In Defense of Gender Roles - A Discussion

Gender Roles are social constructs developed out of necessity. It was the drive for survival and how to best maintain it that saw the division of roles by sex. People gained roles based on how they were born, or en"gender"ed..

These roles were necessary during the ages of scarcity. Where the procurement and use of resources needed to be as efficient as possible. However, now we live in the age of surplus. Our methods and means of nearly unlimited production have allowed us to ascend those roles entirely..

That is the underlying stress that's being used or guarded against for personal reasons. Some use it just to make themselves favorable through things like virtue signalling. This goes a long way to gaining public confidence and ascend to a position of power. Some are guarding against it looking to maintain the power or perceived peace or justice maintained by the old order..

However, only one solution works for me. As we move from a terrestrial, ground focused species to a solar, expansive species. The roles we define ourselves with cannot be based on the earthly existence of our bodies but inner realities of our sol(soul if you're getting my drift).. as are collective focus shifts, so must the roles that support it..

All males do not need to be active, competitive, or aggressive. Their strength can take on more passive, supportive roles. All females do not need to be passively confined to a family for survival. They can strike out on their own. Guided by their intuition, their sensuality takes on an active role. Birthing new ideas in the world..

My one solution? Assignment of social roles based on the sex at birth (gender) must end..

Guys: its women themselves who expect men to live up to gender roles/stereotypes. Whatever anyone tells you, women judge men’s masculinity in all kinds of ways. Doesnt mean that you have to be Hercules to keep a girl (she wouldnt be with you in the first place if she didnt like you) but it does mean that there are standards youre going to be judged by. One easy example would be if you and your girlfriend are walking around somewhere and someone dangerous accosts you, its up to you to keep things from becoming violent and if they do become violent, its up to you to handle it.
If shes some kind of MMA fighter or maybe a cop with her pistol on her or something then this MAY not apply but for probably 90% of heterosexual women, (a statistic i completely made up based on personal experience) this is the expectation whether they admit (or even know it) or not.. If youre the man in the relationship, you'll be expected to be the man. No matter what you or her think you believe about gender roles, in real life situations (ESPECIALLY in SHTF moments) she very likely has expectations of you that she will think less of you or outright resent you for not meeting.

Who is this “she” or “her”? Often that’s a huge generalization. That person who really ... doesn’t exist but it’s easy to point the finger at. I can only answer for me - it’s both human beings in a relationship that tend to have expectations not spoken or even not discussed and yet - they shape a relationship. But - that’s what I’ve found in my own relationships after I stopped blaming and started naming and creating. I’m not disagreeing at all - but that’s part of the problem I had was taking responsibility for my self and my own role - blaming made it easier to do ... nothing about it - for me. Now, I can’t say it’s some one else’s fault or some one else influenced me to ... nope. Like all roles - the more I blamed the less I accomplished. The more I stated and figured out the more I got done. Just my 2 cents .... hope it helps some one else.

JamesSand wrote:
It's also easier for me to sack males, so I can cleanse that disease at a slightly faster rate.


Is it easier from a personal or from a legal perspective?

Legal.

From my perspective, one meatsack is as good or bad as any other. I barely want to know their names, much less any more intimate details than that about them - for some reason the paperwork monkeys seem to care what is "under the hood"

Bugger me if I can figure on their logic?

OB1Shinobi wrote: Guys: its women themselves who expect men to live up to gender roles/stereotypes. Whatever anyone tells you, women judge men’s masculinity in all kinds of ways. Doesnt mean that you have to be Hercules to keep a girl (she wouldnt be with you in the first place if she didnt like you) but it does mean that there are standards youre going to be judged by. One easy example would be if you and your girlfriend are walking around somewhere and someone dangerous accosts you, its up to you to keep things from becoming violent and if they do become violent, its up to you to handle it.
If shes some kind of MMA fighter or maybe a cop with her pistol on her or something then this MAY not apply but for probably 90% of heterosexual women, (a statistic i completely made up based on personal experience) this is the expectation whether they admit (or even know it) or not.. If youre the man in the relationship, you'll be expected to be the man. No matter what you or her think you believe about gender roles, in real life situations (ESPECIALLY in SHTF moments) she very likely has expectations of you that she will think less of you or outright resent you for not meeting.

Can confirm. I'm 6'1", built like a tank, and study/train in medieval combat, grappling, and boxing.

But I still managed to find a boyfriend who is military, specialist in unarmed combat, and all-around insanely badass. And my last boyfriend was a black belt in judo.

So yeah, even if I can protect myself, I still prefer to be with a man who can protect me. Or, more likely, help me protect myself - should that unlikely situation arise, haha!

Leah Starspectre wrote:

OB1Shinobi wrote: Guys: its women themselves who expect men to live up to gender roles/stereotypes. Whatever anyone tells you, women judge men’s masculinity in all kinds of ways. Doesnt mean that you have to be Hercules to keep a girl (she wouldnt be with you in the first place if she didnt like you) but it does mean that there are standards youre going to be judged by. One easy example would be if you and your girlfriend are walking around somewhere and someone dangerous accosts you, its up to you to keep things from becoming violent and if they do become violent, its up to you to handle it.
If shes some kind of MMA fighter or maybe a cop with her pistol on her or something then this MAY not apply but for probably 90% of heterosexual women, (a statistic i completely made up based on personal experience) this is the expectation whether they admit (or even know it) or not.. If youre the man in the relationship, you'll be expected to be the man. No matter what you or her think you believe about gender roles, in real life situations (ESPECIALLY in SHTF moments) she very likely has expectations of you that she will think less of you or outright resent you for not meeting.

Can confirm. I'm 6'1", built like a tank, and study/train in medieval combat, grappling, and boxing.

But I still managed to find a boyfriend who is military, specialist in unarmed combat, and all-around insanely badass. And my last boyfriend was a black belt in judo.

So yeah, even if I can protect myself, I still prefer to be with a man who can protect me. Or, more likely, help me protect myself - should that unlikely situation arise, haha!

I think anyone would want someone who would help them protect themselves. That's gender neutral in my book..

JamesSand wrote:

JamesSand wrote:
It's also easier for me to sack males, so I can cleanse that disease at a slightly faster rate.


Is it easier from a personal or from a legal perspective?

Legal.

From my perspective, one meatsack is as good or bad as any other. I barely want to know their names, much less any more intimate details than that about them - for some reason the paperwork monkeys seem to care what is "under the hood"

Bugger me if I can figure on their logic?

The paperwork monkeys worry about lawsuits and quotas. Tell a man you don't want him and he moves on, probably would have the cops called if not moving fast enough too ? No such luck with women. Over here the cops will only bother removing a woman if she is looney-bin-level batshit insane.

Uzima Moto wrote: I think anyone would want someone who would help them protect themselves. That's gender neutral in my book..

I think this falls on most actions to be honest. The reality is we move from role to role. It often tends to be the people whom place these roles we all play as adult into categories that are the loudest against it. This is why in some scenarios this can get annoying because it seems as if those against it are trying to pick the roles they want to do not by what is the necessity of the time. Or more ironically picking to not do a needed role because of their gender.

No roles are actually assigned by gender after the age of 16 (if that), are there, "Norms" yes but the roles are actions meaning there is always choice before action is taken.

For some back ground I come from a family with a bread winner mom (executive lever worked up from the bottom Irish immigrant) and a stay at home father who did all the house work after he retired from 25 years of airline mechanic when I was about 7. So really none of the home responsibility based gender roles were not set but fluid to what needed to be done. So, maybe my viewpoint is skewed, but I think it looks a lot like gender roles are just a way of categorizing the idea of action, as opposed to the reality of action completed.

Much Love, Peace Respect,
Kobos