A requested topic for TheMonk
This message was last edited by the GM at 12:56, Wed 29 Sept 2010.

TheMonk, did you have anything in mind to get the discussion rolling on this topic?

You know, I don't remember what triggered this, but I do have some thoughts.

Predetermining Gender roles is bad. Sure, men are biologically predisposed to gaining muscle mass, but that doesn't mean that they have to use it.

I'll give you an interesting case of sexual discrimination that's not going to hurt anyone in the telling:

I was walking to my apartment yesterday when a group of kids were playing. A young girl entered the area, crying. The first sympathetic soul on the site was a boy, who was solicitous and concerned, and it seemed completely genuine to me.

Suddenly, seven girls turned and cast the boy aside, specifically stating that he "couldn't care" because of his gender. That may be specific to the environment I live in (International housing on a college campus) which does have some highly patriarchal societies and, thus, attitudes, but damn.

I think the original thought that sparked the idea of the thread was when you were talking about getting condoms in paper bags from the pharmacy.

As for predetermining gender roles being bad, are you saying that parents should make any assumptions or just that they should be willing to accept it when their assumptions are wrong?  As an example, are you saying parents should ask their kid "do you want a football or a barbie" before getting them either, or just that if they get their kid a football, and the kid says "but I want a barbie, not a football!" that they should be okay with that?

Ye olde "Barbie vs. Football" dichotomy... why must it be either/or? Again I find someone that makes the assumption that a boy interested in "Barbie" and what it represents is completely at odds with the "Football."

First, I'm not going to suggest anything about family dynamics and how they operate. I'm pretty sure that some people would be horrified at how I go about things and that the feeling may be mutual, with regards to parenting style.

No, my concern is primarily institutional. We use the "football" in the dichotomy above because it represents what we believe, as a culture, to be masculine. This discourages girls (and women) from participating in a sport that they might excel at. Similarly, boys are discouraged from learning about taking care of a home because domestic life is the domain of women. While some headway has been made in the name of women, it certainly hasn't swung the other way for men (despite the efforts of a handful).

The field of cooking is an interesting one: Many of the world's best chefs are men. In the traditional home, however, it is the woman who cooks.

Didn't mean to imply that someone couldn't be interested in both the football and the barbie, I was just asking about the specific case of someone who wasn't interested in both for the sake of clarification.  And, to be honest, I'm still not entirely sure on exactly what you're saying.  Is it bad for a boy to be interested in the football and not the barbie?  Is it bad for anyone to encourage interest in only one of those?  Would it be a bad thing, say, if without any encouragement at all, more boys ended up liking footballs, and more girls liking barbies?  I'm not trying to argue any point here at the moment, still just trying to figure out what exactly you're saying is bad.

Generalized statements like this bother me.  To say an entire category of things is bad is too overinclusive and generalized in my opinion.  There may be occasions where gender roles are good, and times when they are bad.

STDs are bad.

Just to move the discussion forward, are there specific instance you had in mind, Heath?  Situations where you feel predetermining gender roles is good?

For example, which bathroom to use...

The more pressing question is a preference issue.  For example, if you have a choice of a mother and father, and one can work and one can stay to raise the children, the preference should be for the mother to stay at home, given her biological instincts (nurturer) and his (provider).  But this would not apply in every situation, nor would everyone have that option, nor should anyone be pressed to accept that notion if they don't want to...but it is the instinct nature has given us and which we should acknowledge.

That's why generalizations about it being good or bad don't work here; I mean, can you say the Tyrannosaurus Rex should not be generalized as a dinosaur killer and that such a generalization is bad?  It was its instinct, and it is a fact.  Being good or bad is moralization that can interfere with the fact that should be looking at preferences instead.

And if it's later shown that the Tyrannosaurus was a scavenger, eating the leftovers of prey killed by other predators, would we change our minds over the concept of the Tyrannosaurus being a bloodthirsty eating machine?

If the evidence was shown, contrary to what movies and cartoons suggest, that our thinking of how the T-Rex and Genders were/are, would that change our minds?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3112527.stm

Because Jurassic Park wasn't an accurate portrayal of how the world works, and neither was Leave it to Beaver
This message was last edited by the player at 19:30, Fri 22 May 2009.

I tend not to engage in hypotheticals.  I mean, you could suggest that what if men were found to be women, and vice versa!  Well, part of it is in the definition.  We have enough observations and biological and evolutionary information to make some generalizations, but generalizations are just that.

Here's a question that sort of relates:

I know that several Christian communities frown on premarital sex... even if the congregation doesn't. Thing is, what happens after divorce? Do they revert to premarital status or are they permitted (male or female, doesn't matter for purposes of this question, I think) to be sex driven maniacs?

The Catholic Church does not permit divorce, only annulment. So no, sex after annulment is a mortal sin and, even, (from my understanding), sex DURING an annuled marriage would be a mortal sin, and would require going to confession.

I was pretty sure that Annulment isn't really a divorce at all; it's basically saying "Because the marriage wasn't consummated, the marriage never took place."

If you get an annulment because you never consummated your marriage, that means you were never married, or else you'd get a divorce.

So if I got myself a credit card and, even though I never used it, for some reason I owe the credit card company 500,000 dollars, I can get that debt erased.  Because I never used the credit card, I was never in debt to them in the first place.

What about churches that allow for divorce under extreme circumstances?

That is correct.

As for churches which allow for divorce, I believe relations after the divorce are still frowned upon (since the marriage is no longer in effect).

That's right.  Adultery is defined as any sexual relations outside of the covenant of marriage.  Biblically speaking, of course.

Even looking at another with lust is considered adultery according to the bible. Which makes 99.9% of men guilty of adultery. Alright, that number is a bit far fetched. We all know its 100%. ;)

Seriously though, I've always thought annulment was rather silly. Why get married to them, and find out you're not interested in marriage after all? Why isn't that called a divorce? I really don't think God lets people off on technicalities, does He?

I guess I should have said "legalistically speaking."  Jesus expressed the spiritual law which goes even deeper, revealing God's grace and the need for forgiveness.



This is one of Jesus' big criticisms of the Pharisees is that they allowed divorce (or actually "annullment" - the marriage never happened) for several "resonable" reasons which generally came down to "I don't want to be married anymore."  Marriage is a covenant, and the Father being a covenant God, He gets pretty frowny when earthly authorities supposedly acting in His name just declare it never happened when someone wants out.  There are very few legitimate reasons for divorce which amount to basically unfaithfulness and/or abuse.  Marriage is supposed to be work -- for most of us, quite possibly the most difficult project we ever work on in our lives.  If it as treated as such, we are rewarded with a beautiful thing.  If we just give up on it, all kinds of messes result and a tear forms in the very fabric of society.
This message was last edited by the player at 03:32, Sun 26 July 2009.