No, Gender Roles Are Not Natural (Part 1: Animals)

[Anonymous]

I'm planning on doing a couple parts to this if I have time.

Often, when I get into debates with people on traditional gender roles, people usually start off with one argument.

"It's like this in all of nature!" they say, "Even in animals; the men hunt and the women raise the children, the men chase women and the women are chased...The men lead and the women follow."

However, this is simply not the case.

Some species, yes the women are the caregivers. But to say that's all or almost always true everywhere, well that is just ridiculous.

Here's some proof.

1. Jacanas

The roles are completely reversed in this species. The females often fight with one another for a male, and the male goes with the winning female. He gets no say in the matter.

The male then raises the children while the female goes off to mate with more males (the men stay with one woman each, while the female gets multiple partners) and also kill the young of rival females. So sweet of them.

2. Spotted Hyenas

The women are extremely aggressive, and males tend to be submissive to the females in fear of being killed.

3. The Anglerfish

You know those terrifying, horror movie looking fish? Yea those are all females. The males have none of those scary looking features and have no way of providing for themselves at all. They can't get food or shelter by themselves at all. BUT they do have a great sense of smell, which they use to find a female. To this female, they literally fuse themselves until they are basically a set of testicles attached to her. Then they share her bloodstream... Great relationship, no communication problems either!

4. Topi Antelopes

The females compete with one another for a male, but the males are pretty picky and fight most of them off.

5. Bonobos

These monkeys are female led and same sex pairings are very common.

And guess what?

Along with chimps, they are one of the two closest human relatives.

[Heynashville]

When a baby is born, hospitals identify them as the anatomy they were born with. While I believe that everyone should be who they wanna be, love who they wanna love, and should never be ashamed of either... I strongly dislike the whole lgbtltblahblah movement. And I would like to note here, my best friend is an elderly gay man who agrees with me 100% as we've discussed this a lot. You don't believe you are a man, you should be a woman who was born with the wrong parts? Cool. Vise-versa, cool. Be whoever you feel you should be, more power to ya! But trying to to dissolve gender roles completely is absurd. The majority of people identify with who they are, and the gender they were given at birth. You are in the minority here! I'm sorry that's the case, but it's the truth. If my gay best friend agrees with me, obviously I'm not an asshole in this argument as technically, he is apart of the lgbt name.

While we're on the subject... feminists are ruining everything. I'm all for equal rights, I'm a woman, duh. But, catcalling is rape. Are you fucking kidding me?
Feminism and lgbt movements are supposed to be about equal rights. NOT PRIVILEDGE. This is a whole other aspect of entitledness.

[MrMAC777]

⬆⬆⬆ This was perfect! Well said. I'm glad it came from a woman for once. Thank you 🤗

[OlderAndWiser]

There are estimated to be 8,700,000 species on Earth.

www.sciencedaily.com/.../110823180459.htm

"But while hundreds of species have been documented [engaged in homosexual behavior] on isolated occasions, only a handful have made it a habitual part of their lives," according to Paul Vasey of the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada.

www.BBC.com/.../20150206-are-there-any-homosexual-animals

Animal species also routinely kill competitors but I would not use that behavior to try to normalize homicide among humans.

[Adam_INTJ]

Excellent analysis – I pretty much said the same thing in my comment before even reading yours

[ADFSDF1996]

Comparing a different species to humans is like comparing apples to oranges, it‘s incomparable. Plus it’s ironic that this take is a argument against gender roles but seems to only be advocating for gender role reversal.

I’m personally comfortable with my traditional masculine gender roles and don’t plan on changing them.

[Dawsonwc]

Are you saying that apples can literally only be compared to apples? Cause that sounds silly. Apples are hard, oranges are soft. Apples are round and so are oranges. Not that hard to compare apples to oranges. I don’t necessarily agree with her take but saying you can’t compare different species doesn’t really make sense. We know that plants are living species because we compare them to animals and non living matter and conclude that they have more important traits in common with us than with a rock. Having different traits is a very necessary component of comparing and contrasting. Otherwise you’re just walking around playing a matching game.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Dawsonwc Apples are round? Maybe pomegranates...

[Dawsonwc]

@NYCQuestions1976 they’re more round than square. Maybe not perfectly spherical but they have rounded edges. My point is different things can still be compared despite being different. This guy is right in saying that OP is not making the best of arguments but still apples and oranges can be compared and so can humans and other species. We do it science literally every day. Most of our medicine starts with comparing animal trails to us, progressively getting genetically closer.

[CoffeeWC]

Humans are a species of animal. There are plenty of species that can be compared to humans. for example, apes nurture their young like humans do. Females are more suited to nurture their young in both cases.

[ADFSDF1996]

@Dawsonwc Different type of fruit.

[ADFSDF1996]

@CoffeeWC Only if comparing them to primal or feral humans.

[ADFSDF1996]

@Dawsonwc Humans are a unique species on this planet. The only things every animal (including humans) has in common with each other on this planet is that we are all animals. What you are saying is that we can compare all matter. Just because both apples and Oranges are round, doesn’t mean they can be compared. They taste different, they have different properties and they have a different feel to them. There is always going to be at least one similarity between two different things, it doesn’t mean you can expect the same results from them.

[ADFSDF1996]

@CoffeeWC It doesn’t mean you’ll get the exact same results from those comparisons.

[CoffeeWC]

Each species is unique.

[ADFSDF1996]

@CoffeeWC They are which means they can’t be expected to produce comparable results. You can’t compare a birds flying ability to a tiger’s abilities because tigers can’t fly.

[NYCQuestions1976]

Blasphemy! You all know damn well tigers can fly! Next you guys wil say there's no Ligers either... 😂😂😂😂

[CoffeeWC]

There are some similarities between species though

[ADFSDF1996]

@CoffeeWC Yes there are but it still doesn’t mean that comparisons will be as accurate as comparing two of the same.

[ADFSDF1996]

@NYCQuestions1976 Well, if you put a tiger on a plane then technically the tiger is flying😅.

[MlleCake]

In humans, the only roles that seem hard and fast, and we'll say that these are due to the sex differences between the male and female of the human species is that the female accepts the genetic material from the male, incubates the fetus, and secondarily produces milk for the infant. Beyond that, every perceived gender role is at least partly influenced by culture, influenced differently between cultures, and most human personality traits, and many physical traits, are present in males, female and those with any level of intersexualism. We know that there is a great deal of socialization to adhere to culturally defined gender roles as well.

[ThisDudeHere]

Gender roles may technically not be natural but they are what keep society afloat.

[goaded]

How, exactly? As long as someone is willing to look after the children personally, and the other financially, or both share both tasks, what does it matter which of them performs each task?

[ThisDudeHere]

@goaded just yesterday i watched the confession of a woman my age who was raised by lesbians lamenting how she had felt the need for a father figure in her life. There are without a doubt countless others just like her who can not speak out like that due to the fear of being labelled as bigoted.

[goaded]

And how many women your age lament having an abusive or absent father? The woman you're talking about can choose a different path for herself and her family, as her mothers did from theirs. Society won't collapse from their choices, but fear or lack of acceptance might pull it apart.

[ThisDudeHere]

@goaded it's rather odd to see someone your age who isn't conservative.

[Ahsthen]

All this will change. Humans will change.

[goaded]

"@goaded it's rather odd to see someone your age who isn't conservative."

Uh, sorry, I guess?

I appreciate the ladder society gave me to get to where I am, and I think future generations should have the same chances I had and, at the same time, not screw the minorities that were held back by my generation.

By the way, when I made my initial comment, I was thinking of the man staying at home to look after the kids while the wife went out to work. Which is what we did.

[NerdInDenial]

sexual dimorphism exists in humans which is why certain jobs are more appealing to men and women.

[Adam_INTJ]

Maybe a little bit, but I'm not sure that we have any data to be sure that it benefits society directly. Societies with traditional gender roles are doing pretty well though, so it doesn't seem that a change would do any particular good.

[Ahsthen]

@ThisDudeHere: conservative is a matter of type and degree. Those who claim themselves to be 'Conservative' and those who claim themselves 'laid back' are oftenly the same: loose in method and conservative in outlook.

Transcend Culture and gender.

[ThisDudeHere]

@Ahsthen how the hell do you transcend a gender? Can you transcend gravity too?

[Ahsthen]

It may take genetic alteration...

[JimRSmith]

Those are the correct gender roles for those species, just as ours are correct for our species.

[CoffeeWC]

Each species has their own gender roles. Just because they're different than humans, doesn't mean they aren't gender roles. There are certain things expected of males and females.

[hellionthesagereborn]

So your examples of gender not being biological are a bunch of animals that are not even remotely related to homo sapien, and one that is but even then you bring up their "same sex pairings"(little different, they use sex to avoid conflict and reconnect with others), and that they tend towards matriarchy but that has nothing to do with actual gender roles (which by the way, the males still hunt and protect (despite considerably less sexual dimorphism), and ignore the other close relative of humans, chimpanzees which have gender roles (as well as the bonobo) and more sexual dimorphism as humans do (not to mention that they are still separate species from humans so its not exactly the best example, note worthy but not definitive proof (even if it proved what you claim it does (it doesn't)). That's not a good argument, especially since we can see significant differences between men and women (sexual dimorphism) which specifically makes males more affective at certain tasks and women at others (like males having denser bones, greater muscle mass and general size as well as 60% greater upper body strength, 50% greater lower body strength, greater hand eye coordination, less aversion to negative stimuli, higher threshold for pain, 25% more collagen in their skin (which makes it thicker and more resilient), women having breasts which makes them required for nursing, women having better sense of smell and more capable of differentiating colors (better at gathering), greater development of linguistic skills etc.) Or the ample data showing the significant differences in male and female brains (morphological differences in the corpus collosum, how the amygdala reacts to various stimuli, cross hemispherical vs lateral hemispherical communication, different ratios of grey and white matter, size differences (males have 8%-10% larger brains when factoring for overall size differences) etc.). In short, gender roles are natural, in fact they even found that chimpanzees function on gender roles (male chimpanzees where more thing oriented, females more people (chimp) oriented).

[Dawsonwc]

Although I agree with most of what you’ve written this isn’t necessarily a good point for arguing for gender roles either. There are plenty of things that human beings are biologically designed for that we actively work against. Natural selection is blind and doesn’t accept what is best only what isn’t failing. One major trait of humans is using our brains for problem solving which often creates environments that are vastly different from those in which we evolved, also often outpacing the rate in which natural selection can occur. Arguing for the strict maintainence of gender roles from the perspective of what’s biologically engrained in us is like arguing that never drink milk past childhood. Yes we may be built a certain way by natural selection but there are other options that may have a wealth of unknown benefits and exploring them shouldn’t be something we’re afraid of. Our brains evolved and survived for a reason and I doubt that reason was to restrict ourselves and our culture.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@Dawsonwc The argument wasn't whether or not it was good or bad only that it was or was not biological. I'm not arguing it being right or wrong, I think that's irrelevant, what I was stating is that it is beyond any doubt, biological. Now you can argue that we should or should not fight against those impulses, but again, that wasn't the argument being made. Now personally I think its quite foolish to ignore millions of years of evolution, to just assume that we in our limited understanding and knowledge of how we operate would know best. I would also argue that its rather arrogant to presume that we can just throw away what we have evolved to be with no consequence and to assume that a new way must inherently be better. This is the stance that half of society has taken but they have no reason to presume ignoring these impulses will be good (again, evolution, we evolved these traits because it allowed us to survive, that's not a little thing).

[hellionthesagereborn]

@Dawsonwc In fact we can see a drop in over all happiness in both men and women but especially women (who are encouraged to ignore their biological gender roles the most) at the moment society started to push for the removal of gender roles. Women where happier in the fifties then they are now, statistically nontraditional relationships have a greater rate of divorce and unhappiness. Marriages where men take on more traditionally female roles and responsibilities have less sex (which is necessary to establish and restablish intimacy and love), marriages where women are the primary bread winner tend to result in greater rates of cheating and divorce and the women tend to be significantly less happy. Meanwhile women report being happier when experiencing what currently people call "benevolent sexism"(chivalry) and so do men. Traditional relationships report higher levels of satisfaction and lower divorce rates. Data backs our evolution, the fact is gender roles are innate and efficient.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@Dawsonwc I'm not suggesting that one cannot question, but to throw out something simply because you can is not wise and when you do it on such a wide scale as an entire society, you are causing catastrophic damage. If you do not understand it, why it is how it is, then you should not meddle with it. But again, the issue was not about whether or not it was good or bad but rather if gender roles existed at all from a biological stand point and again, all data shows it does.

[Dawsonwc]

I’d also advocate not ignoring our millions of years evolution in fact forward progress would require us to to learn exclusively from it. It’s not even possible to make decisions in the intellectual vacuum that ignoring history would create. I strongly doubt that anyone has ever made such an extreme of an argument. Questioning and testing is not the same as ignoring. Secondly what evidence do we have that women where happier during that time period? Are you referencing only American women? How thorough where those surveys? Because as a black man I highly doubt my ancestors enjoyed being women in that time and have a sneaking suspicion that yours did not either.

[Dawsonwc]

I also think many posters are latching on to the title question and ignoring the detailed description. It’s clear that the question asker is simply rebutting this particular argument "It's like this in all of nature!" they say, "Even in animals; the men hunt and the women raise the children, the men chase women and the women are chased... The men lead and the women follow." her title question was misleading but it’s difficult to explain most situations in only 250 characters. I’m pretty sure it was written that way to catch attention and not meant to be taken as the actual question especially since it seems to be part of a series of questions.

[Dawsonwc]

I’d also like to warn against confusing causation with correlation. A lot of change happened in the fifties.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@Dawsonwc Actually people make that argument all the time, the "Its (insert current year)" arguments suggesting that because we did things in the past doesn't mean they are relevant now which is fallacious, or the argument that this woman is making which is gender is not natural, which requires that we ignore physiological, genetic, biochemical, neurological, psychological differences as well as ignore the context of those differences. The argument to ignore evolution is not just being made here in this take, its been made thousands of times in acadamia (where this myth that biology and gender are separate and by extension evolution did not shape our particular genders roles) as well as the media. Its quite common. They have not tested anything, they have merely stated that this is so and then expect people to act accordingly, even legislating for these changes. As I pointed out if it was tested then they would find that everything they have stated is provably false.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@Dawsonwc As for the surveys, actually blacks where probably happier then too as they had higher rates of employment, less likely to drop out, less likely to commit crimes, more likely to have fathers in the home etc. etc. Your "sneaking suspicion" is a feeling, one that you have because you have decided that things before where bad more then likely because either a) they where in the past and everything in the past was bad (as per the post modernist thinking that has permeated society (and with no real evidence to support it) or b) because society has told you that this is the case and you have simply accepted it as fact. Here is the data: http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969
www.theguardian.com/.../womens-rights-happiness-wellbeing-gender-gap
www.asanet.org/.../Feb13ASRFeature.pdf
link.springer.com/.../s11199-011-0017-2
www.telegraph.co.uk/.../...rd-working-husband.html

[hellionthesagereborn]

@Dawsonwc As I said, multiple studies done in multiple countries have all concluded the same thing. Studies also show the negative impact promiscuity has on women, which is more then it is on men which shows a biological difference in responses to casual sex as well as how society has pushed an agenda that is contrary to what is deemed traditional with absolutely no evidence to back it (I can provide sources if you would like) which ties into what I am saying about gender roles being biological and the idea of ignoring the evolutionary and biological aspects of gender is foolish. As for "rebutting" the argument, no one has ever said all animals follow the same gender roles as humans as far as I have ever witnessed. In fact quite the opposite in my experiences, I cannot think of a single instance of that argument being made to "prove" that human gender roles are universal in all animals, I have however seen the opposite done (as this take is evidence of).

