Is it accurate to label the belief that men and women should

It depends upon what you mean though.

Because any citizen of a country regardless of gender or race has "clearly defined roles", e.g make money, pay taxes, don't break the law etc.

But if you mean, "Women should stay in the kitchen because wombs" then yes, obviously that would be right-wing, at least in my eyes.

>>2185958
Based purely on gender? You'd say it was a conservative viewpoint since traditionally women and men did have clear roles, but neither left nor right really in an economic sense.

>>2185982
>>2185969
If you state all right wingers believe men should be X and women should be X (just because that is how it was in the past) you are automatically assigning them all as conservatives.

>>2185992
Yeah and? Right-wing and conservative usually go hand in hand.

>>2185969
What I wonder is, why is that bad?
Women should stay home, keep it orderly, keep the children, cook food, run errands, Etc., and men should work and make money.
I don't see the issue.

>>2186020
It's bad for the same reason keeping black people in a farm cotton-picking for your benefit is bad.

>>2186024
I mean, I don't think it should be illegal for women to go out and have their own jobs, but it should be discouraged.
It leads to better families, which leads to better childhoods, which leads to better adults, and I just don't see the issue.

>>2186027
It wouldn't work in modern world and it would lead to a huge economic stagnation or recession. Sorry, but this is not 19th century anymore.

>>2185958
pretty much

left is (theoretically) about liberty and right is (theoretically) about structure

>>2186034
Why wouldn't it? We're already struggling for jobs, cutting nearly half of the workforce down seems like it'd be a big help.

>>2186126
Are you being deliberately retarded? Cutting half the workforce doesn't mean you don't have to pay for their existence.

You expect men to work more than there are hours in a week?

>>2185958
No, left wingers believe it too, they only want women to be free from gender roles.

>>2186158
I expect prices to go down, since there would be less employees to pay, and so, life to be more affordable for a household with only one breadwinner.
Anyway, I don't know the actual logistics, since I'm just saying this on a whim.
I'm not doing the math.

>>2186020
There's nothing wrong with a woman staying at home while the man makes money.
But making it the norm makes it incredibly difficult to break the norm. Being a woman who works in a society where all women are expected to be housewives would be much harder than a society with a more egalitarian viewpoint on it.

File: arjuna.gif (1MB, 450x328px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 450x328px

>>2186024
>he isn't a slavery apologist

>>2186202
>I expect prices to go down, since there would be less employees to pay
How the hell can you think that?

If you reduce supply of labor a lot, price of labour would go up a lot and price of products would go up a lot.

>>2185969
>>2186024
>It's bad for the same reason keeping black people in a farm cotton-picking for your benefit is bad.
Why do people feel the need to make moral judgements without first studying philosophy? Apologies, if you didn't mean to.

Your analogy is lazy since women were already part of society and not a minority. Putting aside the issue that women are already economically embedded in Western society, you haven't said anything that refutes a traditional gender role dichotomy on a world-historical basis. Not only should we recognise that it achieved so much in the pre-democratic world, but we should also appreciate that it is an idea that is not without potential for the future.

>>2186020
Because dependency engenders vice. Only through independence could women possibly be virtuous. The ennui and idleness of staying at home has corrupted women for centuries. Men have held women to lower standards for too long: women ought to be in an environment where they could actualize their intellectual and ethical potential.

Things are improving since women got rights. In fact, millennial women as a whole have somewhat astonishingly higher levels of academic achievement than their male counterparts. This isn't exactly a huge accomplishment, seeing as video games, porn, mollycoddling, and other corrupting influences have brought millennial males into an age of intellectual decadence and indolence. But let's not trivialize them: young women as a whole today are relatively ambitious and industrious. It's no accident: it happened because parents finally started expecting as much from their daughters as their sons.

Now let's not pretend that academic achievement is the only important virtue. But it's a telling one, and a quantifiable one.

When washing machines, dishwashers, and microwaves exists, there is no practical reason that women should have the virtues of housekeeper.

Liberals have it pretty clearly define women should LARP as men, promoting wagecuckery, taxpayer and godless materialism over the family and being untaxable for all the same reasons churches are. Liberals have clear expectations of contrarian counter culture variety for females becuase as a population traditional (monogamous , religious, married and with children) are least likely to be liberal and most likely to be happy. Liberals have turned motherhood into a small coffee at Starbucks- an item unprompted given it does not serve their establishment.