If you know how to read English, yes, it's a bad thing. In the modern definition, the connotation of the word implies over-generalization. i.e. it's not rational behavior. No one interprets it otherwise unless you're trying to score points.
> The problem happens when women are judged by what men are supposed to do, or when men are judged by what women are supposed to do.
Somehow we know women are "supposed to" demote the rest of their aspirations and nurture a child all the way to adulthood because they breastfeed a child until it's 2, but a father can pursue his dreams because he need not be around after depositing a sperm donation.
> No, it simply stands to reason. You cannot subjugate the females in society, generation after generation, and expect it to survive.
Around we go... You'll have to define "reason" for me, because I usually think of it as taking into account existing evidence, including reading about women's experiences in such societies, before drawing such conclusions, but, to each his own. There is such a thing as a sustainable society that never reaches it's full potential...
> All parents, mothers and fathers, want their children to accomplish what they could not.
I worded this badly. Most parents want their children to be successful. This does not imply that the children should exist as proxies for them -- as complete representations of their self-worth. Again, I suppose it's sustainable culturally, although I'm not sure how it's supposed to be non-miserable. :-)
> In the modern definition, the connotation of the word implies over-generalization. i.e. it's not rational behavior.
In order to keep the discussion clear, I went with the precise definition of the word rather than a colloquial one.
> Somehow we know women are "supposed to" demote the rest of their aspirations and nurture a child all the way to adulthood because they breastfeed a child until it's 2
By saying this, you are implying that raising kids is not a worthy aspiration for women. It is a most worthy aspiration not only for women, but also for men. No matter that I, as a man, may make breakthrough scientific discoveries, become a billionaire and donate it all to charities, or something else that makes a big impact; my biggest aspiration and the biggest legacy I leave to the world will still be my children.
> but a father can pursue his dreams because he need not be around after depositing a sperm donation.
A father plays just an important a role as the mother in raising kids. Since a woman's body is more involved in nurturing a child, the father provides for her and the children. And yes, this means a big sacrifice on the part of the father. But it is something that millions of fathers make willingly and lovingly, one that I will too. For example, I could say I don't want to have kids, a family, etc, and just put my whole life into business, make a lot of money, and spend the rest of my life traveling and vacationing. But if I want to have a family and raise kids, I can't do that. My family would need my money and my time.
> There is such a thing as a sustainable society that never reaches it's full potential...
You have a point there, and I don't have any hard evidence backing up my statement that a society cannot survive sustainably if its women are subjugated. But I'm not saying this blindly either - we do have solid evidence of the kind of detrimental effects a broken household can have on children, and I extrapolate this to a society and I just don't see it functioning sustainably if the whole society behaves like a broken household.
> Most parents want their children to be successful. This does not imply that the children should exist as proxies for them
I think most parents want their children to be successful and they also consider their children to be proxies for them. It's how we continue our culture, our societies, and the human race in general.
If you know how to read English, yes, it's a bad thing. In the modern definition, the connotation of the word implies over-generalization. i.e. it's not rational behavior. No one interprets it otherwise unless you're trying to score points.
> The problem happens when women are judged by what men are supposed to do, or when men are judged by what women are supposed to do.
Somehow we know women are "supposed to" demote the rest of their aspirations and nurture a child all the way to adulthood because they breastfeed a child until it's 2, but a father can pursue his dreams because he need not be around after depositing a sperm donation.
> No, it simply stands to reason. You cannot subjugate the females in society, generation after generation, and expect it to survive.
Around we go... You'll have to define "reason" for me, because I usually think of it as taking into account existing evidence, including reading about women's experiences in such societies, before drawing such conclusions, but, to each his own. There is such a thing as a sustainable society that never reaches it's full potential...
> All parents, mothers and fathers, want their children to accomplish what they could not.
I worded this badly. Most parents want their children to be successful. This does not imply that the children should exist as proxies for them -- as complete representations of their self-worth. Again, I suppose it's sustainable culturally, although I'm not sure how it's supposed to be non-miserable. :-)