Will society ever return to gender roles?

People always put it on women. I think you fail to realize the sheer magnitude of men that don't want a traditional lifestyle. They want to make money and fuck as many girls as they can. Attractive, healthy men do not want to settle down until their thirties, same as most attractive women.

Gender roles are mostly arbitrary and malleable. For some reason this board likes to LARP and fantasise about a time that never existed. For all the appeal to "human nature", most tribes and hunter gatherers are very egalitarian.

>think you fail to realize the sheer magnitude of men that don't want a traditional lifestyle

Boy, I wonder why. Not like they died in the millions fighting in wars as cannon fodder for kings, priests and politicians or anything.

Do you see anyone yearning for the days of tribes on here? We want pic related.

>Chad=men

>We want pic related.

That didn't exist for the vast majority of people. Working class women have always worked. My great-grandmothers and grandmothers all worked into their 50s. Every woman I know works or worked. The rosy image of a housewife was a fleeting myth for a few middle class white Westerners in the early-mid 20th century. Even if women didn't have jobs in the strict sense they were still relied upon to do unpaid labour at home.

>unpaid labor at home

You mean being a housewife...? The thing we want women to be?

> They want to make money and fuck as many girls as they can. Attractive, healthy men do not want to settle down until their thirties, same as most attractive women.
Interestingly this is how marriage in Ancient Athenes was. For men. Ideal age for first marriage was considered 25-30 for men. And 13-16 for girls. Adultery as punished by death but whorehouses were abundant and state funded. So
> They want to make money and fuck as many girls as they can.

No labour should be unpaid. It's inherently exploitative. Not everyone wants women to be that. Certainly not most women.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_burden

>Working class women have always worked.
Learn some facts M8.
>Chart 1. Labor Force Participation Rates of Men and Women, 1890-1990

"married white women" is a rather narrow category. perhaps someone should've shown that graph to slaves and indentured servants.

Dear stupid cunt that made this thread.
An hero.
If you have a dick you are male.
If not. Sorry you got shafted. Heh heh.

after SHTF ;^)

hopefully not to those, because hitler had a lot of things wrong.

We still have gender roles, and we always will do.

A few degenerate gays don't change the fact that men and women act differently, have different social standards to live up to, different expectations of them, etc.

Men and women dress differently. We act differently around our friends. We have different haircuts. Women wear makeup and men don't. Women shave their legs, men only shave their faces.

You can't destroy gender roles. It's impossible because of human nature. They will always exist. They might CHANGE, sure. But the separation will always exist because men and women are biologically different.

found the marxist

>"married white women" is a rather narrow category
This is literally category from that pic which authenticity we discus.

>potato farming society
>live longer
wha?

>Men and women dress differently. We act differently around our friends. We have different haircuts. Women wear makeup and men don't. Women shave their legs, men only shave their faces.

Literally all of those things are social constructs and none of them are true any more. Go outside once in a while, You might see a woman with short hair and a man with long hair. Shocking, I know.

How astute.

>unpaid labour

What, like house chores? Omg how oppressive.

GTFO commie shill

Kys Marxist faggot.

Cleaners and cooks get paid. It's a social task and a necessity for any orderly society. Relegating it to the private sphere of home just lumps the burden of women for nothing in return.

Nah

When capitalism ends.

How about getting taken care of by your husband? Do you not know what separate spheres is?

I want leftypol to go

I cook and clean in my home. Where's my paycheck Ivan?

>Literally all of those things are social constructs and none of them are true any more. Go outside once in a while, You might see a woman with short hair and a man with long hair. Shocking, I know.

Except they literally are true because the vast majority of men have masculine hair style (short hair, sometimes long but still masculine, and sometimes with beards) and the vast majority of women have feminine hair styles (usually long hair, in feminine styles like fully straightened)

You're the one that's never been outside champ

Please stop. You're embarrassing us.

They get paid a portion of their husband's income and don't pay the bills. Fuck off marxist.

waaah

Separate spheres do not exist. People should do what they're good at. Not what arbitrary gender roles say.

Rest assured in a post-capitalist society you'd be compensated for it. Perhaps in the form of a social wage, or a basic income.

Again, that's just a modern Western thing. Until the 19th century most men had long hair. It's more fashion trends than anything else. There's no particularly reason behind hair length.

>Men and women dress differently.
Yet acceptable dress codes constantly change. A man in a dress would be ridiculed today, yet ancient Romans considered pants barbarian. High heels are considered quintessentially feminine nowadays, but in fact were invented for men - the same men who were expected to fight in wars and duel over most petty things.

>We have different haircuts.
Another volatile trend rather than nature. Up to 19th century, men in many cultures also wore their hair long - in fact, it was often considered a sign of rugged masculinity. Buzz cuts as a male standard only came to be with an advent of prolonged warfare between conscripted armies (think WWI).

>Women wear makeup and men don't. Women shave their legs, men only shave their faces.

Makeup was considered degenerate and a sign of promiscuity in Middle Ages, while XVII-century male aristocrats used it. Women shaving their legs is basically a 20th century trend.

You may be right on gender differences being natural, but examples you provided are all social constructs at best, volatile trends at worst.

once you remove shit like junk food, pollution and terrorism you live longer

They don't get "paid" by the husband. They should pay the bills and do their share of the work. Men are burdened too, since under this ideal "traditional" society they'd be doing all the work and forced into something they might not be suited for.

>"arbitrary" gender roles
You mean the separate preferences and behaviors that people naturally have and develop from birth on the basis of their brain structure and hormone levels, as determined by their biological sex?

>I think you fail to realize the sheer magnitude of men that don't want a traditional lifestyle. They want to make money and fuck as many girls as they can
That's a traditional male role, mate.

Good post Polebro.

What kind of Nu-Male are you anyway?

What do you think about Leftism being completely unsustainable on the internet without moderation and censorship to preserve it?

Except that it's not "Natural" in any way. Humans are extremely good at responding to social change. Boys today might "prefer" blue but go back just 90 years (maybe in your grandparent's lifetime) and it was regarded as a female colour. Different hormone levels do not mean that a boy can't be a cook, or that a woman can't work in a factory.

>What do women have left to do in our society besides raise children?
They're pretty shit at raising children so they really have no purpose anymore other than to serve as comfort women.

It has to. We don't have any choice. It's our job.

Not sure I see your point. I'm more than happy to debate with those who differ from my views. I've no time for people that just spam "kys cuck" etc. Any actual leftist ideas being spouted IRL, such as calling for the abolition of inheritance, private property and the wages system would be quickly censored.

>Rest assured in a post-capitalist society you'd be compensated for it.
Why? You think you'll be running it and you can make that guarantee? You fucking Marxists are so deluded. I swear, you all think some how the magical people are going to take over complete control of the economy and somehow it's all going to work out just fine. No need to worry about evil people taking the reins of power. It's all just a game to you, isn't it? The best possible society is the one with the least government.

t. NOT YOUR FUCKING SLAVE

P.S. Get a job!

This

>Why? You think you'll be running it and you can make that guarantee? You fucking Marxists are so deluded. I swear, you all think some how the magical people are going to take over complete control of the economy and somehow it's all going to work out just fine. No need to worry about evil people taking the reins of power. It's all just a game to you, isn't it? The best possible society is the one with the least government.

I don't particularly want to run a society. I don't believe in a hierarchical state. I want to decentralise society and disperse power to the workers. Nothing magical about a materialist perspective on the world with rational economic planning. The government would be stripped of its fangs once capitalism is abolished and the bourgeoisie dismantled so any abuse of power would be rather hard to achieve.

>I want to decentralise society and disperse power to the workers.

The Political Science 101 is strong with this one.

Hitler had ideas on gender I don't agree with.

I'm talking about how the internet is essentially "right wing" by default unless it is a designated "left wing" space which has to be tightly controlled to prevent anyone seeing incorrect information.

You're acting as if it's completely erased. There are plenty of people who still go along with the gender roles and enjoy it.

Plenty of women who enjoy being submissive to having a masculine man. Plenty of men who enjoy doing the hard labor and working hard to come home and love his loving wife.

There are many insecure girls who want a man to make them feel safe and secure.

The bullshit you see with sjws represents a small foundation of emotionally demolished and psychologocally retarded women along with a demasculized male who has fallen victim to the notion that men and women are absolutely the same. "Gender roles" weren't created by society, they were created by nature. So long as we stay hunan, they will stay in place.

Somehow I think a 100% flipped gender roles family/ society can work
But since now we're at some limbo in between, everything breaks

Mmmm no.

Hair has been extremely culturally and societally important.

Before the 19th century long hair meant you were a noble. Peasants had short hair because they had to work and couldn't get it in their eyes.

Various cultures around the world place significance in hair length, style, colour.

It means a lot. It's really not just 'fashion trends.' THAT right there is the modern western thing.

>he thinks "preferences and behaviors" means I'm arguing absolutes
Women stereotypically do the cooking, but that's because they generally are the spouse who stays at home, and therefore would be responsible for preparing meals. Professional chefs are overwhelmingly men, and while being able to cook is traditionally expected of women it is not at all an emasculating trait in men; if anything it is a significant advantage among both sexes.
Women can work in a factory, or be skilled workers, or fall for the STEM meme, but they — as a general group — DO NOT WANT TO, because their inherent preferences established by their biological makeup cause them to be less likely to have interest in pursuing these behaviors.

Are you actually arguing that hormones and the physical structure of the brain do not influence behavior?
Do some research
youtube.com/watch?v=E577jhf25t4

>Internet
>Right wing

What is: Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, Reddit...
Seriously though the internet by and large is far, far left. Considering that even a mild Cred Forums discussion would get burned off the face of any other social media medium in a heartbeat should tell you that.

No. We'll get artificial wombs and egg cells made out of stem cells and women will slowly fade out of existence except for the rare vintage sex tool.

Cannot read the post he just quoted.

Those are spaces where you will be banned for expressing incorrect ideas and may even be imprisoned.

They can't naturally maintain it as a left wing space.

>That's a traditional male role, mate.

that is so abso-fucking-lutely false.

That is the ethos of a rabbit.

After World War 3 society will have no choice but to return to the old ways.

we never really left them, it's fashionable to pretend we have though

so women should work for example, but they still have the role to whine and not work hard

I think the problem you are having is the idea that fascism HAS to be right wing. Which the SJW's have shown us to be demonstrably false.

haha, I wish. Most people spout the same anti-communist memes you see here. Liberalism isn't leftist.

>Various cultures around the world place significance in hair length, style, colour.
Doesn't that proves its malleable then?

Sure they have an influence. Mostly though evolutionary psychology is just a field used to justify the current state of society through appeals to nature. Change the underlying economic base of society (feudalism, capitalism, socialism) and the superstructure of culture and social roles will change. If women don't want to be factory workers it's probably because it's generally an unappealing tiring job, thanks to the capitalist concept of working over 40 hours a week, far more than we did even under feudalism.

Appeals to dodgy heterodox biology and linking it to social behaviours is the capitalist equivalent to feudalists' claiming the divine right of kings.

tfw when you played cowboys and crooks as a kid not because your testosterone levels gave you a natural tendency to act more agressively but because you were programmed that way by the fucked up society you live in.

Go back to the ussr

K. I make $80k and can easily afford a poor immigrant woman to clean apartment and blow me once a week. It would cost very little, and my microwave and oven handle my kitchen duties quite easily. If that's preferable to me using my income to put a roof over a woman's head, then let's do it, no more marriage.

this exactly

we're seeing a return to gendered identity also, the first feminazi struggles are not hip anymore. Girls love to exploit their sexuality for example.

Thomas Hobbes had the same idea back in 17th century. He basically claimed that stable families require clearly defined head of household, it doesn't matter which gender is calling the shots, but one has to be designated.

I enjoyed plenty of sport and still do. Doesn't mean I have to fit a rigid mould. Gender roles are intrinsically bollocks. People should do what they enjoy and are good at, free of external pressure.

The USSR was the first attempt at socialism. A pretty good one. Much better than the first capitalist attempt.

You're not using the word "fascist" correctly.

I cook better than any woman or girl I've ever met. (not going to lie, it's only my mum ;_;)

They can get fucked if they think they're taking the reigns in the kitchen from me. Women can't butcher meat for shit either.

I yearn for the glory days of tribes.

marriage should be dissolved anyway so whatever

kek, whatever floats your boat

what if i enjoy seeing society adhere to a rigid mould ?

I don't know which world you live in, but society absolutely reveres women who perform traditional male roles, yet for some "mysterious reason" still only a tiny minority of women will do them.

I'm pretty sure we're already at the point where we're deluding women into doing things they don't want to do, let alone allowing anyone to do what they want.

Let's pray it won't

you mean western society?
Absolutely, the dysfunction of the current status quo is unsustainable

To be fair, they shouldn't really be excluded from the opportunity, but the whole culture of lowering standards to suit women is complete bullshit.

Men are bigger, stronger and more athletic for a reason. We're more likely to take risks and that makes us who we are. If the tiny 1% of women can do it, more power to them, but fuck the rest of them that physically or mentally can't. Hand-holding is cancer.

If the same basic gender roles and behaviors have emerged in -every- human society, regardless of time or place of development, how can you argue cultural differences are the primary factor in determining gender roles?
This push towards equality of outcome is itself a completely unnatural development, itself a "social construct" caused by the left's rejection of the reality that in a TRULY equal society where everyone is afforded the same opportunity, people still act according to their differing natural preferences largely along the basis of gender, and to a lesser but still significant extent, race.

>People should do what they enjoy and are good at
And what people enjoy and are good is significantly determined by their gender.
Babies just a few months old given equal access to aesthetically pleasing toys and mechanically complex toys will, in general, exhibit greater interest in the toys corresponding to their "expected gender role."

then I would say you're constraining yourself and your fellow human beings for no reason than your selfish pleasure

>society absolutely reveres women who perform traditional male roles, yet for some "mysterious reason

Hardly reveres. It's taken a long time to break down social beliefs. Just as those traditions took a long time to establish

Well I agree. I'm just in favour of letting everyone control their own lives

>Well I agree. I'm just in favour of letting everyone control their own lives
Same desu

>Well I agree. I'm just in favour of letting everyone control their own lives

I don't think many people disagree with that nowadays. Doesn't mean you have to be a gender denier though.

>same basic gender roles and behaviors have emerged in -every- human society

But they haven't. All hunter gatherer societies would have no conception of gender roles. Even in modern states, gender roles are determined by the ruling class, not biology.

genderrolesaroundtheworld.weebly.com/

do we really need everybody to adhere to traditional roles though ?

i think many of the strange roles we see today has to do with relative scarcity. The earth is getting overpopulated and everybody is experiencing some kind of scarcity. Hence the need for women to work because families just cannot survive on a single income anymore.

Some people choose not to get married or have kids because it's just too expensive.

Life has become harder and the family with two breadwinners has a selective advantage over the single breadwinner household

>return to
>gender roles

it never deviated from gender roles to start with
men still are the designated shit and utter trash gutter garbage gender and that will never change. grow up faggot

also societies used to be matriarchal in large swathes of the world. look up Tibet and Polyandry,

Allowing anyone to do exactly what they want is a shortcut to destruction of civilisation.

I don't think you really want to bring about the collapse then live at the back of the feeding queue in the subsequent hierarchical society.

we wuz the matriarchy

Not denying the existence of gender/sex. I just think it should be irrelevant to society, work etc. And that gender roles harm everyone.

I never got this line of reasoning, if gender roles are a normal, or natural thing why do they have to be enforced through exclusion?

if there are differences then society will adapt to them. It's the natural thing.

