Denying our legacy

With regard to the articles on enclothed cognition, or how what we wear affects not only how others see us, but how we feel about ourselves, it seems pretty simple to understand. It's natural to feel more prepared for whatever the task is if one is wearing the appropriate uniform, or any attire that breeds confidence and positivity. This is nothing new; ancient civilizations had uniforms and task-specific attire that was worn. It is part of our legacy that we still hold onto, psychologically. Because despite all of the cognitive evolution we undergo, we are still just animals.

That's why the concept of processed food being less healthy than natural food makes a lot of sense. After all, animals in the wild don't have manufacturing plants for mass-produced food. Part of this is because they haven't evolved to the level of human beings in able to be capable of such a task, as well as having limited, if any, concept of currency. Part of the reason is also that animals, probably due to their limited cognitive ability for philosophy, simply accept things "the way they are".

That brings to mind the article on gender roles/threats to masculinity. For example, the article said that "being the breadwinner has been a linchpin of masculinity for decades". Decades? This is something that is in our DNA as human beings, from the time when the male's sole responsibility was to conquer and kill the food for his family. "Bringing home the bacon" so to speak. To say that this is only a "decades-old" concept is arbitrary and shortsighted. Also, the article says that "cooking has become a more acceptable form of housework for men in the last fifteen years". This number also seems extremely arbitrary. Where the did the writer come up with fifteen years?

The writer also says that many men will "symbolically reinforce their masculinity by doing less housework" when their wife earns more money. Perhaps they are just lazy? Couldn't that be why they earn less money and do less housework?

Lastly, the writer claims that masculinity can be "redefined" in order to promote equal rights for LGBT individuals. While this is a noble cause, and worth pursuing, I don't understand what it has to do with masculinity, either traditionally or with an evolved mindset. It implies that all LGBT individuals, inherently, do not possess or desire traditional masculine qualities which is a generalization, and therefore a flawed argument.