On both sides of the debate I often see some sort of misunderstanding of the value of the sexes.

Some on TRP fail to grasp the value of women and feminine value. While male identity does become muddled today, tearing down women doesn't get you any closer to the truth. At best, it should be stated that both sexes have value, and both have traits they lack.

BP or at least many feminists, seem to think that masculine roles are preferable to feminine ones. They seek the opportunity to have those roles instead of ones traditionally aligned with their gender. A larger set would say roles shouldn't exist and things can be split 50/50. I don't think either of these are realistic as a standard. On an individual level, sure there are women who outperform men in masculine roles, but that is not the norm. There are also men who would rather have and do better at feminine roles, but this is also not the norm either.

Currently, women are the only sex that can birth children. This requires time and effort. I don't see how woman who are required to literally create more people and care to them for some period of time so that our species survives could also be expected to equally acquire the necessary resources that they need compared to men on average, when men both do not need to and are unable to perform the duty of childbirth. Of course, it could be supplemented somewhat by men attempting to do more of the care-taking, while maximizing the time amount of time the women are able to earn and provide. Still on average, it seems that each sex is at least slightly more suited to their individual gender roles which they've been mostly doing for thousands of years.

I guess what I don't understand is why this care-taking/domestic role is looked down upon by people from both sides and appears be the role they would rather not have. Some people also seem to think that it should be taken less seriously than a full time job. I definitely think that this is not the case. Taking care of a home and children is a pretty important duty comparable with a career and earning an income through contributions to society, if not more. I would not find it hard to make the case that if at least one parent is not focusing on this duty, it is detrimental to children and society in the future.

Any title has duties and responsibilities, which leads to a value you have on how well you perform those duties. It could be anything, person, citizen, wife, mother, husband, father, athlete, musician, scientist, man, woman, lover, etc. Many of these can be independent such as lovers and careers. Some are subsets but not inclusive, such as hobbies and person, where having more skills makes you more useful to society and a better person overall but do not imply it is your only value. That being said, I would say your value as person isn't tied merely to your gender and it is possible to be a good and successful person without following gender roles. It would seem that your value as a specific gender is tied to your ability to perform your gender roles as masculine and feminine become complementary and exhaustive. These would be roles you have agency over (e.g. mother, father, husband, wife, and not things like daughter, son, aunt, uncle, etc.)

However maybe, you make up lacking in the feminine by picking up the masculine, or vise versa. So if you don't care for gender roles, what allows you to eschew your duties? What is your method for doing it, do you pick the opposite role and look for a complementary mate still? Or do you look to split the duties 50/50? Do you plan on having kids and have both parents work part time? How would you truly balance 50/50? How do you make decisions without a subject matter expert so to say (i.e. each parent being an equal jack-of-all-trades, master of none)? Even if you can do it, would you say this is something that is generally not the case, and only works in the minority?

Is it made possible because of advances in technology that make everyone's lives easier? This would surely lower the bar for entry into both roles with the opposite sexes. It certainly is easier being a man now without having to worry about dying in war because we are living during pretty much the most peaceful time in history, or having to not having to worry about dying while hunting for food, or being maimed in a factory job with terrible safety conditions. Not that these don't exist, but less men have to worry about this. On the other hand medical advances make caring for children easier as well, as to devices that speed up chores for households, education is a lot easier to get for children.

Assume some sort of apocalyptic scenario where civilization no longer exists, what would role do you think you would play in that situation where things are more on the edge and there is a higher threat of danger, and more intense competition for resources? Would you still be as free to decide? Would you be comfortable if your role had to be different? Would your job if you have one even still be useful?

If your reasoning is different for your ability to not have a role, what is it? If you agree that people have different roles, and those different roles have their own values would you say its a choice or a tendency? Do you think people's opinions on it can be manipulated by society? Do you believe men and women both have positive and negative values that are different but still equal and complementary to each other? If overall, women are better at being women and feminine than men, and men are better at being men and masculine, is it truly an insult to say that one is better at certain behaviors such as decisive action, or empathy? If so, how do you account for how history has gone so far? Do you think that one is inherently better than the other?

Any other thoughts?

Edit: Clarified that some on TRP don't see the value in women correctly, not all.