It isn't social inequality when it's a personal choice.
Do most Christians choose to be Christians? Do most racists choose to be racist? Are these personal choices or the product of years of social conditioning?
Not gonna touch that analogy. Not with a ten foot pole! The point is that you can't claim women are being discriminated against in the workplace when they're being given the same opportunities and being paid equally for their work. The pay gap is a result of women choosing lower-paying fields of work and interruptions due to parental responsibilities. You can cry all you want about life not being fair and yada yada, but you can't call that a form of discrimination. It is a direct result of independent behavior, and unless someone's holding a gun to these women's heads and forcing them to make these decisions, you have no grounds for complaint. Can the numbers look bad, when casually analyzed by an uninformed observer, or one looking to prove injustice? Sure they can. Is there an injustice actually taking place? Of course not. What we are talking about is the aggregate results of individuals making rational decisions based on their own personal circumstances.
The woman has a choice whether to have the child, and with whom, and to accept the inherent responsibilities.The first two yes, the third point, no. Women don't have that choice, the responsibility is forced upon them by society. You can't simply say she needs to find a better man because men simply aren't raised to take that responsibility, so the ones who are willing are few and far between. Having a family is not solely the woman's choice and should not be solely her responsibility.
I'm not following you at all. You're criticizing people's own personal decisions of how they choose to raise their families. Whether you're happy with their decisions or not, it's still a choice. How many housewives will tell you they were coerced into raising children? I take it they're all "brainwashed?" They couldn't possibly be doing what they want to be doing with their own lives!
It is only condescending if it isn't true. Women are typically not given a choice. While the feminist movement will applaud career minded women, society still places a heavy emphasis on the housewife stereotype. Women are forced to choose between family and career, men are not.
Truth has nothing to do with tone. Women are in control of their own lives, and I don't follow from what you wrote where it is that women are forced to do anything. Yes, parenting responsibilities do tend to fall disproportionately on mothers, but that doesn't need to be the case. That's a management decision, to be decided within the family (assuming that it is a two-parent household). A woman can choose to take off a year or two from work to raise her infant, but she doesn't have to. Many women have children and still lead stellar careers, but others reevaluate their priorities after they've had children. None of this has anything to do with sexism or with coercion.
First of all, primitive societies aren't "nature" in any unique way which distinguishes them from modern societies.No, but it does support the idea that women are not biologically wired to be the sole caretakers of their children. It is a product of society.
Actually, it doesn't support that conclusion at all. It is an example of adaptation within a social group. This has nothing to do with "nature," but "nature" needs to be in quotes, because humans are by nature social animals. Society for humans is not unnatural (or for other primates for that matter), and you can't cherry-pick one weakly-agreeable example while ignoring all the others which plainly disagree with you. Look at all the other primates, and all of the civilizations which originated independently of each other, and all ended up with the same gender roles.
The problem with your argument here is that advances in technology gave EVERYONE safer roles to play.
That isn't the problem
with my argument; it's the whole point of it.
You described the way humans behave in an extreme and uncommon circumstance and attempted to extrapolate that as being indicative of human nature in general. I pointed out that, while humans will do whatever is necessary to survive in extreme circumstances, once they've established an actual civilization (their habitat), they fall into the same patterns of gender roles. While I'm sure there's an exception to this pattern out there somewhere, for the most part it's been universally true throughout a myriad of different civilizations.
There was no need to shelter women with that change (and quite frankly, many early civilizations did in fact have women help in the fields).
Actually, I specifically alluded to the fact that as soon as crop cultivation became available, the women would be put to work in the fields. I don't even know why you pointed this out, as it does nothing to help your argument, but it wasn't even a point of disagreement to begin with. Women have always worked in one way or another to help support the household.
Today, there is definitely no need to shelter women in this way. Jobs don't carry the risks they did in prehistoric times, most women don't have to worry about stampeding mastadons or saber tooth tigers at the office. It is a relic passed down from centuries of mysogyny and serves no practical purpose in modern society.
Who's sheltering? Where do you get this stuff? Women are encouraged
to go out there and get their educations, and get good jobs. They've achieved near-parity with males in the workforce and outnumber men in colleges by 40 percent. What jobs are women being dissuaded from pursuing? Society applauds women who work dangerous or demanding jobs. Where do you get this notion that women are being sheltered?
If you can raise men and women to take on opposing roles to what society considers the norm, then the determining factor is not biology. If we had a biological reason for taking on certain roles, that would overpower any social conditioning, but that simply doesn't happen. There are women who still strive for lofty career goals and there are men who lack ambition and prefer to just stay at home with their kids. Why is biology not kicking in for them?
Like that racism analogy from earlier, this isn't even an argument; it's just you cynically poking barbs. Of course people, like all other animals, can be conditioned to do things the wouldn't normally do, and of course some exceptional people will behave in unusual ways. This proves nothing, and you already knew that. At least I hope you did.
Only if nurturing behavior is a purely social construct and not a biological trait. We don't have to encourage people to eat, drink, or breath. They will do it naturally on their own because they are hard wired to understand when they are hungry, thirsty or out of breath.
Another very poor analogy. Obviously maternal instincts are not as automatic as eating and breathing, and no one here or anywhere else has said as much. You CAN condition people to assume roles they were not predisposed to. You CAN redirect a person's natural biological inclinations toward something else. This is not proof the biological trait does not exist; only proof that it can been suppressed.
For further evidence that this is not a biological trait, Timothy Biblarz and Judith Stacey performed a wide study on gay, lesbian, and bi families that also looked at straight and single parent families. They found no evidence of gender based parenting abilities with the exception of lactation. They also presented pretty strong evidence that children adopt roles in society based on how they are raised and not their gender. For instance, girls raised by lesbian couples are far more likely to set career goals in fields and positions more commonly thought of as "male-oriented" since their parents don't shoe-horn them into a particular gender stereotype.
When did I ever say that men can't be good parents? In fact, I'm pretty sure I specifically said men CAN be just as good as women at raising children (I even mentioned the lactating thing). Why are you repeating my own statements back to me as if you're saying something new? This has nothing to do with anything. And again, showing that children can be raised to accept non-traditional gender roles is neither something I deny (and in fact, again, it's something I've already said), nor is it relevant to whether women are socially discriminated against, nor is it evidence that gender roles are not inherent, as I've already pointed out. On the other hand, the evidence both from the example of human history and the rest of the animal kingdom all points very strongly in the other direction. It's not even a contest.
You've pointed out numerous times that we humans are not beholden to our naturally-occurring parental roles. That's true, we can change them. But the fact that these are naturally-occurring patterns tells you that they are not an artificial barrier created by human society. You say this is something society needs to address. I disagree, this isn't a problem for society. Society's doing just fine. It only appears to be a problem on paper, and is in fact the aggregate outcome of free people making rational decisions. This is what's wrong with social crusades: they don't know how to die gracefully. There was a time when women's rights actually were being trampled, and there were noble battles to be fought. But this nonsense we're seeing today, people looking for "black holes" in income statistics and crying about society promoting domestic stereotypes, it's a farce. It's an attempt to leech off the credibility of an honorable cause in order to push social engineering. I'm not impressed, and I'm not fooled. Youâ€™re no Sue B. Anthony. None of your righteous indignation gives you the right to criticize---- or worse, meddle with--- the way other people choose to live their lives and manage their families.