We both know the reason you’re reading this. You’re reading this because you want to know why you need traditional gender roles, possibly wondering what they can do for you in the modern age. Your willingness to read this means you have an open mind and possess the ability to improve your life without caring about what other people think, say, or do. You understand that human history is relevant and important to your modern world.
Whether or not you believe in a creator or in macro-evolution, you know it’s important to take a close look at how those beliefs define your thinking. In most cases, the different beliefs will result in divergent ideas and opinions, but in rare cases rational thought will converge to a similar conclusion.
In the case of social gender roles, regardless of base beliefs, your thinking will and should come to one conclusion:
Traditional gender roles are not only natural, but necessary.
By now you’re asking yourself how the origin of man is related to gender roles. It’s easy to come up with the same tired idea that gender roles stem from the lifestyle of primitive man: males hunted and women raised children.
However, there is an hidden premise to this example. The premise is that men and women differentiated before their primitive history began.
Males excelled at hunting and similar tasks due to their specialized masculine traits. Females excelled at raising children due to their specialized feminine traits. And these traits were specialized quite some time before primitive man began to hunt, gather, or farm.
However this specialization came about, it is important to remember the following:
Our ancestors weren’t stupid. They took advantage of inherent sexual differences and specializations to increase their odds of survival.
These differences and specializations were a direct result of evolutionary processes, creative design, or a combination of both. We could discuss the why and how for each of these three cases, but the answer isn’t important. What’s important is this:
Sexual differences and specialization is superior to every other alternative.
Evolution favors organisms with superior means of survival and reproduction. If there had been a superior alternative to sexual dimorphism in humans, human sexual dimorphism would likely not have persisted to date.
Likewise, from a creationist point of view, and assuming the creator was not malicious, there would be no real reason for humans to possess an inferior means of survival and reproduction.
The conclusion is the same from both standpoints:
Sexual dimorphism is both natural and inherent to the human species.
There are very few people who would argue with this, and those few who would are not too bright. One only needs to look at a man and a woman side by side to understand that there are clear physical differences.
While our ancestors didn’t possess the advanced technology we do, they, like you, were not stupid.
Our ancestors took notice of the obvious sexual differences and took advantage of them because it was the smart thing to do.
The advantages to survival that sexual differences provided to the human race gave natural rise to gender roles. Males, as the more physically intimidating party automatically assumed positions of power and leadership. At the same time, they were more expendable than a female, meaning that males were the group that literally spent their lives protecting the physically weaker females.
In contrast, females were less able to handle more physically demanding tasks, but were more naturally inclined to tasks related to raising offspring and self-preservation. Because women could not compete with men on a level playing field as a physically weaker sex, women excelled at using psychological means to increase their chances of survival using tools such as persuasion, deception, empathy and sympathy (feigned or real), using emotion to their own advantage, and outright submission.
Gender roles rose straight from physical differences between sexes, to the advantage of both men and women.
These gender roles resulted from men and women playing to their own strengths.
Our ancestors understood that without traditional gender roles, they would not survive.
They would be wiped out naturally by a harsh environment, or they would be wiped out by a people that did use traditional gender roles. They understood that without traditional gender roles they would lose their wars, lose out economically, and lose out to the larger populations of groups who were more successful using traditional gender roles.
Traditional gender roles are far from obsolete. They are still the cutting edge.
Evolutionist or Creationist, what you tacitly admit is that humans either evolved or were designed with major physical differences that work to their own advantage.
It would be foolish to work against and ignore such a huge natural advantage. If you do work against it, you or your children will ultimately find themselves at a disadvantage.
By working against evolution, you are refusing to evolve, and you will soon not be fit enough to survive.
By working against the creator’s design, your purpose as a creation is broken, and you must fix it or you will not survive.
Our advanced technology has made it easier for men to become more like women, and for women to become more like men, but this has only been true for the last 100 years.
One hundred years is too short for evolution to reverse several million years of prior evolution.
And if you are a creationist, 100 years of evolution won’t change a thing.
The natural advantages of male and female sex differences have not changed. Traditional gender roles optimize those advantages.
It is still to your advantage to act like a feminine woman, and it is still to your advantage to act like a masculine man. Doing so will increase your ability to survive, both literally and economically, and will also increase your chances of reproduction.
Embodying conventional feminine traits is the best strategy for a woman who wants the best possible man and the most resources, and embodying conventional masculine traits is the best strategy for a man who wants the best possible woman and even more resources.
If you want to maximize your life, make more money and live to the fullest, then the only option available to you is to embrace traditional gender roles. If you don’t, the poor dodos and the penniless dinosaurs are waiting for you on the other side.
**This is the first installment of a several part series. The series will progress from early man to modern civilization, and draw conclusions about gender roles, society and culture. I will post links to each part in the series as they are completed.**
In a May, 2014 post on the website American Renaissance, lawyer and public defender Michael Smith describes how blacks behave in court, and attempts to explain why so many of his clients are black and why they behave so poorly. The description is vivid and sadly unsurprising. His explanation too, is mostly correct. What interests me, however, is his apparent lack of understanding amid such an eye-opening environment. After informing the reader that the majority of his clientele are both black and unemployed (with sociopathic tendencies to boot), he goes on to say this:
I am a liberal. I believe that those of us who are able to produce abundance have a moral duty to provide basic food, shelter, and medical care for those who cannot care for themselves. I believe we have this duty even to those who can care for themselves but don’t. This world view requires compassion and a willingness to act on it.
My experience has taught me that we live in a nation in which a jury is more likely to convict a black defendant who has committed a crime against a white. Even the dullest of blacks know this. There would be a lot more black-on-white crime if this were not the case.
However, my experience has also taught me that blacks are different by almost any measure to all other people. They cannot reason as well. They cannot communicate as well. They cannot control their impulses as well. They are a threat to all who cross their paths, black and non-black alike.
I do not know the solution to this problem. I do know that it is wrong to deceive the public. Whatever solutions we seek should be based on the truth rather than what we would prefer was the truth. As for myself, I will continue do my duty to protect the rights of all who need me.
It is difficult to doubt the words of someone so clearly and intimately acquainted with the subject, yet it astounds me that the author’s welfare worldview is unchanged despite his close familiarity with the results of such a system. In other words, public defender Michael Smith believes that the working population procuring its own food, shelter, and medical care, should also be the serving maids and butlers for “those who can care for themselves but don’t.” This is a far cry from the original tenets used to build America, and the total opposite of the philosophy and policy implemented by another Smith in order to make the initial settlement in the New World a possibility. In the words of Captain John Smith, “He who does not work, will not eat.” Jamestown survived because of this policy, but without it America will not. Instead, we will continue to fund the sociopathic and the criminal who threaten our civilization.