[Seth_Rose]

I was having a friendly debate with some co-workers today. Usually I steer of these touchy topics, but we got sucked in to a long discussion, mostly amiable. Essentially, I was arguing (alone of course), that male and female behavior are primarily determined by biology. They (i.e. feminists) argued that they gender roles are social constructs.

I had a harder time defending this position then I thought, though I was outnumbered and didn't want to get too "red-pill" on them. Was hoping some of you all could chime in.

[CynicalContrarian]

Those episodes of any reality TV game show whereby women are left alone to survive on an island, only for them to struggle, are the only evidence anyone should need that there is a beneficial balance to be had when both sexes work together.
Rather than actively competing against each other or trying to go it alone.

[Seth_Rose]

Sure, but since they're deeply rooted in post-modernism, they'll just say that the inability of the women to survive on the island is because of their upbringing, in which women were not taught survival skills like men.

Essentially, I'd have to prove that the inability of women to survive on this island as well as men is rooted in biology.

[torridon747]

I wouldn't waste my breath on people that don't see women as biologically inferior when it comes to survival, physical strength, and crisis reactions.

There's arguments to be made about women being equal or better at almost anything else but that one is absolutely undeniable by anyone but the most hardcore feminists.

[Rush87]

Liberal debates about gender being a construct always avoid the obvious elephant in the room which kills any argument before it's even started. Sport. What more needs to be said?

[GoingTheDistance]

In your post you talked about arguing whether gender was biologically based or a social construct. In response to that:

Gender roles are biologically based to a degree and are also social constructs to a degree.

The percentages of to what degree gender is biology or culturally based is something that nobody will ever be able to scientifically prove, I don't think.

It's that old argument of nature versus nurture.

One of the biggest problems with these sensitive discussions concerning gender or race is that people take it to personally. That blinds them to looking at these types of issues with a fair and balanced view on the macro level. We are all guilty of this blindness that comes naturally to human beings.

You can see that blindness coming from the manosphere and from feminists parts of the internet as well.

Men on the manosphere might argue that men are better natural leaders, which could blind some of them to think that men should hold the leadership roles in early childhood education more often than not, despite those same men thinking that women are naturally better nurturers.

Feminists from feminists parts of the internet might argue that women and men are physically the same biologically, which could blind some of them to think that women in military combat are the same as men in military combat, despite those same women thinking that men are naturally more aggressive.

Now in your title you asked "why keep gender roles"?

To whatever percentage that gender roles are a social construct, that is somewhat flexible. I doubt anybody here would argue that gender roles do not change a considerable amount during the bad times and during the good times.

One only needs to study The Roman Empire to figure that out.

To whatever percentage that gender roles are biologically based, I believe those are also somewhat flexible as well. Mother nature has, if anything, proven to be very flexible and adaptive when it comes to surviving.

One only has to look at The Sherpa people living in the Mount Everest area of China and Nepal to see how the high altitude simply doesn't affect them like it does to most other people to see just how flexible biology is.

In a way, it's not up for us to decide what gender roles are because biology and culture will take care of that. On the other hand, it is up for us to decide what gender roles are because humans absolutely play a role in our biology and culture.

Now if you want an opinion on why keep gender roles:

Everybody will have a different answer for that. Though you can also make generalizations when talking about what groups think of gender roles. Manosphere versus feminists, conservative versus liberal, those group positions are pretty clear where they stand on the spectrum.

Though of course many individual people will change their opinions on this as life goes on, since people adapt and people change depending on their life circumstances.

Roosh used to be a Biologists in DC - This type of discussion is right up his alley.

EDIT - To be clear there are only men, women and hermophadites. No amount of influence that culture has on gender roles will change that, neither will female to male or male to female surgery. I hope I presented my views clearly, I didn't want any confusion as to what I was trying to say.

[rpg]

Women bleed 5 days out of the month. Women get pregnant and pop out little humans. Women breastfeed little humans. Men can father thousands of little humans if given the chance. Men have more muscle and strength and brain function for rational thought. Men and women will never be the same.

