Gender Roles

[Decaf]

Maybe someone could point out how I failed in an honest effort to include and discuss the ideas he's brought forth, but I agree. His additions to this forum have largely been negative, and even when it was pointed out, he made no long-term effort at correction. I'm all for inclusion of alternate points of view. I feel like its necessary to keep us from falling victim to group-think, but after reading his post, I can't support his inclusion anymore.

To be worthy of respect you must show respect.

 

[ElectricWizard]

Not really, I see it more as flame-baiting than ignorance.

 

[Jordan~]

Wow, I was a good judge of character again.

 

[loveofreason]

Slightly off topic, but I can't believe I actually found this in this forum's terms of use: "You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is annoying."

On those grounds, and many more, he can easily be banned. Wouldn't be within a forum's authority to ban him? Not only is Thomas Young's "material" annoying, it's repulsive, insulting, stupid, and frankly, this willful ignorance is the root of most, if not all evil.

Thanks Fernando, that's the final nail in the coffin.

He's been doomed pretty much since his first post, but I have a kind of fascination for observing the failings of others - hoping I guess to learn more about mine.

And observing the pattern of Thomas Young's posts unfold I have learned more about egotism, insecurity, bluff, the nature of reasoning and conduct of argument, self-delusion, spiritual arrogance and teaching.

Someone has to be the buffoon that provokes solidarity and clarity within a group. Because of how unpalatable he makes an effort to be, he has taught us something about our shared values, has he not?

Also, he presents the world as a battle for social survival that requires the siphoning of attention.

As the new arrival has muscled in and spoiled the mood people will naturally outkast that person unless they add something new and interesting.

Whereas I strive to slip in and out of life unnoticed; where I have pinned my survival on being unnoticed, here is someone who must draw attention. If I find that offensive, I must ask myself how I am subverting my own ego, starving my own ego. I feel as self-righteous as a hunger-strike protester believing everyone else should be starving like me. I find that fascinating.

He has played his role well, I would think, and having discovered the limits of our tolerance can be content with the outcome he expects.

If I let it go too far I apologise to all the other members, especially Fernando.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

Continuing the conversation, having read all of this thread from the beginning, I am impressed with the level of thought and discussion, for in other forums, a subject such as this would deteriorate quickly into adolescent euphemisms and monosylabic torts.

Several thoughts have come to mind in reading this thread.

Most of the conversation, and I am assuming here, originates from those living in industrialized progressive areas. In industrialized societies where the rights of individuals have been a subject of consideration for many years, women have been educated far more than their counterparts in lesser-industrialized areas, though this has only been wide-spread over the last 200 years or so. In lesser-developed areas where access to education is limited, do the traditional gender/genetic roles still hold sway?

In areas, industrialized and lesser-industrialized, where society is governed by male-oriented religious traditions, do the traditional gender/genetic roles still hold sway?

In modern military warfare where hand-to-hand and face-to-face conflict is minimal because of technological advancement in the art of killing has distanced the combatants, does physical strength, not meaning physical fitness, actually matter as much as it did? Does it matter whether the pilot of a multi-million dollar fighter jet with remote targeting capabilities is male or female? Does it matter if the driver of an armoured tank or a missile launcher is male or female?
The primary object of engagement in war is either incapacitating or killing one's opponent. Does it matter whether the one peering into the targeting screen of the long-range missle launcher is male or female?
For ground troops, are the hand-weapons (rifles, hand-guns, etc.) too heavy for a woman to hold and aim? Is a grenade to massive for a woman to throw?

Altering the perceptions, traditions and assumptions of gender/genetic roles requires one thing and one thing only...Education.
An educated person is a thinking person, male or female. An educated person is able to make thoughtful and meaningful decisions about their own life and the lives of others. An educated person can see the irrationality of assigning/designating or restricting certain facets of sociological functions to a specific gender/sex. An educated person will create one's own choices and own destiny free from any habitual traditions imposed by outside forces.

This is not revolution, but revelation, ripping away the veils which cover the eyes and bodies of both male and female to reveal the reality and individuality of every person and the uniqueness of every situation.

My two cents.
(...which by now inflation has reduced to $1.73)

 

[Kidege]

Thank you, Lor.
Kudos to Decaf and Fernando.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

Does it matter whether the pilot of a multi-million dollar fighter jet with remote targeting capabilities is male or female?

Does it matter if the driver of an armoured tank or a missile launcher is male or female?

For ground troops, are the hand-weapons (rifles, hand-guns, etc.) too heavy for a woman to hold and aim? Is a grenade to massive for a woman to throw?

