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 :)
First of all, drop that "gender" crap, that's drinking their kool-aid right there. Gender is a term from linguistics, and has nothing to do with sex. Masculine/feminine =/= male and female. Completely separate things (even if the former is based on the latter), as one can be masculine without being male, or feminine without being female (or even fucking alive.)
We used to say "Battle of the Sexes", not "Battle of the Genders". Jesus Christ, there was even a fucking TV game show called that for a while.
And yeah, of course there are differences. The two sexes are "meant" (as far as anything is "meant" to be) to complement one another. It's kind why things seem to work better if you have a partner to help.
The problem with the Left is that 1) they conflate other cultures with the West - the way they describe the past is really fucking distorted, and often sounds more like they're describing modern Muslim or recent pre-modern Chinese bullshit when it comes to how women were treated/property rights and shit (this is a result of their "all cultures ar ethe same" lying nonsense; and 2) Describe even the modern day as something like from a distorted version of the 1950s.
And as far as aggression goes, I recommend Konrad Lorenz's "On Aggression" and maybe a peek at Kipling's opinion of female aggression (ie, if we were kept out of men's counsels, it's because we're more likely to want to start a war over any perceived threat to us and our own than the menfolk. But that would be a function of not having to fight the war ourselves. Yeah, I think "equality" should include the draft. Maybe sometimes the female of the pair IS the one who should go. And keep in mind "aggression" doesn't just mean "naked hostility", it simply refers to being bold enough to get what you want. The bird who refuses to give way as you pass is being just as aggressive as a salesman with his foot in your door.)
Then you have them busybodying their way into how individual couples want to run their lives.
Oh, and Househusbands were always FROWNED UPON, and seen as MOOCHING OFF THEIR OL' LADIES. Oh, but find an old school man who wants to give you an earful about shiftless guys who wanna do that ...... and for that matter, the original Hound Dog by Big Mama Thornton had NOTHING to do with dogs and rabbits, it was about a lazy, shiftless bastard mooching off his woman. Because of COURSE he can't be making himself useful by cooking, cleaning, and running errands becauth hurr durr he's a man, durr.
The Left has simply made a business of TRASHING everything, without really wanting to "repair" anything, they're just all about change for the sake of change for to cause chaos. Also, they're too stupid to understand the difference between "legally equal" and "actually equal in terms of biology or physicality or intelligence or whatever". Yeah, there's a fucking difference. A retard might be equal to a normal human and better than a non-human under the law because it's just easier to treat an entire species that way, but it's certainly not the intellectually "better than" or superior to a higher-IQ non-human just because of its species membership, especially if its the sort that goes around pushing kids off balconies or in front of cars.
I don't think using the word gender means you're drinking their kool-aid. Maybe it's not the right word though, I'll grant you that. I think what they refer to as "gender" is essentially the brain processing things, sort of like a computer is running an operating system in the background - it's got an file system, it's got drivers, etc. There is something in the brain that has to load/run your identity, and part of that I think is gender identity. I also think there are parts of the brain that have to do with other forms of identity. Something in you handles "being a child" vs "being a teen" vs "being a parent". My view is more "Let's get very micro-level and see what pieces exist, what they're doing and how they're doing it"
I agree with 1) pretty heavily. Also reminds me of people who say there's nothing nothing more bullshit than "modern history" lol. 2) I agree with as well. I can't speak for the 50s, I wasn't there, and I can't speak to the 80s because I was basically a baby, but the 90s and 00s are crystal clear. Up until about 2012, things were damn near identical to the mid 90s from my point of view, at least culturally.
See, this is why I started this thread. No clue who that is, no idea of Kipling's view on female aggresion - and while I don't know who the first guy is or how is work, I think only a fool might not see the logic of what you described as Kipling's position - time to Google some interesting shit. There are also definitely times throughout history where the sexes were more split and had their own areas of influence, as odd as it might seem that men generally bowed out of what were considered "women's affaires" out of respect, like "Hey, we know our shit and and there's a reason we're not taking your advice on this." vs "Oh. Crap, you know about this stuff and I need sit back." Of course, that's a very positive rosy view of it and there was definitely some crazy as shit that far in the past, but I also think as society has improved, we tend to have better understanding of each others views, even in regards like the war stuff. But I don't think it's universal. Making me think quite a lot of some of the wives of the earliest US President's for example. And of course, I could be totally wrong too :) Thank you for sharing your view.
<I don't think using the word gender means you're drinking their kool-aid. Maybe it's not the right word though, I'll grant you that. I think what they refer to as "gender" is essentially the brain processing things, sort of like a computer is running an operating system in the background - it's got an file system, it's got drivers, etc. There is something in the brain that has to load/run your identity, and part of that I think is gender identity. I also think there are parts of the brain that have to do with other forms of identity. Something in you handles "being a child" vs "being a teen" vs "being a parent". My view is more "Let's get very micro-level and see what pieces exist, what they're doing and how they're doing it">
No, that's called INDIVIDUALISM. They want to turn every little personality quirk into a "disorder" and warp what were once seen as just part of each person being an individual with those expected little behavioural variations that give evolution its grist for the mill. A little slow? Nah, you're "on duh spectrum" so now entitled to have your ass kissed. :/
Thing is, the Left is informed by Eastern/Asian/Denisovan psychology, that seems to absolutely hate the concept of "The Individual" as a unit of society, and instead thinks in terms of groupism. Note that in Asian religious philosophy, the "individual" is fluid, and the end-game of existence is to eventually lose any semblance of individuality to become subsumed back into some barely-sentient cosmic blob or some shit, whereas in the West (and in animism) the individual is "fixed", even when amnesiac reincarnation is involved (ie, you were always "you" in some real sense, and will always be "you", whether in Heaven or another body as another species under another name.)
Konrad Lorenz was one of the first ethologists to actually have some respect for the animal mind, as opposed to the Skinnerites who followed that Descartes moron. A lot of what those old-school guys said about imprinting and pecking orders is actually projections of human behaviour ....
I think that's a bit too drastic a take. I can see your point, because obviously the left does what you say it does. It's how a large number of them behave, and there's very much something about the left that likes to "skip" the effort/work and reap the reward - i.e: Morbidly obese women who "won't be fat shamed, I'm beautiful and fuck you." They want to skip the effort, the weight loss, and just be accepted as beautiful and as sought after as the physically attractive women. It never occurs to those types "Huh, maybe I can admit that I'm not very attractive with this extra 150lbs, but I shouldn't mentally beat myself to death over it until I hate life, and I can work on it." They just want to go "Y'know what? I am beautiful and fuck all the fatphobes, let me surround myself with like minded people who will accept my beauty" - that's cray cray. But the key here is: don't blind yourself to whatever reality is/might be for people who have legitimate issues by mixing them in with the type we were just talking about.
Never heard this before, going to look into it before I speak to it. The only thing that it reminded me of was when I spent time in Japan, people were telling me that in the Japanese school system they had a preference of keeping the special needs children with the regular classes - it was more important for them to feel part of the group rather than have specific education that would be more of help to them. That was like 10+ years ago, and I don't know how true it is, but I can see that being important to them much more than it is the Westerners.