NationStates Jolt Archive

So I have a number of friends who suscribe to a particular school of thought related to third-wave feminism which states that gender roles are completely the result of social construction. That is, there is no physiological, genetic, or evolutionary basis for differences in human behavior between men and women. This extends to all realms of human behavior.

For instance, my friends say that the reason men are typically more aggressive in social relations is a result of the way boys are typically raised. They state that hormones play no role in aggressiveness, nor do any other biological factors.

On a more extreme side, they take this concept so literally as to exclude any sort of exceptions. For instance, I voiced an observation I had that my male friends seemed to crave meat more than my female friends. I noted that this may be due to the social association of meat with maleness, but I wondered if there was an evolutionary basis: could it be that, evolutionarily speaking, men were more successful in their role as hunters due to eating more protein, which allowed them to repair muscle tissue and be more likely to survive?

A woman I know who suscribes to this school of thought proceeded to SCREAM at me. Not because my idea was flawed -- rather, because any time someone postulates that there could be a biological basis for any differences between men and women, one is promoting dangerous ideas that will lead to the domination of men over women. She went on to state that "nothing is innate," and that one should never challenge this notion.

Now, my question is this: is it a credible idea that behavioral differences in gender are totally socially constructed? Or do genes and other biological factors come into play at all? Thoughts?

Many things are innate. Difference between men and women are innate...like for example...breasts.

A woman I know who suscribes to this school of thought proceeded to SCREAM at me. Not because my idea was flawed -- rather, because any time someone postulates that there could be a biological basis for any differences between men and women, one is promoting dangerous ideas that will lead to the domination of men over women. She went on to state that "nothing is innate," and that one should never challenge this notion.
Ah, how I love human stupidity. It tastes like... Like... OH MY GOD! It tastes like Soylent Green!!! :eek2:

Right. Because varying levels of estrogen and testosterone have absolutely NO effect on the persons having a surplus or deficiency in either.


Did these friends of yours fail basic biology?

Right. Because varying levels of estrogen and testosterone have absolutely NO effect on the persons having a surplus or deficiency in either.


Did these friends of yours fail basic biology?
This^

Obviously, as any normal person can see, there are natural-biological reasons for "gender roles" and also, obviously, social reasons. It's not either - or .

hmmm.. er....

Gender roles and behavioural differences between sexes are two different things. Gender roles are constructed, biological differences can influence behaviour and there are differences between the sexes (like PMT).

But how can someone just dismiss the entire nature/nurture debate in one go?! Also saying that 'saying there is any biological basis for the difference between men and women will lead to male domination' seems to scream a victim mentality - as why should it not prove women are better?

When men start the processing of nursing newborns, birthing children, and women start the process of impregnation, then I'll accept the idea that every gender role is socially constructed.

Till then, I'm going to obey some basic laws of biology. This will include a strange obsession with one day coming home carrying a twelve-point buck and roaring semi-intelligently before the roasting.

You should use their point of view to insist that you save the environment by taking showers with them, which will save water.

You should use their point of view to insist that you save the environment by taking showers with them, which will save water.Just because they're women doesn't mean they're in to group showering.

Right. Because varying levels of estrogen and testosterone have absolutely NO effect on the persons having a surplus or deficiency in either.

Did these friends of yours fail basic biology?
I took basic biology this year, and hormones were barely covered. However, I know enough from what I learned in that class and from general knowledge about evolution to argue against their beliefs. Still, I can't articulate a very clear argument of what is the result of biology, and what is the result of social influences. Then again, I guess that's the ongoing debate of nature v. nurture. It just seems that they've decided to settle on one side rather prematurely.

I guess I'm just curious to see if there is anyone else who holds similar beliefs, and what people think the root of gender roles really are.

*lets the woman on her period out of the sharks cage*

well if thats true they can deal with her and I'm going pub

Many things are innate. Difference between men and women are innate...like for example...breasts.

you have clearly never seen a guy out of shape:p

hmmm.. er....

Gender roles and behavioural differences between sexes are two different things. Gender roles are constructed, biological differences can influence behaviour and there are differences between the sexes (like PMT).
But aren't gender roles specifically tied to behavior? For instance, the typical female gender role, at least in the western world, has been of a nurturer, and a person submissive to men. Meanhile, the typical male gender role is one of an aggressive, dominant individual. Aren't the differences betwee those two roles largely behavioral?

I took basic biology this year, and hormones were barely covered. However, I know enough from what I learned in that class and from general knowledge about evolution to argue against their beliefs. Still, I can't articulate a very clear argument of what is the result of biology, and what is the result of social influences. Then again, I guess that's the ongoing debate of nature v. nurture. It just seems that they've decided to settle on one side rather prematurely.

