Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Are these gender characteristics generally true or just stereotypes? watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomfailinghelp)
    Right, so we should never place people into groups?
    Of course not. People are reduced into groups every day in a million different ways. Football teams, school classes, people with green eyes, dual-national British and Chinese citizens, 'those born on or before 1st April 1980', whatever.

    It's when you start arbitrarily using certain characteristics as a 'reason' for treating people with those characteristics as inferior to and less worthy than you [see below: "people who have tits and vaginas, i.e. women, are less worthy than men, who are People!"] when it becomes, well... sketchy.

    (Original post by MAINE.)
    The only value that women really have is in their genetic potential, the most obvious expression of this being how attractive they are.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MAINE.)
    Exactly. You can't prove me wrong.
    So despite all the massive advances that women have made in science, such as Marie Curie in chemistry and Henrietta Leavitt in astronomy, not to mention Emmy Noether in mathematics, women are worthless save from their childbearing potential?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blazar)
    So despite all the massive advances that women have made in science, such as Marie Curie in chemistry and Henrietta Leavitt in astronomy, not to mention Emmy Noether in mathematics, women are worthless save from their childbearing potential?
    There are exceptions to every rule. By and large women's value lies in their physical worth and child-bearing potential, and the truth is most women are actually happy this is the case. Anecdotal as it may be, in my own experience I have spoke to a number of women who have expressed what they want most out of life/what would make them happiest is just to have kids*. These women know their worth and they accept it.

    What feminists may not realise is that most women are in fact not feminists. Most women, to varying degrees of obedience, just accept the status quo. And so they should, it is the natural order of things.



    * with 2nd place being travelling the world
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Waaay toooo phylosophical and sexist. At least imo. I won't be riding the '**** carousel' and have the sole meaning of making babies in this world - maybe this was accurate for past decades/centuries. And so many women are beautiful until their 40s...
    Idk about men, it's not my place to judge that part.

    Btw, riding the c*** carousel? LMAO 😂😂😂😂😂😂😱😱 😱😱😂😂😂😂
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It's obviously quite a broad statement, but for these times it holds true, I'd say. Market value for partners does come from attractiveness, money, etc..

    Secondly, instead of inspiring the masses (including the ones who think the number of penises they've had should be a banner of maturity as opposed to hoe workings) into calling the author all kinds of bad, why not just post a question on their reddit? Ask them why they believe it's true.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by civilstudent)
    Was reading about relationships and life etc and came across a site about the 'red pill' mentality which holds some of the following views on gender:

    19.) – Women are depreciating assets, their major asset and unique selling point is their sexual beauty and fertility. Most of them squander their best years on “riding the **** carousel,” which means ****ing lots of different guys they met in nightclubs in a daze of smoke-filled hedonism. Most women spend the bulk of their 20’s being generally irresponsible and riding through life on easy mode getting ahead on beauty rather than talent thinking they have all the time in the world “to settle down.” Then around the age of 30, they reach something known as “the wall,” their fertility falls off a cliff alongside their looks and they clamour in desperation to find a man to settle down with. Women are born, their ability to conceive children is what makes them women.

    20.) –
    In contrast, men are not born, they are created. Pain, poverty, difficulty, heartache, oppression: these are the things which make men out of boys. This is why you searched the internet for something akin to the red pill philosophy. Conflict and pain is what forges the masculine mindset, men cannot grow without conflict and retrospectively analysing their mistakes. Men need to apply their logical minds to problems which arise in their lives, elevate themselves, and then transcend their previous selves to become more powerful. Men are never born, they are always bred in the bloody fields of battle, be it a war that is economic, mental, physical or all of these things. A man is a soldier of differing kinds, a man has learnt to repress his fear and hone the adrenaline that fear elicits to attack his limitations so that he may breach his comfort zone and work towards his dreams.


    For some reason though I've always related more to the second paragraph despite being female. I mean I've always been single and haven't really tried to get a man as such I enjoy my own company. I'm very I to sports and enjoy improving/keeping fit and 'creating' myself in a career. I see myself as being more valuble when I'm older due to increased knowledge, life experience and an increased ability to support myself. I've never tried to look my best and have always focused on becomming physically stronger ie with fitness/ in the gym. Was always a tomboy at school. I thought that just like being a man, being a woman is the ability to remain during despite setbacks and survive in life. I love proving myself through bravery/physical fitness In competition etc, is this unattractive? . I probably won't have children and just want to be independant.

    Makes me me wonder am I following the wrong gender stereotype, is my 'value' to attract going to decrease with age just because I'm female. Despite me adopting the male gender role? Or are those paragraphs not all that gender specific in reality? I.e do people improve themselves in different ways despite what gender they are?
    It is like all stereotypes, there is some truth in it but it's far from the whole story (and of course it's not written from the most dispassionate of perspectives, as you can see from the language). Just as most men are assuredly not forged into dauntless warriors on the anvil of human endeavour, so most women are not quite so cynically spending their twenties glamming up, going clubbing and trying to ride this **** carousel.

    Most Redpill stuff comes out of America where the social gender divide is so massive that teenagers often take each other out on dates, sometimes with chaperones waiting in the wings. It's no wonder that girls go wild as soon as they go to college, boys see this and over-egg their responses. Redpill does have a lot of truth to it and is a pretty useful tool but it's only a theoretical model, and as all of us students know, a model is only a very rough approximation of one process involved in this timey-wimey mish-mash we call real life.

    You sound almost infinitely more interesting than some club rat. Don't listen to anyone who wants to put you in a box in return for a chance at climbing some illusory and ephemeral "value" ladder, it's not worth it.

    However the problem comes when you perceive your own value in a different way to how others perceive it and you start expecting things in return, like a 50 year old woman who expects to be able to date men twenty years younger because she's had some career success.

    Luckily however there are as many different types of men as there are of women. As I said, to me you sound more valuable than some identikit "basic *****" as I believe they're called these days. So if even a schmuck like me thinks you sound OK you will certainly meet someone who agrees with your own valuation of yourself.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    It is like all stereotypes, there is some truth in it but it's far from the whole story (and of course it's not written from the most dispassionate of perspectives, as you can see from the language). Just as most men are assuredly not forged into dauntless warriors on the anvil of human endeavour, so most women are not quite so cynically spending their twenties glamming up, going clubbing and trying to ride this **** carousel.

    Most Redpill stuff comes out of America where the social gender divide is so massive that teenagers often take each other out on dates, sometimes with chaperones waiting in the wings. It's no wonder that girls go wild as soon as they go to college, boys see this and over-egg their responses. Redpill does have a lot of truth to it and is a pretty useful tool but it's only a theoretical model, and as all of us students know, a model is only a very rough approximation of one process involved in this timey-wimey mish-mash we call real life.

    You sound almost infinitely more interesting than some club rat. Don't listen to anyone who wants to put you in a box in return for a chance at climbing some illusory and ephemeral "value" ladder, it's not worth it.

    However the problem comes when you perceive your own value in a different way to how others perceive it and you start expecting things in return, like a 50 year old woman who expects to be able to date men twenty years younger because she's had some career success.

    Luckily however there are as many different types of men as there are of women. As I said, to me you sound more valuable than some identikit "basic *****" as I believe they're called these days. So if even a schmuck like me thinks you sound OK you will certainly meet someone who agrees with your own valuation of yourself.

    Dont think most guys would have a problem with dating an older woman actually as long as she's attractive. Plus if she's been successful career-wise then may be likely she's more willing to pay for stuff, which is a bonus. But that's just dating. The same willingness wouldnt apply when it comes to marriage/v.long-term relationships.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by молодой гений)
    Of course not. People are reduced into groups every day in a million different ways. Football teams, school classes, people with green eyes, dual-national British and Chinese citizens, 'those born on or before 1st April 1980', whatever.

    It's when you start arbitrarily using certain characteristics as a 'reason' for treating people with those characteristics as inferior to and less worthy than you [see below: "people who have tits and vaginas, i.e. women, are less worthy than men, who are People!"] when it becomes, well... sketchy.
    Right, but that's very different to just distinguishing groups and their traits.

    People should learn the difference between saying 'women are for making babies and any woman who tries to do anything more should be executed' and 'Women are suited to childcare', or 'Men are more interested in academia than women'.

    I agree that these ridiculous judgements about what women should do, such as that in your post, are, well, ridiculous. However, it seems to me that a lot of it is a frustrated response to those who militantly proclaim that there are no behavioural distinctions between men and women at all, or indeed no distinctions at all.

    I think that if, as a culture, we were more realistic about the differences between men and women, the number of people adopting these ridiculous and misogynistic ideas about women would rapidly decrease.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomfailinghelp)
    Right, but that's very different to just distinguishing groups and their traits.

    People should learn the difference between saying 'women are for making babies and any woman who tries to do anything more should be executed' and 'Women are suited to childcare', or 'Men are more interested in academia than women'.

    I agree that these ridiculous judgements about what women should do, such as that in your post, are, well, ridiculous. However, it seems to me that a lot of it is a frustrated response to those who militantly proclaim that there are no behavioural distinctions between men and women at all, or indeed no distinctions at all.

    I think that if, as a culture, we were more realistic about the differences between men and women, the number of people adopting these ridiculous and misogynistic ideas about women would rapidly decrease.
    But then comes the question: which differences are "biological", "natural", unavoidable, whatever, and which ones are socially imposed onto people? Feels a bit like a chicken-and-egg argument sometimes. Like, does having boobs actually make a person not like math, or is that just a trend that happened and is now being explained away with gender psychology / "inherent biological differences"?

    Like, with your "women are less interested in academia than men" thing. I've never heard that one before. If anything, the gender ratio of people I know with degrees beyond a BA/BSc is something like 70:30 in favour of women!

    The childcare one I've heard of before, obviously, but beyond actually giving birth to the kid and then feeding it for a solid month or whatever, I see no reason for not splitting the burden of childcare equally between both partners, or even more on the husband if the woman makes more money. That's certainly what my parents did and it worked perfectly well.

    Reminds me of some Simone de Beauvoir I had shoved in my face once. Was certainly good food for thought, might read more of her stuff one day actually. Here:

    Few myths have been as advantageous to the ruling caste as the myth of woman: it justifies all privileges and even authorises their abuse. Men need not bother themselves with alleviating the pains and burdens that are psychologically woman’s lot, since these are “intended by Nature”; men use them as a pretext for increasing the misery of the feminine lot still further, for instance by refusing to grant to woman any right to sexual pleasure, by making her work like a beast of burden.
    The myth of woman plays a considerable part in literature […] if the definition provided for this concept is contradicted by the behaviour of flesh-and-blood woman, it is the latter who are wrong: we are told not that Femininity is a false entity, but that the women concerned are not feminine.
    Basically her point is that the whole concept of "ppl with XX chromosomes are naturally destined to do XYZ" is crap. I've only ever read that one page, so can't really comment on her argument(s) - I just know that I myself tend to be a bit wary of people who use gender-psychology to back up their points and arguments, because I've never seen it used in any way other than to "prove" that women are inferior in one way or another. So I guess I've developed a reflex to it, because reading that stuff on MRA forums and, indeed, bits of TSR makes me feel a bit ill.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by молодой гений)
    But then comes the question: which differences are "biological", "natural", unavoidable, whatever, and which ones are socially imposed onto people? Feels a bit like a chicken-and-egg argument sometimes. Like, does having boobs actually make a person not like math, or is that just a trend that happened and is now being explained away with gender psychology / "inherent biological differences"?

    Like, with your "women are less interested in academia than men" thing. I've never heard that one before. If anything, the gender ratio of people I know with degrees beyond a BA/BSc is something like 70:30 in favour of women!

    The childcare one I've heard of before, obviously, but beyond actually giving birth to the kid and then feeding it for a solid month or whatever, I see no reason for not splitting the burden of childcare equally between both partners, or even more on the husband if the woman makes more money. That's certainly what my parents did and it worked perfectly well.

    Reminds me of some Simone de Beauvoir I had shoved in my face once. Was certainly good food for thought, might read more of her stuff one day actually. Here:

    Basically her point is that the whole concept of "ppl with XX chromosomes are naturally destined to do XYZ" is crap. I've only ever read that one page, so can't really comment on her argument(s) - I just know that I myself tend to be a bit wary of people who use gender-psychology to back up their points and arguments, because I've never seen it used in any way other than to "prove" that women are inferior in one way or another. So I guess I've developed a reflex to it, because reading that stuff on MRA forums and, indeed, bits of TSR makes me feel a bit ill.
    Women are far more successful in education than men, this is certainly true. However, generally speaking of course, fewer women enter academia than men. What I said was actually inaccurate though, on reflection. What I meant to say was that women are less interested in abstracts subjects, generally, Maths, Philosophy, Physics, and the like.

    Of course it is difficult to know what differences originate in nature and what in society, and to what degree, however this doesn't mean we don't know to a fair degree. A great example, I think, is WISE (Women into Science and Engineering), a programme in High Schools. Ran for a decade and had little success, which seems to suggest to me that the difference is more than social. Similarly, while women are over-represented in Biology and Veterinary Medicine, they are difficult to find in Maths and Physics departments (e.g. 1/65 Cambridge Maths professors is female). This suggests to me that the problem isn't Scientific culture, or subjects dominated by men, but female interest.

    Of course, this isn't conclusive evidence. Maths could be dominated by aggressive men, while biology might have been dominated by submissive men who didn't scare early female researchers off. I do think a more parsimonious explanation is that women are more interest in biology for some natural reason though, and this could be explained in terms of women as naturally caring, etc.

    Basically my only argument (re: childcare) is that women are naturally situated to spend more time caring for children, breasts being the obvious evidence. People will go on about the naturalistic fallacy, but I think it's a fair bet that whatever is natural in regard to childcare is likely to be successful. There are certainly some people who turn out fine who're raised with a more equal distribution of labour: probably you'll agree that my conjecture is useless to a great extent, it warrants scientific analysis and investigation. However, I do worry that an obsessive post-modernist rejection of even the existence of females/makes in the social sciences makes conclusive and fair investigations of this kind unlikely.

    Personally I keep away from continental philosophy (ha ha ha), but of course her point is a good one and I accept entirely that the abuse of these (legitimate) arguments by MRA's is dreadful.

    The use of arguing from nature is that is give us a rough guide to what is good in some cases. This isn't a necessary connection though, so even if the mistreatment of women were natural (and I doubt it is), it may nevertheless be bad, rather than good. I would argued that childcare is a special case, where usually what is natural is what is good. But, anyway we've no reason to believe that the mistreatment of women is natural, or good. It results in women in pain, often men in pain, and often children disturbed. This is, I feel, a clear refutation of any claim that women are naturally made to be subjugated, or that my argument could be abused to make that point. Of course, I'd make a more rigorous argument if you were a MRA advancing that position, but I imagine you'll be fairly convinced I'm right without argument on that point!

    Interesting points btw! I hope I'm demonstrating that people can believe in a natural distinction between men and women, perhaps even to some extent a normative one, without being sexist crazies.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 26, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.