| Author |
Topic:
An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
5/5 9:08am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
king_alvarez posted:
I wouldn't be shocked to find that many social pressures or social constructs are the result of reinforcing natural predispositions at an aggregate level.
For example, do women like to wear makeup because they want to fit the conditioned stereotype for women, or does the stereotype become conditioned because the average woman is more likely to be concerned with her appearance, or is there even a difference? It's basically a chicken or the egg question.
In my view, there really isn't any way we could possibly know how much of "gender behaviour" is the result of our society's pressure to conform to gender stereotypes, until the day should come when most parents gave their kids total freedom to choose the kinds of toys, clothes, and personal accessories they preferred, and there was no peer pressure in school to fit in with any kind of gender stereotype. Only then could kids have total freedom in choosing their gender expression and behaviour totally free from pressure.
And I don't really expect we would see such a scenario in Western society within my lifetime.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
chibiangi
Registered:
Jun '02
|
Date Posted:
5/5 11:47am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
Considering that men created "make up" to be worn by themselves and it has only been within the century or so that it became associated predominately with women, I would say that particular argument really doesn't hold water. That is the problem with assigning gender with certain behaviors. Most behaviors are learned and we are conditioned to accept them as normal. What is considered normal changes over time so that men wearing powered wigs, stockings, and a face full of makeup would be considered femme today while during its time, it was considered highly fashionable and an indication of class.
-----signature-----
Talk nerdy to me.
mujaki na kao de boku ni hohoemu
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Sauntaero
Registered:
Jul '03
|
Date Posted:
5/6 9:17am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
The 'nature versus nurture' argument, which is what king_alvarez is suggesting with the make-up example, is the classic disputation in sociology, and everyone will disagree about how much of each goes into the formation of social norms. Chicken and egg--did stereotypes form because of 'natural' laws of behaviour or have the behaviours persisted because of the stereotypes? It can also have a snowball effect, as the stereotypes then perpetuate the behaviours so they seem like natural laws. So it's more of a question of to what extent can social norms be evaluated on the basis of natural laws.
I think a strain of post-modern thought is that almost anything called a natural law could be proven to be a product of social conditioning. Stereotypes are formed because a behaviour, perceived as a 'predisposition,' is deemed beneficial to the social unity. Humans create their own social rules to impose an order on the external world, rather than an external natural order imposing itself on humans.
For example, what would it mean to be a 'natural' human? We all have different ideas of what would be natural for us.
Myself, I would say it's perfectly natural for a girl not to wear make-up, for a woman to do the same manual work as a man. Because that's what I think comes naturally to me, which I would also have to say is entirely a product of my conditioning.
-----signature-----
I just hope I'm around to see the day the New Republic catches up with you.
Whether they give you a medal or just shoot you--either way, it'll be a terrific show.
Silvius hic Bonus est, sed Brito est Silvius idem: nemo bonus Brito est. --Ausonius, Epigram
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Eleventh_Guard
Registered:
Dec '05
|
Date Posted:
5/6 9:47am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
It could also be that certain behaviors made perfect sense back in the Stone Age and no longer are necessary. Example: tending to small children. In 15000 BC or whenever, of course it would be logical for women to do this most of the time. They can't go to the store and buy Enfamil. And survival meant hunting (and possibly fighting predators), and in an era without gyms and when having children very young was necessary for the continuation of the tribe, men WOULD be physically better able to do that. The hormonal balance differences between men and women made more of a difference when there was little time for personal preference and effort to compensate.
Now? It isn't necessary, but behaviors and roles that were at one time vital to survival can easily become entrenched, and when they're backed up by religions and cultures that sprang up in the meantime and still persist to an extent today, it's very difficult to get rid of that. Especially since there is <i>some</i> limited biological basis for it. Yes, men are very slightly more geared for certain physical activities. But a 6'2" person is also better suited for them than a 5'6" person of the same sex, age, and ethnic group, yet nobody blinks an eye when the shorter person steps up to the plate, because that minimal predisposition doesn't come with thousands of years of social reinforcement and amplification.
-----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:
5/6 10:21am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
Sauntaero posted:
For example, what would it mean to be a 'natural' human? We all have different ideas of what would be natural for us.
Myself, I would say it's perfectly natural for a girl not to wear make-up, for a woman to do the same manual work as a man. Because that's what I think comes naturally to me, which I would also have to say is entirely a product of my conditioning.
Well, in a perfect world, I think it would mean that there is absolutely no restriction or pre-ordained idea about what you should do based on your biological sex. That means that length of hair, use of make-up, any kind of fragrance or perfume, clothing, etc., wouldn't be expected to conform to certain gender stereotypes. There would probably be much less of any gender-specific behaviors, or professions -- not saying there might not be certain trends, just that there would be no set expectations of anybody.
To me, it's a bit like looking at a cat. I don't know about others, but when I look at a cat, its gender doesn't usually come to mind, unless someone might bring up the issue of neutering/spaying, or unless the cat's name is one that when used by humans is gender-specific (as opposed to a name like "fuzzball").
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
AnakinsGirl
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
5/6 11:51am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
I'm not arguing that hunting in most societies is largely a role reserved for men, but in many cultures (such as most Native American cultures prior to colonization) women actually did *most* of the work, including manual labor. This stays the same in many cultures around the world today. Farming, caring for children, and other activities that may or may not involve pretty strenuous effort are all roles that are traditionally reserved for *women* in many non-white societies.
While it is true that there are hormonal differences that could make men more biologically predisposed to doing things like heavy physical labor such as hunting and fighting wars, I wouldn't consider it the be-all, end-all determinant in gender roles (not implying that anyone was). And in any case, in white societies the idea that men were stronger, more physically fit, etc also bred the assumption that as such men should be the only economic providers in society. Without economic or social opportunities, women were forced to assume roles that made them subservient, "weak", etc....if your parents raise you as a girl to never run and play outside, to wear tight-fitting clothing that makes it hard to breathe, and only teach you skills such as needlework and painting, how can you expect someone to be able to assume any other role than that which they were trained for? I don't think it has anything to do with the amorphous "chicken or egg" thought process. I think gender roles have everything to do with nurture, and very little, if anything to do with nature.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
5/6 4:21pm
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
- Date Edited:
5/6 4:24pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Princess_Tina
|
AnakinsGirl posted:
This stays the same in many cultures around the world today. Farming, caring for children, and other activities that may or may not involve pretty strenuous effort are all roles that are traditionally reserved for *women* in many non-white societies.
Can you give some concrete examples of these "cultures"?
AnakinsGirl posted:
While it is true that there are hormonal differences that could make men more biologically predisposed to doing things like heavy physical labor such as hunting and fighting wars, I wouldn't consider it the be-all, end-all determinant in gender roles (not implying that anyone was).
I don't think we can overlook the fact that hormonal differences do make quite a bit of difference, generally speaking, both physically and emotionally. I am not talking about stereotypes but well-researched differences that have been scientifically proven. And of course I don't mean this last statement to be interpreted in any way, shape or form as a blanket generalization -- of course there are always exception and in some specific issues, there can be quite an overlap between men and women.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
AnakinsGirl
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
5/6 6:42pm
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
I stated that in most Native American cultures right up to settlement by Europeans women typically did all the work. I learned about several African peoples whose women traditionally take on that role as well, although today those roles are more mixed. Historically speaking, women were likely the first farmers, for example...ever. In hunter-gatherer societies, often it is the women who gather and the men who hunt prey--gathering can take longer and require more effort in the long-run, just depending on the traditional practices. To be honest, I'll have to review my anthropology notes to give you the specific names of these cultures, which are mostly tribal.
I'm not trying to write an academic essay here, just merely trying to highlight that the roles of women around the world and in the history and development of civilization are a lot different than the traditional European gender role assignments.
I learned about a cool thing that some people do in Polynesia; there is a subculture called "FaFafines", in which men choose to take on the traditional roles of women. They are considered to be women by gender once they assume this role, and do all the household work that their mother might do. It is a totally accepted part of their culture in its traditional form, although now many FaFafines are homosexual/transvestites which some people have a problem with.
Anyways, just an example in which a culture has an acceptable form of gender role reversal.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
5/6 7:29pm
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
AnakinsGirl posted:
I'm not trying to write an academic essay here, just merely trying to highlight that the roles of women around the world and in the history and development of civilization are a lot different than the traditional European gender role assignments.
Well I think we're all well aware that not every society in recorded history has been a patriarchal society. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with taking a look at some non-patriarchal societies throughout recorded history, but I think it is important to keep in mind that nearly everyone here has grown up in a patriarchal society, so it's the only kind of society of which we can truly have first-hand knowledge.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
AnakinsGirl
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
5/6 11:21pm
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
|
I was merely commenting in regards to a previous post. I'm not trying to turn the whole debate into a discussion about gender roles around the world, merely mentioning it for the sake of discussion. Sheesh.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
5/6 11:37pm
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
AnakinsGirl posted:
I was merely commenting in regards to a previous post. I'm not trying to turn the whole debate into a discussion about gender roles around the world, merely mentioning it for the sake of discussion. Sheesh.
