Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
45 online now:
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,890 Year: 18,926/19,786 Month: 1,346/1,705 Week: 152/446 Day: 48/104 Hour: 3/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are The Historical Respective Roles Of The Genders Relevant Today?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 116 (557455)
04-25-2010 8:39 PM


In the Wicca thread we emerged into an off topic debate on the role of the genders.

My ratings slid (nice to have low ratings=nothing to loose ) as a verbal firestorm ensued because this ole man suggested that perhaps what worked for all human cultures, relative to the role of the respective genders, for six milleniums of recorded history might work best for our times.

Let the firestorm rage on if we can get this topic promoted in the Coffee House or perhaps, if there's fear of the tables and counters being overturned, in Freeforall.

Anglagard's biting his bit to post his stuff on this and no doubt others will enjoy the verbal skirmish as well.

Edited by Buzsaw, : Eliminate word

Edited by Buzsaw, : Re-spell skirmish


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Son, posted 04-26-2010 8:46 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 4 by Huntard, posted 04-26-2010 8:47 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 6 by Coragyps, posted 04-26-2010 9:01 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 7 by caffeine, posted 04-26-2010 9:15 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 17 by Theodoric, posted 04-26-2010 12:37 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 24 by lyx2no, posted 04-26-2010 4:18 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 80 by anglagard, posted 04-30-2010 1:08 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12631
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 2 of 116 (557486)
04-26-2010 8:31 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum

    
Son
Member (Idle past 2119 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 3 of 116 (557489)
04-26-2010 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
04-25-2010 8:39 PM


Well, first off, I would like you to explicite the role women should have (in a general way). I think it would let the discussion be more focused. You should also explain what do you mean by working, does it mean their culture survived? That their economy was better off? Their people (men and women) happier?

As for the argument so far, that something worked before doesn't mean it will work in a changing world. Take Poland against Germany, their horses didn't work very well to counter tanks despite the fact that they had used cavalry before with sucess.

We also didn't use computers before without much problems so why use them now? Why use modern medecine? Electricity? etc.... If your argument was valid, without the use of all those things, we would be better off, right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 04-25-2010 8:39 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Buzsaw, posted 04-28-2010 8:49 AM Son has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 585 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 4 of 116 (557490)
04-26-2010 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
04-25-2010 8:39 PM


Buzsaw writes:

{I} suggested that perhaps what worked for all human cultures, relative to the role of the respective genders, for six milleniums of recorded history might work best for our times.


Should we reinstate all things that "worked for all human cultures" in the past? Like Slavery and torture?

We moved on Buz, that's what happens. Like Dylan sang: "The times they are a-changing". You can either choose to change with them, or be shunned by society for views which will be held as backwards and sexist. Choose your path.

If you want to instist that women and men are different, then yes, they are. Are they so different as to say that one is inferior to the other? No, of course not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 04-25-2010 8:39 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Buzsaw, posted 04-26-2010 10:53 AM Huntard has not yet responded

    
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 713 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


(1)
Message 5 of 116 (557493)
04-26-2010 8:55 AM


Call me a traditionalist, or an old fart, whatever you prefer...idiot will work too. I agree to an extent with Buzz on this. I think statistics show the decline in the family structure has changed quite a bit (divorce, out of wedlock births, ect) with the woman's liberation "movement" if you will. I'd obviously prefer the mom to stay home and have an influence on the young ones then send them off to a day care to be watched by someone that just doesn't care quite as much.

That being said, times have changed Buzz and there's probably no going back at this point. Women now make decent incomes and help pay the bills, the car payments, the vacations, ect. Certainly pros and cons to this. Lifestyles go up, nicer cars, nicer home, better vacations for the kids, ect.

Just my .02 cents. It is what it is, women work now and make good money doing so...that isn't going to change.

Edit: I'd like to add something I just thought of. A woman's (and man's) role in society is really determined by society/culture. The role of a woman in say Rwanda is certainly going to be different then the role of a woman in America. In Rwanda, families are still trying to survive in a "pioneer" lifestyle...i.e. the man goes out and is sole job is to provide food and clothing for him family and that's it...Plasma tvs and BMW's are of zero consequence to this family. In American, 99.9% of families are no longer trying to just "put food on the table". The big question in life now is, boy, I'd really like to go to Disney World, purchase that brand new Nissan, and that 65" LCD would look great in the basement. Even in America, this aspect has changed dramatically since my dad was a boy in the 40's and 50's when he had to work the farm. Heck, my grandfather, now 90, had to drop out of school before high school to "work the farm". So of course my grandmother didn't work much...she raised the kids because money wasn't the issue....food and labor was.

Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Rahvin, posted 04-26-2010 11:55 AM Flyer75 has responded
 Message 18 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-26-2010 12:54 PM Flyer75 has responded
 Message 37 by caffeine, posted 04-27-2010 4:52 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 04-28-2010 10:07 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5399
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 6 of 116 (557494)
04-26-2010 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
04-25-2010 8:39 PM


perhaps what worked for all human cultures, relative to the role of the respective genders, for six milleniums of recorded history might work best for our times.

Are you real sure that "all" belongs in there? Several African societies and the Trobriand Islanders don't seem to fit your mold real well. And you've perhaps heard of Amazons?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 04-25-2010 8:39 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1702
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 7 of 116 (557495)
04-26-2010 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
04-25-2010 8:39 PM


Well, the first question to ask would be 'Have all human cultures for the past 6 millenia had the same gender roles?' If not, then the idea that one set of gender roles has worked well for everyone up till now would be obviously incorrect.

And a brief investigation will find that gender roles have varied throughout history. Some cultures have allowed women to hold political power, others have forbidden them any public role. Roman women could own property independently, and some became quite wealthy businesswomen; while women in Athens a few centuries earlier were forbidden to engage in financial transactions bigger than those needed to feed her family for the immediate future. In Europe a couple of hundred years ago, children would have remained the resopnsibility of the father in the case of a couple splitting up; in pre-European Iroquois society, they'd stay with the woman. Clearly, gender roles and relations have not been fixed historically.

The second question to ask is, assuming there has been a dominant pattern of gender roles throught history, whether this is any reason to assume it's the best way to continue. Modern science is a very recent invention, and a departure from much of history. It would seem silly to say it would have been better to rely on superstition instead of science, as this worked so well for much of human history. Science, as a method of finding out about our world, has worked better, and produced the practical benefits to show it. Equally, slavery has been commonplace throughout much of human history, but no one would consider this an argument for maintaining it as a legal institution today.

If you want to argue that a particular form of gender roles would be better for society, you need to explain why. Whether or not it's been common in the past is irrelevant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 04-25-2010 8:39 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 8 of 116 (557496)
04-26-2010 9:25 AM


Where we started
The post in the other forum that touched off this debate is as follows:

Buzsaw writes:

I grew up in Wyoming where the majority of men effectively apprised their women on voting wisdom. However too many of them unwisely ignored the phenomenal fact of the male leadership role throughout human history and in most of the animal kingdom ever since the recording of history.

Since women are more emotional and easily persuaded and manipulated, imo, voting is not included in their role, though their legitimate role in culture is no less important than that of the male.

Why, Dr Adequate, have most door to door sales companies advocated dealing with the woman of the house?

Sounds like the old "separate but equal" nonsense. "Sorry, ladies. You're equal but you can't vote."

How about women holding property, Buz? Is that off limits too?

How about educational opportunities?

How do you feel about subservience to husbands whims and commands?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-26-2010 10:16 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Buzsaw, posted 04-26-2010 11:24 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3766
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 9 of 116 (557501)
04-26-2010 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Coyote
04-26-2010 9:25 AM


...more emotional and easily persuaded and manipulated...
Since women are more emotional and easily persuaded and manipulated...

While in some situations that generalization might have some validity, I was under the impression that in the case of starting and waging wars, it's the males that are the "more emotional and easily persuaded and manipulated".

