View Full Version : Masculinity vs. Femininity (Stereotype thread)
Seeing as the "Why dont women prefer 'nice' guys?" thread has gone into this topic multiple times, I thought a thread may be enjoyable~
this is a chart Mel posted on BleachForums~
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y23/CaitsithArla/Melschart.jpg
So yea, what traits do you think are masculine and feminine? What stereotypes fit men and women seperately?
Ravana
03-12-2008, 08:46 PM
One time I took this test (and it was pretty long; probably took about 2 hours) that 'tested' masculinity/femininity... At the end they put me on a scale, with 'more masculine' on the left (negative numbers) and 'more feminine' (positive numbers) on the right. I got 0. :/
Before any debate happens, though... Why's 'feminine' under the feminine column? Typo, or is that supposed to mean something? o_0
i guess its a kind of general somthing...look? maybe the way they walk? ever noticed teh diffrence between man and woman movment? even the walk is diffrent. beside from general movment i dont have anyidea what that thing means maybe its a typo.
well, each of those fit the general stereotype of what should be masculine and feminine, but in general i reject that idea completely.
I don't think tha any person shouldn't be allowed to display a trait just because the opposite is supposed to do it and yours is not.
And the concept of it being traits bugs me enough as is, its all in how the trait is defined, but definitions can be so broad that some words can easily overlap each other
ShuiMei
03-12-2008, 10:22 PM
Ideas of femininity and masculinity are social constructions reinforced by our own environments and upbringing. There are no set traits that are universal.
I think the chart and categorization of female and male traits are ridiculous and I'm personally kind of insulted by the whole thing. Being "gullible" is somehow a female trait? Men lack loyalty? Women aren't analytical? Men are not childlike? Women don't use harsh words? Well, surely that cannot be correct as I think this whole thing is bullshit.
well, it was based on generalizations~ there are exceptions to everything, but as a whole, can't you say men are usually more perverted than women?... or women are usually more emotional than a man?... stereotypes exist because they're common judgements that the majority of people find to be true~ men are more likely to fight, be physical, or lay on the couch and watch TV drinking a beer... does that mean ALL men do that? nope~ but it's a stereotype... im a man, and it doesn't offend me ;p society is very close-minded in todays culture, but to completely avoid any and all reasoning for acceptance of the topic closes you even further away i think~
imamess
03-13-2008, 03:33 AM
It's not necessarily that those stereotypes exists, it's just that the list is a little biased. Plus, on the male side, the list could be whittled down to about half since self-reliant and self-sufficient are pretty much the same thing (same thing with leadership ability and acts as leader...). It just seems like there are more universally negative traits listed for women. If you want an honest discussion from both sides, try something that's a little more even.
I will agree that stereotypes do exist for a reason, and they aren't necessarily bad. Just get a better list that's not so redundant on one side, and you may have a better discussion. Or discuss what would go on the list here instead of something agreed upon elsewhere.
ShuiMei
03-13-2008, 03:57 AM
To me a lot of what's listed aren't even stereotypes like "men are more aggressive" and "women are more emotional," some of them are completely bizarre and beyond me why they would be listed as "feminine" or "masculine." Being "childlike" is somehow feminine? I've never encountered this at all, nor the idea that loyalty is somehow a feminine trait.
I'm not denying that some these are existing stereotypes or that the categorization of some of these traits have no basis at all. Certainly, biologically men have been shown to be more aggressive and women to be more emotional, but I don't see the merits in labeling characteristics as such.
What does one gain from saying being assertive is a male trait? Or that using "harsh language" is a non-feminine trait? All this does is reinforce stereotypes and behaviour roles for genders. The result is if a woman is ambitious and ambition is seen as a "male" characteristic, she is seen as unfeminine and her ambition is seen as wrong. Conversely, if a man is soft spoken or shy he is seen as "less of a man" because these are supposedly more "feminine" traits.
The result is a double-standard of socially acceptable behaviour, where women feel pressured to be warm and tender and men feel pressure to be competitive and forceful rather than simply being themselves. This is not to say that no man or woman may be naturally inclined towards their socially acceptable gender traits, rather that for those who are not, there are social pressures and expectations for them to behave in a certain way, to fit in their predetermined gender role.
So again I ask, what are the merits of dividing behaviourial traits as feminine and masculine? It seems more harmful and narrow-minded than helpful. Rather the only merit I see in formulating such lists is breaking them down after.
no one ever said discussion had to be forced into talking about a list... you guys really hate debating on this forum, except when it's about the ethics of debating huh? o.o lol
point of the thread? no point, discuss, or don't discuss~ the social threads kept moving onto this topic, so i brought over the debate idea from BF~
some people enjoy defining the genders and trying to split hairs on the evolution of social structure... some people enjoy comparing themselves to the "stereotypes" of the opposite sex... you guys are so touchy XD I wondered why no one ever debates or posts anything but spam in the social section~
if theres a topic where you're just gonna say "omg wrong!" "omg theres exceptions!" "omg pointless!" just don't post~ why make yourself unhappy? :p
to get back on topic, i'm noticing more and more, women like to fight and force beliefs while men generally seem to accept and enjoy the ideals of the majority without feeling such immense insecurity
ShuiMei
03-13-2008, 05:15 AM
This is the debate forum, you presented your topic, I expressed my position on it. It's not just the chart I have issues with, it's the whole concept of characteristics of masculinity and femininity. Moreover, I didn't just come in here and say "OMG WRONG" I explained my issues with the idea of masculine and feminine characteristics and questioned the merits of labeling traits as such, you felt otherwise and I further explained myself.
