gender roles need to go!

[Grizzly Willy]

Women didn't strictly stay at home. They gathered the bulk of the calories consumed via nuts and fruits. Hunting happened less frequently.

[semaphore]

There is the whole hunter-gatherer thing which we evolved from.

Who did you think the gatherers were and what did you think gathering meant?

"earn the living" so to speak

They'd all starve to death without the gathering part of the equation.

[Grizzly Willy]

Who did you think the gatherers were and what did you think gathering meant?


They'd all starve to death without the gathering part of the equation.

To be fair, we would all still be primitive hominids without the hunting. Both were vital to the development and preservation of the species.

[semaphore]

To be fair, we would all still be primitive hominids without the hunting. Both were vital to the development and preservation of the species.

Yeah I just found Mavecryst's claim that it's not "earning a living" to literally be bringing food home to put on the tables, really quite ridiculous. Pointing to that, and twisting it, to justify modern gender roles is a typical example of inventing whimsical "biological reasons" from cherrypicked knowledge.

[Austilias]

Approximately 90% of all workplace deaths are men. Gender roles can of course go; just as soon as we see women scrambling to work on building sites, oil rigs and other high fatality workplaces. Until that time, it's simply a case of having one's cake and eating it.

[Deleted]

Approximately 90% of all workplace deaths are men. Gender roles can of course go; just as soon as we see women scrambling to work on building sites, oil rigs and other high fatality workplaces. Until that time, it's simply a case of having one's cake and eating it.

Why anyone would want to work at such places is beyond me, really. Only places I've worked at was a cat shelter and in a store to get some extra money when going to school. Would never want to work with something that's potentially dangerous to my life.

[semaphore]

Approximately 90% of all workplace deaths are men. Gender roles can of course go; just as soon as we see women scrambling to work on building sites, oil rigs and other high fatality workplaces.

How many men works on oil rigs?

Until that time, it's simply a case of having one's cake and eating it.

You might even have a point if it is a gender role for men to work construction and oil rigs. Except it isn't. So really this is just terrible whining that's irrelevant to the actual gender roles either in general or in this thread in particular.

[Mavecryst]

Yeah I just found Mavecryst's claim that it's not "earning a living" to literally be bringing food home to put on the tables, really quite ridiculous. Pointing to that, and twisting it, to justify modern gender roles is a typical example of inventing whimsical "biological reasons" from cherrypicked knowledge.

If you don't wish me to twist words or cherrypick knowledge, which I wasn't even trying to do, why are you doing it yourself to my post? Did you not read the remainder of the post and understand what I was trying to say?

Let me try to put it more directly since I'm alittle sleepy and not feeling very eloquent. I was mistaken in implying that "earning a living" did not include gathering; of course it did. However, I was pointing out in the rest of the post that our perception of man-woman roles are only just evolving, as a society. I did not say anywhere that I agree with the past perception that men were meant to go out, earn a living and protect the farm or that women were just meant to stay close to home, pluck crops and bear children. However, that's how it was, like it or not. And fortunately, we are evolving past that, however it may take a few more generations for it to truly evolve to the next stage, where hopefully we will be as equal as we can possibly be (give or take, since I do personally think there are some things that can never be equal and if everything was, it'd be pretty boring anyhows).

Edit: An additional point I just thought of. Celltrex points out that society and not a natural law, "dictates" that a woman should perform her role etc. Well, society is made up of women too, and thus it was also the way they protrayed themselves. There were notable women in history who broke from that norm, but it was nonetheless the norm at the time. However, it's important to remember that now, when woman are "standing up for themselves", or trying to break away from that norm as a whole, not just an individual or two, society is slowly adapting to it. How many people do you really know, personally, still insist women should stay at home and cook/clean/bear children only?

I just thought about it, and I don't know a single person. Some of you may know a few, depending on where you're from or the type of people you hang out with. But those thoughts are changing; more importantly, decreasing as we adapt. So back to what I said, gender roles will likely be very different in a few generations.

[semaphore]

Did you not read the remainder of the post and understand what I was trying to say?

You tried to say that it used to men are the ones "earning a living". So I pointed out the fact that you were wrong. What you said after is irrelevant to you starting from a false premise.

I was mistaken in implying that "earning a living" did not include gathering; of course it did.

^

And fortunately, we are evolving past that

You're really just abusing the word evolving now. We're still essentially the same species as our hunter-gatherer days. The difference is social and cultural.

[Mavecryst]

The difference is social and cultural.

I did say we are evolving as a society. Yes, I'm talking about social and cultural evolution, I don't think there's any abuse of the word there. Of course we're the same species, biologically speaking, as our hunter-gatherer days; we haven't had enough time to evolve in that particular sense.