PenseePansy

I think you’re mis-reading your classic case of the “which came first, the chicken or the egg” question. Gender Roles only came about because of man’s need to propagate his genes and impregnate and rape as many women possible.

I don't think that I'm misreading this. If gender roles came about in order to promote man's need to propagate his genes, why are they so often geared towards doing the exact opposite? Two examples: the prevalence of fathers refusing to provide financial support for their minor children following a divorce, and of men to become the most violent towards their wives/girlfriends during pregnancy. Both of these phenomena are characterized by men behaving in a way that actually DECREASES the likelihood of their genes being passed on (because his children don't survive). What sense does this make in "selfish gene" terms? None.

And I hope you're not saying that men raping women is good! Beyond the ethical/moral objections to this, though, how the hell does it work as a reproductive strategy? In most animal species, the offspring reach maturity within a matter of weeks or months (sometimes even less); many have no need of any parenting whatsoever. So a "quantity, not quality" strategy makes perfect sense here. But children need an ENORMOUS amount of care for an EXTREMELY long time; a man would do much better to invest his resources in a few of them than just run around impregnating women. Particularly by means of rape, which maximizes the likelihood that the woman will kill these offspring (either by abortion, or, in past eras, simply abandoning them to die of exposure). Again, this is counter-productive if successfully passing on one's genes is the goal, but perfectly in keeping with the imperatives of gender.

Gender roles, I'm convinced, are based on something else entirely: faulty reasoning. Just like the idea that the Sun revolves around the Earth, witchcraft is real... and people can be "born in the wrong body".

I don’t put that much stock in the concept that humans are so highly evolved as to be somehow an exception to this rule, we’re just another type of animal at the end of the day.

Oh, I don't put ANY stock in this concept, myself! That's not at all what I'm saying. It's not a matter of humans being "so highly evolved", or somehow not an animal species. It's a matter of how the element characterizing us-- for both good and ill-- is unique: conceptual intelligence. When comparing our species to any other, you have to factor this in. Only we can be shaped by ideas. And those ideas can be erroneous. Conceptual intelligence is a two-edged sword, really: on the one hand, it's the most versatile tool for survival that evolution has ever come up with... but, on the other hand, it allows us to make factual errors, and create artificial devices/conditions, which may well bring about our extinction in record time. So as to whether human intelligence makes us "superior": I'd say that the jury is still very much out on that one.

Which still wouldn’t explain this supposed prevalence of fathers raping their biological daughters since gender roles just serve to enforce man’s need to fulfill their reproductive imperative, and a heterosexual’s 1st degree relatives should automatically be excluded from the list of “viable sexual partners” for obvious reasons.

That's because gender roles are first and foremost devoted to reinforcing male superiority; this is often inconsistent with the welfare of his own biological children, and may in fact promote his neglect and abuse of them (quite possibly to the point that they do not even survive). Not that gender roles only threaten men's children; this ideology is destructive to people in general (though women most of all).

I think something else might be going on here… And if it’s not paternity uncertainty (I find it interesting that there are apparently zero cases of brothers molesting their biological sisters in comparison) I have to wonder… Tell me, do the majority of these father/daughter molestation cases take place when the daughter herself is prepubescent or is she usually a menstruating teen?

Oh, brothers certainly do molest their biological sisters; I didn't mention it because, during the period when their sisters are still children, so are most of these boys, and many aren't physically-mature enough to be sexually-predatory yet. This isn't true of fathers/grandfathers/uncles, obviously.

Most father/daughter molestation begins when the daughter is prepubescent, usually well before her teens. However, it will typically continue until he's forced to stop, usually because his daughter has gotten old enough to successfully resist and/or escape him.