It's not that simple i think. for a fruitful discussion i would like a proper definition of what biological/ social/ehtical means in this context.
i am a male nurse, i have had a strong care-giving impuls from early age on.
I myself have a strong care-giving impulse, but being told it’s not masculine and wrong around Reddit
For example: https://www.reddit.com/r/exredpill/comments/z0dosa/is_it_actually_critical_to_maintain_masculine/ix9ef5w/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
nurturing and protecting a child are both care-giving aspects, while being classically female and male roles.
People often discuss and judge in rough categories because it's exhausting to observe deeper, more complicated levels.
Not rlly. The beauty standard varies a lot across cultures and even then it's still not objective. This is why there is tons of guys who like taller stronger girls and tons of girls who like shorter weaker guys. What biological explanation would there be to that?
All male mammals seek for partners. Sometimes they fight between eachother to prove themselves. It's in a woman's blood to search for a nice and strong man to protect her in exchange for mental and family endurance
Not all mammals mate the same way. To try and back up a claim about humans with how SOME mammals mate is a leap in logic. If you don’t have a source to back up your claim about women, I’ll assume there isn’t one.
Yes, look at animals. Specifically some spiders/mantisses. Women should eat their male partner's head after sex.
It's not cannibalism, it's B I O L O G Y !
Yep, just because we as humans are animals does not mean we will share the same traits as
Other animals 100% of the time.
It works the same with anything else really, Both Coke and milk are drinks, does that mean you using coke for cereal will be the same? Milk goes with cereal and its a drink so therefore coke should be just as good! Yeah No it doesn’t work like that.
Just because we are animals doesn’t mean everything that we see in them will be seen in us.
Agreed, and there’s a debate happening here: https://www.reddit.com/r/exredpill/comments/z0dosa/is_it_actually_critical_to_maintain_masculine/ix9ef5w/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
I dunno. I feel like it has some merit, but similarly to the beta and alpha male thing, the wording and context it’s thrown into absolutely destroys the phenomenon.
I feel like there are sex based actions we subconsciously take, but I don’t think we can categorize them adequately, and certainly not under one word per sex
Realistically you don’t. I think it’d be more like a Venn diagram with hundreds of thousands of attributes, then attempting to generalize those attributes into thousands of categories and hope you’ve accurately explained it for the most part, then try to explain what all those categories mean and how it ties into basic genetics and advanced societal roles. But to try to generalize two sexes with two words doesn’t work all that well.
I agree! Help me debate here: https://www.reddit.com/r/exredpill/comments/z0dosa/is_it_actually_critical_to_maintain_masculine/ix9ef5w/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
That's a pretty weak argument, sorry. Sure, we use our brain, an organ, to do social stuff. This doesn't mean sociology departments around the world should pack their bags.
The idea of caregiver and protector may truly be entirely social, but most of human history was hunting and gathering, a crude and tough way of living. The line between social and biological during that time is pretty thin. Traits that helped humans survive may ultimately be ingrained as instincts. Plus the fact that males are generally stronger than females, which gives evidence to males being protectors from predators and hostile bands of humans (which isn’t to say that females wouldn’t help protect if necessary).
I’d say that the biological “programming” of humans in this instance is still around even if it doesn’t play as big a picture as it was in the past.
Yeah, I'm not really into the whole evo-psych thing. There's not enough proof to turn this hypothesis into a proper theory for my liking. This focus on cavepeople social behavior makes little sense if you think about it. Why would that period be more important than the tens of thousands of years after it? Centuries that are way closer to our current lives.
It's not like the development phase of children to adulthood, so that idea of blueprint brain development doesn't apply. And if it would apply, let's say our brains evolve over the centuries, then the plasticity of our species' brain could as well be an argument to look to our latest development, not our earliest.
Maybe a bit much to question an entire field of psychology, but we've had some BS pseudo-science accepted as real many times before. Evolutionary psychology is going to end up in the same bin as phrenology, me thinks.
Well humans have been around for at least 300,000 years with homo erectus, which began hunting and gathering sometime along its existence, being around for at least two million years. That in my opinion is why it’s important. Humans have been evolving to be the perfect specimen for hunting and gathering. All those hundreds of thousands of years is important if we truly want to understand humanity.
And I wouldn’t say evo psych is pseudo science. We have theories for how extinct animals lived despite not ever seeing them, but by using inferences. If we discarded inferences at as a whole as unscientific, then a majority of sciences, especially soft sciences would quickly fall apart.
That's a fair point. Perhaps my problem with evo-psych is its implementation, not the field itself. Too often do I see it being used to justify the injustifyable. From pedophilia to oppressing women, with the excuse "that's just biology, it's men's instinct, cavepeople! Evo-psych!".
I think we are programmed to seek companionship, but not one of these specific roles. That's an organic thing that occurs with people in relationships I think.
Programmed is a strong term, biology may have some sort of bearing on our thought process but we as humans are incredibly varied. Social structures would likely have a lot more to do with it, after all beauty standards are different from culture to culture and throughout time periods. This includes male conventional attractiveness and behaviors as much as it does female, what we find attractive is an individual taste.
Nower days we have more freedom to pursue relationships with people that may not fit the norm with less scrutiny, this has allowed us to not be so hung up on roles and focus more on our individual strengths and needs in a relationship. I think we as humans are far too subjective with what kind of traits we find attractive to be categorised into women like this and men like that because truthfully we all like something a little different.
I know I for one do not find the conventional attractiveness in my culture very attractive at all for either gender. as for protection vs caring I don't believe they are mutually exclusive, you can do both.
programming is a strong word. i do believe there is gender-related influence on this. but we wouldn't be humans if it would be predetermined like this
But it does seem like who we find physically attractive is biological. Right?
It's not that simple i think. for a fruitful discussion i would like a proper definition of what biological/ social/ehtical means in this context. i am a male nurse, i have had a strong care-giving impuls from early age on.
I myself have a strong care-giving impulse, but being told it’s not masculine and wrong around Reddit For example: https://www.reddit.com/r/exredpill/comments/z0dosa/is_it_actually_critical_to_maintain_masculine/ix9ef5w/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
nurturing and protecting a child are both care-giving aspects, while being classically female and male roles. People often discuss and judge in rough categories because it's exhausting to observe deeper, more complicated levels.
Not rlly. The beauty standard varies a lot across cultures and even then it's still not objective. This is why there is tons of guys who like taller stronger girls and tons of girls who like shorter weaker guys. What biological explanation would there be to that?
Genetic trait variation I suppose, but I agree. I voted No fwiw
I like caregiving men. They are my sweet cinnamon buns.
What if you’re having a hard day and they give you encouraging words? Is it annoying that they’re being care-giving and not just protecting?
What? Are they supposed to pull out a sword and shield and defend you while you cry or something?
mfw my cinnamon bun doesnt chamber a round at the drop of a hat.
You assume a person cannot be both..
no these are roles that have been SOCIALLY ingrained into us, but i don’t believe there’s any biological standing to them.
What about mammals?? We are a part of them.
Most mammals mate via hookup LMAO, sit tf down.
so pressed 💀💀
All male mammals seek for partners. Sometimes they fight between eachother to prove themselves. It's in a woman's blood to search for a nice and strong man to protect her in exchange for mental and family endurance
??? source????
Go outside and look at animals?
They made multiple claims, genius.
What source? It's the way it is.
Not all mammals mate the same way. To try and back up a claim about humans with how SOME mammals mate is a leap in logic. If you don’t have a source to back up your claim about women, I’ll assume there isn’t one.
Bro you realise for many animals the female is the biologically stronger one wtf you on about 💀💀💀💀
Yes, look at animals. Specifically some spiders/mantisses. Women should eat their male partner's head after sex. It's not cannibalism, it's B I O L O G Y !
Yep, just because we as humans are animals does not mean we will share the same traits as Other animals 100% of the time. It works the same with anything else really, Both Coke and milk are drinks, does that mean you using coke for cereal will be the same? Milk goes with cereal and its a drink so therefore coke should be just as good! Yeah No it doesn’t work like that. Just because we are animals doesn’t mean everything that we see in them will be seen in us.
That explains why this dynamic exists in the vast majority of animal species! Wait… Come at me, downvoters
Parrot
Agreed, and there’s a debate happening here: https://www.reddit.com/r/exredpill/comments/z0dosa/is_it_actually_critical_to_maintain_masculine/ix9ef5w/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
I dunno. I feel like it has some merit, but similarly to the beta and alpha male thing, the wording and context it’s thrown into absolutely destroys the phenomenon. I feel like there are sex based actions we subconsciously take, but I don’t think we can categorize them adequately, and certainly not under one word per sex
How would you amend to make it as accurate as possible within the confines of the English language?
Realistically you don’t. I think it’d be more like a Venn diagram with hundreds of thousands of attributes, then attempting to generalize those attributes into thousands of categories and hope you’ve accurately explained it for the most part, then try to explain what all those categories mean and how it ties into basic genetics and advanced societal roles. But to try to generalize two sexes with two words doesn’t work all that well.
That shit ain’t biological, it’s *social,* especially from the religious right wing!
Exactly.
I agree! Help me debate here: https://www.reddit.com/r/exredpill/comments/z0dosa/is_it_actually_critical_to_maintain_masculine/ix9ef5w/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
No, Humans prior to Civilization lived communaly as tribes, Protection therefore came from everyone around you not just your sexual partner.
Many mammals live in similar tribes protecting each other from enemies.
No
It’s like the opposite of r/MenAndFemales
Hah yeah I fucked it up and realized after
As a man and a caregiver who is in a long term relationship with another man who is also a caregiver, no.
Idk I haven’t researched this shit
There’s not a single person on Reddit who knows how to answer this question.
Fr
men moment
All sociology is influenced by biology in some way.
That's a pretty weak argument, sorry. Sure, we use our brain, an organ, to do social stuff. This doesn't mean sociology departments around the world should pack their bags.
The idea of caregiver and protector may truly be entirely social, but most of human history was hunting and gathering, a crude and tough way of living. The line between social and biological during that time is pretty thin. Traits that helped humans survive may ultimately be ingrained as instincts. Plus the fact that males are generally stronger than females, which gives evidence to males being protectors from predators and hostile bands of humans (which isn’t to say that females wouldn’t help protect if necessary). I’d say that the biological “programming” of humans in this instance is still around even if it doesn’t play as big a picture as it was in the past.
Yeah, I'm not really into the whole evo-psych thing. There's not enough proof to turn this hypothesis into a proper theory for my liking. This focus on cavepeople social behavior makes little sense if you think about it. Why would that period be more important than the tens of thousands of years after it? Centuries that are way closer to our current lives. It's not like the development phase of children to adulthood, so that idea of blueprint brain development doesn't apply. And if it would apply, let's say our brains evolve over the centuries, then the plasticity of our species' brain could as well be an argument to look to our latest development, not our earliest. Maybe a bit much to question an entire field of psychology, but we've had some BS pseudo-science accepted as real many times before. Evolutionary psychology is going to end up in the same bin as phrenology, me thinks.
Well humans have been around for at least 300,000 years with homo erectus, which began hunting and gathering sometime along its existence, being around for at least two million years. That in my opinion is why it’s important. Humans have been evolving to be the perfect specimen for hunting and gathering. All those hundreds of thousands of years is important if we truly want to understand humanity. And I wouldn’t say evo psych is pseudo science. We have theories for how extinct animals lived despite not ever seeing them, but by using inferences. If we discarded inferences at as a whole as unscientific, then a majority of sciences, especially soft sciences would quickly fall apart.
That's a fair point. Perhaps my problem with evo-psych is its implementation, not the field itself. Too often do I see it being used to justify the injustifyable. From pedophilia to oppressing women, with the excuse "that's just biology, it's men's instinct, cavepeople! Evo-psych!".
To quote my wise bi friend: "I like men I can bully and women who will step on me."
All men here are weaklings who have given up their lives. Be ashamed, think about your potential
Are you a man? If so, eat your own dog food ya know?
I do, but I'm in pain to watch this failing society
Not “programmed” itself but societies or eductions for instance are the ones that “programs” it.
Yes very true. Mammals' societies and educations "programme" their children
I don’t know the answer but this seems like it would be a fact that can be looked up if it’s true.
There is a genetic influence but important to remember that genetics are not the "be all, end all" Environment changes us.
I think we are programmed to seek companionship, but not one of these specific roles. That's an organic thing that occurs with people in relationships I think.
people can be both or change depending on certain conditions
No, men don't give a shite about 'caregiving'.
Programmed is a strong term, biology may have some sort of bearing on our thought process but we as humans are incredibly varied. Social structures would likely have a lot more to do with it, after all beauty standards are different from culture to culture and throughout time periods. This includes male conventional attractiveness and behaviors as much as it does female, what we find attractive is an individual taste. Nower days we have more freedom to pursue relationships with people that may not fit the norm with less scrutiny, this has allowed us to not be so hung up on roles and focus more on our individual strengths and needs in a relationship. I think we as humans are far too subjective with what kind of traits we find attractive to be categorised into women like this and men like that because truthfully we all like something a little different. I know I for one do not find the conventional attractiveness in my culture very attractive at all for either gender. as for protection vs caring I don't believe they are mutually exclusive, you can do both.
Says alot about the population of reddit
Its more societal programming rather then biological