AC10 said:
A lot of this has biological motivations as well. My real question is, why is the fact that gender roles exist the worst thing ever to happen in society? Because, the way people react, it's fucking atrocious.
The problem is not the existence.
The problem is HOW its enforced. How people get treated which are just not in the way society expects them to be based on their gonosomes and phenotypes.
The problem is not that there are the traditional gender roles, but that these are seen, often subconscious as the only normal way, the right way and this shapes the reaction to/against people who dare to not fit these stereotypes. Also these roles means that there are rules what do to and what not.
Also history.
dont you see why its problematic that only one very privileged half of society defines the roles which are acceptable for the other half of society without being in their shoes, living in their situations etc..
isnt it problematic that the rules defined by the historical reign of a privileged group and enforced by society which just knows this as the normal(and therefore right way) on another part of society which is not privileged and partly minority makes those people ill, harms them, restrains them, takes away their choice, their human rights of defining their own identity, living in safety, having access to the stuff the privileged ones have (and have only based on their power) etc
I mean, the same could be said "why its problematic that there are roles based on race which were made by white people and through our known history* this roles where mostly enforced, "scientifically" proven or based on religious ideas believed by the majority?
or like
well autocracy or theocracy isnt problematic because this is normal for our society, priests or kings had this privileged like,, ever, history proves that, the sacred texts (written and interpreted by priests) say that, science (conducted and paid by the privileged people) shows that, education and media show that...
so therefore inequality is okay because its the way its always has been and we dont want to hear by the non-privileged(and dont give them room enough or just dont accept their experiences and opinions because we dont have to)
when did more equality and more diversity did harm?
*our known history:we know that the identity (gender, race etc) of people DOES form their way of seeing life.
We know that we are more empathetic to people of our own race, of people who are like us. we know that if we have the possibility to choose our acquaintances we often choose other people which are similar to them.
We know that people who write for newsmagazines or are in TV see the world through their experiences and their opinions and prejudices form their opinion which then are presented as facts to the public.
i said that i read a text which was a bout the role of females in war and revolution
(disclaimer: i found teh link but the time i read was a while ago, so there might be the possibility that i am not 100% correct-but about teh general broad idea of that text which i will link to)
and that history has shown that up to 40% women were fighting or supporting such stuff. This defies gender roles and often male historians which have accepted traditional gender roles just overlooked female fighters because subconsciously they didnt exist to them because mothers are nurturers and if they are in/at war they are victims and not combatants. so the history shows no female fighters or scientists, not because there were none, but because they were ignored, overlooked or even their accomplishments got stolen from them.
(the text which is CANT RECCOMMEND ENOUGH for people who are interested in the question THESE TROPES ARE problematic(because people dont see an alternative because they are so ubiquitous that society jsut has no other narratives
http://aidanmoher.com/blog/featured-article/2013/05/we-have-always-fought-challenging-the-women-cattle-and-slaves-narrative-by-kameron-hurley/ )
(well, watson and crick wouldn't got the nobel-prize if it were not for Rosalind Franklin whose data were ESSENTIAL for them-
or lise meitner, whose research was important for nuclear fission-but got ignored. her partner got the prize, although people like bohr said she was instrumental-without her& frisch, Hahn might never got the theory right.) so 2 women which just got ignored because the MEN who gave the nobelprize and the MEN who were at the university (in another case, one stole even the data of his female scientist and got the nobelprize himself, that asshat) either though that there were no female scientist (maybe because of the role-idea that women are too emotional for this rational work) or ignored them.
here are just a few more examples. here 6 women who got snubbed of the nobelprize they deserved..
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130519-women-scientists-overlooked-dna-history-science/
how more are there, how more got ignored(eg there were female sultanas in islam, but most historians refused too write about them or even research them because the males did a good job to make up the picture of today. (Research by fatima mernissi if someone is interested)
And I bet, if researched, you will find important deeds, ideas and work of overlooked women(claimed by men or ignored by them) in in all fields of society)
so this gender roles striped women of their choices, accomplishments and hinders the one who dont want to resign with harassment, resentment, disproportionate demands and all the other sexism. And the lack of women (due to them getting ignored or robbed of their accomplishments) the stereotypes get enforced and are seen as "true" or right without actually being correct.
how much more could we have if these roles wouldnt be THE right ones but ONE option out of more?
why does it hurt to have more possibilities-or to give the possibilities and chances and privileged ~50%** of society have to the other half?
and to the second poster:you are male? yeah, its usually so that privileged people who dont have to deal wit this amount of sexism and inequality per day/life can choose to ignore that.
but if you are in a position where somebody with power denies you rights and chances other people have because they were lucky to have a defect x chromosome or less melanin, then you wont ignore, because you cant. You get pissed. and then you´ll get told to shut up because the privileged people dont want to be annoyed with "your" problems which you have with the world, society and rules THEY shaped and enforce.
its easy to make sexism a problem for women because they have to deal with it and get the backlash if they point at the inequality. its this case of shoot the messenger in case you hate the message.
**sometimes more, sometimes less depending on which thing you look:gender, class, ability, race etc.
