Gender Roles: Even More Spin-Off

[Rhyfelwyr]

.....and yet you yourself adhere to a functionalistic explanation, which was a thing of the 60's as well. 1860's, that is...

I believe the most up to date and sensible viewpoint is to admit that both biology and sociocultural aspects play their role, and probably reinforce each other.

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.

When I said "in general", I meant men are on the whole stronger than women. As in as a group, but not always on an individual basis.

Well you're last three statements are clearly true...

Yes.

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

Self reports are actually very revealing, you made this same argument in a Frontroom thread recently, you don't have to be so rigid when it comes to these things, the real test isn't always in the question itself.

Plus, now who is dismissing scientific research? That males display more aspergers like charactertics would have been obvious without providing evidence, but when I do provided respected research, its "terrible" and just dismissed?

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).

Well you've made the case that what I said was due to the influence of homosexual parents was infact due to the fact that homosexual parents happen to be better off. An issue of causation.

So when I show that homosexual parents have the opposite effect on girls associated with being brought up by parents that are well off, you dismiss it? If the parents homosexuality is a factor with the girls they raise, I think it is highly likely it will also influence the boys, and shows that the studies finding were not just due to a the conflation of homosexual/well off parents.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

When I said "in general", I meant men are on the whole stronger than women. As in as a group, but not always on an individual basis.

So you just meant statistically significant, ok.

Self reports are actually very revealing, you made this same argument in a Frontroom thread recently, you don't have to be so rigid when it comes to these things, the real test isn't always in the question itself.

Tests of self report have women as much more empathetic. Tests of physiological reactions show women as very slight more. Tests of helping behavior show that men are more likely to help.

Self report in gender studies leads to people saying they are like their gender role. If you quiz men and ask them if they are strong, brave, etc they will say yes. But we already know that, it isn't very revealing. What would actually be revealing would be if there was a large difference in empathy.

Plus, now who is dismissing scientific research? That males display more aspergers like charactertics would have been obvious without providing evidence, but when I do provided respected research, its "terrible" and just dismissed?

I'm not dismissing it, I have read about it and it's bad for several reasons which I can't recall at this time, he used questionable measures or something like that. I am completely fine with you criticizing scientific research, I have said that it's mostly bad when it comes to gender research. The default assumption should be that it's bad. You can only conclude that it's good after reading about it in more detail. This isn't an argument for the common sense view, since our own judgments about gender differences are bad too.

Well you've made the case that what I said was due to the influence of homosexual parents was infact due to the fact that homosexual parents happen to be better off. An issue of causation.

So when I show that homosexual parents have the opposite effect on girls associated with being brought up by parents that are well off, you dismiss it? If the parents homosexuality is a factor with the girls they raise, I think it is highly likely it will also influence the boys, and shows that the studies finding were not just due to a the conflation of homosexual/well off parents.

I don't think they were. But you understand that when we talk about differences here we are comparing two averages. So simply not being poor and not being conservative (--> the effect on girls that you mentioned) distorts the average. You would have to compare it to another similar demographic group, and look at the differences, to see if there was a difference purely from the same sex parents factor.

My position is a skeptical one.

[Megas Methuselah]

It's still not OK for a man to cry.

I cry in private.

[Ironside]

It's still not OK for a man to cry.

That's extremely cultural and has varied through the ages. One of the really big ones, when it comes to gender roles (that applies to more emotions as well).

And for some manly tears I offer warning can cost too much time, TVtropes

And then we have this for some cheering up after digging around on the former link. The ending in particular.

When I said "in general", I meant men are on the whole stronger than women. As in as a group, but not always on an individual basis.

So... If a female can handle the burden of this heavy lifting job, should she take it or not? If she wants to of course.
See that's the thing about roles. The gender differs, but even the largest differense (physical strength) overlap. So if you say that girls do that and boys do that, it will never fully fit on either group. Are those who doesn't fit supposed to conform or not?

[Crazed Rabbit]

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.

What do you mean? Not fair they are less sexually assertive – and therefore more proper in terms of not having sex as often?

Traditional gender roles are there because they are the most natural and thus the best suited for each gender.

They’re the most natural? Based on what? - roles have changed over time, and are different now throughout the planet. Does what is ‘natural’ change? If so, how can what is natural now be any better than what was natural before? And what country/region/culture should be used as the basis for ‘natural’?

It seems likely to me traditional roles are the result of culture where the child is raised. Is the traditional role of women in Saudi Arabia more natural than the role of women in the USA?

Why would traditional gender roles be the best anyway? Human history is a litany of ignorance of science, cultures, math, astronomy, engineering, anatomy, psychology, etc. The traditions of the past were based on foundations of ignorance; what besides being around first gives them credence?

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".

Well bred used to mean women only spoke when spoken to and weren’t supposed to go to college. It seems rather that your issue is the children raised by gay couples are less likely to conform to what you view as the proper role and personality for men and women in society.

CR

[Rhyfelwyr]

So... If a female can handle the burden of this heavy lifting job, should she take it or not? If she wants to of course.
See that's the thing about roles. The gender differs, but even the largest differense (physical strength) overlap. So if you say that girls do that and boys do that, it will never fully fit on either group. Are those who doesn't fit supposed to conform or not?

For the exceptions they can do their own thing, however you raise children expecting them to be a certain way so you go with the way biology has most likely intended.

What do you mean? Not fair they are less sexually assertive – and therefore more proper in terms of not having sex as often?

Depends why they're not having sex. Is it because they are abstaining or as I said earlier because they sound like they have actually been castrated. What part of the description of those boys raised by lesbians sounded healthy? Do you want your kids to be like that? Would you like to have been/be like that?

Do you think you are the way you are now purely because of the way you were raised*, or is it something deeper than that?

Well bred used to mean women only spoke when spoken to and weren’t supposed to go to college. It seems rather that your issue is the children raised by gay couples are less likely to conform to what you view as the proper role and personality for men and women in society.

Well yes. PJ treated it like having homosexual parents somehow liberates children from the influence of heterosexual ones and allows them to develop more "naturally". This is silly, children develop the way they do just as much if not more due to biology than their upbringing. They will live like a standard heterosexual couple when they are older, so they need to learn those values, not be messed up.

* funny how its all cultural when it comes to gender roles, but its all biology when it comes to homosexuality, whatever suits wins it seems

[Crazed Rabbit]

For the exceptions they can do their own thing, however you raise children expecting them to be a certain way so you go with the way biology has most likely intended.

I doubt very much biology has much impact on how parents decide to raise their children. An individual child's biology will of course have a large impact on the child, but not the parenting.

Depends why they're not having sex. Is it because they are abstaining or as I said earlier because they sound like they have actually been castrated. What part of the description of those boys raised by lesbians sounded healthy? Do you want your kids to be like that? Would you like to have been/be like that?

Castrated? That sounds like how the pilgrims - and many (most) other groups in America raised kids.

Given what I've seen of frat guys and certain examples of sexual assertiveness (discounting violence and focusing just on how some men focus of getting laid without respect or caring for the women) I wouldn't have a problem with less sexually assertive men.

Do you think you are the way you are now purely because of the way you were raised*, or is it something deeper than that?

Both.

Well yes. PJ treated it like having homosexual parents somehow liberates children from the influence of heterosexual ones and allows them to develop more "naturally". This is silly, children develop the way they do just as much if not more due to biology than their upbringing. They will live like a standard heterosexual couple when they are older, so they need to learn those values, not be messed up.

So children raised by homosexuals will have messed up values, and unable to live like 'standard heterosexuals'?

Perhaps you could elaborate. I don't see what values children raised by homosexuals would have that would mess them up when they are older. Somewhat different, certainly, but that's not at all the same. Everyone is somewhat different in a way, and what you consider messed up values may be the norm in certain areas where people get along just fine.

CR

[ajaxfetish]

Traditional gender roles are there because they are the most natural and thus the best suited for each gender.

They’re the most natural? Based on what? - roles have changed over time, and are different now throughout the planet. Does what is ‘natural’ change? If so, how can what is natural now be any better than what was natural before? And what country/region/culture should be used as the basis for ‘natural’?

It seems likely to me traditional roles are the result of culture where the child is raised. Is the traditional role of women in Saudi Arabia more natural than the role of women in the USA?

Why would traditional gender roles be the best anyway? Human history is a litany of ignorance of science, cultures, math, astronomy, engineering, anatomy, psychology, etc. The traditions of the past were based on foundations of ignorance; what besides being around first gives them credence?

ACIN was being ironical. His joke is based on the gay parenting thread.

Ajax

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ah, I see. In that case, carry on.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

If I wanted to continue the joke this is where I would insert more laughing emoticons (AKA the Tribesman method) and call everyone here absurd for trying to strip away the rights of children.

[PanzerJaeger]

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?

You're missing the point.

Whether they define 'well adjusted' as being motivated to succeed, having a normal social life, and being generally happy or having anonymous sex at least three times a week, being addicted to methamphetamines, and engaging in suicidal behaviors, it really doesn't matter.

What matters is that they noticed no differences between the two groups.

One area the researchers found no differences in was the mental health of children or their quality of relationship with parents. Children brought up by lesbians and gay men are well-adjusted, have good levels of self-esteem and are as likely to have high educational attainments as children raised in more traditional heterosexual families.

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?

Because I did not imply it. The research did.

In addition, heterosexual mothers tend to encourage sons to participate in historically "masculine" games and activities – such as Little League – and daughters in more "feminine" pursuits – such as ballet. In contrast, lesbian mothers had no such interest – their preferences for their children's play were gender neutral.

[Rhyfelwyr]

@CR - my point is that it is part biology/part upbringing.

You're missing the point.

Whether they define 'well adjusted' as being motivated to succeed, having a normal social life, and being generally happy or having anonymous sex at least three times a week, being addicted to methamphetamines, and engaging in suicidal behaviors, it really doesn't matter.

What matters is that they noticed no differences between the two groups.

Except they did, the ones we've been debating for most of this thread...

Because I did not imply it. The research did.

Well if they make the play more gender neutral the kids will act more gender neutral, contrary to the nature biology gave them. Parents can't just be neutral and not influence their kids.

[PanzerJaeger]

Except they did, the ones we've been debating for most of this thread...

Not in the well-adjustedness of the children, which is the definition you questioned. You keep insinuating that the children will be dysfunctional, but the research runs contrary to that opinion.

Well if they make the play more gender neutral the kids will act more gender neutral, contrary to the nature biology gave them. Parents can't just be neutral and not influence their kids.

Apparently they can, at least in the activities the children are encouraged to engage in.

Is it better to push a boy into a sport that he may or may not enjoy or let him gravitate towards the activities that truly interest him? I don't know, but the research indicates that it does not effect the mental health, self esteem, and social adjustedness of the child either way.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Not in the well-adjustedness of the children, which is the definition you questioned. You keep insinuating that the children will be dysfunctional, but the research runs contrary to that opinion.

And yet some of the examples you gave were stuff that were mentioned when the article talked about lesbian parents, for example the girls sleeping around more.

Apparently they can, at least in the activities the children are encouraged to engage in.

Is it better to push a boy into a sport that he may or may not enjoy or let him gravitate towards the activities that truly interest him? I don't know, but the research indicates that it does not effect the mental health, self esteem, and social adjustedness of the child either way.

The article says of the lesbian parents that "their preferences for their children's play were gender neutral". This means they actively encouraged gender neutral behaviour, not that they somehow sat back and let their children do what they wanted without influencing them whatsoever.

[PanzerJaeger]

Girls who choose to have sex are not dysfunctional. What are the other examples?

You continue to avoid the main conclusions of the research and mischaracterize the study as somehow negative toward gay parenting. It is not.

Their psychological well-being and social adjustment does not significantly differ, on average, from that of children in comparable heterosexual-parent families.

None of this points to 'messed up' children.

[Rhyfelwyr]

This whole topic is like one massive chain reactions where one can of worms opens another.

Anyway, now your painting is as it all girls raised by lesbians do is "have sex", as opposed to having noticably more than those raised by hetero parents. And you imply yourself its a bad thing as some point with your "having anonymous sex at least three times a week" comment.

[ajaxfetish]

Well if they make the play more gender neutral the kids will act more gender neutral, contrary to the nature biology gave them. Parents can't just be neutral and not influence their kids.

Au contraire. If the parents' attitude toward their child's activities is gender neutral, it is precisely then that the child's biological nature can identify their interests, instead of being suppressed by the parents' preferences. Parents not pushing for socially created gender roles allows for more natural development, not less.

Ajax

[Ironside]

For the exceptions they can do their own thing, however you raise children expecting them to be a certain way so you go with the way biology has most likely intended.

Encuragement for more manly tears and more non sexual nakedness then? Or are you going to argue that it's not what biology has intended?

Besides, isn't it something off if you're required to raise them to thier "natural ways" and not simply something they'll discover by themself? Not counting that this "natural way" seems to vary even inside countries.

Sure, a child needs to understand gender roles, because they're a part of society and the actual gender differences are sometimes enough to give a basis for the difference. But that doesn't mean that they should always be adhered, in particular since most differences are due to stigmatic maintaince of gender roles and not the gender difference.

