1. Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Get Rid of Gender Roles

Discussion in 'Politics Discussion' started by Sapphire K, Oct 19, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sapphire K

    Sapphire K Autistic Demigirl! (She/They/It) V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    2,516
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2018
    Karma:
    +2,461
    DefinitionOfGender.jpg
    Gender is a social construct. It's fine on its own, although more people should accept that it is extremely loosely tied to biological sex, and is different from that. It's not just male or female. There are several human genders.

    Now, here is an even bigger problem: Gender roles. Gender roles aren't okay, in my mind. In the Western world, they were created by men who wanted to control the behavior of people (mostly women, but also men to a small extent). This has caused people to be incredibly hesitant and/or unwilling to give women rights around the world throughout history simply because of these outdated and primitive beliefs.

    If we want true gender equality, we should either choose to abandon gender roles, or create legislature that forbids them.

    Are Gender Roles Necessary? - The Patriot Post
    Gender Roles are Useless - Weheartit
    It's Time For a World Without Gender - Scientific American

    As a gender fluid person, I agree with the above links. Gender roles are unnecessary constructs that mean little and only restrict society from truly evolving. Getting rid of them is the best option for society right now. They are primitive and outdated, and should be wiped out entirely. They have no place in a modern world.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2020
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Magna

    Magna Well-Known Member V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    1,370
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2019
    Karma:
    +1,949
    I agree that there should be no social stigma related to things that were traditionally considered the role of one gender vs. another. I think society is getting better about this. For example, men in most of society are not ridiculed for doing things that were traditionally known as "women's work". Men are increasingly helping around house with tasks that need completion. Women are also increasingly doing things that were traditionally considered the role of the man. The numbers of women who are into hunting are increasing in my area.

    I don't know the proper term to use, but I often employ a test of extremes. If I recall correctly it's known as taking something to the absurd as a means for analyzing the validity of an idea?

    Here's an example of the method I would use in relation to this topic:

    Premise: There is no difference between biological men and biological women in relation to the rearing of children. Meaning, neither sex has any advantage or biology that makes one or the other better at raising children. Any perceived advantage (e.g. "Mothering" is a known term. "Fathering" is not a known term) is simply a traditional social construct that should be forbidden.

    Taking something to the absurd:

    Envision forbidding women from rearing children after they give birth to them and have all child rearing done by men. Would the outcome be exactly the same as if it were the opposite? Why or why not? If not then there would be a difference that has to be acknowledged. I'm not saying that men can't or don't contribute positively to child rearing just as I'm not saying women can't or don't contribute positively to child rearing.

    My point is that in certain fundamental cases, traditional gender roles are rooted in biological differences.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Streetwise

    Streetwise Well-Known Member V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    9,354
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Karma:
    +8,590
    Never heard of a man being able to breastfeed a baby or gestate a baby (lacking a uterus)thus gender roles need to be strengthened so women are encouraged to breastfeed.
    There are two genders male and female .
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Progster

    Progster Gone sideways to the sun V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    6,811
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2014
    Karma:
    +15,082
    I don't think that gender roles are bad per se - if the parties are all willing and happy with that. The problem for me comes when there are social expectations and assumptions of any gender, based on gender roles, imposed on them by their culture or society. Too much stereotyping, pigeon-holing, one-size-fits all and not enough allowance for individual preferences and lifestyle choices. I resent society trying to tell me who I should be, what I should like and what I should do based on my gender. People should be free to choose their own roles in life according to their preferences and individual circumstances, and not have these dictated to them by culture and society.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2020
    • Agree Agree x 3
  5. Khendra

    Khendra Well-Known Member V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    171
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2017
    Karma:
    +313
    I would agree.

    I was raised in a Christian household which I've since learned was only moderately conservative. When I was a young girl, I was convinced I'd grow to be a boy. My parents never over-corrected this. As I got older, I accepted I was fully female, just very tomboyish and nerdy. This is one of the issues I think my parents handled very well.

    When I got even older, I encountered much more conservative Christians from the Reformed tradition who taught extremely rigid ideas of gender. Women had to model themselves after June Cleaver. "Biblical womanhood" was a long list of rules meant to enforce traditional gender roles. Women of certain Myers-Briggs types were preferred: ISFJ, ENFJ, and other types were considered "ideal" mothers and nurturers. The women who were less feminine simply had to become more like June Cleaver and the ISFJs and ENFJs. Men and women were even rigidly separated into what sins they could be expected to struggle with: only men struggled with lust, only women struggled with gossip. It was a very black-and-white world, and gray thinking was considered "too right brain dominant" (Myers-Briggs P types) and more immoral.

    My dad and husband have steered me away from the guilt these types can try to induce. They think that culture is far too legalistic, and even cultic in some expressions. They're probably right. Of course the Reformed types deny they have tendencies to such a degree, but read Jasmine Holmes' blog (daughter of Voddie Baucham) and you can see the effects.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Streetwise

    Streetwise Well-Known Member V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    9,354
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Karma:
    +8,590
    So the sweeping generalisation is that reform churches manipulate men and women, not particular men and women that you've come into contact with, so youre disrespecting their right to believe the way they choose,apparently people that aren't from reform churches aren't manipulative .
     
  7. Khendra

    Khendra Well-Known Member V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    171
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2017
    Karma:
    +313
    They tried to usurp authority from my dad and told me not to marry the person my dad allowed me to marry, so I'd say they disrespected our right to believe much more.
     
  8. tducey

    tducey Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,294
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2018
    Karma:
    +2,113
    I've always felt that if someone can do something their gender doesn't matter at all.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  9. Sapphire K

    Sapphire K Autistic Demigirl! (She/They/It) V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    2,516
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2018
    Karma:
    +2,461
    That's why gender roles are stupid. All genders have the same capability.

    Also, gender roles ignore that, yes, non-binary genders exist and are 100% normal. Gender roles are based more on biological sex than anything else.
     
  10. Streetwise

    Streetwise Well-Known Member V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    9,354
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Karma:
    +8,590
    So every person in every reform church did that?
     
  11. mw2530

    mw2530 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    540
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Karma:
    +765
    Males and females have many differences. The fact that there are differences does not need to be taken in such a negative light. Physically, they are obviously different. Males have advantages in certain areas such as physically demanding jobs. Females are generally stronger in care giving type jobs. Sure there are exceptions like with anything else. There also are differences in the male and female brain.

    But saying gender does not exist ignores these differences and ignores the general strengths and weaknesses of each gender. I tend to strive to do things that I like to do and I have talents for. I think it is safe to say that is the case for most people. So naturally due to inherent differences between men and women, both behave differently and have a tendency to strive for different feats. The differing results are not necessarily due to societal expectations, but often have to do with the inherent differences.

    Just because men have taken advantage of women throughout history more often than the reverse, does not mean we should ignore gender differences. Acknowledging the differences does not mean we think inequalities in opportunity between the two is ok.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. Khendra

    Khendra Well-Known Member V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    171
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2017
    Karma:
    +313
    I never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth. I explicitly wrote:

    "When I got even older, I encountered much more conservative Christians from the Reformed tradition who taught extremely rigid ideas of gender."

    My husband has encouraged me not to respond to you anymore after this. You appear to be wanting to argue for the sake of arguing, and it's getting very irritating.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Khendra

    Khendra Well-Known Member V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    171
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2017
    Karma:
    +313
    I think you are correct in your broader points. I believe the political left usually differentiates between sex and gender these days. As a more conservative person, I had a hard time understanding this for awhile. Obviously the two sexes clearly exist, and there are physical differences as well as more general differences, some of which you point out. And of course there are always exceptions to some of those differences, as you also correctly mention, and I think this is where gender roles come into play.

    For the men and women who are exceptions to certain gender roles, there can be confusion or criticism depending on how strictly one thinks people should adhere to norms. I mentioned there was a certain group of Reformed Christians I came across who believed in very strict gender roles (and again, not all Reformed are like this; I think everyone but one poster here understood from the context of what I wrote that I was simply talking about a very conservative wing of the Reformed). They seemed too strict to me and my family, much more conservative than even we are.

    On the other hand, sometimes those who don't fit gender roles very well want to change their assigned sex. This is a controversial topic still. People on the political left are more accepting of those who want to change it, whereas conservatives think this is wrong. I may not fit all gender stereotypes, but I don't want to change my sex. There are things I like and don't like about being a woman, and these things bother me sometimes, but I ultimately accept who I am.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. Barymore

    Barymore nevertheless, she persisted V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    269
    Joined:
    May 15, 2020
    Karma:
    +463
    There lies the crux, to a large part, I believe.
    As a biologist I am interested, among other things, in robust and reliable differences between the sexes (any species). That there are differences is indisputable, for example only female mammals lactate. However, there are far fewer differences that have reliably and scientifically been shown than are commonly bandied about. Further these multiple traits that perhaps on average are seen expressed more strongly in one sex than the other, within one individual will not all correspond to their biological sex.
    However, people will take any difference and apply a „us“ and „them“ mentality wherby „them“ is worse and „us“ is better. This faculty of homo sapiens is well established too (survival of the friendliest by brian hare and vanessa woods discusses it and gives one evolutionary explanation). The Stanford prison experiment and more recent ones in popular representation have demonstrated this again and again. Where we have differences we make these bigger and discriminate against outgroup and pressure ingroup members to conform. Addressing gender role inequalities, I believe, requires addressing our in group out group tendencies. Arguing that there are no differences between male and female is not correct, saying that these dont matter can be. BTW both male and female Flamingos lactate - they produce a pink colored „milk“ in their crop with which they feed their chick.
    PS: @Khendra I‘m with you about that person who was posting before, felt it came across as argumentative and somewhat bullying, good for you on your reply
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  15. Sapphire K

    Sapphire K Autistic Demigirl! (She/They/It) V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    2,516
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2018
    Karma:
    +2,461
    First off, I didn't say gender doesn't exist, I said that it's a social construct. Gender roles often ignore people who do not identify one of the traditional binary genders (since gender isn't binary, never has been), and that's why we should get rid of them. There is a massive difference between sex and gender (see definition of gender I gave above), so arguing biology is essentially worthless. And, yes, there are differences in the male and female brain. However, a man can be born with a brain resembling a woman's, which results in a trans woman, and the opposite can happen and result in a trans man.

    2nd off, yes, we should get rid of gender roles because men definitely did use them to take advantage of women, and even today they do. Women often get paid less than men for the same work and hours for no good reason. I'm saying we should ignore GENDER ROLES, not gender differences, if you read my original post and the links I provided closely enough.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Khendra

    Khendra Well-Known Member V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    171
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2017
    Karma:
    +313
    Good discussion.

    I'm more in between on abolishing gender roles; I think a number of them merely resulted from pragmatic necessity rather than outright oppression, especially in prior ages where we didn't have the technology we do today to make life's tasks quicker and easier. I'll get to the specifics in the following paragraphs.

    Child-rearing, for example, used to be incredibly time and resource-intensive, and taking care of the home was also similarly arduous. We didn't always have dryers, microwaves, vacuum cleaners, and the like. People had to sew their own clothes, not get them from stores. Birth control pills didn't become widely available until the 1960s, so women had many more children, and many of these often died because medical knowledge was more limited. Women had their hands absolutely full at home; there simply wasn't the luxury leisure time to take on much work outside of it. We often look back at old times out of context and forget about all these technological changes when examining how our forbears lived. Life for our ancestors was exhausting and physically demanding; it simply made sense for most women to stay at home. The labor of being home with ten children without modern technological convenience simply made pragmatic sense at the time.

    So now that we have so much more free time and technological ease today, which roles are still worth maintaining? Every person has to answer this according to their convictions, skill sets, and after consulting those closely with them. For me and my husband, we tend to actually follow a lot of the old roles. He's physically stronger than I am, so he mows the lawn. He's more mechanically inclined than I am (a broad difference commonly found among the sexes, likely due to the influence of testosterone on the right hemisphere, the visual spatial hemisphere), so he fixes most of the house mechanical issues (machines, tools, etc.). Women tend to be more fine motor and "tidy," so I do a lot of classic housewife tasks: washing dishes, doing the laundry, vacuuming, wiping down the counters, sweeping the leaves off our porch, and so forth.

    I'm not as nurturing as most women, but I've brought animals into the house. My husband never considered adopting or helping to take care of cats before. Now that I have brought a cat (and now another kitten as of last week!) into the home, he's found he likes them, and has started to learn some nurturing habits. I initiated all this though, it came more natural.

    So even with technology, and even with a liberal-minded husband, I've ended up taking on a lot of traditional gender roles. They weren't forced on me, but the divisions of labor we have make sense. He's better at the things commonly ascribed to males, I'm better at the things commonly ascribed to females.

    That being said, men and women can also learn some of the tasks usually assigned to the other sex. I mentioned that my husband wasn't initially nurturing with animals, but he's learned to be. I've learned a few mechanical things, like changing light bulbs. So even though I think a number of gender roles can still be pragmatically useful, men and women shouldn't always feel limited to them. This is especially true for singles who may have to take care of their own homes one day without assistance. Regardless of the sex of child we plan to have, we will teach the child all household tasks, not just the ones most commonly associated with their sex. This isn't going against the Bible, either, as some ultraconservatives argue. One of the most neglected and avoided texts of the New Testament was Paul's claim that singleness is better than marriage (1 Cor 7) because it gives the man and woman more freedom to pursue the things of God, not worry about pleasing a spouse. He said this for both men and women. That means that marriage and motherhood are not always God's calling for women, nor are they the highest. But, I got married because I needed both physical and mental companionship, and I struggle being independent due to a number of my autism traits. Paul said marriage was good, but that singleness was better. If singleness is better, that means men and women need to know how to take care of themselves to an extent, because mommy and daddy won't always be around, and Mr. or Mrs. Right might not always be in the Deity's plans.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. mw2530

    mw2530 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    540
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Karma:
    +765
    To say that gender is a social construct still ignores biology. In fact, the definition of gender you gave above begins as "either of the two sexes (male and female)". Biology is absolutely relevant and fundamental here.

    So you said that gender exists, but is a social construct. So under that theory, someone who is biologically male, could identify as a female gender if they wish. Or perhaps they could choose to alternate between male or female depending on the day of the week and how they are feeling or what types of things they are doing that day. In that case, gender sort of loses all of its meaning.

    You say we should ignore gender roles and get rid of them altogether. But, society will still have male and female roles because biology inherently affects our strengths and weaknesses. So what is the difference? Instead of gender roles, we will have "biological sex" roles. Call it whatever name you want, it doesn't change anything. Most firefighters will still be male. Most soldiers will still be male. Most nurses will still be female. Unless, in order to reach the goal of eliminating gender roles, we as a society require an equal split between male and female firefighters, male and female soldiers, male and female nurses. In which case you are forcing something on people and they are no longer to free to choose what they want for themselves. In addition, people will no longer gravitate towards what they like and are good at, and as a result quality of products and services will diminish. At the end of the day gender roles and gender differences are inherently tied together.

    To say that that women are paid less than men for the same work and hours may be true, but the difference is pretty minimal. Assuming same job and qualifications, women earn 98% of what a man earns. The difference is likely attributable to the fact that men generally work more hours and are typically more assertive in asking for raises. If women did in fact earn substantially less then men and produced the same amount of work, why would employers not only hire women? It would be cheaper for them of course, if that was the case. And that is simply economics, another science that seems to get ignored.

    Lastly, men also get taken advantage of based on their gender. Men are generally are the ones who are sent off to fight in wars when their country calls for it. They usually hold more dangerous jobs. And their life expectancy is lower than women. I have not heard of a biological reason for the last one. Historically the court system has treated men unfairly in divorces. And more men successfully (or I would say unsuccessfully) commit suicide than women. Rarely do I ever hear these injustices brought up. But these facts go against the current narrative that we always hear about.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Judge

    Judge Well-Known Member V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    25,968
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Karma:
    +34,381
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2020
  19. mw2530

    mw2530 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    540
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Karma:
    +765
    LOL - the third link provided is the one I referenced to get the 98% figure, although I had not copied a link. Perhaps you need to take a closer look. The 98% is in a huge blue box a few pages down.
     
  20. Judge

    Judge Well-Known Member V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    25,968
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Karma:
    +34,381
    Take that closer look yourself. Then consider the aggregate/uncontrolled number rather than a controlled gender gap. Otherwise you're just trying to put "lipstick on a pig" citing a percentage that only applies to a portion of our labor market with the most progressive labor laws.

    After all, the Equal Rights Amendment never passed. Different laws for different states with many of them retaining a much higher disparity in wages. It's the aggregate uncontrolled number that counts. The one that all of these sources are citing. Yet even in that "controlled" more optimal environment, why is there still a two percent lag ? Even under the best present conditions women are still being cheated. Why?

    And such numbers are likely worse in real time if you consider what the pandemic has done to women who have either lost their job or had their work hours reduced. As Business Insider cites, that's a "glaring gap" in pay between genders. It indeed is a problem.

    In essence you have to read all these links in their entirety, as "the devil is in the details".

    "In 2018, a woman working full time earned 81.6 cents for every dollar a man working full time earned on average. Additionally, women's median annual earnings were $9,766 less than men's, according to the most recent available data from the US Census Bureau."

    "The pay gap varies, however, by state.


    In Wyoming, for instance, the gender pay gap is 30.9%, the biggest wage gap in the nation. Louisiana is followed closely behind at 30.8%. In 30 states, the gender pay gap is larger than the national average."

    7 charts that show the glaring gap between men's and women's salaries in the US

    That third link I posted:

    "Our research shows that the uncontrolled gender pay gap, which takes the ratio of the median earnings of women to men without controlling for various compensable factors, has only decreased by $0.07 since 2015. In 2020, women make only $0.81 for every dollar a man makes."

    Gender Pay Gap Statistics for 2020 | PayScale

    Basically much of any assertion that the gap in pay between genders is only two percent is meaningless particularly for those women employed in those 30 states which have aggregate pay gaps much higher than the aggregate national average.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2020
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.