I'm not sure you're understanding my point.
You validated my argument though. You call a man who cries a "pansy". I know extremely tough men who do cry, tougher and braver than some I know who "refuse" to cry. Yet he'd be labeled a pansy by you because tears ran down his face and not by a measure of his true character.
i'd say you missed the little grinning smiley face at the end of that statement. show of emotion is generally cultural. for example, traditionally, northern europe has not been the home or source of touchy feely men. the mediteranean culture accepts more emotional display from men.
So if it is personality that is the reason of why one gender over another gravitates towards certain tasks and mannerisms, then how do you explain such a generalized pattern when we all have individual personalities?
Yes, play is preparation for life for some species. However, society still encourages girls and boys to act differently yet many jobs traditionally held for men are now employing women. So how does encouragement to play with dolls and stay clean help a woman who is running a construction business if play is so important to preparation for life?
dispite the roles played by people in modern life, due to physical design, women are still the birth givers and child rearers by nature (and most often in society). when it comes to natural design, nature doesn't give one wit about a woman running a construction business. it only knows that evolution, since the advent of placental birth, has designated and designed females to fulfill a certain role for the survival of the species. males as well.
while play designed to fulfill that role doesn't help her to fulfill a role that might normally be filled by a man, it certainly will help her if she ever has to fulfil her naturally designed role.
If play was indeed a way to prepare them for life, why not take away the toys and hand them a pretend bank account and hand them play bills crafted out of brightly colored construction paper? Or is the type of play we encouraged obsolete?
playing at white collar work might be fitting training for the modern human controlled environment but, in the really for real world, outside of man's protective social shield, it is useless play for training either sex to survive...much less advance the species. if the lessons of history have nothing else to tell us, one thing is certain. every civiization has reached it's summit and then man has fallen back to a more 'natural' state during which survival and eventual re-emergence of civilization has depended on mankinds naturaly designed characteristics. to think that we are immune to the same eventual fate is simple vanity.
beyond that, despite individual choice and the paths that modern civilization has afforded people the luxury to follow, we are all naturally designed to fulfill certain roles. though we learn to fill others, we can not deny our true nature. it doesn't hurt anyone to play at their traditional roles. certainy, if it did, you wouldn't have women doing traditionally male careers and you wouldn't have the present trend in stay at home dads.
that particular trend is fueled by the loss of manufacturing and other such jobs, which have been shipped to 'third world' countries. once, manufacturing, and the like, was the big money maker and office work the non-revenue generating part that a business had to tolerate. still, most heavy manufacturing and construction type work is male dominated. i know because i have spent a lifetime doing that kind of work. there are some women you will encounter but, not that many. certain, light kinds of manufacturing seem to show no gender basis; soldering PC boards, for instance. but heavy stuff, like welding and that sort of thing does.
however, despite the difficulty of and training needed for many of those jobs, they aren't the big money makers in our society. we are a white collar society, now. we don't produce. we administrate. that is where the money is. at work, where i am doing heavy, fast paced work with no time to goof off, my salary is a good bit less than the office manager who i often see doing on-line shopping at her computer when i have to go deal with her about a paperwork issue.
the harder you work the less you make and the shorter lunch breaks you get to take. if you work in a nice, climate controlled environment with the liesure to surf the net and have conversations around the water cooler and you can go out right after work without changing your clothes (much less needing to take a bath to clean off the grime, the black, and the crud), then you are going to rake in more money and get longer lunch breaks.(a point that most of us in the blue colar world have often pondered as being a bit backwards.)
anyhow, in such an environment, it encourages the woman to be the breadwinner and the man to raise the kids. but, only certain women work those kinds of jobs. there are still plenty of working class families where the guy is working on the construction site and the woman is a waitress or works at the grocery store for a lot less money. that's a different situation completely.
you can't possibly have enough play variation to prepare individuals for their adult lives in this extremely variable world of modern society. however, not only does it not hurt to train for natural social roles through play, it could be a big help, if it turns out you need to fill those roles.
Is it fair that boys are handed toy cars, boats, planes to play with. Those are luxury items.
cars, boats, and planes are only luxury items for some. they are jobs for others. tell the men risking their lives fishing in some of the most dangerous waters of the world that their boating is luxury and see what they say. perspective. traditionally, drivers, pilots, and people who make their living on the sea have been men. playing with toys of those careers was training for future roles not playing at luxury...certainly not initially. sailboats, in the modern would, might be pleasure boats and yachts but, in the days of sail, they represented a life of hard work and dangerous jobs from which you might not return.
things today are not always equal to things up until now. now, a 'home maker' does a little house work, goes shopping with her friends (who are also stay at home moms) while the kids are at school, then she drives them around from school and to activities like a taxi driver. in past days, a 'mother' churned butter, manufactured clothing and blankets and things, made home cooked meals from scratch, often worked the fields or tended livestock. meanwhile, the husband built or mended outbuildings, repairded other things, also worked the fields or tended livestock, and traded goods for meney or other goods, as well as being responsibe for defense of the family.
much of our play does stem from an older time. however, i would argue that any society that forgets it's roots and what it learned on the way up is in grave danger on the inevitable way down.
also, judging from the obvious dysfunction in modern society, perhaps the modern way of doing things isn't so good for us, as a species. time will tell on that one.
male and female elements are important, just as is day and night. yin and yang. a world out of balance is not a good thing. look around at what we value. as i pointed out before, it would seem to me that the male role is adored far more than the female, now, and there is far less of the female in modern society. imbalance.
And girls are given items like a toy oven, a baby changing table, etc? Cooking and cleaning, aren't those chores? Why must she play by feeding and clothing a doll rather than roll around in the dirt like the boys get to?
both rolling in the dirt and playing with dolls is found to be fun by kids, in my experience. as an adult, digging ditches and wading around in the (sometimes very cold) water and mud trying to drain flooded foundations on a new building site (a job i have never seen a woman doing) is far less pleasant than you might assume. i notice a ot of women decide to be mothers but i haven't noticed them banging down the doors of construction trailers to do the former. perspective yet again.
Is it fair to either gender to be given such different toys, forbidden to play half of what is offered when they will be competing for and working the same jobs in the future? How did toy cars, boats and planes prepare a stay at home dad? Like I questioned, is the type of play we encourage obsolete?
Men giving birth, well that's not society discouraging him from doing so. He's physically incapable. That's not really a similar comparison to whether or not women should be encourage to do well in math and science. Women are capable of doing well in those subjects but are often discouraged from trying.
when my mom was a girl, yes, women were often discouraged from seeking an education. but this isn't the 50s. i don't know of anyone trying to keep their litte girls from getting an education and i think any claim to that is a bit of a snalligaster hunt put forth simply to try to prove a point which is not really ironclad.
we live in a society where women only groups and activities are cool but not the reverse. where it's glorious for a woman to take a traditionally male job but often unmanly for a man to take a traditionally female job-like a male nurse. if gender roles persecute anyone, i would have to say it is men. women are touted as the smart ones and their husbands impotent, incapable idiots in advertising and entertainment. beautiful women are depicted as the great, unstoppabe heros who triumph over men, where other men were defeated. i don't think women are really being fed the weak incapable pill, anymore....not by society. just the opposite.
And there are many examples in nature of the female gender doing quite the job of protection. "Watch out for momma bear". We have females serving in the military so it's safe to say they aren't afraid to back down.
for one, bears don't form male/female/child famiy units or live in social groups, like we do. male bears kill cubs and are the biggest threat momma faces. not a good comparison to human society.
no one said women could not defend. naturally, the line of defense starts with the man but passes to the woman, if need be.
i think the creation myth of the germanic tribes might clarify my point. it's not the sexist, woman dominating myth like the middlre eastern christian creation myth. different societies with different ideas about femae roles.
after shaping the wolrd from Ymir's slain body ( Ymir was the enormous originator of the Jutnar ( frost giants equal to greek titans, sort of )), Odin, Villi (Tyr), and Ve( Heimdallr) went in exploration of the realms outside of this middle earth that they had shaped. the Vana Gods (earth Gods as compared to the Asir sky Gods) populated earth with flora and fauna.
Odin and his brothers returned, after estabishing Asgard, and realized they needed someone, an ally, to help them maintain the order they had created from the constant attack from the forces chaos.(as the christian bible puts it, they needed someone to tend to the garden of eden)
so, walking across the beach, they came apon two trees. one was an ash. the other and elm. from these trees, they formed the first man and woman, equally and of equal importance; not one coming from or lesser to the other (as it is in christianity). man was made from the ash and woman from the elm. traditionally, ash wood is used to form spears because of it's physical properties. spears; which are used to defend or provide for society. elm wood is used to make cradles because it was thought to have a spiritualy nurturing and protective quality. i don't need to tell you what crades are used for. thus, men deal with that which is outside of the social enclosure, protecting and providing for what is inside of that enclosure. women nurture and protect that which is inside the enclosure. both ensuring the survival of society. again, check out the story of Agnar and Geirrod.
this is not to say that a spear can not be made of elm or a cradle of ash; only that those woods are, naturally, best suited to those uses.
My post was about the doubts society has been giving both genders. I've heard men say to other men that their wife is the boss. Fifty years ago, would a man have ever said that? What changed? Personalities? Or societal pressure?
Is it fair to put someone in a box like that?
the feminization of the male. something that was pushed by feminists from the 60s on. the idea that women wanted men that, basically, acted like women and guys that didn't were sexist pigs. white men fell for it big time other races not so much. not much of that in the back community, for instance. however, whatever women may have claimed they wanted, it would prove that instictivey they wanted something else. they wanted men who act like men. every guy has seen it. the confident 'manly' jerk...totally insensitive who treats women poory...gets all the girls whie the sensitive, touchy feely, nice guy...the one women claimed to have desired...spends most of his time in the friend zone. it would seem that, whatever we think we want in our minds, we are genetically designed to want what nature has programmed us to want. to wit: women realy want a man who demonstrates qualities that show the abiity to protect and provide for a family and to not view men who take on a more femae character as mates.
sexist or just nature?
as i am always telling my students (martial arts), humans love to pretend that we are pacifists but, at the end of the day, we are natural born killers and, if you intend to fight in your (or your family's) defense, you have to tap into that. we are what we are no matter how we pretend otherwise.
i repeat the idea here, you can pretend, and even successfuly live, as if we are different than what we are but, at the end of the day, we are what we are, just the same.
countless generations evolved us into what we are. a few decades of different social conditions will not cause any real change to that.