If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
If youwere gay, I'd marry you.
I wonder whether the reason girls feel they need to look pretty is to impress guys and become sexually desirable? I think it's wrong to have that kind of thinking being pushed into young girls - for the sake of commercial gain, no less. A designer dress isn't cheap these days.
As for the natural roles argument, I think agree to some extent. There are always going to be more women wanting to be full time parents, because naturally bearing a child for 9 months and having that maternal instinct will make them want to be. Whether they should want to get pregnant or not is another matter, but I don't think a man will ever feel a bond as close as a mother and child. (not that they're inferior or lesser, just that pregnancy, birth, motherhood is a special and unique bond).
I wonder why there isn't legislation against advertising (brainwashing, imo) young children.
As for social norms, these develop, grow, and are modified by society, not through arbitrary biological interaction, but through human interaction. Norms are not natural, they are socially constructed by humans. If norms were natural, again, every major culture would have the same concepts as each other. Take birthdays for example. To celebrate a birthday isn't 'natural', it's a social gloss and interpretation on a liminal moment in an individual's life.
I'm not saying that there are no differences. I recognise the differences in individual's biology, desires and needs. What I am saying is that these desires and needs are more often a product of socialisation and cultural norms than they are of biology. Having XX or XY doesn't mean an individual is destined to be a particular individual. Society gives them roles, images, and constructs society deems appropriate or suitable for XX and XY, not biology.
Two things to discuss here:
First, if you say that a prominance of men and women in certain careers is down to biology, then the reason that so many women were excluded from higher education, politics, religion, philosophy, engineering, science, physics, chemistry, etc wasn't down to society restricting their access to these domains, but because they had a womb? I'm really interested in your response here.
Second, it's an absolute non sequiter to go from this stance to 'television can turn you gay', but I'll go with it. You reckon that the reason adolescent girls rates of anorexia, bulemia, self harming, low self-confidence, interest in the lastest fashion, interest in particular hobbies and so on isn't down to societal or media pressures, but just because they're girls? Or that the rising incidence of 'happy slapping' is just a natural things for young adolescent males to do? Or that males' growing interest in keep-fit, looking good, self-presentation is due to something in the water rather than a societal bombardment of clean-cut, well-sculpted alpha males on television, magazines, movies, and video games? You reckon that there is a biological reason for all of this? That society has nothing to do with any of it, and it's just spontaneous biological determinism? I'd be really interested to hear your views on this.
If biology does not determine gender roles, how else can you explain the universal non-existence of feminist organisation of society in the past? And how can you disregard the evident biological determinism of the animal kingdom - you think gender roles in nature are culturally determined?!
Obviously not - they are inherent. What then gives you reason to suspect humans are any different, other than having the ability for thought which provides a means for denial?
You argue that if difference was natural, all cultures would be the same - but in respect of man and woman, they are! The same patterns and gender roles can be observed universally - there never has, and never will be, anything other than "patriarchy". To suggest otherwise is demonstrably false.
The two are not mutally compatible. Humans and animals have fundamental differences, the main being meta-awareness of their place in the world. Animals don't have gender, they have biological sex. The two are not the same. One is biological, the other is social. Animals don't have jobs, roles, ideas of what it is to be male or female. Humans are different from animals for the very fact they have the ability of conscious thought. It's a major aspect of being human. And the fact humans have thought allows us to socially construct gender differences based on ideas of what it is to be a man or a woman, rather than on the biological basis of owning a penis or a vagina.
Patriarchy is not universal. Gender roles are not universal. They're are cultures which are matriarchal (native american indian tribes for example). The same patterns of gender roles have more to do with socialisation than they do with biology. Having a penis does not automatically make you want to go and kill things. Having a womb doesn not automatically make you want to care for children. These things are all socially constructed. Biology plays a part, but it's a correlation, not a cause in the creation of gender roles.
You keep saying that society promotes certain gender roles, but ask yourself, where did these ideas of what society should be come from? And if they were greatly out of line with what the majority of peoples natural instincts are, would someone not have said something by now? I mean there are a few female dominated societies in the world, where women are in power. However, I think you'll find that the women in charge still retain what you might call natural feminine qualities. The traditional gender roles remain intact, only the power has switched hands.
What I consider equality to be, is that where societies norms are against someone's natural instincts, they are entitled to fuck them off as far as their own life goes, and not be judged for it. What I consider feminism to be is that, plus the idea that "feminine attributes" are given equal worth in society as "masculine attributes". Currently, in order to succeed in society, women often have to be seen to have quite masculine qualities. I think that's what need addressing.
You're selectively quoting me. It's not just television. It's the whole slew of societal influence and pressure. And while television studies have banded about the idea of 'television influence', there is a lot of studies which say it might not have a huge affect, but it can be a contributing factor. There are studies at the moment (e.g. Jane Stuart-Smith at Glasgow Uni) which are looking at if television is an influencing factor in language variation. Television does have a low level subconscious affect. And as for selling anything to anybody, advertising does exactly that. It makes you want things you don't need. But this is besides the point.
You think? Look at the sun's hate race against gypsies (or paedophiles for that matter). Look at the anti-gun campaigns. Look at the promotion of equal rights for gay marriages. Look at representation of women in the media in the 40s and 50s. Look at how men are paying more attention to how they look than they did in earlier years. The media have had a massive part to play in this. These are not naturally occuring states of being, or natural concepts. They are made by humans.
If they came from anywhere, they came from humankinds' ability to think about themselves as gendered beings. Like I keep saying, having a penis doesn't automatically make you do 'male' things, and having a womb doesn't automatically make you do 'female' things. If that were the case, where would gay men and women, transexuals, transvestites, etc fit in? Are these natural categories? These only became 'recognised' when people labelled them as such. And in that labelling is where the construction of those categories come from.
Why would they? The gender roles that exist today have a correlation with biological sex. This means that the majority of men will be providers, and the majority of women will be carers because of a biological correlation. But there is no scientific reason to say that penis = provider, womb = carer. There is no causation. I'm not saying that gender roles today are out of line with what biology 'determines' (and I'm uneasy about using that term), but that society is far more important in these roles than biology is.
Does that not suggest then, that the power is socially created rather than biologically created? Darwin says survival of the fittest, but by this argument if men are the biologically strongest then there wouldn't be any cultural differences. You're confusing sex (biological) with gender (social) as well I think.
I'm not disputing that. But can't you see what you're saying supports my argument? 'Women often have to be seen to have quite masculine qualities'. For women to have masculine qualities, according to you, is something women have to do, i.e. it's something they have to create. It's not natural for women to have masculine qualities (it seems like you're saying this).
No, we're arguing a chicken and egg argument. I believe that you can't blame "society" for anything, since society is only a product of people's natural instincts anyway, and all it does is perpetuate things that are already in the natural human consciousness.
I'm not 'blaming' society for anything. I'm saying that society is implicated in the idea of gender roles far more than biology is. You reckon that if society aregued that women shouldn't work in construction sites because they're not strong enough, women wouldn't work in construction. Look at how women were excluded from all the various arenas of employment because they weren't thought to be suited to that kind of employment. That kind of argument doesn't work in modern day society.
Racism and fear of those different to you is infinitely older than the media, or our current social constructs. Does than not suggest that it might be a natural state for some people?
See that's the difference between assuming that because someone is one gender, they will have certain characteristics, and pointing out that certain characteristics are more prominant within certain genders. It's a pattern, not a rule.
Well I can't really argue with that except to say, I don't agree with you.
I use them as interchangable terms tbh. But yes, power is socially created. That was what I said. We live in a society where masculine qualities are more valued that feminine qualities, and as a result, people with masculine qualities are more likely to gain power. The power is socially created, the differences between the sexes and the roles that individuals tend to take as a result of them, aren't.
Well I'm saying that masculine qualities are less prominant or less likely in women (which is not without exception, and vice versa). So yes, women that don't possess these qualities, probably would be required to fake them in order to succeed in our current society (which is my main gripe). And the fact that most women don't do this, suggests to me that their natural instincts (i.e. being themselves) will win out over social influences that don't corrospond to their nature. Surely if society were as big an influence as you claim, every girl and her dog would be emphasising their masculine qualities, since this is what would be required to raise their social status? (and I think this is a desire that is no more prominent in men than it is in women - I think the whole "marry a footballer/become famous" attitude demonstrates this quite well)
They are based on the natural instinct of the few people in power. In fact, isn't one of the key points of capitalism that it's based on human's natural greed and desire to increase their social status and wealth?
Are you kidding me? Is that not the most natural desire in the world? The species would die out if it wasn't.
The solutions that certain societies come up with differ (parenting, for example). The fears of parents are identical in every country. Society might create emphasis for one over another at any given time in any particular culture, but the fears (along with any other instincts) are entirely natural.
And society can create feelings against 'natural' instincts. Look at the growth and impact of P.C. language. Now it's virtually unheard of to hear someone say 'spastic' or 'nigger'. Society has changed the valuation of these words, rather than biological changes in brain function.
If the media started doing adverts which used normal sized women instead of super-models, or where men weren't always portrayed as sexual studs, do you really think this wouldn't have an impact on sections of society as a whole? Homosexuality wasn't a problem in classical Rome, or in Greece, but it was banned by many western governments until recently. And this isn't creating a social climate where many gay men didn't come out, regardless of the fact that's what they 'naturally' felt?
Racism and fear of those different to you is infinitely older than the media, or our current social constructs. Does than not suggest that it might be a natural state for some people?
But things don't acquire a label until people (society) recognises them as different. Racism didn't exist as an entity until people called it racism. Homosexuals didn't exist until people called them homosexuals. And even if racism (for example) is older than widespread media (and I doubt this cause race didn't become a widespread construct until about the 17th century when slavery and colonialism was happening), gossip, rumours, tales and myths were still created by humans.
I can't argue with you here because you fundamentally refuse to recognise the differences between sex (biological) and gender (social). Read some work on sex and gender theory (Kim & Nazfiger, Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, Butler, Hall & Bucholtz etc) to find out what the difference between the two are.
Ok, so you reckon penis = provider, womb = carer? Yes? Right. What about all the women who want to have an abortion. What about all the men who don't want to be dads? What about the men who want to be fashion designers? What about tomboys and boys who wear make up? What about cross-dressers? What about drag-queens and drag-kings? What about the women who want to fight on the front line, but aren't allowed to? What about the men who want to be primary school teachers? Having a certain combination of chromosones does not automatically make you want to move along certain paths. I'll agree, there are correlations. Most men become providers, most women become mothers, but you're still missing out a massive part of the story. It's not all accounted for by saying 'you're a guy, go kill something for us to eat'.
But they're not. See my point above.
No you didn't say this. You didn't say anything about power being socially constructed.
The very fact you say that masculine and feminine qualities can be appropriated by other sexes gives credence to what I'm saying re: constructionism.
Again, you're conflating sex with gender. They are not interchangable. Sex isn't socially constructed (even though some anthropologists would argue against this). The term 'role' is defined as 'the function assumed or part played by a person or thing in a particular situation'. Even the wording you use supports the idea that gender roles are socially constructed. You haven't dealt with anything I've had to say on how women were excluded from major areas of employment yet. You seem to argue that this exclusion is based on the fact that they're women rather than anything to do with how society decided not to let them have access.
But how would you define masculine and feminine qualities? Is a man aggressive? How many women have you met that are aggressive? That women preen? How many guys do you know take ages over getting ready? This approach is so essentialist. And what about tomboys etc from my previous post?
I totally agree with you that it's shit this situation occurs. But who do you think has made the situation the way it is? Is it a natural state? Is there any reason to value 'masculine' qualities over 'feminine' qualities? I don't think there is, but it's society which has determined 'traditional male' gender qualities is more valuable than 'traditional female' gender qualities. There is no a priori reason to put 'male' over 'female'. Society does that.
The idea of what a women is 'supposed' to be like is created from within a society which says women are supposed to be caring, loving, look after themselves, not get drunk, be demure when sex is mentioned etc etc. It's got very little to do with them having a womb. If you look at the explosion of 'ladette' culture, it's not women trying to be men, it's women using alternative ways of being women which are outside the canonical concept of femininity.
