Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Gender roles.
Zayl
Veteran
Good? Bad? Both? Neither? Entirely ambiguous?
I was watching a video (purely fiction, of course). In it a man, woman, and their child were sitting mindfully eating their dinner. When suddenly warriors from a rival clan/tribe bust into the house, intending to raid it. Without hesitation the man stands up and grapples with the two warriors, using their own shields to immobilize them long enough for his family to run. Now, can this be considered a gender role? Men are (usually) built thicker, stronger, taller, and sturdier than females. When threats present themselves it is expected of the men to be the fighters, the defenders, or the peacekeepers depending on how you see it. In such dire straights the man was expected to give his life for his family, and he did just that. So if this and things akin to this can be considered a gender role, is this a good or bad thing? Nearly ever other man I talk to is hard-wired in this fashion, including myself. When the chips are down, we bear the brunt of the danger.
On the other side of the fence, which was also present in the video. The woman tended the household and presumably cooked the meal. When the danger presented itself she grabbed the child and ran, assuring that they both lived (assuming no other warriors were outside) Was this correct action? a cut and dry gender role? or a realistic analysis of the situation? The child needed to be seen to safety, and a woman as slight as she was would have been no help in the struggle between much larger and stronger, fully armored and armed men. However her quick thinking led both her and the child to safety. We have all been taught lately that gender roles are terrible, incorrect, and should be ignored. But when it comes down to basic biology and making use of every single advantage available to you when your life is threatened, does this still count as merely a gender role? or something different?
Is it wrong for us to look at things in an entirely logical light in this regard? even cutting out gender, let's say two people of the same gender (I will not say which) are expected to do some labor. One of them is much taller, has thicker bones, is naturally built larger and more muscular (Human A). While the other is shorter, weaker, yet quicker and has more dexterity (Human
. They both have the same level of education and natural intelligence. One of the tasks is to work in a mine, chipping away at the rock with hand tools then carrying it out on your back. The other task involves say, running a store and taking care of the customers needs. handling multiple small, fragile objects and the like. Which person, A or B, would be more suited to which task? If we suddenly add genders to the equation, does that suddenly make it wrong?
I was watching a video (purely fiction, of course). In it a man, woman, and their child were sitting mindfully eating their dinner. When suddenly warriors from a rival clan/tribe bust into the house, intending to raid it. Without hesitation the man stands up and grapples with the two warriors, using their own shields to immobilize them long enough for his family to run. Now, can this be considered a gender role? Men are (usually) built thicker, stronger, taller, and sturdier than females. When threats present themselves it is expected of the men to be the fighters, the defenders, or the peacekeepers depending on how you see it. In such dire straights the man was expected to give his life for his family, and he did just that. So if this and things akin to this can be considered a gender role, is this a good or bad thing? Nearly ever other man I talk to is hard-wired in this fashion, including myself. When the chips are down, we bear the brunt of the danger.
On the other side of the fence, which was also present in the video. The woman tended the household and presumably cooked the meal. When the danger presented itself she grabbed the child and ran, assuring that they both lived (assuming no other warriors were outside) Was this correct action? a cut and dry gender role? or a realistic analysis of the situation? The child needed to be seen to safety, and a woman as slight as she was would have been no help in the struggle between much larger and stronger, fully armored and armed men. However her quick thinking led both her and the child to safety. We have all been taught lately that gender roles are terrible, incorrect, and should be ignored. But when it comes down to basic biology and making use of every single advantage available to you when your life is threatened, does this still count as merely a gender role? or something different?
Is it wrong for us to look at things in an entirely logical light in this regard? even cutting out gender, let's say two people of the same gender (I will not say which) are expected to do some labor. One of them is much taller, has thicker bones, is naturally built larger and more muscular (Human A). While the other is shorter, weaker, yet quicker and has more dexterity (Human
. They both have the same level of education and natural intelligence. One of the tasks is to work in a mine, chipping away at the rock with hand tools then carrying it out on your back. The other task involves say, running a store and taking care of the customers needs. handling multiple small, fragile objects and the like. Which person, A or B, would be more suited to which task? If we suddenly add genders to the equation, does that suddenly make it wrong? 0
Comments
Also, since our courtship (see @federica I did some homework..my big word) I noticed for a long time that'd put himself between me and the door...just a natural inclination. Also on the steeets, he is always between me and traffic, stranger...etc. kinda picked it up innately...so I think that it's biological and also learned.
Regardless, this is one of the fascinating things I appreciate from our males...and I really admire that quality.
My two cents.
I think it's sensible that the stronger person would be the defender, there's nothing wrong with that. Humanity's survival depends on that. But there's also nothing wrong with women learning self-defense techniques. As to the mining jobs--what if they paid more than more delicate work, because of the heightened danger involved? Would that change our view of the question?
Where the problem comes in is when you enforce these roles and there's no flexibility for the preferences and talents of the people involved, or when more subtle discriminatory policies are consciously or unconsciously applied. Example: just because men traditionally are the breadwinners, they get paid more than women doing the same or similar jobs. Or worse, in times of employment scarcity, jobs are saved for men. Or ballet, childcare and nursing are seen as women's jobs, and men aren't allowed to apply for those jobs, or get ridiculed if they choose to apply for those jobs because that's where their talents lie. And the most extreme example, the "Kinder, kirche, kuche" mandate of the Nazi era, that relegated women to kitchen and church, raising the kids. ("Kids, church, kitchen")
Everyone should have a full range of options so that they can maximize their talents, and so that society can reap maximum benefit of it's members' talents.
I appreciate the posts and comments. I have gone over similar things with my partner in life as well. When it boils down to it though, opening doors, walking on the side of the sidewalk facing the street, handling intruders, etc. I don't do it entirely because I do not think she is able, I do it because I feel she should not have to. She deserves some special treatment where I am able to render it. She helps me with many, many things (More than I help her to be honest) So this is my way of reciprocating her patience, kindness, and generosity. It's all I can do, really.
So Gender roles do exist, like it or not. However I feel it is up to the people sharing the relationship to decide whether or not that is a good or bad thing.
And remember, during WWII, women took over men's jobs and worked at heavy labor, were airplane pilots, did what they were inspired to do and no one stopped them, because their talents were needed for the war effort. (Not needed so much after the men came home after the war, though.
I think gender roles in the home tend to still be a sticking point, and need to be negotiated. There's nothing about biology that says women have to cook and do the dishes. Your hands are just as capable there as mine.
Aside: whoa, first time ever calling me and her a family, haha. Feels off, but in a good way.
Well, my examples aren't necessarily about the US, I'm pulling ideas from all over. So in the current job market, I haven't heard that women are being discriminated against. I've heard of that happening in other countries, though.
hmmm.....taking advantage of higher pay? Relative pay is usually kept private in a workplace, but word can get out. I think you apply for the job you're qualified for, and may the best applicant win. However, if equal pay issues are raised in some context, such as in legislation, you could be supportive. We should all work to change the system so it's more fair for everyone, whether by gender or ethnicity, or ability/disability, whatever.
If you're in a job, and you notice the boss or a couple of underlings giving a female colleague a hard time, creating an inhospitable atmosphere, what would you do? If you're in a staff meeting, and your female colleague comes up with a great idea for a project, and some other guy takes credit for her idea, and gets commended by the boss, what would you do? What if it wasn't a woman, but a black guy who came up with the brilliant idea, but someone else took credit for it, would you be any more or less willing to speak up?
But! I shall answer, even if it makes me look like an ass. It would have to depend on if I would get fired or not for sticking up for the female coworker. At the end of the day, jobs are becoming harder and harder to come across. Let alone any career choices. I do have others depending on me now. Should I take the risk in defending them? even if chances are it would only hurt me, my family, as well as them even more? Sometimes you have to recognize a situation for what it really is. A man knows when he has to lose face for the benefit of the majority, you know? At the very least I would approach the female co-worker after the fact and apologize, then personally commend them for being such a valuable worker and an amazing person.
This gets into a whole other topic about doing the right thing because it's right, taking risks to do the right thing and go with your conscience, and so forth. I just read a book review about a guy who studied people who stuck their neck out to smuggle Jews out of Germany in spite of the risk of losing their jobs, and others around the world in various situations who put everything on the line to do the right thing. It was a study of these cases and the psychology of it. This type of person was viewed as something exceptional.
