NationStates Jolt Archive

In our culture, there are easily identifiable standards or ideals which dictate how males and females “should” act, think, or look like in comparison to each other. While society today has advanced far enough for most to see the blatant sexism behind some of these ideals, it is hard to deny that they do exist, for one reason or another.

Female – Male
Emotion – Reason
Submission – Dominance
Nurture – Achievement
Passivity – Activity
Delicacy – Strength
Softness – Toughness
Beauty – Financial Power
Style – Substance
Cooperation – Competition

Out of this list, which differences, if any, do you think are real, or natural? Which ones do you think are constructs of our society? Which ones do you think have faded since, say, the 1950’s? Which ones do you see as being more permanent, right or wrong?

Gender roles, differences, and similarities have always been of interest to me. While it’s easy to dismiss racism as foolish, for skin pigment or eye shape has little to do with a person’s worth, it is foolish to deny that there is an unmistakable difference between men and women. The real questions are the extent of that difference, as well as if that difference is, in fact, a product of nature or nurture.

I’d like to hear (i.e. read) your thoughts on the matter. As with anything, lets try to keep this civil and at least mildly educated. :)

Me:

Emotion – Reason: Emotion
Submission – Dominance: Submission
Nurture – Achievement: Not So Much
Passivity – Activity: Passivity
Delicacy – Strength: Delicacy
Softness – Toughness: Softness
Beauty – Financial Power: Bullshit
Style – Substance: Substance
Cooperation – Competition: Cooperation

Okay...counting everything up: 6 Feminine, 1 Masculine, 2 Not Applicable...

I'M A WOMAN!!!!!


AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH meh...I don't perscribe to "the norm" anyway...

Of that whole list... I'd say they are all dependant upon your culture and (personal) nature. I know too many women who fall on your guy's list and too many feminin men. ;)

Do I want to know why this thread has a five star rating after all of two people posting?

Instead of looking at each line as an option, look at them as a continuum upon which each of us falls, male, female or otherwise. We all have masculine and feminine traits in some combination, and we express them--sometimes even the extremes of both aspects--from time to time.

What are you, a Communist?!But yeah, you're probably right.

I bake muffins and throw them at people. What does that make me? :p

Instead of looking at each line as an option, look at them as a continuum upon which each of us falls, male, female or otherwise. We all have masculine and feminine traits in some combination, and we express them--sometimes even the extremes of both aspects--from time to time.

Haha...that's not my list, by the way. It's a list I found in a philosophy textbook about stereotypical western social norms.

...and Nazz, I was going to say that after a few more people posted. :p

Do I want to know why this thread has a five star rating after all of two people posting?

Well...you're post number 4...and who knows what number viewer you are. I admit, I voted for my thread, because I like the topic. Someone else apparently felt the same.

Haha...that's not my list, by the way. It's a list I found in a philosophy textbook about stereotypical western social norms.

...and Nazz, I was going to say that after a few more people posted. :p

See what happens when you wait around to be the smartypants? :D

there are differences between men and women, biologically speaking, and generally speaking individuals of the two genders tend to behave along different lines (i'm chosing my words carefully as my g/f has a thing about this kind of topic :p)

the ones i would say are 'real' or biological differences between men and women are:
1. women do tend to be more emotionally aware and open then men, both as a stereotype and from my own experience.
2. men tend to be physically stronger than women. biological fact for the most part.
3. men tend to be more interested in what something does, or can do, than women.... eg in getting excited about gadgets and stuff. not all men do that but its a stereotype that i think actually correlates with a difference between the way men and women are conditioned to, or naturally, think. i can't explain it much more than that cos i'm all tired :(
4. women are more dextrous with thier hands than men. personal experience, but i suppose that could follow into 'delicacy' in the OP's list



of course i have to point out that anybody who tries to live up to what these gender stereotypes say they "should be" is a moron and should try to find out who they really are. that is, of course, unless that is who they really are.... in which case i'll just stop typing now and shut up...... :(

In our culture, there are easily identifiable standards or ideals which dictate how males and females “should” act, think, or look like in comparison to each other. While society today has advanced far enough for most to see the blatant sexism behind some of these ideals, it is hard to deny that they do exist, for one reason or another.

Female – Male
Emotion – Reason
Submission – Dominance
Nurture – Achievement
Passivity – Activity
Delicacy – Strength
Softness – Toughness
Beauty – Financial Power
Style – Substance
Cooperation – Competition


Out of this list, which differences, if any, do you think are real, or natural? Which ones do you think are constructs of our society? Which ones do you think have faded since, say, the 1950’s? Which ones do you see as being more permanent, right or wrong?

Gender roles, differences, and similarities have always been of interest to me. While it’s easy to dismiss racism as foolish, for skin pigment or eye shape has little to do with a person’s worth, it is foolish to deny that there is an unmistakable difference between men and women. The real questions are the extent of that difference, as well as if that difference is, in fact, a product of nature or nurture.

I’d like to hear (i.e. read) your thoughts on the matter. As with anything, lets try to keep this civil and at least mildly educated. :)
I think your list is actually gender bias. When I look at that, I see most of what I like to view as "positive" traits on the male side and "negative" on the female. I think todays culture sees things differently. For instance, men are portrayed to be generally less savvy than women. Men are solely concerned with sex. Women are more patient than men. Women are generally more constructive than men.

Any of that sound familiar?

I think your list is actually gender bias. When I look at that, I see most of what I like to view as "positive" traits on the male side and "negative" on the female.

Perhaps that's the point? Or perhaps you've been conditioned to find the listed male traits "positive" and female traits "negative."

I think todays culture sees things differently. For instance, men are portrayed to be generally less savvy than women. Men are solely concerned with sex. Women are more patient than men. Women are generally more constructive than men.

Any of that sound familiar?

Well it's about stereotypical culture norms, probably in relation to our culture a few years/decades ago as opposed to today. The question your list poses, of course, (beyond the last...where I've heard the opposite) is "Is this evident of a socially regulatory counterculture putting men down, one that is as equally destructive as putting women down for so many centuries?"

I, personally, look forward to the day when men won't be afraid to be the one wearing the dress. :D

Female – Male
Emotion – Reason
Submission – Dominance
Nurture – Achievement
Passivity – Activity
Delicacy – Strength
Softness – Toughness
Beauty – Financial Power
Style – Substance
Cooperation – Competition

I've never known any women, but I do have some expertise with goats. The female (doe) has a deeply-ingrained drive to nurture the weak of the herd. A doe will cry for hours with a human baby, heard through a nearby window. Preservation of the herd is a doe's instinct. Males are more aggressive to be sure, but the doe is often tougher, if that makes sense. I suppose endurance is a better term. The male is more powerful, but the female endures. Body chemistry makes the doe emotionally unpredictable, but not altogether unreasonable. Passivity versus activity seems to vary from goat to goat.

I would expect many of the same principles to apply to human males and females.

Perhaps that's the point? Or perhaps you've been conditioned to find the listed male traits "positive" and female traits "negative."
Perhaps. But I believe most people have been conditioned that way, which makes that our collective subjective reality.



Well it's about stereotypical culture norms, probably in relation to our culture a few years/decades ago as opposed to today. The question your list poses, of course, (beyond the last...where I've heard the opposite) is "Is this evident of a socially regulatory counterculture putting men down, one that is as equally destructive as putting women down for so many centuries?"
Culture puts everyone down. There's not a single group that benefits from being labeled, since it allows people to attack through the label instead of the person. That's cultures entire point- to force us into a cycle of hatred, competition, with no thought how to better ourselves, only how to worsen someone else.

Apart from beauty, which is in the eye of the beerholder anyway, I'd say the only "actual" difference is women do tend to be more emotional (from my personal experience). "Tend" being important, of course.

I don't know whether this is an actual built-in-as-standard state, or women (and men) just being conditioned to act in that way. Or one reinforcing the other. But I've noticed it.

There are other differences, of course, but they're generally just social silliness. How (rightly) berated would a man be if he said "I'm not cooking dinner, that's woman's work!"? So when a woman says "I don't know how to fit a CD drive/check the oil in my car/etc., I'm a woman, men do that kind of thing." I get quite annoyed at them. They're really not doing anything helpful to stereotypes there.

Oh, there is colours of course. Women claim there are more than, ooh, ten or so, but we know that they're making them up! ;)

Perhaps. But I believe most people have been conditioned that way, which makes that our collective subjective reality.

Not really. It wouldn't be any more real than the notion that "women should cook, clean, and take care of the kids."

Culture puts everyone down. There's not a single group that benefits from being labeled, since it allows people to attack through the label instead of the person. That's cultures entire point- to force us into a cycle of hatred, competition, with no thought how to better ourselves, only how to worsen someone else.

Haha, cynical much? I think that to claim all labels are bad is too black and white. Labels can do good and bad things for anyone, or any group, and I'm certain that with every label there is some truth to it, not to mention both good and bad aspects of the results said labels produce.

As for "culture's entire point" being to keep us all "down," I think that's someone overdramatic. "Culture" is our social identity as a whole. It doesn't have a point. It doesn't have an agenda to "keep us down." It simply is.

Or you could go even farther and say it actually simply isn't. "Culture" is an idea. Sure, literature, paintings, customs, and the like can be tangible, but "culture" itself is not. One could argue that it doesn't exist, much less have an unspoken goal of keeping us in a winless cycle of "hatred, competition, with no thought how to better ourselves, only how to worsen someone else."

First and foremost, you do realize that gender is a societary construct, right?

As far as biology goes, yes, men and women are different- they have different reproductive organs.
And that is about it.

the traits that you are speaking of are the traits that we are being told that each gender should have. However , these expectations are not particularly related to something called reality, but there you have it.

Judge people by what they are, not by their gender/race/skin colour. You'd be surprised.

Also, remembe that "the Y chromosome wearers have been pretty much ruling the show for the past 5000 years, of course the cards would be stacked in their favour"

And no, that is not even a feminists's phrase. I got it recently from a male friend... and my respect for him has increased tremendously for it.

Oh, there is colours of course. Women claim there are more than, ooh, ten or so, but we know that they're making them up! ;)

Lol...agreed. There are many shades of a color, say blue, but all of them are ultimately still blue.

"Peach," for instance, is a fruit, not a color. :D

I dyed my hair this morning, all blonde and shiny. I gave myself a funky little side-parting and I felt really pretty when I was walking around campus today. I got the definite feeling that I was turning some heads.

*is a guy*

Gender is an entirely social construct.

In our culture, there are easily identifiable standards or ideals which dictate how males and females “should” act, think, or look like in comparison to each other. While society today has advanced far enough for most to see the blatant sexism behind some of these ideals, it is hard to deny that they do exist, for one reason or another.

They exist for the same reason that racism exists - people want to be able to put nice little labels on people and have them actually apply. People want to categorize because it is easier than getting to know an individual.

Emotion – Reason

Women tend to be more emotionally open, although I don't think we actually feel more emotion. This, I believe to be a product of cultural conditioning more than anything inherent. Women are conditioned to believe that it is ok to express emotion, while men are conditioned to suppress it - unless, in some instances, that emotion is anger.

Of course, I don't see emotion and reason as opposed to one another. Acting purely from emotion is unreasonable, but we all feel emotion and we all use reason. And I've seen no evidence that either gender is even statistically better at using reason, although the particular fields in which they use it are statistically different.

Submission – Dominance

The idea that women are more submissive has most likely grown out of tribal cultures in which might defined those who would be in power. Men are statistically physically stronger than women, so they would have been more dominant.

Our culture is much less based on physical strength, however, so this really isn't as much of an issue, except in the minds of a few misogynists who think women "should be" submissive.

