The Purloined Household

*yawn* What are you trying accomplish by making that sort of typical, liberal dig? You trying to get a rise out of me? Gonna have to try harder than that.

 

So what? That wasn't my point. I'm glad that you have nothing to say about the real-world examples that I provided that disprove you point.

Yes. Exactly like that. Except that there wasn't a discussion here at 5.0 to merge that into - which we would have done had one existed. Again, if you think a topic has already been covered, report the post. It's in the basic rules of TFP, Eddie. Do you need to read them again? Or for the first time?

 

The same thing you try to accomplish with your overtly misogynistic comments and your typical conservative tripe?

Baraka_Guru - careful now..

j/k. Yes, television is behind when it comes to situational dramas, comedies etc. However, it is also created for mass consumption. A conservative likely isn't going to buy the box set of Six Feet Under just as a liberal likely isn't going to pay for a subscription to Fox News. Television aims at the middle ground in order to A. make money, B. show a creative outlet that if you're lucky causes people to stop and think for a moment. If a show is truly great, people may actually relate to the characters, when this happens, shifts and cultural differences, bonding, ideas etc are more noticeable and readily accessed. Let's face it, the general population is jaded enough that they tend to ignore the world around them when in 3d space, but they have a change of perception when facing a screen of projected images. This keeps me well fed

 

I never insisted that women were too free. Ridiculous.
--- merged: Nov 8, 2011 6:53 PM ---

I'm stating my opinion, while you did nothing but take a personal dig at someone you disagree with.

 

I wasn't aware that Rush was a member.

 

What the fuck do you mean by "work"? That's an entirely capitalist concept that didn't exist in the majority of the world until about 150 years ago.

But to play your game, how about, oh, the Mesopotamians, the Tehuacans and the Mayans. Agricultural history doesn't support your argument, Eddie.

 

From an evolutionary standpoint, whether or not this new arrangement benefits or adversely affects the survival of our species remains to be seen. In that context, the "right or wrong" nature of it will be determined by the outcome. Gender roles were developed over time as mechanisms for survival. They have always been subject to change based on what survival requires.

But are the attributes of physical male strength and female mammary glands currently what's required for survival? It doesn't appear to me that they are.

To insist men and women adhere to traditional roles in a society which appears to require non-traditional alternatives is a "head in the sand" attitude.

As to the OP - I think the media is responding to the subtle shift in roles and the reactions to it. Is it tough, is it a struggle to throw the yoke off of so many years of role definition? Yeah, I think it is, but if it wasn't required that we do it, we probably wouldn't put ourselves through it.

 

So the Mesopotamian, the Tehhuacan, and Mayan women handed the children off to the men to care for while they went out and worked/hunted/fought wars? I'm pretty certain that's not true.

First off, I don't believe in the theory of evolution. Transmutation is a myth. Secondly, gender roles where appointed by our creator, imo.

 

I think I'll leave work early and cook dinner..and hope I don't get sent to hell because of it.

 

Don't worry, God doesn't work like that.

 

Did I say that? No, I didn't. You just have a biased view of what qualifies as "work". I don't know of anyone worth listening to that's ever classified "war" as "work" when it comes to ancient societies.

They left the children with the men while they went out and created a little something called "agriculture". Which is what happens when the "gatherers" figure out how to make their roles more efficient. In most places that aren't South America there was large game available for hunting, which means that it's required less often (smaller game means more frequent hunts to replenish protein stocks).

What you THINK is true and what's an actual part of the historical record are pretty far apart on this issue.

 

So I guess while the women where out working all day the men just heated up a bottle of formula for the babies, whipped up a nice lunch for the toddlers, and spiffed up the house? I'm thinking the reality was that the women spent most of their time at the home, preparing food, feeding the children and tending to the home. While there were times during harvest that the women worked side by side with the men.

 

Whew. I was worried.

based on the human condition and how fucked up we tend to be, I'd say he doesn't work at all, but that would kind of destroy the gender role he's put in place.

Baraka_Guru that's pretty much where I was going. Mainstream needs the "bold" series, regardless of it being behind social issues or not in order for the mainstream masses to access those issues in a more readily available fashion. Naturally, the internet is changing this as well, but that's a completely different issue. Most people tend to misconstrue the point of bold television entirely and only use it to either reinforce their own beliefs or try to see something that isn't there. All in the Family, wasn't meant to just be a shock factor show..it was to show the human condition in a humorous manner. By doing it this way, most people didn't even realize they were being challenged to see the issues in America it dealt with until digestion was complete. It was a show that helped show that in the end, family was still there and change was going to occur no matter how puffed up you got about it.

Modern Family is a more recent one that some would consider bold based on two gay men raising a child, but it's only as bold as a person makes it because this is certainly nothing new, it's just more readily accepted..naturally, that bolsters your 'behind the times' argument (which I don't disagree with) I'm just trying to point out that bold television isn't really as bold as it's made out to be unless you completely disagree with it.

 

Children are babies for a limited amount of time.

 

Before I comment, I'd love to hear Eddie's definition of transmutation.

 

No. Freedom isn't the issue here. The issue is humans, both men and women, adopting a destructive lifestyle that leads to extremely high rates of suicide, abortion, depression, divorce, child on child murder, crime, poverty and rampant immorality...to name only a few.