---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

  What is wrong with girls being lady like? Women with children being "mothers" "carers" and men being "fathers" or "protectors/providers" 

 

Protectors; providers. There are one or two fundamental problems with that concept

 

From what or whom does the modern Australian woman need protecting by her menfolk: man eating wombats, rampaging kangaroos, or could it be other men?

 

And if protection is the man’s role, then whose role is it to  protect the family while he away doing the ‘providing’

 

Now let’s consider the ‘man as provider’ scenario. This is not traditional – it is simply a status symbol that came in with the rise of the middle class.   It was in great part the ill paid labour of female mill workers, factory workers, domestic servants, dressmakers etc. that allowed  the nouveau riche to flaunt their non-working wives as a symbol of their affluence; with the result  that  being able to ‘keep’ a wife and family on a single wage became a goal for those aspiring to upward mobility. 

 

In rural areas women have always worked alongside their men (shepherdesses and milk maids are not figments of the imagination of costume shop owners). The men may have owned the farms and managed the livestock but it was usually their wives who kept the chooks, made the butter and cheese and took the produce to market – on top of running the home and caring for the children.

 

When we think about the provision of food in the very earliest societies we tend to picture a group of young men armed with spears tracking and killing an animal which they then carry home in triumph to their waiting womenfolk. There is a reason, though, why these people are described as ‘hunter/gatherers?

We have no way of knowing what the division of labour was, and is probable that the men did most of the hunting – they were physically stronger and, biologically, more expendable, but is also probable that the women did most of the gathering, together with the carrying and preparing of whatever they gathered and it is almost certain that what they provided constituted a larger part of the staple diet than the meat provided by the hunters.

 

So it would appear that, from as far back as the Stone Age,  women, equally with men, have always been both protectors and providers for their families

---

As much as many would like to deny it, I think all humans are still hard wired to our more prehistoric, pre modern society instincts.

This means that men who are the physically stronger sex are hard wired to be protectors and hunters. Testosterone influences mens physical strength and his levels of aggression and willingness to fight to protect his family ( or yes She el, just to fight ). Men are faster, stronger and possibly more agile than woman ( think physical structure ). They also are more likely to take risks and court danger,  making them more suited to hunting.

Woman who are powered by estrogen are naturally more risk averse ( need to be there for the kids ), more maternal and yes often ( though not always ) less aggressive. I wouldn't for a minute dispute she els assertions that woman did most of the gathering in earlier times and yes they probably prepared more of the food and looked after the kids. Basically they may have done more of the work. Many will instantly say  " just like today " . If so you are just proving my point that we as a race are hard wired by millenia for these basic roles.

Does this make it fair ? Probably not. ......Should it change now that we are living in a new world ? Probably.

In modern society men rarely have to protect the family from giant kangeroos although there are still spiders, rats and snakes to contend with. Yes there are times when we may have to protect the family from other males and what is wrong with us doing that ? Probably the biggest thing we have to protect the family against is inequalities in society. We need to stand up for our kids and partner when the school, the employer or the government agency does not do the right thing. ( and yes, woman are quite capable of doing this too, but what is wrong with a man taking a stand for his family ) ???

I cant see the problem with men wanting to provide for the family. A little admission here, I gain a sense of satisfaction and achievement from chopping several tons of firewood at this time of the year and stacking it neatly in the shed to keep the family warm in the cold winter that is coming. It appeases my hunter gatherer instincts. I also do my best to provide for the family financially and like to see my kids have some wonderful life experiences and opportunities. It gives me a sense of purpose and reason to work hard. Is that so wrong ???

Traditional roles build on our natural instincts and give us something to believe in, aspire to and feel a sense of achievement and "self" with.

The problem is that we have moved completely away from nature and our instinctive roles may no longer serve us best moving forward. Humans are experimenting with different ways to live. Feminism, LGBT,  feminine males, woman as world leaders are all experiments in reinventing ourselves for the modern, artificial future ahead. This is probably necessary, but it is fighting our natural instincts.

We no longer have clearly defined roles in society and many young people feel lost as they dont have the clear sense of purpose and identity that traditional role models provide. These problems are compounded as we progressivly adopt roles that are at odds with our natural instincts.

Me, I,m just going to stay defending and providing for the family and to he!! with your modern world role changes.