As for your observation about how "more and more women like to fight and force beliefs" I do not even know where to begin with that!...What beliefs are you referring to, the "ideals of the majority?" What are these ideals? Who is included in the majority? If the "ideals of the majority" include the ideals of femininity and women increasingly questioning these ideals, it's hardly a new phenomenon. To put forward that women are ideally shy, passive, soft-spoken and gentle is an archaic proposition so far as I'm concerned. Of course this does not mean some people don't feel that women should be this way, but I think this is a painfully outdated view.
Furthermore, I don't think it's about fighting or forcing beliefs, rather it's about questioning what we have long understood as "the ideals of the majority." So, who established these beliefs and ideals? If one is to understand that gender roles and behaviours have been reinforced by our social environments, and understanding that most modern societies are patriarchal, one can infer that these alleged ideals of the majority have been established and reinforced over time by men. With that, one should ask how legitimate are these supposed "ideals of the majority"?
Moreover, if more and more women are questioning, or in your words "forcing" beliefs that are against the "conventional ideals of the majority," is this not demonstrative of natural female assertiveness? Of women defending their beliefs, being analytical and willing to take risks? All of which are allegedly unfeminine characteristics and behaviours. So it's not that these women are wrong or necessarily insecure, it's that the "ideals of the majority" do not fit and thus, should be challenged.
Primera Espada
03-13-2008, 05:21 AM
lol
This makes me laugh.
For one, there ARE some traits that are masculine, and feminine. It's not some sort of bizarre social construct. It's genetics. The majority of men are analytical thinkers, the majority of women are intuitive thinkers. The majority of men are more aggressive than passive, the majority of women are more passive than aggressive. The majority of men are more athletic, the majority of women are more aerobic (probably not the right word, but you get the jist). The majority of men are more reserved (not letting the powerful emotions they have affect their actions) the majority of women are more chaotic (letting the powerful emotions they have fuel and direct their actions).
It's all yin and yang. Guys have one set of traits, girls have the opposite. Hence why male/female pairing works so well.
Of course there's a percentage of people who aren't in the majority, and they either find someone who's also not in the majority, or they're gay (attracted to the majority of their own kind) to help compliment their own selves.
At least, that's an oversimplification (so no one take this as "OMG, he said people are gay cause they're not manly enough" or some junk).
Women's BRAINS are even built different than mens, but similar to each others. So there is obviously a list of traits.
Also, as far as the childlike thing, from a physical perspective, females are smaller than males, and have voices closer in pitch to children than male adults. In addition to that, the variable nature of a woman's hormonal balance (which directly relates to thought process) can be compared with the constant hormonal flux which growing children go through. Compared to a man (who's hormones pretty much settle at adulthood) a woman would be "more child like". It also is what helps them be more adept at child raising.
Oh, another thing, women tend to multitask, men tend to do linear work. Women tend to navigate via reference points (memorized routes) while men tend to navigate via spacial skills (map, or mental image).
By the way, I contradict HALF of the male stereotypes. But I'm also in that 20% "Not normal male" category.
I'm just saying what are the male and female traditional, genetic traits.
Cultural traits of what is masculine or femenine tend to change, but it's largely related to asthetics (how you walk, talk, dress, facial structure)
kiera2
03-13-2008, 05:28 AM
if theres a topic where you're just gonna say "omg wrong!" "omg theres exceptions!" "omg pointless!" just don't post~ why make yourself unhappy? :p
Well, it wouldn't be much of a debate if everyone agreed with you, would it? You asked what traits are masculine and feminine, and ShuiMei is telling you which traits from that list she thinks don't belong there. Isn't that exactly what you wanted us to discuss?
Edit: For a somewhat more accurate list of generalisations about the sexes, try this (http://www.solosingles.com/ssgender/malefemalegendersdifferent.htm), and this (http://www.solosingles.com/ssgender/evolvesgendersdifferences.htm) list of gender roles.
It's not some sort of bizarre social construct. It's genetics.
Actually, it's not genetics. If it were that simple, then all men would be one way and all women would be another. Sure, it's been experimentally determined that there are general trends in the mental strengths of men and women - but relatively little is actually known about possible biological bases for those trends. (One popular theory is that the amount of testosterone a child is exposed to in the womb plays a part.)
The vast majority of male/female traits are roles engendered by society.
i think you both saw my point... but you'd rather try to take an aggressive stance ;p
also- shu mei kinda answered all of her own questions by pointing the spark for the creation and evolution of stereotypes at society... people aren't born and automatically say "hey, guess what, men are lazy, perverted, physical and violent, and women are emotional, high maintenance, and nurturing", that's what stereotypes are~
you can agree and disagree... but when you join a debate and essentially say "lolz this debate is dumb, stereotypes suck", that's what i was talking about... so far i cant find a single debate on this forum where a female member hasn't done something to that effect ;p now if i say, its a stereotype that women like to fight and spread their insecurities based on that experience, that would be a stereotype of my own... doesnt mean everyone is that way or not, or that women are evil or something~
ShuiMei
03-13-2008, 06:36 AM
Oh please, that's just insulting. I ask that you not reduce my contributions in this debate to "lolz this debate is dumb, stereotypes suck" when I've articulated my points in a clear, substantive, and rational manner. Moreover, I have encountered plenty of female members of this forum who have not simply degenerated debates into crude dismissals and find it insulting that you would imply otherwise. There are many of well-reasoned, intelligent female members on this board and if your experiences with them have been nothing but them allegedly starting fights, perhaps the problem lies with you and not them.
Furthermore, your not-so-covert jabs at myself are duly noted, but considering how you’ve behaved in this discussion, I would be more inclined to point out your own possible insecurity.
Moving on, I totally agree with kiera2. I do not buy in to this biological deterministic argument. These sorts of arguments about human and social differences being rooted in biological differences has been around forever, people have used these arguments with criminals, slaves, race, classes and people continue use these arguments with gender as well. Sex is biological, but gender is social construction: it refers to the categories society has created to group people as either feminine and masculine. As a result different societies and cultures have different notions of femininity and masculinity, there are no uniform characteristics that apply to all. Moreover, even though a characteristic may be inheritable it doesn’t mean that the social environment will have no effect on it; after all biology can be affected by the external environment. Ultimately, while there may be some biological inclinations, I feel that it is largely our social environments that shapes what we understand to be gender and determines what is masculine and feminine.
Unicorn
03-13-2008, 09:56 AM
no one ever said discussion had to be forced into talking about a list...
Then why does your first post contain a large list, and you asking to discuss the list?
if theres a topic where you're just gonna say "omg wrong!" "omg theres exceptions!" "omg pointless!" just don't post~ why make yourself unhappy?
This IS the debate thread. You have to be prepared to be either proven wrong, or proving yourself right.
i think you both saw my point... but you'd rather try to take an aggressive stance ;p
This IS the debate thread. Refer to above point.
i'm noticing more and more, women like to fight and force beliefs while men generally seem to accept and enjoy the ideals of the majority without feeling such immense insecurity?
Because we dare to disagree with the list? I possess traits across all three columns. Therefore using the list to analyse myself is not relevant.
but when you join a debate and essentially say "lolz this debate is dumb, stereotypes suck", that's what i was talking about... so far i cant find a single debate on this forum where a female member hasn't done something to that effect ;p
Aha. a double-negative. So some female somewhere has done something to this effect. Show an example please?
@ Shuimei – I agree with your views.
Ninira
03-13-2008, 01:31 PM
Luhy, please stop whining about how OMG THE GIRLS DISAGREE. They talk about the list and they talk about how it's not accurate. How is that NOT debating? Unless you were meaning you wanted to talk about whether masculinity or femininity is better, but you've mentioned nothing about it so far.
Now, to the list. For one, loyalty being related to women depends on location. In countries where Confucianism took a part, women are considered lying snakes (I'm thinking more ancient times than modern, of course.)
As I said in the gender equality thread, I do think people would be more stable if they weren't afraid to embody the stereotypical characteristics of both genders.
saying that tehre are exeptions therefor its not genetic is bullshit, genetics are even more random then social upbringing, there are not 2 sets of minds and behavior in the human genome but 6 billion, but still the overwhelming majority of males and females walk on their side of the scale, at this point or another.
as a whole our race act with diffrent roles to each gender, not only because of our society but mostly because of our genetics which influanced our society. look at our relatives in the animel kingdom, even there the man are hunters and the females are taking care of other tasks.
genetics can only guide/lead you into a certain direction, society and past expericences determine more about personality and why we display/have certain traits.......although this idea makes this less about stereotypes and more about personality development
i don't disagree with the fact that some traits are more prevelant in men rather in women (and vice-versa) but i completely disagree with the idea that that should make it a masculine or feminine trait and the other gender shouldn't do it
Ninira
03-13-2008, 02:04 PM
as a whole our race act with diffrent roles to each gender, not only because of our society but mostly because of our genetics which influanced our society. look at our relatives in the animel kingdom, even there the man are hunters and the females are taking care of other tasks.
Oh how I love the uneducated! Taking sweeping generalizations and deciding this is how the world works!
Female lions hunt for the prey, while male lions sleep and attempt to eat the children because they're sort of stupid. Male and female emperor penguins take care of the egg. Male seahorses even incubate the children and give birth to them. Female and male spiders usually avoid one another, taking care of themselves. But when mating season rolls around, some female spiders eat their mate to provide sustinence for the children. In wolf hunting packs, both genders hunt.
Most animals take care of themselves and are capable of hunting. While some females take care of their young, some females will also eat them if they get too close. So, yeah, your example isn't the best.
again genetics!
one race genetics dosnt work the same way on other races! what good for one dosnt good for the second, and yes lion males are more aggresive and bigger then the females and they dominate them making them do the hard job for them (keep in mind that they are a carnivore only race while humans are omnivores so we got more options) before you judge others as uneducated, my disrespectfull friend, keep in mind that the picture is much larger and nothing in genetics is true for EVERY specimen especially when you are talking about diffrent races and especially when you are talking about totaly diffrent lifeforms (sea horse and humans?).
another thing is that what true for a race like humans who lives in groups isnt true for a race like tigers who lives on their own therefor dont really have much choice but to hunt on their own. each race genetics change its way of behavior, wolfs are the same in matter of strength and live in groups of few members so everyone must hunt, a lion is big and strong but one lion control the pack and wont endanger himself in the hunt but will fight against hayenas and such (the male is still the warior and the female still take care of the childrens)
also when i said relatives in the animal kingdom i mean apes who actually live in groups like humans and not something that is geneticly far from us like a seahorse (or a banana)
Ninira
03-13-2008, 02:24 PM
again genetics!
one race genetics dosnt work the same way on other races! what good for one dosnt good for the second, and yes lion males are more aggresive and bigger then the females and they dominate them making them do the hard job for them (keep in mind that they are a carnivore only race while humans are omnivores so we got more options) before you judge others as uneducated, my disrespectfull friend, keep in mind that the picture is much larger and nothing in genetics is true for EVERY specimen especially when you are talking about diffrent races and especially when you are talking about totaly diffrent lifeforms (sea horse and humans?).
another thing is that what true for a race like humans who lives in groups isnt true for a race like tigers who lives on their own therefor dont really have much choice but to hunt on their own. each race genetics change its way of behavior, wolfs are the same in matter of strength and live in groups of few members so everyone must hunt, a lion is big and strong but one lion control the pack and wont endanger himself in the hunt but will fight against hayenas and such (the male is still the warior and the female still take care of the childrens)
...but you mentioned the animal kingdom? Unless you were specifically meaning monkeys since they are our 'relatives'. Don't go about using examples unless they support what you're actually saying.
