Yes, I agree. It's a narrative. Also, a certain degree of it is inaccurate, because most things most people say are inaccurate to a certain degree, and the trick is to find out how inaccurate you think they are. At least, that's my personal philosophy.
The "things we do" aren't necessary different from what we naturally inherit though, at least, not according to the current scientific perspective of evolutionary psychology...which, I find to be dubious anyways. There are things we do socially, and things we do naturally. When you're talking about subjectivity though, you place its importance beneath that of the natural order, and I personally disagree with that opinion. Reason being, we are all highly subjective animals and as long as you are conscious, everything you think, do, and say, is the product of your subjective experience of life. This is all kind of vague though, so let me give an example of a controversial belief I have that is relevant to this topic.
Some people will say that natural selection dictates human attraction. Or that, we choose who to be attracted to, based on our instincts. However, if you look at history, and different examples of culture, it becomes pretty apparent that a large majority of our selection is due to subjective preferences. For example, Marilyn Monroe used to be considered the height of attraction in her generation, but now, we consider size zero super models the height of attraction, and in this day and age, Marilyn Monroe is considered "fat". There's a civilization or country somewhere, though I'm forgetting what they're called, where unibrows are considered attractive. Here in the US, we tend to think they're hideous.
Please don't misunderstand me though. I'm not praising or condoning superficiality. I'm not particularly superficial myself....but when I talk about subjects like this, I have to use generalizations, even though they don't apply to everyone. It doesn't make sense to speak on this topic without describing the majority. Or at least, my perception of what the majority is.
So when we look at what is "nature" and what is "nurture" - well, nurture is the subjective, cultural aspect, and it matters a great deal. As nurture is so overwhelmingly influential, it's really difficult for us to actually discern what the "natural order", as you call it, is. We have a tendency to think we can discover the "natural order" of humans by observing humans themselves, but I believe we often mistake subjective tendencies for natural ones. The better way to study the "natural order" is to examine other mammalian species, and in particular, primates. What we find in every other mammal is that the differences between males and females are typically slight, if they are there at all. In primates, the differences are a bit more pronounced, but even then, most of those differences in primates seem to revolve around dimorphism - because male Orangutans are notably larger than female Orangutans for instance - and mating behaviors. Which, of course, mating behaviors are always different between male and female animals.
If we compare that to the things we think and commonly believe are "naturally inherent" in humans - we have a laundry list full of suppositions we've made that really seem to have little basis in reality. For instance, the idea that there are significant differences in the structures of male and female brains. The idea that men are dominant and women are submissive. The idea that women are naturally more gregarious. The concept that men are better at working with their hands and women are better at organization. Almost all of these things are probably due substantially, if not entirely, to nurture and culture - to our subjective experience of life.
I know I probably sound patronizing or condescending. If that's the case, could you please give me some feedback as to what you find to be offensive? I'm not an INFJ like most of you, I'm an INTP, but my best friend is an INFJ and she has a lot of traits I respect and value. I recently started typology counseling to help me understand some of the personality traits in myself that I don't like, and it's come to my attention that I don't take enough responsibility for the feelings of others when I speak. I do value feelings and think they're both highly important and highly relevant to discussions...but it's hard for me to switch between thinking about someones feelings, and processing information. You don't have to worry about offending me by telling me how it is, so if you feel my behavior is socially unacceptable, please let me know where I'm going wrong! Thanks!
This statement really wasn't meant to be haughty, but I know it's very controversial. Also, again, it's my opinion. Probably, I should have written a disclaimer about that. I was on break and didn't take the time to be as careful with my words as I should have. Also, I'm actually really unfamiliar with the people who push "these" narratives. Certainly you don't mean the concept that traditionally male characteristics are becoming irrelevant in modern society? I've actually never heard anyone else voice that opinion, and I've talked to quite a few people. (Then again, most of them are men, so maybe that's why!)
A game of semantics....could you please specify? Where is the semantics game? I think if you ask me to clarify a particularly ambiguous point, I can respond to that opinion more effectively.
Well, I don't think anyone can discuss trends in history, evolution, culture, and so forth, without discussing these terms on the surface level. Surface level discussions are extremely important and useful, because they help us to see the bigger picture, and to make abstractions. Without them, we get so lost in the trees we can't see the forest. If I had to go into detail about every decade I mentioned, and discuss, at length, human biology, genetic makeup, darwinism, primate behaviors, and so forth, nobody would read what I would have to say (because it would be a book at that point), and you and I wouldn't be able to take a look at a macro-scale, abstracted opinion, that has been simplified to the extent of being realistic for practical use, and discuss this subject.
Just because something only scratches the surface, does not make it less true. Truth is everywhere, and it's on a spectrum. Some things are less true than others.
