Search Results
7/22/2025, 9:02:07 AM
>>149500066
Evolutionary Psychology is a suckers game, half because some of it is common sense and the other half complete bullshit masquerading as "obvious" fact. The idea that men are unique "providers," for one, is completely at odds with the vast majority of human societies across the planet and throughout time. The near complete and total entirety of humans who lived before the modern era required every person capable of movement to contribute to the family's survival. Obviously physical strength was an important factor and this often led to the brutal calculus of who got the lion's share of the food (usually to the detriment of the too old and too young), but a pair of hands was a pair of hands all the same.
As societies became more specialized, you begin to see what kind of "labor" people were involved in shift, obviously, and these began to break along gender lines. And even then, it tends to be more true in societies where a family might not at any level be "providing" for itself but instead offering specialized services, resources, and labor that get exchanged for the fundamental food requirements of the group. Farmers needed everyone to farm, not just the dudes. The visual that "provider" conjures up is quite simply a smokescreen. It requires a tortured twisting of how one categorizes resource acquisition and use, a weakness to the inherent idea of the argument, which is present self evident and simple explanations and justifications for why Men and Women are how they turned out to be.
That said, the overall point is largely still true because it's largely true NOW, even if attempts to justify it as universal, fundamental, and inescapable end of tripping over themselves through overreaching misconceptions.
Evolutionary Psychology is a suckers game, half because some of it is common sense and the other half complete bullshit masquerading as "obvious" fact. The idea that men are unique "providers," for one, is completely at odds with the vast majority of human societies across the planet and throughout time. The near complete and total entirety of humans who lived before the modern era required every person capable of movement to contribute to the family's survival. Obviously physical strength was an important factor and this often led to the brutal calculus of who got the lion's share of the food (usually to the detriment of the too old and too young), but a pair of hands was a pair of hands all the same.
As societies became more specialized, you begin to see what kind of "labor" people were involved in shift, obviously, and these began to break along gender lines. And even then, it tends to be more true in societies where a family might not at any level be "providing" for itself but instead offering specialized services, resources, and labor that get exchanged for the fundamental food requirements of the group. Farmers needed everyone to farm, not just the dudes. The visual that "provider" conjures up is quite simply a smokescreen. It requires a tortured twisting of how one categorizes resource acquisition and use, a weakness to the inherent idea of the argument, which is present self evident and simple explanations and justifications for why Men and Women are how they turned out to be.
That said, the overall point is largely still true because it's largely true NOW, even if attempts to justify it as universal, fundamental, and inescapable end of tripping over themselves through overreaching misconceptions.
Page 1