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.
Thanks for showing us the way and the light, bobman! Now we can all agree that nuns have parents and are not the product of abiogenesis. I feel smarter now.
LOL all that was needed was a bit of guidance from the learned men folk. j/k!
I can see both sides of this, I actually think that folks are coming at it from two different angles.
Shkumat appears to be basing his thoughts on a more instinctual, animal level, whereas those who argue against are more arguing about how gender roles have changed.
Lets face it, on that instinctual, animal level, then yes, women do have the two roles, daughter and mother, as men's roles are son and father. We are designed to further the species and nothing else, after all.
Men were hunter gatherers, and women nurtured the nest, same as many other species. (yes, I know there are species with reversed gender roles)
However, as we've began to form societies, these roles were almost incorporated into the "rules" and became traditions.
Now, we're where we are today, where society has changed, and traditions are being overturned.
For example, women can now take a more active choice in whether they want to assume the role of mother.
But, as we fight against tradition, we also fight against instinct.
I can see both sides of this, I actually think that folks are coming at it from two different angles.
Shkumat appears to be basing his thoughts on a more instinctual, animal level, whereas those who argue against are more arguing about how gender roles have changed.
Lets face it, on that instinctual, animal level, then yes, women do have the two roles, daughter and mother, as men's roles are son and father. We are designed to further the species and nothing else, after all.
Men were hunter gatherers, and women nurtured the nest, same as many other species. (yes, I know there are species with reversed gender roles)
The first issue is that he stated only women are subject to roles and men are not. Of course that's going to be taken as fooling around. Second, humans are a pecular lot when considering survival and passing along genes- wondering if any other species engages in suicide like we do. We participate in a host of activities quite readily that don't lend to propagation of the species (not withstanding any and all correlations under the sun in internet banter, of course).
Quote:
However, as we've began to form societies, these roles were almost incorporated into the "rules" and became traditions.
Now, we're where we are today, where society has changed, and traditions are being overturned.
For example, women can now take a more active choice in whether they want to assume the role of mother.
But, as we fight against tradition, we also fight against instinct.
I think that's the point of the whole thing ?
Again, if it was so instinctual I don't see how a century or two could wipe out that physiology.
I can see both sides of this, I actually think that folks are coming at it from two different angles.
Shkumat appears to be basing his thoughts on a more instinctual, animal level, whereas those who argue against are more arguing about how gender roles have changed.
Lets face it, on that instinctual, animal level, then yes, women do have the two roles, daughter and mother, as men's roles are son and father. We are designed to further the species and nothing else, after all.
Men were hunter gatherers, and women nurtured the nest, same as many other species. (yes, I know there are species with reversed gender roles)
Well, I'm not debating how we were "designed," because that begs the question of creation versus evolution, and that's a-whole-nother forum. But I have no problem with the statement that women are daughters and mothers as long as you put the male equivalent on it. That sounds fine, but when someone pointed out the statement in red above, Shkumat became evasive. Women and men are "different," so why would we expect the same constraints? Something like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobman
However, as we've began to form societies, these roles were almost incorporated into the "rules" and became traditions.
Now, we're where we are today, where society has changed, and traditions are being overturned.
For example, women can now take a more active choice in whether they want to assume the role of mother.
But, as we fight against tradition, we also fight against instinct.
I think that's the point of the whole thing ?
I think it's important to tread carefully in discussions that boil down to, "We're all just animals after all." When these discussions turn toward how natural procreation is and how that's what we're supposed to do and how we should really follow our animal instincts, I bring up the story of my cat.
My cat had kittens in my closet when I was in my late teens. Five kittens. The youngest was a runt, a male tortoiseshell. Male torties don't survive for some reason; there's something wrong with its genes. One evening, a couple days after the kittens were born, my cat ate this kitten. The whole kitten, I mean--there was nothing left. Our vet said that happens a lot. My cat knew there was something wrong with the kitten, and she didn't just kill him (which would lead some misguided people to think she was putting him out of his misery), she ate him.
