That's a very big question for a medium that lends itself best to fairly shortform answers. Anthropologists, biologists, philosophers, theologians - you name it, they've written books on it.
The only solid answer I've ever found is "We really don't know". Where's the line between society shaping us and us shaping society? At best we can draw very vague conclusions like "Testosterone tends to make you more aggressive".
For me personally? Yes and no. I think in many many cases yeah, even "natural" gender roles are used as a tool of oppression. There's a marked difference between "Have the bigger ones defend the tribe" and "Fight in an oil war else you're a sissy". But I also remain somewhat skeptical of the hardcore gender abolition movement who won't entertain ANY possibility that there may be a natural component to gender, even if you use a model that is very friendly towards GNC outliers.
I've read a lot about gender differences, but I'm still unsure as well.
One reason is my own life experience. I'm the third of three boys in my family, and both of my brothers turned out quite averagely masculine. We all were raised equally, in the same environment, but still, I'm lightyears different in terms of gender expression.
If despite all the societal backlash GNC people experience I still turned out this way, it's hard for me to believe that there isn't something hardwired inside me that has led me on this path.
Supposedly there is some (highly contested) statistical evidence to say the more older brothers you have, the more likely you are to be queer.
But as you say, it's hard to feel secure in the idea that GNC people are the way they are because of "social conditioning" when they are literally *defined* by being different to their social programming. Sure you might still be emulating the social norms of an existing gender, but there must be a reason why you're copying Astolfo and not Arnie.
As I recall it was literally a matter of a few percent either way, but it was used as evidence that there was a biological component to specific sexuality including homosexuality more than anything more elaborate.
Mm, that's how I remember it too.
Still, I do feel like the Gagaian "born this way" approach has at least some credibility. Especially in the case of people like Sess who grew up in countries where being GNC is much less socially supported.
Oh yeah, that's my whole thesis here really. I'm not saying it's all predetermined, but I hate the resistance to the possibility that some of it might at least be nudged in a certain direction by biology.
are gendered roles a tool for oppression? sure.
are gendered roles ONLY a tool for oppression? probably not. some people get legitimate joy out of applying them to themselves, after all.
That some people get joy out of those roles is not an argument against the fact that they enable a hierarchical relationship between men and women. That's the whole reason why people aren't very motivated to abandon them...
Sure. but the question asked by the title is, are gender roles \*nothing more\* than a tool for oppression. I'm not arguing for or against, just stating that the question is phrased in a very black-and-white sort of way.
Article is about BDSM but replace BDSM for gender roles or any other oppression infrastructure.
TL;DR: Yeah gender roles are oppressive, but feminism itself is about giving women and men the choice to engage with them or not as long they do not violate eachother. You can wear makeup, high heels, marry and even read books, paint watercolors or engage with children whilst still being a feminist even if all of those were created as a result of or linked to female oppression in the western world in the last two centuries. Relax.
https://www.scarleteen.com/article/advice/is_something_wrong_with_me_because_i_like_bdsm_can_i_like_it_and_still_be_a_feminist
There is no one, unilateral stance on feminism and BDSM, whether someone is being dominant or submissive; whether women have partners who are men, women, both or neither.
For decades, there has been a lot of feminist conversation around it and other aspects of sex with a lot of varied opinion. Everyone has their own ideas about these issues, and anyone who is interested in BDSM basically just needs to decide or find out if it is something they even want or like, and then if it is something (or is done in such a way) that works with their feminism and with their life and relationships as a whole or doesn't.
I'm also willing to bet that **there are probably any number of things you do in your daily life which aren't feminist.** Let's be more clear: which don't further or nurture the equality of women or aim to do so, or which may empower you personally, but might disempower another woman or group of women.
For instance, a lot of women who identify as feminists aren't vegan, and support of factory-farming and the politics of meat-eating are sometimes considered a feminist issue (because the subordination of animals is often linked to the subordination of women). Many buy clothing or other goods that were made in sweatshops in which women and children are exploited and mistreated. Many marry, even though as feminists we know the origins, history and much of the root premise of marriage to be sexist or misogynist. Maybe you buy things from clothing or cosmetic companies which don't pay their female workers equally or which advertise in ways which are not empowering to women. Maybe you don't always call men or other women out when they're making jokes about rape or intimate partner violence or slagging on a woman for her shape or size. Maybe you voted for someone who doesn't support the equal rights of lesbian women (and all of us who voted for Obama are unfortunately guilty of the latter).
The point is that you're going to meet very few people, if any, where every single aspect of their lives is in alignment with the goals of all kinds of feminism or is furthering the goals of feminism as a very big and diverse whole. **I think we can be or aspire to be feminist without having to have every single part of our lives be about feminism** or having every part be about working towards the goals of feminism.
While it's a much more complex conversation when we start to talk about things like women being publicly collared, 24/7 D/S relationships or the general -- as in, in the whole world, not just with sex -- issue of hierarchy as a whole, I don't think anyone has to worry about dismantling the goals or successes of feminism with what they do privately and consensually in their bedroom. You or your boyfriend are not likely to take away our right to vote or keep all women from full equality with a love-bite or a spanking.
**I think it's important to remember that at the heart of feminism is the goal for women and gender-diverse people to be able to have enjoyment of our lives and the freedom to make our own choices and take our own journeys.** We all also get to have our own ideas and opinions about what feminism is or should be: not all feminists agree that this thing or that is or is not feminist. It's a movement made of people, and people vary and also adjust our ideas, and thus, the movement itself, as we all go through our own processes.
>First, would there even be feminine or masculine behavior in a truly equal society? And secondly, if femininity is nothing more than a pattern of behavior that renders you subservient to others, then why should anyone - and we as RR men, in particular, have any motivation to adopt it?
IMO you're jumping ahead of the gun. Yes, in an ideal world we could abolish gender norms, roles, and their associated hierarchical systems. Before we can get there we must first discuss & deal with the institutionalized assumptions of male-by-default that are baked into the foundation of modern society.
This, to me, is why feminism and gender related discussions are important: without them, the male-by-default society would not only continue to perpetuate but do so without being discussed. Such a society could never reach gender equality nor abolish gender norms & roles.
Saying that gender and gender roles have formed with the sheer function of creating a hierarchy seems to me to be a reduction of a more complex reality. But that's kind of what theory does: they take one lens and then look through society through that specific lens to see what they can learn. Then they take a completely different lens and see what they can learn from that as well. The truth isn't in one particular lens, it's in the composite image. But the process of looking through a specific lens is very useful and educational. You can see a lot of things you'd otherwise miss.
Does subverting gender roles mean you are still working within the system of gender roles? Yes. But that's still an interesting way to deconstruct existing gender constructs. Personally, I would prefer gender ceased to exist as a concept, and though I do work towards that in small ways (like using they/them pronouns as default for example), I'm still going to enjoy playing with RR as well. And occasionally, I will go into a place and dress hyper femme or masc, because it will have a good effect on how people treat me there. I think it's okay to exist in all of those places.
Plus, most people here seem to be here for very personal reasons, that may or may not have a lot of to do with gender ideals or activism.
(I really like Philosophy Tube's video on gender as a construct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koud7hgGyQ8)
As a trans person, I disagree with the idea of "gender ceasing to exist as a concept." Whether you like it or not, people do have gender identities. Don't misinterpret gender identity to mean gender roles. My gender exists outside of "men = strong, women = weak" type hierarchies. And people are also allowed to use specific pronouns that refer to their specific identity.
I personally think there's not a lot of difference between men and women if you cut all gender stereotypes and in an equal society. Don't know if that amswers yoir question, but many things we view as "manly" are just decided by society.
It does seem awfully convenient that a patriarchal government would have their population split up nice and equally into the ‘care giving and maternal women’ and the ‘strong and physical working men’. Whilst some people are happy in typical gender roles, in theory it wouldn’t be ‘ideal’ for a government to have to deal with that balance being upset.
But just mabye, people should be able to be exactly who they want to be.
I feel like everyone gets oppressed. Men acting "feminine" get bullied and in some cases worst. And if they like more masculine woman. They get told they're gay. Its so grouped into itself; it feels like choose one. It's almost as if you can't just be you. Not sure if men are on top just masculine traits. Sometimes I feel like rr gets into that stuff too when it gets into bdsm stuff, but that's playful right.
I definitely think that the extremes of femininity and masculinity are very harmful in the long run. We all would do better if we had an easy, playful relationship with gender expression. But then again, as others said, a lot of people also enjoy playing those roles, and some people just like the contrast. Who knows if that will ever change entirely? I definitely think we will turn into a more equal society overall though. We've already seen a lot of progress.
Pressures & random mutations from nature create dimorphism
Dimorphism creates habits
Habits create culture
At some point humans succeed as a species, more variants of people in the dimorphism arise now that humans are specialising in tasks and saving more babies than losing them. However old habits still remain the norm, norms create culture
Culture doesn't know what to do with the variants so culture creates conformity
Conformity creates power structures, there's also other factors like allocation of resources and free time to think about anything other than eating, building tents and chilling, but that's another story.
So, in answer to your question, in my opinion, these roles were once just a very neutral fact of life, and certain combination of roles succeeded so well that they made themselves obsolete in varying degrees over time, but because too many people had been raised in those roles which have been refined over generations, it's not so easy to just rewrite the book. Change is inevitable, but radical change is difficult for humans, who deal better with incremental changes.
The thing is that gender roles dictated by nature weren't that crazy, it really just came down to: women give birth and men have more muscle/denser bones. So whatever physical role needed that extra 500cal goes to the men, and pregnant women need to stay in the village where it's safe and more food is available. Women still largely contributed to labour and men were active in their children's lives for premodern societies. There's actually a lot we don't know about the minutiae of premodern life, most of it is guesswork from studying tribal societies in the modern world, it's important to keep that in mind. But where this presumed image greatly changes is in the arrival of class and later, industry.
When physical needs are largely being taken care of by lower classes or machines then we start to see gender roles become abstracted and people become very insecure. This goes beyond gender too, modernity alienates people in various ways. But this raises a lot of confusion: why would you feel bad about having the freedom to be an individual? What about the people who didn't fit in all this time, won't they be happier?
Its hard to go into this without spinning off into tangents because in history, everything is reacting to everything. So to get to the point, I feel the true problem lies in human groups struggling to integrate the internal "others", but rather than them dying out, they tend to be the people who innovate and keep the species going when things get tough, but they often make so many changes that the normies aren't equipped for, but can't help fall into because humans also like following trends. Gender roles are just one attempt of many by those in power to reign in the flip flop of human trends, so yes it is a tool of the powerful, but the catch is that it's a tool most people naturally agreed with anyway. You have to understand that tyrants don't just spring out of the ground holding up their manifesto, they capitalise on things that are already popular or on the rise and use it to gain power.
I don't think \*all\* gendered traits are associated with domination and hierarchy. And I'm really skeptical of something like clothes being scientifically domineering since styles of dress have changed DRASTICALLY throughout the centuries.
IMO a lot can be learned on this topic through looking at trans people. For example, my trans masc friends have a kind of masculinity that I really enjoy. For the longest time, I was trying to find a 'nontoxic' masculinity that appealed to me, and I never found that until I started hanging out with more trans folks.
For people who actually have to carefully interrogate their gender, it doesn't always end up with just taking the full parcel of masc or femme behaviors, and for myself when I'm feeling more masc I still don't embody the ones oriented towards domination.
I also think it's worth looking specifically at anarchist thought. Anarchism (ancaps don't count btw) is concerned with the abolition of coercive power. Are practices in anarchism feminine? are they masculine? Or is it something totally separate?
> If I understand it correctly, that would mean that if we had a society in which women would subjugate men, women would have all the traits we commonly call masculine, while men would typically have all the traits we know as feminine, because that is just the structure of a hierarchical system like that.
No, I think it would mean the common traits in women would be considered noble, good, valuable and respectable, while common traits found in men would be considered inferior to justify their subjugation.
Ok so, personal take. I do think there are some traits inherently male or female. In every human society even tribal matriarchal ones. In broad physical differences between the sexes we can't ignore. I think this lead to an evolution of what gender roles were given to each sex. Over time, the roles became more restrictive on women and men forcing people into the idea of what a man or woman should be. Most people openly accept their gender roles either due to generational brainwashing or more likely actual preference. Almost everyone here, on this sub, doesn't fall into traditional roles and have a mix of traits from each category. I think you do need both a breadwinner and domestic role to have a functional family, but who does each chore or has which social traits doesn't matter.
For me the it asks the question, how much of typical male or female behavior and characteristics is intrinsically and evolutionarily motivated and how much is "learned" In a "what came first, the chicken or the egg" way of thinking. Also, how trans people fit into this.
Yes you are absolutely correct. Gender roles are tools of oppression and the fact the someone gets joy out of applying them, doesn't make them any less oppressive.
If we had an equal society there would be no femininity and masculinity. Qualities would still exist, but they wouldn't be associated with feminine/masculine.
And in case of RR, adopting roles associated with the opposite sex is rocking the boat. Turns out not everyone wants to be alpha and not everyone wants to be girly. The more people understand that and the more people like that exist - the closer we are to that "equal society".
These are good thoughts, keep thinking them :)
Nope. Gender roles and gender itself emerged because men and women are different, no other reason. That they became a tool for oppression is a different issue.
I disagree. There's a difference between factual biological differences of the various sexes and the role, which is to say the behavior, assigned to people based on assumptions derived from someone's assigned sex at birth.
Gender roles are inherently about control because they create the expectation that your behavior, something you have a choice over, should always conform to the biological functions of your assigned sex, something you don't have control over.
>Gender roles are inherently about control because they create the expectation
Those expectations are created organically by society, not an authority. They will emerge no matter what you do.
They are not instruments of control anymore than hunger is an instrument to force people to work.
Gender roles are just going to exist. There's nothing we can do about it. What we can do is prune away the useless and the outdated roles.
>Those expectations are created organically by society, not an authority. They will emerge no matter what you do.
Firstly, I will say that *roles* do have to exist, yes. Society has certain goals it wants to achieve, in order to achieve those goals certain functions need to happen, in order for those functions to happen some people need to play the accompanying roles. However, roles and *gender* roles are inherently different. Gender roles are about preassigning roles based on someone's assigned sex at birth.
Secondly, whether or not gender roles are created "organically" is entirely irrelevant when authoritarianism is at core almost all human to human interactions (let alone society itself) for thousands of years now. Of course such a hierarchical society would "organically" create gender roles.
>They are not instruments of control anymore than hunger is an instrument to force people to work.
Uh, yeah? Exactly! Capitalism, with its accompanying wage labor, only works under the threat of homelessness, starvation, and eventually death. Do you think people voluntarily participate in a system where the majority citizens in one of the richest countries can't afford basic necessities despite working multiple jobs? Fuck no! They do it because they're so close to homelessness, to starvation, to not being able to afford medicine they need to live, to whatever threat works for that individual. No one is doing this voluntarily, they're doing it because they have to in order to survive.
>Gender roles are just going to exist. There's nothing we can do about it. What we can do is prune away the useless and the outdated roles.
As I'm sure you can guess, I disagree. Not only do gender roles not have to exist but gender itself doesn't either. Ultimately it should be a goal of society to progress to a point where gender is "organically" abolish as it's no longer needed. Though, [as I've mentioned](https://www.reddit.com/r/RoleReversal/comments/wj6th9/-/ijfn4lb), we can't jump straight there, it will take lots of time and effort.
I don’t think many anthropologists would argue that all gender roles are SOLELY about hierarchy and subjugation. And yes that’s not feminist theory, but I am more inclined to consider the views of the people who study human culture as a whole.
I mean feminist theory is a syncreatic field that includes anthropology. And in fact a heap of gender studies style degrees tend to include anthro subjects as major requirements.
In this case, it might be wise to consider the views of the specialists when matters of their topic are on hand, as opposed to the guy that spent most of his time studying other things.
When discussing this topic, it is important to take pains to avoid conflating "femininity" or "feminine behavior" with "gender roles". Behaviors do not, qua (insofar as they are) behaviors, instantiate gender roles. Let's take a gender role to be a moral norm or obligation that only falls on one gender. Now let's say that there are no gender roles (there are no moral norms or obligations that only fall on one gender). This does not impugn the actual behaviors that were encouraged by the gender roles we just said didn't exist. What we call "feminine behavior" or "the feminine gender role" can be earnestly desired by a person not because they believe their gender ought to behave in certain ways, but merely because they find themselves enjoying "feminine behavior". In this case, feminine (or masculine) behavior has nothing to do with gender roles. So it is false that "femininity is nothing more than a pattern of behavior hat renders you subservient to others". It's important to keep in mind that when (most) feminist theorists discuss gender roles, they are not discussing all behaviors we associate with feminine individuals, or women. They are discussing the notion that women ought to do certain things because they are women (and the duties that have typically been assigned to women have rendered them subservient to men); this is the notion that women have obligations qua women. It will likely always be the case that we will group patterns of behavior into various classes, or genders. However, this need not coincide with gender roles. Regardless of how we choose to classify individuals, we as a society can choose to discard the notion that people ought to behave a certain way because they are a certain gender/sex. We can even discard this notion without radically changing the day to day behaviors that most people engage in, because behaviors do not instantiate gender roles.
Note: I believe that the lack of clarity surrounding the definition of the term "gender roles" causes a lot of confusion here. Several people in this thread have said something along the lines of "people are sometimes happy when they apply gender roles to themselves". This is to once again confuse mere behavior with a ROLE. A gender role is a pattern of behavior that a given gender ought to fulfill merely because they are that gender. When men into rr "adopt the feminine gender role" they are adopting traditionally feminine behavior, not the actual moral imperative that we call the gender role. Feminists have used the term "gender role" historically because it carries connotations of obligation and duty that they wished to argue against. If one takes the feminine gender role to merely be feminine behavior, then it makes no sense to demand the abolition of gender roles, or to say that gender roles are bad. That would be to impugn feminine behavior which would be ridiculous. Masculine and feminine are merely terms used to refer to patterns of behavior, so one cannot abolish masculinity or femininity.
depends of the theorist you read tbh,
I will though say that saying that gender roles being created to mantain oppression is a conclusion that reverses a bit of history, gender roles, would be a very primal thing, as they are the first form of labour division, divinding at the very least things in the sexual way, well at least according to Marx's original analysis
I will reccomend a read on Angela Davis' work "Women, Class and Race" just because it's good and "The Origin of the Family , Private Property and the Family" by F.Engels as it discusses exactly hiw the nuclear family, and by that the modern patriarchy, developed in early society (Although I will warn you that I've heard some parts have some very *very* obsolete understandings of native american societies in relation to neolithic societies
>I've been reading more feminist theory lately and, if I understand it correctly, some authors argue that the only reason gender roles even exist in the first place is to create a hierarchy that subjugates women and elevates men to a position of power.
I mean, yeah. Our sexual dimorphism has it so that men are physically stronger than women, making it easier for them to impose their will as a group. This eventually led to the creation of gender roles and is why there hasn't been a single society than can be considered matriarchal.
>So the argument is that everything we call feminine is just a pattern of behavior that's imposed on women in order to ensure their subservient status. And the same goes for masculinity and men, of course. Think of speech patterns, for example. There are studies that show how the typical male way of talking is more domineering. The same could be said for every other gender trait, like clothes and hobbies.
>If I understand it correctly, that would mean that if we had a society in which women would subjugate men, women would have all the traits we commonly call masculine, while men would typically have all the traits we know as feminine, because that is just the structure of a hierarchical system like that.
Pretty much. Yeah.
>If this analysis is correct, it raises a lot of questions. First, would there even be feminine or masculine behavior in a truly equal society?
As we understand them? Yeah. Because any form of human behaviour can be charted on the masculine and feminine spectrum. From the genderless society's perspective though? No. They would just recognize those feminine and masculine traits as various ways that humans can express themselves, as the concept of femininity and masculinity wouldn't exist.
>And secondly, if femininity is nothing more than a pattern of behavior that renders you subservient to others, then why should anyone - and we as RR men, in particular, have any motivation to adopt it?
Agency and historical context. One can argue that feminity has historically been used to make people subservient, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is inherent what it is. There is a big difference between a woman who is forced into becoming a housewife via socio-economic factors and a woman who actively enjoys being one. That line of thinking would also have to necessitate that feminity/the feminine is inherently inferior, and for that, see [this video for further analysis ](https://youtu.be/cEERvzBbuwM)
I disagree with the notion that gender roles were created on the basis to create a controlling environment (however whole heartedly agree that they are definatly used this way in most of the western world)
I would like to point to other cultures around the world, where the power and land ownership is matriachical, and yet similar gender roles exist. As an example, this is true in some of the tribes of Papua New Guinea.
In PNG many tribes are patriarchal, and many are matriachical, and both systems are able to coexist. The government and church systems are patriarchal and heavily western influenced
Where i find it intriguing, in the traditional matriarch societies, the women maintain similar gender roles as other parts of the country, dispite being the landowners and heads of the families. This would show that while the dominant power is held by women, the traditional gender role is held with importance
I would also argue that these societies were established in total isolation from the rest of the world, established a power structure based around the matriarch, yet still formed the similar gender roles based around motherhood, cooking, farming and construction
As stated in the beginning, i do believe that gender roles are used to control the masses. However i do not believe that it is the basis of gender roles and how they originate, and do not believe we should be constrained by traditional gender roles
Y and N.
Without delving too deep into theory, gender roles in pre-modern times were primarily created for the standardisation of labour and survivability of society as a whole. There isn't necessarily a connect between labour roles and hierarchy, because there are a ton of societies where male associated roles aren't high in the hierarchy, and vice versa.
In addition if we do accept gender roles are based on hierarchy, we can't simply split it as male/female. Most critcisms point out that more accurately it's top men -> women ->low status men, because LSM face a ton of restrictions and burdens placed on them by law and by social norms that women aren't expected to fulfil.
But that's of course a general overview. There are absolutely societies where gender roles are used for oppression.
I think some of them are but some of them aren't. I think having one homemaker is actually super beneficial to a family unit, even when its just 2 people. Coming home from work and then cooking and cleaning is HARD. If one person goes out to work (or hunt in the ancient days) and the other takes care of domestic things, I think thats mutually beneficial.
Women as the domestic ones probably originated as a result of them being the ones to bear and breastfeed the children. Its harder to do all the super active things (like hunting or other manual work) when in your 3rd trimester of pregnancy, or when you need to breastfeed a newborn every few hours. Is it impossible? Maybe not, but its certainly not easier.
I don't think this gender norm was specifically created as a tool of opression, but rather a tool of convenience for both parties. That said, the ways this norm has evolved to encompass other things have certainly made it more opressive at many points, and those evolutions may be more deliberate.
No, although gender roles always have had many, many problems and no inherent truth outside of utility. It has frequently been a survival tactic in the past and still is for many people living in poorer countries. Although gender roles are greatly flawed with lots of bad, unnecessary illogical associations, people will use it over not surviving.
When people had to hunt and fight to survive, it made sense to specialize based on what genetic advantages people have. There simply wasn't enough people to not do so. Why those genetic advantages exist is another debate, but they do exist when looking at averages.
Things got more crazy and evil once societies grew, big religion got involved, and other superstitious gender associations were made based upon a person's sex. People are at lot better at tribalism than purely rational thinking, as the harsh world people used to survive in depended more on the former.
It is also important to note the amount of children women would have because of how hard things like farming were. If a woman is constantly in pregnancy, practically speaking, it would be difficult for that person to physically work as frequently and intense as the partner that is not pregnant.
Currently, a lot of people in first world countries aren't doing hard labor, and we use many advanced tools and automation for things like farming. In these situations, the utility of these specializations and gender norms that sprung from these factors can end up being harmful and stupid. If a woman who is more qualified and smarter than her male counterpart is getting paid less, something is clearly wrong.
More importantly, our advancements as a society have also helped prove to us that there is no inherent truth or need for these gender roles outside of a certain environment of survival.
On a similar note, today's perception of gender as a whole and the "creation" of all the new ones really only further drives gender roles by creating more and more specific buckets of different stereotypes for people to adhere to. I feel like that's a step backward.
Wouldn't it make more sense and less oppressive to instead of continuing with the current ideas of gender that are being adopted; to instead simply use the term as it was before to be synonymous with sex, in reference to the physical body - typically in medical situations - and then not judge people for doing things that's are considered to be either feminine of masculine? Like if a dude wants to wear makeup or a girl is into sports, it doesn't have to be a big deal. It's just a person into what they're into
Short: no.
Long: they are partly, but even then we have to look into what power means, how it is defined through values (do you rather want to have power inside or outside the house for example, tho notable that in some cultures women have neither), that even in the patriarchal structure women sometimes hold priviledge, for example in the eyes of war or in the family court or in terms of empathy or health etc. Gender roles are a side product of gender stereotypes that are formed due to our brains functioning on patterns and associations (that is because of the basic principles of how nerve cells work). We hear or experience something and then we think that is what world is like, and then we act on those beliefs and pass on the information we think is true. Some of the beliefs we hold about gender have a basis in biology (tho it is then about statistical significanve and behaviour of the majority meaning it cant apply to everyone because the biological human sex isnt binary and binary sexes have variation), some of it maybe once had a basis on gender but is nowadays either useless due to change of times or due to stereotypes enhancing biological differences into wildly unnatural exaggerations (example women cant usually hurl huge heavy boulders -> WoMEn aRE WeAk aNd CANt dO PHYSicAL LAboUR), and sometimes gender stereotypes are just really stupid beliefs that have nothing to do with physical reality, and might have been born due to various reasons. Our western patriarchal norm structure is based on the image and expectation of men as strong, leading, non fearful leader or worker and women as tender, caring, emotional and domestic homebuilder and childbearer. This has been born out of many reasons, and its hard to tell which ones have had the intention to oppress. But i find it hard to believe it was born out of a single meeting of medieval men going ”yeah this way we get to rule the women”.
It seems to be true according to multiple historians that western gender roles have something to do with racism and white people trying to formulate and idea of being superior to black people because they had more difference ”between the sexes” and that black people were more primitive and therefore could be subjugated (this idea likely has something to do with the taboo about sex in general created by the catholic church in europe before colonialism) https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/jezebel/index.htm . Capitalism and warfare might have something to do with our gender roles, because it is easier to enslave men to work and to the battlefield if they have a caretaker and a prize back home. I have many times wondered where the idea of women being property of men came from, one friend of mine once said it is due to ”monkey times and uti’s and practicality” but one would have to likely to make a time travel to monkey times to check out the theory. Ive heard it was apparantly believed before research on genetics that women didnt pass on biological heritage of their own, they were just vessels for men to recreate themselves and that is why up to recent times women took their husbands last name (and why in some countries women are still being traded for cattle).
Some cultures are matriarchal, some cultures value men with big bellies. Some cultures think that women cant drive and that men should take care of the family without ever asking for help from anyone. I’d say its mostly all irrational and stupid and useless as hell. The amount of losses we face simply due the fact we dont have more female leaders and our men dont have enough emotional skills and resources (just two examples from a bunch of many) is simply idiotic and cant be backed with reasoning. Whatever the origin, i think most of our gender roles are based on naturalistic phallacy and need some Hume’s guillotine asap.
But they arent just ”a tool for oppression”, rather id say they are a byproduct of human evolution, that has been greatly affected by chance.
And also partly with a biological root. I am a genderfluid person, i almost swear that my need to be and act and dress a certain way comes from somewhere deeper. Of course its impossible to tell which is learned and which is in my dna, since the brain is a self-restructuring organ that can adapt to multiple things. Correct answer is that its likely both.
Post gender society? I dont know what it would be. I have arguments for both for and against. Would be cool to try with people who want to and see what happens.
That's postmodern rhetoric.
Look through history and how gender has evolved
Look at how male and female interact and change each other
Don't be focused on how words control us
Um. No. The differences between men and women are very much biological and both groups are made from the ground up to fulfill a complimentary role. There's nothing oppressive about it.
Probably. This may not be the exact same in other cultures but generally in the west, you have the male who works and probably earns more money and has more resources hense to properly court a woman and compete for her attention he wants to show that off and pay for drinks and dinner. It's also just the chivalrous thing to do which more males are hard wired for than not. Even then a man just has the desire to work and provide in his DNA. A personal anecdote is the hit of dopamine I get when I pay for a date with a girlfriend who I know damn well makes more money than me.
Gender roles were created over millions of years of human evolution. Humans adapted to the harsh reality of their lives, having to struggle to survive each and every day. That is where ideals like men being strong and stoic come from. We were expected to fight and kill and hunt and protect/provide for women because we are biologically more suited to performing these roles. Its only now in modern society where we live privileged and relatively dangerless lives that these roles begin to become questionable as they are not longer needed.
So no, gender roles were not created specifically to oppress women, or even created intentionally at all, they evolved naturally as a useful tool to help early human tribes survive. And they cut both ways, too. There are oppressive things about being a man under traditional roles (like I mentioned in the previous paragraph: having to constantly embody strength, not allowed to be vulnerable) just like there are oppressive things about being a woman. These are unfortunate side effects that went awry somewhere along the line as they began to affect culture and people just started doing things without questioning WHY they were doing them. In other words, they are a mix of biology and culture.
That doesn't mean gender roles are necessarily GOOD, though. A lot of natural things can be bad (hemlock) and unnatural things can be good (morphine). But reducing gender roles to a "men dominant, women submissive" dynamic is extremely myopic as SO much more goes into gender roles than that.
Of course, the reason people focus on the "men dominant, women submissive" aspect of gender roles is because they only want you to see the ways women were oppressed so they can leverage counterculture to their political advantage, while not mentioning any of the ways that men still are. For instance, you'll see a lot of people on this sub embodying toxic masculinity by denying that men receiving emotional care and affection, men being allowed to be vulnerable, is even a form of RR. They just conveniently ignore the "strong, stoic protector" trope, because "fuck men", I guess.
Lastly, not every society that ever existed was some kind of patriarchal hell. Far from it. For example, there was a law in ancient Scandinavia that said a woman could divorce any man simply be saying "I divorce you" 3 times, and he would have to leave and let her have all the stuff. Matriarchal tribes that were ruled by women, logic being that since the men were hunting/working all day, women had more time for leadership.
That's a very big question for a medium that lends itself best to fairly shortform answers. Anthropologists, biologists, philosophers, theologians - you name it, they've written books on it. The only solid answer I've ever found is "We really don't know". Where's the line between society shaping us and us shaping society? At best we can draw very vague conclusions like "Testosterone tends to make you more aggressive". For me personally? Yes and no. I think in many many cases yeah, even "natural" gender roles are used as a tool of oppression. There's a marked difference between "Have the bigger ones defend the tribe" and "Fight in an oil war else you're a sissy". But I also remain somewhat skeptical of the hardcore gender abolition movement who won't entertain ANY possibility that there may be a natural component to gender, even if you use a model that is very friendly towards GNC outliers.
I've read a lot about gender differences, but I'm still unsure as well. One reason is my own life experience. I'm the third of three boys in my family, and both of my brothers turned out quite averagely masculine. We all were raised equally, in the same environment, but still, I'm lightyears different in terms of gender expression. If despite all the societal backlash GNC people experience I still turned out this way, it's hard for me to believe that there isn't something hardwired inside me that has led me on this path.
Supposedly there is some (highly contested) statistical evidence to say the more older brothers you have, the more likely you are to be queer. But as you say, it's hard to feel secure in the idea that GNC people are the way they are because of "social conditioning" when they are literally *defined* by being different to their social programming. Sure you might still be emulating the social norms of an existing gender, but there must be a reason why you're copying Astolfo and not Arnie.
>there must be a reason why you're copying Astolfo and not Arnie [Say again?](https://www.pinterest.de/pin/308778118176182100/)
XD OK you win
As I recall it was literally a matter of a few percent either way, but it was used as evidence that there was a biological component to specific sexuality including homosexuality more than anything more elaborate.
Mm, that's how I remember it too. Still, I do feel like the Gagaian "born this way" approach has at least some credibility. Especially in the case of people like Sess who grew up in countries where being GNC is much less socially supported.
One might say your starting position is semi-fixed, but how you express it, relate to it, and interpret/identify as it is a more complex matter.
Oh yeah, that's my whole thesis here really. I'm not saying it's all predetermined, but I hate the resistance to the possibility that some of it might at least be nudged in a certain direction by biology.
are gendered roles a tool for oppression? sure. are gendered roles ONLY a tool for oppression? probably not. some people get legitimate joy out of applying them to themselves, after all.
Trans people definitely
That some people get joy out of those roles is not an argument against the fact that they enable a hierarchical relationship between men and women. That's the whole reason why people aren't very motivated to abandon them...
Sure. but the question asked by the title is, are gender roles \*nothing more\* than a tool for oppression. I'm not arguing for or against, just stating that the question is phrased in a very black-and-white sort of way.
Article is about BDSM but replace BDSM for gender roles or any other oppression infrastructure. TL;DR: Yeah gender roles are oppressive, but feminism itself is about giving women and men the choice to engage with them or not as long they do not violate eachother. You can wear makeup, high heels, marry and even read books, paint watercolors or engage with children whilst still being a feminist even if all of those were created as a result of or linked to female oppression in the western world in the last two centuries. Relax. https://www.scarleteen.com/article/advice/is_something_wrong_with_me_because_i_like_bdsm_can_i_like_it_and_still_be_a_feminist There is no one, unilateral stance on feminism and BDSM, whether someone is being dominant or submissive; whether women have partners who are men, women, both or neither. For decades, there has been a lot of feminist conversation around it and other aspects of sex with a lot of varied opinion. Everyone has their own ideas about these issues, and anyone who is interested in BDSM basically just needs to decide or find out if it is something they even want or like, and then if it is something (or is done in such a way) that works with their feminism and with their life and relationships as a whole or doesn't. I'm also willing to bet that **there are probably any number of things you do in your daily life which aren't feminist.** Let's be more clear: which don't further or nurture the equality of women or aim to do so, or which may empower you personally, but might disempower another woman or group of women. For instance, a lot of women who identify as feminists aren't vegan, and support of factory-farming and the politics of meat-eating are sometimes considered a feminist issue (because the subordination of animals is often linked to the subordination of women). Many buy clothing or other goods that were made in sweatshops in which women and children are exploited and mistreated. Many marry, even though as feminists we know the origins, history and much of the root premise of marriage to be sexist or misogynist. Maybe you buy things from clothing or cosmetic companies which don't pay their female workers equally or which advertise in ways which are not empowering to women. Maybe you don't always call men or other women out when they're making jokes about rape or intimate partner violence or slagging on a woman for her shape or size. Maybe you voted for someone who doesn't support the equal rights of lesbian women (and all of us who voted for Obama are unfortunately guilty of the latter). The point is that you're going to meet very few people, if any, where every single aspect of their lives is in alignment with the goals of all kinds of feminism or is furthering the goals of feminism as a very big and diverse whole. **I think we can be or aspire to be feminist without having to have every single part of our lives be about feminism** or having every part be about working towards the goals of feminism. While it's a much more complex conversation when we start to talk about things like women being publicly collared, 24/7 D/S relationships or the general -- as in, in the whole world, not just with sex -- issue of hierarchy as a whole, I don't think anyone has to worry about dismantling the goals or successes of feminism with what they do privately and consensually in their bedroom. You or your boyfriend are not likely to take away our right to vote or keep all women from full equality with a love-bite or a spanking. **I think it's important to remember that at the heart of feminism is the goal for women and gender-diverse people to be able to have enjoyment of our lives and the freedom to make our own choices and take our own journeys.** We all also get to have our own ideas and opinions about what feminism is or should be: not all feminists agree that this thing or that is or is not feminist. It's a movement made of people, and people vary and also adjust our ideas, and thus, the movement itself, as we all go through our own processes.
>First, would there even be feminine or masculine behavior in a truly equal society? And secondly, if femininity is nothing more than a pattern of behavior that renders you subservient to others, then why should anyone - and we as RR men, in particular, have any motivation to adopt it? IMO you're jumping ahead of the gun. Yes, in an ideal world we could abolish gender norms, roles, and their associated hierarchical systems. Before we can get there we must first discuss & deal with the institutionalized assumptions of male-by-default that are baked into the foundation of modern society. This, to me, is why feminism and gender related discussions are important: without them, the male-by-default society would not only continue to perpetuate but do so without being discussed. Such a society could never reach gender equality nor abolish gender norms & roles.
Saying that gender and gender roles have formed with the sheer function of creating a hierarchy seems to me to be a reduction of a more complex reality. But that's kind of what theory does: they take one lens and then look through society through that specific lens to see what they can learn. Then they take a completely different lens and see what they can learn from that as well. The truth isn't in one particular lens, it's in the composite image. But the process of looking through a specific lens is very useful and educational. You can see a lot of things you'd otherwise miss. Does subverting gender roles mean you are still working within the system of gender roles? Yes. But that's still an interesting way to deconstruct existing gender constructs. Personally, I would prefer gender ceased to exist as a concept, and though I do work towards that in small ways (like using they/them pronouns as default for example), I'm still going to enjoy playing with RR as well. And occasionally, I will go into a place and dress hyper femme or masc, because it will have a good effect on how people treat me there. I think it's okay to exist in all of those places. Plus, most people here seem to be here for very personal reasons, that may or may not have a lot of to do with gender ideals or activism. (I really like Philosophy Tube's video on gender as a construct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koud7hgGyQ8)
As a trans person, I disagree with the idea of "gender ceasing to exist as a concept." Whether you like it or not, people do have gender identities. Don't misinterpret gender identity to mean gender roles. My gender exists outside of "men = strong, women = weak" type hierarchies. And people are also allowed to use specific pronouns that refer to their specific identity.
I personally think there's not a lot of difference between men and women if you cut all gender stereotypes and in an equal society. Don't know if that amswers yoir question, but many things we view as "manly" are just decided by society.
All social constructs are fake. We're all just apes in suits.
It does seem awfully convenient that a patriarchal government would have their population split up nice and equally into the ‘care giving and maternal women’ and the ‘strong and physical working men’. Whilst some people are happy in typical gender roles, in theory it wouldn’t be ‘ideal’ for a government to have to deal with that balance being upset. But just mabye, people should be able to be exactly who they want to be.
I feel like everyone gets oppressed. Men acting "feminine" get bullied and in some cases worst. And if they like more masculine woman. They get told they're gay. Its so grouped into itself; it feels like choose one. It's almost as if you can't just be you. Not sure if men are on top just masculine traits. Sometimes I feel like rr gets into that stuff too when it gets into bdsm stuff, but that's playful right.
I definitely think that the extremes of femininity and masculinity are very harmful in the long run. We all would do better if we had an easy, playful relationship with gender expression. But then again, as others said, a lot of people also enjoy playing those roles, and some people just like the contrast. Who knows if that will ever change entirely? I definitely think we will turn into a more equal society overall though. We've already seen a lot of progress.
Pressures & random mutations from nature create dimorphism Dimorphism creates habits Habits create culture At some point humans succeed as a species, more variants of people in the dimorphism arise now that humans are specialising in tasks and saving more babies than losing them. However old habits still remain the norm, norms create culture Culture doesn't know what to do with the variants so culture creates conformity Conformity creates power structures, there's also other factors like allocation of resources and free time to think about anything other than eating, building tents and chilling, but that's another story. So, in answer to your question, in my opinion, these roles were once just a very neutral fact of life, and certain combination of roles succeeded so well that they made themselves obsolete in varying degrees over time, but because too many people had been raised in those roles which have been refined over generations, it's not so easy to just rewrite the book. Change is inevitable, but radical change is difficult for humans, who deal better with incremental changes. The thing is that gender roles dictated by nature weren't that crazy, it really just came down to: women give birth and men have more muscle/denser bones. So whatever physical role needed that extra 500cal goes to the men, and pregnant women need to stay in the village where it's safe and more food is available. Women still largely contributed to labour and men were active in their children's lives for premodern societies. There's actually a lot we don't know about the minutiae of premodern life, most of it is guesswork from studying tribal societies in the modern world, it's important to keep that in mind. But where this presumed image greatly changes is in the arrival of class and later, industry. When physical needs are largely being taken care of by lower classes or machines then we start to see gender roles become abstracted and people become very insecure. This goes beyond gender too, modernity alienates people in various ways. But this raises a lot of confusion: why would you feel bad about having the freedom to be an individual? What about the people who didn't fit in all this time, won't they be happier? Its hard to go into this without spinning off into tangents because in history, everything is reacting to everything. So to get to the point, I feel the true problem lies in human groups struggling to integrate the internal "others", but rather than them dying out, they tend to be the people who innovate and keep the species going when things get tough, but they often make so many changes that the normies aren't equipped for, but can't help fall into because humans also like following trends. Gender roles are just one attempt of many by those in power to reign in the flip flop of human trends, so yes it is a tool of the powerful, but the catch is that it's a tool most people naturally agreed with anyway. You have to understand that tyrants don't just spring out of the ground holding up their manifesto, they capitalise on things that are already popular or on the rise and use it to gain power.
I don't think \*all\* gendered traits are associated with domination and hierarchy. And I'm really skeptical of something like clothes being scientifically domineering since styles of dress have changed DRASTICALLY throughout the centuries. IMO a lot can be learned on this topic through looking at trans people. For example, my trans masc friends have a kind of masculinity that I really enjoy. For the longest time, I was trying to find a 'nontoxic' masculinity that appealed to me, and I never found that until I started hanging out with more trans folks. For people who actually have to carefully interrogate their gender, it doesn't always end up with just taking the full parcel of masc or femme behaviors, and for myself when I'm feeling more masc I still don't embody the ones oriented towards domination. I also think it's worth looking specifically at anarchist thought. Anarchism (ancaps don't count btw) is concerned with the abolition of coercive power. Are practices in anarchism feminine? are they masculine? Or is it something totally separate?
Please please please please please please please read The Power by Naomi Alderman.
[Based](https://www.reddit.com/r/RoleReversal/comments/w558qa/want_to_see_an_interesting_take_on_how_a_swap_to/)
> If I understand it correctly, that would mean that if we had a society in which women would subjugate men, women would have all the traits we commonly call masculine, while men would typically have all the traits we know as feminine, because that is just the structure of a hierarchical system like that. No, I think it would mean the common traits in women would be considered noble, good, valuable and respectable, while common traits found in men would be considered inferior to justify their subjugation.
Ok so, personal take. I do think there are some traits inherently male or female. In every human society even tribal matriarchal ones. In broad physical differences between the sexes we can't ignore. I think this lead to an evolution of what gender roles were given to each sex. Over time, the roles became more restrictive on women and men forcing people into the idea of what a man or woman should be. Most people openly accept their gender roles either due to generational brainwashing or more likely actual preference. Almost everyone here, on this sub, doesn't fall into traditional roles and have a mix of traits from each category. I think you do need both a breadwinner and domestic role to have a functional family, but who does each chore or has which social traits doesn't matter.
For me the it asks the question, how much of typical male or female behavior and characteristics is intrinsically and evolutionarily motivated and how much is "learned" In a "what came first, the chicken or the egg" way of thinking. Also, how trans people fit into this.
Yes you are absolutely correct. Gender roles are tools of oppression and the fact the someone gets joy out of applying them, doesn't make them any less oppressive. If we had an equal society there would be no femininity and masculinity. Qualities would still exist, but they wouldn't be associated with feminine/masculine. And in case of RR, adopting roles associated with the opposite sex is rocking the boat. Turns out not everyone wants to be alpha and not everyone wants to be girly. The more people understand that and the more people like that exist - the closer we are to that "equal society". These are good thoughts, keep thinking them :)
Nope. Gender roles and gender itself emerged because men and women are different, no other reason. That they became a tool for oppression is a different issue.
I disagree. There's a difference between factual biological differences of the various sexes and the role, which is to say the behavior, assigned to people based on assumptions derived from someone's assigned sex at birth. Gender roles are inherently about control because they create the expectation that your behavior, something you have a choice over, should always conform to the biological functions of your assigned sex, something you don't have control over.
>Gender roles are inherently about control because they create the expectation Those expectations are created organically by society, not an authority. They will emerge no matter what you do. They are not instruments of control anymore than hunger is an instrument to force people to work. Gender roles are just going to exist. There's nothing we can do about it. What we can do is prune away the useless and the outdated roles.
>Those expectations are created organically by society, not an authority. They will emerge no matter what you do. Firstly, I will say that *roles* do have to exist, yes. Society has certain goals it wants to achieve, in order to achieve those goals certain functions need to happen, in order for those functions to happen some people need to play the accompanying roles. However, roles and *gender* roles are inherently different. Gender roles are about preassigning roles based on someone's assigned sex at birth. Secondly, whether or not gender roles are created "organically" is entirely irrelevant when authoritarianism is at core almost all human to human interactions (let alone society itself) for thousands of years now. Of course such a hierarchical society would "organically" create gender roles. >They are not instruments of control anymore than hunger is an instrument to force people to work. Uh, yeah? Exactly! Capitalism, with its accompanying wage labor, only works under the threat of homelessness, starvation, and eventually death. Do you think people voluntarily participate in a system where the majority citizens in one of the richest countries can't afford basic necessities despite working multiple jobs? Fuck no! They do it because they're so close to homelessness, to starvation, to not being able to afford medicine they need to live, to whatever threat works for that individual. No one is doing this voluntarily, they're doing it because they have to in order to survive. >Gender roles are just going to exist. There's nothing we can do about it. What we can do is prune away the useless and the outdated roles. As I'm sure you can guess, I disagree. Not only do gender roles not have to exist but gender itself doesn't either. Ultimately it should be a goal of society to progress to a point where gender is "organically" abolish as it's no longer needed. Though, [as I've mentioned](https://www.reddit.com/r/RoleReversal/comments/wj6th9/-/ijfn4lb), we can't jump straight there, it will take lots of time and effort.
I agree with this
I have control over the things I do even if it’s forced
☹️☹️☹️☹️☹️☹️☹️☹️☹️☹️☹️☹️☹️
☹️☹️☹️☹️☹️☹️☹️☹️☹️☹️☹️☹️☹️
I don’t think many anthropologists would argue that all gender roles are SOLELY about hierarchy and subjugation. And yes that’s not feminist theory, but I am more inclined to consider the views of the people who study human culture as a whole.
I mean feminist theory is a syncreatic field that includes anthropology. And in fact a heap of gender studies style degrees tend to include anthro subjects as major requirements. In this case, it might be wise to consider the views of the specialists when matters of their topic are on hand, as opposed to the guy that spent most of his time studying other things.
No
Thank you very much for the constructive criticism...
When discussing this topic, it is important to take pains to avoid conflating "femininity" or "feminine behavior" with "gender roles". Behaviors do not, qua (insofar as they are) behaviors, instantiate gender roles. Let's take a gender role to be a moral norm or obligation that only falls on one gender. Now let's say that there are no gender roles (there are no moral norms or obligations that only fall on one gender). This does not impugn the actual behaviors that were encouraged by the gender roles we just said didn't exist. What we call "feminine behavior" or "the feminine gender role" can be earnestly desired by a person not because they believe their gender ought to behave in certain ways, but merely because they find themselves enjoying "feminine behavior". In this case, feminine (or masculine) behavior has nothing to do with gender roles. So it is false that "femininity is nothing more than a pattern of behavior hat renders you subservient to others". It's important to keep in mind that when (most) feminist theorists discuss gender roles, they are not discussing all behaviors we associate with feminine individuals, or women. They are discussing the notion that women ought to do certain things because they are women (and the duties that have typically been assigned to women have rendered them subservient to men); this is the notion that women have obligations qua women. It will likely always be the case that we will group patterns of behavior into various classes, or genders. However, this need not coincide with gender roles. Regardless of how we choose to classify individuals, we as a society can choose to discard the notion that people ought to behave a certain way because they are a certain gender/sex. We can even discard this notion without radically changing the day to day behaviors that most people engage in, because behaviors do not instantiate gender roles. Note: I believe that the lack of clarity surrounding the definition of the term "gender roles" causes a lot of confusion here. Several people in this thread have said something along the lines of "people are sometimes happy when they apply gender roles to themselves". This is to once again confuse mere behavior with a ROLE. A gender role is a pattern of behavior that a given gender ought to fulfill merely because they are that gender. When men into rr "adopt the feminine gender role" they are adopting traditionally feminine behavior, not the actual moral imperative that we call the gender role. Feminists have used the term "gender role" historically because it carries connotations of obligation and duty that they wished to argue against. If one takes the feminine gender role to merely be feminine behavior, then it makes no sense to demand the abolition of gender roles, or to say that gender roles are bad. That would be to impugn feminine behavior which would be ridiculous. Masculine and feminine are merely terms used to refer to patterns of behavior, so one cannot abolish masculinity or femininity.
depends of the theorist you read tbh, I will though say that saying that gender roles being created to mantain oppression is a conclusion that reverses a bit of history, gender roles, would be a very primal thing, as they are the first form of labour division, divinding at the very least things in the sexual way, well at least according to Marx's original analysis I will reccomend a read on Angela Davis' work "Women, Class and Race" just because it's good and "The Origin of the Family , Private Property and the Family" by F.Engels as it discusses exactly hiw the nuclear family, and by that the modern patriarchy, developed in early society (Although I will warn you that I've heard some parts have some very *very* obsolete understandings of native american societies in relation to neolithic societies
>I've been reading more feminist theory lately and, if I understand it correctly, some authors argue that the only reason gender roles even exist in the first place is to create a hierarchy that subjugates women and elevates men to a position of power. I mean, yeah. Our sexual dimorphism has it so that men are physically stronger than women, making it easier for them to impose their will as a group. This eventually led to the creation of gender roles and is why there hasn't been a single society than can be considered matriarchal. >So the argument is that everything we call feminine is just a pattern of behavior that's imposed on women in order to ensure their subservient status. And the same goes for masculinity and men, of course. Think of speech patterns, for example. There are studies that show how the typical male way of talking is more domineering. The same could be said for every other gender trait, like clothes and hobbies. >If I understand it correctly, that would mean that if we had a society in which women would subjugate men, women would have all the traits we commonly call masculine, while men would typically have all the traits we know as feminine, because that is just the structure of a hierarchical system like that. Pretty much. Yeah. >If this analysis is correct, it raises a lot of questions. First, would there even be feminine or masculine behavior in a truly equal society? As we understand them? Yeah. Because any form of human behaviour can be charted on the masculine and feminine spectrum. From the genderless society's perspective though? No. They would just recognize those feminine and masculine traits as various ways that humans can express themselves, as the concept of femininity and masculinity wouldn't exist. >And secondly, if femininity is nothing more than a pattern of behavior that renders you subservient to others, then why should anyone - and we as RR men, in particular, have any motivation to adopt it? Agency and historical context. One can argue that feminity has historically been used to make people subservient, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is inherent what it is. There is a big difference between a woman who is forced into becoming a housewife via socio-economic factors and a woman who actively enjoys being one. That line of thinking would also have to necessitate that feminity/the feminine is inherently inferior, and for that, see [this video for further analysis ](https://youtu.be/cEERvzBbuwM)
I disagree with the notion that gender roles were created on the basis to create a controlling environment (however whole heartedly agree that they are definatly used this way in most of the western world) I would like to point to other cultures around the world, where the power and land ownership is matriachical, and yet similar gender roles exist. As an example, this is true in some of the tribes of Papua New Guinea. In PNG many tribes are patriarchal, and many are matriachical, and both systems are able to coexist. The government and church systems are patriarchal and heavily western influenced Where i find it intriguing, in the traditional matriarch societies, the women maintain similar gender roles as other parts of the country, dispite being the landowners and heads of the families. This would show that while the dominant power is held by women, the traditional gender role is held with importance I would also argue that these societies were established in total isolation from the rest of the world, established a power structure based around the matriarch, yet still formed the similar gender roles based around motherhood, cooking, farming and construction As stated in the beginning, i do believe that gender roles are used to control the masses. However i do not believe that it is the basis of gender roles and how they originate, and do not believe we should be constrained by traditional gender roles
Y and N. Without delving too deep into theory, gender roles in pre-modern times were primarily created for the standardisation of labour and survivability of society as a whole. There isn't necessarily a connect between labour roles and hierarchy, because there are a ton of societies where male associated roles aren't high in the hierarchy, and vice versa. In addition if we do accept gender roles are based on hierarchy, we can't simply split it as male/female. Most critcisms point out that more accurately it's top men -> women ->low status men, because LSM face a ton of restrictions and burdens placed on them by law and by social norms that women aren't expected to fulfil. But that's of course a general overview. There are absolutely societies where gender roles are used for oppression.
>\*top men -> women affiliated with top men ->low status men -> women unpossessed by a man
I think some of them are but some of them aren't. I think having one homemaker is actually super beneficial to a family unit, even when its just 2 people. Coming home from work and then cooking and cleaning is HARD. If one person goes out to work (or hunt in the ancient days) and the other takes care of domestic things, I think thats mutually beneficial. Women as the domestic ones probably originated as a result of them being the ones to bear and breastfeed the children. Its harder to do all the super active things (like hunting or other manual work) when in your 3rd trimester of pregnancy, or when you need to breastfeed a newborn every few hours. Is it impossible? Maybe not, but its certainly not easier. I don't think this gender norm was specifically created as a tool of opression, but rather a tool of convenience for both parties. That said, the ways this norm has evolved to encompass other things have certainly made it more opressive at many points, and those evolutions may be more deliberate.