Nurture – Achievement

Huh?

Passivity – Activity

This is one I haven't heard.

Delicacy – Strength

By "delicacy", do you mean "weak"?

Men are statistically likely to have more muscle strength than women. Women are likely to have greater flexibility and pain tolerance.

Softness – Toughness

This seems to be related to the above, and is largely culture-specific, suggesting that it is more of a cultural conditioning.

Beauty – Financial Power

I don't understand how these are opposed.

Style – Substance[/qutoe]

These either. They certainly can be, but it isn't necessary.

[quote]Cooperation – Competition

This, I think, is also largely culturally conditioned.

Out of this list, which differences, if any, do you think are real, or natural? Which ones do you think are constructs of our society? Which ones do you think have faded since, say, the 1950’s? Which ones do you see as being more permanent, right or wrong?

None of the "differences" can be applied universally. Even those in which statistical trends are present - whether culturally conditioned or inherent - there is no justification for pushing someone into a mold that they don't fit into.

Gender roles, differences, and similarities have always been of interest to me. While it’s easy to dismiss racism as foolish, for skin pigment or eye shape has little to do with a person’s worth, it is foolish to deny that there is an unmistakable difference between men and women. The real questions are the extent of that difference, as well as if that difference is, in fact, a product of nature or nurture.

Is there a difference between the worth of a given man and a given woman? The genitals a person has and the state of their hormones now and during development won't define their worth either. Shouldn't all human beings be treated with respect and as individuals, rather than with an attempt to force them into a nice, neat stereotype?

Sexism is just as easy to dismiss as racism because both are based upon stereotypes and irrational decisions. It doesn't matter if women are generally more emotionally open if this particular woman is not or this particular man is. It doesn't matter if men are generally physically stronger if this woman is stronger than most men and that man is physically weaker than most women.

When you deal with people, it is the individual that matters, not the statistical average characteristics that apply to some group they happen to belong to.

Apart from beauty, which is in the eye of the beerholder anyway, I'd say the only "actual" difference is women do tend to be more emotional (from my personal experience). "Tend" being important, of course.

:D

First and foremost, you do realize that gender is a societary construct, right?

As far as biology goes, yes, men and women are different- they have different reproductive organs.
And that is about it.

the traits that you are speaking of are the traits that we are being told that each gender should have. However , these expectations are not particularly related to something called reality, but there you have it.

Judge people by what they are, not by their gender/race/skin colour. You'd be surprised.

Also, remembe that "the Y chromosome wearers have been pretty much ruling the show for the past 5000 years, of course the cards would be stacked in their favour"

And no, that is not even a feminists's phrase. I got it recently from a male friend... and my respect for him has increased tremendously for it.

:rolleyes:

Reread the original post and my subsequent posts following. That list is neither my idea nor my ideal. It is a list of stereotypical gender traits from a text book of mine, mean for prompting discussion.

As far as biology goes, men and women certainly are more different from their having penises, vaginas, and the like. One glance at a man standing beside a woman will tell you that.

As for judging, perhaps you shouldn't judge people at all? You certainly were quick to judge me, without even reading my thoughts in this thread, much less knowing me. You were also certainly wrong in your assumption.

Also, I find the fact that you respect a male friend simply because his views are more in line with your own amusing.

I dyed my hair this morning, all blonde and shiny. I gave myself a funky little side-parting and I felt really pretty when I was walking around campus today. I got the definite feeling that I was turning some heads.

*is a guy*

Gender is an entirely social construct.

beauty is a social construct.


a lot of gender is. but there are biological differences between the sexes behind the notion of gender imo

Not really. It wouldn't be any more real than the notion that "women should cook, clean, and take care of the kids."
For a while that's what women were allowed to do- was it real then?


[/quote]
Haha, cynical much? I think that to claim all labels are bad is too black and white. Labels can do good and bad things for anyone, or any group, and I'm certain that with every label there is some truth to it, not to mention both good and bad aspects of the results said labels produce. [/quote]
Of course it's too black and white, I applied the label of "bad".

But if no one had any labels, then all we would see is a part of their "true selves". Labels affect those they label as much as they affect the one who put them there.

[/quote]
As for "culture's entire point" being to keep us all "down," I think that's someone overdramatic. "Culture" is our social identity as a whole. It doesn't have a point. It doesn't have an agenda to "keep us down." It simply is[.

Or you could go even farther and say it actually simply isn't. "Culture" is an idea. Sure, literature, paintings, customs, and the like can be tangible, but "culture" itself is not. One could argue that it doesn't exist, much less have an unspoken goal of keeping us in a winless cycle of "hatred, competition, with no thought how to better ourselves, only how to worsen someone else."[/QUOTE]
Damn, you caught me. I feel into that trap, sorry.

What I meant to say is that culture is a primarily separating force in peoples lives rather than a constructive force.

When you deal with people, it is the individual that matters.

Well obviously you win this thread. :)

For a while that's what women were allowed to do- was it real then?

But what exactly is "real" lol? ;) Honestly though I'm not sure. I could see myself going either way on that question, confident that I could argue either side...which ultimately gets me nowhere. I think that brings up somewhat of a "real" versus "reality" debate.

Damn, you caught me. I feel into that trap, sorry.

What I meant to say is that culture is a primarily separating force in peoples lives rather than a constructive force.

I would love to know why, for the sake of argument.

:rolleyes:

Reread the original post and my subsequent posts following. That list is neither my idea nor my ideal. It is a list of stereotypical gender traits from a text book of mine, mean for prompting discussion.

Judge you? I haven't made an observation aimed at you, I just replied to your post.

As far as biology goes, men and women certainly are more different from their having penises, vaginas, and the like. One glance at a man standing beside a woman will tell you that.

Umm, not really. WE all start life as proto- females, we just develop differently due to the hormones released by our brains and bodies while in the womb, which releases are triggered by the chromosomes the ovum and the spermatozoa had. You would be surprised by how much the hormones influence the shape of our bodies.

However, I am sorry to inform you, but you shouldn't treat people differently by their shape. Or colour. Or height. Or gender.

As for judging, perhaps you shouldn't judge people at all? You certainly were quick to judge me, without even reading my thoughts in this thread, much less knowing me. You were also certainly wrong in your assumption.
"assumption"? all I do was ask some questions regarding your POV.

Not that there is anything wrong with judging people :)

Also, I find the fact that you respect a male friend simply because his views are more in line with your own amusing.

I find the fact that you believe that without any additional information not only amusing but also pretty pathetic, but that is me. Maybe you should more information instead?

What made my friend's opinion relevant and worth of (more)respect (than I already had for him) is the fact that few males actually do get to see beyond the culturally conditioning curtain ( aka Patriarchy). Acknowledging its existence is a great first step one can make towards better understanding and appreciating all humans, and since sadly this is still a rare fact for a male, I give it the props it deserves.

Binary gender is a lie. Does any single person naturally conform all the time to all the characteristics listed? Id wager the answer is no. Gender is a continuum in which each individual has their own place. Forcing people into such categories and imposing fixed roles is a ridiculous idea. The sooner we drop it the better.

Well obviously you win this thread. :)



But what exactly is "real" lol? ;) Honestly though I'm not sure. I could see myself going either way on that question, confident that I could argue either side...which ultimately gets me nowhere. I think that brings up somewhat of a "real" versus "reality" debate.
Most of what people see and think is objective. I remember a study where a married couple was given a 100-question survey, about their first year of marriage. It went from everything from finances, to happiness of themselves and their spouse, to their first time. The most questions either couple agreed on was 48. The lowest was 0.



I would love to know why, for the sake of argument.
While groups and labels tie people closely together, they also alienate them from all other groups. Since the category of "other groups" is almost always larger than the category of "my group", it is by necessity a divisive force.

This I find personally distasteful, not wrong. When I say bad or wrong, I just mean personally distasteful.

i think that the difference between the 1950s and today is that people are free-er to display attributes that are stereotyped as being part of the opposite gender.

so men can be more creative. they are more free to wear clothing/jewelry/hairstyles that bring attention to themselves.

women can be tougher. they can be in the military as something other than a secretary or nurse. they can be athletes in traditionally male sports. they can be cops and firefighers

both genders are free-er to take up professions that are more associated with the other gender. (more of a benefit for women since there were so few women's professions)

its still not equal of course. men still see crying as a sign of weakness. an assertive woman is often called a bitch instead of a go-getter.

at this point i dont think we can say how more natural it is for a woman to be a nuturer or a man to be coldly logical. there is still too much culture in the way.

I bake muffins and throw them at people. What does that make me? :p

You are Lunatic Goofballs. There is not a word in any language that really can adequately label you. You simply ARE.

Umm, not really. WE all start life as proto- females, we just develop differently due to the hormones released by our brains and bodies while in the womb, which releases are triggered by the chromosomes the ovum and the spermatozoa had. You would be surprised by how much the hormones influence the shape of our bodies.
Apparantly, you would be suprised by how much they influence our behaviour.


However, I am sorry to inform you, but you shouldn't treat people differently by their shape. Or colour. Or height. Or gender."
So I should feel the same about punching a pregnant women in the stomach as I should feel about doing it to a guy? Cool.


"assumption"? all I do was ask some questions regarding your POV.

Not that there is anything wrong with judging people :)




What made my friend's opinion relevant and worth of (more)respect (than I already had for him) is the fact that few males actually do get to see beyond the culturally conditioning curtain ( aka Patriarchy). Acknowledging its existence is a great first step one can make towards better understanding and appreciating all humans, and since sadly this is still a rare fact for a male, I give it the props it deserves.
Hmm. It seems like you have a few conditioned responses to see through on your own.

Judge you? I haven't made an observation aimed at you, I just replied to your post.

Oh?

However, I am sorry to inform you, but you shouldn't treat people differently by their shape. Or colour. Or height. Or gender.

Ah...so I'm a "shapeist," a racist, a "heightist," and a sexist, but you're not judging me. Right.

"assumption"? all I do was ask some questions regarding your POV.

Hardly. You criticized me for a POV that you gave me. Somewhat of a stretch, I'd say.

Not that there is anything wrong with judging people :)

No? But we should only judge them by your standards, not anyone else's.

I find the fact that you believe that without any additional information not only amusing but also pretty pathetic, but that is me. Maybe you should more information instead?

What made my friend's opinion relevant and worth of (more)respect (than I already had for him) is the fact that few males actually do get to see beyond the culturally conditioning curtain ( aka Patriarchy). Acknowledging its existence is a great first step one can make towards better understanding and appreciating all humans, and since sadly this is still a rare fact for a male, I give it the props it deserves.

So basically you argued with me about my statement, and then when on to elaborate, in which your statement agreed with mine. I said, "I find the fact that you respect a male friend simply because his views are more in line with your own amusing." You said, "Nuh-uh, I repect my friend, who is male, more because he thinks like I do."

Tell me those aren't identical...

Apparantly, you would be suprised by how much they influence our behaviour.

our behavious is influenced by a lot of factors. I personally believe that the cultural ones are ones with the most weight, but I am open to different opinions./




So I should feel the same about punching a pregnant women in the stomach as I should feel about doing it to a guy? Cool.

shouldn't you ask yourself why do you want to punch someone to begin with?





Hmm. It seems like you have a few conditioned responses to see through on your own.
probably, we all do.

Ah...so I'm a "shapeist," a racist, a "heightist," and a sexist, but you're not judging me. Right.

It was an advice. I did not imply that you do that.




Hardly. You criticized me for a POV that you gave me. Somewhat of a stretch, I'd say.
criticized is a bit of a strong word, but I'll have it. So what IS your POV then?



No? But we should only judge them by your standards, not anyone else's.
Strawman



So basically you argued with me about my statement, and then when on to elaborate, in which your statement agreed with mine. I said, "I find the fact that you respect a male friend simply because his views are more in line with your own amusing." You said, "Nuh-uh, I repect my friend, who is male, more because he thinks like I do."

Tell me those aren't identical...

Not quite. I respect my friend because he is my friend. Not all of his opinions coincide with mine, and that doesn't necessarily affect my reaction to him.
I happen to not fully agree with his statement- the 5000 years part, but I do appreciate his insight into it.

The way I see it, femininity is a parental, mostly motherly, trait. When you have babies, you need to be gental with them. You need to be delecate with them. Their bodies are weak. That's why women are traditionally expected to be more delecate. They're the ones with the milk-producing boobs and the baby-making wombs.

Masculinity is reserved for those not caring for the young and weak. Someone needs to defend the family from danger and bring home the bacon. That's why masculine traits are strength, endurance, and "freedom" from emotion. While the pregnant and parental are back home caring for the young, the men and nonparental women are hunting and gathering. When you're killing food, you need to overpower it, usually with a strong spear or a big, pointy rock.

These are traits developed long before artificial milk, domesticated food, and guns. Obviously, these traits aren't as genderspecific as when people had to literally kill their own food. That's all I'm saying right now.

Me:
Male
Reason: Emotion – Reason
Dominance: Submission – Dominance
Nurture: Nurture – Achievement
Passivity: Passivity – Activity
Strength: Delicacy – Strength
Softness: Softness – Toughness
Power: Beauty – Financial Power
Substance: Style – Substance
Cooperation: Cooperation – Competition

5 "Male" choices, 4 "Female" choices.

Fuck...I'm a hermaphrodite.

You are Lunatic Goofballs. There is not a word in any language that really can adequately label you. You simply ARE.

:)

For me

Emotion – Reason
Submission – Dominance
Nurture – Achievement
Passivity – Activity
Delicacy – Strength
Softness – Toughness
Beauty – Financial Power
Style – Substance
Cooperation – Competition

I suppose since the trend is to pick one over the other, for me:

Emotion – Reason
Submission – Dominance
Nurture – Achievement
Passivity – Activity
Delicacy – Strength
Softness – Toughness
Beauty – Financial Power
Style – Substance
Cooperation – Competition

7 male, 2 female...seems about right

Emotion – Reason
Submission – Dominance
Nurture – Achievement
Passivity – Activity
Delicacy – Strength
Softness – Toughness
Beauty – Financial Power
Style – Substance
Cooperation – Competition

I, personally, look forward to the day when men won't be afraid to be the one wearing the dress. :D

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/3946632a12855.html

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/3946632a12855.html

That guy looks scary. There's something unsettling about a non-femenine looking person in a dress. Why can't he be like normal, possibly stereotypical dragqueens and make himself look more ladylike? *shudders*

Me:
Emotion – Reason - Reason
Submission – Dominance - Neither
Nurture – Achievement - Both
Passivity – Activity - Both
Delicacy – Strength - Both
Softness – Toughness - Both
Beauty – Financial Power - Both
Style – Substance - Both
Cooperation – Competition - Both

... oh, and I'm female.

all bollocks. although there are some characteristics that are found in more women than men and vice versa, there is no universal characteristics for either sex.

Women | Men

Boobs | Manboobs


lol that's as far as I got.

In our culture, there are easily identifiable standards or ideals which dictate how males and females “should” act, think, or look like in comparison to each other. While society today has advanced far enough for most to see the blatant sexism behind some of these ideals, it is hard to deny that they do exist, for one reason or another.

Female – Male
Emotion – Reason
Submission – Dominance
Nurture – Achievement
Passivity – Activity
Delicacy – Strength
Softness – Toughness
Beauty – Financial Power
Style – Substance
Cooperation – Competition

Out of this list, which differences, if any, do you think are real, or natural? Which ones do you think are constructs of our society? Which ones do you think have faded since, say, the 1950’s? Which ones do you see as being more permanent, right or wrong?

Society's defined "masculine" and "feminine" gender roles are artificial and have little to no resemblance with any actual innate differences between individuals of different sexes. Particularly since binary gender is bollocks to begin with. Society creates and then enforces these roles, and lots of people like to go along with them because it makes life simpler.

You can blame your lack of self control on the fact that you're a big manly man with a manly temper. You can blame your lack of independence and assertiveness on the fact that you're just a delicate little feminine flower. You can know that you have a set role in life and most of the hard choices have been made for you. It's understandable, but certainly not praiseworthy.

Society's defined "masculine" and "feminine" gender roles are artificial and have little to no resemblance with any actual innate differences between individuals of different sexes. Particularly since binary gender is bollocks to begin with. Society creates and then enforces these roles, and lots of people like to go along with them because it makes life simpler.

You can blame your lack of self control on the fact that you're a big manly man with a manly temper. You can blame your lack of independence and assertiveness on the fact that you're just a delicate little feminine flower. You can know that you have a set role in life and most of the hard choices have been made for you. It's understandable, but certainly not praiseworthy.

Although there are many professors who would disagree with your first assertion, I wholeheartedly support you.

And to go briefly off topic, this is the exact reason the sexual revolution failed; it merely perpetuated the female identity as rhetorically coming from a position of suboordination to the male identity. All feminist rhetoric that does not treat men like eco-terrorists treat Hummers say "we can do things just as well as men." This is a mistake. Women are different than men. This is a fact drummed into our collective consciousness by thousands of years of mutually reinforcing societal and environmental norms. By attempting to place women on the same playing field as men the modern feminist movement, though making immediate and flashy gains in the name of "equality," fails women on a far more significant level because they fail to create a separate gender identity that does not rely on male-created and thus male-dominated institutions or ideas.

Just my opinion.

By attempting to place women on the same playing field as men the modern feminist movement, though making immediate and flashy gains in the name of "equality," fails women on a far more significant level because they fail to create a separate gender identity that does not rely on male-created and thus male-dominated institutions or ideas.

Cripes, I certainly hope that feminism "fails to create a separate gender identity...", because gendered identities are pure bullshit. The last thing we need is more "gender identities." The concept of telling people who they are, what they should want, and what they should be based on their gender is a giant pile of crap. It is no different than telling people that their identity is based on their race. The fact that society artificially FORCES such bullshit roles on us is certainly significant, but it's not a good thing, and it's not something that should be encouraged.

Cripes, I certainly hope that feminism "fails to create a separate gender identity...", because gendered identities are pure bullshit. The last thing we need is more "gender identities." The concept of telling people who they are, what they should want, and what they should be based on their gender is a giant pile of crap. It is no different than telling people that their identity is based on their race. The fact that society artificially FORCES such bullshit roles on us is certainly significant, but it's not a good thing, and it's not something that should be encouraged.

This post has earned the Official Goofball Seal of Approval. :)

This post has earned the Official Goofball Seal of Approval. :)Sim's babyseal of approval as well.

Raksgaard what the fuck would you want gender identities for? What good are they?

The way I see it, it's nothing but behaviour modification, and I can't think of a single reason for why sane people need that. Shit mate, where I grew up, a man was a slob who'd kick your head in for no reason & show up at work on time. I've been trying to untangle myself from that shit for ten years now, because it just isn't very constructive.

I think your list is actually gender bias. When I look at that, I see most of what I like to view as "positive" traits on the male side and "negative" on the female. I think todays culture sees things differently. For instance, men are portrayed to be generally less savvy than women. Men are solely concerned with sex. Women are more patient than men. Women are generally more constructive than men.

Any of that sound familiar?
I think the surface features of sexism change as needed to fit the times, but the underlying core remains the same.

At some point it was decided that women are supposed to serve, and men are supposed to rule. Women are supposed to dedicate their lives to maintaining a home for a man and his children, while men are supposed to pursue their lives in a more individual and external manner.

It used to be that people enforced this structure by insisting that women were weak and helpless and required men to take charge. Women were told that they are innately submissive and even stupid, and are unable to face the outside world without male protection. Men were told that they are strong and smart and capable, and are designed to be protectors and leaders.

These days, most people will laugh in your face if you try to be that blatantly full of shit. Instead, it is necessary to update the sexism to enforce the traditional roles.

Nowadays, we see a very different refrain. Now it is men who are helpless. Men cannot match their own socks. Men cannot clean or cook, or care for babies. Men are macho fools who need wife-mommy to care for them. Women are so very strong and smart and capable, so it is only fitting that they take on the role of parent to their man-child.

The funny thing is, we still end up with the same roles. Women are supposed to dedicate their lives to being wife-mommies, while men (the poor dears) can't possibly be expected to do more than go to work and watch the game. Think of the number of sitcoms with crude, unattractive, idiotic men who are married to inexplicably beautiful, smart, and capable wives. It's a very common theme.

The window-dressing is different, sure, but the same old sexism is underneath it. At the end of the day, women are supposed to care for hearth and home and service their man, while men are the ones who can be individual human people with outside lives and drives of their own.

Every time I start to read one of these threads my head hurts and I thank God for my wife.

She is feminine,intelligent. She has opinions,but she isnt a bitch. She doesnt have to prove anything-the way she cares for herself and her family shows what she is made of.
She works full time and runs a clean,well ordered home and is raising three prospering children,healthy,happy,well adjusted and nourished.

And me. She has been dealing with me for over 20 years now.
None of you will ever be able to appreciate that.


this may have nothing to do with the thread-I cant read it and all the BS thats likely bandying about.

This is more a shout out for the guys that have a great woman and appreciate her.

Softness – Toughness - Both

Yeah, like a pillow - it's softer than a glass, but way more likely to survive being punched.


Also, Bottle wins the thread as usual.

Yeah, like a pillow - it's softer than a glass, but way more likely to survive being punched.


Also, Bottle wins the thread as usual.

A pillow... now that's a good comparison indeed :D

Bottle always wins these threads! Yay for Bottle!

A pillow... now that's a good comparison indeed :D

Not that I'm suggesting anyone punch you! Maybe I should have used a different analogy...

I think the surface features of sexism change as needed to fit the times, but the underlying core remains the same.

<Über snippage>'Cept for the bit about male gender roles, that long rant was exactly what I was trying to get at. How did you get to be so damn eloquent?

... Between you & Soheran, I'm starting to feel like a fucking retard. Some day soon, I'm gonna steal your brains.

[QUOTE=Bottle;12381424]snipQUOTE]

This kind of man hating 'Millie Tant' style bullshit is the reason the glass ceiling will remain exactly where it is.

snip

This kind of man hating 'Millie Tant' style bullshit is the reason the glass ceiling will remain exactly where it is.
Man-hating or woman-hating, it all enforces the same silly artificial structures. The glass ceiling exists precisely because people are taught that their ability and talent are defined by their gender.

I believe it is disrespectful to both men and women to perpetuate such stupidities. A man's talents should not be credited to his maleness, nor should his failings be excused by his maleness. Likewise, a woman's individual gifts should not be written off as simply innate "female" traits, and her individual flaws should not be excused as being natural and unavoidable female qualities. Individuals should be given both credit and responsibility for their individual choices and efforts.

The homogenisation of the genders as a way of instilling equal rights is against human nature, and indeed nature in general. This is why it comes up against such difficulties despite legislation.
These ostentatious efforts to try and prove that humans are more than animals is dishonest to our nature. Where next - communicating with chimps to try and convince them that the lady chimps should get to be in charge for a while. Or trying to get female elephants to share decision making in the herd by way of community workshops?

Although there are many professors who would disagree with your first assertion, I wholeheartedly support you.

And to go briefly off topic, this is the exact reason the sexual revolution failed; it merely perpetuated the female identity as rhetorically coming from a position of suboordination to the male identity. All feminist rhetoric that does not treat men like eco-terrorists treat Hummers say "we can do things just as well as men." This is a mistake. Women are different than men. This is a fact drummed into our collective consciousness by thousands of years of mutually reinforcing societal and environmental norms. By attempting to place women on the same playing field as men the modern feminist movement, though making immediate and flashy gains in the name of "equality," fails women on a far more significant level because they fail to create a separate gender identity that does not rely on male-created and thus male-dominated institutions or ideas.

Just my opinion.

you think the sexual revolution failed? (assuming that you mean the feminist movement)

its been a splendid success and continues to move forward. we are still in the process of realizing that we dont have to define male and female roles or to insist that one way of life is more liberated than another (freely chosen) way of life. however, today men and women have far more freedom to choose the kind of life they want instead of having to force themselves into roles that have little relevance to modern life.

would anyone want to go back to how it used to be?

The homogenisation of the genders as a way of instilling equal rights is against human nature, and indeed nature in general. This is why it comes up against such difficulties despite legislation.
These ostentatious efforts to try and prove that humans are more than animals is dishonest to our nature. Where next - communicating with chimps to try and convince them that the lady chimps should get to be in charge for a while. Or trying to get female elephants to share decision making in the herd by way of community workshops?

soooo you think its against human nature for women to be bosses over men?

is that what that says?

soooo you think its against human nature for women to be bosses over men?

is that what that says?
For people with those attitudes, "nature" says whatever their personal cultural background says. They will selectively note the species in which there are "gender roles" that fit their own culture's gender roles, and will utterly ignore the species in which those gender roles are absent or reversed. They will look at only those species which define social roles based on gender, and will ignore the species in which gender is significant only during physical mating and procreation.

This is the problem with forming your opinions first and looking at the data second. When the data do not support the preconceptions, even the best of us will often (consciously or unconsciously) twist the data in an effort to make it fit with our desires.

you think the sexual revolution failed? (assuming that you mean the feminist movement)
Yeah, I love how people try to claim that feminism failed because it hasn't completely fixed the world (yet).

The sexual revolution was a terrific success. The fact that there is still work to be done does not reflect poorly on feminists. That's just blaming the victims. If one feels that the sexual revolution did not go far enough, I'd start by looking at the people who actively and constantly opposed it, instead of blaming its supporters for not having done everything perfectly.

soooo you think its against human nature for women to be bosses over men?

is that what that says?

Yes. To deny there are fundamental differences between the genders is a blatantly ignoring natures laws. Despite what Bottle says, most species have gender specific roles. By putting your location as 'FEMALE' and expressing views such as yours you are not intent on equality but on upsetting the natural order and trying to put women on top. It is an irrational jealousy of other species and a complete unwillingness to accept ones place in nature.

Yes. To deny there are fundamental differences between the genders is a blatantly ignoring natures laws. Despite what Bottle says, most species have gender specific roles. By putting your location as 'FEMALE' and expressing views such as yours you are not intent on equality but on upsetting the natural order and trying to put women on top. It is an irrational jealousy of other species and a complete unwillingness to accept ones place in nature.

if it were unnatural for women to be leaders, then it would be impossible for women to be leaders.

take a look around.

its natural.

if it were unnatural for women to be leaders, then it would be impossible for women to be leaders.

take a look around.

its natural.
Some of our closest genetic cousins, the bonobo chimpanzees, have a matriarchal social structure. But I'm sure we're not supposed to notice that. Instead, October3 will continue insisting that "most species" (no specifics) have the gender roles that he believes in.

I know this is a very important topic, but I've got to be honest...it gets bloody boring. Sexists have been using the same tired BS to prop up their beliefs for so long that I can't even manage to be enthusiastically mad about it. No matter what you say, they'll just reply with "Nuh-uh! Nature does so work this way!" It's just dull.

The fact that there is still work to be done does not reflect poorly on feminists.

No but feminists reflect poorly on feminists, in the eyes of both most men and women. Feminists are seen as butch lesbians or man-haters, not supporters of women's rights.

Is that fair? Not entirely. The problem arises when feminists try to go the way of the NAACP, demanding "one-ups" instead of real equality. The talk of the "we don't need men" from some of the radicals, or the constant "putting down" of men ala the same thing against the women years ago, is nothing more than reverse sexism, and no less ridiculous.

Women should demand equality. Equal pay, freedom of choice, that sort of thing. But pretending that there is no difference whatsoever between men and women, whether that difference is a result of nature or nurture, is simply being ridiculous.

Yes. To deny there are fundamental differences between the genders is a blatantly ignoring natures laws. Despite what Bottle says, most species have gender specific roles. By putting your location as 'FEMALE' and expressing views such as yours you are not intent on equality but on upsetting the natural order and trying to put women on top. It is an irrational jealousy of other species and a complete unwillingness to accept ones place in nature.

So humans, of course, are nothing more than animals?

Hasn't humanity shown a constant display of their nature, which is, interestngly enough, directly against the natural process? Humans pollute, use birth control, can chose whether they want to reproduce or not, consume resources without giving back, cause more animal extinctions than any other species, etc.

I think it's very clear that humanity does not fit with nature, so to try to conform its rules to that of nature would be pointless.

I know this is a very important topic, but I've got to be honest...it gets bloody boring. Sexists have been using the same tired BS to prop up their beliefs for so long that I can't even manage to be enthusiastically mad about it. No matter what you say, they'll just reply with "Nuh-uh! Nature does so work this way!" It's just dull.

Eh...but replacing intelligent discourse from women, such as your own, with apathy only further leads to the problem. People, not just women, need to get up in arms about the issue every time.

No but feminists reflect poorly on feminists, in the eyes of both most men and women. Feminists are seen as butch lesbians or man-haters, not supporters of women's rights.

Man-hating is completely antithetical to feminism. The fact that some people are ignorant and do not understand what "feminism" is does not mean that feminists reflect bad on anybody. That's like saying that black people reflect poorly on black people because some racist idiots think all black people are lazy or criminal.

Again, don't waste your time blaming the victims. Blame the people who start and perpetuate the ignorant stereotypes and falsehoods.


Is that fair? Not entirely. The problem arises when feminists try to go the way of the NAACP, demanding "one-ups" instead of real equality. The talk of the "we don't need men" from some of the radicals, or the constant "putting down" of men ala the same thing against the women years ago, is nothing more than reverse sexism, and no less ridiculous.

A couple of points:

1) "We don't need men" is not radical. It's a simple and healthy idea. It is completely possible for a woman to lead a full and happy life without men, just as it is completely possible for a man to lead a full and happy life without women. This is not radical, hostile, or sexist.

I have never needed "men" or "women" in my life. There are particular people who have been absolutely crucial to my life, but those people were important because of who they were, not because of which genitals or chromosomes they had. I choose to have people in my life not because I "need" their maleness or femaleness, but because I care about them and like them and want them in my life. Swap their genders and they would still have been equally important to me.

2) Anybody who advocates discrimination on the basis of gender is anti-feminist, no matter which direction the discrimination is aimed. If a person advocates giving certain citizens special rights or legal perks because of their gender, that person is not a feminist. Don't blame feminists for the existence of what they oppose.

3) Personal pet peeve: it's not "reverse sexism." It's just sexism. Sexism is sexism no matter who is practicing it or which sex they are discriminating against.


Women should demand equality. Equal pay, freedom of choice, that sort of thing. But pretending that there is no difference whatsoever between men and women, whether that difference is a result of nature or nurture, is simply being ridiculous.Please give a specific example of somebody on this thread who is "pretending that there is no difference whatsoever between men and women."

Okay...counting everything up: 6 Feminine, 1 Masculine, 2 Not Applicable...

I'M A WOMAN!!!!!


AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH meh...I don't perscribe to "the norm" anyway...

You know, you could have simply run outside naked on a cold day, and had the same revalation...

No but feminists reflect poorly on feminists, in the eyes of both most men and women. Feminists are seen as butch lesbians or man-haters, not supporters of women's rights.

Is that fair? Not entirely. The problem arises when feminists try to go the way of the NAACP, demanding "one-ups" instead of real equality. The talk of the "we don't need men" from some of the radicals, or the constant "putting down" of men ala the same thing against the women years ago, is nothing more than reverse sexism, and no less ridiculous.

Women should demand equality. Equal pay, freedom of choice, that sort of thing. But pretending that there is no difference whatsoever between men and women, whether that difference is a result of nature or nurture, is simply being ridiculous.

are feminists seen as "butch lesbians or man-haters, not supporters of women's rights" because they ARE that way or because they are protrayed that way but those who oppose feminst goals?

its obvious to ME that its because of the way feminists are portrayed since the majority of women support feminist goals and they are not " butch lesbians or man-haters, not supporters of women's rights".

so does that mean that women should "play nice" (reminding me of neesika's thread about blaming the victim) and stop demanding equal rights? should we make sure that we never ever say anything that might come off as harsh? should we excommunicate (from a movement without leadership) those who ARE butch lesbians, man haters or female supremicists? and just how would we DO that?

what does "pretending that there is no difference whatsoever between men and women" mean? is someone suggesting affirmative action for female sperm donors?

freeing men and women from preconceived roles means that they are free to express their own personal differences. enforcing societal assumptions about what is natural to man, for example, will hurt many men for whom that assumption--say dominance and logic--are NOT natural. there is so much overlap between the genders and differences within the genders that to enforce anything that we consider "natural differences" makes no sense. we are better off encouraging every individual to do their best with their own personality, desires and abilities than we are in insisting that there are certain areas that are "man only" or "woman only"

freeing men and women from preconceived roles means that they are free to express their own personal differences. enforcing societal assumptions about what is natural to man, for example, will hurt many men for whom that assumption--say dominance and logic--are NOT natural. there is so much overlap between the genders and differences within the genders that to enforce anything that we consider "natural differences" makes no sense. we are better off encouraging every individual to do their best with their own personality, desires and abilities than we are in insisting that there are certain areas that are "man only" or "woman only"
I think it's very telling that the people who claim to believe in "innate gender roles" are the ones who most loudly object to the idea of having a society that is not designed to enforce such roles. If "masculine" and "feminine" traits are innate, then why should we have to artificially impose them? Why should we need to bribe or punish people into conforming with their "natural" roles in life? Shouldn't they just freely choose to follow their "natural" path?

What I support is a world in which people are not compelled to be one thing or another based on their sex. If it turns out that male individuals freely choose to follow particular paths less frequently than female individuals, so be it. But I think it should be about individual choice, individual skills, individual drives, and individual merit. Nobody should be written off, or written a blank check, based on their sex.

Some of our closest genetic cousins, the bonobo chimpanzees, have a matriarchal social structure. But I'm sure we're not supposed to notice that. Instead, October3 will continue insisting that "most species" (no specifics) have the gender roles that he believes in.

I know this is a very important topic, but I've got to be honest...it gets bloody boring. Sexists have been using the same tired BS to prop up their beliefs for so long that I can't even manage to be enthusiastically mad about it. No matter what you say, they'll just reply with "Nuh-uh! Nature does so work this way!" It's just dull.

Bonobos and chimps are both our closest genetic relatives, (but your not supposed to notice that.) Your probable not suppposed to notice that I used Elephants as an example of matriarchal hierarchy amongst other species. Preying mantices - the female eats the head of the male during copulation to allow the male to release sperm. Seahorses - the male seahorse carries the young. There are many variations on species specific gender roles. Bottle (Whome I no doubt owns several pairs of dungarees and comfortabe shoes) likes to ignore these facts also.

I think it's very telling that the people who claim to believe in "innate gender roles" are the ones who most loudly object to the idea of having a society that is not designed to enforce such roles. If "masculine" and "feminine" traits are innate, then why should we have to artificially impose them? Why should we need to bribe or punish people into conforming with their "natural" roles in life? Shouldn't they just freely choose to follow their "natural" path?

What I support is a world in which people are not compelled to be one thing or another based on their sex. If it turns out that male individuals freely choose to follow particular paths less frequently than female individuals, so be it. But I think it should be about individual choice, individual skills, individual drives, and individual merit. Nobody should be written off, or written a blank check, based on their sex.

exactly. if there are things that are innately masculine and innately nonfeminine, they will declare themselves over time by the impossibility of crossing that line. so men can probably have pissing their names in the snow and women can have public breast feeding. (pretty much). the rest will fall on a spectrum where more men do one thing (chew tobacco) and more women do another thing (have baby showers) but each gender has members who do the less common thing.

Bonobos and chimps are both our closest genetic relatives, (but your not supposed to notice that.) Your probable not suppposed to notice that I used Elephants as an example of matriarchal hierarchy amongst other species. Preying mantices - the female eats the head of the male during copulation to allow the male to release sperm. Seahorses - the male seahorse carries the young. There are many variations on species specific gender roles. Bottle (Whome I no doubt owns several pairs of dungarees and comfortabe shoes) likes to ignore these facts also.

yes but what does that have to do with your point about natural and unnatural behaviors?

yes but what does that have to do with your point about natural and unnatural behaviors?

Many species have a gender that is dominant - in humans it happens to be men. That is why men get on with things and women burn bras, fight trough equality legislation and sit around discussing how evil men are and menstruation. Anybody who needs to 'get to know their vagina' has issues.

Anybody who needs to 'get to know their vagina' has issues.

Unless-of course-they'd like to have an orgasm and have to teach their partner how to hit it just right.

Unless-of course-they'd like to have an orgasm and have to teach their partner how to hit it just right. You don't teach someone else something by getting to know it yourself.

Can we get back on track please? Throwing mud around and stuff… you know what to do, get on with it.

Many species have a gender that is dominant - in humans it happens to be men. That is why men get on with things and women burn bras, fight trough equality legislation and sit around discussing how evil men are and menstruation. Anybody who needs to 'get to know their vagina' has issues.

if men being dominant is so important to you, keep pretending that its true. no woman can ever dominate any man. no man can ever be told what to do by any woman.

and pissing your name in the snow is the most dominant of all human behaviors.

You don't teach someone else something by getting to know it yourself.

Can we get back on track please? Throwing mud around and stuff… you know what to do, get on with it.

huh? are you sure you thought that one through?

how do i teach something i dont know?

I might be flamed for this, but October3 has a point. I think he's reached the wrong conclusion, but what the hell.

It's a mistake to deny that we've evolved from "animals". We are animals, by scientific definition, and the popular definition is next to useless, being completely contradictory - we use animal for both things other-than-human, and humans or animals that are ruled by their emotions, lower thought processes, etc. It's used both positively and negatively, without real thought, in fact, very animalistically. ;) "You're an animal" can mean that you're fun to be with, you're psychotic, or you're covered in fur and are mute.

Human intelligence has created a new dimension of evolution and change, there's no denying that. It has always played a minor part in other animals as well. The old motivational systems are still in place, however. There's a tremendous contridiction that branches from sensory evaluation - we can know something intellectually, and at the same time know something opposite to that chemically. The byplay of this creates human behavior, and that is why we can be so fucked up.

If we want to choose one or the other, we must know where both come from and why, or else the side that we neglect will creep up on us and take over once more. It's tremendously difficult to sort out the effects of instinct from the byplay of intellectual conditioning and reasoning, but there's simply no avoiding it.

I might be flamed for this, but October3 has a point. I think he's reached the wrong conclusion, but what the hell.

It's a mistake to deny that we've evolved from "animals". We are animals, by scientific definition, and the popular definition is next to useless, being completely contradictory - we use animal for both things other-than-human, and humans or animals that are ruled by their emotions, lower thought processes, etc. It's used both positively and negatively, without real thought, in fact, very animalistically. ;) "You're an animal" can mean that you're fun to be with, you're psychotic, or you're covered in fur and are mute.

Human intelligence has created a new dimension of evolution and change, there's no denying that. It has always played a minor part in other animals as well. The old motivational systems are still in place, however. There's a tremendous contridiction that branches from sensory evaluation - we can know something intellectually, and at the same time know something opposite to that chemically. The byplay of this creates human behavior, and that is why we can be so fucked up.

If we want to choose one or the other, we must know where both come from and why, or else the side that we neglect will creep up on us and take over once more. It's tremendously difficult to sort out the effects of instinct from the byplay of intellectual conditioning and reasoning, but there's simply no avoiding it.

im not sure what your point is.

People think they can teach away instinct when they aren't even sure what those instincts are. If we really want to get rid of gender bias, we have to know what it comes from. More than just knowing that men teach their kids to disrespect women, or vice-versa, we have to know why. Hormonal cues bias us towards gender inequality, more even than the practicality of protecting our offspring, which is also instinctually based, and we have to be willing to change ourselves physically if we want to get rid of the perpetual confusion and chaos. It'd be going towards this anyway, if we were to revert to a situation where natural selection held sway - reasoning is a much more adaptive, much more accurate system than instinct, and the only way instinct can trump it is pure speed in day-to-day life or death reactions.

Nutty, eh? *shrugs* I'm afraid I can't stay to debate, since I have potential employment if I leave now. =/ I'm sorry guys, really. x.x

The homogenisation of the genders as a way of instilling equal rights is against human nature, and indeed nature in general. This is why it comes up against such difficulties despite legislation.
These ostentatious efforts to try and prove that humans are more than animals is dishonest to our nature. Where next - communicating with chimps to try and convince them that the lady chimps should get to be in charge for a while. Or trying to get female elephants to share decision making in the herd by way of community workshops?

Just to point out some basic flaws in your understanding of biology : Female chimps are just as likely to be in charge of a family group as males.
And in elephant herds, females decide. Males are merely suffered.

Many species have a gender that is dominant - in humans it happens to be men. That is why men get on with things and women burn bras, fight trough equality legislation and sit around discussing how evil men are and menstruation. Anybody who needs to 'get to know their vagina' has issues.

Buddy, I think the person with the most issues in this thread has to be yourself....
Why shouldn't women discuss their reproductive organs? Men seem to compare theirs permanently.

People think they can teach away instinct when they aren't even sure what those instincts are. If we really want to get rid of gender bias, we have to know what it comes from. More than just knowing that men teach their kids to disrespect women, or vice-versa, we have to know why. Hormonal cues bias us towards gender inequality, more even than the practicality of protecting our offspring, which is also instinctually based, and we have to be willing to change ourselves physically if we want to get rid of the perpetual confusion and chaos. It'd be going towards this anyway, if we were to revert to a situation where natural selection held sway - reasoning is a much more adaptive, much more accurate system than instinct, and the only way instinct can trump it is pure speed in day-to-day life or death reactions.

Nutty, eh? *shrugs* I'm afraid I can't stay to debate, since I have potential employment if I leave now. =/ I'm sorry guys, really. x.x

It's called "culture".

Buddy, I think the person with the most issues in this thread has to be yourself....
Why shouldn't women discuss their reproductive organs? Men seem to compare theirs permanently.

Thats only because mine's bigger. If it wasnt,you wouldnt hear a peep from me.

Thats only because mine's bigger. If it wasnt,you wouldnt hear a peep from me.

Do you know why some women are so bad at parallel parking? Because they believe men when they say that this : _______________ is actually 9 inches long :p

Buddy, I think the person with the most issues in this thread has to be yourself.... Not exactly a surprise there.

I think it's very telling that the people who claim to believe in "innate gender roles" are the ones who most loudly object to the idea of having a society that is not designed to enforce such roles. If "masculine" and "feminine" traits are innate, then why should we have to artificially impose them? Why should we need to bribe or punish people into conforming with their "natural" roles in life? Shouldn't they just freely choose to follow their "natural" path?

QFT.

The fact that they use supposedly "natural" gender roles as an excuse to judge the free choices of others is indicative of an underlying assumption that they seek to protect not a natural order, but an artificial one that they happen to like.

If women were really "meant" to be subordinate, if they all really naturally want to be submissive to dominant men, why does feminism even exist? And if they don't, then how can the claim of "natural" gender roles be justified?

freeing men and women from preconceived roles means that they are free to express their own personal differences. enforcing societal assumptions about what is natural to man, for example, will hurt many men for whom that assumption--say dominance and logic--are NOT natural. there is so much overlap between the genders and differences within the genders that to enforce anything that we consider "natural differences" makes no sense. we are better off encouraging every individual to do their best with their own personality, desires and abilities than we are in insisting that there are certain areas that are "man only" or "woman only"

Indeed, even the concept of separating men and women is somewhat arbitrary and fuzzy. Do we separate by chromosomes? What then of women with Turner's Syndrome or CAIS - women in which some or all of their cells may bear both an X and a Y chromosome. What of those with Klinefelter's, in which they may be XXY or XXXY or any number of possibilities?

Do we separate by genitals? If so, where do we place transsexuals? Are they to be expected to act as one gender until such time that they get a medical sex change and then expected to act as the other?

What people need to realize is that what may appear as two absolute and distinct groups is nothing of the sort. Most people fall near the statistical average - an unsurprising observation. But both men and women have always existed along a spectrum. Those things we consider "masculine" may be traits that many women (whether defined by genitalia or by chromosomes) portray and vice versa - and this should not come as a surprise or be seen as a problem. Human beings don't fit into nice little predictable boxes.

beauty is a social construct.


a lot of gender is. but there are biological differences between the sexes behind the notion of gender imo



2 Things on these statements.

first, I've been under the impression that science in the last few years has been finding chemical and phisiological differences between men and women, in cluding the brains. My impression has been from Tv, but also my clases in Biology, that there is a difference in how men and women think. (Men think obsessivly abought one thing a a time) i.e. hyper focus on an issue, And Women tend to think of many things at once. Also, I've definatelly noticed women have moodswings once a month (yes this is a stereotype only, and NOT ALWAYS the case)

secondly, I've been told even infants can recognize beautifull people. I have heard that this is based on geometric measurments of a person.

Any one have any coments?

QFT.

The fact that they use supposedly "natural" gender roles as an excuse to judge the free choices of others is indicative of an underlying assumption that they seek to protect not a natural order, but an artificial one that they happen to like.

If women were really "meant" to be subordinate, if they all really naturally want to be submissive to dominant men, why does feminism even exist? And if they don't, then how can the claim of "natural" gender roles be justified?



This is just a musing. If genders are the exact same, why are women generally oppressed in all cultures? (please, don't anyone embarrass yourselves by mentioning Amazons......) lol

[QUOTE=October3;12382078]Bonobos and chimps are both our closest genetic relatives, QUOTE]


Actually I was under the impression that pigs where our closest relatives. At least thats what our professor says.

Bonobos and chimps are both our closest genetic relatives


Actually I was under the impression that pigs where our closest relatives. At least thats what our professor says.

:confused: Truly?

This is just a musing. If genders are the exact same, why are women generally oppressed in all cultures? (please, don't anyone embarrass yourselves by mentioning Amazons......) lol

How about these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy#Existing_Matriarchal_Societies) then?

