Why are gender roles called social constructs when different societies have more or less the same gender roles? Anywhere on earth women generally use dresses and men use pants, women have longer hair, men are the leaders, etc etc. Of course you could find exceptions but an exception proves the rule.
It doesn't feel at all like gender roles were just some ideas created by society; instead they're something people have naturally. If a gender role was just some arbitrary rule created by society then you would expect different societies to create different roles but obviously it's not the case.
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
>Anywhere on earth women generally use dresses and men use pants, women have longer hair
Western influence. Stop pretending to be moronic anon, have you never seen how people in ancient times dressed?
Western countries women covered their hair until not long a go, and even up until the 1960's women covered their hair to attend sunday church.
Was it muslim influence?
Middle Eastern influence probably.
>Was it muslim influence?
Actually yes in a way
> The throat covering known as the wimple seems to have been based on the head scarf called the khimar worn by women in the Holy Land. It was brought to Europe in the early 12th century by returning Crusaders and was adopted by married women, widows and members of religious orders. Alone or together with a veil the wimple remained a staple of the adult woman’s wardrobe from the 12th century thru the end of the 15th C.
That's surprising. I remember seeing and reading about head coverings in ancient Greece and Rome and I thought it was adapted from them when Europe became Christian.
I think the earliest mention of head covering is from Assyria or Babylon.
Define "ancient," because from Rome to China, as far back as I know, women always wore a dress-like garment. Men varied between robes and pants, depending on clime.
>Anywhere on earth women generally use dresses and men use pants
A frickton of places men didn't wear pants and wore long flowing clothing, "dresses", and other clothing.
You have any proof of that?
Literally East Asia. They even convinced their occassional SteppeBlack person conquerors to abandon pants and wear robes as well.
>chinks have a long tradition of making men cut their genitals off and their traditional clothing is essentially dresses
You literally can't make this troony shit up
You could say the same in regards to greeks and romans in terms of clothing.
Chinks are natural trannies to the point that modern China had to make a law against men looking like women lel
Why do westerners think of trannies all the time? Its right up there with the American need to mention black dicks.
nothing about this is wrong though. it doesn't say that the figure is trans, just that it is an example of gender fluidity in mythology, which is much more common than you may realize.
I don't trust internet Nazis.
If it's real it's bad. It's just modern propaganda instead of a proper description of this artifact.
not really. I think it just triggers you because you have an issue with trans people.
it does bring contemporary issues to the fold in historical artifacts, but the connection is totally legitimate to make. It absolutely makes since to bring up modern cases of gender-bending to relate to ancient examples for normies.
Just because there's similarities across cultures doesn't mean these social roles aren't socially constructed.
That's not to say there isn't biological influence, however. When women give birth and produce milk, it makes sense that they will then be associated with childcare. But that doesn't mean it's hard-wired into every woman to take care of children, or that men are incapable of taking care of children.
Men are physically stronger, and not dealing with pregnancies gives them a natural advantage career wise, even in non-physically laborious jobs. They also have the advantage of being much more able to get off the hook if there's an accidental pregnancy. And since most soldiers will naturally tend to be men in ancient times, even before you count cultural influence, and those soldiers are paid in loot, they will both be able to enrich themselves when women couldn't and take slaves, both other men and women who they would often rape.
These biological factors in ancient times will tend to produce more patriarchies than matriarchies with the general gender roles we're familiar with, and it doesn't require men and women's brains to be hard-wired for those roles.
>will tend to produce more patriarchies than matriarchies
An understatement considering not a single matriarchy ever existed
Gender roles are innate but clothes are not
17th century masculine aristocrats dressed like utter girly homosexuals by modern standards
don't kid yourself, they go hand-in-hand.
But I'm glad someone else is saying this much at least.
>Why are gender roles called social constructs when different societies have more or less the same gender roles?
Your reasoning is moronic. Most societies use money the same way yet that's also a social construct.
>Anywhere on earth women generally use dresses and men use pants
That's just in cold climates, in fact the romans used to make fun of the Gauls for wearing pants
I still agree with your point though.