For whom is it easier to cast aside evolutionary roles?

Question

Men throughout history: hunters, protectors, providers, fighters, teachers of strength and independence.

Women throughout history: gatherers, protected, nurturers, healers, teachers of caring and inclusion.

Which s*x do you think has an easier time taking on the opposite role or combining the two? Why?

Answer 1

I think it is relative. Men in the sense that plenty of men lead more sedentary lives like females and are nurturers and healers when they take on careers like psychiatry and medicine. The only sense in which it becomes more difficult for them to take of the kids or raise a daycare centre is that they will be perhaps ridiculed socially if around the wrong group of friends.

It is more difficult for women in physical jobs requiring labour as we are simply not designed with a similar muscle mass as men or able to acquire it in such a facile manner. It is easier for women however in the social sense as the world is full of empowering messages for women about having it all and they can do it all. There is far less chance of ridicule and castigation and if one does attempt so then they can be taken to court perhaps on harrassment laws.

The social element I think obfuscates the process in different ways for either s*x

Answer 2

This is a completely gendered question, and the answer of course is that it is not universally easier for one gender to take on roles associated with the other. It is completely relative culturally, socially and individually.

Let's not forget that in some tribal and/or industrialized societies women did the hunting, as it is with some species (lions for example) and men are the healers. These evolutionary roles are dominant, but not universal either.

No one I know has ever had to even do some of these tasks, such as gathering and hunting and many people I know of all genders have combined these behaviours to varying degrees at different moments in their lives.

The idea of a partnership or living in collectivity is that we remove the reliance for such essentialist gender roles so that everyone has more freedom to partake in the roles they are comfortable in.

Though most divisions of labour (and I unclude teaching, healing and providing in this as well) are based on a binary model of gender, it is more helpful, in my view, to think of socio-economic roles than to think of gendered roles specifically, particularly in industrialized societies.

A male farmer will do more gathering than I ever do as a woman, and a male nurse will do more healing than I ever do as a woman. Conversely, a female police officer will do more fighting and protecting than my bf ever will as a man, and a deer-hunter will do more hunting than he ever will as a man too.

As a woman, at different moments in my life, I have protected my younger brother, taught my peers about caring and independence, have provided food and means to subsist for myself and have nurtured and healed others when I can.

Humans are primarily social, not gendered, animals that rely on each other in groups, not in pairs, in order to organize their collectivities. Though history attests to a heavy reliance on gender to organize this labour, it is important to remember that humans societies were built and able to strive on the notion that we are able to supersede these gender roles in order to protect the society as a whole. If all the men died, women would protect the survivors. If all the women died, men would heal the wounded.

The bottom line is, we are all capable of all those things to varying degree, and gender is not a pre-determined characteristic to assess the value or the ability of an individual's participation in society.

EDIT: Eohan- I beg to differ. There are many single mothers out there who do a fine job of caring for and nurturing their children while providing for them also - sometimes with the help of the father, but in most cases without. I'm sure there are many single fathers out there who would do just as well. We do what we can to survive.

Answer 3

Women tend to be more adaptive than men, in my experience.

Answer 4

The men I know don't seem to have a problem sitting on their lazy butts and doing none of the above. J/K

Honestly, as a single mother responsible for both of the roles, I think we more easily adapt. It's hard to learn to be nurturing, but in this day and age, it's easy to become the provider. Let's not overgeneralize, though. I know some guys that have an amazing knack for the "female" roles, which is actually pretty attractive.

Answer 5

I probably not going to answer your question but take the opportunity to make a point.  And that is that we are moving toward a society - maybe we are already there - where the traditional "evolutionary roles" for women work better than do the traditional evolutionary roles for men.  For women, then, there is not necessarily a strong push to take on the evolutionary roles of men.  Physicians are a good example.  Many more women are becoming physicians and doing so taps into the traditional healer role.  The same phenomenon is evident with psychologists - a profession that has gone from male dominated to female dominated.  Woman have always been providers for their children, so moving into the provider role is also not so much of a stretch.  For men, the evolutionary roles have been devalued.  Fighters, for example, are in much less demand than in the past.  Strength is not as important as it once was.  So, the situation is actually easier for women, because more aspects inherent to their nature are valued in today's world - well at least in "western" society.  Men must scramble to either find uses for the devalued aspects of masculinity or to move toward the feminine.  At this point, the task is more complicated for men.

Answer 6

realistically....here in the western world when was the last time one of us had to kill to eat? had to gather berries and nuts?  had to fight off wild animals to protect the kids?

The world has changed....and human are changing with it.

Answer 7

Considering that there are millions of women who easily take up roles that men have been historically doing, and yet striking the balance that is required between their home and social life, I would say its easier for women to cast aside evolutionary roles in comparison to men.

Answer 8

Woman because when a man stays at home and cleans he is considered a loser by his wife and the people around him. If a woman works she just works lots of woman work.

Answer 9

Our Western lives are so easy and safe now that the roles are easily interchangeable.

The many female oriented laws and continuing drive to provide women with safety nets does imply that women need help in taking on male roles. Female providers don't seem all that common, I know many career orientated females with no interest in providing for others.

The only problems I have with full time parenting and house keeping are the monotony of it, and the absence of risk taking. It would be difficult for me to do it for any length of time, but the most rewarding role I've played is that of Dad. I just love it.  

Were disaster to strike and the system to fail, gender roles would be inescapable.

Answer 10

men taking on the role of women is easier, as it is a state of mind. for women to do the things you stated, they would require not only a different state of mind, but different physical attributes as well.

sorry, but until projectile weapons came around, women were not built to hunt, nor will they be.

Answer 11

Well, i'm sure for both it has been pretty dificult.  

But of course it's harder for men, because somehow the  roles, activities and characteristics they assumed gave them some kind of power.

And giving some of that power to the women in their lifes it's hard. Is just as hard as it is for some women who have had that power and at some point they need to give it up in some situations and decisions they need to make.

So we need to understand that, in this context women and men, should help each other in this proccess since we need each other in the society.

And this exercise should give some strength to the humanity, instead of leading to an useless war.

Answer 12

Women have the advantage here because of our role as life-givers. It gives us an enormous advantage in the realm of Imagination. Knowing, even as a little girl, that you expect to grow up and produce life (actual people) inside of your own body: that both fully formed and grownup men as well as women will have come from your body as babies...is so awesome. Even women who later turn out to be sterile or have suffered the tragedy of losing their babies, still have participated their whole lives in this awareness shared by all women. So there is a natural fluidity to our minds. However, that said, it is too often too easy to underestimate men: after all, they are the other half of our same species and do not forget that they come from women. A man is born to a woman and, especially if he has a terrific mother and does not lose her too early, he may pick up on quite a lot from her. The main disadvantages that both men and women have are cultural: not genetic. Women get thrust into terrible roles: particularly cruel, considering our vast imaginations and the knowledge that life comes from us, are the stereotyping that limit us intellectually. But men get hurt too by the stereotypes: starting out as a baby whom some woman has given birth to, he has so much potential, yet he is often brutalised by older males--not just adults but also older boys being indoctrinated the same way--and turned into a stupid violent beast. They are taught not to have feelings or to be sensitive or nurturing. Many are programmed to be actual abusers...and this really hurts all elements of human society. There is a lot of evidence of ancient societies where there was more cooperation and connexion. I have seen changes in the last fifty years that are extremely encouraging and a lot of young men seem to relate to their girlfriends as friends and people and to their children in a less abusive and more nurturing way. I also have seen women make great strides towards greater intellectual freedom. So I think that some of what is actualy more natural is coming back after centuries of repression. As I say, a lot of our problems have been programmed into us and are not natural.