First of all, I have to declare I am not a sexist. I think both (or more correctly every) gender should have equal rights, and should be treated equally.
I am going to talk about a very sensitive topic, and in some way I am going to criticize feminism.
But if you read this carefully, you will notice I am saying this to realize gender equality.
This is a problem to overcome to achieve gender equality.
OK. Let's get into it. (It's going to be a long one, but I would appreciate it if you read even just a little.)
Have you ever watched Emma Watson's speech in the UN?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkjW9PZBRfk
In summary, she said both men and women should be able to act as they like regardless of gender, so men can be feminine and women can be manly. And consequently,(she thinks) we can reclaim ourselves.
I agree with it somehow. I wish it were possible right now.
To get out of gender role, perchance not to be loved. Ay, there's the rub.
For such behavior, what consequences may come
When we shuffled off this acceptable properties,
Must give us pause. There's the respect
That makes calamity of so painful life.
Well, Let me explain. The problem is that they might be at disadvantage by acting as they like.
For example, imagine an unmanly man who is ambitionless, boney, cowardly, weak, and always negative.
Do you want to hang out with him? Very few people would say "Yes."
How about an manly man who is ambitious, buff, brave, strong, and always positive?
Yes, he is attractive. Many of manliness are preferable for most people.
This is kind of extreme example, but I think you got the idea.
Same goes about femininity. Many of femininity is preferable.
Getting out of gender role means becoming unattractive in this world. Many people including her misunderstand that one would have the other gender role if one got out of gender role, which means women would become like men and vice versa. Getting out of gender role means to lose super-useful advantages, not acquiring true self.
Getting out of gender role is not switching gender role.
What's the problem with it? The problem is ,simply put, who would marry them?
If you want to be loved, you have to be attractive.
Encouraging getting out of gender role in this situation is no different than encouraging quitting work without enough social security. Those who got out of gender role would lose their opportunity to be loved.
All right. Then, how about teaching everyone to not discriminate people who got out of gender role?
It sounds effective to some degree, but it won't solve the problem in the slightest. It is because they won't love them even though they don't hate them.
Ask Emma Watson what sort of person is her type. She would not answer it is that unmanly guy.
We cannot force someone to love those unattractive people. It is also infringement of human rights. But we cannot force everybody to be bound to gender role as well.
I don't want to say to anyone "You can just get out of gender role. You won't be loved by anyone, though."
How can you possibly solve the problem. Let me know in the comment.
Thank you very very much for reading this post. If you like this post let me know by clicking the button below. It will motivate me so much. Let me know your thought in the comment. I would happily read your criticism.
You're right about that being different than the majority can lead to loneliness. But it's not only a matter of gender roles etc. It concerns almost every other thing as well. For instance - if all my schoolmates watch only mainstream series and listen to mainstream music while I don't... as we don't have many common topics I'm not as 'attractive' to them as other people. So should I start watching things I don't like just to know what they're talking about and make friends with them or look for other people who share my interests? So, in my opinion, the question to pose is - do I want to be like others despite of myself or do I want to be like myself despite of them? And I'm sure there would be lots of very different answers because everybody has different priorities in their lives :)
Hi, I understand your point to an extent however, I am having difficulty understanding if it is about "gender equality" or "gender roles" I think more research has to be done on this topic (however, it does look more from an opinion rather than trying to tackle fact) gender roles are institutionally determined and have changed throughout time due to the needs of that time. In traditional societies (societies that are not "developed") both men and women shared the roles as in they both did the same jobs however, through the development of society when people started to settle rather than continuing to be nomads they needed to put measures in place to safeguard their property and the land they "claimed" as well as ensure the children are taken care of, it is no different from how the whole concept of marriage (monogamy also) came to be; it was just a contract to safeguard their heirs and used as a way to legitimise their children.
Throughout the years, society has redefined the gender roles and tried to find "reasonable" explanations to justify why women should do certain roles, making it an issue of being biologically inferior and other rhetoric however, due to the progression of society, the roles of each gender, daily activities and the food consumed evolution has also taken effect, women are now developing in a much more different way from before, so now in terms of stature and body make-up for the most part, it seems like women are incapable until they start training and utilising more muscles than before.
Gender roles actually safeguard males perception of masculinity so that they can feel like they have a purpose however in looking at the statistics of today, men are not getting educated or working high-paying jobs, it's now the women who are the breadwinners and are in economic positions of power however, through using the rhetoric of gender role, many men try to belittle the efforts and survival instincts of women by making it into a social issue instead of going to work and actively participating.
Likening gender roles to "beauty standards" or what it means to be "attractive" needs to be weighed against many factors ie the culture and time of the society because even during the World wars when women had to start working since the men were out to war didn't stop them from being desirable only when the men came back and felt they no longer had a place in society because the women had to become self-sufficient.
So the argument really has nothing to do with attractiveness but the desire of a gender to feel needed.
Men have no problem being with unattractive women and vice versa, it isn't as simple as that because beauty/ attractiveness is subjective.
I agree that someone who steps out of traditional gender roles may have to deal with rejection by some people (however those are not the kind of people I'd want to be friends with anyway - to me this kind of mindset is what makes someone unattractive). But I think we disagree even about what male and female stereotypes even are. For example, being positive/optimistic or negative/pessimistic in my opinion has nothing to do with it at all. Ambitious, brave and strong - I think the issue is that men are traditionally exected to ALWAYS be like that, and when people talk about stepping out of gender stereotypes, they don't mean becoming the opposite, they just mean being free to express the opposite side of their personality as well (e.g. men should be allowed to show emotions, to cry when they feel sad, to be gentle, to look after their children, ...). To me, in both genders, either extreme is unattractive. Some who always acts tough and strong and is overly ambitious would seem insensitive and reckless to me. I think the ideal is somewhere in the middle.
