Warning: Trying to start some discussion, so wrote up a lot. If it's not your bag, or you don't care about the subject of gender or sex differences outside of calling out bullshit from the left's ever-evolving bonkers theories, probably not for you :)
One of the things the left loves to do is "Starting discussions". You can find it on who knows how many topics. But what it almost always has in common is they're not "starting a discussion" so much as stating "Here's the discussion, here's the only acceptable opinion and if you don't agree you're a <bigot/racist/homophobe/etc>."
As a result, it essentially stalls out pretty much any progress on those actual topics, whatever they may be. But obviously gender is one of the big ones, and seeing as the left can't shut down a conversation here, seems a good place to have an actual discussion on the topic of gender.
For me, to start with I see men and women as falling under "equal, but different". We're about 90% the same, 10% different. In that 10% different though you've got biological factors, psychological factors and sociological factors. Those differences matter sometimes, and in others are really not too important at all.
I also see gender roles as things developed over time that tend to smooth out relations between men and women. General guidelines that if you follow them relatively closely remove a lot of friction. At the same time, they're not perfect by a long shit because people are actually diverse - meaning, men on average are more aggressive than woman, but it's not by a huge margin: about 60/40. A more aggressive woman paired with a less aggressive man might both find typical gender roles to chafe and be frustrating for example.
That said, they're just guidelines that have worked out well for people. My hot take here is that people want things to go smoothly and to not have to think too hard about it and this applies to both men and women. We want relationships to just sort of settle into place rather than discussing things to a great degree, or being pedantic or annoying about it. A natural flow rather than a well designed one. Either way can work, but one tends to require more time, effort and energy and rarely supersedes the natural flow. At least, that's my feel from my own life and that of closer personal friends.
But I also think a deeper look is rather important when dealing with the opposite sex. It's not the most original take, but flipping the gender of someone and trying to perceive how you'd react to them if that were the case is often at the least an interesting mind game. For example, feminists would likely say something like "Tulsi Gabbard would've had more success and be taken more seriously if she had been a man - women are treated differently in politics, and not in a good way." Is that really true? If she were instead "Bob Gabbard", a balding but fairly athletic middle aged guy from Hawaii, but with the same opinions would you have had more respect for her? Or would she have come off as kind of decent, but generic candidate?
I think swapping someone's sex and trying to view them differently - if you can do so relatively fairly and with little bias - is probably one of the better ways of trying to understand people and it works well with both sexes. Guys who have wildly inflated opinions of a woman can end up cringing when the cute, bubbly edgy girl they are into are viewed as an edgy, emotional guy who likes some of the absolutely worst music. At the same time, the more busy woman, the one who works part time, goes to school full time, and is constantly helping out with her parents, her siblings, being that friend who's picking people up at the airport at 12:30AM, looks way more attractive.
Equally, the same is true of looking at other guys in not to deep a light. A male co-worker who's kind of negative, always looks worn down and never misses a moment to vent about shit. He's married, a couple kids, and just looks worn out and tired all the time - has to travel pretty far for work, because a home is cheaper further away and he wants his kids to have separate bedrooms. Pretty normal for a guy, not rare at all. Flip that around to a woman though, keep the story the same, and given the current cultural and gender situation, that woman is amazing, she never calls out sick, she's working hard for her kids, etc. Makes you appreciate the individual more.
At least, this is generically how I saw things when I was in my mid twenties, and even in my late twenties - I was pretty heavily influenced by mostly leftist talking points and media without thinking about things much. Guy, whatever, meh, shitty, at best maybe OK - woman, doing the same thing? Unbelievable, amazing, praise. So my views on men and women have shifted the further away I got from leftist talking points about these things - and shockingly found that the right-wing people I met were MUCH better at being judges of character and treating people better in general - those they looked down on, they had some good reasons for looking down on, and those they spoke well of, they had reason to speak well of them. But I feel all of this is sort of lost on people who just default to "Well, left is the good guys, and I agree with wanting women to have rights and stuff" - it avoids critical thinking and let's the left control the discussion that they start.
