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.
Maybe gender roles are evil when they are cherry-picked to one’s convenience.
Oh rubbish.
Gender roles are not evil. They just are. If men want a stay at home 1950s wife then they can find someone who fits that bill as much as a 1950s woman can find a man to take care of them. And if a couple want to mix and match roles, then they can choose that as well. Where is the wickedness in this?
There is this underlying idea that men are suffering terribly, that there should be affirmative action for them. I think it's just a transition time for both genders. Get used to it, there is no going back, no turning back the clock. Men must adapt to these changes and it's up to teachers, parents, coaches and society in general to support and help boys to make these changes.
Gender roles are not evil. They just are. If men want a stay at home 1950s wife then they can find someone who fits that bill as much as a 1950s woman can find a man to take care of them. And if a couple want to mix and match roles, then they can choose that as well. Where is the wickedness in this?
There is this underlying idea that men are suffering terribly, that there should be affirmative action for them. I think it's just a transition time for both genders. Get used to it, there is no going back, no turning back the clock. Men must adapt to these changes and it's up to teachers, parents, coaches and society in general to support and help boys to make these changes.
I agree. The thing is - there are always going to be more stay at home moms than dads. There are always going to be more females in certain professions and males in the other. The difference is that now people have a choice in what they want. 60 years ago - we didn't have those choices.
There is this underlying idea that men are suffering terribly, that there should be affirmative action for them. I think it's just a transition time for both genders. Get used to it, there is no going back, no turning back the clock. Men must adapt to these changes and it's up to teachers, parents, coaches and society in general to support and help boys to make these changes.
Agreed. I think there is a discussion to be had about changing roles in society, relationships, education, law, etc. But unfortunately, especially on the interweb, there's this extremely vocal subset of guys who just want to complain about how male privilege is falling by the wayside and to blame "feminazis" for everything bad in the world. They don't want to have the real conversation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewdrop93
I agree. The thing is - there are always going to be more stay at home moms than dads. There are always going to be more females in certain professions and males in the other. The difference is that now people have a choice in what they want. 60 years ago - we didn't have those choices.
It's the choice that's what's important. My mom always told me and my sisters that we were lucky to be able to do whatever we wanted. She went to college, but her options were basically nurse, teacher, secretary. And even if women are drawn to professions like education and social work, that's their choice. They're not being told that that's all they're capable of.
Many times I honestly wish we could take traditional, mainstream gender roles and wipe them 100% clean, with a total blank slate For some reason I'm not completely sure of, it is socially-OK for a woman to take on conventionally-masculine behaviors, but the reverse is apparently not OK for most people (i.e., for a straight man to behave in ways more typically associated with feminine traits; for example, a stereotypical sensitive, "sweet", soft-spoken, ultra-affectionate, etc. type of male). I have written many posts and threads in the past about this, but I strongly believe that the conventional hyper-masculine, "guy's guy" norm for males ultimately does males a grave disservice to men in general, by preventing them from exploring the softer, more gentle side of masculinity -- as hyper-masculinity almost always tends to emotionally suppress men from overtly expressing their feelings.
As I stated before I highly doubt those studies existed in the times when gender roles were created.
Seems more likely that the gender roles weren't created based on sufficient credible vast differences of men and women but socially constructed out of perceived unfounded unproven differences or interpretations.
So then why do women have better language skills than men? Is that because of society's gender roles? Why is it that women are more free now than ever yet they probably are choosing "feminine" professions more often than they used to 50-100 years ago?
Did society tell women to be attracted to masculine men? Did it tell them to be attracted to dominant men?
Gender roles are not evil. They just are. If men want a stay at home 1950s wife then they can find someone who fits that bill as much as a 1950s woman can find a man to take care of them. And if a couple want to mix and match roles, then they can choose that as well. Where is the wickedness in this?
There is this underlying idea that men are suffering terribly, that there should be affirmative action for them. I think it's just a transition time for both genders. Get used to it, there is no going back, no turning back the clock. Men must adapt to these changes and it's up to teachers, parents, coaches and society in general to support and help boys to make these changes.
