I often hear people talk about an ideal egalitarian society that exists in the future somewhere, and how feminism helped us get close or something. A society where men and women can do as they please, and where men and women operate interchangeably, house-keeping men, salary-women, etc.
What i have begun to question recently, is if an egalitarian society is possible? Is it possible for men and women to function interchangeably, can there even be a gender-neutral society? Or is it all a pipe-dream, like how the communist utopia is?
I ask you, Veeky Forums because i feel this is more of a philosophical question then a /pol/ question. (pic unrelated, i have a meme shortage)
Interchangeable in terms,of general attitudes and mental capacity, yes. This is more so considering we are living in a technological society where physical strength no matter really maters. Even so depending on the individual woman or man, thwy very well can be. Some woman can be strong enough to hold a construction job or be in the military. Not many on average but some. In terms of domestic duties, yeah that's all a matter of culture and perceptions. If a woman and man cooperate, a woman being a surgeon while her husband also works isn't that big of a deal.Woman have always been able to work while pregant, it is just a matter of the level of physical demands of the job.
We have a culture still that says that the only way a woman can be a "good mother" is through childcare while this is much less true for men. Working to provide for her family without being involved in chilcare that much is a "bad thing." A man doing the same is not so bad, and even seen as ideal. A man that spends more time with childcare is looked down as lazy and even irresponsible.
>This is more so considering we are living in a technological society where physical strength no matter really maters. yes but drive and psychology still do. The reason you see so many male CEO's is because men are very goal oriented: they care more about getting what they want done then about what others think. Women on the other hand, care a great deal about social implications of their actions, which makes them great care-takers, but also tends to nullify much of their ambition. This is why you see so many females taking social positions like teacher, nurse, psychologist, etc.
>good mothers and fathers The father, traditionally, is meant to be the guardian (and if the need arises, benevolent dictator) of the household. That is not to say he should become a wife-beater, hell no! His job is to provide for the wife and children, and to act as the defender against evil (other men, encroaching armies, etc). He is seen as lazy if he becomes a care-taker of children, because he is wasting his potential as a man (to be strong, and to defend the weak, not jsut physically, but emotionally stoic, and psychologically hardened). The mother, traditionally, is meant to care for the children. Mothers who neglect this duty are seen as terrible mothers. A mother provides the emotional and psychological support (along with the husband, though he to a less degree) to help the children grow. The wife is also necessary, because a man without a woman who loves and respects him, is an incomplete man. Lots of feminists these days look down on women for serving this role, acting as though it is a lesser task. Is it a lesser task to be the one to reload the cannons that defends the fort, than it is to be the one who fires them? cont->
David Perez
I truly believe the reason for gender roles is because they are innate to our nature, nut just physically, but psychologically and emotionally as well. That's my answer to OP and you.
Jeremiah Richardson
the traditional male..blah blah blah Do you know the definition of tradition? Quit it with the shoulds and oughts. Yes, male and female brains have some differences. For one thing, men are more likely to have what they call "tunnel vision" while women are more likely to process every thing as a whole. That might explain why men are more likely to have autism. That and men with XYY chromosome are literally are st higher risk. It's worth mentioning that XXX females tend to be higher risk for a form of asbergers.
Men also have better spatial reasoning in terms of navigation. Women have strong immune systems when it comes to infectious diseases. It's believed they have better verbal and language skill but that could also be a product of social expectations. There are some differences in perspective and thought processes but the differences are much too exaggerated. What's more they found that men and women will use different brain pathways to get similar solutions. So differences definitely doesn't mean one is always better at something than the other.
And this is your problem, I didn't say any role was more important than the other, though history would disagree with both us considering the way women were stripy of quite a few rights and opportunities. Actually scratch that, you are biased. Both caretaker and provider are important hence why it shouldn't be seen as "wasting potential" for a man and that us another fucked up perception . If that is how a man self actualizes, then so be it. Same with woman. We dont need men to be "defending the tribe" anymore like the old days. Most of the need for "protection"always stems from other men exhibiting toxic(type) masculinity anyway. Eliminate that problem and we would be golden. No one should be show horned into a particular role. There is no way a man or woman SHOULD act. If that was so every single man and woman would act that way witho it social intervention.
It was more useful in the past than now
Ethan Ortiz
continued..But not innate. Perhaps some level of distribution could be, but the degree and exact roles obviously varies. It was a way we chose to live because it was efficient. More so with roles derived in a more patriarchal society like your example.
David Wright
>So differences definitely doesn't mean one is always better at something than the other. oh most definitely not. If you thought that was what i was trying to get at you should check your reading comprehension.
> considering the way women were stripy of quite a few rights and opportunities. very broad generalization of history that is downright false. It depended on the society and its view on the roles of men and women. A good example is the Societal contrast between Athens and Sparta (since you're a history buff, you should know what they are). In fact, in western civilization women only really got the short end of the stick durring the enlightenment era, due to new thinking from social Darwinist and the likes. If you consider the role of women i proposed as the short end of the stick, then yes, in the medieval era through to the mid-industrial era, when men and women worked as a team to further their family, women were on the short end of the stick. Because that's the Christian view: Man and Woman operate as 2 peas in a pod (the pod being God), the man is the sword, the woman the shield.
>you are biased as are all men and women on God's green earth. Bias is innate. :^)
>Both caretaker and provider are important my point exactly. >If that is how a man self actualizes, then so be it. and that's what i mean by wasted potential. Given liberty to pursue whatever they want, even in a post-feminist society, men are attracted to positions of power, wealth, and fame. Likewise women are attracted to teaching, nursing, etc. There are some careers where the distribution is equal by nature (such as applied mathematics) but when given the liberty to choose what they want, they trend towards these jobs regardless of societal pressures. Now personally i'm a social libertarian, if a woman wants to be a mechanic, and is good at it, then let her do what she damn well pleases, vice versa as well. cont->
Joseph Jones
You still don't understand how biased and downright sexist it is to say it is "wasted potential" for men to decide to be stay at home but not for women. You are trying to say all men self actualize(and worse, have to self actualize) one way and all woman another way AND unconsciously saying that men have more potential than woman which is not true and brings your argument back to square one. It also shows you don't actually mean it when you say both roles are important. If it's so important, regardless of who is doing it, shouldn't matter. No one is "wasting potential" by doing one of the other. Men can be great caretakers. Everyone one wants to be a "good parent" to their children. Quit acting like "good mother" is the only connotation where that matters. I didn't mean duties, I meant literally men had more rights like voting and receiving higher education if they wanted to(and had money). Women did not have that if they wanted. More over, men as a group did not have the chance to be as closely involved in their children's upbringing in anytime in history than now. Something they are as entitled to do as women, gender expectations be damned.
Charles Harris
cont-> >We dont need men to be "defending the tribe" anymore like the old days. seeing the effects of post-modernism, i think we do swetie. :^) >muh modern snark, lol the elders were dumb amirite? there is much to be admired and learned from those who came before us. Unlike what your sociology teachers may tell you, society was in many ways better back when then it is now (see the startling suicide rates, if that is any indication).
>Most of the need for "protection"always stems from other men exhibiting toxic(type) masculinity anyway. >muh toxic masculity this is a point of contention so please define "toxic" masculinity. Do you mean nice guys larping as alphas (acting like obnoxious loud gorrillas, aka: overcompensating)? What is "toxic" masculinity?
>Eliminate that problem and we would be golden. What problem? masculinity? Lol, no my little nu-friend.
>No one should be show horned into a particular role. definitely not.
>There is no way a man or woman SHOULD act. but there are ways they often tend to act, and which they (typically) tend to act best in (on average). Leave a society on its own and you will see the same gender roles form, thats what i think.
>If that was so every single man and woman would act that way witho it social intervention. but they do act those ways without social intervention. What, do you really think that gender normas are a social construct rather than the byproduct of biological and psychological functions and natures? Do you really think the reason cows are herded by bulls is because they were socially told to do that rather then having that programmed into them?
Levi Cox
I'll respond later (either today or tommorow) i have to shower from my trip to the gym, this was fun but i cnan't waste all my time talking to a beta. be back soon.
Ian Wilson
Startling suicide is a combination of things. One being the effect of living in a post industrial society. Technology has created a wedge of isolation between humans and it's only getting worse. This manifests in the job market (machines since the turn of the century ) and relationships. I didn't say no women or men would act in ways more in line with "traditional"views(of OUR culture to be mire exact). The extent to how often is exaggerated though. >numale. kek. great you're still one of the retards who think toxic masculinity means that masculinity is bad. No! Perhaps the wording is confusing so let me break it down: it means certain attitudes and behaviors often "apprasised" as masculine (basically hypermasculinity) that are harmful to men and women alike in society at large. An example of a somewhat harmful one that is responsible for many more male deaths per year(outside the military) is the attitude of men being taught not to seek help and that doing so even a little makes them "look weak" or like a complainer (basically like women). Hence when they get injured or sick, they are less likely to take it easy or go to the doctor.They also have the higher cancer death rates, even from more preventable ones. Women take their health more seriously NOT just cause it "genetic" but because they don't get their heads filled with this idea they can't risk looking like a complainer in anyway. >cows and herds Humans are not cows. We have more to us than base animal instincts. Self actualization and the power to find meaning. You'd think a Christian more than accustomed to this idea of humans being special would shy away from such comparisons lol. Never have more women for the most part, been as interesting as they are now. You may not think so because you like a "traditional" type of woman but others who get to marry a woman who has the same interests/within the same field as them are more content and I've seen this. And vise versa of course.
Jayden Clark
Ah so most of your arguments rest in ad homs and condescensions. Why am I not surprised? Undoubtedly you will follow up with another one like: "it's not insult it's fact lmao =^)"
Btw, it's funny you said leave society on it's own and see what happens because the truth is, it was NEVER left on its own. Men an women are educated into certain roles since childhood (depending on the culture) across the world. More so in the "past" you speak of that was SO much better than today for everyone. I suppose your going to be selective and speak of the 50s as the pinnacle of human happiness. It was literally only like that for certain groups of people. It must have been great to live in a time where it was still thaught that if a man cheated it was the woman's fault or give versa...We now know that often it's just the cheater. Is it better than what we have now? I say yes, though you may call me biased. Never have people been more free to pursue their dreams/interests. Happiness used to be a concept that no one was seen to desreved. Now people can make their own and self actualization is seen as more inportant. We're able to live not just as animals looking to survive, but on our own terms.Getting what WE want from life. If you think this is unrealistic, fine. Agree to disagree.
Brayden Peterson
>hypermasculinity I mean, whining about every little scapre is bad, but if its life-threatening then its definitely stupid to try and ignore that. Masculinity is still good though (just not in extremes, as with everything). >numale i was being facetious, no need to get so anal about it! This is Veeky Forums, not tumblr, remember? >cows and heards there is definitely an animal component to humans, no denying that. For the sake of simplicity, i tried to point out that gender roles are a by-product of this nature, rather than gender roles being programmed into people. You surely must understand that geder roles came from somewhere right? Are you really the kind to think that it has always been the case that gender roles were reinforced by a culture, rather than the culture reflecting the biological nature? >Never have more women for the most part, been as interesting as they are now. how very sexist of you user! To imply that women were ever uninteresting? My, how triggered i am! Jokes aside, you seem to think that there has never been female hunters or male gatherers (to put it hyperbolic), there have always been female and males who defy the norm, but again, they are not the standard. Culture develops around people, rather than people developing around culture. its chicken before egg, people beget culture begets people. Likewise, gender norms form from the natural inclinations of the sexes and the needs of the environment they are in (again, see Sparta and Athens), those then solidify with culture to develop standards of behavior (expectations) for men and women. They don't have to follow these expectations, they are not going to be hung for it (they will certainly be looked down on for it though, as with any behavior which defies social expectations).
Now i made this thread so that more than me and 1 lefty could discuss this, because i wanted more than 1 perspective to consider. I'm going to bed now and i probably won't return, have a nice life, commie :^)
Aiden Brown
Does it appease you that I'd say that and also say it's wasted potential for a woman to decide to go work a full time job?
You and your trying to judge another persons heart, it's a despicable act.
Camden Perry
Why would it? are you disabled?
Carter Stewart
If a man wants to attract a woman, he needs resources, because women are attracted to man with higher social status, so he needs to choose the most suitable path to acquire those resources. So yes, it is exactly wasted potential if he doesn't utilize his abilities to the fullest to acquire resources and higher social status and instead does some kind of feminine low-paying task.
Austin Lewis
You don't understand the power dynamics between the sexes at all, brainlet. Men and women are different, want different things, have different measures of success and have different ways of achieving their purposes. And there will never be a gender-neutral society because of that because all of this roots in evolution and biology and social constructivist retards cannot change that.
Aiden Hernandez
The best we can do is let people do whatever they feel like. And if we look at norway, that will lead to more gender diferenced not less
Kevin Miller
you yourself admitted that not all men and women are the same so why are you backing down on it now with this comment? If their marriage works fine and thwy love eachother why the fuck do you care? And yes there are some instances. And in the case yoy mention, if both the man and the woman find it ideal to work and they make it work, why again is it your business? Do recognize some of the cultural/societal barriers to women face mainly because of EXPECTATIONS. Having an interesting personality and some type of career is one thing but being a breadwinner is specifically a societal pressure placed on men unfairly and taken away from women.
Anthony Adams
3757402 that's what toxic masculinity is. The idea is to illuminate the negative ideas like you mentioned. Many are extremes. And yes many times (unless person has psychopathy or narcissism) they are just ideas. there are still animalistic impulses I say the size of our fore brains over shadow it more than people like you want to give it credit for. You keep speaking in terns of speculation("do you really think gender roles arent biological?")despite all the examples i gave to help us think otherwise. To be human means the potential to be free from nature or transcend it. Look how we have manipulated nature to suit us? What other species has done so even at our most minimal.)? Gender roles seem to be universal, but the ACTUAL SPECIFIC roles vary. What we developed in the past specifically in western society was more a choice out of usefulness.Sane with parts of Asia. >women in the past were uninteresting?? Of course not all. I said we have even MORE now. Besides I meant more in terms of male's saying this. Men in the past like Schopenhuer and others often dismissed women for their lack of interesting qualities. Meanwhile, how would they become so when they aren't giving the same opportunity(they weren't and you can't deny this) and education? We have more men and women connecting in terms of interests than ever before besides just their children. This goes on non academic on both sides as well by virtue of both being able to explore whatever they want.
And believe me, I don't expect to change your mind. I'm just attempting you to think about your position more with alternative views. At the very least, I'm telling you why I disagree with you.
Ian Price
I'm not going to call the content of that link bullshit but it's a blog post with no sources cited, certainly no peer review of the interpretation of the uncited data, and it is from an author of books on holistic medicine. It should be at the very least scrutinized before drawing abroad conclusion about societal evolution and ideals.
Oliver Perez
meant to reply here .
also made a typo, sorry elimnate*
Jeremiah Kelly
>that failed (you) Lmao go back to tumblr >muh toxic masculinity Nice meme >despite the examples that i gave you The examples you gave are all exceptions to the general rule that arose due to instability and need. They do not reflect the absence of biologically inherent gender roles. >muh tabula rasa Lol keep telling yourself that >actual specific roles vary There actually isn't a whole lot of variation among soecific gender roles, culture by culture. Again, you're just looking at the exceptions and deciding that these are somehow enough to negate the general rule. To answer OP's question, "true" egalitairianism (the kind that the more radical feminists want) is unattainable, because you're never going to get equality of outcome when men and women differ from each other so much. For example, female monkies tend to choose the same toys as female babies to play with, despite societal pressures being radically different: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/ Also, sex differences tend to maximize in western countries, where societal pressure is the weakest. Funny how that works: roseproject.no/network/countries/norway/eng/nor-Sjoberg-Schreiner-overview-2010.pdf
Jack Nguyen
>How dare you make a mistake with your post! You should be infallible if you argue with me! Childish. Your insults do not make you more correct. I feel like I'm arguing with the /pol/ version of a sjw. Are you even the same person I have been replying too? You seem ignorant of the conversation at hand. Go scroll back and read. >cultural differences are genetic exceptions. Gender roles are genetic! Yes, they dictate what TYPE of roles will be implimented. How are you not getting this? We both agree there are roles to some degree or atleast a concept of gender. I'm specifying difference in type being cultural. If they were just exceptions we would not have the differences we have to day be more than 5% of the population.
No one is talking about rad feminists and 100% interchabgeability between men and women. I said in terms of specific aspects. They are the ones who believe men and women are exactly the same. No person who takes science seriously believes this. Go back and read my comment for known differences that have been backed up wth evidence. Ah the toy study seems interesting and I have seen it before. I'm still not sure if it can be 100%,applied to humans and whether no social learning affects it. If it can be applied to what extent does it match the human population?