[Seth_Rose]

Thanks man, exactly what I was looking for! +1

You bring up a good point. Humans don't get to decide what gender roles are best--nature does. Societies that embrace gender roles that lead to lower birth rates and lower survival rates will eventually die out. Therefore, they are of little use to nature.

These feminists believe that they should get to choose gender roles because their worldview is correct. But is it? Says who? In terms of long term survival, it sure is heck not.

[Seth_Rose]

(04-27-2018 10:14 PM)rpg Wrote:  

Women bleed 5 days out of the month. Women get pregnant and pop out little humans. Women breastfeed little humans. Men can father thousands of little humans if given the chance. Men have more muscle and strength and brain function for rational thought. Men and women will never be the same.

Yes, pregnancy was a big one I was thinking of. Women are designed to give birth. They also produce breast milk. Nature predisposed women to raising children. Thus, child rearing for women is not a social construct, but a biological necessity.

[Bluto]

(04-27-2018 09:15 PM)Seth_Rose Wrote:  

I was having a friendly debate with some co-workers today. Usually I steer of these touchy topics, but we got sucked in to a long discussion, mostly amiable. Essentially, I was arguing (alone of course), that male and female behavior are primarily determined by biology. They (i.e. feminists) argued that they gender roles are social constructs.

I had a harder time defending this position then I thought, though I was outnumbered and didn't want to get too "red-pill" on them. Was hoping some of you all could chime in.

If it is such a social construct, than explain to me why the hell do women in the military need to have special Physical Fitness parameters, even after being in the service for 20 years? They should be doing every push-up and carry every ounce of weight as men are required to do if it is just a social construct. That is Applied Biology in the most brutal form, and fat guys can get combat ready in the same time as the skinny guys do with added motivation, so the social construct of women are not supposed to be gym rats is also bullshit. There is a reason why men were picked for the task of defending the tribe, society, and culture. They could get there the fastest, carry what they needed and bring the most violence to bear, both physically and mentally. This is not just for the military, other professions are made for men, and others are made for women.

Their logic is that biology evolved into the social constructs, which is a fallacy. Humans have been on this planet for over two million years and have gone through a varied assortment of different cultures. However, one key element has always been the biology, which does not change. All societies conform to that fact, or faced extinction. We hear from the Greeks about a fable tribe of Amazonian women who ruled their corner of the world apparently devoid of men, but has anyone found any proof of its existence?

Men have their talents, strengths, and weakness. Likewise women have theirs. In order for society to survive men and women had to work together and use their strengths and augment the weakness of the opposite gender. This is not just a human condition. Lions, Wolves, Primates, and other social animals do the same thing to survive. Are they shackled by social constructs, or are they using the biological talents that they have to survive?

[CynicalContrarian]

(04-27-2018 09:24 PM)Seth_Rose Wrote:  

Sure, but since they're deeply rooted in post-modernism, they'll just say that the inability of the women to survive on the island is because of their upbringing, in which women were not taught survival skills like men.

Essentially, I'd have to prove that the inability of women to survive on this island as well as men is rooted in biology.

Then there's the matter of there being no successful nor viable matriarchies in human history.

It's easy to claim that women can do it all.
Problem is, whether civilizations, the corporate world or construction. There's jack shit evidence of women as a collective achieving much at all, even in this highly 'equalized' world of ours.

Gender roles not only being biologically derived, also give purpose & meaning.
A society modeled on the 'nuclear family' will be far more viable & far more successful as opposed to a society composed of hedonistic fools flitting around to any wayward whim they may feel (intersex queer dolphin-kin for eg.)

[Easy_C]

Here's the black side of this red pill: Those gender roles exist because males are disposable . The loss of half a tribe's males won't significantly diminish their reproductive viability. If they lose halt the breeding females they are finished.

That's how it is from ants all the way up to Whales, Tigers, and simians.

Women are inclined to focus domestically because mammals need to protect their breeders.

[BortimusPrime]

Ask them how many stone age civilizations had the females go out and hunt while the males foraged for berries and gossiped about each other in the camp. If they argue that actually happened then they're idiots or liars. If they agree, then they have to admit there must have been some biological basis for why primitive humans had gender roles, otherwise those roles would be random for each society. Then ask them to prove why the characteristics that formed that primitive biological basis don't apply today in roles that favor said characteristics.

[Matsufubu]

Point out the sexual dimorphism in the animal kingdom. Unless they are being obtuse they will have to accept it.

Then ask them if they accept this in animals, why deny the same clear dimorphism in humans? Do they think political ideology from the past 70 years - a blip in time - overcomes millions of years of evolution, of nature itself?

And yeah, the sport thing. Even within combat sports there exists weight classes for the same sex so important are genetics. Not all men are automatically skull-crushing barbarians. Some are designed for distance running, some for climbing, some for more academic pursuits, etc. It's not sexism, it's biology that happens to apply to the sexes.

When I've done bar work, I (6') put the glasses on the top shelf and the 5'1" barmaid put the glasses on the bottom shelf because she couldn't reach the top shelf. Is this patriarchal oppression or just working together according to our respective strengths? Should we put a stepladder behind the bar causing a trip hazard and getting in the way of serving the customers just so she can feel falsely 'empowered' to reach the top shelf? Which is more productive? That's just a microcosm of society, so apply that on a macro level and that's why gender roles exist.

That said, if you're arguing with ideologues then you've no chance anyway. 2+2=5 to them.

[blck]

(04-27-2018 09:15 PM)Seth_Rose Wrote:  

I had a harder time defending this position then I thought, though I was outnumbered and didn't want to get too "red-pill" on them. Was hoping some of you all could chime in.

Wise man once Wrote:

You can judge how bluepill a man is by How strongly he want to explain the redpill concepts to women...

[Vladimir Poontang]

Tell them that after some thought, you've realized that they're absolutely correct. Then get on with your life.

[rpg]

Some savage Indian tribes would kill all their baby girls by feeding them to dogs and only raise the boys. Then they would trade for females when their sons needed mates. The rational was why waste energy raising mates for their enemies. The Spanish explorers were horrified at this practice. Women hd no practical use except for fucking and son raising. Ouch.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(04-27-2018 09:15 PM)Seth_Rose Wrote:  

I was having a friendly debate with some co-workers today. Usually I steer of these touchy topics, but we got sucked in to a long discussion, mostly amiable. Essentially, I was arguing (alone of course), that male and female behavior are primarily determined by biology. They (i.e. feminists) argued that they gender roles are social constructs.

I had a harder time defending this position then I thought, though I was outnumbered and didn't want to get too "red-pill" on them. Was hoping some of you all could chime in.

Yeah - but the social constructs are based on underlying hard-wired biology. And that biology even runs across mental and occupational achievements and interests. In short - nature has designed the males to be the providers, warriors, inventors, creators and maintainers of civilization. Women were created to be at best aides to the process and they were designed to create life, raise children and make life worth living for the men and their children. You can point to the differences in interests, sexual differences, massive IQ distribution differences of the genders and the fact that women have no interest in science, technology and civilization upkeep.

The gender roles were loosened way too much and women will end up destroying the current civilization if they remain unchecked. That is why gender roles are right and proper even if you are one of the few women who are actually scientifically inclined.

A society that ignores those hardwired concepts results in: unhappiness for both genders and ultimately the destruction of the previous civilization as more aggressive tribes with more adherence to the hardwired nature rip apart that civilization.

[Seth_Rose]

(04-27-2018 10:30 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

(04-27-2018 09:24 PM)Seth_Rose Wrote:  

Sure, but since they're deeply rooted in post-modernism, they'll just say that the inability of the women to survive on the island is because of their upbringing, in which women were not taught survival skills like men.

Essentially, I'd have to prove that the inability of women to survive on this island as well as men is rooted in biology.

Then there's the matter of there being no successful nor viable matriarchies in human history.

It's easy to claim that women can do it all.
Problem is, whether civilizations, the corporate world or construction. There's jack shit evidence of women as a collective achieving much at all, even in this highly 'equalized' world of ours.

Gender roles not only being biologically derived, also give purpose & meaning.
A society modeled on the 'nuclear family' will be far more viable & far more successful as opposed to a society composed of hedonistic fools flitting around to any wayward whim they may feel (intersex queer dolphin-kin for eg.)

(04-28-2018 12:34 AM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

Ask them how many stone age civilizations had the females go out and hunt while the males foraged for berries and gossiped about each other in the camp. If they argue that actually happened then they're idiots or liars. If they agree, then they have to admit there must have been some biological basis for why primitive humans had gender roles, otherwise those roles would be random for each society. Then ask them to prove why the characteristics that formed that primitive biological basis don't apply today in roles that favor said characteristics.

Alright, I think we've well established the innate physical differences in men and women. Cheers.

The whole discussion arose because of "incels" which has now hit mainstream. One girl said that the van attack by the incel was "Weaponized masculinity" (Whatever that means). She said that men are raised to think that they are entitled to women, and when they don't get their way, such as being rejected, they feel entitled to lash out.

Another example was that men lack coping mechanisms. They say that because it is not socially acceptable to cry or talk about issues, that men bottle this anger and frustration up and then it manifests itself in violence against women.

Like some suggested, I don't plan on really arguing with them anymore. No point. They can keep taking their anti-depressants. At this point it is more for my intellectual curiosity.

[questor70]

(04-27-2018 09:49 PM)Rush87 Wrote:  

Liberal debates about gender being a construct always avoid the obvious elephant in the room which kills any argument before it's even started. Sport. What more needs to be said?

Even there, is it any surprise that this movie was made last year?

A testosterone-riddled lesbian against an over the hill nerdy tennis player validates women on par with men in sports.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(04-28-2018 08:14 AM)questor70 Wrote:  

(04-27-2018 09:49 PM)Rush87 Wrote:  

Liberal debates about gender being a construct always avoid the obvious elephant in the room which kills any argument before it's even started. Sport. What more needs to be said?

Even there, is it any surprise that this movie was made last year?

A testosterone-riddled lesbian against an over the hill nerdy tennis player validates women on par with men in sports.

And even that story is bullshit.

I read what really happened. The guy was 54, when he was still in shape and beat one of the top 5 female players in 2 straight sets. But that did not garner any publicity and he needed some cash so he promised that he would not train for the match between the current Nr. 1 who was 30 years younger than him! He then engaged in a diet of 1970s drugs, junk food and lots of groupie sex for almost a year. At that time he was beaten barely by the Nr. 1 of female tennis. I think one year later after getting in shape he again beat a highly ranked female player again and offered a rematch, but the bitch was wise enough to decline.

Moral of the story - if a 30 years older player lets himself go for a year, then a top-super-elite female player has a chance of beating him, but when a 55yo player gets in shape, then he will rip even the best female player in her prime a new one. I think that a 65yo Andre Agassi would even win. She would have to pick a 75yo Andre Agassi to have a chance.

Quote:

He, as an out of shape 55 year old man, played the women's world number 1 a few months before this and destroyed her. Then he sets this match up and loses while people (supposedly the mob) who he owed a lot of money too collected and he was let go of his debts. And how exactly is this a win for the women's rights movement?

Cannot find the link where someone goes into the details of the case - Google is by this time almost useless since they are pulling the mainstream crap. Either way - he beat the other Nr. 1 of women's tennis in 2 straight sets just a few months before. But I also think that he may have thrown the match since he was a notorious gambler and thus saved himself financially - there was a lot of gambling going on around this.

He was in my opinion in good enough shape to beat the woman.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(04-28-2018 08:04 AM)Seth_Rose Wrote:  

(04-27-2018 10:30 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

(04-27-2018 09:24 PM)Seth_Rose Wrote:  

Sure, but since they're deeply rooted in post-modernism, they'll just say that the inability of the women to survive on the island is because of their upbringing, in which women were not taught survival skills like men.

Essentially, I'd have to prove that the inability of women to survive on this island as well as men is rooted in biology.

Then there's the matter of there being no successful nor viable matriarchies in human history.

It's easy to claim that women can do it all.
Problem is, whether civilizations, the corporate world or construction. There's jack shit evidence of women as a collective achieving much at all, even in this highly 'equalized' world of ours.

Gender roles not only being biologically derived, also give purpose & meaning.
A society modeled on the 'nuclear family' will be far more viable & far more successful as opposed to a society composed of hedonistic fools flitting around to any wayward whim they may feel (intersex queer dolphin-kin for eg.)

(04-28-2018 12:34 AM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

Ask them how many stone age civilizations had the females go out and hunt while the males foraged for berries and gossiped about each other in the camp. If they argue that actually happened then they're idiots or liars. If they agree, then they have to admit there must have been some biological basis for why primitive humans had gender roles, otherwise those roles would be random for each society. Then ask them to prove why the characteristics that formed that primitive biological basis don't apply today in roles that favor said characteristics.

Alright, I think we've well established the innate physical differences in men and women. Cheers.

The whole discussion arose because of "incels" which has now hit mainstream. One girl said that the van attack by the incel was "Weaponized masculinity" (Whatever that means). She said that men are raised to think that they are entitled to women, and when they don't get their way, such as being rejected, they feel entitled to lash out.

Another example was that men lack coping mechanisms. They say that because it is not socially acceptable to cry or talk about issues, that men bottle this anger and frustration up and then it manifests itself in violence against women.

Like some suggested, I don't plan on really arguing with them anymore. No point. They can keep taking their anti-depressants. At this point it is more for my intellectual curiosity.

The "incels = violence" argument is a bunch of poorly-conceived bullshit.

Some of the most violent men are the ones who get the MOST sex, not the least. These include abusive husbands and bad boy "gangstas." And let's also not forget the man who wrote the book on 20th century violence, Charles Manson, who was up to his ears in pussy, holding orgies with former high school cheerleaders.

If sexual frustration equaled violence, we'd see mass murders from almost every teenage boy the world over. That's not the main source of violence and if the mass media actually did some research, they'd know this.

Speaking of research, let's try and make the grammar a little better on this forum. "Devil's Advocate" gets an apostrophe. It's possessive, not plural.

[kosko]

(04-27-2018 11:41 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  

Here's the black side of this red pill: Those gender roles exist because males are disposable . The loss of half a tribe's males won't significantly diminish their reproductive viability. If they lose halt the breeding females they are finished.

That's how it is from ants all the way up to Whales, Tigers, and simians.

Women are inclined to focus domestically because mammals need to protect their breeders.

Yes, this isnthebdsrk way to support an argument on gender with normies and indoctrinated types. You simply have to explain that value prop of the agg and the sperm and that thier is an expectation in society that since sperm is cheap men are disposable. Men die in wars, men die at work, men die early and often each and every day. Protections are in place to shelter and protect women and thing talk about disproportionate amount of female shletersnand services versus the near non existent services for men even thought man out number women in numbers in critical environments such as homelessness.

No need to make it a sympathy fest for men but it is very clear to establish the clear differences that exist between the sexes and party is nature and the other is society but it will never be fluid. No society would ever send it's young women all.off to war via draft as that would be suicide for the society as a whole.

[Repo]

Well it's not like anyone is going to change other people's life choices, so I think these debates are pointless. Especially with women.

I tell them everyone is free to do whatever makes them happy, and we should stop judging others for their life choices regardless of the roles they choose.

This ends the convo and flips it on them. Because secretly they want to judge and look down on conservative women, but you are pointing out that they are in fact the negative and toxic energy. Wasting more then a sentence or two debating a women is a waste of breath. Figure out your own way to keep firm on your viewpoint and end the topic. Then get back to drinking/gaming/fucking.

[Repo]

Think about this.

Have you ever used reason and logic to get a women in bed?

Probably not.

So don't expect reason and logic to win a debate with them.