Do you as a Muslim believe in women's equality?

[SomeRandom]

So? Every government starts with the many and then deals with the few.

Yes, but it's also not entirely accurate.Besides the Government are seen as a bunch of preening idiots too inept to understand it's own people. We vote for the ones we hate the least. Yes, I am disillusioned with Government just in general. Seems to be a trend with youngsters.

You are vulgar to the extreme. But a clever ploy. You turn mens machoness onto themselves, so now, to be tough, they have to be weak. Clever. Are they to dumb to work that out where you are, or do they just want a peaceful life. Manipulating women, like I say.
Presumably you are working class, Im guess the lower end, right?

It's the exposure to Classical Literature, you see? Dirties one's mind.

Ehh, middle class-ish, but that's in terms of Australia. The classes I believe differ slightly from country to country. So I don't know what your equivalent would be.

I never said they had to be weak, I said they had to be decent and honorable. Society views fathers who just leave the kids with the mother 24/7 as cold, distant and not very good fathers. As do many of the kids who have such fathers just FYI.
Those fathers, who like mothers balance work, rest and play and have an active role in their kids' lives are seen as upstanding role models and are valued as people. To be masculine, I don't know, that's for men to decide for themselves. There are still Macho Men around, they haven't really left. Women just have their own preferences for a mate, like all people do and exercise that a bit more freely. Men are still strong and masculine and some are even looked down upon for being "feminine" to this day. The dichotomy between masculinity and femininity has blurred slightly, with medical discoveries, but it's still there. Different cultures (as they have always done) just have their own opinions on what qualifies as masculine and feminine is all. Gender is a very social thing, in fact many psychiatrists and more prominently Sociologists argue that gender doesn't actually exist, and it's merely created by society. (Note in Academia, the term "Gender" is not the same as "Sex" and vice versa.)

No one is saying that an abusive relationship should be endured if all else fails.

Good, that's what I said.

 

[oldbadger]

Does anyone get it yet, that it is not about whether a woman can do the job or not, but that she has a greater job to do?

Well, in the past most women in the higher classes did nothing for their children, and women in the lower classes had to work, leaving their children untended for periods. Only women in a thin vein of society could be 'housewives'. It's better now, Robert.

Does anyone see that?

I don't. Not really. If a couple choose to separate roles into 'income provider' and 'homemaker' then that is fine, but you're still off track by today's standards because the female might have max potential as an earner, and the male might like to be a homemaker.

Does anyone yet see that it is not about living in the past, but taking our ability in bringing up children to a higher level.

No, I don't see that at all. I was brought up in a mid-class home with a dysfunctional mother through small-schizophrenia and a dysfunctional father through being a total discriminating bullying demanding husband. It was hell..... messed the whole family up, really. Today my mother would have kicked the old man in the crutch, separated, divorced and probably saved herself, and probably our upbringing might have been more balanced. Households in those days hid-hell.
You must have been one of the lucky ones. But I suspect that you might have had a particularly special and unusual type of upbringing anyway, because I have ideas about your particular type of Christianity.

Does anyone yet see that you are entitled to an opinion, or is everyone too bigoted?

Yes...... I respect your opinion about separate roles for men and women, but I see it as dying, if not dead and buried. Many of us oldies (are you an oldy?) are stuck in the past in one way or other....... you're just stuck in this area. You must try to accept the way that folks see gender equality and freedom of choice today, because you are probably very upset about the way that society has changed.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

1. equitable law protects labour rights
For men and women
2. all women can prove themselves by working with
3. the right of men assaulting women
4. men age better than women
5. women's personal freedom
6. the right of men to prevent women from working
7. the right of women to choose to sit at home and raising children
8. women working and raising children
9. a woman's personal property
10. won't be attacking her body without consent
11. the equality of rights and duties
12. are personal freedom
13. no religion interfering in clothes
14. the veil is a religious symbol
15. Prevention of hijab moral duty
16. the hijab and Niqab, mark asatbad and an insult to women
17. the hijab and Niqab code fails women

 

[Robert.Evans]

You pulled up some statistics that said one parent homes (it wasn't even sex specific) provided a less stable home. But that again is merely correlation. What were the specific circumstances of those homes? I don't think it was all feminism, because there's economy, there's substance abuse, there's a myriad of potential detrimental factors in those numbers and they don't always even correlate with women working outside of the house.

Women working effects the market place, don't you understand that. It is a bed you made, so how then can you use that same bed as an excuse for lying in it?!

Unless you are suggesting that men are so weak they can't hold a household together?

There we are again, trying to use the male pride against them, so as to make them think that they are strong by allowing a woman to walk all over them. The manipulation is massive.

Why then are they the head of the household anyway? According to you the wife would be better suited because she's the one supposed to be in the household all the fecking time.

Women have better nurtuing skills and men are better at providing. Why is it you think that women work mostly in offices and shops? Because it is an extension of the home, that's why. The problem is, women have a problem excepting reality and also excepting responsibility.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Yes, but it's also not entirely accurate.Besides the Government are seen as a bunch of preening idiots too inept to understand it's own people. We vote for the ones we hate the least. Yes, I am disillusioned with Government just in general. Seems to be a trend with youngsters.

Governments do the best they can considering two fundamental things: one they are limited by taxes- taxes they cannot rise to much otherwise they would not get in power in the first place which in turn is from us, the general public... so you get what you deserve, as the saying goes. And two, the countries it prostitues itself with. Lest of course you wish a country to have sanctions against it or start WW3 it has to comply with the bigger picture. It is the populace that generally neither understands this nor wants to., Do you seriously think they get to that position being unintelligent?

It's the exposure to Classical Literature, you see? Dirties one's mind.

Ehh, middle class-ish, but that's in terms of Australia. The classes I believe differ slightly from country to country. So I don't know what your equivalent would be.

I never said they had to be weak, I said they had to be decent and honorable.

You use their male pride to humiliate them to make them weak and have them think they are strong. Just be honest for a change.

Society views fathers who just leave the kids with the mother 24/7 as cold, distant and not very good fathers. As do many of the kids who have such fathers just FYI.

Feminism is the biggest destroyer of the family. So you are back to your own bed that you made. I wonder how many families would break up if the law said the man ALWAYS has the kids.

Those fathers, who like mothers balance work, rest and play and have an active role in their kids' lives are seen as upstanding role models and are valued as people.

Valued by women because you don't have to do your job anymore, as you've managed to manipulate men to do part of it. Okay.

To be masculine, I don't know, that's for men to decide for themselves. There are still Macho Men around, they haven't really left. Women just have their own preferences for a mate, like all people do and exercise that a bit more freely. Men are still strong and masculine and some are even looked down upon for being "feminine" to this day. The dichotomy between masculinity and femininity has blurred slightly, with medical discoveries, but it's still there.

Slighty! hah, now that is a laugh. How old are you?

Different cultures (as they have always done) just have their own opinions on what qualifies as masculine and feminine is all. Gender is a very social thing, in fact many psychiatrists and more prominently Sociologists argue that gender doesn't actually exist, and it's merely created by society. (Note in Academia, the term "Gender" is not the same as "Sex" and vice versa.)
Good, that's what I said.

Gender is either male or female. There is a masculine and feminine of God and we represent it on earth. If you choose to ignore it, or if psychiatrists choose philosophy to explain it away, that is up to you. But that is not for here, that is for above. Here, planet earth, you are supposed to be within your own gender traits. Anything else is an adulteration. We answer for such things.

 

[Robert.Evans]

1. equitable law protects labour rights
For men and women
2. all women can prove themselves by working with
3. the right of men assaulting women
4. men age better than women
5. women's personal freedom
6. the right of men to prevent women from working
7. the right of women to choose to sit at home and raising children
8. women working and raising children
9. a woman's personal property
10. won't be attacking her body without consent
11. the equality of rights and duties
12. are personal freedom
13. no religion interfering in clothes
14. the veil is a religious symbol
15. Prevention of hijab moral duty
16. the hijab and Niqab, mark asatbad and an insult to women
17. the hijab and Niqab code fails women

What is the point to all of that?

 

[Robert.Evans]

1. equitable law protects labour rights
For men and women
2. all women can prove themselves by working with

prove themselves as what?

3. the right of men assaulting women

what rigt? women assault men also

4. men age better than women

women live longer than men, so what?

5. women's personal freedom

what about it?

6. the right of men to prevent women from working
7. the right of women to choose to sit at home and raising children
8. women working and raising children
9. a woman's personal property
10. won't be attacking her body without consent
11. the equality of rights and duties
12. are personal freedom
13. no religion interfering in clothes
14. the veil is a religious symbol

14: so? you do not see secular clothing. What does that symbolise? immorality perhaps? power?

15. Prevention of hijab moral duty
16. the hijab and Niqab, mark asatbad and an insult to women
17. the hijab and Niqab code fails women

Why does a Muslim woman's dress code fail her? I have the highest regard for Muslim women and the way they dress.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Women working effects the market place, don't you understand that. It is a bed you made, so how then can you use that same bed as an excuse for lying in it?!

Actually the reason for women working is mostly socioeconomic. Though even if it wasn't why would that be bad? More people working should mean a better economy. This isn't always true. But to understand the transition of women into work from homemaker we must look at the underlying issues.
The first being WWI and WWII (especially WWII in this instance) where women held the majority of male oriented jobs back on the homeland. They proved themselves to be fully capable workers in all fiends which blew away many assumptions held about women before. When men came back women usually returned to the homemaker position. However some stayed in working positions because their husbands died at war or some other reason. However this began women in the workplace. It wasn't till the late 60's early 70's that the wage gap and the inability for a single income home to prosper the way it did in the 40's and 50's. This worsened in the 80's onward. Now in current time it is simply not practical to have a single income family in many cases.

Female independence from men which has been a focus of the feminist moment in the past and somewhat less so today was due to several inexcusable conditions for several women in married life. This has led to more divorces. However I am in the mind that a divorce of a bad marriage is a good thing. I would much rather have a woman leave a man an destabilize a home than see a child grow up learning misogamy or misogyny.

Women have better nurtuing skills and men are better at providing. Why is it you think that women work mostly in offices and shops? Because it is an extension of the home, that's why. The problem is, women have a problem excepting reality and also excepting responsibility.

This is debatable that women have more nurturing skills. The research shows that the change in the brain that happens when one becomes a parent that triggers all of these nurturing instincts can occur in both sexes. Women usually during pregnancy and men only after spending time with the children. Both have equal capacity for nurturing but only females have been socially places in this role. In fact it has been considered taboo for men to be nurturnig even though they have the nature.

As far as women working in offices and shops....what does that have to do with nurturing? Both of those are actually due to the fact that they were jobs that men didn't want. Both are specifically jobs of servitude rather than nurture. This again is also cultural.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

(Source of the above translations.)

I think it is worth pointing out that the above verses are interpreted literally by most scholars and Muslims who hold "mainstream" Islamic beliefs, of whom there are hundreds of millions.

As for LGBT rights, Islam is highly heteronormative according to the vast majority of interpretations of its rules and teachings. The Qur'an itself contains verses clearly labeling homosexuality, at least the attraction of men to other men, as unnatural and gravely sinful.

Edit: I'm not trying to answer instead of Ssainhu, by the way; I'm just offering my answer as well.

Oh no worries, dear. This is helpful to the discussion.

Orthodoxy that includes such doctrine produces highly problematic lives for both genders. There is an indoctrinated degree of importance to both genders in the public sphere and the private sphere. When life throws the inevitable curveball, I believe that these examples of positioning places the sexes at odds with each other and are suspicious with each other.

Deference does not necessarily lead to trust. This is IMO where legalistic applications of gender roles creates more problems than solves them.

Also, I assumed that Islam carried a hetero normative stance. Thank you for sharing the doctrine and culture to back up my assertion. IMO, this kind of orthodox legalism with hetero normative stances dehumanizes queers and trans people.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Parsimony]

Women have better nurtuing skills and men are better at providing.

That's going to vary on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Brickjectivity]

What I think is the definition of Feminism: Anyway without regard to religion including the Bible and just speaking on practical terms the concept of feminism is a concept of preserving knowledge that must be passed down. In other words it incorporates the idea of peace and transmission of knowledge and is about that. It isn't about family roles, which really are a derail from the subject that feminism is. There can be many different of expressions of feminism but what I think it is: the attempt to keep a continuum of improvement from generation to generation, and it is this that requires a re-think about the roles of women in society. If it means giving them more power or something like that, then that may happen but isn't at all what feminism is truly about. It isn't truly about abortions or job roles or any such detail.

I think I know where that mother/father argument is coming from. I think a woman by nature is kinder than a man and more patient (in normal cases). Not to forget that a mother is the one that can breast feed, men cannot (really ). I know there are alternatives a man can use, but by all means, they are never ever as healthy and passionate as natural breast feeding. It is more possible for a man to snap and scold than a woman. I also notice clearly that younger children of caring families (e.g. don't use nannies) are more attached to the mother then later on when they get older they get attached to the father for some reason. Dunno, maybe it is just me.

Yes, exceptions are always there, but they are no close to the normal cases.

Smart Guy, replying to your post way, way back on page 15. I agree that women 'Can be' softer than men, but men also are flooded with oxytocin around children. Men also squish up our faces and are transformed in the presence of children. Its like we become cartoon characters around them.

Though I'm in USA I'm technically of European descent. Europe has had its ups and downs, but basically women were for the longest time very low and men were very high. Being a man was a huge accomplishment. In the recent past in Europe a feminist impulse empowered women to be housewives, something that was novel and actually saw the importance of women increase in society. I'm proud to say Christians were involved in this movement, even though assigning the women the 'Role' of housewife has since become a sticking point. We have had difficulty moving beyond it and have seen it as somehow an ancient model, when actually it was novel not too long ago. It was a step up from the dirt that Europeans had considered women to be. They were not considered important before that, and as Badger pointed out women were too busy to truly rear children like they do today. Being a man was a great accomplishment in itself not too long ago, but today it is considered a coincidence. I happen to be male, but its not because of some essential betterness in me but rather that being 'Spiritually' the same I am physically different. I can be better off but am not essentially better, and even some people would argue that a woman is better off (though I would not). In my view a woman is not better off, mainly because her role is so unclear, but that is just my personal perspective. In general European (and USA) society today views women as essentially equal despite having a different situation from men.


Regarding the information claimed about single-parent homes by Mr. Evans: I think that the information (which is not evidence) about 'Single parent homes' completely left out the reasons why those homes were single. When fathers leave for months at a time young children I think that can generate instability (and anger or other issues), vs. a child that has never had a father. Not all single parent homes are the same, and its not so clear cut what is the cause of problems in single-parent homes. Another thing is that the cause of instability in single-parent homes is often strife that existed before the home was single, so blaming problems on single-parenting obscures problems that happened in a duel-parent home. Its not nearly so cut-and dry as Mr. Evans presented it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Women working effects the market place, don't you understand that. It is a bed you made, so how then can you use that same bed as an excuse for lying in it?!

There we are again, trying to use the male pride against them, so as to make them think that they are strong by allowing a woman to walk all over them. The manipulation is massive.

Women have better nurtuing skills and men are better at providing. Why is it you think that women work mostly in offices and shops? Because it is an extension of the home, that's why. The problem is, women have a problem excepting reality and also excepting responsibility.

Maybe it's because our brains are smaller than men's brains.

That's how archaic you sound.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Women working effects the market place, don't you understand that. It is a bed you made, so how then can you use that same bed as an excuse for lying in it?!

There we are again, trying to use the male pride against them, so as to make them think that they are strong by allowing a woman to walk all over them. The manipulation is massive.

Women have better nurtuing skills and men are better at providing. Why is it you think that women work mostly in offices and shops? Because it is an extension of the home, that's why. The problem is, women have a problem excepting reality and also excepting responsibility.[/QUOTE]
What exception are you referring to? Women often accept roles that that double both homemaker and bacon bringer. Something men have very rarely ever had to do.

 

[Smart_Guy]

What I think is the definition of Feminism: Anyway without regard to religion including the Bible and just speaking on practical terms the concept of feminism is a concept of preserving knowledge that must be passed down. In other words it incorporates the idea of peace and transmission of knowledge and is about that. It isn't about family roles, which really are a derail from the subject that feminism is. There can be many different of expressions of feminism but what I think it is: the attempt to keep a continuum of improvement from generation to generation, and it is this that requires a re-think about the roles of women in society. If it means giving them more power or something like that, then that may happen but isn't at all what feminism is truly about. It isn't truly about abortions or job roles or any such detail.


Smart Guy, replying to your post way, way back on page 15. I agree that women 'Can be' softer than men, but men also are flooded with oxytocin around children. Men also squish up our faces and are transformed in the presence of children. Its like we become cartoon characters around them.

Though I'm in USA I'm technically of European descent. Europe has had its ups and downs, but basically women were for the longest time very low and men were very high. Being a man was a huge accomplishment. In the recent past in Europe a feminist impulse empowered women to be housewives, something that was novel and actually saw the importance of women increase in society. I'm proud to say Christians were involved in this movement, even though assigning the women the 'Role' of housewife has since become a sticking point. We have had difficulty moving beyond it and have seen it as somehow an ancient model, when actually it was novel not too long ago. It was a step up from the dirt that Europeans had considered women to be. They were not considered important before that, and as Badger pointed out women were too busy to truly rear children like they do today. Being a man was a great accomplishment in itself not too long ago, but today it is considered a coincidence. I happen to be male, but its not because of some essential betterness in me but rather that being 'Spiritually' the same I am physically different. I can be better off but am not essentially better, and even some people would argue that a woman is better off (though I would not). In my view a woman is not better off, mainly because her role is so unclear, but that is just my personal perspective. In general European (and USA) society today views women as essentially equal despite having a different situation from men.


Regarding the information claimed about single-parent homes by Mr. Evans: I think that the information (which is not evidence) about 'Single parent homes' completely left out the reasons why those homes were single. When fathers leave for months at a time young children I think that can generate instability (and anger or other issues), vs. a child that has never had a father. Not all single parent homes are the same, and its not so clear cut what is the cause of problems in single-parent homes. Another thing is that the cause of instability in single-parent homes is often strife that existed before the home was single, so blaming problems on single-parenting obscures problems that happened in a duel-parent home. Its not nearly so cut-and dry as Mr. Evans presented it.

That's a good post to read

Btw, I'm not saying women "can't be tough" or they are always soft, I meant that it is what the world proves as a dominant nature. Going out walking that street we don't always see muscular tough rude women or soft skinny kind men because the nature so far controls that. We do see them, but in a percentage much lower than the characteristics I talked about in that old post.

I also have respect to soft men and tough women for who they are. I'm not saying what I'm saying to belittle anyone, God forbid.

I'm saying the above in this post just to clarify my previous post, not to prove anything (for now, mwahaha ).

 

[MysticSang'ha]

That's a good post to read

Btw, I'm not saying women "can't be tough" or they are always soft, I meant that it is what the world proves as a dominant nature. Going out walking that street we don't always see muscular tough rude women or soft skinny kind men because the nature so far controls that. We do see them, but in a percentage much lower than the characteristics I talked about in that old post.

I also have respect to soft men and tough women for who they are. I'm not saying what I'm saying to belittle anyone, God forbid.

I'm saying the above in this post just to clarify my previous post, not to prove anything (for now, mwahaha ).

You know, I really wish more people were as awesome as you.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Btw, I'm not saying women "can't be tough" or they are always soft, I meant that it is what the world proves as a dominant nature. Going out walking that street we don't always see muscular tough rude women or soft skinny kind men because the nature so far controls that. We do see them, but in a percentage much lower than the characteristics I talked about in that old post.

I also have respect to soft men and tough women for who they are. I'm not saying what I'm saying to belittle anyone, God forbid.

I'm saying the above in this post just to clarify my previous post, not to prove anything (for now, mwahaha ).

Yes, I realize I took you slightly out of the context of the conversation that you were in, but by itself it is a thought I have had myself. Someone else in the thread has also asked how women and men can be equals when we are very different? Its the obvious question whenever 'Feminism' comes up. Obviously women have a different build, need different things and have just a plethora of differences from men.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Yes, I realize I took you slightly out of the context of the conversation that you were in, but by itself it is a thought I have had myself. Someone else in the thread has also asked how women and men can be equals when we are very different? Its the obvious question whenever 'Feminism' comes up. Obviously women have a different build, need different things and have just a plethora of differences from men.

Different biological processes also occur within each gender and gender identity and sexual/romantic orientation as well. We also have very difference biological processes as we age, and interestingly the sexes find themselves with overlaps that ebb and flow during the course of a lifetime.

As I enter into infertility, my needs and hormonal fluctuations are vastly different from a woman of child-bearing age who experiences menstrual cycles. However, that does not mean that post-menopausal women have any more value than pre-menopausal women, and rights and equality is a given between us.

If we were to introduce the needs and biological processes of trans and intersex people, then the conversation becomes ever more interesting and nuanced.

Bottom line: all human, all equal.

 

[Smart_Guy]

You know, I really wish more people were as awesome as you.

Did I tell you that I really really like you?
Awesome people can identify each other, ma'am
(that's a compliment btw)

Yes, I realize I took you slightly out of the context of the conversation that you were in, but by itself it is a thought I have had myself. Someone else in the thread has also asked how women and men can be equals when we are very different? Its the obvious question whenever 'Feminism' comes up. Obviously women have a different build, need different things and have just a plethora of differences from men.

No worries, I just hope people don't think I'm a jerk

 

[SomeRandom]

Women working effects the market place, don't you understand that. It is a bed you made, so how then can you use that same bed as an excuse for lying in it?!

Yes, as does economy and society. And? As have been mentioned before women have held jobs for centuries, it didn't just happen a generation or two ago. So don't pretend that you remember a time when every single woman ever stayed in the home. Because (at least in the West) no one alive could remember such a time. You're drawing on what you saw the most, the minority has become the majority so to speak.

There we are again, trying to use the male pride against them, so as to make them think that they are strong by allowing a woman to walk all over them. The manipulation is massive.

I repeat, masculinity is up to males to decide for themselves. But we live in the now, not during the ****ing 50s. Things change, societal structures and attitudes have changed. Get over it. I am merely saying how society as a whole (that includes males and females just FYI) see deadbeat and/or neglectful fathers (and mothers) today.
Men can still be macho as hell and still involved in their kids life. It's not like it's some weird mutual exclusion.

Women have better nurtuing skills and men are better at providing. Why is it you think that women work mostly in offices and shops? Because it is an extension of the home, that's why. The problem is, women have a problem excepting reality and also excepting responsibility.

Debatable. Some women throughout history have done some extremely horrific things to their own children. Some men have stood up and protected their offspring from abusive mothers. And some people (male or female) just happen to have that extra bit of talent when it comes to being able to relate to and raise children. It's not exclusive to females. Some females have proved that they are better providers. In fact it's become sort of a trope in sitcoms. Stronger breadwinner is the female. Like in Daria where Helen is obviously the stronger and bigger breadwinner and Jake has to deal with that. Although both are somewhat inept in their own ways.

Slighty! hah, now that is a laugh. How old are you?

I have expressed numerous times already that I am still quite young. But I haven't seen that much blurring of the dichotomy. Maybe it's a stronger/harsher change for peeps in your generation, in mine it's not. *shrugs*

 

[SomeRandom]

Governments do the best they can considering two fundamental things: one they are limited by taxes- taxes they cannot rise to much otherwise they would not get in power in the first place which in turn is from us, the general public... so you get what you deserve, as the saying goes. And two, the countries it prostitues itself with. Lest of course you wish a country to have sanctions against it or start WW3 it has to comply with the bigger picture. It is the populace that generally neither understands this nor wants to., Do you seriously think they get to that position being unintelligent?

Governments live their with their heads in the sand and only care about how much money they can make. They have no idea what it's like to live below middle class nor do they care. And even if they do, they go from being idealistic youngsters demanding change to old world suits and ties, agreeing with the higher classes. They are out of touch with their own people and too corrupt to give a ****. (Some more than others.) They lie in order to gain power and slander each other to keep it. They are certainly not idiots, but they don't always do what's best for their voters. And yes, I am aware they have to tread carefully in international relations. But I am speaking of how they run their OWN countries, not how friendly they can appear to others. They break promises, they line their own pockets, they sing sweet songs to the voters and then tax them as much as they are able to get away with.
Call it disillusionment, call it inexperience, call it distrust fostered by reading one too many dystopian novels. I don't care. **** the Government, I say. Necessary bloody evil, in my books.

You use their male pride to humiliate them to make them weak and have them think they are strong. Just be honest for a change.

I am speaking of society's view, not just my own. If you think that a male being a capable father makes them "weak" well that doesn't speak well about your views about parenthood in general, sir.

Valued by women because you don't have to do your job anymore, as you've managed to manipulate men to do part of it. Okay.

Valued by people, actually. Homemakers haven't disappeared, you know? They still exist and they will tell you the same thing. Stop acting as though every woman has "abandoned" the home altogether and left it to men just so they can work. They haven't. Women still routinely either quit or take time off from their job to raise kids. And did it ever cross your mind that many men may just want to be a larger part of their kids' lives regardless? Paternal instinct is a thing, you know?

Gender is either male or female. There is a masculine and feminine of God and we represent it on earth. If you choose to ignore it, or if psychiatrists choose philosophy to explain it away, that is up to you. But that is not for here, that is for above. Here, planet earth, you are supposed to be within your own gender traits. Anything else is an adulteration. We answer for such things.

That is sex, actually. Like I said, gender is not the same as sex in Academia. There's academic language then there's layman language. In our language, gender is often conflated with sex. In Academia they are two entirely separate words with two separate meanings. Don't get mad because Scientists have differing connotations with the words they use. That's just what the disciplines are like.