A woman's place is in the home...

It's not an "attitude" problem. It's a "necessity" problem.

Capitalism does not provide full employment. And marriage became a survival strategy for most women in the 50s, and still is for a significant amount of women today.

Then we turn around and say that women are "more caring than men" or "care more about feelings than sex" or are "less prone to cheating" or "more mature" or "better at multitasking" and all of that crap.

 

Women don't have to, some choose to. If the consensus of women decided they didn't want to strip or flaunt anymore, there isn't going to be a group of men at the ready with a noose and a shovel.

 

It's dialectical. Of course conformity is a choice. But it's a little presumptuous for us males to pretend to know just how difficult it is for a woman to earn a living without flaunting.

The paradox to what you said is that women who flaunt are rewarded economically, and those who don't are punished.

Edit: Or, should I say full conformity is a choice...No conformity is pretty much impossible to get away with. For anyone!

 

Well, I suppose its personable. If I was looking for a wife, I wouldn't want one who flaunted herself.

If I was interviewing a female, again, I don't want to see her tits. Maybe someone might but I find it all a little degrading.

 

lol, I tried to think of a good example, but couldnt while I was typing it.

I totally agree that with the way things are, sexual innuendo is necessary for the way some women still choose to live and the way a lot of men expect them to. However, the point we are making is that the way things are is wrong.

It doesn't matter how many (of whichever gender) choose to follow stereotypes as to whether or not it is right.

That's why when these subjects (inequality based on gender) come up, I choose to speak up against it, because the only thing that keeps these things as mainstream beliefs is people choosing not to push back against them.

What really amazes me, is that if you look through history, you will find that any society that adopted rigid social structures based on things like gender, pretty much signed its own death warrant.

Adaptability in the face of changing circumstances is what makes humans the amazing creatures we can be. As soon as you start putting in place means and methods to limit that adaptibility, you start digging your own grave (societally speaking).

 

As for this whole idea...

It is the ATTITUDE that made it a NECESSITY...

When a woman applies for jobs and they get told they should go home and leave making the money up to the man, and society as a whole supports this, that is not 'necessity' making it happen, that is attitudes making it happen.

 

Actually, during WWII when women had the opportunity to work in industry due to a significant amount of men being in the battlefield (and in need to be provided for), they did so famously.

I would venture to say that non-working housewives, though common, are still pretty much a historical anomaly. And augmented by bourgeois society, as opposed to the contrary as propaganda would lead one to believe.

 

This isn't an argument that supports your side of the conversation....

 

You're obviously not a business owner seeing your profits go up because of the sales sex pot in the push up bra.

 

I certainly do feel that gender roles do less for me than for, even as a male.

And your "death warrant" hypothesis sounds promising.

 

Once again... not true...

If it was, then every top salesperson in the world would be a hot chick with big tits...

Being female and good looking will help make up for a lack of skill, but it won't surpass it.

 

It's attitudes in reaction to certain constraints. Again, it's pretty easy to be an armchair revolutionary. Quite different to sacrifice the comforts of conformity for it, unless you find yourself in a desperate situation.

Which is why capitalist societies have social welfare systems. Greatest pacifier there is. And, fairly cheap (about 2% of GDP), contrary to what the American Republican party would lead us to believe.

 

I can tell you as someone who's previously been a bartender in New York City, it's almost impossible to compete with a pretty woman regardless of your experience or knowledge.

Hot women rake in more tips, whether they make better martinis or not. It's an openly acknowledged phenomenon.

That's why there are certain gendered niches in the job marketplace.

 

I worked in a bar in London, and there was no difference between the hot girls' tip and the men.

 

Well, ok. I'm just telling you my experience.

 

Why not?

My side is:

1) Gender is a survival strategy, not a biological imperative;

2) Women (and men) act different under different economic constraints.

WWII is an example of women defying the biological argument.

 

The greatest pacifier there is, is a woman; the second greatest is the social welfare system.

But for many of the underclass it strips them of their dignity so they’d rather commit crimes rather than bow to the will of the establishment.


Hotwater

 

Armchair revolutinary? LOL

I live MY words man.... I don't distinguish between male or female (or anything in between) when I look for people to do things. What a person does, is much more important to me, then any random factor of their birth.

I will point something out that is really relevant though... In looking for people that are actual individuals who think for themselves and aren't locked into a bunch of preconceived notions regarding gender roles, I find many many more women who fit that bill then men.

Our societies have been set up to cater to straight white men, who can pretty much go through life without questioning it, because it is set up for them.

Anyone who falls outside of that, tends to lead a much more thought out life, as they have no choice if they don't wish to be in a subservient position.

 

Actually, women can be the opposite of pacifiers.

 

No, WWII is an example of women proving there is no biological argument.