Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I will say that as for the argument gay marriage threatens the sanctity. Straight people are actually more likely to break up - I think they've already destroyed the institution of marriage, so too late for that!
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Based on what I've read religiosity is not correlating with decreasing divorce rates and increasing marriage rates among higher SES peoples.
This doesn't make sense. For women that are a bit dim I imagine it's quite easy to find a man a notch up in dimness. For intelligent, successful women there is no shortage of intelligent, successful men. And these two pair up with ease.
Then why are so many more women getting into and graduating from college than men these days? Do you think all those women who can't find a college graduate are going to downgrade? I doubt it.
Then why are so many more women getting into and graduating from college than men these days? Do you think all those women who can't find a college graduate are going to downgrade? I doubt it.
To start, I don't think a college degree automatically determines intelligence or even denotes whether a person is educated or not. A well-read man working in the skilled trades is certainly not a down grade imo and many women have no problem dating these guys. If anything, I would find that skill set a bit more interesting than a generic degreed office job.
My thoughts are that gender roles are biologically innate. The evolutionary process (or creative process, if you don't believe in evolution), ensured the survival of the species by giving the male of the human species a skill set which included testosterone-based aggression and women estrogen-based tendencies to nurture. This is what allowed us to thrive and ultimately dominate (for good or bad) the entire planet.
The desire to deviate from accepted norms became a profitable venture for merchandisers. By "encouraging" the woman to become a breadwinner rather than stay-at-home wife and mother many opportunities arose for potential revenue. Cultural changes resulted in the family unit becoming all about the money and the best way to make the most amount of money was to throw the woman out into the workplace.
As time goes on the family unit disintegrates more and more and the quality of life get's lower and lower. Children are raised by minimum-wage strangers who don't even speak the same language and really do not care for the child other than to keep them from injuring themselves during the day. There is no affection, no love, no joy. Violent crimes committed by children are becoming more common than any time in recent history. We have turned away from the very values and behavior that ensured our survival.
Then why are so many more women getting into and graduating from college than men these days? Do you think all those women who can't find a college graduate are going to downgrade? I doubt it.
The number of men in college hasn't remained stagnant (contrary to what most women would wish). There are probably more men today in college than there ever was. Go ask my friend's sons in their teenage years if they would like to be truck drivers or mechanics and you would be surprised with their faces.
This (sub)forum is way more liberal than a cross-section of American society. I don't think the vapid suburbanite comes on here for dialogue.
However, even though most men and women aren't wired at 100% capacity of what is stereotyped for their gender, it's pretty obvious that substantial adherence to these criteria make finding a mate easier than for those who don't. What I mean is that the jock and the prom queen, and their age-progressed equivalents, are more likely to both pair up and find romance at various points throughout their lives. That's what I've observed and it will be pretty tough to convince me otherwise.
You quite obviously don't live in New England, because around these parts equality is pretty much taken for granted.
My thoughts are that gender roles are biologically innate. The evolutionary process (or creative process, if you don't believe in evolution), ensured the survival of the species by giving the male of the human species a skill set which included testosterone-based aggression and women estrogen-based tendencies to nurture. This is what allowed us to thrive and ultimately dominate (for good or bad) the entire planet.
The desire to deviate from accepted norms became a profitable venture for merchandisers. By "encouraging" the woman to become a breadwinner rather than stay-at-home wife and mother many opportunities arose for potential revenue. Cultural changes resulted in the family unit becoming all about the money and the best way to make the most amount of money was to throw the woman out into the workplace.
As time goes on the family unit disintegrates more and more and the quality of life get's lower and lower. Children are raised by minimum-wage strangers who don't even speak the same language and really do not care for the child other than to keep them from injuring themselves during the day. There is no affection, no love, no joy. Violent crimes committed by children are becoming more common than any time in recent history. We have turned away from the very values and behavior that ensured our survival.
20yrsinBranson
I know you do not understand it, but you contradicted yourself in this post. You cannot merchandize out an innate physiological trait.
In a way, the less gender roles matter, the less a person 'needs' the opposite sex, no? Despite postmodern babble about how the differences between the sexes are 100% socially constructed and the truth is there's no difference between men and women at the brain or genetic level, aside from our private parts, the fact is the majority of women are not going to wish to be with men who lack ambition, or even have ambition but lack success, and the majority of men are not going to wish to be with a woman who isn't sweet and compassionate and has no 'need' for them.
I think in an age where working single mothers are not at all uncommon, being academically/professional successful and being sweet and compassionate shouldn't be looked upon as being mutually exclusive. While there's certainly no "need" for a male partner, having one could definitely make one's life helluva lot more pleasant.
I have no problem accepting gender roles in the domestic front where it is needed (he has no idea how to do something) or because I'm more anal retentive about certain things. Otherwise, I prefer to do things base on abilities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is it wrong to me to think maybe gender roles aren't completely evil?
