Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by apotoftea)
    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.
    So you're saying gender isn't gender?

    If you were born a man you are a man, if you were born a woman you are a woman, genetically speaking, i wont get into phycologically.

    People that have gender reasignment are still their original gender they just look like the oppoisite.

    Gender is about dna.

    I'm sorry but if you point at a man no matter how girly he is he is still a man.

    To be honest i don't care about this discussion at all, i really don't have a problem with adrogynous people, as long as you can still tell girl form guy apart in a club it's all good.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sweenerborg)
    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.
    People view such things as ethnicity, sex, nation, culture etc. as important although such things are not self defined.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    I bet there are more than 500 000 females in this country alone that are physically stronger than you.

    Nature didn't give us incisors like canines or claws or talons in order to adapt us to catch and eat meat, yet... we still eat it!

    What has mothers producing milk for young got to do with it, when a large number of mothers DON'T actually feed their child their own milk?

    Clearly humans do very many things nature didn't intend.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    People view such things as ethnicity, sex, nation, culture etc. as important although such things are not self defined.
    I know that they do, but I don't know why they should.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sweenerborg)
    I know that they do, but I don't know why they should.
    Why shouldn't they?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Science says you're wrong. The purpose of "different parts" is genetic variety and other reproductive stuff. Last time I checked, kiddies have nothing to do with reproduction and therefore bringing their genitals to the table is obsessed and stupid.

    Books, read books. And if that's not enough, maybe you should use the brain a bit more. Recommendations of fairly objective books: "The psychology of sex and gender" Stainton Rogers, and "Sex and gender" Lips.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libtolu)
    So you're saying gender isn't gender?
    All depends on what you define gender as?

    Gender is about dna.
    That's probably one thing you don't often see in scholarship on the subject. However, there has been research done on whether sexuality, appearance, gender traits are influenced by what genes, chromosomes and effectively dna a person has (all these things make up gender as a category). There have been cases where it can seen that a women who fits ALL the gender stereotypes of being a woman has a different genetic make up (DNA aside) to that of a woman who dresses like a man and is a lesbian.

    I'd love to know whether someone like Radclyffe Hall's genetic make up fitted into this given just how radical she was and the impact she had on many many years of both living women and academic scholarship.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Why shouldn't they?
    That's not an answer. And do I really need to repeat myself? Having predefined attributes will inevitably result in a conflict with the otherdefined (refer to my previous post). I'm trying to understand where you're coming from, but you're not giving much to go on.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sweenerborg)
    That's not an answer. And do I really need to repeat myself? Having predefined attributes will inevitably result in a conflict with the otherdefined (refer to my previous post). I'm trying to understand where you're coming from, but you're not giving much to go on.
    Only if those things conflict.

    And not only is it natural to consider such things important but considering those things important can also have good effects. Considering all that, why shouldn't they value they otherdefined?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Only if those things conflict.

    And not only is it natural to consider such things important but considering those things important can also have good effects. Considering all that, why shouldn't they value they otherdefined?
    But those things will conflict. Maybe not for you, maybe not for me, but for a whole bunch of people out there.

    It's natural to do so, but that doesn't mean it's right. What are these "good effects" you speak of?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    The differences you mention are not gender roles. They're biological facts.
    No what I did was give retorical questions. It's your duty to work out what they mean.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by near_comatose)

    Clearly humans do very many things nature didn't intend.
    And there you have hit the nail on the head. We are moving too far away from nature. It means that natural roles are being abandonned and we are losing our way.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    And there you have hit the nail on the head. We are moving too far away from nature. It means that natural roles are being abandonned and we are losing our way.
    How do you know which roles were 'natural' to begin with? How do you know the roles we know today didn't come about from a previous society 'losing its way'? Was it 'natural' to begin to treat women with the same respect as men in society? Was it natural to create penicillin? Was it natural to refine oil and burn it for energy and create plastics from it?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by near_comatose)
    How do you know which roles were 'natural' to begin with?
    Through the biological facts I gave you and the examples of other animals, especially mammals.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Girls get baby dolls --> need practice to be mommies

    Boys get cars --> need practice to be race car drivers
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    Through the biological facts I gave you and the examples of other animals, especially mammals.
    You gave me no biological facts.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by near_comatose)
    You gave me no biological facts.
    Umm...... Yes I did.......... Check my earlier posts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Government regulations mandating that private industry adopt certain social values is fail. (especially when these social values are retarded.) I really don't see the problem with seperating boy and girl toys. I didn't want to play with a ******* barbie and neither did 99% of other guys, we were happy with micro machines and lego and thats that.
    Yeah, but look how you turned out...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by punktopia)
    Yeah, but look how you turned out...
    I would say "touche" if you actually had a point, but you don't.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by machiavelli123)
    it is possibly the most important job of all
    :holmes:
    Yet men fail to fulfil this role in our current gender constructs.

    Why aren't more men primary child carers when they are equally capable of being it?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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: August 10, 2010
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

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.