Genders and Gender roles

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Genders and Gender roles

Postby fjafjan » Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:49 pm UTC

Okey, I really wish I could be bothered writing a good introductory post, but instead im going to write a medoicre short one!

In society there are many differences between genders, in what we are expected to do, how we are supposed to look, aswell as dress and act, what proffession we should chose aswell as to behave in social situations.
Question then is, what do you think of genders and gender roles, are all or most diffierences between genders in society simply biological, are some of them, are they are cultural?
Write your thoughts on gender, gender roles, and perhaps even femenism, and then let us discuss it, for it can be intruiging!
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Postby Yakk » Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:10 pm UTC

Biology doesn't know about our culture. So any claim that Biology pre-determines what roles one should engage in in a culture is silly.

One could say that we shaped our culture around biological factors. But our culture is in a state of flux.

Lastly, in nearly all measures of difference between the sexes, the variation within is lots greater than the difference between.

Most of the historical differences between men and women, social status wise, can be attributed to the statistically larger amount of muscle men carry around. More muscle makes men better at fighting. Plus, if a population loses 99% of it's men but is otherwise intact, it can maintain it's population levels with barely a blink.

So men are disposable, and men are better at fighting -- and in much of human history, being good at fighting has been important to being at the top of the social status heap.

Given modern weapons, women are about as good at fighting as men are (they find heavy kits favoured by many modern armies harder to carry, but as the prevailence of child soldiers around the world demonstrates, physical size really doesn't matter that much in war anymore).

While there may be small differences in other aptitudes, these are clearly overshadowed by training and cultural bias. Shortly, we should be able to remove any such bias if we want to (via genetic engeneering).

In the short term, the benefits of presumed equality between the sexes outweigh the minor costs if it is not quite perfectly accurate.

User avatar
VannA
White
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:57 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby VannA » Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:15 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:Biology doesn't know about our culture. So any claim that Biology pre-determines what roles one should engage in in a culture is silly.
Most of the historical differences between men and women, social status wise, can be attributed to the statistically larger amount of muscle men carry around. More muscle makes men better at fighting. Plus, if a population loses 99% of it's men but is otherwise intact, it can maintain it's population levels with barely a blink.
.


I think you are ignoring the fact that there *are* fundamental differences in brain chemistry, between the sexes, either that, or you don't think it is relevant to the ascribed gender 'roles'

Generally, I think the brain chemistry is responsible for more behavioral trends than we like to give it credit for.

Not that it is hugely relevant to the role somebody wants to take on in society..
Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy.

EstLladon
Beat you to the park. From RUSSIA.
Posts: 483
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:23 am UTC

Postby EstLladon » Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:36 pm UTC

In the short term, the benefits of presumed equality between the sexes outweigh the minor costs if it is not quite perfectly accurate.


What kind of benefits?

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:36 pm UTC

I would agree, with Vanna.

The point I would make is that evolution over hundreds of thousands of years in primate evolution, has shaped females to be nurturing and motherly, and men to be hunters and fighters. This doesn't mean I can't play with dolls, I did as a kid. Also doesn't mean women can't be hunters, I actually find that sexy, also my mom works and my dad doesn't. (What would Freud say?) So Social roles aren't DETERMINED by biology, but are greatly affected.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Puellus Peregrinus
Sazl. Eliuo Sazl.
Posts: 258
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Tampere, Finland

Postby Puellus Peregrinus » Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:45 pm UTC

I agree.

Gender roles are not always linear. I used to date a metalworker but she was mostly a very feminine person.
Romanes eunt domus!

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Postby Yakk » Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:35 pm UTC

EstLladon wrote:
In the short term, the benefits of presumed equality between the sexes outweigh the minor costs if it is not quite perfectly accurate.

What kind of benefits?


Increased labour pool for many jobs.

Fewer women raped by the men who "own" them.

The spouse that is most appropriate being picked to raise the children.

Relatively common cute girls who know math and find math jokes funny.

Those are amoung the benefits to presuming gender equality, other than in the obvious areas (men build muscle easier, women can bear children).

All of these things are a product of our current presumption of equality between the sexes.

VannA wrote:I think you are ignoring the fact that there *are* fundamental differences in brain chemistry, between the sexes, either that, or you don't think it is relevant to the ascribed gender 'roles'


Sure, there are some differences in the brain chemistry. But at the level we understand the brain, it is like trying to compare Russia and the USA based off of the average chemical contents of the atmosphere of each country.

The interesting shit is happening at a completely different levels. Drawing conclusions that impact social policy from the sketchy information we have right now would be silly.

We are approaching the computational capability to model reasonably large chunks of the brain, and the remote sensing abilities to resolve down to the synapse level of detail.

Generally, I think the brain chemistry is responsible for more behavioral trends than we like to give it credit for.


Brain chemistry or brain biology?

Chemistry sort of ignores the physical structure and arrangement of the brain.

Not that it is hugely relevant to the role somebody wants to take on in society..


*nod* -- presume that men and women are equal, other than what evidence you pick up from testing features of specific instances of each.

User avatar
athelas
A Sophisticated Plagiarism Engine
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 2:37 am UTC

Postby athelas » Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:56 am UTC

Increased labour pool for many jobs.

A global increase in time spent working necessarily entails a global decrease in time spend raising children, a vital social role that somebody has to pick up.

Fewer women raped by the men who "own" them.

Cite that this is due to feminism and not simply better law enforcement? In many patriarchal societies, "a lady's honor" was considered a matter of great import; let's not go stereotyping here.

The spouse that is most appropriate being picked to raise the children.

While there is variation to be sure, research and experience do suggest that females are generally better suited for this role; pushing for mathematical equality (50% male child-rearers) would be inefficient.

Sure, there are some differences in the brain chemistry. But at the level we understand the brain, it is like trying to compare Russia and the USA based off of the average chemical contents of the atmosphere of each country.


Granted, and certainly a "ground-up" explanation is beyond the current science. However, there have been numerous psychological studies, not relying on an understanding of fundamental processes, that demonstrate such differences. it would be disingenuous, given what we do know about substantial differences in brain chemistry and architecture, to insist that no differences exist and thus total integration should be instituted.

Gah, I hate fixing quote tags.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:38 am UTC

Yakk wrote:Relatively common cute girls who know math and find math jokes funny.


If this was true I agree with Yakk. (a joke, I never agree with Yakk)

K so here is something I have been discussing alot lately.

You know the whole thing where universities are like not enough women are tenured profs. Or like not enough girls in engineering. Or like too many women are housewives. K so here is my prob?

Who are you to tell these INDIVIDUALS what they should be. If certain individuals don't want to spend MANY years studying random math stuff to become a prof and would rather be a lover, all the power to em.
If they don't wanna be engineers but rather fashion designers all the power to em. If they wanna be takin care of their kids all the power to em.

K so the laws and stuff, they should be fair. But don't be angering Squeak by promoting "positive discrimination". :D
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:44 am UTC

A good friend of mine just graduated from civil engineering. Now she's going to a fashion design school.

It is a little funny. She doesn't like her engineering job, so she's doing something totally different. She actually made my girlfriend's graduation dress. It was amazing, in my opinion the best dress there. I'm biased though.

Anyways, the point is that girls can do most typically male jobs, but I think that guys and girls are very different. Tons of empirical evidence to back that up, too.

Just saying. The girls who are in engineering, comp sci, etc., still seem to like pink and putting on makeup once in a while. Not all of them, but you get the idea.
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:46 am UTC

WAIT WUT?!?! SPACE RAPTOR AND I AGREE?!?!? I am sooooooooo confused
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Owijad
1000 posts and still no title
Posts: 1625
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:07 pm UTC
Location: Mas-a-choo-sits
Contact:

Postby Owijad » Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:09 am UTC

I would love to see more than anecdotal evidence indicating that females are biologically better suited to rearing children.

I mean you, Athelas. Cite your sources, don't just declare that there have been studies.
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the devil gets your sould!

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26822
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:34 am UTC

Owijad wrote:I would love to see more than anecdotal evidence indicating that females are biologically better suited to rearing children.

I mean you, Athelas. Cite your sources, don't just declare that there have been studies.


And if there have been studies, have they taken into account learned and socialized differences? I would think a big part (though admittedly perhaps not all) is due to the fact that girls are often taught basically from day one that they ought to play at being mothers, while boys are taught that they ought to play at other things. (Furthermore, boys are often actively discouraged from playing at being fathers, since there remains a fear that a boy playing with a doll will grow up to be gay.)

Apart from the obvious fact that women can breastfeed children and men can't, which can be gotten around to some extent by putting breastmilk in bottles, what inherent differences are there?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:45 am UTC

Biological differences between men and women and their brain chemistry could be accessed in any introductory psychology book.

I have just cited many of my sources.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26822
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:10 am UTC

Dunno if Approximately Pi was responding to me or not, but if so, sorry for being unclear. I meant what inherent differences are there, in the ability to rear children.

The fact that there are biological differences between (most) "males" and (most) "females" of any sexually reproducing species is, scientifically speaking, a pretty uncontroversial claim. The fact that a few of these differences happen to be in the brain also seems fairly obvious. The brain controls the rest of the body, so doesn't it make sense that, with different reproductive organs and different hormonal levels, the brains would also be a bit different?

The problem is always when people conclude from the fact that men and women aren't the same to the claim that men are inherently better (or worse) at some social role (and in human beings, parenting is probably more social than biological, since it involves so much more than mearly meeting the child's biological requirements) than women.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:32 am UTC

Ah, my bad. To answer the question in this new light.

The gender differences on human behavior in respect to their young according to evolution, can be found in most introductory psychology books.

No seriously, in my first year psych class, which i am currently taking, we learned about this theory called the 'parental investment theory', its quite good and covers all the other scientific requirement thingies for a theory.

This again doesn't say who is better at raising kids, but rather, whats would nature do.

In refuting the next point to be made, I dont' really think in the last millinia we have learned so much as to be able to shed off evolutionary traits of behavior.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Peshmerga
Mad Hatter
Posts: 2061
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:56 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Peshmerga » Thu Mar 22, 2007 4:01 am UTC

But instincts can be overwritten.

As for gender roles...

Sexual attraction
Most purely a biological constant. Over the centuries, culture has only a small, minority influence over populations when it comes to sexual attraction. The male is dominant, the female subordinate, with fluctuating power struggles.

Profession
Culture has definitely and drastically changed gender roles in the workplace. Basically anyone can be anything so long as there's no physical bodily problem. Such as, females will usually never be seen in active duty special forces military. Males can pretty much do anything the female can do, just sometimes they're very much worse at it.

Parental
As far as I'm concerned, children should be raised with simple, unobtrusive, "chinese aphorism" esque values. Whether this is biological, cultural, or otherwise, doesn't immediately matter.

Biologically, the primary directive of the parent is to keep their children alive. Since this is no longer generally a problem, the only other need of parents is to raise their children strong. This is more instinctual than cultural.

One could argue that culture is in itself just a trend to greater liberal freedoms and social dynamics that allow more people to take a greater range of beliefs without as much fear of social rejection.
i hurd u liek mudkips???

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:42 am UTC

A global increase in time spent working necessarily entails a global decrease in time spend raising children, a vital social role that somebody has to pick up.


Did anyone ever think that maybe, globally, less time should be spent *having* and *raising* children?

Seriously, we don't need as many of the little bastards. It is not terribly important that we have more.

Anyway, to weigh in on the subject. Yes, men tend to be better than women at certain things, and vice versa. But that doesn't mean shit.

Why? Because individuals vary. Just because women, as a whole, are better at communicating and nurturing doesn't mean that every woman should be expected to be communicative and nurturing.

Expecting people to precisely follow the vague behavioural trends of their type-groups (whether they be sex, race, location of birth) is the height of stupidity, and also INEFFICIENT, because people end up being forced into roles to which they are not suited, when they could be performing much more happily and efficiently in some other role that perhaps does not precisely fit the trend you would "Expect" from their group.

Furthermore, pushing other people into roles like that limits *you*, too, because by defining those roles as the exclusive territory of some group, you are not just barring them from leaving that role, you're barring yourself from entering it.

And if you think that's not a big deal, remember that the next time someone tells you that something you like doing is "too girly" or "too tomboyish"
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
muteKi
Angry is too weak a term. Try "Fluffy".
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 4:02 am UTC
Location: William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA

Postby muteKi » Thu Mar 22, 2007 6:15 am UTC

I am in show choir, and in drama. I am a straight man.

And no, I don't mean that in the sense that I'm setting someone up for the next joke.

Sides. This stuff is SERIOUS BUSINESS.

Let this example stand as a point explaining my opinion. Cause I need to go to bed now:
I may very well end up dating one of the first remotely attractive girls who decides to ask ME out (not the other way around, since I don't have any idea what one would expect in such a relationship -- I may stay single all my life based on a few, what I feel, are immutable elements of personality).
Image

User avatar
evilbeanfiend
Posts: 2650
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:05 am UTC
Location: the old world

Postby evilbeanfiend » Thu Mar 22, 2007 10:44 am UTC

"Anyway, to weigh in on the subject. Yes, men tend to be better than women at certain things, and vice versa. But that doesn't mean shit.

Why? Because individuals vary. Just because women, as a whole, are better at communicating and nurturing doesn't mean that every woman should be expected to be communicative and nurturing. "

its also unclear to what extent this is a cultural thing rather than genetic.

anyway id highly recommend richard herrings book "talking cock" on this subject (and many other cock related subjects).

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:32 pm UTC

My point was that it doesn't matter. Biological, Cultural, Bio-cultural, whatever, it doesn't matter, because regardless people shouldn't be confined to *trends*. Either way, people are going to vary, and they should be allowed to do that without getting shit for it.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
evilbeanfiend
Posts: 2650
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:05 am UTC
Location: the old world

Postby evilbeanfiend » Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:37 pm UTC

amen to that.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Postby jestingrabbit » Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:02 pm UTC

I saw one of those "what gender is" type documentaries which talked about a whole bunch of studies that people had done and what was learnt (hosted by that guy with the moustache in the house of lords).

The experiment that struck me was when they had a baby, it wouldn't have been 18 months, and they were having women interact with the child. When they dressed the child up in frilly pinks the reaction was completely different to what happened when they dressed it up in blue. A lot of interaction with the pink ie talking, making faces, lots of eye contact. When blue, the same kid was shown cars and contact was minimal.

That sort of thing makes a big difference. The way the brain works in the first few years reinforces some connections in the brain and dulls others. I don't think that anyone can say that "women are more communicative" and "men are better with things" unless they also acknowledge that this is what society requires of them, from an early age. I think the less we impose this sort of stuff, the more similarities we'll notice and the more rounded our society will be.

It no longer makes sense to have our society built around a "populate or perish" mentality, and I think that's what traditional roles are all about.

User avatar
Tractor
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: no

Re: Genders and Gender roles

Postby Tractor » Thu Mar 22, 2007 4:04 pm UTC

fjafjan wrote:Question then is, what do you think of genders and gender roles, are all or most diffierences between genders in society simply biological, are some of them, are they are cultural?
Write your thoughts on gender, gender roles, and perhaps even femenism, and then let us discuss it, for it can be intruiging!


Skipping right back to the original question :)

I was looking stuff up on this regarding my views opposing the basic feminist movement, and found out there is also Masculism, which apparently sums up my views (although I am going to read it more in-depth after lunch..). Nifty.

EDIT: Damn tags
Last edited by Tractor on Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:01 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
9 x 6 = 42

Note: Randall kicks ass.

User avatar
athelas
A Sophisticated Plagiarism Engine
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 2:37 am UTC

Postby athelas » Thu Mar 22, 2007 4:51 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Owijad wrote:I would love to see more than anecdotal evidence indicating that females are biologically better suited to rearing children.

I mean you, Athelas. Cite your sources, don't just declare that there have been studies.


And if there have been studies, have they taken into account learned and socialized differences?


Fair enough, a quick google reveals one fairly well-sourced article. Another article demonstrates a tangentially related difference in male-female psychology. Women are also wired to detect men who like children: Linky. Frankly, the separation of social and biological roles is a futile exercise; there is simply not enough information. But since none of us has the power to erase all existinc culture and start anew, it's a moot point: women are generally better suited to raise children. Why is debatable; the fact is not.

Now, in exchange, I'd like cites for the other claims made; especially the one concerning rape.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Postby Yakk » Thu Mar 22, 2007 4:52 pm UTC

Sexual attraction
Most purely a biological constant. Over the centuries, culture has only a small, minority influence over populations when it comes to sexual attraction. The male is dominant, the female subordinate, with fluctuating power struggles.


You obviously haven't seen the increadibly varied kinds of things people have been attracted to. From the Greeks, to the Hotintot, to the West, to the Amazons...

We live in a bunch of really really powerful cultures. Basically every culture on the planet has smashed and destroyed thousands of varients and other cultures in order to dominate the area where it exists.

And we are really really good at soaking up culture. Cultural norms are survival strategies, and if you fail to soak up the surrounding culture, you die.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Thu Mar 22, 2007 4:53 pm UTC

Still doesn't matter, because those studies can only display group tendencies. Those don't mean dick on an individual level.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

parkaboy

Postby parkaboy » Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:00 pm UTC

most studies never do.

User avatar
athelas
A Sophisticated Plagiarism Engine
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 2:37 am UTC

Postby athelas » Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:00 pm UTC

Belial wrote:Did anyone ever think that maybe, globally, less time should be spent *having* and *raising* children?

Seriously, we don't need as many of the little bastards. It is not terribly important that we have more.


Certainly we don't need 10-kid familys anymore. However, that does not mean that we as a society can proportionally decrease time spend on children. The statistics on single-parent households, in which the parent necessarily has to work to support the family, demonstrate that children raised in those environments do worse than those with increased parental attention: cite Cite (check the third paragraph), cite, Cite (admittedly from a group with an agenda.

Why? Because individuals vary. Just because women, as a whole, are better at communicating and nurturing doesn't mean that every woman should be expected to be communicative and nurturing.


Nobody's advocating that strawman. However, insisting on complete numerical equality is equally fatuous, ignoring as it does innate biological tendencies.

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:03 pm UTC

Belial wrote:My point was that it doesn't matter. Biological, Cultural, Bio-cultural, whatever, it doesn't matter, because regardless people shouldn't be confined to *trends*. Either way, people are going to vary, and they should be allowed to do that without getting shit for it.

Right on.

Rules saying "we need to have more women doing this type of job" are just as bad as "we can't let women do this type of job".

It ignores the fact that each person is a complicated collection of skills and traits. Putting a premium on gender while ignoring other relevant facts is stupid and unfair.
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
athelas
A Sophisticated Plagiarism Engine
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 2:37 am UTC

Postby athelas » Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:06 pm UTC

athelas wrote:
Belial wrote:Did anyone ever think that maybe, globally, less time should be spent *having* and *raising* children?

Seriously, we don't need as many of the little bastards. It is not terribly important that we have more.


Certainly we don't need 10-kid families anymore. However, that does not mean that we as a society can proportionally decrease time spend on children. The statistics on single-parent households, in which the parent necessarily has to work to support the family, demonstrate that children raised in those environments do worse than those with increased parental attention: cite Cite (check the third paragraph), cite, Cite (admittedly from a group with an agenda.

Why? Because individuals vary. Just because women, as a whole, are better at communicating and nurturing doesn't mean that every woman should be expected to be communicative and nurturing.


Nobody's advocating that strawman. However, insisting on complete numerical equality is equally fatuous, ignoring as it does innate biological tendencies.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:12 pm UTC

Certainly we don't need 10-kid familys anymore. However, that does not mean that we as a society can proportionally decrease time spend on children. The statistics on single-parent households, in which the parent necessarily has to work to support the family, demonstrate that children raised in those environments do worse than those with increased parental attention: cite Cite (check the third paragraph), cite, Cite (admittedly from a group with an agenda.


So someone should be at home looking after the kid. if there is one. Okay. that can be the mom. That can be the dad. That can be a grandparent.

Or it can be no one. Many people just don't want kids. But regardless, there's no reason that the job should be forced on the female just because that's her "role". It can be anyone's role.

Nobody's advocating that strawman. However, insisting on complete numerical equality is equally fatuous, ignoring as it does innate biological tendencies.


Numerical equality? What does that even mean, in this context?

All I'm saying is that each person should be able to pursue what they're suited for and what they want to do, and your gender shouldn't even play into that. Will more women *decide* to do certain things and *be good* at certain things? Probably. But just because they tend to do that doesn't mean we should expect everyone who falls into that group to do so.

Biological tendencies are just tendencies. It's the individual who shapes and weaves those tendencies into their being, or obviates them entirely.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:32 pm UTC

By numerical equality I am sure he means this thing that I realllly hate, thats like groups that are trying to get as many girls into engineering as guyz. Or those that are constantly whining about why there arn't as many tenured profs that are women as there are men. I wholeheartedly disagree with these people. They aren't really feminists, they are rebels without a cause or worse activists without a cause.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:35 pm UTC

Well, yeah, that's dumb. Let people do what they're good at and what they want to do, don't tell them what they should be good at, either way.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Tractor
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: no

Postby Tractor » Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:46 pm UTC

True.
Unfortunately many play the equality game as though it means all numbers have to be equal across the board. Let's face it, there may never be just as many women as men in engineering, just as there may never be as many male nurses.
What IS important is that everybody has the opportunity to do whatever.
I have a severe problem with people misusing 'equality' as they see fit. ( See also: Basic Human Decency, feminism, sex/racial based hiring/enrollment/etc, etc. )
9 x 6 = 42



Note: Randall kicks ass.

