Believe it or not, I've studied human sexuality, and not just to the point of name-dropping Kinsey, who was flawed, and merely a showman, rather than an actual psychologist/scientist. I've always been fascinated with human sexuality, and especially gender roles, because so many laymen tend to exaggerate the roles, and emancipate the species because of the said roles, especially affluent in other realms of Nature. The gender-neutral era was just becoming mainstream when I've studied, and I find that people who want to be laboed as anything but the classic "he" and "she" see usually suffering from one or two anomalies,mother than gender identity. This is not the majority, but the concept of Zee, They, Them, and on the rarest occasion,mIs, used to describe human gender see far more fascinating now, and warrant study and have come to be more mainstream than nearly taboo thirty years ago.
The roles of gender in society, rather than the definition of gender itself are more beneficial factors, rather than sexist, or politically incorrect malarkey, because the human being must in-turn fulfill a certain role for the preservation of the species, as by the rules dictated in Nature. Now does a male have to fit the gender role of a male? Absolutely not, and females can fulfill that role, if-need-be. Survival will make for estranged anomalies in a Nature, that simply don't exist elsewhere due to situation.
Humans are one of the few species thwt choose to ignore gender roles, and choose to replace such roles with other objects, such as teachers, film, and even robotics. Women no longer need to great feed, they can use formula, and men no longer need to teach their sons and daughters defensive hunting-gathering tactics,mas most children self-educate and helicopter parenting allows for them to become more independent at a younger age. Children also sexually mature at an alarmingly faster rare, and they I -turn develop gender roles thwt fit to their own personal sexuality. Some girls want to be boys,and vice-versa, which entails thwt these typical roles of the boys acting in a way that almost seems foreign these days, and little girls being not only equal to boys, but in some rare cases, seen as boys, and vice versa, are making the past gender roles extinct.
Yet, the role of gender is for child rearing,mso in say a homosexual relationship, the roles are still split to the normative male/female roles, but done-so in a more abstract way, and in most newer studies, are met with equal results to the old axiom. The research for gender neutral roles is far less abundant than same-sex couples, but the hypothesis is just as clear, that even those who are androgynous, asexual, and even dully-sexed, such as hermaphoroditic individuals, still have a particular part to play, and that most children raised in such a manner, are given the same tools now than they had if raised in a typical environment. Nature and nurture vary in the western culture, as unique, and abnormal sexual behavior is seen as equal to heterosexual and normal sexual behavior, it becomes abundantly clear thwt there is not much different in either the sexes, or sexual orientations. Preference does not merely dictate the ability to raise children, nor does it simplify, or innate normative results.
Gender roles however, seem to be as stern like an unwritten natural,law, and eventually, the pairings take up to the same beneficial roles thwt have been made popularized in human history, and although most parents who raise their children in a broken home tend to have children mentally underdeveloped, and with social and educational issues, it is seen that homosexual and gender nonspecific individuals who raise a child to maturation, will have equal successes to those raised to maturation by two heterosexual couples. Nuture tends to be the same throughout, but with the anomoly of a child's personal impact from societal intrusions on the unique differential of being raised by an uncommon family, will not nessarily hinder the child's success,mor dictate their personal beliefs. If children feel loved by both parents, they tend to develop well, and with two parents present, or a nuclear family raising them with mutual support, the child, no matter how abnormal it may seem their upbringing may be, will thrive as well to the heterosexual normative.
I find this fascinating,becaue I consider myself an androgynous bisexual,,and despite political correctness being rampant, I tend to believe thwt gender roles are a vital role in raising a child,and most experts will agree. Male and female roles need to be filled to raise a child properly, but it doesn't take a male or female to fulfill that role. The dynamics of family are seen to help give the emotional need for love on two fronts, and a child to learn who they are, and sot see the functioning roles of parents I nature,and society.
Lesbians can raise children to adulthood, and have them be very successful, homosexual men can do the same, and of course the opposite results are just as plausible. The truth is, most Eastern philosophies on gender roles tend to wane from the norm of western civilization, but they still fulfill a specific need to raise a child. Many children from nuclear families, where they are raised by whole villages, and each-and-every person who raise that child disciplines them, and loves them like their own child, seem to have a far greater amount of success in their child's personal success. Raising a child together as a community is probably not going to happen as commonly in A Erica, although the concept of Mormon polygamy is close enough to be the assimilated version of such nuclear families,mbut with the cultish,and obscure upbringing by practicing polygamist, it is difficult to get a proper read on how it affects the children. Also with the pedophilia found in certain sects of the religion, the underdeveloped girls married off to older men may also bare different, unreliable data.
Polygamists and monogamist usually are based in large family, versus small family debates. In-truth, the gender roles of sister wives compared to homosexual males and females switching the roles for the bettering of children are apples and oranges. Polygamy roles like sister wives usually comes down to all wives raising children together, and although polygamy goes widely misunderstood, it has equally mixed results. Yes, children who come from such families, not sold off to sex slavery, and this includes Muslim polygamy as well, tend to lead very active, normal lives. Polygamy is shunned by most individuals, but most polygamists couples actually have a rather fulfilling,happy sex life, and respect their roles, and raise all the children equally as their own. Half-brothers and half-sisters tend not to recognize the half aspect, and see each other as an extension of their large family. Children fit these gender and familial roles early one as well, and this allows for a homeostatic relationship to eveleop the entire extended family. Many polygamist families have a strong familial bond, and despite the near impossibility of removing the religion from the relationship, it tends to bind them closer together, and divorce from non-incestuous and non-pedophila relationships is actually lower in most case than normal heterosexual, and normal homosexual marriages.
This might do with the Mormon religion it'll, but I tend to think thwt the polygamy aspect allows for females to develop a much stronger sisterly bond, and so they have each other to depend on, and they outrule the husband in many ways, especially modern polygamy that entails the siter wives have a stronger hold over the aspects of daily life, and each can split the work equally, while enjoying a much larger income. Of course, this is all speculation, with the best variables in place.
The gender norm roles can, and are played out in so many variables, it's impossible to state one is truly accurate, or even correct. Women act as men throughout history to have more pull, and more control over their lives, and have done so to propel the species further. Men have taken up nurturing to see their offspring survive as far back as the agricultureal revolution. Sexual preference does not necessarily add, or subtract from gender roles. The argument made thwt a child is not given enough to srivive off of just a male/female relationship is scientifically wrong. Children survive when given the best possible outlet in life, and mostly comes from genetic defects/abnormalities, rather than who or what raises them. Children can survive being raised by wolves, to say survival is only one way, one norm, is absurd. Gender roles have always been unique to most species, but let's understand why they exist: they are the blueprints built in from years of evolution to preserve the species, and many times they are not bound to gender alone. However, they require certain aspects of gender that can be filled by either sex I order to work in the natural world.
In-conclusion, gender roles are important, but what's not important is who fits into them. A mother can go off to work, and a father can stay home to raise the child, and this is not unusual in history, many males would see to the teaching of, and raising of children far back as Ancient Rome, and women were equl to going off to war in ancient Sparta, and the Germsnic tribes. There is no right answer, but all that matters in. Out statistics is thwt whoever the parents, whatever the role, it is best for the child that they are both present,,and encouraging for the child's best success.
Thank you for reading the Malacast Editorial. I know this week's post is a bit different, but being a student of human sexuality, I thought it would be a fun topic to discuss gender roles, as they seem to be challenged daily in the Western culture. Sex has always fascinated me, and sexual oreigentation has always been the fore bearer of controversy in society. Still, I am glad I was able to do this editorial, and I hope you've enjoyed my observations on the subject matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment