Amorphos wrote:Wouldn’t it be more or less the same, for example female humans [probably quite recently in evolutionary terms] ‘take on’ the roles of subordinates and homely mothers, the only difference I can see is that some of them would go hunting whilst other look after the kids and what have you. Men are only like men because that’s the roles they take on, that is, except in ancient amazon societies where the women dominated.
I think by now in evolution, it's in our genes. The stereotype of the caring, nurturing, sentimental female and that of the tough, warrior male is, to a certain extent, genetically hardwired into us. Think about the fact that women have a womb <-- What do you think would be required of their personalities, skills, and other dispositions in order to make for good child rearers. And this has been going on long before human beings entered onto the stage--the split between male and female emerged during the Cambrian era (I think), and it has always been important to the evolution of dual sexual species to maintain some difference in roles between the sexes (division of labor).
So if we were to switch the traditional roles of men and women overnight, I think we would still see major difference in the outcomes (even after men and women were given sufficient time to adapt to their new roles). I think women really are more nurturing and caring than men genetically speaking, and I think that would come out if they were in power, at least slightly more than it does with men in power. I don't think it would be overwhelming though--I think overall
you're right, that women would prove to the world that they too can be brutish, corrupt, war-oriented, and power hungry (some say Hillary's already proven that).
would they have been just as prone to violence and war? I think probably
Take a look around facebook and see who’s causing all the trouble lol. I don't go on facebook.
Women are if anything the ones driving men to not let them say or do ‘that’, whatever that is. In my experience the kinds of men I least like are the kinds who like to big themselves up by making others look small, and they always have women who question them upon any iteration of perceived weakness. Indeed they encourage them to go around picking fights.
I'd have to go onto facebook to see these altercations myself, but by the sounds of it, my guess would be these women are trying to hit these "tough guys" where it hurts--nothing hits harder for a guy than being told you're weak--and women love it when they think they've found a guy's weak spot.
Amorphos wrote:In nature female predators aren’t weak, and one wouldn’t want to approach them.
Not if they're cunning.
Amorphos wrote:this is why I say its a zero sum equation, causality means that given the same causes [survival etc] then women would develop relative to those causes. the whole baby thing doesn't make them weaker, it makes them stronger.
Well, the idea is that if you're going to carry a baby around in your womb for 9 months and then rear it for the 20 years or thereabouts, it's extremely difficult to do that and fend for yourself (and your offspring) at the same time. This is why I say that if women were somehow put into the role of warriors and protectors, evolution probably would have given a womb to men instead (along with breasts and less muscle mass--essentially becoming women themselves). It's also why I make a distinction between evolving
to perform these different roles vs. being socially conditioned to perform those roles.