Yeah I think there's folks in here who are parsing their words.
On the other hand, by inspection I think that both of my statements are true and people would ignore them as true to their own detriment.
The fact that the modern demands on our physiology have changed does not undermine that those differences in physiology are still very much there.
For example, young men are generally no longer warriors, and survival is only rarely contingent upon strength, endurance, and wiles. But we are still quite a bit physically larger and stronger than females, and have a different set of biological imperatives wired into us by our hormones.
In other words, our societal demands have changed the relative utility of our physiological differences. So what once was a wholly rational and logical system - men would go do the dirty, dangerous work; women would raise children; because young women are more functionally more valuable than young men - now is looked at as an 'extreme exaggeration'.
Erroneously looked at that way, I might add. You ever had a girl really mad at you and genuinely try to hit you or hurt you? On average, a woman in a physical confrontation with a man is a joke. Even the extremes of the bell curves hardly overlap (see any sporting event for ample evidence of this).
I think what could make AstroAg's sentence true is to say they are an outdated expression of the social utility of the differences between sexes. But the differences have not changed, only their relative worth.
On the other hand, by inspection I think that both of my statements are true and people would ignore them as true to their own detriment.
The fact that the modern demands on our physiology have changed does not undermine that those differences in physiology are still very much there.
For example, young men are generally no longer warriors, and survival is only rarely contingent upon strength, endurance, and wiles. But we are still quite a bit physically larger and stronger than females, and have a different set of biological imperatives wired into us by our hormones.
In other words, our societal demands have changed the relative utility of our physiological differences. So what once was a wholly rational and logical system - men would go do the dirty, dangerous work; women would raise children; because young women are more functionally more valuable than young men - now is looked at as an 'extreme exaggeration'.
Erroneously looked at that way, I might add. You ever had a girl really mad at you and genuinely try to hit you or hurt you? On average, a woman in a physical confrontation with a man is a joke. Even the extremes of the bell curves hardly overlap (see any sporting event for ample evidence of this).
I think what could make AstroAg's sentence true is to say they are an outdated expression of the social utility of the differences between sexes. But the differences have not changed, only their relative worth.
