Beneficial but only to a certain extent. Most people fit into their role quite well, we just shouldn't judge people inclined to cross-gender behavior. And I think everyone is to a certain degree, no one is completely masculine or feminine in their personality.

>>5261418
Yes.

No, fuck gender norms. I hate when they crop up in nearly every form of media.

>>5261418
Beneficial. The question is if they're necessary/justified.

Literally what the dynamics of family and society are built upon in civilization. Gender roles a deeply important aspect of any culture

>>5261418

Deppends. I see a lot of my friends girlfriends bitch about gender roles even though their boyfriends cook and clean, but they never do anything that is typically "man's" job.

>>5262231
Is gender deconstruction necessary or justified?

>>5262276
Yeah, this whole thing essentially comes down to both women and men rejecting the responsibilities of manhood, while at the same time demanding others take up those responsibilities.

Let's see a woman work a shitty manual labor job for 30 years that offers absolutely no personal fulfillment whatsoever and leaves her body hurt and tired every single night to pay for the bullshit her family wants while her kids act ungrateful and her husband sits around with a dissatisfied look on his face and eventually cheats on her because she's too tired from work and bores her husband because she just wants to sit at home and drink a beer on the weekend

>>5262294
Anon, you see women doing landscaping every so often. They wash out a bit more than men. Reduced musculature means women need to be tough as nails to do some manual labor but if they are that tough they usually do it.

>>5262294
Why would any individual choose to take such a job? There is no personal incentive to do it.

>>5262321
I'm not talking about a handful of women doing landscaping. I'm talking about an equal percentage of the manual labor force being comprised of women, doing hard outdoors ground work.

>>5262355
Part of being a man is doing things that you personally hate for literally your entire life. Why do you need a personal incentive? There are just as many women as men. Why are men the ones that have to do the manual labor exclusively?

>>5262463
>Part of being a man is doing things that you personally hate for literally your entire life. Why do you need a personal incentive? There are just as many women as men. Why are men the ones that have to do the manual labor exclusively?
People do things because it benefits them. No rational person will do an undesirable, low-paying job. I suspect it's some aspect of male gender norms that made men willing to work these jobs for so long, but now that they're realizing that it doesn't benefit them they're not willing to do them anymore. And of course women don't have any incentive to do it either. In the long run, these jobs won't get done, which means an increased demand for that type of labor. That will cause wages for these jobs to rise until they're enough to make people willing to do them again. That's just how the economy tends to balance itself out.

>>5262484
Anon, these jobs already pay more than most jobs you can get right out of high school, they're just physically demanding and you have too high of an opinion of yourself to deem such a lifestyle worthy of your attention.

Nobody should say a single thing about gender equality until we see just as many women working hard labor until they're 60 as we do men.

Your entire world view is based upon your belief that you have the right to pick and choose what is going to make you most comfortable in your life

>>5262484
People do things for the sake of others, at the expense of their own happiness all the time. It's just you that doesn't understand this. If you want gender equality, both men and women have to take up this self sacrificing aspect upon themselves

>>5262513
>Anon, these jobs already pay more than most jobs you can get right out of high school, they're just physically demanding and you have too high of an opinion of yourself to deem such a lifestyle worthy of your attention.
They may pay more, but if people aren't taking these jobs it's a clear sign that the extra pay isn't ENOUGH to compensate for how unpleasant these jobs are.

>Your entire world view is based upon your belief that you have the right to pick and choose what is going to make you most comfortable in your life
So you think it should be up to other people to choose what makes us comfortable? That doesn't even make sense.

>>5262522
>People do things for the sake of others, at the expense of their own happiness all the time.
That's not exactly true. People do things for the sake of others BECAUSE doing so brings them happiness.

>>5262294
>>5262463
>>5262513
You sound like every self-entitled Baby Boomer ever.

>>5262545
I think it's a clear sign of laziness and entitlement actually. We're a generation that was raised to view working manual labor as a mark of failure.

I know you can't possibly wrap your mind around this concept because it is so alien to you, but people don't just do things for their own benefit, or for their own happiness. People take the weight of responsibility upon themselves for the sake of others, and it takes away most of the enjoyment of their lives. They aren't doing it for their own happiness.

>>5262565
What is it you think I'm entitled to anon?

I don't think gender norms are something we can choose to not have.

>>5262591
>I know you can't possibly wrap your mind around this concept because it is so alien to you, but people don't just do things for their own benefit, or for their own happiness. People take the weight of responsibility upon themselves for the sake of others, and it takes away most of the enjoyment of their lives. They aren't doing it for their own happiness.
Those people are horrendously irrational then. People may help others because it makes them feel good, they may sacrifice themselves to create a better world for their children and others they care about, but it's still ultimately people doing things that make them happy in the long run. If people were willing to just "take the weight of responsibility upon themselves" and get absolutely nothing in return, then Communism would work. We could just give everyone enough fixed income to live off of, and people would continue working because it has to be done. But no, that doesn't work in real life. People need incentives.

>>5262591
Working manual labor for decades will fuck your body up. Enjoy chronic pain and all sorts of medical problems. It's definitely better to avoid that shit.

>>5262661
I think it's just you that only sees the world as opportunities to make yourself feel good anon. Believe it or not, there are people in the world that believe in something more than themselves

>>5262674
Too bad it can't be avoided in real life, because there is work that has to be done

>>5262685
If you're reasonably intelligent, there is no reason why you should be working manual labor as a career. Yes somebody has to do that stuff and it'll always be the poor.

>>5262681
>there are people in the world that believe in something more than themselves
That would still count as doing something because it makes you happy though. Happiness is not just physical pleasure.

>>5262692
That isn't the discussion at hand. The question is why is it only poor and uneducated men that do these jobs rather than poor and uneducated women? Is that not an aspect of gender equality?

>>5262700
Okay, go work for 30 years to pay for your families lifestyle then. The few moments of happiness in between the labor are not why these men work. They do it for the happiness of their families.

>>5262718
>Okay, go work for 30 years to pay for your families lifestyle then. The few moments of happiness in between the labor are not why these men work. They do it for the happiness of their families.
And that's my point. But if these jobs don't pay enough to support your family, or if there's better jobs available, people aren't going to be interested.

>>5262718
>The question is why is it only poor and uneducated men that do these jobs rather than poor and uneducated women? Is that not an aspect of gender equality?
Is that really not obvious? Men are physically better at manual labor than women.

>>5261418
Gender norms are a form of structure which people can use to systematize and make sense of the social world

As with all structures and systems, there isn't a single one which is without faults and inequality, but with no structure or system, the world becomes a very chaotic and disorganized place. People would have no basic foundation with which to get anything done as nothing would be familiar and everything would be constantly changing.

Gender is an idea that has existed since the first civilizations on earth have been around, but it hasn't had nearly the same degree of rigidity, consensus, or contestation for that matter, until the time of enlightenment when social institutions became formalized and ideas such as gender intertwined with the systems, modes, structures and power dynamics of a capitalist society.

Previously in western society it had been intertwined with religion which was the dominant mode of social governance, but it all originally derived from Ancient greek philosophy and culture.

Every culture has had some kind of conception of gender which has differed in certain ways, and since the advent of globalization, all those ideas have become hybridized to an extent resulting in the wide range of ways that gender can be performed today, but due to a western world view that currently, and predominantly, permeates most modern activities, gender is also predominantly understood within the framework of ancient greek philosophy.

So, looking forward there are many different ways, blah blah blah pluralism blah blah blah depending on political orientation blah blah blah revolution or evolution, blah, status quo, social upheaval, ritualism, postmodernism, etc

I can't be bothered typing out the rest

This is basically stuff from various courses I took at university, I still don't really know how I personally feel about it tb.h

>>5262731
I'm a 140 pounds and weak as fuck, and I've worked manual labor. It's not like you're just constantly throwing hundreds of pounds around, it's just tedious and exhausting. Anyone can do it though, you just have to drop your ego and stop pretending like you're better than shoveling shit all day

>>5262725
The point we're actually talking about is why it's only men who take up these manual labor positions

>>5262896
If you are a male, you have more testosterone. This means you are much stronger than like 90% of women by default. Even if you a weak fuck that can get destroyed by the average male, you are still probably stronger than the vast majority of women.

And again, doing manual labor for a summer job or something is fine, but nobody should ever strive to make a career out of it. Health problems will await you.

>>5262896
Are you weak enough that the average women would be able to beat you up?

>>5262902
Because it's a tradition established back when very few jobs are open to women. And even today since many of those jobs depend on physical strength it makes sense that men would be overrepresented. And even though some women ARE strong enough to do the work, there's still a general assumption that men are better for manual labor.

>>5262905
I actually have a thyroid condition that makes me estrogen dominant. Women can do the work just as well as men. You can't ask for gender equality then claim women are actually weaker and can't do the same work as men

>>5262918
The average woman is easily strong enough to do manual labor. It doesn't fucking matter how good they are at fighting. You can't now start claiming women are less competent than men.

This is the problem with gender equality in work. They don't want any of the shit jobs, just the high paying intellectual and personally fulfilling jobs

>>5262920
>You can't ask for gender equality then claim women are actually weaker and can't do the same work as men
In the first world, women do have the same rights as men. However there is nothing wrong with manual labor jobs turning down people for being too weak. I'm about 120-130 lbs myself, and I wouldn't expect any of these companies to hire me simply because I'm weak as hell and there are a ton of stronger men.

Maybe the job you worked didn't rely on physical strength so much and it really was reasonable for women to do just as good as a job. But that's not the cause for most manual labor. Most of these jobs require you to haul around decently heavy loads all day and would be extremely hard for anyone that's not a strong male to perform well in.

>>5262936
No, that is the case with most manual labor jobs. It's not that these jobs are turning down women, it's that women literally do not ever consider working them

>>5262935
>The average woman is easily strong enough to do manual labor. It doesn't fucking matter how good they are at fighting. You can't now start claiming women are less competent than men.
Women are on average significantly weaker than men. And yes, they CAN do the job, but a man can do it more efficiently.

>This is the problem with gender equality in work. They don't want any of the shit jobs, just the high paying intellectual and personally fulfilling jobs
No one WANTS those jobs. People take them because they have no other option. But no one's going to ask for the RIGHT to take those jobs if other jobs are available.

>>5262942
That's complete nonsense. Manual labor by definition means work done by hand. For most jobs, that means you have to rely on the strength and endurance of your body. AKA, your muscles. Physically weak people have a huge disadvantage and will perform much worse than strong people at these kinds of things. Why in the world would you have some skinny shit like me when instead you can get the guy who goes to gym and lifts all day?

Literally nobody wants to work manual labor jobs other than select few of society. And that's entirely rational.

>>5262942
>It's not that these jobs are turning down women, it's that women literally do not ever consider working them
Can I have a source on that? And you'll also need to take into account the fact that even if women aren't literally turned down, an work environment that's hostile to women may discourage them from working there. I mean, would you be willing to work a job where virtually everyone else was a woman, and many of them clearly disliked and did not respect men and considered them inferior?

>>5262949
You can't ask for gender equality then claim there is an entire field of work that women can't do because they're less competent and men as a whole are better and more efficient.

You might as well just say that we're all equal, but some are more equal than others at that point

>>5262960
Gender equality means equal legal rights and social privileges of all genders. It does not mean ignoring biology and assuming everyone has the same abilities.

>>5262942
>women literally do not ever consider working them
>>5262952
>That's complete nonsense.

Then prove it by getting a manual labor job, retard.

>Literally nobody wants to work manual labor jobs other than select few of society

Oh, you won't do it? Big fucking surprise.

>>5262960
>what is positive and negative liberty

>>5262952
I've worked manual labor myself anon, and I'm frail as fuck. It's about mental strength more than anything else. You don't have to be a massive ripped dude to do it, in fact most people that do it aren't.

>>5262958
>Can I have a source on that?

Yeah, go get a fucking job like that and then see how many women you find at the job site.

Why don't you actually go and live your life rather than relying on internet numbers to inform you about literally everything?

>>5262969
What are you even trying to say here? Why does people not wanting to get undesirable jobs trigger you so much?

>>5262969
>Oh, you won't do it?
Of I fucking won't. It's 2015; I'm not going to go outside in blistering heat and sweat my ass off all day and fuck up my body. I can do much better than that. Almost nobody wants to do that shit and that's entirely rational.

>>5262975
Who's going to be a better worker? The ripped dude or a 5'1" women who can barely lift anything? Sure almost anyone can do it, but who's going to be the best at it?

>>5262977
You made a claim, why are you so unwilling to support it?

>>5262958
Don't be ignorant, women do not seek out manual labor jobs. You don't need a fucking research study. You're the one assuming that it's a hostile woman hating environment

>>5262967
So basically it's giving extra rights and privileges to women and nothing for men

>>5262984
Most of the fucking people who work manual labor are old alcoholic men who are on the verge of death. Women can get their hands in the shit with them if they want gender equality

I hate that everything is labeled male/female and I can't even pick clothes I like without some smug bitch going "sorry, this section is for women only. men's is over there." Men's glasses, men's jeans, men's shampoo, men's coffee cup, men's yogurt etc drive me crazy.

>>5263001
>Don't be ignorant, women do not seek out manual labor jobs.
No one really does, unless they have other options.

>You're the one assuming that it's a hostile woman hating environment
I've seen what happens in male environments. Misogyny is one of the most common things for males to bond over. Sure, a lot of it is just venting, but it still creates an environment that women want to avoid. Again, it's the equivalent of a male being surrounded by women who constantly go on about how many men are violent rapists.

>>5263014
What the hell are you even getting at? Middle aged men are far stronger than women. When guys actually get too old, they are unable to keep up with the young guys and have to retire. Women don't want those fucking jobs. Hell, nobody wants those fucking jobs. That has nothing to do with gender equality.

>>5263005
Not being qualified for a job due to lack of strength is a privilege?

>>5263014
Why would anyone want THAT part of "equality" though? That's a purely negative thing. No one is going to fight to have that "right".

>>5263005
Most men in the first world don't work in manual labor.

>>5263018
*unless they have no other options

>>5263018
The fact that women consistently have these other options and men don't says a lot about gender equality

>>5262983
>makes a claim
>refuses to support it
>gives up the instant they're challenged on it
>spergs out and begins to sputter insults rather than sticking to the actual conversation

feminists, everyone.

>>5263040
>The fact that women consistently have these other options and men don't
That's not true. Men and women have tons of options in the workforce.

>>5262936
>Maybe the job you worked didn't rely on physical strength so much and it really was reasonable for women to do just as good as a job
kek, this pathetic attempt to self-insert as the dominant sex at any cost is hilarious

especially here on 4chan
>scrawny beta males with soft girly hands talking about hard labor and how they are physically stronger than 90% of females
LOL

>>5263040
Specifically, it's the fact that women are not expected to be breadwinners; many men have actually said they would feel emasculated if their female partner earned more than them. Women are expected to depend on their boyfriends/husbands for income rather than having to support themselves. None of which is really women's fault.

>>5263024
>>5263029
The average woman is more than qualified to do the work, they just don't want it because they see it as beneath them.

>>5263031
Most women literally have never once faced oppression and are more than equal in the first world too. That doesn't stop them from acting like they're not in the most comfortable place on earth

>>5263047
>scrawny beta males with soft girly hands talking about hard labor and how they are physically stronger than 90% of females
That's literally true though. It's biology.

>>5263054
It sounds like you just irrationally hate women for not wanting shit jobs.

>The average woman is more than qualified to do the work
They are not as qualified as a strong man.

>they just don't want it because they see it as beneath them
NOBODY wants to do it.

>>5263047
>>scrawny beta males with soft girly hands talking about hard labor and how they are physically stronger than 90% of females
>LOL
Being beta doesn't make you weaker than women. You don't even need huge visible muscles to have that strength advantage, testosterone makes your muscles more effective even if they don't seem any larger than a woman's. The only thing that would push male strength into the female range is if they're on estrogen and blockers.

>>5263053
Of course. Nothing is the fault of women. They're just perpetual victims forever

>>5263054
>The average woman is more than qualified to do the work, they just don't want it because they see it as beneath them.
The average man could do more though. There's no reason to hire a woman if a man could do the job better.

>>5263070
The implication being that social norms created by male insecurity are what protects women from having to work.

>>5263063
I don't hate women at all, I just call out the hypocrisy of gender equality when I see it

>>5263071
Gender quality only applies when it benefits women

>>5263080
No you're just confused between various lines of though that all claim to support gender equality.

>>5263087
What's that supposed to mean?

>>5263075
Of course, it's men that shape the world and determine everything in the human experience, even the failings of women.

The REAL reason women don't work manual labor is because men are insecure

>>5263088
>lines of though
thought*

>>5263090
It means gender equality only benefits women

>>5263095
>The REAL reason women don't work manual labor is because men are insecure
Pretty much yes, men are too willing to support women for women to ever need to take jobs like that. Though as mentioned before even without that men would be over-represented in manual labor due to their greater average strength. And women do have other options which men do not, for example - female prostitutes are in greater demand than male ones (though again that's a consequence of men being desperate).

>>5263112
That's because it's women that are disadvantaged by traditional gender norms.

>>5263119
And women have no choice but to accept being taken care if right?

>>5263125
Yes, being provided for by someone else for life is a disadvantage

>>5263146
>And women have no choice but to accept being taken care if right?
Well, it's not likely they're going to give it up if their only other choice is working a very undesirable job. It's a useful safety net. But certainly women who have employable skills don't need to be dependent on men and can support themselves. But if they lose their jobs, it's very likely that they'll be able to find a man to save them from poverty.

>Yes, being provided for by someone else for life is a disadvantage
No, but historically women had their options in life very strongly restricted. Basically, a gilded cage is still a cage. That's why men had to provide for them, because historically women weren't even allowed to support themselves. It's a lot better today obviously, women have the same legal rights as men and so on.

>>5263125
>And women have no choice but to accept being taken care if right?
for a very long time yes.
>That's because it's women that are disadvantaged by traditional gender norms.
don't generalize too much. men are disadvantaged in custody fights and being socially pressured in being the caretaker can be a disadvantage too.

>>5263163
Their safety net is having a man work for their benefit

>>5263169
We're talking about now, where women are not in a gilded cage and are equal

>>5263187
>are equal
so what does equal to you mean? equal in a world that is free? is it true equality and freedom if it only is available if they work a certain job? is it true equality and freedom if they have to want(!) to work a certain job that nobody wants to work at and nobody is being forced to work as?

>>5263222
Not him, but women have the same amount of negative liberty (freedom from external constraint) as men and thus are legally and socially equal.

>>5263182
I don't believe anyone is disputing that.

>>5263229
that's not the point. the point is he is connecting equality with manual labor. for him to consider women equal in society women need to want to work in manual labor. thus they are not equal because their equality is tied to a reqiurement which is constricting their freedom.

>>5263264
>he is connecting equality with manual labor
Oh sorry I thought that was you. Should have payed attention to the typing styles.

>>5263222
I believe equality is an empty word in reality. But true gender equality would not just benefit women. They would have to take the hardships that men take on upon themselves.

>>5263264
How can you have a gender equal society where there is an entire field of work that is only done by men because women don't think they have the ability to do it, even though they do?

>>5263312
Equality means the same rights not the same profession.

>>5263303
Why not just eliminate those hardships?

>>5263312
Until we can genetically engineer women to be as strong as men (or wait a couple of trillion years for evolution to do it for us), men are going to be over-represented in those jobs. There are women who do manual labor, however men have a considerable physical advantage which means they're better suited for that kind of work.

>>5263317
But some are more equal than others

>>5263339
You can't eliminate hardships from life, and you shouldn't want to. Like I said, the average woman could easily do manual labor just as well as any man, as it's not all about physical strength. You don't have to be that strong to do it. Women just conveniently choose to play the "but I'm a girl!" card when it comes to them having to shovel shit all day. You can't claim gender equality then act like suddenly now women are less competent and can't do the work. They can

>>5263376
>the average woman could easily do manual labor just as well as any man
Wrong.

>it's not all about physical strength
No but it undeniably plays a major part.

>>5263376
>You can't eliminate hardships from life, and you shouldn't want to.
You should want to minimize them as much as possible though. There will always be some hardships, however we should do everything we can to eliminate unnecessary hardships.

>Like I said, the average woman could easily do manual labor just as well as any man, as it's not all about physical strength. You don't have to be that strong to do it.
Physical strength isn't EVERYTHING, but it is a major part. The average man is stronger than the average woman, this is pretty much unquestionable. The average woman may have "enough" strength to do the work, but the average man can do it better, he can work faster and for longer before needing to rest. If workers are paid by the hour, then women will tend to be paid unfairly high wages. On the other hand, if workers are paid by the actual work done, then a man will be able to make more in a day than a woman. And that means that women will be incentivized to stay at home and take care of the kids while the man goes out to work, rather than the other way around.

>women are less competent and can't do the work. They can
Again, women can do the work but men can do it better. "shoveling shit all day" is a job where the strength difference is going to be quite significant.

>>5263390
No, that's not fucking wrong anon. Why do you insist on acting like women are frail, helpless victims. I'm a sickly as fuck small framed and weak man and I can do manual labor. It's awful and exhausting, but I can do it. Women can do it too. It's just conveniently ignored

>>5263416
>I'm a sickly as fuck small framed and weak man and I can do manual labor.
Can you do it as well as the average man?

>>5263412
Hardships are necessary in life anon. You can't now start drawing the line that women are equal to men, except when it comes to physical work that fucking sucks to do. Only men get to do the shit work while women sit and complain that they aren't treated fairly

>>5263420
There is no "average man" anon. What are you basing that on? I work with a fucking wild variety of different people from all over the place. I work hard and get more shit done than men who are exceptionally strong, because it's not about strength, it's about work ethic and sucking it up when you have to get your hands in the shit. I've worked with massive guys who are shit at the job because they don't try hard. Dedication beats physical strength no matter what.

Most of the work doesn't require you to be constantly lifting heavy shit.

>>5263429
So you don't think we should make use of technology to reduce the amount of physical work we had to do? I mean after all we've been using technology for that for a long time, that's what the whole concept of tools is all about.

>>5263448
"Average" as in the statistical average, it most certainly is possible to define the strength of the "average" man. It's obviously not saying that almost all men have that "average" level of strength, but generally speaking if a job requires large amounts of lifting, carrying, digging etc, a stronger person will be better at it than a weaker one. Strength is hardly the only factor; a strong man can be lazy, or work inefficiently. But all other things being equal, more strength makes you better at it. A hard-working strong man can accomplish more than a hard-working weak man.

>>5263488
That technology would destroy literally countless jobs that people need to support their families anon. You'd be creating far more hardships

What the fuck point do you think you're making here anyway with these statistical averages? That shit doesn't matter at all when it comes to an individual woman doing a fucking job. You're actively trying to make women seem weak and incompetent. Women can do the work, they just don't want to and will never be in a position in life where they have to

>>5263503
>That technology would destroy literally countless jobs that people need to support their families anon. You'd be creating far more hardships
It's happened already though. In the long run by increasing productivity it drives down prices of commodities, thereby increasing effective purchasing power of the population which increases the demand for luxury goods and thus creates new job opportunities for displaced workers. Obviously it can be temporarily disruptive to the economy, especially if it happens to quickly, however the end result is a higher standard of living for just about everyone. There's a reason why we're not all subsistence farmers anymore.

> That shit doesn't matter at all when it comes to an individual woman doing a fucking job.
True, however the strength difference is such that most of the time your female workers won't be as strong as your male workers.

>You're actively trying to make women seem weak and incompetent.
No, I'm just saying that an indisputable sex difference in physical strength does exist.

>Women can do the work
Yes, but generally men are better at it.

>they just don't want to
No one wants to.

