After reading this, perhaps, we'll agree that nurture and nature work in tandem, rather than one being a subset of the other.
However, one point caught my attention:
"[B]ut could it be that boys are wired to do their jobs and girls are wired to do theirs? That the boy who is riding his bike or reading his book may look like they are just ‘having fun’...but could that ‘fun’ actually be (as we know that play is in general) practice for the kind of skills that boys throughout the ages have been called upon to perform for their daily living? The girl, cleaning the house or baking the bread, might have grown up to… clean the house and bake the bread. The girl watching her younger siblings would have grown up to watch her own children, and the boy reading his book might grow up to be a professor or scientist."
Slow down, partner. This is the exact type of perspective that permeates today...in the form of transgenderism. The idea that males should be encouraged to do X because it's in their nature to do so, and females should be encouraged to do Y because it's in their nature to do so is ultimately harmful. It leads to stereotypes, with cleaning becoming a "feminine" trait and physical activity being a "masculine" one. (When in reality, that is true for neither.) While I understand you are not a hyper-leftist, these are views parroted by them. It's one that dabbles in rather confusing extremes.
This sounds like an interesting subject for a post. I think I would have to spill a lot of ink to get this right, but let me try one quick comment:
1) There are things innate to females, and things innnate to males. In general these form both societal roles and God given roles. There is not a complete overlap between these in either direction.
2) Feminists attempt to deny this, while simultaneously clinging to some of them. This is one of the great contradictions of feminism.
3) Transgenders attempt to deny this in other directions, which also results in great contradictions. Where somehow wearing a dress makes one female, but having a vagina doesn't.
3) Traditionalists (and theonomists like me) accept these differences and work on figuring out how they work in society.
I am not afraid of 'stereotypes'... indeed I take them further. I believe in gender roles so strong that the 'tomboy' needs to be taught to be 'more like a girl', and likewise the effeminate man. Or boy.
The embrasure of stereotypes and the need to "fix" a child only serves to create a 1984-style society in which clean-cut organization is won, but complete suppression of uniqueness is ultimately the tradeoff...
Well, no. That's wrong on pretty much every level. Including the date.
I was in college in 1984 and they were teaching precisely what you are claiming here. It was wrong then, is wrong now, and I have seen it go in horrible ways all during the intervening time.
A full answer would require a full post or even a series but... no. First of all, there have been men filling the male role since, like, the dawn of time. Are you going to try to argue that none of us are unique? That Thomas Jefferson was just like Jefferson Davis? Or David was a mirror image of Daniel?
And there's a good deal to be said for 'clean-cut organization'.
What I mean is that there's nothing wrong to raise a boy to be a man that is responsible, courageous, honorable, etc. In fact, it's a wonderful thing.
However, say we have a boy who has prominent traits/behaviors that are feminine (both from a historical view of the term, and whatever his culture is deemed as feminine). Based on my understanding of what you're saying, it would be his parent's/society's job to teach him to "be more like a boy," that is, more masculine or what is perceived as such. This is because it makes other people feel comfortable, not because it actually benefits the boy. If he had noble traits, then who cares if he's more "feminine"? Likewise, if a girl displays honorable traits, but is perceived as less feminine by others, why should it matter? Wouldn't pressuring them to fit within the status quo of traditionally/currently expected "male" and "female" behaviors only encourage them to suppress or otherwise hide their "abnormal" behaviors, things which may help them in the long run?
Some may depend here on what we mean by 'masculine'. However I believe you have your facts wrong. One thing that we do as parents, and not just in this area, indeed not even mostly in this area, is to teach our children about acceptable behavior. The six year old loves running around naked. And in his own house, around his own family, more power to him. But when he runs outside (in the States, right now, not in Africa where I used to work) or gets in the car to go to Walmart with us, we put the brakes on his behavior.
Many masculine and feminine issues are like that. I would rather wash the dishes than change the oil in a car. Well, fine. But when it comes to getting married... to a woman... and raising my children as their father... I'm not the one who stayed home and breastfed etc.
There are roles... and you list some of the, ie honourable and the like, where we don't take a naturally dishonourable child and say, "Well, that's just what they're like." We train it out of them. Many masculine and femine traits are like that.
Indeed I have seen devestating results where the parents didn't, and then the child emerged from their cocoon and found themsleves mocked, unable to find a job, etc. I know a family whose son only wants to eat PB and honey. And they LET HIM!! Leaving aside the health issues, how's dating going to go for him? (Leaving aside the dozens of other issues where they haven't trained him).
I see where you're coming from. I may not wholly agree, but I understand.
Perhaps it's my own disconnect. I've never fit neatly in any sort of box--including those of masculinity and femininity--and any attempts to train me only worked for a short amount of time before I rebelled against them in search of my own solution. (You can imagine the headaches my parents had/have.) But of course, most people aren't like that and can effectively be trained to do as society wishes of them.
So yes, for the most part, most people will do as they are trained to do. Just as we are taught to look both ways before crossing the street, people will do whatever is societally expected of them for fear of being ostracized. Now whether they will be most fulfilled in this way or even emotionally stable is another matter. Conformity is an easy answer and most people flock to it, alas.
Have you ever read Steven Pinker's 'The Blank Slate?" I think you might like it.
Is that a book? It doesn't seem to be a substack.
It’s a book.
Excuse me for my late reply, life has been busy.
After reading this, perhaps, we'll agree that nurture and nature work in tandem, rather than one being a subset of the other.
However, one point caught my attention:
"[B]ut could it be that boys are wired to do their jobs and girls are wired to do theirs? That the boy who is riding his bike or reading his book may look like they are just ‘having fun’...but could that ‘fun’ actually be (as we know that play is in general) practice for the kind of skills that boys throughout the ages have been called upon to perform for their daily living? The girl, cleaning the house or baking the bread, might have grown up to… clean the house and bake the bread. The girl watching her younger siblings would have grown up to watch her own children, and the boy reading his book might grow up to be a professor or scientist."
Slow down, partner. This is the exact type of perspective that permeates today...in the form of transgenderism. The idea that males should be encouraged to do X because it's in their nature to do so, and females should be encouraged to do Y because it's in their nature to do so is ultimately harmful. It leads to stereotypes, with cleaning becoming a "feminine" trait and physical activity being a "masculine" one. (When in reality, that is true for neither.) While I understand you are not a hyper-leftist, these are views parroted by them. It's one that dabbles in rather confusing extremes.
This sounds like an interesting subject for a post. I think I would have to spill a lot of ink to get this right, but let me try one quick comment:
1) There are things innate to females, and things innnate to males. In general these form both societal roles and God given roles. There is not a complete overlap between these in either direction.
2) Feminists attempt to deny this, while simultaneously clinging to some of them. This is one of the great contradictions of feminism.
3) Transgenders attempt to deny this in other directions, which also results in great contradictions. Where somehow wearing a dress makes one female, but having a vagina doesn't.
3) Traditionalists (and theonomists like me) accept these differences and work on figuring out how they work in society.
I am not afraid of 'stereotypes'... indeed I take them further. I believe in gender roles so strong that the 'tomboy' needs to be taught to be 'more like a girl', and likewise the effeminate man. Or boy.
The embrasure of stereotypes and the need to "fix" a child only serves to create a 1984-style society in which clean-cut organization is won, but complete suppression of uniqueness is ultimately the tradeoff...
Well, no. That's wrong on pretty much every level. Including the date.
I was in college in 1984 and they were teaching precisely what you are claiming here. It was wrong then, is wrong now, and I have seen it go in horrible ways all during the intervening time.
A full answer would require a full post or even a series but... no. First of all, there have been men filling the male role since, like, the dawn of time. Are you going to try to argue that none of us are unique? That Thomas Jefferson was just like Jefferson Davis? Or David was a mirror image of Daniel?
And there's a good deal to be said for 'clean-cut organization'.
What I mean is that there's nothing wrong to raise a boy to be a man that is responsible, courageous, honorable, etc. In fact, it's a wonderful thing.
However, say we have a boy who has prominent traits/behaviors that are feminine (both from a historical view of the term, and whatever his culture is deemed as feminine). Based on my understanding of what you're saying, it would be his parent's/society's job to teach him to "be more like a boy," that is, more masculine or what is perceived as such. This is because it makes other people feel comfortable, not because it actually benefits the boy. If he had noble traits, then who cares if he's more "feminine"? Likewise, if a girl displays honorable traits, but is perceived as less feminine by others, why should it matter? Wouldn't pressuring them to fit within the status quo of traditionally/currently expected "male" and "female" behaviors only encourage them to suppress or otherwise hide their "abnormal" behaviors, things which may help them in the long run?
Some may depend here on what we mean by 'masculine'. However I believe you have your facts wrong. One thing that we do as parents, and not just in this area, indeed not even mostly in this area, is to teach our children about acceptable behavior. The six year old loves running around naked. And in his own house, around his own family, more power to him. But when he runs outside (in the States, right now, not in Africa where I used to work) or gets in the car to go to Walmart with us, we put the brakes on his behavior.
Many masculine and feminine issues are like that. I would rather wash the dishes than change the oil in a car. Well, fine. But when it comes to getting married... to a woman... and raising my children as their father... I'm not the one who stayed home and breastfed etc.
There are roles... and you list some of the, ie honourable and the like, where we don't take a naturally dishonourable child and say, "Well, that's just what they're like." We train it out of them. Many masculine and femine traits are like that.
Indeed I have seen devestating results where the parents didn't, and then the child emerged from their cocoon and found themsleves mocked, unable to find a job, etc. I know a family whose son only wants to eat PB and honey. And they LET HIM!! Leaving aside the health issues, how's dating going to go for him? (Leaving aside the dozens of other issues where they haven't trained him).
I see where you're coming from. I may not wholly agree, but I understand.
Perhaps it's my own disconnect. I've never fit neatly in any sort of box--including those of masculinity and femininity--and any attempts to train me only worked for a short amount of time before I rebelled against them in search of my own solution. (You can imagine the headaches my parents had/have.) But of course, most people aren't like that and can effectively be trained to do as society wishes of them.
So yes, for the most part, most people will do as they are trained to do. Just as we are taught to look both ways before crossing the street, people will do whatever is societally expected of them for fear of being ostracized. Now whether they will be most fulfilled in this way or even emotionally stable is another matter. Conformity is an easy answer and most people flock to it, alas.