Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SirQuiamus]

Okay, so I have a question.

Why are gender roles treated as a bad thing?

Stop asking stupid questions and get back in the kitchen! I need a fukken sammich!

EDIT: That's why.

[TempAcc]

Okay, so I have a question.

Why are gender roles treated as a bad thing?

This. Its not like gender roles are exclusively a human social construct, but actualy a rather prevalent phenoma among mammals, too.

[That Wolf]

Okay, so I have a question.

Why are gender roles treated as a bad thing?

Because in the past and in some countrys and religious movements certain genders have been discriminated against.
Obviously people rose up to confront this and many took it to far in both directions leading to general negativity on the topic.
Women dont get paid equally as a man in the same job position and thats not right. One should only be penalised pay if they are doing terrible at the job.
We should have equality but we dont.
I generaly hate both sides of the argument. Its about equality and If you take a side be it femanisim or masclunism (correct words?) then you are not being fair and equal.
Any one should be able to report rape and it be taken seriously. There have been cases where people have lied and ruined lives however. Its generally a tricky subject and thats why its a hot topic and prone to arguments.
Just remember I will ignore your right/left winged corrections directed at me.

[That Wolf]

Okay, so I have a question.

Why are gender roles treated as a bad thing?

Stop asking stupid questions and get back in the kitchen! I need a fukken sammich!

EDIT: That's why.

Oh comon babe, cook the man some eggs...

[LordBucket]

Gender roles are treated as a bad thing largely because not everybody fits neatly into their assigned box. This results in discomfort for those people. This phenomenon is not at all unique to gender. The same basic theme can be found in "country folk have a child who wants to live in the city" for example. Race and gender issues simply happen to be in fashion right now.

[Bauglir]

@Grapefruit Sorcerer
Because people tend to treat them as external realities to which people need to conform, rather than nebulous concepts to which people may choose to attain. For example, "You're the woman around here, how do we bake a pie?" is not a reasonable thing to be saying to people in general. On the other hand, I certainly don't want to deny to a trans woman the option of wearing dresses in order to feel more feminine. The difference in the latter case is that the notion is intimately tied to what she understands to be womanly, instead of what she's told is, and her choices are motivated by her own agency. Moreover, the whole business lacks larger implications for everybody else; there's no need to object to her notion of femininity because it conflicts with your own, for example.

At least, that's my take on it.

[ArKFallen]

Women dont get paid equally as a man in the same job position and thats not right. One should only be penalised pay if they are doing terrible at the job.

Not exactly accurate if we are talking USA. The gist of this a numerous other articles out there is that there a total pay gap (all money from both sides while not accouting at all of location, employer, or education) and not a wage gap. This means that their is either a disparity in who has the jobs with higher base pay or women work less hours on average (note how much higher the male hours chart goes).

Just remember I will ignore your right/left winged corrections directed at me.

I'm not entirely sure what the underlined means.

Gender roles are treated as a bad thing largely because not everybody fits neatly into their assigned box. This results in discomfort for those people. This phenomenon is not at all unique to gender. The same basic theme can be found in "country folk have a child who wants to live in the city" for example. Race and gender issues simply happen to be in fashion right now.

Aye. Part of the reason of course for its fashionable-ness right now is the total amount of people who have a disproportionate response to those expectations being challenged is high compared to almost every other individual category. It also helps that that group has also paradoxically lessened its deathgrip on an influential continent between the Altantic and Pacific oceans so the affected have more moderates to appeal to.

[That Wolf]

ArKFallen: Underlined words usually mean you are placing ephasis on the words, or if caps isnt enough.
To be honest you used it pretty well.

I meant any argument that is favoured in any of the extremes.
I will say that genders can fit specific roles nicely, but it shouldnt be forced or expected.
I dont hate Islam... but I hate the fact that women have to cover themselves up.
I dont hate christianity.. but I do hate how it plainly states men are superiour.
Etc.. general bullshit.
But I think you knew what I meant in the first place, you just wanted some regurgitated meat to feed upon

[LordBucket]

I would generally be hesitant to assume that the social problems of any particular era are somehow "specialer" than similar social problem of other eras. Seems like there would be a strong tendency for bias.

In the specific case of gender...I assure you that people are way less inclined to "disproportionate response" to those expectations being challenged now than they were, say...20 years ago.

[ArKFallen]

In the specific case of gender...I assure you that people are way less inclined to "disproportionate response" to those expectations being challenged now than they were, say...20 years ago.

It also helps that that group has also paradoxically lessened its deathgrip on an influential continent between the Altantic and Pacific oceans so the affected have more moderates to appeal to.

Agreed.
I don't think that the "better, greater" portion of "better, greater, or otherwise different" in the definition of special applies to anything we have covered today. 2010+ has simply been the most ripe time for addressing this social problem in respect to the average individual's risk/support.

[Helgoland]

Again, what part of 'no quoting' is so hard to understand? Quoting whole posts is kind of a borderline case because it usually just signifies a reply to that person, but even there you can substitute the quote by a mention of the other person's username.

Looking at you, Ark.

[That Wolf]

Why?

[Helgoland]

The rules have been discussed to death already; I'd be glad if people coud stop beating the dead horse.

[Tiruin]

You could just edit the OP and make it a lot clearer, by adding why you exactly think its something to be limited, so we can really get why such a neutral thing would pretty much lead into something bad.
That's the thing that's missing, which leads to all this 'dead horse beatings' or such. The 'how' and the 'why', translated into details, which are pretty much mostly personally implied in the OP.

[LordBucket]

I don't think there needs to be a 'why.' It's the premise of the thread. Arguing with an OP about the purpose or motivation for a thread rarely ends well.  If you don't like it, don't participate.