Hunter-gathering is not comparable to agrarianism.

You can't eat a whole boar yourself before it goes bad, so there's no reason not to share it.

You can't be a materialist when you have to roam hundreds of miles to outrun resource depletion and can't carry much.

We are biologically not the same humans we were 10 thousand years ago.

often it's for similar reasons as not wanting to have apprentices walk through a construction site, because they will only hinder the work there.

Also if feminists decleare it a war to enter a certain field, then the "attacked" will go into defense. It might also be against their interest to lose their higher hierarchy.

sexual tension between members of the opposite sex is undeniable though. It's impossible for the adult mind to forget about sex on a subconscious level.

You can see this at work in the workplace. The attitudes of authority figures are different towards members of the opposite sex than to members of the same sex.

Look up r/K selection.

Ostracism is the natural means of genetic quality control.

>resource depletion
That's a myth. Look up the "original affluent society" theory.

>sexual tension between members of the opposite sex is undeniable though. It's impossible for the adult mind to forget about sex on a subconscious level.
Of course.

>You can see this at work in the workplace. The attitudes of authority figures are different towards members of the opposite sex than to members of the same sex.

Yeah well that's another reason the capitalist workplace is cancer. No wonder suicide rates and mental illnesses are skyrocketing. Workers in co-operative enterprises fare much better.

Agreed, but it's more concerned with the the thing in itself not the form that it hasexpressed itself over time. It is more about having a social role that we have evolved to take. I think is the argument.

I'm not saying they're starving, I'm saying you can't live in a house because you will exhaust the nearby growing food, and the prey animals won't come near it.

I wish it would. Women do not belong in the workplace.

>But they haven't.
Yes, they have. Man as the worker and warrior, woman as the home-maker and socialite.

>All hunter gatherer societies would have no conception of gender roles
You'll have to explain this point further. But I'll say not to confuse actions of necessity with preference. A woman who is threatened and hungry would of course fight and hunt like any man and animal, but she is less suited for it and would, in general, prefer to avoid it, as man would, in general, prefer for her to be kept safe and fed over himself.
The establishment of permanent agricultural societies did not mean "man seized power to oppress women", it meant "man and women had their needs met reliably and comfortably, allowing them to pursue and develop behaviors not related to survival."

Tibet is not a "large swathe of the world", it is a small isolated population in an extreme remote environment.
Polyandry is obviously not at all a common practice in other societies, but the fundamental gender roles of man as the protector and woman as the homemaker are still being followed.
Ancient Babylon and Greece likewise had cultures where women were given a larger degree of liberty and control, but this still resulted in fundamental gender roles being followed and societies that were ultimately led by men.
"Patriarchy" is not a gender role, it is the typical dynamic resulting from the outcome of natural and expected male and female behaviors.

>Workers in co-operative enterprises fare much better.

I wouldn't know, I have no idea what you are talking about. But it seems to me that what you are saying is that you blame Capitalism for gender roles now and insinuate that there is a situation where people could all be equals.

Certainly there are societies that are more egalitarian but there will always be people with more authority than others. Even if it's just because some individuals are more prone to exert themselves. Denying this aspect of humanity is wishful thinking. People will always strive to gain power over others.

A society that denies the existence, or more accurately "significance", of gender is an unnatural society that places unreasonable and unhealthy expectations on its citizens, in ways that negatively affect both individuals and the society as a whole.

A healthy society would allow people to pursue their interests on the basis of equal opportunity, to the greatest extent reasonably possible.
A society where equality of outcome is valued over equality of opportunity is just as damaging as a society where traditional gender roles are unreasonably enforced.

In modern society, there isn't any reasonable basis for preventing men or women from pursuing any intellectual or skill-based activity.
The only really relevant activities where men and women reasonably ought to be segregated are sports and warfare.

Nature will find the way to return the gender roles, But I am afraid it will take a Massive die-off of humans

Farmers have gender roles though. The fantasy is more of a romanticist dream, of a return to an agricultural society.