Misogyny is disgusting

[OldWiseGuy]

There are distinct functions in terms of biological reproduction for male and female, perhaps, but even that's fairly basic and not to a point that suggests there should be prescribed social roles in regards to parenting, etc

And spiritual pattern is fairly vague in what it actually means beyond generally ascribing truth to religious texts in claims about an underlying essence that seems to be about social norms and such, the latter of which isn't really demonstrable in an objective sense, but just what we observe in trends.

Women have a loving touch and accessibility that makes them much better care givers than men. This is a universal difference of great importance, imo.

 

[Paidiske]

"Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

The context is spiritual, not physical. Physical differences are...obvious.

Nothing about that suggests different roles, though. Rather it emphasises that we are heirs together of the grace of life (and all that goes with i).

Not all women are loving and accessible. That's not a universal difference, it's a stereotype.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Nothing about that suggests different roles, though. Rather it emphasises that we are heirs together of the grace of life (and all that goes with i).

Not all women are loving and accessible. That's not a universal difference, it's a stereotype.

I edited the response to your post:

"The context is spiritual, not physical. Basic differences account for most of the different roles that each actually fulfill, regardless of ability."

 

[Paidiske]

Basic differences account for most of the different roles that each actually fulfill, regardless of ability."

I disagree. I'd say that socialisation and culture accounts for that.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I disagree. I'd say that socialisation and culture accounts for that.

I can agree with that.

 

[Paidiske]

"Women's work" is a cultural construct.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"Women's work" is a cultural construct.

And it is a strong one.

 

[Paidiske]

And it is a strong one.

Indeed. But it rests on no underlying spiritual or even biological reality, and thus it is something which can - and often should - be changed.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Indeed. But it rests on no underlying spiritual or even biological reality, and thus it is something which can - and often should - be changed.

That is a very subjective opinion, is it not?

 

[Paidiske]

That is a very subjective opinion, is it not?

I will be willing to examine any evidence to the contrary. I have never seen any that is credible.

 

[muichimotsu]

"Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

The context is spiritual, not physical. Basic differences account for most of the different roles that each actually fulfill, regardless of ability.

Not sure you have factual basis for that generalization, especially when it comes to roles: a father and mother in the common manifestation of an opposite sex couple don't necessarily have roles they cannot deviate from in terms of interactions with their child as a parent, that's needlessly reductionist.

 

[muichimotsu]

Women have a loving touch and accessibility that makes them much better care givers than men. This is a universal difference of great importance, imo.

Your understanding of women reduces them to domestic roles: their being "suited" to it is irrelevant to whether they should be constrained by societal expectations in doing that rather than something else.

Again, you're engaging in reductionism here, suggesting that some biological or psychological tendency is all that is important in dictating or even suggesting how someone ought to act in regards to particular ideas we have about the masculine or feminine (not even getting into gender essentialism, which you're bordering on too in the notion that some physiological trait related to a biological sex follows to how society ought to regard gender roles)

 

[muichimotsu]

And it is a strong one.

Might does not make right in any sense of how one can construe the words, particularly might, but even right can be delineated to either a cultural norm or something more fundamental in the moral sense, you appear to be engaging more with the former definition in regards to the correct nature of some notion about what is "women's work", rooted in borderline, if not outright misogyny

 

[Zoii]

"Women's work" is a cultural construct.

I'm loath to say this - But there is growing research demonstrating that gender predisposition towards fields of work, may not be as strongly culturally constructed as first thought. There was a brilliant podcast about this on ABCs all in the mind that focussed on a plethora of research on the mechanisms of thought. I understood about 30% but my mother, who works in the field, was nodding with a regular "ah huh!!"

I'll see if I can track down the exact podcast and researchers that were speaking.

 

[Paidiske]

I'm loath to say this - But there is growing research demonstrating that gender predisposition towards fields of work, may not be as strongly culturally constructed as first thought. There was a brilliant podcast about this on ABCs all in the mind that focussed on a plethora of research on the mechanisms of thought. I understood about 30% but my mother, who works in the field, was nodding with a regular "ah huh!!"

I'll see if I can track down the exact podcast and researchers that were speaking.

Even if that's true, though, Zoii, that's not a reason to pigeonhole everyone. There will always be exceptions to the stereotypes.

 

[muichimotsu]

I'm loath to say this - But there is growing research demonstrating that gender predisposition towards fields of work, may not be as strongly culturally constructed as first thought. There was a brilliant podcast about this on ABCs all in the mind that focussed on a plethora of research on the mechanisms of thought. I understood about 30% but my mother, who works in the field, was nodding with a regular "ah huh!!"

I'll see if I can track down the exact podcast and researchers that were speaking.

That's not only methodologically questionable in the conclusions reached, but logically fallacious in saying the parts must reflect the whole, or moreso that the majority means that's how we must regard the whole, ignoring the contrary.

Not to mention the notion that 1 factor is far and above the primary one seems overly reductionist

 

[Zoii]

What are you talking about. You don't know the research I'm referring to, their method, analysis techniques or exact findings
... Or had you listened to the podcast I'm referring to. If so let me know because I'm trying to find it again

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not sure you have factual basis for that generalization, especially when it comes to roles: a father and mother in the common manifestation of an opposite sex couple don't necessarily have roles they cannot deviate from in terms of interactions with their child as a parent, that's needlessly reductionist.

Jes' sayin' the way it is.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Your understanding of women reduces them to domestic roles: their being "suited" to it is irrelevant to whether they should be constrained by societal expectations in doing that rather than something else.

Again, you're engaging in reductionism here, suggesting that some biological or psychological tendency is all that is important in dictating or even suggesting how someone ought to act in regards to particular ideas we have about the masculine or feminine (not even getting into gender essentialism, which you're bordering on too in the notion that some physiological trait related to a biological sex follows to how society ought to regard gender roles)

I haven't imposed any "oughts", just practical reality.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Might does not make right in any sense of how one can construe the words, particularly might, but even right can be delineated to either a cultural norm or something more fundamental in the moral sense, you appear to be engaging more with the former definition in regards to the correct nature of some notion about what is "women's work", rooted in borderline, if not outright misogyny

There's women's work, men's work, and work that can be done by either. What's the problem?