Topic: The role of women in society - page 2. (Read 409 times)
In the past, before, say, the 1940s, gender meant biological sex. How many millions of years did it take us to change the meaning of gender? Perhaps we aren't human anymore.
OP has conflated gender with biological sex. Gender psychological social construct which doesn't mean it isn't natural, humans have always lived in societies with social constructs, but it is not biological like sex. The thing about sex is that it *usually manifests in a very simple, binary way. Men have penises and women have vaginas and can bear children. People see this and it is simple so they understandibly project this simplicity onto gender.
The problem is that the variation in human brains and the psychology between individuals is much more diverse than the variation between the bodies of each person. Every male (usually) has a penis but when you talk about gender characteristics there is going to be a wide variation with a lot of overlap between men and women. The most "masculine" woman is going to have far more "manly" gender traits than the most "feminine" man and vice versa. For this reason, gender as a social construct ends up causing more harm than good. Many men are better suited to cook and raise children than many women and many women are better suited for hard labor than many men.
Societal rules based on broad gender averages is oppression of those in the standard deviation.
The problem is that the variation in human brains and the psychology between individuals is much more diverse than the variation between the bodies of each person. Every male (usually) has a penis but when you talk about gender characteristics there is going to be a wide variation with a lot of overlap between men and women. The most "masculine" woman is going to have far more "manly" gender traits than the most "feminine" man and vice versa. For this reason, gender as a social construct ends up causing more harm than good. Many men are better suited to cook and raise children than many women and many women are better suited for hard labor than many men.
Societal rules based on broad gender averages is oppression of those in the standard deviation.
Women are the glue that holds the societies together.
Without women, our species would not exist.
There are many biological differences between the sexes and that is why we have inequalities.
I am a man, but I see we are emotional simpletons when compared with women.
When women want to insult each other they can do it all day long in front of men and men would know even know it.
Men are impatient, want the stuff now, are more of a go-getter regardless of the consequences. Women will think a lot longer before making any decisions. Have you ever went shopping with your wife or girlfriend?
Most men are manipulated by women because we are idiots who are just good with numbers and have no clue we are being manipulated.
Without women, our species would not exist.
There are many biological differences between the sexes and that is why we have inequalities.
I am a man, but I see we are emotional simpletons when compared with women.
When women want to insult each other they can do it all day long in front of men and men would know even know it.
Men are impatient, want the stuff now, are more of a go-getter regardless of the consequences. Women will think a lot longer before making any decisions. Have you ever went shopping with your wife or girlfriend?
Most men are manipulated by women because we are idiots who are just good with numbers and have no clue we are being manipulated.
The role of women in the society can never be underestimated, meaning what a man can do, a woman can even do it more better....... So whatever u can think of a man role in the society, a woman fit in too perfectly.
The basic role of women is to have children.
Society leaders are trying to make society into a nanny state, where the women have to work outside the home just to support the children. They do this to push society towards Communism, where the leaders will indoctrinate the children to obey their will. With both parents at work, they can do this much easier.
It is being done through the fiat debt money system, where inflation robs everyone of value... so that the women have to leave the home to help support the family, financially.
If people understood this, and used the blockchain and Bitcoin properly, they could get rid of all but the tiniest bit of inflation. People would retain value, and the women could go back home.
Society leaders are trying to make society into a nanny state, where the women have to work outside the home just to support the children. They do this to push society towards Communism, where the leaders will indoctrinate the children to obey their will. With both parents at work, they can do this much easier.
It is being done through the fiat debt money system, where inflation robs everyone of value... so that the women have to leave the home to help support the family, financially.
If people understood this, and used the blockchain and Bitcoin properly, they could get rid of all but the tiniest bit of inflation. People would retain value, and the women could go back home.
Biologically and socially, men and women are different.
However in terms of rights, freedom, salaries, job opportunities etc. they should be the same.
However in terms of rights, freedom, salaries, job opportunities etc. they should be the same.
You could have easily posted this in that thread. I suppose now TECHSHARE will make another as well. I might reply later but otherwise I stand by my opinion in the original threat. I am someone who observes things for how they re and is able to see my own priviledge without feeling threatened by someone else's fight for equality.
This thread is more general so I felt like a new one was a good thing.
Who's feeling threatened? I'm not.
Just saying deciding to get rid of gender specifications means getting rid of genders in the end. You can't keep men and women without equalities because that's why there are men and women. That's all i'm saying.
You could have easily posted this in that thread. I suppose now TECHSHARE will make another as well. I might reply later but otherwise I stand by my opinion in the original thread. I am someone who observes things for how they are and is able to see my own priviledge without feeling threatened by someone else's fight for equality.
Hello everyone.
This thread has been running in my mind for quite some times but after the answer of dogtana to TECSHARE I've thought it could be a good timing to share my 2 cents on the subject:
The idea that inequalities (whatever they can be) between men and women are from social construct is widely spread and accepted in the population. If you're not saying that inequalities exist and that they are only from how society treats men and women differently, you're mostly seen as a mysoginistic conservative.
First of all let's say that if you don't accept that there are tons of inequalities between men and women and that social influences are important factors, you're not mygoninistic, you're stupid. Thousands of different experiments all led to the same results: some kind of behaviour are encouraged or discouraged on individuals because of there sex. A girl must be quiet and submissive, a man must be aggressive and strong. That's not a question, that's a well established fact that can only be denied if you refuse psycology and sociology as science which makes you an idiot.
The problem is... No scientist actually said that inequalities between genders are the result of social pressures. They're saying social pressures cause inequalities between gender... Not the other way around. How can anyone say that all the inequalities are only the consequence of social pressures?
Tons of animals (especially insects) have 2 genders with little to no difference between the male and female from a physical or genetical point of view. This is not the case of humans, nature has clearly given us distinct physical abilities and attributes and whatever some people say, from a statistically point of view you can always distinguish a male from a female at first glance.
This means nature and evolution have made specialized organism, male and female, as the best way to adapt ourselves to our environment. We have evolved for millions of years as specialized individuals. How can anyone say it made no or little impact?
Women and men serve different purposes. Aggressivness and violence as well as physical strength are more important in male organism because their purpose was to fight. Submission and calm behaviour are important to female because their purpose was to breed. A male can easily be replaced and used by different females for reproduction while a woman is a incubator taking 9 months to create next generation.
Saying that we have no "pre determined roles" is stupid. Of course we have. How could those millions of years of specialization lead to nothing? Social pressure is NOT the only factor leading to inequalities between genders, we ARE inequals.
That being said, natural things aren't always good things and I have no trouble with people saying we should get rid of those inequalities. Why not? Maybe it's a good thing.
But getting rid of gender inequalities mean getting rid of genders because without gender specialization, what's the point of having two genders?
That might be a good thing? I don't know. Who could know?
But don't just say it's a social thing, those inequalities are fundamentals to our evolution. You can completely thing they must disappear because they have become useless sure. But don't forget getting rid of them means no long men and women but just humans.
I don't want that.
This thread has been running in my mind for quite some times but after the answer of dogtana to TECSHARE I've thought it could be a good timing to share my 2 cents on the subject:
Women work fewer hours, shorter shifts, less dangerous jobs, and take lots of time off because they are socially conditioned to do it. They are brought up to be primarily nurturing and do this to care for their families. If men did their fair share in this, women would work more hours, longer shifts, more dangerous jobs and take less time off. Millions of women do it, those that have been brought up in an egalitarian environment. It is a live social experiment that has proven this millions of times, yet conservative societis such as US keep failing to correct this.
The idea that inequalities (whatever they can be) between men and women are from social construct is widely spread and accepted in the population. If you're not saying that inequalities exist and that they are only from how society treats men and women differently, you're mostly seen as a mysoginistic conservative.
First of all let's say that if you don't accept that there are tons of inequalities between men and women and that social influences are important factors, you're not mygoninistic, you're stupid. Thousands of different experiments all led to the same results: some kind of behaviour are encouraged or discouraged on individuals because of there sex. A girl must be quiet and submissive, a man must be aggressive and strong. That's not a question, that's a well established fact that can only be denied if you refuse psycology and sociology as science which makes you an idiot.
The problem is... No scientist actually said that inequalities between genders are the result of social pressures. They're saying social pressures cause inequalities between gender... Not the other way around. How can anyone say that all the inequalities are only the consequence of social pressures?
Tons of animals (especially insects) have 2 genders with little to no difference between the male and female from a physical or genetical point of view. This is not the case of humans, nature has clearly given us distinct physical abilities and attributes and whatever some people say, from a statistically point of view you can always distinguish a male from a female at first glance.
This means nature and evolution have made specialized organism, male and female, as the best way to adapt ourselves to our environment. We have evolved for millions of years as specialized individuals. How can anyone say it made no or little impact?
Women and men serve different purposes. Aggressivness and violence as well as physical strength are more important in male organism because their purpose was to fight. Submission and calm behaviour are important to female because their purpose was to breed. A male can easily be replaced and used by different females for reproduction while a woman is a incubator taking 9 months to create next generation.
Saying that we have no "pre determined roles" is stupid. Of course we have. How could those millions of years of specialization lead to nothing? Social pressure is NOT the only factor leading to inequalities between genders, we ARE inequals.
That being said, natural things aren't always good things and I have no trouble with people saying we should get rid of those inequalities. Why not? Maybe it's a good thing.
But getting rid of gender inequalities mean getting rid of genders because without gender specialization, what's the point of having two genders?
That might be a good thing? I don't know. Who could know?
But don't just say it's a social thing, those inequalities are fundamentals to our evolution. You can completely thing they must disappear because they have become useless sure. But don't forget getting rid of them means no long men and women but just humans.
I don't want that.
Jump to: