22 Jan 2012, 3:19 pm
TheAmoralist wrote:
Gender roles are fictive, much like fictive kin (e.g.: Aryan brotherhood, the military, religion), are used to exploit and manipulate. It's origins come from religion like most of today's sociocultural bull. Gender roles are not directly beneficial to reproduction. Without them, we would still naturally be able to reproduce -natural selection would play it's part. ( 
) With it, we over-reproduce, and then we overburden ourselves and our environment, giving authority a cause to exploit us and others. Gender roles are unnecessary and trump freedom and equality.
- Would we, with ASDs, still exist? How would you describe us in evolutionary terms? Positive, negative, or neutral mutation, adaptation, etc.?
I don't have much practice with argumentative writing. Any feedback is appreciated, of course.
) With it, we over-reproduce, and then we overburden ourselves and our environment, giving authority a cause to exploit us and others. Gender roles are unnecessary and trump freedom and equality. - Would we, with ASDs, still exist? How would you describe us in evolutionary terms? Positive, negative, or neutral mutation, adaptation, etc.?I don't have much practice with argumentative writing. Any feedback is appreciated, of course.
I wouldn't say gender roles are entirely else. In order to make the sexes entirely equal, you would have to coerce them into going against their nature at least as much as the gender roles coerce the sexes to conform to the idea of what a sex's nature is.
No matter how equal the rights of sexes towards everything is, the fact is more women are going to be stay-at-home parents than men, and more men are going to be in sports. That doesn't mean that all women love kids or that all men love sports (personally, I love neither of those things
) but I think gender roles exaggerate biological tendencies, rather than create all of the differences between the sexes.
22 Jan 2012, 9:15 pm
22 Jan 2012, 9:21 pm
I agree with this type of feminism.
My mother was a "Rosie the Riveter" at 17.
22 Jan 2012, 9:28 pm
22 Jan 2012, 10:14 pm
puddingmouse wrote:
marshall wrote:
I'm fine with the idea of feminism, but people who call themselves feminists are often a bit nuts.
Pleased to make your acquaintance. I'm more than a 'bit' nuts.
me too.
22 Jan 2012, 10:18 pm
donnie_darko wrote:
TheAmoralist wrote:
Gender roles are fictive, much like fictive kin (e.g.: Aryan brotherhood, the military, religion), are used to exploit and manipulate. It's origins come from religion like most of today's sociocultural bull. Gender roles are not directly beneficial to reproduction. Without them, we would still naturally be able to reproduce -natural selection would play it's part. ( ) With it, we over-reproduce, and then we overburden ourselves and our environment, giving authority a cause to exploit us and others. Gender roles are unnecessary and trump freedom and equality.
- Would we, with ASDs, still exist? How would you describe us in evolutionary terms? Positive, negative, or neutral mutation, adaptation, etc.?
I don't have much practice with argumentative writing. Any feedback is appreciated, of course.
) With it, we over-reproduce, and then we overburden ourselves and our environment, giving authority a cause to exploit us and others. Gender roles are unnecessary and trump freedom and equality. - Would we, with ASDs, still exist? How would you describe us in evolutionary terms? Positive, negative, or neutral mutation, adaptation, etc.?I don't have much practice with argumentative writing. Any feedback is appreciated, of course.
I wouldn't say gender roles are entirely else. In order to make the sexes entirely equal, you would have to coerce them into going against their nature at least as much as the gender roles coerce the sexes to conform to the idea of what a sex's nature is.
No matter how equal the rights of sexes towards everything is, the fact is more women are going to be stay-at-home parents than men, and more men are going to be in sports. That doesn't mean that all women love kids or that all men love sports (personally, I love neither of those things
) but I think gender roles exaggerate biological tendencies, rather than create all of the differences between the sexes.nobody coerced me into being the breadwinner while my former husband stayed at home to care for our child and do the housework. and nobody coerced him into it either.
my brand of feminism supports the idea that men and women should have the choice to take on either role, or to share roles. considering that the workforce is close to equal in the male:female ratio, it seems that this is already happening.
22 Jan 2012, 10:20 pm
22 Jan 2012, 10:23 pm
23 Jan 2012, 12:42 am
23 Jan 2012, 12:52 am
23 Jan 2012, 1:04 am
23 Jan 2012, 1:17 am
AceOfSpades wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
nobody coerced me into being the breadwinner while my former husband stayed at home to care for our child and do the housework. and nobody coerced him into it either.
my brand of feminism supports the idea that men and women should have the choice to take on either role, or to share roles. considering that the workforce is close to equal in the male:female ratio, it seems that this is already happening.
I could care less if men or women take on either roles, but I don't expect them to be equal. Men have better spatial ability and are more left-hemisphere dominant which makes us better at math while women are much more adept at communication and language due to a more even hemispherical dominance and a larger limbic system. It's inevitable that men will be better overall at math and females will be better overall at language-based subjects as well as at caregiving so I think gender equality is a fruitless harvest.my brand of feminism supports the idea that men and women should have the choice to take on either role, or to share roles. considering that the workforce is close to equal in the male:female ratio, it seems that this is already happening.
i don't understand what you are saying. men and women are already equal. equal does not mean identical, otherwise you could not even argue that all men are equal with each other.
interestingly, there is more variation across the members of each gender than there is between the members of the 2 genders (in every area of testing). so basically you can find more differences amongst males and amongst females than between males and females.
you are speaking in absolutes, which is absolutely never accurate.
my spatial abilities are far superior to my verbal communication skills, and i am female. so your post doesn't apply to all females or all males yet you speak in absolute terms.
you should be aware that the whole "left brain/right brain" thing was debunked long ago.
http://www.psychoheresy-aware.org/images/Pro2_14.pdf
EDIT: took out part where i was requoting and had half-deleted it.
Last edited by hyperlexian on 23 Jan 2012, 1:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
23 Jan 2012, 1:29 am
23 Jan 2012, 1:51 am
23 Jan 2012, 1:52 am
23 Jan 2012, 2:19 am
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Poor Things is a male take on feminism |
10 Apr 2024, 2:27 pm |
| GenZ More Likely Than Boomers To Believe Feminism Harmful |
01 Feb 2024, 5:48 pm |
