4 ms·

You're right that I am misunderstanding what you wrote. I continue to not understand what you are writing. I'm not even sure if we are in disagreement or not.

You're right that I am misunderstanding what you wrote. I continue to not understand what you are writing. I'm not even sure if we are in disagreement or not. My position is that there are a handful of ideologues who have perverse beliefs that typically feminine things are bad or demeaning. These people are left-wing, academic, modern feminist types. They think things like "Wanting to be a princess is synonymous to wanting to subjugate yourself to men" or "Wanting to be a housewife will make people think you aren't intelligent". The reality is that women and girls are, on average, predisposed towards "girly" stereotypes. More girls are interested in aesthetics, talking, emotions, etc. In the same way boys are more likely interested in things like fighting, guns, dinosaurs, trucks, etc. I think we should be equally fine with anyone interested in any set of subjects, but I also contend that the people I referenced earlier argue that girls doing typically girly things are undesirable and girls should be encouraged to pursue interests that boys typically do.

danans 6y ago
My argument is that predisposition (AKA nature) is only one aspect of identity, and that nurture plays a very important role. The nurture side (regardless of what direction you nurture in) has strong connections to cultural power structures that are loosely connected to nature, but far more connected to history. Survival in society requires a lot of adaptation to cultural power structures and symbols, and that can rationally mean nurturing a child in the direction that might run against their natural disposition. Another example less encumbered by the topic of gender: a parent might rationally make a non-athletically predisposed child play sports because the child can learn useful teamwork skills through their participation.

danans 6y ago

My argument is that predisposition (AKA nature) is only one aspect of identity, and that nurture plays a very important role. The nurture side (regardless of what direction you nurture in) has strong connections to cultural power structures that are loosely connected to nature, but far more connected to history. Survival in society requires a lot of adaptation to cultural power structures and symbols, and that can rationally mean nurturing a child in the direction that might run against their natural disposition. Another example less encumbered by the topic of gender: a parent might rationally make a non-athletically predisposed child play sports because the child can learn useful teamwork skills through their participation.