:confused: Truly?

So i've been told..... Suposedly that is why they use pigs for testing alot (mice and rats are suposedly close) And also why they are trying to raise organs for donation on or in pigs.... (They use mice to grow ear-cartlage, etc)

Actually I was under the impression that pigs where our closest relatives. At least thats what our professor says.

Odd, considering that we both belong to virtually the same genus as chimps. And share more than 90% of our DNA with them.

If genders are the exact same,

No one said that.

why are women generally oppressed in all cultures?

They're not.

So i've been told..... Suposedly that is why they use pigs for testing alot (mice and rats are suposedly close) And also why they are trying to raise organs for donation on or in pigs.... (They use mice to grow ear-cartlage, etc)

Odd, considering that we both belong to virtually the same genus as chimps. And share more than 90% of our DNA with them.

The mice may well have been bred with suppressed immune systems, to make them better able to handle having foreign tissue grown on them, though I can't imagine that's a commercially viable method.

As for pigs, well, I know that the body of a pig resembles that of a human being on the mechanical level, that is, in thickness and weight and volume. Sherlock Holmes once used a pig's carcasse to determine the amount of force needed to drive a harpoon through a similarly built human.

Cabra's right, though. Genetically we're much, much closer to chimps and bonobos than we are to pigs and mice. It must be tens of millions of years since we shared a common ancestor with them.

I'm back. Wasn't as urgent as I thought (unfortunately, since it would have meant a guaranteed job).
It's called "culture".
What are you saying here? That culture is purely the result of intelligence? Not shaped at all by the effects of emotion?

I'm back. Wasn't as urgent as I thought (unfortunately, since it would have meant a guaranteed job).

What are you saying here? That culture is purely the result of intelligence? Not shaped at all by the effects of emotion?

That culture is the one thing that will make humans go against their rationality and emotions. It's traditions and beliefs that built up over centuries and in many if not most cases lost all contact to their original intentions.
Culture will make people believe that masturbation is unnatural, that blondes are more beautiful than brunettes, that it's wrong to eat meat and dairy products together and that men and women are inherently more different from one another than men are from other men or women are from other women.

I am biologically male, but I could never live up to the male gender rôle simply because of physical limitations (I'm incredibly short and not very muscular, etc.) and I suspect many people, both men and women, couldn't realistically live up to these rôles even if they wanted to.

Actually I was under the impression that pigs where our closest relatives. At least thats what our professor says.

It depends on what your professor means. Biochemically speaking, humans and pigs are very close. But, as far as actual genetic relation goes, we're closest to chimps - specifically the Bonobos, IIRC.

That culture is the one thing that will make humans go against their rationality and emotions. It's traditions and beliefs that built up over centuries and in many if not most cases lost all contact to their original intentions.
Culture will make people believe that masturbation is unnatural, that blondes are more beautiful than brunettes, that it's wrong to eat meat and dairy products together and that men and women are inherently more different from one another than men are from other men or women are from other women.

It's impossible to make people go against both rationality and emotion. There has to be some impetus, no matter how far removed, otherwise traditions would never change. You have it backwards, I think - people will go along with culture if the alternative is seen as intellectually or physically undesirable. If there's no reason to do something, even if that reason is that you'll drop in social standing if you don't, you won't bother to do it. Some people don't care (or pretend they don't care, which amounts to the same thing) about being hurt, or being outcast, or not having sex, and these people will do things opposed to your culture. You can't discount these exceptions in this case, because we're talking about humanity as a whole, and because they have a direct effect on the system in question.

It's impossible to make people go against both rationality and emotion. There has to be some impetus, no matter how far removed, otherwise traditions would never change. You have it backwards, I think - people will go along with culture if the alternative is seen as intellectually or physically undesirable. If there's no reason to do something, even if that reason is that you'll drop in social standing if you don't, you won't bother to do it. Some people don't care (or pretend they don't care, which amounts to the same thing) about being hurt, or being outcast, or not having sex, and these people will do things opposed to your culture. You can't discount these exceptions in this case, because we're talking about humanity as a whole, and because they have a direct effect on the system in question.

Culture determines social status. Going against culture and tradition will result in a loss of social status, just take a look at fathers who decide to stay home to raise the kids while the mother works. Look at the way unconventional partnerships are viewed, such as same-sex partnerships, or even just an unmarried couple deciding to have children. Look at the way society treats men who decide to become nurses instead of doctors, flight attendants instead of pilots, etc.

Culture determines social status. Going against culture and tradition will result in a loss of social status, just take a look at fathers who decide to stay home to raise the kids while the mother works. Look at the way unconventional partnerships are viewed, such as same-sex partnerships, or even just an unmarried couple deciding to have children. Look at the way society treats men who decide to become nurses instead of doctors, flight attendants instead of pilots, etc.

And people still do these things. Just like they ate meat and dairy together because there was nothing else, and sought to educate themselves and question their beliefs because they saw that they weren't helping them out of their social standing. I never said that culture didn't determine social standing, but you said that it makes people do things. That irks me. :p

And people still do these things. Just like they ate meat and dairy together because there was nothing else, and sought to educate themselves and question their beliefs because they saw that they weren't helping them out of their social standing. I never said that culture didn't determine social standing, but you said that it makes people do things. That irks me. :p

It does. It makes a lot of people take the easy way and just do what's expected of them.
Yes, a lot of people don't stick to culture and tradition any more, especially in Western societies. Tradition has been forced open, exposed to examination and questions. As a result, it has far less influence on people now than it had 30 years ago. One way of going against the culture and tradition is by examining the way women used to be treated, and to find ways of treating them in an ethically justifiable way instead of just "the way it's always been".

It does. It makes a lot of people take the easy way and just do what's expected of them.
Yes, a lot of people don't stick to culture and tradition any more, especially in Western societies. Tradition has been forced open, exposed to examination and questions. As a result, it has far less influence on people now than it had 30 years ago. One way of going against the culture and tradition is by examining the way women used to be treated, and to find ways of treating them in an ethically justifiable way instead of just "the way it's always been".
"Make" implies that there is no other course of action. The Earth's gravity "makes" people come down after they jump. Cultures only cause more difficulty if they are fought against.

Do we separate by genitals? If so, where do we place transsexuals? Are they to be expected to act as one gender until such time that they get a medical sex change and then expected to act as the other?

Oh, don't be silly, transsexuals are irrelevant, and any evidence brought about through transsexuals that suggests that gender is anything more than cultural is blatantly false.

Oh, don't be silly, transsexuals are irrelevant, and any evidence brought about through transsexuals that suggests that gender is anything more than cultural is blatantly false.

*Sigh* I'm sorry. I keep having trouble learning that there are people in this world who simply don't matter. I'll make sure I self-flagellate for it later.

=)

I, personally, look forward to the day when men won't be afraid to be the one wearing the dress. :D

And the men in Scotland are all yelling "It's called a kilt, you stupid gits!" ;)

I think it's very telling that the people who claim to believe in "innate gender roles" are the ones who most loudly object to the idea of having a society that is not designed to enforce such roles. If "masculine" and "feminine" traits are innate, then why should we have to artificially impose them? Why should we need to bribe or punish people into conforming with their "natural" roles in life? Shouldn't they just freely choose to follow their "natural" path?

Quite. Being a Calvinist, I naturally think that there are specific roles for both man and woman. However, it is because these roles simply are that we need no legislation. That's like saying that Congress needs to pass a law mandating gravity.

Quite. Being a Calvinist, I naturally think that there are specific roles for both man and woman. However, it is because these roles simply are that we need no legislation. That's like saying that Congress needs to pass a law mandating gravity.

Looking around me, I can't for the life of me identify any roles that "are"... :confused:

And the men in Scotland are all yelling "It's called a kilt, you stupid gits!" ;)

:p

you just had to throw that one in there. :D

Women tend to be more emotionally open, although I don't think we actually feel more emotion. This, I believe to be a product of cultural conditioning more than anything inherent. Women are conditioned to believe that it is ok to express emotion, while men are conditioned to suppress it - unless, in some instances, that emotion is anger.The issue of emotional openness, which is connected to the use of body language, is not merely a social conditioning issue. It is a factor, but people, by the nature of their brain wiring (which differs to a certain degree between the average male and female), differ in this regard. I tell this as a person with an somewhat "extreme male" brain, as many with Asperger's have.

The belief that it is only a matter of social conditioning is one thing that causes problems for those closer to the extremes. The actual differences are not accepted, explained away, and people are assumed and expected to naturally be able to be "more normal", even if it is not the optimal and comfortable way to be for them.

The issue of emotional openness, which is connected to the use of body language, is not merely a social conditioning issue. It is a factor, but people, by the nature of their brain wiring (which differs to a certain degree between the average male and female), differ in this regard. I tell this as a person with an somewhat "extreme male" brain, as many with Asperger's have.

The belief that it is only a matter of social conditioning is one thing that causes problems for those closer to the extremes. The actual differences are not accepted, explained away, and people are assumed and expected to naturally be able to be "more normal", even if it is not the optimal and comfortable way to be for them.

Just to clarify one thing :
I wouldn't question that statistically, women on the whole share some traits that men don't to the same extend. Same as taken on the whole, people with freckles share traits that people without don't, or as left-handed people share traits that right-handed people don't.

That doesn't mean that these differences are in any way a justification for propagading predetermined roles for either gender. If you went around today proclaiming that since a left-hander's brain is wired differently from a right-hander's one, the left-handed person should be the one to stay at home and raise the kids, people would assume you're a complete nutcase. But going around proclaiming that since women's brains are structured to be more emotional and social, they should be the ones at home taking care of the family, a good few people would nod in agreement.
Both statements are equally ridiculous and need to be recognised as such.

Just to clarify one thing :
I wouldn't question that statistically, women on the whole share some traits that men don't to the same extend. Same as taken on the whole, people with freckles share traits that people without don't, or as left-handed people share traits that right-handed people don't.

That doesn't mean that these differences are in any way a justification for propagading predetermined roles for either gender. If you went around today proclaiming that since a left-hander's brain is wired differently from a right-hander's one, the left-handed person should be the one to stay at home and raise the kids, people would assume you're a complete nutcase. But going around proclaiming that since women's brains are structured to be more emotional and social, they should be the ones at home taking care of the family, a good few people would nod in agreement.
Both statements are equally ridiculous and need to be recognised as such.I do not support propagating roles in such a way. I simply countered the view that it is merely a social/cultural issue. People vary greatly; a large share near the average, the rest often far from it. Many men have "female"-balanced brains, as well as the opposite. I'm saying that wherever people are on the spectrum, whatever naturally emphasized abilities and preferences they have should be respected as such, instead of society trying to force them to go against them.

How about these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy#Existing_Matriarchal_Societies) then?

I am not sure that pointing out four rather small matriachal societies on the entire planet really shows that the spirit behind his comment was misled.

I am not sure that pointing out four rather small matriachal societies on the entire planet really shows that the spirit behind his comment was misled.

He proposed that none at all existed.
Looking at cultures on the planet today, you have to take into account the massive influence European/American culture has been wielding for the las 5 centuries. Looking back into history, there used to be more than just a few matriarchal societies, although matriarchy itself is just the opposite extreme of patriarchy. Many societies would simply not have a preference for either.

He proposed that none at all existed.
Looking at cultures on the planet today, you have to take into account the massive influence European/American culture has been wielding for the las 5 centuries. Looking back into history, there used to be more than just a few matriarchal societies, although matriarchy itself is just the opposite extreme of patriarchy. Many societies would simply not have a preference for either.

No he didn't.

