Gender in Society

[CrashGordon94]

There is no wrong or right here. I mean, you can't really paint any specific group as perpetuating gender roles in society. It's a general thing, with its own various eccentricities depending on where you live.

Actually, there is. Gender roles are just wrong.

They can only be used for bad for a few simple reasons:

1) They are the root of all sexism. Honestly, not many sexists hate their chosen victim gender purely due to biological reasons. You don't see many mysogynists going "I hate women, vaginas are evil! D:<" now, do you? It's always connected to gender roles some way or another.

1a) In fact, the roles themselves could be said to simply BE sexist too, since they're all about stereotyping the genders. In any other case spewing nasty stereotypes about one of your "traits" (race, nationality, etc.) it's considered prejudiced so the same would logically be true of gender. And don't spew studies supporting that shit at me, I've heard of studies saying that black and hispanic people commit more crimes but we all know that labelling those guys as criminals would be fucking racist.

2) They force people into roles that don't suit them. Just to take that example you listed, what if the male was better at being or wanted to be the caretaker and the female was better at being or wanted to be the breadwinner?

3) They ACTIVELY HURT those who don't conform to them! Now girly guys and manly girls are considering freaks because they don't follow these nasty, stupid stereotypes! If someone like that happens to live in a "tradtional" (read: bigoted) area then their life could be effectively ruined and all because they had the misfortune of being born with the "wrong" genitals for their personality type according to these nasty, hateful gender roles. I think it says a lot that these gender roles have led to some people trying to hide or change their gender just to avoid them... I'm sure you know about that, doesn't the fact that they're rebelling against them so hard say something? Doesn't it set off some alarm bells?

4) Ultimately, they don't even do anything good! Gender roles carry no benefit of any meaning, and even if I were to count the "charm" and "comfort" you mention (I find it telling you didn't mention anything more substansial) as some meaningful benefit, MY POINT WOULD BARELY CHANGE! Simply because little tiny benefits like that CANNOT outweigh the cons listed above by any reasonable metric.

Of course, I would expect that you'd probably counter by sayinig you're not absolute with your application or support of gender roles and you're willing to make exceptions for people who don't fit. If so, that's good (well, better than applying them absolutely and squeezing androgynous and non-stereotypical individuals into them, at least...) but it raises a question: Why not just ditch the gender roles at this point?

In case you try to slippery-slope, I'm not suggesting that all rules or ideas are defeated by having exceptions but this one is. It's not the only one but we're not talking about those right now. What makes this true of gender roles is that they are the kind of thing that ceases to work properly or actually function and have a meaningful effect when you have exceptions.

Think of it this way, to take that example again, what's the difference between "men should be the breadwinners and women should be the caretakers, except when they're better off doing it the other way around" and "one should be the breadwinner at the other the caretaker, depending on who's better at what"? Well, at some levels, very little but the latter just skips to the desired point and the people who fit the stereotype likely wouldn't be effected at all while those who don't fit it wouldn't have to fight an uphill battle to prove that they're an exception or have to deal with fighting perceptions at all, instead just cutting to what's right for them with no penalty. Conversely the former doesn't really offer anything substansial since I'm certain that those exceptions would seriously harm whatever arcane benefits (like the "charm" and "comfort") that gender roles are supposedly giving us. So ultimately it's better to just forget about exempting and get rid of the damn things and judge people as INDIVIDUALS rather than how they fit into stereotypes of the 3 billion odd people who share the kind of ghoulies they happen to have been born with.

[dondon151]

the vast majority of guys do not get asked out by women

otherwise i would be swimming in condoms because clearly i am so sexy and irresistible

i don't know why you guys are trying to deny that. it's not strictly a cultural gender norm but more or less a consequence of biology. most gender "norms" are like that and we should accept it. then there are the ones like women having to cover their faces at all times which are purely cultural and make no sense to us westerners (and are extremely imposing on women but that is a debate for another time).

[Shin]

Actually, there is. Gender roles are just wrong.

They can only be used for bad for a few simple reasons:

1) They are the root of all sexism. Honestly, not many sexists hate their chosen victim gender purely due to biological reasons. You don't see many mysogynists going "I hate women, vaginas are evil! D:<" now, do you? It's always connected to gender roles some way or another.

1a) In fact, the roles themselves could be said to simply BE sexist too, since they're all about stereotyping the genders. In any other case spewing nasty stereotypes about one of your "traits" (race, nationality, etc.) it's considered prejudiced so the same would logically be true of gender. And don't spew studies supporting that shit at me, I've heard of studies saying that black and hispanic people commit more crimes but we all know that labelling those guys as criminals would be fucking racist.

Sexists don't really represent society, they're an extreme minority. The vast majority of people do not hate any particular gender/sex/race/religion. Gender roles aren't the cause of any hatred, it's the guilty individuals doing the hating. The studies you've heard of but haven't read aren't relevant. You can say what you like about various ethnicities, but it's not their ethnic origin which makes them criminals, it's the act of stealing.

2) They force people into roles that don't suit them. Just to take that example you listed, what if the male was better at being or wanted to be the caretaker and the female was better at being or wanted to be the breadwinner?

My mother earns far more than my father. I currently work in a job where 80% of all staff are female. Whilst there are still some unfair differences in pay, it's not like Victorian times where girls weren't even sent to school.

3) They ACTIVELY HURT those who don't conform to them! Now girly guys and manly girls are considering freaks because they don't follow these nasty, stupid stereotypes! If someone like that happens to live in a "tradtional" (read: bigoted) area then their life could be effectively ruined and all because they had the misfortune of being born with the "wrong" genitals for their personality type according to these nasty, hateful gender roles. I think it says a lot that these gender roles have led to some people trying to hide or change their gender just to avoid them... I'm sure you know about that, doesn't the fact that they're rebelling against them so hard say something? Doesn't it set off some alarm bells?

So you say that men shouldn't have to act male if they don't feel it on the inside? They shouldn't have to force themselves to pretend to be what they aren't? Transgender seems a good word right now, said individuals can exist anywhere between male and female without having to conform to your nasty stereotypes.

4) Ultimately, they don't even do anything good! Gender roles carry no benefit of any meaning, and even if I were to count the "charm" and "comfort" you mention (I find it telling you didn't mention anything more substansial) as some meaningful benefit, MY POINT WOULD BARELY CHANGE! Simply because little tiny benefits like that CANNOT outweigh the cons listed above by any reasonable metric.

Gender roles aren't something that have been added to society. They've existed for virtually all of history, so it's not that they were thrown in to spice things up a little. Gender roles have began to collapse in recent history, with women having far more opportunities than they used to. Gender roles exist, and will continue to exist, you can't deny that. However, they're not as bad as you make out.

Of course, I would expect that you'd probably counter by sayinig you're not absolute with your application or support of gender roles and you're willing to make exceptions for people who don't fit. If so, that's good (well, better than applying them absolutely and squeezing androgynous and non-stereotypical individuals into them, at least...) but it raises a question: Why not just ditch the gender roles at this point?

In case you try to slippery-slope, I'm not suggesting that all rules or ideas are defeated by having exceptions but this one is. It's not the only one but we're not talking about those right now. What makes this true of gender roles is that they are the kind of thing that ceases to work properly or actually function and have a meaningful effect when you have exceptions.

Cool. Ditching gender roles would make things easier for transgenders, then they wouldn't have to worry about "conforming to a gender" and float freely between where male and female used to be.

Think of it this way, to take that example again, what's the difference between "men should be the breadwinners and women should be the caretakers, except when they're better off doing it the other way around" and "one should be the breadwinner at the other the caretaker, depending on who's better at what"? Well, at some levels, very little but the latter just skips to the desired point and the people who fit the stereotype likely wouldn't be effected at all while those who don't fit it wouldn't have to fight an uphill battle to prove that they're an exception or have to deal with fighting perceptions at all, instead just cutting to what's right for them with no penalty. Conversely the former doesn't really offer anything substansial since I'm certain that those exceptions would seriously harm whatever arcane benefits (like the "charm" and "comfort") that gender roles are supposedly giving us. So ultimately it's better to just forget about exempting and get rid of the damn things and judge people as INDIVIDUALS rather than how they fit into stereotypes of the 3 billion odd people who share the kind of ghoulies they happen to have been born with.

I've said what I needed to within the quote. Crash, you need to stop this extreme hatred of everything not following "Crash-ism". You're allowed to disagree with stuff, but not everything you don't like is pure evil.

[Agro]

Crash, you need to stop this extreme hatred of everything not following "Crash-ism". You're allowed to disagree with stuff, but not everything you don't like is pure evil.

except troubadours anyhow

[Esau of Isaac]

I would point out that since there are many same sex couples out there nowadays, the entire concept of "the man takes initiative" falls flat. But I'm afraid that getting into that area will derail the current line of discussion. (or maybe it won't, I don't know. maybe I'm thinking too much) Regardless I felt it was worth mentioning.

How does it make the concept fall flat?

You should consider yourself the fish in that situation, and that there are many other fishes(guys/girls) out there. What makes you so special that they should approach you? How will they know you are a worthy catch unless you present something that justifies them taking effort. Just because you were not approached does not mean the girls weren't taking initiative, you probably just didn't display any trait that would warrant them taking the effort to approach you. Although I do not discount the fact there are people who prefer being approached as they feel insecure.

Given that these same individuals later dated me when I took initiative and asked, I doubt that was the case.

Actually, there is. Gender roles are just wrong.

They can only be used for bad for a few simple reasons:

1) They are the root of all sexism. Honestly, not many sexists hate their chosen victim gender purely due to biological reasons. You don't see many mysogynists going "I hate women, vaginas are evil! D:<" now, do you? It's always connected to gender roles some way or another.

1a) In fact, the roles themselves could be said to simply BE sexist too, since they're all about stereotyping the genders. In any other case spewing nasty stereotypes about one of your "traits" (race, nationality, etc.) it's considered prejudiced so the same would logically be true of gender. And don't spew studies supporting that shit at me, I've heard of studies saying that black and hispanic people commit more crimes but we all know that labelling those guys as criminals would be fucking racist.

2) They force people into roles that don't suit them. Just to take that example you listed, what if the male was better at being or wanted to be the caretaker and the female was better at being or wanted to be the breadwinner?

3) They ACTIVELY HURT those who don't conform to them! Now girly guys and manly girls are considering freaks because they don't follow these nasty, stupid stereotypes! If someone like that happens to live in a "tradtional" (read: bigoted) area then their life could be effectively ruined and all because they had the misfortune of being born with the "wrong" genitals for their personality type according to these nasty, hateful gender roles. I think it says a lot that these gender roles have led to some people trying to hide or change their gender just to avoid them... I'm sure you know about that, doesn't the fact that they're rebelling against them so hard say something? Doesn't it set off some alarm bells?

4) Ultimately, they don't even do anything good! Gender roles carry no benefit of any meaning, and even if I were to count the "charm" and "comfort" you mention (I find it telling you didn't mention anything more substansial) as some meaningful benefit, MY POINT WOULD BARELY CHANGE! Simply because little tiny benefits like that CANNOT outweigh the cons listed above by any reasonable metric.

Of course, I would expect that you'd probably counter by sayinig you're not absolute with your application or support of gender roles and you're willing to make exceptions for people who don't fit. If so, that's good (well, better than applying them absolutely and squeezing androgynous and non-stereotypical individuals into them, at least...) but it raises a question: Why not just ditch the gender roles at this point?

In case you try to slippery-slope, I'm not suggesting that all rules or ideas are defeated by having exceptions but this one is. It's not the only one but we're not talking about those right now. What makes this true of gender roles is that they are the kind of thing that ceases to work properly or actually function and have a meaningful effect when you have exceptions.

Think of it this way, to take that example again, what's the difference between "men should be the breadwinners and women should be the caretakers, except when they're better off doing it the other way around" and "one should be the breadwinner at the other the caretaker, depending on who's better at what"? Well, at some levels, very little but the latter just skips to the desired point and the people who fit the stereotype likely wouldn't be effected at all while those who don't fit it wouldn't have to fight an uphill battle to prove that they're an exception or have to deal with fighting perceptions at all, instead just cutting to what's right for them with no penalty. Conversely the former doesn't really offer anything substansial since I'm certain that those exceptions would seriously harm whatever arcane benefits (like the "charm" and "comfort") that gender roles are supposedly giving us. So ultimately it's better to just forget about exempting and get rid of the damn things and judge people as INDIVIDUALS rather than how they fit into stereotypes of the 3 billion odd people who share the kind of ghoulies they happen to have been born with.

Jesus Christ try formatting. It's like you threw a brick of letters at me.

1.) Prove this statement. You have said nothing other than that gender roles cause sexism because you said so.

1a.) The existence of roles in society is not a result of forceful stereotyping. The fact that women are generally regarded as the "gentler" sex is not a result of overt sexist ideology but the evolution of early social behaviors. You could argue that if a woman were forced to behave within roles that don't suit them that it is sexist, but today rarely are women or men really forced in developed societies.

2.) Then I guess they should do what they want? My appreciation of gender roles doesn't mean I dislike the existence of choice. They are not mutually exclusive things.

3.) Some people like walking around naked everywhere they go. Are you saying that it is wrong for people taking note of these individuals as out of the norm and bizarre?

4.) Gender roles provide a cement for which individuals to move towards. It provides purpose, and acts as a glue to help individuals conform to society and better integrate into their community. Am I saying that gender roles are perfect? No. Nowhere did I even begin to imply this. But I like the general ideal of them, even if I possess the empathy to understand those who struggle with them.

[Rehab]

the vast majority of guys do not get asked out by women

otherwise i would be swimming in condoms because clearly i am so sexy and irresistible

i don't know why you guys are trying to deny that. it's not strictly a cultural gender norm but more or less a consequence of biology. most gender "norms" are like that and we should accept it. then there are the ones like women having to cover their faces at all times which are purely cultural and make no sense to us westerners (and are extremely imposing on women but that is a debate for another time).

It's merely not a physical law of the universe that guys are the only ones whose mouths are capable of enunciating the words necessary to begin a relationship, as they obviously aren't the only ones ever. It's been the cultural norm in a good large part of the world for centuries or millenia, so I'd actually be a little surprised myself if it had become the norm in such a short amount of time, so that all genders were thought of as equal in the act of propositioning. There's just more opportunity now than before, and being the norm means less.

I'd also bet there are some females out there who'd love to be the ones asking, but either fear or are living in a situation where they'd be seen as "too forward."

How does it make the concept fall flat?

Given that these same individuals later dated me when I took initiative and asked, I doubt that was the case.

Jesus Christ try formatting. It's like you threw a brick of letters at me.

1.) Prove this statement. You have said nothing other than that gender roles cause sexism because you said so.

1a.) The existence of roles in society is not a result of forceful stereotyping. The fact that women are generally regarded as the "gentler" sex is not a result of overt sexist ideology but the evolution of early social behaviors. You could argue that if a woman were forced to behave within roles that don't suit them that it is sexist, but today rarely are women or men really forced in developed societies.

2.) Then I guess they should do what they want? My appreciation of gender roles doesn't mean I dislike the existence of choice. They are not mutually exclusive things.

3.) Some people like walking around naked everywhere they go. Are you saying that it is wrong for people taking note of these individuals as out of the norm and bizarre?

4.) Gender roles provide a cement for which individuals to move towards. It provides purpose, and acts as a glue to help individuals conform to society and better integrate into their community. Am I saying that gender roles are perfect? No. Nowhere did I even begin to imply this. But I like the general ideal of them, even if I possess the empathy to understand those who struggle with them.

Myself, I simply don't care for their advantages, because I don't think people need those guidelines to gravitate towards doing what they want to do, and positively affect their community in the process. I think "roles" too easily become "restrictions," and not just in terms of one's foremost material role in society, but in how affectionate I'm allowed/supposed to act, how much emotion I'm allowed to show, how self-important I should be, how much I'm allowed to care about other people before it becomes "weird." I really just want to say I don't care, but I can't seem to get away from it completely, at least not in my own head.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Rehab

[Inactive Account]

As for actual gender-and-society roles, my perspective is that society shapes the people who grew up in it; therefore, women who grew up in (insert male dominated society here) are most probably going to run for office/become CEOs/whatever in smaller proportions than men, because of the way they were raised. So the overall effect is still that women occupy less positions of power than men, and it's not because of unequal opportunities. The opportunities could very well be equal in practice, they often are, it's simply that relatively less women are going for them. Is that really such a bad thing? They got to decide, and they decided not to. Really, where do you get off saying that women MUST occupy 50% of positions of power? Is it really a problem if they don't? I think rather that it's only a problem if the disproportion is caused by a dearth of opportunities or by existing discrimination (favouring men over women for a position, rather than evaluating on competence). So okay, it's a problem right now in some parts of the world, some worse than others. But I think this is an important distinction to make: can not versus will not.

Oh lord, I am going to regret entering this thread.

I see your "well now that we've granted equal opportunity employment legally, clearly any gender gap is the result of women just not wanting to do these things!" and raise it a hearty "fuck no."

Just because there are laws does not mean those laws are enforced, and just because there are laws does not mean there is nothing to discourage women from entering leadership positions in business and government, or STEM fields (which you didn't mention, but I'm including because the imbalance and reasons for it tend to be the same, and I've got experience with that one), and so on.

You want non-personal information? Okay, then. Look at the wage gap. White women are still only making approximately 75% of the amount white men in similar jobs, with women of color making even less (men of color also make less than white men, race and gender interact). Look at the comments that women in power (in government, in the corporate world, etc) get-- comments on their appearance, PMS jokes that call their leadership abilities into question, being called a "bitch" for daring to speak up in the same manner as a man in leadership would, the pervasive idea that women are softer and unfit for leading. Look at how few women in history we learn about the achievements of. They're there, fifty percent of the human race didn't just sit and sew for the whole of history, but their achievements are frequently neglected and girls are given few to look up to. Look at the little basic things in how parents raise their kids-- girls are much more frequently raised to be quiet and calm and not make a fuss about things, while boys are more frequently raised to be aggressive. It's not always outright stated, but you can see it happening all the same. And that's not just parents, teachers and peers enforce it too. It's not easy to throw off years of social conditioning, especially when it's in a lot of little ways that add up!

You want personal experience? I grant it unto you. I am perceived and treated as a woman. I'm also working on a degree in computer science at a university known for being fairly progressive. I'll give you a little walk through my progress thus far so you can get an idea of why there might be fewer women in fields like mine.

--Let's start before college. Young kdanger is a nerd. Young kdanger's parents are fine with this. A number of young kdanger's teachers and peers are not, however, and young kdanger gets a lot of shit for wanting in to a "men's field". Young kdanger soldiers on. Some girls do not, because the expectations of adults and peers are heavy and going "fuck that I can just ignore them all" is much easier said than done.

--Huzzah, I file college applications undiscouraged. Let's look at the education I've had so far in her field:

---my public high school has a very weak technical program, so no programming experience there

---I have asked my dad, a professor, for help, but he hasn't had much time or motivation in teaching me

---my mom has started to lament how nerdly the daughter has turned out, and is not encouraging programming and finding things for me to do instead

---not much opportunity for self-teaching when computer time is fairly limited at home

Conclusion: I have not got much programming experience. A bit of game design stuff, which helps, but sufficiently little experience that it doesn't really prepare well for college. I soldier on still, blindly optimistic. Not all girls do, because going in unprepared to something you're already supposedly predestined to do poorly at is a daunting thing.

--COLLEGE. I have been accepted by dream school. Huzzah, cheers cheers etc. Off to orientation! Before orientation week is even done, though, I've already been told that I only got in based on gender. To a school that is not known for practicing much affirmative action, period. Okay, then. Haven't had a single assignment on which to prove myself and already I'm here because I'm a girl. That implication isn't a one-shot, it's going to be repeated throughout my time here. I resent the implication that I do not belong at my school, especially before I've even got the chance to prove myself. It is some bullshit. Not all women want to put up with that.

--I also find that as a comparatively rare (percentage of women enrolled as freshmen to the school of computer science at my university is somewhere in the thirties) CS girl, many (not all, but many) of the CS guys are after my affections simply because of my sex and major. I'm not interested and start getting tired of people telling me to just pick one already because nobody wants to put up with that kind of drama. Many of my peers are also a bit socially illiterate and don't understand concepts like "don't stand too close to someone" or "don't touch without asking". As other girls in my year begin dating exclusively, attention focused on me increases. I hate having my boundaries violated, and being the supposed prize is yet another way of making me feel like I don't belong. Yet another thing that not all women want to put up with.

--I have some good friends and professors who are very reasonable people, but I also have some unfortunate acquaintances and professors with tendencies toward frequent casual sexism. Casual sexism that isn't horrific or anything, but god DAMN it this is the tenth time please stop. You just said that this cross-listed animation/CS class is a "man class" because it uses computers to a room almost entirely full of women CS majors STOP. Shit adds up, especially when someone just plain is not listening to me but they're listening to every guy that talks to them, even the ones I know to be less competent than me. I don't want to spend my time around people who are quite willing to demonstrate that they lack respect for me solely because of my sex. Also, nobody backs me up when I call these people on their bullshit, because aah, it's just harmless guys being guys, stop making such a big deal! I'm going to do it anyway, because I really want a career making games, but not all women are.

--And then there's the people who just really want to help the CS girls. All the time. Whether they need it or not. Whether they want it or not. Whether there's some guy who needs the help more or not. And it's well-intentioned! But it reinforces the expectation that we're going to do badly.

--Oh and this is less of a CS thing than a general university thing, but my school has in recent history failed to carry out the Title IX rights of a student who was sexually assaulted. They eventually fixed things, but not until she'd failed several semesters because the school had done nothing to account for her resultant PTSD. My school is supposed to be "good" at this compared to others. I feel real safe all of a sudden.

--I've had some academic woes centered on a poor combination of excelling in high school without requiring study skills and promptly arriving at a university that requires them without teaching any, and high anxiety fueled by pressure from my parents. By high anxiety I do mean "formally diagnosed anxiety disorder or three". Complicating matters is the fact that I'm afraid to ask for help because if I do, I'm confirming the stereotype. Which obviously makes matters worse. This is called stereotype threat and it is yet another thing that discourages women.

I haven't even graduated yet, this is just my three years of experience. Obviously it is my experience and not every woman or female-perceived person's, but it is far from anomalous and it is far from the worst that happens either. In a school known for being fairly progressive (i.e. it's better than a lot of places). It's entirely possible that once I'm out in the industry (hopefully games, otherwise software) it will be worse. What I have dealt with has not been enough to keep me out, because a) it is not as bad where I am as it is other places and b) my only notable superpower is stubbornness. So yeah, I'm totally sure there's nothing keeping women out of STEM fields other than simple gender-based disinterest in the subject matter. Positive. Yeah. My ass.

Do you honestly believe that there are no social factors that contribute to the gender imbalance in employment?

As for the larger question of gender roles: they're fine and good for people who want to fit into the existing norms IF AND ONLY IF they do not try to enforce them on others. And I don't just mean "you will conform or you will die/be outcast/never be successful" sort of enforcement, but also in terms of those small little comments and critiques that ought to be harmless alone but they're everywhere and they add up. And that sort of enforcement happens all the damn time, little comments about what men or women should or should not, can or can not do, little comments that reinforce that it's okay to believe that these roles are the right thing and anything outside them is wrong, and we can bully Timmy because he's a "sissy" for having interests outside the stereotypically masculine, or shame and discourage Jenny because she wants to do something that's "for boys" (but of course we just can't say that because we're not sexist, we just don't think it's for her!). We have men abusing women because they grew up having it both vocally and tacitly impressed upon them that it's somehow their right, and high-profile media cases suggesting that their wrong-doings will be easily forgiven (Charlie Sheen! He's so funny, right guys?), and less often but still horrifically, we have men being abused and disbelieved or even ridiculed because "women are harmless and any man who gets hurt by one is just a sissy". We have one in four women in the US who has been a survivor of sexual assault, frequently by an acquaintance, because it's sort of a generally accepted thing that men are aggressive and go get what they want, and women are raised not to make a fuss. And we have individuals who realize they don't fit into this anywhere and are disowned, fired, attacked, raped, killed for their failure to conform-- unless they live in fear so much that they just never come out.

And we have the vast majority of people believing they aren't sexist. And if we look at in just a superficial, "I wouldn't fire someone for being a woman (without finding another reason for it first) or make jokes that are obviously sexist" sense, sure. But most people are plenty willing to enforce gender roles in ways that they just don't think are sexist. It's common sense, or it's just the way things are, or hey, I'm just saying that's what people seem to prefer! But never sexist.

But man, what do I know about any of this shit? I've only grown up on the receiving end of a fair amount of it.

ETA: Image credit to the excellent Kate Beaton

Edited August 28, 2012 by kdanger

[1st Mate Bob]

How does it make the concept fall flat?

If a man makes a move on a man, the man on the receiving end doesn't follow the "norm" since he's being asked.

If a woman makes a move on a woman, then she doesn't follow the "norm" because she's doing the asking.

In same sex couples, 50% of them follow the "norm." At that point, it's not really a norm anymore. It's a 50/50 split in that scenario 100% of the time.

[Sunwoo]

4.) Gender roles provide a cement for which individuals to move towards. It provides purpose, and acts as a glue to help individuals conform to society and better integrate into their community. Am I saying that gender roles are perfect? No. Nowhere did I even begin to imply this. But I like the general ideal of them, even if I possess the empathy to understand those who struggle with them.

Um, what? -_-

I have no idea how this thread got so messy and all, but this is all I'm going to say on this subject.

If you like the idea of gender roles, fine.

If you hate the idea of gender roles, fine.

Can gender roles be helpful? Sure. But can they also be harmful? Definitely.

It's fine for people who like gender roles or find them comfortable. As long as you don't infringe on the rights of people who likewise think that gender roles are bullshit. And vice versa.

I don't care if it's the norm for guys to ask out girls or for the man to be the breadwinner and the woman to be the nurturer or what have you. I as my own person will live my life how I choose to. If I choose to ask out a guy I really like before he asks me out, then I'll do it regardless of what society says that I should do according to "gender roles". If I marry and have a better paying job than my husband (and this is likely, considering my area of study), or if he's just better with kids than I am, then the smart thing to do is to go with whatever makes people happy and whatever works.

My point being? People should not feel threatened by the presence of absence of gender roles. If they exist, then they exist. As long as they are not actively trying to shove people into a category they do not want to go in or do not excel in, there's really no problem.

[dondon151]

It's merely not a physical law of the universe that guys are the only ones whose mouths are capable of enunciating the words necessary to begin a relationship, as they obviously aren't the only ones ever. It's been the cultural norm in a good large part of the world for centuries or millenia, so I'd actually be a little surprised myself if it had become the norm in such a short amount of time, so that all genders were thought of as equal in the act of propositioning. There's just more opportunity now than before, and being the norm means less.

I'd also bet there are some females out there who'd love to be the ones asking, but either fear or are living in a situation where they'd be seen as "too forward."

my my you are being so pedantic and also clearly do not show an understanding of my point

obviously anyone can state their intention to fuck and procreate. i was not suggesting otherwise. and i was stating the exact opposite of what you interpreted, that is, that males initiating relationships with females is not a purely cultural norm. it is a product of biology that males are more likely to initiate relationships with females than the other way around.

contrast this with other purely cultural norms, such as coming-of-age ceremonies for males and marriage restrictions for females.

Edited August 28, 2012 by dondon151

[Rehab]

my my you are being so pedantic and also clearly do not show an understanding of my point

obviously anyone can state their intention to fuck and procreate. i was not suggesting otherwise. and i was stating the exact opposite of what you interpreted, that is, that males initiating relationships with females is not a purely cultural norm. it is a product of biology that males are more likely to initiate relationships with females than the other way around.

contrast this with other purely cultural norms, such as coming-of-age ceremonies for males and marriage restrictions for females.

dondon I have no ill will towards what you're saying and don't mean to be an asshole but I do take pride in my reading comprehension and it's pretty much the only thing I've got so I'd appreciate it if you didn't cast aspersions on it as I'm very sensitive about it please and thank you

And I'm afraid you may not have entirely understood me yourself. I realize you're saying females being less likely to initiate relationships is more than a cultural norm, but I think it's an important distinction that it being biological doesn't mean it's not also a cultural norm, which I think it's hard [to argue] against, and which is certainly more true in some places than in others. I also generally don't find it hard to believe there are biological factors at play in the way you suggest, because you're not exactly the first person I've ever heard claim something to the effect, and while I'd be interested to know what source if any in particular you have in mind, I won't demand one as I could probably throw two words in google and get something.

It's just that even assuming everything you say is true, I don't think it really matters that much whether, assuming a world with total social gender equality, one or the other would still be more likely to initiate a relationship, because they're both capable of doing so, and when you take away the cultural norm you will see it happen if you're looking for it.

Your first (IIRC) post on the topic said the vast majority of guys don't get asked out by women, and for all I know it may be true that it won't ever be 50-50, but my point is partially that since cultural norms have been changing, it has been happening more often. I think it's likely that it will continue to become more common, even if it doesn't become exactly commonplace or expected.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Rehab

[Kiriane]

Oh lord, I am going to regret entering this thread.

(text wall)

You must have missed that line where I just said "okay, that means there's a problem."

Now that I've gotten the expected confrontation out of the way, listen to me, yeah?

I understand you have had bad experiences growing up in a country where there's a problem. Aerospace engineering is 90% male, here. Mechanical's not too far behind that. Engineering in general has about 70% male ratio, and literature has some 80% female. And you know what, nobody so much as bats an eyelid at girls in the engineering faculty, or guys in the arts. Here, the local geniuses get asked about stuff, regardless of gender. There are girls, and then there are guys, and nobody really cares as long as work gets done. But you know what, just because girls ARE NOT discriminated against in any way doesn't magically make aerospace engineering not male-dominated. The situation here doesn't magically make your university any less sexist either, though.

So, I'm sorry you had a bad experience, but I stand by what I said, and by the way what gender do you think I am?

[Inactive Account]

You must have missed that line where I just said "okay, that means there's a problem."

Aight, so, I guess I did misread that slightly, apologies, but... I'm still not sure I agree with the rest of it.

Now that I've gotten the expected confrontation out of the way, listen to me, yeah?

I understand you have had bad experiences growing up in a country where there's a problem. Aerospace engineering is 90% male, here. Mechanical's not too far behind that. Engineering in general has about 70% male ratio, and literature has some 80% female. And you know what, nobody so much as bats an eyelid at girls in the engineering faculty, or guys in the arts. Here, the local geniuses get asked about stuff, regardless of gender. There are girls, and then there are guys, and nobody really cares as long as work gets done. But you know what, just because girls ARE NOT discriminated against in any way doesn't magically make aerospace engineering not male-dominated. The situation here doesn't magically make your university any less sexist either, though.

See, the thing I have to question is how many places there really is no problem at all. I'm not from some backwater, I'm from a fairly liberal part of the East Coast of the US. And yet here it is.

If people in a place completely free of sexism-- and I question that, really, I want to know where I can find such a place because hey I'd like to be there-- still arrange themselves into such a disparity, fine. But if such a place does exist, it's hardly normal yet. Everywhere else, the disparity is if not founded then at least perpetuated by sexism and I'll challenge anyone who tells me that simple preference is the only thing at work there.

So, I'm sorry you had a bad experience, but I stand by what I said, and by the way what gender do you think I am?

I'm trying to say that my kind of experience isn't exactly uncommon. And while my little rant up there admittedly missed the mark a bit, I'm going to leave it, I think it has usefulness to this thread just in general (spells out the effects of casual sexism that some might like to claim isn't really a problem.)

And I haven't the foggiest idea about your gender, you don't seem to have it marked and I've had this argument with both men and women before, so no assumptions made thus far. (Obviously I have no quarrel with a woman who doesn't want into a position of leadership/STEM/etc herself because that is her choice-- but I have had others try to use such claims of "but honey, girls don't really like that" to reroute me onto a career path they find more acceptable, and that is not cool to say the least)

Since you're asking me it though I'm going to guess that you're female but thought I assumed you to be male?

[Esau of Isaac]

If a man makes a move on a man, the man on the receiving end doesn't follow the "norm" since he's being asked.

If a woman makes a move on a woman, then she doesn't follow the "norm" because she's doing the asking.

In same sex couples, 50% of them follow the "norm." At that point, it's not really a norm anymore. It's a 50/50 split in that scenario 100% of the time.

So you are saying that a minority situation that is not representative of the whole behaving differently somehow nullifies the existence of gender roles.

I want to be sure this is what you are saying. That because homosexuals enter in relationships, the concept of gender roles is impossible.

[Ein]

I dun quite get this whole thread.

Both genders are expected to behave in a certain way that has been dictated by the mass media and those who are in power.

Only way make significant changes in regards to "gender roles" is reflect as to WHAT exactly dictates what makes a person which gender.

I don't see that happening ever~

[eclipse]

Kiryn: I've kind of been in the same place, a long time ago. There were classes where I was the only girl. Perhaps I've been hanging around guys for way too long, but I haven't really noticed the things you have. Everything was neutral, from the instruction to the people I was with. Elementary school was another story. . .oh wait, that garbage IS relevant. . .here goes. . .

WAY back when I was young and impressionable, my mom sent me to what she thought was a great elementary school. All the main teachers were female, and most were old. Experienced teachers should make for a better learning experience, right? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Here's some of the things I remember:

- We as students were given a "Citizen of the Month" award, with no explanation as to how it was given out

- If you did something different/badly, the teacher was free to ridicule/yell at you

- My third grade teacher decided that reinforcing a shitty stereotype was more important that correcting my logic

- My fourth grade teacher didn't like boys who weren't quiet. . .or girls who didn't act girly

- My fifth grade teacher told me to stop raising my hand in class, because I was doing it too often

- I was pulled from classes a bit before lunch to go into a special counseling session, because my parents were divorced. The kicker? They divorced before I remember them being married.

Society has taken steps forward to help alleviate some of the negative gender stereotyping that has happened in the past. However, children are influenced by more than parents. If the gender gap in certain jobs is to be truly eliminated, EVERYONE in society needs to pitch in. Thanks to those teachers. . .I don't draw.

[1st Mate Bob]

So you are saying that a minority situation that is not representative of the whole behaving differently somehow nullifies the existence of gender roles.

I want to be sure this is what you are saying. That because homosexuals enter in relationships, the concept of gender roles is impossible.

Where did you draw that from? I was pretty sure we were just talking about who generally makes a move on somebody, not every single gender role in existence.

In regards to that, same-sex relationships aren't the only reason why I think the "norm" isn't really a norm. There are quite a few women who prefer making the first move, and there are a lot of guys who are too shy to make the first move themselves. The whole idea of the man having to take initiative is more of a cultural stamp nowadays than an actual norm, in my opinion. There are too many exceptions as far as I can tell.

[Ein]

Eh. I've gone through a lot of crap just because I didn't exactly act the way boys/men/males in general are supposed to behave. Mostly from my fellow classmates which just made me an outcast in general for a long time.

[BrightBow]

1.) Prove this statement. You have said nothing other than that gender roles cause sexism because you said so.

1a.) The existence of roles in society is not a result of forceful stereotyping. The fact that women are generally regarded as the "gentler" sex is not a result of overt sexist ideology but the evolution of early social behaviors. You could argue that if a woman were forced to behave within roles that don't suit them that it is sexist, but today rarely are women or men really forced in developed societies.

I have to say, I am not sure I get this right...

Now Crash said that those stereotypes ruin the lives of those who don't conform to them and you acknowledged it. You just think it's justified, so you responded this:

3.) Some people like walking around naked everywhere they go. Are you saying that it is wrong for people taking note of these individuals as out of the norm and bizarre?

But at the same time you claim that men and women are rarely forced into those roles. I don't see how this fits together.

But besides that, why would it under those conditions be so absurd that those stereotypes are indeed forced?

[Esau of Isaac]

Where did you draw that from? I was pretty sure we were just talking about who generally makes a move on somebody, not every single gender role in existence.

And generally the male makes the move in relationships. Pointing out homosexual relationships that are obviously not the norm and what are being talked about is silly. When I say the majority of guns shoot bullets you don't say "Well there are flamethrowers so obviously your statement is disingenuous."

In regards to that, same-sex relationships aren't the only reason why I think the "norm" isn't really a norm. There are quite a few women who prefer making the first move, and there are a lot of guys who are too shy to make the first move themselves.

I never said there weren't quite a few people who behave differently from the norm. That doesn't change that the norm exists.

But at the same time you claim that men and women are rarely forced into those roles. I don't see how this fits together.

But besides that, why would it under those conditions be so absurd that those stereotypes are indeed forced?

Because they were not physically forced into doing anything. Am I forced to wear t-shirts and jeans into public because everyone thinks people walking around wearing neon-colored latex is bizarre? No, of course not.

Sure, there may be varying levels of social conformity which on a case-by-case basis could be judged as forceful, I can't just generalize and say absolutely nothing in society is forced, but the concept of blaming someone for feeling apprehension at someone behaving abnormally and acting differently around them is preposterous.

[Eltoshen]

Whoever is trying to deny that gender roles exist has been absent from the world. They're still around.

And I heard you argue about how it gives groups direction? I could argue the same in that it prevents individuals from being true to their own selves and what they want to accomplish in life because of the stigma of deviating from the norm.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Eltoshen

[CrashGordon94]

Indeed. And at the end of the day, that harm ultimately outweighs whatever "direction" it could give them.

And besides, unisex "directions" would probably be better anyway.

[Kiriane]

If people in a place completely free of sexism-- and I question that, really, I want to know where I can find such a place because hey I'd like to be there-- still arrange themselves into such a disparity, fine. But if such a place does exist, it's hardly normal yet. Everywhere else, the disparity is if not founded then at least perpetuated by sexism and I'll challenge anyone who tells me that simple preference is the only thing at work there.

You have a point and there do exist certain views of "how the world usually is", but Singapore's a pretty good place for gender equality. There are certain norms and sometimes I think people follow them because they want to conform (see also: asking out guys) but I've never seen any evidence that women are somehow assumed less capable than men nor are they actively discouraged by society in general from going into male-dominated professions, or vice versa. Can't speak for every individual's family, but it's not a prevalent societal attitude at the present time. Admittedly there's still some preference for attractive young ladies to do front desk work, and men to do heavy lifting jobs, but somehow I don't think that's active gender stereotyping at work. I have a lot of problems with the way people run things, but gender inequality is not one of them.

I'm trying to say that my kind of experience isn't exactly uncommon. And while my little rant up there admittedly missed the mark a bit, I'm going to leave it, I think it has usefulness to this thread just in general (spells out the effects of casual sexism that some might like to claim isn't really a problem.)

No problem, I've been there (was in America for a while) and it sucks. Didn't know how good we had it here until I went there.

Since you're asking me it though I'm going to guess that you're female but thought I assumed you to be male?

More or less this. There are no girls on the interwebs, I know, but as it's relevant to the thread I'll make an exception. Based on interacting with people all over the world online, and also interacting with just people on the local servers online, there is most definitely a difference in how they treat girls as compared to guys. Locals really just don't particularly care and are unlikely to pull the "no wonder you suck, you're a girl" card. Foreigners...you already know how this goes, right? I have lots of practice being ambiguous, misleading and very private, because I have this thing about lying.

[Kiriane]

http://thoughtcatalog.com/2012/why-the-public-slut-shaming-of-kristen-stewart-matters-for-young-women/

This, people.

[eclipse]

I've been on the other end of that. It's a sucky time, and it's also the last time I'd want a video camera near me. It also means I'm more likely to side with the person who was cheated on, and thus, any comments about that bit of writing by me will probably be tainted with that bias.

The comments below the article, however, make me cringe.