| Author |
Topic:
An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
4/25 7:11am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
Jabbadabbado posted:
You absolutely might alienate your tribe because of your skin color, religion, ethnicity or national origin. We are hard wired for racism, ethnic bias and alienating just about anyone who is different. I hope no one has tried to tell you otherwise.
I think most educated people have gotten past that. And if they haven't, then they're the ones with a problem.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
4/25 7:17am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
1. Most people aren't educated. 2. I know plenty of educated racists.
Anyway, didn't mean to derail the thread.
Back to the topic. Gender identity is how you feel about yourself. Gender expression is what you want other people to think about it, by definition. The word expression implies an audience. Consequently it has to tie in at a very basic level with efforts to prove one's inclusive fitness to the tribe.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
4/25 7:29am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
- Date Edited:
4/25 7:34am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Princess_Tina
|
Jabbadabbado posted:
Gender expression is what you want other people to think about it, by definition. The word expression implies an audience.
I disagree with that. When I express my gender a certain way, it is not because of how I want people to think about it. It might just have to do with feeling comfortable, regardless of what others might end up thinking about it. And I also disagree that "expression" implies an audience. I'd still want to express myself the same way, even if I was on a desert island with no other people around.
Jabbadabbado posted:
Consequently it has to tie in at a very basic level with efforts to prove one's inclusive fitness to the tribe.
On the contrary. Some people may be concerned that expressing their gender freely might lead to their being ostracized or worse - yet at least in some jurisdictions they are at least protected from some forms of discrimination. The City and County of San Francisco, for example, has ordinances to protect people from discrimination not only based on real or perceived gender identity, but also real or perceived gender expression.
Saying that, for example, a very masculine woman or a very feminine man express their gender in such a way to "fit in" strikes me as a bit offensive, really, because such people already face so much more potential hostility in many parts of our society, and even blatant discrimination in jurisdictions where they have no specific protection against it.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
4/25 7:55am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
- Date Edited:
4/25 7:58am (2 edits total)
Edited By:
Jabbadabbado
|
|
Inclusive fitness means different things for different groups of people. Two of my friends and neighbors are a lesbian couple raising two daughters. One of the mothers is the biological mother. Other acquaintances are gay couples raising children (both are biological fathers). Clearly these are strategies for appropriating breeding resources that work for them at an individual genetic level. These kinds of child-rearing arrangements moreover can be useful for inclusive fitness and the good of the tribe. Gender expression that alienates some tribal sub groups doesn't mean it will alienate all tribal subgroups.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
4/25 8:38am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
Jabbadabbado posted:
Inclusive fitness means different things for different groups of people. Two of my friends and neighbors are a lesbian couple raising two daughters. One of the mothers is the biological mother. Other acquaintances are gay couples raising children (both are biological fathers). Clearly these are strategies for appropriating breeding resources that work for them at an individual genetic level. These kinds of child-rearing arrangements moreover can be useful for inclusive fitness and the good of the tribe. Gender expression that alienates some tribal sub groups doesn't mean it will alienate all tribal subgroups.
To me, saying that people are gay or lesbian doesn't really say a thing about their gender expression.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
4/25 9:03am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
|
Many gay men and lesbians I know telegraph the details of their sexual orientation through their gender expression. That's just the way it is. That telegraphing is part of their competitive strategy for social/economic/sexual dominance (acquiring resources for breeding). In that they are like everyone else.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
4/25 9:20am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
Jabbadabbado posted:
Many gay men and lesbians I know telegraph the details of their sexual orientation through their gender expression. That's just the way it is. That telegraphing is part of their competitive strategy for social/economic/sexual dominance (acquiring resources for breeding). In that they are like everyone else.
The fact remains that not all gay men are feminine and not all lesbians are butch or masculine. Likewise, not all feminine men are gay and not all masculine or tomboyish women are lesbian. And how I express my gender has absolutely nothing to do with any nonsensical "strategy" for any kind of "dominance". Not to mention the fact that not falling within the "normal" parameters of gender expression of Western patriarchal societies potentially subjects someone to so many disadvantages, especially in certain parts of the world, that to suggest it is part of a "strategy" for "dominance" seems very dubious at best.
I'd be much more inclined to agree that in patriarchal societies, many males may be inclined to abide by gender stereotypes in order to make themselves more attractive or appealing to the opposite sex. Women have a much wider range of "normal" gender expression -- dresses or business suits may be considered acceptable -- so it is probably less of an issue for us, even those of us who are heterosexual. But the contrary doesn't seem very likely for the very simple reason that such men wouldn't be significantly more likely to be attractive to women, and could encounter many additional disadvantages in society.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
4/25 9:24am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
The fact remains that not all gay men are feminine and not all lesbians are butch or masculine.
Notice I said telegraph the *details* of their sexual orientation. That was meant to cover the idea that there are important distinctions in the way homosexuals present themselves as part of their respective breeding/mating strategies.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
4/25 9:49am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
Jabbadabbado posted:
Notice I said telegraph the *details* of their sexual orientation. That was meant to cover the idea that there are important distinctions in the way homosexuals present themselves as part of their respective breeding/mating strategies.
And "telegraphing the details" seems a very vague description. Would you like to stick with whether or not people limit themselves to the gender stereotypes that are prevalent in patriarchal Western societies? Your argument that gender expression must have something to do with some breeding/mating strategy still strikes me as completely unconvincing. Sure, some people seem to repress their gender expression to be able to "fit in" a bit better, but when that happens, it has so much more to do with other stuff rather than any supposed "breeding/mating strategy", because outside of dating, most of our everyday relationships are not something we enter into with a "breeding/mating strategy". And gender expression is something that potentially affects all of our relationships - with our friends, family, co-workers/employees, etc. So I don't doubt that some people who don't express their gender honestly are doing so because they do not want to be perceived as belonging to a minority in society. However, I don't see it the other way around - I can not think of any example right now of someone expressing their gender in a way that doesn't feel natural only to become part of a minority that has historically faced great ostracism and discrimination in society.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
4/25 10:27am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
- Date Edited:
4/25 10:30am (2 edits total)
Edited By:
Jabbadabbado
|
Like I said, the architecture of the brain is designed to solve problems of dominance. It's not always about breeding/mating. Sometimes it's about economic and social dominance.
Gender expression is an outward display of *something.* We agree on that.
My contention is that all "outward displays" are rooted in the architecture of the brain. The brain is a two-part beast. One part makes decisions based on basic genetic drives. The second part invents explanations for why it does things for the benefit of higher level cognition. The main reason we have a part of our brain that makes excuses for the other part of the brain is for the purposes of doing language - explaining our behavior to other people. This is important for inclusive fitness and tribal membership, because tribal behavior improves the overall genetic fitness of individual members.
If you want to understand anything about human behavior, you have to understand this. One part of our brain produces behaviors. The other part invents excuses for those behaviors.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
4/25 3:47pm
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
Jabbadabbado posted:
Like I said, the architecture of the brain is designed to solve problems of dominance. It's not always about breeding/mating. Sometimes it's about economic and social dominance.
And like I said, I could accept the argument that some people suppress the gender expression that might seem more natural to them in a society without the rigid gender stereotypes of Western patriarchal societies, and that they may suppress it in an attempt not to be grouped with what has always been a minority (more frequently a mocked, ridiculed, marginalized minority) for reasons that might include acceptance, and socioeconomic status. I just don't see it working the other way around.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
4/25 7:50pm
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
Princess_Tina posted:
On the contrary. Some people may be concerned that expressing their gender freely might lead to their being ostracized or worse - yet at least in some jurisdictions they are at least protected from some forms of discrimination. The City and County of San Francisco, for example, has ordinances to protect people from discrimination not only based on real or perceived gender identity, but also real or perceived gender expression.
That seems, in my opinion, absurd to protect one specific form of expression. However, at the same time, very, very San Francisco.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Eleventh_Guard
Registered:
Dec '05
|
Date Posted:
4/25 8:42pm
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
It's not necessarily bad to "the tribe" to have some people who defy the normal gender expressions - even if it prevents them from breeding. In fact, in prehistoric times, it could be very helpful to a small group if there were a couple people outside the norms. If a small number of grown, healthy adults were not busy caring for children, the entire group could be more likely to survive, because that extra adult would be instead looking or food, fighting off predators, or something like that, far less distracted. Four sisters with infants when bears are attacking? Some little ones are going to become the bear's lunch. Three sisters with infants and one "masculine" sister to more easily get rid of the bears? The odds of the genetic line surviving have gone up. Likewise, men in "feminine" roles can be a benefit when there are young orphans, or simply too many small children to be adequately cared for by their mothers.
Doesn't really apply today, but I think that in modern times the issue of genetic survival is almost irrelevant. There are MANY ways to contribute to society and future generations that don't involve direct dealings with children. Medical research, promoting peace, helping to reduce poverty, designing more fuel-efficient cars... the list goes on and on.
Gender role and identity can't be completely separated, because it's difficult to adequately live in one's identity if one's expression and assigned role don't match. One can try, and success will vary, but if the inner identity isn't adequately expressed, the role society assigns will not be appropriate for the individual. This means receiving social cues that are very difficult to work with, dealing with a set of behavior expectations that one either can't live up to or can only with a lot of effort, and it causes general problems.
Lowbacca, I think that the protection is in response to some employers firing employees solely because they don't fit gender stereotypes closely enough. It helps close a loophole that some employers could have used to fire homosexuals, especially if the person was a femme male or a butch woman. "It wasn't hir orientation, it was hir expression." That's no longer valid.
Also, transsexuals are unemployed at high rates because it's often difficult to find a job unless one "passes" very well - and even then firing is a danger if someone in HR finds out and decides to be a jerk about it. This is more of a problem for male-to-female individuals but plenty of female-to-male folks encounter the same thing. (Part of the difference is because Western society is more tolerant of masculine females than feminine males, so early in the transition, when that's how the individual will appear, FTMs often deal with less harassment than MTFs. This doesn't mean no harassment.) Employment protection isn't a cure-all for this problem but it does mean that it's less difficult for transsexuals, and anybody who has a strongly "different" gender expression, to be gainfully employed.
Firing people who are different doesn't make them compliant with rigid gender roles and expressions. It puts them on the streets. I think most of us can agree that this is a bad thing. AFAIK employers can still enforce dress codes and appearance standards when non-discrimination laws are in place. They're not a carte blanche to wear anything and have any hairstyle and act in ways against company policy - they just mean that one can't fire a person for nebulous reasons and blame it on gender expression - an aggressive female employee, a male employee with a "musical" pattern of voice intonation, etc.
-----signature-----
A conversation on Dathomir:
Welk: My daughter did that... I am blameless. I'm not even armed.
Jacen: And you just let her do whatever she wants?
Welk: You're new here, aren't you?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
4/25 10:06pm
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
- Date Edited:
4/25 10:06pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Princess_Tina
|
Lowbacca_1977 posted:
That seems, in my opinion, absurd to protect one specific form of expression. However, at the same time, very, very San Francisco.
How is it absurd to protect against discrimination?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
4/25 10:36pm
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
|
As I said, 'to protect one specific form of expression'. It is the selectiveness that is absurd, before we even get to the nature of gov't.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