Heck, there are examples in our own species of things being different. Many tribes in Africa have women as the hunters and men as the child caretakers. And please, don't be like EXCEPTION TO THE RULE because just because you were raised in a society where men were dominant "hunters" doesn't invalidate the fact that some societies are just the opposite, because it shows that it isn't all "genetics".
i learned some genetics and there are always diffrences even in the same family, in the end you CANT deny that man are built for war\hunting\agression while females simply dont. thanks to our tools we can force such roles on the other gender but again, in 50 years we could put a cripple into a war machine that can devistate armies, would that mean that its role in genetics? no that is something we forced and pushed with our technolegy and abilities.
keep in mind that genetics will only take you so far, and humanity is a very young race which expanded fast and every race that expand over large areas and have seperate communities would have diffrences from one group to the other.
kiera2
03-13-2008, 02:38 PM
saying that tehre are exeptions therefor its not genetic is bullshit, genetics are even more random then social upbringing...
Oh, but that's exactly what I'm saying. Societies like the tribes Ninira refers to, where women are hunters and men raise children, prove that genetic sex is not the dominant force in determining gender roles.
Forgive myself for the ambiguous phrasing before - I'm not arguing against the fact that personality traits are partly genetically determined. My point was that they're not genetically linked to sex. That is to say, whether or not someone is a good systemiser isn't dependent on whether they're male or female. There may be a correlation between systemising ability and sex, but as any good scientist knows, correlation does not imply causality.
not at all, in a family of 'warriors' people who gives everything for their country, there might be a few childrens here and there who got their mutations in that part and they are more selfish and care more about getting money then to serve the greater whole.
the same goes in the human family, with over 6.6 billion members its possiable that few communities here and there, which are pretty isolated btw.
its clear you dont understand what i am saying so ill try again from the start and slow.
genetics are pretty random but they do try to follow the general rule of a race, birds who live in groups and eat fish wont give offsprings who have horns, live alone and eat tigers, small deviations is the most that can happen from one generation to the other, in the course of thousends of generations a general behavior is set.
with time small deviations would accour, some would be good for the race and slowly will take over and some are not good and will be wiped out, thanks to the miracle of natural selection. in human society there are also those little deviants, a girl is born more tomboish because one alal (small part of the genes) is on where it should be off, if we would have lived in caves she might not survive, she would go hunting and would get killed, or maybeshe wouldnt find a man and so on. BUT thanks to today society and technoligy she can press the buttom like every1 else and kill a bear! societies are no longer 150 members top, they are counted in the millions so she will find the mate that is fitting to her and so her genes would spread. of course that our society will move to the direction of total equality, the human race is really chaotic when its comes to genetics, we defy the natural selection becasuse we moved to social selection.
a society that show mercy to the retard and weak encourage mercy to one another and would be run better in the long run then a society that let those die, and opress women which are 50% of the work force. at least i hope its the case or ill have a rude awakening one day...
what i am saying is that genes are in their base random, and even if the general rule say that males do that and females do that there would always be genetic mutations, a ugly parents might bring a beautiful child and a submissive mother might give birth to a pissed off femanist. just say thanks to the gods of genetic mutations that made you with the right amount of each chemicals, and the god of global positening that placed you in a country you are allowed to drive on your own, thank them for giving you the choice to be as you are.
P.S there are no such gods.
what i do agree with is that this list might not be so correct, it would be better if it would rank some abilities, like emotional and less emotional, or passive and agressive on the same line. or something like this i didnt really looked into the list that deeply nor do i care about the list.
kiera2
03-13-2008, 03:21 PM
For the record, you don't need to explain how genetics works to me - I have a Master's degree in Natural Sciences, and while I specialised in chemistry, I also did a year of Biology and a year of Experimental Psychology. So I've 'learned some genetics' in my time, and also looked at a lot of very interesting studies on the differences between male and female brains. I'm not just making this stuff up as I go along ;)
The question I'm trying to address here is one of whether genetic predisposition to certain personality traits is a strong enough force to override culturally enforced gender roles.
When I talk about culturally enforced gender roles, I'm talking about the conditioning that men and women are subjected to from an early age that pushes them towards traditional gender roles. As an example - young boys are expected to play with mechanical toys like Lego and young girls are expected to play with dolls. From this very early stage in development, we're re-enforcing our own perceptions of gender roles - we're encouraging boys to build things and think spatially, while we're encouraging girls to play-act and think empathically.
It's the classic nature-versus-nurture argument: how much of the observable trends in the differing mental strengths of men and women are attributable to these preconceived gender roles, and how much is simply genetics?
If the dominant force here was genetics, we would expect all human cultures to have the same gender roles for men and for women. But this obviously isn't the case. The fact that cultures can exist where what we think of as 'normal' gender roles are reversed, only goes to show that cultural upbringing is the dominant force in deciding gender roles.
lol, i was waiting for someone to bring up nature vs nuture (i though it would be me actually:D)
this is also becoming somewhat of an evolutionary topic also
i have a feeling that those of us who believe in evolution are probably more against these gender defined stereotypes (not trying to single anyone out, just making an observation)
most human societies have the same roles between men and women, the provider and the caretaker, a few tribes in africa dont really deny this, they are after all isolated and when compared to the rest of humanity they are really arent even close to be a major case. in the overwhelming majority of human societies the roles are pretty much defined. even in the western society where women can be carier women and have thousends of men working for her, still this society have the norm.
as for the first question its intresting, a women who might be feminist might not be so lucky and be born in a certein country where its illigel for her to leave the house, she might be so strong willed that she will leave her home and break the rules! but then they will kill her and the genetic revolution she might have brought would stop there. in the end humans are very weird cretures cuz we moved to social evolution.
keep in mind that untill 100 years ago women didnt had much rights in this world, for over 200k years our society and genes moved in a way that the men rule and women who were too strong willed or agressive would usally be outcasts, since the revolution 100 years ago, its still too short to spread the genes that make the two genders more equal. in thousends of years i think that society and genetics would move into the equality hand in hand.
society is effected by genetics and renforce the genetics dominanace by outcasting and killing those who dont abide the rules.
Primera Espada
03-13-2008, 04:13 PM
o.O
For one, the idea of applying masculine and feminine to people based on a standard that is from MORE than human beings is faulty. We don't consider something masculine cause it's common for a male lion to do it, we consider it masculine cause it's common for a male human to do it.
Two, I said genetics determine masculine and feminine traits.
NO WHERE did I say that people are pigeonholed into those traits, and that it's inappropriate for women to be masculine, or men to be feminine. That's a completely different argument all together, one I will not get into, under any circumstances, in this thread.
Ninira
03-13-2008, 04:35 PM
as for the first question its intresting, a women who might be feminist might not be so lucky and be born in a certein country where its illigel for her to leave the house, she might be so strong willed that she will leave her home and break the rules! but then they will kill her and the genetic revolution she might have brought would stop there. in the end humans are very weird cretures cuz we moved to social evolution.
I don't think women are born feminists and men aren't born to be strong warriors etc. etc. If a woman is raised in a society where women aren't supposed to be strong, she is more likely to develop a personality that is weak. GENETICS DO NOT CONTROL OUR PERSONALITIES. Social conditioning is what makes us. Social conditioning says men shouldn't cry and women should be empathetic. The social conditioning of some African societies say women shouldn't cry and men should be empathetic.
Basically, you're saying everything comes down to genetics, genetics, genetics. The fact of the matter is, IT DOESN'T. Even the hormones we get in the womb change us and guess what? That isn't genetics.
keep in mind that untill 100 years ago women didnt had much rights in this world, for over 200k years our society and genes moved in a way that the men rule and women who were too strong willed or agressive would usally be outcasts, since the revolution 100 years ago, its still too short to spread the genes that make the two genders more equal. in thousends of years i think that society and genetics would move into the equality hand in hand.
society is effected by genetics and renforce the genetics dominanace by outcasting and killing those who dont abide the rules.
Catherine the Great? Elizabeth the First? Joan of Arc? All strong willed women who positively influenced their societies. By your argument, strong-willed women should be extinct because society killed them all off. But they aren't, and judging by this forum, they seem to be flourishing. Perhaps they are part of a society that encouraged it, thus there are plenty of them?
you really are selective arent you? you say that i saying thats it come to genetics and then you qoute me saying "society is effected by genetics and renforce the genetics dominanace by outcasting and killing those who dont abide the rules." its a magic circle, one support the other.
today modern society moved to equality because its make society much stronger, in the ever lasting clash of civilisations. a society that dont allow women to leave the house have less workers, less scientists and less fighters(man need to take all this roles so there is less to go around) those societies get weak and die out. its sociel evolution that is forced trough needs, since as of now this created the most advanced societies in the world then it will mostly continue and with times it will start to give to the dying of the genes selection.
the future human evolution is a problem and another topic, we might have seen the last human race, we might reached our final evolution stage because...it will be too long and irrelevent...
anyway, a society here and there that is controled by women dosnt make my stand weaker, since in genetics there are always diffrences, still if you rule out the westren societies, which are a revolution in human society and only exist in this matter for 100 years, those few tribes in africa really dont count as more then a deviation then the general mould.
Ninira
03-13-2008, 05:34 PM
anyway, a society here and there that is controled by women dosnt make my stand weaker, since in genetics there are always diffrences, still if you rule out the westren societies, which are a revolution in human society and only exist in this matter for 100 years, those few tribes in africa really dont count as more then a deviation then the general mould.
Societies have changed over time. In places like ancient China and Japan, women were equal to men, until Confucianism became a popular philosophy. So why are these African societies null and void to you? Even if they aren't Western society, they are still cultures that have the right to be respected just like any other culture.
You keep saying 'genetic this' and 'genetic that' and you disregard my idea that it's social conditioning that forms our personalities by assuming that our genes are everything. But they're not. Genes can determine things like predisposition to colon cancer, but the disease can be avoided by doing things like exercise and proper diet. Like I said before, genetics isn't everything. You have yet to disprove that.
they are meaningless because they are fewer, there are always few deviants from the norm. as for ancient china and japan, i dont know about equal rights but equal rights is diffrent then equal rights nor do i sure you are talking about the same equal rights as today.
and again you decide that i saying that its only genetics, i said several times that genetics influance society and society reinforce genetics, its a magic circle and not a clear action and result equation. stop shoving words in my mouth i dont do this on you so show me the same courtesy.
Ninira
03-13-2008, 06:41 PM
they are meaningless because they are fewer, there are always few deviants from the norm. as for ancient china and japan, i dont know about equal rights but equal rights is diffrent then equal rights nor do i sure you are talking about the same equal rights as today.
Equal rights as in women could own property, hold jobs as scholars, do things that men do. That is equal rights, correct? As for those societies, they have become fewer because Africa had been colonized by Europe, thus leading to more Western ideals. Some Aborigine societies also had equal rights among men and women, and some of them had caretaker men and warrior women.
and again you decide that i saying that its only genetics, i said several times that genetics influance society and society reinforce genetics, its a magic circle and not a clear action and result equation. stop shoving words in my mouth i dont do this on you so show me the same courtesy.
Society did have some women as caretakers and men as warriors as their ideal, though not every society did. This is what I'm trying to say: if all women were supposed to be caretakers, then they all would be, but the fact that some are warriors shows that society doesn't base everything off of genes.
Now, how does this relate to masculine traits and feminine traits? Whether a man is "genetically masculine" as you seem to think or a women is "genetically feminine" doesn't really matter, because both "personality genes" could be passed on to the child. For the genes to be exclusive, males and females would have to be completely different species.
equal rights dosnt mean that they had same roles, as for female wariors, its not really smart idea in war, the strength diffrence is really important and while there are deviants here and there in general its mostly should be avoided (in ancient societies).
btw you said that hormonst got nothing to do with genetics...wtf? hormons are decided by genetics, everything in your body is decided by genetics, how much neurons stream in your brain and how much hormons are released to your blood are decided by your genetics.
Ninira
03-13-2008, 07:07 PM
btw you said that hormonst got nothing to do with genetics...wtf? hormons are decided by genetics, everything in your body is decided by genetics, how much neurons stream in your brain and how much hormons are released to your blood are decided by your genetics.
No, I said the hormones in your mother's womb are not affected by your genetics. For example, the size ratio between your ring and forefinger has been used as an indicator to show how much testosterone you received in your mother's womb. This can be a precursor to future aggressive tendencies and occurs in both men and women. Now who's selectively reading?
equal rights dosnt mean that they had same roles,
If women being able to do the same things as men in a legal sense doesn't mean equal rights, what DOES it mean to you?
It's the classic nature-versus-nurture argument: how much of the observable trends in the differing mental strengths of men and women are attributable to these preconceived gender roles, and how much is simply genetics?
If the dominant force here was genetics, we would expect all human cultures to have the same gender roles for men and for women. But this obviously isn't the case. The fact that cultures can exist where what we think of as 'normal' gender roles are reversed, only goes to show that cultural upbringing is the dominant force in deciding gender roles.
I've always thought the nature-versus-nature argument to be stupid. The two can't be separated. It's like debating whether the length or the width of a square makes it more rectangular. Both act on one another. Like, the average man being physically stronger than the average woman is due to genetics, but this couldn't have happened if men's social roles weren't determined to be hunters (or providers) several millenia ago. Also, any man won't be very strong if he's lazy and watches TV all day.
For masculinity and feminity, much of it is really socially constructed. The definitions of the words, what constitues being masculine or feminine, depends entirely on the culture you live in. In North America, we have countless TV shows telling men to fight, fight, and fight. Ads in magazines reinforcing young girls' image of women as thin. There's a belief that women should express their emotions, while men should not. It's pretty much impossible to escape; by the time you realize what's going on, society will have set you down on of these two paths.
Nonetheless, it doesn't seem this is all a social construct. The David Reimer case study is a strong example of an attempt at gender assignment failing miserably. And there are tomboys and male interior decorators.
simple, a society might give a women full rights, and the right to be scholler and other things and still impose pressure on them to be housewifes, i said roles as in the classical provider and caretaker, even in today societies where women have all the rights a men have, still the females are expected to be the caretakers. seriously you really twist what i am saying, i am starting to be insulted. i said that equel rights dosnt mean that they had the same roles, a society can give full rights to a group and STILL shut the path of a provider or caretaker from them by pressure.
as for the hormons you said, "Even the hormones we get in the womb change us and guess what? That isn't genetics" isnt the amount of hormons that are given to us in the womb are decided by the mother genetics? much like half of our DNA?
kiera2
03-13-2008, 10:23 PM
most human societies have the same roles between men and women, the provider and the caretaker, a few tribes in africa dont really deny this ...
Most isn't enough though. Surely if genetic forces were the dominant factor in determining gender roles, gender roles would be the same in all societies. Even one functioning society in which gender roles are reversed shows societal conditioning is more important in determining gender roles.
Not entirely sure what you're getting at with your comments about social evolution - it sounds to me like you're saying that gender roles are predominantly determined by society, and if that's the case then we actually agree on this :p
I've always thought the nature-versus-nature argument to be stupid. The two can't be separated. It's like debating whether the length or the width of a square makes it more rectangular.
The nature-versus-nurture argument as I understand it isn't about saying one or the other is all-important - it's a discussion of which is more important in certain circumstances, and to what extent internal and external factors play a role.
i did mentioned genetic deviants, and having those societies isolated is also strengthing this claim. so one or two diffrent societies can be contributed to genetic diffrences there more then here, like blue lobsters.
what i am saying is closer to what adam says, i am saying that genetics affect society( for example man got the warior and hunter part, aka provider, because of their genetics, strength and agression,) and society ,once its been formed into a pre-roles society thanks to the genes, support the way genes are, in society where men are the strong wariors will have strong man out of natural selection, thus ensuring that they will remain the wariors in future generations. genetics and society goes hand with hand and suppor one another, in the past many societies praised the warior as a good provider and they had many offsprings thus spreading their genes more effectivly, another example of society and genetics going hand in hand.
kiera2
03-14-2008, 01:50 AM
i did mentioned genetic deviants, and having those societies isolated is also strengthing this claim. so one or two diffrent societies can be contributed to genetic diffrences there more then here, like blue lobsters.
Blue lobsters are a totally different example. Blue lobsters are a random mutation that occur very rarely in any population of lobsters. You don't find entire communities exclusively consisting of blue lobsters.
I can understand that in the distant past, it made sense for the physically stronger sex to have the gender role of hunting for and supporting a family unit. In that sense, genetics contributed to the establishment of gender roles. But there's no reason for such roles to be perpetuated by our current society. The men don't have to go out and boomerang a kangaroo for dinner, but they're still portrayed as (and expected to be) the more physically active sex.
i never said that such roles have place in today modern society but you would agree with me that men today are still dominant in most militery and construction jobs? there is still place for hard muscles...at least untill the exo suits will be here.
Primera Espada
03-14-2008, 02:28 AM
The reason men are still portrayed as the physical sex because, well, TESTOSTERONE
It builds muscle, yo.
So guys have more muscle than girls (or bigger muscle, or whatever).
That's why that stereotype still exists.
Just like girls being all cute and girly exists cause, well, guess what, biology!
Seriously, you can't pretend that biology and genetics have nothing to do with differences in sex. Seriously, there's a reason there's an X and a Y chromosome.
You will just have long, circular arguments if you don't accept things given as scientific fact. If you want to argue gender roles, that's fine, but don't argue that there's no real difference between men and women.
Are they equal? You bet.
Are they the same? No way in Hueco Mundo.
kiera2
03-14-2008, 09:43 AM
So guys have more muscle than girls (or bigger muscle, or whatever).
I'm not talking about which sex is stronger, I'm talking about which sex is assumed to be more athletic. There's no reason whatsoever that women shouldn't be just as active and sporty as men. And yet boys are always encouraged to play physical sports, whereas girls are made to feel that such things are not feminine, and to be avoided (even with other girls). Anyone ever hear the phrase women don't sweat, they glow? Why shouldn't girls want to be physically fit?
Just like girls being all cute and girly exists cause, well, guess what, biology!
Considering that 'girly' is a totally culturally subjective term, and differs from society to society, I'd love to see your argument for how genetics make females 'girly'. In Japan it's considered cute and feminine for women to walk with their toes turned inwards, and so many women do. Do you really think this 'girly' behaviour is at all genetic?
Seriously, you can't pretend that biology and genetics have nothing to do with differences in sex. Seriously, there's a reason there's an X and a Y chromosome.
If that's what you think I've been saying, then you're seriously misunderstanding.
Thantos-Espada
03-14-2008, 10:12 AM
I dont beleive men and women are equal.
I beleive they should have equal rights. but they arn't equal in abillitys. since the beggining of mankind. males have been the hunter food gatherers, warriors and leaders. while women look after the males and produce children.
this was onyl true of thousands of years ago, but it was set this way not because the women couldn't do it. but because they generaly had more patiance and good heartedness, that they where better suited for the jobs they did.
I nowerdays women share equal jobs and responcibilitys to men. witch i do beleive to be right ¬ ¬.
males can build higher mussel forms then women, not because they are stronger, but because thats how the genetics have been since the first humans.
but ove rthe years females have grown in strength, they are equaly strong and in most cases more flexable.
so in strength i beleive women are the same as men...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
the only place where women still have to step is into the special forces branches of millitarys.
women cannot join the royal marines. not because they arn't strong enough, but becauser they are danty and delicate...
a woman with her leg blown off would cause the males of the team to loose focus and be more interested in saving their female comrade then their own lives. because thats how guys work...
women are not a tough, their as strong mentaly and physicly, but no as "tough"
toughness to me means the abillity to withstand anything, toture, death, war, love, killing people,
but this was all shown in the G.I. jane film if anyone has seen it, that women could do it.
the major issue i think is that because men and women are akward when working together, relationships can grow, problems between the relationships can also grow...
males sympothizing with a women side of an argument because hes more attracted to the women than the person on the opposite side of the argument...
in other words the only difference between men and women in my eyes, it that men are suck ups for girls... they shout jump, and the guys jump...
Babbo
03-14-2008, 10:54 AM
I'm not talking about which sex is stronger, I'm talking about which sex is assumed to be more athletic.
The differentiation you make here is silly. Men wouldn't be taking up the warrior provider role across cultures and millenia if they didn't consistently have the ability to do it better. Strength is an entirely relevant factor both of those roles. Like he said, you can try and brush it off as much as you want, but it makes more than enough sense that it's the reason why men have held dominant roles in society for so long <.<
There's no reason whatsoever that women shouldn't be just as active and sporty as men. And yet boys are always encouraged to play physical sports, whereas girls are made to feel that such things are not feminine, and to be avoided (even with other girls). Anyone ever hear the phrase women don't sweat, they glow? Why shouldn't girls want to be physically fit?
Pfft. Maybe back in the freaking 20s >.> Hell the twenties were the beginnings of when it was acceptable for women to sweat (babbo says sweat because prior to developments during that period it was considered unseemly for women (at least in the upper crust of society) to do any kind of strenuous activity). Babbo just cataloged a govt pamphlet on title nine, and one of the quotes was "can you remember back when keeping time at boys swim meets and picking up tennis balls was considered taking part in a team sport for girls?" In America at least women are increasingly taking part in athletics to the point where in intercollegiate athletics just about as many women play in college teams as men who stop (it was something in the area of 50,000 a year babbo thinks).
Babbo has to wonder though, what's your stance on women playing full contact sports such as (american) football or men's lacrosse? Babbo can't help but think there are cases where women shouldn't play in most circumstances. Or how about the differences in golf? They made a huge deal out of it when that women (her name escapes babbo) played in a PGA tournament; she still didn't make the cut though <.<
Considering that 'girly' is a totally culturally subjective term, and differs from society to society, I'd love to see your argument for how genetics make females 'girly'. In Japan it's considered cute and feminine for women to walk with their toes turned inwards, and so many women do. Do you really think this 'girly' behaviour is at all genetic?
I'll have to agree with you there, it's societal without a doubt. But society/culture determines the specifics. Women take on those activities for reasons that are unquestionably genetic >.>
Thantos-Espada
03-14-2008, 01:06 PM
a womans behavior is different to a man because that how its been since forever. in cultures where men are out numberd by the women, the women become the work force and the men in the culture become roles sutch as cooks and carpenters or w/e
i dont think theirs any difference in the social veiwings of men and women because there isnt any difference now then 200 years ago
we dont notice any differences. because to use women are just women and me are just men, working their daily lives how they wish.
And just to stop both babbo and kiera2, sry for spelling
it just genetics...
some women want to be like men, short hair, very tom-boy like. the reason for this is while the sperm was fertilizing the difference between men and women is the smallest amount of DNA and minor mistake can cuase changes in personlity or eye colour of shape of the body...
so girls that are very "girly" are only girl if
1: they where born with many more femal genes than male. making their personlity more like their mothers than their fathers.
2: how they where brought up, a girl thats brought up in an all male family will be more male orientated when she leaves the house, acting more like a boy that a girl. and thats nothing to do with genetics but its still to do with the parents.
if my mum was really girly and i didnt have a father, then i myself would be very "girly" because i have picket up habbits from my mum.
as for the different veiws of "girlyness" theres arnt any
girlyness is a personlity impossed on children by their parents. because for the parents girls must act girly, for the parents that dont think this way their children become more normal...
so if a 4 year old girl had been brought up with everything being pink, and tons of barbies and fluffy soft things and candy and cute faces...
then when she is 16-18 she will still like pink, still like cnady, still pull cute faces and like fluffy soft things and bunnys...
but if the same 4 year old was brought up with airfix kits, skating, dark colours, very punky behavior.
then when she is 16-18 the girl will still be a skater chick...
unless... somthing important happens to change their lives,
if the same skater girl at the age of 5 lost all her friends and her parents wouldnt let her skate, then when she's 16-18 she wont be a skater anymore, she would jsut be a normal punk...
and its the same with many different life styles...
kiera2
03-14-2008, 02:17 PM
Thanatos: forgive me for not replying to you. I started typing up a post to correct your inaccuracies and it was just getting far too long to bother. The generalisations and 'facts' that are simply untrue boggle the mind.
The differentiation you make here is silly. Men wouldn't be taking up the warrior provider role across cultures and millenia if they didn't consistently have the ability to do it better. Strength is an entirely relevant factor both of those roles. Like he said, you can try and brush it off as much as you want, but it makes more than enough sense that it's the reason why men have held dominant roles in society for so long <.<
I'm not trying to 'brush off' the idea - I agree with it! Yes, 'across the millennia' men's physical strength led them to assume the more aggressive roles in society. The point is that these days, the few things that are mainly controlled by genetics (like physical strength) only apply to a very few areas of life, and do not by any means justify the widespread perpetuation of archaic ideas about gender. I mean just look at Thanatos' post, where he says that he thinks women are as strong as men mentally and physically but not as 'tough'. Seriously, what the hell? How does that even make sense?
Pfft. Maybe back in the freaking 20s >.> Hell the twenties were the beginnings of when it was acceptable for women to sweat (babbo says sweat because prior to developments during that period it was considered unseemly for women (at least in the upper crust of society) to do any kind of strenuous activity).
Oh, I don't deny that things are improving - despite Thanatos' claims that society's views of men and women haven't changed in 200 years. (Again, what the hell?) But still, in my experience, guys coming out of a gym will be feeling great about themselves and only too happy to show off their manly sweat patches. Women wouldn't dream of leaving the gym until after they've had a shower and cleaned up. Society says sweat on men is impressive but sweat on women is gross.
Babbo has to wonder though, what's your stance on women playing full contact sports such as (american) football or men's lacrosse? Babbo can't help but think there are cases where women shouldn't play in most circumstances. Or how about the differences in golf? They made a huge deal out of it when that women (her name escapes babbo) played in a PGA tournament; she still didn't make the cut though <.<
Can I answer with an anecdote? :P
My personal sport of choice is rowing - which is always divided up into men's and women's categories, because of the general comparitive strengths of each sex. However, there was a woman at my college years back who was an incredible rower, and rowed with the men's First VIII because she out-competed everyone else who tried out. The committee in charge of the sport decided that technically what we call the men's division is an open division, and women can compete in it if they choose. (However the women's division is for women only.)
This is pretty much exactly the same as how weight divisions work. A rower classed as a lightweight can row in a heavyweight crew, but obviously a heavyweight can't row with lightweights. I think it makes just as much sense to have a women's division as a lightweight division; and I also think it makes sense for women (or lightweights) to be able to compete in the open "men's" division if they are able.
Thantos-Espada
03-14-2008, 04:07 PM
i doubt it^^ i have never in my life spoke facts, i dont need facts to make up my mind. and neither to i need them to tell me whats right or wrong, i choose of my own free will. and i have no inaccuracies^^ you may beleive so, but there is no law to state either you or I am right^^.
aslo this dabate is about the difference and equalitys of men and women?
if theres is a scientist that some how knows the "facts" about these differences, then he is truely the best mind on the planet. but of course there is no sutch person.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok u see a guy walking down the steet say 80 years ago?
then today you walk down the street and see another guy...
will your veiws on men change? i fking doubt it. so don't what the hell me about people like yourself not changing your veiws on men and women in the last 200 years.
Ninira
03-14-2008, 06:17 PM
aslo this dabate is about the difference and equalitys of men and women?
if theres is a scientist that some how knows the "facts" about these differences, then he is truely the best mind on the planet. but of course there is no sutch person.
It's supposed to be about stereotypes about what is "male" and what is "female". Considering neither gender has an emotional state or personality trait that is exclusive to that gender, it's sort of moot point.
Ok u see a guy walking down the steet say 80 years ago?
then today you walk down the street and see another guy...
will your veiws on men change? i fking doubt it. so don't what the hell me about people like yourself not changing your veiws on men and women in the last 200 years.
...wait, what? Yeah, I suppose some guy on street is not going to radically alter my views on men. I judge by individual anyways, so one guy won't make me think this-or-that about men. Though I'm really confused as to what you're trying to say. 80 years ago was a different time period, and I would have been raised with different views of men and women as a whole.
So what exactly DO you mean?
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.