Sweden: The Land of the Genderless Drones Watch

L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#141
Report 9 years ago
#141
'13-year-old Hannes Psajd explained that he and his twin sister had always shared the same toys'

'Classmate Moa Averin emphasized the importance of children being able to be who they want even if “guys want to be princesses sometimes”.'


What a load of poofs. That country desperately needs rugby.
0
reply
Don_Scott
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#142
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#142
(Original post by Sweenerborg)
I think you've misunderstanding the problem. You say that Sweden wants people to be genderless, when in reality they are just trying to emphasize the point that we are people first, and male/female second.
You do realise that this would mean that all differences would be lost and any real "diversity" would cease to exist?
0
reply
apotoftea
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#143
Report 9 years ago
#143
(Original post by Seven_Three)
x
(Original post by Don_Scott)
x
Having read your posts, they're quite a lot of ignorance on both sides when it comes to ideas of Gender, what's socially constructed and what's supposedly 'natural' and 'scientific'.

Firstly, going down the science route. It really is NOT as black and white as people seem to think. Are you really saying that what defines a man or a woman is ONLY their known 'sex' and their reproductive organs? If you use that argument as the ONLY way to define gender - what about the man who loses his testicles to cancer? Or a woman who has a hysterectomy or loses both breasts? Are they then no longer a man or a woman because they've lost their sexual organs? Yes of course they're still a man or a woman. They are still the gender they were born and the gender role they continue to live because of the impact of social cultures and constraints that have been placed upon them from the very moment they were born.

Moving onto the subject of society and its cultures. Of course gender is influenced by the society that we live in! How could you argue that is not? From the clothes we're put in as a kid, the toys we play with, the jobs, issues of pay etc etc etc. All these are a continuos circle of the generation before and the generation before that. You can see it in the Muscular Christian belief of the late 19th century - the hearty religious man who played sport, was educated, went into decent careers whilst the women stayed at home, provided the education and cleaned. Ok whilst times have changed, the gender constructs are still there on SOME levels.

The impact of material culture is the big one especially at the moment where the boundaries are beginning to overlap. Stuff like a barbie girl, or a pint glass or say a cigar are all gender constructs as well. You see a guy walking down the street with a bag that's not a rucksack or a briefcase and it'll almost be deemed girly. They're called 'manbag' but end of the day, the idea came around because a man carrying a bag similar to a women's wasn't meant to be in the social construct of what a man is meant to be. Like Alasdair said a guy goes out in a skirt and will get ridiculed. A woman who goes out in a manly pin stripe suit, VERY short hair, frumpy shoes etc and gets deemed to be on the more masculine side of a woman.

Gender constructs are built SO much by everyday things AS WELL AS some of the scientific background (although the science of women being the weaker sex, smaller brain, weak because of monthly cycles was all found to be incorrect). However it was this scientific argument that started the cause of gender stereotypes in the first place. Damn those Victorians! There is MASSIVE amounts of academic scholarship on this through History, Sociology, English Lit and Gender as its own discipline and no I'm not talking about Butler's Gender Trouble, times have moved on a LOT since that book was written.

The concept of Gender is neither one of a social constraint or a science. It is BOTH and this must be remembered. You cannot define a gender through black and white means. Especially when you have questions over women and lesbianism and men and being gay/homosexual. I cannot believe people want to split the idea of gender down into little named boxes. It's still seen in the academic world - look at the number of women professors especially in History departments where probably the majority of the work on Gender is being produced from - it's bloody awful and having discussed this with female academics, they don't see it changing for a long long time. All because of these supposed gender stereotypes based on 19th cen ideals of gender being x & y, not a, z, t, or w etc.

Bahhh could have written this so much better but that would involve thinking and being really academic :p: All in all, gender cannot be split into two boxes of science or social constructs. Anyone who thinks it can be needs to have a serious re-think about the world we live in.

ETS: and as someone just posted. The biggest age old adage is whether we're a sex/gender first and a social construct ie: a person/people second or vice versa. It's the question that dominates gender theory year on year and it'll never be answered.
0
reply
apotoftea
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#144
Report 9 years ago
#144
(Original post by Don_Scott)
This is essentially what we (i.e. traditionalist conservatives) have been saying the whole time.
But people on this thread seem to be highly ignorant of it all, which is worrying :yes:
0
reply
Sweenerborg
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#145
Report 9 years ago
#145
(Original post by machiavelli123)
i find it sad that there is so much pressure nowadays on women to go out and have a high-powered career, it makes out as though motherhood is not a respectable occupation...
why should women be looked down upon if they make the choice to be a stay-at-home mother?
it is possibly the most important job of all
:holmes:
I'm not saying I disagree, but times have changed. Contception, dishwashers, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, etc, mean there's less housework to be done.
If someone has four kids, or lives without technology I won't judge them for being a housewife. But in all honesty, that's not the way most people live.
0
reply
O-Ren
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#146
Report 9 years ago
#146
OP:

since when did the toys you play with make you a certain gender? I couldn't stand dolls as a child, I was outside climbing trees, does that mean I'm a man? I want to do a maths with physics degree does that mean I'm a man?
0
reply
Sweenerborg
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#147
Report 9 years ago
#147
(Original post by Don_Scott)
You do realise that this would mean that all differences would be lost and any real "diversity" would cease to exist?
Aw, you changed your post before I had a chance to reply. It made me lol.

