Gender Roles

[steve_bank]

The 'battle of sexes' has been a theme throughout human history.


I do not know if the term is still used. It also includes gender neutral hair styles and dress.
A prevailing attitude has long been women and gays for that matter should be who they are without bias, but not hetero men. A social castration of sorts. I do not think there is anything new or controversial about that.


It got ridiculous. Back around the 80s-90s an important question was should men open a door for a woman? Is it sexist? Is it demeaning to women?

I don't know if the term is still used. One idea was make men be like women. Metrosexual included gender neutral dress and hair styles.

informal
adjective
adjective: metrosexual

1. relating to or denoting men who live in urban areas and enjoy shopping, fashion, and similar interests traditionally associated with women or gay men.
   "the rising trend of the metrosexual man"
   

noun
noun: metrosexual; plural noun: metrosexuals

1. a man who lives in an urban area and enjoys shopping, fashion, and similar interests traditionally associated with women or gay men.
   "the men in my family are not metrosexuals"

n some circles boys are not supposed to be competitive and aggressive. Back in the 90s an area preschool baned construction toys for boys because it was considered too aggressive and competitive.


Is it possible to have a ender neutral functioning society?

Should men be less competitive and aggressive to allow women easier success?

Lucile Ball is a good example. She was nothing like her characters. She became a Hollywood mogul in a male dominated industry. How did she do it? A little known fact it was Ball who took a gamble on the original Star Trek series.

There were other actresses who also got ahead in the 40s and 50s as movie executives. How did they do it in such a male donated area? Did they compete or were they given a break?

Oops, both men and women are now actors, it is not PC to call women an 'actress'.

Suld all gender specific words and cocepts be removed rom culture?

 

[bilby]

The 'battle of sexes' has been a theme throughout human history.

Sure, as long as you imagine human history to have begun in the early 18th century.

https://www.oed.com/dictionary/battle-of-the-sexes_n

 

[bilby]

I do not think there is anything new or controversial about that.

You have got to be taking the piss. Everything you are talking about is both new and controversial.

 

[bilby]

This entire thread belongs in the "Old Man Yells at Cloud" forum.

Could it be any more mid twentieth century? Were the 1950s really the only decade in human history to be of any import? Is that decade really the standard of normality against which all other eras should be judged?

 

[TomC]

The 'battle of sexes' has been a theme throughout human history.

That's not how I see it.
For nearly all of human history, men have manipulated women with resources and violence. Women have manipulated men with sex and children.

In the modern world, such battles of manipulation don't work as well as they used to do. Sensible men have developed more feminine characteristics and sensible women have developed more masculine characteristics.
It's a win-win for everyone who prefers a better world over the olden days.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Should men be less competitive and aggressive to allow women easier success?

Or maybe the question is, should we breed boys to be boys and girls to be girls. The UCI did a study on the fairness of males racing as females. And the biggest distinction between male and females wasn't biology. It was the breeding, it was boys are breed to be athletes, girls have to scrape and fight for it. And even when they become the best in the world (see US WNT Soccer team), they still get the crumbs that have fallen beside the table. Sure, the biology does play into it to, but the generalized boys are athletes and girls aren't was what they determined was the largest factor that made it unfair for trans male cyclists to compete among female cyclists.

So to answer your question, competition should be encouraged among children. Not among boys.

Lucile Ball is a good example. She was nothing like her characters. She became a Hollywood mogul in a male dominated industry. How did she do it? A little known fact it was Ball who took a gamble on the original Star Trek series.

There were other actresses who also got ahead in the 40s and 50s as movie executives. How did they do it in such a male donated area? Did they compete or were they given a break?

The Sarah Pollocks in the world are still quite rare. Lucille Ball wasn't a common experience for women. And female movie producers are still very uncommon. And careful if they do make a movie, especially one with other women... and it is a type of movie men would generally have been interested in. Women produce some chick flick, and guys don't care. Female producers put together The Marvels and men are hissing and spitting, wanting the movie to fail because women are butting in on their territory. Heck, having a female protagonist (in any action related film) alone is enough to trigger men.

Oops, both men and women are now actors, it is not PC to call women an 'actress'.

Careful, you are close to quoting the Nazi from the movie Falling Down, with his Officeress remark. Also, I don't like calling female actors actresses. They are actors. They are doctors. They are musicians. We don't need to add a suffix to a term so we can demean what they are doing as being something different or less than the male counterpart.

Suld all gender specific words and cocepts be removed rom culture?

What was it, back when the British aristocracy was speaking French (see consequences of the Battle of Hastings), the English language which was still spoke among the proles changed... and words stopped having genders. That transition was something like 700 to 900 years ago.

 

[Toni]

The 'battle of sexes' has been a theme throughout human history.

That's not how I see it.
For nearly all of human history, men have manipulated women with resources and violence. Women have manipulated men with sex and children.

In the modern world, such battles of manipulation don't work as well as they used to do. Sensible men have developed more feminine characteristics and sensible women have developed more masculine characteristics.
It's a win-win for everyone who prefers a better world over the olden days.
Tom

Well, sure, if you believe that women do not like (good) sex as much or more than men and are incapable of being violent, of providing a home and food without the assistance of a man and often despite the efforts of some man/men. And if you believe that Euro-centric cultures are the only ones that have ever existed and that patriarchy is ubiquitous and inevitable. And that men are little boys who are easily led by their dicks and their violent tendencies and have no real role in caring for children and elderly people.

I'm not certain what you mean by 'modern world.' Or what you mean by 'more feminine characteristics' or 'more masculine characteristics.' Lots of people eschew any notion of characteristics outside of mostly reproductive physical characteristics having any legitimate assignment as either male or female.

Women are and always have been talented and accomplished as men in so-called areas such as math and science. Men are capable and talented at nurturing young children and domestic tasks.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sarah Polley! Where did Pollucks come from?!

 

[Emily Lake]

The UCI did a study on the fairness of males racing as females. And the biggest distinction between male and females wasn't biology. It was the breeding, it was boys are breed to be athletes, girls have to scrape and fight for it. And even when they become the best in the world (see US WNT Soccer team), they still get the crumbs that have fallen beside the table. Sure, the biology does play into it to, but the generalized boys are athletes and girls aren't was what they determined was the largest factor that made it unfair for trans male cyclists to compete among female cyclists.

This contradicts a whole lot of other research and sports science that demonstrates that males have materially larger lung capacity, heart capacity, and denser muscle fibers, as well as lower fat levels. They also have different muscle attachment points, and our femurs meet our hip sockets at a different angle, which affects gait and stride length. So you know - physical things that we know for a fact exist.

The suggestion that socialization drives the difference doesn't really explain why middle school boys exceed the performance level of elite women teams (including olympic athletes) in almost every single athletic competition, almost every single time.

Yes, socialization plays a role in the desire of males and females to participate in athletics. I don't discount that at all. But to suggest that socialization somehow drives actual measurable performance, because "boys just want it more" is not a supportable position.

 

[Emily Lake]

Well, sure, if you believe that women do not like (good) sex as much or more than men and are incapable of being violent, of providing a home and food without the assistance of a man and often despite the efforts of some man/men. And if you believe that Euro-centric cultures are the only ones that have ever existed and that patriarchy is ubiquitous and inevitable. And that men are little boys who are easily led by their dicks and their violent tendencies and have no real role in caring for children and elderly people.

I'm not certain what you mean by 'modern world.' Or what you mean by 'more feminine characteristics' or 'more masculine characteristics.' Lots of people eschew any notion of characteristics outside of mostly reproductive physical characteristics having any legitimate assignment as either male or female.

Women are and always have been talented and accomplished as men in so-called areas such as math and science. Men are capable and talented at nurturing young children and domestic tasks.

