I am speaking about gender roles with war as an historical example.
> Are you a man and should I assume you signed up for every war, as your Y chromosone dictated?
Are you arguing men aren't predisposed to solve their problems physically? If this behaviour is uniformly distributed across men and women then why you don"t see equal number of crimes by either genders.
We were talking about how many men today want to be a househusband. I fail to see what that has to do with historical wars. The comparison would be men today and if they are signing up for wars. Are you? If not why bring up war?
Also we were talking about what men want.
Does the fact men fought in wars imply they wanted to fight in wars?
Did men in history during times of peace sit around saying to themself 'I hope someone starts a war so I have an excuse to stab a guy and get away from my wife and kids?'
"Are you arguing men aren't predisposed to solve their problems physically?"
Assuming you are a man... unless you are Tony Soprano and you go around hitting people with a baseball bat you probably don't "solve your problems physically".
So why write a sentence like "Are you arguing men aren't predisposed to solve their problems physically"
>> Throughout the history men have fought war and died in wars. How many wars were fought by women?
This makes it sound like the world would be better off if all the men stayed home raising the kids and away from things like international relations while having the women take care of all the larger societal functions
I agree. Women are much better at organizing societies and solving problem non voilently. India have seen many such queens all through the history[0]. Queens like Ahilyabai Holkar, Naiki Devi, Rani Durgavati are from recent history. Indian society appreciated motherhood. But it also accepted women freely in the roles traditionally reserved for men. This is the society I want with additional reforms.
Issue with recent activism is two folds. Tendency to demean the motherhood and also make men feel guilty for being their natural self. This is I do not want.
There are plenty of examples of matriarchal societies, both in the past and current. The problem with people like you is that you feel entitled to tell others where their place is in the world, and thank god the world is slowly turning against that kind of nonsense.
Do you think women have always been the secondary “submissive” gentile gender? There’s a lot of cultures and a lot of history.
This is similar to people saying trans people have never existed. Instead of seeing the western world as abnormally sexist, homophobic, and transphobic. IE the way the British treated hijras (men identifying with feminine traits) when they took over India in the late 1800s. Before and since then (though this is affected by how awful the British were), hijras weren’t treated equally, but much better than the abusive and bigoted Europeans.
Women having equal or higher status doesn't require them to take masculine roles. Feminity is neither submissive nor inferior.
I am aware of status of women in my own country India before invaders came.I won't go into the ancient history. But women like Ahilyabai Holkar, Laxmibai existed not too long ago.Both of them rose to the occassion. But my point stands that women generally do not enjoy these types of roles. Love, affection, child rearing, and home making comes more naturally to them then going out and picking fights.
That's very true but only because males are behaving more and more like females.
Being a house husband doesn't bode well with psychological traits where the extremes sit in the male population (which are responsible for things like men doing all the dangerous jobs, men being most of the inmates in prisons, men being the ones most likely to die in war).
I certainly hated my paternity leave and, anecdotally, I've heard from many peers who would have preferred to just work over taking care of their children. It's fine for a limited amount of time, but I can't tolerate that full time.
