That's the point of the evolutionary race, to come up with something new and make it work. What is a dodgy ass topic because fertility and longevity just on the opposite side of the spectrum, so instead of history only the future can give us an answer which one is the perfect evolutionary strategy. In Europe average IQ is dropping since the mid 70s so I guess at the moment fertility has been doing better and in that case the gender roles would be more useful, but I truly hope that longevity will win in long term.
@J2ohhhhh Man transcends his evolutionary origins. Culture began as an evolutionary adaptation and has transcended it. It being added that in an imperfect world of imperfect beings, no particular ebb or flow in culture will be perfect.Your stat on IQ really proves nothing. (In fact, I take you at your word but would like to see the stats on that.) Except perhaps that the schools may not be doing as good a job as they should. IQ as a measurement is confined by the capacity of those taking the test to read and quantify it.Apes were not IQ beings, but one of their species managed to climb to the top of the food chain. They likely, however, would not have been able to pass an IQ test along the way.In any case, gender roles reflect the interaction of evolutionary imperatives with the development of culture measured over time. They may not be perfect or satisfactory to all groups - indeed they vary much according to cultural particularities - bit they work well enough.
Well.. my stat has different theories and speculations. One of them is that work is getting intellectually less challenging so we give up cognition. An other one blames bad nutritional habits. And my favourite even has a name, dysgenic fertility. (Low IQ people have more kids with other low IQ people than higher IQ people). Possibly the combination of the these and even more.I actually agree on gender roles they are more or less working. However where I'd expect you to speculate and think instead of repeating what you have read is how it could be replaced or reformed.I cannot really see that women will agree to "go back to the kitchen" so we have a situation here. What's up next? And how can culture and biology separate? When men doesn't have to provide what are women going to look for? Are they gonna go with culture or their biology will overwrite it and even they can provide for themselves they are gonna go for a provider?
You sound like somebody who's never stepped outside his home country.
I'm a woman and I cannot imagine staying at home 8-9 hours a day with absolutely nothing to do while the kids are at school. Most women nowadays are not interested in being stay home moms. You can just take a look at the polls being conducted on here.
@nella965 As I mentioned, as civilization has developed, culture has defined and then refined the breadth of options open to individuals in that culture. Also, this will vary much by the individual.The point of what I wrote was to trace back the origins from whence we came and in the broadest of outlines, skipping a lot of detail, illustrate how we got to where we are. Indeed, that has varied significantly even in the short term.After two world wars and a great depression and the Korean War, events which drove women into the factories - or poverty - whether they wanted it or not, women saw staying at home to raise the children as blessed relief. It was only the generation born into the stability of the 1950s that found it suffocating and binding. To their parents what seemed comforting they took for granted and found suffocating.Thus, giving us the Swinging 60s, the women's liberation movement and the ethos and culture that have now shaped your attitude. In that sense, you are the inheritor of some very recent - measured in anthropological and historical terms - developments.
@nightdrotn, I don't think there is such a thing as a male or female role. It is my ultimate life goal to have children and I am extremely nurturing and caring as a mother. I want to be there for my children but it doesn't mean that i want to give my entire career. I am in no way masculine. In fact, I am very feminine but it really doesn't mean that I would like the idea of giving up all my passions in life just cuz a few kids came out. A working mother can also do her duties as a mother. I was raised by both parents working full time and they were AMAZING parents who scarified so much for me and loved me dearly. They've raised me into a kind hearted, educated, mature, intelligent young lady. We need to stop putting a "male" or "female" label on things and just let people do things that make them happy in life. You cannot categorize or put such strict labels on things. Not all women are ok with spending 8-9 hours daily doing little to nothing around the house while the kids are at school.
@nella965 Really? Then what was the whole women's liberation movement all about? What were they demanding liberation from if not the roles that had traditionally been assigned to women? Gender roles, as I mentioned, have their origin in evolutionary developments that took on over time social, cultural and moral dimensions. In that connection, think of the developments over the centuries.Women were property in the post-Medieval world. Then came the code of chivalry - binding on both men and women. Then skip through the centuries and the very rigid definition of a woman's role in the Victorian era. It's relative loosening in the Edwardian era. Then its - by the standards of the time - positively radical redefinition in the "Ballyhoo Years" of the 1920s in the wake of the tumults of WWI. Then came the aforementioned hardships of the Great Depression and World War II and the Korean War, and the reversion to very traditional male and female roles - in part because women had no choice but to work in the factories and wanted the option to stay home.Trust me, there have been gender roles and still are. At this moment in time they are relatively lax, but you need not look too far back to see how much they have changed over time.
@nightdrot, People need to stop thinking that the only goal every woman has in her life is to raise children. Evolution really isn't everything. A woman may want to nurture her children but she may also still want to pursue the career she wants. Just because a woman has kids, it doesn't mean she wants to give up everything else in life. Its kinda like saying, right after a man has kids , then it means that he would like to support kids kids to the fullest by working 7 days a week for the next 25 years. He has absolutely no time for anything else and just lives at his desk 60 hours a week. There are terrible mothers and wonderful fathers. Not all women are caring, nurturing or loving. I've seen so many mean, narcissistic mothers who abuse and manipulate their children. I've also seen fathers who loved their children dearly. You cannot stereotype this way. Not all women want kids either. So stop obsessing over "evolution".
@nella965 You seem to be misunderstanding what I am talking about. We shape and are shaped by culture. (Indeed, even the ideas you articulated above have their intellectual predicates in the ideas of the Enlightenment.)Every culture has its presuppositions of the extent and limits of human conduct. No one said that evolution is everything, but it is where we started and culture flowed from it.We did not get where we are de novo. Rather we started at a certain point and have changed and developed in response to changing circumstances and changing needs. To which are added cultural particularities and individual psychologies in a churning and never ending process.Your point misses the point. You are focusing on the narrow particularities which vary within a range. I was discussing the broader framework in which those particularities are defined and operate.To use your example in a current context. Some women may be good at nurturing children, others poor. However, in the culture of Saudi Arabia their options will be narrower whatever their personal qualities. This is what the question was referring to when it mentions "gender roles."
I can't disagree
@hegel Thank you. Honestly, I did not think I was suggesting anything all that controversial. It is basic anthropology, sociology and social history.
@nightdrot, Listen I do agree culture plays a part via brainwashing about what people should or should not do. At a very young age, we are grilled about how society works by the adults around us as examples. Nobody is born believing in gender roles. Nobody is born racist. Nobody is born sexist. Nobody is born believing that you must be a virgin in order to be worthy of marriage. Nobody is born believing that women should be property. These are all things that are TAUGHT or BRAINWASHED. But I think its important to understand that every individual is designed to be different with different desires. Not all women are caring and designed to be great mothers. In fact, there are way too many unqualified mothers out there already. Not all fathers are bad parents. Not all women are happy with being stuck at home all day. My point is, stop stereotyping.
@nella965 No offense intended, but you are spouting banalities. Pay attention to what I wrote. Individual psychologies, cultural context, law, government and - oh yes - basic biology all play their parts in defining gender roles. Indeed, as I noted, you are even less the rugged individualist independent thinker than you assume you are. Much of your arguments have their intellectual and moral predicates in the Enlightenment and indeed even ancient Greece in some cases.You are howling into a hurricane. Every individual is different, but every individual is as much shaped by the milieu in which they find themselves through no choice of their own as the genetics which made you as a living creature possible.Beyond that, call it brainwashing or what you will, it is as inevitable and unconscious as the sunrise.
@nightdrot, If you're so correct, then why would I, as a woman, want children but yet also want a career? I do want to become a mother and I am very nurturing and caring. In fact, I am more nurturing than the average woman. But yet I also do want to have a career and explore what the world has to offer. I do not know what is so unwomanly about simply a woman wanting to learn new things, explore the world and enjoy more aspects of life. Women are human beings too. We have passions outside of kids. Just like men have more passions outside of working at the office. I do not know why you are under the assumption that a woman has no other aspiration in life other than to care for children. I think that you're brainwashed yourself to believe that every woman is a good mother or that every woman wants kids. I've met numerous women who DO NOT want children.
@nella965 Because it is a mixture of individual character and cultural context. Put you in the 1860s and the choices that seem so obvious to you at the moment would be like explaining the color blue to a blind man - or in this case woman. You have an temperament peculiar to yourself but you are not a creature apart. It is fun to believe that you are, to borrow from Disraeli, "a self-made man who worships his creator," but you are not nearly so distinct from your upbringing and your education - those the product of the culture and the times - as you assume.
@nightdrot, so you're basically saying that the only reason why I have curiosity and ambition and adventurousness in life as a female is because I was brainwashed by my culture? This itself sounds sexist as hell. So what you're saying is, females are not supposed to have any curiosity, or adventurousness? Any sort of adventurousness has to be brainwashed into me? What do you see women as? birthing machines or human beings?
@nightdrot, here's the truth: Women have NEVER been allowed the FREEDOM to conduct their lives whichever way they want up until the past 3 decades. Women were never encouraged or allowed to pursue careers, in the past. In fact, working were looked down upon. This explains why women never pursued the things that made them truly happy. Women never saw anything else other than housewiving, as an option. You can't pick something you want, if you were never offered it in the first place. And now that women are allowed to pursue what makes them happy in the modern era, you are calling me a MAN. The brainwashed one is YOU.
@nella965 @nella965 Listen carefully. You have your temperament and personal psychology. These play their part.However, put you in the 1860s and you would have been as apt to choose a career in domestic service or you might have chosen to be married and stay at home and learned to subordinate your ambitions, or you might have given yourself over to charitable enterprises or teaching. The times and the culture would circumscribe your choices and cause you to define the limits of those choices consistent with your times.Thus, for example, the notion of owning your own company not only would not have been open to you, the odds are that it would not have occurred to you. Alternatively, if it did, you likely would have dismissed it as inconsistent with your station.You seem determined to greatly oversimplify a complex and dynamic reality. To define your culture and your preferences entirely with reference to yourself. Indeed, as I already noted, you are more - to borrow from Keynes - the "slave of some defunct economist" then you appear to understand.Your last remark is especially eccentric. You define your own notion of womanhood and when it is pointed out to you that such notion is as much a cultural construct as it is a matter of your temperament you declare it manhood.That is odd, to say no more. If anything, you seem to be more a prisoner of your own resentments than you are an analyst of history, culture and anthropology.
"Thus, for example, the notion of owning your own company not only would not have been open to you, the odds are that it would not have occurred to you. Alternatively, if it did, you likely would have dismissed it as inconsistent with your station."Well obviously it wouldn't have occurred to me because women were not in any place of power or wealth back then. During the 1800s, the only way for a woman to survive was to get married. "Getting married" was the only goal women were expected to have. If a woman did not get married, she would get looked down upon and stay poor for the rest of her life. Men definitely were encouraged to get education, job skills, and to make money. Women were not. A woman working maid service or cooking was condemned to a life of poverty and of course she would get looked down upon for being unmarried. They called unmarried women "spinsters" or "old maids". Disgusting terms. Back then during the 1800s, working women were not highly respected. Women were only given respect if she was a married housewife. I remember back during the 1990s, housewives was still deemed as the ultimate role for women. Working women were inferior to housewives. But now its not the case anymore. Society has gotten much more equal. And women are allowed to pick whatever they want to do with their lives. Lets just stop the cultural brainwashing and just let people do whatever makes them happy. Because you only live once.
@nella965 Exactly, we define our notions of our roles and limits within the parameters in which we find ourselves. That is what, defines gender roles and much else besides. These ebb and flow and change in a never ending and dynamic process.
I love gender roles but men need to act more like men these days and stop being crybabys.
@Stonernights Well, I am not here going to go down the list of what gender roles are and what they are becoming. Suffice to add that as the role of men has narrowed, they both have started to limit their own conduct as well as having it limited.Many men are also not necessarily adapting well to this changing environment - as the rising addiction, suicide rates, increased incarceration rates and falling academic performance all suggest. Many of the qualities that were once defined as masculine - physical strength being an obvious example - are no longer needed as much. So men are more marginalized and this is having deleterious effects.
No idea. I just like my role and husbands role. Works perfect. We were both raised old fashiony so what ever the new stuff is we never picked up sorrys.
Wow Nightdrot. This is how I wanted to respond. But thought that I'd rather not put people to sleep and think I was a nerd.But you have it all here.My actual response was just simplicity for whatever works for any couple.
Gender roles by nature are compelety random tho. Look at lions for example the women are much of the agressive hunters. And it just kinda all seems ro be a random mess within creatures and gender roles. Nevermind ones who can just change gender when needed.So in the end were all adaptive and humans and all creatures can change to what they see fit even if it does take a thousands of years. Gender roles are the whole thing of well yes they do exist but actaully no.It's just a weird since gender roles change all the time including to no gender role at all.
There were reasons why they developed as they did. But in this modern world, and the ability to tell Mother Nature to screw off, they have variegated greatly. And there is a variation for everybody.
@james2018dean Thanks for your kind comment. As to the point about gender roles being totally random and our capacity to change them, that is not quite true. Gender roles, at an irreducible level, were born of the fact that men and women serve different biological functions. Our capacity to change them has widened considerably but cannot be altered fundamentally. Moreover, as the problems both men and women are experiencing - see the shortened lifespans of men, see the sexual harassment situations - suggest, such changes are not without their consequences.
All long term societal changes have their snags.We are now at a point where we can are telling Mother Nature (for lack of a better culprit to name) to buzz off.Even our medicines are stopping our DNA from evolving and adapting. We will change very little in the future.
@james2018dean You are assuming that all changes must lead to progress. That we live in a perfectible world where progress is inevitable. That there are no trade-offs in life.Suffice to say, you need only look about you to know that is not true. No change is without its costs, and we pay some consequences when we stray too far from our essential natures. (Think of this - pace the current situation - venereal diseases developed because men tried sex with animals. We had the capacity to break gender roles - no other creature in nature could choose to do that - and there was a price to be paid.)Bottom line, we can transcend our nature, but we must use prudent judgment about when it is wise to do so. We push the envelope always somewhat at our peril.
You're assuming that we are the final product. It sounds more religious than scientific to me.
@J2ohhhhh To the contrary, it is very scientific. Because we can transcend our natures and are not merely animals - we can decide what is good and what not. What consequences we prefer and what not.Animals do not make such judgments. They act by instinct and according to those instincts and without reflection. Man alone weighs the trade-offs and decides if they are consistent with our interests and from that we derive moral evaluations.That is not a religious observation, that is both scientific and philosophical. Natural law is that which conduces to the fulfillment of our nature - see also Aristotle, Plato, etc. The problem comes in when we decide that anything we decide must conduce to the good because we decide it.Thus, mutatis mutandis, we decided that the Jews are an inferior species and throw them into ovens. Pace the ancient Greeks, it is called hubris. It leads to many bad things.
I think panic shoppers kinda answered the question how much we can deny our nature. I didn't panic shop, because I know I wouldn't starve till we have squirrels in the park and ducks in the canal. This is a build in confidence in my adapting skills. But that confidence is the part of my nature. It is the same like animals know that they shouldn't mess with bigger animals, but for that they need to know their own size. I know my own size in nature and according to that I chose my survival and mating strategy. But it isn't that I transcend my nature, I still act accordingly, but in a (would like to think) more sophisticated way.If an intellectual could fight for their life or participate in a quiz game for the life they'd probably go for the quiz. And probably live their whole life betting on their best quality what is gathering knowledge.Cheating is part of the - evolutionary - game, not transcending the game.Due to the blood research trying to prove that Jews are inferior, ABO blood groups were developed. Without this blood transfusion wouldn't be possible. Bad things result good things and good things result bad things, I am not here to judge but to observe and learn.
@J2ohhhhh We may have been talking past each other. I don't disagree with much of what you said.My point is that we are the only creatures in nature that have the capacity to transcend nature. We can choose in a way that all other creatures cannot. That not suggesting that we always do. Moreover, our capacity to do so depends on our education, socialization and much else.We have the potential to do so. It does that mean that we do. Not least because man is neither perfect nor perfectible, and progress is not foreordained.
It is due to human intervention, but at the same time it is fascinating how guide dogs are trained not to react to other dogs or anything but to focus on their "jobs". I think that is one of the closest to human behaviour.One might think they overcame their nature, but than it could be explained that they just did what their body wanted or just did the opposite for comforting themselves that they have free will, they are in control, they are safe.What I'm saying that the complexity of our decision making could create the illusion of free will, but at the end everything could be explained. It is just not guaranteed that we have the capacity to fully understand every reason.
@J2ohhhhh That last point is true, but it is trivially so. As we are not perfect creatures so we have not the capacity for perfect understanding. We may know the reason. We may not. We may be mistaken about the reason. However, that is not the same thing as saying that a reason or reasons do not exist.As to the dog example, it is not quite appropriate. The dog reacts to stimulus. It lacks the capacity to initiate the habits for which it is trained. This makes the dog, at the most fundamental level, different from the human. The latter can train itself. The former can only be trained.
I completely agree on that the reason exist that's why I highlighted the fact that there's a chance that we do not have the capacity to understand things but they are there.Humans are also trained. According to Burke at least ;D and the capacity of learning things is also mostly learned.
@J2ohhhhh Humans can be trained but also have the capacity to train themselves. To repeat, the dog has the former. It lacks the latter capacity.
I love gender roles. I'm busy all day with hobbys then when I come home I take care of my home and pets and my husband works.
@Stonernights I don’t enjoy being stuck at home all day cus it’s boring and I love learning new things , being challenged, transforming and improving myself as a human being in every aspect. I also really like money. So these are all reasons why I can’t be a housewife. Might be able to stay home with the kids for 2 years but definitely not forever.
I would love to have kids! I would definitely be a sahm. As far as house wifing I'm only home in the evening because of activities during the day.
@Stonernights you’re gonna be constantly having to think of new hobbies to do. Cuz even hobbies can run out with so much time on your hands. You’re gonna need lotta distractions
If you’re not working , make sure to marry a husband who can support you and your kids well. If you aren’t working , make sure your husband can have Enough money saved up for your children’s college savings and your retirement savings. Poor husbands are in no way shape or form to have housewives
Yep my newest one is chorus and swimming I just started 2 months ago. I love them so much and of course can't go to then at the moment but the people I've met have been amazing and am missing them a lot right now. Before that I did boardgame events for 2 years , loved it so much , met a lot of great friends. Before that I was a runner for 6 years!!! Volunteered and ran in a race every weekend for that whole time. Again tons of great people were met that way. I'm just super social so I need to constantly be having a good time with others.
@Stonernights I guess different people love different things. But Most stay home moms struggle to find ways to occupy their boredom. You really have to go seek out to find them but not all communities are rich in such extracurriculars
Ah I live in L. A. county. Lots to do. Where are you from.
@Stonernights I live in NYC. Many events of all kinds here but mostly its for networking for career. Very few people here are free during the daytimes. Its always the nights or weekends. City full of single , workaholics.
☹ well that doesn't sound good.
@Stonernights do you have a boyfriend or are you engaged?
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
But gender polarity itself should be protected and not undermined. I suspect eastern philosophies encompass this better in their conceptualisation of Yin/Yang balance as the essential life-force driving each of us, and society as a whole. Whereas the Western world seems obsessed with the postmodern tendency to dismantle all existing social contracts merely because they CAN.
I don't think there is such a thing as a male or female role. It is my ultimate life goal to have children and I am extremely nurturing and caring as a mother. I want to be there for my children but it doesn't mean that i want to give my entire career after kids come out. I am in no way masculine. In fact, I am very feminine but it really doesn't mean that I would like the idea of giving up all my passions in life just cuz a few kids came out. We need to stop putting a "male" or "female" label on things and just let people do what they want in life. You cannot categorize or put such strict labels on things. Not all women are ok with spending 8-9 hours daily doing little to nothing around the house while the kids are at school.
Haha, take it like a Kimberly.
How is it a social construct and not natural behaviour ( nature) Just asking
@Hyper2 A social construct is something we as a society have created. It's only a real thing because we believe it's a real thing. An example would be how people dress. We could saying anything gender specific is because somewhere, someone said it is that way and anyone who doesn't follow this is an outcast... is wrong. I'm not saying I'd wear a skirt and blouse... but really, what would be wrong with it? Does it affect anyone other than me? Gender roles are much the same. What is really wrong with a man folding laundry and a woman cutting the lawn?
I see your point but I don't fully agree. Let's use clothes as you did as the example. Men don't wear dresses because women don't find men in dresses attractive. That's not necessarily a " social construct" but us as humans figuring out what makes us most attractive to the opposites gender and following along those lines. Let's be real that's the root of all gender roles...***relationships***. I'm 100% sure single men do their own laundry , cooking and cleaning.
@Hyper2 You're correct on that point... because they're forced to do everything themselves in that example. Just as women don't find men in skirts attractive, because they've been told it's unattractive their entire lives. We could go back and forth on this indefinitely. Yo made some good points. At this stage of my learnings, I'm really on the fence about it
I personally think it's 80% nature and 20% social construct. Lol
@outside_Toronto Piking up on your clothing exempleI'll speak about the women in my entourage and culture here, we don't find men in skirts attractive not bc society installed that belief in us but bc it simply makes the men too feminine or appear gay and that's not attractive.If it was social constructed we could easily change our mind if it was something we actually liked, but we don't.
@Dihiya I hear what you're saying but that's exactly what a social construct is. It's something we as a society have created. I understand your opinion and happen to agree with you, however opinions inside there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. We as a society choose to view it that way myself included. We could change it very easily; we just choose not to
I agree that it's up to negotiation.You asked another question about photos. It wouldn't let me answer. So I'll do it here.I was asked by someone I trusted for a pic of a certain body part. I found out later that it was shown to her sister, daughter (adult), and God knows who else. This did not make me happy. I told her to keep it to herself.
@james2018dean That makes sense. I only show my closest friends, and with his permission. Otherwise, I wouldn't.
So you wouldn't necessarily stop your partner from being a stay-at-home partner?
Everyone works and brings in money. If he wants to work from home, cool. There won’t be any kids so there’s no real need for a stay at home anything.
The problem with this narrative is that consider what is conservative and common a man being a bread winner, if I don't assume this role I will be expecting a woman possibly my wife to go out work, pay bills, put food on the table, and pay my mortgage so I have a roof over my head, and home for my children. Unfortunately if I don't assume my natural responsibility and work like a real man should I will be destitute, because no woman is going to pay my way, therefore feminism is defunct, because it provides little to know true explanation to how a man and a woman can exist, thrive, and at best survive. No need to discuss gender roles anymore, men just have to get busy working.