Are gender roles just a cultural fenomena nowdays?
33 replies, posted
Since the very first glimpses os social interactions mankind has defined its work/labor and task roles around its own sexuality, justified by the primary physical differences we had and still carry to this date.
Male and female defined whats men and women, both a complex group of unified set of feelings, looks, behaviours and even hobbies which have been married to both in an exclusive form, even when thats changing now.
From the necessary point of view, these roles were needed, and sped up the organization forms of social construct around work, and massification.
These, however, are not needed in the way our society works and evolves. We are not that relevant to the enviroment in evolution as we were in the beggining and we have set our very own stereotypes and reasons to look on a partner or mate, from this point, the diversification of individualism has created a society full of individualism with people who know what they specifically want and how they want it.
In the opposite way, a generation of males who identifies with the social construct of women and vice versa, generating, in some cases, transgenderism and homosexuality from a cultural point (these behaviours are present in natural forms aswell, not saying all the people belong here).
Setting prototypes of whats a man or whats a woman, of how a man should feel or look, of what women should like and how they should dress, nowdays, only limits the range of human representation and sets a very weak black and white dualism that no more has a firm or necessary base of existance other than cultural learning.
Im not, in any way, suggesting that we should dish every sexual aspect of humans and start being androgen beings in any sense, but rather encourage the end of social behaviour in order to keep these big blocks of dualism towards sepparation and limitation, as simple as, for example, letting your daughter play with hot weels if she feels like, for christ sake.
btw, very important, sorry for all the misspelling and wrong use of the english language in the past text.
I don't really mind Gender Roles all too much. I think that genders should have something that defines them, and I don't want to oppress anyone, but maybe gender roles should just be an assumed thing. If you don't want to comply, that's fine.
I'm just repulsed at the future where everything is politically correct and you can't say anything even the slightest bit insensitive toward anyone, and it's actually interesting to me how we're chipping toward this sort of future where we all agree on everything and we just touch antennae and acknowledge something that we all know but someone is saying it anyway because they want to say something.
Our whole society is founded on saying other people are fucking dumb, and I firmly believe that anyone should be able to have and express their own opinion, you can call it stupid, it CAN be stupid, it can be misinformed, but people should be able to have it. Help people, point them in the right direction, and be nice.
But humans started as these lumps of asexual cells that slowly defined themselves because of testosterone and estrogen and further brain development, and gender roles were sort of a part of that. We should embrace that and define ourselves further, to advance.
Gender roles can be good depending on context. It's both good and bad.
It's bad when it comes to different amounts of salary for the same job, or being treated differently based on your gender. Physical abuse based on gender, etc.
Also asigning work duties based on gender is bad.
But it can be useful in for instance younger children. Babies, new-born up to sometimes 2 years in age, usually look fairly identical facially, and having a child wear pink or blue is a good indicator of what gender the child is for those who are unsure at that point.
So it depends, in some instances the gender roles are useful, in others they're plain stupid.
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;44667077]Gender roles can be good depending on context. It's both good and bad.
It's bad when it comes to different amounts of salary for the same job, or being treated differently based on your gender. Physical abuse based on gender, etc.
Also asigning work duties based on gender is bad.
But it can be useful in for instance younger children. Babies, new-born up to sometimes 2 years in age, usually look fairly identical facially, and having a child wear pink or blue is a good indicator of what gender the child is for those who are unsure at that point.
So it depends, in some instances the gender roles are useful, in others they're plain stupid.[/QUOTE]
From my experience, when someone wants to change gender roles, there are more motivations than believing that they should be the other gender. They include drama, wanting attention, a new kink, and a host of other nasty stuff that doesn't seem worth permanently altering your body for thousands of dollars for. I know I'll probably get crap for this, but I really think it isn't even worth bothering with beyond a simple check at birth.
Ponk you are just being ignorant. Even if this is such the case with people you have met, does not mean that everyone who wishes gender role change does it for attention seeking reasons. I know a lot of people who genuinely were hurting on the inside and are much happier now. They also kept it to themselves and only revealed information to close friends or spouse.
One guy has changed into a women and is still married to his wife 10 years later.
I've never really cared about what people thought of me and I generally stick to my gender role stereotypes but I think it's good if we don't put boundaries on people's expression, unless of course it harms somebody else.
Gaybows all around. Please don't ban me, though, I have an opinion:
Are gender roles just a cultural phenomena nowdays? No. They are physical phenomena. A man cannot nurture a child as well as a woman. A woman cannot lift as much as a man.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Do not post just to offer opinion, at least elaborate more than this, also this is predicting moderation" - Megafan))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=KD007;44685732]Gaybows all around. Please don't ban me, though, I have an opinion:
Are gender roles just a cultural phenomena nowdays? No. They are physical phenomena. A man cannot nurture a child as well as a woman. A woman cannot lift as much as a man.[/QUOTE]
My cousin is a female and she can lift more than me. I'm probably not a man if what you say is true. But seriously, being a male does not cause males to be less nurturing than females. And I only need to bring up one family, where a man is more nurturing to his children than the woman is to the same children to prove your statement false. And the same goes for women not being able to lift as much as a man.
I know this is just your opinion, but because of the way its worded it can be disproven very very easily. Its like me saying "IMO the Earth is flat and will always be that way". Sure its my opinion, but its completely false when worded like that, leaving the reader to question why someone would even continue to believe that opinion in the face of all the evidence contradicting it.
Understand that there is so much more to gender roles than what you have said in that statement. And it definitely is (at least in some way shape or form) cultural phenomena because gender roles are reversed in some societies across the globe.
Gender roles are in my opinion something that should be your aspiration in some cases. It's good to aspire to being a strong man. It's good to aspire to being a woman who knows how to care for children. The problem is when the gender role becomes a stereotype (all men are perverts, women can only cook and belong inside the kitchen etc etc.). Nowadays the gender roles are sometimes swapped. No matter what gender role you choose, you should aspire to all the goods of it.
[QUOTE=krosos8;44687627]Gender roles are in my opinion something that should be your aspiration in some cases. It's good to aspire to being a strong man. It's good to aspire to being a woman who knows how to care for children. The problem is when the gender role becomes a stereotype (all men are perverts, women can only cook and belong inside the kitchen etc etc.). Nowadays the gender roles are sometimes swapped. No matter what gender role you choose, you should aspire to all the goods of it.[/QUOTE]
people aren't so 2 dimensional and often have a combination of masculine and feminine traits and interests, it seems silly to divide everyone into two groups with gender roles.
[QUOTE=noh_mercy;44686501]My cousin is a female and she can lift more than me. I'm probably not a man if what you say is true. But seriously, being a male does not cause males to be less nurturing than females. And I only need to bring up one family, where a man is more nurturing to his children than the woman is to the same children to prove your statement false. And the same goes for women not being able to lift as much as a man.
I know this is just your opinion, but because of the way its worded it can be disproven very very easily. Its like me saying "IMO the Earth is flat and will always be that way". Sure its my opinion, but its completely false when worded like that, leaving the reader to question why someone would even continue to believe that opinion in the face of all the evidence contradicting it.
Understand that there is so much more to gender roles than what you have said in that statement. And it definitely is (at least in some way shape or form) cultural phenomena because gender roles are reversed in some societies across the globe.[/QUOTE]
The average woman does not lift more than the average man. The average man is not better at nurturing children than the average woman. Gender roles are physically locked in to us to some extent. Of course there will be a woman who trained to lift more than some guy (and probably had to put in a better effort), and of course there are single fathers who nurture their child as well as a woman. But those breasts belong to women, and rapid muscle growth/ample testosterone belong to men.
[editline]30th April 2014[/editline]
I do agree with you guys as well, though. It doesn't necessarily have to be that way. I was just kidding about the gaybows. But any trans-gender thing is usually a setback (in my eyes). Why become some role that would be harder to fill?
[QUOTE=The golden;44688604]How do you know this?
Do you think you know because of the people that surround you today? The same people that, like you, were raised to fit gender roles? Canada (if your flagdog is to be believed) very much still enforces a set of gender-roles as does the rest of North America. They're not as strict as other places but they are still there. Many people here still subconsciously raise their children to fit a certain role because that is how their own parents raised them.
The moment your daughter leaves the mothers womb and you start dressing it up in pink dresses and covering her in pretty flowers is the moment you start to enforce a gender role on her. This isn't done out of malice, of course, it's probably how the parents were raised - but it's still a gender role that is being forced upon the person.
To answer your post more directly: A man can only nurture a child as well as he wants to and a woman can only lift as much as she wants to. The reason they might not want to is because they were raised in a society that told them that [I]they shouldn't want[/I] to because it's not proper for their genders.[/QUOTE]
Denying that women can't lift as many as men, that women are not better at nurturing than men, is just, plain ignoring biology. Don't ask me for sources, but I have brought up the same point as you did and people slapped me in the face with articles saying how mothers had a more closer link to their babies than fathers (Can fathers breast feed their babies? I doubt it), how men tended to be more muscular than women...etc etc.
I imagine I don't see women in the SEALs and in the SAS not because they say "Yo girl, GTFO" but more like because "Yo girl, can you endure all this?" to which the answer is clearly no.
Hell, there must be a physical/economical reason why in past times women and men had defined roles.
If women had been working at the fields and men were raising children, well, it would have been a fuck up.
Nowadays with technology and pedagogical advancements we can....overcome that physical/economical barrier. Women no longer have disadvantages at the time of working (when talking about jobs not involving physical force) and men can better understand how to raise their children.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;44691463]Denying that women can't lift as many as men, that women are not better at nurturing than men, is just, plain ignoring biology. Don't ask me for sources, but I have brought up the same point as you did and people slapped me in the face with articles saying how mothers had a more closer link to their babies than fathers (Can fathers breast feed their babies? I doubt it), how men tended to be more muscular than women...etc etc.
I imagine I don't see women in the SEALs and in the SAS not because they say "Yo girl, GTFO" but more like because "Yo girl, can you endure all this?" to which the answer is clearly no.
Hell, there must be a physical/economical reason why in past times women and men had defined roles.
If women had been working at the fields and men were raising children, well, it would have been a fuck up.
Nowadays with technology and pedagogical advancements we can....overcome that physical/economical barrier. Women no longer have disadvantages at the time of working (when talking about jobs not involving physical force) and men can better understand how to raise their children.[/QUOTE]
I'm going to ask you for sources: Where are your sources?
well, i didnt say the physical differences didnt exist, but rather this:
As nowdays, the barriers these differences represent are nowhere near of being a limitaion, and they do serve a role as sexual beings, that being said, theres no real reason to hold up to all the mindset and behaviour these carry as culture. They are no longer, and for a good while i would say, justified by our nature in the levels these were far ago.
A woman can be anything a man can be, overcome its differences and stand up to them.
Its a trending nowdays, than even the male are becoming more femenine in response to the "masculinization" of women as part of succeding in this world of competition for a job, a career. Often abilities like being strong, independent, and leader are in the mindset of male visualization and glorification.
What i say is that exactly those kind of elements shouldnt be objectified to a certain role, and many others are without we even knowing, only being dragged by culture. Something that once, as early humans, had a perfectly reasonable reason to exists, its nowdays becoming a problem and a barrier to equalism in rights, and progress.
Equality of results should be the goal, but only as far as that equality correlates with reality. If there are real, biological, differences between men and women, then absolute equality of results is not a logical goal.
If gender was irrelevant to occupation, then we should also expect equal representation of gay men in all professions.
I'm not sure what gay men have to do with this but yeah their shouldn't discrimination nor should gay men be told to sit with a a particular set of career. I think it is less of a problem for gay men because you can't always tell somebody is gay while a woman trying to get a job is clearly a woman.
[QUOTE=omarfr;44704910]I'm not sure what gay men have to do with this but yeah their shouldn't discrimination nor should gay men be told to sit with a a particular set of career. I think it is less of a problem for gay men because you can't always tell somebody is gay while a woman trying to get a job is clearly a woman.[/QUOTE]
Being gay is a gender just like being female is, no? If so, then any difference in one should tell us something, if just a little, about the differences in the other. If two things are on the same continuum, then they must share attributes. If one were to say that gender is irrelevant to occupation, then that statement would also apply to gay men, lesbian women, transgendered people, etc.
I'm not at all advocating forcing anyone to do anything, but that we shouldn't expect or reach for the goal of having absolute equality of representation in all occupations if real, biological, differences exist.
For example, many people point to the lack of women in engineering as an example of social discrimination and that in an ideal world engineering would be evenly split between men and women, but that assumption may not be correct. An ideal world may still have engineering be a heavily male field because the natural inclinations of gender cause it to be as such. This idea is furthered by the fact that countries with more equality of gender (scandinavian countries, for example) continue to have about the same majority of men in fields like engineering.
[QUOTE=sgman91;44705021]Being gay is a gender just like being female is, no?[/QUOTE]
No it's not, it's a sexual orientation.
This is pretty basic stuff that I recommend actually reading up on before even getting into debates surrounding this topic.
Cis woman then. (even though I know you knew what I meant)
[QUOTE=sgman91;44705021]Being gay is a gender just like being female is, no? If so, then any difference in one should tell us something, if just a little, about the differences in the other. If two things are on the same continuum, then they must share attributes. If one were to say that gender is irrelevant to occupation, then that statement would also apply to gay men, lesbian women, transgendered people, etc.
I'm not at all advocating forcing anyone to do anything, but that we shouldn't expect or reach for the goal of having absolute equality of representation in all occupations if real, biological, differences exist.
For example, many people point to the lack of women in engineering as an example of social discrimination and that in an ideal world engineering would be evenly split between men and women, but that assumption may not be correct. An ideal world may still have engineering be a heavily male field because the natural inclinations of gender cause it to be as such. This idea is furthered by the fact that countries with more equality of gender (scandinavian countries, for example) continue to have about the same majority of men in fields like engineering.[/QUOTE]
I really don't think there is a biological explanation for why women aren't heavily into the fields of engineering. I don't believe in establishing some sort of 50/50 split, but I don't think that the world today has the community that supports female science, engineering, mathematics as fields. These are traditionally male fields but I still don't really see how that's biological.
It's most likely cultural and social in some sense and until we really get a strong biological indicator of this, I don't think there's a point in making remarks like "women aren't inclined to be engineers" as such remarks help fuel the idea that they are not worthy of such trades. If you keep saying that is the case, and society keeps saying that is the case, then that will appear to be the case and many people will say "might as well be biological" and continue saying it.
We should try not having ideas like that for a few generations and see if the imbalances are still there and all the while doing actual research into the biological aspects that may differ.
People should conform to gender stereotypes when they feel like it, and they shouldn't if they don't want to. Pressuring people is bad
[QUOTE]It's most likely cultural and social[/QUOTE]
Where is the evidence of this? Like I said before, the percentage of women in engineering is not significantly greater in countries with greater equality. In fact, there seems to be a negative correlation. The more equal a country is, the less women are likely to be interested in engineering. Here's a quick chart I just made: [URL]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18R3scD_0N091TJwk1pcKDUw3deDhaA9yjaJSkwNjmTA/edit?usp=sharing[/URL]
Gender equality data: [URL]http://eige.europa.eu/content/gender-equality-index[/URL]
Women in engineering data: [URL]http://www.vdi.de/uploads/media/2010-04_IW_European_Engineering_Report_02.pdf[/URL] (page 11, section 2.3)
Notice how a clear and surprisingly strong tend exists, especially if the scandinavian countries are ignored (the grouping furthest to the right on the graph), between greater gender equality and a smaller percentage of women in engineering. If anything this leads to the conclusion that as women are more free to choose they are less likely to choose engineering.
[editline]2nd May 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44705182]People should conform to gender stereotypes when they feel like it, and they shouldn't if they don't want to. Pressuring people is bad[/QUOTE]
I agree completely. I'm not for forcing anyone to do anything. If a woman wants to become an engineer, then more power to her! I hope that nothing gets in her. way. If a man wants to become a nurse, then more power to him! I hope that nothing gets in his way.