User avatar
muteKi
Angry is too weak a term. Try "Fluffy".
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 4:02 am UTC
Location: William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA

Postby muteKi » Fri Mar 23, 2007 3:29 am UTC

Compare this to racial discrimination. Problem is men ARE viewed as the dominant group, as are white people. Hence it is that many people find similar criticisms between feminism and some black radicals (i.e., the continuing victimization of blacks, women in modern society).

I follow the masculinist role, ultimate equality between the sexes, not feminine dominance.

And any idea of a gender role is ultimately stereotyping no different from saying that you must be good at math should you be Asian or a big fan of fried chicken if you're African-American.
Image

User avatar
evilbeanfiend
Posts: 2650
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:05 am UTC
Location: the old world

Postby evilbeanfiend » Fri Mar 23, 2007 11:52 am UTC

well there are a few jobs that require a penis or vagina to do. they are often illegal though

charlestheoaf
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:20 am UTC

Postby charlestheoaf » Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:58 pm UTC

Men and women have certain physical differences that affects their own personal growth. For example, men's eyes generally have more receptors that detect luminosity, while women generally have more receptors for detecting colors.

This makes men better at detecting changes in brightness, and therefore more likely to notice smaller details. Women are more likely to notice differences in colors, and therefore have more of a tendency to take in the "big picture." Even base things like this can affect how you view the world and thus how you behave (and of course could affect your visual tastes).

Men and women's brains are also (again, generally) physically different, due in large part to hormonal differences. Now, of course an individual's homonal levels could be drastically different, regardless of gender.

I once saw a Dateline (or some similar show) special on a little girl who had a condition in which she had almost no testosterone, and extremely high levels of estrogen. This made her extremely "girly," and motherly (she was VERY into acting as a mother for her dolls). Now, this might just be learned behavior which fits in with particular emotions and mental states she experiences due to her particular brain chemestry, or it may be evidence that supports the claim that women are inherently "motherly."

However, that is certainly not to say that I think there really is true, strong connection between a person's gender and their gender role in society. Your biology and past will always be with you, but you can do what you choose with the box your are in, and remold it to fit closest to the way you want.

Rose34
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:08 pm UTC

Postby Rose34 » Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:14 am UTC

Tractor wrote:True.
Unfortunately many play the equality game as though it means all numbers have to be equal across the board. Let's face it, there may never be just as many women as men in engineering, just as there may never be as many male nurses.
What IS important is that everybody has the opportunity to do whatever.
I have a severe problem with people misusing 'equality' as they see fit. ( See also: Basic Human Decency, feminism, sex/racial based hiring/enrollment/etc, etc. )


I used to agree with this completely, and I still do to some extent, but then I went to college. I was one of four girls in the physics department at my school, and although there was no discrimination, at least that I noticed, it was not easy. I was only there for two years, as full time school and I don't get along, but I do think that if there had been more women, and more female professors I might have stayed, or at least made more of an attempt. It was really hard to find people to talk to comfortably, and although I didn't think it would be a problem, I found out that I am a lot more comfortable with other women around to talk to. Invariably, some sort of sexual tension was involved if when I would talk to the guys, it's unnerving to constantly be in that position.

I am not sure that this means there should be forced hiring of women, because I think individuals should be able to be individuals, and the best person should be hired, regardless of gender, but how do you get it started? What if the inequality in the numbers is not about the job, and whether men or women want it, but how comfortable they are in the work environment?

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:45 pm UTC

space_raptor wrote:Just saying. The girls who are in engineering, comp sci, etc., still seem to like pink and putting on makeup once in a while. Not all of them, but you get the idea.


Considering how young girls are raised this is hardly surprising, givven "pink pretty dolls" and told to be beautiful. Girls are encouraged to be shallow and beautiful and so it's not surprising that is what occurs.
I think it's the same reason why most Blacks listen to hip hop
Let's face it, there may never be just as many women as men in engineering, just as there may never be as many male nurses.


I doubt that this is true, maybe, but maybe not.

I am not sure that this means there should be forced hiring of women, because I think individuals should be able to be individuals, and the best person should be hired, regardless of gender, but how do you get it started? What if the inequality in the numbers is not about the job, and whether men or women want it, but how comfortable they are in the work environment?


I think as it's the same as it is with Races, though not quite the same, there are definately more differences between Males and Females than there are between races, but still things might need to be done. Alot of non whites that do graduate from educations don't feel that they relate to the culture and do something which they are expected to do instead, like drug dealing or Hop Hop artist.
I think that was poorly phrased
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests