Going against traditional gender roles hurting the American family

[Disquiet]

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

I'm aware of that. I believe biological wiring may make one gender more suitable for a certain role than another, but they can still be affected by their environment (i.e. during their upbringing) which may produce a personality type geared toward a role that is generally suited for the opposite gender. In addition to that, you may get those individuals who is just naturally more adroit in certain parts of the brain that allows them to accomplish certain tasks with ease. Even more, while men as a whole are more sexual than women (one of the biggest distinctions between men and women), you have many women that are very very sexual, and men that don't even think about it much. And of course, we even have the asexual. There's just way too many ways for the brain to be wired/rewired through environment and experience to decide everything on gender alone. Way too many variables. Apart from that, it is silly to allow gender roles to rule you just because society tells you to do so. That's a pitiful forfeiture of intelligence and critical thought.

I'm pretty sure Fiddstx was speaking in a general sense with that last statement.

As for the attraction to transgenders, I'm speaking from the many perspectives I encountered, which is why I put what I did in parentheses, "as many proponents of anti-gender claim" or something like that. I would have thought the disassociation was clear.

 

[slimreaper]

I'm aware of that. I believe biological wiring may make one gender more suitable for a certain role than another, but they can still be affected by their environment (i.e. during their upbringing) which may produce a personality type geared toward a role that is generally suited for the opposite gender. In addition to that, you may get those individuals who is just naturally more adroit in certain parts of the brain that allows them to accomplish certain tasks with ease. Even more, while men as a whole are more sexual than women (one of the biggest distinctions between men and women), you have many women that are very very sexual, and men that don't even think about it much. And of course, we even have the asexual. There's just way too many ways for the brain to be wired/rewired through environment and experience to decide everything on gender alone. Way too many variables. Apart from that, it is silly to allow gender roles to rule you just because society tells you to do so. That's a pitiful forfeiture of intelligence and critical thought.

I'm pretty sure Fiddstx was speaking in a general sense with that last statement.

As for the attraction to transgenders, I'm speaking from the many perspectives I encountered, which is why I put what I did in parentheses, "as many proponents of anti-gender claim" or something like that. I would have thought the disassociation was clear.

A pitiful forfeiture of intelligence and critical thought is being shown concrete evidence that says the promoting of bucking gender roles is having negative effects on the balance and general well being of future generations... and simply ignoring the need for those institutions as they are "silly"

 

[Disquiet]

I agree that it's not wise to demean gender roles, using it as a premise to influence entire generations. Yet, I'm not getting why you're failing to understand how situational this can be.

Because of your redirection of my point back to your original argument, I'm not sure how deep you're willing to go with this unless you say it outright. What if the woman becomes a famous actor? She'll presumably have the money to support both of them. What if she's a talented singer or some kind of musician? There are many careers that would certainly allow her to support herself, and not be dependent upon her partner or future partner.

As long as you support single women having access to work (I'm not sure if you do, nor did I read every post here), you're opening a HUGE window for them to be in a spectacular financial position by the time she meets her partner. Of course, a woman can have financial stability without even ever wanting a partner or family.

These kind of situations are inevitable unless you think women shouldn't work at all. This is more or less my point about Fiddstx's last statement. At least, the meaning I took from it. I think people should ultimately choose what's best for their personal situation.

You're also going to have trouble convincing people that because marriages are failing, man should continue to hold the doors open for women or women shouldn't be the one to bring men flowers and candy instead, or that women should always be the one to pay on first dates instead (although such roles can vary across different cultures).

You're inflating marriage problems to include gender roles a whole and expecting people to see validity in your core argument.

My break is up now. Will probably reply later.

 

[slimreaper]

I agree that it's not wise to demean gender roles, using it as a premise to influence entire generations. Yet, I'm not getting why you're failing to understand how situational this can be.

Because of your redirection of my point back to your original argument, I'm not sure how deep you're willing to go with this unless you say it outright. What if the woman becomes a famous actor? She'll presumably have the money to support both of them. What if she's a talented singer or some kind of musician? There are many careers that would certainly allow her to support herself, and not be dependent upon her partner or future partner.

As long as you support single women having access to work (I'm not sure if you do, nor did I read every post here), you're opening a HUGE window for them to be in a spectacular financial position by the time she meets her partner. Of course, a woman can have financial stability without even ever wanting a partner or family.

These kind of situations are inevitable unless you think women shouldn't work at all. This is more or less my point about Fiddstx's last statement. At least, the meaning I took from it. I think people should ultimately choose what's best for their personal situation.

You're also going to have trouble convincing people that because marriages are failing, man should continue to hold the doors open for women or women shouldn't be the one to bring men flowers and candy instead, or that women should always be the one to pay on first dates instead (although such roles can vary across different cultures).

You're inflating marriage problems to include gender roles a whole and expecting people to see validity in your core argument.

My break is up now. Will probably reply later.

See post #22. I've also suggested the negative effects of men leaving due to female dominance would be lessened if the woman proved she could produce more for the family

 

[Jack Spicer]

This thread is still a thing, huh?

 

[Narusaku619]

it is hurting your view of the " American family"

imo traditional gender roles are bs and i don't go by them.

Its funny how woman get mad whenever gener roles are talked about......but the thing woman need to understand is that they HAVE THE MOST IMPORTANT JOB IN THE FAMILY STRUCTURE....

and that is being a mother.....

In no way am I saying a woman should stay home take care of the kids and obey her husband....

What I'm saying is it seems like more modern day woman hate the idea of being a mother.....and MOTHERS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR TO A CHILDS DEVELOPMENT.....THERES NOTHING LIKE THE LOVE OF YOUR MOTHER

 

[Yubel]

Its funny how woman get mad whenever gener roles are talked about......but the thing woman need to understand is that they HAVE THE MOST IMPORTANT JOB IN THE FAMILY STRUCTURE....

and that is being a mother.....

In no way am I saying a woman should stay home take care of the kids and obey her husband....

What I'm saying is it seems like more modern day woman hate the idea of being a mother.....and MOTHERS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR TO A CHILDS DEVELOPMENT.....THERES NOTHING LIKE THE LOVE OF YOUR MOTHER

Hey fathers are important too, don't forget. However you're right and because they hate it 90% of women these days aren't suited to be a mother and shouldn't have kids. They still want to be mothers though even though they don't want to be mothers.-_-