OP quandary.

How can biology alone determine a role unless your are only genetically an animal both physically and behaviourally?

Even though this is a massive generalisation please try and run with it and see how both men and women can substitute in something else for these basic biological drives. — I like sushi

If you cannot do this there is probably not much for us to discuss because:

PLEASE NOTE: I am not saying these drives define either men or women only that they are part of our collective biological features not merely social constructs. — I like sushi

I am not saying these drives define either men or women only that they are part of our collective biological features not merely social constructs. — I like sushi

Ok, so you believe there is some innate biological drive in adult males and females to act a particular way.

To what extent do you agree that the basic roles of men and women are as follows.
1) Men provide for and protect women.
2) Women provide babies and protect them. — I like sushi

I think this is a stereotype and prejudice, not an actual reality. I know a women in my life who provides for and protects her man. She's a psychologist who makes all the money in the house while he's a stay at home 'entrepreneur' who hasn't started even one business in the 7 years they've been together. I've known of at least two women who've abandoned their kids when I was growing up.

But this judgement is anecdotal. Biological sex expectations cannot be determined by pop-psychology or philosophy. It can only be determined by good science. That means lots of studies that take bias into account, study cross culture outcomes, and are repeated despite looking for different outcomes.

If you want to talk about the social biases or expectations and whether society should have them, that's more a conversation which can be discussed here.

Ok, so you believe there is some innate biological drive in adult males and females to act a particular way. — Philosophim

Assume there is something, small but just significant enough, if you think biology is separate from psychology.

If you need evidence that there are clear biological differences between men and women that play into their psychological make-up go seek it out if you wish. It is certainly messy and not particularly clear cut.

If you want to talk about the social biases or expectations and whether society should have them, that's more a conversation which can be discussed here. — Philosophim

Not particularly.

If you wish to argue that they are 100% social constructs go ahead I guess (but preferably in another thread). — I like sushi

So, if women do not have children and they have a drive to nurture and care for children, then how might this present itself in modern life?

And, if men possess a natural drive to provide and protect for their partners and children, then how might this drive present itself in the modern world if there are no women willing to have children?

If you are not interested in participating no problem.

Assume there is something, small but just significant enough, if you think biology is separate from psychology. — I like sushi

But that's just biased speculation. I don't see that as good philosophy when the answer is clear that we need objective research to truly judge. Its in the same vein of, "We assume women are born to work in the kitchen and make sandwiches for men, what it be like if they could not be in the kitchen but still had that innate biological drive to make a man a sandwich?"

If you are not interested in participating no problem. — I like sushi

My participation is pointing out that this is not a reasonable topic to discuss and can only rely on prejudice and sexism if it continues. I'll leave it at that.

My participation is pointing out that this is not a reasonable topic to discuss and can only rely on prejudice and sexism if it continues. — Philosophim

Biased opinion.

- What happens if women do not want to be provided for or protected by men. — I like sushi

Surely there are women who "do not want to be provided for or protected by men".
But probably the more prevalent situation is "women who realize that an increasing number of men cannot be counted on to provide and protect."

So, if women do not have children and they have a drive to nurture and care for children, then how might this present itself in modern life? — I like sushi

They become Karens.
But hopefully, they just become old ladies with cats.

I am not saying these drives define either men or women only that they are part of our collective biological features not merely social constructs. — I like sushi

Let’s begin with the recognition that there exists variation within the human species, as well as within the female sex and the male sex. It is never one size fits all.

But there is biological evidence to show significant differences between males and females that translate to differences in attitudes and behaviors.

As an instance, let’s consider the hormone oxytocin, the mother-baby bonding hormone. A key “social molecule” active in the central nervous system, it’s found at similar plasma levels in males and females, but has evolved sex-dependent roles. It functions differently at the male vs. female amygdala, causing sex-dependent outcomes -

… oxytocin treatment produces sex- and valence-dependent increases in amygdala activation when women view individuals identified as praising others but in men those who criticize them…

… oxytocin may act differentially via the amygdala to enhance the salience of positive social attributes in women but negative ones in men.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661324001700

(Oxytocin) has evolved some sex-specific functions at both neural and behavioral level -

In women, oxytocin facilitates positive social judgments, social approach, kinship recognition, and altruism

In men, it facilitates negative social judgments, social avoidance, competitor recognition, and selfishness

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4941426/

These lists of sex-specific behaviors based on hormonal action do tend to support a natural, biological basis for the idea that females are nurturers and males are protectors.

Meaning, what do men do instead to fill this gap? — I like sushi

Lol, a woman should bever be considered a "gap" to be filled.

Meaning, what do women do instead to fill this gap? — I like sushi

Become that crazy auntie that everyone loves

In men, it facilitates negative social judgments, social avoidance, competitor recognition, and selfishness — Questioner

Did the study ask if these men were single alone or with females. If oxytocin production in males was something sympathetic to something like pheromone interaction with females?

Good point. I'm sure the function of oxytocin is complex. Its negative effects are mitigated in the presence of women. I did find this -

Similarly, estratetraenol, a pheromone found in female urine, exerts a calming effect on men and heightens their sensitivity to female facial expressions. Studies examining the impact of estratetraenol exposure on men’s social cognition suggest that emotional reactions to touch are intensified under its influence. This indicates that exposure to estratetraenol might reshape men’s social cognition, particularly in sexual contexts, and potentially boost sexual motivation, thus facilitating behaviors associated with seeking a sexual partner.

3 Subliminal Impacts That Pheromones Have on Relationships

My participation is pointing out that this is not a reasonable topic to discuss and can only rely on prejudice and sexism if it continues.
— Philosophim

Biased opinion. — I like sushi

The exact opposite actually. Questioner is along the right path by pointing out actual science.

You are your own worst enemy.

I was simply asking how would these kind of biological drives present in societal life.

It is clearly a speculative question when it comes to a women's prevalance to nurture, as does a woman 'act out' such biological instincts if they do not have a child or are not exposed to children? Assuming there is something that remains how may this present?

I was looking for a bit more of a deep dive than 'crazy auntie'. So, what is it about a 'crazy auntie's' behaviour that makes it crazy? What is the craziness? What other ways may this present?

The old lady with cats makes sense to a degree, and I do think plenty of couples substitute children with pets.

Lol, a woman should bever be considered a "gap" to be filled. — Questioner

Regardless, if men seek women and there are not enough women how do they behave?

Surely there are women who "do not want to be provided for or protected by men". — baker

Yes. This is not what the question is asking though.

But probably the more prevalent situation is "women who realize that an increasing number of men cannot be counted on to provide and protect." — baker

Undoubtedly true in some cases. But again, this is not what is being asked.

They become Karens.
But hopefully, they just become old ladies with cats. — baker

What kind of behaviour is this? Perhaps the 'old lady with cats' shows a proclivity for nurturing. What is it that Karens do?

Also, what do men do if there is no one to provide for (woman and children) and therefore no need to protect them? How could this display itself otherwise in their behaviour?

I was looking for a bit more of a deep dive than 'crazy auntie'. So, what is it about a 'crazy auntie's' behaviour that makes it crazy? What is the craziness? What other ways may this present? — I like sushi

Lighten up

Lighten up about what? I just asked a question that is all.

If that is all you are going to contribute that is your choice. No big deal.

Enjoy your day.

- What happens if women do not want to be provided for or protected by men. Meaning, what do men do instead to fill this gap? — I like sushi

Then men build machines or corporations. Men are problem-solvers. Despite the popularity of money and wealth, men who build things do it for its intrinsic meaning and importance.

- What happens if women do not want to bear children or protect children. Meaning, what do women do instead to fill this gap? — I like sushi

They become rescuers of wildlife. They build wildlife conservation. They petition for the protection of natural habitats. They also fight for the preservation of natural landscapes.

Then men build machines or corporations. Men are problem-solvers. Despite the popularity of money and wealth, men who build things do it for its intrinsic meaning and importance. — L'éléphant

So they would build something to protect and provide for is what you mean? I guess a business venture could function as a 'child' of kinds. Plenty of people refer to a business venture as their 'baby,' so perhaps there is something to this.

They become rescuers of wildlife. They build wildlife conservation. They petition for the protection of natural habitats. They also fight for the preservation of natural landscapes. — L'éléphant

Protection of vulnerable/innocent. Seems like a reasonable substitute. Nurturing animals woudl seem like the most obvious substitute to raising children.

