Org Mobile Site
Thread: Gender Roles: Even More Spin-Off
Gay parenting thread, for me, has been a mine of question marks; now after some certain statements in the article presented by PJ was extracted as a matter of dispute by Rhyfelwyr and Sasaki Kojiro respectively.
Do gender roles mean anything to you ? Should they ? If they are fading for the better of humanitarian actions (not humanity as it would involve procreation, hence being rendered impossible to debate), let it be ?
Is there anything wrong with retreated, less aggressive and sexually contained/avoiding boys, for example ? Are gender roles the next antiques to dump ?
Do gender roles mean anything to you ? Should they ? If they are fading for the better of humanitarian actions (not humanity as it would involve procreation, hence being rendered impossible to debate), let it be ?
Is there anything wrong with retreated, less aggressive and sexually contained/avoiding boys, for example ? Are gender roles the next antiques to dump ?
I think that gender roles are repressive when they are enforced and not allowed to emerge naturally. Not every boy is hyper aggressive and not every girl aspires to be in pageants. Forcing children to adopt these roles can and does cause later psychological issues.
Girls, especially, are at a great disadvantage if they are socially conditioned to aspire only to find and serve a husband. The article mentioned that those that were raised in lesbian households with little emphasis placed on gender roles were more likely to aspire to higher professions and achieve greater things in their lives.
That's not to say that parents shouldn't encourage certain activities, but a child should be allowed to develop his or her own personality and interests free of familial and social pressures.
Girls, especially, are at a great disadvantage if they are socially conditioned to aspire only to find and serve a husband. The article mentioned that those that were raised in lesbian households with little emphasis placed on gender roles were more likely to aspire to higher professions and achieve greater things in their lives.
That's not to say that parents shouldn't encourage certain activities, but a child should be allowed to develop his or her own personality and interests free of familial and social pressures.
I believe I am perfectly capable of defining my own role in society without the "help" of society.
The notion that someone should behave like X because they were born as X is an outdated concept of the nobility, something that should've been gone with Louis XVI's head in the revolution.
I am born a free man, and how I live my life is for me to choose.
The notion that someone should behave like X because they were born as X is an outdated concept of the nobility, something that should've been gone with Louis XVI's head in the revolution.
I am born a free man, and how I live my life is for me to choose.
I think that roles are unhelpful. What is required is a more general understanding that males and females as a cohort tend to like doing different things, have different goals and prefer different careers. It does not mean there are not exceptionally good house fathers, or female physics scientists - but as a broad brush there is a higher percentage of women in primary school teaching than in surgery. It does not mean it's "bad" that women like different things to men, but to accept it - and ensure that this is due to choice and not due to artificial boundaries.
Your comment on women in primary schools really stings, man....
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Your comment on women in primary schools really stings, man....
Just doing his bit to keep you girls in your place. Your comment on women in primary schools really stings, man....
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Your comment on women in primary schools really stings, man....
Well perhaps if we examine motives?Your comment on women in primary schools really stings, man....
Women tend to be a bit more nurturing than men.
Or perhaps you are interested in socializing the children in a way more to your liking. Are you after hears and minds?
It's still not OK for a man to cry.
Oh wait. According to wikipedia, british primary school lasts until 11 years old. I teach 12-year olds.... Carry on then.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Oh wait. According to wikipedia, british primary school lasts until 11 years old. I teach 12-year olds.... Carry on then.
So your only slighty effeminate?Oh wait. According to wikipedia, british primary school lasts until 11 years old. I teach 12-year olds.... Carry on then.
Shouldn't you be mining a fjord for gold or slaying MILFs at a ski resort?
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
So your only slighty effeminate?
Shouldn't you be mining a fjord for gold or slaying MILFs at a ski resort?
Bah, 11 to 13 year olds are simply the best; old enough to use abstracts, but still so young that hrmones haven't taken them over completely.So your only slighty effeminate?
Shouldn't you be mining a fjord for gold or slaying MILFs at a ski resort?
Anyway.
The way most people think of teacher status is that the higher the grade, the tougher the challenge. In reality, however, its the other way around: teaching first graders is a heck of a lot more challenging and requires much more knowledge than teaching 15-year olds. As well as being much more important, of course.
Whatever helps you sleep at night
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
I am born a free man, and how I live my life is for me to choose.
The thing is you weren't born a free man, you were born a child that was very much influenced by his surroudings. And they had a big impact on who you are today. Same for me, same for everyone.I am born a free man, and how I live my life is for me to choose.
99% of boys and girls grow up to fulfil pretty stereotypical gender roles. As PJ's article showed, this isn't the case with children being raised by homosexuals.
These gender roles form much of the basis of society. Without understanding them, these children are going to have a hard time adapting.
I feel really sorry for the boy that turns out the way they described them in PJ's article, it's not fair to them to let them get like that.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
The thing is you weren't born a free man, you were born a child that was very much influenced by his surroudings. And they had a big impact on who you are today. Same for me, same for everyone.
99% of boys and girls grow up to fulfil pretty stereotypical gender roles.
Yes, like the boys and girls in MRD's afghanistan thread. Is that what you want?The thing is you weren't born a free man, you were born a child that was very much influenced by his surroudings. And they had a big impact on who you are today. Same for me, same for everyone.
99% of boys and girls grow up to fulfil pretty stereotypical gender roles.
Originally Posted by :
These gender roles form much of the basis of society. Without understanding them, these children are going to have a hard time adapting.
If they formed the basis of the society, society would have been collapsing for 100 years! Society is perfectly capable of handling change. Pink was once a mainly masculine color and blue was once a mainly feminine color. Now we've swapped it. You're ignoring the large arbitrary aspect, not to mention the negative side. These gender roles form much of the basis of society. Without understanding them, these children are going to have a hard time adapting.
Originally Posted by :
I feel really sorry for the boy that turns out the way they described them in PJ's article, it's not fair to them to let them get like that.
Are you sorry for yourself then? Try judging yourself by the masculine roles of ages past...I feel really sorry for the boy that turns out the way they described them in PJ's article, it's not fair to them to let them get like that.
Also, you have to understand that when they talk about aggression in psychology they are referring to physical violence. aka, boys raised to be less aggressive are less likely to beat their wives. They aren't talking about assertiveness, or aggressiveness in the way we often use the word, I think the psychology use of the word is kind of dumb but it is what it is.
I like kittens
Does this make me not a traditonal man?
A lifiting partner likes to suck dicks but he would probably beat the hell out of you
Who is the traditonal man?
These "traditonal roles" have been vicously challenged time and time again throught human history
Ho bloody hum
Does this make me not a traditonal man?
A lifiting partner likes to suck dicks but he would probably beat the hell out of you
Who is the traditonal man?
These "traditonal roles" have been vicously challenged time and time again throught human history
Ho bloody hum
Traditional gender roles are there because they are the most natural and thus the best suited for each gender.
I can't believe we are having this argument.
I can't believe we are having this argument.
There's only so much projectionism I can take...
Why you took my post as suggesting men should be wife-beaters I have no idea, anyway...
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in this field, however this topic came up at a Uni class last term and from what I gather the 'environment-is-everything-and-prone-to-change' take might make you sound intellectual and what not, but it has in fact been discredited and has went out of fashion gradually since its heyday a few decades ago.
Nature v nurture again.
Boys should be more aggressive/assertive since its just the way they tend to be, if lesbians are raising them to act like their balls have been chopped off then somethings wrong somewhere...
Why you took my post as suggesting men should be wife-beaters I have no idea, anyway...
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in this field, however this topic came up at a Uni class last term and from what I gather the 'environment-is-everything-and-prone-to-change' take might make you sound intellectual and what not, but it has in fact been discredited and has went out of fashion gradually since its heyday a few decades ago.
Nature v nurture again.
Boys should be more aggressive/assertive since its just the way they tend to be, if lesbians are raising them to act like their balls have been chopped off then somethings wrong somewhere...
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
There's only so much projectionism I can take...
Why you took my post as suggesting men should be wife-beaters I have no idea, anyway...
I'm sorry rhyf, I really didn't. I meant the opposite, I pointed out that they use it differently because I thought you weren't using it that way. What pj's study found was that the boys were less aggressive in the less likely to be wife-beaters way. You have no objection to that.There's only so much projectionism I can take...
Why you took my post as suggesting men should be wife-beaters I have no idea, anyway...
