NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright. We've talked about SYMPTOMS of the problem, but perhaps we should buckle down and address the problem itself.

So many issues of gender equity come back to the fundamental issue of gender roles. What are they? What has changed? What remains the same? How close are we to getting rid of gendered roles? Are we on the right track, or are these roles somehow necessarily or desirable?

Let's look at what lies beneath; and prevents true gender equity.

Remember, these are PERCEIVED roles...not set in stone or legislated roles.

1) What are stereotypical feminine roles?
2) What are stereotypical masculine roles?
3) What 'traits' are undesireable for the opposite gender to exhibit?

Okay, no bites so far. I'll just compile a little list then.

1) 'Feminine roles'
- still the nurturer, the main caregiver and child raiser
- focused on outer appearance in herself, but in inner beauty in men
- can enjoy sex, but not with too many partners
- the one to resist the advances of men...so typically still not the 'pursuer'
- passive, worries about other's feelings, flighty and emotional
- expresses emotions
- has many friends and supports


2) 'Masculine roles'
- still the main breadwinner
- focused on outer appearance in women, not as interested in own outer appearance
- can have multiple sexual partners and this is seen as positive
- the 'pursuer' in sexual relationships
- more aggressive, does not need to be a 'people pleaser', logical and rational, not ruled by emotion
- represses emotions
- does not need to rely on others, is self-sufficient

These are just a few that I think have remained fairly constant over the years, with some wiggle room allowed for differences or variation.

Small list:

3) gender roles considered undesirable if exhibited by other genders
- men should not express emotions like women do (weak)
- women should not be sexually aggressive (enjoy sex, yes, but not pursue it like men are supposed to)
- men should not be passive, rather willing to defend themselves (weak)
- women should not be physically aggressive and fight too much (butch)


Then again, there are the gender roles that are usually more admired, that are considered 'masculine'. For example, a woman who wants to do well in business or politics, has to be 'ballsy' and 'aggressive'. They have to be 'tough' and not give into emotion. These traits are often considered to be 'masculine' even though any gender may have them.

How about minor stereotypes I can do that.

Women can't read maps, and men don't talk on the phone.

Those are actually backed up by science, though.

You know... I really know nothing about this, despite my somewhat unorthodox perspective. Sorry I don't have anything to contribute to the thread, I feel as if I really should, hehe.

Maybe when it gets started I might get a flash of inspirado.

In these days, they can almost be consider sexuality roles, too. Many gay men often are stereotyped into female gender roles, while many lesbians are often stereotyped into masculine gender roles.

Small list:

3) gender roles considered undesirable if exhibited by other genders
- men should not express emotions like women do (weak)
- women should not be sexually aggressive (enjoy sex, yes, but not pursue it like men are supposed to)
- men should not be passive, rather willing to defend themselves (weak)
- women should not be physically aggressive and fight too much (butch)


Then again, there are the gender roles that are usually more admired, that are considered 'masculine'. For example, a woman who wants to do well in business or politics, has to be 'ballsy' and 'aggressive'. They have to be 'tough' and not give into emotion. These traits are often considered to be 'masculine' even though any gender may have them.


Now I think you captured percieved roals well though I do have a question on the sexualy agressive ... at least with members of my age group I can find no real support for this still being concidered an un-desireable trait (age 22)

How about minor stereotypes I can do that.

Women can't read maps, and men don't talk on the phone.

Those are actually backed up by science, though.
Oh hush. Just because I point up when I mean north....

In these days, they can almost be consider sexuality roles, too. Many gay men often are stereotyped into female gender roles, while many lesbians are often stereotyped into masculine gender roles.
Good point. They are stereotyped as being more like the opposite gender (maybe trying to explain their attraction to their own gender? So, a man who acts like a woman would of course be attracted to men?)

Oh hush. Just because I point up when I mean north....

It is true, it is due to the makeup of their brains. Men are more predisposed to math and assigning order, while women are more presdisposed to communication skills.

Now I think you captured percieved roals well though I do have a question on the sexualy agressive ... at least with members of my age group I can find no real support for this still being concidered an un-desireable trait (age 22)
I think that one is tough. You don't want a woman who sleeps around a lot, but a guy can do it (still) and not suffer too much in terms of his repuatation. Women are being encouraged to enjoy sex more, and initiate it more, but especially among teens, the males are more often the receivers of oral sex, and the females the givers. As well, the guys really pressure girls to 'put out' and the girls are called slutty if they give in too easily.

I think this role is being challenged, but there is still a lot of confusion about how 'liberated' a woman should be sexually. Men are still rarely called sluts, and I think that points to an underlying acceptance of men's sexuality (as long as it's MANYLY sexuality), but not yet of women's (at least, not at the same level).

I agree though that this does not necessarily reflect reality. Plenty of women are fairly aggressive sexually. They aren't necessarily respected though.

It is true, it is due to the makeup of their brains. Men are more predisposed to math and assigning order, while women are more presdisposed to communication skills.
Uh-huh...which is why girls are now outperforming boys in math and science in school? (I've heard that schools are apparently biased against boys now :rolleyes: ) How do you judge something like that? I think a person, regardless of gender is going to be more or less capable of those areas depending on THEMSELVES, their interest, their particular learning style, and their exposure to these concepts, NOT their gender.

How much of that is due to social conditioning? I suck at math...but so do my brothers. They are better at it than I because they were expected to go into math or science related fields, so they studied it more. I didn't. I could get to their level if I had to though, but the fact is, all of us are duds at it in terms of interest and ability.

I think that one is tough. You don't want a woman who sleeps around a lot, but a guy can do it (still) and not suffer too much in terms of his repuatation. Women are being encouraged to enjoy sex more, and initiate it more, but especially among teens, the males are more often the receivers of oral sex, and the females the givers. As well, the guys really pressure girls to 'put out' and the girls are called slutty if they give in too easily.

I think this role is being challenged, but there is still a lot of confusion about how 'liberated' a woman should be sexually. Men are still rarely called sluts, and I think that points to an underlying acceptance of men's sexuality (as long as it's MANYLY sexuality), but not yet of women's (at least, not at the same level).

I agree though that this does not necessarily reflect reality. Plenty of women are fairly aggressive sexually. They aren't necessarily respected though.


Yes that one is deffinatly in flux

The sad thing is the "slut" brand as far as I see it is more often then not applied by another female (sometimes is perpetuated by both male and female) but from my experience the guy wont really care one way or another as long as he is geting some :p

(though after breakups is another issue ... genuinly that is possibly when a guy would apply a slut brand to her .... specialy after she starts dating again, but I think that is more out of anger/hurt then because of her sexual practices ... hell they get that term applied even if they never had sex just dated)

Yes that one is deffinatly in flux

The sad thing is the "slut" brand as far as I see it is more often then not applied by another female (sometimes is perpetuated by both male and female) but from my experience the guy wont really care one way or another as long as he is geting some :p


You've brought up a really important point. Women are very harsh towards other women, while men (typically) don't get that way about other men. Men will fight, forgive and forget (again, stereotype), while women may hold a grudge and hurt her opponent more in terms of reputation.

Women are encouraged to be in competition with one another. Look good, put out, please your man, or another, younger woman might take your place!

Women often dress for other women...to outdo them, and attract more men. Why? Men don't get all dolled up for us...

The gender roles of women interacting with other woman are also very harmful.

There are some roles that appear to be inherited from pre civilization, but other than these, it is a huge generalisastion to presume that gender roles are universal across cultures.

The inherited roles may well have biological basis.
Female: - more stamina, more openly multi tasking
Male: more power, more agressively focussed
These are biological differences and lead to different roles.
The female is the home builder, where many things have to be done at once.
The male is the provider, where concentration on the task at hand is more required.

Culturally, things like sexual openness and decorative value, change over time and place. These you could work against successfully if you don't like the current arrangement. The biological roles are a lot harder to overturn

You've brought up a really important point. Women are very harsh towards other women, while men (typically) don't get that way about other men. Men will fight, forgive and forget (again, stereotype), while women may hold a grudge and hurt her opponent more in terms of reputation.

Women are encouraged to be in competition with one another. Look good, put out, please your man, or another, younger woman might take your place!

Women often dress for other women...to outdo them, and attract more men. Why? Men don't get all dolled up for us...

The gender roles of women interacting with other woman are also very harmful.
Though that begs the question is society causing this or is there something "behind it"

(not talking specifics but the root behavior) I mean it can be exagerated or agrivated by society but the ROOT of things seems to be fairly simmilar to what we see a lot of in chimps themselfs

You just need to go to a toy store to see how gender roles still have a lot to do with what toys are considered for girls, and for boys. The girl's section is still filled with dolls and frilly pink things. The Dora dollhouse my daughter has actually says, "Bienvenida a mi casa" in Spanish, which means, "Welcome to my house..." but that welcome is only to a girl, because BienvenidO would be towards a boy. So boys wouldn't play with this dollhouse? Plenty of boys LOVE dollhouses...they just play with them a bit differently (well, some do).

The boy's section? Toy guns, 'action figures' (no dolls for boys!), blue and red colours everywhere!

Colours are still very caught up in gender roles...no pink on boys! Yet girls can really wear any colour and get away with it.

There are some roles that appear to be inherited from pre civilization, but other than these, it is a huge generalisastion to presume that gender roles are universal across cultures.

The inherited roles may well have biological basis.
Female: - more stamina, more openly multi tasking
Male: more power, more agressively focussed
These are biological differences and lead to different roles.
The female is the home builder, where many things have to be done at once.
The male is the provider, where concentration on the task at hand is more required.

Culturally, things like sexual openness and decorative value, change over time and place. These you could work against successfully if you don't like the current arrangement. The biological roles are a lot harder to overturn
For sure. I really believed in nurture over nature until I had kids and realised they are BORN with certain traits. However, my one daughter is a total tomboy, and the other is a 'girly girl'. Which of their traits are biologically 'female' and which are biologically 'male'? I think these innate traits are not inherently gendered, they just are. What about the boy who loves to dress up and play with dolls? Is he exhibiting 'female' behaviour, or just behaviour period? It's not the traits that are the problem, it is the connotations that follow those traits. Getting rid of gender bias means allowing people to have whatever traits they were born with or develop, without naming some good and others bad just because of their gender.

The biological roles are a lot harder to overturn
To reiterate, I don't think we should worry about overturning biological 'traits', but we shouldn't assume those traits fit us into biological roles. A man may be born better suited to raise children than his wife.

Though that begs the question is society causing this or is there something "behind it"

(not talking specifics but the root behavior) I mean it can be exagerated or agrivated by society but the ROOT of things seems to be fairly simmilar to what we see a lot of in chimps themselfs
Yes, how much is biological, and how much is societal? Hard to say. We need to work to negate the effect of societal gender bias and gender stereotypes and accept what is left...the biology. But we shouldn't justify societal beliefs and stereotypes WITH biology. Not when traits can vary so widely.

Yes, how much is biological, and how much is societal? Hard to say. We need to work to negate the effect of societal gender bias and gender stereotypes and accept what is left...the biology. But we shouldn't justify societal beliefs and stereotypes WITH biology. Not when traits can vary so widely.
True ... but what if built in biological CAUSE sociatal benifits?

(not saying this is true just an example) lets say we find out mens agressiveness on average benifits them in the work place

Do we artificialy negate that biological benifit or alow them to do better in the work place?

You've brought up a really important point. Women are very harsh towards other women, while men (typically) don't get that way about other men. Men will fight, forgive and forget (again, stereotype), while women may hold a grudge and hurt her opponent more in terms of reputation.

Women are encouraged to be in competition with one another. Look good, put out, please your man, or another, younger woman might take your place!

Women often dress for other women...to outdo them, and attract more men. Why? Men don't get all dolled up for us...

The gender roles of women interacting with other woman are also very harmful.

I don't think women are encouraged to be more competitive with each other than men. It just happens in different areas. As you say, with women it might be appearance, with men it's status (read: "salary").

And thanks for compiling the list; it's nice to know I defy so many stereotypical gender roles.

Uh-huh...which is why girls are now outperforming boys in math and science in school? (I've heard that schools are apparently biased against boys now :rolleyes: ) How do you judge something like that? I think a person, regardless of gender is going to be more or less capable of those areas depending on THEMSELVES, their interest, their particular learning style, and their exposure to these concepts, NOT their gender.

From Psychology Today, August 2003:

Women's perceptual skills are oriented to quick - call it intuitive - people reading. Females are gifted at detecting the feelings and thoughts of others, inferring intentions, absorbing contextual clues and responding in emotionally appropriate ways. They empathize....such empathy fosters communication and primes females for attachment.
Women in other words, seem to be hard-wired for a top down, big-picture take. Men might be programmed to a look at things from the bottom up (no surprise there).
Men focus first on minute detail, and operate most easily with a certain detachment. They construct rules-based analyses of the natural world, inanimate objects and events. In the coinage of Cambridge University psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen, Ph. D., they systemize.
The superiority of males at spacial cognition and females' talent for language probably subserve the more basic differences of systemizing versus empathizing.

In another part it makes the point that men are 13x more likely to score a 700 on the math SAT.

True ... but what if built in biological CAUSE sociatal benifits?

(not saying this is true just an example) lets say we find out mens agressiveness on average benifits them in the work place

Do we artificialy negate that biological benifit or alow them to do better in the work place?
Tricky. I don't think we can negate biology, nor should we. However, to what extent are men biologically more agressive? It's hard to measure. What about men who are NOT biologically AS aggressive as the 'average' man? Should he be considered 'feminine' in a negative sense? What about the woman who is biologically aggressive? Should she be considered 'masculine' in a negative sense? Perhaps a particular type of aggressiveness is more common in men, biologically, but it's hard to say...how much of that aggressiveness has been nurtured and taught, and how much just is?

I'd like to take away the negative impact of gender stereotypes to allow for the diversity of biological traits. If that means more men still end up being construction workers, fine, but hopefully those that become nurses won't be made the butt of jokes:)

I don't think women are encouraged to be more competitive with each other than men. It just happens in different areas. As you say, with women it might be appearance, with men it's status (read: "salary").

And thanks for compiling the list; it's nice to know I defy so many stereotypical gender roles.
Differences in competition. Yeah, I agree...but are we taught to compete like that, or do we do it automatically?

Lots of people defy stereotypical gender roles...but they shouldn't have to be thought of as 'defying' them. They should just be allowed to be themselves. Then again, humans love to rebel against SOMETHING....

Tricky. I don't think we can negate biology, nor should we. However, to what extent are men biologically more agressive? It's hard to measure. What about men who are NOT biologically AS aggressive as the 'average' man? Should he be considered 'feminine' in a negative sense? What about the woman who is biologically aggressive? Should she be considered 'masculine' in a negative sense? Perhaps a particular type of aggressiveness is more common in men, biologically, but it's hard to say...how much of that aggressiveness has been nurtured and taught, and how much just is?

I'd like to take away the negative impact of gender stereotypes to allow for the diversity of biological traits. If that means more men still end up being construction workers, fine, but hopefully those that become nurses won't be made the butt of jokes:)
My brother is in a nursing program :P hehe

But what about where positives for one cause the detrement of the other

IE back to the men in workforce issue where there are less possition for women because the more agressive men took all the positions
That could be concidered a "negitive"
(not saying that all men are agressive or that it is a benifit just an example)

Yes, how much is biological, and how much is societal? Hard to say. We need to work to negate the effect of societal gender bias and gender stereotypes and accept what is left...the biology. But we shouldn't justify societal beliefs and stereotypes WITH biology. Not when traits can vary so widely.
there is a biological base, i think, and the societal stereotypes kind of are loosely based around that.

I mean, im coming from my own viewpoint here, where the role society tried to impose on me conflicted with what i see as the biological and it didnt work

so its just my experience that societys roles do have their basis in the biological differences between males and females

i know what i mean, anyway

there is a biological base, i think, and the societal stereotypes kind of are loosely based around that.

I mean, im coming from my own viewpoint here, where the role society tried to impose on me conflicted with what i see as the biological and it didnt work

so its just my experience that societys roles do have their basis in the biological differences between males and females

i know what i mean, anyway
What about the stupid little things such as clothing color and such? I dont see that as much of a biological bias as a sociatial

What about the stupid little things such as clothing color and such? I dont see that as much of a biological bias as a sociatial
well yea, thats pretty stupid, but i was referring to the bigger gender stereotypes/roles

*snip*
I frankly question the research. This idea of being 'hard wired'. Did they look in our brains and find the different 'wiring'? How much of women's 'intuitiveness' has been modeled by mothers, sisters and other women...how much of it has been because that intuitiveness is rewarded by deeper friendships? How much of it 'just is' at birth, and how much is 'trained' into us as we grow? How about the boy who crys when his feelings are hurt...and gets yelled at. Who is too solicitous of other's feelings and gets called a sissy.

Again, I'm not saying that it is absolutely untrue, I just question any study that lays it all down on biological factors, without admitting that societal factors can not be taken out of the equation. Especially a 'soft' science like psychology.

But what about where positives for one cause the detrement of the other

IE back to the men in workforce issue where there are less possition for women because the more agressive men took all the positions
That could be concidered a "negitive"
(not saying that all men are agressive or that it is a benifit just an example)
That is a good example, but I have to go back to, 'how much of that aggressiveness is really inate'? If I can overcome my innate shyness enough to seem like a total people person, does that negate my biological tendency to avoid people? It's still there...I've just managed to work past it.

If women can work past any biological 'passivity' to get those jobs, then men should be able to work past any biological 'aggressiveness' to allow them there without harrassment.

there is a biological base, i think, and the societal stereotypes kind of are loosely based around that.

I mean, im coming from my own viewpoint here, where the role society tried to impose on me conflicted with what i see as the biological and it didnt work

so its just my experience that societys roles do have their basis in the biological differences between males and females

i know what i mean, anyway
:) Does every role imposed on you (for one gender) conflict with the roles associate with the gender you feel more a part of? Or are you okay with some, just not others? Again, I think there needs to be freedom to express whatever traits you actually have, not based on 'this is female, and weak' and 'this is male, and strong', or visa versa.

That is a good example, but I have to go back to, 'how much of that aggressiveness is really inate'? If I can overcome my innate shyness enough to seem like a total people person, does that negate my biological tendency to avoid people? It's still there...I've just managed to work past it.

If women can work past any biological 'passivity' to get those jobs, then men should be able to work past any biological 'aggressiveness' to allow them there without harrassment.
Then this leads to individuals versus large group statistics ... you may have over come it individualy but by and large things would more then likly follow the biological trend

I frankly question the research. This idea of being 'hard wired'. Did they look in our brains and find the different 'wiring'? How much of women's 'intuitiveness' has been modeled by mothers, sisters and other women...how much of it has been because that intuitiveness is rewarded by deeper friendships? How much of it 'just is' at birth, and how much is 'trained' into us as we grow? How about the boy who crys when his feelings are hurt...and gets yelled at. Who is too solicitous of other's feelings and gets called a sissy.

Again, I'm not saying that it is absolutely untrue, I just question any study that lays it all down on biological factors, without admitting that societal factors can not be taken out of the equation. Especially a 'soft' science like psychology.

The article does say that the basis of systemizing and empathizing is not well understood. The doctor that they referred to in the excerpt believes it is from testosterone. He believed that in early brain development testoterone "slows growth in the brain's left hemisphere and accelerates the growth in the right."

He did a study in which he found that the more testosterone a child had been exposed to, the less he was able to make eye contact.

How about the boy who crys when his feelings are hurt...and gets yelled at. Who is too solicitous of other's feelings and gets called a sissy.


And then there is the boy who is easily moved to tears like his mother. Can it be that he learnt this behaviour from the mother or there is a genetic factor? Let us assume that he identifies with male role models. A little from column A, a little from column B?

:) Does every role imposed on you (for one gender) conflict with the roles associate with the gender you feel more a part of? Or are you okay with some, just not others? Again, I think there needs to be freedom to express whatever traits you actually have, not based on 'this is female, and weak' and 'this is male, and strong', or visa versa.

well, this is where not being particularly good at expressing my feelings through words (despite being able to write exactly what i mean if im doing an essay or something) gets in the way, im not going to say that every single male trait that gets imposed on me conflicts with what i feel.

i mean...its sort of a male stereotype that you have to have at least a vague interest in cars and stuff like that and i have more than a vague interest in cars and motorsports. but i think thats the only male stereotype that i can think of that even remotely fits me...

im sure there are others that ive taken upon myself as ive grown up and tried to fit in, but thats more of an act than actually being me

Then this leads to individuals versus large group statistics ... you may have over come it individualy but by and large things would more then likly follow the biological trend
Okay, this is going to sound contradictory, because I said we shouldn't really overcome biology, but keep in mind, I'm working through this here...I don't have any hard and fast answers.

Let's say that men are biological more aggressive when it comes to sex, because biologically, the need is there for them to sire as many children as is possible. Now, in this day and age, it isn't as necessary for the continuation of the species for men to do this. Clearly there is a need in some of us for relationships which are monogamous. This, I believe, is societal, and in part results from the fact that the biological need for more children no longer is that important here. Polygamy is still practiced throughout Africa and parts of the Middle East though, so perhaps it is still more of a factor there...or at least societally.

Anyway. So men, biologically seeking many partners, societally encouraged to be monogamous and help raise their children, providing more societal stability (it is thought). We overcome that particular biological urge with societal expectations, but we do not make it 'disappear'. It's still there.

I think the same can be done with other 'biological traits'. We can overcome them depending on the society we want. We can say, "Hey boys, you want to have lots and lots of sex, and that's fine, but if you want lots and lots of GOOD sex, it isn't about having tonnes of kids anymore, it's about getting a loving partner, so here's how you do it..."

It's so slippery, and I keep losing it...but I'm slowing working out my ideas on this one:) Thanks for your patience!

The article does say that the basis of systemizing and empathizing is not well understood. The doctor that they referred to in the excerpt believes it is from testosterone. He believed that in early brain development testoterone "slows growth in the brain's left hemisphere and accelerates the growth in the right."

He did a study in which he found that the more testosterone a child had been exposed to, the less he was able to make eye contact.
That's kind of weird...I wonder if natives have a lot of testosterone:) We are taught not to meet the eye of an elder or a person in a position of power.

It's fascinating business, biology is!

And then there is the boy who is easily moved to tears like his mother. Can it be that he learnt this behaviour from the mother or there is a genetic factor? Let us assume that he identifies with male role models. A little from column A, a little from column B?
Good point! Nature vs nurture...

So hard to say...what about the boy with a cold, unaffectionate mother, who becomes very affectionate to compensate...circles within circles...

So yes, I think it is a blend of factors. The ones we CAN affect are the societal factors.

Ay, so here I am saying, "we shouldn't say how people should act," (get rid of gender stereotypes) but "we should say how people should act" (have societal expectations). Damn.

Alien Born! Where are you to pick at my points and make me see things more clearly? Untangle me, someone!

Uh-huh...which is why girls are now outperforming boys in math and science in school? (I've heard that schools are apparently biased against boys now :rolleyes: ) How do you judge something like that? I think a person, regardless of gender is going to be more or less capable of those areas depending on THEMSELVES, their interest, their particular learning style, and their exposure to these concepts, NOT their gender.

The SAT and ACT scores from California circa 2003-2004 disagrees with you. By 41 points.

http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/SatAct1.asp?cYear=2003-04&cChoice=SAT1b

Okay, this is going to sound contradictory, because I said we shouldn't really overcome biology, but keep in mind, I'm working through this here...I don't have any hard and fast answers.

Let's say that men are biological more aggressive when it comes to sex, because biologically, the need is there for them to sire as many children as is possible. Now, in this day and age, it isn't as necessary for the continuation of the species for men to do this. Clearly there is a need in some of us for relationships which are monogamous. This, I believe, is societal, and in part results from the fact that the biological need for more children no longer is that important here. Polygamy is still practiced throughout Africa and parts of the Middle East though, so perhaps it is still more of a factor there...or at least societally.

Anyway. So men, biologically seeking many partners, societally encouraged to be monogamous and help raise their children, providing more societal stability (it is thought). We overcome that particular biological urge with societal expectations, but we do not make it 'disappear'. It's still there.

I think the same can be done with other 'biological traits'. We can overcome them depending on the society we want. We can say, "Hey boys, you want to have lots and lots of sex, and that's fine, but if you want lots and lots of GOOD sex, it isn't about having tonnes of kids anymore, it's about getting a loving partner, so here's how you do it..."

It's so slippery, and I keep losing it...but I'm slowing working out my ideas on this one:) Thanks for your patience!


But society in of itself is an adaptation ;)

Monogamous relationships can be seen as having the benefit not for societal benefit rather for survivability of offspring ...

Monkeys live hard and fast ... the key to survive is spreading your genes as far as possible ... but as we grew and our brains grew there is more of a time investment made in each young ... they became more precious ... spreading far and wide was no longer an advantage if the offspring did not survive.

What we may be seeing is a societal adaptation (monogamy) overcoming a biological one … or we may be seeing two biological ones that have not been worked out
What I am trying to say is the only reason marriage may exist is because it conforms to evolutionary theory in providing increased chance of survivability of traits

Some of the changes we WANT to make may not be easy or possible to overcome biological because of WISHES rather then needs

(I probably said something wrong in there hope it is clear)

The SAT and ACT scores from California circa 2003-2004 disagrees with you. By 41 points.

http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/SatAct1.asp?cYear=2003-04&cChoice=SAT1b
Yeah, I don't have stats to back that up, though there has been a lot of media attention in Canada lately saying boys are being pushed out or not encouraged enough in school (math and science) mostly compared to girls. In any case, the gap really isn't that wide:

http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/con/2002/con_02-04-04.html
From this broad sample they found that girls scored higher, on average, in math than boys until about age 11, and girls achieved higher reasoning scores at ages 11 to 13. It turns out, however, that things are pretty even overall. By the end of high school, boys held an edge of 1.5 percent over girls, a figure of scant significance that surprised Leahey and Guo, who were expecting big differences.

But society in of itself is an adaptation ;)

Monogamous relationships can be seen as having the benefit not for societal benefit rather for survivability of offspring ...

Monkeys live hard and fast ... the key to survive is spreading your genes as far as possible ... but as we grew and our brains grew there is more of a time investment made in each young ... they became more precious ... spreading far and wide was no longer an advantage if the offspring did not survive.

What we may be seeing is a societal adaptation (monogamy) overcoming a biological one … or we may be seeing two biological ones that have not been worked out
What I am trying to say is the only reason marriage may exist is because it conforms to evolutionary theory in providing increased chance of survivability of traits

Some of the changes we WANT to make may not be easy or possible to overcome biological because of WISHES rather then needs

(I probably said something wrong in there hope it is clear)
I got it:) Okay...what kinds of changes we want to make might not be possible in terms of overcoming biology? How much of what we do now has any basis in real biological need?

(By the way, your ideas about the biological versus societal reason for monogamy are very interesting, thank you!)

I got it:) Okay...what kinds of changes we want to make might not be possible in terms of overcoming biology? How much of what we do now has any basis in real biological need?

(By the way, your ideas about the biological versus societal reason for monogamy are very interesting, thank you!)
No problem … though a lot of it was badly worded version taken out of ideas from Stephen Baxter … if you like sci fi at all read him (there is a reason he is a double doctorate) lol

You should see some of his ideas presented in his book evolution about propagation of religion as a survival trait (those able to make mental leaps of “faith” for an abstract cause … and therefore unite in purpose or lessen fear in certain situations having an increases survivability over those not able to do so)

Okay, no bites so far. I'll just compile a little list then.

1) 'Feminine roles'
- still the nurturer, the main caregiver and child raiser
- focused on outer appearance in herself, but in inner beauty in men
- can enjoy sex, but not with too many partners
- the one to resist the advances of men...so typically still not the 'pursuer'
- passive, worries about other's feelings, flighty and emotional
- expresses emotions
- has many friends and supports


2) 'Masculine roles'
- still the main breadwinner
- focused on outer appearance in women, not as interested in own outer appearance
- can have multiple sexual partners and this is seen as positive
- the 'pursuer' in sexual relationships
- more aggressive, does not need to be a 'people pleaser', logical and rational, not ruled by emotion
- represses emotions
- does not need to rely on others, is self-sufficient

These are just a few that I think have remained fairly constant over the years, with some wiggle room allowed for differences or variation.
Ever wonder why it is that these gender roles ever got started in the first place, and why they are universal in all human cultures? At the end of this post, I will go into more detal addressing everything that has been said.

Small list:

3) gender roles considered undesirable if exhibited by other genders
- men should not express emotions like women do (weak)
- women should not be sexually aggressive (enjoy sex, yes, but not pursue it like men are supposed to)
- men should not be passive, rather willing to defend themselves (weak)
- women should not be physically aggressive and fight too much (butch)


Then again, there are the gender roles that are usually more admired, that are considered 'masculine'. For example, a woman who wants to do well in business or politics, has to be 'ballsy' and 'aggressive'. They have to be 'tough' and not give into emotion. These traits are often considered to be 'masculine' even though any gender may have them.
Sure, either sex may display such traits, but which one is more likely to?

How about minor stereotypes I can do that.

Women can't read maps, and men don't talk on the phone.

Those are actually backed up by science, though.
Men are indeed, on average (not an absolute by any measure!) better at abstract thinking and certain visuo-spatial skills, while women are better at communication.

It is true, it is due to the makeup of their brains. Men are more predisposed to math and assigning order, while women are more presdisposed to communication skills.
Kind of. Men's brains are, on average, more suited to mathematical skills, but that simply happens to coincide with other bases. Pleistocene man did not have very advanced math. And men are not more predisposed to order by any sense, but I think I see where you're coming from.

I think that one is tough. You don't want a woman who sleeps around a lot, but a guy can do it (still) and not suffer too much in terms of his repuatation.
Now that there is most certainly a biological base to. Ever think that the sexual roles in reproduction might have something to do with that?

Uh-huh...which is why girls are now outperforming boys in math and science in school? (I've heard that schools are apparently biased against boys now :rolleyes: ) How do you judge something like that? I think a person, regardless of gender is going to be more or less capable of those areas depending on THEMSELVES, their interest, their particular learning style, and their exposure to these concepts, NOT their gender.
Well, gender has nothing to do with skill. It is, in the sense we're talking about, sex. Gender is a social and linguistic concept, and sex a biological one. And, second of all, there are reasons that girls are starting to do better than boys, on average, in school. Even in math, while it may not be from mathematical skills alone.

Though that begs the question is society causing this or is there something "behind it"

(not talking specifics but the root behavior) I mean it can be exagerated or agrivated by society but the ROOT of things seems to be fairly simmilar to what we see a lot of in chimps themselfs
Though actually, we are very similar to many birds in our sexual practices. Moreso than our closest genotypic cousins, the bonobo (pygmy chimpanzee).

You just need to go to a toy store to see how gender roles still have a lot to do with what toys are considered for girls, and for boys. The girl's section is still filled with dolls and frilly pink things. The Dora dollhouse my daughter has actually says, "Bienvenida a mi casa" in Spanish, which means, "Welcome to my house..." but that welcome is only to a girl, because BienvenidO would be towards a boy. So boys wouldn't play with this dollhouse? Plenty of boys LOVE dollhouses...they just play with them a bit differently (well, some do).

The boy's section? Toy guns, 'action figures' (no dolls for boys!), blue and red colours everywhere!

Colours are still very caught up in gender roles...no pink on boys! Yet girls can really wear any colour and get away with it.
Ay me! I'll also address this soon.

To reiterate, I don't think we should worry about overturning biological 'traits', but we shouldn't assume those traits fit us into biological roles. A man may be born better suited to raise children than his wife.
Tell me, deprived of other female mammals, how would a widower go about feeding his child? A women is, literally, more suited to child rearing than men. And there is a reason for this too.

First of all, I heavily recommend reading Matt Ridley's The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature for those interested in this topic. Also perhaps reading up on Edward O. Wilson's theory of sociobiology. To premise this, humans are a primarily monogamous species. There is occasional polygamy, but a lot of adultery. Now might be a good time to read up on Richard Dawkins' selfish gene theory. The goal of every organism, biologically speaking, is to propagate its own genes. In sexual species, this is accomplished by choosing the mate that is most likely to continue its genes. This can be through good genes and/or good reasources. There are many species, especially birds, that decide mates based on territory, and many that decide based on attractiveness and other phenotypic qualities regardless of property. They often coincide, and are not mutually exclusive. It should also be noted that there are polygynous (multiple wives) human civilisations, but not even a handful of polyandrous (multiple husbands) ones. And those are a few Tibetan ones, if I recall, that have certain property traditions that make polyandry feasible at all.

Tell me, how many children can a man have over a period of nine months? A potentially infinite amount. A woman? One, maybe two. Three or more in very rare circumstances. Still all one litter, however. From one mate. In humans, in order to be sure that his child will be raised alive and able to continue the man's genes that the offspring has in him or her, he should provide for the child in order to ensure survival and health. The woman can not have children too often, and every child she has is a huge investment. For the man, it's a little effort to ejaculate. For the woman, it's nine months of discomfort and potential incapacitation. It also must be noted that everyone is descended from persons who had children successful enough to have children themselves.

Now might be a good time to mention an interesting tidbit of information. Gorillas, who are a highly polygynous animal, with one male having large harems of females, have very small testes. Chimpanzees, who have very few mates, have enormous testes (this is all relative to body size). The male gorilla can rest assured that the females in his harem are not cheating on him. So he has no need of much semen, since he only needs a little per mate. The male chimpanzee, on the other hand, certainly has to worry about his mate cheating on him. Humans have medium-sized testes.

Which brings me to my next point. A man should raise his children in order to be sure they reproduce. Wouldn't it suck so badly if he was raising someone else's child? The woman, on the other hand, knows perfectly well that any neonate that comes out of her womb has her genes in it. It also must be noted that there is a consensus that Pleistocene man was a hunter-gatherer (now more commonly called forager among archaeologists) animal. The men hunted while the women gathered, humans being omnivorous. So spouses sometimes spent long times away from each other. Perfect opportunity for a woman to perhaps cheat on her husband. But why would she want to do that? Because her husband might not have the best genes of the bunch. He is good enough to provide for her children, but she can get both the property and the genes if she's good enough. So when the man gets back, he's got to get enough of his own sperm into his wife to at least compete with any potential adultery his wife partook of.

Another interesting bit of information--the female orgasm has different levels of sperm retention. It can cause very low levels of sperm retention, or very high. It has also been found that with women who cheat on their husbands, they have approximately 30% sperm rentention, and around 70% for their lovers' semen.

I could go on, but I don't feel like it right now. Perhaps this might help with understanding gender roles dealing with copulation if you can fill in the blanks. I will probably post again later, but I'm done for now.

Yeah, I don't have stats to back that up, though there has been a lot of media attention in Canada lately saying boys are being pushed out or not encouraged enough in school (math and science) mostly compared to girls. In any case, the gap really isn't that wide:

And I would agree that that is likely true in Canada. It is certainly true in California. Most attention in school is paid toward pushing Girls into Science and Math and Boys are ignored because "there are already enough" essentaily. Doesn't help that Engineering/Math and Science schools (CalTech, MIT, Harvard, UCLA, Stanford, Cal etc...) make it a virtual policy of lowering the acceptance standards when dealing with women.

http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/con/2002/con_02-04-04.html

Focuses on Grade School and High School. Ignores class composition of the more complicated/higher math and science classes. A 1.5% difference doesn't come from the middle people performing slightly better, it comes from more males at the top and more Females at the lower end.

1) What are stereotypical feminine roles?

submissive nurturer.

2) What are stereotypical masculine roles?
anything other than submissive nurturer.

3) What 'traits' are undesireable for the opposite gender to exhibit?
for females: anything other than submissive nurturer.

for males: anything submissive or nurturing.

Tell me, deprived of other female mammals, how would a widower go about feeding his child?
The same way they have done it...simulated milk (formula), or other nutritional sources (broth made from meat, or plants).



Which brings me to my next point. A man should raise his children in order to be sure they reproduce. Wouldn't it suck so badly if he was raising someone else's child? Why would it matter if the point is propagation of the species?

The woman, on the other hand, knows perfectly well that any neonate that comes out of her womb has her genes in it. It also must be noted that there is a consensus that Pleistocene man was a hunter-gatherer (now more commonly called forager among archaeologists) animal. The men hunted while the women gathered, humans being omnivorous. So spouses sometimes spent long times away from each other. Perfect opportunity for a woman to perhaps cheat on her husband. But why would she want to do that? Because her husband might not have the best genes of the bunch. He is good enough to provide for her children, but she can get both the property and the genes if she's good enough. So when the man gets back, he's got to get enough of his own sperm into his wife to at least compete with any potential adultery his wife partook of.
Yeah, I get all this by the way. I'm not arguing that there isn't biological reasoning in certain behaviours. My point is, they no longer matter all that much. We specialised along gender lines because of biology (women could not be risked in hunting, but men could), but that no longer applies, or we'd still be hunting and gathering. So...? (I loved the research done on the female orgasm, and how the woman's orgasm with her lover made it more likely she would become pregnant by him, but when the husband got home, he secreted something acidic to 'kill off the competition' in order to try and get her pregnant himself...tricky biology!)

By the way, my people are matrilineal. We pass everything down through the woman's line because no man can truly know who his children are, but the woman has no doubt. ;)

(not saying this is true just an example) lets say we find out mens agressiveness on average benifits them in the work place

Do we artificialy negate that biological benifit or alow them to do better in the work place?
Male agression is certainly biological. Endocrinological to be precise. It is the increased levels of testosterone that cause this markedly higher agression. Men have notably more testosterone than women. Though in hyenas, the females actually have more, and are larger and more agressive than the males. And it is sexual selection that is the cause of this, much more so than any other factor.

However, to what extent are men biologically more agressive? It's hard to measure.
No, it's not. Hormones, dude. Hormones.

Good point! Nature vs nurture...
How about nature for nurture? They are not necessarily at odds.

Monogamous relationships can be seen as having the benefit not for societal benefit rather for survivability of offspring ...
Not only can it be seen, but it is widely agreed upon by evolutionary biologists.

What we may be seeing is a societal adaptation (monogamy) overcoming a biological one … or we may be seeing two biological ones that have not been worked out
Or perhaps we're seeing two biological ones that we just don't see the connexion between at first? Adulterous monogamy with occasional polygamy. That's the way of humans.

What I am trying to say is the only reason marriage may exist is because it conforms to evolutionary theory in providing increased chance of survivability of traits
Yes!

The same way they have done it...simulated milk (formula), or other nutritional sources (broth made from meat, or plants).
If that was a very effective way, then there would be no need for mammary glands in women, would there? And plus, something that emerged in the last century has no influence in biology. At least not in humans, with generationg twenty to thirty years apart. The thing is, that women who die during childbirth typically did not leave many offspring. Which is precisely why it is that large waists are found desirable among most men, because it shows that the woman can give birth to his children. Large breasts are often more attractive because it shows that she can feed them. Thing waists are attractive to show that it is not fat that is giving the large waist and breasts, but mammary tissue and a large pelvis.

Why would it matter if the point is propagation of the species?
Because it's not the point. Species selection has no meaning in evolution. The point is the propagation of the gene. Not the species.

Yeah, I get all this by the way. I'm not arguing that there isn't biological reasoning in certain behaviours. My point is, they no longer matter all that much.
I know. I'm just saying that trying to defy what is genetic is not going to go off very well.

We specialised along gender lines because of biology (women could not be risked in hunting, but men could), but that no longer applies, or we'd still be hunting and gathering.
That's actually most likely not why. It's more probably that it is the man that was designed for such tasks, while the woman was designed for others.

So...? (I loved the research done on the female orgasm, and how the woman's orgasm with her lover made it more likely she would become pregnant by him, but when the husband got home, he secreted something acidic to 'kill off the competition' in order to try and get her pregnant himself...tricky biology!)
I'm afraid I don't see your argument.

For sure. I really believed in nurture over nature until I had kids and realised they are BORN with certain traits. However, my one daughter is a total tomboy, and the other is a 'girly girl'. Which of their traits are biologically 'female' and which are biologically 'male'? I think these innate traits are not inherently gendered, they just are. What about the boy who loves to dress up and play with dolls? Is he exhibiting 'female' behaviour, or just behaviour period? It's not the traits that are the problem, it is the connotations that follow those traits. Getting rid of gender bias means allowing people to have whatever traits they were born with or develop, without naming some good and others bad just because of their gender.

I totally agree. The problem we have is the binary separation of male/female. It's important to think of this as a self/other thing - social definition of women is often in opposition to men (the whole man strong/.woman weak schtik). The whole sexuality thing is clearly a social construction - essentially a way for victorian sexologists to define acceptable behaviour by branding homosexuals as the feared and unknown 'other' - before this there is plenty of evidence of male/male and female/female affection being seen as acceptable and as a normal part of social relationships

If that was a very effective way, then there would be no need for mammary glands in women, would there? And plus, something that emerged in the last century has no influence in biology. At least not in humans, with generationg twenty to thirty years apart. The thing is, that women who die during childbirth typically did not leave many offspring. Which is precisely why it is that large waists are found desirable among most men, because it shows that the woman can give birth to his children. Large breasts are often more attractive because it shows that she can feed them. Thing waists are attractive to show that it is not fat that is giving the large waist and breasts, but mammary tissue and a large pelvis.
Evolution can only go so far. We have already defied evolution by letting people like me live (with very poor eyesight), and by allowing infants who would have died without breast milk to instead thrive on formula. Evolution is no longer the driving need of our species.

I'm afraid I don't see your argument.The "so..." was kind of a question...like what does this have to do with gender roles? I get that gender roles probably are based in biology, but my argument is now, does that really matter? We don't have to take those things into consideration to the extent we once did.

The orgasm thing was just a sidenote, with no point:)

Edit: By the way, I think you said you were going to talk about colours...?

I totally agree. The problem we have is the binary separation of male/female. It's important to think of this as a self/other thing - social definition of women is often in opposition to men (the whole man strong/.woman weak schtik). The whole sexuality thing is clearly a social construction - essentially a way for victorian sexologists to define acceptable behaviour by branding homosexuals as the feared and unknown 'other' - before this there is plenty of evidence of male/male and female/female affection being seen as acceptable and as a normal part of social relationships
The social aspect of gender roles can not be emphasized enough. My people (Cree nation) had different ideas of what was feminine and masculine, but surely we have the same biological drives as any other group. We also had a place for those who were 'two-spirited' meaning they had traits of both males and females. Cree women were very sexually aggressive.

Edit: Point being, biology being similar in various populations, doesn't mean all societies are going to react to biological traits in the same way. So if those differences exist in societies, why not others? Like a lack of gender stereotypes?

1) What are stereotypical feminine roles?
mommy sorts of roles, house cleaner, food preparer, mender of clothes, scrubber of toilets, care taker of children/husbands, fixer of "boo-boos" et c.
self sacrificing
weak
emotionally fragile
helpless
not involved in the sciences in any way, save life sciences to a limited extent
meek
timid
patient
submissive
nurturing
social

2) What are stereotypical masculine roles?
the breadwinner
the repairman, the landscaper, the project builder, the couch potato, the beer drinker, the grill master et c (around the home...)
lacking visible emotion
strong
dominant
natural leader
rescuer of damsels in distress (figurative..)
not involved in humanities subjects
the sports enthusiast
the mysogynist
the athlete, imparting such skills on children as well...
independant

3) What 'traits' are undesireable for the opposite gender to exhibit?
supposedly undesireable? or actually undesirable? I'm assuming supposedly...
women: strength, independance, dominant, business savvy, refusal to dress/talk how a "lady" should
men: showing emotion (when sports aren't involved), submissive, knowing how to put together an outfit/caring about such things (in a non-business setting)

Evolution can only go so far. We have already defied evolution by letting people like me live (with very poor eyesight), and by allowing infants who would have died without breast milk to instead thrive on formula. Evolution is no longer the driving need of our species.
Oh. Well, if you believe that, then I guess I can't argue anymore. Sure, we have altered natural selection in humans with medicine and hospitals. However, if you believe that "[e]volution is no longer the driving need of our species", then you, my friend, need to learn just what evolution is.

The "so..." was kind of a question...like what does this have to do with gender roles? I get that gender roles probably are based in biology, but my argument is now, does that really matter? We don't have to take those things into consideration to the extent we once did.
Yes, we do. Who can deny that men and women are different physically? Not many men have breasts. Man boobs don't count. Nor do they have female genitalia. Same is reciprocated with women. Men are, on average, taller than women. You don't disagree with that, do you? Men are, on average, heavier than women. Men, pretty much universally, have more testosterone than women. Women have more oestrogen and progestrone. Men have larger percentages of their muscle in the upper body, while women have more in the lower body.

You don't disagree with any of those, do you? If men and women can be different somatically, why cant they also have neurological differences? Testosterone affects much more than just the musculature of a person.

Edit: By the way, I think you said you were going to talk about colours...?
I was going to talk about children's toys, I believe. But I don't have enough patience to go through and explain everything I meant to. Perhaps I'll get into the somatic differences between men and women, not just the reproductive, later. Colours are strictly a societal thing as far as I can tell. It may be possible that sexes have innate attractions to certain wavelengths of light, but I would doubt that so, oh so much.

The social aspect of gender roles can not be emphasized enough. My people (Cree nation) had different ideas of what was feminine and masculine, but surely we have the same biological drives as any other group. We also had a place for those who were 'two-spirited' meaning they had traits of both males and females. Cree women were very sexually aggressive.

Edit: Point being, biology being similar in various populations, doesn't mean all societies are going to react to biological traits in the same way. So if those differences exist in societies, why not others? Like a lack of gender stereotypes?
Come again? Could you elaborate a little more? I see no idea how variations on a common theme relate to your point.

Oh. Well, if you believe that, then I guess I can't argue anymore. Sure, we have altered natural selection in humans with medicine and hospitals. However, if you believe that "[e]volution is no longer the driving need of our species", then you, my friend, need to learn just what evolution is.
I didn't realise we were arguing. I thought we were having a conversation?

Let me rephrase. Evolution is still important, and undoubtedly, the advances we make in medicine are for the improvement of the species. However, as you said, I think I'm referring more to natural selection than evolution. Slip of the fingers:) My bad.


Yes, we do. Who can deny that men and women are different physically? Not many men have breasts. Man boobs don't count. Nor do they have female genitalia. Same is reciprocated with women. Men are, on average, taller than women. You don't disagree with that, do you? Men are, on average, heavier than women. Men, pretty much universally, have more testosterone than women. Women have more oestrogen and progestrone. Men have larger percentages of their muscle in the upper body, while women have more in the lower body.

You don't disagree with any of those, do you? If men and women can be different somatically, why cant they also have neurological differences? Testosterone affects much more than just the musculature of a person.
I never said there weren't biological differences. Or neurological differences. I just stated that we should not be herded into particular roles, using those differences as the founding justification. Is wearing pink based in biology? Maybe you COULD find some tenuous connection, but does it matter? If a guy wants to wear pink, it isn't biology that will punish him.

I was going to talk about children's toys, I believe. But I don't have enough patience to go through and explain everything I meant to.
That's become pretty clear. A little less hostility would be nice. If you don't have the time or patience right now, perhaps you could revisit the topic later?


Come again? Could you elaborate a little more? I see no idea how variations on a common theme relate to your point.
That seems to be because you are missing my point. So first, I'll restate it (and again, I apologise if I contradict myself, or it seems unclear, I'm working through this right now, not presenting a thesis:))

POINT: Biology plays a role in the formation of gender roles. However, so does society (based on that biology). We can change the societial aspects of gender roles, if not the biological ones.

My example, and how it relates to the point: Biology: the need to procreate.
Variation: in western society, the woman is passive, the man the aggressor. In Cree society, both were aggressive. Same biological drive, different roles. Same outcome...children.

So, variation can exist in societally based gender roles BASED on biology. Meaning, we can change it so that men are not ridiculed for being open emotionally. If we choose to.

So perhaps we should isolate the gender stereotypes that are damaging? Then perhaps we can discuss how to deal with them. I'll throw one out there:

I think it is harmful to raise boys to keep all their emotions inside. Now, I don't want to turn everyone into a blubbering idiot, but bottling it all up really is unhealthy.

I didn't realise we were arguing. I thought we were having a conversation?
My bad, poor diction. I should have put down discuss, not argue.

Let me rephrase. Evolution is still important, and undoubtedly, the advances we make in medicine are for the improvement of the species. However, as you said, I think I'm referring more to natural selection than evolution. Slip of the fingers:) My bad.
Well, the thing is, natural selection is merely altered in humans, not removed. It is just as important as it's ever been. We are not so above other organisms that Darwinism doesn't apply to us.

I never said there weren't biological differences. Or neurological differences. I just stated that we should not be herded into particular roles, using those differences as the founding justification. Is wearing pink based in biology? Maybe you COULD find some tenuous connection, but does it matter? If a guy wants to wear pink, it isn't biology that will punish him.
Ahh, but it is indeed biology that will punish him. Society, which is a product of humans, which are a product of natural selection, will punish him in some places. Colour association is not universal, so it has no biological basis. There are sexual differences, and saying they do not exist is to ignore a fundamental basis of our existence. The only reason humans have such enormous brains is from one factor and one factor only: sexual selection. It's not to use tools, it's not to use language, it's what makes you sexy.

*this was the first little green link on the side thing.*


I feel that most people are getting better about the whole issue. Men are takeing on mroe roles around the house and women are getting out into the work force.

There, were all happy.


However, the only thing that still bothers me are people how say that women are superior to men. And it can sometimes feel that way. I feel as though women are getting the easyer end of the deal. Which in its own, can be considered sexism.

Oh, and BTW, I am a boy from Russia.

I've heard that schools are apparently biased against boys now :rolleyes:
This is ridiculous, and yet the concept of corporations deliberately repressing women regardless of commercial interests is more believable?

Lots of people defy stereotypical gender roles...but they shouldn't have to be thought of as 'defying' them. They should just be allowed to be themselves. Then again, humans love to rebel against SOMETHING....
Yeah that's true. I am a straight male but almost totally non-aggressive/violent. People sometimes think I'm weak or gay or something ridiculous like that just because I avoid physical fighting, which is stupid anyway.

It's so annoying because being non-violent apparently makes girls think I am weak/unattractive.

Uh-huh...which is why girls are now outperforming boys in math and science in school? (I've heard that schools are apparently biased against boys now :rolleyes: ) How do you judge something like that? I think a person, regardless of gender is going to be more or less capable of those areas depending on THEMSELVES, their interest, their particular learning style, and their exposure to these concepts, NOT their gender.
They think boys are sucking at school because parents let little boys get away with more shit at home (running around and being obnoxisous for instance) while little girls are more often instructed to be quiet and obedient. Makes them easier to teach... though teachers still call on boys more it seems.

Yeah that's true. I am a straight male but almost totally non-aggressive/violent. People sometimes think I'm weak or gay or something ridiculous like that just because I avoid physical fighting, which is stupid anyway.

It's so annoying because being non-violent apparently makes girls think I am weak/unattractive.

I was quite violent in the Army, and I feel fairly violent from time to time now, and women still ask me "are you gay?"

Maybe it's the fact that I still like Barry Manilow music, or sing show tunes in the car.

This is ridiculous, and yet the concept of corporations deliberately repressing women regardless of commercial interests is more believable?


Yeah that's true. I am a straight male but almost totally non-aggressive/violent. People sometimes think I'm weak or gay or something ridiculous like that just because I avoid physical fighting, which is stupid anyway.

It's so annoying because being non-violent apparently makes girls think I am weak/unattractive.

I'd table the motion that the cause of women thinking you're weak/unattractive is because you think that is how women precieve you. Being non-violent doesn't cause anyone to think you're weak or unattractive, lacking confidence or standing up for yourself causes that. And yes, you can very easily stand up for yourself without being the least bit violent.

That's become pretty clear. A little less hostility would be nice. If you don't have the time or patience right now, perhaps you could revisit the topic later?
Oh, I have the time. And I was patient enough to explain why it is that being a pimp is good and being a slut is bad. I think you're confusing abruptness with hostility. I am trying to convince you, and it may be coming out that I'm trying to hurt you, even if I'm not.

That seems to be because you are missing my point. So first, I'll restate it (and again, I apologise if I contradict myself, or it seems unclear, I'm working through this right now, not presenting a thesis:))

POINT: Biology plays a role in the formation of gender roles. However, so does society (based on that biology). We can change the societial aspects of gender roles, if not the biological ones.
Sure. I was just trying to address what I though was wrong. It may not even be relevant here, but I wanted to make sure that it was established that there are indeed biotic sex roles, which are sometimes separate and sometimes related to societal gender roles.

My example, and how it relates to the point: Biology: the need to procreate.
Variation: in western society, the woman is passive, the man the aggressor. In Cree society, both were aggressive. Same biological drive, different roles. Same outcome...children.
Males are typically more sexually aggressive. They have to fight for the mate more than the females do. There are variations on that, and it is not a large difference by any stretch, but it is still there in any culture that's examined. It may not even be noticable in certain cultures, though I'd wager it's still there.

So, variation can exist in societally based gender roles BASED on biology. Meaning, we can change it so that men are not ridiculed for being open emotionally. If we choose to.
Sure. I don't really care though. If I'm around people who I don't like, I just choose not be around them. I'm a pretty effeminate person. My girlfriend is more of a tomboy than I am a boy, I must say. If people have a problem with that, I say screw 'em.

So perhaps we should isolate the gender stereotypes that are damaging? Then perhaps we can discuss how to deal with them. I'll throw one out there:

I think it is harmful to raise boys to keep all their emotions inside. Now, I don't want to turn everyone into a blubbering idiot, but bottling it all up really is unhealthy.
I agree. However, bottling up personal emotions is not limited to boys. Girls do it too, though slightly less. They ar much more gregarious, but still.

Yeah that's true. I am a straight male but almost totally non-aggressive/violent. People sometimes think I'm weak or gay or something ridiculous like that just because I avoid physical fighting, which is stupid anyway.

It's so annoying because being non-violent apparently makes girls think I am weak/unattractive.
It's more than just that, I'd wager. I personally have an aversion to hurting other people I just can't get rid of. Whenever I get into a kind of playful fight with someone, I am always careful not to hurt them, though I only realise it after. It's a subconscious thing. I'm also not very masculine in any sense of the word. I've never been called or thought of as gay that I know of, and though girls are far from hounding me, I'm not entirely unattractive.

However, the only thing that still bothers me are people how say that women are superior to men. And it can sometimes feel that way. I feel as though women are getting the easyer end of the deal. Which in its own, can be considered sexism.
I don't disagree with you, but could you explain your opinion further?

I think that the media is largely biased against men. Have you ever noticed that in most advertisements the male character is shown to be the foolish foil to the smart, strong woman.

In my school, the girls are treated with more... patience... They also seem to be more interested in school. However, they also seem less interested in really achieveing in life... But there are also more programs to help girls achieve and do well when they do not seem to care.

And yes I have seen those types of adds but those are most likely just oriented twards women so they may not count.


And my last post was screwed up. I am of Russian Decent in the U.S.

3) What 'traits' are undesireable for the opposite gender to exhibit?
supposedly undesireable? or actually undesirable? I'm assuming supposedly...
women: strength, independance, dominant, business savvy, refusal to dress/talk how a "lady" should
men: showing emotion (when sports aren't involved), submissive, knowing how to put together an outfit/caring about such things (in a non-business setting)

it seems to me that being TOO masculine or feminine is bad too. to take the stereotype to its maximum leads to undesirable traits

for men, to be so driven that he ignores his family, to be so aggressive that he beats his wife, to be so sexual that he spends all his money at strip clubs. to be such a "man" that his idea of a great time is to get drunk, start a fight and end up in jail.

for women to be so nurturing that she smothers (emotionally not physically) her children. to be so attractive that she spends all her energy and money in the pursuit of fashion. to be so supportive that she pushes her husband past his tolerance and ethics. to be the kind of woman who uses her feminine wiles to trap a man into marriage and children.

In my school, the girls are treated with more... patience... They also seem to be more interested in school. However, they also seem less interested in really achieveing in life... But there are also more programs to help girls achieve and do well when they do not seem to care.

And yes I have seen those types of adds but those are most likely just oriented twards women so they may not count.

Really? DishTV is oriented towards women? Or say Sitcoms, where the Husband is virtually always wrong, are they also oriented towards women?

What annoys me is all this crap where it's specifically targetted towards men...

Like spike tv for instance. Before, I used to be able to tune into a Star Trek: The Next Generation marathon and not see a woman in a bikini with the spike logo on her.

And Tim Horton's (a canadian doughnut shop) is making a website dedicated to men. What the hell? Seriously, I can understand a tv network for men (though for some reason, shows mostly shows that women will watch too) but why does a doughnut store need to have a male-targetted website?

Oh, but what really bothers me about the Tim Horton's commercials is that they insult and stereotype women as they promote their website for men.

Gender stereotypes occur in the media for all genders. Are these stereotypes derogatory and focused more on one gender over another?

My bad, poor diction. I should have put down discuss, not argue.


Well, the thing is, natural selection is merely altered in humans, not removed. It is just as important as it's ever been. We are not so above other organisms that Darwinism doesn't apply to us.


Ahh, but it is indeed biology that will punish him. Society, which is a product of humans, which are a product of natural selection, will punish him in some places. Colour association is not universal, so it has no biological basis. There are sexual differences, and saying they do not exist is to ignore a fundamental basis of our existence. The only reason humans have such enormous brains is from one factor and one factor only: sexual selection. It's not to use tools, it's not to use language, it's what makes you sexy.

Uh, I'm pretty sure survival has a little bit to do with selection and if language and tools helped us survive then I would say that was a factor. You can't simplify a premise so much as to make it resemble the original premise and then make arguments based on your simplification and expect it to stand in a group this intelligent.

Gender stereotypes occur in the media for all genders. Are these stereotypes derogatory and focused more on one gender over another?
I have a feeling all groups tend to notice derogatory steriotypes against their own groups (so it will boil down to just about every group saying they are focused on more then the others) lol

What annoys me is all this crap where it's specifically targetted towards men...

Like spike tv for instance. Before, I used to be able to tune into a Star Trek: The Next Generation marathon and not see a woman in a bikini with the spike logo on her.

Yes and I just love flipping past Oprah or the Oxygen network and hearing the words "menopause", "marriage" and "commitment" every g'd damned time. Tough it up, Spike TV's little logo ad is much tamer than say the "organic orgasmic" shampoo ads.

And Tim Horton's (a canadian doughnut shop) is making a website dedicated to men. What the hell? Seriously, I can understand a tv network for men (though for some reason, shows mostly shows that women will watch too) but why does a doughnut store need to have a male-targetted website?

Yes, they've canned the guy previously in charge of Spike TV's line up and I think they're looking to restructure the channel to increase the male viewership... what with Women making up the majority of their viewership IIRC.

Oh, but what really bothers me about the Tim Horton's commercials is that they insult and stereotype women as they promote their website for men.

And us men just love sitcoms where the show itself stereotypes men as bumbling fools, wait for the most part we just don't give a damn because it's funny.

Gender stereotypes occur in the media for all genders. Are these stereotypes derogatory and focused more on one gender over another?

I'd hazard the guess that women are presented in a more positive manner than men on television. Not that we don't get to sit back and enjoy watching the Bond Girls prance around...

Uh, I'm pretty sure survival has a little bit to do with selection and if language and tools helped us survive then I would say that was a factor. You can't simplify a premise so much as to make it resemble the original premise and then make arguments based on your simplification and expect it to stand in a group this intelligent.
Sorry, but I couldn't help but smile when I read that last statement. I'll let you off on ignorance. Tell me, sir or madam, how much do you know about evolutionary biology?

The reason that we can not give off our bulbous brains to tools or language is because it is not enough. If either was so important, why didn't our close relatives also do so? Dolphins have language, yet their brains are significantly smaller than ours if I recall. There are other instances of language, just dolphins, especially bottlenose dolphins, are the most developed. Chimpanzees and other apes are a good example of tool use, along with other animals like crows. Same with social structure. There are plenty of other animals, especially apes, that have complex social structures. Not even to mention eusocial insects. Why didn't our other ape cousins also develop huge crania with tissue to fill them? They have some language, they have some tool use. If any of the above was enough to cause us to develop huge brains, then the other species that share those qualities would have also done so.

The only answer may lie in sexual selection. Intraspecies selection, not interspecies. That is actually where most natural selection takes place in the higher organisms. To tell the truth, no-one really has an answer to why we have our bulbous brains. But the only answer can lie in sexual selection. Perhaps it's neoteny. Perhaps it's something else. But it's not what is commonly thought of, that's for sure.

Tough it up, Spike TV's little logo ad is much tamer than say the "organic orgasmic" shampoo ads.
I swear, the word "organic" has been abused so badly it's not even recognisable anymore...

Sorry, but I couldn't help but smile when I read that last statement. I'll let you off on ignorance. Tell me, sir or madam, how much do you know about evolutionary biology?

The reason that we can not give off our bulbous brains to tools or language is because it is not enough. If either was so important, why didn't our close relatives also do so? Dolphins have language, yet their brains are significantly smaller than ours if I recall. There are other instances of language, just dolphins, especially bottlenose dolphins, are the most developed. Chimpanzees and other apes are a good example of tool use, along with other animals like crows. Same with social structure. There are plenty of other animals, especially apes, that have complex social structures. Not even to mention eusocial insects. Why didn't our other ape cousins also develop huge crania with tissue to fill them? They have some language, they have some tool use. If any of the above was enough to cause us to develop huge brains, then the other species that share those qualities would have also done so.

The only answer may lie in sexual selection. Intraspecies selection, not interspecies. That is actually where most natural selection takes place in the higher organisms. To tell the truth, no-one really has an answer to why we have our bulbous brains. But the only answer can lie in sexual selection. Perhaps it's neoteny. Perhaps it's something else. But it's not what is commonly thought of, that's for sure.

I'm sorry. I misunderstood you, I thought you were using the idea of large brains to represent intelligence. I didn't know you were actually talking about the size. I agree that if there was some survival reason for having such big heads, I'm not aware of it. However, because we are not aware of a reason why big heads would increase the survival rate is not evidence that it does not exist. Admittedly, I was arguing the wrong point. So many people simplify theories to point of making them not resemble the original theories and then use them to make nonsensical points that I just assumed you were doing that. I'll be more careful in the future.

They think boys are sucking at school because parents let little boys get away with more shit at home (running around and being obnoxisous for instance) while little girls are more often instructed to be quiet and obedient. Makes them easier to teach... though teachers still call on boys more it seems.

Some school districts are now experimenting with single sex classes. Perliminary results indicate it works well. Girls get a boost in confidence, interacting with the teacher more. They are more likely to volunteer answers.

Classes for boys can be structure to better fit boys learning style. Girls are usually more able to sit at desks and discuss. Boys are more active and need to move around more, do more things with their hands. Boys have an especially hard time sitting still for long times in early grade school. Girls tend to mature earlier, especially in verbal skills. Boys have better motor control at that age.

I personally believe these temperament differences have something to do with the fact that so many boys are diagnosed with ADHD and other learning disorders.

Alright. We've talked about SYMPTOMS of the problem, but perhaps we should buckle down and address the problem itself.

So many issues of gender equity come back to the fundamental issue of gender roles. What are they? What has changed? What remains the same? How close are we to getting rid of gendered roles? Are we on the right track, or are these roles somehow necessarily or desirable?

Let's look at what lies beneath; and prevents true gender equity.

Remember, these are PERCEIVED roles...not set in stone or legislated roles.

1) What are stereotypical feminine roles?
2) What are stereotypical masculine roles?
3) What 'traits' are undesireable for the opposite gender to exhibit?

Well, Sinuhue has defined gender roles really well, so I'll leave it be, however I do have things to say.

Feiminism should be about changing society as a whole, not just about making women equal in this flawed society of ours (although can women ever really be equal unless the fabric of society is changed?). Feminism should work alongside a general fight for equality, for racial equality, for a society free of exploitation.

I was watching a presentation on the news about the situation of Australian woman. And basically she's poorer and in worse health etc than before (a few years ago I'd assume). But then they focussed on this business lunch where successful female CEO's were going on about how great life was for women. Yeah, good for them, they're making millions while most women still earn less than men, still do the majority of housework, still work part-time and casual jobs where they are open to poor treatment.

Also, on double standards and how little society really has changed. Why is it that when a couple has a child only the mother is asked if she's taking time off to look after the baby? Then there's this horrible "whores and Madonna's" dichotomy. A woman is either an innocent virgin or a Jezebel. Give me a break. If women were so sexually liberated that would NEVER be the case.

Also, on double standards and how little society really has changed. Why is it that when a couple has a child only the mother is asked if she's taking time off to look after the baby? Then there's this horrible "whores and Madonna's" dichotomy. A woman is either an innocent virgin or a Jezebel. Give me a break. If women were so sexually liberated that would NEVER be the case.

Man, don't get me started on that! My dad thinks that women who have children shouldn't even think about getting jobs. And then there's the whole "women who live with guys before getting married are sinners and bitches" thing... The strange thing is that he portrays himself as an Atheist, yet he uses the Bible as a fucking guidlines for life. What a hypocrite.

Society has to change so people like my dad will no longer have an impact on anything. That, my friends, would make things much nicer for everyone.

Man, don't get me started on that! My dad thinks that women who have children shouldn't even think about getting jobs. And then there's the whole "women who live with guys before getting married are sinners and bitches" thing... The strange thing is that he portrays himself as an Atheist, yet he uses the Bible as a fucking guidlines for life. What a hypocrite.

Society has to change so people like my dad will no longer have an impact on anything. That, my friends, would make things much nicer for everyone.
Your dad sounds like he'd get along with my parents. :( My dad told me I was "sleeping around" because I slept with my BOYFRIEND OF TWO YEARS, not that he even knows that for sure. All he knows is that my bf visits me down in Melbourne. They're so fucking petty. And I'm going back to Sydney for Easter, staying in their house. *shudder*
Ugh.

Your dad sounds like he'd get along with my parents. :( My dad told me I was "sleeping around" because I slept with my BOYFRIEND OF TWO YEARS, not that he even knows that for sure. All he knows is that my bf visits me down in Melbourne. They're so fucking petty. And I'm going back to Sydney for Easter, staying in their house. *shudder*
Ugh.

Maybe our dads should get in touch.

And good luck with the Easter thing. Yeesh...

Your dad sounds like he'd get along with my parents. :( My dad told me I was "sleeping around" because I slept with my BOYFRIEND OF TWO YEARS, not that he even knows that for sure. All he knows is that my bf visits me down in Melbourne. They're so fucking petty. And I'm going back to Sydney for Easter, staying in their house. *shudder*
Ugh.

He is your dad. When you have kids they should ideally be from a virgin birth.

He is your dad. When you have kids they should ideally be from a virgin birth.

Explain "ideally".

Explain "ideally".

From the perspective of the Father of course. His little baby girl stay his little virgin baby girl from birth to death. Ideally. Adoption would be another preferred method. Virgin birth, adoption. Not asking that much really.

:p

From the perspective of the Father of course. His little baby girl stay his little virgin baby girl from birth to death. Ideally. Adoption would be another preferred method. Virgin birth, adoption. Not asking that much really.

:p
Dad's have weird ideas... I hope my partner doesn't turn into one of those when we have kids. :p I'm sure he won't though.

Dad's have weird ideas... I hope my partner doesn't turn into one of those when we have kids. :p I'm sure he won't though.

That'd be bad if he did.

That'd be bad if he did.
I doubt very much that he will. He has ha bad experiences with an authoritarian father too, and he's pretty much in favour of letting the kids run wild and free! :p

Edit: I thought of something that I read yesterday I think. It was possibly a comment from Ferrer, anyway, it was quoted by Emma Goldman (Red Emma!). Basically the gist was 'we don't want the children to love and respect us merely because we are their elders, we want to constantly give them reason to do so.' That's a good guide for parents.

You just need to go to a toy store to see how gender roles still have a lot to do with what toys are considered for girls, and for boys. The girl's section is still filled with dolls and frilly pink things. The Dora dollhouse my daughter has actually says, "Bienvenida a mi casa" in Spanish, which means, "Welcome to my house..." but that welcome is only to a girl, because BienvenidO would be towards a boy. So boys wouldn't play with this dollhouse? Plenty of boys LOVE dollhouses...they just play with them a bit differently (well, some do).

The boy's section? Toy guns, 'action figures' (no dolls for boys!), blue and red colours everywhere!

Colours are still very caught up in gender roles...no pink on boys! Yet girls can really wear any colour and get away with it.You should have a read of "Why men don't listen & Women can't read maps" by Allan & Barbara Pease.

Just finished it, it's very interesting. About how the male and female brains aren't identical, and how biologically we use our brains differently.

On the "slut" thing, it's really a shame that some women seem to think they have to sleep around to feel liberated. I think the idea of sex that teenagers have now is appauling, for guys and girls. For me it's more than just entertainment, and I dislike when people, guys or girls, will jump into bed with anyone they meet and like the look of.

Why not be liberated by looking for an equal relationship, where both sides of the couple treat each other with respect? Where the man no longer owns the woman, like the case has been in the past? Would seem to me like you've achieved more by doing this than somehow feeling good about yourself because you can screw heaps of different people.

Ahh, but it is indeed biology that will punish him.*(for wearing pink) Society, which is a product of humans, which are a product of natural selection, will punish him in some places. Colour association is not universal, so it has no biological basis. There are sexual differences, and saying they do not exist is to ignore a fundamental basis of our existence. The only reason humans have such enormous brains is from one factor and one factor only: sexual selection. It's not to use tools, it's not to use language, it's what makes you sexy.
* my addition
Reductionism is not particularly useful when we are trying to see the big picture. People will 'punish' a man for wearing pink if a male wearing pink has negative connotations in that society. You say yourself that colour has no biological basis, but you insist that it is biology that will 'punish' this man. Biology in the form of people. Your links here are rather tenuous...you can go ahead and link EVERYTHING to biology...drug addiction, asexuality, preference for the smell of mint...but that doesn't help us target social attitudes that are no longer JUSTIFIED by biology, and are harmful.

Really? DishTV is oriented towards women? Or say Sitcoms, where the Husband is virtually always wrong, are they also oriented towards women?
Sitcoms are meant to be funny (whether they succeed or not is another issue). They exploit stereotypes in that attempt to be funny. So the man might be a clueless, bumbling, well meaning fool, while the woman is a neurotic, self-absorbed, domineering witch. I don't think anyone comes out smelling like roses in those shows.

it's really a shame that some women seem to think they have to sleep around to feel liberated. I think the idea of sex that teenagers have now is appauling, for guys and girls. For me it's more than just entertainment, and I dislike when people, guys or girls, will jump into bed with anyone they meet and like the look of.

Why not be liberated by looking for an equal relationship, where both sides of the couple treat each other with respect?
Why not respect people who choose to sleep around? Then you could believe that some people who sleep around sleep with other people who also sleep around and respect themselves and their partner while they're doing it? I love it when people jump into bed with whoever they fancy, and I respect those people.

I have a feeling all groups tend to notice derogatory steriotypes against their own groups (so it will boil down to just about every group saying they are focused on more then the others) lol
You're bound to notice it more when it's mocking someone similar to you, no doubt about it.

Still, I think it's strange that after growing up in an age where feminists routinely questioned advertisements, and the portrayal of women in the media that NOW, no one seems to care when women are tossed into videos and commericals as 'scenery' (eye-candy). Does it really not bother anyone anymore? Or has it just become uncool to talk about it? I know when I talk to girls in my high school classes, they constantly bring up the way women are talked about and portrayed in music and music videos...but they do it in a way that seems like it's just something they have to put up with, even though they don't like it. Kind of defeatist...powerless.

2) 'Masculine roles'
- still the main breadwinner
- focused on outer appearance in women, not as interested in own outer appearance
- can have multiple sexual partners and this is seen as positive
- the 'pursuer' in sexual relationships
- more aggressive, does not need to be a 'people pleaser', logical and rational, not ruled by emotion
- represses emotions
- does not need to rely on others, is self-sufficient

Oh, all of the above annoy me. Particularly the "pursuer in sexual relationships" one.

I'd hazard the guess that women are presented in a more positive manner than men on television. Not that we don't get to sit back and enjoy watching the Bond Girls prance around...
Again, no doubt it is point of view at play here, but since I don't really watch all that much tv, maybe you could point out some examples of women being portrayed in a positive manner?

I swear, the word "organic" has been abused so badly it's not even recognisable anymore...
*groan* it used to be funny when we misread our science texts and pronounced it orgasm instead of organism...now it's a cheap marketing tool...

Some school districts are now experimenting with single sex classes. Perliminary results indicate it works well. Girls get a boost in confidence, interacting with the teacher more. They are more likely to volunteer answers.

Classes for boys can be structure to better fit boys learning style. Girls are usually more able to sit at desks and discuss. Boys are more active and need to move around more, do more things with their hands. Boys have an especially hard time sitting still for long times in early grade school. Girls tend to mature earlier, especially in verbal skills. Boys have better motor control at that age.

I personally believe these temperament differences have something to do with the fact that so many boys are diagnosed with ADHD and other learning disorders.
I just hope there is some leeway for girls and boys who don't learn like the rest of the gender does. I'm one of those that always had to be moving around. If I had to sit still, I honestly couldn't concentrate. My teachers let me have those chinese 'relaxation' balls to roll around my palms during class, or let me pace at the back while the lesson was being taught. I'd hate to think of other girls like that being forced to sit and learn like 'girls are supposed to'.

Why not be liberated by looking for an equal relationship, where both sides of the couple treat each other with respect? Where the man no longer owns the woman, like the case has been in the past? Would seem to me like you've achieved more by doing this than somehow feeling good about yourself because you can screw heaps of different people.Absolutely. Plus, there is still the imbalance, even if girls sleep around. They will STILL be looked down on while the guys are not, for doing the same things. You don't liberate yourself by having sex. You liberate yourself by changing attitudes, and by being confident.

On that whole issue of 'the brains of men and women are different', well, it still doesn't explain why certain colours and toys are FORCED onto our kids. Boys and girls often play with things differently...the girl may play with dolls and act out conversations and so on, and the boy may crash them together and try to make them fly. Then again, these roles can be reversed. I hate dolls...used to tie them to rocks and watch them sink in the lake. My first daughter is like that too...she'd prefer to perform for an audience than focus on any task or toy for long. My youngest daughter is our polar opposite.

We need to stop saying, "This is for girls, and this is for boys" and then making people feel guilty when they stray from those boundaries. If boys want to play with a damn dollhouse, don't freak out and think he's gay...and even if he IS, who cares?

Why not respect people who choose to sleep around? Then you could believe that some people who sleep around sleep with other people who also sleep around and respect themselves and their partner while they're doing it? I love it when people jump into bed with whoever they fancy, and I respect those people.
If both of those people jumping in the sack have the emotional maturity to do it based on their own desires, instead of being pressured by friends, expectations, or their partner, then fine. There is a big difference between a teenage girl giving her boyfriend head so he won't dump her, than there is between one who does it because she wants to please her partner, knowing that she we in turn be pleased.

Again, no doubt it is point of view at play here, but since I don't really watch all that much tv, maybe you could point out some examples of women being portrayed in a positive manner?

Sitcoms are meant to be funny (whether they succeed or not is another issue). They exploit stereotypes in that attempt to be funny. So the man might be a clueless, bumbling, well meaning fool, while the woman is a neurotic, self-absorbed, domineering witch. I don't think anyone comes out smelling like roses in those shows.


Like you said, you tend to notice people of your own gender getting done over more than the other one. When I watch TV, every second advert tends to focus on a woman getting the better of a man, or a man generally making a fool of himself. This seems to me to happen quite a bit in sitcoms too, although not in films, that i've noticed.

Gender rôles are immoral and should be abolished.

Like you said, you tend to notice people of your own gender getting done over more than the other one. When I watch TV, every second advert tends to focus on a woman getting the better of a man, or a man generally making a fool of himself. This seems to me to happen quite a bit in sitcoms too, although not in films, that i've noticed.
Examples please:)

I'll give you some examples of what I commonly see.

Commericals with cleaning products almost all feature a woman in the home doing the cleaning. Her home is spotless, and so completely unlike mine, that I sometimes cringe before I remind myself that a clean home is not the be all end all of anyone's existence.

Beer commercials still cater to men, although plenty of women like beer too. The women portrayed in these commercials are all set up as objects of 'prey'...drink this beer, go to this party, sleep with these hot girls. In the worst advertisements, women are still just sex objects. In one, (for Captain Morgan), men are captured by pirates who turn out to be hot chicks in jackets. They tear off their jackets to reveal bikinis, and as one leans out over the side she says, "Nice view, isn't it?" A guy standing beside her ogles her ass as agrees, then grins at the camera.

In ads for women's clothes, the women are merely the living manequins at best, exhibiting no intelligence or humanity, and at worst, prancing around like Sarah Jessica Parker singing about being 'a girl with her lashes in curls...' *gag, gag, gag*

Aside from the really bad beer commercials, none of these things are overtly demeaning or negative, but they do enforce gender stereotypes. Women stay at home and cook and clean. They also dress provocatively to attract men (heaven's forbid they have a personality), or they spend their time trying on different outfits.

The stereotypes of men are just as lame. Beer guzzling studs who are addicted to power tools and fast cars. It really stands out in my mind when I see an ad that challenges those stereotypes.

The one that comes to mind is a commercial where men and women are sitting around the table after a meal. The eldest woman pushes her chair back as if to say, "Ok, let's get started", but instead of the women standing up to gather the dirty dishes and clean, the men do it! The women sit there playing cards while the men wash up! That one shocked the hell out of me, because I have NEVER seen that happen at a family gathering. It was shocking because it was still unusual. Ideally, both genders would help out, but this illustrated for me that it is still the woman who is supposed to clean, and the man who is supposed to relax.

Of course, my home doesn't follow these rules. My husband and I split everything..though he does barbeques better than I (and bread), and I tend to handle the kid's disobedience better, we are partners. But we aren't really portrayed in ads.

Gender rôles are immoral and should be abolished.
That brings in both ability to abolish (if they are some that are biologicaly bassed) (not to mention arguing the concept of morality)

I personaly thing sociatal instututed roles should be abolshed (such as guys not wearing pink and so on so forth) but there are some I dont think we have the ability to abolish not in large groups

My next question then is, how do we get rid of specific gender stereotypes? What steps can we take to change attitudes?

I personaly thing sociatal instututed roles should be abolshed (such as guys not wearing pink and so on so forth) but there are some I dont think we have the ability to abolish not in large groups
Which ones don't you think we can abolish?

Examples please:)

I'll give you some examples of what I commonly see.

Commericals with cleaning products almost all feature a woman in the home doing the cleaning. Her home is spotless, and so completely unlike mine, that I sometimes cringe before I remind myself that a clean home is not the be all end all of anyone's existence.

Beer commercials still cater to men, although plenty of women like beer too. The women portrayed in these commercials are all set up as objects of 'prey'...drink this beer, go to this party, sleep with these hot girls. In the worst advertisements, women are still just sex objects. In one, (for Captain Morgan), men are captured by pirates who turn out to be hot chicks in jackets. They tear off their jackets to reveal bikinis, and as one leans out over the side she says, "Nice view, isn't it?" A guy standing beside her ogles her ass as agrees, then grins at the camera.

In ads for women's clothes, the women are merely the living manequins at best, exhibiting no intelligence or humanity, and at worst, prancing around like Sarah Jessica Parker singing about being 'a girl with her lashes in curls...' *gag, gag, gag*

Aside from the really bad beer commercials, none of these things are overtly demeaning or negative, but they do enforce gender stereotypes. Women stay at home and cook and clean. They also dress provocatively to attract men (heaven's forbid they have a personality), or they spend their time trying on different outfits.

The stereotypes of men are just as lame. Beer guzzling studs who are addicted to power tools and fast cars. It really stands out in my mind when I see an ad that challenges those stereotypes.

The one that comes to mind is a commercial where men and women are sitting around the table after a meal. The eldest woman pushes her chair back as if to say, "Ok, let's get started", but instead of the women standing up to gather the dirty dishes and clean, the men do it! The women sit there playing cards while the men wash up! That one shocked the hell out of me, because I have NEVER seen that happen at a family gathering. It was shocking because it was still unusual. Ideally, both genders would help out, but this illustrated for me that it is still the woman who is supposed to clean, and the man who is supposed to relax.

Of course, my home doesn't follow these rules. My husband and I split everything..though he does barbeques better than I (and bread), and I tend to handle the kid's disobedience better, we are partners. But we aren't really portrayed in ads.


Here are some examples I see ... new cleaning comercial where wife is leaving trying to explain everything to her mentaly slow husband on how to clean while he just stands there and looks confused

Sitcoms ... tend to see a lot more of the man at first acting steriotypicaly male thinking he is right ... brazing ahead and eventualy relizing that the quiet smart female was right all along (a lot of that latly ... big bruly guy geting himself in trouble and not being able to figure it out)

But you covered some of these ...
We sit back and we both can objectivly analize ... but on a whole (talking statisticaly) people tend to pay more attention when a negitive steriotype is portrayed against their group then another

Everyone can see it but people pay more attention when it is THEM geting picked on

Which ones don't you think we can abolish?
Talking about biological bassed issues stuff like average stronger male ... while it is a sterotype it is one of thoes things that is also reflected in statistical biological averages

That sort of thing

Here are some examples I see ... new cleaning comercial where wife is leaving trying to explain everything to her mentaly slow husband on how to clean while he just stands there and looks confused Yeah, I've seen that one:) Then again, doesn't that just enforce the stereotype that women 'know how to clean' and men don't? The ads are for products that make it so easy 'even a man can do it'...because women are supposed to have the expertise, and men don't have a clue not because they're stupid, but because they just don't normally do it.



But you covered some of these ...
We sit back and we both can objectivly analize ... but on a whole (talking statisticaly) people tend to pay more attention when a negitive steriotype is portrayed against their group then another

Everyone can see it but people pay more attention when it is THEM geting picked on
So perhaps rather than saying, this is shown more...we can say, this is what is shown, period. What stereotypes are being reinforced? And why the hell are we still stuck with those stereotypes? Do they really mirror reality? What are the alternatives? What portrayals CHALLENGE stereotypes?

Yeah, I've seen that one:) Then again, doesn't that just enforce the stereotype that women 'know how to clean' and men don't? The ads are for products that make it so easy 'even a man can do it'...because women are supposed to have the expertise, and men don't have a clue not because they're stupid, but because they just don't normally do it.


So perhaps rather than saying, this is shown more...we can say, this is what is shown, period. What stereotypes are being reinforced? And why the hell are we still stuck with those stereotypes? Do they really mirror reality? What are the alternatives? What portrayals CHALLENGE stereotypes?
Yup that first one pissed me off ... I worked in ES (envyromental services ... housekeeping) for a nursing home for 4 years ... I know how to clean :p

Talking about biological bassed issues stuff like average stronger male ... while it is a sterotype it is one of thoes things that is also reflected in statistical biological averages

That sort of thing
Ah...but is that something that is negative and needs to be changed? Seems to me that as long as we allow women who are strong to do the same kinds of jobs, then we'd be fine. However, some of the arguments for certain jobs being 'for men' are often based on the idea that women wouldn't be strong enough to do it. I think we need to challenge that not on a strength issue, but on a reality issue. For example, construction work...sure, some of it requries brute strength, but plenty doesn't. Like driving a loader, or operating other machinery...or doing electrical work, or welding. Would you force a puny guy to haul pipes by hand when he could use a lift? Then why base the job on the ability to haul those pipes?

So men are stronger on average than women. Humans in general are on average weaker than most other species, but we adapt. We use tools. We change things to suit our needs. Unless strength is a bona fide requirement for a job, and there is no way around it, then it shouldn't be the basis for the job.

Yup that first one pissed me off ... I worked in ES (envyromental services ... housekeeping) for a nursing home for 4 years ... I know how to clean :p
My husband was a janitor for 9 years...he can outclean me any day...and do it in far less time! Then again, he often slips up, and makes it clear he expects me to do the cleaning because I get home earlier...even though I START earlier than he does...once I point it out though, he shrugs it off and helps me, but he finds it hard to banish the conditioning, and so do I. I will often feel guilty if the house isn't clean, even though we ALL made the mess...

Ah...but is that something that is negative and needs to be changed? Seems to me that as long as we allow women who are strong to do the same kinds of jobs, then we'd be fine. However, some of the arguments for certain jobs being 'for men' are often based on the idea that women wouldn't be strong enough to do it. I think we need to challenge that not on a strength issue, but on a reality issue. For example, construction work...sure, some of it requries brute strength, but plenty doesn't. Like driving a loader, or operating other machinery...or doing electrical work, or welding. Would you force a puny guy to haul pipes by hand when he could use a lift? Then why base the job on the ability to haul those pipes?

So men are stronger on average than women. Humans in general are on average weaker than most other species, but we adapt. We use tools. We change things to suit our needs. Unless strength is a bona fide requirement for a job, and there is no way around it, then it shouldn't be the basis for the job.
Agreed

Though this brings up another idea (not arguing here just a random related pet peve)
Localy voulenteer fire departement when I got accepted and did my training I found out

Different tests for both male and female
The two main differences
Male firefighters were required to carry 400 pounds down 4 flights of emergency stairs while in full gear mask on (total comes close to 500 + pounds of weight with gear) we were also required to carry same weight back up thoes stairs

All that to simulate being able to carry a large person out of a burning building

Female requirements to pass: reduce weight to 200 pounds and no tank(taking another 40 + pounds off)

(Now I probably dont have to explain why this seems STUPID to me ... get into a burning building or car accident and find out that someone in the building is too heavy for the figherfighter sent to carry ... that is neglegent)

Secondly is a more sublte one ... females are allowed one more person on hose crew in training.
All well and fine excetp when you get to a big fire and you are down to you and a holder and you are not capable of holding the hose steady with less people

(sorry if was off on a tangent but thats a pet peve) you are doing the same job and peoples LIVES depend on you doing the same job you should have the ability to compleat THAT SAME JOB

My husband was a janitor for 9 years...he can outclean me any day...and do it in far less time! Then again, he often slips up, and makes it clear he expects me to do the cleaning because I get home earlier...even though I START earlier than he does...once I point it out though, he shrugs it off and helps me, but he finds it hard to banish the conditioning, and so do I. I will often feel guilty if the house isn't clean, even though we ALL made the mess...
I dont mind leting my gf tidy up ... I can be a cluttered person sometimes but I know how to CLEAN (you need that spot out of a carpet ... no problem ... tile ... no problem) actualy like doing windows too :p

*snip*
This is the number one example I have seen used when talking about the strength issue. Frankly, I don't know enough about firefighting to take a stand. However, if they are requiring women to be able to handle a lighter load, does that actually put people in danger? Have people died because of it? Are the men being unfairly tested? Again, things I'm not sure about. If it is a bona fide requirement though, no one can cry discrimination.

I'm aware of how the firefighter tests are sort of skewed, and I don't really agree with that sort of thing. I think part of the problem is that fairness should be sought after but sometimes organizations are forced to hire on the basis of political correctness.

This is the number one example I have seen used when talking about the strength issue. Frankly, I don't know enough about firefighting to take a stand. However, if they are requiring women to be able to handle a lighter load, does that actually put people in danger? Have people died because of it? Are the men being unfairly tested? Again, things I'm not sure about. If it is a bona fide requirement though, no one can cry discrimination.
how can you not say its discrimination? making the requirements for the job easier just because its a woman, while men have to pass tougher levels to get the same job

blatant discimination

I dont mind leting my gf tidy up ... I can be a cluttered person sometimes but I know how to CLEAN (you need that spot out of a carpet ... no problem ... tile ... no problem) actualy like doing windows too :p
Agreed...we tend to split the chores according to who does what best. I'm great at tidying (he tends to get annoyed and throw things away), and he's good at getting the really dirty stuff cleaned with a minimum of fuss (it takes me for frickin' EVER to scrub the shower tiles!).

To me, a partnership is based on equity. Not equality...you don't have to do the SAME things, but you do have to split tasks equitably so one is not doing more than the other. It's hard, because you have to be able to recognise the value of certain tasks. Traditionally, the tasks most valued are those done by men, while more domestic tasks are not as respected. A partnership needs to ignore that crap and admit that cleaning toilets is a shitty (pun intended) job no matter WHO does it! I love the fact that we each pay a portion of our earnings for common costs, but also each have the freedom to spend the meagre leavings of the rest of what we make, without having to justify it.

I was listening to BB King the other day, and he has a song called, "Paying the cost to be the boss". It's all about how because he makes the money, he makes the rules, and I thought, it would be just as annoying to hear a woman singing it. EVEN IF one spouse stays at home rather than making a wage, that work needs to be valued. My mom put it best, "Every woman, for one month, should 'quit', and have her husband hire a nanny, a maid and a cook". THEN see how much he values what we do." I'd say that should go for men who stay home too.

* my addition
Reductionism is not particularly useful when we are trying to see the big picture. People will 'punish' a man for wearing pink if a male wearing pink has negative connotations in that society. You say yourself that colour has no biological basis, but you insist that it is biology that will 'punish' this man. Biology in the form of people. Your links here are rather tenuous...you can go ahead and link EVERYTHING to biology...drug addiction, asexuality, preference for the smell of mint...but that doesn't help us target social attitudes that are no longer JUSTIFIED by biology, and are harmful.
Well I'm not trying to be helpful. I was just trying to explain some sociobiology. As I said earlier, I don't care if people insist on gender roles. I don't follow them, and neither does my girlfriend. If people have any problems with that, then that's their loss in my opinion.

Localy voulenteer fire departement when I got accepted and did my training I found out

Different tests for both male and female
The two main differences
Male firefighters were required to carry 400 pounds down 4 flights of emergency stairs while in full gear mask on (total comes close to 500 + pounds of weight with gear) we were also required to carry same weight back up thoes stairs

All that to simulate being able to carry a large person out of a burning building

Female requirements to pass: reduce weight to 200 pounds and no tank(taking another 40 + pounds off)

(Now I probably dont have to explain why this seems STUPID to me ... get into a burning building or car accident and find out that someone in the building is too heavy for the figherfighter sent to carry ... that is neglegent)

Secondly is a more sublte one ... females are allowed one more person on hose crew in training.
All well and fine excetp when you get to a big fire and you are down to you and a holder and you are not capable of holding the hose steady with less people
Though I definitely see your point, their can be justification for that. A woman is not endocrinally capable of reaching the strength that a man is. Unless they use artificial methods for getting testosterone levels for the same muscle strength that a man has, there really can be justification for that.

Now, I'm not trying to say that men are stronger than women, or that this is a good practice. I'm simply saying there might be a justifiable reason.

This is the number one example I have seen used when talking about the strength issue. Frankly, I don't know enough about firefighting to take a stand. However, if they are requiring women to be able to handle a lighter load, does that actually put people in danger? Have people died because of it? Are the men being unfairly tested? Again, things I'm not sure about. If it is a bona fide requirement though, no one can cry discrimination.
I have been on the fire department for just less then 1 year ... in a small town ... (2000 or less "regluar" population) I have had more then 3 cases where I have had to carry someone 250 + pounds while wearing full gear

So YES it does put people in danger ... that is about 90 pounds more then any of the females thus tested and that is in less then a year

There have been a couple of calls that I personaly did not go on but they broke the 400 limit (luckly the guy that went on it is a bear of a man and 400+ was nothin for him) lol

it is just a phisical envyroment more so because you cant know the situation you are going into ... we cant say "oh this will be a heavy one send one of the bigger people" you have to take what comes your way and there is no time for backup sometimes

how can you not say its discrimination? making the requirements for the job easier just because its a woman, while men have to pass tougher levels to get the same job

blatant discimination
Against whom? Again, I don't know enough, but I ask...are the men being unfairly tested too harshly? Do they need to have that particular level of strength? WHY are the women being tested at a lower level? If that lower level of strength is actually ENOUGH, then it's still discrimination against men. If that level of strength is insufficient, then it violates the bona fide requirement, and is also discrimination. I'd like to know how it's justified, but I'm not sure it's just a 'lowering of standards' for women...perhaps it's also a bit of 'making it harder for men' for little reason? Not sure.

Again, if a job has a bona fide requirement, legally you can't cry discrimination if you don't meet that requirement. Example...if a job, for safety reasons requires you be beardless, you can't cry discrimination if you are a Sikh with a beard. If a bona fide requirement is the ability to tell colours apart (like in the electrical trade), you can't cry discrimination for being colour blind. However, a bona fide needs to be proven to be an absolute essential requirement, with no way of getting around it. So, for firefighting, what is the absolute essential strength requirement?

Well I'm not trying to be helpful. I was just trying to explain some sociobiology. As I said earlier, I don't care if people insist on gender roles. I don't follow them, and neither does my girlfriend. If people have any problems with that, then that's their loss in my opinion.


Though I definitely see your point, their can be justification for that. A woman is not endocrinally capable of reaching the strength that a man is. Unless they use artificial methods for getting testosterone levels for the same muscle strength that a man has, there really can be justification for that.

Now, I'm not trying to say that men are stronger than women, or that this is a good practice. I'm simply saying there might be a justifiable reason.

But by modefying the acceptance level they are potentialy endangering lifes like I have said 3 times in under a year I have been in situations that I needed to lift more then the 200 pound female required weight

There is no TIME to send for backup sometimes no planing ...you HAVE to be able to take what comes your way or someone dies ... having a lower standard is no excuse in this case strength is REQUIRED or people can die while you are waiting for someone capable of doing the task are called in

Agreed...we tend to split the chores according to who does what best. I'm great at tidying (he tends to get annoyed and throw things away), and he's good at getting the really dirty stuff cleaned with a minimum of fuss (it takes me for frickin' EVER to scrub the shower tiles!).

To me, a partnership is based on equity. Not equality...you don't have to do the SAME things, but you do have to split tasks equitably so one is not doing more than the other. It's hard, because you have to be able to recognise the value of certain tasks. Traditionally, the tasks most valued are those done by men, while more domestic tasks are not as respected. A partnership needs to ignore that crap and admit that cleaning toilets is a shitty (pun intended) job no matter WHO does it! I love the fact that we each pay a portion of our earnings for common costs, but also each have the freedom to spend the meagre leavings of the rest of what we make, without having to justify it.

I was listening to BB King the other day, and he has a song called, "Paying the cost to be the boss". It's all about how because he makes the money, he makes the rules, and I thought, it would be just as annoying to hear a woman singing it. EVEN IF one spouse stays at home rather than making a wage, that work needs to be valued. My mom put it best, "Every woman, for one month, should 'quit', and have her husband hire a nanny, a maid and a cook". THEN see how much he values what we do." I'd say that should go for men who stay home too.


