Gender Roles: Even More Spin-Off

[Rhyfelwyr]

So... If a female can handle the burden of this heavy lifting job, should she take it or not? If she wants to of course.
See that's the thing about roles. The gender differs, but even the largest differense (physical strength) overlap. So if you say that girls do that and boys do that, it will never fully fit on either group. Are those who doesn't fit supposed to conform or not?

For the exceptions they can do their own thing, however you raise children expecting them to be a certain way so you go with the way biology has most likely intended.

What do you mean? Not fair they are less sexually assertive – and therefore more proper in terms of not having sex as often?

Depends why they're not having sex. Is it because they are abstaining or as I said earlier because they sound like they have actually been castrated. What part of the description of those boys raised by lesbians sounded healthy? Do you want your kids to be like that? Would you like to have been/be like that?

Do you think you are the way you are now purely because of the way you were raised*, or is it something deeper than that?

Well bred used to mean women only spoke when spoken to and weren’t supposed to go to college. It seems rather that your issue is the children raised by gay couples are less likely to conform to what you view as the proper role and personality for men and women in society.

Well yes. PJ treated it like having homosexual parents somehow liberates children from the influence of heterosexual ones and allows them to develop more "naturally". This is silly, children develop the way they do just as much if not more due to biology than their upbringing. They will live like a standard heterosexual couple when they are older, so they need to learn those values, not be messed up.

* funny how its all cultural when it comes to gender roles, but its all biology when it comes to homosexuality, whatever suits wins it seems

[Crazed Rabbit]

For the exceptions they can do their own thing, however you raise children expecting them to be a certain way so you go with the way biology has most likely intended.

I doubt very much biology has much impact on how parents decide to raise their children. An individual child's biology will of course have a large impact on the child, but not the parenting.

Depends why they're not having sex. Is it because they are abstaining or as I said earlier because they sound like they have actually been castrated. What part of the description of those boys raised by lesbians sounded healthy? Do you want your kids to be like that? Would you like to have been/be like that?

Castrated? That sounds like how the pilgrims - and many (most) other groups in America raised kids.

Given what I've seen of frat guys and certain examples of sexual assertiveness (discounting violence and focusing just on how some men focus of getting laid without respect or caring for the women) I wouldn't have a problem with less sexually assertive men.

Do you think you are the way you are now purely because of the way you were raised*, or is it something deeper than that?

Both.

Well yes. PJ treated it like having homosexual parents somehow liberates children from the influence of heterosexual ones and allows them to develop more "naturally". This is silly, children develop the way they do just as much if not more due to biology than their upbringing. They will live like a standard heterosexual couple when they are older, so they need to learn those values, not be messed up.

So children raised by homosexuals will have messed up values, and unable to live like 'standard heterosexuals'?

Perhaps you could elaborate. I don't see what values children raised by homosexuals would have that would mess them up when they are older. Somewhat different, certainly, but that's not at all the same. Everyone is somewhat different in a way, and what you consider messed up values may be the norm in certain areas where people get along just fine.

CR

[Ironside]

For the exceptions they can do their own thing, however you raise children expecting them to be a certain way so you go with the way biology has most likely intended.

Encuragement for more manly tears and more non sexual nakedness then? Or are you going to argue that it's not what biology has intended?

Besides, isn't it something off if you're required to raise them to thier "natural ways" and not simply something they'll discover by themself? Not counting that this "natural way" seems to vary even inside countries.

Sure, a child needs to understand gender roles, because they're a part of society and the actual gender differences are sometimes enough to give a basis for the difference. But that doesn't mean that they should always be adhered, in particular since most differences are due to stigmatic maintaince of gender roles and not the gender difference.

Rhyfelwyr, who did interpret guys being pickier about their choise of girls= sexually repressed? PJ is mostly poking on the still mumbling carcass that the girl should be a virgin, while the guy should have plenty of sexual experience before marriage.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Au contraire. If the parents' attitude toward their child's activities is gender neutral, it is precisely then that the child's biological nature can identify their interests, instead of being suppressed by the parents' preferences. Parents not pushing for socially created gender roles allows for more natural development, not less.

Ajax

No, parents can't just be passive like that, whatever they are doing they are actively encouraging it. Parents are picking toys for their kids before they are old enough to ask for them. Gender neutralness is encouraged just the same way as male/female roles are.

Sure, a child needs to understand gender roles, because they're a part of society and the actual gender differences are sometimes enough to give a basis for the difference.

That's all I ever said.

Rhyfelwyr, who did interpret guys being pickier about their choise of girls= sexually repressed? PJ is mostly poking on the still mumbling carcass that the girl should be a virgin, while the guy should have plenty of sexual experience before marriage.

If it had just said the guys were not having pre-marital sex I would have said great. It's the combination of things that makes it sound so unhealthy. They should still want to be having sex.

[ajaxfetish]

If it had just said the guys were not having pre-marital sex I would have said great. It's the combination of things that makes it sound so unhealthy. They should still want to be having sex.

Wherever did you get the idea that they don't?

Ajax

[Strike For The South]

Girls should want sex to.....

You realize a womans sex drive is just as strong as a mans.....

Talk about freaking antiquated notions of gender roles

[Rhyfelwyr]

Wherever did you get the idea that they don't?

Ajax

Because as I said the combination of things looks seriously unhealthy. Plus why wouldn't they just have sex if they wanted to if they didn't have 'traditional' values?

Girls should want sex to.....

You realize a womans sex drive is just as strong as a mans.....

Talk about freaking antiquated notions of gender roles

Not so much antiquated as realistic and taking into account biological and social factors as most respected figures do in the field these days. And were did I even say anything about the female sex drive. Please, show me...

But don't let me stop the leftist moral outrage, fuelled as ever by strawmen and projectionism...

[Centurion1]

trust me women want sex as much if not more than dudes. they just want it to be good not a five minute cringe fest.

[ajaxfetish]

Because as I said the combination of things looks seriously unhealthy. Plus why wouldn't they just have sex if they wanted to if they didn't have 'traditional' values?

'Traditional' values are the only values that might put restraint on a man's sexuality? You're welcome to your opinion, Rhy, but I have to say the combination of things looks seriously healthy to me.

Ajax

[Ironside]

That's all I ever said.

Not really. Your multiple mentioning of gender roles as being natural/biological is implying that you consider the current roles to fall into being close to natural/biological. That is demonstratly false on several categories. And enforcing the gender roles also has the problem that all categories overlap, and quite a bit on that.

If it had just said the guys were not having pre-marital sex I would have said great. It's the combination of things that makes it sound so unhealthy. They should still want to be having sex.

Indeed, if they won't then it would show severe impact on their psychological well-being and social adjustment. And what did the study show on those issues?