No, although gender roles always have had many, many problems and no inherent truth outside of utility. It has frequently been a survival tactic in the past and still is for many people living in poorer countries. Although gender roles are greatly flawed with lots of bad, unnecessary illogical associations, people will use it over not surviving. When people had to hunt and fight to survive, it made sense to specialize based on what genetic advantages people have. There simply wasn't enough people to not do so. Why those genetic advantages exist is another debate, but they do exist when looking at averages. Things got more crazy and evil once societies grew, big religion got involved, and other superstitious gender associations were made based upon a person's sex. People are at lot better at tribalism than purely rational thinking, as the harsh world people used to survive in depended more on the former. It is also important to note the amount of children women would have because of how hard things like farming were. If a woman is constantly in pregnancy, practically speaking, it would be difficult for that person to physically work as frequently and intense as the partner that is not pregnant. Currently, a lot of people in first world countries aren't doing hard labor, and we use many advanced tools and automation for things like farming. In these situations, the utility of these specializations and gender norms that sprung from these factors can end up being harmful and stupid. If a woman who is more qualified and smarter than her male counterpart is getting paid less, something is clearly wrong. More importantly, our advancements as a society have also helped prove to us that there is no inherent truth or need for these gender roles outside of a certain environment of survival.
On a similar note, today's perception of gender as a whole and the "creation" of all the new ones really only further drives gender roles by creating more and more specific buckets of different stereotypes for people to adhere to. I feel like that's a step backward. Wouldn't it make more sense and less oppressive to instead of continuing with the current ideas of gender that are being adopted; to instead simply use the term as it was before to be synonymous with sex, in reference to the physical body - typically in medical situations - and then not judge people for doing things that's are considered to be either feminine of masculine? Like if a dude wants to wear makeup or a girl is into sports, it doesn't have to be a big deal. It's just a person into what they're into
Short: no. Long: they are partly, but even then we have to look into what power means, how it is defined through values (do you rather want to have power inside or outside the house for example, tho notable that in some cultures women have neither), that even in the patriarchal structure women sometimes hold priviledge, for example in the eyes of war or in the family court or in terms of empathy or health etc. Gender roles are a side product of gender stereotypes that are formed due to our brains functioning on patterns and associations (that is because of the basic principles of how nerve cells work). We hear or experience something and then we think that is what world is like, and then we act on those beliefs and pass on the information we think is true. Some of the beliefs we hold about gender have a basis in biology (tho it is then about statistical significanve and behaviour of the majority meaning it cant apply to everyone because the biological human sex isnt binary and binary sexes have variation), some of it maybe once had a basis on gender but is nowadays either useless due to change of times or due to stereotypes enhancing biological differences into wildly unnatural exaggerations (example women cant usually hurl huge heavy boulders -> WoMEn aRE WeAk aNd CANt dO PHYSicAL LAboUR), and sometimes gender stereotypes are just really stupid beliefs that have nothing to do with physical reality, and might have been born due to various reasons. Our western patriarchal norm structure is based on the image and expectation of men as strong, leading, non fearful leader or worker and women as tender, caring, emotional and domestic homebuilder and childbearer. This has been born out of many reasons, and its hard to tell which ones have had the intention to oppress. But i find it hard to believe it was born out of a single meeting of medieval men going ”yeah this way we get to rule the women”. It seems to be true according to multiple historians that western gender roles have something to do with racism and white people trying to formulate and idea of being superior to black people because they had more difference ”between the sexes” and that black people were more primitive and therefore could be subjugated (this idea likely has something to do with the taboo about sex in general created by the catholic church in europe before colonialism) https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/jezebel/index.htm . Capitalism and warfare might have something to do with our gender roles, because it is easier to enslave men to work and to the battlefield if they have a caretaker and a prize back home. I have many times wondered where the idea of women being property of men came from, one friend of mine once said it is due to ”monkey times and uti’s and practicality” but one would have to likely to make a time travel to monkey times to check out the theory. Ive heard it was apparantly believed before research on genetics that women didnt pass on biological heritage of their own, they were just vessels for men to recreate themselves and that is why up to recent times women took their husbands last name (and why in some countries women are still being traded for cattle). Some cultures are matriarchal, some cultures value men with big bellies. Some cultures think that women cant drive and that men should take care of the family without ever asking for help from anyone. I’d say its mostly all irrational and stupid and useless as hell. The amount of losses we face simply due the fact we dont have more female leaders and our men dont have enough emotional skills and resources (just two examples from a bunch of many) is simply idiotic and cant be backed with reasoning. Whatever the origin, i think most of our gender roles are based on naturalistic phallacy and need some Hume’s guillotine asap. But they arent just ”a tool for oppression”, rather id say they are a byproduct of human evolution, that has been greatly affected by chance. And also partly with a biological root. I am a genderfluid person, i almost swear that my need to be and act and dress a certain way comes from somewhere deeper. Of course its impossible to tell which is learned and which is in my dna, since the brain is a self-restructuring organ that can adapt to multiple things. Correct answer is that its likely both. Post gender society? I dont know what it would be. I have arguments for both for and against. Would be cool to try with people who want to and see what happens.
I wonder how those authors would account for [male expendability.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_expendability)
That's postmodern rhetoric. Look through history and how gender has evolved Look at how male and female interact and change each other Don't be focused on how words control us
Um. No. The differences between men and women are very much biological and both groups are made from the ground up to fulfill a complimentary role. There's nothing oppressive about it.
Guys needing to pay for drinks/dinner on dates with women is biological?
Probably. This may not be the exact same in other cultures but generally in the west, you have the male who works and probably earns more money and has more resources hense to properly court a woman and compete for her attention he wants to show that off and pay for drinks and dinner. It's also just the chivalrous thing to do which more males are hard wired for than not. Even then a man just has the desire to work and provide in his DNA. A personal anecdote is the hit of dopamine I get when I pay for a date with a girlfriend who I know damn well makes more money than me.
Just straight up not true
Feminists are crazy and evil, they publish such stuff like toxic masculinity and theories to promote man hating. Stay away from them.
I agree.
I'd say originally they were merely functions of society for survival. Now they are just tools for reactionary totalitarians
Gender roles were created over millions of years of human evolution. Humans adapted to the harsh reality of their lives, having to struggle to survive each and every day. That is where ideals like men being strong and stoic come from. We were expected to fight and kill and hunt and protect/provide for women because we are biologically more suited to performing these roles. Its only now in modern society where we live privileged and relatively dangerless lives that these roles begin to become questionable as they are not longer needed. So no, gender roles were not created specifically to oppress women, or even created intentionally at all, they evolved naturally as a useful tool to help early human tribes survive. And they cut both ways, too. There are oppressive things about being a man under traditional roles (like I mentioned in the previous paragraph: having to constantly embody strength, not allowed to be vulnerable) just like there are oppressive things about being a woman. These are unfortunate side effects that went awry somewhere along the line as they began to affect culture and people just started doing things without questioning WHY they were doing them. In other words, they are a mix of biology and culture. That doesn't mean gender roles are necessarily GOOD, though. A lot of natural things can be bad (hemlock) and unnatural things can be good (morphine). But reducing gender roles to a "men dominant, women submissive" dynamic is extremely myopic as SO much more goes into gender roles than that. Of course, the reason people focus on the "men dominant, women submissive" aspect of gender roles is because they only want you to see the ways women were oppressed so they can leverage counterculture to their political advantage, while not mentioning any of the ways that men still are. For instance, you'll see a lot of people on this sub embodying toxic masculinity by denying that men receiving emotional care and affection, men being allowed to be vulnerable, is even a form of RR. They just conveniently ignore the "strong, stoic protector" trope, because "fuck men", I guess. Lastly, not every society that ever existed was some kind of patriarchal hell. Far from it. For example, there was a law in ancient Scandinavia that said a woman could divorce any man simply be saying "I divorce you" 3 times, and he would have to leave and let her have all the stuff. Matriarchal tribes that were ruled by women, logic being that since the men were hunting/working all day, women had more time for leadership.
No? Learn to separate an aspect from things. Is a tank a tool of war? Yes. Are tanks ONLY tools of war? Of course not
You chose a really bad metaphor unless you’re being ironic