Moose


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 04-26-2010 9:25 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Buzsaw, posted 04-26-2010 11:03 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 116 (557507)
04-26-2010 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Huntard
04-26-2010 8:47 AM


Apples & Oranges
Huntard writes:

Should we reinstate all things that "worked for all human cultures" in the past? Like Slavery and torture?

I see this as a strawman, Huntard. The gender thing has to do with physiology and the slave/torture thing does not.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Huntard, posted 04-26-2010 8:47 AM Huntard has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 116 (557511)
04-26-2010 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Minnemooseus
04-26-2010 10:16 AM


Re: ...more emotional and easily persuaded and manipulated...
Minnemooseus writes:

While in some situations that generalization might have some validity, I was under the impression that in the case of starting and waging wars, it's the males that are the "more emotional and easily persuaded and manipulated".

Hi Moose. Nice to see you out & about in the forum threads. Wars involve conflict, greed, ambition, protection, survival and things like that, moreso than emotion. Heck, if persuasion was easy for leaders, who were mostly men, persuasion would often trump war. Women have not traditionally been as agressive as men. They have traditionally (I say traditionally) been referred to as the fairer and weaker sex, weaker, of course relative to physical strength.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-26-2010 10:16 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Rahvin, posted 04-26-2010 11:38 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 116 (557513)
04-26-2010 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Coyote
04-26-2010 9:25 AM


Re: Where we started
Coyote writes:


Sounds like the old "separate but equal" nonsense. "Sorry, ladies. You're equal but you can't vote."

How about women holding property, Buz? Is that off limits too?

How about educational opportunities?

How do you feel about subservience to husbands whims and commands?

Good questions, Coyote.

1) I like the quote from Richard Cotton who was on the radio in San Diego back in the 1960s when I was out there.

Freedom is not free; free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
( men aka mankind)

This silly notion that all men are created equal is stupidity. In the first place, whether you go with evolution or creation, only one was created. The rest procreated. All are unequal in some way, physiologically, mentally, prestige, culturally, etc. More freedom has been lost by mandating equality than anything else. Last century hundreds of millions were murdered, impoverished and oppressed by governments and dummies who tried to make all men equal. It's now happening in the US of A. Diversity and freedom go hand in hand.

2) Educational opportunities should be open to all, but not necessarily provided for all by someone else's buck.

3) As I said before, men are more adapted to the leadership role and this has been the case for nearly six milleniums of human history. The Biblical way is best. If the man loves his wife as he ought, he will want the best for her. No human entity works with two equal presidents.

The problem arises with cultures such as Islam which oppresses women and men everywhere who do not practice Biblical principles such as love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness faith, meekness and self control. See Galatians or Ephesians 5:22, 23. I don't remember for sure which book.

I have to leave out of town now. Will try to do some more responding when I can.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 04-26-2010 9:25 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Son, posted 04-26-2010 12:28 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-26-2010 1:16 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 23 by purpledawn, posted 04-26-2010 4:09 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 50 by onifre, posted 04-27-2010 5:11 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 13 of 116 (557515)
04-26-2010 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Buzsaw
04-26-2010 11:03 AM


Re: ...more emotional and easily persuaded and manipulated...
Hi Buz.

You've asserted that the "lobes" of menand women are"different," and that this suits each gender for more specific roles in society. Specifically, you have shown a preference for traditional Western roles for women as domestic workers who manage the home and raise the children while the husband works and brings in money. This fits with the Biblical description of women, in which God creates them to be a "helpmeet" to men.

However, you have not supported any of these assertions - you've simply stated that you are drawing on "6000 years of history."

This is an Appeal to Tradition fallacy. Just because a thing has "always been done"or "always been thought" does not mean it is true or beneficial.

Please show actual evidence, in the form of scientific studies (which you must be aware of, since you claimed that yours was the "scientific view"), as opposed to personal anecdote and appeals to tradition. As you are the one making these claims, the burden of evidence rests squarely upon your shoulders, and your justifications to date have been sorely lacking.

I would simply like to point out that while we have many stereotypes regarding women in our culture, most of these are holdovers from earlier in our history when women's roles were significantly different from today. These preconceptions, being based not on evidence but upontraditional stereotypes, are usually wrong, much like their racial counterparts.

According to the Beureu of Labor Statistics, more women are today enrolled in college than men:

quote:
Men............................ 5,492
Women.......................... 6,179

According to the same source, of those who are no longer enrolled in school, more women have attained a High School diploma than their male counterparts (1,403 women have "less than a High School diploma," vs 1,606 men).

These numbers are in thousands, and are for the total non-institutionalized civilian workforce.

It would certainly seem that women are at least as capable of intellectual pursuits as men, and the data shows a significant enough difference that it would even appear that they are better than men. This despite several disadvantages, chief among them being the outdated stereotypes held by older generations.

I have not seen any actual data presented in this thread that suggests women are "better suited" to domestic roles and "less suited" to traditionally male roles. The evidence I have seen suggests that women are easily just as capable as men, and that gender is essentially irrelevant.

Will you present evidence to support your case, Buz, or will you concede?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Buzsaw, posted 04-26-2010 11:03 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Huntard, posted 04-26-2010 12:24 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(1)
Message 14 of 116 (557517)
04-26-2010 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Flyer75
04-26-2010 8:55 AM


Call me a traditionalist, or an old fart, whatever you prefer...idiot will work too. I agree to an extent with Buzz on this. I think statistics show the decline in the family structure has changed quite a bit (divorce, out of wedlock births, ect) with the woman's liberation "movement" if you will.

Flyer, please think about this for just one momkent.

Prior to the women's liberation movement, very few women attended college or had any work experience. They were entirely dependent upon their husbands for their wellbeing. This meant that they had basically no choice in the matter - they were forced to stay married, even to abusive husbands.

Now, mroe women are attending college than men are. Employers are more willing to hire women than ever before. The rise in divorce rate seems to be more of a result of women now having the opportunity in addition to the legal ability to divorce.

The real question is: what is best for society?

Certainly for the male, it would seem that having a domestic housewife with all the stability of "Leave it to Beaver" is appealing.

But by restricting women's role in society (even a "soft" restriction like a strong stereotype that women "belong" in the home), we are in effect sacrificing literally half of our nation's productivity, as well as turning women into what in effect are second class citizens, dependent not on themselves and their own abilities, but those of their husbands.

I know which society I'd prefer.

I'd obviously prefer the mom to stay home and have an influence on the young ones then send them off to a day care to be watched by someone that just doesn't care quite as much.

False dichotomy: why is the woman the only option for a stay-at-home parent? Men are perfectly able to raise children and perform housework as well, you know. A working mom does not necessarily mean daycare. The modern tendency of both parents to work is the result of economics (where one income often just isn't enough to support the family), not simply women's liberation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Flyer75, posted 04-26-2010 8:55 AM Flyer75 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Flyer75, posted 04-26-2010 10:48 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 585 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 15 of 116 (557520)
04-26-2010 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Rahvin
04-26-2010 11:38 AM


Re: ...more emotional and easily persuaded and manipulated...
Hey Rahvin,

A bit of a nit pick perhaps, but:

Rahvin writes:

According to the same source, of those who are no longer enrolled in school, more women have attained a High School diploma than their male counterparts (1,403 women have "less than a High School diploma," vs 1,606 men).


Yes, but if you look at the total statistics you will see that the amount of men in this example was 8,465, of which 1,606 have "less than a High School diploma", making it 6,859 men who've got at least a High School diploma.

The total amount of women is 7,756, of which 1,403 have "less than a High School diploma", making it 6,353 women who've got at lesat a high school diploma.

So, there are actually more men with at least a high school diploma. Percentage wise however, the women did better, by about 0,9%


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Rahvin, posted 04-26-2010 11:38 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019