[hellionthesagereborn]

@Dawsonwc Their was no misinterpretation of causation and correlation, as I pointed out its been declining from the point where we began deviating from our biological gender roles steadily. Its also been shown as I have provided links for that men and women who stick to those gender roles are as happy as women where prior to these changes. Further more while correlation is not always causation, its pretty frequently related which is why we look for correlations as causation tends to follow (but not always). Arguing that this is correlation is just an attempt to try and dismiss the statements made as again, currently people in traditional relationships and world views are happier then those who are not thus corroborating the data.

[Dawsonwc]

This conversation feels like arguing for the sake of arguing and I’d rather not continue

[hellionthesagereborn]

@Dawsonwc Why does it feel that way? Is it because I presented you with multiple sources for my stance that you cannot argue against? Is it because I did not immediately accept your world view as true? This is not an argument for the sake of argument and your well aware of that. Just admit that you might have been mistaken and move on, their is nothing wrong with not being aware of various studies showing one thing or another, don't let pride (or ideology) keep you from admitting that you could be wrong and as a consequence growing from that realization. A foolish person isn't the one that is wrong, its the one that was proven wrong again and again and yet refuses to acknowledge it. I've researched this topic, you haven't, its understandable that you would not be aware of these statistics and data, again, don't try to make up an excuse for it, just learn from it.

[meowcow]

There's a lot of poor thinking in this take.
First and foremost is that you think that differences in the animal world mean that gender roles are not natural.

Gender roles are indeed natural in all animal species. They are simply not the same between species. In humans, and other species where the male is physically larger than the female, it is very common for males to be the hunters/fighters/builders, while females are the caregivers.

In other species where the female is physically larger and stronger, you often see the reverse. The males are little more than sperm donors, and the female is the caregiver, hunter, provider. These would be anglerfish, bees, termites, and preying mantis.

That being said, there are many variants of gender roles among species. However, DIFFERENCES in gender roles among various species does not equal "not natural". This is why different populations of the same species develop the same gender roles.

The preying mantis in North America has the same gender roles as the preying mantis in South Africa. This is also why gender roles among all human civilizations are essentially the same - with men being physically dominant, while women are caregivers. Because it is the most efficient method for the species to survive. It would be pretty stupid if the weaker gender was the one hunting, and the stronger one was raising the young. Such a species would be extinct.

It isn't until civilization reaches a point where the natural roles of men and women become somewhat obsolete through technology... that gender roles become diminished. For example, women no longer need to be caregivers. That is what hired nannies, daycares, and schools are for. Hence, mothers who would naturally need to raise their children now have the opportunity to have a career. Alternatively, men who traditionally had to be the household breadwinner (because the mother was raising the child) can now have a less role in working all day to earn an income, and a greater role in raising the child.

However, despite all this, the biological differences between men and women will never change. Men will ALWAYS be physically larger and stronger than women, and women will ALWAYS have the natural capacity to raise children (mother's milk). So trying to smudge the line separating gender roles will never actually work too well. A logical person will think it strange that a weaker woman goes to work, while a stronger male sits at home with the kids.

[cavmanier]

I'm no biological anthropologist, but from what I remember bonobos use sex as a way to strengthen social relationships and minimize conflict. All bonobos will do it with same sex bonobos, but adults will also have sex with children and dads have sex with daughters. The sex isn't about attraction. I've never heard of same sex bonobo "parings." I think you are taking them out of context. If I'm wrong, please show me.

I'm not sure what you were trying to claim by saying bonobos have same sex pairings, but if you want to claim that you'll also have to claim pedophilia is natural. But like I said, they aren't doing it for the pleasure or the sex, they use it as a bonding mechanism that you're taking out of context.

Your claim that gender roles are not natural makes no sense. They exist in human society. We created many. Therefore, they are natural. If you mean they are social constructs, I agree some are. There are big biological differences as well that exist between the sexes though which lead to certain tenancies or stereotypical roles.

Also with Hyenas, the alpha female is dominant (not every female in the group) because females are bigger. The alpha male has dominance over subordinate females. For whatever reason their dna made females bigger. Males usually have higher testosterone than females (except sometimes the matriarch), and I'm not positive, but I'd wager they are likely more often more aggressive than females due to that.

[cavmanier]

I can sense your opinions are based on wanting to justify some reasoning you have. I don't think you are being impartial to facts.

[RandomBritishGuy94]

Just because a role is different in a different species it doesn’t mean they aren’t natural. You even gave examples of “roles”. Spotted Hyenas have a female who is aggressive… that’s a role.

Gender roles are as natural in the animal kingdom as they possibly could be. Just because they aren’t what you think of as a “gender role” because you’re a human that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. The roles are different for every species. Loins for example have the Females hunt well the males fight off others who might threaten the pack. Female loins learn a specific job in the hunt and do it all their lives. It’s why it takes time for a non-related pride to learn to hunt as one.

As for your example, they are not all correct. For example what you consider a “same sex relationship” between bonobos is nothing of the sort -
“The genital rubbing and touching is very common, but it only happens in very specific contexts, often ones that are not obviously sexual.
“People think they just do it for fun but it’s not really to do with that. It’s to do with uncertain social situations,” she says, summarizing the conclusions she and de Waal came to in a paper published in the journal Behaviour in 2014.”
Source - www.BBC.co.uk/.../20160317-do-bonobos-really-spend-all-their-time-having-sex

All animals are different. You can’t really compare the actions of one animal to another without context (e. g. a genetic link etc).

[abc3643]

Um, yes, gender roles are natural.
They are examples of what is known as "emergent behavior".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Here is an example of emergent behavior:
the synchronization of metronomes.

https://youtu.be/5v5eBf2KwF8

The metronomes don't get together at some convention and decide to synchronize. They just do due to the laws of physics and the conditions of the environment in which they operate. In this case, the base on which the metronomes are on can move. If the base could not move, the metronomes would not synchronize.

All groups of organisms or other independent entities exhibit similar behaviors.

For the purposes of this MyTake, gender roles evolve within a society based on the genetics and phenotypical traits of the members of the society and the environmental influences on the society over time.

Indirectly, this is what is advocated in the novel The Power by Naomi Alderman which is on many 10 Best Books of 2017 lists. In that novel, we eventually see that once women become the more powerful gender, then they start creating societies similar to the patriarchal societies of today.

But, in a nutshell, it is all emergent behavior.

[Adam_INTJ]

You found a few species with exceptions. Guess what? there are millions of other species that follow gender roles!! You can't find a couple exceptions and assert that they now define everything - that's cherry-picking data.

Some of these animals brutally murder each other too - so you can't just say let's take advice from chimpanzees ONLY on gender roles and ignore everything else that they do!

The "natural" gender roles argument is flawed though, "okay, so gender roles are common in nature – so what?" It's the natural fallacy. Whether or not something is natural has no bearing on its rightness.

Gender roles are good in humans because when people are forced to take roles of the opposite gender, there are higher rates of depression. Gender roles are psychologically healthy. Don't get me wrong, there are exceptions. You cannot say that gender roles are valid or invalid all the time. Most of the time they're valid though. This is why we leave people the opportunity to choose what role they're going to take on. You shouldn't just force them one way or the other - they'll voluntarily choose the choice that's best for them - but they don't have a right to force other people to accommodate their choices. Been to negotiate. A wife can't just force her husband into a traditionally female role just so that she can have her preferred way of living. She's to negotiate with her husband how it's going to work and he needs to take on the role VOLUNTARILY.

[Celtero]

Fuckin social justice warriors... so dumb!

"Gender roles are unnatural!"
also
"Look at all these gender roles in nature."

Just because they're not similar to human gender roles doesn't make them unnatural.

Please get off the social justice train, it's filled with stupid, desperate people.

Also, just for fun...

Did you know female hyenas can rape? They can form a pseudopenis and often rape males.

And another good example for your argument (as shitty as it was) is the lion. Males sit around all day, while females are the hunters.

[Curmudgeon]

As others have pointed out, human animals are different from other animals, and other animals, from seals to lions, are arguably "patriarchal".

