Anyone else bothered by the increased blurring of gender roles?

[Irony's Acolyte]

Anecdotal evidence is poor support for sweeping generalizations.

Except it's not. Realistically speaking, your experiences shape how you see the world, and I see that since the midpart of the last century my country (when gender roles were being dropped) has a rising divorce rate(fact) and rising number of kids living with only one parent(fact). Just because I have personal stories of people I know doesn't make them the exception to the rule, but rather they are a form of support to other, FACTUAL generalizations.

Besides, every datum of a statistic is an anecdotal story.

Correlation doesn't equal causation.

My theory as to why you great-grandparents and grandparents stayed together so long? Societal expectations. They grew up in a time where you didn't get a divorce, whether there was love in the relationship or not. Why did your uncle and his wife get a divorce? He was being forced to do more than his wife, not because he wasn't fulfilling his "gender roles".

There's nothing out there that prevents a couple to go: "Okay, the wife will go out and get the money, while the husband will stay home and take care of the kids." Traditional gender roles are convenient at establishing who does what, but that doesn't mean they're right. I could say "Okay, all whites will work the intellectual jobs, while all minorities work the physical jobs." That's a convenient way of tellign people what job they'll have, but it isn't right.

 

[SirDoom]

I'm going to say blurring isn't enough. Gender roles need to be completely erased.

The notion that because you have a Y chromosome you have to like fighting, football, and lifting weights is just as absurd as the noting that a lack of one makes you weak and submissive. All these gender roles are outdated.

A person is who they define themselves to be, not a stereotype based on the way everyone else sees them.

(That being said, even though I'm virtually a pacifist, I will do whatever it takes to defend my girlfriend should someone harm her (That is, if she is unable to overpower the attackers before I get there, which is an unlikely scenario in itself). Hopefully, that won't ever happen, since I'm basically useless without my knife. I'm more of a desk-job guy than a sportsman.)

 

[Jaded Scribe]

people are people and society should not dictate to them their gender nor their behavior.

I see no reason why the former should be allowed to dictate our mannerisms and sensibilities.

I, for one, welcome our metrosexual overlords present.

The point isn't really in the masculine/femine behavior as a pattern. The point is, current men are basically encouraged to be soft, weak and "smart" rather than strong.

Say you have a son. What would you rather him to be, a programmer or a lumberjack? See what I mean? Why should 'metrosexuality' be the default preferred way for men (and women alike) to behave?

There's been a thread here recently about someone wishing to join the army and he's been discouraged and frowned upon by almost everyone in his vicinity.

As a sidenote, let's not forget that metrosexuality was invented by homosexuals; current fashion (especially women's) is dictated by homosexuals. Ideals of corporal beauty (men and women alike) are also dictated by homosexuals. Strange pattern here.

what role is forced upon men these days? It seems to me it's exactly the opposite, current society allows for anyone, man or woman, to find their place.

To be pretty, rich and have an office job. Otherwise, see above.

Wow... First of all, your talk about how the homosexuals controlling our society sounds more like right-wing arch-conservative propaganda bullshit than anything remotely based on facts. I'm curious where you got those ideas from.

Second of all, this young man that wanted to join the Army, why were those around him disapproving? My husband looked at joining the army some years ago. We're young, money was bad, and he saw the army as a possibility for a stable career that he could use to support us. He did not get a lot of support behind it. I was not thrilled at the prospect of military life and how that would impact my own hopes and dreams. I didn't want my husband deployed and away from his family for months at a time. I didn't want him dying in some desert fighting a bullshit war over oil.

It had nothing to do with him taking a "manly" job. It had to do with the fact that that particular route was not the best one for him to take. The objections of this other young man faced could very well be in the same vein, particularly given that this war (where it's entirely likely that he would be killed, or at least maimed) has a large number of people that didn't support it, and didn't want to see him sacrifice for a cause they felt wasn't worth it.

I have two sons, and yes, I would rather them get a college degree and a real job (in whatever field they choose) than be a "manly man" and become a lumberjack, or a trucker, or any of that. The pay is better, the ability to advance is better, and it provides them with a better life.

Isn't that what every parent should be looking for for their kids?

Sorry, buddy. But the days when "real" men carried their brains in their biceps is long gone. Intelligence > physical might. And I think you and the OP are in the distinct minority of people who are sorry to see these bygone stereotypes go away.

 

[Slythernite]

I think that gender roles should be blurred. It is the 21st century after all.

 

[Exterminas]

I am sorry to say this but gender roles are something completly arbitrary. Want proof?

Name one thing that men can do better/different than women and that has any relevance in today's world.

Physical strenght, right. But is this relevant for us?
Nope.

In this world of gunpowder and tasers, this lone attribute becomes meaningless. A woman can drive a tank just as well as any man.

