NationStates

The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:

Tubbsalot wrote:So then, you agree that gender roles are crap.

Yes. But I also know that there's nothing you can do to remove the underlying differences between males and females.

Yes. However, no-one was suggesting that we should ignore the existence of biological differences. You are in agreement with everyone else on that point.

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:

Albul wrote:What is the underlying biological construct, then?

He apparently thinks that you can't let people be who they want to be, because people with vaginas have to have x traits and people with penises have to possess z traits, or else reproduction can't happen????
Don't see how me wearing pants and working keeps me from getting pregnant.

Well, working keeps you away from bed, and wearing pants is extra work in having to take it out.

We men have needs and we have IMMEDIATE needs damnit! We can't be waiting on you to get back from work and get off your clothes, too much patience is needed

Constantinopolis wrote:Ok, I see. Don't worry about it - I'm just glad we cleared up the misunderstanding.

But it sounds like you really should be getting some rest. I mean it. I have experience with going without sleep, and it leads to all sorts of health problems. I understand there are some personal issues that are keeping you awake, but... I wish I had some advice, but all I can say is, just take care of yourself.

Already there, unfortunately. I wish I could get some rest, but I'm just too stressed due to having lost my job recently and facing a possible eviction, due to lack of money to pay the rent. I'm also spending my time making 100s of phonecalls and looking through a ton of employment websited, trying to solve my issue (which, in my country, is very difficult, as people often go for months, even years, without being able to find a job).

Albul wrote:

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:I don't think men can watch after a fetus, considering we aren't seahorses???? ONce it's fully baked, sure, but the bun in the oven kinda can't leave.

Blasted idioms... I can't be fun if y'all are being too literal. What I meant by a bun in the oven is that the woman is pregnant... Women can't really expect to keep the fetus alive with the demanding physical labor needed to hunt.

I was correcting the other person, who suggested men could "look after a bun in the oven." lol, biological men can't watch after a fetus.

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:

The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:Yes. But I also know that there's nothing you can do to remove the underlying differences between males and females.

One person having a uterus and one having testes are not gender roles, those are biological sexes.

Yes, and undoubtedly those testes can alter someone's behavior, just looks at how dogs act before and after they've got neutered. Those hormones play a lot on the way people act, undoubtedly.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:He apparently thinks that you can't let people be who they want to be, because people with vaginas have to have x traits and people with penises have to possess z traits, or else reproduction can't happen????
Don't see how me wearing pants and working keeps me from getting pregnant.

Well, working keeps you away from bed, and wearing pants is extra work in having to take it out.

We men have needs and we have IMMEDIATE needs damnit! We can't be waiting on you to get back from work and get off your clothes, too much patience is needed

So, why do we have kilts? Unless...

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:He apparently thinks that you can't let people be who they want to be, because people with vaginas have to have x traits and people with penises have to possess z traits, or else reproduction can't happen????
Don't see how me wearing pants and working keeps me from getting pregnant.

Well, working keeps you away from bed, and wearing pants is extra work in having to take it out.

We men have needs and we have IMMEDIATE needs damnit! We can't be waiting on you to get back from work and get off your clothes, too much patience is needed

Oh, for you, Chuck, I never wear panties.

The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:

Tubbsalot wrote:So then, you agree that gender roles are crap.

Yes. But I also know that there's nothing you can do to remove the underlying differences between males and females.

The differences between males and females are not gender roles. Gender roles are stereotypes. And you can eliminate stereotypes, so it's not impossible.

Albul wrote:Blasted idioms... I can't be fun if y'all are being too literal. What I meant by a bun in the oven is that the woman is pregnant... Women can't really expect to keep the fetus alive with the demanding physical labor needed to hunt.

Aye, but soon after she's given birth, a woman would be perfectly able to pick up a spear and go hunting, while the man, who happened to get maimed by an angry mammoth, stays at home to care for the children and prepare the meals.

Albul wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
Well, working keeps you away from bed, and wearing pants is extra work in having to take it out.

We men have needs and we have IMMEDIATE needs damnit! We can't be waiting on you to get back from work and get off your clothes, too much patience is needed

So, why do we have kilts? Unless...

Yes, the truth is shocking, I know. Now have a kitty picture:

Tubbsalot wrote:

The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:Yes. But I also know that there's nothing you can do to remove the underlying differences between males and females.

Yes. However, no-one was suggesting that we should ignore the existence of biological differences. You are in agreement with everyone else on that point.

Well, I'm fairly certain that someone claimed that it would be possible to remove gender roles entirely, while keeping sexual reproduction.

The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:One person having a uterus and one having testes are not gender roles, those are biological sexes.

Yes, and undoubtedly those testes can alter someone's behavior, just looks at how dogs act before and after they've got neutered. Those hormones play a lot on the way people act, undoubtedly.

Are u suggesting that men are incapable of rising above base hormones and are equivalent to dogs

The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:One person having a uterus and one having testes are not gender roles, those are biological sexes.

Yes, and undoubtedly those testes can alter someone's behavior, just looks at how dogs act before and after they've got neutered. Those hormones play a lot on the way people act, undoubtedly.

Yes. All the stories I have heard about eunuchs definitely fly in your favor...

http://www.reocities.com/WestHollywood/ ... trate.html
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... 844AADrIws (I hate this source, too)

The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:

Tubbsalot wrote:Yes. However, no-one was suggesting that we should ignore the existence of biological differences. You are in agreement with everyone else on that point.

Well, I'm fairly certain that someone claimed that it would be possible to remove gender roles entirely, while keeping sexual reproduction.

Gender roles play no part in sexual reproduction.

The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:One person having a uterus and one having testes are not gender roles, those are biological sexes.

Yes, and undoubtedly those testes can alter someone's behavior, just looks at how dogs act before and after they've got neutered. Those hormones play a lot on the way people act, undoubtedly.

Again, no-one will disagree, but that's not an issue of gender roles.

The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:

Tubbsalot wrote:Yes. However, no-one was suggesting that we should ignore the existence of biological differences. You are in agreement with everyone else on that point.

Well, I'm fairly certain that someone claimed that it would be possible to remove gender roles entirely, while keeping sexual reproduction.

Yes, it would be. Gender roles are about what people believe men and women should be doing, as a result of their gender. If you don't think that gender is a factor in deciding what you should do, then you're not enforcing gender roles.

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
Well, working keeps you away from bed, and wearing pants is extra work in having to take it out.

We men have needs and we have IMMEDIATE needs damnit! We can't be waiting on you to get back from work and get off your clothes, too much patience is needed

Oh, for you, Chuck, I never wear panties.

Oh my

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:

The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:Yes, and undoubtedly those testes can alter someone's behavior, just looks at how dogs act before and after they've got neutered. Those hormones play a lot on the way people act, undoubtedly.

Are u suggesting that men are incapable of rising above base hormones and are equivalent to dogs

No, I'm saying that if you cut off a man's balls, obviously the lack of testosterone is going to affect behavior. That's a bit different from equating men from dogs, isn't it? Sure, reason is more powerful than hormones for (most) people, but hormones undoubtedly play a role.

The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:

Tubbsalot wrote:Yes. However, no-one was suggesting that we should ignore the existence of biological differences. You are in agreement with everyone else on that point.

Well, I'm fairly certain that someone claimed that it would be possible to remove gender roles entirely, while keeping sexual reproduction.

A man keeps his penis and a woman keeps his vagina.

A "feminine" man would have no impact on the reproductive processes of a "masculine" woman.

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:

Albul wrote:What is the underlying biological construct, then?

He apparently thinks that you can't let people be who they want to be, because people with vaginas have to have x traits and people with penises have to possess z traits, or else reproduction can't happen????
Don't see how me wearing pants and working keeps me from getting pregnant.

More like, he doesn't seem to understand what gender roles are.

The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:Are u suggesting that men are incapable of rising above base hormones and are equivalent to dogs

No, I'm saying that if you cut off a man's balls, obviously the lack of testosterone is going to affect behavior. That's a bit different from equating men from dogs, isn't it? Sure, reason is more powerful than hormones for (most) people, but hormones undoubtedly play a role.

Again...

Eunuchs can still get horny after being castrated...

Also, you may want to watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXAoG8vAyzI

The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:

Tubbsalot wrote:Yes. However, no-one was suggesting that we should ignore the existence of biological differences. You are in agreement with everyone else on that point.

Well, I'm fairly certain that someone claimed that it would be possible to remove gender roles entirely, while keeping sexual reproduction.

Genders and gender roles are two very different things. The latter is a series of cultural, religious and social standards. These can and do change and vary from culture to culture and era to era. You know, there's some tribal cultures in Asia, where women are the dominant gender in society (and men just get added into a matriarch's household when they marry).

Another culture in Asia was a tribe which actually encourages young women to have sex as a way to find the ideal husband. There's even a custom involving the fathers building special cottages for their daughters, which serve the sole purpose of giving said daughters a place where to invite their, erm, friends.

Don't remember what these tribes were called and where exactly they're located, but I'm sure a bit of Google searching will find you some answers (saw a documentary about them on National Geographic Channel, a couple years ago).

Albul wrote:Eunuchs can still get horny after being castrated...

He said that behaviour is affected by our biology, which is correct.

Carpathia and Moldova wrote:

Albul wrote:Blasted idioms... I can't be fun if y'all are being too literal. What I meant by a bun in the oven is that the woman is pregnant... Women can't really expect to keep the fetus alive with the demanding physical labor needed to hunt.

Aye, but soon after she's given birth, a woman would be perfectly able to pick up a spear and go hunting, while the man, who happened to get maimed by an angry mammoth, stays at home to care for the children and prepare the meals.

Okay, now you are a little bit off here. Gender roles in tribal humans was absolutely necessary for the preservation of the species.

A woman is only capable of reproducing at a rate of 1 birth per year, in a general sense. They have a limited number of children they can produce per year.
However, a male can get a near unlimited number of women pregnant in a year, depending on how many times he can have sex.

So, say there is a tribe with fifty men and fifty women.

If no women OR men dies, you can have 50 births that year.
If no women die, but 40 men die, you can still have 50 births in that year.
However, if 40 women die, you can only have 10 births that year.
So it was imperative, during times where survival was most difficult, to keep women alive at all costs, meaning men were the ones who would have to do dangerous tasks while women needed to do safer tasks.

In modern times, we generally don't have to fight mammoths for food or reproduce quickly, so gender roles are no longer necessary.

Albul wrote:

The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:No, I'm saying that if you cut off a man's balls, obviously the lack of testosterone is going to affect behavior. That's a bit different from equating men from dogs, isn't it? Sure, reason is more powerful than hormones for (most) people, but hormones undoubtedly play a role.

Again...

Eunuchs can still get horny after being castrated...

Also, you may want to watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXAoG8vAyzI

This has nothing to do with sex drive, this has to do with aggression.

Albul wrote:

The Confederacy of Nationalism wrote:Well, I'm fairly certain that someone claimed that it would be possible to remove gender roles entirely, while keeping sexual reproduction.

A man keeps his penis and a woman keeps his vagina.

A "feminine" man would have no impact on the reproductive processes of a "masculine" woman.

The arousal mechanism for men and women is fucking complex.

In other words, you're right, I just wanted to add to it.