I'm not covering everything below, feel free to add much more.
Men are far better at some things, as are women opposed to men. The stereotypical man is logical, rational, so forth, and the woman just the opposite: basing life off of inspiration,impulses, et cetera.
So then you could say that each gender should have a role because that particular gender can do that job better than the other. What's wrong with that? Should women, of the petite figure, be allowed to work in the police field? How is it that she can properly protect her partner if so small and easily physically manipulated?
Since it's clear that humans naturally have roles where they are better at than the other gender, we need to determine which jobs are more important to determine the "superior" gender.
Also, this tool to change your post into Hindu is awesome.
जूलिया That might be how you say my name in Hindi; you don't know because it could translate incorrectly...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"The Giver"!
ReplyDeleteFirst I'll talk about the past, then I'll discuss the practicality of gender roles and even jobs (apportioned by, firstly, the need of a particular profession and, secondly, the proficiency a person has in certain skill sets) for today, and lastly I'll write on certain quotes from your blurb.
THEN
Before the days of the modern Western World, genders were divided into roles. The men worked and the women cared for the children. The women were taught after the Renaissance even into the late 1800's but all-the-while not having explicit voting rights. Now this was the case for most societies throughout history with some exceptions; one of which being Sparta; (Note: Even during this time and the time of the Golden Age of Athens, Athenian women had few rights) the women in Sparta were given an education, allowed/encouraged to participate in sports, could manage and hold property, and were allowed to voice opinions. (Note: Though Sparta respected there own women they abused the helots and other slaves, both men and women, that they owned in their slave state.)
Now, men and women throughout history have held women in certain roles and this notion was never challenged to the point of total social equality until the 1870's. Do you see this as wrong and evil of men? Men were given more leniency in many matters while also being expected to uphold their family trade, support their family, and/or be involved in politics. Both men's and women's roles have been changed and mixed across the modern world.
TODAY
If I could trust the measurements of any test to test the skills of person and apportion him fairly into jobs, I would be willing to be FOR the implementation of a skill based economy. Such an implementation would change our current economy drastically although it would be an amazingly good change if certain criteria were set: virtue, good tests, freedoms allowed. Many aimless people would suddenly have meaningful fulfilling jobs! Sadly, ---> :-( I don't believe that men are virtuous enough to allow for a system to work. (Greed, Avarice, 5 other deadly sins......) And even given that, (which I can't imagine happening to any group of humans) I haven't found a test that I could rate as satisfactory to the defining of a person's unique skills and personality. I'm always angry at tests for their unspecific answers and lack of depth into the reading of the human psyche. (Mwahaha....had to divide my post post into 2 posts b/c of the length)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteQUOTES!
ReplyDelete"Men are far better at some things, as are women opposed to men. The stereotypical man is logical, rational, so forth, and the woman just the opposite: basing life off of inspiration,impulses, et cetera."
Hmm...
Men: Stronger, emotionally resilient, math inclined, uglier
Women: more empathy, sympathy, feeling, openness, art inclined, prettier
Both: Different perspectives of existence from one another.
I tried thinking of more things but it's hard! I think 'more draconian' for men and then I think of so many mums that fit that more than their hubbies. I think 'more nurturing' for women but I think of so many women who are not and men who are.
I don't know if much more fits...Or if even what I have is correct! Maybe my sources for thinking that way are wrong? Ugh, it seems I say that for anything I take the slightest stand on. heh
"Since it's clear that humans naturally have roles where they are better at than the other gender, we need to determine which jobs are more important to determine the "superior" gender. "
I think the question of the 'superior gender' comes down to your personal views on "What Matters."
You might think that we're all progressing to be perfected beings, for example, and that each gender can be perfected by Judeo-Christian standards only with each-other (clinging to each-other) leaving them equal. Or you might consider that wealth, power, control, and influence are most important and see that men throughout history are the ones who most often attain these and consider them superior. Maybe women are the more spiritually in tune with understanding the eternal virtues of Goodness and thus have superiority over their hardened counter-parts?
When I was younger (like single digits) I believed women to be angelic. I thought women were near perfect and that they were holier while men were fallen and more corrupted. I'm not really sure about that any more heh but I like to see archetypal potential princesses and princes in people. It makes me feel better in mankind seeing potential for epic awesomeness in a (wo)man. Life is pretty dull without it. Really dull.
स्टीफन
But what about the people who don't fit some of or any of the stereotypes? Society would be constructed as such that those exceptions wouldn't have access, or as easy of access to something they may excel at.
ReplyDeleteWhy exactly would society be constructed as so? Why couldn't it be otherwise?
ReplyDeleteGuh...I wish I could edit my comments so I could have 'their' instead of 'there' and other mistakes......
ReplyDeleteI made a mistake too... I said Hindu instead of Hindi. Psht, silly us.
ReplyDeleteHey, when're you gonna post anotha blog blurb, yo? And we should seriously talk more. And I can help your sis with her matemáticas. And we can high-five.
ReplyDeleteYou can edit your blogs...Ask me one day if you can't figure it out. And as far as not being able to construct things otherwise...it is human nature. Evidence of this consists in the way we view gender roles now, even in this supposedly enlightened era. Women probably have the most freedom now in terms of Harrison Bergeron equality, but thee are still people who automatically exclude them from certain "privileges" given to men. Now, there may be many women who could care less about having this mysterious social access given only to men, but there are also women who want in. What do you do with these gals? Tell them too bad?
ReplyDeleteNo. Those Scarlett O'Haras or Joan of Arcs could still find their own way...it would just be against social norms (which norms might be beneficial and confirming to the nature of most while being of course constricting to the pariahs).
ReplyDeleteJoan of Arc was burned alive....and Scarlett O Hara doesn't really exist...
ReplyDeleteAh fetch....I knew it......agh
ReplyDelete