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

ugh. sometimes when a guy says he doesn't want to play daddy in the relationship it meas he wants a mommy. that's annoying, too.

 

Hmm,

So, a few points seem to be missing from this equation, talking about women using sexuality to get ahead, to find a mate, to earn a living, etc... Or not. And which is better for the woman, and notions that it will 'make up for a lack of skill, to some extent'. And 'women should be expected to live up to the same standards as men...', and many things of the like.

First off, we learn a lot about how to act before we enter the work world. We learn a huge amount about how to behave, and what is likely to work for us, as children and teens. And what is rewarded/punished for girls and boys tends to be very different. And therefor men and women tend to behave differently. There's very strong evidence that if you are encouraged in something, rewarded for it, you will tend to continue and gain skill in that behavior, especially as a child.

Saying that women should just stop acting in so and so a fashion if they want equality, or that it's just their attitude that is creating the situation, is really missing a lot. It's like me saying to you:

"Hey, if you want to be treated as an equal member of society, you should stop doing whatever you do for a living, give up all your hobbies, and go do this other set of things, all of which you have been given strong evidence throughout your life that you are extremely bad at. In fact, specifically the things that you're fairly certain you have no affinity for, and never had any interest in. Oh, and in order to be treated well, you're going to have to compete with people who are really good at these things and have been training at them all their lives. Have fun!"

Little girls are more likely to be rewarded for, and encouraged toward, different things then little boys. And once people hit the teen years, that tends to be exaggerated. And TV role models, that often tend to be teen's guideposts for who to be and how to act, both as themselves and toward other subgroups of people, are -very- different.

 

Further, when one points to the idea of an ideal of judging men and women on wholly neutral criteria, they are ignoring the existence of subconscious bias. Most advancement in society is due to a mixture of personal skills/abilities/actions, and the -opinions- of others about the quality of these.

An interesting case study I love to point out: When open auditions for orchestral positions are held, they tend to be extremely biased in favor of men getting the positions. When the auditions are done blind, the results actually slightly favor women. This is despite the fact that many of the judges seem at least to believe they are being totally unbiased, and basing their decisions in both cases solely on skill. Most judges in fact seem to be very shocked to discover the results. 'Curtained' auditions are gaining in popularity in the field, and it's having a huge impact on gender balance.

Considering this, there is huge benefit to conforming to gender roles that a society sets. Hence why so many people do it. A woman who acts in the manners that are rewarded in women will be more likely to advance, more likely to find a husband, have more friends, etc. Same for a man who fits the roles that people assume men do better. For a woman to take on a role society has deemed 'masculine' she must actually be significantly better at it than a man would, for the same level of success, in most cases.

 

As to the 'most women are whores, just dishonest about it', well.. may be true. Shrug. That's the role that has been designated as the 'norm' for women in media, in myth, in societal ideals. It's depicted as 'the way' to 'succeed' at life. It's reinforced all over the place. For instance, the OP, after coming back and saying he was just being inflammatory, then proceeded to continue to defend this as being 'the way women should be'.

It's hard to buck that. I mean, it's possible, but to do so means your life will be harder. And it also means going against a huge amount of internalized ideals. It's like waking up one day and deciding that the consumption of energy/fossil fuels in the world, the disposable culture, making and owning things made of plastic, etc, are all evil and deciding to stop taking part in that. Stop using gas, electricity, stop buying anything made of or packed in plastic, or shipped using gasoline. Stop being any support to that system at all.

I mean, it can be done. But it's hard. Those comforts, those things you get, the positives, are things most people are pretty attached to. And they're habitual. And they connect you to people. And one person doing it alone isn't going to really make much different. Go too far out of the norm, and you no longer have any influence on others, because you have no commonality. People just see you as a freak.

Happily, there does seem to be a slide away from restrictive gender roles, on a societal level. But it's slow. It feels important to continue to support this motion in every way possible, continue to remain on the vanguard as symbols of another way to be, while not being so terribly hard on those who are simply doing what they have been told people want of them. Simply doing what they have been told is -right- and normal. Trying to make it as best they can in a world where the rules simply don't make any sense.

 

Part of the patriarchal model is to emphasize sexual differences. The problem is cultural inheritance and it would have to be an adult choice to develop new cultural standards. One making such a choice can expect to encounter a lack of popular support. The popular choice being to attempt to settle old scores.

 

I don't know that anyone, adult or no, is completely capable of riding themselves of their cultural influences. We are able to nudge things in certain directions, or take a whole new spin on a few elements. But doing even this with no social support at all is incredibly rare.

One difficulty here is that many who band together for the social support of the 'new' cultural standard can easily fall into the trap of us vs them mentality against all those who follow the 'old' standard. Which can be very problematic.

Btw, yes, I think part of the patriarchal model is to emphasize sexual differences. But not necessarily in all cases 'real' ones, by any means. It seems to just involve emphasizing a difference in those traits that lead to the support of whatever roles the society has set for men and women, and these roles and the traits associated with them seem to be somewhat arbitrary. Well, 'apparently' arbitrary. Meaning they arise from a highly complex set of unknown, and unknowable variables. We can make some variables up that fit the result, but a nearly infinite set of influential forces can give rise to the same circumstances, so any theory we propose on how -these- traits came to be the ones that society stuck on is mere conjecture, nothing more.

Occam's Razor is useless for actually discovering the truth about anything, and therefor anything arising from it shouldn't be treated as factual. Models that arise from it are used because, in that they are no more or less valid then others, they are to be preferred because they are easier to use.

 

I didn't know or hadn't met my spouse before I met her or knew her. My idea of cultural realignment is know thyself, teach about the nature of the human machine. Don't teach a model of the way the world or the individual, "should be". It is not so that we cannot be flipped. It simply involves development of will and it is difficult only at the beginning, much the same as learning to tie your shoes. We stumble horribly at first but a moments success become more moments until a definite trend is established. It is only rare because few choose to do it.

I'm confused as what the critique on methods of evaluation has to do with the subject?

 

One's notion of 'the nature of the human creature' is every bit as subjective as notions of what 'should be'. In fact, they are the exact same sort of conceptual notion and equally open for debate. Method's of evaluation play into this, Occam's Razor in particular, as it creates a logical fallacy by which -my-(or your) interpretation of a circumstances or system becomes -the- true nature of the situation. And becomes the basis for the behavior we expect from others, and the basis for what we believe others 'should and shouldn't' do. For instance, your interpretation leads you to believe that people shouldn't think about what people should/n't do.... Which itself seems to contain a logical inconsistency.

 

You don't debate like a girl.

 

Btw, the critique was actually specifically, in context, a critique of people defending gender roles as being 'natural' for humans, though it is equally valid critique of one saying they are 'unnatural'. The criteria for which one can make a case for either side rests solely on inductive reasoning and Occam's Razor. Neither of which have any validity when speaking about truth.

 

Yes, I do. This is how this girl debates.

 

*flickers eyelashes and strokes hair*

really?

 

Nature of the human machine is things like biological functioning, hand eye coordination, physical fitness, dietary requirements and the like. We all require air, water, food, shelter, and company. We also have a mind who's power can be harnessed to affect the qualities of personal experience, it's use and dexterous control can be taught. If the patriarchal model is the problem, then don't teach the patriarchal model. The world is not full of undisciplined egotistical people as much as full of people who have learned so well, unsound principles.
One of those unsound principles is that there is a universally accepted and acceptable morality.
Another is that institutionalization supports mankind. Institutionalization seeks the "greater good" at the expense of personal dignity and decisions and is something we do with the insane. We can identify an element, but we cannot "institute" an ideal.

 

Dude, she is an estrogenic stud.

 

I have a crush.

 

odDs are likely she has more than usual testosterone. I have a crush, too.

 

I'm not really into that.
I'd rather the man work
The woman works
They share a modern condo in the city
No children because the world is already over populated, and there are children out there who need good homes.
Both of them provide, neither is dependent on one another

 

that sounds like fucking hell

 

*Baffled*
Why, perchance?

 

90% of the women I know are completely dependent on men