I considered putting the title as gender roles AND sexuality, but that'd give the impression that the question I'm trying to pose is one about whether or not there is a link between the two (I think it's quite commonly accepted in the field of psychology that, along with other environmental factors, gender roles can influence sexuality, so that's not exactly the issue I want to discuss, however its link TO sexuality is something that comes into my decision making here).
The question I'm interested in here is what are your thoughts on gender roles in regards to raising children?
Nowadays I feel like the general consensus is shifting towards the notion that gender roles are bad, however I disagree with that notion. I'd like to preface what I'm about to say with a bit of an explanation or clarification because I worry that people will get the wrong impression and immediately hail me as some sort of monster for what I wish to say next. Being gay is fine in my opinion. Homosexuality is completely cool in my books (as are people who are transgender and whatnot). That said, the human race can never afford to get to a point whereby the majority (or, worst case scenario, everyone) is gay. As fine as it is to be gay the continuation of the human species relies on the majority of people being straight (or at the very least bisexual) and having children (and we're already observing trends of population decrease in some developed nations whereby each couple has, on average, less than two children).
With that in mind, I'd like to go back to what I previously mentioned - environmental influences on sexuality. Twin studies have shown that sexuality is both influenced by genes and environment, and gender roles seem to have quite a large influence on the environmental portion of that. As far as I'm concerned you should try to raise your kids straight simply because straight individuals are more likely to have children and that's what is needed for both the continuation of the species and the propagation of your own genes - straight is the norm - however if they turn out to be gay later on in life obviously you should accept that and not shun or disown them because of this - at that point in their life they're development is no longer in your control and if they choose to take on gender roles the opposite of what is considered normal for their sex, then so be it. That is absolutely fine be me. Given that the environment influences sexuality, and gender roles play quite an important role in that, I would say that gender roles are quite important and should continue to be instilled into children.
I'm interested on seeing what others thoughts are on this.
I realise this is a pretty touchy subject area so please try to think critically and be rational before you reply. Topics like these seem to very quickly and easily spiral out of control.
I don't think gender roles are bad, but I do think that they shouldn't be enforced on children. They will always be there but its up to the person to decide what they want, not a 3rd party. That's just my 2 cents.
I don't think anything is wrong with gender roles as long as it doesn't affect what a kid actually likes to do
if a girl was being raised with dolls and then she actually wanted to play with the boys then she should be able to
and if a boy wanted to play with dolls instead of with other boys then it's fine too
maybe gender roles are natural as we see it in animals too, but we shouldnt stop people from breaking those roles
How exactly do you raise a child to be straight? I don't understand what this means at all. Do you teach them how to have sex or is this some sort of stereotyping? Sexuality isn't exactly something I can see as being taught. I doubt telling them how its done at an early age is really going to affect their preferences. Your reasoning for raising children as straight doesn't make much sense either. The world has more than enough people to continue the species. If anything there may be too many people and there are plenty of orphaned children who need parents which is perfect for gay couples. Surrogates also get around this simple issue.
Sexuality is affected by environment. Simple things such as having older siblings has been shown to increase chances of male homosexuality. Not much has been shown biologically so many have concluded that its about the social interaction. Gender roles really mean nothing. There are plenty of straight men who are homemakers and plenty of straight women who take on the traditionally mans role of the breadwinner. Forcing gender roles on a child is something I wouldn't agree with. There's not much reasoning for directing boys towards truck driving and military service or women towards homemaking since we're living in a more equal world where your gender shouldn't affect your job opportunities.
[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;41122785]I don't think anything is wrong with gender roles as long as it doesn't affect what a kid actually likes to do
if a girl was being raised with dolls and then she actually wanted to play with the boys then she should be able to
and if a boy wanted to play with dolls instead of with other boys then it's fine too
maybe gender roles are natural as we see it in animals too, but we shouldn't stop people from breaking those roles[/QUOTE]
I agree with this, if despite your initial pushes for a child to play with toys or do whatever that reinforces a certain gender role they don't want to, then allow them to do the opposite. However I think you should initially push them in the 'right' direction for their sex from a very young age, before they can even really make a decision about that sort of stuff themselves. When they can make decisions, let them, but I think that initial push is necessary.
[editline]21st June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;41122827]How exactly do you raise a child to be straight? I don't understand what this means at all. Do you teach them how to have sex or is this some sort of stereotyping? Sexuality isn't exactly something I can see as being taught. I doubt telling them how its done at an early age is really going to affect their preferences. Your reasoning for raising children as straight doesn't make much sense either. The world has more than enough people to continue the species. If anything there may be too many people and there are plenty of orphaned children who need parents which is perfect for gay couples. Surrogates also get around this simple issue.
Sexuality is affected by environment. Simple things such as having older siblings has been shown to increase chances of male homosexuality. Not much has been shown biologically so many have concluded that its about the social interaction. Gender roles really mean nothing. There are plenty of straight men who are homemakers and plenty of straight women who take on the traditionally mans role of the breadwinner. Forcing gender roles on a child is something I wouldn't agree with. There's not much reasoning for directing boys towards truck driving and military service or women towards homemaking since we're living in a more equal world where your gender shouldn't affect your job opportunities.[/QUOTE]
You're right on the siblings thing however there are also a LOT of other factors to be taken into consideration and a child's perceived role in the world (as it relates to those around them) has a large influence on their sexuality in future.
For example in cultures that are more dominantly matriarchal (whereas western society is more patriarchal) teaching a male to do things that we in a western society would consider 'masculine' is actually more likely to result in them being gay (because in their society the females take on those tasks, and this causes the male to perceive his role in society of that as a female).
I disagree that the reasoning for raising a child straight doesn't make sense. It does. People want THEIR genes to proliferate and straight individuals are far more likely to have biological children than homosexual individuals. If my offspring are straight they're far more likely to give me grandchildren and great grandchildren and so on and so forth than if they're gay. On top of that, moving away from a more personal level, given enough time, if homosexuality overtook heterosexuality as the most common form of sexuality the human species would have a tough time coping beyond that point. It's on a rather long time scale, but it's an issue that would occur eventually. If the environmental influence on sexuality is a big enough one it's probably a situation that is best avoided.
[QUOTE=sltungle;41122828]I agree with this, if despite your initial pushes for a child to play with toys or do whatever that reinforces a certain gender role they don't want to, then allow them to do the opposite. However I think you should initially push them in the 'right' direction for their sex from a very young age, before they can even really make a decision about that sort of stuff themselves. When they can make decisions, let them, but I think that initial push is necessary.[/QUOTE]
I've got to disagree. I think it's entirely more important to teach children to be able to find who they are on their own, rather than letting society dictate who you are. Children are naturally curious, as well, so it shouldn't take too long for them to find out what they like and what they do don't. And as a parent, you need to enable them to do that, [i]not[/i] push them the way you want them to turn out. There are already way too many children and even adults that haven't been able to live life for themselves because their parents push way too much on them.
[QUOTE=biodude94566;41122893]I've got to disagree. I think it's entirely more important to teach children to be able to find who they are on their own, rather than letting society dictate who you are. Children are naturally curious, as well, so it shouldn't take too long for them to find out what they like and what they do don't. And as a parent, you need to enable them to do that, [i]not[/i] push them the way you want them to turn out. There are already way too many children and even adults that haven't been able to live life for themselves because their parents push way too much on them.[/QUOTE]
Well that all depends on how it turns out personality forms. If you buy the tabula rasa notion of personality (which I do) then your entire personality is a blank slate at the start and what makes you you is a result of the environment you grew up in. You'll like or dislike things depending on how you're exposed to them or what you're taught basically. In that case a boy introduced to a barbie doll before he's ever seen a toy truck might just latch onto that as something he likes merely because it provides stimulus (whereas nothing else in the room really will) whereas a girl introduced to a toy truck before she ever sees a barbie might latch onto that for exactly the same reason. That initial decision to then play with that kind of toy and the fact that it provides mental and sensory stimulation, and hence pleasure, will then influence their future decision making while choosing between other toys (those toys which will then, because of the way our society works, be subconsciously linked to certain gender roles whether or not you like it because we're surrounded by those preconceived notions).
I'm not saying 'push' like, "you will play with this damn toy truck," and negatively reinforce any other kind of approach. What I mean by 'push' them in a certain direction is... I dunno, populate their bedroom (or maybe baby room at that point) with things 'appropriate' for their sex in our society.
Unless toy companies started making all of their toys completely 'neutral' I don't think there's really a better approach than populating a boys room with toys 'designed' for boys and a girls room with toys 'designed' for girls.
