News:

If you need instructions on how to get through the hotels, check out the enclosed instruction book.

Main Menu

Are Gender Behaviors Learned?

Farted by F U Clock, July 11, 2012, 01:32:37 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

F U Clock

Quote from: AlbinoClock;1912819What about it, FU? Maybe I don't get what you're driving at.

I'm just highlighting the difference and since it's not something associated with our genders inherently I'm wondering where it comes from/why we do it. Why do we engender our children by giving boys short haircuts and girls long ones? Is there something inherently feminine about long hair? Why do we think it's weird when women get short haircuts?

AlbinoClock

Oh. Well, again, I think it's just another form of reinforcement of those gender-assigned behaviors. I'd say it all really stems out of women nursing and lacking upper-body strength. Apparently even transwomen experience a significant loss of upper-body strength after a while when they take hormones. Makes me wonder if estrogen-suppressing medication would make women stronger.

MentosClock

Quote from: F U Clock;1912821I'm just highlighting the difference and since it's not something associated with our genders inherently I'm wondering where it comes from/why we do it. Why do we engender our children by giving boys short haircuts and girls long ones?
Because we are taught from an early age to not only follow but to enforce social norms. This socialization is strong enough that some people become enraged whenever someone else doesn't adhere to social norms, even if it is something arbitrary and harmless like hairstyling. Now, how did these social norms come about? I have no idea. I think it's like fashion, with certain ideas coming and going, with no way to predict with absolute certainty what will be in fashion 20 years from now.
 
Quote from: F U Clock;1912821Is there something inherently feminine about long hair?
Nope! You can tell because most kings during the 17th and 18th centuries had long hair. I think it was only within the last hundred years that long hair on men started being associated with girlishness or hippies. I think the fact that gender norms are constantly changing shows how completely arbitrary they are.

Quote from: F U Clock;1912821Why do we think it's weird when women get short haircuts?
Not all of us find women with short hair weird. But for those who do, I think it's simply a result of this arrogant attitude that a lot of people have that the norms that they grew up with are the correct ones, and those who act differently are weird and deviant. Of course, since these norms are so fluid, this attitude is totally unjustified.

Marlin Clock

Quote from: MentosClock;1912828Not all of us find women with short hair weird. But for those who do, I think it's simply a result of this arrogant attitude that a lot of people have that the norms that they grew up with are the correct ones, and those who act differently are weird and deviant. Of course, since these norms are so fluid, this attitude is totally unjustified.

Yeah, it's kinda like how it used to be that only men wore pants, but now you wouldn't call a woman butch or going against gender roles to wear pants cause that's just a thing now.

AnimeClock

Albino, you made a good argument and I agree that the scale has been tipped further into women's favor than it was twenty years ago. I don't want to argue over endless intricacies such as to what extent the Male-Female power scale is weighed. You have acknowledged at least that we are living in the very recent wake of an entirely male dominated culture, and I think the only debate left for us to peck over is whether or not men and women are genetically predisposed for their current gender roles, and to what extent those predispositions should matter. I do agree that women have been genetically predisposed to bear children and be emotional, and essentially fill the subservient role that has historically been expected of them. However as intelligent, rapidly evolving technology-using creatures, I do not think we should have to regard these predispositions as law anymore.

Quote from: AlbinoClock;1912797This entire thread is a meaningless semantic argument. Whether something's "natural" or not is completely irrelevant.

If anything should be gleaned from this debate it's that semantics aren't meaningless. When you learn your first language it becomes a part of your identity, and you predominantly think in that language. My first post was about how the word "natural" itself is a multi-definitioned cluster-fuck. Both the word and concept of what is "natural" have a very real influence on our society. Contradictory absolutes such as the word "natural" are the weapons of myth. I think the discussion of the semantics is just as important as the issue itself.

I think of the scene from the beginning of 2001: A Space Odyssey and I consider the stick (technology) as an extension of our genetic (and more recently, memetic) evolution. I think the stick is natural, the atomic bomb is natural, and language is natural. I'm not saying that we have conquered our genetics, or that women have ascended to become the biological equal of men. I am not calling for gender conglomeration, I think that diversity is important, and I even think that if specific women want to live in the substandard position reserved for them by their genetics, they should be allowed to. But I don't want the disposition to be the standard any more. I think the notion, of preserving those standards culturally because they are predisposed, is poisonous.

FLOUNDERMAN_CLOCK

The word "natural" only exists as a highly unregulated marketing term so mcdonalds can make you feel better about eating salty plastic and ground up pigeon feet.

AlbinoClock

So this thread is ancient, but I wanted to throw something up here. Since this discussion I've been introduced to the concepts of traditional sexism and oppositional sexism, and I've got to say they've made it far easier to sort some of these ideas out. Basically traditional sexism is specifically the oppression of women, as illustrated quite nicely by a number of Muslim majority countries, obviously this does not target men. Oppositional sexism, on the other hand, is the idea that people should stick to their socially-imposed gender roles regardless of how they themselves feel about things because men are men and women are women. In the US there are still many forms of active traditional sexism, but oppositional sexism is now targeting men a bit more strongly than it's targeting women. Women still have trouble getting some of those top jobs, there's still only one woman who's won Best Director, and there are still conservative politicians trying to limit women's reproductive rights, but you're much less likely to run into people who'll object that a woman wears pants or has a job. There's much less concern about being "ladylike" than there once was. Men, however, are still expected to be manly; the vast majority of violence against transpeople is against transwomen. Even as gay men are more accepted people assume that any effeminate man is secretly gay. I've heard arguments that oppositional sexism is stronger against men because men are still considered superior, but I think it's much more likely that men are still trapped in strict gender roles because we haven't spent half a century focused on breaking out of them.
 
If you look at the general men's movement (or the depressingly anti-feminist and frankly misandristic men's rights movement) you'll notice that the emphasis is mostly on child custody issues, male expendability, domestic abuse, false accusation, and circumcision, I've never really seen these guys getting into issues of less narrow gender expression or that kind of mold-breaking that feminism did. You don't see a lot of MRAs in skirts and makeup playing around with camp and femininity, that's quite obviously associated with gay culture. Obviously there are plenty of traditionally masculine gay men, but there are also plenty of straight men who are not traditionally masculine. Gay men have given themselves a degree of freedom that comes with being marginalized enough to say "fuck it, I'm not compromising myself" and confident enough to claim a place for yourself. Wearing a skirt makes an impact on the way a man presents himself in a way that a woman wearing pants does not, but I really think that's primarily because no large body of men who are otherwise pretty normative have bothered to fight for it. That's my reasoning for making sure to highlight oppositional sexism in addition to traditional sexism, also it seems that much of the time one or the other is glossed over.

AlbinoClock

Quote from: a;1913147huh?

im saying that our realm of possibilities is defined by our genetics. we cant run very fast (relative to other animals) so our genetics were nice enough to grow our brains so we could build cars and planes and shit.

Wrong. Evolution doesn't produce specific traits to ensure survival, it culls those who lack the traits required for survival. It's not that our inability to run well caused our brains to get bigger so we wouldn't die, it's that an inability to run well coupled with bunk neurology and hungry predators means lots of people did die. Many of our closest living relatives mostly stuck to the trees, and some became large enough that few predators would dare attack them. It's not as though they're stupid either, everyone ought to know about Koko and the like by now. The point is you've got it a bit backward. Evolution doesn't produce new traits by direct reaction to environment, it produces diverse mutations that are mostly neutral or deadly and culls everyone who can't deal with the hand they're given, sending the most well adapted stock on to further mutations. It's far more beautiful than just growing what you need, but that's essentially the result it indirectly achieves.

AlbinoClock

Quote from: RibsClock;1929049This is, in one regard, what makes humans so dramatically different from animals, is our intellect means that we actually are able to adapt ourselves to our environment far more effectively. Because of this capacity we are essentially able to surpass every other creature on earth in almost every respect through our tool use and complex social infrastructure. It tends to bother me when someone argues something merely being what our animalistic self would "naturally" do without any regard for prudence, because one of the defining things of being a human is transcending what we would "naturally" be able to do. Evolution via natural selection is an amazing process, don't get me wrong, but I think human adaptability, prosperity, and accomplishment in general indicates that the "fitness" of our mode of adaptation is much more enduring and effective than simply dying off until we're a good fit for the spot we're living in.

Yes, this.

Quote...makeup on dudes.
Also more of this :hi5: