Is it "poor" or is it just "different".

Nah it's poor.

This discussion does not proceed because we have different interpretations of what is good and bad for people. I have realised (after many years of agreeing with your likes :-) ) that men and women are very different psychologically, physically, and in their life course (being mothers, etc.) from men. One must recognise these differences for a general model of society. That does never stop outliers on either side to cross the lines to the other side more or less.

Unmarried men could vote, unmarried women couldn't vote.

Still "family" under the premise that an unmarried woman did not yet join her family (in an agnatic system). Footnote: Societies need to be organised either patrilinearly or matrilinearly.

So do you support the tradition of women not voting?

I do not support anything which creates major disruptions in society. However, it can be discussed, since you are bringing up a complaint, whether it was "objectively necessary" to introduce it. Given the silly ways women are voting nowadays (green/left/...), it has at least unpleasant results :-) In earlier times, I remember women saying "I vote the same as my husband".

That is the feminist delusion, I know. Men and women have to work together in order to survive and raise their children

And men got the upper hand in the dynamic, thanks to how physical strength was king. A primitive time, I know.

I don't think so. A woman is more vulnerable, and the usual man protects women -- even those who are not from his tribe. If one wanted to stress the cruelty of an enemy, one reported "killed EVEN women and children".

It has been shown that women are beating their men, that they can be extremely vicious, and then complain because any returning the violence would make them lose the battle. This is very disingenious. As far as I am concerned, we do not beat each other, therefore, I am not "stronger" than my wife.

People have always depended on society, be it today or on the past. Point is that women shouldn't have to be systemically made dependant on men as a whole. Such a gender role is colllectivistic, and severely limiting.

Women are NOT dependent on men as a whole. Women are necessarily dependent (for aspects of life) on the protection of a man. This is a factual truth. Think of war, or other types of violence. A man needs to protect the women and children, because they are weak and need protection, for instance, when they have to take care of babies.

The idea of "gender role" has been severely overstretched by now. It is not the only unbridgeable division. Ideological views are narrowed down to only one aspect and believe this to be the reason for everything they don't like.

What is bad with staying in the kitchen?

It's the choice being taken away that's the problem.

Staying at home is very often something people do want. A woman can work only partly, given the fact that a normal woman would usually have a few children for which she needs to care. I told you, I stayed at home with my son for 1,5 years, and I took care of my daughter while I was still studying. This gave me an exceptionally good connection to the kids. This is much more precious than earning money. Women of today are talked into believing they need to do men things such as competing in an office. They do not need to. I need to, unfortunately.

Though since you're a traditionalist you're probably against men in the kitchen and women leaving the kitchen.

I did my own cooking most of my life, because my first wife was working, I was working in another town, and then I was single. Now I am cooking sometimes, but in general I am working hard, and my wife is providing me with what I need. I can see from the beauty of her meals that she loves to do that. She has a natural sense of cooperating. That does not make her "oppressed". She wants me to succeed for the two of us, and does everything to help me achieve such goals. I would do the same, if I were in reversed roles. That is how traditional cultures (e.g., in Asia) are doing things.

Women are talked out of traditional roles and life goals, they are not "free to choose".

Again, people should be free to choose.

Women are told since many decades that it is "freedom" to be tortured in a company. My mother has worked all her life. In the end, she was close to a nervous breakdown and ended her work life a bit earlier. Worklife is actually hard. I try to suggest to you all the time to think in terms of what luxury it would be to not need to go to work.

I do not have a negative view of women working

Your first comment it literally a condemnation of women working and no longer being forced into traditional roles.

I do not mind whether you are working or not. Anyway, that is a presupposition of yours, since most women are working. I just said it would be much better for an individual not to need to work.

I am surrounded almost exclusively by women in my workplace. Do they do things better? Certainly not. For instance, they are dangerously vicious in another way (conspiring, forming a racist (sexist) alliance, blaming men). On the other hand, they take all advantages, because they have children.

and that your personal interest may collide with the interest of the greater group (society).

And the individual's intrest must always come out on top.

Well, that is simply not true. The state has the last word, in wartimes, it can confiscate your ride or your house, it can raise taxes, it can do so many things -- your interest is respected as long as it does not infringe on the greater interest of society. Factually.

uch as having children (which is a very important experience for oneself).

I'm not sure on what basis you are claiming it to be so crucial for everyone.

It is the natural thing to do. Women today are talked into "children being a choice". That is a remarkable deviation from biological reality.

Personally, I am warning everybody against not having children. One will regret it.

I am talking about trying to do everything men do and at the same time not liking anything "feminine".

What's wrong with doing things men do? Why should actions even be gendered?

However, when you take newlyborn babies, they will show different interest for objects vs. people. Men and women do not live in the same reality. To give a funny example (which you may not take literally in your reply), when I see a motorbike which I like, and any of my girlfriends agreed with my expressed joy, I would later find out they were referring to the colour, not to the technics.

Can you even objectively define what "feminine" even means?

Women seem to be much better with language, people, feelings; men are much better with objects. There are exceptions, overlaps, etc. -- however, we can see from the choice of professions how true that is. Women did NOT wait thousands of years to finally be able to become engineers.

This unequality before the law (!) etc. has disadvantaged men and destroyed family

I agree that there is indeed sexism in the law against men, and that should change (cough sexism causes by the traditional patriarchal ideal that men should take care of women and women should submit to men cough).

It is unwise to believe a society can do without clear rules which may appear unfair at times. It is never the case that laws would not enforce behaviors on people. -- If you make men powerless in every respect (as of today), marrying will go down ("MGTOW"), men's spirit will go down, that will harm the economy. A society should also not wish for that, because of DEMOGRAPHY: The problems to come in around 10 years may be desastrous for the continuation of society in the west and in the far east. Interestingly, the highly developed nations are ultimately losing the biological competition for offspring.

I don't see why you ad a traditionalist would be against that. You're not against disadvantaging women it seems, surely you'd want your beloved traditions to make a comeback, no?

Your terminology. I do not see it as "disadvantageing women", if women would be in a society (as few decades ago) where being a lose girl is NOT acceptable, where women should understand the fundamentals of a lifetime, the importance of marrying a good husband, have children, raise them, and then rely on them towards the end of life. There is no "disadvantage" in being a supporter, a helper. Only narcissistic, egomanic people think they need to be "on top" at all times. While most people will never be on top. It is not "women" -- almost everybody will never be on top.

Today's social construct of a woman basically makes her a whore in search of bad boys with which to have fun, and then to find an idiot at age 35 to marry her and her 3 children from three different bad guys ... That is not an exageration. Young women are led astray by your ideology into their own personal unhappiness, working in highly demanding jobs, unable to love a man, with a lot of casual sex with assholes (which just affirms all the ideological beliefs), and then ending as a cat lady :-)

Your ideology will make many women very unhappy. Maybe also yourself. Maybe you will never understand, because you keep believing this all was caused by "traditionalists like me" :-D

I find it very interesting, if one wants to really think about it, to listen to Jordan Peterson. Everything has been said already.

I already did listen to much of what he said. I especially loved his little talk on DNA and double helixes. So much pseudoscience forced in such a small timeframe.

I do not know what you mean. Why not refer to his comments on "feminism", or SJWs? The Cathy Newman interview was great, but also the attacks of various other feminists.