Social Equality Brings Out More Sex Differences – It Does Not Eliminate Them

Gruntled Center (Beau Weston): Social Equality Brings Out More Sex Differences – It Does Not Eliminate Them

…The really interesting finding is that in rich, egalitarian societies, men's and women's personalities diverge more. This seems to me to support the sociobiological notion that sex differences are deep, and are more likely to be expressed the more conditions are optimal for individuals to realize their deep inclinations. …

Comments

2 responses to “Social Equality Brings Out More Sex Differences – It Does Not Eliminate Them”

  1. VanSkaamper Avatar
    VanSkaamper

    Michael, did you notice this line in the NYT aritcle:
    “Humanity’s jaunt into monotheism, agriculturally based economies and the monopolization of power and resources by a few men was ‘unnatural’ in many ways,” Dr. Schmitt says, alluding to evidence that hunter-gatherers were relatively egalitarian.
    Interesting hypothesis, and I wonder what the real support for throwing monotheism in that repressive mix is…given the fact that the Judeo/Christian tradition has always affirmed a complementarian view of men and women.

  2. It certainly has taken a more woman friendly view than surrounding cultures. But also challenge the notion of egalitarian peaceful hunters and gatherers. In explaining why hunting and gathering societies move toward centralized authority, Jerrod Diamond offers this paragraph as his third of four factors in “Guns, Germs, and Steel”:
    “3. Use of monopoly force to promote happiness, by maintaining public order and curbing violence. This is potentially a big and underappreciated advantage of centralized societies over noncentralized ones. Anthropologists formerly idealized band and tribal societies as gentle and nonviolent, because visiting anthropologists observed no murder in a band of 25 people in the course of a three-year study. Of course they didn’t; it’s easy to calculate that a band of a dozen adults and a dozen children, subject to inevitable deaths occurring anyway for the usual reasons other than murder, could not perpetuate itself if in addition one of its dozen adults murdered another adult every three years. Much more extensive long-term information about band and tribal societies reveals that murder is a leading cause of death. For example, I happened to be visiting New Guinea’s Iyau people at a time when a woman anthropologist was interviewing Iyau women about their life histories. Woman after woman, when asked to name her husband, named several sequential husbands who had died violent deaths. A typical answer went like this: “My first husband was killed by Elopi raiders. My second husband was killed by a man who wanted me, and who became my third husband. That husband was killed by the brother of my second husband, seeking to avenge his murder.” Such biographies prove common for so-called gentle tribespeople and contributed to the acceptance of centralized authority as tribal societies grew larger.” (277)

Leave a Reply to VanSkaamperCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading