to go feed the baby. First things first.

 

[Winston Smith]

Without modern technology, hunters would have to rely on speed, endurance, and especially upper-body strength to be able to spear an animal and carry it back home with them. Men have the advantage in these areas. And it's not like the women could put their milk in the fridge and go out hunting while the men took care of the children. I'm not an archaeologist, but I think it stands to reason that men did the hunting and women did the child care.

 

[Andalublue]

Without modern technology, hunters would have to rely on speed, endurance, and especially upper-body strength to be able to spear an animal and carry it back home with them. Men have the advantage in these areas. And it's not like the women could put their milk in the fridge and go out hunting while the men took care of the children. I'm not an archaeologist, but I think it stands to reason that men did the hunting and women did the child care.

There's a certain logic at play there, but it does require making a number of suppositions that require proof.

1. That hunting was conducted without the use of traps, they don't require especially physical efforts to employ
2. That the majority of women were caring for babes in arms; once weaned anyone could care for them
3. That women did not enjoy some physical attributes that might make them perfectly competent hunters

Thing is, we know practically nothing of pre-historic belief systems, there may well have been strongly gender-specific roles imposed, or there may not. I'm interested to discover whether any hard evidence exists to back up our Judaeo-Christian assumptions of how ancient societies operated.

 

[CriticalThought]

experience and statistics seem to disagree. there is an entire legion of research on the damages that children incur (for example) when they do not have a male parent-figure. there isn't a sizeable enough population that they have had the same focus, but i would not be surprised at all to find similar figures for those who lack female ones.

Actually, there isn't any research. What you describe are "fatherless" statistics, and they have historically been used to argue that a male figure is needed in the home. The problem is those statistics are of single mothers. They don't really measure the detriment of not having a male figure in the home, they measure the detriment of being raised by a single parent. Single parents usually have half the income and half the time to spend with children as couples do.

That is why I ask, what is the perceived detriment.

 

[CriticalThought]

I'm interested to discover whether any hard evidence exists to back up our Judaeo-Christian assumptions of how ancient societies operated.

Actually, I was taught that from studying primitive human tribes that have had limited to no contact with the outside world, we could decipher a number of things about prehistoric human culture...

1. Children were raised communally, not in family units. In other words, the old adage that it takes a village to raise a child is fairly valid.
2. That division of labor was divided along the lines of gender, but often a "third gender" was acknowledged that worked between the other two.
3. That gender roles have become more distinct as language evolved because the human brain is hardwired to categorize things into two groups and alter behavior in accordance.
4. That leadership roles were more likely to be dictated by age than by gender.

 

[1069]

Actually, I was taught that from studying primitive human tribes that have had limited to no contact with the outside world, we could decipher a number of things about prehisotic human culture...

1. Children were raised communaly, not in family units. In other words, the old addage that it takes a village to raise a child is fairly valid.
2. That division of labor was divided along the lines of gender, but often a "third gender" was acknowledged that worked between the other two.
3. That gender roles have become more distinct as language evolved because the human brain is hardwired to categorize things into two groups and alter behavior in accordance.
4. That leadership roles were more likely to be dictated by age than by gender.

Some of that seems validated by Margaret Mead's studies of primitive, isolated cultures.

 

[CriticalThought]

Without modern technology, hunters would have to rely on speed, endurance, and especially upper-body strength to be able to spear an animal and carry it back home with them. Men have the advantage in these areas. And it's not like the women could put their milk in the fridge and go out hunting while the men took care of the children. I'm not an archaeologist, but I think it stands to reason that men did the hunting and women did the child care.

There is more to it. When it comes to the reproductive survival of a tribe, men are expendable whereas women are not. Primates like baboons fight entire wars with other tribes in an attempt to steal their females and further their reproductive advantage. Males serve to protect females from being stolen by competing tribes. Many of the patriarchal gender roles that exist even today are descended from that basic premise.

 

[iangb]

There is more to it. When it comes to the reproductive survival of a tribe, men are expendable whereas women are not. Primates like baboons fight entire wars with other tribes in an attempt to steal their females and further their reproductive advantage. Males serve to protect females from being stolen by competing tribes. Many of the patriarchal gender roles that exist even today are descended from that basic premise.

And more than that, there have been several studies (example link) indicating that in socioloical-pressure-free situations (ie: they looked at rhesus monkeys), there is still a divide along gendered lines. Sociological pressures undoutably compound the difference, and you can't apply generalisations about a gender to individuals of that gender - but biology may well play a part.

 

[CriticalThought]

And yet none of this answers my earlier questions.

What roles men serve that women can't serve and what roles that women serve that men can't serve? You can extend the question to the family. What can a mother offer a child that a father cannot and what can a father offer a child that a mother cannot?

Humans are adaptable. As such, men can play the roles inherited by women when needed and women can play the roles inherited by men when needed. The only reason to sanction the roles is to preserve a certain social order, however as we are no longer a hunter/gatherer society, the roles have probably become considerably obsolete. The only reason they probably persisted this long is because of religious doctrines which tried to enshrine them as natural to humanity rather than as simply an adaptation. The more we progress into the information era, the more likely we will probably become androgynous.

 

[1069]

The only reason they probably persisted this long is because of religious doctrines which tried to enshrine them as natural to humanity rather than as simply an adaptation.

The only reason they persisted this long is that males are understandably reluctant to give up their dominant position in the social order.
That's okay, though. We're taking it from them anyway. :2wave:

 

[Mike Mazzone]

What roles men serve that women can't serve and what roles that women serve that men can't serve? You can extend the question to the family. What can a mother offer a child that a father cannot and what can a father offer a child that a mother cannot?

Every child receives their imprint of what a man is and what a woman is from the first man and woman they have a close connection with. Children learn what a man is from the father and they learn what a woman is from the mother. Parenting from only one gender leaves a gap regarding how that child perceives the other gender.

The more we progress into the information era, the more likely we will probably become androgynous.

Not at all. The more information we have about gender differences the more likely were are to embrace them as facts.

 

[iangb]

Following on from my previous post; I saw this in recent news.

"In short, our intellects [and almost everything else! ~ian] are not prisoners of our genders or our genes and those who claim otherwise are merely coating old-fashioned stereotypes with a veneer of scientific credibility."

 

[Hicup]

And yet none of this answers my earlier questions.

What roles men serve that women can't serve and what roles that women serve that men can't serve? You can extend the question to the family. What can a mother offer a child that a father cannot and what can a father offer a child that a mother cannot?

Humans are adaptable. As such, men can play the roles inherited by women when needed and women can play the roles inherited by men when needed. The only reason to sanction the roles is to preserve a certain social order, however as we are no longer a hunter/gatherer society, the roles have probably become considerably obsolete. The only reason they probably persisted this long is because of religious doctrines which tried to enshrine them as natural to humanity rather than as simply an adaptation. The more we progress into the information era, the more likely we will probably become androgynous.

Men generally give sex, woman generally receive it, there are exceptions of course, just like all things, but most people throw out exceptions when sampling large groups.


Look all you people are simply making a mountain out of a mole hill. Because we cannot define the gender role with specificity, other than our own experiences, doesn't mean that some characteristics can't be applied to large broad samples, and accepted as correlative enough to answer the OP's question.

The answer is, that there are no specific causative understanding for what any particular role may be, but that they simply be, is enough to form a conclusion, with the conclusion having a great deal of truth elements.

Tim-