One of the Intrinsic Paradoxes of Machoism

[Rhythmcs]

A month ago or so I was reading an archaeological paper that suggests that ancient pre-history people shared tasks between genders more than we'd like to think.  I'll try to find the paper but it indicated that sometimes females also hunted and the men sometimes gathered.  It was more of a mixed bag and the line between gender tasks was more blurred than previously thought.    For so long we've imagined that the male of the species was always the macho hunter and that was it but apparently ancient humans shared the workload a little more than we think.  Anything to survive, and if that meant the males also searched for plants to eat then that's what they did. 

Things seemed to change when humans started living in larger communities.

Edit to add:  Here's some information.    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scien...ssumptions    There is a link in the article to the original study.

Another edit:  Here's the original abstract the National Geograhic  article is based on, if you're interested.      https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abd0310

Much more.  Not just on the basis of what remains we find, but on the basis of experimental archeology as well.  There are only so many hours in a day, only so many people in the encampment, and many hours of labor that are non negotiable. If and when you have the opportunity to specialize, you're going to pick the best adapted at conflict, for conflict. It always has to be remembered..that anytime we find little human monsters - their mothers actively raised them to be little monsters. Machismo is nurtured from the cradle to the grave. Anecdotal - but in my family, hunting is a kitchen chore. My females encouraged me and taught me how to shoot and how to hunt and how to poach ( my males would not have had the patience..I had to come in with some knowledge). I was thirty years old before I cleaned a fish, even. Service in combat arms is the sole expectation for little boys in my family. We're not even head of household, lol. It's a matriarchal structure. Our job is to provide negative space, and plausible deniability.

It's in the complicity sink, imo, that any "don't listen to or express emotion" has it's greatest utility. Dumping every questionable thing onto one actor (or set of actors, gender defined in so many contexts) that will never provide any material for continued grievance gives the other set of actors room to move in further (and after-the-fact) consensus building - domestically and between households or groups. If dads THE hitter, mom can be THE consoler without hitter baggage. If mom is the consoler..and that doesn't work, dad hits - also without the baggage..such as any hope or expectation of remorse or hesitation.