Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
No, Gender Roles Are Not Natural (Part 1: Animals) (Page 2)
Anonymous
(18-24) 
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
82Opinion
Interesting how your *proof* of a LACK of gender roles is full of... gender roles. True they're not *human* gender roles, because the species you're talking about is not human, but the are strongly (according to you) gendered roles. Those gender roles are natural to those species, just as ours are natural to our species.
Bonobos was the only fair comparison. But there are hundreds of different primate species in this world and to make a fair point you would have to do a research on more than just one endangered group with population less than 50 000. That’s like picking one person on this planet and saying that all 7.6 billion of us should do something in certain way, just because that’s how this one person does it.
yes, the chimp may be our closet relative and It’s thought that at one time, human ancestors did engage in chimp-like habits of sex and child-rearing, in which strong alpha males mated freely with the females of their choice, and then left the child-raising duties to them. But humans have one thing that you failed to discuss, and thats our brain. Researchers believe that humans became monogamous Or put into "traditional roles" because our off spring require more time to fully develop then most wild animals. Men and woman would both have to work together and raise the off spring so it can survive and make it to adult hood. Humans can be seen doing this millions of years ago.
There are also animals like Lions that do have stereo typical gender roles. Where the males fight and look after their family and the females look out for the kids, and teach them how to hunt.
This doesn't prove anything to me. It's just a bunch of animals that work different to humans because they are not humans. If I have you a bunch of examples where animals do for gender roles would that be evidence too? Not really.
Humans are very complex. There's no way to put us in just one category. Are gender roles natural? Honestly, I think so. Evolution proves otherwise. Look at the male body? Why is it more muscular than females? Because from an evolutionary perspective they were meant to hunt and provide for the family. And sometimes that meant fighting with other males.
You could also bring up the Kelts are Budica and how a female was successfully in charge for sometime and that is fine! But to say that gender roles aren't natural at all- nah.
' "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.'
Even if it was, it doesn't matter because we are humans, a different species.
Humans justifying certain acts because animals also do it is ridiculous.
People justify homosexuality with its prevalence in natural all the time. These were all still examples of gender roles. Role reversal sure but these are still gender roles.
@PathosOverLogos I won't interfere with your opinions. I just meant to say that humans are a different species and definitely a LOT different from all other animals. So an argument regarding gender roles and comparing it with animal behavior is not a good idea.
We are animals that became self aware
I get what you’re saying, but it may have made a bigger impact if you listen matriarchal societies with humans, like the all female tribes who only see men for mating, or parts of Europe where women are NOT property and do not change their names when married, all children have hyphenated names, so there aren’t accidental familial pairings. That’d show gender roles being more societal vs human nature.
does not matter if female animals are 'care' givers. they hunt regardless. there are no animals that do not hunt. except the male lion.. he is a vulture ;p
and anyone using animals as a template should have shit thrown at them. obviously human beings in civil society, while we may admire or cherish or protect, be in aw of animals, we do not emulate animals. humans would not last5seconds in the wild as an actual animal.
as far as 'gender roles' being natural. if it was natural you would not need be assigned a role. its like joining a team and given a blank t shirt bc everyone already 'naturally' has a number. or your job bc you ere born to be a dr or a plumber or a zoologist or athlete. no need to study or train, we are all naturally predetermined. its a medieval argument -like how kings are kings bc god ordained it and peasants are peasants bc that is their 'role'. gender roles are actually antithetical to democracy. yet people clam to stand or both, simultaneously... its embarrassing people still try to pass off racism and sexism as 'science'.
You do realize human beings have been around for 60,000 years. We are animals, only made complex by the usage of our thumbs. We are not Apex predators when stripped of our tools, but we've survived just fine.
Who told you male lions don't hunt. They spend up 3 weeks of a month patrolling the outskirts of the prides' territories. They hunt all the time, they just don't hunt for the pride.
@NoFcks2Give As a women I’m physically able to bear children and will most likely be my infant’s primary care giver because I’m equipped to feed them and my male partner is not. This not cultural it’s a biological necessity. My partner a man or adult human male cannot breast feed. Providing my offspring with sustenance is my role as a mother or woman (adult human female) in relation to my child. My breasts being able to produce milk without synthetic hormones injected into my body are a clear indication. If we’re the result of a cosmic accident time+matter+chance life is infinitely meaningless existing in an amoral universe concerned only with the survival and perpetuation of our species. The only things necessary for survival are sustenance shelter and sex. Doesn't matter if you're charming or witty what matters is your ability to attract a mate and produce viable offspring. This is the same ideology feminism has been fighting against but claims religion enforces.
@PathosOverLogos Take it easy on her you nihilist you.
Brb, just gonna eat the bugs out of my boyfriends hair, go for a quick 40 mile an hour run, have a little fly and finish it off with a 1 hour continuous deep dive with no breathing equipment.
After I’m done doing that I’m gonna compare some apples to oranges and then claim they make look different but both are secretly banana as is all fruit.
What I’m saying is we aren’t the same species, I’m not a dog why should I act like one?
