Going against traditional gender roles hurting the American family

[slimreaper]

What if the woman can make more than the man?

Then the man would be less likely to leave her

Correlation does not equal causation. Rock music increased in popularity in the 70s. By your logic, rock music can be blamed for increased divorce rates. Or perhaps it was caused by the increased popularity of disco, jumpsuits and gold chains.

but don't just take my word for it

You must be registered for see links

 

[Punk Hazard]

What a ****ing coincidence right? Do you have any real alternate explanations for this phenomenon? Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

Do you have anything other than causation equals correlation fallacy?

 

[slimreaper]

Do you have anything other than causation equals correlation fallacy?

Owned

 

[Punk Hazard]

Owned

Uhm, only person you're owning is yourself really. You continue to insist Correlation between two things equal causation. Just because increased abandonment of gender roles increased at the same time period divorce rates did, doesn't mean one caused the other. That would be like someone saying the increased number of Apple products over the course of the 2000s is what is causing the increased obesity or increased homosexual advocacy during the same time period. How do you know that increased popularity of rock and roll, jumpsuits and disco didn't increase divorce rates?

And let's say increasing abandonment of gender roles did cause increased divorce rates. If women got divorces because they no longer felt bound to unnecessary social rules that inhibited and limited their lives, and actually got improvement in their lives because of the divorce, then that's a good thing.

 

[slimreaper]

Uhm, only person you're owning is yourself really. You continue to insist Correlation between two things equal causation. Just because increased abandonment of gender roles increased at the same time period divorce rates did, doesn't mean one caused the other. That would be like someone saying the increased number of Apple products over the course of the 2000s is what is causing the increased obesity or increased homosexual advocacy during the same time period. How do you know that increased popularity of rock and roll, jumpsuits and disco didn't increase divorce rates?

And let's say increasing abandonment of gender roles did cause increased divorce rates. If women got divorces because they no longer felt bound to unnecessary social rules that inhibited and limited their lives, and actually got improvement in their lives because of the divorce, then that's a good thing.

I'm gonna leave this here again and hope you gain some reading and comprehension skills

You must be registered for see links

and for their children it's not a good thing, as I've proven but you'll somehow deny even more evidence.

 

[CornyRainbow]

The problem with gender roles it is causing this very problem. This is the result of men putting women in the background and using us a baby making machines rather treating us a equals and since women finally have even half the chance to really dominate a lot of women are going for that. I mean at look at Korea and Japan's birthrate? It's dropping because not only are men tired of having all that stress on them to have provide the money for their family and women are tired of having to stop their lives to fit the standards of a fit mother. It is causing both genders to get tired of the traditional gender roles compared to America where women do not have that type of pressure to bare children and become a housewife so both genders are still interested in forming families because it has become more of a 50/50 rather with house/parenting/income duties.

If people want to follow traditional gender roles then fine and if they don't then that is okay because I wouldn't mind myself staying at home caring for my family so I have no problem with it but there is still parts in the world where women are being treated as objects rather as equals. So it's expected that women will "try to be men" because this is the direct cause of men pushing women in a box and telling us "You are not a man. You are a women and women are baby-makers. You stay in this box and birth our children and raise how sons to be men and daughters to be like you."

I probably rambled off and answered nothing. Gomen.... :wesobi:

 

[Sakura Michiko]

For a strong independent female it's ironic you don't dare to quote me directly.

Who the fk are you like really? You aren't in my relationship.Like you and I aren't dating.I really wouldn't want to date you either. I probably don't even want kids. I'm going to be a pediatric nurse.I'm not about to be a stay at home wife that's boring to me.If you want to be traditional fine but I'm not lol. XD XD XD Bye

Can you read? Like I said bye for a reason.Implying I was done taking to you but you seem to have a hard time understanding that so I quoted myself to you.I really don't need to be conversing with you because you proved you're closed minded .At least I accept that some people want to be traditional and some want to be nontraditional.People do what they want but forcing someone your ideals isn't cool. Once again bye.

 

[slimreaper]

The problem with gender roles it is causing this very problem. This is the result of men putting women in the background and using us a baby making machines rather treating us a equals and since women finally have even half the chance to really dominate a lot of women are going for that. I mean at look at Korea and Japan's birthrate? It's dropping because not only are men tired of having all that stress on them to have provide the money for their family and women are tired of having to stop their lives to fit the standards of a fit mother. It is causing both genders to get tired of the traditional gender roles compared to America where women do not have that type of pressure to bare children and become a housewife so both genders are still interested in forming families because it has become more of a 50/50 rather with house/parenting/income duties.

