Gender

[speed]

A random group of past frenchies dressing & acting flamboyantly means absolutely nothing, certainly not that nothing has changed... Such doesn't even have anything to do with Gender, and how men act today.

Well you know, this whole macho male behavior wasnt really around until the beginnings of the industrial revolution. I mean pre-revolution, men wore wigs, what could be considered dresses, powdered wigs, make-up, etc; it was the same in ancient times. Really, apart from primitive times, the Dark Ages/medieval, and the industrial revolution, men were really metrosexual. In fact, homosexuality, and foppishness were pretty common. I suppose we are coming back to this age. If one agrees with Spengler, history has periods which mirror themselves.

Anyway, point being is the impossibility of socially defining a set standard of gender--well, from the male perspective.

 

[Έρεβος]

Well you know, this whole macho male behavior wasnt really around until the beginnings of the industrial revolution. I mean pre-revolution, men wore wigs, what could be considered dresses, powdered wigs, make-up, etc; it was the same in ancient times. Really, apart from primitive times, the Dark Ages/medieval, and the industrial revolution, men were really metrosexual. In fact, homosexuality, and foppishness were pretty common. I suppose we are coming back to this age. If one agrees with Spengler, history has periods which mirror themselves.

Anyway, point being is the impossibility of socially defining a set standard of gender--well, from the male perspective.

Appearance does not have anything to do with it. That is simply culture. And if we are mirroring any era it is the last century of the Roman empire.

 

[MetalBooger]

Appearance probably has alot more to do with it than you think. People tend to project an outer image of what they feel liek inside. Just look at what you wear when you go outside? An executive wears an expensive suit, to bolster his authoritarian image, a headbanger probably wears a band t-shirt to project his musical tastes, and probably deeper his personality.

How exactly is your country mirroring rome in the fifth century?

 

[Έρεβος]

Appearance probably has alot more to do with it than you think. People tend to project an outer image of what they feel liek inside. Just look at what you wear when you go outside? An executive wears an expensive suit, to bolster his authoritarian image, a headbanger probably wears a band t-shirt to project his musical tastes, and probably deeper his personality.

How exactly is your country mirroring rome in the fifth century?

Wow... :Smug:

 

[Scourge of God]

Well you know, this whole macho male behavior wasnt really around until the beginnings of the industrial revolution. I mean pre-revolution, men wore wigs, what could be considered dresses, powdered wigs, make-up, etc; it was the same in ancient times. Really, apart from primitive times, the Dark Ages/medieval, and the industrial revolution, men were really metrosexual. In fact, homosexuality, and foppishness were pretty common. I suppose we are coming back to this age. If one agrees with Spengler, history has periods which mirror themselves.

And yet you're reading the sexual/gender mores of earlier times through the lens of contemporary perception. The 'foppish' panopoly of the European Baroque aristocracy had nothing to do with gender roles and everything to do with a reaction to the history of the period. It wasn't about genderbending, it was about a conscious rejection and inversion of the fanatical asceticism that marked the era of the Wars of Religion. This was the European aristocracy visibly turning its back on the witchburning Jesuits, Cromwell's Roundheads and the militaristic functionalism of a world that had been dominated by the likes of Tilly, Gustav II Adolf and that Bohemian Devil, Albrecht von Wallenstein.

 

[JColtrane]

Um, that was a horrible example. The men had to play both roles due to women not being allowed to perform, and it is art, not life.

It was only a "horrible example" because you totally missed the point. Think about what we are talking about Mr. Erebos, gender roles. The point is that some of what gender is happens to be biological, but a lot of it is the different roles traditionally given to either men or women. In this case, art has a lot to do with life; if you can play the role of a woman on stage convincingly, why not in real life?

 

[Έρεβος]

It was only a "horrible example" because you totally missed the point. Think about what we are talking about Mr. Erebos, gender roles. The point is that some of what gender is happens to be biological, but a lot of it is the different roles traditionally given to either men or women. In this case, art has a lot to do with life; if you can play the role of a woman on stage convincingly, why not in real life?

Actually it was a horrible example because it was a horrible example. A cultural quirk like this, where females were not permitted to play on stage, therefore being replaced by males, has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

Gender roles are based upon biological nature, and this evolved into tradition.

 

[JColtrane]

Actually it was a horrible example because it was a horrible example. A cultural quirk like this, where females were not permitted to play on stage, therefore being replaced by males, has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

Gender roles are based upon biological nature, and this evolved into tradition.

Simply because you fail to see the deeper meaning does not mean that I'm a dunce. There are plenty of times when something accidental can have broader significance, and this is one of them.

Your last statement is horribly naive. Let me just respond by saying this: (1) Provide some evidence for the first part of the statement, and (2) Should we buy into this tradition? Couldn't your assigning gender roles to pure biological nature be simply reducible to this tradition? How do you separate the two?

