How ought a woman to be treated? Differently than a man or in an equal fashion?

Some argue that men are above women in various ways or that a man ought to

have the final say in marital discussion. Should a woman open the door for a man

just as a man would for a woman? Should there be a strong divide between both

sexes for masculinity to be established in a man; e.g., if a man were to stay home

and tend to the children while the wife works or if the woman in a relationship be

the stronger or bolder person in character? Should we retain the old-fashioned

customs of bread-winning and getting the chair/door for the opposite sex or

should there be a level line of conduct between individuals? What are your thoughts?

- With Regards, J.S.

Views: 1171

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think women should have a right to vote and it would also be cool if they found their way into the workforce someday, but they should be kept from military service because emotional moodswings don't mix well with firearms.

Interesting views; I suppose women are already well-integrated into the workforce. I also read recently that "Women currently hold 4.6 percent of Fortune 500 CEO positions." This is interesting and worth noting, I suppose. Thank you for your post!

- Regards, J.S.

I think you missed the sarcasm.

I am often caught in the snare of sarcasm.

We can have a good laugh anyway. Haha.

- J.S.

Gender and how we view the roles and abilities of the different sexes are both socially constructed.

I am in agreement with you on the matter.

Do you believe these roles should be re-

constructed, de-constructed or are you

mostly indifferent?

- J.S. 

Gender and how we view the roles and abilities of the different sexes are both socially constructed.

 Really, dumbass? There is no functional difference between you and the women in your life in size, strength, stamina, temperament or disposition? 

  That answers a lot of things. 

There are differences, indeed, but the roles seem more socially constructed.

In regards to social evolution, I believe. I should add that I do not understand

the need for such insults within the realm of civil discussion, Mr. Denny.

I should add that I do not understand the need for such insults within the realm of civil discussion, Mr. Denny.

There is a long history there, James. Vytautus and I have a mutually shared contempt for one another.

In a world of baby formula and white collar jobs, once a child is not the smallest of infants, those biologically determined roles mean much less. Dad's can be stay at home caregivers, mothers can be primary breadwinners...

Also, not everyone has children. Gender is bigger than the roles of parents.

If you are using aspects of child rearing/parenting to determine "roles" it makes a difference.

And again - we are not saying those roles are not rooted in biology. But now, in modern first world countries - nobody is running around with spears. And even breastfeeding is seen by many as optional. So the biological role, is no longer as relevant. Leaving us with the social as the primary determinant.

If the reasons for the original "design" are no longer a factor (white collar vs. hunting/gathering, etc.) - then holding up the original design as "the way it should be" is flawed. Roles change to meet needs, not visa versa.

If the reasons for the original "design" are no longer a factor (white collar vs. hunting/gathering, etc.) - then holding up the original design as "the way it should be" is flawed. Roles change to meet needs, not visa versa.

 

Roles have changed, but not instincts.  By your logic, an infant should not have the sucking instinct because, since the advent of formula,  breastfeeding is now unnecessary.

 

Just because our technology has rendered the original reasons moot, it does not follow that the hard-wired neural pathways responsible for instinct have changed.

RSS

Latest Activity

Shannon N. Clark replied to Michael's discussion Has my Faith Made me Weak?
"Sounds like you had a good learning experience. I bet you'll do better next time. "
1 hour ago
Shane replied to Pale Horse's discussion General Election 2016 in the group The Great Debate
"I'll be more specific. The Clinton Foundation has: -killed masses of people on two continents by denying aid they've collected money for -laundered hundreds of millions of dollars for weapons sales -collected hundreds of millions in…"
1 hour ago
Clinton R. Ausmus replied to Pale Horse's discussion General Election 2016 in the group The Great Debate
"Well that's not what I'm saying Shane so yeah...Whatever..."
2 hours ago
Sir replied to Pale Horse's discussion General Election 2016 in the group The Great Debate
"Your disagreement is clear.  And will not be resolved."
2 hours ago
Shane replied to Pale Horse's discussion General Election 2016 in the group The Great Debate
"I'm saying human rights abuses are not the same as pulling money out of the wrong pot. Which you're saying."
2 hours ago
Clinton R. Ausmus replied to Pale Horse's discussion General Election 2016 in the group The Great Debate
"Saying both is fishy, is saying both is fishy.  It's not saying one is worse then the other.  I'm saying they are both fishy.  Stop trying to read into what I'm saying.  It's pretty cut and dry... Here…"
2 hours ago
Clinton R. Ausmus replied to Pale Horse's discussion General Election 2016 in the group The Great Debate
"Just pointing out...If Clinton's camp sends a whole bunch of young nice looking black men into a black neighborhood, she's going to look really good on that poll.  If she sends a bunch of people that look like they walked out of Duck…"
2 hours ago
Profile IconIrfan Azim, Jdub Phx, Shane and 7 more joined Art of Manliness
2 hours ago

© 2016   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service