If people want to follow traditional gender roles then fine and if they don't then that is okay because I wouldn't mind myself staying at home caring for my family so I have no problem with it but there is still parts in the world where women are being treated as objects rather as equals. So it's expected that women will "try to be men" because this is the direct cause of men pushing women in a box and telling us "You are not a man. You are a women and women are baby-makers. You stay in this box and birth our children and raise how sons to be men and daughters to be like you."

I probably rambled off and answered nothing. Gomen.... :wesobi:

This is why I specified america. You can't compare Japanese and American cultures... only two percent of babies in japan are born out of wedlock, compared to America's 40.7%

 

[Sakura Michiko]

This is why I specified america. You can't compare Japanese and American cultures... only two percent of babies in japan are born out of wedlock, compared to America's 40.7%

It was an example. Some of them have traditional views there and some people have them here so yes it can be compared.

 

[CornyRainbow]

This is why I specified america. You can't compare Japanese and American cultures... only two percent of babies in japan are born out of wedlock, compared to America's 40.7%

And that's only because even if a woman did get pregnant while out of wedlock their families would most likely make them get married to each other before the child is born to avoid the family name getting tarnished and them being the topic of gossip for the next few months and abortion is pretty much A-okay over there but it's not like anybody's been getting pregnant anyways with their low birthrates.

Just like they did in America back in the 50s. The man and woman would get married before the child is born to avoid public embarrassment even if the two didn't even like each other. It's for the children they say :sdo: America has just become less harsh about children out of wedlock and such that no one cares to cover up their tracks anymore.

 

[slimreaper]

It was an example. Some of them have traditional views there and some people have them here so yes it can be compared.

Obviously not. Japans gender roles are hurting them but in a different non comparable way. 98% of people in japan don't have kids if they aren't married. Their divorce rates are probably similar the difference being they aren't leaving poor single parented kids everywhere. It's more responsible, but it's still killing them. Edit: their divorce rate is about half of ours

 

[Sakura Michiko]

Obviously not. Japans gender roles are hurting them but in a different non comparable way. 98% of people in japan don't have kids if they aren't married. Their divorce rates are probably similar the difference being they aren't leaving poor single parented kids everywhere. It's more responsible, but it's still killing them

Um Ok and who's to say it's not possible for America to get like that? Some people felt gender roles were hurting them and they gave up on them in America.

 

[slimreaper]

Either way you look at it, be it America or Japan, the bucking of traditional gender roles is having a negative effect on that place( although in sharply contrasting ways). Not to mention the lack of ****ing is literally killing the men in Japan ( the leading cause of death for Japanese men aged 20-44 is suicide)

 

[Punk Hazard]

I'm gonna leave this here again and hope you gain some reading and comprehension skills

You must be registered for see links

and for their children it's not a good thing, as I've proven but you'll somehow deny even more evidence.

That's a tough deal for kids, but living with one parent isn't as bad as living with two who are in a marriage that isn't defined by love or will, but by force and obligation. Constantly being exposed to a marriage like that wouldn't be good for them.

And yeah. Idc what you link to, correlation does not mean causation, that's a fact that won't change. Read and comprehend that.

 

[slimreaper]

That's a tough deal for kids, but living with one parent isn't as bad as living with two who are in a marriage that isn't defined by love or will, but by force and obligation. Constantly being exposed to a marriage like that wouldn't be good for them.

And yeah. Idc what you link to, correlation does not mean causation, that's a fact that won't change. Read and comprehend that.

The first opinion of yours is proven wrong by the negative societal effects on single parented children

Here is where you're liberal arrogance blinds you again. Firstly, you think yourself smarter than an entire organization whole have compiled data to build a stronger case for causation.

Secondly, as I've provided the "faulty correlation" for you to claim it to be false, the burden of proof lies with you to determine that.

I know you can't, so you either argue the point or take a loss.