Eeeeh... I disagree with some of Tom's framing, definitely. But let's also be realistic - we're a sexually dimorphic species, and whether we like it or not behaviors are breedable. That's a crass way to put it, but it's true. As a result of our evolutionary roles with respect to sexual reproduction, there are certain behavioral tendencies that are sex linked. Men tend to be more aggressive, and more competitive, women tend to be more protective and more caring. From an evolutionary perspective, most of our history has been one where men were required to do a significant amount of the hunting as well as fighting in order to protect their offspring (and their tribe). Women were by dint of being women required to provide gestation and child care. Men could help with some of the child care, sure, but they can't breastfeed an infant. When a woman became pregnant, she was fairly dependant on a man for a few years to protect and help feed her and their child.

This isn't controversial - it's something we have observed time and again throughout the animal kingdom. Sexually dimorphic species where one of the sexes bears the burden of gestation and child care have different behavioral tendencies. Those behaviors support the flourishing of offspring and the continuation of the species.

But those tendencies aren't recipes. They're not rules, they're guidelines. Just because women tend to be more inclined toward protecting and nurturing children doesn't mean that such things are the only things they're good at; nor does it mean that men cannot be nurturing. Just because men tend to be more aggressive doesn't mean that they're only suited for warfare; nor does it mean that women cannot compete and be violent.

 

[Jarhyn]

Claims that we "ARE" rather than we "TREND TOWARDS" mean the person making the claim fundamentally does not understand science nor biology.

Biology does not ever nearly fit into such categories, which we have ever discovered break down into more complicated relationships and differences between structures, which is the whole point here: Biology does not fit nicely into categories, for all our efforts to have words that describe what we see.

They are descriptive, though, not prescriptive.

Screw "continuation of the species" rhetoric too.

There's no ought there, just "is". I think the continuation of the species comes down to the species' choices as to continue, or how we continue.

 

[Toni]

Well, sure, if you believe that women do not like (good) sex as much or more than men and are incapable of being violent, of providing a home and food without the assistance of a man and often despite the efforts of some man/men. And if you believe that Euro-centric cultures are the only ones that have ever existed and that patriarchy is ubiquitous and inevitable. And that men are little boys who are easily led by their dicks and their violent tendencies and have no real role in caring for children and elderly people.

I'm not certain what you mean by 'modern world.' Or what you mean by 'more feminine characteristics' or 'more masculine characteristics.' Lots of people eschew any notion of characteristics outside of mostly reproductive physical characteristics having any legitimate assignment as either male or female.

Women are and always have been talented and accomplished as men in so-called areas such as math and science. Men are capable and talented at nurturing young children and domestic tasks.

Eeeeh... I disagree with some of Tom's framing, definitely. But let's also be realistic - we're a sexually dimorphic species, and whether we like it or not behaviors are breedable. That's a crass way to put it, but it's true. As a result of our evolutionary roles with respect to sexual reproduction, there are certain behavioral tendencies that are sex linked. Men tend to be more aggressive, and more competitive, women tend to be more protective and more caring. From an evolutionary perspective, most of our history has been one where men were required to do a significant amount of the hunting as well as fighting in order to protect their offspring (and their tribe). Women were by dint of being women required to provide gestation and child care. Men could help with some of the child care, sure, but they can't breastfeed an infant. When a woman became pregnant, she was fairly dependant on a man for a few years to protect and help feed her and their child.

This isn't controversial - it's something we have observed time and again throughout the animal kingdom. Sexually dimorphic species where one of the sexes bears the burden of gestation and child care have different behavioral tendencies. Those behaviors support the flourishing of offspring and the continuation of the species.

But those tendencies aren't recipes. They're not rules, they're guidelines. Just because women tend to be more inclined toward protecting and nurturing children doesn't mean that such things are the only things they're good at; nor does it mean that men cannot be nurturing. Just because men tend to be more aggressive doesn't mean that they're only suited for warfare; nor does it mean that women cannot compete and be violent.

