Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Why is masculinity seen to be the demon like and femininity isn't?? Watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by effofex)
    Isn't it considered very unprofessional and possibly an offence warranting dismissal if they work on the same ward etc.?
    I think there are rules about being under direct management by a family member (which includes spouses, may include non-married partners too). But I don't think there's a rule about dating someone you work with in the NHS. As long as your behaviour at work is professional.

    There must be a lot of hospital workers who are in relationships with other hospital workers, so there can't be a blanket rule against it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks a bunch guys. Feminists in general just confuse me.
    it's as if they're obsessed with the idea in overpowering men rather than to reach their main goal of equality.
    May things seem equal in today's age anyway except the idea of equality in the workplace.
    i think many managers are restricted in giving women promotion due to the fear that they will get pregnant?
    I agree, both genders are different so they should both be treated differently.
    If men have bold masculine qualities we can't change that, it's a fact that they are capable of doing more things than women cause of their strength or stamina.
    In other ways women can also be strong, it doesn't mean they are limited, it's just that they are different.
    Occupation seems to be the issue here in gender roles.
    How men are given higher opportunities than women and the type of work that they are given.
    Whereas i feel that there's no biggy in that, feminists would argue 'it's not fair'.
    You have to see the bigger picture that women won't be able to handle what men can handle, it's how God or creation has made us to be.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It seems like feminism is fighting for more than equality. It's as if the have become so 'power obsessed' that they feel the need to be better. Surely it doesn't matter what gender you are anymore?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Gender roles have been defined quite clearly DUE to nature. I think as technology progresses gender roles will become less relevant, although I believe that gender roles are the best way for society to flourish and function at it's best.

    What many people forget is that in the past there weren't any cosy office jobs which women can do. Most jobs were hard manual labour, a lot of physical labour was needed and women simply couldn't do such jobs. Actually it's only these past few decades in which the economy has progressed.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Masculinity and femininity are not the innate characteristics of men and women - they are social performances that we have been forced to participate in ever since our parents found out which set of genitalia we have. The characteristics assigned to baby boys tend to prepare him for success in the world of work, particularly the most highly paid jobs, whereas the traits assigned to girls prepare her for a life of domesticity, although these can be useful in fields such as childcare, social work, nursing etc. In today's society, it is no longer possible for most women to stay at home to do domestic work full-time so they have to be willing to adapt masculine traits to be successful. I don't think that those traits categorised as masculine are better or more valuable than those assigned as feminine, but they are valuable in a capitalist economy. Capitalism requires workers to compete with each other so that they can produce their goods or service in the most efficient way, and as competitiveness and aggression are seen as masculine, it is not surprising that many women are seen as wanting to be more 'masculine'.

    This assignment of gender roles and characteristics also influences who we are sexually attracted to. As we have grown up in a society that says that men who exhibit masculine traits are good and women who are ultra-feminine are good, we find those types of traits attractive in the opposite sex if we are heterosexual. Of course, not everyone is influenced to the same degree and sexual attractive is powerful, so our 'true' desires do have an influence too. That's why caring, considerate men can find girlfriends and assertive, strong women can find boyfriends. But the ideal type of person is also seen as exhibiting a strong display of their masculinity/femininity.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ultimate1)
    What many people forget is that in the past there weren't any cosy office jobs which women can do. Most jobs were hard manual labour, a lot of physical labour was needed and women simply couldn't do such jobs. Actually it's only these past few decades in which the economy has progressed.
    People such as yourself forget that until relatively recently, ie. industrial revolution, the vast majority of women took part in manual labour jobs because there was nothing else for it. It was either work or starve. It was only after people started being able to survive through the accumulation of money that the women suddenly became less than able at working. It was the Victorian era that really sealed this transition. So no, it's not just "nature". So, actually, yes, women simply could do such jobs.

    Let's also not forget that even to this day, people born with vaginas have certain expectations placed on them. They are generally not allowed to be as active in their formative years as ones with penes and this obviously has an effect on muscle growth, bone density, etc. leading to a misplaced idea that women are weaker than men. Now, I won't deny that women and men have some biological differences. For instance, they feel pain differently, apparently. That, however, doesn't mean that "traditional" gender roles are somehow correct or better for us.


