Women, social status, and the natural extinction of child birth

1.) I take it as a concession as you claimed something is a fact - that you now can’t support with any actual facts - and refuse to defend it with actual facts - tells me your conceding the point

2.) The only person who is claiming that going out to make bread is not acceptable, is - literally - you.

3.) The only person arguing that being the steward of the home is not acceptable or noble is - literally - you.

4.) Biology doesn’t dictate these roles, that have a history of going out to work a job is not implicit in your genetics - it is cultural not biological. Women are quite capable of doing men’s jobs and taking men’s rolls, and men are quite capable of doing women’s rolls, stewarding the home and taking care of kods. The only reason people like you don’t like it, is because you’ve been brought up to think that. It’s nothing to do with genetics, biology or DNA. It’s purely social.

5.) If it’s an honour, why take it away as an option for men?

If you want to be a stay at home dad, go for it. And do it with all faith.

After all, it's 2019. Men can be women, women can be men, and I can be a pangendered giraffe on fullthrottle.

And when this mountain of bullshit and virtual reality falls apart, you'll see that there are biological AND social reasons for why the peculiar time that we live in is not a reflection of what is normal or even healthy.

But believe what you want to believe. After all, it's all arbitrary. I am not going to convince you otherwise. I certainly wouldn't limit someone's choice to live the way they want to live. 

As I said, I’ve already accepted your concession.

You keep telling me staying at home is noble - unless your a man, and it’s not a bad thing to go out and have a career and earn a living - unless your a woman.

You can’t give me a factual explanation why either of those things are true - you just keep asserting over and over again that somehow, it’s because of “nature”, though you can’t explain how or why: and you keep asserting that I should beleive you because that’s the way it’s always been (unless your from one of the cultures, where it isn’t.

You can keep going asserting your backward nonsense: but I’m afraid that it is indeed 2019, a full 200 years since your point of view was truly in fashion.

If you want to view your wife or partner as some thankless baby factory, who’s sole job it is to procreate and then take care of the children, and if you want to give your children the male role model of weak, selfish human being who views himself above women, do that: but don’t try and convince anyone else your backward caveman attitude is factual.

Again called my husband a woman. Pig.

No really, it is a very small segment of the Earth's population even today that subscribes to this nonsense you are saying.

I don't need to prove anything, since time immemorial it has always been this way. And what? Only now in tbe most decadent countries is it any different?

Yeah, I am not making extraordinary claims at all. 

In fact, it is for biological and social reasons that there is a right way of doing things and it is not arbitrary.

You take what I am saying as a concession, because as I said, you are simply being arrogant. 

There is nothing backwards about what I am saying. 

There is something backwards about you claiming that a very recent development, which by the way is not the majority view around the world anyway, is somehow not perverse.

Why do you even associate this type of thinking with what I am saying?

You have a very perverse outlook on things. You only prove my point that you have a low opinion of a mother's place in the home. 

I’m taking what you’re saying as a concession, as it’s an implicit concession.

You said what you were saying is “fact”, the you refuse to actually defend anything with facts. If you are forced to rely on asserting your position is true, and are forced to rely on subjective opinions to establish your facts - both of which you’ve been doing: you’ve conceded the point.

The only reason you’ve given that it’s soley the woman’s job to look after children, is that you think it’s a woman’s job to look after children. That’s the upshot of asserting nature and history, you’ve offered no actual compelling reason.

Theres no biological imperative here - it’s not like men are incapable of looking after children, and there is nothing in our genetics or biology that makes men ineffective care givers to small children. Historical imperative is ridiculous too, women have only been able to vote relatively recently, and have been treated almost like incapable objects until a similar time. The idea that I must rely on historical orwcedent here is ridiculous.

I associate your thinking here with an 18th century caveman - because that’s what it is. It is an attempt to defend your own implicit desire to subjugate women into a position of domestic servitude, and to refuse to accept an equal role in the upbringing of your children.

Your position is literally the proposition that women are unequal and should be treated unequally, that men have somehow an inherent additional requirement and capacity that supersedes the wants or needs of a woman.

You make not like that - but just because you’re trying to justify your opinion that women are not equal - does not mean that’s not what you’re doing.

If a Doctor says the tests show you have cancer, it is a fact even before you go get your second opinion from another doctor who tells you the same thing.

I already know how you see my opinion though. You think that because you are perverse.

Subjugate women. What a joke. You are just parroting off propaganda that the people who are trying to destabilize your country implanted into your culture. Also, you aren't impressing me with your repeated arguments to straw men. 

Throughout most of human history and even in the great majority of the world today, there is an established order of things that is determined both biologically and socially.

Biologically because women carry children in their wombs(can you imagine a woman who is 8 months pregnant chopping wood btw? Who would let them do that?), are able to nurse their children, and lets face it... are the weaker sex because women are by nature not as strong as men.

Socially because  whether you acknowledge this or not, a woman is not a man, and men can not be expected to go against their natural inclinations and pretend that women aren't men. They ARE treated special, and even women know this because it is an easy thing to exploit.

But besides this, even going back to the OP and my point about how this fluidity of gender roles is really not the norm or even progressive but an anomaly... look at how they do things in Africa. In the middle east. In Japan. South Asia? You don't have to go further than Mexico!

So you live Canada, a country that has for decades been cooperating with things passed in the UN such as, and I'm not making this name up, The "Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women", which, to be frank, is written in such a way that if it were universally enforced, would require that any man who acknowledges that he is talking to a female would be chucked into a van and sent to a reeducation camp.

Yet even in these countries that have been reeducated over several generations to buy into this men and women are the same nonsense, no one really believes it. Men are still dogs and pigs. Women still exploit the fact. that men are dogs and pigs. Even the most hardcore of feminist witches will use her femininity to exploit men who will be put off guard and treat her differently because SHE IS A WOMAN.

So what? Maybe how you think things should be sounds nice, but it isn't real. It's bullshit.

As an Orthodox Christian, the strength of women is even acknowledged in our scriptures!

"Zerubbabel, began to speak: "Men, is not the king great, and men many, and wine strong? Who then rules them, or who is their master? Is it not women? Women gave birth to the king and to all the people who rule over sea and land. They came to exist from women, and women reared those who plant the vineyards from which wine comes. Women also make men's clothing and bring glory to men. Indeed, men could not exist without women.

1.) Your not a doctor, nor are you telling me I have cancer. You trust the doctor because they are trained and trusted to make those decisions, and it’s their job to be accurate about whether you have cancer or not. It’s expensive and subject to litigation if they get it wrong.

Youre just some random individual on the internet asserting that you are right, with no formal training, that isn’t in a position of authority, that hasn’t been educated to make this particular decision, so please don’t equate the two

The idea that you feel these two are equivalent shows a desperate lack of basic critical thinking.

2.) Subjugate women a joke? Just because you are comprehensively unwilling to look at what your advocating, and realizing that it’s a misogynistic, one sided view of women, where you are treating yourself as special and better, and that women should be by default subservient to their husbands career: is Absolutely misogynistic, and is absolutely attempting to subjugate women.

You don’t view it that way, as you feel that it’s equal for women to be unequal. The laughable issue isn’t that you’re not profoundly prejudice - it’s that you don’t recognize your own prejudice.

3.) No matter how many times you continue to propagate your own ridiculous stereotypes - it doesn’t mean they are any more true. 

History and society are meaningless as drivers for what is good and bad - for the history of humanity women have been brutalized, and subjugated - and in many cases have only even been allowed to vote more recently. They still aren’t in many places.

The idea that we should look at history as a guide for how to act - is the most shocking stupid things that you have said. This is merely a ridiculous example of you trying to justify your own misogyny. A point that you continue to ignore.

4.) Nature is a stupid example too. Humans entire history, and current behaviour is to override our own biology. We augment our biology, and our inherent biological background because we’re leaving in global advanced society and not hunter gatherer tribes.

Nature drives humans to fight and kill each other over mates - to chose fats and sugars over vegetables.  They drive us to cheat and obscure paternity.

The idea that some how we must be slave to enforced gender roles - in a society which mostly created them - because of nature is equally stupid.

No one is calling for the enforcement of anything.

Your argument is nonsense because you are debating an imaginary opponent.

If a woman wants to focus on her career and not be a mother, well, that is her decision. If she wants to be a mother and focus on her career, she is going to have to compromise one for the other.

It is preferable for a mother to dedicate her energies to being a good steward of the home and for the father to be breadwinner. There is nothing about this that implies subjugation of women or the neglect of children by the father.

Why you associate these things is no doubt a product of feminist mind rot that you got schmucked into believing.

You have two problems. The first is that you don’t appear to be bothered by your own misogyny, or even view it as such: and your second is that you appear incapable of either supporting your own position with any facts, nor are you capable of addressing any facts or arguments that are too hard to argue against.

That’s why it’s a concession: you’re showing me that the argument against you is too difficult, or too substantial for you to argue against: so you don’t.

And yes; your argument is that women should be living - and should be happy to live - the 18th century gender stereotypes that you continually assert, and seem unable to justify. You’re entire premise here is that society should be reverting back to these historical gender roles - which are themselves enforced by society - by virtue of continual reinforcement in the media, from people like you, and through the behaviour of role models.

So yes - the entire point here is that society enforces gender roles - and you’ve literally gone the last 3 pages trying to tell us all that it’s acceptable.

Perhaps the issue is that you’re not sufficiently capable of understanding anything outside your worldview, or paradigm?

Why?

We’ve established that “because history” is a stupid argument - and you’ve yet to provide a counter argument.

We’ve establishes that “because nature” is also a stupid argument - and you’ve yet to provide a counter argument.

All I’m left with, is that you feel it’s precerable for women to do it, because of your views of women and men that you are unable to justify, and are based on your opinion.

I am not misogynistic.

You think that you are more enlightened than all of human history and every society that doesn't see things the way you do. You are being arrogant, and you make pretense of having a so called progressive position which of course, is implying that everyone else is unenlightened. No doubt you hold this view, as you keep refering to the oh so backwards 18th century.

I believe I show more respect to both men and women by attaching no shame to traditional gender roles, gender roles that I imagine must be alien to you as you seemed to have this warped idea that I am being the misogynistic one when it is you who are in effect belittling most women who ever lived.

You have specific and highly restrictive views of gender roles that mean you feel that a woman should chose staying at home and looking after children instead of having a career, as its predominantly her role, and men should not do it as it somehow makes them less manly.

That is very much misogyny whether you are to admit it or not. 

As Ive shown, you have no good reason to hold the views you so - so you can’t even argue your position is even justified.

Now, pay attention. I attach no shame to women doing a historically male role, or women doing a historically female role. It should be a free choice based on the people involved and no one should be guilted or compelled into chosing differently because it’s some enforced social norm, enforced by social circles, peer groups and general social views about people acting in some given ways that have no objective justification.

You on the other hand have been repeatedly derogatory, mean, and otherwise disdainful if anyone who deviates from your assessment of gender roles. Implying mothers who chose careers are neglectful, and fathers who actively raise their kids as less manly. 

So the disrepespect, and shaming is all coming from you - unanimously. You view people who chose a different path implicitly lesser - or otherwise more poorly than those differently - so please - the spiteful and objectionable beliefs are all yours.

Now, whilst name calling, and offering - yet again - no justification for anything your saying - my position here - is based on reality. Men should be prepared to man up and take a more active role in their kids lives, and it there is no reason a dad should be viewed negatively for taking that type of active role. Despite your unsupported assertion, mothers shouldn’t be guilted into accepting a one sided deal, and should be free to be able to make a decision with their partners about who raises their children free of the social pressure and guilt caused by troglodytes such as yourself who will judge people for making a decision - that you are unable to objectively support.

That’s not progressivism, that’s basic common sense.

Now, as for enlightenment - i view this on the basis of facts - and I like the things I believe, or don’t believe - to be rooted in fact. If my opinion has a factual basis, it’s less likely to be racist, sexist of misogynistic. And less likely to be wrong. The bottom line is that you have absolutely no factual basis for your position, you can’t provided any facts that supported, and the only justification you’ve used to defend them have all been shown to be laughably absurd.

This isn’t about being enlightened or not - this is about basic ability to reason, and basic facts: two respects in which you seem to continually fall short in.

Nothing about being the breadwinner implies that a father is neglectful of their kids.

Manning up is not conforming to a gender role that has for all of human history been the duty of the female parent. Manning up is insisting taking care of your wife and kids the proper way. Just as womaning up is taking care of your husband and kids the proper way.

And though you are in denial of why there is a proper order of things, that does not in any way undermine the proper order of things. Of course there are going to be deviations, but this does not reflect an ideal position. Lord have mercy on those qho have to do different out of necessity!

Why would a man envy a woman's role? Why would a woman envy a man's role? It is envy. Covetousness. Truly, selfishness. And no trying to turn it around and saying it is me being selfish for believing these things is going to stick. It couldn't be further from the truth. I didn't get married out of selfishness, but love, which is the opposite of selfishness, and everyone who knows my spouse and I know that we are inseparable and harmonious.

Most of the world accepts these gender roles, and it is only in a collapsing western society on the road to totalitarianism that these things are taken seriously. Oh, and when the boots come crashing down and the barbarians come to steal away all the women, it will be really obvious why men are the ones that go out into the world while the women and children are sheltered!

