Turncoat said:I believe it to be mostly a morphic principle that can be gregariously steered, and that much of what has men seen as being in the "superior" position is over men having made the canon criteria people are otherwise judged on. While we can note physiological differences that root back towards our more basic functions, those were more clear cut during more Darwinian times when those who otherwise showed unrelated traits didn't survive.Men and women seem quite different to me, especially in regards to how our brains are wired (and temperament by extent). The male and female patterns for distribution of gray and white matter are stark. Cognitive literature has long noted differences in sexes as well. Even if culture is skewed or the roles were inverted, a woman won't develop a corpus callosum as thick as a man's just because she acts masculine. The neural cells migrate in the womb. By the time you're out, you're pretty much set. I think this is important, because it means the sexes operate with different skill sets and are wired to respond differently to things. David Reimer's life is probably a great example of the weight of biology.
What sort of social differences do you see coming from this though, and do you figure that it's to the same measurements as men and women thousands of years ago?
How big of a difference do you see those physical traits making?
Even if culture is skewed or the roles were inverted, a woman won't develop a corpus callosum as thick as a man's just because she acts masculine.
Do you deny that evolution exists, that Darwin's full of it? Are you saying that men and women were simply designed differently, perhaps by God, and could not end up becoming more like each other? Women could have ended up like this over years of being in the position of learned helplessness, pushing that value further through those being the women who primarily achieved breeding, and religion and culture did women no favors there, none at all. A woman who doesn't have personal autonomy becomes easier for men to breed with by comparison to warrior women, so women of warrior status were effectively on birth control.
For this, we'll need to compare ourselves to Darwin's model of the Humming Bird: 
The humming bird's beak began as but one template, but once they were split apart across different regions their traits showed changes from one another. As per Darwinian principles, the birds who could not eat from the flowers of their region died while those who had the desired traits would live long enough to procreate towards the next generation. Rinse, repeat, and you begin to see Evolution at work.
I'd argue based on historical fossils, that women in different cultures were not all sold on the Neotenized Gregarious patterns of Learned Helplessness. Vikings from the looks of it valued both genders for their combat prowess, their skills, and if that became their criteria for breeding it'd be more likely to produce warriors for both genders rather than as drastic a split as you're otherwise used to seeing.
I'd argue as such that the natural state of woman is not one of cooking, cleaning, and squishing out children just because of their lower muscle output with higher fatigue resistance and recovery, but that rather much like our slave breeding practices of old that we've made women into this, and that with enough centuries or maybe even genetic engineering we could undo the damages. As such I'd conclude that the natural state of woman does not exist, but rather that it's morphic in nature much like men, much like how our nails and teeth are changing to meet more current needs, or how we've seen wolves rendered dogs purely to suit the needs of man.
Wikipedia said:David Reimer (born Bruce Peter Reimer; 22 August 1965 – 4 May 2004) was a Canadian man born male but reassigned female and raised as a girl following medical advice and intervention after his penis was severely injured during a botched circumcision in infancy.
The psychologist John Money oversaw the case and reported the reassignment as successful and as evidence that gender identity is primarily learned. The academic sexologist Milton Diamond later reported that Reimer's realization that he was not a girl crystallized between the ages of 9 and 11 years and he transitioned to living as a male at age 15. Well known in medical circles for years anonymously as the "John/Joan" case, Reimer later went public with his story to help discourage similar medical practices. He killed himself after suffering years of severe depression, linked to financial instability and a troubled marriage.
While I do agree that gender identity is a learned aspect of culture, I see it more as a filtration system based on our overall chemical makeup rather than purely gender politics. Men thinking they're women and women thinking they're men is less over having the other gender's soul in them or some nonsense, but rather over how their self-construct cobbles together in the wake of modern labels.
For my point, I'd argue that we could rid of the concept of gender norms entirely with ease, but that's perhaps best left for another time since the debate is otherwise over their natural state, how they began before having to adapt as a species. I'm mostly using the capacity for gregarious change in conjunction with Darwin's theory of evolution to conclude that this is simply where we've found ourselves, rather than this being a fated outcome of the past, present, and future to come.
Much of history is lost, which limits our means of looking towards how woman began (and for that matter how men did). As such we're stuck with a short span of rough, comparative history, and how much it's dawning on us how we don't have to conform to it if culture otherwise allows for the shift. Enough history is lost to us that we cannot use enough of the past to see where women began, so I'd argue that we're instead stuck with how capable it is of changing as a comparative model across the vast expanse of lost history for the sake of assumed odds.
When you refer to the natural state of women, I'm not sure what that means. We have some things that are quantifiable. Women tend to be more social than men and use more words on average a day. Men tend to be better at spatial reasoning. There are major differences in mating preferences that parallel other primates. I am skeptical those things would change because of new norms. We're seeing more promiscuity, not so much a complete change in taste.
The Natural State of Woman is our point of debate, and my argument over it is that it's natural state is morphic rather than a harshly defined set of traits. You can go on about the state of woman as it is now, but I'd argue that the state of women we're seeing is a transitional one rather than rigid, set in stone traits, and that our hopes of seeing "the natural state" of women, even of men, is beyond our grasp.
Turncoat said:If it was for a long enough time popular for bitch boys to fuck amazonian women, we'd potentially see a shift in our understanding of gender from the offspring produced.A true Xena utopia.
Mine too, although being inducted into imprisoned male harems solely as twink fuckmeat (Snu Snu) might go against my personal values a smidge.
As a side point, would you say it is natural for women to argue, natural for them to accept guidance, or neither?
