| > Your citations don't really support your claim well, since the sections you quoted don't mention traits or roles much at all. The sections do mention roles very clearly. If you're not capable of making these basic connections, it's no wonder that you're confused. For chimps: > At the core of social structures are males, which patrol the territory, protect group members, and search for food Male roles: Patroller of territory, protector of group members. For Orangutans: > One to several resident female home ranges are encompassed within the home range of a resident male, who is their main mating partner. Female roles: harem member. Male Roles: Alpha, Harem haver For Gorillas: > Troops tend to be made of one adult male or silverback, with a harem of multiple adult females and their offspring. Female roles: harem member. Male Roles: Alpha, Harem haver If roles weren't based on sex, a female Chimp would be just as likely to patrol territory, and a female gorilla would be just as likely to be an alpha with her own harem. The fact that these roles are only filled by males indicates that they are sex-based roles. > Evolutionarily, humans are equally related to patriarchal chimpanzees and matriarchal bonobos You've lost the plot. For bonobos to be matriarchal implies male and female traits/roles, which obviously supports my argument. > I personally think it should be resisted as resisting our basic impulses is generally considered more enlightened or noble and the world already has enough idiots who will try to put others in a box and claim some sort of evolutionary justification. Telling the truth is a good thing, actually. Encouraging people to understand their nature is good. Lying to people about their nature is bad. Encouraging people to misunderstand their nature, which will inevitably lead to them making life decisions based on lies, is bad. Borderline evil. |
And I don't think the fact that we have baser impulses is justification enough to tell people that they should live a certain way.