Originally Posted by dmz
Well, you're just going to have to get out more. Per modern psychology, gender roles are completely
a matter of personal choice. That's a far cry from "equality under the law."
"Modern psychology" notwithstanding, I am aware of a great deal of research that clearly describes sexual physiological differentiation.
"Gender roles", however, are somewhat more fraught, since any talk of roles inevitably involves public action. Are the performance of men and women in various walks of life largely, or even somewhat, determined by their gender? If so, are we supposed to be acknowledging this in our labor laws? How would that work, exactly?
One other thing -- your assumption that child rearing is demeaning "domestic chores, child raising and obedience," should be a warning flag -- classic Western narcissism/consumerism -- and exactly my point. You are not the things you own.
I don't see where I assumed anything about child rearing. My point involved limitations based on "natural" gender roles. No one is stopping a women from giving herself over to child rearing, if that is what she desires and is so situated. Personally, I think no one should stop her from running for president, if that is what she desires.
I'm mystified as to how that point amounts to some expression of "western narcissism" or imagining that "you are what you own", or as to how any of that is "exactly your point", whatever that may be.
As far as I can make out, you believe that there are "natural" (Godly?) gender roles that we have mucked about with at our peril.My
point is that in this, you are certainly in agreement with Islamic fundamentalists, who regard the independent status of women in the west to be an abomination. They, too, would argue that they do not despise women, but rather wish to see them attain their natural glory, within some rather proscribed arenas, as dictated by God.