As far as the "illusion" of valid? I suppose you could make that argument...maybe. I'm trying to wrap my head around it, to be honest. To suggest something is valid would be to suggest it is logical, and I don't think any of the points I've made have been intended to be logical points - although, I hope they're not fallacious. This isn't really a debate, though, so what I'm doing is discussing what I've learned and my philosophies on that information. If we had to have a debate on this, I would have to be able to reduce my argument to mathematical rules which would be nonsense - we don't have enough information to logically prove any of this...I think....
Maybe what you meant to say is that my points are unreasonable. If that's the case - by all means, please contradict them! I really enjoy talking to people who have different opinions because it helps me develop my own opinions in a stronger, hopefully more truthful direction.
-----
I would just like to make one more point. I think, here, and I'm just going on a whim - but I think you might be thinking I'm a "feminazi". That I don't value or appreciate men, that I detest the patriarchy, and that I feel like women have been abused and repressed, and that it's time for us to "stick up" for ourselves. Or that I think women are "just like" men. I don't think any of these things. However, to be as fair and honest with you as possible, I will say that I am a female who has struggled with sexism in the past. I had some bad relationships, and in particular, I had a relationship with one person who had particularly toxic philosophies. He was a male, and it influenced the way I viewed men. That was a while ago, and since then, I've sought out a lot of male friends and asked them questions about how they think and feel, and what they believe, and I've researched the modern male struggle. I think sexism usually breeds itself in people who don't understand the opposite sex very well. So the more you understand the opposite sex, the less sexist you should inherently become - generally speaking.
I don't want you to get the impression that I don't value men, or that I look down on them. I absolutely value men. In fact, I tend to get along a lot better with men than I do women, because they're more interested in discussing philosophy and science with me. There are things I appreciate about the cultural, subjective differences in men. I like that men in our culture are courageous, emotionally resilient, and competitive. I like that, in general, men of our culture (I live in the US, btw), value strength, learning how to defend themselves and protect people they love, and that they don't sweat the small stuff. There's a lot to love about the persona of the "cultural man" that we've constructed over time.
I think that is what an earlier commenter was talking about when she was discussing the "beauty" of the differences between males and females. There is a lot of beauty there - but I think most of it is of our own making. The strong, protective defender of a male. The lovely, generous, nurturing female...We created these personalities for the genders because they're things we think are very appealing.
But, I do feel that, while male strength and aggression was necessary for humans to evolve to the extent that we have evolved today, those traits are no longer needed for survival, and in fact, can hinder the modern male. These days, with male and female social integration being what it is, strength can be seen as inherently threatening, and aggression is not only seen as dangerous, but is seen as a red flag that disqualifies a male as being a "good father figure". Many modern men can find ways to use these inherent traits to their advantage to do well socially. Sports and professional fighting, for instance. However, when you get right down to it, we've evolved a society that no longer requires you to be strong, physically adept at fighting, or willing to use imposing body language and behaviors to ward away potential danger. Nowadays, we have technology, instead. What is becoming heavily more prized in men, in my opinion, is their ability to socialize and integrate with a rapidly changing society. That is why you can look around and see so many men that are empathetic, politically correct, "woke", sensitive - what have you - that are very successful at dating. That ability to adapt has become attractive, because it is extremely relevant in our culture today, do to the rapidity with which our traditions and beliefs are currently changing.
It used to be the case that women needed men. In many places in the world, it's still the case. In the United States, however, women no longer need men, and men, as well, have never been more competent (I think) at living without the help of a woman. Technology has given us sexual independence. You don't need a wife to cook dinner for you. I don't need a husband to fix my deck.
I believe that, if we look at the historical trends of the past, we'll see that women and men are becoming more and more similar to one another. That men are becoming more feminized, and women more masculine. As we grow out of our strict, traditional gender roles, we grow into a model of human that is much more aligned with the natural world, because a lot of the cultural bias of what a gender should be is being stripped away. Like other mammals, men and women will probably become very similar to one another. Unlike primates, however, male will probably lose most of the dimorphism that makes them physically larger than females, because height, strength, and high testosterone are no longer factors that improve survivability.
Sorry to be really long-winded. I wish I didn't have to type so much to get my points across, but I'm not sure how to write any less and still be abundantly clear about my beliefs. Most of the time if I voice a controversial opinion, people assume I'm being sexist. Understandably. There's a lot of sexist people out there, and I've come to learn that my "detached" way of reasoning is the exception, not the rule, and that there are inherent defects in that approach. Even so - it's the personality I have to work with, so I do the best I can. Please don't be frustrated or upset by what I've said. I think I can really empathize with why my view would be offensive. I've been told, before, that empathy is a "weakness", and it's why women are inherently weaker, mentally, then men. I found that to be really offensive and frustrating. It makes sense to me why criticizing a typical quality in the male sex might be equally frustrating to someone else. The best I can say is to impress upon you that I value the male sex, and I view males and females as inherently equal. Also, that I'm sorry if my idea offended you, and that I'm well aware that what I say isn't gospel truth - a portion of everything I believe is most likely inaccurate.
Well, it was nice talking to you!
I think this isn't the first laugh I'm going to get on this forum.