Why do you have to assume that women want to be men? Women have qualities that enable them to get on in the world without resorting to 'being like men'. And what about the women who enjoy being women? In any event, due to societal pressures many women do appropriate 'male' resources in the workplace. Look at the way women dress when they go to work. Suits. Look at school girls. They wear ties. The idea that gender is socially constructed is all around us, from little girls playing with dolls and wearing pink, to little boys wearing blue and playing with guns.
Wow, I don't know if I can keep this up, cause it's like arguing black is white.
And if the solutions differ, then surely that suggests it's constructed? And I think you're moving off into instincts and emotions rather than roles and concepts.
Is that right? No matriarcal societies?
There are no examples of males rearing young in nature? You sure about that?
If you want to claim otherwise, cut to the chase and let's have some evidence. :yes:
Of course there are, with some species. The point is - within a species, the extent to which either sex plays a part in nurturing the young is generally defined; and in the case of our own species, this is a predominantly female domain (as can be universally observed).
Saharawis
Guinea-bissau
I think Malinowski stated that the Trobriand Islanders were matriarchal, but I think they were more matrilineal (idenitity of children through their mother than their father).
You can't compare humans and animals. The fundamental difference is the fact of conscious thought. I'm not disputing there is a polarity of sex, but gender is socially constructed, and that it is this construction which makes people men and women, not their chromosones. The very fact that women's role in society has changed throughout human should be proof enough that gender roles are socially constructed.
Well, the Encylopaedia is wrong then. While such a construct is controversial, examples have already been put forward on matriarchal societies.
It can be denied. A strong inclination isn't causation, it's showing correlation. I produce testosterone, doesn't mean I want to go and hurt something. Where's the causation for my orientation towards a 'male activity'? How do you explain the huge preponderance of people who don't move towards 'sex-oriented activities'? They're just 'weird'?
Like I said, you can't compare the animal kingdom with human kind. Humans have developed a massive amount of imagery, concepts, and ideals which allows us to reflect on what our role in society is. Norms of behaviours are guidelines. They tell us what not to do. Humans don't instinctively become lawyers because they are men, or primary school teachers because they're women. These things are the products of life experience, socialisation, normalisation, and societal pressures. And like IWS, you're conflating sex with gender, and the two are distinct.
I don't know, often strong language is used that implies men stopped women being independent through force, but I think then it was just naturally assumed there were different roles - a woman would stay home and look after the children, and a man would provide for and protect his family.
Nowadays it's all too easy to look back and say how barbaric it was, but how many women were really oppressed? Freedom is all relative, in a way. We've come a long way, but it's hard to work out where we're headed when we're sailing into the unknown. Is ultimate freedom, the freedom from everything? Or do we need some freedoms in moderation?
And I've observed that there is a 'them vs. us' mentality, and I think it's really wrong, it's not a battle of men vs. women. Why men attack feminists, and feminists attack men (generalisations on both parts ).
And I was also thinking about the comments that men are afraid of women gaining the upper hand. Automatically, my typically male reaction is 'I'm not scared' - perhaps a bit too much ego. Then I think about it, I am scared, but not of women taking over. I'm scared of being attacked or suffering prejudice because I'm a guy. Of course, expressing radical feminist views seems to ease any fear of this, but every time I say something moderate, I also have to wonder whether I'm going to be pounced on. Not here necessarily, anywhere in real life.
Is there a prejudice against men in society, that they're trying to oppress women and given half the chance they will snatch back all the rights women have fought hard for? Although the media is subtle, if you look at many advertising campaigns and films these days, the 'good guy' (protaganist? I'm no english genius) is often a young woman, and the 'bad guy' is a rugged, mature, sexy man, who in the end loses out to the women's superior wits. Because I'm a man, is there a suspicion now that I'm a sexual predator and see women as just sex objects? I mean, I've never once in my life heard someone chastise a woman for seeing men as sex objects - but plenty do - I think seeing other people as things for sex, one night of pleasure, is fairly common in today's society... but in the media it's just men who are portrayed as sexual predators.
I'm not claiming anything. I'm asking you to back up your assertions.
You sure about that?
I'd have to say on a whim I agree with him... 'most children have more contact time (and thus; nurturing etc.) with their mothers' is a statement I can't flaw, and that supports his assertion to an extent that women are the main upbringers of children.
The notable exceptions I can think of is where sons are guided through adolescence by their fathers (I watched a documentary on I think it was baka pigmies - the teenage boys are taken hunting and taught 'man skills' by their father / other male in position of authority).
Language is a social solution to the natural instinct to socialise with other human beings. So yes, people will change their language to fulfill their natural instinct to be able to fit in and communicate more effectively with those around them.
On the models, that is a typical example of society channelling one particular idea of what is attractive. Like I said, that is entirely possible, creating a whole new idea of what is attractive, that goes against people's natural instincts isn't. So yes I'm saying that if the media decided to attempt to indoctrinate us into finding obese people physically attractive, then it would fail, because that is against people's nature. If they attempted to indoctronate us into thinking that long legs were the most important thing on an attractive woman, then yes, that would work, because it is a pre-existing natural instinct for men to find that feature on a woman attractive.
On the gay men issue, yes they did repress their natural instincts, but only as a result of another natural instinct being stronger (the natural instinct to be accepted by other human beings/not be executed for being gay - I'd say that's a pretty strong instinct). And incidentally, if as you claim, society does have such a strong effect, then surely these people would've been able to successfully repress these feelings? As it is, throughout history, we have millions of people still acting on their homosexual urges, only in secret. If society told them is was unacceptable, and not normal, why were they not affected by that?
The bold comment is simply not true. You're mistaking homosexuals not existing, with simply the label "homosexual" not existing. By that logic, a spoon doesn't exist in France because they call it something different over there. But anyway, are you seriously denying the natural existance of tension, fear and fighting between different "tribes" because that's all racism is.
Yes, because I'm not convinced there is a difference. You know those books are just someone's opinion of what the difference is. They not pieces of factual infomation, you know?
Because, again, you are failing to recognise the difference between patterns, and absolute truths. Like I've said a million times, certain attributes and instincts are more common in men than women and vice versa. It doesn't mean they never appear in the opposite sex. As for women who have abortions, that could either be the above explination, or other natural instincts overriding the instinct to mother a child.
Try not to represent your opinion as fact.
Women being excluded from certain areas of employment is entirely down to some men's (not surprisingly, the men in power) natural instinct to have power over other people. The fact that a large number of women who didn't agree with this going along with it, probably had something to do with their natural instinct not to want their head kicking in.
I agree with you. Like I said, society is quite capable of prioritising, but not capable of creating these attributes.
Yes, as is the instinct of those particular women.
Who said women want to be like men? I said that as many women as men have the desire to raise their social status, and in order to do this in our current society, they must emphasise any masculine qualities that they have. And naturally, more men are likely to possess and be able to display these particular qualities, and are more likely to succeed.
Yeah, I can't be arsed either, since you seem to be misunderstanding the points I'm making. You haven't provided a single conclusive example of an instinct or desire being created by society, only examples of society bringing out instincts that already exist. That's the whole point of my argument. You seem to be arguing that the majority of the things we feel and think are defined by society. I think that is utter bullshit without one shred of evidence to support it. But you seem to be misunderstanding my argument, and think that I believe that everything we think and feel exists in a complete vacuum, which isn't my argument at all.
To use another analogy, your position would be that religion created morality. Mine would be that morality created religion, which then had an influence on which aspects of morality became "most important" in the eyes of most people.
But anyway, these posts are getting longer and longer, so if I have understood your position correctly, then we can agree to disagree. If not, then just summarise it for me in a small post, rather than going through all the points again. Then we can agree to disagree.
One last example, peer pressure.
Society causes you to do something you really don't want to do because of a (what you'd argue to be) a 'natural' desire to be liked and accepted. Or, you're forced to do something because a higher authority tells you to. So, society creates a situation, a context, and environment, for you to do this act, even though your other 'natural' instincts are telling you not to do it. Your choice here isn't determined by biology, but by your creation of a particular social identity.
And I know my argument about 'homosexuals not existing until they were called so' so kind of counterintuitive, and it took me a while to get my head around it. It's got nothing to do with 'in France a spoon doesn't exist cause it's got another name'. They call it something else, so in French it exists. It's kind of like saying it exists, but it's not recognised as existing until it has a label. You can't refer to something (unless it's 'thingy') until it has a label.
So yeah, agree to disagree.