• @ArcticAmphibian
    link
    English
    372 months ago

    He’s saying that HISTORICALLY women were viewed as such. That’s his guess at what logic prehistoric humans went through, not his own.

    • @hysterika@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      -482 months ago

      Are we really out here ignoring the fact that mans said that breasts were evolved for men??? Like come on, don’t make excuses for this guy

      • AmidFuror
        link
        fedilink
        242 months ago

        Humans have evolved, and sexual selection is a big part of evolution in sexual species. Whether his hypothesis is correct or not, it’s not offensive to speculate how things got to where they are now.

        You also seem to be making the naturalism fallacy. Just because things are or were a certain way in nature doesn’t mean they ought to be that way in human society.

      • @xePBMg9@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        17
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Evolution doesn’t have a preconceived goal it goes for. There can be pressures of all different kinds. I did not intend to convey that sexual pressure was the sole factor on the evolution of breasts. Clearly they have other functions. I only make the observation that it is a sexual signal for males in the vast majority of mammals. I believe humans are the only mammal with breasts that doesn’t shrink when they are ready, as it were. But I am a proponent of the hypothesis that it was evolved as a trait of sexual secrecy, to confuse males, so the female can attract the favour of more males.

        It’s alright to disagree with the premise that there were sexual pressure on the evolution of breasts. You would probably be in the minority in the scientific community on that one though.

        For the record; I fancy myself an egalitarianist. I believe in women’s rights. I do not believe slavery is good for any kind of society. I really believe males and females are very similar. Small differences in our physiological makeup. That is all.

        • @hysterika@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          -222 months ago

          Okay this is gonna be the last thing I say on this - a lot of the struggle that women today face comes from the idea that women only exist in relation to something or someone else, like children or a partner. Eg, your role is to start a family, wear makeup and take care of your appearance so that you are perceived as attractive and therefore valued. Making arguments that women have larger breasts as an evolutionary trait because of men wanting to procreate with them is an extension of that sentiment. Whether it’s true or not and to what degree - it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t fit into the conversation and it completely detracts from the point of women being hyper sexualized in today’s culture.

          I support you if your say you’re egalitarian or feminist or what have you, but please consider the different perspectives and examine your arguments within the wider context. We are more than just our biology lmao.

          • @zzx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            102 months ago

            Men only exist in relation to women. We’re just talking about the reproductive context here, so of course one sex is described in terms of the other. The same holds vice versa, each sex needs the other in an evolutionary system

            We are past the point where any of this matters in modern society, and I completely agree with your points about sexism, feminism, etc. I think you’re just letting a scientific/evolutionary perspective and discussion transfer over and project too much onto the problems you see in society today. However, I think (hope) that many of the people in this thread talking about evolution share your thoughts and feelings about modern society, it’s just, we’re talking about a specific, ancient, evolutionary system here is all. It’s very intently sexist I guess if you think about it. We’re lucky to live in modern times.

          • AmidFuror
            link
            fedilink
            22 months ago

            This coming from someone with a username derived from a sexist term. Maybe someone who thinks science and history need to bend over backwards not to offend our sensibilities should start with themselves.

          • @netvor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 months ago

            Okay this is gonna be the last thing I say on this - a lot of the struggle that women today face comes from the idea that women only exist in relation to something or someone else, like children or a partner.

            The thing is, in so many ways we all only exist in relation to each other. So you’re on to something, not necessarily exclusive to sex or gender, but yes that part is hard. And much worse because it also means that others are going to try and shape that relation and the power is barely ever balanced. It does help to realize that not all people are like that, but these things are really knowable, and everyone’s situation is unique.

            Eg, your role is to start a family, wear makeup and take care of your appearance so that you are perceived as attractive and therefore valued

            Honestly, that part is infuriating to me as well. and I hate what it does to women. My personal feelings about what makes a woman attractive / free are my own, but I find it somewhat offensive how boldly people make assumptions about it and even start to normalize or ostracize others for following standards.

            Not sure if we can do about it in general, but I do appreciate people who don’t just bow down to the masses.

      • @zzx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        132 months ago

        Sexual selection pressure is massive in evolutionary systems. You’re forgetting that fitness is an indirect result of what is ultimately sexual selection pressure. A lot of people think it’s fitness first, sex second, but it’s actually the other way around, sexual selection plays a larger part, and is supposed to imply fitness, but doesn’t always. Without sex there is no reproduction, and therefore no mutations. Anyways, just remember, in evolutionary systems, they are not directly selecting for traits, they are selecting traits through the abstraction of sex and sexual selection. Sex is king here. IDK it’s weird but it is what it is.

        • @Fedizen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          -32 months ago

          Sexual selection is a theory thrown around but afaik the work hasn’t been done to show this is the sole cause. Enlarged breasts may have some reason to exist beyond sexual identification - there’s not a lot of mostly bald mammals that walk on two legs so theres not a lot of good opportunities to spot convergence in features.

          • @netvor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            02 months ago

            the work hasn’t been done to show this is the sole cause

            sure but why is it relevant? OP isn’t saying that it is the sole cause.

            careful with the straw, you might accidently build a straw man out of it :)

      • @HauntedCupcake@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        72 months ago

        Ah yes, I remember how the birds of paradise evolved such complicated dance routines and brilliant colours for the sole purpose of self expression. Or the brilliant peacock that evolved a huge unwieldy display just to feel good about themselves