Originally Posted by :
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in this field, however this topic came up at a Uni class last term and from what I gather the 'environment-is-everything-and-prone-to-change' take might make you sound intellectual and what not, but it has in fact been discredited and has went out of fashion gradually since its heyday a few decades ago.
There certainly are innate sex differences. But they are systematically exaggerated and not very interesting or significant. People who have an axe to grind talk more about the blank slate view being discredited than about the actual findings on differences I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in this field, however this topic came up at a Uni class last term and from what I gather the 'environment-is-everything-and-prone-to-change' take might make you sound intellectual and what not, but it has in fact been discredited and has went out of fashion gradually since its heyday a few decades ago.
Originally Posted by :
Boys should be more aggressive/assertive since its just the way they tend to be, if lesbians are raising them to act like their balls have been chopped off then somethings wrong somewhere...
No, that's why I pointed out the psychological use of aggression. Lesbians are raising them to be less violent. Not less assertive.Boys should be more aggressive/assertive since its just the way they tend to be, if lesbians are raising them to act like their balls have been chopped off then somethings wrong somewhere...
"In psychology, as well as other social and behavioral sciences, aggression (also called combativeness) refers to behavior between members of the same species that is intended to cause pain or harm."
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
I'm sorry rhyf, I really didn't. I meant the opposite, I pointed out that they use it differently because I thought you weren't using it that way. What pj's study found was that the boys were less aggressive in the less likely to be wife-beaters way. You have no objection to that.
In that case, apologies, it's confusing when psychologists use a different definition of a word than everyone else does.I'm sorry rhyf, I really didn't. I meant the opposite, I pointed out that they use it differently because I thought you weren't using it that way. What pj's study found was that the boys were less aggressive in the less likely to be wife-beaters way. You have no objection to that.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
There certainly are innate sex differences. But they are systematically exaggerated and not very interesting or significant. People who have an axe to grind talk more about the blank slate view being discredited than about the actual findings on differences
Your last observation does not sound very scientific. There certainly are innate sex differences. But they are systematically exaggerated and not very interesting or significant. People who have an axe to grind talk more about the blank slate view being discredited than about the actual findings on differences
Don't you think the strength differences between men and women (in general) are significant?
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
No, that's why I pointed out the psychological use of aggression. Lesbians are raising them to be less violent. Not less assertive.
"In psychology, as well as other social and behavioral sciences, aggression (also called combativeness) refers to behavior between members of the same species that is intended to cause pain or harm."
Even still, the combination of factors mentioned really just makes those boys sound unhealthy. I mean, I'm sexually repressed, but that's because I'm a relinutjob as Frags would say, these boys sound like they've been made eunuchs...No, that's why I pointed out the psychological use of aggression. Lesbians are raising them to be less violent. Not less assertive.
"In psychology, as well as other social and behavioral sciences, aggression (also called combativeness) refers to behavior between members of the same species that is intended to cause pain or harm."
I just think its funny how some posters (not you Sasaki) have started throwing around words like traditional, natural, macho etc and projected them onto my arguments.
Anyway, I like kittens, even if I prefer dogs. In fact I even take insects out the house instead of killing them, what did they do to me? :/
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
In that case, apologies, it's confusing when psychologists use a different definition of a word than everyone else does.
Yes, I think it's dumb. I recall an article where the lack of women in philosophy classes was being discussed, and the author suggested it was because women were less aggressive. But of course violence doesn't take place in philosophical debate...In that case, apologies, it's confusing when psychologists use a different definition of a word than everyone else does.
Originally Posted by :
Your last observation does not sound very scientific.
It is Your last observation does not sound very scientific.
Originally Posted by :
Don't you think the strength differences between men and women (in general) are significant?
Statistically. But I'm not sure how you would approach the question of whether it's in general significant. What does that mean? But it's not a gender role thing anyway, so.Don't you think the strength differences between men and women (in general) are significant?
Originally Posted by :
Even still, the combination of factors mentioned really just makes those boys sound unhealthy. I mean, I'm sexually repressed, but that's because I'm a relinutjob as Frags would say, these boys sound like they've been made eunuchs...
Not really, it sounds like a good description of what they call "well bred". Which probably goes hand in hand with the higher economic status of lesbian adopted families.Even still, the combination of factors mentioned really just makes those boys sound unhealthy. I mean, I'm sexually repressed, but that's because I'm a relinutjob as Frags would say, these boys sound like they've been made eunuchs...
Originally Posted by :
Anyway, I like kittens, even if I prefer dogs. In fact I even take insects out the house instead of killing them, what did they do to me? :/
And that doesn't make you a eunuch...Anyway, I like kittens, even if I prefer dogs. In fact I even take insects out the house instead of killing them, what did they do to me? :/
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
These gender roles form much of the basis of society. Without understanding them, these children are going to have a hard time adapting.
I think you are misinterpreting the study. These gender roles form much of the basis of society. Without understanding them, these children are going to have a hard time adapting.
It did not say that the children did not understand gender roles, only that they were less likely to adhere to them in certain ways. It then went on to conclude that the children were as well adjusted as their peers with straight parents. The researchers saw this as a good thing - that the children adopted the roles that naturally came to them instead of conforming to roles that were expected of them.
One does not have to adhere to specific gender roles to understand them and how to function in a society where they exist.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
Statistically. But I'm not sure how you would approach the question of whether it's in general significant. What does that mean? But it's not a gender role thing anyway, so.
How can such a striking difference not be significant? Women would struggle in a lot of jobs in heavy industry, for example.Statistically. But I'm not sure how you would approach the question of whether it's in general significant. What does that mean? But it's not a gender role thing anyway, so.
Plus it is very much tied to gender roles, we aren't the ancient Greeks, the body and the mind are connected, and the influence isn't all from the latter to the former.
There are also documented mental differences. Women having better spacial awareness is one. Men are also more prone to things like aspergers, it's been dubbed 'extreme male brain' by some, I'm a bit like that myself. These things have a big impact on personality etc.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
Not really, it sounds like a good description of what they call "well bred". Which probably goes hand in hand with the higher economic status of lesbian adopted families.
I'm skeptical, especially when they found the impact on girls raised by lesbians was the opposite of what would considered to be making them "well bred".Not really, it sounds like a good description of what they call "well bred". Which probably goes hand in hand with the higher economic status of lesbian adopted families.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
And that doesn't make you a eunuch...
Not any more than not beating your wive makes you a eunuch. If people don't attack me I'm not going to attack them.And that doesn't make you a eunuch...
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
That's not to say that parents shouldn't encourage certain activities, but a child should be allowed to develop his or her own personality and interests free of familial and social pressures.
Agreed. Gender roles are social constructs enforced by society. The parents buy their daughter the Kitchen set and then buy their Son the action man and the kids are at that age where the only reason they do these is because their parents and what they are forced into by society.That's not to say that parents shouldn't encourage certain activities, but a child should be allowed to develop his or her own personality and interests free of familial and social pressures.
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
It did not say that the children did not understand gender roles, only that they were less likely to adhere to them in certain ways. It then went on to conclude that the children were as well adjusted as their peers with straight parents. The researchers saw this as a good thing - that the children adopted the roles that naturally came to them instead of conforming to roles that were expected of them.
First off, what they consider to be "well adjusted" is subjective, and shows I'm not the only one with preconceived notions of how children should develop. What exactly do they mean by well adjusted anyway?It did not say that the children did not understand gender roles, only that they were less likely to adhere to them in certain ways. It then went on to conclude that the children were as well adjusted as their peers with straight parents. The researchers saw this as a good thing - that the children adopted the roles that naturally came to them instead of conforming to roles that were expected of them.
Also, you seem to imply that heterosexual parents influence their children to become a certain way, whereas homosexual ones would somehow not exert an influence, but rather let the children develop "naturally" (funny how it's not me that actually uses that word).
Is there a reason why you think this would be the case?
Originally Posted by Beskar:
Agreed. Gender roles are social constructs enforced by society. The parents buy their daughter the Kitchen set and then buy their Son the action man and the kids are at that age where the only reason they do these is because their parents and what they are forced into by society.
I feel like I've been blasted into the 60's with this sociocultural analysis.Agreed. Gender roles are social constructs enforced by society. The parents buy their daughter the Kitchen set and then buy their Son the action man and the kids are at that age where the only reason they do these is because their parents and what they are forced into by society.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
I feel like I've been blasted into the 60's with this sociocultural analysis.
.....and yet you yourself adhere to a functionalistic explanation, which was a thing of the 60's as well. 1860's, that is...I feel like I've been blasted into the 60's with this sociocultural analysis.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
How can such a striking difference not be significant? Women would struggle in a lot of jobs in heavy industry, for example.
So it's significant for heavy industry. But I still don't know what "in general" means here. I would guess that you're trying for some carry over effect--as in, the strength differences mean that we can say that men and women are significantly different, and so then in some other area not related to strength, we can say that they are different as well.How can such a striking difference not be significant? Women would struggle in a lot of jobs in heavy industry, for example.
Originally Posted by :
Plus it is very much tied to gender roles, we aren't the ancient Greeks, the body and the mind are connected, and the influence isn't all from the latter to the former.
Well you're last three statements are clearly true...Plus it is very much tied to gender roles, we aren't the ancient Greeks, the body and the mind are connected, and the influence isn't all from the latter to the former.
Originally Posted by :
There are also documented mental differences. Women having better spacial awareness is one. Men are also more prone to things like aspergers, it's been dubbed 'extreme male brain' by some, I'm a bit like that myself. These things have a big impact on personality etc.
Simon baron cohen's research is terrible, like much research on sex differences. Like the research where they ask for self report on empathy and then take that as revealing of sex differences There are also documented mental differences. Women having better spacial awareness is one. Men are also more prone to things like aspergers, it's been dubbed 'extreme male brain' by some, I'm a bit like that myself. These things have a big impact on personality etc.
Originally Posted by :
I'm skeptical, especially when they found the impact on girls raised by lesbians was the opposite of what would considered to be making them "well bred".
I'm skeptical, especially when they found the impact on girls raised by lesbians was the opposite of what would considered to be making them "well bred".
but those traits for boys are what they are. Regardless of whether girls raised by lesbians are less likely to be devoutly christian (remember it's difference in averages).Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
I feel like I've been blasted into the 60's with this sociocultural analysis.
I do possess a Masters in Social Psychology which I only went into because I have a very social view of Identity, mainly because my studies in general Psychology (BSc) generally pointed me in that direction. There is a lot of neurological evidence supporting this line of thought as well, such as promising research in Mirror Neuron's. But that is enough of this digression.I feel like I've been blasted into the 60's with this sociocultural analysis.
i played with my easy bake until i was like 13, 2 of my favorite channels are the food channel and hgtv, my favorite store is williams sonoma, and i enjoy going to the ballet. my dad also enrolled me in boxing when i was 9, i played 4 yrs of varsity american football, im a bit of a masochist, and i want to join the army and am on a contracted path to doing so. i would like to imagine im pretty normal overall and a fine specimen of a man.
my father was born in the 1950's he does the laundry and the cooking. he was also a navy pilot for twenty years and still talks about the red threat.
gender roles are stupid and unnecessary. a boy is aggressive (which i am) whether he likes to play with a kitchen set or a bike. now are men naturally more aggressive than girls and less nurturing? probably too an extent but its hard to say how much environment has an effect there. my parents mostly bought me toys tailored to boys anyway.
i concur with drone though. boys should never cry unless for extreme circumstances. boys who cry in fact children who cry in general make me ill. stoicism ftw.
my father was born in the 1950's he does the laundry and the cooking. he was also a navy pilot for twenty years and still talks about the red threat.
gender roles are stupid and unnecessary. a boy is aggressive (which i am) whether he likes to play with a kitchen set or a bike. now are men naturally more aggressive than girls and less nurturing? probably too an extent but its hard to say how much environment has an effect there. my parents mostly bought me toys tailored to boys anyway.
i concur with drone though. boys should never cry unless for extreme circumstances. boys who cry in fact children who cry in general make me ill. stoicism ftw.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
but those traits for boys are what they are. Regardless of whether girls raised by lesbians are less likely to be devoutly christian (remember it's difference in averages).
But the fact Lesbians are less likely to be Christian (as they burn in the pits of hell), it is a clear demonstration of the social influences making an impact on the child. but those traits for boys are what they are. Regardless of whether girls raised by lesbians are less likely to be devoutly christian (remember it's difference in averages).Single Sign On provided by vBSSO