What I’m saying is I think it’s less to do with evolution and more to do with socialization. I don’t see touching food and babies as being especially tasking in the manual dexterity department. OTOH crafting solid weapons and properly dismantling a carcass after a hunt do require a lot of small-work skill. Have you ever made a flintknapped blade? It’s a lot of small, patient work, and it’s how stone-age people made cutting tools.
Men seem to have no trouble with small dexterous tasks when they want to do them. They just haven’t been almost exclusively socialized to do only them. Women have, so they’re more associated with them. Many cultures have encouraged women to sit quietly, remain at home and not run around being noisy, so they took up small, manual tasks like embroidery, etc.
E: sorry two different thoughts, the sewing one was more addressing the myth of “women don’t think in the abstract good” that I think someone mentioned earlier.
The theory behind it is that women that could successfully identify damaged foods, or injuries in children, had more children that survived, and therefore the trait of "being able to detect those tiny variations through digital sensitivity" would be passed on, generation after generation. Anything that reinforces the "success value" of that trait (like being well paid Elizabethan era seamstresses, lacemakers, jewellers, etc.) would also lead to greater replication of the trait.
Another example is the "sexist a/c complaint" - the reason that women are more sensitive to the air conditioning is because women that could detect small variations in temperature had more babies that survived, because it takes only a very small change in temperature to create biological stress in an infant.
Like I said upthread, this isn't exactly something we can test in real-time, and we can't go back in time to confirm it, so at best, it's just the best post-facto guesses that we have, based on observable traits in modernity.
Altruistic surrogacy would be allowed. Like altruistic kidney donation.
It’s where you have money involved that things get ugly. Money means power which means exploitation. Like selling sex versus having it for fun, or selling a kidney versus donating it for a loved one. The dynamic is different.
I don’t think altruistic only surrogacy has been used as a wedge strategy by anti abortionists in any serious challenge? It could be argued that introduction of money reduces choice, rather than increases it.
The fine motor skill stuff is interesting. I’ve not heard evolutionary theories for it (and I’m wary of eco psych stuff in general.) it could be that women were more likely to be confined to a ‘home’ area and so were socialised to do stuff that was portable and small - sewing etc.
The total number of people that willingly give up organs, pre-mortem, is astonishingly small, and almost entirely within families; when some random person gives up an organ to someone they aren't related to, it's rare enough that it becomes a huge human interest story. I'm guessing we all agree that pregnancy is fraught with danger (even with modern medicine), and I really don't know all that many women that are willing to undergo pregnancy for random people, without compensation. It's 9 months with a huge number of restrictions, including some period where even basic self care is difficult, so work is out of the question, at that point. There's flat-out got to be some kind of compensation for being unable to work, and even if it's paying for room/board, medical, supplements, and the other immediate necessities for a pregnancy, there's an exchange occurring.
Do you think a lot of woman are going to be wiling to be off work, and be subject to the stresses of pregnancy, especially for someone unrelated? I don't see it happening on even a rare basis, or if it is, the media is missing out on a huge number of highly positive human interest stories.
Honestly socialization is a lot of it. Many, if not most, women are not brash enough to stand up to people in an environment where the people are all men who are looking for ways to watch you fail.
For example, one demanding autist has been disingenuously shitting up this thread for nearly an entire 50% of its entire existence with text wall screeds, refusing to allow anyone to simply disagree without being antagonized all the while debating entirely in bad faith: demanding citations for others and not for themselves, generally acting like thier opinion is the only "right" one and heavily implying everyone who disagrees is stupid, asking questions with the intention of starting an argument rather than hearing the answer, replying with memes, etc. and most women in this thread have coddled the fuck out of them. Very few are actually willing to say "fuck you" to a demanding asshole. Just in general that is the case, unfortunately.
I honestly don't know what makes me more upset: the one asshole or the multitude of women willing to put up with it. I don't blame anyone, I'm just saying. Sometimes it's okay to call an asshole an asshole. We're on kiwi fucking farms right now. If you don't feel comfortable calling a spade a spade here, where can you?
Pointing to
every other form of prohibition causing greater harm and every single legalization of those prohibited phenomena reduces harms, compared to the prohibition is pretty clearly a citation, and suggesting that people show a case where legalization has caused more harms is pretty reasonable; the fact that you don't like what I'm pointing to doesn't make it less an indication that legalization causes fewer harms than prohibition does.
And frankly, if you're mad that I keep pointing out that "her body, her choice" isn't something you get to pick and choose the applicability of, while claiming to be in favour of women's empowerment (regardless of the label you apply to the support of empowerment). then you're going to be doomed to stay mad. Give me a reason why it's reasonable to support sexual and reproductive agency for some things, but not the rest, and do so by demonstrating how the sexual and reproductive agency associated with prostitution and surrogacy causes greater harms than the prohibition of either.
If the entirety of your argument relies upon "the person that disagrees with me is an asshole" and not "Here are examples where legalization did not reduce harms, and that shows that legalization in this case is worse than prohibition", then you don't have an argument, and I'll laugh at you getting mad on the internet.
Still it’s better than whatshisname just calling everyone cucks and faggots when they claim white men aren't the most oppressed demographic.
