Gender

[Coriolis]

But how does the notion of feminine subject of self and subject of other living creatures, meaning empathy of course, vs the men's subject of self and object of everything else, deal with the fact the majority of wars make use of men's lives as a commodity and kill them off fairly unsubjectly? Men's views harming men? Patriarchy harming men? Which is an odd contradiction.

As the stereotype goes, men are more controlling and hierarchical, while women are more accommodating and collaborative. (Yes, it is a stereotype.) By extension, not only are women not the equal of men, men are not all equal either. Men will risk their lives to secure and defend their place at the top of the hierarchy, by physical combat with foes on an individual or national level. Just consider the idea of males fighting for a mate, whether early (and later) humans, or other animals. This would seem to be evolutionary nonsense, since by fighting you risk losing your life and not being able to pass on your genes. But at root, it is the heart of evolution: survival of the fittest.

On top of this: If part of the aim is to diffuse gender traits being stereotypically assigned and assumed, how can feminine or masculine energy be applied? Since they are assuming certain traits based upon gender? Or have I misunderstood? Because to me, that contradicts with the notion of gender being a social construct.

If it is a construct then the ideas of masculine and feminine have no weight and thus don't hold responsibility or blame to any set of traits.

I think of masculine and feminine as archetypes, abstract ideals that are never completely embodied by real humans, much like introversion and extraversion, or any other dichotomous pair of traits. As such, they are not tied to any specific person or group. Someone who demonstrates traits more commonly associated with the feminine archetype would simply be considered more feminine than masculine, just as we might consider someone more extraverted, or more rational, or more empathetic. In reality, every person will exhibit some traits or preferences from each archetype. How useful it is to think of human qualities in this manner is open to debate.

My point being that, upon examination heuristically, I find that the more intricate differences are between the biological variations of individuals. But at the same time this isn't a useful abstraction for understanding reality, so there are also overarching traits as well, which can be roughly applied as part of an average (though I think many overestimate the extent of those averages).

It is easy to identify biological differences between people, whether sex-based or otherwise. It is much more difficult to extrapolate from that any kind of reliable conclusions about how said people will act. It is even more unreasonable to use such distinctions as a basis for how people should act.

It is entirely made up - the gender role construct of "women feel" and "men think." While there are quite certainly biological differences inherent to both sexes, it's not the Western patriarchal construct. Radical feminists were originally called women's liberators. They did not seek equality, because they thought, fairly rightly in my estimation, that it was bad form to merely ape the rigid patriarchal construct of manhood - and instead argued for their freedom to create their own definition of themselves as individuals. I referenced this in another thread, about how Western feminism in its quest for equality, appeared to produce a lot of women trying to fit the more masculine gender role.

There is much of worth in what you call the masculine gender role. Why should women be excluded from taking from that, any more than they should be excluded from traditionally male occupations? The idea that women have to become liberated and empowered in some way that is distinctly different from men is just another gender role to foist upon them.

 

[Mole]

But at root, it is the heart of evolution: survival of the fittest.

The heart of natural selection is that the adaptable pass on their genes.

The slogan survival of the fittest is a perversion by Social Darwinism.

Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Darwin's Origin of Species, and everything to do with social domination.

 

[Thalassa]

There is much of worth in what you call the masculine gender role. Why should women be excluded from taking from that, any more than they should be excluded from traditionally male occupations? The idea that women have to become liberated and empowered in some way that is distinctly different from men is just another gender role to foist upon them.

On one hand I agree with you. I was a tomboy in middle school, with short hair and riding bikes, always outdoors, watching horror movies, along with my more "girly" activities like dance, gymnastics and piano...and as an adult that's probably what largely allowed me to be so assertive and outspoken and be self employed...but I have also speculated about functions and gender, Se being masculine, but not as patriarchal as Te, and N being feminine, but not as patriarchally feminine as Fe.

I'm very middle of the road on gender. People are going to misjudge me because of that, dependent on their own bias, but I am still out to lunch on the whole thing. I think there's a lot of merit in different arguments.

But is some of what we consider masculine just human, and traits society steals from girls to subdue them, while other masculine gender roles are patriarchal - like the cold narcissistic unfeeling CEO. When I call Hillary Clinton The Man, that isn't a commentary on her appearance or sexuality, but on her aspiring to be Part of the Patriarchy.

 

[Coriolis]

But is some of what we consider masculine just human, and traits society steals from girls to subdue them, while other masculine gender roles are patriarchal - like the cold narcissistic unfeeling CEO. When I call Hillary Clinton The Man, that isn't a commentary on her appearance or sexuality, but on her aspiring to be Part of the Patriarchy.

I disagree about your association of functions with gender, but absolutely agree with the highlighted. That is related to the point I was trying to make. ALL traits are just human, even those exhibited more by one gender vs. the other. I have speculated in other threads that it seems at some point, humanity (men?) assigned more of the useful and adult traits to the "masculine" box - qualities like independence, assertiveness, decisiveness, even rationality; and less useful and more childlike traits to the "feminine" box - dependence, submissiveness, being accommodating, flightiness, etc. Even if you disagree with the box assignments here, you get the picture. Once defined as "male" if exhibited by a woman, that woman is now mannish, unfeminine, etc.

