I find it worrying when I see more conservative women such as Lisa Brittonadvocating for men. It’s amazing that she and others like her do, and I’m quite grateful for that, but the way it’s done seems to push more traditional gender roles.

It seems to bring up a dilemma in regards to how to best advocate for men: Do we push for more equal treatment, casting aside our biology as best as we can? Or do we acknowledge the gender differences and allow them to be, but regress to more traditional roles, where many of the downsides we speak about for men still exist, but there are more advantages as well.

I find myself worried about the latter, as it still seems to focus on men’s utility for women and society as a whole. It rings of “Well let’s not be too hasty, because if we relieve them of their gender roles it will mean women have to do hard, dirty, dangerous things as well.” I acknowledge that there are some areas where that would need to be done: I can see on a battlefield for example a woman not being able to carry men under fire. The other side of me feels that with technology, and equality in every other sphere as a goal that we have been actively moving towards for a century now, surely it should be more feasible should to lessen the gendered expectations, should it not? A small man will certainly still have those expectations put on him and will have to adjust as best he can, why not women? I don’t see anyone worried about skinny, short dudes walking alone at night.

As it stands, while we push equality and not address men being required to sacrifice and do dangerous work, even if it’s only in the home, isn’t working, and seems to be building resent in large communities of men. Women prospering economically aren’t considering men who are struggling, and still expect very traditional men: Men are certainly tired of being equal in the work place, but still being expected to check out the noise and be prepared if it is an intruder while those same women would be expecting protection and seeking their own safety first.

This comes to mind a lot when discussing the military/draft and people state “Well there’s a lot of non-combat roles women can do!” Women helping make Molotov cocktails in Ukraine is not the same as being expected to be on the front lines. Admirable? Yes. The same risk? Absolutely not. It’s disingenuous to state that it is. So should men be given certain benefits if they are expected to shoulder these types of responsibilities?

I don’t know the answer. It’s a complicated scenario. I don’t personally want to regress back to previous gender roles, as equality is important to me. I find it distasteful and abhorrent to suggest a return to the days where men were in charge of everything and women had no say, and also being asked to continuously put myself in harms way for women. But if that is the expectation, and if it’s not going to change, a return to more traditional gender roles seems to be the only option. This seems to be the case in Scandinavia As gender differences have grown as their societies have become more equal, though I’ve not been there to observe it properly to say it for sure.

Excuse the jumbled thoughts, Ive barely slept, but I wanted to bring it to the table and perhaps see others thoughts on this. I’d love to hear what any of you have to say on the topic.