Rhyfelwyr, who did interpret guys being pickier about their choise of girls= sexually repressed? PJ is mostly poking on the still mumbling carcass that the girl should be a virgin, while the guy should have plenty of sexual experience before marriage.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Au contraire. If the parents' attitude toward their child's activities is gender neutral, it is precisely then that the child's biological nature can identify their interests, instead of being suppressed by the parents' preferences. Parents not pushing for socially created gender roles allows for more natural development, not less.

Ajax

No, parents can't just be passive like that, whatever they are doing they are actively encouraging it. Parents are picking toys for their kids before they are old enough to ask for them. Gender neutralness is encouraged just the same way as male/female roles are.

Sure, a child needs to understand gender roles, because they're a part of society and the actual gender differences are sometimes enough to give a basis for the difference.

That's all I ever said.

Rhyfelwyr, who did interpret guys being pickier about their choise of girls= sexually repressed? PJ is mostly poking on the still mumbling carcass that the girl should be a virgin, while the guy should have plenty of sexual experience before marriage.

If it had just said the guys were not having pre-marital sex I would have said great. It's the combination of things that makes it sound so unhealthy. They should still want to be having sex.

[ajaxfetish]

If it had just said the guys were not having pre-marital sex I would have said great. It's the combination of things that makes it sound so unhealthy. They should still want to be having sex.

Wherever did you get the idea that they don't?

Ajax

[Strike For The South]

Girls should want sex to.....

You realize a womans sex drive is just as strong as a mans.....

Talk about freaking antiquated notions of gender roles

[Rhyfelwyr]

Wherever did you get the idea that they don't?

Ajax

Because as I said the combination of things looks seriously unhealthy. Plus why wouldn't they just have sex if they wanted to if they didn't have 'traditional' values?

Girls should want sex to.....

You realize a womans sex drive is just as strong as a mans.....

Talk about freaking antiquated notions of gender roles

Not so much antiquated as realistic and taking into account biological and social factors as most respected figures do in the field these days. And were did I even say anything about the female sex drive. Please, show me...

But don't let me stop the leftist moral outrage, fuelled as ever by strawmen and projectionism...

[Centurion1]

trust me women want sex as much if not more than dudes. they just want it to be good not a five minute cringe fest.

[Ironside]

That's all I ever said.

Not really. Your multiple mentioning of gender roles as being natural/biological is implying that you consider the current roles to fall into being close to natural/biological. That is demonstratly false on several categories. And enforcing the gender roles also has the problem that all categories overlap, and quite a bit on that.

If it had just said the guys were not having pre-marital sex I would have said great. It's the combination of things that makes it sound so unhealthy. They should still want to be having sex.

Indeed, if they won't then it would show severe impact on their psychological well-being and social adjustment. And what did the study show on those issues?

[ajaxfetish]

Because as I said the combination of things looks seriously unhealthy. Plus why wouldn't they just have sex if they wanted to if they didn't have 'traditional' values?

'Traditional' values are the only values that might put restraint on a man's sexuality? You're welcome to your opinion, Rhy, but I have to say the combination of things looks seriously healthy to me.

Ajax

[Rhyfelwyr]

Not really. Your multiple mentioning of gender roles as being natural/biological is implying that you consider the current roles to fall into being close to natural/biological. That is demonstratly false on several categories.

Name those categories.

Indeed, if they won't then it would show severe impact on their psychological well-being and social adjustment.

But look how well I turned out! Making girl threads on a gaming forum at 21!

'Traditional' values are the only values that might put restraint on a man's sexuality? You're welcome to your opinion, Rhy, but I have to say the combination of things looks seriously healthy to me.

Ajax

What other values would those be?

[ajaxfetish]

Maybe values to do with gender equality, self-control, respect for others. I don't know what exactly the values being taught in their households are, and I don't particularly care. I just found it odd that 'traditional' values could be legitimately expected to restrain men from having sex all willy-nilly, yet non-traditional ones couldn't be expected to have a similar effect. Is it that non-traditional values must by definition encourage more sexual activity, or is it that non-traditional values that restrain the male sex drive must be emasculating in a way that traditional values somehow aren't?

Ajax

[The Stranger]

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.

everything apparantly causes psychological issues...

[Fragony]

@PJ Fifties called they want their housewives back. Modern women want a career and modern men like modern women, long past that nobody is forcing anyone

calls for a classic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

[The Stranger]

most men like any women they can put their thing in.

:O oh my now i am generalising, stereotyping and all kings of thingings. im so badd!!