6 ms·

>The nuclear family is part of patriarchy, for example. You are presuming that traditional behaviour is pathological. Why? Why exactly is the nuclear family pa

>The nuclear family is part of patriarchy, for example. You are presuming that traditional behaviour is pathological. Why? Why exactly is the nuclear family pathological? Two people in a partnership raising the children they love together using division of labour? This seems pretty rational. My mother did this. Was she a victim for doing so? It is good to offer people the freedom to choose, but when they choose something other than what you would do not blame it on brainwashing.

xixi77 11y ago
There is nothing wrong or pathological about people who want nuclear family having nuclear family; the question is, should people who aren't necessarily as interested in it be socially pressured to having one as well?
- fleitz 11y ago
  Who cares, seriously if you can't stand social pressure you're just not cut out to be a leader. The entire point of leaders is to do things that are unpopular that benefit the group. You don't need leaders to do popular things, they just happen. Fundamentally if you want to make omelettes you're going to have to break some eggs, if your friends say breaking eggs is bad you have two choices, tell them off, or don't break eggs. Those that are willing to break eggs are allowed to be chefs.
pyre 11y ago
Yes, people should not be disparaged for their choices, and in general we want to offer the ability to choose. The real problem is are people growing up in a society where they are being subconsciously funnelled towards a particular choice (to the point where they don't see other options as valid choices due to subconscious biases). You just have to look at all of the crazy responses to Target (a US retailer) removing the gender-specific labelling of toys (from "Girl Toys" and "Boy Toys" to just "Toys") to see how as a society we are not at a point where "we" aren't trying to impose a particular ideal (e.g. "Barbies are girl toys") on children as they grow up. > Two people in a partnership raising the children they love together using division of labour? This is more generic than the "nuclear family" traditionally is viewed. If it was just two people dividing up labour, then the "nuclear family" could equally have the father as the homemaker and the mother as the breadwinner. When people typically refer to the "nuclear family" they are referring to some idealized Leave It To Beaver type setup.
- exstudent2 11y ago
  > The real problem is are people growing up in a society where they are being subconsciously funnelled towards a particular choice (to the point where they don't see other options as valid choices due to subconscious biases). Is this a problem? Is the funneling people into an androgynous role any better than funneling them into traditional gender roles? If anything the current system seems more "natural" in that it's emergent behavior, whereas moving to a genderless society will require top down engineering. Our society is free enough that regardless of the direction the masses take, people can and will step out of the role most commonly held by other people of their gender. I think we all agree that it's a good thing to have that option. With that in mind I don't think there's anything "bad" about genders existing in society. People's free will is strong enough to live the life they want regardless of cultural nudging.
  - derefr 11y ago
    I think the suggestion would be that everyone should be able to default to an agendered role and then later make an explicit choice to "put on" a particular gender. This happens in some tribal cultures: children treated as neuter until they reach a certain age, then choosing to go through an explicit ritual to "make them a man" or "make them a woman." (These cultures aren't particularly modern otherwise; you can't choose to undertake the ritual to become a man if you are biologically a woman, and people would think you were crazy to not want to undergo the ritual. The point is more that it's possible for a culture to start doing the "treat people as agendered by default" thing with no top-down pressure.)
    - exstudent2 11y ago
      That's a great example. I think it doesn't quite fit what the parent was talking about though, since as you say there are still strongly defined male/female roles (that tribe members are very much expected to follow). It's just that there's a 3rd "pre-gender" that's assigned to infants. I suppose the real test would be to find a culture that's genderless for people who have reached sexual maturity.
    - 11y ago

xixi77 11y ago

There is nothing wrong or pathological about people who want nuclear family having nuclear family; the question is, should people who aren't necessarily as interested in it be socially pressured to having one as well?

fleitz 11y ago
Who cares, seriously if you can't stand social pressure you're just not cut out to be a leader. The entire point of leaders is to do things that are unpopular that benefit the group. You don't need leaders to do popular things, they just happen. Fundamentally if you want to make omelettes you're going to have to break some eggs, if your friends say breaking eggs is bad you have two choices, tell them off, or don't break eggs. Those that are willing to break eggs are allowed to be chefs.

pyre 11y ago

Yes, people should not be disparaged for their choices, and in general we want to offer the ability to choose. The real problem is are people growing up in a society where they are being subconsciously funnelled towards a particular choice (to the point where they don't see other options as valid choices due to subconscious biases). You just have to look at all of the crazy responses to Target (a US retailer) removing the gender-specific labelling of toys (from "Girl Toys" and "Boy Toys" to just "Toys") to see how as a society we are not at a point where "we" aren't trying to impose a particular ideal (e.g. "Barbies are girl toys") on children as they grow up. > Two people in a partnership raising the children they love together using division of labour? This is more generic than the "nuclear family" traditionally is viewed. If it was just two people dividing up labour, then the "nuclear family" could equally have the father as the homemaker and the mother as the breadwinner. When people typically refer to the "nuclear family" they are referring to some idealized Leave It To Beaver type setup.

exstudent2 11y ago
> The real problem is are people growing up in a society where they are being subconsciously funnelled towards a particular choice (to the point where they don't see other options as valid choices due to subconscious biases). Is this a problem? Is the funneling people into an androgynous role any better than funneling them into traditional gender roles? If anything the current system seems more "natural" in that it's emergent behavior, whereas moving to a genderless society will require top down engineering. Our society is free enough that regardless of the direction the masses take, people can and will step out of the role most commonly held by other people of their gender. I think we all agree that it's a good thing to have that option. With that in mind I don't think there's anything "bad" about genders existing in society. People's free will is strong enough to live the life they want regardless of cultural nudging.
- derefr 11y ago
  I think the suggestion would be that everyone should be able to default to an agendered role and then later make an explicit choice to "put on" a particular gender. This happens in some tribal cultures: children treated as neuter until they reach a certain age, then choosing to go through an explicit ritual to "make them a man" or "make them a woman." (These cultures aren't particularly modern otherwise; you can't choose to undertake the ritual to become a man if you are biologically a woman, and people would think you were crazy to not want to undergo the ritual. The point is more that it's possible for a culture to start doing the "treat people as agendered by default" thing with no top-down pressure.)
  - exstudent2 11y ago
    That's a great example. I think it doesn't quite fit what the parent was talking about though, since as you say there are still strongly defined male/female roles (that tribe members are very much expected to follow). It's just that there's a 3rd "pre-gender" that's assigned to infants. I suppose the real test would be to find a culture that's genderless for people who have reached sexual maturity.
  - 11y ago