No, the traits and we are all just human.

 

[Cellmold]

As the stereotype goes, men are more controlling and hierarchical, while women are more accommodating and collaborative. (Yes, it is a stereotype.) By extension, not only are women not the equal of men, men are not all equal either. Men will risk their lives to secure and defend their place at the top of the hierarchy, by physical combat with foes on an individual or national level. Just consider the idea of males fighting for a mate, whether early (and later) humans, or other animals. This would seem to be evolutionary nonsense, since by fighting you risk losing your life and not being able to pass on your genes. But at root, it is the heart of evolution: survival of the fittest.

I don't disagree with this. The evolutionary imperative is a sneaky one.

I think of masculine and feminine as archetypes, abstract ideals that are never completely embodied by real humans, much like introversion and extraversion, or any other dichotomous pair of traits. As such, they are not tied to any specific person or group. Someone who demonstrates traits more commonly associated with the feminine archetype would simply be considered more feminine than masculine, just as we might consider someone more extraverted, or more rational, or more empathetic. In reality, every person will exhibit some traits or preferences from each archetype. How useful it is to think of human qualities in this manner is open to debate.

To an extent I agree. It's almost the anima/animus concept. However what is the history of those traits? I mean it's safe to assume that these traits might have been exaggerated over time by self-conscious (though not self aware) people, seeing how they don't match up to an idealised standard, which of course goes hand in hand with human ability to misrepresent reality to a brilliant degree.

I'm not an anthropologist so I haven't done the work with regards to researching older civilisations and cultures and what roles they play, but the concepts of these traits are not just modern imaginings. There are reasons people hold those concepts in the first place and reasons they have persisted.

What those reasons are I'm not clear on so I'm not going to make any assumption of it being inherent or some patriarchal shift. But it's worth asking.

It is easy to identify biological differences between people, whether sex-based or otherwise. It is much more difficult to extrapolate from that any kind of reliable conclusions about how said people will act. It is even more unreasonable to use such distinctions as a basis for how people should act.

I think I miscommunicated here. What I meant was examining in individual detail the biology of a person. So their specific variations on the human template that can be used to determine what might cause a certain behavioural outcomes. Not really about gender unless a gender specific hormone or some such plays an important role.

But this is so intricate that it isn't practical, though I wasn't trying to imply that blind generalising is the alternative.

I think most may actually fall in the middle of masculine and feminine traits, maybe allowing for a leaning of women towards feminine and men towards masculine.

Although then there is a problem of defining those traits. Maybe they shouldn't be called masculine or feminine at all?

I'm mindful of people as people. When I deal with people I can't remember making a decision that had the basis of "well he's a man so... or she's a woman therefore...." and oddly enough my environment didn't really teach me anything about this beyond what I could observe. I can't claim freedom from bias though, only attempt to stay aware.

But if there is a pattern of averages to identify, is that wrong as long as you are mindful of the exceptions and don't slip into extreme stereotyped nonsense?

 

[Coriolis]

But this is so intricate that it isn't practical, though I wasn't trying to imply that blind generalising is the alternative.

I think most may actually fall in the middle of masculine and feminine traits, maybe allowing for a leaning of women towards feminine and men towards masculine.

Although then there is a problem of defining those traits. Maybe they shouldn't be called masculine or feminine at all?

I'm mindful of people as people. When I deal with people I can't remember making a decision that had the basis of "well he's a man so... or she's a woman therefore...." and oddly enough my environment didn't really teach me anything about this beyond what I could observe. I can't claim freedom from bias though, only attempt to stay aware.

But if there is a pattern of averages to identify, is that wrong as long as you are mindful of the exceptions and don't slip into extreme stereotyped nonsense?

I agree with most of this, especially the highlighted. But our biases don't always manifest as conscious, deliberate decisions, and that is a big part of the problem. They subconsciously influence even our small, everyday actions and choices. I am one of the strongest supporters of gender equity I know, and I still catch myself exhibiting gender bias. As you say, all we can do is remain aware.

You raise a valid point about the pattern of averages. After all, we go through each day making assumptions about the people we see. The guy with a red shirt and a name tag is a store employee, so he knows where the pickles are; the elderly lady with a cane might appreciate a seat on the bus. Sure, we could be wrong, but we let ourselves be guided by these assumptions. I try, then, to estimate the odds that an assumption is actually valid. E.g. how many old ladies using a cane would refuse an offered seat? For me, though, this is where gender-based assumptions (and those based on race, religion, ethnic group, sexual orientation, etc.) fall short. There are simply too many exceptions. I do, therefore, try to proceed without assuming. If necessary, I will ask.

Remember, too, that these "patterns of averages" can be used against us. Just look at how terrorist groups are using more and more women and children to carry out suicide bombings and other acts of violence. The assumptions we all make give them the break they need to carry out these acts. Assuming, then, can do much worse than make an ass out of either of us.