Of course, there's plenty of other sex/gender stuff to talk about, but this one was interesting to me and I was hoping to stir up some discussion on it :)
I have no idea why this question is on KIA2 or what relevance does it have but I'll bite.
It was not to "smooth out relations", gender roles are natural across species. It was the most efficient way to evolve to current day. Gender roles also have a biological component that if you ignore you can be miserable. I'm not advocating for enforcing gender roles or that they are universal to all people. But if you say to people that the gender roles are evil, a product of patriarchy or toxic then you will end up with depressed single man and barren single 40 year old women, bitter and hating man for not liking their dried out pussy.
I'm not sure about this statistic but if true that is a huge difference. Think of the DNA difference between man and apes.
This is not true. All evidence point to women having it easier. The "women are wonderful effect", hiring biases and my own anecdotal life experience all point to women being greatly favored.
My conclusion is the differences are larger then feminists claim and going against biology hurts both men and women. Feminists are evil beyond comprehension and are ruining the quality of life for everyone. Today feminists are the equivalent of religious extremists. They want men to be weak and emotional and supportive 100% of their crazy ass ideas while women should be strong independent and without children. Anyone who does not fit in to this are heretics.
We must stop feminists to set the rules for human interactions.
Mostly because you get banned in a lot of places for even posting that, and I know there are people here who like to talk about gender more than just shitting on the left, and have thoughts on the subject. I haven't heard those thoughts, so I figured I'd try :)
I don't disagree that gender roles have a biological component. But the specific set of standards we have generally have now didn't pop up out of no where, and they've changed over time. I'm fine with saying they're biologically based, but the way we discuss them, talk about them, and so on - they feel like they smooth out relations between the sexes. We're similar, not identical, and sometimes it's difficult to put yourself in the other genders' shoes - if it weren't, I think relationships would be a lot easier. In that regard, I think they're used to smoothing out relations, to have certain understandings and expectations to hew to. But yeah, I agree with the rest, that is how you end up with a whole mess of depressed and unhappy people on both sides, it's very, very bad.
I don't think it's statistically true, but it's how I view it: the 10% difference compromises biology, psychology and sociology. I don't know how much of each (i.e: 1% biologically different, 4% psychologically different, 5% sociologically different). The biological differences tend to be obvious to the eye, but also hormonal differences can certainly affect psychology (i.e: if women are more emotional than men on average, I can see that having strong psychological effects, especially during childhood). And socially, how we're treated affects us as well. I think those three components make up the important differences. The rest is basically the same. (i.e: desire for attention, love, sex, meaning, and so on.)
Right now, I'd agree overall, but certainly not in all aspects. I've definitely seen those hiring and promotion biases in my own workplace experiences, and a lot of people won't shut up about it privately. But I'm talking more specifically on an individual level, using my example: Would you favor Tulsi Gabbard more if she were a balding, articulate, fit man with the same ideas? Or do you find you favor her more as is?
I think the differences are also larger than feminists claim on average - and I do want to be specific when I say "feminists". I don't mind the person who knows a little bit of feminist propaganda and thinks they're stunning and brave for announcing "Woman should be equal!". Those people can become "actual" feminists, but the actual feminists like Roxanne Gay or Susanna Danuta Walters and so on - they are exactly what you describe, and they've got a larger growing army of indoctrinate fools. They are damaging to society - but we also live in a free society where people can make truly awful choices that aren't illegal. Consequence of freedom is people use it poorly.
Little disagreement, but not much. I have no desire to stop Christina Hoff Sommers - she's rational, does good work, and fights the other feminists. I guess the argument there would be she's not exactly a "feminist" as you describe it - rather, I see her as a healthy feminist, or maybe another term would be better. She's aware of the problems young boys are having these days, has talked about them extensively, speaks up on the issue. She has no problem doing the same for girls though if there's valid cause. In the end, she seems more like an individualist who is rational than a feminist.
Not really. A reason why Tulsi has bipartisan support is that she is a good looking women. Same reason for AOC, while I think she has the mouth of a horse, she seems to be appealing to a lot of guys.
It falls under women are wonderful. Women like this characters cause they support other women while men defend them cause they like women.