Do environmental factors actually have any bearing on the inherent sexuality of a person, or do they just dictate whether or not that person feels comfortable to explore that sexuality in their lives? I haven't heard of any conclusive studies that prove it one way or the other
[QUOTE=Maloof?;41122977]Do environmental factors actually have any bearing on the inherent sexuality of a person, or do they just dictate whether or not that person feels comfortable to explore that sexuality in their lives? I haven't heard of any conclusive studies that prove it one way or the other[/QUOTE]
Well unfortunately asking for a 'conclusive' study in psychology isn't going to happen. Far too many variables that go into what makes a person up. It's more of a statistical thing, like, "80% of twins separated at birth but when raised in this sort of environment develop this sort of way."
The thing that bugs me about gender roles is that the current societal standards dictate the way a person sees themselves in society (like with the example of a male in a matriarchal society being taught to do things that in our society are 'masculine' but in his society are 'feminine'), but it's hard to change that because in trying to change it you just alienate the child from what they see as normal and you end up with situations whereby people feel like they're freaks. I guess changing society is going to be a very long, slow, drawn out process.
Regardless of gender roles, all of my fucking children (if I have any) are getting LEGO. And I've decided while in the shower and thinking about this topic that if I have kids, instead of painting their rooms in like blue or pink I'm just going to have a colour spectrum painted across the ceiling or the walls or something. They can choose their favourite colour that way without being influenced too much.
I believe gender roles are, or atleast have been, essential.
You cannot Nurture and Endanger at the same time. You cannot make both Love and War at the same time. You can either be in the cave doing constructive things, or be outside of the cave preventing destructive things, not both.
Testosterone causes aggression and muscle building.
Estrogen causes lactation, helps with lubrication of the vagina, and stores fat cells.
While both genders have some of each, it should also be clear which Gender has which and why.
From a purely practical point of view gender roles are more efficient in society. The breaking apart of the family in modern times is by and large a byproduct of the breaking down of gender roles.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;41123382]I believe gender roles are, or atleast have been, essential.
You cannot Nurture and Endanger at the same time. You cannot make both Love and War at the same time. You can either be in the cave doing constructive things, or be outside of the cave preventing destructive things, not both.
Testosterone causes aggression and muscle building.
Estrogen causes lactation, helps with lubrication of the vagina, and stores fat cells.
While both genders have some of each, it should also be clear which Gender has which and why.[/QUOTE]
Testosterone and Estrogen are hormones that are released in larger amounts in males and females respectively, and those are sexes, not genders. How do hormones even fit into this discussion of gender roles?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;41123382]I believe gender roles are, or atleast have been, essential.
You cannot Nurture and Endanger at the same time. You cannot make both Love and War at the same time. You can either be in the cave doing constructive things, or be outside of the cave preventing destructive things, not both.
Testosterone causes aggression and muscle building.
Estrogen causes lactation, helps with lubrication of the vagina, and stores fat cells.
While both genders have some of each, it should also be clear which Gender has which and why.[/QUOTE]
i don't know where to begin with this post
[editline]21st June 2013[/editline]
testosterone and estrogen are only the tip of the iceberg
and even the most die-hard naturist wouldn't say that gender roles are "essential"
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;41123382]I believe gender roles are, or atleast have been, essential.
You cannot Nurture and Endanger at the same time. You cannot make both Love and War at the same time. You can either be in the cave doing constructive things, or be outside of the cave preventing destructive things, not both.
Testosterone causes aggression and muscle building.
Estrogen causes lactation, helps with lubrication of the vagina, and stores fat cells.
While both genders have some of each, it should also be clear which Gender has which and why.[/QUOTE]
hth your view of those two hormones is overly simplistic.
Specifically talking gender roles in the sense that there are boy colors and girl colors. There's boy things, and then there's girl things. Most gender roles come about with early child development and how the parents view how their children should grow up. That's when you take into account parents who switch the gender roles occasionally to build character and understanding of positions. I've known a few dads who taught their daughters how to change car parts and things and moms who teach their sons how to cook and things like that.
To be honest, I'd just let my kids choose what they think they're interested in, and see if they'll commit and pursue that passion. Until your child locks in what they enjoy and like, you get an idea of how their personality will develop along with their skills in whatever it may be: sports, science, cars, etc. Doesn't matter, if my son wants to be the best damn Ballerina ever, then by the spaghetti monster, I'm gonna see him through it.
Simply put, the nurturing and education provided by the guardians of a child during their early years of development will tend to carry the traits their parents instill in them and with it basic principles for living. Gender roles aren't necessary, but they're going to happen based on the view of the parent. It's not good or bad, it isn't as black and white as that. It's how we've evolved and view ourselves. I'd have all unisex bathrooms and showers by now because there's no point at all. We've created our taboos and because of this it drives people to think that way. If we don't give a shit and understand that, holy fuck, this is how we were born, we'd probably be in a much better world. But that's a different debate for another day.
