If gender roles are merely imposed by nurturing, why are they so consistent throughout nature? Of course, there are species where gender roles are reversed, but these are greatly outnumbered by those that support 'traditional' roles. Throughout most of nature, the male protects the females, while the females protect and nurture the offsprings.

If gender roles were merely created by human society, would nature support and/or confirm them so fervantly? Does man think himself greater than nature to correct nature's design? Can man strive against nature and win? Do the species that abide by nature have more wisdom than us?

Or do you agree with the concept that society imposes any differences between men and women is dillusional. From our bodies, to our minds, science has proven time, and time again, that men and women are unique by nature, not nurture.

I agree.  Yet, modern society is a completely novel situation for both men and women, and it is impossible to follow traditional roles: food, tools, shelter, everything we use for survival is purchased rather than obtained in its raw form and processed. Our occupations are completely novel too.  Many jobs are focused entirely on intellectual skill, and there is no gender bias in who is best at performing these jobs. Humans are very adaptable to new situations, and right now our environment requires us to have a different social organization than, for example, ancient hunter-gatherers in Siberia. I like your insight though & agree with most of it.

Yeah, but there is gender role and gender roles, if you look in nature.
In many animals, the roles are not much different.
Much of difference comes from reproductive imperative.

Seemingly, small differences got accentuated constantly
over time. Religion helped in segregating sexes.
Roles grew more defined,
at least in the west, with the rise of industrialisation
and men needing to work away from the home were
women took care of the children.

Before that, people were rural and the split in roles
was less defined. Women who lived on farms worked
just as hard as men and were not that coquestish.
Until the 15th century, the dress mode of male and females
peasants were barely distinguishable.

Now, with reproduction being less of an imperative
in modern society. Gender roles have lost their
initial mooring. In Quebec Universities, 60-65%
of students are now women. This will have
a massive impact in 20 years (the old boy club
will crash hard). Who knows what impact
this shift in balance of power will have in
gender roles in society.

In fact, traditional roles are very complicated and are dependent on the environment and available food resources. Most studies indicate that traditionally men hunt large or mobile game (women with babies couldnt travel so easily) and provide protection for the group (usually protection from other men in neighboring groups, and protection from the environment by means of shelter). The entire community (men and women) cares for the children, with the women having the primary role in this. In many or most environments, women gathered and processed the majority of the food base for the family or group, including hunting or trapping small game.

Most women did not spend their day sweeping house, but rather out in the environment gathering roots, berries, seeds, water, and small animals for consumption. Both men and women made tools and crafts. The roles of both men and women varied significantly depending on the survival needs to live in a particular environment. In esse, everyone worked for their survival.


I think it would benefit us greatly if men did see it as their role to protect women--these days the balance seems to be towards exploitation. And I think men and women should see it as their job to protect and nurture children (as has always been the case). However, these roles preclude occupations and the like. Humans are not trying to correct anything; they are doing the best they can to survive and flourish in the environment that they were born into. As it is, nature has no rules and no standard other than that successful species survive.

I have read some incisive questions and replies.  The debate of nature versus nurture will continue ad infinitum.  To this debate, may I add my personal experience?

I am F to F and I began HRT on estrogen in 2002.  Within three months of beginning HRT I began to see changes in myself that I never would have expected.  They were profound and wide-ranging and they were not there before I began HRT.  I did nothing to bring these changes on, they simply manifested themselves.

At about the time my breasts were budding I noticed that the way I handled my tableware was different, slower, smaller portions on the fork or spoon, slower pace of eating.

When I sat in a chair my right leg "instinctively" crossed over my left.  In my prior existence I developed a habit while in the Coast Guard.  If I crossed my legs while sitting it was my right ankle on my left knee and my cap perched on it.  That habit is gone.

I listen differently, keep my eyes on the speaker differently.

I never had children but I am conscious of children around me, especially if they are left to run at-large at the mall or other public venue.  I am not afraid to follow them or collar a toddler and hold them until their parent arrives.

There were times when I needed to tell another woman to keep her opinions about me to herself.  The claws came out and I shredded her in the softest voice I could.  She never got her nose in my business again.

It is my sincerest belief that I have always had a genetic connection to the female gender, from me back to "Woman #0" whomever she may be.  The behaviours that I mentioned above must have been with me since conception.  They were not contained within the estrogen.  I believe that the estrogen has reset many neural pathways in my physical brain so that I am developing a mind I believe to be consistent with that of a woman.

I believe that nature trumps nurture but does not neutralize its influence 100%.

I hope that I made sense here.

Thank you.

Wing Walker
Part Time Resident Windbag

Quote from: Yvonne on December 15, 2007, 03:09:39 PM
If gender roles are merely imposed by nurturing, why are they so consistent throughout nature? Of course, there are species where gender roles are reversed, but these are greatly outnumbered by those that support 'traditional' roles. Throughout most of nature, the male protects the females, while the females protect and nurture the offsprings.

If gender roles were merely created by human society, would nature support and/or confirm them so fervantly? Does man think himself greater than nature to correct nature's design? Can man strive against nature and win? Do the species that abide by nature have more wisdom than us?

Or do you agree with the concept that society imposes any differences between men and women is dillusional. From our bodies, to our minds, science has proven time, and time again, that men and women are unique by nature, not nurture.

I don't think it's an either/or answer.  And I'm not sure the traditional nature/nurture model is a useful way of explaining it, but it certainly provides for some good discussion. 

There are indisputable physical differences between the sexes.  Many transsexuals attempt to chemically and surgically modify something we weren't born with (through the help of many other human beings).  I have done this myself and I frequently am amazed I did (and still want to) do such things.  I don't think of myself greater than nature and I don't think I am correcting any sort of design (whose design btw?).  In a way, I feel like I am acting in accordance with nature, because what I am doing just feels so right and I think other people indirectly benefit from my transition.  I am generally happier and that in turn has a positive effect on others.  This versus a serial killer might "feel right" about killing people, but very few people would benefit from it and in fact many would greatly suffer from it.

It makes sense that the females would protect and nurture the offspring since they gave birth and that the males would protect the family for survival of the species.  But, then again sometimes males eat their offspring.  And isn't the female praying mantis the one that devours the male after mating?  it's wacky.  Male human beings can't be counted on for protecting the mom and kids, look at all of the deadbeat dads out there forcing mom to raise the kids while working at the same time. 

I wouldn't say the gender roles are delusional, but I think they evolve based on a variety of factors such as economics, demographics, and technology.  Belief systems such as religion obviously play a role and in some ways perpetuate the gender roles. 

Most of our behaviour is nature; some is nurture. Many societies love the idea that our behaviour is largely learned; because that would mean that raising and educating children could change them. The first part of this idea is true (many is learned), but the second part not. Children usually just copy the things they see the people around them doing. Of everything a child learns in the first 4 years, 90% is copied, 10% is what parents would call upbringing.
Feminists embraced the idea of nurture in the 80s, because they were not happy with society. They hoped that children could be better people if they were brought up under different circumstances. Simone de Bouvoir wrote that nobody is born as a woman or man, but made as a woman or man by expectations of the people around them. Feminists came up with all kinds of studies in the 80s to prove this idea; but they forgot that the little girl already reacts differently to different stimuli than the little boy, and that that is the reason why parents treat them differently. Of course, parents often intuitively know what a girl or boy likes, but that doesnt prove that the girls or boys behaviour is nurture. It could be common sense for a parent to treat them that way.

Aggression was also heatly debated in the 80s.  If you believe in a perfect world, then aggression should be nurture. But its largely inborn (nature), although it is often triggered by circumstances.

That is pretty much the most basic split in psychology, with a few die-hards on either end (same as it ever was) and most in the middle arguing about the percentage split between the two.

One one hand we do like to view ourselves as independent creatures strolling though life making decisions based on our reason and our sense of morality. 

So, its very possible that who we are and what we think is a result of the environment we are put into.  And, thus, given a set of environmental factors outcomes should be pretty set. 

And yet...

I know people - and I'm sure you do too - who came from all sorts of horrible situations and crappy childhoods, and messed up homes and all that - and for the most part they are OK people (no better or worse, no more messed up, then the average).

I also know a few people, from time to time myself included, who were more like the guy in the Merle Haggard song:

One and only rebel child,
From a family, meek and mild:
My Mama seemed to know what lay in store.
Despite all my Sunday learning,
Towards the bad, I kept on turning.
'Til Mama couldn't hold me anymore.

If its nurture, shouldn't kids from the same family be more like each other even more than they are?  But wait, they are sharing a set of genes too - how come they are not identical?

On the other hand, we do know that stuff like the color of the eyes and hair, body type, and a lot of other stuff seems to come more from nature - from genetics - then from any choice we might make.  Why not genetics for traits in behaviors, attitudes, thoughts even?

Most obvious difference in Nature of sex, is of course, sex.  Both in ability and its role in procreation.  Generaly we could say that on the whole, speices-wide femle humans are smaller, softer, different hair texture (and a huge, HUGE difference, one that we only barely pretend to understand - a fundamental difference in internal chemistry).  These are all traits tied to genetics.  As a result of those differences are there then, systematic differences in behaviors?  Are there basic differences in abilities, skills, learning processes that are hardwired by genetics?

Beyond all that... Is all of this changing?  Is that change being internally directed - genetic changes we brought about (intentional or unintentional) - or is that change a way the environment pushes on us and has us in its control?  Could it be that society and 'civilization' itself somehow demands these changes and is propelling them?  Or are we just one more set of living things that are only a part of a much larger living world that has its own changes going on that effect us, but that we are not aware of.

And yet...
there are huge differences between then and now that play into all of this too.  The nature, complexity and interaction of additional environmental factors added since that time is also unknown.  (I'm thinking here constant exposure to a variety of radio and electromagnetic waves from high tension power lines to cell phones, the saturation of things like TV and its ability to shape a lot of this, and the massive toxic chemical bath that we are constantly in that is so complex its true nature might not ever be known.) 

For myself, I know a lot of what I am I just somehow was.  It was like that as far back as I can see and remember.  I don't know why.  I know it's true.

And yet....

I also know that a huge part of my life was shaped by my association with groups of people in my pre-teen, teen years, and beyond who accepted me and pretty much left me alone (but included) to pursue life it my own preclude way - and a lot of 'who I am' is shaped and informed by those notions and those pursuits.