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.

No one us saying there's anything wrong with fulfilling traditional gender roles. If that's what the individuals want.

This is why sahm get a bad rep on here

Because they are so smug and self righteous

I have no issue if that's how you want to organise your family and your partner agrees.

That isn't what the OP is saying, though. She seems to think that women should have the right to opt out of paid work and that men should have a duty to provide for them.

Many men don't want to be the sole breadwinner. I am not sure why anyone would expect them to accept this responsibility if they didn't want to be in that position. And as a woman, I certainly wouldn't want the default to be an assumption that women are responsible for the kids and the home.

What is sowrong with fulfilling traditional gender roles ? When both are done correctly, with each parent choosing to do so, the nuclear family can be very happy.

They key phrase here is 'choosing to do so' and this has to be agreed to by both partners. Women do not have the right to be supported financially just because they have a vagina.

The problem is that domestic labour is not valued and recognised for its role in the economy.

Everything flows from that. The answer is not to get women to stay home in huge numbers though. Once you do that, the women who are in work are valued less as they're likely to stay at home after kids, so they're promoted less etc pre and during motherhood.

Once that happens, women have less financial and political power because they're literally not running anything - which means the whole state is not run in our interest. Before too long you can't go out on your own etc.

Assuming you’re now awake, @reddragon7, you managed to dig out your scientific sources for why women are naturally better at caregiving? A few of us would be very curious to read it.

It gives women less security, not more. Savings don’t last forever and it’s far easier to already have a job during a marriage breakdown than it is to scrabble around looking for a job during an already difficult time if they are without one.

Assuming you have a man who earns enough and wants to bear the burden of being the sole financial earner then no issue.

IME it’s not quite as simple as that though and women would be more sensible in today’s society to retain some financial independence. As for all of this PA guilt tripping women by telling them it’s their duty to be the primary care giver is fucked up though.

As an individual choice, I don’t care but on the whole? It isn’t good for society because it negatively affects women who want to have careers or men who want to be SAHP’s or reduce their working hours. It’s incredibly difficult to go against the norm such as progressing at work when your competition are men who have SAHM’s so don’t have to worry about leaving in time for nursery pick up.

OP was also talking about women demanding to be SAHM’s just because they have vaginas and giving men no say about it which is where the outrage came from.

Doesn’t it seem obvious, disregarding the minority, where men are better parents than women. Generally speaking, women are better equipped biologically and psychologically. Why else do they have wombs, changing hormones, and why are they the ones who can carry the baby in utero, and not the father. I am not saying the father should be absent, but that most women tend to children more, ruling out expeditions.

if you want other research that supports my views. Here are a couple:

References StudyCorgi. (2021) 'Women Are Better Parents Then Men'. 29 October. (Accessed: 5 April 2023).

https://simplypsychology.org/bowlby.html

Honestly?

”She seems to think that women should have the right to opt out of paid work and that men should have a duty to provide for them.” I do believe this.

If the circumstances allow her to, she should have the option, given this is reasonable for their arrangement.

If a woman is worried about this, she can always keep her part time job, but I don’t think this requires her to financially contribute, if she is also doing most of the childcare and domestic work too. Unless the man is struggling, she should have the option to be provided for, according to the man’s means/affordability.

Have you actually read that? 😂😂😂😂

fucking hilarious.

a) it’s a review of a theory developed by a bloke who died in 1990. Most of the work was published in the 50’s and 60’s.

b) in the conclusion the reviewers make several points discrediting Bawlby’s work. And actually make the point that single primary maternal bonds in human society is actually rare.

anything else to back up your statements? Preferably more recent than 1959 and 1938 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

What do you know about John Bowlby’s study of attachment and his much earlier work on maternal (or maternal substitute) care? That earlier work was linked to political motives and was subsequently updated to the more evolved work attachment theory, which focused on there being a primary attachment figure in a child’s life.

It was accepted it was usually the mother (social conditioning and lingering gender stereotypes being very much in play), but the importance was that there was a primary figure, not whether it was male or female, mother or father, grandparent or aunt.

There is still emphasis on this being the mother though.

I rather think she panicked and landed on John Bowlby, without actually reading beyond the headline. Awkward.

Either way, the first link is recent.

I understand times have changed, biology doesn’t change though,

Yes, in work from the middle of the 20th century. Things, including the psychologist in question, moved on considerably since. Much was discredited, including by the man himself, as theories developed.

If you’re going to randomly Google things, at least read it and research it first.

I think reddragon needs to get back to some of those online courses, she's going a bit stale...

The review is recent, the work is positively antiquated.

if I reviewed Plato’s work on the 4 humours, it wouldn’t make his research recent.

and it doesn’t back up your theory at all. In fact it does the opposite.

References StudyCorgi. (2021) 'Women Are Better Parents Then Men'. 29 October. (Accessed: 5 April 2023).

This isn't an academic assignment or a piece of academic research. It's a very poorly written opinion piece with zero references of academic sources.

I suspect the OP might bow out soon. It’s got a bit embarrassing.

In the conclusions:

• Mothers are the exclusive carers in only a very small percentage of human societies; often there are a number of people involved in the care of children, such as relations and friends (Weisner, & Gallimore, 1977).
• Van Ijzendoorn, & Tavecchio (1987) argue that a stable network of adults can provide adequate care and that this care may even have advantages over a system where a mother has to meet all a child’s needs.
• There is evidence that children develop better with a mother who is happy in her work, than a mother who is frustrated by staying at home (Schaffer, 1990).

that’s from the review you linked to. Directly contradicting Bowlby’s hypothesis.

That first link is REALLY embarrassing.
It's an advert for an essay mill.

Not at all. Just because the review isn’t supporting his theory, doesn’t mean his theory is wrong. Of course, feminism these days will strive to deny biology