User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 124

  1. #31
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    My opinion is that guys who don't hunt could'nt find their food in the stone age and that women could'nt do that job, so, they would cook, and a woman who is terrible to cook would be rejected by the tribe. In the modern world, women can be terrible at cook without too much consequence, because their mate don't have to hunt for eat, so they can accept a deal like "you will go to shopping and I will cook", women being globally easily able to do shopping as well as men, but less easily to hunt as well as men. So, people can devy from traditional gender norms, because it is allowed by civilisation (ie, not natural), but if we would return to the stone age, the natural gender norms would get over it again. Actually, deviation from genders are based on civilisation and are social constructs, that does'nt mean it is necessarly a wrong thing, of course, but it is foolish to say that "gendesr are social constructs", genders exist by nature.
    This is so simplistic it almost makes me want to laugh. Women in tribes didn't only cook and wouldn't be rejected for bad cooking - seeing as that they could also be basket weavers, pottery makers, artists, medicine women, et al. Sometimes women were chosen simply for their beauty, others for more practical purposes, and still others were upheld by the tribe as "seers" and "mystics" who often did not marry or bear children.

    In agrarian societies women often worked with their husbands running businesses from home, or did farm labor.

    The idea of women being useless beyond childrearing and cooking or light housework is nothing more than a monstrosity of the late 19th and early-to-mid 20th century middle class.

    Women of the aristocracy for centuries back didn't even care for their own children, usually, and never cooked since they hired people to do that. They were educated to read, write, paint, play music, dance, et al. even though they did not work.


    We're not going to go back to "the stone age" because we aren't Neanderthals anymore, and I believe we've genetically evolved past that point, not just socially. It's absurd to say that humans are reduced to this simplistic roles because we have advanced cerebral development.

    Jesus fuck what is wrong with you people.

  2. #32
    Junior Member ahr2nd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INFX
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Genetics play a larger part in dictating behavior than most people would like to acknowledge - but - genetic predisposition is only a specious justification at best. Studies have shown that some people are genetically predisposed to thinking irrationally - the deeply religious, for instance - but that doesn't mean we should embrace irrationality. Evolutionary biologists have suggested that the head the male human penis is shaped in such a way that it allows one to more efficiently extract and expel semen already existing in the vaginal canal. Do we really need this protective measure anymore, though? Maybe thousands of years ago, but certainly not in the 21st century. The same can be said of a lot of "gender-specific traits."
    In the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.

  3. #33
    Diving into Ni-space Crescent Fresh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    807

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    This is so simplistic it almost makes me want to laugh. Women in tribes didn't only cook and wouldn't be rejected for bad cooking - seeing as that they could also be basket weavers, pottery makers, artists, medicine women, et al. Sometimes women were chosen simply for their beauty, others for more practical purposes, and still others were upheld by the tribe as "seers" and "mystics" who often did not marry or bear children.

    In agrarian societies women often worked with their husbands running businesses from home, or did farm labor.

    The idea of women being useless beyond childrearing and cooking or light housework is nothing more than a monstrosity of the late 19th and early-to-mid 20th century middle class.

    Women of the aristocracy for centuries back didn't even care for their own children, usually, and never cooked since they hired people to do that. They were educated to read, write, paint, play music, dance, et al. even though they did not work.


    We're not going to go back to "the stone age" because we aren't Neanderthals anymore, and I believe we've genetically evolved past that point, not just socially. It's absurd to say that humans are reduced to this simplistic roles because we have advanced cerebral development.

    Jesus fuck what is wrong with you people.

    +3.

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    We're not going to go back to "the stone age" because we aren't Neanderthals anymore,
    Exactly. The division of labor based on physical strength and aggressiveness made sense at one point. But these traits provide little or no advantage in most modern high value occupations. It is inefficient to assign roles by gender rather than by ability and desire.

  5. #35
    Certified Sausage Smoker Elfboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLI None
    Posts
    9,635

    Default

    We're not going to go back to "the stone age" because we aren't Neanderthals anymore, and I believe we've genetically evolved past that point, not just socially. It's absurd to say that humans are reduced to this simplistic roles because we have advanced cerebral development.
    actually, neanderthals are said to have been matriarchal societies in which the dominant female used sex to control the male tribe members and prevent infanticide (because they wouldn't be able to tell if it was there child), much like bonobos. it is homo sapiens sapiens that is designed by nature to have a patriarchal family structure. in fact, some scientists believe that rape and incest would have been virtually non existant in neanderthal societies. on top of this, neanderthal men are said to have communicated via song, with powerful soprano voices like women and some scientists believe that a large percentage of neanderthal males were homosexual. on top of all this, neanderthal sites have been found with buried dead, adorned graves, and even meticulously crafted artwork. they even had superior stone tools that were sharper, wasted less rock and better shaped to the palm of the hand than their Cro-Magnon contemporaries.
    PS: I know this is 90% off topic, but the point I'm trying to illustrate is that neanderthals were not the macho, misogynistic, dim witted thugs we so frequently make them out to be.
    ENFP: We put the Fi in Fire
    ENFP
    5w4>1w9>2w1 Sx/Sp
    SEE-Fi
    Papa Bear
    Motivation: Dark Worker
    Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
    Chibi Seme
    MTG Color: black/red
    Male Archtype: King/Lover
    Sunburst!
    "You are a gay version of Gambit" Speed Gavroche
    "I wish that I could be affected by any hate, but I can't, cuz I just get affected by the bank" Chamillionaire

