Hello everyone.
This thread has been running in my mind for quite some times but after the answer of dogtana to TECSHARE I've thought it could be a good timing to share my 2 cents on the subject:
Women work fewer hours, shorter shifts, less dangerous jobs, and take lots of time off because they are socially conditioned to do it. They are brought up to be primarily nurturing and do this to care for their families. If men did their fair share in this, women would work more hours, longer shifts, more dangerous jobs and take less time off. Millions of women do it, those that have been brought up in an egalitarian environment. It is a live social experiment that has proven this millions of times, yet conservative societis such as US keep failing to correct this.
The idea that inequalities (whatever they can be) between men and women are from social construct is widely spread and accepted in the population. If you're not saying that inequalities exist and that they are only from how society treats men and women differently, you're mostly seen as a mysoginistic conservative.
First of all let's say that if you don't accept that there are tons of inequalities between men and women and that social influences are important factors, you're not mygoninistic, you're stupid. Thousands of different experiments all led to the same results: some kind of behaviour are encouraged or discouraged on individuals because of there sex. A girl must be quiet and submissive, a man must be aggressive and strong. That's not a question, that's a well established fact that can only be denied if you refuse psycology and sociology as science which makes you an idiot.
The problem is... No scientist actually said that inequalities between genders are the result of social pressures. They're saying social pressures cause inequalities between gender... Not the other way around. How can anyone say that all the inequalities are only the consequence of social pressures?
Tons of animals (especially insects) have 2 genders with little to no difference between the male and female from a physical or genetical point of view. This is not the case of humans, nature has clearly given us distinct physical abilities and attributes and whatever some people say, from a statistically point of view you can always distinguish a male from a female at first glance.
This means nature and evolution have made specialized organism, male and female, as the best way to adapt ourselves to our environment. We have evolved for millions of years as specialized individuals. How can anyone say it made no or little impact?
Women and men serve different purposes. Aggressivness and violence as well as physical strength are more important in male organism because their purpose was to fight. Submission and calm behaviour are important to female because their purpose was to breed. A male can easily be replaced and used by different females for reproduction while a woman is a incubator taking 9 months to create next generation.
Saying that we have no "pre determined roles" is stupid. Of course we have. How could those millions of years of specialization lead to nothing? Social pressure is NOT the only factor leading to inequalities between genders, we ARE inequals.
That being said, natural things aren't always good things and I have no trouble with people saying we should get rid of those inequalities. Why not? Maybe it's a good thing.
But getting rid of gender inequalities mean getting rid of genders because without gender specialization, what's the point of having two genders?
That might be a good thing? I don't know. Who could know?
But don't just say it's a social thing, those inequalities are fundamentals to our evolution. You can completely thing they must disappear because they have become useless sure. But don't forget getting rid of them means no long men and women but just humans.
I don't want that.
