It's not a new thing for women to complain about men. Specifically, their lack of willingness to communicate: women want men to ask them deep questions, speculate with them, ruminate with them, offer them verbal support, and, most importantly, open up and share what they feel. Generally when women do not get this kind of communication from their partners, they start to assume that their partners must not love them. They argue that if their partners did love them then surely they would do the things that make them happy: talk, listen, and be emotionally supportive.
I confess that though I feel for women, I also feel sorry for men. They had to evolve in a specific way---a way that most effectively met the demands of a challenging and even brutal environment. For thousands of generations the traits that were acquired and passed down served them and the women in their lives well, and now suddenly, in the last few decades they are expected to not only provide different things (a paycheck as opposed to an animal carcass) but also
be different (now they have to emote and where before they had to suck it up and be brave).
I am a SETEC by belief. SETEC stands for Spiritual Extra-Terrestrial Evolutionary Creationist. You've probably never heard of it. I made it up. One day I'll explain what the main tenets of my beliefs are. Not now though. Suffice to say that the "Evolutionary" part used to be the weaker part of my beliefs. But that changed over time and more and more I saw that much of who we are, is genetically determined.
Though it seems to be a highly contentious issue I believe that psychological traits too, are inherited, just like physical ones. Previously I had always thought to myself that while I subscribed to the idea of the evolution of physical traits, psychologically we were largely free - products of individual choice first, nurture second, and nature third. It was reading about the
taming of the silver fox that finally changed my mind.
Now I look with new eyes at gender differences. When my husband opens the fridge and asks where the yogurt is, I no longer think that he is being deliberately obtuse or trying to drive me crazy. Now I ask myself, why does he not see what is (literally) right in front of him? (And no it has nothing to do with his vision.)
Could it be that all of these vexing gender discrepancies can be traced back to evolution? Think of it: for thousands of years men had to pay attention to things that were spatially relatively far away from them (deer running away or enemies approaching (the further away they were when you spotted them the better your chances of survival were)). If you were a man and not good at paying attention to objects far away from you, you could quite literally be clubbed to death or die of starvation.
Women, on the other hand, had to pay attention to things that were closer---spiders, snakes and bugs in general, babies crawling towards these bugs, edible vs. poisonous berries etc. In short, they had to learn to pay attention to what was within arms reach. Their and their children's survival depended on it. They couldn't afford to not pay attention - the wrong kind of berry could kill you, so could poisonous spiders crawling down from the cave roof. Paying attention to objects that were closeby became just as an important a tool for survival as scanning the horizon.
Why are women such good multi-taskers? Because, as any mother will tell you, little kids scurry towards danger alarmingly often. But only keeping tabs on the toddler was not going to get the berries picked. No, women had to pay attention to the various kids running around, get the berries picked, while all the time staying on the look-out for snakes and leopards.
These days everything related to survival seems to happen within arm's reach. Most men no longer scan the horizon for rain clouds or passing herds of antelope; now they scan their romaine lettuce and tenderized steak at the check-out line in the grocery store, or even easier, give their credit cards to be scanned in the restaurant. Nowadays danger rarely comes from far-away. By the time we modern humans see it, it is often too late: cars travelling on a collision path at 60 miles per hour, or, even faster career damaging information zinging over the internet.
But all of that is nitty gritty survival stuff you might argue. Communication and the lack thereof, the issue that women endlessly complain about (and yes, let's admit it: it is women doing most, if not all, of the complaining) is surely all about love and not subject to the same evolutionary processes? Maybe.
Communication may have always been important in landing a mate. Mr. Caveman had to communicate somehow that he was more desirable than the next guy. If he was buff, then it was easy, he just had to flex his muscles and flash as set of healthy gnashers. But if he wasn't very studly, he would have had to convince his lady-love by others means---perhaps by promising things, or by telling her how beautiful and special she was and how happy he would make her. But let's face it, once the mate was snagged and tagged, then everyone could relax and go back to being just their normal selves.
Let's take a look at what communication would have entailed for a band of cavemen who were, let's say, out on a mammoth hunt? Deep and meaningful questions ("I was just wondering what you guys thought: but is it morally right to be eating our fellow creatures?")? Sharing feelings ("I feel soooo tired. My feet are really sore. I wish we could go home now.") ? Support ("You look a little off. Is everything ok with OozaWooza? Are you guys having problems? Let me tell you about what UgaWhuga said to me the other day... Man, I almost cried...")? Clearly, on a mammoth hunt, this kind of communication would be detrimental to the mission. The whole point surely was to
not speak about or focus on feelings---if you did, you might lose your courage because walking away from home and safety is hardly ever easy and even more so if return was not guaranteed. No, you had to suck it up and do it for the team. If one person started to emote then that would bring down morale for the entire group. Cracking jokes may have been ok but probably not even that. If you were walking in the bush you couldn't be yappity yapping at all, you had to be quiet and listen for animals and enemies.
What about the women? They had to stay close to home because they were more vulnerable, often pregnant, and/or taking care of children. Since people lived communally for most of human history, naturally the women had ample opportunity to spend time together. Women are usually very generous with people they trust. In times when the men were away they needed to rely on one another and share what they had - whether it was stuff or information. Their survival depended on it but having a group of sisters that they could trust made life sweeter and less hostile and lonely. But could a woman blindly trust anyone?
Certainly not. Women are not saints - they can be sneaky and undermining creatures. No women of yore had to figure out who was worthy of their generosity. Who would treat their children kindly, who could be invited into the home without fear of the guest making off with the mate. And how did women determine these things? Certainly not by berry-picking contests, or competition of any kind (that will teach you nothing about trust). No, they had to talk, share, ask questions, and listen closely to see what kind of sister they were dealing with.
And so it goes still. Men are quiet and women are chatty. Of course, not all men and women conform to these stereotypes. Next time though that you are tempted to complain about a partner's traits or habits consider the evolutionary origins of these traits and look with a kind eye on them---their existence is what allowed you to be here.