They aren't rules or recipes for certain. As far as women being competitive---I don't buy that men are more competitive. The stakes are different, the competitions are different. Seriously how anyone could have survived middle school and high school and even gone down a grocery store aisle much less seen any of the Kardashian promos or Jersey Shore or whatever and NOT recognize just exactly how competitive women are is beyond me.

What HAS been suppressed is men's nurturing characteristics, important to survival of the species in prehistoric times and in modern time. So have women's violent characteristics, to some degree although again, not completely. Women were not just gatherers but also hunters, and have fought in battles since recorded history and before. After all, lionesses do hunt, since you wish to look towards the animal kingdom. I thought all of civilization was built on the assumption that men were the protectors--never mind that mostly they were protecting women and children against...other men.

A lot of what we observe is very biased, no matter how objective we try to be or believe that we are. And yes, I'm including myself. I am hardly the only woman who grew up having knock down drag out fights with her sisters or with her brothers or other males in close proximity. We do not all simply freeze in fear or faint away during sexual assaults.

In general, an average man will be physically larger and have greater muscle mass and greater strength than an average woman. In general, women are more flexible than men are in terms of body joints, movements, etc. Men tend to have more body hair and more facial hair. Women tend to have larger breasts. Every single one of us can easily call to mind exceptions to each of those and more.

 

[southernhybrid]

I suggest that you all read the book, "Gender from a Primatologist Perspective", by Frans de Waal, my favorite non fiction author. De Wall has studied the great apes, mostly Bonobos during his long career. He did a tremendous amount of research to support and explain the differences in male and female genders, although he does touch a little bit on trans gendered folks as well. The truth is that there are differences between the genders, but of course, there is overlap and exceptions. It's true that male gendered primates are more violent compared to female gendered primates, and that female gendered primates are nurturing. Just look at crime statistics to show the difference when it comes to violence. One thing I do remember is that while males aren't particularly nurturing compared to females, they will nurture their babies if the females aren't around. It's a very interesting book as he goes into a lot of detail as to how he came up with his conclusions. And since we are primates, we tend to have very similar gender traits to the other great apes.

I don't care about semantics myself. I don't care if we call someone an actor or an actress based on gender. it's just not important to me one way or the other. I think we concentrate too much on words, and not enough on reality. I do think if women would unite and be more like our bonobo relatives, we could probably rule the world. Matriarchal leaders are usually better at maintaining the peace and keeping the males who are not following the rules in their place. At least that's how I and De Waal view it. I'm not suggesting that human females should bite off the genitals of men who challenge our power, but it does seem to work for Bonobo females.

 

[Jarhyn]

I suggest that you all read the book, "Gender from a Primatologist Perspective", by Frans de Waal, my favorite non fiction author. De Wall has studied the great apes, mostly Bonobos during his long career. He did a tremendous amount of research to support and explain the differences in male and female genders, although he does touch a little bit on trans gendered folks as well. The truth is that there are differences between the genders, but of course, there is overlap and exceptions. It's true that male gendered primates are more violent compared to female gendered primates, and that female gendered primates are nurturing. Just look at crime statistics to show the difference when it comes to violence. One thing I do remember is that while males aren't particularly nurturing compared to females, they will nurture their babies if the females aren't around. It's a very interesting book as he goes into a lot of detail as to how he came up with his conclusions. And since we are primates, we tend to have very similar gender traits to the other great apes.

I don't care about semantics myself. I don't care if we call someone an actor or an actress based on gender. it's just not important to me one way or the other. I think we concentrate too much on words, and not enough on reality. I do think if women would unite and be more like our bonobo relatives, we could probably rule the world. Matriarchal leaders are usually better at maintaining the peace and keeping the males who are not following the rules in their place. At least that's how I and De Waal view it. I'm not suggesting that human females should bite off the genitals of men who challenge our power, but it does seem to work for Bonobo females.

Yeah, to me it comes down to the descriptive/prescriptive thing.

Our words don't prescribe, they describe, and with sciences like biology where the molecular realities are complicated and literally "wobbly", to the point where we have to discuss the vast majority of molecules with numbers and tables, and even those names are generally about loose protein families more than specific atomic structures.

I would expect that the actuality of gender is less spectrum-like than genitals, with more enumerated forms.

In another thread, I believe it was @lpetrich or maybe @ZiprHead that brought up a study which found that trans people tended to have different brain structures than the majority of either Cis group, supporting more the idea of a third or hijra gender of brain development.

I would be interested in fact to know the complexities of when nuts got bitten off or removed in primate groups. We have bronze age and older documentation of people becoming eunuchs on purpose. Given the relationship between autism, certain kinds of systemic understanding, and rejection of sexuality/sex/puberty, I am a bit curious if this happened after observing those who castrated themselves, and finding that they trended towards a mind for dissecting systems and structure that was absent in others, which mixed with some other justifications?

We know native American cultures held those who displayed atypical gender expression in a variety of ways, often as I understand with esteem, though I'm unaware of any castration traditions in the Americas before European contact; if they existed or exist, they were and are kept quite private, hidden effectively beyond a wall of cultural obscurity.

Still, I can't help but think that hormonal transitions are something that has followed primate development for a very long time.

 

[Politesse]

We know native American cultures held those who displayed atypical gender expression in a variety of ways, often as I understand with esteem, though I'm unaware of any castration traditions in the Americas before European contact; if they existed or exist, they were and are kept quite private, hidden effectively beyond a wall of cultural obscurity.

Having an established third gender category is not the same thing as expressing atypical gender. Two-spirit persons simply occupy a different gender category than men or women, and were not seen as deviating from anything as such. They had, among other things, distinct gender roles that did not match the stereotypical roles of men or women respectively. Whether they were/are treated with esteem is not a question with the same answer across all cultures or across time.

 

[Jarhyn]

We know native American cultures held those who displayed atypical gender expression in a variety of ways, often as I understand with esteem, though I'm unaware of any castration traditions in the Americas before European contact; if they existed or exist, they were and are kept quite private, hidden effectively beyond a wall of cultural obscurity.

Having an established third gender category is not the same thing as expressing atypical gender. Two-spirit persons simply occupy a different gender category than men or women, and were not seen as deviating from anything as such. They had, among other things, distinct gender roles that did not match the stereotypical roles of men or women respectively. Whether they were/are treated with esteem is not a question with the same answer across all cultures or across time.

Atypical gender, from the definition of intended use, is "neither male nor female".

This goes to the discussion I was trying to have about the discovery that "trans" people studied often had brains unlike any of the CIS folks.

I am honestly more interested in the interrelationship between having such atypical gender expressions with respect to the "primary two", and the tendency to modify one's hormonal situation.

I would, honestly, prefer a dialogue of a distinct gender from either "male" or "female", but even getting people to reject "monolithic sex" as a concept is like pulling teeth, let alone having a gender that does not correspond to EITHER outward state (even in this thread we have people reducing gender to a "monolithic sex").

Still, my interest primarily leans towards eunuchs and those who express distress over testosterone in particular.

 

[Emily Lake]

I suggest that you all read the book, "Gender from a Primatologist Perspective", by Frans de Waal, my favorite non fiction author. De Wall has studied the great apes, mostly Bonobos during his long career. He did a tremendous amount of research to support and explain the differences in male and female genders, although he does touch a little bit on trans gendered folks as well. The truth is that there are differences between the genders, but of course, there is overlap and exceptions. It's true that male gendered primates are more violent compared to female gendered primates, and that female gendered primates are nurturing. Just look at crime statistics to show the difference when it comes to violence. One thing I do remember is that while males aren't particularly nurturing compared to females, they will nurture their babies if the females aren't around. It's a very interesting book as he goes into a lot of detail as to how he came up with his conclusions. And since we are primates, we tend to have very similar gender traits to the other great apes.

