Love To Love You Baby said:
Because biological explanations, especially ones with no actual evidence - like yours, often only serve as excuses not to change unfortunate aspects of society. Biology was used as support for white superiority and male superiority. Mumei wrote an excellent post on how hyper-idealization of masculinity is a problem, which I most certainly agree, and your response was that idealization of masculinity is probably intrinsic to human behavior. To me that sounds like at best an excuse not to change it, and at worst justifying its unfortunate existence.
My best guess is that it's intrinsic to human behavior. It seems like it would promote the reproduction of genes and therefore might be selected for. As such, I don't think attempts to change the behavior will be very successful. That's all I was saying. And, no, I wasn't justifying the promotion of masculinity. I'm not quite sure why it needs justifying, to be honest. Nor do I understand how its root being in our evolution would go about justifying it. There's some evidence that rape is an evolved behavior to some extent. That doesn't justify raping someone.
Love To Love You Baby said:
I've had a biologist explain to me that dancing ability in males is a preferred trait, because it displays sexual ability to women. Yet socially men dancing has been considered effeminate, or at least the past several decades, and seems to go against that. So which is it?
Only some dancing is considered effeminate. I assume you were talking about things like ballet and tap? Few people call hip hop dancers or break dancers effeminate. Also, just because something is preferred in women doesn't make it masculine. Look at sensitivity.
Love To Love You Baby said:
My point is that what is considered 'masculine' varies from times to time, culture to culture. Today wearing makeup and the color pink would be seen as effeminate. Yet centuries ago pink was identified as a masculine color, and wearing makeup was routine for men of privilege.
Hey, I'm not saying that specific traits are considered masculine/feminine based on our biology. I'm saying that
promoting masculinity in men (whatever we decide that is) is what might be selected for. I'm not surprised it changes over time. Just like what is attractive to women. Women are attracted to higher-class men. Before, that meant fat guys because being fat meant you were able to eat well which meant you had money. Now, when food isn't so much of an issue, obese guys aren't as attractive. Similarly, pale women were attractive because it meant they were high class and didn't have to work outside. Now, tan women are displaying that they are high class by showing they have enough free time to go to the beach and get bronzed. Two different behaviors at two different times achieving the same goal (showing one's class level).
Love To Love You Baby said:
And during the hunter-gathering days, it was the gathering, not the hunting, that procured most of the resources,
Doesn't matter. The man who looked like he could get MORE food from hunting than his competition on the mate market was still the most attractive.
Love To Love You Baby said:
and certainly a case could be made that matriarchy and idealized femininity certainly has a place in early human civilization, and that it's more fairly recent that masculinity became idealized.
Before we learned that men had a part in reproduction and that women didn't just magically get pregnant on their own, yes, we idealized femininity. We're concerned with passing on our genes and when we only saw the woman's part in it, we revered it. When we discovered the male contribution to the process that all changed.