• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is there anything good about past gender roles?

I am tired of gender switching and elimination of gender roles, there are only 3 acceptable genders all with assigned roles, male female and attack helicopter.It is a sad day when men act like women and attack helicopters try to be something they are not.




 
 
COTO said:
Households with the wife as a homemaker are happier, more stable, and raise happier and more stable children than households with two breadwinners.

I don't know whether this qualifies as "anything positive that could be regained from exploring the past", but it's certainly positive, and it was more prevalent in the past. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I grew up in a house where both my mom and my dad worked their asses off in the family business. My mother stayed home when my siblings and I were very young, later they hired a wonderful woman to help so she could go back to work. They are still working, although thankfully they have been able to let go a little. They made sure that we ate dinner together. We took family vacations, we celebrated holidays. We survived all the normal family crises and a few that weren't so normal. Would it have been better if my mother had been a "homemaker?" She was. Both my parents were homemakers in that they made a home for us. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with this homemaker-as-a -gender-role thing.
 
beerftw said:
I am tired of gender switching and elimination of gender roles, there are only 3 acceptable genders all with assigned roles, male female and attack helicopter.It is a sad day when men act like women and attack helicopters try to be something they are not.




Click to expand...


All hail president Tyrone. Stop normies.
 
Captain Adverse said:
IMHO, yes there were.

We all play "roles" every day, and each characterization depends on who we are interacting with and the purpose of said interaction.

In a state of Nature Female roles are clear; have babies, ween the babies, and since this typically requires a semi-sedentary role, handle tasks that can be done while handling the babies. As such most (not all) women are more patient, nurturing, tolerant, and a slue of other characteristics inherent from untold years of evolution designed to enhance breeding survival characteristics. Their role is to keep male aggressiveness in check, and make sure their group is cared for and supported. Women present role models for how females should act and how males should treat them.

Males (at least most mammalian species) in a state of Nature are typically more aggressive, competitive, inquisitive, wandering, and mechanically creative. They are less patient, and can be easily distracted by things that attract their interest. Their role is the hunters, builders, defenders. Males present role models for how males should act and how they should treat their tribal members or deal with other tribes.

IMO we are trying to make men more like women and women more like men, but that's not Nature's plan.
Click to expand...

You're referring to the days when men were men, women were women and the sheep were nervous. God knows you are and so do we.

The old dayze, when behaviors in literal Nature were internalized as engraved in stone. So now the Conservatives have set up a thread as a sort of field to graze in. Again.
 
Is there anything good about past gender roles?
Click to expand...

a5HFwjU.jpg

1GEHHvb.jpg


Softer Hands and Softer Lips are Good​
 
Captain Adverse said:
IMHO, yes there were.

We all play "roles" every day, and each characterization depends on who we are interacting with and the purpose of said interaction.

In a state of Nature Female roles are clear; have babies, ween the babies, and since this typically requires a semi-sedentary role, handle tasks that can be done while handling the babies. As such most (not all) women are more patient, nurturing, tolerant, and a slue of other characteristics inherent from untold years of evolution designed to enhance breeding survival characteristics. Their role is to keep male aggressiveness in check, and make sure their group is cared for and supported. Women present role models for how females should act and how males should treat them.

Males (at least most mammalian species) in a state of Nature are typically more aggressive, competitive, inquisitive, wandering, and mechanically creative. They are less patient, and can be easily distracted by things that attract their interest. Their role is the hunters, builders, defenders. Males present role models for how males should act and how they should treat their tribal members or deal with other tribes.

IMO we are trying to make men more like women and women more like men, but that's not Nature's plan.
Click to expand...

I've got some bad news for you. Everything human beings do takes place in a state of nature. We really have no choice in the matter.
 
devildavid said:
I've got some bad news for you. Everything human beings do takes place in a state of nature. We really have no choice in the matter.
Click to expand...

NO.

Everything most human beings do does NOT currently take place in a state of Nature. Our ingenuity has created a thin veneer of a "state of Civilization." You want to know what a state of Nature is? Find yourself kidnapped, to awaken in the middle of some unfamiliar (jungle/mountain/savannah/desert/ocean) environment, absent all your modern tools and conveniences (including no cellphone with GPS tracking and instant rescue), surrounded by unfamiliar plants and animals who treat you as one more unknown level of predator or prey, "naked and afraid."

Your choices in the matter would determine how and if you survive. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
NO.

Everything most human beings do does NOT currently take place in a state of Nature. Our ingenuity has created a thin veneer of a "state of Civilization." You want to know what a state of Nature is? Find yourself kidnapped, to awaken in the middle of some unfamiliar (jungle/mountain/savannah/desert/ocean) environment, absent all your modern tools and conveniences (including no cellphone with GPS tracking and instant rescue), surrounded by unfamiliar plants and animals who treat you as one more unknown level of predator or prey, "naked and afraid."

Your choices in the matter would determine how and if you survive. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. It isn't even a choice. We are in nature, just as everything else is. We invented technology in nature, and we use it in nature. There is nothing we use that isn't derived from nature. It's all we have. Maybe you need to look at your narrow definition of nature.
 
devildavid said:
Yes, it does. It isn't even a choice. We are in nature, just as everything else is. We invented technology in nature, and we use it in nature. There is nothing we use that isn't derived from nature. It's all we have. Maybe you need to look at your narrow definition of nature.
Click to expand...

Again no. You are living in an artificial construct, which has only been developing for perhaps 8 - 10,000 years. You are sitting in some room, comfortably using your technology to converse over the inter-web, eating foods based on advanced agricultural/domesticated animal husbandry production made "safe" by all sorts of processing. Perhaps even enjoying a warm cup or cold bottle of some liquid refreshment purchased at your local convenience store/restaurant.

Perhaps you'll take a warm bath or shower, dress up and go out to a club, restaurant, or movie secure in the knowledge that you are protected by laws and mores. That even if you have an accident or some other trouble there is insurance coverage or legal processes to deal with it.

Yet all that rests on a thin veneer, which can be shattered at any time by natural or man-made disasters. When such occurs, depending on the severity, you will see how fast your civilized behaviors disintegrate into competition for resources, sex, and simple survival.

Meanwhile, even in your "civilized state of nature" we have extant examples of the law of the jungle. Yes, even here in the "richest nation on earth." One need only look to the homeless, who despite all this "current nature" demonstrate the truth of how life is outside "civilized norms."

Nor does that even begin to touch on the examples of continued conflicts in "ideology" which allow people to riot in the streets because of some media "trigger" granting them permission due to this or that "ism" which has been claimed demonstrated or violated.

Humans have developed over millions of years of evolution, and a few decades of "new think" being pushed on people these days doesn't change basic human nature. So you go right ahead and sit in your comfy chair, declaring how "mankind IS operating in a state of nature" when it is clear you have no earthly idea what you are talking about. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
devildavid said:
I've got some bad news for you. Everything human beings do takes place in a state of nature. We really have no choice in the matter.
Click to expand...

Captain Adverse said:
NO.

Everything most human beings do does NOT currently take place in a state of Nature. Our ingenuity has created a thin veneer of a "state of Civilization." You want to know what a state of Nature is? Find yourself kidnapped, to awaken in the middle of some unfamiliar (jungle/mountain/savannah/desert/ocean) environment, absent all your modern tools and conveniences (including no cellphone with GPS tracking and instant rescue), surrounded by unfamiliar plants and animals who treat you as one more unknown level of predator or prey, "naked and afraid."

Your choices in the matter would determine how and if you survive. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

devildavid said:
Yes, it does. It isn't even a choice. We are in nature, just as everything else is. We invented technology in nature, and we use it in nature. There is nothing we use that isn't derived from nature. It's all we have. Maybe you need to look at your narrow definition of nature.
Click to expand...

And maybe you, David, need to look at your all-inclusive broad definition of nature inasmuch as serious discourse on the human condition loses, on your semantics, the following long-held distinctions:

nature v nurture
natural v unnatural
natural v artificial
nature v civilization
country v city
instinctive v learned behavior
autonomic v volitional
natural food v processed food
etc.

Your broad semantics in this case is a reductio with a chilling effect on serious discourse. Indeed, by your broad standard, the distinction between natural science metaphysics, a distinction dear to you, is lost.
 
kitsune said:
I grew up in a house where both my mom and my dad worked their asses off in the family business. My mother stayed home when my siblings and I were very young, later they hired a wonderful woman to help so she could go back to work. They are still working, although thankfully they have been able to let go a little. They made sure that we ate dinner together. We took family vacations, we celebrated holidays. We survived all the normal family crises and a few that weren't so normal. Would it have been better if my mother had been a "homemaker?" She was. Both my parents were homemakers in that they made a home for us. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with this homemaker-as-a -gender-role thing.
Click to expand...
I'm just pointing out that, contrary to the feminist narrative that women who sacrifice time working to raise their children/run their households are miserable and lacking in "empowerment", the research shows that the time they invest in their family pays dividends in terms of personal happiness, success of the children, and family cohesion.

@Bodhisattva is making a cynical appeal to the readership by spamming old ads that objectify women, falsely equating homemaking with objectification. I figured at least one post ought to mention that mothers who were homemakers (which was the norm and not the exception during the era he's mocking) did their families and society a tremendous service. It's this reality, not feminist pipe dreams and vignettes from the 1950's, that reasonable women ought to consider when contemplating a balance between career and family.
 
COTO said:
I'm just pointing out that, contrary to the feminist narrative that women who sacrifice time working to raise their children/run their households are miserable and lacking in "empowerment", the research shows that the time they invest in their family pays dividends in terms of personal happiness, success of the children, and family cohesion.

@Bodhisattva is making a cynical appeal to the readership by spamming old ads that objectify women, falsely equating homemaking with objectification. I figured at least one post ought to mention that mothers who were homemakers (which was the norm and not the exception during the era he's mocking) did their families and society a tremendous service. It's this reality, not feminist pipe dreams and vignettes from the 1950's, that reasonable women ought to consider when contemplating a balance between career and family.
Click to expand...

What is important is women have the choice. If having someone at home fulltime is very important then that job can be done by either parent. It's a perfectly fine choice....as long as it is a choice
 
The point should be, IMO, that no one be 'forced' to perform in roles, or part of those roles, if that's not what they want. And to be respected for what they choose. Like men that want to stay home with their kids, for ex.

All should have equal opportunities, socially, legally, professionally, etc. and I havent seen any downsides to that, nor objections, except for one sub-group.

It's kind of like with gays...there are few, if any, harms in being gay...except what's forced on them from the outside, by society. Same with gender roles IMO.
 
COTO said:
Believe what you want. :coffeepap

What Research Says About Being a Stay-at-Home Mom
How being a stay-at-home mom changes your baby's brain
Are mothers happier being homemakers or working full time?
What the “Mounting Evidence” on Working Moms Really Shows | Institute for Family Studies
Eric Bettinger: Why Stay-at-Home Parents are Good for Older Children | Stanford Graduate School of Business
Click to expand...

In your sources, for the ones that even considered it, the conclusion is that families are better off if one *parent* stays home. I agree.

That parent can also be the father...that's not shown as less effective, so this isnt about 'gender.'

What it is about, IMO, is a society based on consumerism where *couples* make choices where they cannot live without 2 incomes.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Again no. You are living in an artificial construct, which has only been developing for perhaps 8 - 10,000 years. You are sitting in some room, comfortably using your technology to converse over the inter-web, eating foods based on advanced agricultural/domesticated animal husbandry production made "safe" by all sorts of processing. Perhaps even enjoying a warm cup or cold bottle of some liquid refreshment purchased at your local convenience store/restaurant.

Perhaps you'll take a warm bath or shower, dress up and go out to a club, restaurant, or movie secure in the knowledge that you are protected by laws and mores. That even if you have an accident or some other trouble there is insurance coverage or legal processes to deal with it.

Yet all that rests on a thin veneer, which can be shattered at any time by natural or man-made disasters. When such occurs, depending on the severity, you will see how fast your civilized behaviors disintegrate into competition for resources, sex, and simple survival.

Meanwhile, even in your "civilized state of nature" we have extant examples of the law of the jungle. Yes, even here in the "richest nation on earth." One need only look to the homeless, who despite all this "current nature" demonstrate the truth of how life is outside "civilized norms."

Nor does that even begin to touch on the examples of continued conflicts in "ideology" which allow people to riot in the streets because of some media "trigger" granting them permission due to this or that "ism" which has been claimed demonstrated or violated.

Humans have developed over millions of years of evolution, and a few decades of "new think" being pushed on people these days doesn't change basic human nature. So you go right ahead and sit in your comfy chair, declaring how "mankind IS operating in a state of nature" when it is clear you have no earthly idea what you are talking about. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

Mankind has no choice but to operate in a state of nature. It is not a choice.
 
Angel said:
And maybe you, David, need to look at your all-inclusive broad definition of nature inasmuch as serious discourse on the human condition loses, on your semantics, the following long-held distinctions:

nature v nurture
natural v unnatural
natural v artificial
nature v civilization
country v city
instinctive v learned behavior
autonomic v volitional
natural food v processed food
etc.

Your broad semantics in this case is a reductio with a chilling effect on serious discourse. Indeed, by your broad standard, the distinction between natural science metaphysics, a distinction dear to you, is lost.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't you be "debating" yourself is your multiple Sexual (fill in the blank):threads?
 
devildavid said:
Shouldn't you be "debating" yourself is your multiple Sexual (fill in the blank):threads?
Click to expand...
No "ought" involved, David; my presentation of both sides is the default setting in the event of silence on the part of others. I'm quite comfortable in that role. Of course, you and Lursa, who "liked" this quoted bit of snide from you, are welcome to engage in any of the four threads you refer to. My impression, however, is that most members would rather slam their favorite sexual permutation in threads designed for such slamming, than examine their own concepts and assumptions concerning sex and sexuality.
 
Lursa said:
In your sources, for the ones that even considered it, the conclusion is that families are better off if one *parent* stays home. I agree.

That parent can also be the father...that's not shown as less effective, so this isnt about 'gender.'

What it is about, IMO, is a society based on consumerism where *couples* make choices where they cannot live without 2 incomes.
Click to expand...
There's little research on how stay-at-home dads compare to stay-at-home moms.

Even circa 2019, stay-at-home dads are extremely rare (estimates range between 1-in-20 and 1-in-15 stay-at-home parents, and many of these have a grandparent or other relative assisting). Before the Millennial generation, stay-at-home dads were practically unheard of. The only research I've seen about stay-at-home dads suggests: i) a stay-at-home dad is better for children than daycare, and ii) stay-at-home dads tends to feel isolated and stigmatized, particularly by women.

I suspect that if/when any long-term research comes out, it will again frustrate social engineers by establishing that while stay-at-home-dads makes as much sense as stay-at-home-moms in theory, in actual practice, given reality's regrettable tendency to ignore what we think ought to work, moms will handily win out as the more capable homemakers and child rearers, with dads excelling at bringing home the bacon.

Time might prove me wrong, but I highly doubt it.
 
COTO said:
There's little research on how stay-at-home dads compare to stay-at-home moms.

Even circa 2019, stay-at-home dads are extremely rare (estimates range between 1-in-20 and 1-in-15 stay-at-home parents, and many of these have a grandparent or other relative assisting). Before the Millennial generation, stay-at-home dads were practically unheard of. The only research I've seen about stay-at-home dads suggests: i) a stay-at-home dad is better for children than daycare, and ii) stay-at-home dads tends to feel isolated and stigmatized, particularly by women.

I suspect that if/when any long-term research comes out, it will again frustrate social engineers by establishing that while stay-at-home-dads makes as much sense as stay-at-home-moms in theory, in actual practice, given reality's regrettable tendency to ignore what we think ought to work, moms will handily win out as the more capable homemakers and child rearers, with dads excelling at bringing home the bacon.

Time might prove me wrong, but I highly doubt it.
Click to expand...

It's not rare, just uncommon but even with your %, that still means hundreds of thousands, if not millions of American homes with stay at home dads. Also...in some cases families alternate that over time (years).

But it means there's still evidence out there and I've seen none that indicate that both genders cant more than effectively fill either role. So I disagree with your long-term prediction.

Lord knows women can surely 'bring home the bacon' damn well. The fact that single & married women do so now is proof enough of that. And I dont see any household or child rearing task beyond breast feeding that men cannot excel at.
 
It's actually a slick move on the man's part. He frees himself from the Damocoles Sword of alimony, child support and enabling someone else to live off your paycheck after divorce. The reason there are so few, it's hard to find women willing to be suckers. However, men are slowly waking up to the risk.

I wonder what the look on such a woman's face is when he stamps his feet and exclaims "I'm bored; I want a divorce."

If both genders excelled intellectually, minimum wage hired help would do the housework.


Lursa said:
It's not rare, just uncommon but even with your %, that still means hundreds of thousands, if not millions of American homes with stay at home dads. Also...in some cases families alternate that over time (years).

But it means there's still evidence out there and I've seen none that indicate that both genders cant more than effectively fill either role. So I disagree with your long-term prediction.

Lord knows women can surely 'bring home the bacon' damn well. The fact that single & married women do so now is proof enough of that. And I dont see any household or child rearing task beyond breast feeding that men cannot excel at.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Is there anything good about past gender roles?
Click to expand...
Is there anything bad about them? That's the real question.

I mean, once one struggles clear of the feminist political nonsense filling the heads of contemporary Americans, that's the real question.

7PpiOyQ.jpg

The way the world was and will always be, feminist propaganda aside​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom