The notion of gender roles and specialized employment opportunities for women is thoroughly ingrained in society. It was however not a rule even in many ancient societies. Women were military leaders and important judges in society in the Old Testament. It is however suggested or recommended that women concentrate on certain roles because of the widespread general preference that women be left in charge of children rather than men being left in charge of children. An additional point is that women are generally considered to have a special value to society by reason of their ability to increase its numbers. While it is important to remember that women may choose roles and employment more often reserved for men, that in no way requires that the numbers of men and women in any particular role be equal. It can still make good sense for women for the most part to concentrate on various specific roles. The reason the "Equal Rights Amendment" for women never passed and never will is that the way government would enforce it would be by ensuring equal numbers of men and women in various duties and that can be an inefficient use of resources. A favored approach is to make certain that in those circumstances that men and women have the same responsibilities they get the same pay.
A curious development in accepting racial diversity is expecting interracial uniformity. That is believing the only way to have equality of opportunity is to have uniformity. There is a belief that there should be no characteristically "racial" entertainments because those might promote inequality. There is a belief that if more White people enjoy some entertainment than Black there must be something wrong with it. Actually it might still be true today that more White people enjoy tennis and more more Black people enjoy basketball. That shouldn't mean there is anything wrong with tennis or basketball, or White or Black people. "Accepting" diversity can mean accepting such differences. Although football seems to have a balance of fans from various ethnic backgrounds, and although that is fine, it doesn't mean every entertainment must do the same thing. There can be characteristically Black music, sports, approaches to religion, style of dress, and food without that being any threat to racial equality of opportunity generally in life. Classical music also seems to appeal to people the same without regard to their ethnicity. Perhaps there should be a football halftime show with classical music.
In the Supreme Court ruling in Brown vs. The Board of Education it was decided that equal opportunity in education required attending the same schools. Because there are now far more Black people with a thoroughly western education it might be possible today for schools specifically for only "Blacks" to supply equal opportunity in western education as never before. That of course would not be the "university" environment that prepares students for cooperating with the wide commercial world, yet it might help students in several disciplines.
Although characteristically "Italian" or "Spanish" or "Black" or other cuisine are generally enjoyed by most people regardless of ethnic origins, it really isn't necessary that they are.
Not everyone agrees though. There remains a belief that equality is not possible without strict uniformity and conformity. It is the one–size–fits–all approach once again.
The gender of the vast majority of people can be readily identified by their facial features even without special rules of general hair length or facial hair length. In very rare cases a person might have a face that is difficult to categorize. In order to avoid their embarrassment society provides such people with various "rules" of dress such as which side buttons are placed or which side belts begin. Still it can be important to remember that in quite many scenarios it is not necessary for the public to know a person's gender. When people have a legitimate need to know gender there are more and less direct ways to politely ask. When people are especially young their gender can be much more difficult to identify by facial features. That has not been much of a problem in the past since children should not be in public without an adult supervisor aware of any critical information.
In 2016 there was profound concern about who might use restroom facilities designated for specific genders. However civil engineers had already solved the problem. They designed toilet stalls that can be latched and yet in the event of a medical emergency access is possible through the large opening near the floor. If the opening is used for anything else such activities can be caught and prosecuted. Solutions are not always perfect, but that one is close, and other solutions have failings also.
There is a very popular notion that facial hair on men makes it especially difficult to identify them as individuals without regard to their gender, the notion that all men look the same with heavy beards for example. In practice however the one-size-fits-all method of identification by removing all facial hair can be counter productive. Quite many men are more alike in appearance, and mistaken for each other, even when each has no facial hair. When a problem of identification develops such as when the delivery men for different companies have an especially similar appearance they might agree to maintaining a difference such as one with a slight mustache or sideburns, the other with none or different mustache or sideburns, different eyeglass frames or other differences. Facial hair can be maintained in quite a wide variety of sizes, shapes and colors that assist identification. Yet there are societies where men have very similar beards and there is no problem of identification. Those societies can be less mobile than American society. Since identification can be a problem in especially mobile societies no matter what the rules for hair might be there are automobile license plates.
Among the other reasons for short hair on males is that it is a sign of military rank. Recruits have "buzz" cuts or virtually no hair at all. Higher ranking military might be allowed two to perhaps four inches of top hair to signify their rank. Having short hair can be an advantage in hand–to–hand combat since it is difficult to grasp a person by short hair. Some people might believe that combat is always and everywhere the only means to settle disputes and that all men should always be prepared for battle. Women might find facial hair disturbing because they are genetically programmed to prefer the company of much smaller (baby) boys.
For quite large numbers of people a "marriage" is a contract between one male and one female to recognize responsibilities to each other and their children. Lately the legal definition has changed to include contracts between people who are the same sex. That signals a very significant yet subtle difference in the meaning of marriage. Before, vows were intended to make the oversight of government unnecessary. Because that failed so often and government had to get involved anyway, vows now mean the intention to accept and depend upon government guidelines. Of course vows to follow government are largely moot since compliance with government is required anyway. When government is given central control, marriage becomes irrelevant, and indeed same sex marriages are identical in legal operation to any other or to no marriage at all.
Many people still favor the traditional meaning of marriage because they believe the government is not qualified to best raise their children. They believe their on–site experience and comprehensive understanding of family is best and should be the norm. Again though, a one-size-fits-all rule can go awry. It can become obvious that some parents are not meeting their duties to each other and their children. There can be such people as obviously very bad parents and the need for government intervention.
Especially lately, the extent to which government involves itself in the details of the everyday lives of the people has become a source of bitter dispute. There is a widespread assumption that government knows everything best. In practice things can be much different. It is possible that people are duped as much by "science" as anything and their votes can become a nuisance. The reason health care costs in the United States are so high is that the demand for health care is abnormally high as people turn to "science" for responsible leadership they cannot find elsewhere.
This does not apply to the pandemic, which is a special, very different emergency. Even people with a firm foundation in religion, and especially people with a firm foundation in religion, are dependably cautious when there are reports of numerous deaths, however accurate or not. That does not especially drive up health care costs and will eventually relinquish emergency status. What does drive up health care costs are late in life procedures with questionable benefits, enormous costs, and a widespread childish "belief" in science. Believing in science can be just as bad or worse than any other belief. In better times faith in both religion and science can be very efficient and beneficial.
Less intelligent people often prefer government regulation since government typically knows better than they do. More intelligent people often prefer to make their own decisions. A good reason is that many of the proponents of "science" are not really good at science themselves and give it a bad reputation.
A reason people turn to government to enforce their views on science or religion is that they are not effective persuading others without using force. There is no voting in science. Voting in religion is typically secondary to the will of the deity. Yet anyone, however lacking qualifications, may vote in government and so they turn to government to "win." Religion and science have a remarkably different character addressing remarkably different issues and a "war" between them is ridiculous. It is only because amateurs with confused notions of religion and science turn to government that any conflict appears.
After noticing how mistaken the majority can be in unusual circumstances some people think the solution is to ignore majorities, or even all social constraints, and adopt a laissez–faire attitude. It is not likely to succeed without bringing the hearts and minds of majorities into agreement with them. At the end of the day the votes do matter very much. Government is not likely to successfully enforce highly unpopular laws.
Laws prohibiting abortion have been unsuccessful in the past because of complications of enforcement. If exceptions are allowed for rape then women might falsely claim having been raped. If no exception is made then that can be very cruel to the actual victims of rape. The solution to the dilemma is to be convincing and persuade people what a bad idea abortion can be, and what a good idea alternatives can be. Again, just having a "rule" can be unsuccessful.
In the countless hours of political coverage of the election the subject of the intelligent designer was never mentioned even once on any major news outlet or "major" social media. Before the pandemic that was because the media is dominated by amateurs and children, especially since the internet took over so much control. Professionals have been waiting for them to do whatever it is they will do regarding the topic. Who gets credit can be an issue.
The pandemic presents special emergency conditions that change priorities. Some people would be confused by the announcement of an intelligent designer and what that means in such context. It should mean people need to be more cautious, however some notions of "religion" (especially the less disciplined versions of Christianity) could lead to less caution by those believers. It might be best for those people if the two issues were separated.
Over a hundred fifty years ago science was at a stage of development that made it possible for some simple people to believe that "animalcules" might assemble by chance alone. No development in science since then has made that any more likely, rather it appears ever less likely. For almost a century now people from every walk of life, rich and poor, Black and White, young and old, have been convinced it is simply not possible for a mere chance assembly of life. There was some hope after the Miller-Urey experiment that science might observe life assemble by chance. With later advances in microbiology and laboratory techniques the observation of self replicating RNA chains seemed to suggest something in the nature of nucleobases might characteristically "grow" longer and longer "random" chains that would eventually develop the code for an organism. However the long train of events against the steep slope of entropy has never been seen. It is not only necessary for the prospective organism to develop protection from the environment, it must gather fuel. It must also develop the ability to "burn" (or "use") the fuel, a far more complicated endeavor. In the lifeless world smaller molecules can have a significant competitive advantage over larger ones and the at–once development of such interdependent protective, power utilization, and reproductive systems. Sensible people knowledgeable of modern chemistry, biology and mathematics have never expected mere chance assembly of life to appear.
Some people claim the tornado–in–a–junkyard argument is a "false equivalence" of the biological problem, and that one is impossible but the other is possible. All the evidence supports the argument that although the analogy is not perfect and few analogies are, it is obviously true that the agencies of assembly found in lifeless nature are not really "random" but limited in their characteristics. Thus the assembly of life by mere chance in less likely than a tornado assembling an automobile. Those who still cannot see that have severe mental incapacity and rather unusually regimented thinking. Quite many of Trump followers prefer to refuse to admit an intelligent designer.
When things return to normal and it becomes obvious once again that there are too many amateurs in science and too much faith in false science more people should become amenable to telling the truth, simply because it is the undeniable truth, however troublesome it is. The lie is more disruptive than the truth.
Too many people have 'rules" because they accepted them blindly without questioning or understanding. They expect others to accept their rules, like "false equivalence," just as blindly. That isn't working because there are contrary "rules."
Some "rules" might have to take the form of far better understood and explained suggestions. Facing a force in the universe over which people have no control should result in more, not less, caution and better advised suggestions.