Gender roles and the effects of shifting these roles on modern day society.

originally posted by: ReprobateRaccoon

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad

Very 1st paragraph of the post. No bias. Women can do it too. Take from it what you will.

My point remains that an article on the ancient history of gender roles isn't the definitive authority for modern society. What worked best then doesn't necessarily work best now, and we need to weigh many other modern factors before proclaiming that "that's how it was, and it worked, so we should keep doing that."

Gender stereotypes aren't meant to be inflexible, and failing to live as my ancestors did hundreds of generations ago isn't going to signal the end of civilization. Back then women's lives meant less than the lives of farm animals. We were property. Do you really think that because that once worked that we should resurrect such archaic practices? Reinforcing outdated gender roles isn't the answer. That's like saying that stripping us of our rights is the best policy because that's how things worked for thousands of years. No.

No one said it was a definitive authority, only that there were repercussions in modern day society.

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: SomeDumbBroad

And so can men, where are your stats and studies on the positives of gender role shifting? This is the issue we have - a lack of positive to negative for modern society.

Changes in Caregiving Roles Historically, research on child development has focused more on the sensitivity of mothers to fulfilling their children’s needs. However, in the last 20 to 30 years, research has increasingly focused on fathers. This is due to the growing role modern day fathers play in caregiving. A study conducted by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) found that fathers tended to be more involved in caregiving when: they worked fewer hours than other fathers; they had positive psychological adjustment characteristics (e.g., high self esteem, lower levels of depression and hostility, and coping well with the major tasks of adulthood); mothers worked more hours than other mothers; mothers reported greater marital intimacy; and when children were boys. Other research on the role of fathers suggests that the influence of father love on children's development is as great as the influence of a mother's love. Fatherly love helps children develop a sense of their place in the world, which helps their social, emotional and cognitive development and functioning. Moreover, children who receive more love from their fathers are less likely to struggle with behavioral or substance abuse problems.

www.apa.org...

I believe that is commonly known as "Daddy Issues".

That says a great deal. Good luck.

Just pointing out that there is a basic term already for it that is commonly used to describe the situation you posted.

Positivity can be your friend.

originally posted by: ReprobateRaccoon
The only ones who adhere to strict gender roles are the inflexible ones who are afraid of anything different. They may have worked thousands of years ago, but they don't necessarily work in modern society.

Traditional gender roles would dictate that my mission in life was to serve my husband, be his whore, keep his belly full and rear his offspring. If that's what the role you prefer to play, I absolutely support your endeavor to live that way, however I ask in return that I be afforded equal respect when I choose less traditional roles for myself.

Again with the personal attacks? Someone knows a thing works, so they must be "inflexible", and "afraid"? Logic fallacy.

As for your description of traditional roles, that's a crock! Husbands and wives, when doing it right, do for one another. Where the woman might do for the man, by cooking meals, washing clothes, and cleaning house, the man does for the woman by working long hours for food, shelter, clothing, and extra stuff, protecting his family, and handling heavy chores. As for the "whore" comment; are you claiming that only men enjoy sex? A man faithful to his wife is treating her as a whore? Really? Lame.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad
So far no one has been able to refute my original post as wrong so I see no point in arguing further unless someone would like to actually contest the point of the post instead of tail spinning into 5000 other topics.

Your OP seems to be wrapping something inside something else.

You don't find it odd after 9 pages no one is fully understanding your intent?

No one? Really? Better go back and re-read, because I saw agreement and understanding in the earliest pages of the thread. That some pretend to not understand, because the OP disagrees with their personal agenda, isn't the same as "no one" understanding.

a reply to: SomeDumbBroad

Your Born either Male or Female . That's Freakin' Life , Deal with it !

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

As for the "whore" comment; are you claiming that only men enjoy sex? A man faithful to his wife is treating her as a whore?

I mean... That could be the case in a consensual fantasy.

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: SomeDumbBroad

I quite agree. There are reasons for the traditional roles of men and women. We are not the same. We have different strengths and weaknesses. The roles we traditionally hold are geared toward those strengths. Sure, there are exceptions, but most fit, unless taught otherwise, the pattern seen throughout history. This is one reason that stable ocieties tend to do things for the preservation of traditional families. Men providing, and women nurturing the children, and caring for the home.

The whole "equal rights" thing is misplaced, when it comes to the sexes. We can be treated fairly, and should be, but we are not the same. Equal pay for equal work is great. Equal pay for work that isn't, not so good.

I agree. Sadly others seem to take that away from my point.

Oh, make no mistake; some have an agenda, and can't handle facts that might reveal flaws in said agenda. Hence the off-topic posts and personal attacks. You offered a lot of solid data, with links, and plenty of people get it. Excellent research. I wasn't familiar with the group mentioned in the OP. Will have to do some reading on them.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad
So far no one has been able to refute my original post as wrong so I see no point in arguing further unless someone would like to actually contest the point of the post instead of tail spinning into 5000 other topics.

Your OP seems to be wrapping something inside something else.

You don't find it odd after 9 pages no one is fully understanding your intent?

No one? Really? Better go back and re-read, because I saw agreement and understanding in the earliest pages of the thread. That some pretend to not understand, because the OP disagrees with their personal agenda, isn't the same as "no one" understanding.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Absolutely. Everything in nature has a program and intent nothing is an accident.

Male female are not fluid as a rule, of course there are exceptions however as a rule they are not fluid they are designed with purpose.

All designed, and designed well! That's the point, of course, because those who push something else also push agains the designer. What was that you said about a luciferian plot? Right on target, there!

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad
So far no one has been able to refute my original post as wrong so I see no point in arguing further unless someone would like to actually contest the point of the post instead of tail spinning into 5000 other topics.

Your OP seems to be wrapping something inside something else.

You don't find it odd after 9 pages no one is fully understanding your intent?

No one? Really? Better go back and re-read, because I saw agreement and understanding in the earliest pages of the thread. That some pretend to not understand, because the OP disagrees with their personal agenda, isn't the same as "no one" understanding.

No viable counter point, only a crude drawing.

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad
So far no one has been able to refute my original post as wrong so I see no point in arguing further unless someone would like to actually contest the point of the post instead of tail spinning into 5000 other topics.

Your OP seems to be wrapping something inside something else.

You don't find it odd after 9 pages no one is fully understanding your intent?

No one? Really? Better go back and re-read, because I saw agreement and understanding in the earliest pages of the thread. That some pretend to not understand, because the OP disagrees with their personal agenda, isn't the same as "no one" understanding.

No viable counter point, only a crude drawing.

It was a viable counterpoint you just can't see beyond your agenda.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad
So far no one has been able to refute my original post as wrong so I see no point in arguing further unless someone would like to actually contest the point of the post instead of tail spinning into 5000 other topics.

Your OP seems to be wrapping something inside something else.

You don't find it odd after 9 pages no one is fully understanding your intent?

No one? Really? Better go back and re-read, because I saw agreement and understanding in the earliest pages of the thread. That some pretend to not understand, because the OP disagrees with their personal agenda, isn't the same as "no one" understanding.

No viable counter point, only a crude drawing.

It was a viable counterpoint you just can't see beyond your agenda.

I see a meme that someone else made. That is what it is. I have no bias agenda unless you count believing in science a bias.

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad
So far no one has been able to refute my original post as wrong so I see no point in arguing further unless someone would like to actually contest the point of the post instead of tail spinning into 5000 other topics.

Your OP seems to be wrapping something inside something else.

You don't find it odd after 9 pages no one is fully understanding your intent?

No one? Really? Better go back and re-read, because I saw agreement and understanding in the earliest pages of the thread. That some pretend to not understand, because the OP disagrees with their personal agenda, isn't the same as "no one" understanding.

No viable counter point, only a crude drawing.

It was a viable counterpoint you just can't see beyond your agenda.

I see a meme that someone else made. That is what it is. I have no bias agenda unless you count believing in science a bias.

I just provided you with science disproving your science, and you are avoiding it with your "daddy issues" drivel.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad
So far no one has been able to refute my original post as wrong so I see no point in arguing further unless someone would like to actually contest the point of the post instead of tail spinning into 5000 other topics.

Your OP seems to be wrapping something inside something else.

You don't find it odd after 9 pages no one is fully understanding your intent?

No one? Really? Better go back and re-read, because I saw agreement and understanding in the earliest pages of the thread. That some pretend to not understand, because the OP disagrees with their personal agenda, isn't the same as "no one" understanding.

No viable counter point, only a crude drawing.

It was a viable counterpoint you just can't see beyond your agenda.

I see a meme that someone else made. That is what it is. I have no bias agenda unless you count believing in science a bias.

I just provided you with science disproving your science, and you are avoiding it with your "daddy issues" drivel.

If you choose to mock me, that is your choice. You are only proving yourself unreasonable, not I.

a reply to: SomeDumbBroad
Avoidance should be your middle name. I should have bailed long ago.

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad
All 3 of my best friends are stay at home mothers (all of them feminists as well) and they all have had to deal with the scrutinizing looks and the scoffs from other women. In fact, all of them used to work and are very strong women who believe in achieving success but they believe in preservation of the family unit more which I don't think should be constituted as conservative agenda, as some might have it, but rather a humanitarian effort to ensure that the natural roles are assumed and that we use our strengths for the good of humanity as a whole, not squander them for the sake of selfishness.

Personally, I feel like it is coming from a place of jealousy. I do not know a mother who does not want to be with their kids but I only know a few fathers who feel the same. I think it is wonderful that you are giving your children an eduction (I am not sure I would feel competent enough to take on home schooling. I was a nanny for a few years and it was enough for me to teach simple ABCs and basic math skills. I did enjoy it thoroughly, however and hope to one day be able to do it for my own children.

Oh, I am certain some are jealous. I have heard a few state they didn't want to be home all day, and I find that sad. A break, sure! But who better to raise my children than me? There is a real push to remove parental influence in our society. Look at the way people are told that small children "need" preschool. It's a ploy, to get hold of the kids at younger and younger ages, to more easily brainwash them into accepting whatever those in charge want programmed in. I find it appalling. Mine are well above average academically, and they are well-behaved. Not perfect, at all, but pretty good kids. They are also naturally modest, and don't want to see programs that they find "inappropriate". The average kid their ages wants to talk about dating and sex. I have seen that elsewhere, too; children that home school are far more conservative in their values, even when compared to other conservative households where the kids attend public schools. With my own, I can see that. The oldest, we weren't able to home school, and the differences in behavior are notable.

Doing the schooling isn't as complicated as you might think. We have materials from various places, with textbooks and the like collected from all over. You can find a lot of material online as well. It takes some time, but it's doable. There are even some cool science sets you can buy, for experiments. The younger boy really loves that sort of thing. He's my science kid, for certain! One likes writing, and another is developing into a pretty good artist.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: SomeDumbBroad
Avoidance should be your middle name. I should have bailed long ago.

Electra Complex

Bail away, but here is a study on the Electra Complex (opposite of Oedipus complex )

Laymans terms are mommy and daddy issues.

a reply to: InTheLight

So, nothing relevant to add? Your little picture doesn't even relate to what I stated.

Fail.

Back when our kids were pre schoolers, my wife wanted to stay home.
I earned a lot then so it wasn't a problem and because I worked odd hours and was often away it worked out for the best.
Soon as the youngest started school she decided to get back into work and do a degree at the same time.

It wasn't something forced on either of us, just a decision we arrived at as a couple. (As all the big decisions are).

The only compulsions these days are from religious zealots or more commonly, because everything costs so much you often need two incomes to run one household.

I still get the man jobs like plastering, building stuff and anything electrical or mechanical...she ain't thick, my Mrs.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Back when our kids were pre schoolers, my wife wanted to stay home.
I earned a lot then so it wasn't a problem and because I worked odd hours and was often away it worked out for the best.
Soon as the youngest started school she decided to get back into work and do a degree at the same time.

It wasn't something forced on either of us, just a decision we arrived at as a couple. (As all the big decisions are).

The only compulsions these days are from religious zealots or more commonly, because everything costs so much you often need two incomes to run one household.

I still get the man jobs like plastering, building stuff and anything electrical or mechanical...she ain't thick, my Mrs.

I'm glad she got to do that for your child. I can assure you I am not religious but I do see the biological compulsion and the effects it has when we deny ourselves a pursuit towards it.