Anyone else bothered by the increased blurring of gender roles?
- Thread starter Brawndo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ohhh, I see what you did there!Dom Kebbell said:
I know the roles still exist, but I also think it's a matter of how you're raised. Today's parents are kinda like the world's biggest pushovers.
Uh... is there even anything that women would need a man to protect them from nowadays at all?
Also, no, I think it's a good thing.
Also, no, I think it's a good thing.
To be serious, however, why should I be bothered?
Gender is a social construct, biological sex a completely different thing.
I don't think anyone could seriously deny that males and females differ in the latter category, but I see no reason why the former should be allowed to dictate our mannerisms and sensibilities.
I, for one, welcome our metrosexual
Yes actually, I am. Gender roles serve a purpose: they ensure that required tasks get accomplished in a partnership for both sides. This brings harmony into the relationship because less time arguing over who fills what roles means more time spent in further building love and a family. I see lack of defined gender roles contributing to the break-up of marriages and the rise of single-parent homes. It's not the SOLE reason, but it certainly is a cause.
I look at my family and I see prime examples: Great-Grandparents and Grandparents followed gender roles and they stayed married till death do they part. My Aunt Tina and her husband Dave are the same way with her being domestic and him working his ass off to monetarily provide. Now my uncle Tim married a 'career' woman and she felt that my uncle could work BOTH his job as a firefighter AND clean/cook/raise the kids. Suffice to say, ***** got his house, alimony and child support.
Most of you all will disagree with me, call me backwards and mysogynistic (I happent LOVE women btw). Doesn't necessarily make me wrong, just the holder of an unpopular (at this time) opinion.
I look at my family and I see prime examples: Great-Grandparents and Grandparents followed gender roles and they stayed married till death do they part. My Aunt Tina and her husband Dave are the same way with her being domestic and him working his ass off to monetarily provide. Now my uncle Tim married a 'career' woman and she felt that my uncle could work BOTH his job as a firefighter AND clean/cook/raise the kids. Suffice to say, ***** got his house, alimony and child support.
Most of you all will disagree with me, call me backwards and mysogynistic (I happent LOVE women btw). Doesn't necessarily make me wrong, just the holder of an unpopular (at this time) opinion.
I have to question what sort of upbringing you had that you think the feminisation of men is a bad thing. Your post ranting at liberals probably gives me some indication but I guess I could try and reason things out anyway.
Showing your emotions is not a bad thing, because if you don't show your emotions then they have a tendency to get bottled up inside you and burst outwards, possibly in violence towards people, possibly in psychological trauma. There are many interesting ways that not allowing yourself to emote can damage you pyschologically, so I say it is a good thing that men are now allowed and expected in society to emote.
Secondly anyone who thinks women are somehow genetically predisposed to be more at home in the kitchen should perhaps return to 1912 where your ideas belong. I am a better cook than my sister, my mother is a better cook than my father, I can a better cook then some of my female friends, while I am a worse one than others of my female friends. If you were not to ascribe societally defined gender roles to children at all you would not mysteriously find that all of the girls had some sort of urge to cook things and potter around in a kitchen.
There is no such thing as a traditionally male role, unless you would like to go live in a cave and hunt wildebeest across the serengetti while your five sexual partners take care of your rapidly increasing brood. Anything 'traditional' is just an imposition of society.
Women are just as capable as men in almost every field they might endeavour at. The only exceptions that I can see being:
Fighter pilots. Women's bodies for some reason perform a little below men's at high Gs. It has been postulated that this is because of the different distribution of fat (mainly into the breasts, pressing on the chest) but even that is mostly supposition.
EDIT: Apparently my data may be out of date on this one, so take it with a pinch of salt. I'll remove it if anyone can provide me with some hard evidence for it.
Weight training: The strongest women are not quite as strong as the strongest men. This does not mean that all men are physically superior to women and should thus be in a position of power over them because there are probably several women out in the world who could kick your arse.
That's all I've got. Advanced Olympic-level weight training and fighter jets.
Your final point: Why do men necessarily need to be leaders of men and protectors of women? Most women seem to be able to protect themselves just fine and a female leader in most areas of industry is actually likely to be more competent than her male competitors, because in a male dominated field in order to get where she is she would need to be so much better than the men.
Showing your emotions is not a bad thing, because if you don't show your emotions then they have a tendency to get bottled up inside you and burst outwards, possibly in violence towards people, possibly in psychological trauma. There are many interesting ways that not allowing yourself to emote can damage you pyschologically, so I say it is a good thing that men are now allowed and expected in society to emote.
Secondly anyone who thinks women are somehow genetically predisposed to be more at home in the kitchen should perhaps return to 1912 where your ideas belong. I am a better cook than my sister, my mother is a better cook than my father, I can a better cook then some of my female friends, while I am a worse one than others of my female friends. If you were not to ascribe societally defined gender roles to children at all you would not mysteriously find that all of the girls had some sort of urge to cook things and potter around in a kitchen.
There is no such thing as a traditionally male role, unless you would like to go live in a cave and hunt wildebeest across the serengetti while your five sexual partners take care of your rapidly increasing brood. Anything 'traditional' is just an imposition of society.
Women are just as capable as men in almost every field they might endeavour at. The only exceptions that I can see being:
Fighter pilots. Women's bodies for some reason perform a little below men's at high Gs. It has been postulated that this is because of the different distribution of fat (mainly into the breasts, pressing on the chest) but even that is mostly supposition.
EDIT: Apparently my data may be out of date on this one, so take it with a pinch of salt. I'll remove it if anyone can provide me with some hard evidence for it.
Weight training: The strongest women are not quite as strong as the strongest men. This does not mean that all men are physically superior to women and should thus be in a position of power over them because there are probably several women out in the world who could kick your arse.
That's all I've got. Advanced Olympic-level weight training and fighter jets.
Your final point: Why do men necessarily need to be leaders of men and protectors of women? Most women seem to be able to protect themselves just fine and a female leader in most areas of industry is actually likely to be more competent than her male competitors, because in a male dominated field in order to get where she is she would need to be so much better than the men.
Straight to the point and to answer the question. No?
This is akin to asking: Is anyone bothered by the progressive secularization of the world? As though either of these things are bad.
This is akin to asking: Is anyone bothered by the progressive secularization of the world? As though either of these things are bad.
We're evolving, socially.
We've still got a long way to go, though... in the ideal world "fem" and "male" traits will be equally distributed between all members of society.
I do agree with the idea that children should be allowed to be a little violent with each other, though... how are you supposed to prepare for life if you don't get a few scrapes?
We've still got a long way to go, though... in the ideal world "fem" and "male" traits will be equally distributed between all members of society.
I do agree with the idea that children should be allowed to be a little violent with each other, though... how are you supposed to prepare for life if you don't get a few scrapes?
Barbie girls still exist, but they are kind of rare; like albino tigers, only subservient.Amy Sorel said:
And let me assure you, for all the cliche complaints about "women becoming men" and whatnot (oh, they're not that common? Hmm...), I'm glad women aren't as submissive. To put it in a somewhat geeky way, I'd much rather have a Haruhi than a Mikuru, or an Asuka than a Rei.Booze Zombie said:
The ninjas only ever get faster and better these days...CoverYourHead said:
Agreed on this, My one friend and I frequently go crazy and wrestle a little, two years ago he actually tried to scrape my face against a wall
Was actually fun. But I also like not having to always act tough if I'm having a rough day, and I wouldn't expect it of my guy friends either to just brush aside a serious problem. Society has changed, and while as mentioned above, a little injury is no problem, but as for the rest, I kinda like the changes.