  6. #36
    Let me count the ways Betty Blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7W6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    4,797

    Default

    I pretty much echo what Marm and CzeCze have been saying. Modern societies have deemed what it is to be a woman or man and seperated them almost to the point of being different species. This is obviously not the case and i believe for the intelligent is is more obvious. Patriarchal societies want to keep it this way as it is of great benefit to the system, it certainly compliments capitalism and conservatism.
    There are plenty of examples throughout history of women rulers, and women being heads of family although as i understand it the term matriarchy is disputed.
    As a side note i'd like to mention that not all men are muscular Adonnis's and many women are naturally really quite muscular, there are plenty of men at my gym who are very thin and feel they have to build up their muscles to be part of the genetic social construct. It's all crap really. I'm only little and can lift heavier weights than men my size (or weight) because i naturally have better muscle tone and strength in general.
    If all men and women exercised in order to gain muscle tone i think you'd see much less of a division between the two physically in terms of how the body looks.
    (excepting obvious sexual organs of course)
    Last edited by Betty Blue; 05-05-2011 at 03:02 AM. Reason: clarity
    "We knew he was someone who had a tragic flaw, that's where his greatness came from"

  7. #37
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Yes, gender is most certainly a social construct. Like CzeCze said, sex is a difference in genitalia. Gender is the extra, unnecessary bullshit that rides on our dicks and pussies. It really fucks us over.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  8. #38
    The Eighth Colour Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    Aeon
    Enneagram
    10w so
    Socionics
    LOL
    Posts
    1,366

    Default

    The concept of gender refers to classes or sets. So MBTI types or Keirsey temperaments are forms of gender. It goes without saying that generalisations about behaviour are social constructs. But being socially constructed does not mean there is no underlying basis.
    But the real question is how useful are these behavioural generalisations? In terms of sensitivity and specificity?

  9. #39
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Architectonic View Post
    The concept of gender refers to classes or sets. So MBTI types or Keirsey temperaments are forms of gender. It goes without saying that generalisations about behaviour are social constructs. But being socially constructed does not mean there is no underlying basis.
    But the real question is how useful are these behavioural generalisations? In terms of sensitivity and specificity?
    Yeah, that gets closer to the heart of things, to me.

    Sometimes it seems like we feel compelled to make this gender distinction when it is unnecessary or irrelevant to do so.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  10. #40
    Whisky Old & Women Young Speed Gavroche's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    EsTP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx/sp
    Posts
    5,143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    This is so simplistic it almost makes me want to laugh. Women in tribes didn't only cook and wouldn't be rejected for bad cooking - seeing as that they could also be basket weavers, pottery makers, artists, medicine women, et al. Sometimes women were chosen simply for their beauty, others for more practical purposes, and still others were upheld by the tribe as "seers" and "mystics" who often did not marry or bear children.
    So what? everything you say about women here is related to their gender.

    In agrarian societies women often worked with their husbands running businesses from home, or did farm labor.
    Yes. Women often assist their husband in buisness. It is rarer than men assist their wife.

    The idea of women being useless beyond childrearing and cooking or light housework is nothing more than a monstrosity of the late 19th and early-to-mid 20th century middle class.
    I don't want to defend that opinion. But it seems an to be an exageration. The most part of the time, all have been said is that someone must do this, and someone must work, and that specialisation and division of tasks between gender is the most efficient thing.

    Women of the aristocracy for centuries back didn't even care for their own children, usually, and never cooked since they hired people to do that. They were educated to read, write, paint, play music, dance, et al. even though they did not work.
    Yes, aristocracy allowed women to devy from gender. But what is aristocracy? A social construct.

    We're not going to go back to "the stone age" because we aren't Neanderthals anymore, and I believe we've genetically evolved past that point,
    not just socially. It's absurd to say that humans are reduced to this simplistic roles because we have advanced cerebral development.
    I did'nt talk about Neandertahls but about us, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, about our ancestors 20 000 years ago. And nothing separate them from us except minors genetic evolutions. The rest is essentially cosmetic. Minor cerebral developments don't matter either. An inteligent man still be a man, an inteligent woman still be a woman.
    EsTP 6w7 Sx/Sp

    Chaotic Neutral

    E=60% S=55% T=70% P=80%

    "I don't believe in guilt, I only believe in living on impulses"

    "Stereotypes about personality and gender turn out to be fairly accurate: ... On the binary Myers-Briggs measure, the thinking-feeling breakdown is about 30/70 for women versus 60/40 for men." ~ Bryan Caplan

Similar Threads

  1. Squirtle is an intuitive just eater of keys.
    By TruthDestroyFFMew479 in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-21-2016, 07:19 PM
  2. Gender: Social Constructs in the Animal Kingdom?
    By Cloudpatrol in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 06-20-2016, 06:41 AM
  3. [ESFJ] ESFJs and social constructs
    By Annaifiwas in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-02-2016, 06:54 PM
  4. Species-ism is a social construction.
    By jixmixfix in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-26-2016, 06:23 PM
  5. The Ultimatum: Race as social construct
    By great_bay in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 01-26-2016, 05:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO