To think men and women are actually programmed differently?

[Isittjustme]

I have spent many years believing a lot of men just don’t get on with things in the same way women do (ie ‘seeing’ the jobs to do in the house etc) because they are socially conditioned not to. But… since having ds and watching my partner really do his best but basically be far less good at parenting than me, I have started to wonder if men and women are actually just programmed differently.

DP really does try (at least I believe so). But he doesn’t get a good system going with ds when doing a nappy, just one example, he will often be flailing around or forget to wash his hands etc. He will forget to blow on the food every once in a while.. there’s so many more examples and they are small things I guess, but in contrast I rarely do these things. And I’m not saying I’m a perfect parent, I’m not. But I recognise this with my friends and the men in their lives too, it’s the same sort of thing.

DP has a good job and does it well. He’s quite a sincere man and I think he really does try his best. This makes me think perhaps some of it is innate for women and not for men?

Why aren't cuckoos extinct then?

Interesting. Because they have adapted an unusual strategy to have other species raise their children.

Do you think that’s an instinct, or a purely learned behaviour on their part?

(And how common is that strategy amongst birds, let alone amongst animals closer to humans? This feels like a clown-fish argument to me.)

Urgh.

Cannot believe how regressive things are getting in the sex wars these days. We're in "evolutionary psychology" quackery territory here, which is espoused by a certain Canadian psychologist using big words at one end, and a misogynistic woman trafficking thug at the other. Plus the "tech bros" advocating for trad wives to rear "the right kind of kids" to swell the population and benefit the economy.

Claiming "genetic predisposition" allows oppression and manipulation of both sexes and the motivation, as far as I can see is often economic and power driven.

As PPs have mentioned, women have been put in and out of various boxes to suit the interests of society and have proven their capability and ability to learn and adapt over and over again. Men are just as capable, but it's not as encouraged, and they get "excused" from "women's work" which us routinely devalued.

As with most things in the modern world, follow the money. That motivates most alleged "progress", not the well-being of individuals or the community in general.

I'm so glad I'm old and out of the game.

@MistressoftheDarkSide

In your view, is the claim that our psychology is subject to evolutionary forces false, or that it's true but should not be said?

If it's the latter, I think that's wrongheaded.

As you say, all sorts of societies throughout history have been oppressive and misogynistic. It did not require a theory of evolution to permit that. Opposing that should not require rejection of evolution either. I think it's unhelpful to maintain that it does.

In the world today, some of the most oppressive/regressive societies are ones that reject evolution (I acknowledge the causal story is not straightforward though: e.g. we have had some pretty awful atheistic regimes that accepted evolution).

The truly enlightened position, in my view, is to accept science as one domain and try to learn what we can, without putting any findings out of bounds on political grounds. And to take society and values as a separate domain, informed by our understanding of the world but not shackled by it.

To make a parallel: I'm dismayed by how casually institutions have bodged the science in the service of the destruction of sex-based rights (in the belief they are being progressive, too). I extend that same principle more widely: I'm anti-science-bodging in general. (Doesn't mean I can't be wrong. But it's an argument on the science that is needed, not an argument that only bad people think X so I shouldn't think it)

It's when people say "this must be the result of evolution " that you have to ask questions

1. is that actually true ; is the evidence strong? - there are many traditional societies where the male and female roles are very different to that usually proposed in the west - including societies that share childcare across the sexes - so that suggests one simple evolution path is a false concept in regards to childcare. We know historically that men would kill children not their own... they want to favor their own genes - that isn't consistent with leaving the chikdcare to the women and fucking off elsewhere because your children would be killed in your absence

2. how beholden should we be to our evolutionary past? Evolution favoured those who were slave traders rather than slave ?

3. Evolution is messy and none linear

Not true at all. The descendants of your descendants are all the same genetic information being passed on, so it's absolutely in your interest to ensure your own children survive. Why else do grandparents love their grandchildren?

There are two broad strategies in nature - first is to spend no energy taking care of babies, but pump them out by the gazillion so some will survive based on pure numbers. Humans do not do that. We have relatively small numbers of babies, that take a lot of time and energy to gestate, and then put a lot of effort into making sure these few precious children survive. Maths will be able to tell you the more complex theory of this, but it would seem evolution has 'decided' that for us it is worth the trade off to have fewer children overall. It is also well evidenced that women, when logically choosing partners, choose those with characteristics that would suggest they would be caring fathers, as this helps with our strategy.

I agree with pretty much all of that.

What matters is what's true. Culture/nurture is a very powerful force (nature is not destiny). Morality is different again. We must be careful not to read "Just So" stories from our present. And it's complicated.

(The one bit I disagree with is that males killing others’ offspring means that there can be no nature component to child-rearing roles. If that's indeed your claim. I wasn't clear).

My position is basically that "it's almost certainly some mix of both nature and nurture". Mine is not the extreme position being argued here. The extreme position is that nature must be 0%. (100% is another extreme position that I dispute, but no-one’s saying that here).

Here here 100%

I see this rise in regressive misogyny as really disturbing.

As I said earlier a lot of this conversation is really about indoctrinating women to accept mediocre partnerings and uneven workloads as “genetically defined.”
Like you I am out of the game and would only re-enter if a fully equal partner came along.

In some closely related animals , killing of the offspring of other males is very commonplace - that would be one evolution path for us

Whilst I agree that there is probably a balance to be had between the nature and nurture position , so often I have seen nature used as a means to shut women up, treat them poorly , to treat women as a homogenous group rather than respect their individuality, to ignore the strengths of individual women

and so often I have seen stuff promoted as "natural " and "evolution " which is clearly bollocks . Men can be excellent caregivers- we shouldn't take that away from them under the banner of "nature"

that my current position is "society isn't ready to consider what nature might be telling us and how we should incorporate that into life "

and I also don't believe that we should be victims of our nature - we should fight against racism for example ( which is a natural inbuilt response to seeing differences ) and we should fight against sexism in the same way

@midgetastic Yes, I think we largely actually agree.

However on your penultimate paragraph, I think the better approach is to 'de-fang' nature arguments by making clear that they don't straightforwardly mean we should behave a certain way. I think the alternative risks storing up worse problems (the reluctance of so many insitutions to say no, actually, women have specific needs that deserve protection in law is, in part, I think, a fear of having to say that men and women are different in ways that are deeper than culture).

(We reject, after all, the position that "it's our tradition" is a defence against injustice. "It's our nature" should be no different. I don't read those people who defend a culture explanation as defending the worst excesses that culture has been used to justify. Nor should people read a nature explanation as defending the worst excesses that that position has been used to justify. Both have been used to justify monstrosities).

It's practised incompetence! If they actually did it efficiently or effectively you may leave it to them .. which they aren't payed for or preferred to do as you'll do it for them ... 'for free'. Have you notice that act like they want home cooked meals.. until they have to do it themselves.. then a take away menu comes out !

Seriously if men had to work & bring up children alone they'd hire help .. we my friends are that hired help !

I didn’t count them. I didn’t receive any stereotypical gifts at all, or buy any. I’m not a cliche surrounded by cliches.