Gender Roles

[Ermine]

I thought this would be a great topic to discuss.

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.

I'll post my own response later.

 

[moonpie]

I think there are roles and that can't be changed. My opinion about gender roles is that it is like any of that nonsense that people try to apply to wide groups of people when it became obvious since our brains got big enough to walk on two legs and roam around an African savanna that all things are individual. Laziness is what I would call it.

A good example is my buddy, Odin(yeah, not a made up name), he cooks the meals and his wife, Moe Moe(again, not making this up) does the dishes. There are two roles, cooker and cleaner, and there are two genders, male and female, but there isn't a correlation there. Odin can cook(and is teaching me-trying to pick up on girls) and Moe Moe can't, so they came to an agreement that works and fulfills both roles.

So, the essential is that there are a certain number of jobs or roles that people must work or play and a person should be doing whatever job their skills apply to, not what people tell them they ought to do based on what is dangling off their body.

 

[Zeke Johnson]

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 )

 

[Ermine]

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 )

Just wondering, do you think that everyone is perfectly suited for their assigned roles? Anatomically, it's fairly obvious. Women can have babies and men are stronger, in order to protect and provide. However, as INTPs would know, everyone is wired differently. There are plenty of women out there that aren't very emotional and aren't good with kids, and there are men that more emotional and caring, though they are both nurtured to be otherwise.

For example, anatomically, I am meant to fill the female gender role. However, I don't fill the gender role in other respects. I can't multitask very well. I'm not outwardly emotional. I'm not very nurturing or caring at all. I'm not good with kids at all. Why? It's just not the way I'm wired. I'm sure I could learn those things to a degree, but it's not what I specialize in.

In a family setting, the roles could be partially reversed. For example, while the anatomical roles can't really be reversed, the father could take care of the children's emotional well being, care for them, etc. while the mother regulates, organizes, and teaches. By all means possible while still being natural (according to personality and strengths).

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.

Absolutely nothing wrong with it, just saying that they shouldn't be pushed into a role that they don't entirely fit.

 

[Wisp]

^^ What Weasel said was EXACTLY what was going through my head while reading Zeke's post. Congrats for putting it in a clear state.

 

[moonpie]

Uh huh. Uh huh. Uh huh. I agrees.

There are tendencies. But they are just that. In the really, real world people ought to do what they are good at and hook up with people that are good at things they aren't so they can do that stuff for them.

Though, I think you might like kids, Fernando, more on a one-on-one basis. That may just be supposition, but I used to not like kids. Then, I started hanging with them one on one and hanging with ones that were close to me. They are such a fantastic tabula rasa, unfettered, for the most part, by the illogical nature of their eventual training to deal with an illogical world.

 

[Wisp]

It's the same in the T/F switch in MBTI. 70% of all women are F's, and society tends to push that onto them, but a happy and effective female T will most likely have to come to terms with the fact that she just isn't that type of person somewhere down the line.

 

[Ermine]

Uh huh. Uh huh. Uh huh. I agrees.

There are tendencies. But they are just that. In the really, real world people ought to do what they are good at and hook up with people that are good at things they aren't so they can do that stuff for them.

Though, I think you might like kids, Fernando, more on a one-on-one basis. That may just be supposition, but I used to not like kids. Then, I started hanging with them one on one and hanging with ones that were close to me. They are such a fantastic tabula rasa, unfettered, for the most part, by the illogical nature of their eventual training to deal with an illogical world.

It's not that I don't like kids, it's that I'm not good at caring for them. I'm fascinated with the fact that they are pure clean slates, I just can't take care of their emotional well being, let alone anyone else's.

 

[moonpie]

Oh yeah, hmmm... actually care for them.... right... uh. You got me there.

 

[Wisp]

You mean you actually have to take care of kids? I thought they were grown in vats...

 

[moonpie]

They are grown in girl vats, they call them "wombs".

 

[Ermine]

Meh, to a degree. That's the least of the growing process, though the things that happen on a cellular level in the "vat" are quite momentous and amazing.

 

[tesseracter]

I was *really* scared about having kids. I never babysat. Didn't have a clue what to do with them. I'd hear stories about how moms just naturally "linked" with their kids and I was certain every other mom could do that, but I was sure I wasn't wired to do that. It made me very nervous to become a mom.

Know what? The moment they put my baby in my arms, I linked with him. Oh yes, I'm definitely a less emotional mother than some. And, if my son falls down and skins his knees, I don't go running to him - I freeze (I always freeze in moments of crisis). Actually, my son hit his head, gashed it, and blood was spurting out. My husband yelled "what are you doing?" as HE grabbed our son and stopped the bleeding. What was I doing? Just staring at the blood coming out!

But, really, I do care a lot about what my kids are doing, and how they are doing. I think long and hard about it - constantly. I analyze their personalities, and figure out what is best for each of them, individually. And I didn't let them call me "momma." My name was "mommy" with a "y." I don't know why, but the mispronunciation of mommy really grated on my nerves, lol!

I think it has made me a much more well-rounded person - being the care-taker. I also think the pregnancy hormones make LOTS of changes, one would never believe, too!

 

[mindovermatter]

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.

Zeke Johnson ( Ex-Captain )

gotta mostly agree with zach- never wanted a job typically occupied by women, even worked in coal mines because everyone ridiculed other women who did. but as i've grown older, my nurturing side has become more dominant (when it comes to kids at least)- don't care anymore about trying to prove women can do the same things as men. women and men have natural and different roles and i can appreciate that more now. my son was the world to me and i was a good mother- but i had a rebellious streak about conforming to what i felt society was pushing on me- thus took jobs that were not suited for me. i don't feel like i have compromised
myself by accepting a more natural role, but that i have simply grown in my understanding of those roles. never in a million years would i have thought i could care for another's child as i do mine- could barely tolerate others' kids- but my grandson and nephews proved me wrong. because of being more nurturing, i can enjoy them and love them as my own. this acceptance of a more natural female role has greatly increased my happiness in life.

 

[Sparky]

Well Zeke, everyone has to suppress their emotions at work.
I'm a female, because I was born with those parts, but I'm not very typically 'feminine'. People will always say - per the rule - females are more naturally disposed to behaving in certain ways, but as a female INTP, it doesn't feel natural at all. I was told when I was 22, "Oh you say you don't want children now, but that biological clock will start ticking..." At 28, nothing yet. I have no desire to play that role, and I don't think I'm cut out for it at all. That kind of demanding emotional investment would suck the life from me.
I am starting to enjoy cooking and baking though AND it has a wonderful purpose! (Besides the fact that I have to eat.) It turns out that preparing someone a good meal is an effective way of showing people they are cared for. Thank god, as I seem to be a pretty good cook and it sooo much easier than sharing feelings, symathizing/empathizing/affirming. Phew. LOL
I could go on and on... Tt's a sore point for me. I get into difficulties in relationships all the time because of, what I perceive, as males not believing[i/] my manner of (or lack of) emotional relating. Seriously, they think I'm being dishonest, playing hard to get, or that I don't care for them at all. I'm not going to lie, I resent the assumption of natural gender-roles.
One can say the change in behavior and personality is about women proving a point in the workplace. But, in my shoes, I would just as soon assume the old gender roles where just as dependent on women in the work world. If you have no opportunity to support yourself, a woman was more likely to ignore her natural inclinations - as having a family and being a homemaker was the only way to support herself.
I think it is very much conditioned behavior.

 

[Yozuki]

Yozuki thinks the only gender roles that are relavent are the ones that nature has already programmed into people, as that is what they are from before conception and will continue to be after termination. Yozuki thinks that the mind can overcome any and all preconceptions.

However, oneself also thinks that humans have a long mythical road to follow throughwith. Moreever, Yozuki also thinks that different cultures, environments, variables and archives in the central data banks play a role in how well roles are went through as well as purchased and returned.

 

[FreakOfNature]

Personally, I believe women have the right to choose what they want to be. If a woman wants to be a president of a major company then good luck and have a nice time. They don't have to fall into the mothering role if they don't want to. If they want to be the motherly, nurturing homemaker type, then more power to you. I couldn't do that, I'm not that good at expressing emotions or dealing with children on a day-in-day-out basis. So I admire those women who do it with aplomb.

What I cannot tolerate is when women are forced into those roles by someone else. If a woman becomes pregnant and delivers, and then suddenly the husband/boyfriend dumps all the work onto her of raising the child, then she should take a stand against him, and leave him if he's so conservative that he wouldn't even entertain the idea of having some help in raising the child.

And I also think those of you who have expressed the opinion that women should follow traditional gender roles to be careful. It's tempting to fall into an extreme version of that. Not criticizing. Just warning.

 

[Zero]

I'm surprised I didn't spot this until now. Well, personally I hate gender role and I think they are sick and twisted boxes we're constantly forcing people in too. For structural fundamentalists gender roles... well they create a reliable structure. Personally I go with the Sandra Bem Lens theory. Our culture, the US culture, constantly pumps meta messages at us. I hardly ever see women in advertisements with short hair. This is a general meta message that says what? Attractive/real women have long hair. There are constant meta messages everywhere and the three lenses.

If you don't know what I'm talking about as far as the lens theory here is an overview of it:
Link

I think the psychological devastation of gender shows itself quite clearly, oddly enough, in a MBTI test. A very general test, but if you were confused about whether you were a feeler or a thinker a box would pop up and say something along the lines of "Feeler types are often a female stereotype and Thinkers male, but try to dismiss those impressions and really look at the real you." I would like to find the exact quote, but I can't remember where the test was from.

 

[Zero]

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 )

That's very structural fundamentalist.

 

[Cabbo Pearimo]

I don't think about it. Means I can't be prejudice.

 

[Gandalf]

I feel that gender roles are far too traditional. Think about it, if a man cooks better than his wife and the wife is better at maintaining and taking care of a car What's wrong with that? At the end of the day the work gets done just not according to ' society norms' . I feel that especially in a relationship that the partners should work together to achieve their goals, regardless of what other people think if its not ' traditional'.

 

[Cabbo Pearimo]

Screw it, what works better works better, so (not in relevance to a post) screw your illogical thought!

 

[Agapooka]

I base my view on gender roles on the following assumptions:

1. The general statistic that a majority (70%) of men are Thinking and that a similar majority of women are feelers.
2. That, with the above assumption, the likelihood of a woman fulfilling her traditional role is increased. Likewise, the man is more likely to fulfil his traditional role.

As such, gender roles should more accurately be called "gender tendencies/correlations." It's all about who can do that which must be done in an effective and efficient manner. I sense; however, that many women of the feminist movement are driven by their emotions and fail to realise a child's need for a nurturer. Indeed, some of them strike me as irrational in their desire to "prove something." I couldn't care less which of the parents fulfils the role of a nurturer, but with the increasing tendency of two parents with full-time jobs, this job isn't being done at all.

 

[Zero]

I don't think about it. Means I can't be prejudice.

As silly as this may seem I've been thinking about this comment for quite a while. I actually found it incredibly heartless and ignorant...

You SHOULD think about it. Some people live up to the expectations of gender and play out their roles as a way of survival, but they simply play out a part. Even our everyday dialogue should make you stop and think. The fact that you say it doesn't, goes to prove you couldn't care less about it. Whether or not INTPs are suppose to be analytical and heartless I find what you say absolutely sickening. Everyone here has this sense of pride over this INTP superiority that's really ticking me off.

You're not justified for never thinking about it. Yet you come off as if to say your mindset is more open because you never think about it. I think it just goes to prove you don't think much.

The fact is some people suffer because of their gender. Especially females (Then again it's men we send to war willingly, but that's "normal"), think certain foreign countries if you can't think about the everyday media and the way we phrase things, what we contribute to being "feminine" and "masculine". Even the idea of the intellectual "masculine" energy vs the "feminine" nurturing energy. When put into a balance perspective the meaning is that both of these energies should be balanced in a person, but the fact that we can so easily compare and make assumptions based on gender goes to show how extremely integrated the idea of gender is. An example: If someone tells someone else they "cry like a girl" it's a blatant insult (normally if you do anything like a girl it's an insult). "Girl", "girly" are often associated with insults or demeaning of the other person. It becomes passive in people. A "girly boy" is an insult. A girly-girly could even be an insult based on context. "Baby girl" to an adult is demeaning.

Gender in itself isn't a stable or absolute phenomena. I once began writing something that involved nine genders and the person I was trying to explain it to seemed dumbstruck by the very idea. It was disheartening to have someone so shocked by the idea... I put a hold on that project...

I posted a link and mentioned gender theory, like the Sandra Bem Lens theory. I'm really beginning to wonder if I'm an INTP or not. I find a lot of what goes on this board kind of frustrating. I thought INTPs were thirsty for knowledge and curious. But I find more that people simply speak from their opinion, without really seeming to have considered it deeply or with reference. Do we even read what other people write? Maybe I fit right in, but sometimes I feel a bit more J than P. Sometimes I wish there was a bit more thoroughness...

On another note, it's clear you do think about it since you bothered to reply to this thread more than once. I don't like liars, even to a slight extent. I don't know what personality tendency that is, but preciseness means worlds to me.

 

[murkrow]

I don't have a problem with couples who challenge gender roles.

That being said I would want to discuss their feelings on the topic if I were to meet one, and I would not settle for "that's just how we are".

 

[Zero]

My teacher for Sociology of Gender was male and the primary caregiver to his daughter. He said he'd done his part as a "man" in society and spent his years "dying" in the work force. He talked about spending time with his daughter like it was the first time he'd really felt alive. But it's not an easy road... He is somewhat isolated for being the primary caregiver when traditionally it's females.

His wife really enjoys her career and makes a lot of money, which he seemed pretty proud of.

Hmm I thought more INTPs would be open minded (I'm surprised to be finding out so much about INTPs.... it's a little disheartening...), but murkrow you're not an INTP are you?

 

[murkrow]

no, I'm an ENTJ.

Also I do not think that gender roles in a couple can always be determined economically. It is possible that the "supporter" role of the male side can be fulfilled other ways than monetarily, I have (and will likely continue to) filled the "supporter" role in my relationships not through purely economic means but also through philosophical and moral means.

To me the basic Male/Female role dynamic can be best described like this:

The Female's life is made easier and safer by the male, without the support she received from him she would be at a great disadvantage.

The Male's life is given purpose and affirmation by the female, without her as an incentive he would be without direction or confidence.

As you can see both roles are equally noble and necessary for the greatest development of anyone filling the other role.

I don't think that all women should fill the female role and that all men should fill the male role, I just know that I, like the man of tradition, fill the male role.

 

[Oblivious]

Zero: The Fool, don't you think that's a little harsh?

If you believe that people should do as much as their good judgement allows them regardless of their gender, then I do not see why you should be at odds with Cabbo Pearimo. Since he obviously is for "What works", which as far as I can imagine does not include people "playing out their roles as a way of survival".

If at essence you both agree, I don't see why he should be faulted on technicalities like whether or not he claims to think about it.

Not thinking about it really seems to me that he is trying to free himself from preconceptions about genders so he will not prematurely judge a man or a woman who acts in a certain way. I for the life of me cannot see how this can be a bad thing.



I do agree with your logic that his posting in this thread already shows that he thinks about the subject, but is strictly required that at all moments our speech and language be completely and perfectly accurate and unambiguous? Is that something we should expect of others?

Furthermore, you complain about some intp superiority complex, which to be fair is not completely unfounded, but the very moment you placed your ideas above the ideas of others you have lost the moral high ground you have because you are doing exactly the same thing; you believe your idea superior.

This is not a personal attack. I simply wish to remind you that: "The man who fights too long against dragons becomes a dragon himself." It would also be quite unfortunate if the dragons fought with weren't really dragons to begin with.

I really only save this kind of honesty for people I would value.

Oh, and just because intps thirst for knowledge does not mean they will necessarily remember names, quote articles and dates with such reliability that it is concretely provable; that is judging type territory. They are happy to thresh it out theoretically, which is what mathematicians do all day.

To be certain, intps are probably capable of reliability and (like me) value that. However that would require stepping out of their comfort zone which, again, is not something I would require since I would rather this place be a cafe rather than a courtroom.

I guess that's why my preferred type has judging and sensing in it, but not my actualised type.

 

[Zero]

I do not think it is harsh, but I am a harsh person (most of the time anyway). I dislike it when people simply play ignorance as if that frees them of any responsibility. While I understood the intent of such a statement and the fact that is was contradictory, I do not think such a statement should be rewarded with a nod and a "That's a good way to go about it". I'm not simply thinking about him, I'm thinking about how others view him. If people think that's a good way to be about it, it SOUNDS like they would just as soon ignore the issue all together. People might suffer for their ethnicity and for their gender, for their beliefs, for their age even. People are pushed into their social roles and when they deviate people give them weird looks at least, kill them at most. To me it sounded like he downright denied even having noticed a problem to begin with. I realize it was poor wording, but it still troubled me.

As far as ideas, you mean the Sandra Bem theory I mentioned? It is a theory and it bothers me that no one seems interested in it or other sex/gender theories. It's not necessarily that it's better than anyone else's idea, but no seems to pay any mind to what's actually out there. The Bem theory is only a starting point as far as I'm concerned. I agree with her theory. There's also fundamentalist theory and feminist theory and others (I cannot recall what the theory is called, but it has to do with the position we put men in). Like I said, I wish there was more thoroughness- more research and more reference to current sociology or something. I also noted that maybe I fit right in with the INTPs here in being somewhat careless and having a "superiority complex" even though I don't remember calling it that. As far as my ideas being superior. It sort of depends... Naturally I'm going to argue for my point of view and my understanding, which I feel is a little more extensive. Unless someone wants to "prove me wrong" (by exposing the fact that they indeed have been exposed to some theories and have considered them) or discuss theory.
That reminds me, I found an interesting paper that has to do with sex and gender.

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/intersex/sexual_I_G_web.html

It made me fanatically happy when I read that there was a case of a woman with an XY chromosome. I had been wondering if that was possible, because of how the hormones work in shaping the appearance. (I'm still very happy about that by the way. I can't even explain it. I wish I could go into genetics).

This is not a personal attack. I simply wish to remind you that: "The man who fights too long against dragons becomes a dragon himself." It would also be quite unfortunate if the dragons fought with weren't really dragons to begin with.

That’s an interesting quote, I would like to know who said it or if it was you (because I want to quote it ironically :likes dragons: ). I would say I’m more of a dragon who walked in expecting other dragons and realizing they weren’t exactly what I thought they were. I’ve lived a lot of my life feeling weird and isolated, which I may have mentioned a few times around here (I have a horrible memory). I suppose I put far too much faith in the idea that it would be possible to find people like me who I could truly understand and get along with.

I wouldn’t be surprised if I turned out to be an INTJ. Though it would be inconsistent with how I live. It would seem to me the disappointment is more my own fault, but I really don’t want to face that fact. It would mean I’m at zero again. It’s a hopeless feeling.

It could be this is a major area of interest to me though and I particularly feel annoyed, because no one else seems to be demonstrating the interest I have. Elsewhere (on this forum) it seems people have some kind of references, but it’s very interest dependent. :heh heh:

The Female's life is made easier and safer by the male, without the support she received from him she would be at a great disadvantage.

The Male's life is given purpose and affirmation by the female, without her as an incentive he would be without direction or confidence.

I would say that’s very basic fundamentalism at its core. It’s based on the idea of survival through roles. Assuming, the idea that the female is safe by the male’s protection- that’s a “biological” view. I don’t really like this idea though. It makes it so the males who are not as aggressive are ostracized. I would also say this is a good excuse for sending men to war. In that way we sort of devalue males as only be as worth while as they can fight and die with honor.

What you say about males goes to devalue them further… Though I will interject this, what you write seems very romantic. To the logic and sympathies of a normal person they wouldn’t find it controversial. What you say is socially and culturally sound.

My thoughts are that both females and males should be given value based on their individuality. A male should be able to live a satisfying life without a female and vice versa. Even writing that seems so counter culture I wonder if I’m out of my mind. I don’t even know how to justify that, but it’s hardly fair to say a female should be allowed all the freedoms and independence she wants if a male isn’t allowed the same freedoms.

Traditional or not you're free to live and fill which ever position you desire. It seems males in this era probably face more issues when trying to take a "woman's" role than females trying to take a "man's".

I encourage everyone to read that paper I linked. It's clear cut, with subject headers for each section and lists references. It's taken from a psychological view and focuses on gender and sexual identities being different.