    (Original post by shamemii)
    it's as if they're obsessed with the idea in overpowering men rather than to reach their main goal of equality.
    Some are. It's a common problem with any movement, where an extreme minority outshouts the majority and so people associate the movement with the minority. It's also a problem with the name of the movement, which is kind of funny given how much they argue about discourse but do not see the issues with their name.

    Be that as it may, Feminism is an egalitarian movement for the most part and the majority of Feminists, the vast majority, with for simply equal rights with men and the removal of male privilege in the world.


    (Original post by shamemii)
    May things seem equal in today's age anyway except the idea of equality in the workplace.
    No, no, they really don't. There is sexism everywhere, both towards men and women, but the more serious aspects of it are generally directed towards women still. Patriarchy has managed to disguise itself through an illusion of "equality" whilst maintaining its privilege, along with other things like male gaze, etc.


    (Original post by shamemii)
    i think many managers are restricted in giving women promotion due to the fear that they will get pregnant?
    This is a problem with a capitalist market. Women lose out if they choose to pursue a family at the same time as their career, because managers use the lack of experience as a reason to pay them less, promote them, etc.


    (Original post by shamemii)
    I agree, both genders are different so they should both be treated differently.
    They're not that different, but certain biological functions do require adjustments in treatment, obviously.


    (Original post by shamemii)
    If men have bold masculine qualities we can't change that, it's a fact that they are capable of doing more things than women cause of their strength or stamina.
    Which is mostly a social thing rather than natural thing.

    And there are lots of women with "masculine" qualities and vice versa. There's no such thing as "masculine qualities". It's a social construct.


    (Original post by shamemii)
    In other ways women can also be strong, it doesn't mean they are limited, it's just that they are different.
    But they're not, they are just bound by social norms which restrict their growth at an early age, leading to the idea that they aren't as strong, etc.


    (Original post by shamemii)
    Occupation seems to be the issue here in gender roles.
    Everything is an issue.


    (Original post by shamemii)
    How men are given higher opportunities than women and the type of work that they are given.
    A lot of it is down to society and the discourse within it.


    (Original post by shamemii)
    Whereas i feel that there's no biggy in that, feminists would argue 'it's not fair'.
    Doesn't mean they are wrong.


    (Original post by shamemii)
    You have to see the bigger picture that women won't be able to handle what men can handle, it's how God or creation has made us to be.
    Well, if you're going to bring religion into it, that's just not fair, cause Judeo-Islamic-Christian religion has been hijacked by humans, especially men, to institutionalise their superiority over women.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    And there are lots of women with "masculine" qualities and vice versa. There's no such thing as "masculine qualities". It's a social construct.
    Statements like that are just so stupid it defies belief.

    Strength is masculine. Stoicism is masculine. Competitiveness is masculine. Aggressiveness is masculine. And it makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective for men to have these characteristics when we were in the wild.

    Just because women can have these traits does not mean they are not traits that men in general have.

    You know what you are saying is *******s when you look at how animals such as apes behave. The females and the male behave differently.

    Let's also not forget that even to this day, people born with vaginas have certain expectations placed on them. They are generally not allowed to be as active in their formative years as ones with penes and this obviously has an effect on muscle growth, bone density, etc. leading to a misplaced idea that women are weaker than men.
    This is the problem with feminists. They are idiots. They do not care about the facts.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    Statements like that are just so stupid it defies belief.
    And yet, somehow, it's a commonly accepted argument by people who bother to do much research into the matter. :rolleyes:


    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    Strength is masculine. Stoicism is masculine. Competitiveness is masculine. Aggressiveness is masculine. And it makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective for men to have these characteristics when we were in the wild.
    What makes any of those traits "masculine"?

    It also makes sense evolutionary for a woman to have all those traits as well. Seriously, you say my statement was stupid enough to defy belief?


    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    Just because women can have these traits does not mean they are not traits that men in general have.
    I never said they weren't traits that men in general didn't have. I said they weren't specifically "masculine". As you said, women can have those traits as well, in fact most of them do. That's why it's a social construct, because people such as yourself attempt to define them as particularly "masculine", when they're actually not. They're shared across the genders.


    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    You know what you are saying is *******s when you look at how animals such as apes behave. The females and the male behave differently.
    Because animals cannot have social conditioning as well? :curious:

    And whilst I accept the argument, I also find it flawed because we are not apes. We are humans. That we descended from a distant parent species does not mean we are the exact same as them.


    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    This is the problem with feminists. They are idiots. They do not care about the facts.
    And what facts would those be? The ones you so conveniently forget to mention in your response? Or the facts you conveniently dropped from my original post?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    What makes any of those traits "masculine"?
    They are traits associated with men.

    It also makes sense evolutionary for a woman to have all those traits as well. Seriously, you say my statement was stupid enough to defy belief?
    It makes more sense for the men to have them to a great extent than women.

    I never said they weren't traits that men in general didn't have. I said they weren't specifically "masculine". As you said, women can have those traits as well, in fact most of them do. That's why it's a social construct, because people such as yourself attempt to define them as particularly "masculine", when they're actually not. They're shared across the genders.
    They are traits men tend to have and women tend not to have. Thus they are masculine traits.

    The question is whether these traits are caused by nature or nurture. And I am of the opinion that at a fundamental level boys will be boys. And girls will be girls. Obviously there will be exceptions, but I am talking about in general. There are some naturally effeminate men and some naturally masculine women. But the idea that at a fundamental level men and women are the same is laughable.

    Because animals cannot have social conditioning as well? :curious:
    It is not like apes are pressured by the media or have preconcieved notions of masculinity or femininity.

    And what facts would those be?
    The fact the men have higher levels of testosterone making them physically stronger. The idea that men are stronger because they are encouraged to do sport (which actually has little effect on physical strength unless you lift wieghts) is nonsense.

    Women who try to body build for example simply cannot increase strength and muscle mass like men can due to lower levels of testosterone.

    In addition girls are not as coordinated as men. The top female athletes in sports like Hockey and Football are no where near as good as their male counterparts.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Men and women will only ever be equal when men also start spitting babies out of their penises and women also start peeing with the seat up.

    Until that happens it's pretty evident men and women are capable of doing different things. And it's ridiculous to expect them to be considered completely the same.
    seriously...it's okay to admit you can't do something. Feminists seem to see this as a weakness.

    now I'm going to watch rugby and drink a beer...whilst painting my nails and complaining about menstrual cramps.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by irishspringbok)
    totally agree with you. Im all for men and women having equal opportunities...but I don't think they should fight to be the same, when, they are quite clearly..VERY different.
    But we aren't very different. Name one personality trait exclusive to men? There is none, our brains are more similar than they are different.


    all my "feminist friends" are over concerned with power, intellectual one-upmanship and undermining men in general. it's quite sadistic really, and not very attractive in my opinion. obviously this isn't all feminists i'm just saying.
    And why would you not call yourself a feminist?

    I feel like men overcompensate for masculinity now more than ever because society overall has become a level playing field e.g. women being as masculine as guys because they think they are entitled to it.
    Are women not entitled to act how they want?

    I'm still the "old fashioned" female that believes in chivalry
    If you don't want equal rights then get yourself a doggy collar and bark but don't act like anyone should be impressed by your lack of self respect.

    "I'm a woman against feminism! I am a homosexual for the republican party! I am a black man for the kkk!"
    That's great for you but what about the people who have self worth?

    , and that men and women play different roles within society.
    But the difference is feminists advocate for you being free to choose where as YOU believe in telling females their specific role.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    They are traits associated with men.
    Wow, so because something is historically associated with something else, that makes it true... Wait, no, that's a logical fallacy. Argumentum ad antiquitatem. This is why the whole argument about social construct and patriarchal discourse comes in.

    Also largely false given the fact these traits were only really separated by genders across the larger swathes of the population after the Industrial Revolution.


    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    It makes more sense for the men to have them to a great extent than women.
    Really? And how do you figure that? Historically women have worked just as hard as men, especially in agrarian societies, and they even fought in wars. How exactly does it make more sense?


    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    They are traits men tend to have and women tend not to have. Thus they are masculine traits.
    Except women do tend to have them, but due to social conditioning they are aimed at different things in order to weaken them and "femininise" the person.