But to go further: back when this feminist thing was starting and still had some merits, one of its then leaders, Gloria Steinhem, frequently and loudly stated that "What we want is a humanizing of gender roles--NOT an exchanging of them!"

And you know what? She was right.

However, in the 21st century, we have done something different, and worse: a total denial of gender roles. To our peril.

[ksoma]

the fact that there are species where the gender roles are the reverse of the supposed cultural norms of people is not proof that gender roles don't exist, and are not natural.
In fact, it is a reinforcement of the fact that genders are different, in form and function, and that very specific gender roles do exist.
You've defeated your own point.

Also, for every example you share of one type of gender role in the animal kingdom, people can share animal examples of others. What you show has no bearing on the human condition.

[Hal2002]

Gender roles are natural, it just depends on the species as to which gender is the most dominant.

In we humans, the male is the more dominant (or used to be). Outside of humans and a few other species, the male has no role in the rearing of offspring beside providing sperm and once that is done. The male either dies, is driven away or eaten by the female.

In most species where the male has a role, it is usually only to keep other males way to help insure that offspring have a better chance of reaching breeding age and when they get old they are booted out to make room for a younger breeding male.

Well come to think of it, human society is getting like that as well. As soon as the kids are out of the house and on their own (either working or in college), a lot of males find themselves booted out as they are no longer needed to support and protect the offspring.

[englisc]

Your take doesn't disprove gender roles at all. The ones you listed are FEMALE-LED - they have gender roles. It's just that they're different to ours.

When a certain sex of any species is the dominant sex, they're usually larger and stronger than the opposite sex. This is true for all the species you listed when it comes to females.

Now yes, the bonobos are one of the closest species to humans as well as chimpanzees. Bonobos are matriarchal, chimpanzees are patriarchal. You can't say that we're more like the bonobos than the chimpanzees without any evidence, just because you personally would prefer that it was true.

Perhaps it's possible that we're a little of both. Looking at successful vs unsuccessful societies, the successful ones were patriarchal. Matriarchal socieites always either collapsed or were invaded by patriarchal ones because they're stronger. So then it's a question of which works best.

[JSmith925]

All true, plus, having an advanced cerebellum and the ability to think and reason abstractly changes everything. We are capable of self-determination, choosing whatever roles we want.
Animals sometimes eat their own feces. Does that mean we should do that? Female Praying Mantises tear off the head of their partner before copulating. I would definitely not be in favor of that.
The whole animal comparison only works for the physical. When it comes to thinking, spirituality and habits humans sometimes diverge radically from other species because of their advanced ability to contemplate.
~JSmith

[JayParris]

Gender roles are natural, even if they're species-specific. They're meant to take the best advantage of respective strengths and weaknesses inherent to each gender to ensure that the family unit thrives.

To send a woman to a job that requires constant heavy lifting, while the man stays home to raise children and keep up the home, just doesn't make any sense. Within a year or two, the wife will be injured and out of work, and the family will starve.

With lions, the male role is protector. If he's out hunting when the pride is attacked, he can't fulfill his role and his offspring will be picked off one by one.

[Nivinxus]

I sort of get what you are saying, but I'm not fully understanding how this is supposed to debunk gender roles.

It could be argued that nature intends that genders of each species are generally assigned to a certain role. e. g. Sea Horses where males generally are the caregivers and nurturers or something. There are plenty of species in the animal kingdom where females take charge and that is the assumed gender role for that species.

Well either way, whatever. Humans have developed in a sense where gender roles are becoming more blurred due to the fact that the need for those roles evolve themselves.

Anyways, interesting take, didn't know male anglerfish basically does the fusion dance.

[BrianMerritt]

Does that mean that not having feathers is unnatural for humans?
This entire essay is BULLSHIT.
Different species have different gender roles, and some species don't even have sexual dimorphism at all. Human beings have their own set of behavioral traits, INCLUDING sexual dimorphism, and these traits are not identical to fucking OTHER species because we evolved to be DIFFERENT!!!
Seriously, did you pass bio with a 65?