So they would build something to protect and provide for is what you mean? I guess a business venture could function as a 'child' of kinds. Plenty of people refer to a business venture as their 'baby,' so perhaps there is something to this. — I like sushi

Yes. Many of them go for broke just to keep a business alive. And we don't have to think in terms of corporations.
Building a prototype is more than building a machine. It's their brainchild. It's emotional for them.

Protection of vulnerable/innocent. Seems like a reasonable substitute. Nurturing animals would seem like the most obvious substitute to raising children. — I like sushi

Yes, again.
Hint: motherland

The OP is an excellent example of the exaggeration of small but real differences between groups and the underappreciation of the large differences WITHIN the same groups.

Are women, on average more skilled at child rearing than men, on average? Probably, by a small, but measurable amount. But the childrearing skill of women in the top and bottom 5th%ile, is extremely vast. In other words, the curves for women and men's childrearing prowess mainly overlap with a tiny sliver at yhe extremes that don't. It's a false premise.

There is literally no exaggeration.

It is a hypothetical question which means to look at the possible effects of possible biological drives on social roles. That is all.

If you are of the mindset that men's and women's roles are 100% social constructs you can take that up in another thread. I am not insulting your intelligence though, so I think you can fathom that it is POSSIBLE that biological drives play out in our social behaviours and in the example outlined in the OP I am asking specifically about how these drives may play out if they are not fulfilled under the assumption they will play out in a signifcant manner.

Now that that is cleared up, what do you think? Other than what has already been suggested anything else spring to mind?

Similarly, estratetraenol, a pheromone found in female urine, exerts a calming effect on men and heightens their sensitivity to female facial expressions — Questioner

Ha ha for giggles. The nicest thing a woman can do is gift a man an aerosol spray bottle of her piss.

Ok, so you believe there is some innate biological drive in adult males and females to act a particular way. — Philosophim

I am sure of this because I believe the science that supports it. I don't think we would have survived the ice age without innate drives.

that biological drives play out in our social behaviours — I like sushi

I think the best example of how our social behaviors play out is politically. Programs that meet children's needs and those of working mothers have increased as the number of women elected has increased. The drive to care for others is there, whether a woman has a child or not. While the testosterone-driven behaviors of males can override their efforts to be civil.

Married men tend to have lower testosterone than single males, and when a man divorces, his testosterone level increases. Gentle, nurturing men tend to have lower testosterone levels.

I apologize for being difficult to understand. I don't dispute that there are real, biological differences between the average level of the sexes on many if not just about every measure. However, these very real, yet statistically small differences (compared to the differences within each group), are, in fact exaggerated by just about everyone (including the OP), which is hence the origin of the concept of "social roles" or more accurately: stereotypes. Given the relative sizes of the variances between the genders compared to within them, my point is where an individual falls on a measure, say aptitude for childrearing, is due more to where they place within their gender, than which gender they happen to possess, statistically. This effect is measured taking into account both biological and social influences, so doesn't distinguish between them.

Thus by my understanding, 1) biologic influences are definitely real, more importantly they are 2) multifactorial, such that 3) they include both gendered and nongendered effects, but most importantly 4) the nongendered biologic effects account for the majority of what we observe in individuals.

So you think childbearing and physical strength are 'small differences' compared to what? True enough, compared to other apes the disparity between the sexes is relatively low.

The question is IF there is a biological drive to bear and raise children for women that presents itself in societal roles how would this present in society if they did not fulfil this biological drive. Same for men regarding upperbody strength and predominance in role involving brute force; where women are massively lagging.

While the testosterone-driven behaviors of males can override their efforts to be civil.

Married men tend to have lower testosterone than single males, and when a man divorces, his testosterone level increases. Gentle, nurturing men tend to have lower testosterone levels. — Athena

You are aware that testosterone has many benefits too. I have never heard that married men have lower testosterone? That is interesting if true.

So you think childbearing and physical strength are 'small differences' compared to what? True enough, compared to other apes the disparity between the sexes is relatively low.

The question is IF there is a biological drive to bear and raise children for women that presents itself in societal roles how would this present in society if they did not fulfil this biological drive. Same for men regarding upperbody strength and predominance in role involving brute force; where women are massively lagging

Yes, the physical strength difference between the average man compared to the average woman is very small compared to the difference between the strongest man and the weakest man. Thus where any human falls on a strength measure has much more association with their relative strength within their gender than whether they are male or female.

As to the question of where does the natural drive to express oneself physically go in men with sedentary jobs? Probably similar to the way women with sedentary jobs express themselves physically. Ditto with childrearing feelings in the childless (women vs men).

Yes, the physical strength difference between the average man compared to the average woman is very small compared to the difference between the strongest man and the weakest man. Thus where any human falls on a strength measure has much more association with their relative strength within their gender than whether they are male or female. — LuckyR

That is a very clever/perverse way of not denying that men are on average significantly stronger than women.

Just because the disparity in strength between men is greater than in women, this does not mean the strength differences between men and women are not significant (which they factually are btw).

I guess you are a 100% social construct kinda guy. Not interested.

You are aware that testosterone has many benefits too. I have never heard that married men have lower testosterone. That is interesting if true. — I like sushi

That is the science. I did not provide the link because it is AI. This field of science changed and changed. At the beginning of women's liberation, there was a push to prove that there are no differences between men and women other than who gives birth to the child. Then came the backlash, and there are several ways males and females are different, but these differences are not the same for everyone, like cookie-cutter copies of men and women.

Like in the video about trees I posted in another thread, there is not one model for men and another for women, but our emotional intelligence is hormonal and situational. When men watch football, their testosterone increases. Men and women tend to respond differently to crying babies, but the outcome is the same. The baby's needs are met. But the difference tends to be between a loving response and an irritated response. I want to stress that this is situational, not just a male or a female response. We are in a constant give-and-take with the universe.

Because of the differences between males and females, I believe it is very important that children have both a mother and a father. Each brings something different to the child. Nature has made the mother the most important to the child in the early stages of development, when, hopefully, the mother is producing milk and nursing the baby, and the father is providing a high-protein diet. When the mother hears her baby cry, she is apt to produce more milk. A hormonal reaction that men do not have. Nursing the baby causes the uterus to contract, and oxytocin is produced.

One AI sentence-
"Oxytocin is a hormone and neurotransmitter produced in the hypothalamus and released by the pituitary gland, essential for childbirth, lactation, and social bonding."

Female social bonding and male testosterone bonding are different. Bonding happens, but the conversations in the two groups will be different.

I think this is a stereotype and prejudice, not an actual reality. — Philosophim

Please keep our hormonal differences in mind. Get the information about hormones before making your argument. It might be harder for a woman to leave her child in a day care than for a man, because her hormones are different.

I am not saying that some women don't gladly leave their baby with someone else. I am saying that our hormones make this decision different for the average woman, who will have a different hormonal reaction to a crying baby than a man. If a woman does decide to leave her baby with someone else, this will be easier if she does not breastfeed the baby. I am not sure this is what is good for civilization.
If women were not hormonally different from men, I don't think we would have survived, and if we did survive, we may not have become civilized.

Ok, so you believe there is some innate biological drive in adult males and females to act a particular way. — Philosophim

Yes, and thank goodness for the difference. Dishwashers are useful, but they don't do laundry as well as laundry machines designed to wash clothes.

Women's liberation did not liberate women to be true to their hormonal reality. Women's liberation made it taboo to be a natural woman, and it has demanded that she be like a man.

When the USSR "liberated women", the number of divorces and abortions increased, and more women and children fell below the level of poverty. With our own experience of "women's liberation," not only have divorces and abortions increased, but so has the number of women and children involved in crime, as victims and perpetrators.

Education, preparing our young for the military-industrial complex, has brought us to worsening social problems and cultural conflict that threatens the unity of the United States. About a decade after the National Defense Education Act was passed, the US announced a national youth crisis. The cost of medical care and educating our children has greatly increased, and we have a national child care crisis. I think any day now, we might begin to appreciate women and everything they do, and stop the damage done when the stay-at-home woman became "just a housewife". What women did for our civilization was very important, and we shot ourselves in the foot when we made her "just a housewife".