He said:

"This is just a musing. If genders are the exact same, why are women generally oppressed in all cultures? (please, don't anyone embarrass yourselves by mentioning Amazons......) lol"

My bold.

He does say 'all', however he qualifies this with a 'generally' earlier in the statement. Given he has already stated he is talking about the general case it would have been pretty anal of him to qualify the 'all' with a 'general' or 'nearly' type qualifier.

And also - the pointing out of a very small number of societies which are matriachial does not answer the question posed - which is why, all around the world, in almost every culture in almost every country are the majority of societies organised with a generalised leaning towards a generally male dominated power structure. (see - it's quite anal to qualify every word when you'd normally assume a reader takes the spirit of a single qualiifier to apply to the entire statement).

And as to the western thing - women have been treated as property in many societies all around the world long before the west got round to spreading their views.

No he didn't.

He said:

"This is just a musing. If genders are the exact same, why are women generally oppressed in all cultures? (please, don't anyone embarrass yourselves by mentioning Amazons......) lol"

My bold.

He does say 'all', however he qualifies this with a 'generally' earlier in the statement. Given he has already stated he is talking about the general case it would have been pretty anal of him to qualify the 'all' with a 'general' or 'nearly' type qualifier.

And also - the pointing out of a very small number of societies which are matriachial does not answer the question posed - which is why, all around the world, in almost every culture in almost every country are the majority of societies organised with a generalised leaning towards a generally male dominated power structure. (see - it's quite anal to qualify every word when you'd normally assume a reader takes the spirit of a single qualiifier to apply to the entire statement).

And as to the western thing - women have been treated as property in many societies all around the world long before the west got round to spreading their views.

Are you trying to make a point, or are you just going to be anal about the example I used?

I was pointing out that your example did nothing to answer the question posed - which is why are the majority of societies all over the world in almost every culture - including the majority of societies throughout history - generally male dominated.

I didn't answer anything. I merely pointed out that it was an incorrect assumption that "all cultures" suppressed women.

Are you trying to make a point, or are you just going to be anal about the example I used?

I was pointing out that your example did nothing to answer the question posed - which is why are the majority of societies all over the world in almost every culture - including the majority of societies throughout history - generally male dominated.

Bonobos and chimps are both our closest genetic relatives, (but your not supposed to notice that.) Your probable not suppposed to notice that I used Elephants as an example of matriarchal hierarchy amongst other species. Preying mantices - the female eats the head of the male during copulation to allow the male to release sperm. Seahorses - the male seahorse carries the young. There are many variations on species specific gender roles.
Bottle (Whome I no doubt owns several pairs of dungarees and comfortabe shoes) likes to ignore these facts also.
There are three funny things in this paragraph.

1) The assertion that I "like to ignore" the very facts which I specifically pointed out and was directly alluding to in my posts.

2) The idea that wearing comfortable clothing is somehow a bad thing (whereas owning uncomfortable shoes is...what? A wise choice?). I don't know what "dungarees" are, but from the name I'm guessing that they are some sort of comfortable undergarments that fail to meet Playboy's standards of obligatory female hotness.

3) The fact that the post starts with a mistake (bonobos ARE chimps) and ends with a mistake, forming a complete closed circuit of error through which true confusion may freely flow.

Many species have a gender that is dominant - in humans it happens to be men.

Many species do not have an innate dominance hierarchy based on sex. This is the case for humans.

See? We both can make assertions and choose not to support them with fact! Call it a draw.


That is why men get on with things and women burn bras, fight trough equality legislation and sit around discussing how evil men are and menstruation.

Yes, men "get things done," while women sit around doing nothing...like winning the right to vote, own property, and hold office despite all the big strong manly efforts to stop them. See, men are innately powerful and dominant, which is why they require cultural and legal systems that forcibly block women from being able to compete with men and force women into subservience. Because these are the "natural" roles, you see.


Anybody who needs to 'get to know their vagina' has issues.
I actually agree with this. The reason so many women need to get to know their own bodies at later stages in life is because of the ridiculous Puritan morality that has been imposed on many of them. We discourage people from exploring and understanding their own bodies, by teaching that they are dirty or sinful or wicked, and this is harmful to both men and women.

Unless-of course-they'd like to have an orgasm and have to teach their partner how to hit it just right.
Silly rabbit, the female orgasm is a myth invented by lesbian feminists who want to kill all men! Only men are built to enjoy sexual activity! Women are built to enjoy babies and commitment!!!

Many species do not have an innate dominance hierarchy based on sex. This is the case for humans.


Dominance and submission aside, do you think it is fair to say that many species on earth, perhaps the vast majority, have different behavior between their genders?

Dominance and submission aside, do you think it is fair to say that many species on earth, perhaps the vast majority, have different behavior between their genders?

I would say, taking all species that acutally have genders into account, most only show different behaviour when it comes to actual mating.
The majority of species don't even have different appearances for males and females.

I would say, taking all species that acutally have genders into account, most only show different behaviour when it comes to actual mating.
This mating thing... is it a rather important portion of most animals lives or is it something they appear to view more as a side issue.

I mean - the interaction between the genders in most species - would it be fair to say a lot of the interaction between males and females is based about mating and the product of said mating?

(I think for a discussion about differences between genders it is fair for us to ignore creatures that do not have genders)


The majority of species don't even have different appearances for males and females.
Well - to us, but they sure seem to be able to tell the difference without much difficulty.

This mating thing... is it a rather important portion of most animals lives or is it something they appear to view more as a side issue.

I mean - the interaction between the genders in most species - would it be fair to say a lot of the interaction between males and females is based about mating and the product of said mating?

(I think for a discussion about differences between genders it is fair for us to ignore creatures that do not have genders)

Considering that the vast majority of animals only has one mating season lasting for a week or two each year, I daresay it's a side issue for most of them for most of their lives.


Well - to us, but they sure seem to be able to tell the difference without much difficulty.

Unless they're in heat, most animal simply don't care about the difference. It's only us humans that make it such an issue to find the differences in order to tell males and females that they are so vastly different and therefore need to behave accordingly.

Considering that the vast majority of animals only has one mating season lasting for a week or two each year, I daresay it's a side issue for most of them for most of their lives.
Do the genders in many species have much interaction with each other outside of the big week?

And what about the interactions due to the product of the mating? Do both genders normally adopt the same activities in child rearing?


Unless they're in heat, most animal simply don't care about the difference. It's only us humans that make it such an issue to find the differences in order to tell males and females that they are so vastly different and therefore need to behave accordingly.
When they're not in heat do they often interact?

And only humans? I'm sure if you think for a little you can come up with a few examples of other animals that have different behaviors between genders at times when they're not having sex or rearing young.

Do the genders in many species have much interaction with each other outside of the big week?

And what about the interactions due to the product of the mating? Do both genders normally adopt the same activities in child rearing?

That would depend.... some animal are herd animals, others are loners. I don't really know the ratio between species there.


When they're not in heat do they often interact?

And only humans? I'm sure if you think for a little you can come up with a few examples of other animals that have different behaviors between genders at times when they're not having sex or rearing young.

Again, that would depend on if they're her animals or not.

The only examples I can think of right now are bees and ants. I can't think of any species of mammal that would show distinct female or male behaviour outside of sex or child rearing.

The only examples I can think of right now are bees and ants. I can't think of any species of mammal that would show distinct female or male behaviour outside of sex or child rearing.
Like female lions doing the majority of hunting for the pride for example?

Given that sex and childrearing are (combined) very large portions of many mammals lives where in many cases if they are not gestating they are either rearing or looking to get laid it is not all that easy to find mammalian behavior that does not relate to sex or rearing.

Female – Male
Emotion – Reason
Submission – Dominance
Nurture – Achievement
Passivity – Activity
Delicacy – Strength
Softness – Toughness
Beauty – Financial Power
Style – Substance
Cooperation – Competition



Your question is mostly irrelevant because it assumes that some of these qualities are opposites, which isnt the case.

For ex, you can be both delicate and strong, beautiful and rich, etc...

Current gender roles is more blurred than in past, I think and that's how it should be. There will always be "stronger" women and "emotional" men.

Your question is mostly irrelevant because it assumes that some of these qualities are opposites, which isnt the case.

For ex, you can be both delicate and strong, beautiful and rich, etc...

Current gender roles is more blurred than in past, I think and that's how it should be. There will always be "stronger" women and "emotional" men.

the beautiful/rich I think refers to what is percieved to be attractive by the other gender. Men for example tend to rate physical appearance very highly in judging how attractive a woman is, while women tend to rate power/status/wealth (which don't have to be mutual) very highly. So while a woman may be rich and beautiful, men will be more likely to be attracted by her beauty than her wealth.

Any particulary pickey people - please not the use of the words 'tend' and 'likely'.

The ones on the list I think are most ambigious are the ones about strength. If 'strength' in this context refers to strength in the context of being able to pick up a heavy rock then I think it is a reasonable generalisation to put it as a male tendancy as a man are statistically very likely to be much stronger than a women (There are exceptions, but it is rare for a woman to be stronger than even the majority of men, let alone a significant majority) . If however 'Strength' refers to mental strength - the will to live, perseverence, determination, ambition and the like then I think that both genders have over the entireity of human existance demonstrated that they are prefectly capeable of holding those traits.

the beautiful/rich I think refers to what is percieved to be attractive by the other gender. Men for example tend to rate physical appearance very highly in judging how attractive a woman is, while women tend to rate power/status/wealth (which don't have to be mutual) very highly.


That's a myth. At least for my generation.



So while a woman may be rich and beautiful, men will be more likely to be attracted by her beauty than her wealth.

Any particulary pickey people - please not the use of the words 'tend' and 'likely'.

The ones on the list I think are most ambigious are the ones about strength. If 'strength' in this context refers to strength in the context of being able to pick up a heavy rock then I think it is a reasonable generalisation to put it as a male tendancy as a man are statistically very likely to be much stronger than a women (There are exceptions, but it is rare for a woman to be stronger than even the majority of men, let alone a significant majority) . If however 'Strength' refers to mental strength - the will to live, perseverence, determination, ambition and the like then I think that both genders have over the entireity of human existance demonstrated that they are prefectly capeable of holding those traits.

physical strength may also refer to endurance. And:


WOMEN BEAT MEN ON MUSCLE ENDURANCE

16 October 2000

When performing certain isometric exercises, the endurance of women is almost twice that of men performing the same exercise, according to results presented at a meeting of international scientists. Both sexes performed the exercises at the same percentage of their maximum strength.

The study, conducted at the University of Colorado in the US, confirmed that women outlasted men by an average of 75 per cent and, importantly, showed that the reason women had longer endurance times was not due to differences in the motivation levels between men and women, or within the nervous system, but due to differences within muscle.

Researchers found that because the weaker subjects had longer endurance times, and women were generally weaker than men, the specific reason for the gender difference in endurance time may be an interaction between muscle strength and blood flow within the muscle.

However, the researchers said that other possible reasons for the difference may include the type of muscle fibres of men and women or even the differences in hormones such as oestrogen, between men and women.

http://www.mydr.com.au/default.asp?article=2482

Dominance and submission aside, do you think it is fair to say that many species on earth, perhaps the vast majority, have different behavior between their genders?
My answer is the same as Cabra's.

Granted, mating is an important part of life for sexually-reproducing life forms. But so what? I'm of the opinion that a person's biological sex is only important when it comes to functions that are DIRECTLY related to sex, so that's fine by me. I care about a person's biological sex if I am trying to mate with them or reproduce with them, because their biological sex will impact how we proceed with those activities. When it comes to working with somebody or being friends with somebody or whatever, their sex really isn't important to me at all unless they make it an issue.

