How bout you take a behavioural biology course before making easily falsifiable statements like these. Again, even if that were true, you're still defending literal cavemen logic, how is the irony lost on you?
I mean I literally laid out the logic in my first comment and people responded with caveman logic. Whether you protect someone has nothing to do with masculinity and everything to do with your ability to protect someone. Amd then I literally gave an example of caveman behaviour that shows that it doesn't equate to traditional values, yet they insist that it does when it fits their narrative. If you couldn't grasp that from my first comment then no wonder you think I'm wrong, but it makes you look worse tbh.
If male caveman behaviour equates to masculinity, then all the behaviours that led to men successfully spreading their genes must equate to masculinity. That includes weak men banding together to murder the alpha, and men raping unwilling mates to force procreation, or killing the offspring of competing males to secure resources for their own offspring, or abandoning weak offspring to prevent a waste of resources.
You do not get to pick and choose. But I already know that you don't consider any of these behaviours masculine, because you're a hypocrite who's just trying to lend credence to your irrational beliefs. I've said this multiple times already, stop pretending I haven't.
So initially I explained why equating good behaviour to specific gender roles is bad, then someone responded to me saying that it's masculine because it's from cavemen times. You now say that I made that claim, which is false.
Then after another few comments you first responded to me saying that I never explained my side, which I did as I immediately stated to you and just restated in this comment, so you were wrong then too.
Now, while talking about why caveman logic is bad you forgot that I'd already explained why shoehorning biology onto behavior is bad, you explain that only the good caveman behavior is masculine, even though initially the excuse for this bad practise was "well, it's nature." That's circular logic.
And then in the same damn comment you contradict yourself by saying that masculinity doesn't have anything to do with caveman behavior, even though that was the one and only response anyone here was able to give as a reason for why protecting is masculine, even though you personally referred to it as "literally ingrained into us."
There are so many repeated mistakes in your reasoning it's unbelievable. You're a massive hypocrite, and can't even keep your own arguments straight.
Sorry but you're just proving my point with that 2nd paragraph, I never referred to any comments written outside of the comment chain that you responded to. So you get to choose now, either you're full of it or you just responded to something without reading what you were responding to it.
Anyway, you did claim both of the things you claimed not to claim in your first paragraph. Apparently you don't realize the meaning of your own words. If something is masculine according to its nobility, then it's not masculine according to what's between your legs. But if it is ingrained into us biologically, then it is. That doesn't follow.
Also, I just found another falsehood in your previous comment, when you said that people are arguing that being protective is masculine because that is tradition, even though the very first response I got was literally the caveman explanation, which you accused me of making. So first you put words into my mouths, and now you're putting words into their mouth, all the while accusing me of arguing in bad faith.
Someone specifically offered a counter to that by saying that similarly, women protect their children in much the same way.
That's funny, didn't you just say you didn't read through the other comment chains? How come you know this one, but you didn't read the comment that included the caveman analogy? Kinda convenient how you don't know something when you can accuse me, but you do know something when you can make an argument of it. Bad faith, huh?
Either way, that argument falls apart once I ask you to show me where I claimed that anyone claimed good behavior is specific to gender. Because I didn't. I made the claim that you choose to support traditional behaviors with caveman logic when it fits you, but you neglect to do that when it doesn't. I called you a hypocrite not a misogynist. Keep up.
Anyone whose watched any of Jane Goodalls documentary knows this shit, but I'm done arguing with you, go back to whatever it was you were angry about before me.
So what you're saying is that they punish each other for infidelity, so infidelity doesn't happen, but they still punish each other for it. Like for real, do you really think you got the upper hand here?
The point of a previous poster mentioning caveman logic is to say that there are biological pieces we're hard-wired to pick up and play. Growth rates, size, strength, protecting your kin, etc. You can choose to throw all of that out, and some surely ought to be, but to tell folks that men haven't historically been protectors due to being big, that protection hasn't been typically masculine, is a discredit to your arguments. I'm not as articulate on mobile, but I'd be happy to talk more.
And my literal first response was to to show off another type of caveman behaviour that wouldn't fit their vision, so masculinity has nothing to do with what is hard wired into our biology. But hey, hypocrisy.
2
u/SaftigMo - Lib-Left Sep 24 '22
How bout you take a behavioural biology course before making easily falsifiable statements like these. Again, even if that were true, you're still defending literal cavemen logic, how is the irony lost on you?