>will never be in a position in life where they have to
And again, that's not really women's fault. It's the men who willingly support lazy women that are to blame.

>>5262273
In what way?

>>5263545
No, it's the lazy women who are to blame. You're a deeply naive person if you think the manual labor work force is just going to shift to selling "luxury goods" once their jobs are taken away. What luxury goods are going to create a career that will pay a man $20 plus an hour immediately after he graduates high school?

You're so far detached from reality, yet you think you can dictate how it's supposed to run.

>>5263068
>male strength into the female range is if they're on estrogen and blockers.
Then why is everyone getting butthurt over Fallon Fox fighting women?

>>5264163
This has happened several times before in our history. As I've said, it takes a while to overcome but eventually leads to a higher standard of living for everyone. It's certainly better than living as subsistence farmers, which is what we'd still be doing if we didn't use technology to increase our productivity.

>>5264199
Because the vast majority of people don't have a very good understanding of sex differences and what causes them?

>>5264271
So tell me how the manual labor force is going to transition to selling luxury goods once their jobs don't exist anymore

>>5264318
Uh, they just get new jobs? Some of the new jobs will have higher education requirements, and that's a good argument in favor of subsidizing education. But the end result is a return to full employment but with a higher GDP and standard of living.

>>5264347
And all of these jobs will pay $25 plus an hour like the manual labor jobs, right?

>>5264386
Maybe, maybe not. It all depends on supply and demand.

>>5264408
Maybe no is the answer, because they won't. You don't understand that manual labor jobs are deeply important, as they are the only jobs that can provide a good living to people who don't have any college education

>>5264441
As I've said, we've gone through this before. There's no way of avoiding it unless we want to become a third world country. And I'd hardly call it a "good living", you might make enough money to support your family, but just barely, and you'll destroy your body in the process. It would probably be better to subsidize education, it gives people more opportunities and will be necessary in any case if we want to remain competitive with other developed countries.

File: dT4BxRaTe[1].jpg (62 KB, 640x828) Image search: [Google]

62 KB, 640x828

>>5261418

I believe they're detrimental in every way.

Because of gender norms, people with personalities that don't conform feel they need to repress their own born sex because society deems it isn't fitting. People who don't conform to gender norms think they are sick, broken, that were born as the wrong sex, because gender norms have been ingrained into their psyche from birth.

>>5264467
What you're advocating for is the increasing mechanization of the human experience until every person is reduced to a soulless duplicate of one another existing to produce efficiently in a factory like society

>>5264765
Increased mechanization is inevitable, unless you want to go back to the middle ages. And no, people would not be duplicates of one another - that is actually more true of physical labor where people aren't specialized. Technology no longer means assembly line workers, that's going to be done by robots. People will be scientists and engineers - very specialized, distinctive professions and skill sets.

>>5264781

That sounds like it would be a great future.

>>5262936
You know that during the war it was women who built the aircraft and artillery right?

>>5265271
Sure, but that wasn't quite as dependent on strength as spending a whole day shoveling dirt or whatever. You needed to be in decent physical condition to climb over half-built planes and stuff, but it was largely things like welding and assembly line work. Also, it was ONLY done because of the war situation - women made better factory workers than they did soldiers, but men were generally seen as better for both. It was only a temporary thing, as soon as the war was over these jobs were supposed to be given back to the men.

i think.. neither. it's just human nature. the thing that's detrimental is the ostracization of people who don't conform to social norms... which applies to everything, not just gender

is this b8
obviously they were beneficial for thousands of years
now it's continually being dismantled and people are being stripped of their identity which is good in some ways but mostly bad

>>5262294
>Let's see a woman work a shitty manual labor job for 30 years that offers absolutely no personal fulfillment whatsoever and leaves her body hurt and tired every single night to pay for the bullshit her family wants while her kids act ungrateful
Lots of women do this, especially single moms. The only difference is that the husband is already gone instead of just itching to go.

>>5261423
Underrated post, this is completely true.

>>5265368
How do you know?
How do you know it cant be better just because it "worked" for a few year in a certain place on earth?