@Hoenheim Elric lol thanks for reminding me!

Same to me. I’m an anthropolgy ma student though.

Habermas please?

So glad I quit Facebook.

This does not mean we cannot rise over our nature (afterall we have the capability to question it). But rejecting our nature is the best way to never be able to superced it.

this "nature" of humans, of sexes, has been a result of hundreds of thousand, maybe millon years, of evolution. Evolution does care about moral. Evolution cares about survival. Humans have lived MOST of their history (i mean, as a species) endangered by predators and other humans. Bodies and brains evolved so that women (who had to carry children) were best suited to activities in wich strenght was not needed (afterall, throughout pregnancy they needed to chill, for the sake of the baby), and man HAD to be agressive to defend their families and tribes. It is not a question of moral, of it was good or bad, if it was FAIR OR JUST, it was what was needed. Probably there were different cases, different gen mutations: pacific men, agressive women, etc. But that wasnt suitable for survival in the media humanity lived up to a couple of thousand years ago. WE NEED TO ACCEPT THIS. This does not mean we cant deal with agresive behaviour, this means we have to acknowledge that getting rid of it will take PLENTY of evolution, in a media in wich agressive behaviour is not needed. Culture is at the same time a reflection of genes, aswell as a perpetuator of certain behaviours. Nothing is exclusively biologic, but biology is definitly at the roots of everything.