We don't need extra rules for special insults - we need to sort out the environment in schools because most children have to go there. As a psychologist, you must be aware of how powerful and insidious language can be, surely?(Original post by chazwomaq)
I do have two kids.
I'm afraid the social constructionist argument is strong on assumption and short on evidence. There is very strong evidence that prenatal effects shape brain development, that boys show interest in "things" and girls in other people from young ages. It is true that people treat young boys and girls differently, but I think that is more easily explained as responding to natural sex differences in behaviours and preferences. As a psychologist, this subject is close to my heart.
Check out the gender equality paradox - in more gender equal countries like Norway, you find very large sex differences in academic subjects taken. In gender unequal countries, you find smaller differences, which is totally the opposite of what the social construction theory predicts, but totally consistent with natural sex differences that get moderated when "masculine" jobs like science and engineering are more important for prosperity.
Great documentary here for those interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LR...ature=youtu.be. The whole series is great.
I'm not saying the phrases are all fine. Some of them can definitely be mean depending on context. But surely schools already tell people off for bullying or being mean in the playground. Why do we need extra rules just for gender based insults?
There is evidence for the social construction argument as you call it. As a psychologist, you must know that stereotyping exists - or maybe you think it just doesn't apply to gender? You must be familiar with the studies showing how people behave with babies depends on what gender they THINK they are? One such experiment I saw included a man interacting with a baby girl, and only passing her dolls, then claiming to the interviewer that the girl didn't seem interested in the cars, or building bricks - sadly he really seemed to believe that. He hadn't even taken them out of the box. And there have been imaging studies showing differences in brains that seem indicative of differences in eg language skills, and spatial skills (to choose two often chosen as 'female' and 'male') - these show differences in teenagers and adults between men and women - but they do not show the same differences between boys and girls as younger children.
If you see differences between boys and girls from young ages, I would argue this is evidence that stereotyping kicks in very early. I see such differences too - and I see them most clearly in families with male and female children where they get the stereotyping in from birth - different toys - different colours - different play - different many things. The girls tend to grow up thinking they are weak and need someone to look after them, and often that they are no good at eg maths or physics, because those are boy's subjects, while they boys grow up thinking showing emotion is no allowed for boys.
x Turn on thread page Beta
Sexist language banned at schools watch
- 20-10-2015 12:09
(Original post by cheshiremum)
- 20-10-2015 12:27
As a psychologist, you must be aware of how powerful and insidious language can be, surely?
I already acknowledged that people do treat boys and girls differently. It is a big step to conclude that that causes the sex differences we see later in life. The comparative evidence of sex differences in other species and the evidence for pre-natal effects in humans is more convincing IMO. Are monkeys prey to social deconstructionism? Are buying beetles warped by the insidious power of language? I don't think it's plausible that special processes that apply only to humans are the major cause here.
(Original post by Compost)
- 20-10-2015 13:50
You don't seem to understand the idea of context. Yes, strangers often call lots of people love/sweetheart etc., often because they don't know (or can't remember) your name. I don't particularly like it but I ignore it. There is a world of difference between that and being being called Blossom in an interview for a job as a graduate/chartered engineer - or to be honest any interview.
I would expect that most women work with or have worked with men who call them love/sweetheart/flower/blossom and who combine this with thinking women that need looking after and protecting but are not really capable of much. That's why being called flower etc irritates, but stopping men using it won't stop the inherent sexism.
None of the phrases you suggest are as pithy or project quite the same sentiment - for instance none of them would really work as a response to a teenager trying to get a lift to school because he doesn't want to cycle in the rain.
And its very sexist as you said stopping MEN saying it wont stop the inherent sexism when WOMEN USE IT TOO!! thats SEXIST!
In some parts of the North people call other men and women love, I found it strange that men were calling me love when I am also male.
And your lift example does not work as the person riding a bike could be soaking through not a case of lonliness, it must just be a generational thing, being older things I find bad you are basically saying theres nothing wrong with it, things I think people get worked up over nothing I get "no its bad"
- 23-10-2015 11:46
And this old ass thread somehow lives again...
- 23-10-2015 12:30
- 23-10-2015 19:32
- 23-10-2015 19:48
make me a sandwich
- 07-01-2016 21:40
Again.. I re-iterate, no logical viewpoints in response.
And the next comment is "don't get your panties in a twist" and a girl telling me that Feminists are "crazy" and she wouldn't be seen dead joining them.
Alright love, we'll take away your right to vote, through you back in the kitchen with no right to work, keep you in a marriage you can't get out of, not allowed to go out really, no contraception. Awesome. Great life. Or even, why don't you go to Saudi? None of these bloody women harping on about women's rights there. They'll keep you where you're supposed to be.
When women today proudly declare "I'm not a feminist" they **** on the grave of all the people who fought for the rights they enjoy today, the fact that we aren't like Saudi or how we were even 100 years ago when we didn't even have the vote. 200 years ago divorce absolutely crippled women. They had no right to their children, to re-marry nor earn an income. That changed because FEMINISTS FOUGHT TOOTH AND NAIL FOR IT. And all you ungrateful *****es get on the media bandwagon: "I'm not a feminist, it's not cool, guys may not like me for it". Morons.