>>24445229
>male primates as protectors
Protective behavior is typical of tournament species behavior. Tournament species primates are teh ones like chimps who create strict dominance hierarchies.

Some tournament apes also kill offspring that aren't their own in order to make sure females are either menstruating or nursing their own offspring. So following some logic of induction from primate behavior to human essentialism is shaky via ad absurdum.

Also if tournament species were the model of natural human reproductive habits, we would all be subservient to the one dominant male in the hierarchy who would have access to all the females in the group. it's just too easy to refute ad absurdum.

There are also mate-pairing reproductive models which are much more diffuse hierarchies. These male/female behaviors aren't going to align with the particular masculine/feminine dichotomy typical of reactionary internet discourse.

Evolutionary biology shows that human reproduction exhibits both elements of tournament and mate pairing species but is also neither.

>birds mating dances to impress
>impress
impress is an intersubjective phenomena, the bird whose ritual fails doesn't experience humiliation the way a human does. A signing or dancing bird doesn't have the theory of mind to consider how its mate conceptualizes it. The bird doesn't think "oh I hope this female bird thinks my dance is good and thinks i'm a hot shot." THats high level linguistic conceptualization and hteory of mind, which is human unique. That would be an example of the anthropomorphizing I was talking about.

Incidentally, birdsong also is picked up in a developmental window the same way human language is. A bird who is unable to mimic other birds songs will not develop the correct syntax and thus will fail the communicative ritual, whether it's the same for dances I have no idea I only studied it in context to its similarities with human language.

In both of these contexts you have to reign in your consideration to the human psyche, the psychic development, the nature of conceptualization and socialization.

Sure, there is a biological reality, but any concepts we have of ourselves are not somehow neatly correlated to a reality of the thing. I mean, you might still want to argue but I'm making ethical and metaphysical claims informed by lengthy study of science and theory. I'm not just spitting from my ass, and it's not some woke ideological nonsense.

You have to take a nuanced approach at the meaning of sexual dimorphism and gendered socialization. They are distinct domains, and one does not strictly and deterministically inform the other, yet both do cause behavior.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/lit/

Thread:

Literature that treats masculinity as independent of femininity