Asking a feminist about "gender" roles

[graffic]

I think, apart from a few people stuck in the past, most level headed, progressive people acknowledge (to generalize) that some men can treat women badly, Women should have equal pay, equal opportunity, sexism should be punished, men should not rule society to an extent etc and these issues need to be... However what i think is a can of worms to an extent (from a biased male perspective) is when people start questioning "gender roles". Or what philosophical foundation any of this is based on.

I was listening to a feminist discussion on the radio for example and the feminist was saying how "tom boys" (women or girls that can have male traits or interested in "man things") are not seen as negative by society however a young man with "feminine" traits can be seen as negative. This opens up a whole can of worms about specific, age old gender roles that doesn't need to be opened in my opinion. Its delving into issues like biology, the nature of attraction etc. Obviously "men" are expected to be a certain way by society because when serious things happen, such as danger of life or death, as men are naturally physically superior, men are expected to put their neck on the line first etc.

Secondly, if you ask most women what they find attractive in a man, its obviously things like dominance, strength, courage among others. I am confused as why middle class feminists who presumably biologically feel attracted to these male traits are questioning them in the name of 'social justice" or "fairness" etc. Are there any femenists that can eloquently explain what they want to achieve regarding gender roles and what philosophy and/or science this is grounded in?

[RGacky3]

I has mostly to do wit hsesxual attraction imo. Whether or not its caused by social causes or biological causes is as pointless as asking where homosexuality comes from, it does'nt matter.

[graffic]

Perhaps i have socially conservative views on gender roles. Whether its a social construct or biological, its better for men to be seen in this way by society, as i said before, because when serious things happen, like life or death, its men that put their knecks on the line. There is nothing wrong with men who have feminine traits however the mild negativity that is arguably towards this arises from the positive view of men as being "men" (i.e protecting women, being physically superior). Which is far more rational and beneficial to everyone than perceived "unfairness" or "injustice" that men should be 'metrosexual"

[kapitalyst]

Perhaps i have socially conservative views on gender roles. Whether its a social construct or biological, its better for men to be seen in this way by society, as i said before, because when serious things happen, like life or death, its men that put their knecks on the line. There is nothing wrong with men who have feminine traits however the mild negativity that is arguably towards this arises from the positive view of men as being "men" (i.e protecting women, being physically superior). Which is far more rational and beneficial to everyone than perceived "unfairness" or "injustice" that men should be 'metrosexual"

I have to agree with you for the most part. I think it's stupid that many feminazis want men to be "metros" and be "feminine". Men don't want to be that way, regardless of what pressures society has. Our "gender roles" have a basis in actual biology and psychology.

I have no problem with gay or bisexual men, or men who are just effeminate. They are who they are and they can be who/what they want to be. But don't try to force that on men who don't want to be effeminate, gay or bi. Just leave people alone and let them be what they are or want to be. It sucks that being homo/bi-sexual has been treated like the most horrible of sins. But I think it's equally stupid to turn the tables and consider being straight and masculine the height of sin. Just my two cents...

[Bud Struggle]

I has mostly to do wit hsesxual attraction imo. .

I has mostly that problem---too. :D

[Leftsolidarity]

Gender roles are a social construct.

[RichardAWilson]

I think it has something to do with viewing human beings as human beings instead of for the historical role they've performed during more primitive periods (I.e. Hunting and Agriculture). There is nothing wrong with heterosexual men being metro.

I do believe David Beckham - a man if I've ever seen one - is metro.

I have nothing against those men that'd like to fulfill the traditional gender role.

The issue, I do believe, is that men shouldn't feel obligated to fulfill that traditional gender role.
(I.e. Men shouldn't be expected to be macho and rugged.)

Yes, women are attracted to courage and strength.

However, women aren't attracted to odor and insecure men that feel like they have to run around starting fights to prove themselves.

[Judicator]

Gender roles are a social construct.

It's just a giant coincidence that they display any similarity across cultures....

There are mountains of evidence that men and women are wired differently. This will create differences in their observed behavior, which will in turn create differences in their expected behavior (their "gender role").

[RichardAWilson]

http://ironicsurrealism.com/files/2011/09/tea-party-zombie-game-pissed-off-stupid-white-trash-redneck-birther-zombie.jpg

[Leftsolidarity]

It's just a giant coincidence that they display any similarity across cultures....

There are mountains of evidence that men and women are wired differently. This will create differences in their observed behavior, which will in turn create differences in their expected behavior (their "gender role").


Could be. Aren't many things similar across different cultures and don't cultures affect each other?

There are a number of good threads I could point to one this subject. Oh wait, you're restricted cuz you're a reactionary....:blushing:

[RedAnarchist]

It's just a giant coincidence that they display any similarity across cultures....

So, if that is true, why do some cultures recognise more than two "genders" whilst Western societies only really recognise two gender roles and assign one to each of two biological sexes (the third being intersexed people)?


There are mountains of evidence that men and women are wired differently.

And can you show us any of this evidence, or are we supposed to just take your word for it?


This will create differences in their observed behavior, which will in turn create differences in their expected behavior (their "gender role").

It can't have much of an influence, seeing as there are people who don't fit the gender role assigned to their biological sex.

It's interesting to note that gender roles help preserve male privilege, and so if they didn't have this property of helping to maintain such privilege, I bet most of these people who run around screaming about how "men and women are so different and there's certain differences in the brain!" would not be so loud.

[RedAnarchist]

Could be. Aren't many things similar across different cultures and don't cultures affect each other?

Exactly. Next he'll be claiming that humans must have been created by some higher power just because there is a creation story in most cultures.

Gender roles are like stone tools - they had some value and use back in the Stone Age, but they're useless nowadays.

[Judicator]

So, if that is true, why do some cultures recognise more than two "genders" whilst Western societies only really recognise two gender roles and assign one to each of two biological sexes (the third being intersexed people)?

Gender roles are similar across cultures in some ways, different in others.



And can you show us any of this evidence, or are we supposed to just take your word for it?


Both.

http://www.livescience.com/3808-men-women-differently.html
http://www.medicaleducationonline.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=69
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/02/brainandbeauty/


It can't have much of an influence, seeing as there are people who don't fit the gender role assigned to their biological sex.

So now we agree biology influences gender roles, we're just debating about magnitude?


It's interesting to note that gender roles help preserve male privilege, and so if they didn't have this property of helping to maintain such privilege, I bet most of these people who run around screaming about how "men and women are so different and there's certain differences in the brain!" would not be so loud.

It's interesting to note that science was developed largely by men and is true nonetheless, despite whatever convoluted self serving nature you believe it has.


Could be. Aren't many things similar across different cultures and don't cultures affect each other?

There are a number of good threads I could point to one this subject. Oh wait, you're restricted cuz you're a reactionary....:blushing:

Anything "could be," my point was about likelihood.

I can still read any thread, just no posting.

[RedAnarchist]

Gender roles are similar across cultures in some ways, different in others.

So are religions, languages, flags, currencies, buildings, animals, jobs, political ideologies and a myriad of other objects, concepts, animate beings etc. Doesn't make gender roles any more legitimate or relevant than any of those things. You know what the connection is between gender roles and most of my list? They were developed by human beings.


Both.

http://www.livescience.com/3808-men-women-differently.html
http://www.medicaleducationonline.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=69
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/02/brainandbeauty/

That LiveScience site looks terrible. It's full of adverts, plus gives no links to back up it's claims. It's basically just a news article, and almost anyone can claim something by using a news article as proof.

Your second site looks more credible, but again doesn't give us any real differences, it simply states a list of "average" and "in general" differences. Surely if gender roles are so biologically innate, all men would be the same and all women would be the same, and the two groups wildly different from each other? In the real world, men and women overlap and whilst there may be differences in general, no difference in the brain has been found that fully separates all men from all women.

Your third site uses information that is based on a small number of people and are preliminary. I think this from the comments section on that site sums it up very well -


When it comes to researching sex differences, people keep falling back on stereotypes and imagined stories. The "hunter-gatherer" thing is just that, a story. As mentioned by Chris above, we don't really know how true or applicable this story is. It is purely anecdotal. And god, will the "woman are more talkative" thing just die already? It's an old wives tale at this point.

From most studies done on sexual dimorphism in the brain so far, it seems that differences are present, but subtle and low-level: kind of like the differences between an Intel and an AMD processor. They can still run the same software.

This is far from the popular notion that "women and men just think differently". Whatever natural inclinations there are, they are exaggerated by cultural expectations.

It's also important to remember that, for any trait that is *generally* dimorphic, there is always a natural range of variation where the trend does not apply. Those who fit the trend perfectly are as exceptional as those who don't.


So now we agree biology influences gender roles, we're just debating about magnitude?

Biology does influence gender roles to some extent, but it is a very small influence, and is miniscule compared to the societal influence.


It's interesting to note that science was developed largely by men and is true nonetheless, despite whatever convoluted self serving nature you believe it has.

It was only largely developed by men because for most of history and, to some extent, the present day women were (and are) still second class citizens who weren't allowed to be scientists or mathematicians. It is interesting that you mention "convoluted self serving nature" - isn't that exactly what you're using it for, to try and make men and women look far more different than they truly are?

[kapitalyst]

Actually, there has been study of gender roles which has shown there is definitely a biological and psychological basis. One such study was done on intelligent primates -- chimps, gorillas, etc -- to perform a test where cultural influence could not be claimed to upset results.

They gave the animals childrens' toys, clothing and other things. By overwhelming majority, the male chimps took to the "boy's toys"... trucks, tools, etc. The females took the dolls and other "girl's toys", and had a preference for bright colors (especially pink and purple). It's interesting that this difference also exists in the preferences of young chimps and other primates, and they have not been influenced by human culture.

Saying that this isn't real because not every man or woman fits our gender roles and stereotypes is nonsense... it's like saying cancer isn't deadly because not everyone dies from it. C'mon, let's be realistic. We are different, but we are equal. We don't need to take it any further. People will ultimately be who or what they were meant to be or want to be... whether that's straight, gay, bi, trans-sexual or "tom boy"/effeminate.

[Judicator]

So are religions, languages, flags, currencies, buildings, animals, jobs, political ideologies and a myriad of other objects, concepts, animate beings etc. Doesn't make gender roles any more legitimate or relevant than any of those things. You know what the connection is between gender roles and most of my list? They were developed by human beings.

There is, to a degree, some biological basis for many of the things on your list. Religiosity for example has been found to have some biological basis http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002666.html .


Your second site looks more credible, but again doesn't give us any real differences, it simply states a list of "average" and "in general" differences. Surely if gender roles are so biologically innate, all men would be the same and all women would be the same, and the two groups wildly different from each other? In the real world, men and women overlap and whilst there may be differences in general, no difference in the brain has been found that fully separates all men from all women.

Again, here we are debating about magnitude - whether the difference is slight or large.

Variation can be large within groups, while at the same time group differences can be largely explained with biology.


It is interesting that you mention "convoluted self serving nature" - isn't that exactly what you're using it for, to try and make men and women look far more different than they truly are?

Hardly. Biology having a strong influence over gender roles doesn't mean current gender roles are justified, only that they aren't socially constructed.

[RichardAWilson]

We are different, but we are equal. We don't need to take it any further. People will ultimately be who or what they were meant to be or want to be... whether that's straight, gay, bi, trans-sexual or "tom boy"/effeminate.

Wow dude. I couldn't have said it better if I had tried! Good job on calling this one.

Once we are all truly equal and young men don't feel compelled to fall into stereotypes, I don't think we will take it much further.

[Revolution starts with U]

Idk about the validity of gender roles. I think it is mostly a "tends to" rather than "does," nonetheless. And I don't think they are a necessary condition of humanity in any way. Wether they are more natural than social is irrelevant, imho.

But I can tell you that as a straight man I feel absolutely no pressure to be gay, bi, nor metro. I do however feel pressured to be sexual, to have sex with SOMEONE, and to take on SOME KIND of gender role. I also feel that the overwhelming majority of that pressure wants to force me into the straight and macho role, one of which I already practice in the privacy of my own domicile :lol:, and the other which I find to be destructive, unnecessary for self-confidence, and not a measure of fighting potential by any stretch of the imagination.

[RichardAWilson]

A serious problem with the traditional gender role is that men aren't expected to show emotion. For that reason, men have a higher incidence of alcoholism, stress and suicide than women. Women want a husband that will show some emotion, just as long as they're not an emotional roller coaster. Men are raised to believe that showing emotion is a weakness and that they should bottle problems inside them.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Secondly, if you ask most women what they find attractive in a man, its obviously things like dominance, strength, courage among others. I am confused as why middle class feminists who presumably biologically feel attracted to these male traits are questioning them in the name of 'social justice" or "fairness" etc. At what point did biology enter into this mix

[Jose Gracchus]

I have to agree with you for the most part. I think it's stupid that many feminazis want men to be "metros" and be "feminine". Men don't want to be that way, regardless of what pressures society has. Our "gender roles" have a basis in actual biology and psychology.

Who talks like this? What "feminazis" have you actually met who "wanted" men to be "metro", and what do you think each of those terms means?

Why is it every time I hear some quasi-PUA pop ev-psych 'analysis' of women's consciousness as an abstract universal, I am struck by the feeling that the guys talking to me do not know very much about real particular women in a personal way at all.


I have no problem with gay or bisexual men, or men who are just effeminate. They are who they are and they can be who/what they want to be. But don't try to force that on men who don't want to be effeminate, gay or bi. Just leave people alone and let them be what they are or want to be. It sucks that being homo/bi-sexual has been treated like the most horrible of sins. But I think it's equally stupid to turn the tables and consider being straight and masculine the height of sin. Just my two cents...

Who does or says any of these things? Any real movement, real philosopher or intellectual on the issue? Or is this what Rush Limbaugh and the boys' locker room told you 'they' say?


Actually, there has been study of gender roles which has shown there is definitely a biological and psychological basis. One such study was done on intelligent primates -- chimps, gorillas, etc -- to perform a test where cultural influence could not be claimed to upset results.

They gave the animals childrens' toys, clothing and other things. By overwhelming majority, the male chimps took to the "boy's toys"... trucks, tools, etc. The females took the dolls and other "girl's toys", and had a preference for bright colors (especially pink and purple). It's interesting that this difference also exists in the preferences of young chimps and other primates, and they have not been influenced by human culture.

Saying that this isn't real because not every man or woman fits our gender roles and stereotypes is nonsense... it's like saying cancer isn't deadly because not everyone dies from it. C'mon, let's be realistic. We are different, but we are equal. We don't need to take it any further. People will ultimately be who or what they were meant to be or want to be... whether that's straight, gay, bi, trans-sexual or "tom boy"/effeminate.

This is even worse. It totally undermines your claim of biological determinism. The other Great Apes' social, familial, and sexual dynamics differ substantially from H. sapiens sapiens, and this is apparent upon even the most casual scrutiny (humans having exaggerated secondary sexual characteristics - big breasts and large penises, relative to their body size; humans socially segregate sexual activity unlike other Great Apes; humans pair bond in the context of a larger community support system, and are obliged to raise young helpless for 15-18 years--gorillas do not).

Now you just have muddled data instead of a clear conclusion: good job. I'd like to actually see that evidence cited, as well, because I'm not taking your word for it.

[RichardAWilson]

The World Health Organization (2002) has estimated that 815,000 people worldwide took their lives in the year 2000. Among those who complete suicide gender differences are almost universally found. On average, worldwide, men were three times more likely to complete suicide as women, but wide variations occur from country to country.

In general, males have a greater incidence of serious health problems and, across all ages, higher rates of death than do females for all the leading causes of death.

Much of the explanation for these outcomes lies in the greater involvement of men in high-risk health behaviors.

For example, males have higher rates of cigarette smoking, alcohol abuse, hazardous activities, antisocial behavior, aggression, and violence (Maris, Berman, & Silverman, 2000). Notably, each of these is a correlate or risk factor for suicide.

On the other hand, studies have consistently shown that women have and use social supports more than men (cf., Eisler & Blalock, 1991). Social supports and attachments are significant protective factors attenuating risk for suicide.

Gender-role socialization has been posited to explain men’s underutilization of both interpersonal and professional supports.

Specifically, adherence to the traditional male gender role may result in negative attitudes toward help-seeking (Good et al., 1989).

Gender-role conflict “occurs when rigid, sexist, or restrictive gender roles learned during socialization result in the personal restriction, devaluation, or violation of others or the self” (Good & Wood, 1995, p. 70).

Wisch et al. (1995) studied the impact of gender-role and counseling technique on help-seeking among men.

Participants viewed counseling sessions that used either emotion-focused or cognition-focused interventions.

Men who scored high on gender-role conflict reported more negative attitudes toward help-seeking than men who scored low on gender-role conflict.

[RichardAWilson]

Even more shocking is that "macho men" viewed therapists as threatening.

I am reminded by the fact that homophobic men are more likely to fantacize about sleeping with other men compared with more tolerant men.

Homophobic men are most aroused by Gay Porn


http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201106/homophobic-men-most-aroused-gay-male-porn

If that's the case, there are more potential Log Cabin Republicans than there are Stonewall Democrats.

[Lynx]

Nothing in the OP about being forced to be effeminate. Perhaps the mere existence of effeminate men is enough for certain big, strong, powerful men to feel pressured or threatened.

[RichardAWilson]

But don't try to force that on men who don't want to be effeminate, gay or bi.

I don't think anyone is "forcing that" on anybody. However, you remind me of a friend of mine.

In public, that's very much his philosophy. In private, he's bi-curious. (Not that I'm saying you are by any means.)

It's just that there are so many closeted men that you'd be shocked. Your friends, your neighbors, your fellow church members, you never know.

[RGacky3]

I have to agree with you for the most part. I think it's stupid that many feminazis want men to be "metros" and be "feminine". Men don't want to be that way, regardless of what pressures society has. Our "gender roles" have a basis in actual biology and psychology.

I have no problem with gay or bisexual men, or men who are just effeminate. They are who they are and they can be who/what they want to be. But don't try to force that on men who don't want to be effeminate, gay or bi. Just leave people alone and let them be what they are or want to be. It sucks that being homo/bi-sexual has been treated like the most horrible of sins. But I think it's equally stupid to turn the tables and consider being straight and masculine the height of sin. Just my two cents...

Do you know any feminists? I seriously doubt it, because I have NEVER met a feminist that wants men to be feminine.

[graffic]

Do you know any feminists? I seriously doubt it, because I have NEVER met a feminist that wants men to be feminine.

Radical feminists, but they are a minority. However, i know that a lot of mainstream feminists or marxist feminists blather on about the dominant psychology in society that promotes "double standards" regarding gender roles. For example, men being feminine is seen in less of a positive light than women being "manly", however there's a flip side to this obviously. Maybe some feminists don't like "pressure" in our culture (wherever this comes from or why it is important) on men to be a certain "manly" however if women are stuck in a hard place, because of this perceived "wrong" psychology, society expects men to help them out. There are pro's and con's, its swings and roundabouts. Personally, (from a biased male perspective) i see things like the banks being bailed out, unemployment rising and poverty rising etc as more important than the "gender issue". A problem with some feminists is they can think they have more in common with a divorced banking women who sends her kids to private school than an unemployed working class man.

[Leftsolidarity]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/gender-social-construct-t161433/index.html

[Conquer or Die]

Modern feminist theory does not take into consideration different sexual preferences from partner to partner as important. If it's an autonomous decision by the female and her consenting partner then what those preferences are are of no importance. On the surface there is really no substantial problem with this. The only problem is that the "autonomous" choice tends to square with traditional masculine traits, attractiveness, and high social quality. It's understandable that some men may feel confused about current feminist and feminine standards and the relationship between their personal life and these concepts.

I don't think, however, that feminists and their allies do themselves a favor by attempting to discredit evolutionary psychology. EP, even if it's just one more social construction, helps to provide a roadmap for those can't square their individual interests against those of others. EP is essentially remedial skill building, speed dating, and a realistic sense of expectation.

[Sputnik_1]

A serious problem with the traditional gender role is that men aren't expected to show emotion. For that reason, men have a higher incidence of alcoholism, stress and suicide than women. Women want a husband that will show some emotion, just as long as they're not an emotional roller coaster. Men are raised to believe that showing emotion is a weakness and that they should bottle problems inside them.

This and lots of other reasons why "gender roles" suck. I'm not trying to deny that genders "tend to" behave in a certain way, but it certainly shouldn't have an impact on our way of thinking how genders are supposed to act. Most of people are straight, it doesn't make homo or bisexual people any less normal. Fuck it if media or whatever expect from you to act like a manly macho or a feminine metro. Mass media expects from me to look like a supermodel, wear make up, high heels and have always the most exclusive perfume on- at least that's the image that is constantly shown in ad, tv etc. So what? I think that everyone here has the awareness of how fucked up this system is and forces on us lifestyles and life paths.
People are just people, let them live their lives the way they want, fuck the gender roles and such.

[JFB.anon]

*Uses as avatar.

[maskerade]

Gender roles are NOT similar across cultures; just because most cultures recognize genders in accordance with biological sex does not mean that the roles these genders play are the same. Why is it that in some cultures all labour is done predominantly by women, and in others the reverse? Why is it that there are a multitude of cultures with more than two genders (including our own)?

To provide an interesting example: in some malay cultures, for example, the leaders of many societies are usually the men who have the most feminine qualities, and indeed many of these cultures associate manliness with similarities to (paradoxically) femaleness. I'd imagine it is a much more harmonious society...

[Makaru]

I think you have to be very careful when you're talking about gender roles. The OP slipped into a sort of accidental misogyny (I'm sure it wasn't intentional) when he said that straight women want their men to be dominant. This is like saying men want their women to be submissive. Is this true, or is it the product of a culture that says men are supposed to be dominant and women are supposed to be submissive? I think each person has their own preferences and these preferences (in a society that tries to pre-package the roles of men and women and encourage a certain behavior in public) seem to come alive mostly in the bedroom.

I haven't looked into the biological arguments. I know that we've all been told that men are physically superior in terms of strength, but women arguably endure more physical pain as a result of natural processes (birth, menstruation, etc.) so maybe we should say that men tend to have more muscle power. Again, I haven't researched it so that might be a stupid thing to say for all I know.

It sounds like a silly thing to walk on eggshells (be politically correct?) and insist that we talk about "muscle power" instead of "strength" or "physical superiority" but I think history has shown the potential for slippery slope into male dominance over women is very real when we start talking about physical superiority. It implies women are inferior and submissive. Simply not true.

Also, a few people have touched upon how gender roles change depending on culture. I think anthropology has shown this very clearly. Cultures may all assign gender roles but not all gender roles transplant to other cultures.

[RGacky3]

This is like saying men want their women to be submissive. Is this true, or is it the product of a culture that says men are supposed to be dominant and women are supposed to be submissive

Honestly does it matter where it comes from? You could argue that lions have certain gender roles because of their enviroment, and its probably true, but does it matter? Culture is a reflection of material conditions, nothing more nothing less, you can't manipulate culture.

If you look at cultures where male dominane and sexism has been on the decline, its only been in countries where you've had relatively equal financial opportunities for both men and women, and where women can be economically independant, not in places where people complain about advertisements or movies or whatever (I'm not saying your making that argument, I"m just addressing it as a larger point.)

[maskerade]

Honestly does it matter where it comes from? You could argue that lions have certain gender roles because of their enviroment, and its probably true, but does it matter? Culture is a reflection of material conditions, nothing more nothing less, you can't manipulate culture.

If you look at cultures where male dominane and sexism has been on the decline, its only been in countries where you've had relatively equal financial opportunities for both men and women, and where women can be economically independant, not in places where people complain about advertisements or movies or whatever (I'm not saying your making that argument, I"m just addressing it as a larger point.)

How do material conditions explain differences between matrilineal and patrilineal societies? How do material conditions explain the matrifocal practices of numerous pre-industrial societies which did not have explicit hierarchies along gender lines, and conversely how do material conditions account for gender differences in societies which seemingly similar material conditions?

[Makaru]

Honestly does it matter where it comes from? You could argue that lions have certain gender roles because of their enviroment, and its probably true, but does it matter? Culture is a reflection of material conditions, nothing more nothing less, you can't manipulate culture.

If you look at cultures where male dominane and sexism has been on the decline, its only been in countries where you've had relatively equal financial opportunities for both men and women, and where women can be economically independant, not in places where people complain about advertisements or movies or whatever (I'm not saying your making that argument, I"m just addressing it as a larger point.)

I get what you're saying and ultimately I guess it doesn't matter. In the society most of us are striving for it wouldn't be an issue, I don't think, because the material conditions would encourage equality.

I think it does matter in the context of present society, though, just as much as fighting for LGBT and racial equality by dispelling myths or harmful preconceptions about whichever group. Anyway, you're fundamentally right that culture (and thus how equal or unequal groups are in relation to each other) is driven by material conditions, so a socialist society shouldn't have to grapple with gender roles the way we currently do.

[RGacky3]

How do material conditions explain differences between matrilineal and patrilineal societies? How do material conditions explain the matrifocal practices of numerous pre-industrial societies which did not have explicit hierarchies along gender lines, and conversely how do material conditions account for gender differences in societies which seemingly similar material conditions?

There could be many reasons, for example in warrior societies you'll generally get more of a patriarchal societies, you also have societies that wen't through feudalism, which affected church authority which affected the gender balances.

You also can't just look at the current material conditions, you have to look at historical context.