In your third option, why would the men protect the group and the woman protect the children?
Buffalox@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
This is not just modern age, this is how it has been for as long as our knowledge reach back.
Some say testosterone makes men more aggressive, but the problem is that the difference in aggressive behavior can be observed before sexual hormones kick in.
Another possibility could be social structures.
This article says there are 2 theories:
www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/roots-aggression
One being male competition for reproduction, and the other social.
Problem is IMO, that it doesn’t swing with behavioral studies of children, that to me seem to exclude both as the fundamental course for higher male aggression and tendency towards violence.
Seems to me it goes deeper, yes we do have competition for reproduction, but so do women, and women can be quite competitive and aggressive about it too, but generally in a less violent way.
A third possibility that may have a play, is that in a society where mankind consisted of minor nomadic groups, the men had a role of protecting the group, while women protected the children.
This role for the male, needs the male to be less prone to fear of consequences of violence, giving the ability to confront danger, where women protecting the children were probably more prone to evade danger.
So yes you could say it’s based on a social role, but that role is not learned, it’s a genetically encoded social role.
Now there is a curiosity in that women have actually become MORE prone to violence for the past 50 years. And the above hypothesis does not explain that.
As I see it, there must be new factors playing a role that did not exist previously. I suspect it’s an increase of hormone like chemicals in the environment.
mononomi@feddit.nl 3 weeks ago
lath@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Pregnancy, giving birth, breastfeeding. The bonds formed during these times would mean mothers to be more likely to safeguard the child than assault an aggressor with reckless abandon.
mononomi@feddit.nl 3 weeks ago
Wouldn’t safeguarding mean they still need to attack an aggressor?
GBU_28@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
I don’t really buy any of the hunter gatherer stuff, but I’m this idea a man can’t breatfeed a child, so given a threat the man should go out, and the mother stay with the child. Either could do the defending, but only one can do the mothering.
Buffalox@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
You are 100% right, the downvote must be some creationist.
cynar@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Women were functionally disabled by having children, spending a significant amount of time either pregnant, or breastfeeding. This makes them the natural parent to focus on raising children. Also, in nature, losing 1 parent has a relatively minor drop in survival chances compared to losing 2.
This ends up with men being more “disposable” than women. If 1 group needs to flee with the children, while the other holds off an attack, it’s most sensible for the men to defend. The women would provide a final line of defence.
BugleFingers@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I would like to add that it is beneficial for us as a species to lose men over women. Losing all but a few woman can mean the death of that society, whereas that’s not true for men, as men have a much higher capacity to generate multiple offspring. I.E. If you have 50 men and 2 women the capacity to bulk the population is greatly limited, if it were 50 women and 2 men, you could effectively double the population within a year. This means it makes way more sense to let men die off over women from a species survival standpoint.
cynar@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
This also massively effects the risk/reward balance. Ultimately, a woman’s ability to have children is limited by her biology. The limit on men is FAR higher.
For women, once they hit the resource requirements to support 2 dozen children, there was relatively little real gain. A successful man could (in theory) have hundreds of children. Genghis khan being the most egregious example. Taking large risks for large gains makes sense for men, in a way that just doesn’t for women.
Buffalox@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
It’s a thing that evolved among humans over millions of years. Men evolved bigger stronger muscles, because women are more vulnerable during pregnancy, and infants need their mother to survive.
Making men more available for the more dangerous task of protection and hunting.
So by the numbers, we evolved those roles, because it improved chances of survival for the group.
Males are more aggressive, because it actually help the group to survive short term attacks and hunting for food, and women are cautious because that helps infants and the group survive long term.
It all boils down to survival of our ancestors.mononomi@feddit.nl 3 weeks ago
If they are vulnerable during pregnancy, why wouldn’t the woman evolve stronger muscles? Then they could also make the men care for infants. I guess suckling would still be a woman thing but that doesn’t take the whole day right.
GBU_28@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
Being pregnant takes lots of caloric energy, and is an inherently vulnerable time.
Not saying women are less, just saying calories are being spent, energy is being focused.any pregnant women have accomplished insane thing and overcome incredible hardship during their term.
jordanlund@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Buffalox@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Yes obviously there are women serial killers too, I never claimed there isn’t, I just claimed women are less prone to violence, which is a damned hard statistical fact.
GBU_28@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
Not refuting this at all, or claiming to be schooled on the topic, but also consider success rate. It could also be that women are less successful at physically destroying another human
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Being that several statistics show higher rates of assaults in all women’s prisons then men’s, it would fit. Men are physically able to kill each other easier, but women do start physical altercations more than we like to admit.