Teacher get's death threats and racist hate mail for banning God Bless America.

[Kralizec]

Oh, you!

I'm just saying it's not really all a social construct if 99% of the civilisations, even the isolated ones in the jungle, do gender roles the same way. But I guess I'm just being edgy.

It doesn't matter if it's been that way for centuries. They're still social constructs, evolved to meet the needs of ages past. Gender roles don't serve any objective purpose anymore, probably haven't for the last two centuries - they only exist today because of social inertia.

Plus, for the vast majority of human history woman have been engaged in economicly productive work as well. The concept of the wife staying at home all day to do household chores instead of engaging in work that would feed the family is a rather recent development.

[HoreTore]

Nobody is arguing that nature doesn't play a part. As for women in the army, have a look at the Red Army. Not that it matters anyway, we do not define ourselves based on warfare.

The Swedish Knig stated that women can't be regents, as they are too weak by nature. Then have a look at the brits or any of the many female regents in history who has had actual power, and tell me how nature can explain that.

Womens sexual history is another interesting field, as it seems to change dramatically once every century or so.

[Skullheadhq]

Nobody is arguing that nature doesn't play a part. As for women in the army, have a look at the Red Army. Not that it matters anyway, we do not define ourselves based on warfare.

The Swedish Knig stated that women can't be regents, as they are too weak by nature. Then have a look at the brits or any of the many female regents in history who has had actual power, and tell me how nature can explain that.

Womens sexual history is another interesting field, as it seems to change dramatically once every century or so.

This.

They're still social constructs.

Not 100%.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You should know better than to rely on fascist sources, SFTS.

What the greens mean, is that gender roles are largely social constructs. They also hold the opinion that enviromental and structural forces play a bigger part in determining who you are than "free will".

So, really, they're Post-Modernists?

It's a movement, it's not as well thought of as it was.

Such beliefs were also held by such progressives as Aristotle, who relates the story of a young woman who got so excited and energetic she became a man.

Stieg Larsson got his title right; Men who hate women. Sums up the far-right perfectly.

A strong, independent woman who makes her own decisions on how to live her life is a nightmare for fascists.

So long as she's a white European - and only abused by white Norwegian men.

About the only thing I know about Stieg Larsson is that he made a cracking title for one of his books.

So, what you don't know is that he didn't believe Muslim women should have the same rights as white women - that it was more important to preserve "culture" than extend universal rights universally.

He also has a dark dark past, I am not kidding he was the founder of the Norwegian neo nazi's

I think you'll find he was a former Communist radical, his surviving papers show he was terrified of being offed by Facist para-militaries. Also, see above about honour killings and forced marriages for Muslims.

It doesn't matter if it's been that way for centuries. They're still social constructs, evolved to meet the needs of ages past. Gender roles don't serve any objective purpose anymore, probably haven't for the last two centuries - they only exist today because of social inertia.

Plus, for the vast majority of human history woman have been engaged in economicly productive work as well. The concept of the wife staying at home all day to do household chores instead of engaging in work that would feed the family is a rather recent development.

The claim that gender roles varied is a rather recent development, actually. The division of work has generally seen the man go "out" and the woman stay "in". Managing the household has generally been the preserve of the wife, at different times in different economies this has involved different things. Currently the paradigm is about the woman replacing the servants while the man takes on the task of bringing in cash to buy goods. In previous eras where women engaged in more "economic activity" as you call it households were more self sufficient and we did not operate using a solely cash economy.

The idea that these "constructs" have "evolved" is not logically defensible, not only do we have no history (i.e. written source) which does not include a gendered division of labour, but there is no evidence that the division developed AFTER our species evolved. Gorillas, for example, operate a gendered society just like humans.

What has fluctuated is the social value placed upon the gender roles. Your denegration of a "traditional" woman's role is a great example - running a household and raising children are in every way as demanding and potentially rewarding as a salaried job, if not more so, but society does not value these as contributions.

[HoreTore]

What political ideas Stieg Larsson may have had has no relevance to my use of the title of one of his books.

He could've believed in reptilian overlords who eat babies for all I care, he still made a catchy title for his book(which as far as I knowm has nothing to do with what's discussed here).

Also, I avoid discussing what's "natural", as I see nature as completely irrelevant. Believing that what's natural is what's most efficient implies a belief in humans as perfect creations/the height of evolution, and I don't. So in essence, that something is natural to do in no way equates to what we should do in my opinion.

Getting women off their lazy behinds and into the workforce has created a substantial economic growth, and that's what I care about and thus why I support it. Whether or not it's natural is complrtely irrelevant.

[Fragony]

Suit yourself, but I don't forgive that easily just because he wrote a cool book

[HoreTore]

Suit yourself, but I don't forgive that easily just because he wrote a cool book

I haven't read it.

[Kralizec]

The claim that gender roles varied is a rather recent development, actually. The division of work has generally seen the man go "out" and the woman stay "in". Managing the household has generally been the preserve of the wife, at different times in different economies this has involved different things. Currently the paradigm is about the woman replacing the servants while the man takes on the task of bringing in cash to buy goods. In previous eras where women engaged in more "economic activity" as you call it households were more self sufficient and we did not operate using a solely cash economy.

The idea that these "constructs" have "evolved" is not logically defensible, not only do we have no history (i.e. written source) which does not include a gendered division of labour, but there is no evidence that the division developed AFTER our species evolved. Gorillas, for example, operate a gendered society just like humans.

What has fluctuated is the social value placed upon the gender roles. Your denegration of a "traditional" woman's role is a great example - running a household and raising children are in every way as demanding and potentially rewarding as a salaried job, if not more so, but society does not value these as contributions.

Oh, I'm not denying that biological differences had an effect on how gender roles developed. It's obvious they did. But even so, women engaged in what we would call productive tasks throughout history (the most obvious example would be hunter-gatherer societies, which were quite egalitarian)

Bonobos are matriarchal. What do other primates have to do with the topic?

I did not denigrate anything. I do desipise the position that even nowadays traditional gender roles are more desirable or have greater validity.

[Fragony]

You read 'van nature goed' thanks but no thanks

[a completely inoffensive name]

Saying the pledge of allegiance was always stupid and had no impact at manipulating teenagers who were dead tired from waking up at 6:30am.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh, I'm not denying that biological differences had an effect on how gender roles developed. It's obvious they did. But even so, women engaged in what we would call productive tasks throughout history (the most obvious example would be hunter-gatherer societies, which were quite egalitarian)

How do you know Hunter-gathere societies were "egalitarian" - they left no written records and the only reports come from Western observers.

That being said - what reports we have indicate a basic division, men hunt and women gather. This would generally extend to "men go to war (because it's like hunting)" and "women stay home".

It's a tiny step from that to reaching a position where only men are involved in decisions about when to hunt or fight and then you have your basic Patriarchy.

As I said, in era where families were more self sufficient the "economics" engaged in by women were home-based, brewing, weaving... etc.

It's simple - women get pregnant, and it takes nine months for women to procreate, ergo women cannot do physically strenuous jobs or travel long distances while "procreating", men can. Gender roles are based on this simple truth, they have not "developed", i.e. fundamentally changed, in most societies all that has happened is that they have adapted to different economic models.

This happens even today - men go back to work much sooner after the baby is born (in general) whilst women stay home to take care of it, whether they can go back to work later depends on whether they can afford childcare (economics) much more than personal preference. Those who can afford childcare are no different from medieval ladies who hired wetnurses and nanies.

Which just proves that, really, we are all stinking rich in the modern West.

[Kralizec]

How do you know Hunter-gathere societies were "egalitarian" - they left no written records and the only reports come from Western observers.

That being said - what reports we have indicate a basic division, men hunt and women gather. This would generally extend to "men go to war (because it's like hunting)" and "women stay home".

It's a tiny step from that to reaching a position where only men are involved in decisions about when to hunt or fight and then you have your basic Patriarchy.

As I said, in era where families were more self sufficient the "economics" engaged in by women were home-based, brewing, weaving... etc.

It's simple - women get pregnant, and it takes nine months for women to procreate, ergo women cannot do physically strenuous jobs or travel long distances while "procreating", men can. Gender roles are based on this simple truth, they have not "developed", i.e. fundamentally changed, in most societies all that has happened is that they have adapted to different economic models.

This happens even today - men go back to work much sooner after the baby is born (in general) whilst women stay home to take care of it, whether they can go back to work later depends on whether they can afford childcare (economics) much more than personal preference. Those who can afford childcare are no different from medieval ladies who hired wetnurses and nanies.

Which just proves that, really, we are all stinking rich in the modern West.

About the hunter-gatherers, I read about it a long time ago but I forgot where. It makes sense though, the returns on hunting and gathering varies with the seasons and you can't adhere to a strict sexual division in labor for something as essential as food supply. The only exception being that the riskier hunting jobs are left to the men, since a tribe's ability to sustain its population depends more on women than men. But let's leave this to the anthropologists.

Wetnurses and nannies are full blown surrogate mothers, taking care of a small number of kids or even one. Childcare is much less than that, and cheaper by any standard. For some societies, Saudi Arabia comes to mind in particular, childcare would be financially viable for the bulk of the population and would enable a lot of women to work. But cultural taboos prevent this.