Current Events > Are gender roles purely social constructs, or does biology also play a part

(+) Yeah! (+)

?

whats a role?

---

armandro posted...

whats a role?

A small bread

---

Yes and no.

I meanno matter how you twist it people born with male sex organs and those born with female sex organs are pretty different biologically thats basic science.

As for roles yeah that seems to be a social construct. For example the idea that the female are to be home taking care of children while the male works to provide is a dated (and sexist) social construct.

Or the idiot idea that pink = girlsagain a weird pointlessly gendered social construct.

---

armandro posted...

whats a role?

baby don't hurt me.

Anyway by default it has to be society since gender roles are different depending on which culture/civilisation you're looking at

obviously biologically men are stronger, larger and more prone to aggression and violence

Women are smaller weaker and get pregnant/give birth

Those are constants

but beyond that it's all created by society

---

SSJPurple posted...

As for roles yeah that seems to be a social construct. For example the idea that the female are to be home taking care of children while the male works to provide is a dated (and sexist) social construct.

I think this was likely the natural development of men being hunters/gatherers while women were caretakers.


---

SSJPurple posted...

For example the idea that the female are to be home taking care of children while the male works to provide is a dated (and sexist) social construct.

Not entirely. Males of any given mammalian species generally aren't sidelined by gestation and lactation.

UnfairRepresent posted...

obviously biologically men are stronger, larger and more prone to aggression and violence

Women are smaller weaker and get pregnant/give birth

I mean men being soldiers is a pretty universal gender role, and it's exactly because of all those things.

Only the very earliest societal roles would have had any biological basis. It's worth mentioning that nomadic and semi-nomadic hunter-gatherers tend to get most of their nutrition via gathering and/or agriculture: hunting is/was important, but it isn't going to provide the consistent, daily nutrition(at least not with primitive weaponry). Even so, there's plenty of reason to believe that these barriers were not always strict IIRC, it's actually pastoralists that tend to have the strictest gender roles, as maintaining your goats/sheep/cows/whatever is basically a primary source of nutrition, clothing, and wealth.
Oh, and another (unrelated) thing: barter was never a thing.

Nowadays, there's really very little reason for gender roles to exist other than from enforcement of existing societal norms, which cuts against women and men alike, in different ways.

Biology plays a part.

They're largely based on the trends that the sexes tend to follow.

---