One of the most interesting, perhaps alarming, social changes predicted by S&H to occur in the 4T is a widening of gender distinctions, with the '90s Sex and the City / Ally McBeal model of feminism -- women being free to make as much money and do as much oat-sowing as men -- being scrapped in favor of more traditional models of femininity and masculinity, and perhaps the return of older "courtship rituals" with men pursuing women being the only acceptable dating structure.

Surely this is an upsetting concept for the women's equality movement, and for Silent and Boomer women (and some men) everywhere. But the widening of gender distinctions, theoretically, isn't a reversion to the old, but a redefining of gender norms in which the roles of men and women are now more prescribed. Is this really happening, though? Millennials show a strong tolerance not just for racial and religious diversity, but for sexual diversity as well. Strauss pointed out that Millie support for gay marriage is more about "conforming" by bringing homosexuality into the bourgeois mainstream of acceptability, rather than attempting to shock the system with limit-pushing. But still, no one I see is seriously backing a revival of the man-as-bread-winner/woman-in-the-kitchen social structure.

So what will the widening of gender distinctions mean in our era, an era with so many more opportunities for women than were available for women in the last 4T? Will it really become accepted again for men to constitute the workforce? And what does it mean that this round, the distinction widening won't just affect traditional straight couples, but also the increasingly mainstream GLBT community? (A community whose mainstreaming has entirely been based on narrower gender distinctions.) Indeed, will this trend even occur, in a world with so many blurred lines and sexual subcultures?

Originally Posted by 1990

One of the most interesting, perhaps alarming, social changes predicted by S&H to occur in the 4T is a widening of gender distinctions, with the '90s Sex and the City / Ally McBeal model of feminism -- women being free to make as much money and do as much oat-sowing as men -- being scrapped in favor of more traditional models of femininity and masculinity, and perhaps the return of older "courtship rituals" with men pursuing women being the only acceptable dating structure.

Surely this is an upsetting concept for the women's equality movement, and for Silent and Boomer women (and some men) everywhere. But the widening of gender distinctions, theoretically, isn't a reversion to the old, but a redefining of gender norms in which the roles of men and women are now more prescribed. Is this really happening, though? Millennials show a strong tolerance not just for racial and religious diversity, but for sexual diversity as well. Strauss pointed out that Millie support for gay marriage is more about "conforming" by bringing homosexuality into the bourgeois mainstream of acceptability, rather than attempting to shock the system with limit-pushing. But still, no one I see is seriously backing a revival of the man-as-bread-winner/woman-in-the-kitchen social structure.

So what will the widening of gender distinctions mean in our era, an era with so many more opportunities for women than were available for women in the last 4T? Will it really become accepted again for men to constitute the workforce? And what does it mean that this round, the distinction widening won't just affect traditional straight couples, but also the increasingly mainstream GLBT community? (A community whose mainstreaming has entirely been based on narrower gender distinctions.) Indeed, will this trend even occur, in a world with so many blurred lines and sexual subcultures?

Quite obviously, the 4T is going to redefine gender roles. I think we're already starting to see the pendulum swing back to "old" gender values. We shouldn't expect the 1950s (stereotype) all over again, but I plan on seeing an "updated" version.

I can support working women, since statistics show they have more children, and the West needs that right now.

Originally Posted by 1990

One of the most interesting, perhaps alarming, social changes predicted by S&H to occur in the 4T is a widening of gender distinctions, with the '90s Sex and the City / Ally McBeal model of feminism -- women being free to make as much money and do as much oat-sowing as men -- being scrapped in favor of more traditional models of femininity and masculinity, and perhaps the return of older "courtship rituals" with men pursuing women being the only acceptable dating structure.

The most successful women will not be pushed out of the workforce. The not-so-successful ones, those who do work that supplements their husbands' meager pay, will likely be pushed aside so that men can get the work, or will lose their jobs when the money disappears as it did when Thoroughly Modern Millie set in 1922 gave way to that of The Grapes of Wrath.

Men will get preference over women in most fields of labor because unemployed men are more troublesome than unemployed women. Unemployed men are more likely to become members of gangs and politicized militias; crime and political instability will have to be addressed. Women who might have had factory, clerical, and even low-level service and retail jobs will lose them. Such women were not the sorts depicted on Sex in the City or Ally McBeal; they were the likes of Norma Rae and the clerical workers of Nine to Five who worked for survival -- not for self-expression. It will be back to the the children, the church, and the kitchen, if not to ill-paid work in some family business that operates on a shoestring. I don't endorse it; I simply predict it.

Surely this is an upsetting concept for the women's equality movement, and for Silent and Boomer women (and some men) everywhere. But the widening of gender distinctions, theoretically, isn't a reversion to the old, but a redefining of gender norms in which the roles of men and women are now more prescribed. Is this really happening, though? Millennials show a strong tolerance not just for racial and religious diversity, but for sexual diversity as well. Strauss pointed out that Millie support for gay marriage is more about "conforming" by bringing homosexuality into the bourgeois mainstream of acceptability, rather than attempting to shock the system with limit-pushing. But still, no one I see is seriously backing a revival of the man-as-bread-winner/woman-in-the-kitchen social structure.

Economic realities trump human dreams and desires. This might trouble the Silent -- but they have largely left the workforce, and first-wave Boomers will be doing so soon. Nobody wants such a change to happen -- but nobody sought the Depression-era shattering of feminist dreams, either. People will have to make their adjustments, and the paring of the workforce (forced early retirements, teenagers driven out of the paid workforce) will be even bigger changes. So it was in the 1930s, and nothing says that the same won't happen in the 2010s. Women aren't going to lose the right to vote, own property, or take out loans --

So what will the widening of gender distinctions mean in our era, an era with so many more opportunities for women than were available for women in the last 4T? Will it really become accepted again for men to constitute the workforce? And what does it mean that this round, the distinction widening won't just affect traditional straight couples, but also the increasingly mainstream GLBT community? (A community whose mainstreaming has entirely been based on narrower gender distinctions.) Indeed, will this trend even occur, in a world with so many blurred lines and sexual subcultures?

Most likely there will still be female professionals in far greater numbers in some traditionally 'male' fields of the last 4T -- like medicine, law, engineering, science, academia, journalism, law enforcement, and the military. But young women might not be allowed in so readily, to the detriment of middle- or late-wave Millennial women. They will likely have to retreat to the traditional 'female ghettos' of nursing, teaching, and social work (which will be very ill-paid) or to the sewing machine, the garden, and the kitchen. The 2010s may not be a setback for female achievements on a personal level, but they will be a big setback at the large scale. The jobs to be created to alleviate unemployment will most likely entail heavy labor at big construction sites -- largely as a male preserve. Women may return to the workforce in large numbers -- when they are needed to do the work in munitions factories while their husbands are in battle -- and the work will not support much of a consumer economy.

I can't tell you how society will look upon GLBT issues; I hope that it will do so with more maturity, which means with more acceptance for those who cannot easily live as "straights". Nothing that I see suggests a reversion to public hostility toward them. But feminism will be in deep trouble despite its eminent merit.

Here's what Bill Strauss said about gender distinctions on our July 3 discussion:

"Millennial gender divergence has to be viewed in the context of the rising educational performance and substantially improved workplace opportunities for young women. What we are seeing, as role models, are what some call "girlie-girls" who are also high achievers in places previously reserved for males. The Indy racer Danica Patrick is an excellent example of the very feminine woman who performs well in a formerly male world, and is well-regarded both for her femininity and for her achievements.

One aspect of gender divergence that bears watching is the difference in economic circumstance between women and men in their twenties. Young women are more likely to be college graduates--hence more likely to have large student loans. Men are more likely to have worked since high school, having taken perhaps a course or two at a community college related to their occupation--with little or no debt and, often, cash in the bank.

Last year, two excellent books were written (both by young women, one a Millennial) about the impact of student loans and young-adult indebtedness on the lives of people under age 30. Their titles are Strapped and Generation Debt, and both leave the implicit suggestion that the problem is worse for young women than for young men.

Employers report that the leading Millennial workplace ambition is to have "a balanced life." Without doubt, Millennial women--especially professionals--will make a major mark on the workplace of the 2010s. We can expect many professions to be feminized, from some of the more nurturing medical specialties to law and academe. Meanwhile, some others (business and technology) will remain male bastions. Millennials will not be bothered by this, on the whole, nearly as much as older generations might be.

If we have a fourth turning of major consequence, the protective role of young males will come to the fore, and these divergences will become even more significant. That has happened during other fourth turnings."

Basically, it's a spiral, not a circle. We don't go back to the 1950s any more than women in the Eisenhower 1950s went back to the Victorian 1880s or the Enlightenment 1790s.

Also, 3T gains, (i.e. 1920s voting rights, 1850s entry into teaching and nursing) tend not to get rolled back. And many "scandalous" female Nomad actions (smoking, drinking, short skirts) are "normalized" and made bland by Hero gens. Also, Hero women during the Revolutionary War, Civil War and WWII were expected to step up and take on male civilian roles (as nurses, factory workers, etc.) to support the men on the front. Some of those stuck (Civil War nurses) and some didn't (Rosie the Riveter).

As a result, it's hard to imagine today what the 2030s will look like. I predict that Homelander women will feel "trapped" in pink collar jobs like pediatrician or administrative law judge. Heh.

Originally Posted by Neisha '67

Basically, it's a spiral, not a circle. We don't go back to the 1950s any more than women in the Eisenhower 1950s went back to the Victorian 1880s or the Enlightenment 1790s.

Also, 3T gains, (i.e. 1920s voting rights, 1850s entry into teaching and nursing) tend not to get rolled back. And many "scandalous" female Nomad actions (smoking, drinking, short skirts) are "normalized" and made bland by Hero gens. Also, Hero women during the Revolutionary War, Civil War and WWII were expected to step up and take on male civilian roles (as nurses, factory workers, etc.) to support the men on the front. Some of those stuck (Civil War nurses) and some didn't (Rosie the Riveter).

As a result, it's hard to imagine today what the 2030s will look like. I predict that Homelander women will feel "trapped" in pink collar jobs like pediatrician or administrative law judge. Heh.

It's almost hard for me to imagine gender roles being re-solidified after the sexual revolution and the huge opening up of sexual choices since the 1970s. At the same time, the pendulum is always swinging, and it's not like we would be returning to the 1950s anyway. It would be a 21st century update. It will also be interesting to see how gay acceptance (and possibly a 1T in which gay marriage is as "normal" as straight marriage) features in, as previous 4Ts broadened gender distinctions for straight couples only.

Originally Posted by 1990

It's almost hard for me to imagine gender roles being re-solidified after the sexual revolution and the huge opening up of sexual choices since the 1970s. At the same time, the pendulum is always swinging, and it's not like we would be returning to the 1950s anyway. It would be a 21st century update. It will also be interesting to see how gay acceptance (and possibly a 1T in which gay marriage is as "normal" as straight marriage) features in, as previous 4Ts broadened gender distinctions for straight couples only.

I can clue you on that one. A return to "butch-femme" roleplaying, with in some cases the butch feeling superior to the femme.

We Millies will allow gay civil unions, but NOT gay marriage!

Originally Posted by sean '90

We Millies will allow gay civil unions, but NOT gay marriage!

What makes you so sure?

Originally Posted by 1990

What makes you so sure?

Because that's what he supports.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Because that's what he supports.

Along with most Millennials and people of course. Plus, manners traditionalize in a 4T.

Originally Posted by sean '90

Along with most Millennials and people of course. Plus, manners traditionalize in a 4T.

Manners standardize in a 4T, they don't necessarily traditionalize. See Neisha's post. Women smoking and wearing short skirts was the stuff of scandal in the 1920s, but perfectly acceptable in the 1940s.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

I can clue you on that one. A return to "butch-femme" roleplaying, with in some cases the butch feeling superior to the femme.

In the late 90s a bunch of us on the paleo-forum were complaining about how hard it was to buy baby clothes for expecting parents when you didn't know the sex of the baby. Gender neutral clothing had disappeared for the tot set. Now, it seems to have disappeared for teens. When I was in high school and college in the 80s, the J Crew catalogue etc. pretty much only sold swim suits by gender. Everything else was unisex. Different casual clothing by gender is new for Millies and perhaps Nintendo wave Xers, and a throwback to Silent and early Boomer teen years.

Originally Posted by Neisha '67

In the late 90s a bunch of us on the paleo-forum were complaining about how hard it was to buy baby clothes for expecting parents when you didn't know the sex of the baby. Gender neutral clothing had disappeared for the tot set. Now, it seems to have disappeared for teens. When I was in high school and college in the 80s, the J Crew catalogue etc. pretty much only sold swim suits by gender. Everything else was unisex. Different casual clothing by gender is new for Millies and perhaps Nintendo wave Xers, and a throwback to Silent and early Boomer teen years.

In other words, girls aren't wearing their boyfriends' sweatshirts anymore?

Originally Posted by 1990

Manners standardize in a 4T, they don't necessarily traditionalize. See Neisha's post. Women smoking and wearing short skirts was the stuff of scandal in the 1920s, but perfectly acceptable in the 1940s.

Somewhere on the paleo-forums, when the authors were participating more regularly, Bill Strauss said that if Millies decided that smoking marijuana was perfectly acceptable, it would become perfectly acceptable to society as a whole by the 2020s. This is one of those discussions that keeps coming back, but basically, Millie women decide what's appropriate for young women and Homelander women are stuck with those choices until the next 2T.

Originally Posted by 1990

In other words, girls aren't wearing their boyfriends' sweatshirts anymore?

I'm old, so I couldn't tell you. But, my guess is that it is no longer standard practice for 19-year-old women to spend their own money to purchase the same clothes that their boyfriends are also buying, but in smaller sizes. For one thing, I no longer see men's clothes in a size XS.

And, it's probably hard to imagine, but back then in many places (Gap, J Crew, LL Bean), there wasn't really men's and women's casual clothes, just t-shirts and jeans and sweaters in sizes XS to XXL that everyone wore.

Originally Posted by 1990

Manners standardize in a 4T, they don't necessarily traditionalize. See Neisha's post. Women smoking and wearing short skirts was the stuff of scandal in the 1920s, but perfectly acceptable in the 1940s.

My word usage there came directly from the book itself. And did you mean the 1950s?

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/no-him-he...122541829.html

Originally Posted by millennialX

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/no-him-he...122541829.html

That is just so stupid and so ridiculous. Schools are supposed to be concerned with teaching their students, not teaching them politically correct "equality." At least it's in Sweden and not here. But wow... I hope this isn't a trend that'll spread here or elsewhere.

Originally Posted by millennialX

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/no-him-he...122541829.html

Some of the stuff I don't mind, but the pronoun thing is just stupid.

http://www.wftv.com/education/28368915/detail.html

There is now a gender neutral school.

Looks like we linked to the exact story!

I can understand the desire to not put pressure on a boy to be macho and girl to be girlie...but I hope this does not lead to one not being proud of their gender and who they are. This could go too far, yet lead to the same problem that they are trying to avoid.

Originally Posted by millennialX

I can understand the desire to not put pressure on a boy to be macho and girl to be girlie...but I hope this does not lead to one being proud of their gender and who they are. This could go too far, yet lead to the same problem that they are trying to avoid.

It's also hypocritical because it is enforcing behavior on young people that, while it may not be approved by "society," is still that which the parents would prefer as much as only letting girls play with dolls is doing the same.

Most people are born either one gender or the other, but how much they reflect that gender in their behaviors or desires is very fluid from what I have scene. I have a friend who is a lesbian that sometimes dresses in a masculine fashion. When asked what gender is to her, she said it's a 'social construct' that should ideally be meaningless.

Since IMO most people, no matter their levels of introspection, often still see the world primary through their own perspectives, I believe her conclusion is based on her experiences with gender. She does not particularly identify herself as a female so she considers the idea that some people would to be a social construct. On the opposite end, you see people who believe that genders are very separate and distinct and viola! they generally are either very feminine or very masculine themselves. When I asked one of my male friends who asks very masculine what gender is to him, he said that there are clear differences between men and women.

In my experience, authoritarian leaning people who are either very gendered or gender-ambiguous then decide that society should be made in their image. It sucks, if anything, because it dehumanizes the people that are involved. My female friend who enjoys wrestling may do so because she is not very feminine but it may also be because everyone in her family wrestles and she grew up with it. I consider myself to be feminine but I also have an anxiety disorder which can lead to me becoming over-emotional, sensitive, fearful and a host of other negative traits that our society considers to be feminine. Therefore, do I seem feminine because I am a woman or because I have anxiety disorder? To be honest, I still do not know. The purists tend to fixate on gender (or lack thereof) as being the only explanation for how certain people act at the expense of other much more nuanced and individualistic traits that make us human.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

In my experience, authoritarian leaning people who are either very gendered or gender-ambiguous then decide that society should be made in their image. It sucks, if anything, because it dehumanizes the people that are involved.

Couldn't have said it better, Rose.