Echoing one of the comments below, I wonder at your choice of word "rigid." Does traditional = rigid? I'm a therapist working with gender confused adolescents and I'm all in favor of less "rigid" gender models, but I can't help feeling that the word carries a value judgment here. Is it rigid to believe that women are better equipped than men to handle the emotional responsibilities of child-rearing?
There is a very strange assumption that advocating for different male/female roles is somehow sexist or regressive. It would be if the advocacy is to force those choices. No one is advocating for that. To suggest men should be infantry soldiers because they are simply stronger and it is more valuable to society for women to give birth rather than die in a trench is not sexist. It is common sense. It recognizes reality, and illustrates the idiocy of this fantasy/ideology.
This is "rigid", i.e., bad? Or is it just common sense lost on an academic in the left wing echo chamber and fantasy factory of the ivory tower? “It is usually better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the family.” So, instead of raising her own children, you want women to work as manager of a burger joint, or shuffling paper for an insurance company, and use most of their salary to have a stranger engage with your children during their formative years... This is academic authority running cover for a partisan, far left, rigid ideology.
Echoing one of the comments below, I wonder at your choice of word "rigid." Does traditional = rigid? I'm a therapist working with gender confused adolescents and I'm all in favor of less "rigid" gender models, but I can't help feeling that the word carries a value judgment here. Is it rigid to believe that women are better equipped than men to handle the emotional responsibilities of child-rearing?
Very interesting. Would love to see a deeper dive on this and curious about differences in groups with lower SES some day. Thank you for sharing!
There is a very strange assumption that advocating for different male/female roles is somehow sexist or regressive. It would be if the advocacy is to force those choices. No one is advocating for that. To suggest men should be infantry soldiers because they are simply stronger and it is more valuable to society for women to give birth rather than die in a trench is not sexist. It is common sense. It recognizes reality, and illustrates the idiocy of this fantasy/ideology.
This is "rigid", i.e., bad? Or is it just common sense lost on an academic in the left wing echo chamber and fantasy factory of the ivory tower? “It is usually better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the family.” So, instead of raising her own children, you want women to work as manager of a burger joint, or shuffling paper for an insurance company, and use most of their salary to have a stranger engage with your children during their formative years... This is academic authority running cover for a partisan, far left, rigid ideology.