I've written this before and I'll write it again

I don't believe men and women have unequal capabilities, but I will argue that there are bio-mechanical trade-offs. Women are better suited to piloting fighter aircraft and armed vehicles due to their more effective circulatory systems and multitasking skills. Likewise if somebody needs to carry 15kg of ammunition of several kilometres I would recommended it was done by a male due to their thicker bone structures.

Of course everybody is different and I acknowledge that these statistical bio-mechanical trade-offs don't apply to everyone.

Regarding the conversation over wage inequities.
I agree that something is wrong about that; however it will not change until the current employment system changes. As it stands male workers have an advantage when applying for a raise, testosterone. We're more likely to stand up for what we want and you'd be surprised how much of a role Dominance plays in the workplace. When asking for a raise a conflict situation is created and males are generally more intimidating.
From a biological perspective it really hasn't been that long since our ancestors were in the African forest, we still carry our ape heritage.

(I've just admitted that I'm likely thicker and lesser evolved than female posters; I think I'm done for now)

 

[EloquentBohemian]

I've written this before and I'll write it again

I don't believe men and women have unequal capabilities, but I will argue that there are bio-mechanical trade-offs. Women are better suited to piloting fighter aircraft and armed vehicles due to their more effective circulatory systems and multitasking skills. Likewise if somebody needs to carry 15kg of ammunition of several kilometres I would recommended it was done by a male due to their thicker bone structures.

I will agree with this. My point is that when it comes to warfare, there is less and less reliance on brawn and physical contact than brain and detached distance. It is easier to kill your opponent if you can't see the terror of another humans eyes.
If warfare continues on into the future, I would project that armies of people will disappear to be replaced by technological and computerized weaponry supervised by a select few. Efficiency and minimal colateral loss. Granted, the neuro-chemical make-up of biological male and biological female are different and possibly this would dictate which weaponry each would handle, with exceptions of course. I imagine there would be extensive psychological testing administered which would determine an individual's position within the warfare structure. An INTJ female would possibly be a better strategist than a male counterpart of a differing MBTI.

Regarding the conversation over wage inequities.
I agree that something is wrong about that; however it will not change until the current employment system changes. As it stands male workers have an advantage when applying for a raise, testosterone. We're more likely to stand up for what we want and you'd be surprised how much of a role Dominance plays in the workplace. When asking for a raise a conflict situation is created and males are generally more intimidating.
From a biological perspective it really hasn't been that long since our ancestors were in the African forest, we still carry our ape heritage.

(I've just admitted that I'm likely thicker and lesser evolved than female posters; I think I'm done for now)

Perhaps one shouldn't have to ask for a raise, perhaps it should be given automatically upon achievement and merit, regardless of gender/genetics and not be dictated by the whims or prejudices of a superior within an organization, male or female.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

Just another reason why we need a genderless Artificial intelligence to rule the world

 

[grey matters]

I have read a little about primitive societies and one theory is that primitive societies that have a mother goddess as a major deity treat the genders more like equals (as my high school history teacher put it "they have more equal rights"). Now I haven't read much about primitive societies. I just bring this theory up for discussion because it is interesting and I hope that perhaps there is someone out there who may know more about this and can add some insight.

 

[ElectricWizard]

In modern military warfare where hand-to-hand and face-to-face conflict is minimal because of technological advancement in the art of killing has distanced the combatants, does physical strength, not meaning physical fitness, actually matter as much as it did? Does it matter whether the pilot of a multi-million dollar fighter jet with remote targeting capabilities is male or female? Does it matter if the driver of an armoured tank or a missile launcher is male or female?
The primary object of engagement in war is either incapacitating or killing one's opponent. Does it matter whether the one peering into the targeting screen of the long-range missle launcher is male or female?
For ground troops, are the hand-weapons (rifles, hand-guns, etc.) too heavy for a woman to hold and aim? Is a grenade to massive for a woman to throw?

And? I support nobody having to have to fight imperialist wars, and we're already halfway there. Why change that?

 

[Jennywocky]

Thanks Fernando, that's the final nail in the coffin. He's been doomed pretty much since his first post, but I have a kind of fascination for observing the failings of others ... If I let it go too far I apologise to all the other members, especially Fernando.

But I only just started to ignore him!

Modding is a hard job, and when I do it, I have the same problem in terms of not wanting to intervene too soon and wanting to allow for contrary viewpoints in the hopes that something can be gained.

After awhile, I just started to realize that there are some people who are long-term poison ... basically because they DON'T want to learn and change, and so they prey on those that do, and drive off the members who would contribute more to a positive growth dynamic. I guess maybe that is more my litmus test now: If I let so and so run unchecked, will positively contributing members start to leave? What is best for the forum itself, long-term?

Anyway, you are doing fine.

Regarding the conversation over wage inequities.
I agree that something is wrong about that; however it will not change until the current employment system changes. As it stands male workers have an advantage when applying for a raise, testosterone. We're more likely to stand up for what we want and you'd be surprised how much of a role Dominance plays in the workplace. When asking for a raise a conflict situation is created and males are generally more intimidating.

I agree with the earlier biological differences (females and males differentiate and end up being better physically suited for certain things, although overlap does exist).

And yes, testosterone is great for self-assertion like this. The estrogen thing contributes to "working together" and a group/other orientation, rather than self-assertion, so a woman is more prone to not pushing as directly or as hard as a man would simply to benefit herself with a higher wage, and thus not get it (because she never asked as much), because she would expect the other person to reciprocate just as she would. (That autonomy/reciprocation dichotomy I think is one of the main contributors to male/female misunderstandings.)

Although assertive women sometimes still get dismissed by men. I don't know.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

Although assertive women sometimes still get dismissed by men. I don't know.

Testosterone tends to make male threat assessment based upon physical size and strength; hence old-school bosses may ignore even the most assertive of women. Of course this often ends in disaster when said women leaves and he discovers that she had been doing more than her fare share of work.
Poetic justice at it's best.

 

[Tiger]

What do you think about gender roles in general? Are traditional gender roles still relevant? How do you think they affect men and women? Who's more affected? Are gender roles a matter of nurture or nature? etc.

It's natural for women to fill roles of caring/nurturing, and for men protection/organization.
Women's brains are best suited for multi-tasking, and men's for singular driven focus.

Sure it's possible to reverse the roles, but it doesn't make it right.

I feel that the large rise of role-reversal is mainly in reaction to women having been suppressed for so long. And now having to prove themselves to men, mainly by repressing their femininity and playing the patriarchal game.

I'd prefer to see women in their natural roles, after all what's wrong with women being house-wives or nurturers? Women who don't have to suppress their emotions in the workplace etc.

Zeke Johnson ( Ex-Captain )

what you think on the matter really concerns me.
some fo the things you say, like multi-tasking females and sinuglarly focused men is forcing complex human beings who are capable of nlearning and adapting into little boxes with no room to move. wouldn't everyone here agree that either gender is capable of the demands of everyday life. multi-tasking and a singular focus, if it is infact scientifically proven to be a significiant difference, is immaterial. i only ever hear it when people feel like patting themselves on the back or making excuses and their belief is only ever derived from the vine tree, anyway. but this more from experience than theory, i have never actualyl seent he difference in the way males anf females go about things, ive only heard compaining about the so called multi-tasking or singular focus thing. although dont peg me as deranged, i know female and males brains have differences but its acknowledgment (sometimes simply choice to have them) of them before their proof rather than the other way around is idioctic.

women and men are best suited to nurturing and protective roles respectivley???
i hate nuturing, it makes me uncomfortable and im alot more free in expressing affection via being protective -and im a female. if you ran the world you would be initiailly opressing me, but contrarily to you're belief people should stick to what they're preferential to, i would adapt and develop new dimensions, i'd inflate the underdeveloped nuturing part of my personality. because of that im a more well rounded person which can only serve as an advantage, so why should be given expectations that suit our preference, no matter how subliminally. id be the most protective and nurturing person i can be and whatever i was stronger in wouldn't be hindered. if we should have expectations it should be that everyone be the most caring, compassionate and up-standing person they could be. being caring is a virtue in my eyes, it is stupid to have one half of the population being scared to show their caring abilities, the world is a worse off place.
im the strongest person i know, you're taking that away from me when it is such an advatange and a good thing to have to offer. i can be strong for all of my male counterparts. its degrading to have the 'male' logo stamped on one of my traits, also... then you're mixing sexuality with personality when it shouldn't be.

hmmm, women are trying to prove themselves to men...
that's extremely, extremely offensive.
i understand it may appear this way to a male, especially when you've obviously got suck a lack of empathy towards females (im not sayign you dont have any respect though because it appears to me that you certainly do). unless i forgive that, its completly without merit. although this is only my subjective view, my point is that it contradicts yours. its not about supressing femininity at all, its pride in feminitity that is the goal, before now, femininity (what ever the heck it is) kept women out of the workplace, now its no longer seen as a flaw. its not 'we're men now', its 'we chose to be which way we are' . its the idea that the notion of a superior gender is a fallacy used by the insecure. saying that women are trying to prove themselves to men is so degrading to women. its ignoring the change that has taken place. women dont think men are better than they.
it also really bothers me that you can prescribe what is natural without any back up evidence. science is the only defence we have against being completley brains washed.

here's my two cents on 'gender roles', its something i wrote up a while before i started posting (thank this thread for my membership) but didn't post until now.