I guess I'm just curious to see if there is anyone else who holds similar beliefs, and what people think the root of gender roles really are.

I think the answer generally agreed on for most human behaviors is "eh....some of both." Your friends have a point insofar as I suspect that "nurture" accounts for a lot more of what we think of as gendered behavior than we've traditionally been led to believe, but once you start arguing that anything is absolutely true without any exceptions whatsoever, you generally end up sounding silly.

you have clearly never seen a guy out of shape:p
omg

hahah hahhahah haa l0ollllllllllllllllll hahhahahahahah

But aren't gender roles specifically tied to behavior? For instance, the typical female gender role, at least in the western world, has been of a nurturer, and a person submissive to men. Meanhile, the typical male gender role is one of an aggressive, dominant individual. Aren't the differences betwee those two roles largely behavioral?

Are you saying innate behaviour defines the role, or the role defines how you behave? That is - are you being submissive because you are expected to be as a woman, or you are a defined as a woman because you are submissive?

Technically, 'gender' is behavioural, and is to do with attitudes and social expectations... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender - as opposed to sex. As to whether gender roles should be assigned on the basis of sex, I'm not sure whether these days it makes a lot of sense apart from maintaining traditions.

Just because they're women doesn't mean they're in to group showering.

You never know until you ask.

But aren't gender roles specifically tied to behavior? For instance, the typical female gender role, at least in the western world, has been of a nurturer, and a person submissive to men. Meanhile, the typical male gender role is one of an aggressive, dominant individual. Aren't the differences betwee those two roles largely behavioral?

no men are iirc a third stronger than women physically and our brains are (supposedly) good at remembering where we left shit or something like that

whereas women are more social creatures who don't have the same fight or flight responses due to the bratty kid in tow

hmmm.. er....

Gender roles and behavioural differences between sexes are two different things. Gender roles are constructed, biological differences can influence behaviour and there are differences between the sexes (like PMT).

But how can someone just dismiss the entire nature/nurture debate in one go?! Also saying that 'saying there is any biological basis for the difference between men and women will lead to male domination' seems to scream a victim mentality - as why should it not prove women are better?

You were doing so well -- recognizing that gender roles and biological differences are distinct subjects -- and then you go and use a stupid phrase like "victim mentality." Guess what, sparky, people who belong to groups that have been historically victimized and oppressed aren't being irrational when then they are sensitive about subjects that have previously laid the foundation for that victimization and oppression.

You never know until you ask.This is true.
....
Would you like to take a shower with me?

You were doing so well -- recognizing that gender roles and biological differences are distinct subjects -- and then you go and use a stupid phrase like "victim mentality." Guess what, sparky, people who belong to groups that have been historically victimized and oppressed aren't being irrational when then they are sensitive about subjects that have previously laid the foundation for that victimization and oppression.

Thanks, I suppose I get a C+ 'must try harder not to slip into insensitive invective' :p

There is being sensitive, and there is being irrationally sensitive. I was pointing out a flaw in the logic of saying any biological difference necessarily implied the superiority of a particular sex. To assume it does, and to your detriment, seems counter-productive.

So I have a number of friends who suscribe to a particular school of thought related to third-wave feminism which states that gender roles are completely the result of social construction. That is, there is no physiological, genetic, or evolutionary basis for differences in human behavior between men and women. This extends to all realms of human behavior.

For instance, my friends say that the reason men are typically more aggressive in social relations is a result of the way boys are typically raised. They state that hormones play no role in aggressiveness, nor do any other biological factors.

On a more extreme side, they take this concept so literally as to exclude any sort of exceptions. For instance, I voiced an observation I had that my male friends seemed to crave meat more than my female friends. I noted that this may be due to the social association of meat with maleness, but I wondered if there was an evolutionary basis: could it be that, evolutionarily speaking, men were more successful in their role as hunters due to eating more protein, which allowed them to repair muscle tissue and be more likely to survive?

A woman I know who suscribes to this school of thought proceeded to SCREAM at me. Not because my idea was flawed -- rather, because any time someone postulates that there could be a biological basis for any differences between men and women, one is promoting dangerous ideas that will lead to the domination of men over women. She went on to state that "nothing is innate," and that one should never challenge this notion.

Now, my question is this: is it a credible idea that behavioral differences in gender are totally socially constructed? Or do genes and other biological factors come into play at all? Thoughts?


I was pretty convinced about nurture trumping nature, until I had children, and saw how they were literally born with particular personalities.