Understanding animal instinct is important to understanding ourselves, but there's no reason to ONLY be animals. My daughter had medical problems right from birth and will have developmental issues her whole life. If I were a cat, I'd have killed or abandoned her a long time ago.
How about this theory? What if, as feelings of long-term security increase (not only personal survival, but also familial and generational survival), the urge to procreate is suppressed? Exponential, unchecked reproduction is a terrible thing. We have no real predators, race-wise, except ourselves, so the only species that can keep our population in check is our own. Everybody knows what happens to the deer population when hunters and wolves don't keep them under control. Their population overtakes their food supply and they starve. Deer don't think, "Hmmm, maybe I don't want to have a fawn this year."
Humans have that ability, and who knows, it may not even be that conscious of a choice. A lot of people who say they don't want children cite reasons such as a bad upbringing, fear of being a bad parent, worry about the global population, or just not liking the world enough to bring a child into it. I think those mesh perfectly with my theory. In hungry times, a rat mother will kill and eat all her babies. Humans can choose.
Yeah, don't get me wrong, i'm not entering the debate backing any particular side, it's been quite interesting, and both sides have made good points, I'm not entirely sure I fully understand his original point anyway, so I'm just throwing things out there !
I never get involved in "battle of the sexes" stuff, cos i know that both sexes have their strenghts and weaknesses.
Guys, my original point came from an argument. I was simply making a statement about natural gender roles. Not about social functions. Not, by any means, about men/women rights. Just some simple logic and a bit of popular anthrapology.
However, as soon as girls saw two words "women" and "roles" together, they shifted whatever the point i was trying to make to "you just hate women, you chauvenistic "tool of the patriarchy".
It's interesting how much such topics anger women even today, when gender equality is so omnipresent.
I just decided to develop on this and see where it goes. It went to a fun and intersting discussion)) So thank you all for participating.
Men were hunter gatherers, and women nurtured the nest, same as many other species. (yes, I know there are species with reversed gender roles)
Actually, that's completely inaccurate. In primitive societies, the roles of hunter-gatherer, as opposed to nest-nurturer were determined by ability, not gender. Small neolithic groups could not afford to keep able-bodied women at home or force unfit men into hunting for the sake of some stupid principle. Since men generally tend to be bigger and stronger than women, most hunters and warriors were men -- but not all. Archeological evidence has shown that there were plenty of female hunters and warriors in those times. At the same time, men who were weak, small, etc. routinely stayed back at the camp caring for children and helping with other chores. Segregation between the genders also was never a rule in agricultural societies either, with the exception of the Middle East. When it was time to plant and harvest, both men and women did it (because, again, when you live hand-to-mouth, you can't afford to leave able-bodied workers back at home on account of their plumbing); during the winter, when there was nothing to do but to tend to the home, engage in crafts and take care of the children, both men and women did it. Strict segregation between the genders and the belief in sharply separated gender roles (men slay dragons, women wash the dishes), as well as a society where a large proportion of women stay at home and do no income-producing work simply because they are women -- that is something that developed in later urban, economically classed societies. In other words, in no way can you tie this to "nature".
I prefer women to have one role.
Whichever they choose for themselves whenever they want to.
And some may choose multiple roles.
Who am I to determine what someone else should do outside of not harming me and ones I care about.
Especially when I'm pissed about having to do things that politicians decided were best for me without my input just so I can enjoy certain modern inventions.
Guys, my original point came from an argument. I was simply making a statement about natural gender roles. Not about social functions. Not, by any means, about men/women rights. Just some simple logic and a bit of popular anthrapology.
However, as soon as girls saw two words "women" and "roles" together, they shifted whatever the point i was trying to make to "you just hate women, you chauvenistic "tool of the patriarchy".
It's interesting how much such topics anger women even today, when gender equality is so omnipresent.
I just decided to develop on this and see where it goes. It went to a fun and intersting discussion)) So thank you all for participating.
I wonder if humans actually have any natural gender roles other than man being the fertilizer and woman being the bearer of the child should they choose to have one.
Objective history is accepted in general but it still was written by subjective people. Some possible truths can be gleaned from current events but nobody really knows.
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.
)