So I guess you'd have to handle each situation according to the circumstances at hand. It's a really good question, though, isn't it? Really makes you think about your values. I get the part where you're feeling responsible for a whole family.
It's all muddled really, situations like these are impossible to prepare for, I'd only be able to adapt to the situation at hand, improvise the entire time really. I really have no idea how I would truly feel in such a situation, as it has not occurred to me personally (yet).
It's easy to sit back in the safety of home, and conjure up scenes and how we'd do the right thing. It's a whole other matter to have something come up unexpectedly, and suddenly you're in the middle of it and have to decide what to do. We're all heros when the heat isn't on us.
We're all animals, no matter how you put it
Just my .02
Since the end of WWII in the UK, roles have become blurred.
since emancipation, and the production of the oral contraceptive, women have found a loud voice, and have used it.
In spite of so-called gender equality legislation and sex discrimination aws, women still find themselves extremely discriminated against in the workplace.
I agree women and men are different in the sense that both physically and psychologically, they are gifted with the abilities to excel in different roles, functions and duties.
there are some jobs, both can accomplish easily.
there are some roles more suited to men, and there are some jobs more suited to women.
some women believe that we can do it all, and we don't need men.
Men therefore feel threatened, not only by women whose insistence to fill their roles threatens their own personal function, but also by mechanisation, which is taking over the jobs and careers of men.
therefore, men have actually strived to become more aggressive and dominating.
We are, by every social means at our disposal, keeping gender wars very much alive.
due largely, to matters we created in the first place.
Mess with nature - and you live to regret it.
please don't get me started on gender wars, because i may even end up saying something i bitterly regret.
suffice to say, i am not currently kindly disposed towards the male gender...
And let people choose some of the things they'd like to 'overlap' in, which may be beneficial....
I think, for example, this is utterly ludicrous and amounts to cruelty.....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090169/Sasha-Laxton-Gender-neutral-childs-reaction-mothers-questions-sex.html
and then something like this happens....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11814300
In my mind, I think that feminism went too far and was then picked up by the capitalist / consumer marketing machine... the end result is that women are afraid to be women (whatever that means in this society) and everyone (though inherently not the same) strives for an abstract concept of equality... the aim is that we all spend more but not sure that translates into more happiness or fulfillment.
When I was growing up, my grandmother was the head of the family - she passed down the old morality and everyone looked up to her - the power in the home (and as such all family power) ran along the women - they decided what we ate, when we slept, what we watched, how we talked and how we spent... the power in the home is the power in society as a whole...
I dont think people should be shackled by being born into something - however equally, people should also consider that the sexes are different and there are reasons for that difference (pro's and con's both ways)
If someone's stronger then they are stronger, it doesn't matter whats between their legs. If my girlfriend was one of these women I'd want her to handle the intruders while I ran and hid with the children.
What I hate about the way some women have skewed feminism, is that now unless you're a hairy, angry, man-hater, you're not a feminist. Unless you're out-manning everything with a penis, you're not a feminist. I *would* consider myself a feminist, except the word has changed to mean something beyond its original intent. Women and men are capable, smart, deserving, intelligent, and equal. That doesn't mean that women aren't (generally) better suited to some tasks, and men aren't (generally) suited to other tasks. I'm more traditional than some, I guess.
What a lot of so-called feminists (the angry ones) forget about real feminism is that the root of feminism is CHOICE. My boyfriend and I have a good arrangement that suits us both: he makes more money that I do, and I work from home. Therefore, I do the majority of the household management stuff, since I'm here and I don't work the same kind of hours he does. Some people would say that type of gender dichotomy flies in the face of feminism, but my answer would be that it was my CHOICE to do these things. He never said to me, "You have to do the housework because you have a vagina." It's a system that works for us. And when we have children, I will stay home to look after them (if the economy allows for it) because it's a choice that we made together, regarding what would be better for our family.