    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    The question is whether these traits are caused by nature or nurture. And I am of the opinion that at a fundamental level boys will be boys. And girls will be girls. Obviously there will be exceptions, but I am talking about in general. There are some naturally effeminate men and some naturally masculine women. But the idea that at a fundamental level men and women are the same is laughable.
    Really? And what exactly is your argument for them being fundamentally different? I'd appreciate an argument that cannot be explained away, for the most part, by social conditioning and traditional gender stereotypes.


    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    It is not like apes are pressured by the media or have preconcieved notions of masculinity or femininity.
    Of course they do. Not the media, bit, but they have societies and thus have preconceived notions which impact upon the baby chimps, forming their beliefs and habits, causing them to behave in certain ways as they grow up.

    We brainwash babies into acting certain ways based on the genitalia between their legs.


    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    The fact the men have higher levels of testosterone making them physically stronger. The idea that men are stronger because they are encouraged to do sport (which actually has little effect on physical strength unless you lift wieghts) is nonsense.
    Actually it's not. Whilst testosterone does play a part in muscle formation, etc. we severely stunt the formation of muscle and bone density in women by encouraging them to take part in less active sports than boys. Testosterone only really becomes an issue if you want to weight train.


    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    Women who try to body build for example simply cannot increase strength and muscle mass like men can due to lower levels of testosterone.
    For the most part, yes, but weight training is hardly a natural thing to do, now is it.


    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    In addition girls are not as coordinated as men. The top female athletes in sports like Hockey and Football are no where near as good as their male counterparts.
    Mostly because they start their training later due to social norms.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    Statements like that are just so stupid it defies belief.

    Strength is masculine. Stoicism is masculine. Competitiveness is masculine. Aggressiveness is masculine. And it makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective for men to have these characteristics when we were in the wild.

    Just because women can have these traits does not mean they are not traits that men in general have.

    You know what you are saying is *******s when you look at how animals such as apes behave. The females and the male behave differently.



    This is the problem with feminists. They are idiots. They do not care about the facts.
    Go provoke a female lion or ape and see how none aggressive, strong and competitive they are. The sad thing is you're not even trolling.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Interactiveapple)
    But we aren't very different. Name one personality trait exclusive to men? There is none, our brains are more similar than they are different.



    And why would you not call yourself a feminist?


    Are women not entitled to act how they want?


    If you don't want equal rights then get yourself a doggy collar and bark but don't act like anyone should be impressed by your lack of self respect.

    "I'm a woman against feminism! I am a homosexual for the republican party! I am a black man for the kkk!"
    That's great for you but what about the people who have self worth?


    But the difference is feminists advocate for you being free to choose where as YOU believe in telling females their specific role.
    lol calm down! I have self worth. I'm just not concerned with trying to prove that I am the same as a man, when I'm obviously not. My life doesn't revolve around undermining other people to desperately try to prove a point. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Interactiveapple)
    Go provoke a female lion or ape and see how none aggressive, strong and competitive they are. The sad thing is you're not even trolling.
    They will be very protective over their young. Just like a human.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    They will be very protective over their young. Just like a human.
    Who said they have young? You think a female lion or ape won't attack you after you've provoked her unless she is protecting her children? Again, I implore you to try that. See how none aggressive they are.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    Wow, so because something is historically associated with something else, that makes it true... Wait, no, that's a logical fallacy. Argumentum ad antiquitatem. This is why the whole argument about social construct and patriarchal discourse comes in.

    Also largely false given the fact these traits were only really separated by genders across the larger swathes of the population after the Industrial Revolution.
    If you look at primitive societies men and women definitely do have different roles. The women in general do more gathering. Whilst the men do more hunting. Men and women specialise their labour.

    Really? And how do you figure that? Historically women have worked just as hard as men, especially in agrarian societies, and they even fought in wars. How exactly does it make more sense?
    I am not saying that women do not work hard. Sure they might have fought in a few wars from time to time. But the reality is combat is the realm of men. It is the role of the man to protect the women from danger. Women are more important from an evolutionary sense than men. One man can do the work of many men. Whilst one woman can only do the work of one other woman.

    Men are designed to be protective of women and fight to defend them. Whilst women are supposed to be protected from danger. It is instincts to protect women that mean men go out to war. And why it is unacceptable for men to hit women.


    Really? And what exactly is your argument for them being fundamentally different? I'd appreciate an argument that cannot be explained away, for the most part, by social conditioning and traditional gender stereotypes.
    You can explain the differences with sociological bull****. But you can explain it using biology, an actual science.

    We brainwash babies into acting certain ways based on the genitalia between their legs.
    I agree that boys and girls are treated differently and this causes different behavior. However that does not mean boys and girls are the same and the differences are only due to social conditioning.


    Actually it's not. Whilst testosterone does play a part in muscle formation, etc. we severely stunt the formation of muscle and bone density in women by encouraging them to take part in less active sports than boys. Testosterone only really becomes an issue if you want to weight train.
    Women are encouraged to play sports. There is no end of efforts to try and get women to play sport. But in the end, they do not like sport as much as boys. Boys love competition, a masculine trait, and thus love sport.

    And playing sport will not have much effect on bone density and muscle formation. Hormones, diet and genetics are the key determinants of that. Not playing football, cricket or even rugby.

    Next you are going to be saying women are shorter because society tells them that it is feminine to be short.

    For the most part, yes, but weight training is hardly a natural thing to do, now is it.
    Lifting stuff up and putting it down is pretty natural.

    Mostly because they start their training later due to social norms.
    Nope. Girls started playing hockey with me at the same time I started. And they were ****. In fact I remember the boys even beating the girls at Netball. A sport the boys never trained in before.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Interactiveapple)
    Who said they have young? You think a female lion or ape won't attack you after you've provoked her unless she is protecting her children? Again, I implore you to try that. See how none aggressive they are.
    I am not saying women are not aggressive. But men in general are more aggressive.

    Women are tall. But men are in general taller. Do you understand the reasoning?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    I am not saying women are not aggressive. But men in general are more aggressive.

    Women are tall. But men are in general taller. Do you understand the reasoning?
    That doesn't make tall masculine. If on average Asians are smarter than whites that doesn't make intelligence Asian.


    You said:

    Strength is masculine. Stoicism is masculine. Competitiveness is masculine. Aggressiveness is masculine. And it makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective for men to have these characteristics when we were in the wild.
    It is also "feminine" since females have all those traits.




    You know what you are saying is *******s when you look at how animals such as apes behave. The females and the male behave differently.
    But female apes and lions are strong, competitive and aggressive so your point is completely idiotic. Your point would make sense if they sat around picking flowers all day but that isn't reality yet you claim feminists ignore facts?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    If you look at primitive societies men and women definitely do have different roles. The women in general do more gathering. Whilst the men do more hunting. Men and women specialise their labour.



    I am not saying that women do not work hard. Sure they might have fought in a few wars from time to time. But the reality is combat is the realm of men. It is the role of the man to protect the women from danger. Women are more important from an evolutionary sense than men. One man can do the work of many men. Whilst one woman can only do the work of one other woman.

    Men are designed to be protective of women and fight to defend them. Whilst women are supposed to be protected from danger. It is instincts to protect women that mean men go out to war. And why it is unacceptable for men to hit women.




    You can explain the differences with sociological bull****. But you can explain it using biology, an actual science.



    I agree that boys and girls are treated differently and this causes different behavior. However that does not mean boys and girls are the same and the differences are only due to social conditioning.




    Women are encouraged to play sports. There is no end of efforts to try and get women to play sport. But in the end, they do not like sport as much as boys. Boys love competition, a masculine trait, and thus love sport.

    And playing sport will not have much effect on bone density and muscle formation. Hormones, diet and genetics are the key determinants of that. Not playing football, cricket or even rugby.

    Next you are going to be saying women are shorter because society tells them that it is feminine to be short.



    Lifting stuff up and putting it down is pretty natural.



    Nope. Girls started playing hockey with me at the same time I started. And they were ****. In fact I remember the boys even beating the girls at Netball. A sport the boys never trained in before.
    Great response.

    The fact is that no one can go against logic and science.

    It's no surprise that when Europeans ventures to other continents centuries ago they found men and women in exactly the same roles as Europeans themselves. This itself shows that gender roles aren't some societal imposed hell on women they have always been a way to allow society to function and florish.
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?

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

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