Thread: Your ideal society

Well for me I see both the pro's and con's of traditional gender roles.

Pro's.

Families stayed together far longer.

Everyone knew what they were supposed to do for their family.

There was less struggle for power within the family unit.

Con's.

Both men and women could be stuck with doing something that they didn't want to be stuck doing.

Both men and women sometimes missed out on finding the limits of their personal potential.


From a purely logical point of view to me the pro's of traditional gender roles outweigh the con's. Though I admit it is early for me and I probably listed only a fraction of the pro's and con's concerning the topic.

There are enough social engineers foisting their views on what other people's roles 'should' be, so I do not need to join them.

everyone treated equally right across the board

I think first I would elminate the term gender roles. There are two sexes male and female, gender is about sexual preference.
Males and females are different. Moms and Dads are different. We need more male teachers across the globe, there are good female teachers though.
The concept of role almost defies the concept of team. Males and females involved in intimate partnerships now generally simply the household tasks. Children are generally left to raise themselves, Fathers are nurters some mothers are but this has nothing to do with roles unless you are a feminist propagandist...

Quote from outdoors

everyone treated equally right across the board

Had to smile at that Outdoors! - since you coined that neat phrase "Equal Treatment Hits Women Hardest".

The concept of role almost defies the concept of team. Males and females involved in intimate partnerships now generally simply the household tasks. Children are generally left to raise themselves

(Bob)
I'm a big fan of an aged UK child-psychologist, who maintained that "children should grow up in a state of carefully contrived neglect". They must be free to explore and learn BUT they can't do that without two parents who keep them healthy, safe and informed.

Traditional gender roles meant that both parents brought something different to the table, to the benefit of their children.
It wasn't a perfect system but the current fashion for a bossy 'pretend-man' mother and a father who is emasculated by the State, doesn't serve the "child's best interest" either, whether boy or girl.

In my ideal society there would be no Family Court - there would be an assumption that the biological father and mother are equally responsible for their children.
Furthermore, there should be no legislation whatsoever that is based on sex. Men and women are equal players in the game of life. Even in sport, politics or employment there should be no separation of the sexes - "the best person for the job".

A truly egalitarian society would be a nightmare for western women since they would have a very narrow window of opportunity, while they are young and attractive, to make a contract with a receptive male. Older women would still have opportunities but they would be disadvantaged in making contracts. Older men would have more opportunities since women are primarily interested in the resources that they (the men) were able to accumulate by being either very smart and talented or else woman-free.

In short, Romance, Love (eros) and all other words that describe the symptoms of temporary mental derangement should be regarded with the utmost suspicion. In accordance with egalitarian concepts, women should have license to use them freely and men should be informed about what they actually mean.

There are enough social engineers foisting their views on what other people's roles 'should' be, so I do not need to join them

Agreed. The best rules are no rules. When people idolize the rules, they merely compete for the 'slave of the month' award. When the rules can be ignored they learn how to cooperate or perish.

A stateless classless society. No masters and no glorious leaders.

Quote from Lady Catherine

A stateless classless society. No masters and no glorious leaders.

Sounds good to me... ahh just think, no feminists to blame men.

Of course, 'ideal' and 'realistic' are two very different things..........

I would prefer a more traditional society.

Ideal society? I'm in mine, honestly. As long as I don't legally marry or cause myself to become legally married under any circumstances I'm fine as long as whatever judge decides CS does it fairly and without hidden alimony.

This opinion would flip quickly if I were to become unemployed and subject to misandric hiring practices. Or if palimony gains enough momentum to dissuade me from attempting a family altogether.

I dont feel like my society's so bad that I can't still do well. As long as I do well despite the odds, biases, and limitations vs. me, I'm content.

Improvements? Hm... maybe smarter people, in general. A dumb electorate is what's leading us to ruin. America has the tools to fix it's problems if the people were more than sheep, I dont need to fairy-tale dream of some utopia.

I agree with Lady C. I would like to live in a stateless society. I think gubment is the bane of human existence. Among other things, it pits race against race and men against women for the benefit of the few.

I support equal opportunity for all, but I don't think that that would lead to men and women doing the same things equally well or with equal interest. I think it would result in men and women readily pursuing traditional roles. I don't think traditional roles developed for no reason. And I don't think industrial or technological developments have or can produce any significant or lasting biological changes in men and women.