 

[Radioactive_Springtime]

As far as ideas, you mean the Sandra Bem theory I mentioned? It is a theory and it bothers me that no one seems interested in it or other sex/gender theories. It's not necessarily that it's better than anyone else's idea, but no seems to pay any mind to what's actually out there.

In my experience, if it doesn't interest the INTP from the start its not going to get read. Plus its hard to get men into feminism at all.

 

[EditorOne]

"I'm not very nurturing or caring at all. I'm not good with kids at all. Why? It's just not the way I'm wired. I'm sure I could learn those things to a degree, but it's not what I specialize in." -- Quote from earlier in the thread

There's another thing that happens that might actually be triggered by hormones or some kind of genetic code we don't fully understand: For a great many folks, the "nurture and protect" modality gets triggered by the appropriate life circumstances, like a pregnancy or birth. And that works for both men and women. So, yeah, your interest and therefore, you think, your ability to "be good with kids" might not seem like it's on the table right now. But later, under different circumstances, you may experience a change.

It doesn't work for everyone. That's why we have so many failed parents. But still, it does happen.

Also, some of this role stuff is unavoidable, but I think I draw the line a lot closer to the biology than some of you. I'm pretty sure it's medically impossible for me to get pregnant or wetnurse, but other than that I'm not sure anything we do can't be overcome by our own free will. I've known a lot of nurturing guys and some women who were about as nurturing as a Visigoth warrior.

 

[murkrow]

I would say that’s very basic fundamentalism at its core. It’s based on the idea of survival through roles. Assuming, the idea that the female is safe by the male’s protection- that’s a “biological” view. I don’t really like this idea though. It makes it so the males who are not as aggressive are ostracized. I would also say this is a good excuse for sending men to war. In that way we sort of devalue males as only be as worth while as they can fight and die with honor.

What you say about males goes to devalue them further… Though I will interject this, what you write seems very romantic. To the logic and sympathies of a normal person they wouldn’t find it controversial. What you say is socially and culturally sound.

My thoughts are that both females and males should be given value based on their individuality. A male should be able to live a satisfying life without a female and vice versa. Even writing that seems so counter culture I wonder if I’m out of my mind. I don’t even know how to justify that, but it’s hardly fair to say a female should be allowed all the freedoms and independence she wants if a male isn’t allowed the same freedoms.

Traditional or not you're free to live and fill which ever position you desire. It seems males in this era probably face more issues when trying to take a "woman's" role than females trying to take a "man's".

Yes, it is a survivalist idea I suppose. It is a system which allows those of suitable characters to reach a level of happiness and productivity they would not otherwise be able to reach.

It's sort of a capitalist idea really. I know that I cannot supply myself with purpose, therefore I seek out a trading partner who is lacking in aggressive/defensive capabilities and create a symbiotic relationship with her. The relationship produces a greater level of purpose and effectiveness than the two could have created independently. The result is a prosperous economy (children).

So yeah, as mechanical and unromantic as it might seem, I have found faith in the idea of a perfect trading partner(soul mate).

As I have said, in the modern world where many boys are raised by mothers and many girls are raised by fathers I do not expect the roles to be gender based or as clean cut as they are traditionally. I simply expect that the vast majority of successful relationships will involve a system of specialist symbiosis reminiscent of gender roles.

 

[Jesin]

As far as my ideas being superior. It sort of depends... Naturally I'm going to argue for my point of view and my understanding, which I feel is a little more extensive.
Unless someone wants to "prove me wrong" (by exposing the fact that they indeed have been exposed to some theories and have considered them) or discuss theory.
That reminds me, I found an interesting paper that has to do with sex and gender.
http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/intersex/sexual_I_G_web.html

Hmm. I haven't actually researched this much, but the chunk I read of the page you linked to was pretty interesting. I may participate in this discussion more frequently in the future.

It made me fanatically happy when I read that there was a case of a woman with an XY chromosome. I had been wondering if that was possible, because of how the hormones work in shaping the appearance. (I'm still very happy about that by the way. I can't even explain it. I wish I could go into genetics).

That actually came up in my (awesome) biology class a few weeks ago. It's not just one case. It apparently happens when the person's body fails to produce or respond to testosterone. I don't remember what that condition is called. It's not exactly common; I think far less than 1% of females are XY, but it's still fairly widespread.

I'm not sure I get why it would be so exciting, though. I mean, those people are still phenotypically female, both physically and psychologically, so no problems there. They're only genetically male.

That’s an interesting quote, I would like to know who said it or if it was you (because I want to quote it ironically :likes dragons: ). I would say I’m more of a dragon who walked in expecting other dragons and realizing they weren’t exactly what I thought they were. I’ve lived a lot of my life feeling weird and isolated, which I may have mentioned a few times around here (I have a horrible memory). I suppose I put far too much faith in the idea that it would be possible to find people like me who I could truly understand and get along with.

I've been thinking about this sort of thing too, and I'd really like to discuss it, but not here. Let's discuss this in another thread so we don't hijack this one. So, will you start the thread, or should I?

It could be this is a major area of interest to me though and I particularly feel annoyed, because no one else seems to be demonstrating the interest I have.

Heh. I know exactly what you mean there. It is an interesting subject, though.

I tend to cycle through my interests. I research something like mad for a while, then I get bored with it for a while, then I come back to it months later. It's not a closed loop; new things pop in and sometimes old things fall out, but it's a cycle.

My thoughts are that both females and males should be given value based on their individuality. A male should be able to live a satisfying life without a female and vice versa. Even writing that seems so counter culture I wonder if I’m out of my mind.

Why does it? Nothing in what you just said seems all that radical to me.

I don’t even know how to justify that, but it’s hardly fair to say a female should be allowed all the freedoms and independence she wants if a male isn’t allowed the same freedoms.

Yes, few people would object to that if you asked them. Most say they believe that, even though many don't act like they do.

I encourage everyone to read that paper I linked. It's clear cut, with subject headers for each section and lists references. It's taken from a psychological view and focuses on gender and sexual identities being different.

I second that.

 

[Zero]

In my experience, if it doesn't interest the INTP from the start its not going to get read. Plus its hard to get men into feminism at all.

My male sociology teacher was a feminist theorist.

murkrow- Actually, like I said, I thought the ideas you expressed were romantic and socially sound. I still think they are, even if that's to say the structure is in order to produce children.

 

[Zero]

I wish I had an awesome biology class. The last one I took was in highschool and it was crappy. Then I ended up taking geology for my sciences. I plan to take more biology and a range of science classes that interest me in the future though. I think the best arrangement for my major would be to have a science double or minor... (Offtopic)

I can't explain exactly why I found it exciting. I have something of an interest in intersex conditions (Unlike other "cycling interests", I've had this one for a while). I've read about people have extra X chromosomes and all. I thought I had read somewhere or heard it was possible for someone to have a chromosome opposite to their appearance/development. My excitement was more or less over the fact that it can happen and the meaning behind that (What other inconsistencies).

You start a thread if you want. I'm not sure exactly what you agreed with in what I said. I'm a little embarrassed I admitted it bluntly, but one does get tired of being an alien.

The last part there you answered your own questioned. People may say one thing to be fair, but what people truly feel and act according to seems different... Not only that, but our media constantly feeds us cultural norms. Unless I've been living under a rock, which isn't impossible with how oblivious I can be, it's uncommon to hear things about an independent man. It's not like in books when they're describing a guy and his characteristics you often see, "He was an independent man". It sounds like a double negative (like we wouldn't need to qualify a man as independent- unless to really emphasized that fact) and what is that suppose to mean? Yet I do see this applied to women frequently, "She was an independent woman" isn't odd to see. In addition if I see "sensitive woman" I would think she's overly sensitive or meek, but a "sensitive man" I would think he was sensitive for a man, which might equal the same sensitivity an average woman would be expected to display.

In American culture it's normal that we would express something about ourselves in an outgoing way. That is to say we'll talk about it and such. But a lot of what you can tell about a person is through body language and what they have priority towards.

 

[PreAlgebra]

The gender roles in America are definitely being blurred and have been noticeably sense the 60's which I believe is a great thing. I think however that women have made much more movement in this than men. In society, there seems to be a double standard where it is much more acceptable for women to enter masculine roles in society than men entering feminine roles. If a man acts in a feminine manner then his sexuality is scrutinized and he is given a hard time for this. If a woman does the same, she is seen as confidant and empowered. This is not an absolute but is the over all trend in society. I think that this is particularly obvious in the work force and in the way men and women generally carry themselves. Even homosexual men have a harder time in society than homosexual women.

I would like to hear others thoughts on this double standard and if they agree or disagree.

 

[Perseus]

The Horsemen (ESFJ) are very clear about gender roles. Guardians SJ tend to be as well. Artisans don't really care too hoots. Might agree to be with the in-crowd, leaving Rationals which it depends on their intuition (which planet?) and the Idealists who have more spirits than they can cope with.

 

[murkrow]

The gender roles in America are definitely being blurred and have been noticeably sense the 60's which I believe is a great thing. I think however that women have made much more movement in this than men. In society, there seems to be a double standard where it is much more acceptable for women to enter masculine roles in society than men entering feminine roles. If a man acts in a feminine manner then his sexuality is scrutinized and he is given a hard time for this. If a woman does the same, she is seen as confidant and empowered. This is not an absolute but is the over all trend in society. I think that this is particularly obvious in the work force and in the way men and women generally carry themselves. Even homosexual men have a harder time in society than homosexual women.

I would like to hear others thoughts on this double standard and if they agree or disagree.

I do not believe the gender roles have changed so much. The masculine is still considered better than the feminine, and that's why men who don't live up to the masculine image are disrespected.
By many men the woman's rights movement and shift in gender roles is seen as a totally one sided movement. What I mean by this is that men see the changes in gender roles as allowing women the chance to be men, therefore giving them equal rights of men, but they do not consider men wanting to be women. To the male population the thought of a man wanting to act female is preposterous. The male is strong and the female is weak.

This sort of thinking is probably going to take a long long time to change, if ever, because people will act respectful of something before they understand it. If the world seems to accept the feminine man (which it does more and more) then there will be no push to understand him.

The Horsemen (ESFJ) are very clear about gender roles. Guardians SJ tend to be as well. Artisans don't really care too hoots. Might agree to be with the in-crowd, leaving Rationals which it depends on their intuition (which planet?) and the Idealists who have more spirits than they can cope with.

All types are capable of caring about gender roles. Many SPs, NFs and even NTs do. Many SJs are educated enough not to.

 

[PreAlgebra]

I do not believe the gender roles have changed so much. The masculine is still considered better than the feminine, and that's why men who don't live up to the masculine image are disrespected.
By many men the woman's rights movement and shift in gender roles is seen as a totally one sided movement. What I mean by this is that men see the changes in gender roles as allowing women the chance to be men, therefore giving them equal rights of men, but they do not consider men wanting to be women. To the male population the thought of a man wanting to act female is preposterous. The male is strong and the female is weak.

This sort of thinking is probably going to take a long long time to change, if ever, because people will act respectful of something before they understand it. If the world seems to accept the feminine man (which it does more and more) then there will be no push to understand him.

Interesting. I have never thought of it as the masculine being stronger and superior to the feminine. It makes so much sense and would explain those attitudes. I guess me not thinking in those terms could possibly reflect a change in younger generations attitudes toward gender roles?


Murkrow, Why do you not believe that there has not been much change with gender roles?
I think that there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise. That 50's notion of the wifes role to stay and home with the sole duty of taking care of the house is completely absurd to think of as being the norm. Sure there are many women who fill this role and good for them, but if you compare that mentality with todays, things do not look the similar. Another example would be women being able to where pants or jeans. 80 years ago that idea would have made people upset but today it is so common that we take it for granted and it is hard for us to see just how radical that change really is.

 

[murkrow]

Well I'm being loose with my definition of gender roles when I say that.

As you said already, the women who take on masculine roles are accepted (not easily, but generally) while the men who take feminine roles are ridiculed. The roles of the masculine being the strong leader who is celebrated and the feminine being the subtle creature who is tolerated have not changed, only the genitals required of those playing the roles.

 

[Kidege]

@Zero: You're more understood than you think. I'll try to provide references, ok? I'll also try to be somewhat systematic, just don't ask for miracles, I'm a P.

Everybody else, bear with me.

My personal experience with gender issues

a) Early contacts

My first contact with feminist literature was with a magazine called Fem, directed by Alaíde Foppa. I was too young (7, 8 yrs old?) to retain much, but there was a tale in which a feminist author helped her maid have an abortion, or had to take her to the hospital after an abortion, and she had to face the fact that she "could be" a feminist because she had the means to dwell in theory, unlike others who just died like flies.

My mother grew up in an all girls community and didn't know there were things women weren't supposed to do, like discuss politics and lead. Back in the 70s she bought the idea that marriage partners were equals and tried to manage the house as a democracy. My father and brother did laundry, cleaned floors, cooked, washed dishes, etc., and it was seen as perfectly normal. There were tasks to do, people to do them, and that was it.

There were a couple of men only domains: power tools and cars. This happened only because my mother was too busy to do house repairs and fix the cars. When she stopped being so busy she got into it. She turned out to be very efficient at it. My after-all-not-so-enlightened- father hasn't quite forgiven her.

b) Context

My classmates and friends households were not like mine. They thought that having their father do the dishes once a week was the peak of openmindedness. Girls played with dolls and watched soap operas. Boys played sports and got in fights. I hated this. Even in coed schools girls and boys kept to themselves. Not me. The teachers didn't always understand.

I was happy with my sex but not with my assigned gender. I didn't want to be part of the other gender either. I just wanted to be me. I'm thinking that being hard to classify might have gotten me some enemies, including people who thought I was -or should be interested in them in a sexual manner because they couldn't understand friendliness if it came from opposite sex people. Come to think about it, some gay folks were also annoyed because with the way I acted I just "had to be gay". Not very clear in their concepts, were they?

c) Theoretical outlook

I read about the difference of gender and sex, as described in Diamond's essay, while reading the Triple Jornada and Letra S (probably back in 96, 97). I use it because it works for me. I read about it again in one of the editions of Samovar and Porter's intercultural communication reader, though I seem to remember it was more limited in scope.
This also is the approach I prefer because it is leading to much needed changes in legislation.

d) Recap

My parents were both providers and nurturers, even if my father was a sometimes sucky nurturer. I'm 25 and if I don't marry in the next 5 years society will consider me defective. When I talk about it, my mother asumes I'll also fill both roles. Frankly, I don't look forward to it.

Links

These essays are in Spanish. I could provide a rough translation for Zero. PM if you're interested, will you?

Moreno, Hortensia (2000). Sexismo incluyente o los caballeros no las prefieren rubias. Letra S. [URL: http://www.letraese.org.mx/feminidad.htm]

Kaufman, Michael (2000). Cómo se construye un hombre. Letra S. [URL: http://www.letraese.org.mx/construye.htm]

Brito, Alejandro (2002). Masculinidad. Letra S. [URL: http://www.letraese.org.mx/masculinidad.htm]

García Aguilar, M. (2004). Mujeres y la apropiación de su cuerpo. Letra S. [URL: http://www.letraese.org.mx/mujeres.htm]

Extra reference here: http://www.letraese.org.mx/docgenero.htm

 

[Perseus]

Only the clerical males can wear black frocks in the western crucifixion society. This might be pertinent to the INFP group.

 

[Ogion]

Well I'm being loose with my definition of gender roles when I say that.

As you said already, the women who take on masculine roles are accepted (not easily, but generally) while the men who take feminine roles are ridiculed. The roles of the masculine being the strong leader who is celebrated and the feminine being the subtle creature who is tolerated have not changed, only the genitals required of those playing the roles.

Hm, intersting view. I didn't see it that way. I always saw it, that men already had the free part/role, and now women are let in in the 'free role space'. But you are right, actually.
Like with the simple example of jeans. Women wearing jeans is standard today. Men wearing a skirt or a gown...well, that wouldn't be normal and everyone would at least stare. (The skirt of the scots being the exception, because it is tradition somewhere else^^ ).

Ogion

 

[PreAlgebra]

I have a question for you Murkrow. Who is it do you think that controls this perspective? If the masculine in stronger and superior to the feminine, do women contribute to this attitude as well? If both women and men felt this way, I could see this explaining the double standard but a part of me has a really hard time believing this. Although there is a classic example of a group feeling subordinate with African Americans for along period of time, so it definitely could be happening. Like I said, I have always viewed the two as just different, and assumed that society viewed things the same way. So to think in these terms of masculine being dominant to feminine is very new and hard for me. This being societies view of course not mine.

 

[murkrow]

I have a question for you Murkrow. Who is it do you think that controls this perspective? If the masculine in stronger and superior to the feminine, do women contribute to this attitude as well? If both women and men felt this way, I could see this explaining the double standard but a part of me has a really hard time believing this. Although there is a classic example of a group feeling subordinate with African Americans for along period of time, so it definitely could be happening. Like I said, I have always viewed the two as just different, and assumed that society viewed things the same way. So to think in these terms of masculine being dominant to feminine is very new and hard for me. This being societies view of course not mine.

I think that women definitely contribute to it.

Women in the business world often look down on their housewife counterparts. They value independence highly and adopt cutthroat attitudes to get what they want.

The gender roles I'm talking about are not consciously enforced, they're the product of society that values financial independence above all else meshing with traditions dating back to the stone age.

So long as we worship the dollar we'll hate the mother.

 

[Ogion]

Well, i think i can share that observation. Everywhere one is told ow integrated women now are, what victory for feminists, but actually they, the women, now are just entering male territory. And every woman still staying at home and cooking and raising the children (i mean, that can be a chosen role, right?) is automatically looked down on.

Ogion

 

[grrreg]

hi, i'm new , yadda yadda, anyhow ...after looking over 20 or so posts on the topic I thought I would inject a perspective I hadn't seen covered already. Forgive me if it has, I lacked the patience to read through everything.

i'm gay and the gender roles issue is obviously not one that you would think would come up in gay relationships, but I assure you it does, in ways.

Good ol social conditioning pervades the gay side of life as well.

Among the gay people I know, the more feminine of the partners seem to exert the stronger social power that women tend to. (Try desperately NOT to assume the more feminine acting guy is the sexual bottom, believe me one does not = the other).I'm not talking about the workplace here, more about life that revolves outside the house. It is in fact the more feminine of our group that receive most of the attention from the media, (Will and Grace type characters) and are more likely to be noticed in society. This is not to say they are more empowered in their relationships, but I believe it is these man who are being socially accepted more so lately with the advent of women gaining more and more access to "traditional masculine roles".

Someone was writing about how the male role has not changed much since the 60s, and I see some validity in that statement, but I have also seen a larger and more positive change towards "traditionally feminine roles" as well. Younger men now are really less inclined to feel like women can't do this or that. Or that women should be docile , obeidiant and timid. And the grooming industry has won fortunes over the recent industry push to make men just as vain as they have been trying to make women since day one.

There's a lot more I could say, but this being my first post and me distracting myself at work at this time tells me I should just stop about now .

 

[Ogion]

Hi and welcome to the forum.

Ok, interesting. I don't know much about being gay (since i'm not, but i also don't know any personally, so. I know one who changed his/her sex, but that's another thing ). So you have 'gender' roles/behavioural roles in your relationships as well? I mean you speak of 'the more feminine ones', is that a common role? Do they have, well, a different stance in relationship as 'the more male ones'?

Hm, i think the gay ones who are mostly seen in society are probably quite extraverted, which most probably not all of you are. But that isn't only appliable to you guys i think.

Ogion

 

[Perseus]

It is only the Feeling component that is gender orientated. 70% of the males have Thinking as a preference compared to 30% of females. You can still get female psychopaths though.

It is ironic that the ESFJ is the type that is mostly gender concerned. Especially chefs and gangsters. Lefty Ruggeriero in Donnie Brasco says only men can cook a certain dish.

 

[Raison D'etre]

Well, i think i can share that observation. Everywhere one is told ow integrated women now are, what victory for feminists, but actually they, the women, now are just entering male territory. And every woman still staying at home and cooking and raising the children (i mean, that can be a chosen role, right?) is automatically looked down on.

Ogion

Instead of becoming strong women, they have become just another image of men, a substitute of the type of men they so despise. By looking down upon the women that have chosen to keep the role of houswife, they have become a more arrogant version of those men. Yes, they have entered "male territory," but they have become blinded. They don't realize that they have become just a substitute for the men of the past. While they are moving into that territory, most modern men are leaving it to enter a realm of acceptance.