Ah, good old "Nature v. Nurture," where picking one side or the other is futile. Think thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Maybe try some Dr. Dewey. We develop individually, but within a social context. Kind of a warp and woof sort of thing. Next, we'll be getting another "liberal v. conservative" debate :tongue:

But aren't gender roles specifically tied to behavior? For instance, the typical female gender role, at least in the western world, has been of a nurturer, and a person submissive to men. Meanhile, the typical male gender role is one of an aggressive, dominant individual. Aren't the differences betwee those two roles largely behavioral?
This is still too simplistic -- though much better than the ridiculously simplistic view of your friends.

As was pointed out earlier, gender roles and gender behavior are not the same thing. One is an entirely invented social convention that varies from one society to another. The other is a combination of innate and learned behaviors generated by the individual, and the same varieties of behaviors appear in all the different kinds of societies regardless of their gender role conventions.

Human gender identity and behavior is a complex construct of many biological, psychological, and societal factors. And each of those factors is variable as well. All the contributive factors within each individual fall somewhere along a spectrum.

For example, it is false to say that submissiveness is a definitional female characteristic because there are many, many assertive women and submissive men. Their ways of expressing their assertiveness and submissiveness may be different (or they may not), but that still does not mean that female = submissive and male = assertive. An assertive woman does not lose her recognition as female, and a submissive man is not going to be mistaken for a woman.

you have clearly never seen a guy out of shape:p

Or a guy from Columbus, OH, where we have medically significant quantities of female hormones in the water.

pffft who cares?

the trick is to decide for yourself just what parts of sex roles make sense for you and what needs to be disregarded. (and if you are a parent to allow your child to figure out his/her own roles).

no one is completely "male" or "female" as defined by society. its all tendencies and options. if we all relaxed and went with what works for us individually we would all be more happy.

Gender Roles are bullshit.

Gender Roles are bullshit.

Nein.

all gender based behaviors are culture specific, culture learned, and male or female, gay or streight, phoney bullshit putons.

everyone has an ego, whatever is between their legs, and it is only learned behavior that determines how this is expressed relative thereto.

Gender Roles are bullshit.

^This.

SaintB and Bottle FTW.

I think those friends fell for the "what's natural must be good" fallacy. Many people do. It's logical consequence is "What's bad must be unnatural and artificial".

Both assumptions are extremely silly. Naturally, we freeze to death in winter. Naturally, we would die at around 30.

Just because something is caused by a natural phenomenon (like, for example, different levels of hormones, etc.) doesn't make it automatically "good" or "right". Males tend to be more aggressive, yes, and that's perfectly normal. However, society accepting and condoning it should not be normal. It's not a positive character trait, and it doesn't warrant any kind of encouragement.

Gender Roles are bullshit.

^^ This.

Gender roles are a social construct.
Gender differences are natural, but to derive certain roles from that difference is a society thing... and a bloody stupid one at that.

Gender roles are out dated, sexist, bullshit.

So I have a number of friends who suscribe to a particular school of thought related to third-wave feminism which states that gender roles are completely the result of social construction. That is, there is no physiological, genetic, or evolutionary basis for differences in human behavior between men and women. This extends to all realms of human behavior.

For instance, my friends say that the reason men are typically more aggressive in social relations is a result of the way boys are typically raised. They state that hormones play no role in aggressiveness, nor do any other biological factors.

On a more extreme side, they take this concept so literally as to exclude any sort of exceptions. For instance, I voiced an observation I had that my male friends seemed to crave meat more than my female friends. I noted that this may be due to the social association of meat with maleness, but I wondered if there was an evolutionary basis: could it be that, evolutionarily speaking, men were more successful in their role as hunters due to eating more protein, which allowed them to repair muscle tissue and be more likely to survive?

A woman I know who suscribes to this school of thought proceeded to SCREAM at me. Not because my idea was flawed -- rather, because any time someone postulates that there could be a biological basis for any differences between men and women, one is promoting dangerous ideas that will lead to the domination of men over women. She went on to state that "nothing is innate," and that one should never challenge this notion.

Now, my question is this: is it a credible idea that behavioral differences in gender are totally socially constructed? Or do genes and other biological factors come into play at all? Thoughts?
Of course your strawfeminist friend Annecdotia screamed at you and demanded that all dissent against the Radical Feminist Agenda be crushed. She was probably cranky from discomfort because her bra was on fire and she'd just had an elective third-trimester abortion. Sheesh, when will you men learn.

Of course your strawfeminist friend Annecdotia screamed at you and demanded that all dissent against the Radical Feminist Agenda be crushed. She was probably cranky from discomfort because her bra was on fire and she'd just had an elective third-trimester abortion. Sheesh, when will you men learn.

Bottle, you are amazing.

The main problem is the misconception that gender roles are obligatory. Because of physical (and probably psycological) differences it is sensible that certain positions in society will TEND TO be filled by certain genders. Society then exagerates the extent of this natural trend. So when a certain jobs (say politician for example) should be filled by 60% men and 40% women (or vice versa), society will exagerate this trend to 90/10. Though I agree we should limit the effect society has on choosing these roles, we should not deny the natural trend.

So I have a number of friends who suscribe to a particular school of thought related to third-wave feminism which states that gender roles are completely the result of social construction. That is, there is no physiological, genetic, or evolutionary basis for differences in human behavior between men and women. This extends to all realms of human behavior.

For instance, my friends say that the reason men are typically more aggressive in social relations is a result of the way boys are typically raised. They state that hormones play no role in aggressiveness, nor do any other biological factors.

On a more extreme side, they take this concept so literally as to exclude any sort of exceptions. For instance, I voiced an observation I had that my male friends seemed to crave meat more than my female friends. I noted that this may be due to the social association of meat with maleness, but I wondered if there was an evolutionary basis: could it be that, evolutionarily speaking, men were more successful in their role as hunters due to eating more protein, which allowed them to repair muscle tissue and be more likely to survive?

A woman I know who suscribes to this school of thought proceeded to SCREAM at me. Not because my idea was flawed -- rather, because any time someone postulates that there could be a biological basis for any differences between men and women, one is promoting dangerous ideas that will lead to the domination of men over women. She went on to state that "nothing is innate," and that one should never challenge this notion.

Now, my question is this: is it a credible idea that behavioral differences in gender are totally socially constructed? Or do genes and other biological factors come into play at all? Thoughts?

There was an interesting study done by Simon Baron-Cohen on which showed there is a biological component that came through even at an early age. That's not to say that you don't have control over your life and body but at the same time neither is correct at one extreme or the other. It is a mixture of biological, social and individual choice to conform not not conform to societal expectations.

A woman I know who suscribes to this school of thought proceeded to SCREAM at me.

While I wasn't actually there, so can't really understand exactly what went down, this sounds like a person who's got emotional problems, and should be avoided. If I were involved in a calm ration discussion of such issues, as I have been many times, and someone actually screamed at me out of the blue, I'd be out of there.

any time someone postulates that there could be a biological basis for any differences between men and women, one is promoting dangerous ideas that will lead to the domination of men over women. She went on to state that "nothing is innate," and that one should never challenge this notion.

Now, my question is this: is it a credible idea that behavioral differences in gender are totally socially constructed? Or do genes and other biological factors come into play at all? Thoughts?

Complicated. 1st off, there is never any idea that should not be challenged. Ever.

All ideas need to be challenged. The marketplace of ideas dies, and, we end up with groupthink otherwise.

As for gender based differences, sex based differences, and nature vs nature, it's a bit of A, a bit of B, and a bit of C, "plus alpha". Human individuals are complex organisims that are not, and, at least for the forseeable future, cannot be completely understood. That being said, there are certainly both biological and social differences. I know women who excel in "male" roles (engineering being a great example) and men who excell in "female" roles.

The simple answer is "it just ain't that simple".

pffft who cares?

the trick is to decide for yourself just what parts of sex roles make sense for you and what needs to be disregarded. (and if you are a parent to allow your child to figure out his/her own roles).

no one is completely "male" or "female" as defined by society. its all tendencies and options. if we all relaxed and went with what works for us individually we would all be more happy.

This hasn't been '^ this''d enough.

So I have a number of friends who suscribe to a particular school of thought related to third-wave feminism which states that gender roles are completely the result of social construction. That is, there is no physiological, genetic, or evolutionary basis for differences in human behavior between men and women. This extends to all realms of human behavior.

For instance, my friends say that the reason men are typically more aggressive in social relations is a result of the way boys are typically raised. They state that hormones play no role in aggressiveness, nor do any other biological factors.

On a more extreme side, they take this concept so literally as to exclude any sort of exceptions. For instance, I voiced an observation I had that my male friends seemed to crave meat more than my female friends. I noted that this may be due to the social association of meat with maleness, but I wondered if there was an evolutionary basis: could it be that, evolutionarily speaking, men were more successful in their role as hunters due to eating more protein, which allowed them to repair muscle tissue and be more likely to survive?

A woman I know who suscribes to this school of thought proceeded to SCREAM at me. Not because my idea was flawed -- rather, because any time someone postulates that there could be a biological basis for any differences between men and women, one is promoting dangerous ideas that will lead to the domination of men over women. She went on to state that "nothing is innate," and that one should never challenge this notion.

Now, my question is this: is it a credible idea that behavioral differences in gender are totally socially constructed? Or do genes and other biological factors come into play at all? Thoughts?

No, there are differences. A lot does have to do with socialization. Men tend to be more physical. Testosterone tends to make one aggressive. We see this in people who take steroids. The so called "Roid Rage" is because your body can't tell the difference.

With regard to intelligence though I think any sex can do any job it doesn't matter. Are men better mechanics simply because they are male, no, flat out, no. If they excel at something is is because that person wishes to or because that person has a "natural" talent.

Gender roles aren't necessarily bad, outdated, etc..

They can, infact, be good for an individual - As long as you as a person have the right to choose the role freely.


I am therefore whemenently against people who despise other people because of the role the person they're despising has taken - Regardless of the gender.

More specifically, women should have the right to be business tycoons, soldiers or stay-at-home moms with huge number of children without attracting scorn from their peers. Same naturally applies to men as well.


In short: If a woman or a man enjoys a stereotypical gender role and it's his or her choice it shouldn't be any kind of issue to anyone.

Gender roles aren't necessarily bad, outdated, etc..

They can, infact, be good for an individual - As long as you as a person have the right to choose the role freely.


I am therefore whemenently against people who despise other people because of the role the person they're despising has taken - Regardless of the gender.

More specifically, women should have the right to be business tycoons, soldiers or stay-at-home moms with huge number of children without attracting scorn from their peers. Same naturally applies to men as well.


In short: If a woman or a man enjoys a stereotypical gender role and it's his or her choice it shouldn't be any kind of issue to anyone.

True, but.... doesn't that sort of, you know, not make it a "gender role" any more if either gender do it?

Ah, good old "Nature v. Nurture," where picking one side or the other is futile. Think thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Maybe try some Dr. Dewey. We develop individually, but within a social context. Kind of a warp and woof sort of thing. Next, we'll be getting another "liberal v. conservative" debate :tongue:

Well, beats the "Star trek vs. Star wars" debate.

Well, beats the "Star trek vs. Star wars" debate.

Damn straight. At least with Nature vs Nurture, there is something to discuss and work out the finer details of. With ST v. SW, we all know that SW would beat down ST without even blinking.

Betty Friedan, groundbreaking feminist leader, was aware of many unfair social inequalities involving gender, but remained rational and objective about the givenness of gender roles.

She angered supporters by saying that she and her daughter both valued being wives and mothers, and going so far as to suppose that most woimen felt the same.

Here is a one hour video clip, of poor quality
http://www.archive.org/details/openmind_ep492

Any sort of set 'role' expectations for people is fairly ridiculous. What do we need these expectations for? Certain expectations (that you won't murder me) apply across the board and are enforced by society, and certainly serve some purpose. Others, such as expecting women to want children, or expecting men to suck it up and not cry...these are only useful insofar as comedy is mostly predicated on people stepping outside of their roles, and we'd have to work a bit harder to be funny if we stopped pushing one another into little boxes marked 'male' and 'female'.

Every time I hear a little kid tell another little kid that something is for 'girls' or 'boys', I want to slap the adult that kid is imitating. Kids don't give a fuck, they just experience...until WE push that shit on them either validating their choices or condemning them.

Every time I hear a little kid tell another little kid that something is for 'girls' or 'boys', I want to slap the adult that kid is imitating. Kids don't give a fuck, they just experience...until WE push that shit on them either validating their choices or condemning them.
My daughter figured out how to shut them up when she was 4.

Adult: here sweetie play with this doll
My kid: I want to play with this car
Adult: that's a boy toy
My kid: *examines car closely*
Adult: what are you doing?
My kid: looking for it's penis
Adult: :eek: it....doesn't have one
My kid: then it's not a boy
Adult: no, um......it's a toy for boys
My kid: Nuh-huh, it's a car.

My daughter figured out how to shut them up when she was 4.

Adult: here sweetie play with this doll
My kid: I want to play with this car
Adult: that's a boy toy
My kid: *examines car closely*
Adult: what are you doing?
My kid: looking for it's penis
Adult: :eek: it....doesn't have one
My kid: then it's not a boy
Adult: no, um......it's a toy for boys
My kid: Nuh-huh, it's a car.

Fun :D

My daughter figured out how to shut them up when she was 4.

Adult: here sweetie play with this doll
My kid: I want to play with this car
Adult: that's a boy toy
My kid: *examines car closely*
Adult: what are you doing?
My kid: looking for it's penis
Adult: :eek: it....doesn't have one
My kid: then it's not a boy
Adult: no, um......it's a toy for boys
My kid: Nuh-huh, it's a car.
It always amazes me how many adults feel the need to enforce gender roles that they will simultaneously insist are "innate."

It always amazes me how many adults feel the need to enforce gender roles that they will simultaneously insist are "innate."

Right...I mean, if these roles were innate, we could just leave kids up to whatever, and they'd turn out properly male and female. Bobby would always choose the firetruck and Sally would always choose the dollhouse.

Toys R Us annoys me. You walk down the aisle...on one side, everything is pink. Only little girls are depicted on the boxes. On the other side, dark reds, blues, greens...no pink. Little boys on all the boxes.

There are a few brands that show boys and girls playing with the contents of the box. How hard is that? Yes. Boys like Easy-Bake ovens too. Yes, girls will probably want to play with the Home Depot tool bench with the cool circular saw and drill press. But if you give a kid the wrong 'gendered' toy at a b-day party, there WILL be talk.

I don't think it's gotten any better in terms of social cues...not when it comes to toys and fashion, two of the strongest ways to 'nurture' gender roles.

My daughter figured out how to shut them up when she was 4.

Adult: here sweetie play with this doll
My kid: I want to play with this car
Adult: that's a boy toy
My kid: *examines car closely*
Adult: what are you doing?
My kid: looking for it's penis
Adult: :eek: it....doesn't have one
My kid: then it's not a boy
Adult: no, um......it's a toy for boys
My kid: Nuh-huh, it's a car.

Your kid is too cool for words. :D

Ah, good old "Nature v. Nurture," where picking one side or the other is futile. Think thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Maybe try some Dr. Dewey. We develop individually, but within a social context. Kind of a warp and woof sort of thing. Next, we'll be getting another "liberal v. conservative" debate :tongue:

As I like to point out to my psychology students - the nature vs nurture debate is over - we now talk about genexenvironment interaction. That is biological (often genetic) predispositions interact with environmental (social and physical environment) factors. There are no aspects of behaviour which are 100% defined by our genetics/biology with no environmental input - there are similarly no aspects of our behaviour which are 100% defined by environment since we are active, not passive participants in our experiences.

^^ This.

Gender roles are a social construct.
Gender differences are natural, but to derive certain roles from that difference is a society thing... and a bloody stupid one at that.

It's also important to note that traits on which gender differences are found are normally distributed - ie a bell shaped curve. This means that even if the difference is significant on average, there will be a lot of overlap in the populations - the difference between any two members of this group may be non-existent or indeed in the opposite direction.

Damn straight. At least with Nature vs Nurture, there is something to discuss and work out the finer details of. With ST v. SW, we all know that SW would beat down ST without even blinking.

Them's fightin' words.

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/g6667543g63.gif

Them's fightin' words.

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/g6667543g63.gif

Why do I have green claw-like hands in this picture?

Them's fightin' words.

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/g6667543g63.gif

That is the single greatest SW vs. ST thing I've ever seen.:D

My daughter figured out how to shut them up when she was 4.

Adult: here sweetie play with this doll
My kid: I want to play with this car
Adult: that's a boy toy
My kid: *examines car closely*
Adult: what are you doing?
My kid: looking for it's penis
Adult: :eek: it....doesn't have one
My kid: then it's not a boy
Adult: no, um......it's a toy for boys
My kid: Nuh-huh, it's a car.

*continues to love Smunklings*

Right. Because varying levels of estrogen and testosterone have absolutely NO effect on the persons having a surplus or deficiency in either. Did these friends of yours fail basic biology?

Apparently, but the 'A' they got in Ideological Adherence probably balances it out, and that's the important grade.

That is the single greatest SW vs. ST thing I've ever seen.:D
There's actually a wonderful analysis by someone with a British accent that pretty well is THE last word in the debate (yeah, yeah, "link it!" I'm trying to find the @#$% thing :tongue:) . . . Anyway . . .

There's actually a wonderful analysis by someone with a British accent that pretty well is THE last word in the debate (yeah, yeah, "link it!" I'm trying to find the @#$% thing :tongue:) . . . Anyway . . .

Yeah, given the Executor is approximately 10 miles long, and is the largest ship (aside from the Death Star) in almost any sci-fi ever, it's not really that much of a contest.

However, ST v. SW, I feel like this:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3263/2912236527_229f9762e2_o.jpg

Yeah, given the Executor is approximately 10 miles long, and is the largest ship (aside from the Death Star) in almost any sci-fi ever, it's not really that much of a contest.

However, ST v. SW, I feel like this:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3263/2912236527_229f9762e2_o.jpg

I'ts more of a philosophical exploration of the two franchises. Not surprizingly, SW comes up empty*, while ST was a true ground-breaker.

*but not without due credit for revolutionizing cinematic special effects.

My daughter figured out how to shut them up when she was 4.

Adult: here sweetie play with this doll
My kid: I want to play with this car
Adult: that's a boy toy
My kid: *examines car closely*
Adult: what are you doing?
My kid: looking for it's penis
Adult: :eek: it....doesn't have one
My kid: then it's not a boy
Adult: no, um......it's a toy for boys
My kid: Nuh-huh, it's a car.

good thing the adult didn't just point to the tailpipe... :D

good thing the adult didn't just point to the tailpipe... :DUm, yeah . . . so . . . back on topic.
What are the gender role implications of Star Wars?
What are the gender role implications of Star Trek?
Contrast and compare :tongue:

Meh, when my brother was a kid, his favorite color was pink (he had a 'pink blankie' when he was very young, which was basically this ratty old blanket we had lying around before he was born that he developed an affection for) and had an Easy Bake Oven (whats girly about wanting brownies ffs?) and to this day still bakes.

He is also a jacked 18 year old athelete who if you told was acting like a girl would knock the living shit out of you:D

Um, yeah . . . so . . . back on topic.
What are the gender role implications of Star Wars?
What are the gender role implications of Star Trek?
Contrast and compare :tongue:

Gender rolls in Star Trek?
the first female captain in the franchise... gets her ship lost!

Meh, when my brother was a kid, his favorite color was pink (he had a 'pink blankie' when he was very young, which was basically this ratty old blanket we had lying around before he was born that he developed an affection for) and had an Easy Bake Oven (whats girly about wanting brownies ffs?) and to this day still bakes.

He is also a jacked 18 year old athelete who if you told was acting like a girl would knock the living shit out of you:D

never understood that.

after all, if 'baking' and 'cooking' were girly stuff... why are there so many male chefs and bakers?

and for your amusement (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaxvOB7uAXQ)...

never understood that.

after all, if 'baking' and 'cooking' were girly stuff... why are there so many male chefs and bakers?

and for your amusement (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaxvOB7uAXQ)...

I cook. All the time.

And Im quite good.

I know, at least in Sicilian American culture, the men are expected to be competent cooks. Stereotpyically, all Italian men are :D

after all, if 'baking' and 'cooking' were girly stuff... why are there so many male chefs and bakers?um... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality)

/stereotype

I think those friends fell for the "what's natural must be good" fallacy. Many people do. It's logical consequence is "What's bad must be unnatural and artificial".

Both assumptions are extremely silly. Naturally, we freeze to death in winter. Naturally, we would die at around 30.

Just because something is caused by a natural phenomenon (like, for example, different levels of hormones, etc.) doesn't make it automatically "good" or "right". Males tend to be more aggressive, yes, and that's perfectly normal. However, society accepting and condoning it should not be normal. It's not a positive character trait, and it doesn't warrant any kind of encouragement.
^This.

I was just thinking today how irritating parents can be by "toughing up" little boys. Why? So they'll "fit in"? With who? People like the parents' friends? There's many positives to the way many male brains are wired. It's insane to ignore those and instead cultivate the shortcomings.

Right...I mean, if these roles were innate, we could just leave kids up to whatever, and they'd turn out properly male and female. Bobby would always choose the firetruck and Sally would always choose the dollhouse.

Toys R Us annoys me. You walk down the aisle...on one side, everything is pink. Only little girls are depicted on the boxes. On the other side, dark reds, blues, greens...no pink. Little boys on all the boxes.

There are a few brands that show boys and girls playing with the contents of the box. How hard is that? Yes. Boys like Easy-Bake ovens too. Yes, girls will probably want to play with the Home Depot tool bench with the cool circular saw and drill press. But if you give a kid the wrong 'gendered' toy at a b-day party, there WILL be talk.

I don't think it's gotten any better in terms of social cues...not when it comes to toys and fashion, two of the strongest ways to 'nurture' gender roles.

That's one of the wonderful things about life in Norway. I've been to several birthday parties for kids and people buy what the kids are in to. Sure, most of the little girls wanted pink, princessy things and most of the boys wanted cars and trains. But I also took care of a little boy who had his own cooking set, and people knew he loved cooking so they bought him accessories.

No one batted an eye, no one made a joke or snickered. Some boys like cooking, and that's fine. No one says anything when a boy carries a doll around here either.

I hope this is a Norwegian trait in general, and not just the community I've been living in.

I cook. All the time. And Im quite good. I know, at least in Sicilian American culture, the men are expected to be competent cooks. Stereotypically, all Italian men are :D

I cook for myself and for friends all the time, and I'm pretty good at it, if I do say so myself. My father taught my brothers and I how to cook when we were teenagers, on the basis that inviting a chick over and cooking for her is a good dating technique, and also it's useful to know how to do for yourself. Eating out constantly gets expensive.

Gender rolls in Star Trek?
the first female captain in the franchise... gets her ship lost!Yep, thought of that. On the other hand, why did Princess Leia need rescuing?

Yep, thought of that. On the other hand, why did Princess Leia need rescuing?

well, TBH, she did help rescue her rescuers.

well, TBH, she did help rescue her rescuers.

"Into the garbage chute, flyboy!" Good stuff :tongue:

um... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality)

/stereotype

Heh, my personal experience actually supports your joke.
The only male chef I know is actually gay...

Why do I have green claw-like hands in this picture?

Because the gloves are off.

So I have a number of friends who suscribe to a particular school of thought related to third-wave feminism which states that gender roles are completely the result of social construction. That is, there is no physiological, genetic, or evolutionary basis for differences in human behavior between men and women. This extends to all realms of human behavior.

For instance, my friends say that the reason men are typically more aggressive in social relations is a result of the way boys are typically raised. They state that hormones play no role in aggressiveness, nor do any other biological factors.

On a more extreme side, they take this concept so literally as to exclude any sort of exceptions. For instance, I voiced an observation I had that my male friends seemed to crave meat more than my female friends. I noted that this may be due to the social association of meat with maleness, but I wondered if there was an evolutionary basis: could it be that, evolutionarily speaking, men were more successful in their role as hunters due to eating more protein, which allowed them to repair muscle tissue and be more likely to survive?

A woman I know who suscribes to this school of thought proceeded to SCREAM at me. Not because my idea was flawed -- rather, because any time someone postulates that there could be a biological basis for any differences between men and women, one is promoting dangerous ideas that will lead to the domination of men over women. She went on to state that "nothing is innate," and that one should never challenge this notion.

Now, my question is this: is it a credible idea that behavioral differences in gender are totally socially constructed? Or do genes and other biological factors come into play at all? Thoughts?

From inside my profession I can state that there are differences between men and women. And I doubt if it is related to social issues.

First I want to make it clear that women and men are not alike but have equal worth.

I'm a usability engineer and from analysis (not conducted by me) we know by instance that women perform lower on small screens than men. When women get big screens, their performance will shove to the performance of men, while the last will not gain any significant advantage when they receive their big ones.

It's just one example, but I could give you dozen other ones. Just to make clear there are real differences.

Yeah, given the Executor is approximately 10 miles long, and is the largest ship (aside from the Death Star) in almost any sci-fi ever, it's not really that much of a contest.

However, ST v. SW, I feel like this:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3263/2912236527_229f9762e2_o.jpg

Who said you would be fighting the Federation?

http://www.infinityltd.org/images/maulofborg.jpg

You are fucked. Resistance is futile.

I cook for myself and for friends all the time, and I'm pretty good at it, if I do say so myself. My father taught my brothers and I how to cook when we were teenagers, on the basis that inviting a chick over and cooking for her is a good dating technique, and also it's useful to know how to do for yourself. Eating out constantly gets expensive.

Youre also from the south, correct? Men knowing how to cook seems to be a trait in the south. But thats just my experiance.

From inside my profession I can state that there are differences between men and women. And I doubt if it is related to social issues.

First I want to make it clear that women and men are not alike but have equal worth.

I'm a usability engineer and from analysis (not conducted by me) we know by instance that women perform lower on small screens than men. When women get big screens, their performance will shove to the performance of men, while the last will not gain any significant advantage when they receive their big ones.

It's just one example, but I could give you dozen other ones. Just to make clear there are real differences.

...um, I don't think anyone was disputing that. The discussion is about why these differences exist, not, "Hey, can anyone think of a way in which most women act differently than most men?"

Of course your strawfeminist friend Annecdotia screamed at you and demanded that all dissent against the Radical Feminist Agenda be crushed. She was probably cranky from discomfort because her bra was on fire and she'd just had an elective third-trimester abortion. Sheesh, when will you men learn.
:hail: :D

It always amazes me how many adults feel the need to enforce gender roles that they will simultaneously insist are "innate."
Well, duh, Bottle. How else are they going to maintain the illusion that a taste for cars is inherently male (as if it evolved somehow), if they don't resort to brainwashing.