• 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?

Bodi

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
123,591
Reaction score
27,967
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Is there anything positive that could be regained from exploring the past?

sub-buzz-23981-1516232486-17.jpg
 
credittravistation.jpg
 
Bodhisattva said:
Is there anything positive that could be regained from exploring the past?

View attachment 67260988
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
vegas giants said:
Of course they did not. Sexism was rampant.
Click to expand...

Was it something that, once the women brought up the injustice... ended? Why did women not bring up the injustice earlier?
 
Bodhisattva said:
Was it something that, once the women brought up the injustice... ended? Why did women not bring up the injustice earlier?
Click to expand...

It hasnt ended. It has lessened which is a good thing....right?
 
Captain Adverse said:
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...

The error in your opinion, that I see, is not that we are trying to make men more like women and vice versa, but that we do have people off the bell curve and are trying to force them into the mold that is not for them. Even today, we have a vast majority of men and women who fit the types of roles you note, even if they might find different avenues to express them. But that doesn't mean all are like that. In trying to force those who fall naturally outside the majority range, we are fighting against "Nature's plan", as you put it.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
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...

Well said from someone who leans left.
 
Is there anything good about past gender roles?
Click to expand...
Bodhisattva said:
Is there anything positive that could be regained from exploring the past?
Click to expand...
Your title question and your OP question are not the same question: you may answer the one in the negative and the other in the affirmative and remain perfectly consistent.

But I get your drift.

In response to your drift I'll simply quote the politician who massacred the defenders of the Alamo, Santa Anna:

"Those who cannot learn from the past are doomed to an idiot progress." ​
 
Bodhisattva said:
There must be something positive that we can regain though...
Click to expand...

Apparently gender roles are all there is to gender and gender is a societal construct. There's no such thing as feminine and masculine features and they don't follow a binary based on sex even generally.

It was all a super villain probably a white male that made all this up and it has nothing to do with reality.

So around the turn of the 19th and 20th century we had the modern era then about the 50s and 60s we had the postmodern era here in 2019 we have the post reality era.

Welcome to this brave New world.

Enjoy the decline.
 
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:
 
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...

Uh......nope. that is nonsense
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom