In einem Beitrag in der Psychology Today ist ein interessanter Artikel, der behandelt, inwieweit Geschlechterunterschiede ein Zeichen einer gesunden Gesellschaft statt einer unterdrückenden sind:
The question is: What do sex differences say about a society? A common assumption is that they say something bad. So, for instance, whenever we find fewer women than men working in a desirable occupation, this is taken as proof of systematic discrimination against women. At the very least, it is assumed to reflect the operation of pernicious stereotypes of the sexes. Thus, sex differences are viewed as a sign of a sick and unjust society. But is this a fair assessment?
If human beings were blank slates with respect to sex differences, then it probably would be. But there’s a ton of evidence now, in evolutionary psychology and various other fields, suggesting that we’re not blank slates. Many sex differences have their origin in the evolutionary history of our species. They’re found across cultures and they’re found in many other mammals. Certainly, nurture plays a role as well. I would argue, though, that it’s no longer reasonable to deny that nature is strongly implicated in shaping human sex differences. And if that’s the case, then maybe sex differences are not a symptom of a sick or unjust society after all. Instead, they’re just a symptom of people being people.
(…)
Why might this be? According to Schmitt and co., it’s because people in wealthier, more egalitarian nations have more freedom to choose their paths through life. They’re more able to express and explore their individuality. As such, natural differences emerge unrestrainedly and sex differences tend to be larger. In less wealthy, less equitable nations, on the other hand, people have less freedom and sex differences are often muted.
And that brings Sommers to her main point: If certain sex differences are larger in societies with better social indicators, then rather than being products of a sick or oppressive society, sex differences may sometimes be indicators of a healthy society—a society in which people have more opportunities and greater freedom to be who they want to be. Some social activists might not like what people want to be. But in a truly free society, that wouldn’t be up to them. The activists would have to learn to live and let live.
Ein Gedanke, der im Feminismus wohl wenig Anklang finden wird. Aber so zu leben wie man will, auch wenn das einer Geschlechterrolle und deren Klischees entspricht, ist eben ein deutliches Zeichen von Freiheit. Und wenn sich bei den Geschlechterrollen gewisse Häufungen zeigen, dann werden diese gerade dann deutlich werden, wenn mehr Freiheiten bestehen.
Die Frage wäre dann eher warum sich die Interessen des Einzelnen so zu sein, wie er sein will, dem Wunsch einer bestimmten Ideologie nach einer gleichmäßigen Verteilung aller Bereiche zwischen den Geschlechtern unterordnen soll. Die Zwangsangleichung der Geschlechter wäre dann die eigentlich Unterdrückung
Alles Evolution 