Frankly, I find the nature of the questions as posed disturbingly
collectivist. How "we" should teach "children" about "roles in
society" is an irrational concept from the start. What I will
teach my son or daughter is how to best exploit his or her own
natural talents and predispositions, whatever they might be, and
how to deal with others openly, honestly, and fairly to achieve
whatever his ends might be.
Certainly many assumptions will be made in relationships. Any
contract, such as marriage, rarely spells out every detail of who
performs every action; typically each will settle into assumed roles,
or make choices based on ability or predisposition, as you say. But
to correct the problems that come from bad assumptons doesn't require
changing to new--and potentially just as bad--assumptions; it
requires learning how to communicate openly and deal fairly in light
of /whatever/ issues come up that weren't covered in the original
contract, and the commitment that /all/ human relationships are
founded on mutual consent, not shared assumptions.
I am certainly not among the PC-brainwashed masses who are afraid
to state the obvious that men and women are different, and I will
even go so far as to say that those who postulate equal abilities
and drives for the sexes have no rational basis to do so in light
of the evidence of evolution. But that doesn't mean I really want
to know every detail of the differences, nor do I think it is
necessary to know them to deal fairly. I deal fairly with women
because I deal fairly with people, not because I understand them
or empathize with them or other such psychobabble.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC