CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
In the name of maintaining balance in the universe, of course both parents must! They should assume different- yet equal roles in raising a baby.
The mother must nurture the baby and teach it how to be kind, and the father must protect the baby and teach it to be strong. If there was any imbalance to this system, the baby will grow up to be an underdeveloped individual...
But in modern society, these roles sometimes swap sides, depending on the parents since the barriers of gender roles are shifting.
Overall, I agree with your sentiment that parents should both have an active role in parenting. That said, your stance on gender norms somewhat confuses me. Why must character instruction by divided at all? Why can't both parents teach compassion and strength? Presumably, if they are developed individuals themselves then they would know how.
Traditional gender roles can swap, but they can also not exist. In a household, a mother may take on traditional male roles and a father may take on traditional female roles. But a mother may also take on a mix of traditional male and female roles, as could a father. You can also have same-sex households, with two fathers or mothers taking on a mix of traditional masculine and feminine roles. A single parent can perform both traditional roles as well. There is no reason that the roles we have gendered have to remain gendered at all.
I am not denying that either genders can perform each other's roles- I am highlighting how in modern society, these roles may switch positions. This is neither good or bad, unless there is a balance of them.
Men tend to be built more muscular to deal with physical conflict. It's undeniable. But if there is a man who cannot deal with physical conflict, there must be a woman who does. Same applies to same-sex couples.
I realize that. What I am saying is that the roles may do more than just switch positions. A man can instruct in physical conflict, but he could also pass on insights into non-violent conflict resolution, compassion, etc. The same for women. There is no reason if it is possible for the roles to switch that they could not also blend.
But what you are highlighting is the deviations that occur in the mixing of the two. Both sides, in the purest of forms as seen as black and white, are strictly opposing- this difference was more perceivable in the society of the past. Masculinity with no deviation with femininity is all about logic and strength. Femininity with no deviation with masculinity is all about creativity and empathy. Can you see how both sides are completely opposite, but completely equal? No human can be 100% masculine or feminine because that is just not possible, but logic and creativity are still categorized in completely different places. A man acting with compassion or seeks no conflict is still following some form of femininity- the dislike of conflict- despite masculinity's proficiency in dealing and thriving in conflict.
I fully appreciate the conceptual distinction between pure and distinct femininity and masculinity. What I reject is that such conception has any pertinent bearing on actuality. As you say, no person is 100% one or the other; this natural deviation extends to parents so that no parent embodies (and thus imparts) one or the other but a mix of the two. This being true, it is to me entirely illogical to suggest that there would be no overlap between what parents impart to their children. There is no reason why they could not impart overlapping "masculine" and "feminine" attributes.
*As an interesting side-note, the pure masculine understood as strength is actually a fairly contemporaneous development. Crying in men used to represent refinement and integrity, rather than feminine vulnerability or weakness. That the "pure" masculine/feminine varies temporally as well as culturally strongly suggests that they are primarily if not exclusively concepts, with fairly weak bearing on the actual complexity of individuals.
This being true, it is to me entirely illogical to suggest that there would be no overlap between what parents impart to their children. There is no reason why they could not impart overlapping "masculine" and "feminine" attributes.
I have not denied that there would be no overlapping between both attributes imparted on their children. What parents do around their children revolves greatly around who they are as a person, and where they sit on the spectrum of masculinity and femininity.
As an interesting side-note, the pure masculine understood as strength is actually a fairly contemporaneous development. Crying in men used to represent refinement and integrity, rather than feminine vulnerability or weakness. That the "pure" masculine/feminine varies temporally as well as culturally strongly suggests that they are primarily if not exclusively concepts, with fairly weak bearing on the actual complexity of individuals.
Crying is an action that releases stress and toxins which is shared among humans. It purely depends on your purpose of crying- keeping in mind that no man is 100% masculine, same with women and effeminacy.
I think... we might actually be agreeing. Although, my tangent with crying had nothing to do with crying being something only some people can do... but the shift in its perceived acceptability. That we have expectations around crying at all confuses the fuck out of me. Along with burping and farting. They are natural. Humanity, grow up already. ...sigh...
My observations are anecdotal at best, but from what I've seen, 'hybrid' approaches really don't work. It is most effective when there is a 'mother' and a 'father' role, with stark contrast between them. It's not tied to gender, by any means; in a traditional family, the mother may take on the 'father' role, and vice versa. In a same-sex couple, still, one would adopt one role and the other would adopt the other.
The problem, as I see it, is that the thing children seem to need the most is consistency, and you simply can't have that with parents attempting to work in a hybrid of the two roles. Does this mean it can't work, and the child will be ruined? No, I don't believe that- but I believe that parenting is most effective when the roles are well defined.
I don't have hard data on this, and it seems hard to come by. I also recognize, as stated, that my observations are anecdotal and should note that they do not constitute a statistically significant sample. But I still have to put that out there.
I can totally respect that what you've observed indicates the dissolution of traditional roles doesn't work. At the same time, I have personally observed that most traditional approaches also don't work out very well a lot of the time. I have also seen the non-traditional work. But like you, I don't really have much to draw upon that is not anecdotal. I think that you are correct in that the data right now is just hard to come by.