The biology behind gender roles

Sup Veeky Forums . So, I'm studying International Relations at uni and my Sociology II teachers committee has desided to make the study of geders the axis through which all of the theories covered will pass.
Being a public university in Spicland, there's a slightly left-to-center view uppon this topic and all the other topics aswell.

We've covered authors like Erwin Goffman, Norber Elias and Piere Bourdieu, and they all pretty much say the same: that gender roles are a social construct and there is no actaual (relevant) reason why power relations between genders should work the way it does.

Now, I don't meant to go full /pol/ on this, but there's something that bugs me about my teachers in general: they know jack shit about biology. They hate Positivism to the point where we learn practically nothing about THE sociology, the Comtian one, the one which started it all.

For example, last week, our head teacher went on a rant about how years of saving their legs had turned women into hailess beings. I felt like I was listening to fucking Lamark.

So my question is: are there biological fundations to gender roles? Like, why is it that we (men) are on top? Also, how does our biology influence our culture? Can we justify being better at certain tasks of more prone to choose certain jobs by sayings it's in our nature?

We've been animals for way longer than we've been men. Sure we can't dismiss the evolutionary factor, can we?

Also, what are some good authors regarding this topic? I would really like
I know you gusy hate Lindybeige, but he does have a point
youtube.com/watch?v=wSX7iT0n65Q

sorry for all the grammar and/or spelling mistakes, English is not my native tounge

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money
thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/pew-poll-42-of-muslim-youth-in-france-always-support-suicide-bombing/
frontpagemag.com/point/260823/do-majority-young-french-muslims-support-isis-daniel-greenfield
thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>We've been animals for way longer than we've been men. Sure we can't dismiss the evolutionary factor, can we?

But OP, this is why modern gender roles are bullshit. This isnt the past where you had to have a woman confined to being a baby factory due to high mortality, which in turn makes them solely responsible for domestic issue. There is room in the modern day for women to actually have a substantial place in actual society. You can go on about how superior men are to women (in which case I suggest you get yourself a man), but when your sex has made you the homemaker by default, no wonder you're generally weaker. Modern society has no need for gender roles and is ready for (and has been using) working women.

Many of the roles we play absolutely come down to biology, such as the tasks we take on within society. But our associations and categorization of objects and behaviours to a gender is a construct, fabricated similarly to our egos and our morals.

Men take on more physically challenging work because they are physically stronger on average, this is not purely the result a socially constructed role. The association of, for example, dresses as feminine and pants as masculine has nothing to do with biology, that is purely a cultural construct.

I think the idea of women being homemakers out of pure common sense in ancient times. Infant mortality was high, women dying in pregnancy just as high. It makes sense the one making the baby would take care of it and the camp, while the one who doesn't have to carry the child does the hunting.
That said, these days its not that important. You don't need superior stamina or strength to do data entry. The physical differences in men and women don't matter as much today

Women were encouraged to go get a career in order to grow the tax base in the post ww2 era. The costs of goods and services have been influenced by the massive influx of women into the workforce, to where a family cannot necessarily consider having one parent stay at home anymore because of the cost of living. It's stupid really, because all of us were supposed to be working less as technology improved, when really more men and women are still working long hours, putting off family for a narrowing job market, and the retirement age keeps rising.

In my personal opinion, I don't know how staring at a spreadsheet in an office all day is somehow more fulfilling for a woman than creating a family. But I grew up with my mom in the house so I guess I'm biased.

>when your sex has made you the homemaker by default, no wonder you're generally weaker
If we're talking physically it's actually because women have less testosterone which = less muscle mass.

Strength has nothing to do with muscle arm muscle

>Strength has nothing to do with muscle arm muscle

Wot

I said muscle twice by accident. I meant strength doesn't come from arm muscle.

Gender can both be socially constructed and biological. The idea that they must necessarily be mutually exclusive is the problem to begin with.

It's literally exactly the same with the nature vs nurtue debate in the general, people will argue one side very heavily, even though the reality is that both nature and nurture play significant roles.

I would argue, that modern ideas of gender are clearly socially constructed, but that doesn't mean there does not exist behaviors and norms that must be intrinsic to humans as a species of primate, in order to ensure their survival in a hard environment.

I for one, do not agree with people who say that gender roles were non-existent prior to the advent of agriculture(as many leftist sociologists who are influenced by Engels and Marx believe), but on the other hand, I don't believe that women being homemakers and having to shave their legs is somehow biologically hardwired either.

Lets just say, that I think there does exist a set of behaviors that I think is natural and an inescapable part of our genetic makeup, but what that specific kind of behavior would be can be hard to find out, because you would have to remove all the characteristics related to gender that can plausibly argued to be socially constructed.

Most things have an ultimate biological root that supplied a reproductive or survival advantage but have been conflated by culture. Language, homemaker vs provider, etc.

Hell, I'd argue that the concept of culture itself artificially helped man think deeper and is the main reason for honing our greatest survival tool (intelligence) versus others who would compete for our niche. I'd have to literally write a paper (hundreds might even be out there already) and I'd be spouting pure conjecture though because I have no idea how to definitively prove it.

Women in the workplace caused/uncovered all sorts of social issues I don't know if its worth it not putting them in homecare instead. Homecare and childrearing is heavily underrated work. Sure Intelligent women can be put in a STEM field where she'll be almost always be inferior to her male peers. But why is using her intelligence in raising children wrong? Their are so many "wrong" things in the way we raise our kids that I find it stupid to put women in the workforce where they fuck the system up and produce inferior product when they could be raising kids instead.

Protip: Men are still better at raising kids than women. Men are just too valuable in society productive work to limit them to just raising kids.

i don't know where to start

I have a theory about our intellectual differences that I formulated from spending extended periods of time around women. At first I was perplexed and very frustrated with their inconsistent behaviors but I came up with a theory to explain it.

Women tend to be intellectually myopic where as men are more coherent in thought. Women solve problems as unrelated atomic systems. They choose the best course of action for the immediate scenario, a solution that contradicts an earlier one doesn't matter because they are only concerned with the problem at hand. Where as men are more focused on finding generalised solutions to problems that can be used across many scenarios.

To me this eloquently explains a huge amount of male female differences

Women are the limiting factor in reproduction hence have inherent value. Men are expendable because sperm is cheap hence men did (and does) the dangerous work and compete with eachother for access to the women hence men are stronger and largely more intelligent, creative and driven than women. Men have less than half the genetic diversity of women because so few reproduce in comparison. Women experience little to no evolutionary pressure outside of basic survival (immune system and so on), having a vagina is pretty much a free ticket for reproduction, which obviously affects their nature. All and any "culture"/"nurture"/"environmental" observations can be traced back to these natural patterns.

>So my question is: are there biological fundations to gender roles?

Yes.

> Also, how does our biology influence our culture?

Womens' need for comfort and safety, plus their maternal nature means they are prone to be extremely conformist, with an overpowering need to fit-in, as well as a need to mollycuddle the unfortunate (poor, sick, elderly etc.).

Since men are the expendable sex, natural selection puts a far greater pressure on them to succeed in the mating game. As a result men show a far greater variation, both physical and psychologal among each other, than women. Thus men are much more diverse and complicated as individuals, were as women are pretty much the same, regardless of race, age, nationality or creed.

The biological difference between men and women in the day-to-day life is nowhere else more easily noticed than when observing how members of the both sexes go about shopping: men, being hunters, go straight to the store where they know the product they want is (the hunting ground), they locate the product and beeline to it (straight for the kill), hit the desk, pay for the product and haul it back home (bringing back the meat). All it took was a couple of minuts.

A woman goes shopping, she spends hours browsing the windows (scanning the bushes), stopping to investigate every sale item in the fucking store (testing for ripeness) and then ends up buying something completely else she was looking in the first place (situational opportunism), like a true forager.

>are there biological foundations to gender roles
Yes. The nature of human reproduction made it very hard for women to be productive members of society in pre-civilized times. We're a species with a long gestational period and even longer maturation process for our young. Moreover, we are fertile all the time rather than having particular breeding seasons like most animals.

The average woman back then would end up spending much of the time between her teens and late 20s, when people are at their physical peak, either pregnant or nursing an infant. You just can't be a very effective warrior or manual laborer under those circumstances, and those activities were the foundation of social power.

Read about his:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

and after that this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money

Women and men have different brains. Women usually are better at nurturing roles and men usually are better in areas such as engineering, due to better spatial ability.

That does not mean women or men are superior to each other. They both have valuable skills and society depends on both. You need good engineers, but you also need good mothers and good primary school teachers.

childrearing and childbearing is a horribly underrated job that for some reason we've allowed ourselves to few as lesser than factorywork when it's so clearly untrue.

keeping up native population levels and raising the next generation to be strong and virtuous is the highest calling i can imagine.

Do any of you actually know what you're talking about? Or did you come up with these theories by spending 5 minutes on Wikipedia with the help of sexist stereotypes and anecdotes?

I rest my Wikipedia case

This is le Veeky Forums.

Lindybeige is a bit of a silly sod. Men are not expendable. If I have plenty of women and just a few men in a society where only men can hunt or fight, how is it a good thing? I will have many children, fine, but how do I feed all those kids if women can't hunt? If another smarter tribe where men are not expendable attacks, how do I defend myself?

Then, point out where those articles are wrong.

men, being gatherers, go straight to the store where they know the product they want is (the foraging ground), they locate the product and beeline to it (easy pickings), hit the desk, pay for the product and haul it back home (bringing back the fruit). All it took was a couple of minuts.

A woman goes shopping, she spends hours browsing the windows (stalking the prey), stopping to investigate every sale item in the fucking store (testing for danger/defence capability of the prey) and then ends up buying something completely else she was looking in the first place (situational opportunism/easier prey), like a true hunter.


ITT: chad science

This probably explains why many women can have a new 'best friend' every few months whereas men typically have a hand full of close friends that goes back several years, likely to when they were kids or by some other mutual bond (I.e. Military gives guys a lot of lifelong friends, but it doesn't seem to provide the same thing for women that serve)

>This probably explains why many women can have a new 'best friend' every few months whereas men typically have a hand full of close friends that goes back several years, likely to when they were kids or by some other mutual bond (I.e. Military gives guys a lot of lifelong friends, but it doesn't seem to provide the same thing for women that serve)
It would be the opposite. If men were much more likely to lose their allies, they'd have less evolutionary pressure to become so attached. Of course, Gould would have something to say on all of this. Disregard 99.99% of evopsy.

>ITT: chad science
I'd call it a bad case of WE WUZ. I may be a fat, weak guy, but I wuz hunter. Then feminists ruined everything.

I have seen feminists explaining that the sexual dimorphism exists because men are promoted to excercize from early on and therefore have more muscle than women do.

They refuse the biological fact that testosterone supports creation of muscle mass and that women can't simply compete with men on this due to their lack of the hormone.

These people are fucking clueless.

men are better at some things, women are better at other things. it's pretty simple it's just that everybody wants to be progressive and pc when in fact they are progressing into a society out of touch with our biological reality which will only result in a sharp rise in gender confusion disguised as "mental illness".

Maybe men have more testosterone because they are promoted to exercise earlier.

How can people be so delusional? The apparent gap in strength/size/temperament between men and women is really fucking obvious. If all things were equal then we never would have ended up with men in power and women in a secondary role.

I learned firsthand just how serious test is growing up. I was a late developer and saw my athletic ability, which had roughly been on par with my friends and peers through elementary, fall seriously behind as all the other boys hit puberty first and became immediately stronger/faster/more able/confident. It was crushing.

And then puberty hit me hard, I shot up, put on a lot of muscle, and immediately became an athletic monster late in high school. It is so fucking significant.

I lived in a volunteer house for 3 months in Southeast Asia full of dozens of other volunteers, mainly westerners and always English speaking. This was the perfect environment to observe this kind of thing, because we had hardly any outside influence from the local population due to us being foreigners. It was us and only us trying to get along in a foreign world. There were like 12 rooms in this building, and only 1 or 2 rooms would be men, the remaining 10 were packed with female volunteers. I think at one point there was even only like 2 other guys other than me and like 20+ girls.

What I found was that all of the men, regardless of race or nationality, could get along with one another. Maybe since there were so few of us or something. We never really gossiped at all unless it was about one of the girls we wanted to bang.

But all of the women formed their own cliques, and if a new girl showed up one of the cliques would eventually absorb her into the clique. If a girl couldn't get absorbed into a clique right away, we men made sure she was still welcomed (not sexually), until she did find a clique. This one christian girl never really went into a clique and just did her own thing.

Eventually the gossip would start among the girls, often over one of the girls of a different clique and her interactions with one of the men. Whats interesting was that any of the men (in any combination) could go out with any of the female cliques, but you often wouldn't see two female cliques merge together indefinitely, but obviously girls from different cliques were friendly with one another. Sometimes the entire house would go out together.

It was interesting thinking back about. I'd love to volunteer overseas again and really pay attention to this sort of thing.

Have you ever heard of testicles (key syllable 'test')?

Then explain me why female underperform so much in proffesional sport competitions that they need their own category.

Hahaha fucking Veeky Forums marxists in a nutshell. Have you ever done a sport? I have, did judo on a national level. Trained with 18 year old female champions when I was 14 and still won. These women trained every day since they were young and really tough. But at the end of day, they were still women. Their body is different and has inferior strength to that of a man's.

...

>Protip: Men are still better at raising kids than women
hahahahahahaha

Oh man. Oh man.

>The apparent gap in strength/size/temperament between men and women is really fucking obvious. If all things were equal then we never would have ended up with men in power and women in a secondary role.

Things change, masculinity as you understand it isn't required in contemporary society, so, it is changing. If you enjoy the perks of society you have, staying on the internet all day etc., you have no reason to complain about it. Masculinity, in whatever stereotype, has been dead for a very, very long time now.

What makes you think it would be any different the other way round if it was men who were in the majority and women in the minority?

Bullshit. Men have more genetic diversity.
>are there biological fundations to gender roles?
How about sex chromosomes and sexual steroid hormones for an obvious starter?
>Like, why is it that we (men) are on top?
Men are physically stronger. The strong rule over the weak. Might is right. We may not find that fair or reasonable or whatever, but its simply the cold, hard truth many refuse to see. Women were never meant to be on top of the chain of command.

>Men are physically stronger
This isn't why. It has more to do with the limited emotional capabilities of men to desire first and foremost what is selfish once enough resource is accumulated to become lazy.

>The strong rule over the weak. Might is right.
It is in fact, the opposite. More organization while still requiring strength as a resource engenders entitlement.

>We may not find that fair or reasonable or whatever, but its simply the cold, hard truth many refuse to see

The cold hard truth is what you refuse to see.

>masculinity as you understand it isn't required in contemporary society, so, it is changing. If you enjoy the perks of society you have, staying on the internet all day etc., you have no reason to complain about it. Masculinity, in whatever stereotype, has been dead for a very, very long time now.

But that's true. Society, now more than in any point in its existence, values strategic capability and intelligence and will power, over things like what masculinity traditionally accepts as itself. Strength, and so forth. It just doesn't exist as necessary or adaptable, so as long as that exists, the role itself will wither away.

This rubbish does not make any sense.
I can smell this was posted by a woman. there is no reason to believe that current society values intelligence more than it did in times past. Masculinity may be underappreciated now, but I doubt it is withering away.

>I can smell this was posted by a woman.

>This rubbish does not make any sense.
It makes perfect sense.
>there is no reason to believe that current society values intelligence more than it did in times past.
Yes there is. There's no reason to suggest it doesn't. Society does not require strength as it once did, so adaption takes place.
>Masculinity may be underappreciated now
Appreciation has nothing to do with it.
>but I doubt it is withering away.
I never said it was withering away, I said the previous stereotypes of it are withering away with a new set of circumstances. Culture shifts with new circumstances, always.

>Society, now more than in any point in its existence, values strategic capability and intelligence and will power
And how is this not related to masculinity? If you read about classic heroes, like Odysseus, they fullfilled all of this.Masculinity is not just eating red meat,having a moustache and going to the gym.And strenght is still valued,specially in social interactions, from sports to dating

>And how is this not related to masculinity?
It is, however more focus is being put into these attributes than just "strength" itself. "Strength", as a way to quantify how one sex is "better" than the other becomes more and more meaningless every year. Which is my point, quantifying it by strength is pointless.
>And strenght is still valued,specially in social interactions, from sports to dating
I wouldn't say dating.

Western society has become gradually more feminized, partly because overtly masculine traits are less useful than they had once been in a post-industrial, service economy world, but also to a large extent because of social/ideological hostility to certain aspects of masculinity.

I think that a large reason why male populations across the West are increasingly either dissatisfied and angry or apathetic and dysfunctional is because few men have socially acceptable outlets for masculine interests or desires (like sports and a few professions like law enforcement or the military). Women, whatever inequities and challenges they face, are largely capable of fulfilling their biological roles (child-rearing and nurturing), while most men don't (activities like providing for families, hunting and fighting for the good of the tribe, initiation rituals, overt competition, etc.). The problem in this case isn't the persistence of male gender roles, but the absence of them.

The problem with the "men's rights", /r9k/er's, and the MGTOW types is that they typically adopt the victim mentality and bitter resentment of feminism, which is repulsive and pathetic to most people.

yeah ive been through that 1000 times, men arent so dependant on friendship as women are, their biggest fear is to be a outcast.
Maybe theres a biological explanation, where men can be lone wolves while the women are dependant on other people to survive????"!¤=!?

>It is, however more focus is being put into these attributes than just "strength" itself. "Strength", as a way to quantify how one sex is "better" than the other becomes more and more meaningless every year. Which is my point, quantifying it by strength is pointless.
Makes sense, but strenght is still very important in fundamental jobs like mining or the army.
>I wouldn't say dating.
Fit people usually have it better,at least from my experience.If you are a woman correct me though.

You are truly impressing by making such a grand case with all these compelling arguments.
>It makes perfect sense.
Yet you fail to present your argument in an orderly fashion.
>Yes there is. There's no reason to suggest it doesn't. Society does not require strength as it once did, so adaption takes place.
Provide some arguments. Strength is a necessity for any healthy society.
>I never said it was withering away, I said the previous stereotypes of it are withering away with a new set of circumstances. Culture shifts with new circumstances, always.
Thats right. Emasculated cultures will be absorbed by traditional, patriarchical cultures.

>You are truly impressing by making such a grand case with all these compelling arguments.

>assumptions
Fucking leftists making collective assumptions about gender, ALL MEN ARE LIKE DIS AND WOMEN ARE STRONK!!! ALL OF THEM!!!
No. Gender roles dont matter, individual human behaviour does. Women and men dont work togheter to achieve a goal, individuals do things with other individuals, and simplyfy to "GENDER IS ALL DAT M4TT3RS" is silly.

Marxists went from class to identity politics, when class dissaperaed and everyone lives on the fruits of capitalism.
The diffrence is that, class is something you can measure, youre either poor or rich, you have more "power" or less and can move in soceity with capital.
Gender, race and so forth doesnt "mean anything" it doesnt give anything real, youre really not more privliged if youre white, its more because your parents are richer than the black family and/or you adopted a culture that is better in the system. Which makes you stronker.
If everything is a construct, construct your own identity, create a superhuman out of yourself, but you cant, because we're all different and work different ways, "gender roles" etc is not written in stone...

>Yet you fail to present your argument in an orderly fashion.
How does one "argue in an orderly fashion". My point is that masculinity as a stereotype, or how you perceive it. It has strengths, but muscle mass is not one of them. Masculinity is more than just "strength", and it doesn't make one sex better than the other anyways. My point is masculinity is more than just "strength, tradition, being spunk factories", there's much more to it than that, and making it as such doesn't sell women short as it does men. Human beings are adaptive creatures to different social circumstance, and right now previous social circumstance doesn't exist.

>Provide some arguments. Strength is a necessity for any healthy society.
You have to explain how strength plays a role in every day life today that another woman can't accomplish just as well. At this point in time, there is not, or said careers, jobs, positions, can be fulfilled by both. And that's not necessarily a bad omen for the doom of everything you know and hold dear. Things just change.

>Thats right. Emasculated cultures will be absorbed by traditional, patriarchical cultures.
I don't see that happening after men realize they can't meet the same demands tradition implies, or that holding to tradition and culture isn't just an excuse for cultural stagnation.

Men are (generally) stronger and women make babies, I don't think anyone is denying that.

I'm not sure if Lindy's convoluted autistic rants are accurate, he seems to imagine wars were happening all the time and the vast majority of the male population would die in battle. In reality most were peasants and would die of disease, most children too died before the age of 5. A culture needed to get women to have lots of babies in order to survive.

In gay men and women we can see similarities with hetero women and hetero men respectively, it is obvious behavior goes beyond sexual orientation. Men apparently have more interest in sports, men commit crime to a great degree and criminal gangs are mostly male, especially the most violent. I don't think anyone to the left of Nancy Pelosi denies this, though I am sure some liberals here might.

In theory, after gunpowder, physical strength was less of an advantage in terms of power, however with all the other factors stacked against women and the slight advantages being a big guy offered, people were much more likely to invest in their sons' education to gain the best return on their investment for the family, so men stayed on top even in less physically demanding tasks.

>for cultural stagnation.
How do you measure this?

I admit there probably isn't a good way to measure this, but I would say, relying on tradition and culture of the past when material circumstance can't mesh well within its framework. The internet has changed a lot about how we interact, we're not the same people we were one hundred years ago, or two hundred years ago. We're very different, and the way culture exists as more of a pillow to the material circumstances, trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, so to speak. So trying to force the past ideals into the present, than embracing the present, it would have to require force to make that work properly.

How is tradition incompatible with technological progress?The outdated traditions are usually phased out, but most traditional values can mersh with the current situation.

>How is tradition incompatible with technological progress?
In many cases, tradition was made to survive in a different set of circumstances, or at least, survival was woven into it. We exist on a large set of resources now, and survival doesn't play as much of a role; so previous tradition, inspired by previous tradition, aren't going to mesh well because social roles are changing. It also really depends on what you mean by tradition, there are a lot of them, through different systems of beliefs, cultures. I'm assuming we mean sex roles here in context. This is one part that's changing, and it's also a contentious one, conflict over where to go with it, whether stay with what we know or go with what circumstance tells us exists. People are naturally going to go where circumstance guides them in the West, and it's things like this that motivate more tradition defined third world nations to look upon the West with loathsome eyes. But as long as the amount of resources exist, these problems aren't going to disappear over night, regardless of fears over immigration bringing social conditions; the children of said immigrants will face the same problem of what reality is versus what is taught at home. People aren't going to be happy, they're going to be confused as this process unfolds, and that's unfortunate.

I'm in agreement with the last part. My point is culture evolves on the bed of previous tradition fitting to current material circumstances.

Most societies are built around tradition both in individual behaviour (Language or moral codes) to institutional ones (law systems or forms of goverment) tradition evolves gradually, and when it is tried to erase conflicts arouses.This is why inmigration brings so many social problems in the end,as the migrants usually don't adapt to the local customes

>You have to explain how strength plays a role in every day life today that another woman can't accomplish just as well. At this point in time, there is not, or said careers, jobs, positions, can be fulfilled by both. And that's not necessarily a bad omen for the doom of everything you know and hold dear. Things just change.
I have not seen any female garbage collectors; have you? Miners, construction workers, anything requiring physical strength is being handled by men. You seem to be taking for granted that such work is done. Women will never be able to this work. When men stop doing such menial tasks, society will tear apart faster than you can imagine.

>I don't see that happening after men realize they can't meet the same demands tradition implies, or that holding to tradition and culture isn't just an excuse for cultural stagnation.
Have you had a look at the birth rates in the west? Right now western Europe is being colonzied by muslims. And too few are willing to defend it. It will take two, maybe three generations for the demographic shifts to ensure muslim majority. Then all your fancy women rights are gone. Such is the fate of emasculated cultures.

>I have not seen any female garbage collectors; have you?
Yes
>Miners, construction workers, anything requiring physical strength is being handled by men.
Men who are in poverty who have no other choice in the matter. You could say class divisions set this up, but mostly, low wage work is handled by migrant workers and people in shit positions in life. And people in those positions are going to have stronger traditional convictions than otherwise people getting into academics.
>You seem to be taking for granted that such work is done.
I'm not at all. But we aren't talking about that, we're talking about how it makes one sex more superior than the other. When we're throwing around things like this, it becomes clear, that now things aren't so clear.
>Women will never be able to this work.
I'd argue we can and are, not in the same levels, but jobs like what you're describing aren't anywhere near the level off on sight risk isn't the same as what it once was in the early 20th, and 19th century. Especially anything before the 19th century. The effects of automation and instant communication on culture cannot be ignored by throwing out that minimum wage labor exists. Of course it exists, it also has no bearing on what I'm saying.
>When men stop doing such menial tasks, society will tear apart faster than you can imagine.
I never suggested they stop? Also, changing labor from automation has always existed; it's not going to get rid of everything, but it's never destroyed anything culturally in the past as severe as your making it.
>Have you had a look at the birth rates in the west? Right now western Europe is being colonzied by muslims.
What I find interesting is that present Muslims more or less reflect the beliefs of mid 20th century Christians at the time. If society could have survived from that, there's no reason to suggest it won't now with society set in place.

>Men who are in poverty who have no other choice in the matter
Mining pays better than most office jobs

And most people who find it are still in positions where they have no choice in the matter, because though there is tremendous benefit, there's also an enormous amount of precision, protocol, and risk involved. Sometimes the benefits outweigh the risk, but for most men it does not.

>people who make different life choices than me did it because they were forced to and not because they made a choice

t. girly man

That's how the market usually works in regards to labor.

Lots of people would rather have a six figures salary and early retirement mining than pushing papers,for 50 years.Men still have way more jobs options than woman.

>Lots of people would rather have a six figures salary and early retirement mining than pushing papers,for 50 years
Most people actually don't want to be miners and it shows.
>Men still have way more jobs options than woman.
And men will have less job opportunities as society becomes more automated. Having a niche skill in this world does not equal superiority, it means failure to adapt to a different climate.

And besides, we're not even talking about labor.

So in other words.

>there's a demand for mining jobs
>the market price rises until somebody is willing to fill the demand
>MEN ARE BEING EXPLOITED BECAUSE THEY HAVE ECONOMIC CHOICES THAT I DON'T LIKE

>MEN ARE BEING EXPLOITED BECAUSE THEY HAVE ECONOMIC CHOICES THAT I DON'T LIKE
Where did I say this?

Yeah, markets work by supply and demand.If half of the population just target office jobs, those "confortable jobs" end up paying awful wages while trades revalorize themselfs.A plumber right now makes more than most office jobs

>Sometimes the benefits outweigh the risk, but for most men it does not.
>Men who are in poverty who have no other choice in the matter

So in other words, offering people large amounts of money for shit jobs is exploitation.

Meanwhile, women don't have those jobs, and so have less mechanisms to escape from poverty. This is apparently not exploitation because men aren't adults who can make their own economic decisions, and they'd be better off if they didn't have any choice.

>Most people actually don't want to be miners and it shows.
Most people are woman or urbanized people.That is why miners are getting golden
>And men will have less job opportunities as society becomes more automated
Most trades and engineering jobs are basically 90% male.The ones that should worry more about their career choices are woman that have saturated HR and bureocratic jobs

You are being condescending to males that are fulfilling essential work for common interest. The point is that such persons are absolutely vital for society. You completely fail to grasp this. Mechanization has only facilitated labor. There will always be menial labor until autonomous robots are a reality. And even those will be invented, designed, programmed, tested, and maintained by men. In hsort, women are always dependent on men.

Secondly, if you are going to compare christians with muslims, I do not even know where to begin. That is just immensely silly.

And women are not entirely relegated to "office jobs". And as you said neither are men. My point is automation, instant communication, reduce the importance of tradition in society for numbers of reasons, especially strength. In this way, strength is not as quantifiable as to why men are "better' than women. It's just a way to sell your labor.

>Meanwhile, women don't have those jobs, and so have less mechanisms to escape from poverty.
In poverty, yes. In poverty you'll see more traditional roles still take place because resources do not exist to have men adapt to different circumstances. I don't see how any of this is arguable that the definition of masculinity is changing from what it was over a century ago.

Do you think a life like that is particularly interesting?

>Most trades and engineering jobs are basically 90% male.The ones that should worry more about their career choices are woman that have saturated HR and bureocratic jobs

And...? What's your point, I'm not seeing it.

>And...? What's your point, I'm not seeing it.
Men to perform better at jobs with the biggest job increase like engineering, so most likely the top earning braket is going to be mostly monopolized by men.

>people couldn't choose to be different then me
>they're being forced into it by the system

>You are being condescending to males that are fulfilling essential work for common interest. The point is that such persons are absolutely vital for society. You completely fail to grasp this.

I don't think I fail to grasp this. I grasp this well, it's just not what I'm arguing about.

>Mechanization has only facilitated labor. There will always be menial labor until autonomous robots are a reality.
Sure, I don't think I ever denied this.

>In hsort, women are always dependent on men.

So women are dependent on men in the society we live in because manual labor still exists? That's a ridiculous, men are reliant on men that manual labor still exists. This isn't really an argument.

>Secondly, if you are going to compare christians with muslims, I do not even know where to begin. That is just immensely silly.
It isn't. Most non immigrated men in the middle of the 20th century had the same beliefs and practices as immigrated men in the 21st. You're inability to recognize it kind of proves the point I'm making about tradition taking less of a role in Western society.

>And women are not entirely relegated to "office jobs"
Yeah,they also have nursing and teaching looking at the graduation rates.But most woman tend to end up in an office job,nursing/med school and education, while the male workforce has a greater variety of occupations.

Strength does come from muscle

>It isn't. Most non immigrated men in the middle of the 20th century had the same beliefs and practices as immigrated men in the 21st. You're inability to recognize it kind of proves the point I'm making about tradition taking less of a role in Western society.
This is quite wrong, and if you knew more about Islam you wouldnt say this kind of crap.Half of the muslim population agrees that people that death penalty is a fair punishment for adultery and 535 million of them agree that deserting Isalm should be punished by death.This dumb comparison is a dumb liberal strawman to defend muslims

>Men to perform better at jobs with the biggest job increase like engineering
There's no reason women won't find residence in engineering as time goes on, looking at the current jobs market and saying "this is how it always will be" is silly.

I don't know how we got into an argument over labor. Also, engineering is being flooded by STEM kiddies who get a degree from the paycheck, most of them are going to hear things of the sort are on the internet. Engineering, computer programming they're both getting flooded with unqualified people.

What are you suggesting I'm saying?

>Yeah,they also have nursing and teaching looking at the graduation rates.
Again, and? Such jobs have about as much qualification and skill to be learned than most degrees.

>But most woman tend to end up in an office job,nursing/med school and education, while the male workforce has a greater variety of occupations.
Again, and?

>This is quite wrong, and if you knew more about Islam you wouldnt say this kind of crap.
It's entirely true. You just exist in a metropolitan area.

>Half of the muslim population agrees that people that death penalty is a fair punishment for adultery and 535 million of them agree that deserting Isalm should be punished by death.
In Europe? Can you cite some sources? Or how it's affecting policy?

>This dumb comparison is a dumb liberal strawman to defend muslims
It's not really a defense.

>There's no reason women won't find residence in engineering as time goes on
Doubtful.Engineering has consistently be one of the best paying degrees, and woman hasn't show any interest in it the last 50 years, despite having several advantages and encouraging programs in this fields.I seriously doubt that they will just study enginieering,when historiacally they have never been interestd on it, and have a huge drop out rate in this fields

>So women are dependent on men in the society we live in because manual labor still exists?
Yes, manual labor is the domain of men and it will always be so.

>Most non immigrated men in the middle of the 20th century had the same beliefs and practices as immigrated men in the 21st.
Not even close. Maybe it is comparable to christian Europe in hte 15th century or so to some reasonable extent. Stretching it to the mid 20th is just pure fantasy.

>In Europe?
33% of French muslims support ISIS,most terrorist were raised in Europe and you havent being in a muslim ghetto in your life if you think that a 1930's christian is comparable to this people

>and woman hasn't show any interest in it the last 50 years
Things have changed fast in the last 50 years, let alone the last 20, is my point. Things were more different 50 years ago than you realize.

>Yes, manual labor is the domain of men and it will always be so.
If we are to exist at the current pace, manual labor will slowly become the domain of machinery, as it always has. There will be roles for manual labor in society, but over time they will become safer or shrink.

Again, why we are talking about manual labor in argument to point, I've yet to find out.

>Not even close. Maybe it is comparable to christian Europe in hte 15th century or so to some reasonable extent. Stretching it to the mid 20th is just pure fantasy.
In cities, and near cities, yes. In rural communities in North America and Europe? Not at all.

>33% of French muslims support ISIS
Again, cite your sources.
>you havent being in a muslim ghetto in your life if you think that a 1930's christian is comparable to this people
And you haven't been in a rural community in 1943, the only difference is surface and language.

Not even rural communities are like that today, you're right, they're far more metropolitan. But contemporary society was not always this way.

>Again, and? Such jobs have about as much qualification and skill to be learned than most degrees.
Never denied this, is just that woman tend to oversaturate in the same kind of jobs, mostly pushing papers,medicine and education.
>Again, and?
It is important to observewho does each job to observe the biological differences between each gender.This won't change despite of technology evolving, unless genetic engineering becomes a thing in the near future

>
>It is important to observewho does each job to observe the biological differences between each gender.
Looking at the jobs market as to conclude what human nature is, is ridiculous.

>Things have changed fast in the last 50 years, let alone the last 20, is my point. Things were more different 50 years ago than you realize.
Interest over jobs has been a constant.And despite the goverment campaings, the enrollment rates have been pretty much the same.

Looking at careers choices to analyze behaviours is not ridicolous.If 90% of the army are males, doesn't it tell you something about the difference between genders?

>Suicide bombing
thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/pew-poll-42-of-muslim-youth-in-france-always-support-suicide-bombing/
>Isis having as high of approval ratings as its president (Note: ALL FRENCH POPULATION,NOT JUST MUSLIMS, MEANING THAT THE MUSLIM SUPPORT OF ISIS IS RETARDLY HIGH)
frontpagemag.com/point/260823/do-majority-young-french-muslims-support-isis-daniel-greenfield
>Some more opinion polls
thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx
Now you should stop comparing apples with oranges, and just accept that most muslims are insane,even the European ones

>Interest over jobs has been a constant
Because it has been fifty years, trends are not likely to change soon, but to say they are to stay that way the same within the century is pointless simply because it isn't true. You'll never find someone at the dawn of the 20th century suggesting women could ever have the same opportunity they currently have, having the same debate men are the superior sex because of it. You put men and women on equal footing and niches will still exist, but to say engineering is one of them isn't true. Programming and engineering will eventually turn to different demographics in the future.

>Looking at careers choices to analyze behaviours is not ridicolous
Behavior does not equate nature, it equates cultural standard due to circumstance. To say men are shallow stereotypes designed for manual labor and women are shallow stereotypes are designed for the opposite due to the market, is not at all sound. Not only would the market disprove you at your own game at this point in time, but it'd also be heavily dubious.

Markets predict trends, not human nature. Human nature is a notoriously difficult thing to prove one way or the other, and it's reserved for fields like linguistics, not absence of field of market speculation.

Well, to be fair women was 58% of the engineering workforce in the 80th USSR. Choice of carrier isn't only about skill or ability. There also exist shit like cultural traditions, for example. Also, I believe men are more ambitious. That is why they are into field when you pay serious money for it like in America. In modern China or say India, engineering is much more gender neutral. Another example is this time when computers was more woman job. Today it is considered much more manly field.

>You put men and women on equal footing and niches will still exist, but to say engineering is one of them isn't true. Programming and engineering will eventually turn to different demographics in the future.
On which basis? YOur feelings? Enrollment has barely increased despite the goverment pushing it extremely hard.Just saying something is this way is not an argument,

ITT: naive femanon trying to prove that women are equal to men

Men are not nearly as cliquey as women.

If it were opposite i guarantee the women would be the center of comflict.

The USSR male population was mostly encouraged to do blue collar jobs and enroll in the army.This is the goverment organizing the workforce,which is not the same thing.WOman in Europe and the US have free choice and are encouraged to move to enginieering fields,and they are not doing it.

First of all, the numbers are misleading in that blog page. If the 18 year old demographic is counted, it's 42%. What kid doesn't believe edgy shit, especially coming out of a war zone. It doesn't say over 64% of all age groups do not condone it. While that's a troubling number, you also must realize that white Europeans in the 20th century were hardly saints. Not even in France, or Germany, Ireland. Everyone has their own ideology to defend with violence, that's a corner stone of 20th century Europe.

You seem to forget the IRA existed throughout the 20th century.

>On which basis? YOur feelings?
No, not on my feelings, on simple fact people move where opportunity exists. You'd find the same argument in any point of time in the past, try a better one.

>Enrollment has barely increased despite the goverment pushing it extremely hard.Just saying something is this way is not an argument,

But that's what you're doing, just saying it's this way. Besides, we're not even, to begin with, arguing about the demographics of engineering.