At present -under the influence of all my experiences, thoughts and education- i strongly believe only a society with no gender roles is beneficial to all persons. gender roles are only ever oppressive, although hard it may be to see as its all ingrained with lessons in humiliation when our minds are most vulnerable. How can anyone truly listen to their natural call under all of this predijuce and propaganda. I see a lot of innocent and natural behavior being perceived as threatening and hence punished. e.g. a boy being punished for playing with a dollhouse. Isn't a childs haven the home? and what does something typically female like housekeeping or nursing a child have to do with anything other than housekeeping or nursing. I understand that roles have ties to sexuality and due to the stigma around homosexuals, heterosexual people are inhibited against acting out of role even though they may desire to. And as moonpie pointed out, a structure that requires roles to function doesn’t need to have roels assigned to gender but it should rather be assigned to preference or competence or other factors that allow the most freedom and best results. If it does ever lead to a general gender correlation then its not oppressive as the criteria in the previous sentence is completed. If that were to happen, society may have its first unopressive scientifically proven –although unexclusive- gender role. Wow, a society run on knowledge… I dare to dream.

Also, living near the cutting edge of western society, i see a shocking discrepancy in the gender ideologies of those 10-20 years older than i and those of my own age. (i.e. those older see it as a womens revolution and are more likely to make blind sexist comments against themselves, where my gen. see it as our self-evidential rights to suit behavior simply to our wishes.) I am very disturbed to hear on the radio an elderly male academic referring to the decline in mathematical performance in girls as taking what woman have earnt over the years for granted.
When broken down, i see that most gender roles (eastern and western) are basically, male: assertive, female: passive. The assigning of this role by something like gender is arbitrary, (why not those with red hair... ) and illogical when considering that it oppresses everyone who doesn't fit the role naturally and are now not bettering society with gifts they may have that lie outside the role or not learning things that can be understood when behaving in a different way.

"I'd prefer to see women in their natural roles, after all what's wrong with women being house-wives or nurturers? Women who don't have to suppress their emotions in the workplace etc."
Emotions in the work place are harmful for practice. Men must also control their emotions, why let women have different standards? in fact, if rules were set reguardign gossiping and the like, i think only rationals would be the ones not cut off from expressing their emotions. The only problem I see with both genders in one work place is sex and the problems it causes. But there are many people who have self imposed rules on not being involved with any one at work, so the cause of this problem is not women or men but irresponsibility.
but you're right when you say there's nothign wrong with women being house-wives or nurturers - except when it takes a toll on the income in a distinguishable way - unless the other partner is making enouhg money to cover needs of the child then both should have a job; the children would probably be happier in a private school than in a public one. if its the best possible choice, there is nothing wrong at all. it could be the man who earns less and decided to stay home to watch children. in fact, if everyone on the planet was well practised in how to nurture, i theorise there may be less violence.

part of my reason for rejecting gender roles is in defense of the abilites of those that dont fit them, like sensitive, nuturing, F preference men. i read somewhere that 60% of men are Thinkers and 60% females are Feelers which might explain the 'just because' of gender roles; according to the statistics, females are more likely to cry and men not too. but thats not concidering that roles could be making Thinking/Feeling borderline people feel more free to align their behaviour with their gender's apparent preference and not their natural preference (thats if its contrary). or perhaps there is a real preference and this could either simply add another dimension onto a person or push them in one way or another. if you had a thinking female born in isolation would she become less emotional if turned into a male or remain the same?

authors note: im sure this all seems alittle naive and pieous but thats because it is. why should it be any other way. and yet again, i wasnt articulate enough to properly express my thoughts, im too rough and imprecise. there were too many tangents i could ahve taken but i dont have the time to cover them all and thats even if more didn't come up. if anyone got an objection please bring it up. i dare you to try and change my mind.

 

[tom]

Naivete is almost never a bad thing. I personally would agree with those who go with total gender equality and and decisions about ones worth be made upon the quality of contribution.