Your perception here does not match the views of your opposition. The goal is not to turn one gender in to the other, but to allow both genders to overlap as much as an individual wishes to. On the other hand, from my own perspective I can't see your own motivation, perhaps just to be contrarian and throw some Rothbard science in here.
Well, yeah, I'm all for individual freedom, but my main point within that post was that these fringe groups and movements are claiming to represent all
women while really only representing a fairly insignificant minority of them - and in the end, this limits
individual freedom, since what about the people who are not a part of these fringes and actually content with the way they are?
The reason I really put in that Rothbard paper is because it basically communicated what my own views on the subject are, stated in a better way and with more support. I'm not interested in being contrarian or anything; if I wanted to do that I'd just post a huge rant topic about Braid or Cave Story sucking without having played either of the two games. That'd work a lot better than posting in women's rights topics if I wanted to just rile people up. Or maybe I could even make an 8-bit chiptune artgame RTS about women's rights.
Another reason was because I felt the paper was pretty much a direct refutation of these two posts
, which were doing the whole "it's all a social construct" thing.
I also question why you feel gender roles are required for the survival of our species up until artificial birth is possible, you do not need to be subservient and passive to get pregnant.
Doesn't gender give way to natural gender roles, due to biology (which has a high influence on the development of brain structure)? I mean, like I said, the same roles pretty much arose independently in many different societies and cultures, and it doesn't seem like that'd happen unless it was somehow necessary. But either way I'll retract the "roles" part and just say different genders are necessary, which is probably more agreeable and obvious.
Also I'm not saying every single girl ever needs
to be subservient and passive. That would be extremely boring because not every man is aggressive and dominating. I'm just saying that there's clear, completely natural reasons that this role is much more commonly seen and reinforced in women than in men; it's not just all a cultural social construct.
Gender roles aren't really required for survival; it's just a natural tendency.
First of all, sup Retro
Second, if it's a natural tendency then I'd think it would
be necessary for survival, since after all that's where most (if not all) of our natural tendencies seem to come from.
Don't have any objections to the rest of the post.