As for your questions about care of young, etc., it varies widely from species to species. Some species have only one parent care for young, while others have both, and still others have neither. One thing we do know is that species which show the lowest amounts of sexual dimorphism also tend to be the species with the most balanced amount of parenting done by each sex. Compared to other animal species, humans show relatively little sexual dimorphism.

Of course, human beings have an ability to over-ride instinct to a degree that no other species (that we know of) can match. So all this talk about "instinctive" or "innate" drives has to be kept in context. Humans have a lot of impulses that we recognize as unhealthy for us, or incompatible with the way we want to live our lives. We use our judgment and our self-control to choose which impulses to follow and which to reject. We have an ability to look a long-term goals and predict which choice will best allow us to reach a distant prize, and often it is not the choice that instinctively feels the best in the moment.

I do not mean to write off our impulses or instincts as irrelevant. I simply think it is pointless to pretend that human beings (and human social structure) are controlled by instinct and impulse. To do that is to ignore the most defining characteristic of our species: our wonderful, swollen frontal cortex. :D

My answer is the same as Cabra's.

Granted, mating is an important part of life for sexually-reproducing life forms. But so what? I'm of the opinion that a person's biological sex is only important when it comes to functions that are DIRECTLY related to sex, so that's fine by me. I care about a person's biological sex if I am trying to mate with them or reproduce with them, because their biological sex will impact how we proceed with those activities. When it comes to working with somebody or being friends with somebody or whatever, their sex really isn't important to me at all unless they make it an issue.


im no expert on biology and behavior but it seems to me that if there is a big biological component in human mating behaviors we wouldnt have such a hard time figuring out when the object of our affection is receptive to our advances. and we wouldnt have so many compatibility issues with mating habits and long term relationships.

i dont know much about animal mating behavior but when was the last time a chimpanzee complained about the inadequacy of her lover's technique?

That's a myth. At least for my generation.

You missed the word 'tend' didn't you?

Which generation are you? And where are you from?

Are you saying that men do not judge women highly by looks and that women do not judge men highly by power/status/wealth?

My parents generation certinally held up similar views, and my generation - it's not quite the same but to say it is a myth denies a lot of the evidence out there in looking at peoples interactions. I have not contributed to the next generation yet (I'm 25 and ahve no desire to be doing that for a few more years) so cannot comment on the upcoming generation.


physical strength may also refer to endurance. And:
http://www.mydr.com.au/default.asp?article=2482

I am not sure exactly how to intepret that one. On one hand taskes performed at a percentage of maximum strength are fair as they compare people to a somewhat normalised standard, on the other hand people do not come across tasks proportional to their strength - they come across the same tasks.

I would be interested to see how the more powerfully built women compared to the less powerfully built women and ditto the men.

Endurance is a strange one - I have heard a number of times that women are better at it but if women are inherently significantly better at endurance than men you would reasonably expect them to perform much better at endurance sports like marathons where strength is a relatively minor factor, however amoung athletes who train at the same level this does not seem to stand up.

On the other hand - women tend to be much better at survival endurance, they tend to last much better and much longer without water and food than men. This is I suspect due to a statistically lower muscle mass, higher water retention and higher body fat ratio meaning they tend to have both slower metabolism and more reserves. So while a man is likely to perform better in a recreational run, a women is more likely to actually live through a life threatening survival situation.

The issue of emotional openness, which is connected to the use of body language, is not merely a social conditioning issue. It is a factor, but people, by the nature of their brain wiring (which differs to a certain degree between the average male and female), differ in this regard. I tell this as a person with an somewhat "extreme male" brain, as many with Asperger's have.

The belief that it is only a matter of social conditioning is one thing that causes problems for those closer to the extremes. The actual differences are not accepted, explained away, and people are assumed and expected to naturally be able to be "more normal", even if it is not the optimal and comfortable way to be for them.

I didn't say it was only a matter of social conditioning. I said I think that the average differences between men and women on this issue are largely a matter of social conditioning. I'm quite certain that there is a natural spectrum of "emotional openness" (which really isn't just about body language - it has a great deal to do with how comfortable someone is with others knowing their emotional state) in which people feel comfortable. But I think it is undeniable that, from a social point of view, women are allowed - even encouraged - to express their emotions openly, while men are pushed to stifle them.

You missed the word 'tend' didn't you?

Which generation are you? And where are you from?

Are you saying that men do not judge women highly by looks and that women do not judge men highly by power/status/wealth?


I'm 18 and you can see my location right below my nick. Girls usually date with guys whom they consider hot, cute, etc....All other criteria seems to be secondary.



My parents generation certinally held up similar views, and my generation - it's not quite the same but to say it is a myth denies a lot of the evidence out there in looking at peoples interactions. I have not contributed to the next generation yet (I'm 25 and ahve no desire to be doing that for a few more years) so cannot comment on the upcoming generation.



I am not sure exactly how to intepret that one. On one hand taskes performed at a percentage of maximum strength are fair as they compare people to a somewhat normalised standard, on the other hand people do not come across tasks proportional to their strength - they come across the same tasks.

I would be interested to see how the more powerfully built women compared to the less powerfully built women and ditto the men.

Endurance is a strange one - I have heard a number of times that women are better at it but if women are inherently significantly better at endurance than men you would reasonably expect them to perform much better at endurance sports like marathons where strength is a relatively minor factor, however amoung athletes who train at the same level this does not seem to stand up.

On the other hand - women tend to be much better at survival endurance, they tend to last much better and much longer without water and food than men. This is I suspect due to a statistically lower muscle mass, higher water retention and higher body fat ratio meaning they tend to have both slower metabolism and more reserves. So while a man is likely to perform better in a recreational run, a women is more likely to actually live through a life threatening survival situation.

And there goes some of the gender roles.

I do not support propagating roles in such a way. I simply countered the view that it is merely a social/cultural issue. People vary greatly; a large share near the average, the rest often far from it. Many men have "female"-balanced brains, as well as the opposite. I'm saying that wherever people are on the spectrum, whatever naturally emphasized abilities and preferences they have should be respected as such, instead of society trying to force them to go against them.

Precisely.

:p

you just had to throw that one in there. :D

I know, I'm a bad person, but I couldn't help it. :p

When you deal with people, it is the individual that matters, not the statistical average characteristics that apply to some group they happen to belong to.
Case closed. Hence why I find so much of this discussion pointless. What use is it to know that the average women has characteristic A and tends to have behaviour C?

It's kinda interesting to investigate just for the sake of knowing, but any real life application, especially in relationships (what kind of crap partner bases his/her view of you and behaviour towards you on statistics?), usually leads towards bad things.

Even in the case of same-sex schooling. If boys tend to enjoy this more, or work with this form of teaching more, so what? Why ignore the boys who don't, and the girls who do? Why not teach in groups based on actual personality and intelligence traits?

It seems obvious that there are tendencies towards some types of behaviours for each gender, whether that's biological, based on evolution, cultural, not actually real or whatever, I don't know. However, the various different gender roles existing in different cultures would suggest culture plays a huge part.

I'm reading a psychology book at the moment about gender and looking at true differences. Very interesting - looks indepth at the research methods behind many tests and conclusions (and the sexism in the research, firstly simply in how ignored females have been) and challenges some of the widely-held beliefs such as men being promiscuous because of the need to "sow their wild oats" while women being more monogamous so they can find a partner who will give the best chance of their child surviving. Only really past the background, so can't say too much...

Also random thing in English Lit discussion early... is it just coincidence that "****", widely regarded as the most offensive and worst swear word, is talking about a female's sexual organ? And it used to be commonly used.... so what changed?

I'm 18 and you can see my location right below my nick. Girls usually date with guys whom they consider hot, cute, etc....All other criteria seems to be secondary.


How do they define "hot"?

See... where I am.. the ackwater UK.... many many women define 'hot' on a Power/status/wealth scale, while many men define 'hot' on a 'has she got a nice rack' scale.

The defintion of 'hot' varies a lot between the genders

How do they define "hot"?

See... where I am.. the ackwater UK.... many many women define 'hot' on a Power/status/wealth scale, while many men define 'hot' on a 'has she got a nice rack' scale.

The defintion of 'hot' varies a lot between the genders

How do they define hot? Hmm. Depends. Usually a combination of athletic body and a good looking face. However, I have never heard of any girl going out with a guy because she was attracted to his power/status/wealth. Either I was lied to all the time or they all did it unconsciously or it's the truth. There may be other factors such as personality or popularity. But popularity is also correlated with looks rather than student's power within the school. And guys may also like popular girls so it's not just reserved for girls.

How do they define hot? Hmm. Depends. Usually a combination of athletic body and a good looking face. However, I have never heard of any girl going out with a guy because she was attracted to his power/status/wealth. Either I was lied to all the time or they all did it unconsciously or it's the truth. There may be other factors such as personality or popularity. But popularity is also correlated with looks rather than student's power within the school. And guys may also like popular girls so it's not just reserved for girls.

i think shx is think of those donald trump-supermodel pairings where a very rich but homely man marries a middleclass beauty.

those are very high profile but hardly common. if all a rich man wants in a wife is beauty, he can find plenty of women willing to trade their youth and beauty for a rich life. if he wants more than just beauty--intelligence, accoplishments, grace, LOVE, whatever--he has to work at it just like any other man. in the same way its not too hard for a beautiful woman to find a man willing to spend money on her. if she wants more than to be the trophywife of some creepy rich guy (anna nicole smith) she has to work at it just like any other woman.

the vast majority of people are neither very rich nor stunningly beautiful so those factors really dont come into play. an average man doesnt marry the most beautiful woman he comes across and the average woman doesnt marry the most well-to-do man she finds.

Also random thing in English Lit discussion early... is it just coincidence that "****", widely regarded as the most offensive and worst swear word, is talking about a female's sexual organ? And it used to be commonly used.... so what changed?

Probably no coincidence. It (well, cunnus) was considered a highly offensive word in Latin as well. When was it commonly used?

Probably no coincidence. It (well, cunnus) was considered a highly offensive word in Latin as well. When was it commonly used?
In Chaucer's time, apparantly. It could have been common and highly offensive, but it seems to have been just slightly crude - nowhere near as offensive as it is nowadays.

How do they define "hot"?

See... where I am.. the ackwater UK.... many many women define 'hot' on a Power/status/wealth scale, while many men define 'hot' on a 'has she got a nice rack' scale.

The defintion of 'hot' varies a lot between the genders
...and inside the genders. It varies a lot between people... it's a subjective term.

For me, I'd have to say that roles can switch around. It depends on the person really, not the gender. I live in Canada, so we have a large mix of religion and race and it's hard to say that THIS role is meant only for a man or THIS role is meant only for a woman. Things like that are too hard. Different races, religions, and even just upbringing decide what role is played by what gender.

For example: I'm a BIG fan of the Japanese culture and my preferred music is Japanese rock. Now if ANY of you have ever seen a "jrocker" then you'll know what I'm talking about. These guys are as masculine as any other man...when they're at home. Onstage and in front of the camera, some would accuse them of "crossdressing". Now, I've been told that in Japan, beauty in men has always been favored (someone correct me if I'm wrong) and that is a set belief. Here in North America, it is the opposite - men should be rugged and macho. So what is the right belief when a Japanese man moves to North America? Or when a North American man moves to Japan?

Does anyone get my point? Is it clear enough? Societies around the world have interacted to a point where we CAN'T have a set list of roles based just on gender. At least, not without SOMEONE being "politically incorrect".
....yeah I'm done. Feel free to bash my beliefs :D