I feel bad for making you frustrated. It wasn’t my intention. I think these text based format just makes things weird for us. You sound like someone I could have had a nice conversation on this topic without frustrations if we were discussing IRL.
For what its worth, my original intent was to discuss different approaches to distribution of labour rather than talking about hunter gatherer society. I have weird way of talking where i can’t help but justify my reasoning, so hunters gatherer was the justification for different physiology. And different physiology was the setup for the discussion on distribution of labour.
What I found strange about myself is that I (and so many others including you) believe in equal distribution of labour in household despite having different physiology. But I support proportional distribution of labour when it comes broader society ie rich and priviledge should contribute more than poor and underpriviledged.
And I kinda find this strange about myself (also generally) that we have different views when looking at society versus household.
If i make a claim that we can’t know actual capability between a couple therefore equal distribution of labour is fair then a similar argument can be made about rich vs poor.
Anyways, I have a bad habit of making everything too political, this is a meme community so maybe i need to dial down that political side of me.
I think the heart of the difference between our views from what I’ve been able to understand from you is this. You view biological differences between men and women as having a sufficient enough reason to support gender roles if in the event the capability of a couple is known.
I view the biological differences as something that should only be considered from a health perspective I.e. crash test dummy’s designed for men and ones designed for women to ensure proper safety testing.
For me the biological differences shouldn’t be considered whether we know a couple’s capabilities or not. Humans are an extremely varied species with lots of overlap between women and men.
There are women who are tall and muscular and men who are short and skinny. There are men who are tall and skinny and women who are short and muscular.
Ultimately the biggest factor is lifestyle and not genetics. A female firefighter could absolutely out strength many males even if she’s short because she works out regularly.
In short I don’t think biological differences are significant enough to be taken into actual consideration outside of specific circumstances like described above. While you as I understand it do believe them to be significant enough a factor to be given consideration if the differences between a couple are known.
I feel bad for making you frustrated. It wasn’t my intention. I think these text based format just makes things weird for us. You sound like someone I could have had a nice conversation on this topic without frustrations if we were discussing IRL.
For what its worth, my original intent was to discuss different approaches to distribution of labour rather than talking about hunter gatherer society. I have weird way of talking where i can’t help but justify my reasoning, so hunters gatherer was the justification for different physiology. And different physiology was the setup for the discussion on distribution of labour.
What I found strange about myself is that I (and so many others including you) believe in equal distribution of labour in household despite having different physiology. But I support proportional distribution of labour when it comes broader society ie rich and priviledge should contribute more than poor and underpriviledged.
And I kinda find this strange about myself (also generally) that we have different views when looking at society versus household.
If i make a claim that we can’t know actual capability between a couple therefore equal distribution of labour is fair then a similar argument can be made about rich vs poor.
Anyways, I have a bad habit of making everything too political, this is a meme community so maybe i need to dial down that political side of me.
I think the heart of the difference between our views from what I’ve been able to understand from you is this. You view biological differences between men and women as having a sufficient enough reason to support gender roles if in the event the capability of a couple is known.
I view the biological differences as something that should only be considered from a health perspective I.e. crash test dummy’s designed for men and ones designed for women to ensure proper safety testing.
For me the biological differences shouldn’t be considered whether we know a couple’s capabilities or not. Humans are an extremely varied species with lots of overlap between women and men.
There are women who are tall and muscular and men who are short and skinny. There are men who are tall and skinny and women who are short and muscular.
Ultimately the biggest factor is lifestyle and not genetics. A female firefighter could absolutely out strength many males even if she’s short because she works out regularly.
In short I don’t think biological differences are significant enough to be taken into actual consideration outside of specific circumstances like described above. While you as I understand it do believe them to be significant enough a factor to be given consideration if the differences between a couple are known.