I am not talking about gender roles being evil, I am talking about cherry-picking when it suits people. For example, a woman that says she’s all into traditions and traditions should remain, that is, a man opening her doors, pulling her chairs, taking care of her expenses, and so on. But then you ask that same woman what she thinks about her woman tradition that involves her cooking for her man, washing the dishes, placing his slippers by the door when he comes back from work, etc. And all of a sudden gender roles are sexist, go figure, in other words, gender roles that expect from women are sexist but not the other way around. Let’s put it this way. Imagine a man who’s all about women being traditional but he wants to be modern in other areas and doesn’t want to open her woman’s doors, pay for her things, be a provider, etc. Pretty bad cherry-picking, huh? That man only wants the benefits of old traditions but doesn't want to do what is expected from him.
I am not talking about gender roles being evil, I am talking about cherry-picking when it suits people. For example, a woman that says she’s all into traditions and traditions should remain, that is, a man opening her doors, pulling her chairs, taking care of her expenses, and so on. But then you ask that same woman what she thinks about her tradition about cooking for her man, washing the dishes, placing his slippers by the door when he comes back from work, etc. And all of a sudden gender roles are sexist, go figure, in other words, gender roles that expect from women are sexist but not the other way around. Let’s put it this way. Imagine a man who’s all about women being traditional but he wants to be modern in other areas and doesn’t want to open her woman’s doors, pay for her things, be a provider, etc. Pretty bad cherry-picking, huh?
Who cares? "Gender roles" are not laws. There are no mandates saying what each person is responsible for and how they have to feel about it. If a woman wants to be taken care of while dating but doesn't want to do the housekeeping - she's free to feel that way. A man is also free not to date her. Or - if a man feels the same way as her - he's free to feel that way, too.
You seem to have very strong preferences about how women should be - and it seems that you think all women should be that way. Everything should be 50/50. Everything should be fair. And that's fine for you to want that for yourself. But I don't understand why you try to shame everyone else that doesn't feel the same way that you do. There is no shame in wanting different things. And if a woman wants things that you deem "unfair" - how does that affect you at all? Maybe she'll end up perfectly happy with the man of her dreams or maybe she'll end up miserable and alone. And I know that YOU want complete fairness and equality in all monetary areas of life - but there are many people that don't see things the way that you do. There are many men that LIKE taking care of their dates. There are many men that LIKE being the one to romance a woman without making sure that she return the favor tit for tat.
Like some of us have said before - it's all about CHOICES. We have choices now. You have the right to want a woman that will romance you and split every check with you 50/50 but not everyone wants the same exact thing as you do. And this doesn't make you a better person - it just makes you a different person with different preferences.
I am not talking about gender roles being evil, I am talking about cherry-picking when it suits people. For example, a woman that says she’s all into traditions and traditions should remain, that is, a man opening her doors, pulling her chairs, taking care of her expenses, and so on. But then you ask that same woman what she thinks about her tradition about cooking for her man, washing the dishes, placing his slippers by the door when he comes back from work, etc. And all of a sudden gender roles are sexist, go figure, in other words, gender roles that expect from women are sexist but not the other way around. Let’s put it this way. Imagine a man who’s all about women being traditional but he wants to be modern in other areas and doesn’t want to open her woman’s doors, pay for her things, be a provider, etc. Pretty bad cherry-picking, huh? That man only wants the benefits of old traditions but doesn't want to do what is expected from him.
No-one is all or nothing. There are shades of grey in every role. There always have been thoughout history. It's up to men and women to work out what works in THEIR relationship.
In my relationship for example my husband is out fixing my brakes. Later he'll come in and cook dinner. I am doing the laundry and tomorrow I'll go to work because I am the main breadwinner. See, we work together, no cherry picking to suit ourselves, we do whatever we are strongest at, best at, most competent at. It's called working as a team.
agreed. I think there is a discussion to be had about changing roles in society, relationships, education, law, etc. But unfortunately, especially on the interweb, there's this extremely vocal subset of guys who just want to complain about how male privilege is falling by the wayside and to blame "feminazis" for everything bad in the world. They don't want to have the real conversation.
Last month, a book came out called The End of Men. I haven't read it yet, but I read many of the reviews of it, both positive and negative ones.
The premise of the book is that women in the West are more successful in their careers than men are, and are achieving better academically and that the age of when men were 'needed' is essentially over.
Now, while I'm certainly no male chauvinist and have never considered myself a 'man's man', the suggestion that the male gender is 'obsolete' seems pretty threatening to me. It's become increasingly common to hear women say they don't 'need' a man.
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 we are looking at a different kind of "need" here. Where as back then women needed men because they had few to none financial opportunities to support themselves and men needed women because their self worth was in being the head of families.
Most men find femininity attractive and sexy and most women find success and drive attractive and sexy. I don't think any amount of social conditioning can really change this fundamental human nature. Of course, a minority of men and women have tastes differing from the norm, but on average I think this is essentially true. Yes and No. While yes biological factors do attribute to attraction idea's of male and female masculinity do come depend on culture. Where in one spot long hair is a sign of femininity but in places like africa many women shave their heads bald and are still considered the standard beauty in their culture.
What would I like to see? Well, I think anyone should be allowed to do whatever they would wish to do without being criticized for it, as long as it's not hurtful. I think men should be allowed to be stay at home dads and women should be allowed to be CEOs. I agree with this to.
But, what I don't agree with, is this idea that it would necessarily be a better world if 50% of men were stay at home dads and 50% of women were bread winners and that we should socially condition society militantly until this is true. The reason why is because due to human nature, this will simply lead to more loneliness. Women today are dissatisfied with men because our society teaches men to be meek and not to complain, because they are supposedly 'privileged' and have it all, and historically speaking, the love of a woman encouraged a man to succeed. Nowadays, women are taught that they don't need a man, that they're better off without a man, and that if they go to school and work hard, they can raise their children on their own. Which of course is a huge burden, both to the mother and to their children, and really in the end only lets the man/father off the hook since his child's mother likely isn't attracted to him because he lacks success and thus she doesn't even want him in their children's life. I think we are simply through a societal shift. Before the whole man work women house dynamic around the industrial revolution many men and women did equal work on farms and such. Biology didn't come into place until it was baby making time even then it was mostly large family units consisting of grandparents, uncles , aunts, and cousin living under one roof or in close proximity to each other. The only role was for both genders to get the job done not who is suppose to do what. As for the single mother thing I don't no one is teaching women this. I believe this example you speak of does exist but these are case by case and is not representative of the whole.
I think it's wrong to bully a woman for being a mechanic or a CEO. I think it's wrong to bully a man for being a stay at home dad or a nurse. But I also think it's wrong to bully society into accepting 50-50 statistics on everything. The end result will be that everybody will just be overworked and too busy for others and men and women literally won't 'need' each other at all anymore. Gender roles are not the problem. Society along with globalization and trends in the economy dictate how much people work and what the best way to adapt to it.
So I think yes, gender roles do have a place and even though it's not fair, it's still somewhat reasonable to accept them and it's unreasonable to want to completely dismantle them. As a man I accept the fact that without a career, most women will want nothing to do with me. And if I were a woman, I could accept the fact that if I burped in public and told a lot of fart jokes it would turn off most men.
The problem with gender roles is that its pigeon holds people and make certain accept behavior as fact. I mean everyone should have a career in something even the women who wants to be a SAHM should a least have a degree or specialize in some sort of trade skill. And if a women turns off most men with burping and fart jokes thats the most men problem not hers.
The thing is I think the goal is to not make gender roles so rigid and inflexible because they are not. The issue is that focusing too much on differences over similarities has a horrible historical track record. I love the fact that me being a "man" just coincides with being a good, productive human being. An extra Y chromosome here and extra kick of testosterone there in my opinion makes no difference to me. If anyone disagree's that fine because that makes up for the fact there can be disagreement about that it just being accepted as the law of the land.
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.
For some reason I'm not completely sure of, it is socially-OK for a woman to take on conventionally-masculine behaviors, but the reverse is apparently not OK for most people (i.e., for a straight man to behave in ways more typically associated with feminine traits; for example, a stereotypical sensitive, "sweet", soft-spoken, ultra-affectionate, etc. type of male). I have written many posts and threads in the past about this, but I strongly believe that the conventional hyper-masculine, "guy's guy" norm for males ultimately does males a grave disservice to men in general, by preventing them from exploring the softer, more gentle side of masculinity -- as hyper-masculinity almost always tends to emotionally suppress men from overtly expressing their feelings.