There's no shame (for me) in having a traditional household. I enjoy doing those things for him/us, and he enjoys doing the traditional male things for me/us. If everyone is happy and the household is healthy, there's no issue. In the pursuit of "equality," some of these super-feminists have tried (and in some cases, probably succeeded) in making women feel ashamed for wanting to stay home and look after their families - as if that role is somehow secondary, not worth as much.
I remember back to sports in our middle school. We had a female PE teacher who could fervently go on and on about how men and women, boys and girls are equal. Then when she'd turn in scores from a track meet to announce, the standards wouldn't be equal at all and they'd have to be announced separately.
Men and women are equal (or should be) in terms of freedoms and opportunities. In terms of actual performance, there tend to be differences. Most of the time I preferred to have female bosses in education. Not sure why exactly. In general there was some difference in terms of the thought process in leadership...or something.
There is a difference, and in my view the difference compliment each other. I'm probably writing it incorrectly, but vive la difference!
But we've discussed and come to the conclusion that eventually when we have kids, they will take precedence over her career, and she will likely not continue in the military past them. She looks to me as her protector, but that said, she is quite capable of defending herself in my absence. It took no convincing either, since she was a crack shot with a gun well before I met her. I recently enrolled her in a concealed weapons class and she too will carry a sidearm in public. I guess you could say it was love at first front sight post. ; )
Definitely not a lady I'd mess with.
Jk ... lol.
I was charging down the aisles with a cart full of groceries at Walmart...being particular unmindful and I didn't see the tall thin man until a large girth of a woman stepped infront of him to protect him from being mowed down. I was obviously very sorry and she seemed to be his wife. . . You know that scolding tone we sometimes get with our men.
Anyway, I wondered about this thread afterwards ...
haha! Funny story, @Lady_Alison! I'll keep my distance from you when in the grocery store. You should equip your grocery cart with a bike horn.
I was very glad to see the change in housework, it reflects what I have seen. I do not have a problem doing traditionally female tasks, I am pretty good at things like cooking and I can't find anyone, male or female, who can iron correctly, as long as the overall workload is fair.
Still I have to say that when the groups at church were announced I wanted to join the men's group instead of the women's one. I just have always had male friends and I am comfortable with guys,
I'm not good at cooking, and the guys I've known have always been good cooks. And much more expert at ironing than I ! I'm one of those people who gets bored with their own food/cooking. I have several women friends who are great at plumbing and carpentry, and do their own home repair. More diversity is great. It enriches us all.
A pre-nup in the UK ain't worth the paper it's written on... and there's no such thing as a 'common-Law' spouse, either.....
I am starting a working writers/artists/crafts group in May which should be fun.
Then there is choir and the 'make sandwiches for the homeless' drop in group.
I joke that since I was married so long I know how to fix and do anything around the house, but not all guys are like that.
I'm all for choice and personally just muck in on whatever needs to be done on an as is basis!
@ThailandTom The 50% split of property upon divorce works both ways. The guy can take half of everything too, even if the wife's family helped significantly with the house payments, for example, or if she already owned the house when they got married. And 50% isn't mandated, of course; the couple can negotiate. Women pay child support if the father takes the kids, and she makes a good salary. Lots of non-traditional arrangements are made these days.
I hang out with tons of gay men so my girlfriend and I typically get asked, "Who's the top and who's the bottom?" Which I rather prefer, since it implies a dominance in the relationship, rather than gender. It obviously refers to sex, but is used to describe a lot more than that. And then I get to laugh when I dispel their assumptions that because my girlfriend is more athletic and calm and I'm more girly and bubbly, that she is the top. Hah.
But what's interesting to me is that when I look at the relationship pattern within both sides of my family, I would consider all of the males as more submissive and all of the women as more dominant. My grandmother, for example, was a picture perfect example of a stay at home 50's wife who loved her shiny new appliances in her spic and span kitchen... but to watch the interactions between her and my grandfather, it was quite clear that she ran things despite domesticity. I think these power dynamics have always existed, we just prefer to gloss over them when we whittle relationships down to "who works and who stays at home." Society tells us that women who control things are ball busting bitches and men who are submissive are spineless and weak. But despite trends of gender characteristics (and how could we tell what influence societal pressure really has on this anyways), I think people are just people.