The purpose of adhering to gender roles

[cantata]

the goal is to free people from confined social roles and allow them to be who they are, not how soceity wants them to be based on their sex.

This, pretty much.

The goal of feminism, as I understand it, is to examine and critique our preconceptions about sex and gender, and, more generally, to work towards true sexual equality. A large part of this is about "consciousness-raising" - that is, making us more sensitive to instances of sexism and sexual discrimination and more willing to speak out about them.

 

[Gremlins]

I wonder when it'll occur to certain men that it's in their own best interests to embrace the goals of feminism?

WHAT!?!?!? Pretty soon we'll be giving them the vote, too, and all hell will break lose - it's well known that women have smaller brains and are incapable of rational thought. That's why they should stay in the kitchen! Unless they're on their back and thinking of England, of course.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

This, pretty much.

The goal of feminism, as I understand it, is to examine and critique our preconceptions about sex and gender, and, more generally, to work towards true sexual equality. A large part of this is about "consciousness-raising" - that is, making us more sensitive to instances of sexism and sexual discrimination and more willing to speak out about them.

And this sexual equality of which you speak, how does that work? Is it political and legal equality or something more?

"To be who they are" is quite something to achieve. I'm not sure why it is a goal just for women though.
If we are the sum of our genetic and environemental influences only (personally I don't think we are, but I suspect you do) and you wish to remove societal sexual pressures what will the strange phenomenon of "being who you are" consist of or whence its influences.

BTW, I think it would be a very noble pursuit to help women (and men) be themsleves. I suspect we would differ in what we would regard as "selves" though.

Here is one practical thing that I suspect is a feminist issue on which I feel rather strongly.
Many, many women choose to be mothers. The rest of society pays lip service to the fact that this is an important role in society and yet mothers get no financial reward for their careers. No pension provision. No nothing.

 

[Braunwyn]

And this sexual equality of which you speak, how does that work? Is it political and legal equality or something more?

"To be who they are" is quite something to achieve. I'm not sure why it is a goal just for women though.

Huh, why would you assume that? I didn't get that impression from cantata's post.

If we are the sum of our genetic and environemental influences only (personally I don't think we are, but I suspect you do)

Can you elaborate?

and you wish to remove societal sexual pressures what will the strange phenomenon of "being who you are" consist of or whence its influences.

I know you're not asking me, but from where I sit it would simply be a matter of not being boxed into a role created by others. eta: I'm thinking of concepts like self-determination.

Here is one practical thing that I suspect is a feminist issue on which I feel rather strongly.
Many, many women choose to be mothers. The rest of society pays lip service to the fact that this is an important role in society and yet mothers get no financial reward for their careers. No pension provision. No nothing.

I think this is a tough one. How could a mother be compensated for a job well done when the way our society is set up is to reject the enforcement of a measuring stick? Sure, we have laws that intend to prevent abuse and suffering but we largely want society to mind its own business when it comes to raising children.

 

[cantata]

And this sexual equality of which you speak, how does that work? Is it political and legal equality or something more?

Certainly something more.

"To be who they are" is quite something to achieve. I'm not sure why it is a goal just for women though.

Did anyone say it was just a goal for women? I believe my initial point was that it is good news for men as well.

If we are the sum of our genetic and environemental influences only (personally I don't think we are, but I suspect you do) and you wish to remove societal sexual pressures what will the strange phenomenon of "being who you are" consist of or whence its influences.

Well, I wouldn't personally phrase it quite as PassionFruit did, so I suggest you address this question to her.

I would put it more this way: being born with certain genitals shouldn't leave one at a social or cultural disadvantage.

That doesn't just mean anti-discrimination laws in employment and such, though. It's kind of more subtle. As an example, think about the way, say, an sports drink might be marketed to men and to women. The marketing for men will usually portray a big, muscly man in a powerful pose, and talk about improving strength and building up your body. But the marketing for women will probably feature a woman in a "sexy" pose and talk about toning up, losing weight, or having a slim figure. These differences in the way that products are marketed to men and women is indicative of the differing attitudes we have towards what men and women should aspire to be and to do.

Most feminists seek to "raise consciousness" about this kind of discrepancy and talk about whether those different expectations are reasonable or fair. Is it good for us to have these different pressures placed on us, just according to what our genitals are like? Of course, you could argue that neither kind of pressure is a good sort of pressure. But I suspect that both kinds of pressure would be felt less strongly if they weren't so closely tied to the ideas we have about what makes a "real woman" or a "real man".