So enjoy these peaceful times while they are here, but if your children are used to reversed gender roles and that is the time when society collapses, they will be slaughtered like the emasculated and confused virtual reality enraptured fools they were raised to be. Maybe momma will fight off the bad guys!

I don't really have anything else to say except that gender roles are not arbitrary, they developed the way they did for a reasom, and what we see today in the west is a development very natural to an over indulgent society in the stage of decadent decline.

1.) You’ve replied to literally no point raised in my previous post, or any of my other posts for that matter.

2.) you have yet to offer any argument or justification as to why “The proper way” is actually the proper way, other than your opinion.

3.) you keep objecting, and asserting that there is some how some “proper” role - yet you have yet to offer any argument or justification as to why these “proper” roles are indeed proper.

4.) The remainder of your post is a largely unrelated, foaming at the mouth, nonsensical rant, where you some how equate society not guilting women into a role, with the downfall of the west. This is just plain lunacy, and quite frankly leads me to question your own reasoning ability if not the level of your mental health.

Given that you seem to be ignoring every rebuttal, and counter point, and simply asserting that your views are correct, that gender roles are correct and appropriate, without every providing a justification of why that makes any sense:

I will treat this as a concession. You’ve gone about 3 pages now avoiding this, that’s quite enough I think. So please, feel free to try and justify your argument, rather than simply restating it.

You are so arrogant you think you write the rules.

No, I don't concede. Keep telling yourself that though. Rejecting reality and replacing it with that which conforms to your arbitrary sense of aesthetics seems to be your thing.

I think I write the rules? Why do you think that? Because you can’t defend what you’re saying? No: that doesn’t even make sense as an argument here.

Now, I have repeatedly asked you to demonstrate why what you’re saying is a fact, to provide a justification to why you are correct, or to otherwise demonstrate that your claims about reality are actuallly true, and that these gender roles are “proper”

You don’t seem to be able to do that. As this whole exchange is based upon you asserting that these roles are indisputable facts, and you are woefully unable to defend that position: then you are implicitly conceding the whole argument. You are implicitly accepting you have no justification, and thus your claims are merely your opinion.

If you don’t concede, feel free to provide an objective explanation of why you are correct that isn’t a) simply an assertion of your opinion, b) an appeal to nature which has been demonstrated as nonsense or c) an appeal to history which has been shown to be nonsense.

If I don't do this the way you want, I concede = you not writing the rules

You are are both delusional and arrogant. I'm going to start calling you Napoleon now, as you obviously think you are some kind of dictator, dictating the rules of engagement.

I made my case, I explained why I believe it. I don't need to do any more. I'm not sorry if that offends you.

Besides, why would I debate with you anyway? You're a fool. You construct an imaginary image of what you think I must be to hold my beliefs and argue against that. Another reflection of your haughtiness.

No, not interested. 

Go ahead and chalk that up as a win so you can feel even more proud.

But no, that isn't a concession. As I still believe what I do and just as you don't accept the validity of my arguments, I don't accept the validity of your arguments. 

You said you’d position is fact, not an opinion.

If it’s  a fact, you should be able to produce a reasonable and objective explanation as to why what you’re saying is true.

You have produced arbitrary, subjective and opinion based criteria to justify your position.

You won’t defend those criteria, and simply assert that these subjective and opinion based value judgements are coreevrx

IE: you refuse to show that it is a fact, and your arguments all indicate it’s your opinion.

Given this has been pointed out repeatedly,  you are not able to show it’s a fact, you refuse to show it’s a fact, and refuse to acknowledge that there are major subjective flaws in your position.

As this is a debate website, the only conclusion I can make after this many posts, with you being willfully obtuse, and attempting to deflect from these core deficiencies - I can surmise that your either wrong and won’t admit it, or are cripplingly stupid and are unable to coherently convey your position.

I am accepting your inherent concession, because I don’t think it’s nice to assume you are simply a fool.

Not surprised

As I said:

1.) You keep saying it’s “proper”, and can’t provide me reasons other than “because you say so”

2.) You’ve ignored the massive issues with your nonsensical nature argument.

3.) You’ve ignored the massive issues with your nonsensical history argument.

4.) You keep saying you’re correct, despite systematic inability to defend your position.

Given the systematic deflection over all your position here, you are either intellectually incapable of defending, can not defend or will not defend your opinion.

The first would lead me to conclude you’re an idiot, the remainder would lead me to conclude you know that you’re wrong, and have conceded the point.

By all means, feel free to provide arguments to support and justify 1-4 above.

No

You should just go with that.

After all, I'm just talking nonsense.