And no, I don't realize that because it's not true. If you take away gender stereotypes you don't get androgyny, you get personality. If anything you get more diversity because people aren't conforming to gender stereotypes. If a guy wants to be a princess and a girl wants to be a race-car driver, they should be allowed to without being bullied for it.
0
reply
Rubgish
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#148
Report 9 years ago
#148
(Original post by Don_Scott)
More evidence of disgraceful pro-androgyny indoctrination in Sweden:



Source.

So having different toys for boys and girls is now considered "outdated" in genderless Sweden. And girls playing with dolls is thought to be merely "passive" whilst boys playing with cars or train sets is thought to be "active" and therefore superior (just shows what "feminists" really think about the feminine and motherhood: they hate them and want everyone to be career obsessed men).

It seems that the Swedes have full-heartedly swallowed the pro-androgyny nonsense of the "feminists". There is a reason that there are two sexes. If we were meant to be like amoebas and not have any sexual differences, we wouldn't have all these different parts each sex likes so much on the other one.
Correct me if I am wrong, but this article does not state that girls playing with dolls is passive and boys playing with cars is active. It says that the boys are portrayed in active rolls and the girls in passive roles. The only thing you could say similar to this, is that is suggest that dressing up as a princess (girl) is passive, where as dressing up as a superhero (boy) is active. However I imagine the pictures are more likely to show a boy dressed as a superhero running around and a girl dressed as a princess sitting playing with toys. Thus having the passive/active difference.
0
reply
LawBore
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#149
Report 9 years ago
#149
It has been accepted amongst many that gender roles are not a naturally arising constant. As far back as the 1930s psychologists such as Margaret Mead observed varying gender roles- sometimes completely switched, sometimes androgynous. There isn't a natural order.
0
reply
Don_Scott
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#150
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#150
(Original post by Sweenerborg)
Aw, you changed your post before I had a chance to reply. It made me lol.

And no, I don't realize that because it's not true. If you take away gender stereotypes you don't get androgyny, you get personality. If anything you get more diversity because people aren't conforming to gender stereotypes. If a guy wants to be a princess and a girl wants to be a race-car driver, they should be allowed to without being bullied for it.
If all you have is an emphasis on how "we are people first", then all you will get is universalist "people" with no particular attributes or characters.
0
reply
Honey_89
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#151
Report 9 years ago
#151
Who says its Femininism, girls can play with cars if they want, where as if a boy plays with dolls he gets made fun of!
0
reply
Sweenerborg
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#152
Report 9 years ago
#152
(Original post by Don_Scott)
If all you have is an emphasis on how "we are people first", then all you will get is universalist "people" with no particular attributes or characters.
No predefined attributes or characteristics, yes, but that is completely different to no characteristics at all. Of course people will still have characteristic, like the girl above who climbed trees as a kid. But your personality should be who you are, not what you were born.

You seem to think that if people aren't stereotypes, then they aren't anything. Why?
0
reply
adamrules247
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#153
Report 9 years ago
#153
(Original post by near_comatose)
Ok maybe not due to governments, but due to religious or other institutions. Who are you to say that gender roles are nature or nurture?
Because nature defines us as having seperate roles. Why is it that mothers produce milk for their young and why are men physically stronger?
0
reply
Fen
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#154
Report 9 years ago
#154
“guys want to be princesses sometimes”
0
reply
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#155
Report 9 years ago
#155
(Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
The notion of gender is a social construct. Sweden is an example Britain should be looking to, especially considering it has one of the highest levels of personal satisfaction and happiness in the world.
If that's true, then why do they have nearly double the suicide rate?
0
reply
Don_Scott
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#156
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#156
(Original post by Sweenerborg)
No predefined attributes or characteristics, yes, but that is completely different to no characteristics at all. You seem to think that if people aren't stereotypes, then they aren't anything. Why?
Because in the real world and not in liberal fantasy land: predefined and otherdefined attributes are naturally important to people and can be very influential both for good and bad.
0
reply
mackeroo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#157
Report 9 years ago
#157
(Original post by Mike_P)
Yes.
Why could not the debate of feminism take on something such as Islam instead?
i agree. there is a LOT of work to be done there
0
reply
Sweenerborg
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#158
Report 9 years ago
#158
(Original post by Don_Scott)
Because in the real world and not in liberal fantasy land: predefined and otherdefined attributes are naturally important to people and can be very influential both for good and bad.
I'm not entirely sure I understand what you said. Could you explain why it's important?

If the predefined and otherdefined attributes conflict with eachother, people are left feeling confused. If they side with the otherdefined, they are left isolated and subjected to bullying. If they side with the predefined, they live a lie.

(Original post by Made in the USA)
If that's true, then why do they have nearly double the suicide rate?
If that's true, why are they ranked #7 in the world for happiness? Link
0
reply
Olivia_Lightbulb
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#159
Report 9 years ago
#159
(Original post by Made in the USA)
If that's true, then why do they have nearly double the suicide rate?
Sweden ranks 5th in the Economist Magazine's 2005 Quality-of-Life index.
Its suicide rate is close to that of the US's.
0
reply
Olivia_Lightbulb
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#160
Report 9 years ago
#160
(Original post by adamrules247)
Because nature defines us as having seperate roles. Why is it that mothers produce milk for their young and why are men physically stronger?
The differences you mention are not gender roles. They're biological facts.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you chained to your phone?

Yes (56)
19.31%
Yes, but I'm trying to cut back (117)
40.34%
Nope, not that interesting (117)
40.34%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise