Our precivilization hunter gatherer ancestors saw the role of man as protector and woman as nurturer. It doesn’t mean women can’t protect and men can’t nurture but I think that’s a fair starting point.
How we define ourselves is important, especially in a society that puts so much emphasis on these gender tropes. Humans have put emphasis on these tropes since the dawn of their existence. The least we can do is have them be associated with positive attributes.
Note: in view of the first item, this is not an invitation for you to respond. That would be against the rules. This is an invitation for you to update your badly outdated notions of anthropology to something that was actually done with physical evidence after 1966 (which is when this toxic protector/nurturer divide was first introduced).
Yours is a Western centric / exlusionary stance in my opinion. I encourage review of literature on Indigineous worldview, particularly Restoring the Kinship Worldview: Indigenous Voices Introduce 28 Precepts for Rebalancing Life on Planet Earth. Pertinent to the topic are chapter 6 (High Respect for the Sacred Feminine) and chapter 7 (Respect for Gender Role Fluidity).
Out of respect to the community I will leave it at that. But when youre ready to take on a more inclusionary / open mindset, I’d be happy to continue the discussion in a more appripriate space :)
Our precivilization hunter gatherer ancestors saw the role of man as protector and woman as nurturer. It doesn’t mean women can’t protect and men can’t nurture but I think that’s a fair starting point.
How we define ourselves is important, especially in a society that puts so much emphasis on these gender tropes. Humans have put emphasis on these tropes since the dawn of their existence. The least we can do is have them be associated with positive attributes.
First:
Second:
[citation needed]
Here’s mine: Woman the Hunter: The Physiological Evidence, peer-reviewed and published: https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aman.13915 and filled to the wazoo with citations to other papers that dismantle this 1966 myth.
Note: in view of the first item, this is not an invitation for you to respond. That would be against the rules. This is an invitation for you to update your badly outdated notions of anthropology to something that was actually done with physical evidence after 1966 (which is when this toxic protector/nurturer divide was first introduced).
Yours is a Western centric / exlusionary stance in my opinion. I encourage review of literature on Indigineous worldview, particularly Restoring the Kinship Worldview: Indigenous Voices Introduce 28 Precepts for Rebalancing Life on Planet Earth. Pertinent to the topic are chapter 6 (High Respect for the Sacred Feminine) and chapter 7 (Respect for Gender Role Fluidity).
Out of respect to the community I will leave it at that. But when youre ready to take on a more inclusionary / open mindset, I’d be happy to continue the discussion in a more appripriate space :)
Since you couldn’t read two very simple words, I rather doubt there’s very much productive conversation we could have on any topic.