It has always been a theory of mine, based on observation, that while women have grown in leaps and bounds over the last 50 years or so; grown, evolved out of the constraints of traditional women's roles, men have had a more difficult time adjusting.

Makes sense to me to conclude that the more 'bread winner' type roles woman have been taking on were an easier, more natural feeling advancement, then say the more 'domestic' roles men have then had to take on in order for the family unit to thrive fully...in order for there to be the all important balance.

I have also observed that with the younger generation that balance may be returning. Not because women have gone back to those roles...as really we never left them but because men are finding these roles to be as natural and empowering as a heavy duty power tool.

Do you agree? As a whole, are/were the traditional masculine roles easier for women to advance into then it has been for men to evolve into the traditionally feminine roles? Do you notice the difference in the younger generation?

i think as times have changed, many women have had to take on the "man's role" so to speak, even if its not the role they wanted to play. many single mothers out there who have to be the bread winner, father, mother, etc... all on their own. one thing i have noticed more recently (past few years) is there are more and more men who are becoming single parents (which kudos to them!!!) and they are also finding themselves taking on the "feminine" role as having to fill in for the mother part in their lives. idk... im rambling here... just thinking outloud... :)

Thank you Madam. It's a good point. The role reversal is often based on necessity more than by choice. I know all too well the necessity of playing both roles...and I'm here to tell ya...I was/am one hell of a mom in a more modern sense of the word but overall I made a really lousy father....it is most unfortunate he could not play his role...even in the most traditional sense of the word.

I think the younger generation is more open and accepting of people who dont fit the traditional roles.

Are you comparing social evolution or plain evolution? Men and women change the same with normal evolution. Social evolution is different.

thank you Penny...I think you are right. the younger generation truly is more tolerant and accepting than even my generation was about alot of things, including non-traditional unions/families...it is uplifting to see/witness.

What I am wondering is, do you, for example, have a son, nephew, etc or know a young man who is just naturally, comfortably and efficiently playing the traditional femimine nurturing roles...not because he is 'stuck home with the kids'...or who doesn't say things such as.."I have to babysit cause their mother has to work"?

figured someone would call me out on that ...so, to save any further discussion on that..let's say social for now...I may come back to that though....what do you think?

My son is 18 adores his niece and nephew. Hehas helped care for them many times whether it be changing a diaper playing with them or even occasionally getting up with them a night. . . Simply because he loves them and enjoys spending time with them. Not because he is required to. . . and they love their Uncle Bubba :)

I love that. He'll make a great daddy someday...if that is what he chooses...being a great uncle is just as important.

Absolutely; and I for one am thrilled to see the younger generation with an open mind. Myself; I took on what was considered a man's role in the military but didn't do it to compete or do a man's job; I simply just wanted to do it. I always thought it was silly to define a male or female role as we all should be treated as equal. Who cares if a woman is a bread winner or the man is a house husband. I think as long as we are happy; why should society dictate what our roles as men and women should be.

I think in terms of family, there are probably biological connections between children and a mother because of the direct connection there the first nine months. Because of that, I think it is probably a more 'natural' thing for a mother to feel a connection to a child than a father who must develop that relationship through their own efforts once the child arrives.

I think it is also more 'natural' for a woman to continue expanding that initial 'natural' bond between herself and her children than for the man who must continue to 'find' a connection . I think children will naturally go to their mothers for nurturing UNLESS and until they develop a relationship with dad that assures them that they can do the same.

So, yes, I do think its more of a natural feeling for a man to continue providing as he must do the first nine months of life of his child(in the mothers womb) and to decide at some point to ALSO develop a bond with the child. Whereas a mother naturally HAS to have the bond in carrying the child and may feel more natural to continue nurturing that life until some point when she decides to also 'provide' (materialistically) for it.

I agree 100% Navygirl....the role is what is important not who plays it..thanks to the pioneers such as yourself and many other military women I know and the doors and minds you have opened have made it easier for the younger generation..although, I have to say... I was not sure how I felt about women combat solders...only in that now not only are our sons, fathers, uncles, grandfathers etc..being killed, maimed or traumatized by war...now so are our daughters, mothers, aunts, grandmothers etc...and I just can't see that as a good thing..but I do get and understand that it was a natural, inevitable and necessary advancement.

right...but do you think it was easier for women as a whole to evolve into the more traditional masculine roles....than it has been for the men, as a whole, to evolve to understand taking on the traditional feminine roles could be just as empowering? These role 'reversals' could happen/apply in a family unit absent of children...say the powerful executive wife and the domestic god husband...both vitally important to the balance....or the rare equal partners relationships...but still this would involve both parties fully embracing the non-traditional roles...sorry getting tired and rambling a bit...better call it a night.

I dont think it was easier for women to evolve, no.

I think that society was all too eager to embrace women doing it 'all', both at home and outside the home, but being a superwoman has not been easy.

Likewise, I think society even embraces men who do it 'all', both at home and outside the home, but being a superman is not easy either, I imagine.

When we speak strictly of 'trading' positions....I think that taking care of the home is often a harder and more thankless job than working outside the home, so its probably easier for a woman to trade the domestic job with the 'paid' job.

On the contrary, its probably hard for a man to transition from a job where his work is aknowledged and 'appreciated' with monetary reward, to the much less lucrative, thankful and often more tiring job as a 'domestic'

Of course us guys have a harder time adjusting......

It's a b!tch trying to make dinner in high heels.

Women "grew" at a rapid pace over that last 50 years or so because we had to!..We did not "evolve" out of the constraints of traditional women's roles as you put it, we were somewhat forced by the need to raise our children, keep a roof over their heads, and food on the table because so many men just decided to stop doing it...not because men said, " OK hon, lets trade places for awhile, you make the money, I'll dust the furniture".....
As to second part of your OP, yes of course women transitioned easier than men, women are much more adaptable to change because men, in their rigidity, have always demanded we be....

Very interesting topic.

I think the evolution you’re speaking of is due to many things such as necessity, modern convenience and a community’s or individual’s adopted way of life. Evolutions like this have yo-yoed and changed in many ways over our history.

Consider how different the dynamic was in ancient days where a father played a much larger role in the upbringing of male children in the form of manly pursuits (hunting, fighting, home security, and politics) and agricultural or trade instruction and the mother played a larger role in the upbringing of female children taking charge of their instruction in running a home and supporting the men’s efforts. They were essentially equal in parenting and nurturing their children…but within certain roles that for the most part don’t apply today.

Rememeber I am speaking over decades..I said 50 but let's say 100 years..not just in our current times...You don't feel women were driven to break out of those contraints or limitations, for purely selfish reasons at all? I do and I don't mean that in a bad way. It used to be thought that women could not do both...have a career and have a family so she often had to choose...but I think as men have slowly caught up that has changed. Mine you, I am speaking as a whole...granting that many of us would have been more then happy to stay home..especially during some of the kids more formidable years....but that option wasn't there.

lol Krupa...

I know this was directed at Penny. The comment I would like to make on this is... I see the role changes quite a bit as a School Bus Driver. Many men are now in the reversed role as their wives are the bigger wage earners.