Zuza (@cptkidd62)
Thank you very much for the comment!!! Yes, it's the problem we can find in so many other things. What I wanted to say is that some say they admit diversity without even care about the current situations. If we really try to encourage diverse lifestyles we have to deal with or at least think about powers to restrict individuals.
Kristen (@Kr15t3n) Thank you very much for the correction and comment! Firstly, as for the title, I meant equality of liberty, so it might be more suitable. Secondly, I'm really sorry but I didn't understand the second paragraph especially this part " women are now developing in a much more different way from before, so now in terms of stature and body make-up for the most part, it seems like women are incapable until they start training and utilising more muscles than before." I thought you are saying that due to the progression of society, women started needing weight training. But I guess I'm understanding wrong. Thirdly, I didn't know that nowadays men are neither educated nor working high-paid-jobs and women are the breadwinners. I think you were talking about the fact in the US (because it is opposite in Japan). I couldn't find the source, so I was wondering if you could give it to me. I am very interested. Fourthly, The fact that beauty is subjective has nothing to do with this subject at all. It is because even if beauty is subjective, it still exists. Beauty standards can be varied, but NOW many people think unmanly men as unattractive. The problem is that saying you are free is meaningless if you would be at disadvantage by being free. By "Men have no problem being with unattractive women and vice versa", you are talking about possibility. But I'm talking about probability
@ManeskinQueen Thank you for your comment. Firstly, as for whether positivity is part of manliness, I'm not sure, so you can delete it if you like. It is not the most important thing in this context. Secondly, I am not talking about rejection. I'm talking about lack of affection from someone. Thirdly, such extremely manly or unmanly guys are just examples. It doesn't matter if you like them or not. I, intentionally, used the examples to make it easier to understand. Fourthly, you wrote " I think the issue is that men are traditionally exected to ALWAYS be like that" so do you think man don't have to be always manly, but man should SOMETIMES be manly . You are just rejecting both extremely manly and unmanly people. What I'm saying is all people should be loved regardless of their manliness or femininity. Furthermore, you are making the same mistake I mentioned earlier in the post. All of your examples " men should be allowed to show emotions, to cry when they feel sad, to be gentle, to look after their children, ..." are not unmanliness. They are all femininity. Getting them is not getting out of gender role, It is just swapping gender roles. Many people are confusing those two, but they are different things albeit very similar.
@SeanOhasi In my comment I was talking about evolution of people. Women are now due to the development of society, prescribed gender roles, diet as well as other environmental factors have changed in how they look in modern-day. So they no longer physically look as capable of certain tasks as they did before.
In terms of talking about male unemployment and education that refers to "Male Marginalisation" theory which I think you can use in order to better understand the current gender paradigm. The difference for much of America, Europe and The Caribbean from Asian countries is the difference between how "capitalism" functions and if it even does. Therefore, it is also what type and how the economy functions, as well as the culture and values of the society/ societies that need to be analysed when talking about social problems.
As I don't want to influence your opinion I will just give you the broad theories of some concepts I think would be helpful, if you do want to keep reading about this topic:
You can do some research on the psychological/ sociological definitions of "gender" and "sex" as nowadays there is a difference between these two concepts and therefore a basic dictionary definition would not be suitable in this context.
Conflict Perspective of Gender Roles and the Functionalist theory. As well as look at the history and development of families and move on to reading about "primary" and "secondary" socialisation.
Male marginalisation as mentioned before Evolution theories
If you are using "attractiveness" metaphorically then apologies because I did not quite get to that conclusion with the statements you were making because saying "The problem, simply put, who would marry them. If you want to be loved, you have to be attractive" has not been clarified or substantiated by much, therefore, causing confusion.
Values of today have changed exponentially, think for instance "Sugar daddies and Sugar mamas". Many people of today are coupling for ulterior motives rather than love as well as strictly because some is physically attractive now more than ever.
In cases where from a physical or beauty standards point of view they are considered "unattractive/ugly" , they are in fact able to provide a lot more for their partner the things that they value more, therefore being "attractive" (not from a beauty standard perspective). If you also check out Social Interactionism Theory as well as symbolism, I think it will help. I quite frankly find that perspective to be most interesting and illuminating.
Women of today and people in general in fact don't have a problem with being with "unmanly" men, when you analyse most of the traits of men, it has been classified as "toxic masculinity", and in understanding the statistics of modern thought you would see that most women are rejecting "toxic masculinity" and many men are also trying to break from that stereotype and given gender role.
This argument is quite complex as it is an argument that has many "tentacles" that have not been navigated. And much of your thoughts need further fleshing out. Gender roles is about so much more than merely what men and females do, it also has to do with the politics surrounding gender which from your opinion, doesn't seem to be something that you expressed.
Labelling theory, also jumps out to me a lot as in all reality "gender roles" was indeed a socio-political movement and an attempt to continue to enforce patriarchal ideals. The significance of "identifying/ labelling" an individual as anything has a lasting impression, therefore creating stigma, I say this as, no behaviour can be given a gender.
If gender roles were so fixed then how would it function in same-sex couples? Gender roles are therefore, what humans have created for their own personal development and benefit.
Based on your comments, I am also realising that much of what you wrote is not properly expressing your opinion and so there is quite a divide, hopefully when and if you can; you will be able to update this text to help further readers.
I think in topics like these, you should definitely express exactly and everything you mean to prevent confusion, offer definitions (whether personal or factual) to provide context to your argument so even if people don't agree, they at least understand what perspective you are coming from and how you got there :)
Kristen (@Kr15t3n) Very interesting. Thank you!