3 ms·
> It is basically impossible to avoid what would, in monogamous contexts, be severe conflicts of interest. > You think that “unable to avoid your ex” is bad? N
by ReactiveJelly 4y ago
> It is basically impossible to avoid what would, in monogamous contexts, be severe conflicts of interest.
> You think that “unable to avoid your ex” is bad? Now you can’t even go to work and avoid your ex.
Huh.
I just realized, if we had rigid gender roles where every work place or work team was one gender, and if everyone was monogamous, cisgender, and heterosexual, those problems wouldn't happen.
It would be an absurd waste to ruin so many lives (especially mine) to fix a relatively small problem, but if you think that problem is a big problem, I can see the appeal.
Usually the arguments you see online for rigid gender roles and reverting feminism is weak sauce like "but homophobia" or "but religion" or "but, like, tradition"
- AndrewGaspar 4y agoThat you're just now discovering a possible argument for traditional gender roles is a failure on your part to engage with any contrary points of view (on this topic we've been hashing it over for centuries) not that those arguments are actually two word "but muh"s. You might even find that there are billions of people still living in societies with some form of traditional gender roles, and it turns out they're not all superstitious rubes!