In egalitarian cultures (as opposed to patriarchal ones that are deeply invested in gender binaries) there are gender roles as far as work, but then nobody pays much attention to them. In most of these cultures, women hunt if they want to, men gather if they want to or whatever else. As long as you are contributing to the wellbeing of the group, nobody cares all that much what you do. And as already noted, most of these cultures have 3, 5, or 7 genders. As already noted to you several times, personal autonomy is the main value. And this was the case for 97% of human history - up until the rise of patriarchy.
"Missionaries had a difficult time translating words such as lord, obedience, or commandment into local languages because there was no concept of such things amongst the tribes they hoped to convert to Christianity. This “wicked liberty of the savages” was considered one of the primary impediments to getting them “submitting to the yoke of the law of God.” If local political leaders had no real way to compel anyone to do anything that they did not wish to, how was an unseen deity going to inspire that sort of subservience?In this sense, equality was all about freedom — something that seems to have been viewed as an inalienable right. European-style equality at this time meant equality before the law, which essentially meant equality before the monarch — equality in the ability to be subjugated. Individual freedom for Europeans was mostly a concept drawn from property ownership, which rose out of Roman law, wherein a male head of household has complete control over all of his possessions, including his children and slaves.
By this way of thinking, freedom was posited as something you had the right to do at the expense of others — completely opposite from native concepts of freedom. It indicated not being reliant on others, once again the complete antithesis of many indigenous cultures that balance personal autonomy with a dedication to the well-being of the community. As Dr. Peter Gray points out about contemporary hunter-gatherer bands, their concepts of self-determination are very much in contrast with how we tend to think of it from a “civilized” perspective.
Western individualism tends to pit each person against others in competition for resources and rewards. It includes the right to accumulate property and to use wealth to control the behavior of others. In contrast, as Tim Ingold (1999) has most explicitly emphasized, hunter-gathers’ sense of autonomy connects each person to others, in a way that does not create dependencies. Their autonomy does not include the right to accumulate property, to use power or threats to control others, or to make others indebted to oneself. It does, however, allow people to make their own day-to-day and moment-to-moment decisions about their own activities, as long as they do not violate the band’s implicit and explicit rules. For example, individual hunter-gatherers are free, on any day, to join a hunting or gathering party or to stay at camp and rest, depending on their own preference." (source)
Everything you've said is incompatible and out of touch with observable reality. Answer my question about the 4 men I listed and how they have "natural masculinity" in a way that differentiates them from all women. You cannot have absolutes and then have exceptions to those absolutes. C'mon, your philosophy training ought to have taught you that. If that isn't obvious to you, it's because you are blinded by your emotions.
