Mate Griffon To Mare
Society loses out when gender roles are enforced, because forcing an individual into/out of a role they aren't skilled in/passionate about because of their gender causes society to lose a lot of talent.
That, and it's not just to deny an individual an opportunity because of an accident of birth.
"All pain is a punishment, and every punishment is inflicted for love as much as for justice." — Joseph De Maistre.
Unchanging Avatar.
Gender roles won long ago, Leigh. I'm not saying it's good or bad, just that society clearly worked better with gender roles than those societies missing them.
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Mate Griffon To Mare
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
How can you say that gender roles won when a contest hasn't really been staged? There are no historical examples of societies where people are truly free to be individuals irrespective of gender.
Unchanging Avatar.
So this conflict was resolved way back in prehistory.
Note that I don't advocate the use of gender roles, I'm not making any kind of ethical statement, or even saying gender roles are the most efficient for our modern society. I'm simply stating that a tribe with gender roles was clearly better than a tribe without, and so it's not accurate to say society loses out. These societies are clearly getting something in return.
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Mate Griffon To Mare
Maybe...Citation needed.
"All pain is a punishment, and every punishment is inflicted for love as much as for justice." — Joseph De Maistre.
Unchanging Avatar.
What?
Wait...
Oh, you're joking!
...Are you?
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Lv. 3 Genasi Wizard
Actually, this is very true and it's directly related to the fact that women could get pregnant, men couldn't. Therefore, men ran off and hunted, fought, and did the general violent stuff. Women had stick and tend to each other and the children to make sure for a next generation. This is also why males impregnate and females get pregnant, you'll only need one male at a time to keep the species going, making men more disposable and thus better for fighting.
Modern day... not so much.
The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.
Nihilist Hippie
"I'm not making any kind of ethical statement"
Seems kind of dubious.
"I'm simply stating that a tribe with gender roles was clearly better than a tribe without, and so it's not accurate to say society loses out. These societies are clearly getting something in return."
Aha, this sounds suspiciously normative. Also citations would be nice. Anyway, I think you are wrong. Take for example the agricultural revolution. Agricultural societies out-competed "primitives" because agriculture is just so vastly superior, right? Wrong. Agricultural societies had worse nutrition, more disease and starvation, more work, more social stratification... But it could support a larger population.
![[down]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_down.png "[down]"){kind=icon}
Did I say they didn't?
edited 14th Mar '11 5:35:01 PM by LoveHappiness
"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom
Unchanging Avatar.
Agriculture did outcompete hunter-gatherers. You just proved that yourself.
What seems dubious?
Oh, and I said citations seems silly because prehistory, by definition, doesn't have a lot of proof written down. We don't know much about what was going on. Actually, that's what what I've been looking at confirmed. Look at it this way.
- Evolution of man, no real society
- Tribal Stage, gender roles emerge
- Late Prehistory-Modern Day, gender roles exist
That seems pretty simple to me.
edited 14th Mar '11 5:35:46 PM by Ultrayellow
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
The Joke-Master
Where are you getting your numbers on agricultural societies having more disease and starvation?
Unchanging Avatar.
, I'm just going to start a new post.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. If agriculture outcompeted simpler methods, how is it not more successful? Sure, it's not necessarily as nice for the people who make it up, but the system is more efficient.
edited 14th Mar '11 5:42:04 PM by Ultrayellow
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Nihilist Hippie
"There are several reasons why early farmers paid a high price for their newfound food-getting strategy. First, foragers generally had a better balanced diet (composed of both plants and animal proteins) than did early farmers, who were often limited to one or several starchy crops. Second, if early farmers were dependent on a small number of crops, they ran the risk of serious malnutrition or even starvation if the crops should fail. And finally, the increased population densities caused by the neolithic revolution brought people into greater contact with one another and consequently made everyone more susceptible to both parasitic and infectious diseases."
Woo, lot of typing.
"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom
Nemesis
@Ultrayellow, that sounds like an oversimplified evo-psych explanation to me.
It also fails to show relevance to the present day.
A brighter future for a darker age.
Nihilist Hippie
"I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. If agriculture outcompeted simpler methods, how is it not more successful? Sure, it's not necessarily as nice for the people who make it up, but the system is more efficient."
No. It was more successful only in that it could support a larger population. Population growth, that's it. It was not more efficient for meeting people's needs. Though it was more "efficient" in that it could support a larger if crappier population.
"in that there aren't many hunter-gatherers left anymore"
You're forgetting how small the human population was before agriculture.
edited 14th Mar '11 6:10:55 PM by LoveHappiness
"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom
Gristknife
They might not be better but they appear to have won. Plus the hunter gathere societies that survive, while they're not really like us in terms of Gender, do have clearly defined roles. Not as rigid as in the West, but they're there. And no, I can't cite it yet because A. This ain't wikipedia, and B. I'll need a minute to dig up the National Geographic article on them.
Man, a gender topic starting off with a statement of being bugged? This brings me back...
Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.
Unchanging Avatar.
It was more successful, in that there aren't many hunter-gatherers left anymore.
@Morven: Well, that's not very specific. What sounds oversimplified to you? And no, it's not particularly relevant to the present day, unless anyone here is a hunter-gatherer (in which case oppress your women if you want to up your reproductive chances) but I felt it was worth pointing out. Sorry if you don't like where I took this discussion. Feel free to re-rail, though I think I'm still on-topic.
edited 14th Mar '11 6:12:08 PM by Ultrayellow
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Gristknife
Unchanging Avatar.
Hey, I read that!
Unchanging Avatar.
@Love Happiness: Stop that! I notice partway through, and have to edit or make a new post.
Then agriculture wins by percentages or ratios.
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Gristknife
Has a gender topic really died out this quickly? Back in my day...
Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.
Unchanging Avatar.
I guess the times they are a-changin' Joe. We tropers are just dust in the wind.
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Gristknife
Probably for the best. But I'll carry the memories, and regale the youth.
Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.
Why are you acting disappointed about that? It's a good thing.
While I don't approve of gender roles occupationally, I do approve of them socially to a degree. On a scale of 1-10, I hate girly men on like a 12.
I miss IJBM. If they got rid of OTC, I'd probably leave. Yack Fest is just a big hugbox. :(
edited 14th Mar '11 8:33:25 PM by Barkey
That, and it's not just to deny an individual an opportunity because of an accident of birth.
There are signs of OTC being deleted? (shudders)
Maybe It Just Bugs Me!, but I just don't like how it seems something as random as gender determines so much of what's 'right' social behavior, and of course the ever-present Double Standards. Of course, its hard to tell how much of this is stereotypes, because practically from birth we're given roles based on our gender, and they're reinforced until almost second nature.