Why are gender roles viewed negatively?

[reddragon7]

I read and see so many threads and real life examples, where men and women feel the need to be “equal.” The man about to become a father, refuses to become the main earner, even when he has the means, and insists that his wife also work and contribute financially. Doesn’t this seem imbalanced to anyone, and that society is being brainwashed to accept this as the norm.

I have nothing against a woman wishing to work post-children, however, I don’t understand why society and some men put pressure on their wives to work, if she would rather stay home with the children. This has now become and expectation. If a woman is contributing financially, it is never really 50/50, as she is also doing most of the domestic work.

People condemn gender roles as though they are ancient, but seem to forget that, biologically and psychologically, women are naturally better caregivers to children. They are the ones pregnant, produce all these hormones, and better equipped to raise a child than a man. Of course, there are exceptions, but as a general fact, people seem to ignore this.

In view of all this, I believe more men should offer to be financial providers, giving women the option to not work after children, as childcare costs aren’t exactly saving them much anyway. Otherwise, it feels we are moving away from our gender roles, which may actually be more helpful in a marriage, than people make out.

What about those poor men who don’t earn enough to support a SAHM. What place do those losers have in your new society? Are they not allowed children? Are they not allowed sex!?

Also what’s the point in educating our daughters if our aspiration for them is that they marry a rich man and never work again?

As for your views on same sex marriage. I’d like to dig a little deeper. What would have happened if you had found yourself attracted to a women? You’d have just tried to ignore it and got on with marrying your rich man who is entitled to sex I guess.

It means men have to only do high paying jobs which is a shame as the whole idea is to have both sexes in all roles to have a more diverse and complimentary workforce.

Gender roles are definitely innate. The majority of the 3/4yo I work with tend to go to boy/girl play. Girls in the home corner or doing drawing while boys attack eachother with dinosaurs/sticks. Yes there is overlap and all children are encouraged to use all resources but the natural pattern is there.

I think we have swung too far the other way in society. The family unit has been torn apart and we are encouraged not to rely on one another 'in case we split up' so instead of fostering unity we put that doubt into relationships. The traditional role was that the male protected and provided so that the women could raise families in a domestic setting, ideally in some form of community for support. Obviously this has never been perfect and it is good women now have a degree of choice, especially if they have a decent career path, but that same push also means it is now expected that there are two incomes to a household pushing up cost of living and children spend more time away from home being raised in nurseries over those first years. Mothers who may prefer the more tradional role are warned they need to be earning to be contributing even if that means all the domestic stuff still falls to them on top of a job. I dont think women doing it all was meant to be the plan when we wanted the freedom to work and follow a career path.

The balance still needs to be found and family life and a slower pace needs to return in some form. We all work long enough through our lives that a small gap for a parent to be home in those first years should be factored in without being made to feel guilty or not contributing. Raising the next generation is extremely important.

It means men have to only do high paying jobs which is a shame as the whole idea is to have both sexes in all roles to have a more diverse and complimentary workforce.

And would make it more likely that higher earning roles will be predominantly held by males. Aah... progress 🙄

Gender roles are definitely innate. The majority of the 3/4yo I work with tend to go to boy/girl play. Girls in the home corner or doing drawing while boys attack eachother with dinosaurs/sticks. Yes there is overlap and all children are encouraged to use all resources but the natural pattern is there.

Actually gender roles aren't innate. Children learn this behaviour - they are bombarded with messages related to stereotypical gendered behaviour from birth and this influences their behaviour from a very young age.
There is no evidence that gendered behaviour is innate.

@Tumbleweed101

A piece of me agrees with you. But to be honest this is only workable and in women and children's best interests if men are made to pay for their kids if the family breaks down.

(But also the happiest societies tend to be the scandi ones - large amounts of social cohesion and agreement on values, both parents involved in child rearing, lots of parental leave and part time working, high quality childcare, decent social housing - I wish we had this model, which is a much better way of looking at things than "men should be y, women should be x")

You seem very concerned about how a SAHM may be made to feel guilty but have no problem throwing around phrases which could make a working parent feel guilty.

Nurseries care for children, they don’t raise children. It’s perfectly possible to work full time and raise your child.

I presume that @Tumbleweed101 hasn't seen the research that demonstrates how carers interact differently with boys and girls from birth? Children are socialised differently, even as tiny babies. By 3/4 years of age, they have had years of this input, so it's very difficult to argue that the differences you see are "innate".

So you don't want the actual answer then?

@Tumbleweed101 I'm seriously worried that you work with children. Do you think they come out of a box aged 3 or 4 when they come to you and have never experienced the world???

@Tumbleweed101

Gender roles are definitely innate. The majority of the 3/4yo I work with tend to go to boy/girl play. Girls in the home corner or doing drawing while boys attack eachother with dinosaurs/sticks.

They come to you having been socialised for three to four years, with gender expectations projected onto them from birth.

How can you say that their behaviour after three or four years of that is proof of anything innate when it comes to gender roles?

What @Tumbleweed101's post does help to highlight is that, as a country, we need to invest more in the education and training of our childcare workers so that it is of a really high quality.

Gender roles are definitely innate. The majority of the 3/4yo I work with tend to go to boy/girl play. Girls in the home corner or doing drawing while boys attack eachother with dinosaurs/sticks.

They've had 3-4 years of socialisation by that point.

People also treat babies different based on whether they know the child's sex.

I always found it interesting observing how people interacted with DS wearing unisex clothes. I heard a LOT more "careful of the little girl... Watch out! Mind the little girl.. slow down so you don't knock the little girl... I don't think the littl girl wants to play chase" than I did "watch the little boy".
Usually anything about DS as a boy was about watching out from a safety perspective, whereas most of the "little girl" comments stemmed from the idea that a little girl needs handling with kid gloves and needed special treatment and more gentle play.

Yes, they have done research dressing up little boys in "girls' clothes" and little girls in "boys' clothes". Even though the caregivers swore blind that they didn't treat children of different sexes differently, and claimed to just follow the lead of the individual children, it was clear that they encouraged more exploratory play and risk taking in the children dressed as boys (whether they were boys or not) and they were much more likely to hold/cuddle the ones dressed as girls (again, regardless of whether they were actually girls) and keep them playing close by.

These are people who didn't think they would behave any differently to boy children and girl children. We have all absorbed so much through the way in which we are socialised that we barely even notice what we're doing sometimes.

Okay. Well, in terms of my desire of women having financial provision in marriage, as I said it’s quite normal in the culture I’m from, and has worked favourably, that’s why I proposed it. As it protects women a bit more by freeing them of the obligation. And most women tend to traditional roles, but are very happy to do so.

They still have every right to work if they wish, and have the choice to contribute if they want. Of course, most women do, as the economy isn’t fantastic atm, and not every man can afford the standard of living a family may wish to live. So, it depends on what kind of lifestyle you want; some couples are happy to live off one salary, but live a lower standard of living. So realistically, depends on what is sustainable for the family, and how necessary the woman’s contribution is. It just isn’t an expectation or pressure from women, unless circumstances require it. Regardless, a couple must always come to an agreement before marrying to avoid conflict regarding finance in future.

And no, this doesn’t automatically entitle someone to sex - I did clarify that sex is something I believe is exclusive in marriage, and I used the wrong terminology. So I just felt it’s fair to expect from both spouses in marriage.

So I hold the opinion, that it becomes a woman’s security in marriage to have their provision, while she can freely choose whether she wants to take on a traditional role or prefers a more modern one - husband must also agree, for a mutual understanding.

And what should happen if they don't agree? Or if one of them changes their mind?

I don't suppose you would care to share which culture it is, OP, where the traditional roles work so well for women?

I am familiar with a few countries where rigid gender roles are still the norm, and frankly, the women's rights in those countries are shockingly bad. So it would be great to get an insight into a country where this model works to the benefit of women.

Usually, most couples would openly discuss financial expectations and desires before getting into a marriage, and decide on how things would be carried out, if one of them did change their mind in future. Sometimes, you’d have to work things out accordingly, like if health takes a toll on one or the other, then of course, couples are expected to support each other, if circumstances call for it.

That all sounds quite normal and reasonable, because it's all based on mutual discussion and agreement. Not rights. Can you see the difference?

@reddragon7

Usually, most couples would openly discuss financial expectations and desires before getting into a marriage, and decide on how things would be carried out, if one of them did change their mind in future. Sometimes, you’d have to work things out accordingly, like if health takes a toll on one or the other, then of course, couples are expected to support each other, if circumstances call for it.

Yes and in a healthy relationship this is what already happens.

What you have said you'd like is a legally binding obligation for men to be the provider of their wife doesn't want to work.

Unless I've misunderstood and your whole point is that you think women should have the option to not work while their husband does work, as long as he agrees... but if this is your point then you're just describing two people agreeing with each other and making decisions about their relationship set up accordingly. Aka exactly what happens in healthy relationships already.

So if it's a legal obligation you'd like put in place to ensure men are providers, what legal consequence do you propose if they change their mind?

What society is this? Because I've never heard of one that promotes this model that also has a good track record on woman's rights.

And you swerved it earlier OP but in the ideal world you're describing, would you allow same sex marriage?

In my culture, women aren’t restricted to rigid roles. I was brought up in the UK, but my parents weren’t - my family have always encouraged education and freedom of choice etc. its just I find that marital roles in the culture have allowed more flexibility and financial security for women. As they are not restricted from things, but have more financial choice and men have been more open to this.

It's still perfectly possible have a situation where a wife says she doesn't want to work and the husband says he doesn't want to be the only earner. What happens then? Legally? Do government get involved?

Definitely this! I have a little boy and his hair is blonde and shoulder length. He often gets mistaken for a girl. I get told how pretty they are, how sweet and gentle they are (even when running round going a bit mad!). When I’ve corrected people straight away, I get ‘typical little boy, full of energy, he’s got a strong personality’!!