BTW, I think it would be a very noble pursuit to help women (and men) be themsleves. I suspect we would differ in what we would regard as "selves" though.

Again, not my phrasing.

Here is one practical thing that I suspect is a feminist issue on which I feel rather strongly.
Many, many women choose to be mothers. The rest of society pays lip service to the fact that this is an important role in society and yet mothers get no financial reward for their careers. No pension provision. No nothing.

No, indeed - that is appalling, and it is, as you rightly note, absolutely a feminist issue. Parenting - and not only by women, by the way - should certainly be recognised as work.

 

[mpok1519]

one of the goals of feminism is to have equal pay.

for every dollar a woman makes, a man makes 70% more

 

[fated]

Argument about whether established gender roles are important is pretty common on Christian Forums, but I'd like to address this question specifically to those who think that adherence to these roles is important. I want to ask you whether you are inclined to draw a distinction between elements of gender roles which you regard as being natural, and those which you consider to be socially constructed.

Let's talk about children. Suppose that you have a son who demonstrates a preference for wearing pink clothing. You must be aware that the association of pink with girls and femininity is entirely socially constructed. In fact, up until around the 1950s, the gender-colour association was reversed; pink was viewed as the more appropriate colour for boys, and blue for girls. Knowing this, are you troubled by your son's preference for pink? What about if he wanted to wear a mid-calf length denim skirt, rather than jeans? If you would object to or be troubled by this, is the source of your concern different from, say, if you discovered that your son wished to play with dolls or become a ballet dancer (if indeed you would be troubled by these occurances)?

What I would like to ascertain is this: does your enthusiasm for adherence to established gender roles have to do with your child's attainment of a development into adulthood that is in keeping with his or her biological nature; or is it more about adhering to the accepted roles which you regard as necessary for a child's proper social development? Is this a matter of biology - of what is "natural" for a boy or a girl - or of society - of what is expected of a boy or a girl? Or is it something else entirely?

Gender roles normalize healthy societal practices, including gender distinctions. Not all gender distinctions are necessary (there are male ballet dancers, for instance). Thus, we can easily argue that encouraging, and keeping desirable gender roles in an exalted state of normalization is positive for everyone.

 

[mpok1519]

Gender roles normalize healthy societal practices just as much as thye can hurt society.

It WAS normal for a man to make a woman stay at home and be a domestic goddess.

it WAS normal for women not to vote, own property, or have a say in society.

it WAS normal for a woman's main role in society was to pop out babies and service her jusband

it WAS normal for a bunch of crazy stuff.

Now, we realize these 'normalities' aren't really normal at all; theyre just 'things' we have done out of ignornace; mostly because men don't want women in certian situations.

I'll admit im a bit sexist at times; when I play poker, I can NEVER win against women; theres just something about them that beats me, and beats my hand every time. This is why I think women shouldnt be allowed at the poker table. But this would be sexist and wrong, which is why I just let them take my money, and smile.

Transistioning gender roles is ALSO healthy for a society.

It depends on the person really; gender roles are only good in specific situations when it fits the person subjected to them. If someone enjoys being a housewife, they should be a housewife. If someone enjoys skydiving, they should sky-dive. If someone enjoys tax-law they should be an accountant.

having a penis and having a vagina should not be an influential factor.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

having a penis and having a vagina should not be an influential factor.

'Cept when it comes to birthin' babies anyway.

 

[mpok1519]

with technology today, you dont need either! =P

 

[PassionFruit]

"To be who they are" is quite something to achieve. I'm not sure why it is a goal just for women though.
If we are the sum of our genetic and environemental influences only (personally I don't think we are, but I suspect you do) and you wish to remove societal sexual pressures what will the strange phenomenon of "being who you are" consist of or whence its influences.

I shouldn't have phrased it that way, but I think cantata pretty much summed it up. But I wanted to address the issue you raised.

Here is one practical thing that I suspect is a feminist issue on which I feel rather strongly.
Many, many women choose to be mothers. The rest of society pays lip service to the fact that this is an important role in society and yet mothers get no financial reward for their careers. No pension provision. No nothing.

It is definitely a feminist issue. Yes, society pays lip service to motherhood, but there is some history behind this. I think it has a lot to do with the Industrial Revolution, this idea of domestic division of labor where responsibilities were assigned to different members of the family. As you know women took on the responsibility of working within the home. But after awhile, the labor women took on wasn't considered actual "work." Even now, the work mothers do within the home isn't considered work.

There's also the issue of women who would like to be fulltime mothers but aren't able to.

 

[fated]

Gender roles normalize healthy societal practices just as much as thye can hurt society.

It WAS normal for a man to make a woman stay at home and be a domestic goddess.

it WAS normal for women not to vote, own property, or have a say in society.

it WAS normal for a woman's main role in society was to pop out babies and service her jusband

it WAS normal for a bunch of crazy stuff.

Now, we realize these 'normalities' aren't really normal at all; theyre just 'things' we have done out of ignornace; mostly because men don't want women in certian situations.

I'll admit im a bit sexist at times; when I play poker, I can NEVER win against women; theres just something about them that beats me, and beats my hand every time. This is why I think women shouldnt be allowed at the poker table. But this would be sexist and wrong, which is why I just let them take my money, and smile.

Transistioning gender roles is ALSO healthy for a society.

It depends on the person really; gender roles are only good in specific situations when it fits the person subjected to them. If someone enjoys being a housewife, they should be a housewife. If someone enjoys skydiving, they should sky-dive. If someone enjoys tax-law they should be an accountant.

having a penis and having a vagina should not be an influential factor.

It sounds like you're trying to contradict me, but aren't exactly how to do so. That makes sense because I didn't exactly make any practical recomendations for you to disagree with.

However, you seem to indicate that you want to remove culture from various parts of society. You haven't said it directly, but its almost part of what you said. You also indicated that you think traditions are ignorant.

Now, I'm sure that what you really mean is that some aspects of culture and tradition are outdated and ignorant and so we should inspect our culture and tradition and engage in a dialog regarding various aspects of our way of life.

 

[mpok1519]

Now, I'm sure that what you really mean is that some aspects of culture and tradition are outdated and ignorant and so we should inspect our culture and tradition and engage in a dialog regarding various aspects of our way of life.

Yes, very much.

I'm just an advocate of 'do what you want'. If you wanna do something, and it makes you happy, and you think it is a good thing for you to do, go for it; follow your dreams, reach for the stars, achieve whatever your mind can conceive, and don't let people tell you that you cannot do what you desire.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Gender roles normalize healthy societal practices, including gender distinctions. Not all gender distinctions are necessary (there are male ballet dancers, for instance). Thus, we can easily argue that encouraging, and keeping desirable gender roles in an exalted state of normalization is positive for everyone.

I completely disagree with that statement.

 

[mpok1519]

since 'desirable' is a subjective term, the phrase "desirable gender roles" is flawed.

 

[Braunwyn]

fated, can you give some examples of what you mean by "Gender roles normalize healthy societal practices" ?

 

[bria0128]

...

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Chapter and verse CreedIsCrist. Where does the bible insinuate or imply that men and women need to be assigned different roles?

I you're going to use the few Pauline verses that deal with "authority", save it. I've studied those enough back and forwards, in their various languages and contexts, to know they aren't dealing with any specific gender "roles".

(Hm, it appears I've posted this about 17 pages too late. I hate being new to huge threads.)

There are many pastors and theologians who disagree with your "study" that concludes that the verses aren't about gender roles.

 

[Athene]

There are many pastors and theologians who disagree with your "study" that concludes that the verses aren't about gender roles.

And there are many that do agree. Infinite are the arguments amongst Christians.

Well a married woman should make an effort to make her home and family the center of her life. Work should always be for the family. Gardening, baby sitting, helping her husband with parts of his job when he gets home, growing food, other home buisnesses, etc. Its not like im prohibiting a person from going to to get a job, what Im saying it that it shouldn't be the center of her lifestyle. Many career oriented women tend to neglect their familys, we see this more in high population citys were feminism is more rampant and women are less family orientated. Im not saying women can't have jobs, Im saying im against todays feminism that put the career and job of the woman above her children and husband. It encourages women to be selfish and self centered. The western society has enough of women like that, we don't need more.

LOL part of the reason that there are so few women at the top in various career tacks is because they are NOT willing to sacrifice family life for career. They are NOT willing to arrive at work at the crack of dawn and leave at midnight. They place greater importance on spending time with husband and family then going to parties and conventions and making the right contacts.

 

[Braunwyn]

LOL part of the reason that there are so few women at the top in various career tacks is because they are NOT willing to sacrifice family life for career. They are NOT willing to arrive at work at the crack of dawn and leave at midnight. They place greater importance on spending time with husband and family then going to parties and conventions and making the right contacts.

Indeed that is often the case. CIC has no idea what he's talking about.