 

[Έρεβος]

There are plenty of times when something accidental can have broader significance, and this is one of them.

And you've utterly failed to show how.

 

[infoterror]

Everything is biology, but the Crowd always wants to deny it. Why?

 

[JColtrane]

And you've utterly failed to show how.

It's common sense. Human beings make this kind of connection all the time, such as: so-and-so was murdered=society is getting more depraved. The meaning a person connects to an event is often more than accidental. It's all part of creating patterns, which is essential to the function of understanding in the human consciousness. What this "acting" shows is that human beings can act a different gender as a part, and convincingly at that. This accidental occasion of Shakespearean theater shows the much broader idea that humans can willingly take on different gender roles, and do so well enough to be convincing to others.

To both infoterror and Erebos: Few people of the nature v. nurture debate would be so foolish to fall completely on one side. If you are not simply being part of the "Crowd", give a good argument why upbringing bears no significance in determining gender roles (if you can't, you're just as bad as the supposed "Crowd" you criticize).

A good book on this is actually a novel, Jeffrey Eugenides' Middlesex is a novel about a person with 5-alpha-reductase deficiency. The character is raised as a girl, but after discovering that "she" is technically a male, decides to adopt a male role. After a period of learning, the character is able to play this role basically as sucessfully as the female role "he" had growing up. Now you all might dismiss this as pure fiction, but I see no reason why it should.

In my opinion, you all should be more sceptical of the things you read. A lot of life is more of an act than you think.

 

[CatwomanEarache]

Everything is biology, but the Crowd always wants to deny it. Why?

I do agree with this, I guess the Crowd are the masses? An example is if you gave young children of both sexes a selection of toys, the girls will always naturally be drawn towards the dolls and ironing boards, the boys the cars and guns.This must be biological make up? True, the same boys could go on later in life and appear on stage as a pantomime Dame but it would only be acting. I could dress up as a guy right now and go to a party but I would still be female. This is quite fascinating.

 

[Justin S.]

As with many threads on our forum, this one has rapidly expanded into a nice tangle because the basic concepts over which people are arguing remain unintelligible.

Gender forms the base of the arguments here, yet it is unexplored- immediately, we are off and running on elaborate deductions without even so much as a word about what we mean by gender. Appeals to "self-evidency" and "common understanding" on this matter are hollow, and ultimately manipulative, tactics.

I have offered a quick "definition" that I believe points in the right direction: the social significance of sexual difference. Gender is by definition a "construction" of mind(s), being distinguished from the demonstrable morphological fact of sex.

Therefore, gender roles are our disposive patterns responding (not corresponding) to factual sexual difference (whatever that may be). This response is a mixture of "biological" impetus, justifiable deliberation, and ideology. Since we in each case are this mixture, we lack the distance to exactly determine their respective "weights". However, from even a rudimentary analysis we can see the powerful forces of "ideology" at work. With this in mind, we should exercise greater caution with our claims.

 

[Justin S.]

An example is if you gave young children of both sexes a selection of toys, the girls will always naturally be drawn towards the dolls and ironing boards, the boys the cars and guns.

Naturally? It is demonstrably false to claim "children" are a "blank slate" and are somehow un-acculturated/conditioned (in the broadest sense) and a window to "the natural". Your example unknowingly displays this: For a child to conceive of and select "doll", "ironing board", "car", "gun" indicates previous "exposure" to these phenomena and the modes of engaging them (as equipment, toy, etc.). These sorts of "studies" are methodologically and conceptually flawed.

This must be biological make up?

Must? Not at all.

True, the same boys could go on later in life and appear on stage as a pantomime Dame but it would only be acting. I could dress up as a guy right now and go to a party but I would still be female. This is quite fascinating.

These oppositions fail to make sense once we distinguish gender (the "conceptual") from sex (the "biological").

 

[infoterror]

I do agree with this, I guess the Crowd are the masses? An example is if you gave young children of both sexes a selection of toys, the girls will always naturally be drawn towards the dolls and ironing boards, the boys the cars and guns.This must be biological make up? True, the same boys could go on later in life and appear on stage as a pantomime Dame but it would only be acting. I could dress up as a guy right now and go to a party but I would still be female. This is quite fascinating.

It depends on the boy. A submissive homosexual might have a different outlook than a masculine boy. And so on. But the largest part of it is biological, and without society's conditioning, some of it would remain, although perhaps in abstract forms not immediately recognizable.

I was never drawn toward cars and guns, but didn't really get the dolls and ironing boards thing either. I have several dolls, resembling Stalin and Plato and Idi Amin.

 

[CatwomanEarache]

Naturally? It is demonstrably false to claim "children" are a "blank slate" and are somehow un-acculturated/conditioned (in the broadest sense) and a window to "the natural". Your example unknowingly displays this: For a child to conceive of and select "doll", "ironing board", "car", "gun" indicates previous "exposure" to these phenomena and the modes of engaging them (as equipment, toy, etc.). These sorts of "studies" are methodologically and conceptually flawed.



Must? Not at all.



These oppositions fail to make sense once we distinguish gender (the "conceptual") from sex (the "biological").

"Studies"? I didnt read this in a book..Its what I have observed over many years, and I am not claiming it as such it is just my opinion,I believe philosophy is just opinions right? I still believe myself that boys/girls are biologically different,yes of course outside influences make a big difference, but the natural leans towards liking either "girls toys" or "boys toys" are there imo anyway.Ive always sent my ironing out as I work and hate ironing, but my daughter took to her toy ironing board like a duck to water

 

[CatwomanEarache]

It depends on the boy. A submissive homosexual might have a different outlook than a masculine boy. And so on. But the largest part of it is biological, and without society's conditioning, some of it would remain, although perhaps in abstract forms not immediately recognizable.

I was never drawn toward cars and guns, but didn't really get the dolls and ironing boards thing either. I have several dolls, resembling Stalin and Plato and Idi Amin.

Lol at the Idi Amin doll, very good.

 

[Tabubua]

"Studies"? I didnt read this in a book..Its what I have observed over many years, and I am not claiming it as such it is just my opinion,I believe philosophy is just opinions right? I still believe myself that boys/girls are biologically different,yes of course outside influences make a big difference, but the natural leans towards liking either "girls toys" or "boys toys" are there imo anyway.Ive always sent my ironing out as I work and hate ironing, but my daughter took to her toy ironing board like a duck to water

I think many people don't realise how much our choices and actions even very early on in life are affected by enviromental and social stimuli.

Baby's are exposed to clothing/ toys and the behaviour of their parents etc that can be seen as defining gender - pink booties for girlies, and blue for boys; a rag doll for a baby girl and a soft toy car for a baby boy these influences are affecting their 'gender identity' almost from birth. Its even proven your more likely to throw a baby boy in the air (!) than you would with a girl.

Studies have shown that the way we talk and play with small boys and girls is different - though most of this differentiation is subconcious, and it caught out many parents who swore they were trying to raise their children as gender neutral as possible.

Although there have got to be some differences in the genders based on biological factors, most of our ideas about our gender - how we are supposed to look and act and think - is constracted through nurture and enviromental/ social behaviour patterns.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I think many people don't realise how much our choices and actions even very early on in life are affected by enviromental and social stimuli.

Baby's are exposed to clothing/ toys and the behaviour of their parents etc that can be seen as defining gender - pink booties for girlies, and blue for boys; a rag doll for a baby girl and a soft toy car for a baby boy these influences are affecting their 'gender identity' almost from birth. Its even proven your more likely to throw a baby boy in the air (!) than you would with a girl.

Studies have shown that the way we talk and play with small boys and girls is different - though most of this differentiation is subconcious, and it caught out many parents who swore they were trying to raise their children as gender neutral as possible.

Although there have got to be some differences in the genders based on biological factors, most of our ideas about our gender - how we are supposed to look and act and think - is constracted through nurture and enviromental/ social behaviour patterns.

True to a great extent, but biology undoubtedly plays a part as well since females have brains which on average make us better at empathising and nurturing behaviour while boys are better with things like spatial awareness and are less naturally nurturing. The way that men are more inclined to be violent criminals than women are is not just down to environmental input, but to do with hormones and differences in the brain.
The best example is that of the man who was brought up from birth as a girl because his penis had been seriously damaged in a circumcision accident, and yet he always behaved in a male way and was extremely unhappy as a girl (he didn't know about what had happened to him and was not given any subtle clues that he was anything other than female). I should find the reference but it might take a lot of googling - must I?

Personally I was always equally keen on both boys and girls toys as a child and more inclined to discipline dolls than to hug them... Perhaps that is odd. And yet I am very feminine by all accounts and entirely heterosexual.
So I'm not sure about the toy thing. I would give my sons the option of having dolls, since rather than making them effeminate it might make them into considerate fathers. Depriving them of dolls against their wishes may even encourage homosexuality because it is making a huge issue out of gender, rather than it just being unimportant. I get the feeling homosexuals see gender and sexual orientation as being central to their identity rather than merely incidental. That's why I think they are mentally ill.

 

[infoterror]

I think many people don't realise how much our choices and actions even very early on in life are affected by enviromental and social stimuli.

In some areas, in some scopes, yes. On the whole, it's the smaller of the two. Nature trumps nurture, but if you beat and sodomize your children and force them to eat soy sauce soaked cat feces, they may still turn out to be criminals even if you're an upstanding citizen.