So I'm giving a speech about gender roles? What are some points that I should really point out and make? Any help would be appreciated, thanks.
What are you arguing?
What's the goal of your speech?
>>5241642
Make sure you mention how rigid feminism is about what women can and can't do, like they're not to be house wives submissive to men, even if they want to. And if you want to be feminine it's probably because you're brainwashed by the patriarchy. But if you want to be masculine it's probably because you've internalised misogyny. And if you're a TERF, you have strong views on how a "real" woman behaves.
>>5241652
I just want to point out the gender roles that society puts on everyone just based on if you're carrying a dick or a twat. How people expect certain behavior, thoughts and things depending on your gender.
>>5241669
Ehh, I'm just gonna go with telling that people are free to act however the fuck they want as long as they don't hurt others and so on.
>>5241669
you don't have the slightest clue what you're on about
>>5241669
I think you should read a bit more about feminism, m8.
>>5241669
>But if you want to be masculine it's probably because you've internalised misogyny.
No, if you're a girl and want to be masculine then you're enlightened and empowered, no girl would actually want to be feminine since it's bad.
>>5241751
>no girl would actually want to be feminine since it's bad.
it's all a social construct and should be aggressively combated.
>>5241744
*dykes please go
FTFY
OP here. As a guy, I'm a bit biased towards the gender roles on males and how they shape men/boys, but am a bit lacking on the other side of the story.
>>5241779
I think you mean to say "it's a result of evolutionary and biological differences between men and women"
I'm sure it was just a typo though, because no one could be THAT stupid. Because believing that would mean that animals, with no sense of self, that just act entirely on instinct, and have separate roles for genders- why that would mean you think they got together and socially constructed those roles, rather than them being a natural result of evolution.
>>5241824
Animal gender roles are extremely simplistic compared to those in humans. And even so it's absurd to say that animals do not have any form of society - that would imply that you believe animals completely lack intelligence.
>>5241856
But they are still gender roles. Human communication is far more complex than animals, it's still communication.
And yep, some animals do completely lack intelligence. Pigeons for example. Unbelievably stupid animals, they don't have the capacity for an intelligent society, they still have roles base on their genders due to reproductive capabilities and innate urges to mate or protect young or to defend territories.
Want an extreme example, ants. Females don't do any work they just breed, the males work for them constantly to ensure the species survives.
Or maybe something a bit different. Lions, the males don't do any work, they mostly just defend their own dominance as alpha male and mate, whereas the females do all the hunting.
I'm sorry but gender roles are entirely based on the strengths and weaknesses of males and females, what they're suited to and what impulses they innately desire to fulfil. Humans aren't different just because you can get in the internet and bitch about it
Just picking from my own life, I've known other women who swear they'll never have kids and talk about how much they hate them. Then those exact same women are cooing over cute baby clothes and doting on the children of friends and family, and a few years down the line having kids themselves. Despite their higher thinking, they still had the innate urges to nurture and have children. But that's just a general example rather than a rule or part of my argument
>>5241950
>I'm sorry but gender roles are entirely based on the strengths and weaknesses of males and females, what they're suited to and what impulses they innately desire to fulfil.
To some extent, they are. But gender roles both in humans and animals include a large component of what society decides is acceptable or not. What biological aspect makes it acceptable for women to wear dresses but not for men to do the same?
>Just picking from my own life, I've known other women who swear they'll never have kids and talk about how much they hate them. Then those exact same women are cooing over cute baby clothes and doting on the children of friends and family, and a few years down the line having kids themselves. Despite their higher thinking, they still had the innate urges to nurture and have children. But that's just a general example rather than a rule or part of my argument
If this isn't supposed to be part of your argument or to be representative of anything, what's the point of bringing it up?
"Fuck gender roles. Let everyone just do what he/she/whatever-you-want-to-be-called wants if it brings more happiness to others than suffering.
>>5242032
The thing about dresses?
Yeast infections and reproduction
It's also why men were the ones who wore underwear while women didn't wear it.
Only reason they wear it is because of false modesty and because there's so much money in panties now.
Hell bra's are actually bad for breats and will make them weaker and hurt a woman's back in the long run
They are litterally only around because of tradition and money.
Oh and men don't wear dresses because it get's cold in many places and we need to protect our junk.
Why do the scottish wear kilts? Fucked if I know. Probably just a social quirk that caught on for whatever reason and they've just adjusted and made it their heritatge.
>>5242065
>Yeast infections and reproduction
Uh, what does that have to do with dresses? And what about high heels? Is that biological too?
>>5241669
Make le edgy anti feminism joke xdddd
>inb4 triggered
Just make gender rolls
They will be like churros and cinnabuns combined with pink and blue icing. Make enough for a full class.
You fucking suck if you do anything else.
>>5242032
I brought it up because it was relevant to the topic. It's not fucking iron clad because it's anecdotal and not experimental, but it's still entirely relevant to what I said in the rest of the post.
>>5242094
High heels absolutely are biological, the fact you brought them up yourself makes me wonder if you're a troll. The whole purpose of high heels is to accentuate the breasts, buttocks, and legs. They also exaggerate feminine movements in walking.
I cant remember the name of the phenomenon, but when you take an attractive trait and exaggerate it, there's a name for that. Think it has "super" in the title or something. I can't remember. But it's basically what make up is, exaggerating feminine qualities in the face. Same with corsets too, smaller waist, larger hips and breasts.
There's a reason men don't look good in dresses (if they have a typical broad-shoulder-narrow-hips physique), because dresses are made to accentuate feminine shape
>>5242094
Wearing a dress with no panties was to prevent thrush, aka yeast infection from happening. It worked pretty well.
High heels were just women copying what men wore just because. Like always.
And the only reason they're still around is because it's expected and it's been both elevated to something that is both a write of passage, a clothing based secondary sexual characteristic, and something women see as cool.
Truth is, women don't need them to look hot, unless the guy has a fetish or associates those shoes with sexual attractiveness.
>>5241642
Gender roles are what nature intended for us but then again nature also intended that we wander around Africa forever picking berries off the ground and never making the technological, societal, and medical achievements that we have. Gender roles, like tribalism, will always be a part of the savage in us but as civilized humans we always have the choice to ignore it and progress beyond what nature designed
>>5242482
Most of this board desperately seeks to follow these gender roles and builds their life around them.
Three quarters of the other half have relationships that have relationships that mirror the traditional male female dynamic.
As long as there are two sexes there will be gender roles. They are not forces to enslave us but things that we naturally create in society to help society as a whole.
There is a reason children and adolescents react so negatively to the genderfluid stuff while children who do not fit in flock to it.
The former is because they seek clarity in their own sexuality and the latter seeks the "tribal" sense of belonging.
If tomorrow, a drug or plant was found that can instantly cure transexuality and homosexuality and put on the market the next day and can be bought over the counter, do you honestly believe that the homosexual tribe won't have an absolute collective bitch fit?
If homosexuality and transexuality were treated as simple easily treated maladies akin to a childs case of the sniffles do you honestly think there wouldn't be any real push from the queer mafia?
Hell no.
Even the thought of it made your asshole pucker didn't it?
>>5241669
You don't know what feminnisms is n also not all femmistists is liek dat. also you ignant and virgin.
Nawww but really
>>5241687
>Ehh, I'm just gonna go with telling that people are free to act however the fuck they want as long as they don't hurt others and so on.
Congrats on rejecting the feminist religion and joining the reasonable people over in Classical Liberalism land!
Gender roles comes from some level of biological influence. while it may not be direct and obvious there are more indicators of gender just than genitals and those emotional and physical differences shaped what we have today
>>5242768
>As long as there are two sexes there will be gender roles.
Of course. Like I said It's a part of us that nature put there. Ignoring it doesn't mean it goes away.
>If tomorrow, a drug or plant was found that can instantly cure transexuality and homosexuality and put on the market the next day and can be bought over the counter, do you honestly believe that the homosexual tribe won't have an absolute collective bitch fit?
What makes you think I wouldn't expect the outrage?
>If homosexuality and transexuality were treated as simple easily treated maladies akin to a childs case of the sniffles do you honestly think there wouldn't be any real push from the queer mafia?
Where are you getting this from? What does homosexuality have to do with anything I said? Again, What makes you think I wouldn't expect the outrage?
>Even the thought of it made your asshole pucker didn't it?
To be fair my asshole is puckered because of some bottoming exercises I'm doing
>>5242065
You're doing a good job of demonstrating how silly feminism is because I honestly can't tell if you're serious.
These sounds like tall tales your drunk uncle might tell you.
Gender roles are appropriate for the majority of the population but overly strict ones can be harmful for the minority that don't fit snugly into them
This doesn't tell me anything. Personally I believe that gender rolls are very important, so I would argue in favor of the benefits of gender identity and the disadvantages of abandoning those traditional identities (nonbinaries and such).
