Quote Originally Posted by ReineD View Post
It has to do with more than adaptability to the physical environment. Don't evolutionary psychologists believe that our brains are hard wired a certain way and this is what influences our behaviors? For example, wouldn't have man's need to be strong in order to protect the tribe resulted in a rejection of any "weaker" traits both in himself and others? And what about man's need to pass down his genes, thus acquiring and enforcing something similar to harems? Isn't this a root of the subjugation of women?

I know these thoughts are beyond the scope of your thread, but if the majority of cultures have historically cultivated sexist attitudes, it's got to be for deeper reasons than an error in human evolution. These behaviors were adaptive.

I'm glad that attitudes have and continue to change, and that more and more men don't feel they are lesser men by abandoning traditional behaviors.
I would agree with you that it has to do with more than adaptability to a physical environment. What I am saying is, that adaptability is at the root of the survival of the fittest not physical strength. It is interesting that specialization always led to dead ends in evolution. I think it also problematic to equate misogyny and chauvinism with certain behavioral traits such as harems or behavior in passing down the genes. For instance, the much vaunted "presentation" behavior or the "taking" by the male are always interpreted as misogynist which attaches a value judgment (i.e. subjugation of the female)to something that should be taken as phenomenon only. The result is an interpretation how we, with our worldview would perceive the phenomenon. The interpretation is tainted and flawed because human beings during those times simply did not perceive the world as we do.

Take for instance matriarchal cultures, the adoration of the two spirited faculties of indigenous shamans and the fact of major developmental forces in human affairs embodied in people like Cleopatra, Elizabeth the first, etc. I believe and I am very open to be contradicted and shown wrong, that misogyny and chauvinism is a construct of 19th century culture. There is also the phenomenon of a developmental trait that once displaced into a time in which it is no longer necessary or relevant becomes an error. It's stuck for lack of a better word in the dead end of evolution.

And by the way nothing really is beyond the scope as long as it helps to create better understanding.