Do you find American society to go against laws of nature?

[sally4sara]

I find that the ability to frustrate me is limited to females.

 

/thread

 

 

Never wanted to sock a fella in the teeth?

[marsle85]

 

It is sexist if you expect individuals to have specific perspectives, strengths, and weaknesses based on their gender.

 

I am not arguing that certain perspectives, strengths, and weaknesses are not common among groups of men and women, however.

 

 

Just throwing it out there - meta analyses revealed when it comes down to specific skills - such as cognition, vocabulary, math, science, etc. man and women preform pretty much the same.

 

Gender is not as much of an indicator as you may think.

 

BUT interestingly enough, a mechanism called "stereotypical threat" plays a HUGE role in decreasing skill ability. For example, a group of men come into a kitchen and are instructed to make a cake. Then, the researcher says: "Goodluck, the women have been doing great at this all day..." The men preform WORSE than if the researcher does not inform them women have been also instructed to do the same task, AND have preformed "great all day"

 

Likewise, if women were instructed to complete a math task, and the researcher says "90% of men find this query very simple" - women preform WORSE than if the instructor had not said anything.

 

Pretty insane, right?

 

We need to stop limiting ourselves. Women find comfort in saying "No! No one is better at anyone else at tasks!" and men enjoy saying "Men are naturally "inventors" (really? did someone really say that?). But the truth is- We can succeed at ANYTHING we put our minds to. Women may have a better KNACK at certain tasks like childcare, cleaning- and men may be better at landscaping. The point is- in both cases, experience is what motivates our confidence in our abilities.

 

It's not evil or sinful that we put order in households. It's not demeaning that we assign certain tasks to certain genders. It's more organizational in the modern day than it is discriminatory. As far as I'm concerned however, it would benefit children to have a WIDE variety of skill sets to better prepare them to live on their own, and pursue a MULTITUDE of tasks without apprehension. We install fear/anxiety in children when we say "boys don't clean bathrooms" and "girls don't change tires".

 

It's more of a disadvantage than it is sexist. These habits of parents will hugely impact the child later on. When a woman's tire breaks down - yeah she'll have to wait for AAA... but even worse, she (and men) don't jump into tasks without hesitation. That does not encourage the liberation of having confidence in yourself (regardless of the task). Instead of classifying certain domains to men and women- we should refuse ANYONE a pardon from ANY task.

 

That is when we will be truly evolved.

[bayouboi]

 

Never wanted to sock a fella in the teeth?

 

Hah, anger & frustration are two different emotions. Wanting to bang my head into a wall just isn't the same as wanting to kick someone's @$$.

[threebyfate]

They weren't societal, they were environmental (nature). Now days we've bent the environment to suit ourselves which means that these roles definitely are societal.

 

.

Refer to my comment in reference to chimpanzees, our closest relative in the food chain. Their society is matriarchal even though males are physically larger and stronger.

[A O]

So how is protecting, harming, or allowing the harm of others a male or female quality? It seems all are human qualities.

I don't know.

 

And all humans choose what qualities define them when out in each new situation. Even whatever quality they chose in one situation is subject to change if they find themselves in a similar situation.

Well, protecting doesn't define me, but it is naturally inherent, especially if I have to pick between a man and a woman. If there's one spot on a life boat left and one man and one woman to choose from to fill it, I and most men would overwhelmingly pick the woman. Now, I don't know why we'd do that. But its interesting in the fact that most men would do this. And that's assuming that the guy hasn't already ruled himself out from taking the spot beforehand either, which again, I think most would do also.

 

No amount of me questioning this indicates a preference of how men or women should act. I choose to protect because I think it to be the right thing to do, not because I am a woman or in spite of my not being a man.

Bottom line is I'm not afraid of gender roles and the main reason for this is because I can see the value in most of them.

 

Refer to my comment in reference to chimpanzees, our closest relative in the food chain. Their society is matriarchal even though males are physically larger and stronger.

Well, the way I see it, if women were meant to be providers and protectors back in our neanderthal days, then they surely would have been. To me, nature dictated that we undertook specific roles, whether because one or the other wasn't able to do certain task or simply because one or the other was best suited to certain tasks. Either way, the environment dictated the roles we played back then, not society. Things have changed now though.

 

.

[xxoo]

No. You used an "all", absolute argument to negate espec10001 views. All women aren't good or do not enjoy such and such therefore his point is moot is basically what you're saying. But the context his views are usually used in centre around what women bring to the table, are naturally good at, verse what men do, are naturally inclined to do. Very sexist outlook I know, according to you, but nonetheless, one that plenty of people, if not most people, possess I'm sure.

.

 

An outlook being common does not make it accurate, unbiased, or harmless.

[xxoo]

Bottom line is I'm not afraid of gender roles and the main reason for this is because I can see the value in most of them.

 

Gender roles tend to maintain an imbalance of power between men and women. Women can't afford to sit around and wait for men to see the value in equal opportunities.

[threebyfate]

Well, the way I see it, if women were meant to be providers and protectors back in our neanderthal days, then they surely would have been. To me, nature dictated that we undertook specific roles, whether because one or the other wasn't able to do certain task or simply because one or the other was best suited to certain tasks. Either way, the environment dictated the roles we played back then, not society. Things have changed now though.

 

.

No one knows for fact why human society evolved to being predominantly patriarchal societies. We could easily have followed the same path that chimpanzees went.

 

Also, the roles of men as hunters and warriors could be argued from the perspective that men are more disposable since species continuity only requires a few males.

[bayouboi]

No one knows for fact why human society evolved to being predominantly patriarchal societies. We could easily have followed the same path that chimpanzees went.

 

So you're admitting that we're the dominant specie because we chose a patriarchal society? By the way, I suspect that this holds true within the human species as well. History has shown us & believe will continue to show us that the masculine cultures eventually overtake the feminized societies as they corrode themselves from within.

 

Also, the roles of men as hunters and warriors could be argued from the perspective that men are more disposable since species continuity only requires a few males.

 

So you're admitting that there are intrinsic differences?

[xxoo]

So you're admitting that there are intrinsic differences?

 

Reproductive differences which would render men more "disposable", yes.

 

But that says nothing about the strengths, weaknesses, or perspectives of the individual applying for a job--unless it is the job of sperm donor.

[A O]

Gender roles tend to maintain an imbalance of power between men and women.

I thought we weren't supposed to have any predisposition to gender roles. One could argue that this is a highly sexist view.

 

Women can't afford to sit around and wait for men to see the value in equal opportunities.

Of course, but neither do they need to devalue traditional roles either. In their pursuit for equal opportunity, I see far too much of this. And that's a shame.

 

Also, the roles of men as hunters and warriors could be argued from the perspective that men are more disposable since species continuity only requires a few males.

Indeed, which would be a natural rather than a societal function which thus ties in with my viewpoint here over all.

 

 

.

[xxoo]

I thought we weren't supposed to have any predisposition to gender roles. One could argue that this is a highly sexist view.

 

Acknowledging and challenging society's gender roles is not conceding a biological predisposition to gender roles.

 

Of course, but neither do they need to devalue traditional roles either. In their pursuit for equal opportunity, I see far too much of this. And that's a shame.

 

Um, have you noticed my avatar? I personally revel in all things 50s homemaker! But I defend my sisters' and brothers' rights to follow their own bliss.

[sally4sara]

Bottom line is I'm not afraid of gender roles and the main reason for this is because I can see the value in most of them.

 

I am not afraid of any gender role and can and will fill any if it becomes necessary. I can do it with pride of being needed. Can you? If say, it became necessary for you to stay at home and care for children or if the only job available to you to earn money was house cleaning? Would you be proud to do the task? Would you try to do it to the best of your abilities without regard to your gender?

 

 

Well, the way I see it, if women were meant to be providers and protectors back in our neanderthal days, then they surely would have been. To me, nature dictated that we undertook specific roles, whether because one or the other wasn't able to do certain task or simply because one or the other was best suited to certain tasks. Either way, the environment dictated the roles we played back then, not society. Things have changed now though.

.

 

The animals and perils to humans were different from those of today. It makes sense for the strongest and largest of a group to be used to defend against such situations. We don't have saber tooth tigers roaming around anymore, so who can fill what role has also changed. Evolution means adapting to new situations. There is no point in continuing a standard that has no use and I see you can recognize this.

But back then, if all the biggest and strongest failed in their efforts to protect, who do you think took up the task next? I'm betting who filled the role of protector was decided on who was best capable AND on hand so it is likely women had to act on this too.

Anthropological studies have shown the women did not stay huddled in caves all day while the men were the only ones braving the world outside. It has also shown (as in the study and autopsy of oldest found remains of "Lucy" of the first family fame in 2003) that in that era, the size difference between men and women was not as much as can be found today or as previously believed. Only a 15% size difference between genders at the most extreme was found with these remains.

[A O]

Acknowledging and challenging society's gender roles is not conceding a biological predisposition to gender roles.

You hold a gender specific perspective. I can't dispute the validity of it, but based on your definition of sexism, its coming across as sexist to me.

 

Um, have you noticed my avatar? I personally revel in all things 50s homemaker! But I defend my sisters' and brothers' rights to follow their own bliss.

Its a general point of view, its not aimed at you at all.

 

I am not afraid of any gender role and can and will fill any if it becomes necessary. I can do it with pride of being needed. Can you?

Interchangeable roles is simply a natural part of my life. Always has been. I know what I prefer to do, but practicality wins out in the end. From your side, I think you protest too much for you to be comfortable with a traditional role.

 

Evolution means adapting to new situations.

Point was that I believe that it was nature, the environment, that determined our roles to start off with, not societal pressure

 

.

[sally4sara]

Interchangeable roles is simply a natural part of my life. Always has been. I know what I prefer to do, but practicality wins out in the end. From your side, I think you protest too much for you to be comfortable with a traditional role.

Point was that I believe that it was nature, the environment, that determined our roles to start off with, not societal pressure

 

.

 

That is odd as I have not voiced a preference for any role and have filled the role of primary household earner, SAHM, and one of part time work combined with a heavier share of household duties at different points in my life. All were okay with me.

 

Look, I'm 5'3" and 120lbs. If I were alive and the largest female in my clan at the time you feel our natures were developed, the largest my male mate could have been was 138lbs standing at around 5'6". Not much of a force to be reckoned with eh? When big bad saber tooth tiger came along, I'm betting any hands willing to help were welcomed. You can believe what you want but neither of us can prove it. I prefer to recognize that it is now irrelevant as it doesn't play out today what with us having no natural predators to deal with in our daily lives.

[xxoo]

You hold a gender specific perspective. I can't dispute the validity of it, but based on your definition of sexism, its coming across as sexist to me.

.

 

My perspective is that each person is an individual, with unique character traits that may or may not be in line with their societally defined gender roles. How is that gender specific or sexist?

 

For clarification, my definition of sexism is in line with Merriam-Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism

 

Main Entry: sex·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈsek-ˌsi-zəm\

Function: noun

Etymology: 1sex + -ism (as in racism)

Date: 1968

1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women

2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

 

The assumption that an individual will bring certain perspectives, strengths, and weaknesses to a task based on sex is sexist....and inaccurate in a great many cases.

[xxoo]

Its a general point of view, its not aimed at you at all.

.

 

Yes, I understand...and I'm not taking it personally. I'm just pointing out that, given the freedom to pursue any role in society, there will be many women like me who choose the traditional role freely and are very happy doing so. My comment was in response to your observation that traditional roles are devalued. I argue that traditional women's roleshave always been undervalued, and stand to grow in value if the people who fill those roles choose them freely.

[A O]

My perspective is that each person is an individual, with unique character traits that may or may not be in line with their societally defined gender roles. How is that gender specific or sexist?

Gender-wise, you hold a specific perspective over the relative power imbalance between men and women. According to your earlier definition, that comes across as sexist to me.

 

The assumption that an individual will bring certain perspectives, strengths, and weaknesses to a task based on sex is sexist....and inaccurate in a great many cases.

Well then, clearly sexism isn't too concerned about accuracy otherwise the assumption would be inaccurate every time.

 

My comment was in response to your observation that traditional roles are devalued. I argue that traditional women's roleshave always been undervalued, and stand to grow in value if the people who fill those roles choose them freely.

I don't know if traditional roles ever were undervalued or forced on people. Probably they were but way before my time. I do know though that given the option, those that choose to work tend to look down upon those that choose the more traditional route (and vice versa in many cases also).

 

.

[xxoo]

Gender-wise, you hold a specific perspective over the relative power imbalance between men and women. According to your earlier definition, that comes across as sexist to me.

 

Again, acknowledging imbalance in power in society's gender roles is not sexist. Applying society's gender role expectations to individuals is sexist.

 

Well then, clearly sexism isn't too concerned about accuracy otherwise the assumption would be inaccurate every time.

 

Stereotypes are not concerned with accuracy. They have limited value in predicting behavior in groups of people, but tell us nothing about individuals.

 

A stopped clock is correct twice a day. Does that make it valuable for telling time?

 

edited to add....I'll agree that sexism is not concerned with accuracy. Those opposed to sexism acknowlege that the stereotypes are sometimes correct for some individuals (why not?), but are opposed to being limited by the stereotypes. We want everyone to have equal opportunities, based on their own unique perspective, strengths, and weaknesses. Judged not by our chromosomes, but by the content of our character...or something like that

Edited April 15, 2010 by xxoo

[stillafool]

Men and women are different. Not just physically but in how they view the world and most importantly relationships. American culture and society likes to view the man and women as equal, capable of doing the same things and they should be treated the same.

 

However, it seems as though men and women cannot do the same things and be treated the same. In a sense they are equals, but they have natural roles to play representative of what their gender is. In America, it seems as though both men and women try to be both sexes in one.

 

Do you feel that this is a natural way for humanity to exist? Or have we gone too far away from natural law that it needs to be reset?

 

Or, are you comfortable with it?

 

Are you an American?

[mem11363]

TM,

I like your posts - very perceptive.

 

From the male side: professionally, ethically and socially I try to be consistent. I admit to being more careful with profanity around women. I simply see that as females having a civilizing influence on me

 

Emotionally, physically and psychologically I interact differently with women than men. Not better/worse just differently.

 

Physically a woman has to be very assertive with me to override my core impulses to carry stuff, bring up the car if it is raining, etc.

 

At the restaurant at night - it is raining - the car is parked far away. I would feel awful if a female in the group went to get the car. I am not saying this is "right" I am saying that it is so hardwired that if a woman was absolutely adamant about getting the car and refused to let me do so, and was aggressive about me not walking with her, I would accept it but it would feel really WRONG to me. Can't change that.

 

And this isn't about "control" - I never ask W where she is, who she is with and/or what she is doing. This is about courtesy and about being a man.

 

Professionally, ethically and in a socially interactive way, men and women should not be treated in different ways.

 

 

Emotionally, physically and psychologically, men and women should be treated differently.

[Engadget]

One thing that bothers me, is some women seem to want the benefits of being equals, but still want the old-school chivalrous treatment they used to get.

 

Or for example...some women expect that if they walk up to a man and slap him in the face, hit him, etc. that they are 100% free from retribution. Now most guys won't hit girls, but if they want to be equal, they should expect to be hit back as if they were a man hitting a man.

 

Women work now, they should also pay for dates, make the first call, etc. This is if they want to be true equals.

[A O]

Again, acknowledging imbalance in power in society's gender roles is not sexist. Applying society's gender role expectations to individuals is sexist.

You have a specific view of the sexes. I don't see how that's any different than having a specific view of the individuals within these two groups. You're still judging based on your own preconceived expectations after all.

 

edited to add....I'll agree that sexism is not concerned with accuracy. Those opposed to sexism acknowlege that the stereotypes are sometimes correct for some individuals (why not?), but are opposed to being limited by the stereotypes. We want everyone to have equal opportunities, based on their own unique perspective, strengths, and weaknesses. Judged not by our chromosomes, but by the content of our character...or something like that

Indeed.

 

.

[sally4sara]

One thing that bothers me, is some women seem to want the benefits of being equals, but still want the old-school chivalrous treatment they used to get.

 

Or for example...some women expect that if they walk up to a man and slap him in the face, hit him, etc. that they are 100% free from retribution. Now most guys won't hit girls, but if they want to be equal, they should expect to be hit back as if they were a man hitting a man.

 

Women work now, they should also pay for dates, make the first call, etc. This is if they want to be true equals.

 

Chivalry was the act of platonic love without motive by a knight towards a female relative or wife of another knight.

Show of courtesy should be something everyone does. How often are you this way to a woman without sexual motive? If a man holds open a door for you, is he making a pass at you? Would it bother you? Do you let doors slam in the faces of other men?

If your buddy had to carry a lot of heavy stuff, would you call him weak or a woman if he asked for your help? Would you just offer your help? Would you ask for help in this situation? I know I've helped guy friends move their furniture.

If I walked up to a guy and socked him in the mush, I'd fully expect to get one back. That's not cool to do to anyone.

I did ask men out. I have paid not just for myself but occasionally for them as well. I asked out my husband and paid for our first date. I don't know if he would sock a woman back for hitting him in every instance, but I do know he put a woman down once when she walked up and kicked her boot in his face while he was sitting on the steps at the Newport Music Hall one night. Mistaken identity by the drunk girl and she deserved the consequences of her actions. Boots to the face HURT.

 

The point is, you get to decide how you handle these situations. If a woman doesn't like it she can trot off. I know I don't stick around for behavior I don't enjoy out of anyone.

[xxoo]

You have a specific view of the sexes. I don't see how that's any different than having a specific view of the individuals within these two groups. You're still judging based on your own preconceived expectations after all.

.

 

Where have I said I have a specific view of the sexes? (NOT society's gender roles, but actually the sexes?)

 

One thing that bothers me, is some women seem to want the benefits of being equals, but still want the old-school chivalrous treatment they used to get.

 

Or for example...some women expect that if they walk up to a man and slap him in the face, hit him, etc. that they are 100% free from retribution. Now most guys won't hit girls, but if they want to be equal, they should expect to be hit back as if they were a man hitting a man.

 

Women work now, they should also pay for dates, make the first call, etc. This is if they want to be true equals.

 

I'm concerned about laws that protect rights. In the eyes of the law, a woman is NOT free to walk up to a man and slap him. She would be arrested, same as a man, and that is completely appropriate.

 

I fully agree that women should share the burden of initiating and paying for dates! Many professional women do. Maybe those who don't are also women who would choose a more traditional role in the relationship overall?