I never said they didn't. Sorry if I seemed rude and redundant.. I was merely pointing out that it seems futile to argue about those sorts of jobs. 99% of the things men and women do now-a-days are not the roles we 'naturally' started out with. We're talking about social constructs.. not jobs that were equally associated with men and women.I don't see the point where all theses "women can do it" "men can do it" etc. OF COURSE they can, but that does'nt mean genders don't exist. Genders exist as global norms and natural leanings based on the sex, not as rigid structures and categories
It seems to offend you if women have manly traits? .. Our point is not that women should act like men, and men should be happy in women's roles. This is just as extreme.. We're saying people should not be punished for acting like themselves. We're saying society takes smaller differences, and has emphasized on them SO much for SO long that now people are expected to act certain ways, and to feel shame when they fall short of those social pressures. I don't think that's right. I think men are useful whether they're aggressive or not. I think women are useful whether they're nurturing or not.Of course, we can, maybe, envisage that it is reversible, and we can wish every women act like men and every men act like women, or even that none of these act either like men and women and that human being become a unisex species. But it would'nt happen naturally and we would need a vast bureaucracy, police, educations programs, etc, to lead men and women to this. A social construct.
So if a woman happens to be pretty, she can get everywhere in the world? That is how it is set up now.. I'm saying it shouldn't come down to how pretty we are. The whole point of talking about the jobs Marm listed earlier was to say that women are useful in SO many other ways than "seduction" that it cheapens us as a whole to narrow it down to that. On average, most women are not on par with the looks of someone who could get their way with their seduction alone. We're not all Jessica Rabbits. (I won't even get into the whole 'purity' issue and constant barage of insults if a woman is comfortable with her sexuality.. it's a whole thread somewhere.)The thing is just that agressivity is not the better way for women to get power. Their power is more efficient in their sexuality and their seduction. And women's seduction don't work like men's seduction. Men need to be assertive, agressive, powerful, tough and achieve great things to be attractive. Women don't need that. They just need to be attractive, passive, and take off their clothes. Doing that they can get power toward a powerful man, and escape the necessity to work hard. Men and women intuitively know that, this is why genders differences automatically happen, and it is not an injustice, it is a natural phenomenon. Not a social construct.
And we do need that. Do you think I'd be rude, and aggressive, if I didn't have to be? If I had people who DIDN'T try to assume I was stupid, or take advantage of my kindness and mistake my passive traits as weakness.. I wouldn't need to be nearly as forthright as I am. But alas, I don't get that sort of respect much of the time. Many don't. You don't want women to act aggressive? Stop treating us like we didn't grow up right next to you.