Both Genders Need Skill Development

If men and women are segregated at the level of basic societal functions, they will inevitably forfeit opportunities to develop a range of skills that could greatly benefit them if their circumstances change.  Rigid roles leave them incapable of easily learning a spectrum of skills that they might need in their everyday lives, though these talents might greatly benefit them.  Complementarianism is logically invalid and Biblically untrue, but it also preserves social structures, at the level of the family and the workplace, that actively hinder self-education and personal growth in certain areas.

This absurdity discourages men and women from educating themselves about matters which they might need to be aware of in the future.  For example, men need to know how to cook; women need to know how to manage vehicles.  No one should be taught these things on the basis of gender, for both moral and pragmatic reasons.  Segregating activities by gender is not only unjust in light of the metaphysical equality of men and women, but it also sets men and women up for various incompetencies with basic, needed skills.  Life circumstances do not discriminate by gender.

When skills are taught according to gender, not according to necessity or personal interest, it may appear to shallow thinkers that men and women are born with an innate tendency to gravitate towards different abilities and personalities.  This, of course, is completely fallacious: complementarians assume that their pathetic ideology has a basis in reason and science, when both refute their claims.  There is no logical or Biblical basis for the exclusion of either men or women from a self-educational pursuit.

If a girl is told her entire life that a woman should cook for her family, then she will likely be a far more skilled cook than she otherwise would be.  Nothing about her abilities, though, depends on her gender.  Her talent with cooking can only be part of her natural individuality or the result of repeated practice (in this case, practice reinforced by social conditioning).  And, in agreeing to be confined within an arbitrary familial or societal realm, she surrenders the chance to better herself in other areas that complementarians do not emphasize for her.  But the pragmatic consequences of gender-based skill development are obvious!  What if a man never marries?  Should he starve or always purchase food that is ready to be consumed?  What if a woman never marries?  Should she leave problems with her vehicle totally in the hands of strangers?

There is nothing to gain by selectively educating men and women about activities they need to be at least somewhat competent with--except the illusion that an irrational, contra-Biblical framework actually corresponds to reality.  But there is much to lose by intentionally preventing the development of someone's skill just because of their gender.  Both genders need to develop a variety of skills that will profit everyone!