That or people like my dad as well ... he does all the mantinance ... he may not be doing much of the cleaning (usualy cause when he does he organizes things in ways that no one else understands :-P) but he is the reason everything runs good ... looks good works good and all the above ... he spends a lot of hours making sure everything from the dishwasher to the vehicles to the tractors work ... and thats AFTER he works an 10 hr day :)

Hopefully I can work it out as good as my parents have (they both work but still things manage to get done)

If a bona fide requirement is the ability to tell colours apart (like in the electrical trade), you can't cry discrimination for being colour blind.
Actually, that brings up another interesting point. Men are more likely to be colour blind than women. Men really did get the short end of the straw with sex-linked traits. Men are XY, and women XX. Recessive genetic disorders on the X gene are very unlikely to manifest in women, but quite possible with men.

Against whom? Again, I don't know enough, but I ask...are the men being unfairly tested too harshly? Do they need to have that particular level of strength? WHY are the women being tested at a lower level? If that lower level of strength is actually ENOUGH, then it's still discrimination against men. If that level of strength is insufficient, then it violates the bona fide requirement, and is also discrimination. I'd like to know how it's justified, but I'm not sure it's just a 'lowering of standards' for women...perhaps it's also a bit of 'making it harder for men' for little reason? Not sure.

Again, if a job has a bona fide requirement, legally you can't cry discrimination if you don't meet that requirement. Example...if a job, for safety reasons requires you be beardless, you can't cry discrimination if you are a Sikh with a beard. If a bona fide requirement is the ability to tell colours apart (like in the electrical trade), you can't cry discrimination for being colour blind. However, a bona fide needs to be proven to be an absolute essential requirement, with no way of getting around it. So, for firefighting, what is the absolute essential strength requirement?

As stated above no way ... I wouldent want to be in a situation with a guy that couldent make the 400 pound cut ... they actualy are talking about upping it to 500 it really is that important

this is a bonafide

Against whom? Again, I don't know enough, but I ask...are the men being unfairly tested too harshly? Do they need to have that particular level of strength? WHY are the women being tested at a lower level? If that lower level of strength is actually ENOUGH, then it's still discrimination against men. If that level of strength is insufficient, then it violates the bona fide requirement, and is also discrimination. I'd like to know how it's justified, but I'm not sure it's just a 'lowering of standards' for women...perhaps it's also a bit of 'making it harder for men' for little reason? Not sure.

Again, if a job has a bona fide requirement, legally you can't cry discrimination if you don't meet that requirement. Example...if a job, for safety reasons requires you be beardless, you can't cry discrimination if you are a Sikh with a beard. If a bona fide requirement is the ability to tell colours apart (like in the electrical trade), you can't cry discrimination for being colour blind. However, a bona fide needs to be proven to be an absolute essential requirement, with no way of getting around it. So, for firefighting, what is the absolute essential strength requirement?
making it easier for one group of people to pass the tests is disriminating, everybody should be at the same standard to get the job

there should be a single level that everybody should have to get to to be accepted, not reducing it for some people who might not be able to manage a heavier weight

making it easier for one group of people to pass the tests is disriminating, everybody should be at the same standard to get the job

there should be a single level that everybody should have to get to to be accepted, not reducing it for some people who might not be able to manage a heavier weight
She is arguing the same thing

Rather then arguing that women have it too easy she was questioning if the higher level should be brought down to 200 rather then the 200 up to the 400

(I say no way in hell the 200 should be brought up)

She is not saying they should not be equil rather just questioning which one should be adjusted to make it fair

But by modefying the acceptance level they are potentialy endangering lifes like I have said 3 times in under a year I have been in situations that I needed to lift more then the 200 pound female required weight

There is no TIME to send for backup sometimes no planing ...you HAVE to be able to take what comes your way or someone dies ... having a lower standard is no excuse in this case strength is REQUIRED or people can die while you are waiting for someone capable of doing the task are called inThen in this case, I can't see how they can honestly justify the lower requirements. I'd like to see the reasons behind it, actually:)

Then in this case, I can't see how they can honestly justify the lower requirements. I'd like to see the reasons behind it, actually:)
Me too ... We have one woman on the teem ... and she can do the 400 level ;) BUT with the lower requirement we were just lucky that kim could do just as well ... not saying that women CANT just that we should be sure that they CAN do the full job (not sure that makes any sense but oh well)

Aside from not buying cleaning products that use commercials only portraying women as the 'cleaners', how can we influence the advertising industry (and those product makers) to break free of stereotypical portrayals?

Aside from not buying cleaning products that use commercials only portraying women as the 'cleaners', how can we influence the advertising industry (and those product makers) to break free of stereotypical portrayals?
We don’t even have to be as active as not buying … what we have to do is stop making such portrayals so effective, maybe though good old education. I have a feeling the advertising will start to go away when we start doing something on reducing affirmation of the stereotypes (don’t know if that makes sense)

They use it cause it is effective ... we have to make it not effective somehow

We don’t even have to be as active as not buying … what we have to do is stop making such portrayals so effective, maybe though good old education. I have a feeling the advertising will start to go away when we start doing something on reducing affirmation of the stereotypes (don’t know if that makes sense)

They use it cause it is effective ... we have to make it not effective somehow
That's my problem...I'm not sure how we can make it less effective, especially when so many people think that things are fine the way they are, and it's not something we need to worry about. There is incredible apathy in terms of challenging gender roles on a wide scale now...the feminist movement seems to have gone underground or something...

Having raised (and am raising) both male and female children, I have a small point to make about gender roles.

Although for a while I raised the children on my own (without a mother), children who are very young can be seen to "starve" for that type of gender-based affection.

My daughter in particular "starved" for adult female attention, and would go out of her way in kindergarten and first grade to get it. It didn't stop until I finally married a woman who gave her that gender-based affection.

Some gender roles are real, and you can't substitute for them, no matter how hard you try. I know, because I tried to be a mother for a long time, and it didn't work.

Having raised (and am raising) both male and female children, I have a small point to make about gender roles.

Although for a while I raised the children on my own (without a mother), children who are very young can be seen to "starve" for that type of gender-based affection.

My daughter in particular "starved" for adult female attention, and would go out of her way in kindergarten and first grade to get it. It didn't stop until I finally married a woman who gave her that gender-based affection.

Some gender roles are real, and you can't substitute for them, no matter how hard you try. I know, because I tried to be a mother for a long time, and it didn't work.
Of course some gender roles are real. But which are the harmful ones? Those are the ones that I want to worry about. Now, a woman as a person who cleans is not necessarily a harmful role. However, if men are raised to sit on their butts while the women clean, and women are expected to be the only ones doing it, that is harmful. So, we make it normal for both genders to pitch in. Clearly we aren't quite there yet when the commercials portray women as the cleaners and not BOTH men and women.

Things like that...the subtle stuff...

Why not respect people who choose to sleep around? Then you could believe that some people who sleep around sleep with other people who also sleep around and respect themselves and their partner while they're doing it? I love it when people jump into bed with whoever they fancy, and I respect those people.Good on you. That's what is good about it, the two groups don't tend to interfere with each other.

I will never respect it, because I personally think it is a waste and a mockery of what could be a special thing, but it that's what you want go for it.

What do you mean by "respect themselves and their partner while they're doing it?" While you are cheating on your girlfriend you are respecting her?

Of course some gender roles are real. But which are the harmful ones? Those are the ones that I want to worry about. Now, a woman as a person who cleans is not necessarily a harmful role. However, if men are raised to sit on their butts while the women clean, and women are expected to be the only ones doing it, that is harmful. So, we make it normal for both genders to pitch in. Clearly we aren't quite there yet when the commercials portray women as the cleaners and not BOTH men and women.

Things like that...the subtle stuff...

Not all women are cut out to be mothers, and not all men are cut out to be fathers. I look to serve the natural needs of children.

If I can arrive at a "natural" role, and the person is able and willing to fill that role, I'm ok with the role.

Cleaning is not a "natural" role by any stretch of the imagination. We all have to clean, whether we like it or not.

Our media have a lot more to do with perpetuating the artificial roles than any other force in our society.

Absolutely. Plus, there is still the imbalance, even if girls sleep around. They will STILL be looked down on while the guys are not, for doing the same things. You don't liberate yourself by having sex. You liberate yourself by changing attitudes, and by being confident.Yay! Some "feminists" seem to think equality and respect is best achieved by having the "freedom" to screw anything that walks. Nice to hear you are different!

On that whole issue of 'the brains of men and women are different', well, it still doesn't explain why certain colours and toys are FORCED onto our kids. Boys and girls often play with things differently...the girl may play with dolls and act out conversations and so on, and the boy may crash them together and try to make them fly. Then again, these roles can be reversed. I hate dolls...used to tie them to rocks and watch them sink in the lake. My first daughter is like that too...she'd prefer to perform for an audience than focus on any task or toy for long. My youngest daughter is our polar opposite.

We need to stop saying, "This is for girls, and this is for boys" and then making people feel guilty when they stray from those boundaries. If boys want to play with a damn dollhouse, don't freak out and think he's gay...and even if he IS, who cares?Hmm, maybe it's not as bad over here. I think here you'd be considered a pretty uptight parent to worry about your son playing with dolls or your daughter playing with tanks.

Our media have a lot more to do with perpetuating the artificial roles than any other force in our society.
I agree. And I don't like it:) So what do we do to change it? Independent media exists, but the mainstream still holds the power. The protests and calls for change seem to have stopped...I remember when people were used to questioning the portrayals of women and minorities in the media...it was a big deal. Now people act as though every battle has been one, and it's time to rest. :(

Yay! Some "feminists" seem to think equality and respect is best achieved by having the "freedom" to screw anything that walks. Nice to hear you are different!
My idea of sexual freedom involves more than the act...it has a lot to do with righting power imbalances that push boys and girls into doing something they aren't emotionally prepared for. Then again, if you ARE emotionally prepared to screw everything that walks, then by all means...:)

Hmm, maybe it's not as bad over here. I think here you'd be considered a pretty uptight parent to worry about your son playing with dolls or your daughter playing with tanks.
I think people aren't as open about it as before, but I still often hear, "No, Spiderman is a boy's toy. And that pink dress is for girls, so take it off, Stanley!" :D

Aside from not buying cleaning products that use commercials only portraying women as the 'cleaners', how can we influence the advertising industry (and those product makers) to break free of stereotypical portrayals?Don't watch TV :-)

For me and my girlfriend, I always want to pull my weight, and often I'll tell her to leave something for me to clean up (Whether she does is another matter!). On our holidays we share out the jobs evenly.

I think really it has to come down to a personal thing. Just like if you value sex you can look for a girl/guy who doesn't sleep around, if you value equity you can look for a decent bloke who will be fair. Sounds like you've found one :)

Of course how we do things in our own homes is essential, but wider social change is also necessary. There just doesn't seem to be the will do make that change right now, and I'm not sure why.

And that pink dress is for girls, so take it off, Stanley!" :D
haha...i actually used to get that alot when i was really young..except with a different name, obviously....

My idea of sexual freedom involves more than the act...it has a lot to do with righting power imbalances that push boys and girls into doing something they aren't emotionally prepared for. Then again, if you ARE emotionally prepared to screw everything that walks, then by all means...:)Yeah, I suppose it just doesn't seem like a power balance to have guys using girls as a toy for a night then throwing them away or vice versa (Although I suppose if they both fully realise what they are doing, then hey).

I think people aren't as open about it as before, but I still often hear, "No, Spiderman is a boy's toy. And that pink dress is for girls, so take it off, Stanley!" :D

I buy the same kinds of toys for my girl and boys.

They all play with dolls. They all are learning to shoot. They all play Army. I have a trunk full of "dress up clothes" that includes various costumes, including some dresses - which the boys put on.

I'd rather not restrict their choices. I also limit the TV - I can't stand most of it, and some of the channels (like ABC Family and the Disney Channel) are forbidden in my house.

haha...i actually used to get that alot when i was really young..except with a different name, obviously....
Heh. I used to constantly try to convince my little brother that my Barbies were SOOO much better than his Power Rangers, so he would agree to trade with me. ;) See, Barbie doesn't have karate kickin'/choppin' action like the Red Ranger does. :p

I buy the same kinds of toys for my girl and boys.

They all play with dolls. They all are learning to shoot. They all play Army. I have a trunk full of "dress up clothes" that includes various costumes, including some dresses - which the boys put on.

I'd rather not restrict their choices. I also limit the TV - I can't stand most of it, and some of the channels (like ABC Family and the Disney Channel) are forbidden in my house.
You actually forbid that your kids watch Disney? :eek: What do you let them watch?

I'd rather not restrict their choices. I also limit the TV - I can't stand most of it, and some of the channels (like ABC Family and the Disney Channel) are forbidden in my house.
Me too. I am pro-censorship in this regard. I'm pretty proud that my kids haven't really seen commercials yet...and it's a big deal for me to have tv-free days.

Me too. I am pro-censorship in this regard. I'm pretty proud that my kids haven't really seen commercials yet...and it's a big deal for me to have tv-free days.

Well, I don't agree with this at all, but it's definately better than government censorship (which, for some reason, we already have).

Heh. I used to constantly try to convince my little brother that my Barbies were SOOO much better than his Power Rangers, so he would agree to trade with me. ;) See, Barbie doesn't have karate kickin'/choppin' action like the Red Ranger does. :p
heh....if we were ever dressing up as kids, all the other guys would put on fireman, or policeman, or superhero stuff...i just wanted to wear the damn dress!

You actually forbid that your kids watch Disney? :eek: What do you let them watch?
He didn't say Disney movies...he said the Disney channel...the two are not quite the same:)

Though I have no idea if he bans Disney movies too:)

The Magic School Bus is a great cartoon, and educational. One of my favs!

Well, I don't agree with this at all, but it's definately better than government censorship (which, for some reason, we already have).
You don't agree that a parent should choose what a child will watch?
Edit: keep in mind, my girls are 3 and 1 respectively. Frankly, at this age I really shouldn't be exposing them to tv, period. I'm weak, I admit it:(

He didn't say Disney movies...he said the Disney channel...the two are not quite the same:)

Though I have no idea if he bans Disney movies too:)

The Magic School Bus is a great cartoon, and educational. One of my favs!

How many Disney movies do I have to watch that involve a young woman who attains fulfillment through magic and a man?

How many stupid Disney sitcoms do I have to watch where children have smart-aleck attitudes and adults are always portrayed as either friendly idiots or evil people?

And how white is the Disney Channel? Aside from token representation, that is?

heh....if we were ever dressing up as kids, all the other guys would put on fireman, or policeman, or superhero stuff...i just wanted to wear the damn dress!
:p Oh, yeah? I've only worn three girlie Halloween costumes in my life, and really only one of them is indisputably (is that even a word?) girlie. I've been Jeannie from "I Dream of Jeannie", Spiderella, and the pink Power Ranger. I think the first Halloween costume I ever wore was a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle costume. The pink ranger's not the only one I've ever been. I've also been the red ranger, cuz he's the boss and I guess I felt like I was, too. ;) I've been the Grim Reaper somethin' like 3-5 times. I've been a vampire (and variations of a vampire) 3-4 times. I've been a skeleton twice. I've been a decaying zombie once. I AM THE QUEEN OF NON-GIRLY COSTUMES!!!

Sorry, I got carried away. I love Halloween! :D

How many Disney movies do I have to watch that involve a young woman who attains fulfillment through magic and a man?

How many stupid Disney sitcoms do I have to watch where children have smart-aleck attitudes and adults are always portrayed as either friendly idiots or evil people?

And how white is the Disney Channel? Aside from token representation, that is?
Ah, that's true, but still, Disney was an important part of my childhood. They may not be PC, but in a way, I admire that. GO, DISNEY.

Plus, Nick is crap, and so is Cartoon Network, along with WB kids. PBS kids is okay, I guess, but really... I'd rather share the magic of everything from Bambi to Lion King to Aladdin with my future children; they really are timeless classics in my opinion.

The Magic School Bus is a great cartoon, and educational. One of my favs!Yeah, it's fantastic!

Other great's I grew up on:

Asterix and Obelisk

The adventures of the Zoombinis (sp?): an awesome computer game where you have to get these blue blobs with different faces to Zoombini land (sp?) by passing through a whole bunch of logic based puzzles (Lucky we didn't know we were learning!)

Co-operative board games: can't remember the brand. A whole bunch of them

Lego!!! Screw the plans, get a whole bunch and make your own stuff

Putting toy soldiers in the drive and knocking them down with marbles. (Not a word about stereotypical play now!)

You don't agree that a parent should choose what a child will watch?
Edit: keep in mind, my girls are 3 and 1 respectively. Frankly, at this age I really shouldn't be exposing them to tv, period. I'm weak, I admit it:(

No, I don't agree. I watched Star Wars when I was 2, and it didn't affect me one bit. I saw The Empire Strikes Back later that year, and even Luke's hand being cut off didn't scar me. It scared me, but it didn't scar me.

How many Disney movies do I have to watch that involve a young woman who attains fulfillment through magic and a man?

How many stupid Disney sitcoms do I have to watch where children have smart-aleck attitudes and adults are always portrayed as either friendly idiots or evil people?

And how white is the Disney Channel? Aside from token representation, that is?
Bless your heart, I agree with you completely!

Ah, that's true, but still, Disney was an important part of my childhood. They may not be PC, but in a way, I admire that. GO, DISNEY.

Plus, Nick is crap, and so is Cartoon Network, along with WB kids. PBS kids is okay, I guess, but really... I'd rather share the magic of everything from Bambi to Lion King to Aladdin with my future children; they really are timeless classics in my opinion.
For pre-school kids...Treehouse is a great channel, with no commercials. I love it:) Even the wierd dancing Toy Castle freakshow has grown on me...

No, I don't agree. I watched Star Wars when I was 2, and it didn't affect me one bit. I saw The Empire Strikes Back later that year, and even Luke's hand being cut off didn't scar me. It scared me, but it didn't scar me.
Uh-huh...but Star Wars is a far cry from CSI, and the evening news for than matter.

You don't agree that a parent should choose what a child will watch?
Edit: keep in mind, my girls are 3 and 1 respectively. Frankly, at this age I really shouldn't be exposing them to tv, period. I'm weak, I admit it:(

Yes, of course. But why exclude Disney? Disney is classic entertainment for children.

PS: 3 and 1 are not to young to be exposed to television. I reccomend Barney, I LOVED that show growing up! Also, those "Baby Einstein" videos apparently really work, I know some children who are growing up on those videos and they're REALLY, REALLY intelligent... it's absolutely shocking! One is 7 months and, I swear, almost to the point where she can say, "Mama".

Uh-huh...but Star Wars is a far cry from CSI, and the evening news for than matter.

I watched "It" when I was 3. I also watched other violent and "lewd" movies, such as Action Jackson and Fast Times at Ridgemont High. Fuck, I still watch those (Action Jackson was on last week!).

Uh-huh...but Star Wars is a far cry from CSI, and the evening news for than matter.
I agree that children should not watch the news with their parents, as the media tends to exaggerate the "evils" of the world to a ridiculous level.

I agree that children should not watch the news with their parents, as the media tends to exaggerate the "evils" of the world to a ridiculous level.

That, I agree with!

I agree that children should not watch the news with their parents, as the media tends to exaggerate the "evils" of the world to a ridiculous level.Bahh, I don't bother with the TV news now. The most valuble thing on it is the weather.

I've reached the point where I no longer think I need to hear five different versions of "And in today's news, X number of people have died in Y way while at Z"

Get past the newspapers front page and they are better for actually being informed about the world.

You just need to go to a toy store to see how gender roles still have a lot to do with what toys are considered for girls, and for boys. The girl's section is still filled with dolls and frilly pink things. The Dora dollhouse my daughter has actually says, "Bienvenida a mi casa" in Spanish, which means, "Welcome to my house..." but that welcome is only to a girl, because BienvenidO would be towards a boy. So boys wouldn't play with this dollhouse? Plenty of boys LOVE dollhouses...they just play with them a bit differently (well, some do).

The boy's section? Toy guns, 'action figures' (no dolls for boys!), blue and red colours everywhere!

Colours are still very caught up in gender roles...no pink on boys! Yet girls can really wear any colour and get away with it.



Uh...boys do play with dolls and doll houses, there called GI Joes and Transformers. The doll houses are there bases. They have accessories like helmets and radios and guns, some can change their uniforms. It just looks different and has a different name.

Uh-huh...but Star Wars is a far cry from CSI, and the evening news for than matter.
I've been watching the news since I was little. Although admittedly, that was the South African Broadcasting Corporation, much less 'entertainmenty' than mainstream news say in Australia. But even here I NEVER watch commercial news, or at least I NEVER take it seriously.

I've been watching the news since I was little. Although admittedly, that was the South African Broadcasting Corporation, much less 'entertainmenty' than mainstream news say in Australia. But even here I NEVER watch commercial news, or at least I NEVER take it seriously.

It's like that here in America. Some news stations are absolutely ridiculous... Like Fox and MSNBC.

Uh...boys do play with dolls and doll houses, there called GI Joes and Transformers. The doll houses are there bases. They have accessories like helmets and radios and guns, some can change their uniforms. It just looks different and has a different name.
but are they the dolls the kid wants to play with?

Yes, of course. But why exclude Disney? Disney is classic entertainment for children.

For reasons Whispering Legs already gave. Disney uses 'classic' stereotypes in its portrayals of men and women. Plenty of other programs do not enforce those gender roles.

PS: 3 and 1 are not to young to be exposed to television. I reccomend Barney, I LOVED that show growing up! Also, those "Baby Einstein" videos apparently really work, I know some children who are growing up on those videos and they're REALLY, REALLY intelligent... it's absolutely shocking! One is 7 months and, I swear, almost to the point where she can say, "Mama".
Plenty of children become verbal early WITHOUT television. My first was a late bloomer...my second was verbalizing at six months. EVERYONE thinks their kid is a genius, because really, the learning they do in their first few years of life is absolutely astounding! But that is normal. By the way, 'mama' is generally the first verbalisation babies make, and very rarely does that sound mean 'mother' or anything other than, 'wow, I'm making noise!'. It's the easiest consonant (m)/syllable (ma) to prounounce, and if your child isn't making that 'm' sound fairly early on, it can mean they are a bit delayed in their language abilities....then again, as with my first, it can just mean they deviate from the norm:).

Studies have looked at how the brain becomes wired in very young children who are exposed to television, and who are not exposed. Children who are exposed (depending on the amount of time) tend to have shorter attentions spans. It is believed that this is due to the need to rapidly interpret information as it flashes on the screen. Well, that could all be crap, but most people agree that until we know it is completely safe, why bother? Limit their exposure. Those baby Einstein videos? Pointless. Kids who become verbal early, or learn their alphabet or can count before school don't necessarily perform better in school than their peers. If those are things you value, you can teach them to your kids yourself, and that one on one time will be infinitely more valuable than a video.

I watched "It" when I was 3. I also watched other violent and "lewd" movies, such as Action Jackson and Fast Times at Ridgemont High. Fuck, I still watch those (Action Jackson was on last week!).
I still don't like scary movies...not even 'tense' movies. I have a very vivid imagination, and used to terrify myself almost to catatonia when I was a child:) My first daughter is like that...there is an imaginary spider that lives on our ceiling that terrifies her...and we've been working on scolding it to be nice, and trying to befriend it. She is very affected by things she sees, and so I don't think it's necessary she watches "IT" or other adult shows. I'm sure she'd turn out all right if she did, but what would really be the point? If I myself don't even like those movies, why would I have my kid watching it?

There is no 'one way' of parenting. It depends on you, it depends on your kids. If you want to watch "IT" with your young children, by all means, feel free. No doubt you will be explaining things that upset, or interest them. That is still good parenting. I'm not saying, "All parents should ban Disney movies...and so on":)

Uh...boys do play with dolls and doll houses, there called GI Joes and Transformers. The doll houses are there bases. They have accessories like helmets and radios and guns, some can change their uniforms. It just looks different and has a different name.
Oh I know that...but there are still plenty of parents who would be concerned by their boys playing with the 'girly' dollhouse, even with their GI Joes. And heaven's forbid those boys want to wear a dress...even though the girl can dress up in army clothes...

My sister-in-law is one of these very gendered parents...drives me nuts! She took Buzz Lightyear away from my daughter and said it was a boy's toy. I flipped! My daughter LOVES Buzz...I gave the in-law a gender lecture, and told her to raise her own damn kids:)

Of course some gender roles are real. But which are the harmful ones? Those are the ones that I want to worry about. Now, a woman as a person who cleans is not necessarily a harmful role. However, if men are raised to sit on their butts while the women clean, and women are expected to be the only ones doing it, that is harmful. So, we make it normal for both genders to pitch in. Clearly we aren't quite there yet when the commercials portray women as the cleaners and not BOTH men and women.

Things like that...the subtle stuff...
That I think is maybe partly people being lazy ... they are using it as an excuse (and a good example of conflicting gender rolls) there are some roal's that say it is ok for a male to watch football in the lazyboy.

And there is the other that says he has to be provider/ mantinance ... he is the one that has to hang up the shelfs he is the one that has to fix the car .... so on so forth
at times they conflict (specialy if there is a lot to do) not only is he expected to watch football with the buds but got to manage to supposedly be the harder worker of the two

I still don't like scary movies...not even 'tense' movies. I have a very vivid imagination, and used to terrify myself almost to catatonia when I was a child:) My first daughter is like that...there is an imaginary spider that lives on our ceiling that terrifies her...and we've been working on scolding it to be nice, and trying to befriend it. She is very affected by things she sees, and so I don't think it's necessary she watches "IT" or other adult shows. I'm sure she'd turn out all right if she did, but what would really be the point? If I myself don't even like those movies, why would I have my kid watching it?

There is no 'one way' of parenting. It depends on you, it depends on your kids. If you want to watch "IT" with your young children, by all means, feel free. No doubt you will be explaining things that upset, or interest them. That is still good parenting. I'm not saying, "All parents should ban Disney movies...and so on":)
I am just two damn analytical for horror movies ... I am always like "pfft no way that could happen" or "but how did he get from point x to point y lol"

Like the previous thread on gender based pricing, I think advertising gender roles can be explained by supply and demand too, or the advertising industry's equivalent, that is that they will put in the advert whatever they can to make you buy the product.

To put it another way, in our society, who is more likely to be doing the cleaning round the house? At the moment, like it or not, it is still a woman, and so putting a woman in an ad about cleaning utensils will likely result in higher sales of the product.

So advertising reflects the society it is selling to. So if you want to get rid of the gender based pricing and advertising gender roles, you'll have to cange society first, either that or legislate it all away which tends to be rather hard to do.

Like the previous thread on gender based pricing, I think advertising gender roles can be explained by supply and demand too, or the advertising industry's equivalent, that is that they will put in the advert whatever they can to make you buy the product.

To put it another way, in our society, who is more likely to be doing the cleaning round the house? At the moment, like it or not, it is still a woman, and so putting a woman in an ad about cleaning utensils will likely result in higher sales of the product.

So advertising reflects the society it is selling to. So if you want to get rid of the gender based pricing and advertising gender roles, you'll have to cange society first, either that or legislate it all away which tends to be rather hard to do.
Which was the base of my argument earlier :)


Though (and just thoughts) what about advertising as a sell fulfilling prophecy … start with a small stereo type … over the years of over exaggerating the stereotype for sales purposes leads to influence in society itself

Or maybe just hindering the abolition of stereotyping by perpetuation … slowly they will catch up but they may be slowing things down

(just ideas … I agree mostly with the … they show us what we want to see thing)

Which was the base of my argument earlier :)


Though (and just thoughts) what about advertising as a sell fulfilling prophecy … start with a small stereo type … over the years of over exaggerating the stereotype for sales purposes leads to influence in society itself

Or maybe just hindering the abolition of stereotyping by perpetuation … slowly they will catch up but they may be slowing things down

(just ideas … I agree mostly with the … they show us what we want to see thing)

Woops, didnt read that, i only tend to read the first and last pages of a thread and maybe some with my posts on.

Stereotypes probably do build up over time, but i think if a stereotype gets too strong, it will be very easy to make fun of then you'll have lots of ads making fun of it so maybe it'll get weakened a bit.

Woops, didnt read that, i only tend to read the first and last pages of a thread and maybe some with my posts on.

Stereotypes probably do build up over time, but i think if a stereotype gets too strong, it will be very easy to make fun of then you'll have lots of ads making fun of it so maybe it'll get weakened a bit.
Possibly ... though if it is slow enough society can be moved to buy just about any idea (look at cults) take it a bit slower and you can convince even more people (ie religions)

Which was the base of my argument earlier :)


Though (and just thoughts) what about advertising as a sell fulfilling prophecy … start with a small stereo type … over the years of over exaggerating the stereotype for sales purposes leads to influence in society itself

Or maybe just hindering the abolition of stereotyping by perpetuation … slowly they will catch up but they may be slowing things down

(just ideas … I agree mostly with the … they show us what we want to see thing)
Art (ok, not art, advertisements) mirroring life, or life mirroring art...

Art (ok, not art, advertisements) mirroring life, or life mirroring art...

We just went over that. Adverts cater to society merely by putting out what will sell most products. There is no intentional gender stereotyping, merely what will sell most. Some people may pay attention to these stereotypes though. Depends on how much you think the TV influences people. Do you think watching action movies makes people want to kill?

Art (ok, not art, advertisements) mirroring life, or life mirroring art...
Exactly that or like my second post ... maybe instead of causing steriotypes they slow down the abolishment of them ... cause them to linger after we would have given them up

We just went over that. Adverts cater to society merely by putting out what will sell most products. There is no intentional gender stereotyping, merely what will sell most. Some people may pay attention to these stereotypes though. Depends on how much you think the TV influences people. Do you think watching action movies makes people want to kill?
They may be taking on the steriotypes that will sell but they can still perpetuate the steriotypes

We just went over that. Adverts cater to society merely by putting out what will sell most products. There is no intentional gender stereotyping, merely what will sell most. Some people may pay attention to these stereotypes though. Depends on how much you think the TV influences people. Do you think watching action movies makes people want to kill?
That's what YOU say. Advertising is also great at 'creating markets'. Make a good seem desireable, and suddenly, it is. Advertising manipulates opinion as much as it mirrors it.

That's what YOU say. Advertising is also great at 'creating markets'. Make a good seem desireable, and suddenly, it is. Advertising manipulates opinion as much as it mirrors it.
Good point

For an illistration look back at the history as dimonds for jewlery purposes :p

Good point

For an illistration look back at the history as dimonds for jewlery purposes :p
After all, they ARE a girl's best friend *gag,gag*

Depends on how much you think the TV influences people. Do you think watching action movies makes people want to kill?
No, but clearly the advertising industry believes that advertisements make people want to buy....or they wouldn't be spending billions of dollars doing it.

After all, they ARE a girl's best friend *gag,gag*
I know ... the snowjob they originaly did on the whole world and the way they have kept diamond prices inflated is sickneing

They took something that had essentialy no worth and turned it into one of the most expensive things per weight on the plannet
All with advertising

And people dont say we can be effected with it :p

Good example of a "liberated" woman?

From another thread:

[About someone having been raped and not caring] She just doesn't care that much about her pussy. She wasn't educated this way. She usually fucks with anybody who is willing. She didn't make a big deal out of it.

bump

Sinuhue, I'm reading "Why Men Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps". I think you'd find it interesting. It talks about the biological and the socialogical differences. It's really a great read. I throw some quotes when I have time.