Men and women can both program, sure, but only women can make people. Society simply reflects this.
In reality, men and women’s roles are arbitrary, and the sexist structures present today are not the result of children asking for it. You are overestimating the intrinsic qualities of human social and family interactions, which are not as set in stone as you claim. Even the concept of the nuclear family - with one possible nurse and mother figure - isn’t a universal construct of human societies.
For those of us on the other side of the debate, there is always this vague sense of some people are underestimating the impact of these intrinsic differences.
My point isn’t that men and women aren’t at all different, it’s that institutions use the “it’s human nature and it can’t be changed” argument to hide oppressive/coercive practices that are avoidable and able to be removed.
Nailed it.
Enhanced emotional bonding due to emissions of oxytocin during breasfeeding? Make men sit with children several times a day while getting oxytocin shots and perhaps they would have much stronger bonds with their children.
From Wikipedia: Maternal behavior: Female rats given oxytocin antagonists after giving birth do not exhibit typical maternal behavior. By contrast, virgin female sheep show maternal behavior toward foreign lambs upon cerebrospinal fluid infusion of oxytocin, which they would not do otherwise.
> Even the concept of the nuclear family - with one possible nurse and mother figure - isn’t a universal construct of human societies.
Yes it is. The only people who claim this are people who've never lived in an extendend family situation. You still know who your mom and dad are. They are still the primary care givers, and babies still have a primary attachment to their moms when born that self-reinforces itself unless there is some major disruption.
It was even more obvious before the establishment of the nuclear family that a whole bunch of people should work together to raise children because not only does it improve the outcome, it's more efficient.
I'd like to get your perspective in 18 years.
I suppose we could bottle feed. But my wife doesn't want to, and it is linked to worse outcomes for kids so asking moms to do this for the sake of their career is like asking them to cut their nose to spite their face.
> It was even more obvious before the establishment of the nuclear family that a whole bunch of people should work together to raise children because not only does it improve the outcome, it's more efficient.
Of course, but there's only one mom still. My parents were raised in a ' non-nuclear family' where aunts and uncles lived next door. Hell, I was raised by my mom's family and my parents often living together. Do you think the mom wasn't preferred out of all these people? You have to be joking. The only people who ascribe 'the nuclear family' as a bogeyman are people who idolize extended families. Believe it or not, even in an extended family situation, with grandma, grandpa, aunts and uncles... babies still prefer their mothers.
Is this injustice? Perhaps you could characterize it this way, but since the perpetrator is beyond reason and lacks expression, I'm not sure how youre going to fix this.