Is a woman's place in the kitchen?
- Thread starter Chikombo
- Start date
Aside from the title of the thread being extremely misogynistic there are certain things that each gravitate to at least to a degree, but that can and is influenced by any number of factors. If something is deemed normal for one *** or another to gravitate to then likely they're pushed that direction even if unintentionally. As for the direct title of being in the kitchen over 75% of professional chefs are male, so that metric alone throws a wrench into the proverbial works that the kitchen is a "woman's place".
Chikombo
Active member
Awards
You know what I mean.
I don't fully understand what you are saying, are you saying it's possible for a certain *** to be connected to a certain path in life but you can also be influenced by other things which strays from that?
Perhaps I do, but understanding the meaning of something doesn't excuse the phrasing of something.
I'm saying it's indeterminate, you're never going to be able to fully remove outside predilection. For example build a society of only one *** and the traditionally male roles will be filled by women and vice verse, throughout history there have been several instances where certain roles have shifted as well. You can't really attribute these shifts to shifts in biology so then what changed? The answer being external factors did, such as public disposition. From a purely biological standpoint men are better suited for some things and women others, but biology also doesn't express any interest in perform those tasks nor does it account for how society perceives the role.
Chikombo
Active member
Awards
Right, I would like to think people are more free than we seem to be, I don't want for example if I had a daughter for her to think her destiny was to be some side character to a male superhero, that's propaganda to me.
But statistics say there are feminine roles and there are masculine roles and women are prone to go a different way than men, and it's hard to argue against facts.
The idea of destiny goes back to if we have humans have free will at all and that's a philosophical question. If I told you to think of a city right now and you came up with one when exactly did you make the conscious decision to think of a city and when did you make the decision to chose the city you chose? If you're doing something because you're reacting to something else is it your free will or simply a reaction and what you decide to do or how you react is likely based on a string of reactions than any conscious form of free will.
The statistics themselves don't really explain why they are how they are and that's the answer you're looking for. You want the reason why X is feminine or Y is masculine and since these metrics can change with societal views the common denominator is a reactionary effect to what is socially acceptable rather than biology itself at least in most cases. Obviously certain unalienable things are set in stone at least at this point. A male can't be a mother in the sense that they can't physically have the child for example, but that's not to say 2 males can't raise a child clearly so is the act of giving birth actually a role or not and that'd be a determination you need to make when creating criteria as to how you want to define if it's a role or simply an action. I'd personally argue that the act of raising the child is the role though.
Tigerrr in the woods
Active member
Awards
Absorb eh? Do I even want to know what you're 'eating' that you're absorbing it instead of eating it? I'm not even sure I want to know what you're using to absorb this mysterious 'food'.I absorb all food in the kitchen
Society determines the expected role of each ***. We have seen in various different ages that the roles of both men and women have changed and shifted. Some societies are matriarcal, others patriarcal. In some societies, women manage the money the men earns. In others, the men works the land at home and the women works for someone else earning money. There were times when women were the wisdom and knowledge holders of their tribes and men went to women for advice.
Roles shift and move around as society does. The reason why men were so proeminent in most (but not all) social structures up to this day was that, up to this day, being physically stronger and more resilient was the main trait looked at for a leader. Hunting, fighting, defending, building, etc were all tasks where men's higher physical strength and endurance gave them the edge and thus allowed them to be more dominant in the society. As society moves away from the focus on physical characteristics to determine its structure, it also moves away from being a male centric society. The more we become intellectual beings and the more inteligence is valued, the less can men stand out in relation to women. Because, while on average, human males are physically stronger, bigger and more robust than the average human female, when it comes to intellectual prowess and capability, men aren't better than women. So, if you have a role you need to fill that doesn't benefit from someone physically stronger, you'll start to focus more on who can fill that role better regardless of that trait.
Also, this thread is a bait thread. You know this type of title and this type of thread will only fuel arguments.
Roles shift and move around as society does. The reason why men were so proeminent in most (but not all) social structures up to this day was that, up to this day, being physically stronger and more resilient was the main trait looked at for a leader. Hunting, fighting, defending, building, etc were all tasks where men's higher physical strength and endurance gave them the edge and thus allowed them to be more dominant in the society. As society moves away from the focus on physical characteristics to determine its structure, it also moves away from being a male centric society. The more we become intellectual beings and the more inteligence is valued, the less can men stand out in relation to women. Because, while on average, human males are physically stronger, bigger and more robust than the average human female, when it comes to intellectual prowess and capability, men aren't better than women. So, if you have a role you need to fill that doesn't benefit from someone physically stronger, you'll start to focus more on who can fill that role better regardless of that trait.
Also, this thread is a bait thread. You know this type of title and this type of thread will only fuel arguments.
Chikombo
Active member
Awards
I appreciate your answer, I didn't mean to bait anything, I wanted a real discussion.
Do you think things can change in the future of men being dominant? And women being dominant instead?
Lol right.
I think that no one will be dominant tbh. More and more we walk towards ***, gender, race, etc being non factors in our society's structure. We've come to a point where the only things that start to matter are those that make a difference for wtv is being considered. Because, what does it matter if a president is a woman, a gay man, a latin woman, etc etc? Does he or she need to be a certain race/gender/***/wtv to be a good president? No. That reality is that no. And as time goes by, I think that will set in and people will normalize difference to a point where its simply a mute conversation.
The word dominant also kind of irks me. Women being dominant...its as if you're coming from a place of fear that women gaining more importance and value in society somehow diminishes the value of men. And its not the case. Any society will benifit from having not their men or their women in charge....but whomever is more suitable, capable, skilled to be in charge. Regardless of anything else.
People complain about everything, specially change. Doesn't stop it from happening. Doesn't matter if people gets angst about change. Change happens when the majority wants, regardless of the will of the minority, for better or worse.
Who are you?..
r u talkin to me???..