So. Are gender roles starting to fade? Yes.
Is this a bad thing? Depends on your point of view.
Are gender roles something necessary? Probably not.

 

[nekoali]

Gender roles are pretty much pointless and it's a good thing that they are being phased out. That's evolution in action. We are not swinging clubs around and dragging the kill back to the cave to feed the family unit. Life always changes, and gender roles change with it, despite the resistance of some people. People that often say they want things to be 'the way they always were'. Which is foolish, because nothing was 'always that way'. Life constantly changes.

Gender roles these days are more often used to oppress people. Men and women are just as capable given the same opportunities. I don't think we will ever see a total elimination of gender roles, because in some level it is innate to our nature. But a large portion of those so called 'gender roles' are nothing more than social constructions to make sure people act in ways that is considered 'appropriate'. And what is considered appropriate changes.

 

[Brawndo]

As an example: Resident Evil 5 has you killing African Zombies in Africa! THATS SO RACIST, DISCRIMINATING AND EVIL!
...Yeah. And Resident Evil 4 had you killing Spanish Zombies in Spain, Resident Evil 3 had you killing American Zombies (mostly white) in America...
So, what makes that any more or less discriminating again? Oh right, someone wanted to stir the shit pot because it's "topical".

Don't forget the obvious misogynism of the female-male zombie ratio.
What, women can't be zombies?

But, to answer this thread, although I suspect it was created just to troll, no, I'm not bothered at all.

Because I address a viewpoint contrary to that held by the majority of Escapist users, I am automatically a troll? God forbid you have to be exposed to something outside of your carefully constructed social concepts on how the world works

 

[Paksenarrion]

Oh, sh!t. I can make cereal. I mess that up sometimes. Maybe I should stop learning martial arts and learn how to cook and nod absently whilst my husband discusses boring political dialogue about the Darcys...

...and after lunch, fighting zombies.

 

[torzath]

I just can't take this guy seriously when his username is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbxq0IDqD04

Back on topic, not at all concerned about gender roles blurring or being destroyed all together.
Plain and simple, it's better for young people to have to find themselves rather being told what they have to be.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

Anecdotal evidence is poor support for sweeping generalizations.

Except it's not. Realistically speaking, your experiences shape how you see the world, and I see that since the midpart of the last century my country (when gender roles were being dropped) has a rising divorce rate(fact) and rising number of kids living with only one parent(fact). Just because I have personal stories of people I know doesn't make them the exception to the rule, but rather they are a form of support to other, FACTUAL generalizations.

Besides, every datum of a statistic is an anecdotal story.

Correlation over causation, possibly. Also, we could never know how things would turn out differently. Divorce has been legal since the 1530s, and women have been able to work to support themselves since the 1910s. Even without the further pushes for equality there is no knowing whether that alone might have been enough to cause rising divorce rates.

Also, consider a second theory:

Since the mid fifties (your suggested date) it has become less socially stigmatised for people to divorce, and also it has become possible for a woman to support her family alone, due to now being accepted into the workplace, while not at the same rate as men for doing the exact same job, but still getting paid.

Women in loveless marriages, with husbands they don't want or who mistreat them, or they have just fallen out of love with, don't need to rely on them anymore. It wasn't that people just happened to be more in love fifty years ago when gender roles weren't assigned, it's that women couldn't break free of marriage, ever, because they couldn't work and needed the men to support them.

There is no evidence that children of single parents universally perform worse at school or go on to have less fulfilling lives. (FACT, according to my mother, an early years professional who was involved in a study researching this fifteen years ago) There is evidence that children of families where the husband and wife stay together, but argue, fight and generally have no reason to stay together perform worse then any other children.

It is better in the long run for a child who would otherwise be caught between two parents who shouldn't be together if they divorced and he lived alone with one of them. Also, it is better for the husband and wife if they don't feel some sort of obligated need to stay together. If you aren't happy with someone, why would you stay with them for the entire rest of your life? It just doesn't make any sense.

 

[Jonluw]

I think this is relevant.
This is pretty much my thoughts on the subject in their entirety.

Yeah, pretty much that.

Today, I went to dinner at some friends' house. For a part of the dinner, the father was cleaning dishes while the mother was keeping us company in the dining room. I found this very refreshing.

 

[jamesworkshop]

To say role implies an act or model of behaviour which is encoraged to serve a purpose rather than an inate property, men for example simply are larger and maintain more pounds of muscle on their frame (in 90% of cases).

To be a role then one would expect changes to occur as the benfits of certain behaviours reflects the requirments of the day, for instance the likly hood of physical violence is much lower now than in earlier feudal times. The legitamce of certain roles is undermined by the fact that they are only the last revision of them, they are not in fact traditional or to say non-changing.