I've just never quite understood where this assumption that all things will turn out to be equally represented if all gender discrimination is destroyed comes from.
correlation is not causation
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44705149]I really don't think there is a biological explanation for why women aren't heavily into the fields of engineering. I don't believe in establishing some sort of 50/50 split, but I don't think that the world today has the community that supports female science, engineering, mathematics as fields. These are traditionally male fields but I still don't really see how that's biological. [/QUOTE]
The problem about doing research on this topic is the field and its researchers itself: gender studies. When confronted with questions on gender roles the answers are always that it is the society which influences boys and girls to get interested in either technical or social fields. But when does this influence start? At which stage in childhood does the influence start? Studies have shown that babies which are only a few days old are already choosing between puppets or geometrical forms. But when were they influenced by society?
In Norway, which is the most gender equal country in the world, the numbers of females in male dominated fields should be higher than in countries which are less gender equal. But it is the other way around. Harald Eia made documentary about the Gender Equality Paradox ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70[/url]) which focuses on this phenomena.
The result is that there are biological differences between male and female brains.
[QUOTE]Men outperform women in tests of spatial ability while women outperform men in tests of verbal ability.Studies have found that men perform mathematical tasks better than women along with visualization of rotated objects in space. Females outperform males in memory recall, verbal fluency, and speed at which manual movements are carried out, such as finger-tapping[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_gender_differences#Male%20vs.%20female%20brain%20functionality[/url]
It seems logical that abilities such as spatial awareness and solving mathematical problems would lead to an interest in technical fields. For work focussed on social interactions, verbal fluency and memory recall are key abilities to have.
I wonder if there's cultural elements to scandanavian societies that makes that difference present.
I just don't see a biological justification for women being inillegible for certain fields of work. Until I actually see proof of that in a study that isn't just correlation, I'm not going to believe that.
There are definitely biological differences between the sexes. But we only have conjecture as to how much those differences play into job fields.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44705468]correlation is not causation[/QUOTE]
No it isn't, but it does go against the assumption that more equality leads to a more equal representation. While the correlation does not in any way prove the cause to be biological, it does fly in the face of the cause being social gender inequality.
[editline]2nd May 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44705618]I just don't see a biological justification for women being inillegible for certain fields of work. Until I actually see proof of that in a study that isn't just correlation, I'm not going to believe that.[/QUOTE]
It isn't that women can't be as good as an engineer as men, but that women are less likely to WANT to be an engineer. I'm not saying anyone is ineligible for anything.
[QUOTE=sgman91;44705920]It isn't that women can't be as good as an engineer as men, but that women are less likely to WANT to be an engineer. I'm not saying anyone is ineligible for anything.[/QUOTE]
Why are woman are less likely to want to be an engineer? The only reason I could fathom is due to the sexism in the culture repulsing them.
[QUOTE=sgman91;44705920]
It isn't that women can't be as good as an engineer as men, but that women are less likely to WANT to be an engineer. I'm not saying anyone is ineligible for anything.[/QUOTE]
Should probably be noted that gender-roles and gender-related social stigmas are still very much present here.
Post #22 doesn't really prove anything.
[editline]4th May 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jookia;44707920]Why are woman are less likely to want to be an engineer? The only reason I could fathom is due to the sexism in the culture repulsing them.[/QUOTE]
Yes.
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;44717187]Yes.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't that prove that gender roles are a cultural phenomena then?
[QUOTE=Jookia;44717593]Doesn't that prove that gender roles are a cultural phenomena then?[/QUOTE]
If that is the definite answer (which I believe it to be), then the answer to that is also yes.
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;44717187]Should probably be noted that gender-roles and gender-related social stigmas are still very much present here.
Post #22 doesn't really prove anything.[/QUOTE]
Debating does quite work like that. You don't get to call something meaningless with no reasoning what-so-ever.
If gender-stigma is the majority cause, then it is a logical assumption that as gender-stigma is decreased the effects would also decrease. I have shown that the effects have in fact increased as gender-stigma has decreased. This is an opposite result from the expected. You either need to provide a very good reason why this would occur or why it is bad reasoning that we should expect better results from less gender-stigma.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.