I don't care about semantics myself. I don't care if we call someone an actor or an actress based on gender. it's just not important to me one way or the other. I think we concentrate too much on words, and not enough on reality. I do think if women would unite and be more like our bonobo relatives, we could probably rule the world. Matriarchal leaders are usually better at maintaining the peace and keeping the males who are not following the rules in their place. At least that's how I and De Waal view it. I'm not suggesting that human females should bite off the genitals of men who challenge our power, but it does seem to work for Bonobo females.

All of this is really interesting, and explanatory.

That said, what you're talking about is differences between sexes, the behavioral attributes that have evolved as sex-linked traits.

Please don't conflate sex and gender.

 

[Emily Lake]

I would expect that the actuality of gender is less spectrum-like than genitals, with more enumerated forms.

This is a completely unsupported assertion, based on no evidence or even solid reasoning. I'm floored that you seem to think that the socially constructed norms of behavior and comportment are somehow more distinct in differences between male and female expectations than the differences in the reproductive anatomies of males and females.

 

[Jarhyn]

I would expect that the actuality of gender is less spectrum-like than genitals, with more enumerated forms.

This is a completely unsupported assertion, based on no evidence or even solid reasoning. I'm floored that you seem to think that the socially constructed norms of behavior and comportment are somehow more distinct in differences between male and female expectations than the differences in the reproductive anatomies of males and females.

And AGAIN you discount actual research that indicates at least some trans brains are like neither "cis" presentation.

Study Compares Transgender, Cisgender Brain Scans

Transgender individuals appear to have a “unique brain phenotype” compared to their cisgender peers, according to a recent Journal of Sexual...

www.issm.info

I'm not sure if this is the same review as presented by whoever it was all those months or years ago, but is the basis for informing my view of a distinct "third" gender, beyond merely the historical independent emergence of "third gender" cultures across widely geographically distributed groups.

You are one of the most egregious violators I have ever met in terms of abuse of science and "scientism".

Your prescriptivist essentialism is boring and droll and has been refuted a thousand times. Please stop.

Hell, you call my views unscientific even out of posts when I mention I have a study which informed those views, even after I DO show the receipts.

 

[Emily Lake]

We know native American cultures held those who displayed atypical gender expression in a variety of ways, often as I understand with esteem, though I'm unaware of any castration traditions in the Americas before European contact; if they existed or exist, they were and are kept quite private, hidden effectively beyond a wall of cultural obscurity.

Having an established third gender category is not the same thing as expressing atypical gender. Two-spirit persons simply occupy a different gender category than men or women, and were not seen as deviating from anything as such. They had, among other things, distinct gender roles that did not match the stereotypical roles of men or women respectively. Whether they were/are treated with esteem is not a question with the same answer across all cultures or across time.

Yep. Additionally, even within those cultures that accommodated nonconformity to social sex-based roles, that third role was not viewed as changing a person's sex in any way. Fa'afafine are males who take on some of the social roles and expected behaviors of females - and it's not always voluntary. There are cases of young males being coerced into a fa'afafine caste because they had no female siblings to perform the "women's work". Hijra in India will accept males that choose to express a woman-like identity, but it was a caste that was historically forced upon males that did not sufficiently meet the social bar of a man.

Most "third genders" that we know of are demotions for men. They're men that other men deem aren't masculine enough, so they don't merit the full social status of men. But they also are still recognized as male, and generally have a social status that is higher than that of women. Of course this isn't a bright line distinction, it's a generality. And there are a very few cultures that allow for females to take on male roles in limited circumstance, although those frequently come with additional sacrifices on the part of the woman. The sworn virgins of Albania are females who are allowed to take on male social roles of property ownership and work... but it comes at the cost of not being allowed to marry and bear children.

Many cultures also have a spiritual role for people who do not fit the social roles expected of males and females, many of those get treated as a truly unique role, fully separated from the expectations of men and women in that society. This is where "two spirit" comes in, but it's in evidence in many other cultures and societies as well. For ages, the priesthood or monkhood were landing spaces for effeminate and homosexual men, and that acceptance into a spiritual life came largely with the expectation of celibacy.