And I, too, was merely commenting in regards to a previous post. I didn't say you were trying to turn the whole debate into a discussion about gender roles around the world. 
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Sauntaero
Registered:
Jul '03
|
Date Posted:
5/7 1:42am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
- Date Edited:
5/7 1:45am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Sauntaero
|
Your examples backed up your point well, AnakinsGirl! How do you like anthropology, just curious?
Anyway, I'll second it that the women's role in many primitive cultures--we're not even talking matriarchy here--were usually more demanding than men's. All the gathering and production (and having children!), compared to the hunting and warfare. Although the point still stands that they definitely had distinctly defined roles, based solely on gender. As Eleventh Guard said though, all these role requirements are pretty much moot today, but they've become so intrenched that it can be very difficult to get around them if one feels inclined to break out of the mold.
Great arguments, mates!
-----signature-----
I just hope I'm around to see the day the New Republic catches up with you.
Whether they give you a medal or just shoot you--either way, it'll be a terrific show.
Silvius hic Bonus est, sed Brito est Silvius idem: nemo bonus Brito est. --Ausonius, Epigram
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Sauntaero
Registered:
Jul '03
|
Date Posted:
5/7 1:56am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
- Date Edited:
5/7 1:58am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Sauntaero
|
Princess Tina posted:
when I look at a cat, its gender doesn't usually come to mind...
So you wish you were a cat? 
Just kidding, I know where you were headed with that. Why define a person on their gender first? Does it make any difference in how you treat them?
Yet most people go through so much effort to adhere to social gender norms, so they can broadcast their masculinity or feminity to the world. And listen to everyday conversations: 'a girl I know,' 'this one man,' etc. Shouldn't we be seeing them as just people first, and as their gender second? Because it's so common that, knowing someone's gender, enormous presuppositions about that person already come to the subconscious.
But yeah, a completely genderless society would be hard to deal with. Not sure how to solve that one yet..... some kind of middle ground, or at least a comfortable leeway for gender definition.
-----signature-----
I just hope I'm around to see the day the New Republic catches up with you.
Whether they give you a medal or just shoot you--either way, it'll be a terrific show.
Silvius hic Bonus est, sed Brito est Silvius idem: nemo bonus Brito est. --Ausonius, Epigram
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
5/7 6:16am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
Sauntaero posted:
But yeah, a completely genderless society would be hard to deal with. Not sure how to solve that one yet..... some kind of middle ground, or at least a comfortable leeway for gender definition.
Hard to deal with for whom? For people used to patriarchal gender roles and stereotypes, maybe. But if it seemed like the normal thing and that was the way it was all around you, from the moment you are born, then perhaps it would seem natural. In theory, there is no reason for anyone else to really mind what your actual gender is, except perhaps your physician and anyone interested in you romantically. Everybody else should be able to treat you equally, regardless. But obviously that's just a completely utopian scenario, just food for thought.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
king_alvarez
Registered:
May '07
|
Date Posted:
5/7 6:27am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
- Date Edited:
5/7 6:28am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
king_alvarez
|
Princess_Tina posted:
Hard to deal with for whom? For people used to patriarchal gender roles and stereotypes, maybe. But if it seemed like the normal thing and that was the way it was all around you, from the moment you are born, then perhaps it would seem natural. In theory, there is no reason for anyone else to really mind what your actual gender is, except perhaps your physician and anyone interested in you romantically. Everybody else should be able to treat you equally, regardless. But obviously that's just a completely utopian scenario, just food for thought.
I think stereotypes are completely natural. I'm not sure how you could navigate the world without using some form of stereotype or social construct. Yes, ideally everyone would be treated equally, but I think that is a completely impossible ideal that would require a great deal of information regarding everyone you interact with prior to that initial moment of interaction. Even in a utopian society, I don't see how that's possible.
I think a more realistic goal is to reduce or eliminate judgment and prejudices based on those stereotypes.
-----signature-----
Because there are no story-book romances, no fairy-tale endings. So before you run out and change the world, ask yourself, "What do you really want?"
Because life... is not a movie. Everyone lies. Good guys lose. And love... does not conquer all.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
