It's a very commonly perpetuated gender role.
and? I'm not insisting that you defend marching in parades wearing a piece of string wrapped around your ding-a-ling, despite that being a commonly perpetuated image of the LGBT community.
Respond to what people actually write, or they will call you out on it. No one said anything about submission until you brought it up.
You seem to have no grasp on what a gender role even is, and you've not once presented an argument - not even a supposition (your guys' favorite!)
Firstly, the phrase "you guys" is
sexist.
Secondly, I have only laid out the most basic of the gender roles, namely, sexual dimorphism's effect on gender roles as it relates to the care of infants and the use of institutionalized violence.
that logically follows - to back up your claim of facts. "Women lactate, men are stronger." Which gender roles do these apply to?
Well, if you will note, I gave you the examples
in the immediately preceding sentence.
cpwill said:
In no society have men stayed home with infants while women went off to war
Are weak, skinny guys submissive? Are they pushed under the gender roles of women because men are stronger than them?
:shrug: I don't know what your obsession with submission is, but there is a forum for discussing sexual fantasies, and this isn't it. If you get off by having a female or skinny male sub, that's your thing, and while you're free to bring it up
there, no one else is talking about it
here.
The actual fact is that there is no clear, objective evidence as to how gender roles initially started, nor how they were perpetuated for so long.
Sure there is. Look at just about every other species on the planet. Gender roles evolve and are maintained because they are advantageous for those who use them and built on biological reality.
What we do know, however, is that they are not necessary or apt, as you said. The logical conclusion therefore is that gender roles are not based in biology, because they are not necessary and not apt.
:lamo
There is zero evidence in favor of this make-believe conclusion and it flies in the face of everything else that we know about biology, and quite a lot that we've learned in sociology.
But it's okay, I get it. Ideology Uber Alles.
If they were based in biology, they would be apt.
Ah. So you mean that we would see things like
women's brains reacting differently to the sounds of infants crying and the ability of the adult human female (known as a woman)
to produce milk for the feeding of small infants, a trait that would not be present in males? We would see things like
men having 7 to 8 as much times Testosterone as women?
:lol: