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.

Gender roles are my opinions that I prefer to follow.

That wasn’t your o/p though.

you stated women are biologically better at nurturing and should stay at home to look after kids and be provided for financially by a man.

you also said this was backed up by science.

22 pages later you’ve changed it to “preference” and “opinion”.

no one cares what you do, or what you think your role is.

we care when you try to subject others to it.

If a couple do not wish to this, that is fine - I just felt bad for women who are in a position who want to stay home, their husbands has the financial means to fully provide, but isn’t allowing her to, and pushing her to return to work.

Would you feel equally bad for a man who didn't want to be the sole provider if the wife was in a position to contribute financially but didn't want to, pushing him to take on the whole responsibility by himself?

I personally do not support homosexuality, nor do I bother bashing it.

Saying you 'do not support' someone's inbuilt sexuality (that simply means they are attracted to people of the same sex just like you are attracted to people of the opposite sex, harming nobody) isn't a million miles away from bashing it really.

I thought you'd be anti same sex marriage. Turns out you're anti homosexuality completely. I think that's a very archaic and hateful approach but each to their own.

People have also asked which culture you're from where apparently traditional roles are encouraged all round but women are just as respected and have just as many opportunities and choices as men. Can you share?

Exactly.

And OP, are you equally concerned about women who wish to work but are unable to as their husband refuses to share childcare responsibilities with them in order to allow that to happen?

You never answered my previous question about whether you are religious, OP.

Given your views on gender roles and homosexuality, I'm guessing that you are from quite a conservative religious background. That would certainly help to explain a lot of your more extreme views.

The reason I feel more for women in this position is because, in return they are offering domestic and childcare and want to take on the traditional role, which I favour. I would hope that this discussion is already done beforehand, to see if it aligns with the man. Honestly, no I wouldn’t feel equally bad for a husband who says he doesn’t want to be the sole provider. I’d feel bad if it’s because he isn’t earning enough or has too much debt etc - but not if he genuinely has the affordability, but doesn’t want to provide so his wife can stay at bring up his children. I guess that’s just my viewpoint.

OK. I guess you have no concept of how stressful it can be to be the main breadwinner. Either that, or you don't really care.

What about the other question then? If a woman wanted to go to work and maintain her financial independence, would you feel equally bad for her if her husband refused to step up and take on an equal share of the domestic chores and childcare? Or if he was putting pressure on her to stay at home because he felt that it was better for the family to have a SAHP?

@reddragon7
As far as same-sex couples are concerned, which someone keeps asking. I am only referring to male-female dynamics. I personally do not support homosexuality, nor do I bother bashing it. Therefore, I do not involve my opinions regarding that, each to their own.

But if men are inherently one way and women inherently another then it still applies if it's not a female relationship. Lesbian women do not have this right that you think straight women do. And doesn't the very existence of same-sex marriage and families kind of disprove your point anyway?

Why is it okay if a man wants to stay st home and bring up children but can't, but not okay if a woman wants to stay at home and bring up children but can't?

I understand it can be stressful to be the breadwinner, which is why I said, I only expect it if the man has the affordability. Not if he’s not able to.

If a woman wanted to work pre-children, I have no issue at all. Post-children, I hold the traditional view that they be the primary caregivers, so I think it’s reasonable for a man to want her to reduce her work hours, at least part time. Just as I think it’s reasonable for a woman to want her husband to provide fully, whilst she looks after the children.

I come from a small country in Asia, where traditional roles are highly valued, but women still work before having children, even after - but they are still the main caregivers, while men take on the financial responsibility. It’s not due to religion.

OP, are you equally concerned about women who wish to work but are unable to as their husband refuses to share childcare responsibilities with them in order to allow that to happen?

Because that happens very, very often.

And leads to women being incredibly vulnerable.

When you set up your household along such strict gender roles though, do you not understand you make the whole family very vulnerable?

there’s no resilience. If anyone is sick, incapacitated, has to go away (eg to see an elderly parent or a hospital trip), loses their job, dies, or simply wants out of the marriage the whole thing breaks down.

if the man suddenly can’t or won’t provide there is no income. The woman has been out of work too long, she won’t get a job quickly, and it’s unlikely she’ll get anything as well paid, no matter what her qualifications.

if the woman suddenly can’t care for the children, how will the man work and do it? Will he know their timetables? What about cooking, cleaning? Even if he’s a decent man and willing, it takes a big adjustment to adapt to new things and the children will suffer.

with both taking on the responsibility of finance and child rearing should one become ill, lose their job or whatever, it will be harder, but transitions will be easier and financially there is breathing space to find another income.

it seems stupid to me to tie yourself into such inflexible roles. Personally I don’t understand why more couples don’t choose part time for both if they don’t want to use childcare, rather than mum stopping work. Much more flexible and way more security. Especially if the marriage breaks down.

But you're not going to specify which country, in case your claim that women are respected and have rights (and I mean actual rights) doesn't entirely hold water.

That's exactly why gender roles are damaging to society.

Women who work are still often expected to do the house stuff because of the gender roles that you prefer.

Women who work are still often looked over for promotion because of the gender roles that you prefer.

Women who work are still often paid less than a man in an equal role because of the gender roles that you prefer.

This answers why gender roles are viewed negatively.

This is why I said if women are still expected to work and take on household duties, financial contributions shouldn’t be expected from them either.

That is irrelevant if the woman is like me and wants to provide financially and doesn't feel it is fair to leave it to their husband.

It also doesn't help the assumptions made at work about women which aren't made about men such as what happened to me.

It doesn't change anything for women who work.

And when employers don't want to take on women because they'll just leave permenantly once they get married? Or they think it's okay to pay them less because they don't have to contribute to the bills or pay for their children?

And when employers don't want to take on women because they'll just leave permenantly once they get married? Or they think it's okay to pay them less because they don't have to contribute to the bills or pay for their children?

This! Employers won't bother investing in women or women's career development because they won't see the point.

So to be clear you want to enshrine a right in law that specifically excludes homosexual people?

So not only do you want to make the UK less progressive in terms of sex equality, you also want to bring in homophobic laws

No doubt if you do reply it will be with a 'jeez' or accused me of being outraged (aka hysterical little woman)

I'm not outraged. I just think it's really sad when someone can actually think they are more worthy of 'rights' than someone else.

If you want to think you are superior to others and you should get extra rights that's on your conscience. I believe everybody is equal and should have equal rights.

Given unmarried women are not to be allowed these 'rights' even if they are in a long term relationship, I would say there is a lot of judging of women going on

OP has every right to her own views on gender roles in addition to homosexuality. We don't all have to hold the same beliefs or opinions.

and others have every right to challenge sexist and homophobic views.

She has the right to her opinion, absolutely.

If her opinion is homophobic then I'm sure she expects other people to take issue with it, it can't be a massive shock to her that people have an issue with someone saying they 'don't support' homosexuality.