All you’ve done is show there are gender roles within every species but they are different specie to specie
These are all still gender roles, just ones that don't correlate to ours. Also, Bobobos rub others genitals for reasons not inherently sexual and when they do, its rare. Aside from that, what does that have anything to do with gender roles?
There are some expectations and roles society has created for genders but many of them are nature not nurture.
You forgot to mention the Peacocks vs Brown Hens.
Peacocks are the males, and they are colorful. They shake their tail-feathers (bird-twerk) for the females (brown hens), and they all come over, and fight for the male.
Gender roles do exist-they're just the opposite in the animal world.
ACTUALLY... Studies of infant humans prove definitively that boys are object orientated (trucks, blocks) and girls are humanity orientated (dolls, animals).
Boys are generally rough and adventurous, girls are reserved and gentle.
These are NOT "concepts" these are studied FACT!
Also, There are two female ran societies in the world, they still live in grass huts. WHY! Because women do NOT advance civilization. Men DO. Because men are adventurous and inventive.
www.sciencedaily.com/.../160715114739.htm
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/.../...3c1f3420292345.pdf
Remember: Social Science is NOT real science. Feminist theory is wrong.
too much intelligence and facts for this thread's worth.
@levantine99 Sadly, but yet these types of shit posts will keep happening as long as feminist twats have nothing better to do.
You listed five species, one of which is a fish; another is a bird. Humans are not birds, or fish. Those two you listed are irrelevant. The others you listed are relevant-- they are also outliers. They are not the norm. You will find far, far more examples in nature of the "traditional" natural gender roles that you seem to abhor.
You are incorrect with this post, in other words. Sorry.
I apologize but I tried to be diverse in my examples and obviously I cannot include every species ever
Yeah I can appreciate that, but humans are higher mammals, not birds or fish. Or insects. Most higher mammals do operate in certain ways, such as males being the chasers of the females and fighting each other for the right to fuck as many females as they want. The species that do not do that are the exceptions, not the rule. As such, why do most girls consider it to be more attractive or desirable to *be pursued,* rather than to pursue a guy? Why do most guys do the pursuing? Why do guys want sex more (not ENJOY sex more, but WANT it more)? Why do so many guys not want to commit? Why do so many girls just want to "settle down" and reproduce/have a baby? Humans are animals. Can't override thousands of years of evolutionary biology just because some people (the minority of people) say we should.
If the majority of women truly and undeniably wanted gender roles to end, they already would have. Here's the thing, men and women are equal (one is not greater than the other) but they are not the same. We think differently, act differently, we respond differently to things. And that's ok, THAT is normal and natural. Sexist stereotypes are obviously not normal and should be eradicated, but at the end of the day, what do women want? They want a confident, strong, centered guy that leads the way. They don't want a guy that acts like a woman nor do guys want a girls that act like men. Gender roles stem from nature.
Gender roles for humans and gender roles for a Jacana or Bonobo might be different, but that doesn't mean that the gender roles aren't there. Why do so many western women hate the idea of gender roles so much? It's really just the observation that men are inclined to have certain roles in their families, and that women are inclined to have different roles in the family.
We've seen this shit for tens or thousands of years... how are we even debating whether or not it works?
"Gender roles arnt natural" does not combine with "here are some gender roles" very well. No one is saying gender rolls are universal and identical for every species ever, just that they have a purpose (be it evolutionary or socially).
It is natural. For our species. Comparing hyenas and humans is like comparing a tree and a rock.
We're not the same species, we have nothing in common, of course their behavior is different.
Our species evolved that way. Other species evolved differently. Our males evolved to be stronger and protective, while our females evolved to nurture and care.
And the bonobo? One of our closest relatives to whom we have much in common with?
Bonobos are bonobos, humans are humans. We didn't evolve the same. You don't even behave like your neighbor, he's still the same species as you.
We evolved that way. Our bodies are the product of that evolution and the roles are the product of our bodies.
Males were strong which made them naturally the fighters and the hunter. Females were weaker and had to accomplish the tasks the males couldn't do. It's not only physical, but it's also our instinct.
The truth is that the vast majority of mankind act that way. Gay people, reversed gender roles, all of that is actually a really small minority. The norm is defined by the majority.
"Gender roles are not natural, I'll prove it by showing species where the gender roles are reversed. If gender roles are reversed in another specie, gender roles doesn't exist."
2-1 = 1
1-2 = -1
The 1 still exists.
how about we talk about the species that the argument is for... human's are not fish for fucks sake and gender roles within the HUMAN SPECIES do exist if only for the fact that they have been maintained for hundreds of thousands of years, genetics are affected after all these years of evolution
Good Take, I had a good laugh mapping the behavior of female jacanas, topi antelopes and spotted hyenas to human females. What a world it would be. I guess there are evolutionary reasons to explain their behavior, as is the case for humans.
So essentially you're saying because for some animals (which are in the minority) the roles are flipped that means gender roles do not exist? Tf?
If the the roles are flipped or different specific roles associated to the genders are still there. All of your points disprove your own argument. How stupid can you get?'