Hixy said:
I dont want to seem like I am personally attacking anyone so I wont quote but some of these comments smack of people who see them selfs on the fringes of society and believe if we were all the same they might fit in more.
It's pretty obvious you're referring to my comment about "my ideal future", so it's kinda pointless trying to be cryptic about it. In future please do just quote, I promise I won't bite.
I
really don't see myself as "on the fringes of society" though, so I'm going to have to burst that bubble. There are things that place me slightly outside the norm, whatever that is, I guess (bisexuality, mental illness, tendency to dress oddly), but at the end of the day I am a white, cisgender, upper-middle class Brit at a prestigious university. I am very much part of the status quo and "the system" has benefited me, no point in denying it. It's never really a good idea to dismiss people based on assumptions you've made without any supporting evidence.
Extreme example that it is, the next world war roles around and the men will be out fighting and the women will be picking up the slack.
Yeah, no. Just look at how women's military roles are changing already (around the world, not just in the US). Look how much they've changed since the last world war. If another global war does break out, it would make much more sense for the people who are most physically suited to be out fighting while those who are unsuited would be at home picking up the slack. And I'm pretty sure militaries wouldn't be turning away volunteers based purely on gender. It may well be that more men would be fighting than women, but gender alone isn't what would be making the difference.
You live in a society that is rich with resources where people can afford to have choice which is why you can even have this discussion about gender roles and that will continue as long as society can afford it.
Gee, I hadn't noticed.
/sarcasm
Again, I think you'll find if we reverted to a less advanced, basic survival state it'd be people who were most suited to each task who'd be doing it, and that wouldn't necessarily always fall along gender lines. History is littered with poor/peasant women (and children) labouring in the fields etc, not to mention peasant men taking care of infants if they were the ones who happened to be around. Traditionally, it's actually been the rich who could afford to construct elaborate gender roles. Most people just had to muck in and help with whatever needed doing.
There is nothing old fashioned or unenlightened about men wanting to behave like men and women like women.
Never said there was. You'll note that my ideal future was one in which everyone was free to act and present themselves as they chose. That includes men "behaving like men" and women "behaving like women" just as much as it includes everything in between. It's just that there would be no pressure or expectation placed on any individual. Does that really sound so bad?
Thats the vast majority of society.
What "the vast majority of society" thinks is prone to change over time. Just look at how much attitudes to some social issues have come on in the last generation or two.
Also, just because the vast majority goes along with something doesn't mean they're happy with it or would have chosen it for themselves if they'd been presented with other options.
.
