How an evolutionary psychologist explains the soul of women and anthropologists tell us about the decline of Neanderthals
The "genetic" response to the English study of dissatisfied women who earn more than their husbands (cf. At least one who earns well) has not been long in coming. For psychologist Nick Neave, in his response "Sorry, but women are dependent on men" as "Evolutionary psychologist" of Northumbria University, it is quite obvious why women shy away from financial responsibility and dominance: Since time immemorial, a genetic imperative has programmed them to be dependent on men.
Already possible that his thesis is sexist, Neave concedes, but true, so "fears he", it always is. His chain of evidence reaches far: from the life of early humans in the wild to the sleepless nights of women in the 21st century.The four gentlemen grouped around von der Leyen at the Diehl stand are also making a profit from the wars and crises in the Arab world. Nothing scares women more, Neave asserts firmly, than the eternal fear of being dumped by their husbands. Why women are more forgiving of their partners’ infidelities than men.
Although they are now able to found a family without men thanks to modern reproduction techniques and constantly confirm to themselves that they do not need a man, another 10.000 years passed before this desire became psychological truth. For deep in the psyche of women, nature has implanted this fear: that they cannot survive on their own.
Manner: All the trumps in the palm of your hand
The independence of women, as proclaimed by feminists of our day, is a cultural development that, given the long history of evolution, seems like the blinking of an eye; a brief moment that has managed to have a surface effect. Thousands of years have pre-programmed women evolutionary to feel dependent on men, according to the pre-Christmas wish of the women’s savant Neave:
Women may climb the ladder and earn more than men, but when it comes to relationships, men hold all the trumps.
And the evidence? With the rough vocabulary "genetic" and "Evolution" In the so-called gender debate, provocative morsels with a pseudo-scientific spread can be quickly prepared, which are then gladly accepted by some, but a gene that determines women’s dependence on their husbands has not yet been discovered. And from the history of evolution one helps oneself just like jihadists, who take what suits them from the Koran.
The right jacket
Neaves, to remove any doubts about his competence, presents himself as an evolutionary psychologist, a scientist who has studied patterns of human behavior since the earliest beginnings, constantly analyzing evidence that demonstrates crucial differences between the sexes since the time when men were hunter-gatherers and women raised children: Women were smaller and weaker, men had to protect them. Not only because of their brute strength, but also because of their social status in the group, which they owed either to their physical appearance or to the strength of their personality: "Therefore, women are still looking for a man with a higher social status."
Neaves sees this thesis substantiated everywhere: in quasi-infinite series of studies proving that, when looking for the right partner, younger women in particular are not diaded by irrelevant superficial stimuli, such as good looks, from choosing the man who promises provider qualities and protection through a good social and financial position – even if it is only the right jacket that suggests this.
And of course Neaves does not pass by the research, which in March of this year, traditionalists greatly pleased: The happiest married women, according to research by Virginia University sociologists, are those whose husbands provide at least two-thirds of the household income, no matter how much they helped their wives with housework. Neaves draws an Eva Herman inference from this:
In short, I don’t think women ever really feel comfortable earning more than their husbands. The need to depend on a man is driven by such a deep-seated biological necessity that I can’t see how that can ever be completely eradicated.
As recent research by anthropologists shows, the division of labor between men and women in early communities is not necessarily what the popular scientific commonplace of men = hunters and women = household and children suggests. Among Neanderthals, it appears that the entire population was also involved in hunting large game, conclude scientists at the University of Arizona, u.a. From findings of women’s skeletons that are so "Robustly built" are that "it seems unlikely that they just sat at home and looked after their children".
However, according to the hypothesis of Steven L. Kuhn and Mary C. Stiner, the women and children were exposed to a greater risk. This could be explained by the less differentiated division of labor between men and women in comparison to other human populations ("modern humans") of the Upper Palaeolithic and the concentration on hunting as the main source of food led to the decline of the Neanderthals.
While Mary C. While Stiner holds the tropical environment, the milieu, responsible for the division of labor in the predecessors of modern man, Richard Klein of Stanford University opposes it with a rival, more biologically arguing thesis: cognitive abilities of other Neolithic people, e.g., the ability to think and act.B. linguistic skills, had given them survival advantages over the Neanderthals. It looks therefore quite as if the original dispute remains further unsolved: Is there a genetic basis that has led to the division of labor, as it developed in the modern predecessors of man, or is it rather based on cultural milieus and institutions??
Where Neaves thinks of evolution and genes as psychological certainties and determinants, scholars agree on another certainty: arguments built on a cultural basis are as compelling as the other side ("differences in neurological wiring"), says anthropologist Mary Steiner. And that’s what makes it so difficult to loosen the basis of their disagreements with Mr. Klein, he said. At eye level, of course.