SHTF and Gender Roles

Gender roles vary greatly between cultures and classes.

If I could live like an upper-class colonial madam, with a maid and all that, then I'd gladly submit to the female role.

However, if I had to live like a tribal woman; and plow the fields, fetch the water and gather the firewood, while my man sits there smoking his pipe and drinking his beer all day, I will revolt, or alternatively insist that he gets a third partner to lighten my load.

*Hysterical snerk of humor here*

Beat me down to a pulp then expect me to cook for you... then wonder why you are bleeding from every inch of your intestinal track.... The last person you ever want po'ed at you is the cook. Your last meal might seem delicious, but the effects of that last killer meal....

But hey, your call

I think the problem here is the term 'gender roles' Some of the best damned cooks I have ever encounter were MALE. _Cooking_ is not a gender role. If its the end of the world and you need a chef, short order cook, a janitor, a dishwasher, a farmer, a butler, maid, tailor, butler, dairy hand and so on that's just names for different jobs.

Now if your idea of 'gender role' is who gets to be top/bottom/receiver/pitcher/male/female (insert long list of sexual innuendos and roles here.) Then it's not 'gender roles,' it is 'sexual roles.'

Of which you're gonna have to tread a fine line in order to keep the flames down at a civilized level.

Then you will have to define exactly what sort of 'end of world' scenario you have to work from.

Given also that there are so many possible ends to rebuild society FROM.

--------------

It could very well end up that men are the rarest form of all the humans left. I can picture a end of the world scenario where 99% of society is females, due to pollution having wreaked havoc on the Human Genome. After all, we are already seeing signs that pollution has a 'estrogenic' effect on male humans.

Picture if you will, pollution has reached a 'critical point' that only the humans that can live to be viable in that environment, are those that can handle large amounts of 'pollution derived estrogens.' Women of course stand a better chance of surviving and 'functioning' sexually as their evolutionary heritage builds it into them. Add in the various effects large amounts of estrogen has on the human male, namely decreased sperm count, loss of sexual drive due to 'erectile difficulties' caused by the estrogen.... (I won't say it'd kill off sex in general, but if you can't get it up, you can't impregnate traditionally....)

A decade or three of that and male dominated society crashes without serious medical/chemical intervention.

Add in a few wars over the distribution of pharmaceutical testosterone boosters, which by then _only_ the children of the rich or the rich could afford the medication to keep testosterone levels high enough.... Can you see the train wreck from here?

Lets jump twenty years into that future, where wars have wrecked the ability to manufacture that testosterone booster.

If you were not a breeder, aka had enough sperm count to be worth kept around... you could likely end up being nothing more than a bull, a bull who is not used for anything more than a stud and never mated with a female. One in which the sperm is harvested manually, and you are locked up in a narrow cage and 'milked' for it.... as long as your sperm was 'viable.'

Women would be the 'strong ones', men could end up as chattel only kept around for breeding stock. Forced to be kept from harm, protected, and kept indoors where their 'sperm production' could be maintained... Let's also not forget the special diet of foods, with as little estrogen pollution as could be found in it.

Oh and hey, we're already headed on our way to that scenario.

-----------

Or if you like the other extreme, lets us look at societies where females embryos are aborted, in favor of trying again for a male.... We are already seeing the evolutionary pitfalls of that practice in a few countries. Without naming the country, look at the 2009 demographic

0-14 years: (male 190,075,426/female 172,799,553) (2009 est.) 17,275,837 more males than females.
15-64 years: (male 381,446,079/female 359,802,209) (2009 est.) 21,643,870 more males than females.

In 20 years, the odds on finding a female to mate within that country, drop drastically to the point of being fatal for that nation.

Which will leave them having to go abroad for a mate, or to in the viking parlance, 'take them.'

With such an inequality of females, male on male rape would likely skyrocket. (Lets not add in the chance of if you are an effeminate looking male _child_....)

Ok, Does anyone think a society based on child rape or male/male rape would NOT end badly?

Or to where society forces the transgenderism of excess males or male children; with those men and boys having no sexual leaning toward being a woman, or even having the mind/body state where they know themselves to be female. "Too bad kid, you were born male, but we need 'women'..." and we've already seen how trans-kids fare emotional if forced to live out their lives in the wrong 'body'. Just because it's not 'manly' to accept being forced by the lack of females to become homosexual....

--------------

I'm not going to add in the various religious shake ups or dogma based rewrites that could happen. (Or picture the terrorist front against such a change in religions.)

M.

Originally posted by halfoldman
Gender roles vary greatly between cultures and classes.

If I could live like an upper-class colonial madam, with a maid and all that, then I'd gladly submit to the female role.

However, if I had to live like a tribal woman; and plow the fields, fetch the water and gather the firewood, while my man sits there smoking his pipe and drinking his beer all day, I will revolt, or alternatively insist that he gets a third partner to lighten my load.

edit on 30-10-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

A balanced approach is always the best

I say this with all sincerity, and without sarcasm.

I think many American women will become little more than sex slaves/servants while the males fight over resources. There may be locations, and certainly very small groups, where this isn't true. However, soon there will be more people than food, and priorities will go nusto. We're set to implode/explode, whatever. Back to some freakish tribal mess with scumbags with guns collecting up people, and either killing or forcing slavery upon many people.

The sad part is the government wont be any better option. Oh the times ahead. I fear for us all.

If your assuming there will be more men than women, Well that's your first mistake. Women currently out number men. Depending on the scenario it is more likely that the male population will be greatly decrease and female population will only decrease by a little [men trying to save the day for the women).

Originally posted by Bullcookies
If your assuming there will be more men than women, Well that's your first mistake. Women currently out number men. Depending on the scenario it is more likely that the male population will be greatly decrease and female population will only decrease by a little [men trying to save the day for the women).

After the first few weeks of WORL we'll see who's right and such. I'm just basing it on a lifetime of observation. I could be wrong, I hope I'm wrong, but my gut feeling is that it will be so. Women will be important, but will not have the freedoms they're used to. Except the super bad ass ones who kill guys who think they are prey, and word gets around, and she becomes some mini legend. There's often exceptions.

But most of the TV Watching girls without a care in the world but scoring some man to pay the bills.... they will turn whore in a flat second. There will be plenty of them. It's terrible IMO.

You basing you observations on this country, Big mistake. as far as years of observation, this is not my first rodeo cowboy, I've done intelligence for over 25 yrs. Do you think you the first to think about this scenario?

It depends on how much you think the collapse of civilization will resemble the collapse of the former Yugoslavia, or the ongoing African Conflict.

Without central authority in Yugoslavia, a number of opportunists committed heinous civil rights abuses. They were attempting to control the population (force them to emigrate) by means of more or less systematic rapacity.

A similar scenario has played out in Sub-Saharan Africa, on a far larger scale; but since it doesn't involve white people, the media doesn't cover it in detail. But the violence between Hutu and Tutsi has also taken the form of "rape camps" to shame the female population and convince them to emigrate.

Originally posted by Bullcookies
You basing you observations on this country, Big mistake. as far as years of observation, this is not my first rodeo cowboy, I've done intelligence for over 25 yrs. Do you think you the first to think about this scenario?

Absolutely not. But basing your ideas on history at this point may not work. We've never had a culture so insanely drugged and taken care of ready to eat itself like this. Not with this technology. Not with some of the inner city already prepared for this. It's going to get ugly. I don't like the idea at all.

Originally posted by thejlxc

Originally posted by Bullcookies
If your assuming there will be more men than women, Well that's your first mistake. Women currently out number men. Depending on the scenario it is more likely that the male population will be greatly decrease and female population will only decrease by a little [men trying to save the day for the women).

After the first few weeks of WORL we'll see who's right and such. I'm just basing it on a lifetime of observation. I could be wrong, I hope I'm wrong, but my gut feeling is that it will be so. Women will be important, but will not have the freedoms they're used to. Except the super bad ass ones who kill guys who think they are prey, and word gets around, and she becomes some mini legend. There's often exceptions.

But most of the TV Watching girls without a care in the world but scoring some man to pay the bills.... they will turn whore in a flat second. There will be plenty of them. It's terrible IMO.

They will resort to proverbial rear shaking to save their own skin, you mean?

reply to post by theultimategamble


Exactly, there's plenty who do now, imagine when it's there's so many more people than food and lots of guns. It's terrifying.

reply to post by wasco2


So,if a woman won't cook for you,you will beat the snot
out of her?
Why don't you try me and see how far you get in beating
the snot out of me.Always remember,you do have to fall
asleep sometime...

reply to post by thejlxc


As an american woman I will never be any mans' sex slave.
Besides,I am in my late 50's and I really don't see anyone
wanting me as one anyway.If they were to want me it would
only be because my "parts" don't work anymore!

If I and my "better half" found ourselfs in a SHTF, What roles or chores would depend on who would be best for the task at hand. Can I cook? yes, but she is better at planning meals with what we have than I could ever do. So with that, she likes to be in charge of the meals. I would be there to help. Hunting, she has not tried hunting and would not want to unless she had no other means. It is not that we have definded "roles" here, I think it would be what each of us already know how to do and are willing to learn together. After all, she is not one to be made to do anything.

My significant other can cook but I cook much better,She has no clue on any types of hunting/fishing so I would most likely be doing that,I am much stronger so would be doing most of the building stuff, I am much better at organizational skills and planning ahead.....Wait a minute! I think in a SHTF scenario I will be needing a new woman

Originally posted by daryllyn

Originally posted by wasco2
reply to post by daryllyn

 

It does if I beat the snot out of you until you do.

[color=dodgerblue]Woah. Calm down, sir.

Would really trust the food produced by someone who had to be beaten until they cooked?

For the record, I am an excellent cook.

lol you dont have to beat the snot out of a female to have them cook for you! seriously just be nice charming witty and funny, look decent and treat them with respect..

reply to post by theultimategamble



Oh and seriously, read this guys other threads and posts. All of them are about gender reasighnment for real op, if your trying to come out of the closet, go ahead and do it and stop trolling these forums. thnx alot


www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think of it this way, in a SHTF scenario or a world ending situation, birth control ends and so long as men and women are together there are always going to be pregnant women.

Women who are pregnant become a precious thing and its my own opinion that this is where "Womans Work" comes from, the female role, something that is far removed from danger and heavy physical work which may endanger the children in their wombs.

Everything else that these women cannot do without endangering their growing child, is a mans job.

Otherwise, the workload is shared.

Over time it evolved into a vastly paralleled set of practices from hunting to gathering as 2 examples.

I would not want or expect my wife to chase down a deer with a spear and stab the life from it during its death throws while she is carrying my child, be safe instead.

I think that about sums up all gender roles in my opinion....We all do what we can, when we can.

-GM

There is a fantastic book I highly recommend called: Who Survives Disasters and Why by Amanda Ripley.

It has kinda a pop title but it is a very well researched book with great psychological information but plenty of information that could actually save your life.

She explains in one section that people assume the roles they naturally do, and usualy without being asked, it is instinctive.

For example, nurses and doctors will tend to treat the wounded. Leaders will lead, mothers might start taking care of children. Now this isn't written in cement, some people freeze or fail due to fear, no matter their rank.

Women are no exception to careers these days. Teachers will be calming, nurses and doctors will treat the wounded, Those who are leaders will gather people and put them to work.

Now we do this instinctively, and in an emergency situation where no emt or response has been dispatched, we don't question about people filling their pre-adapted roles, but no one says that in an emergency situation, anyone is required to do anything.

I think that this would only apply to those that severely underestimate women. If we look at history, women are purposely kept down.... I see it as some out there knowing that we are some sort of threat.

Women throughout history have been very strong. Though men have had to fight, women have had to maintain homes, children, food, and thwart off those that choose to cause harm to their families.

IMHO, I see the importance of all, if SHTF it wont matter if your male or female, but what will matter is who is alive.

I would rather have 10 people that can do many things then, 100 who cant do anything at all. The importance of a man considering what his women can do in a SHTF scenario, is just as important for a women to consider what a man can do also.

Just because I can cook a meal, doesn't always mean a man can hunt for one.

Peace, NRE.