 

[Brawndo]

To be pretty, rich and have an office job. Otherwise, see above.

That is so untrue it's not even funny. As for you other points, people can still go into the army if they want to (and plenty want to). What other people think about shouldn't matter. Also, why is it a bad thing men aren't supposed to be 'strong' anymore? I for one believe society is a lot better off with 'smart' men than 'strong' men.

Even though machines and technology have changed a lot, it's extremely clear from this post you do not realize how much society still demands on rough, strong men to do necessary jobs most of us don't want to do. The infrastructure of this country that allows most of us to have comfy "smart" jobs totally relies on these people. Firefighters, cops, soldiers, oil rig workers, truckers, logging workers, construction workers, farmers, metal workers, movers, merchant marine, commercial fishermen, etc etc

 

[rebus_forever]

Many traditionally male roles and traits are no longer celebrated or instilled in today's youth. In my opinion, pop culture has largely contributed to the feminizing of men and boys. For example, one thing that particularly bothers me is how popular it is on TV shows to portray husbands and fathers as bumbling idiots who are easily controlled by their wives and children.

And let's not forget the hypersensitive nanny-state parents that don't let boys be boys. I worked as a camp counselor at my local YMCA with 12-14 year olds, and I have never seen such a group of sissies, hypochondriacs, and whiners. How are these boys going to grow up to be leaders of men and protectors of women?

EDIT: Since people on this forum never seem to read past the OP:

From Post #19: Never once did I suggest or condone a return to a time of women being "barefoot and pregnant" in the kitchen while the manly men went out to hunt bears. I like that women work and men have shared responsibility with children. I don't think the father/husband should hold a dictatorship over his household and beat his wife and kids.

But I do think that men and women have certain innate traits that make them better suited for different things. When I'm feeling sad and I need a sympathetic ear, I call my mother or a female friend, because women are generally better at empathy. And every girlfriend I've ever had enjoyed feeling safe in my presence, even if pragmatically there isn't much danger a cop couldn't protect her from. But boys and male teens today are increasingly turning into overly sensitive delicate flowers

from one man to another, you want some make-up advice? : P

 

[Nimcha]

To be pretty, rich and have an office job. Otherwise, see above.

That is so untrue it's not even funny. As for you other points, people can still go into the army if they want to (and plenty want to). What other people think about shouldn't matter. Also, why is it a bad thing men aren't supposed to be 'strong' anymore? I for one believe society is a lot better off with 'smart' men than 'strong' men.

Even though machines and technology have changed a lot, it's extremely clear from this post you do not realize how much society still demands on rough, strong men to do necessary jobs most of us don't want to do. The infrastructure of this country that allows most of us to have comfy "smart" jobs totally relies on these people. Firefighters, cops, soldiers, oil rig workers, truckers, logging workers, construction workers, farmers, metal workers, movers, merchant marine, commercial fishermen, etc etc

And there are still more than enough people who want to do those jobs. And not because of gender roles.

 

[zehydra]

How are these boys going to group up to be leaders of men and protectors of women?

Well, not, obviously. And women don't need men to protect them.

I've notice that many want to be though

 

[Mrrrgggrlllrrrg]

The blurring of gender roles is good.

That part is good.

Kids growing older and acting like entitled, weak, whiny adults is not right.

 

[MassiveGeek]

I'm to tired to really explain how I feel about this properly but I'll try.

When it comes to gender roles, to me, prioritise what is important in the situation you're in - like if you're going to hire someone, you shouldn't go off if it's a girl or guy applying(unless it's vital, like if you're going to hire a female stripper the stripper should of course be female) but off competence and if they are as people fit for the job.
I always sigh loudly when I see these "omg, there are few women/men in this industry!" compaigns where their supposed to focus on evening out the numbers - fuck the numbers, hire people who can do their job well for crying out loud.

But there's no denying that men are men and women are women, and of course there are distinct differences between them that go beyond phsycial differences. The mentality in men and in women are different because evolution has made us different at our core. There's no changing that, you can only do so much with social means, you can't reprogram from the very core. And every individual is different from one another, and some people are just better at taking certain roles while others are not.

When it comes to relationships though, from what I've personally observed, both men and women want to feel protected/secure, just in different ways. Both genders however want to feel that they can of course rely on eachother for support in matters where they need it, which is where it can differ a great deal but this I think is more dependant on the person itself. But I'm for a relationship to be on equal grounds - but as long as both people are happy and work well together in a relationship, I don't care if one is more submissive or more bossy than the other, as long as it doesn't have a negative impact on it.

In short gender shouldn't apply as a priority over what actually matters in any situation, according to me, but I'm tired and I haven't been working on getting my point across in this matter enough yet, so I hope I made some sense.
Honestly I'm not bothered by this in the slightest. And that's all I really have to say.

Ciao.