I disagree with "raising your kid straight" mostly in that I completely disagree with the concept of gender roles. Especially boys and girls toys.
Dolls are girly, everything else is male. Its dumb especially when the concept of girls and boys toys is so skewed. Really its more like "girl only toys"(Dolls) and "Multigender toys" (Anything else) since boys are ridiculed for playing with girls toys buy girls are a-ok to be a tomboy and play with boys toys.
There are basic gender roles, girls have babies and tend to be the ones to take care of them for obvious biological reasons. I'll accept those fine but the whole concept of boys and girls toys, shows, etc is all just dumb bunk in my opinion.
I think it isn't too unrelated to add to this discussion I've been wondering to myself for a while, would transgender people exist if we didn't have gender roles? Most transgenders arn't directly concerned with have a dick or a vagina, (at least from what I have seen) it's more down to how they look outwardly and act, and what they get to do. I hear from most of the MtF transpeople on this forum that they want to be "treated like a girl" and always wanted to do girls things when they were younger. If there wasnt an established girl things to do, or girl way to be treated or girls have to wear make-up etc would this be as common of an issue?
[editline]21st June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;41123626]From a purely practical point of view gender roles are more efficient in society. The breaking apart of the family in modern times is by and large a byproduct of the breaking down of gender roles.[/QUOTE]
Would you care to expand on that statement please? "The breaking apart of the family"? and how is it caused by breaking down gender roles.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;41131313]Specifically talking gender roles in the sense that there are boy colors and girl colors. There's boy things, and then there's girl things. Most gender roles come about with early child development and how the parents view how their children should grow up. That's when you take into account parents who switch the gender roles occasionally to build character and understanding of positions. [B]I've known a few dads who taught their daughters how to change car parts and things and moms who teach their sons how to cook and things like that. [/B]
To be honest, I'd just let my kids choose what they think they're interested in, and see if they'll commit and pursue that passion. Until your child locks in what they enjoy and like, you get an idea of how their personality will develop along with their skills in whatever it may be: sports, science, cars, etc. Doesn't matter, if my son wants to be the best damn Ballerina ever, then by the spaghetti monster, I'm gonna see him through it.
Simply put, the nurturing and education provided by the guardians of a child during their early years of development will tend to carry the traits their parents instill in them and with it basic principles for living. Gender roles aren't necessary, but they're going to happen based on the view of the parent. It's not good or bad, it isn't as black and white as that. It's how we've evolved and view ourselves. I'd have all unisex bathrooms and showers by now because there's no point at all. We've created our taboos and because of this it drives people to think that way. If we don't give a shit and understand that, holy fuck, this is how we were born, we'd probably be in a much better world. But that's a different debate for another day.[/QUOTE]
I agree with pretty much all of this, however the part I bolded is a bit of an issue if you're trying to forgo the idea of gender roles because in that situation the boy still associates cooking as a task that a female performs and the girl still associates changing car parts with a task that a male performs. What'd be better in that situation is to have both the mum AND dad teach the same thing over time so that activity isn't subconsciously assigned a gender role if that's the goal you're going for there. That would also be great because it'd force the parents to start becoming versed in tasks that they might once not have been so great at.
[QUOTE=sltungle;41122687]Being gay is fine in my opinion. Homosexuality is completely cool in my books (as are people who are transgender and whatnot). That said, the human race can never afford to get to a point whereby the majority (or, worst case scenario, everyone) is gay. As fine as it is to be gay the continuation of the human species relies on the majority of people being straight (or at the very least bisexual) and having children (and we're already observing trends of population decrease in some developed nations whereby each couple has, on average, less than two children).[/QUOTE]
I disagree with this idea.
We still have this notion today that sexuality is inherently linked to childbearing, which simply isn't true. Homosexuality exists to disprove this very notion, and many sexual and romantic couples simply hate the idea of having kids.
Childbearing is inherently about reproduction; nothing more or less. Sexuality is completely different, and the two concepts are not mutually exclusive. If there ever reached a situation where there were "too many gays" in the population, we could simply use IVF and other techniques to recreate. As long as both sexes still exist within society, then we could definitely continue to procreate the human race throughout generations.
The real issue isn't whether there will be underpopulation from homosexuality. We're at a point in society where the technology can easily help us in that respect. The real problem is whether, as a society, we can admit the fact that sexuality, romance, and homophobia should have virtually nothing to do with raising kids. I don't think people are ready to make that step yet.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