 

[Yubel]

Can you read? Like I said bye for a reason.Implying I was done taking to you but you seem to have a hard time understanding that so I quoted myself to you.I really don't need to be conversing with you because you proved you're closed minded .At least I accept that some people want to be traditional and some want to be nontraditional.People do what they want but forcing someone your ideals isn't cool. Once again bye.

You're still talking to me and even though you said bye you were talking about me so gtfo.

 

[Disquiet]

I'm actually more interested in the heavy support of feminism/abolishing of gender roles by homosexuals/bisexuals/transgenders, since a lot of them seem to be understandably in favor of it. I wonder if there's going to be a "4th wave" of feminism much later in the future with a swap in its core constituents. Especially since men who have operations are women too (at least according to the moral shift that's currently happening).

I admit, the prospect of this isn't all that clear, but I can at least say, that I wholeheartedly believe it's totally realistic for more rigorous promotions (compared to what is currently happening/have happened) of laws that redefines the *** of a person in favor of transgender people. It's quite possible that this could occur under a new and distinct group (of course there's LGBT, but according to Wiki, they don't actually do much in the interest of transgenders, and besides both groups can very well end up working together), but feminism is already strong and is indirectly already fighting for such goals. So it may be easier to just jump on that. That'll be just that one issue, there could very well be other goals they'd want to accomplish.

Don't get it twisted, I'm not against such an agenda. It's just that if the annihilation of the perception we have placed on gender roles is to have any effects, negative or positive, I think it'll be best observed and most evident when people are not just passively ignoring them, but denies them physically and loudly. I also think behaviors like a woman seeking a job on her own is a rather subtle example. For instance, she could have her own job but still rather instinctively act much like a female in all other areas of her life. So people may not see any real harm (if there is any) in the relinquishing of gender roles if that's the only case presented. Most people (at least depending on the country) would say that she's not acting like any less of a woman because of it either.

In a more bold case like a transgender, people would start arguing if she/he is even male or female. Now perhaps people can more clearly discuss positive and negative effects.

In a hundred years or so (random numbers), what will society do if a moral shift make absolute that transgenders are women, will boys look at them as naturally as they do any female? If there aren't biological wiring that hardwired a *** to act and think a certain way (as many proponents of anti-gender claim), what exactly will stop them if everywhere they look they receive messages that supports the new moral outlook?

In my research, there seems to be several homosexual communities keeping eyes out for male pregnancies. This makes a lot of sense, I certainly find it reasonable that the "gay community" (doesn't feel right separating them like this) will push and even fund development of sciences that research male pregnancy. It'll be an outstanding triumph for them. What effect would this have on the woman population? With men being accepted as women and even getting pregnant (of course, if even ever achieved)?

In the quest to abolish genders, there's something else stirring up alongside it. I don't think people should be afraid to think of some of the "negative" consequences. This isn't a slippery slope perspective either, since some of these outcomes are actual dreams and or goals of certain groups.

I should stop and add here (since I know some people are probably thinking this is a *** issue and not necessarily a gender one) that many gays do get discriminated against for behaving femininely (and females, masculine), and also since many advocates of anti-gender argue that men are more conditioned to view females in a sexual manner than they are biologically so, it's all just pieces of the "social constructs" puzzle.

Now of course, there's a huge positive to all of this. It would mean less hate for the lesbian and gay communities. And to be honest, even in a world where no more women exist and men are having all the babies (though I highly doubt it'll be that extreme, my view is more of a "common way in life"), the issue is that of a moral one, and not exactly one that is objectively negative. After all, people would still be producing in this scenario and still able to carry out important functions in society.

One could also say that in the time I'm living now, I have access to women. And if I were living in the time of the scenario I described, I probably wouldn't mind because I may want to marry a transgender myself. A counterargument that the effects are very, very relative.

But make no mistake, I can think about this while eating a bowl of frosted flakes, so it's not like I'm worrying about it or beating myself up over it.

Who knows, maybe the next step in human evolution is to evolve beyond gender and *** (it would certainly show an ability to triumph hate and prejudice).

I just find it intriguing to think about a world where gender roles loses most of its value.



P.S. I ultimately agree with Fiddstx's last statement.

 

[slimreaper]

I'm actually more interested in the heavy support of feminism/abolishing of gender roles by homosexuals/bisexuals/transgenders, since a lot of them seem to be understandably in favor of it. I wonder if there's going to be a "4th wave" of feminism much later in the future with a swap in its core constituents. Especially since men who have operations are women too (at least according to the moral shift that's currently happening).

I admit, the prospect of this isn't all that clear, but I can at least say, that I wholeheartedly believe it's totally realistic for more rigorous promotions (compared to what is currently happening/have happened) of laws that redefines the *** of a person in favor of transgender people. It's quite possible that this could occur under a new and distinct group, but feminism is already strong and is indirectly already fighting for such goals. So it may be easier to just jump on that. That'll be just that one issue, there could very well be other goals they'd want to accomplish.

Don't get it twisted, I'm not against such an agenda. It's just that if the annihilation of the perception we have placed on gender roles is to have any effects, negative or positive, I think it'll be best observed and most evident when people are not just passively ignoring them, but denies them physically and loudly. I also think behaviors like a woman seeking a job on her own is a rather subtle example. For instance, she could have her own job but still rather instinctively act much like a female in all other areas of her life. So people may not see any real harm (if there is any) in the relinquishing of gender roles if that's the only case presented. Most people (at least depending on the country) would say that she's not acting like any less of a woman because of it either.

In a more bold case like a transgender, people would start arguing if she/he is even male or female. Now perhaps people can more clearly discuss positive and negative effects.

In a hundred years or so (random numbers), what will society do if a moral shift make absolute that transgenders are women, will boys look at them as naturally as they do any female? If there aren't biological wiring that hardwired a *** to act and think a certain way (as many proponents of anti-gender claim), what exactly will stop them if everywhere they look they receive messages that supports the new moral outlook?

In my research, there seems to be several homosexual communities keeping eyes out for male pregnancies. This makes a lot of sense, I certainly find it reasonable that the "gay community" (doesn't feel right separating them like this) will push and even fund development of sciences that research male pregnancy. It'll be an outstanding triumph for them. What effect would this have on the woman population? With men being accepted as women and even getting pregnant (of course, if even ever achieved)?

In the quest to abolish genders, there's something else stirring up alongside it. I don't think people should be afraid to think of some of the "negative" consequences.

I should stop and add here (since I know some people are probably thinking this is a *** issue and not necessarily a gender one) that many gays do get discriminated against for behaving femininely (and females, masculine), and also since many advocates of anti-gender argue that men are more conditioned to view females in a sexual manner than they are biologically so, it's all just pieces of the "social constructs" puzzle.

Now of course, there's a huge positive to all of this. It would mean less hate for the lesbian and gay communities. And to be honest, even in a world where no more women exist and men are having all the babies (though I highly doubt it'll be that extreme, my view is more of a "common way in life"), the issue is that of a moral one, and not exactly one that is objectively negative. After all, people would still be producing in this scenario and still able to carry out important functions in society.

One could also say that in the time I'm living now, I have access to women. And if I were living in the time of the scenario I described, I probably wouldn't mind because I may want to marry a transgender myself. A counterargument that the effects are very, very relative.

But make no mistake, I can think about this while eating a bowl of frosted flakes, so it's not like I'm worrying about it or beating myself up over it.

Who knows, maybe the next step in human evolution is to evolve beyond gender and *** (it would certainly show an ability to triumph hate and prejudice).

I just find it intriguing to think about a world where gender roles loses most of its value.



P.S. I ultimately agree with Fiddstx's last statement.

Firstly, it's already been determined that you can't combine the x and y chromosomes. So trannys will remain unappealing to straight men. Secondly, by all means refute my counter to fiddstx

 

[Disquiet]

Firstly, it's already been determined that you can't combine the x and y chromosomes. So trannys will remain unappealing to straight men. Secondly, by all means refute my counter to fiddstx

I don't think you interpreted my post correctly. You provided a counter for this?

"I do believe there are natural gender roles that take place and should. But society telling you to act a certain way because your were born a certain way is silly." - Fiddstx

 

[slimreaper]

I don't think you interpreted my post correctly. You provided a counter for this?

"I do believe there are natural gender roles that take place and should. But society telling you to act a certain way because your were born a certain way is silly." - Fiddstx

Then elaborate. As for countering that... it is a contradiction so it counters itself firstly. He says there are roles but we just shouldn't apply them. I, in that post, provided evidence of the harms to childrens well being and the negative effects of not applying those gender roles. It isn't "silly" So yes I did counter that statement