Dear_one wrote:
I have, of course, been pondering Nature vs Nurture for over half a century. I know it is very fashionable to blame gender differences on culture, but they keep morphing, not merging, despite all the agitation. Ever since life discovered gender, every life form has been keen to identify members of their own species, and their gender. All behaviour depends upon both factors. A veneer of civilization can keep the barnyard dance subconscious, but it never stops. Currently, all gender issues are in a state of turmoil due to the Industrial Revolution changing the status and availability of work for women even more than for men. In the chaos, people with gender ambivalence have often been the avant garde, but they can never be the norm.
unlike other species, humans are something of a fluke in their rise to the top of the kingdom. if it were not for human intelligence, humanity would have become extinct long ago. any the strongest of men would be at a loss to a lioness if tossed naked into a deep pit with her without a tool to defend himself. so a man’s strength, is moot, unlike say that of a bear, when distinguishing the capabilities of the sexes considering the brain is the most important component to survival(man's brain is not innately stronger than a woman's, and vice versa). as such, there is nothing man can do with the freedoms of today in modern america, that woman cannot beyond performing male organ exclusive bodily functions if she is so determined. this is ideal... wouldn’t want a beloved daughter to feel hopelessly disadvantaged for not being born male if her interests are more in line with what is traditionally a male dominant field of interest even if she has to put in extra effort to physically keep up.
as for gender, the sex of woman and man are rather clearly defined, but gender itself is largely a social construct... any man can choose to cultivate the qualities they deem the best of the female gender, and any woman, the qualities they deem best of the male gender. the only thing that might dissuade them from doing so is the pressure of society to not shake the norm.
as for getting a rush of morale boosting heated blood flow , and feeling like it’d be possible to move a mountain, there’s not a whole lot more that’s been found in this life to be as exhilarating as practicing wing chun, taijiquan, japanese swordsmanship, or drawing freeform inspiration from bruce lee’s jeet kune do.
Sure, men and women are able to cultivate characteristics usually associated with the opposite gender, and we are in a period of low social inhibition in some locations, but I'm also sure that it would take a lot of nasty coerciveness to get us to average the same. Our genes have given women a larger corpus callosum, along with many other differences. Even if we were successfully homogenized, we would lose not only the inhibited natural potential, but also the possibility of symbiosis. A team always needs variety more than duplication.
Labour has always evolved toward gender-specific membership, punctuated by extreme talents whose strong inclinations overcome customs. There have always been a few Queens among the Kings, and outliers like Joan of Arc and Marie Curie. However, most of the time, a unisex work crew is better. It minimizes the distractions and power troubles in a mixed group, and gives each sex a safe space in which to discuss the other. One engineering start-up survived the first year, so the owner decided to improve the bare-bones furnishings in the office. This included "privacy panels" added to hide the secretaries' knees. The men then did 40% more work with fewer distractions. There are also strong suspicions that it was a couples' reunion while on duty that cost BC Ferries a big boat and the lives of two passengers.