• ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

    Personally I prefer to refer to the broader term “toxic gender roles” as it covers a wider range of interdependent behaviors. I also think it goes deeper than just submissive femininity. It’s the old nature vs nurture argument. It’s not all societal. Some of it is biological. Larger, more physically imposing-looking men being preferred by the majority of women cuts across all times and cultures.

    • bouh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      I don’t buy this nature thing. All societies have been exposed to violence, and women make babies. Then the same causes will lead to the same consequences.

        • bouh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          It’s the opposite. Because it’s not nature but culture, it can be changed.

          • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Women making babies is culture? And as far as violence being culture, that has never been eliminated from any society and I don’t see it happening any time soon.

            • bouh@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              You should certainly try to understand this in a different way, because you obviously misunderstood this badly.

              • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                I understand it. I thought my sarcasm would be clear. I think it is absurd to say that nature plays no part in human sexual attraction in spite of it affecting literally every other sexually reproductive animal on the planet.