Woman and man's highest calling- Cherokee proverb

[Pseudo]

Remember that important word that you missed a while back? 'Tends'? Remember how it took a sentence that wasn't true, and made it true?
This is another place where we need to use that word.


Tendency. That important word 'tends'.



See why bivalence is a problem? Something can't 'tend' to be when you have a bivalent structure. It leads to black and white thinking.

the problem is that you are overlooking the fact that "tends" is the point we are debating. We are arguing over whether it is appropriate to have a system that says "women do X, and men do Y". I have not problem with the idea that "women tend to do X, and men tend to do Y". But that's not the point we are arguing over. You should be talking to jontherobot about including "Tends".

I think we discussed before that my thinking is not black and white (and how "tends" can exist in a bivalent structure), I just don't like the acceptance of generalizations as fact because it tends to lead to the problems we are discussing now.

 

[WALMART]

Your saying that being a woman in a woman's body makes that person more aware of things relating to women? (and of course the same for males)
I'd agree with that but that seems more like a "nurture" type of situation where multiple women could have multiple responses based on differences between their bodies. i.e taller women, weaker women, blind women ect. So I would think it would still be inappropriate to expect them to experience their gender the same way.

Perhaps, I am simply stating that even a woman in a woman's body and man in a man's body under near identical circumstances will likely have some statistical difference on preference of situations and things of the like.

But maybe not. I'm mostly using my intuition, which is notoriously misleading with statistics.

 

[sprinkles]

the problem is that you are overlooking the fact that "tends" is the point we are debating. We are arguing over whether it is appropriate to have a system that says "women do X, and men do Y". I have not problem with the idea that "women tend to do X, and men tend to do Y". But that's not the point we are arguing over. You should be talking to jontherobot about including "Tends".

I think we discussed before that my thinking is not black and white (and how "tends" can exist in a bivalent structure), I just don't like the acceptance of generalizations as fact because it tends to lead to the problems we are discussing now.

Ok.
I must have misunderstood what you were saying. I was responding to your post:

Which are? If we use MBTI terminology the idea that the genders are hardwired for certain psychological traits means that we wouldn't see an overlap in personality types across gender.

To me, stating that there wouldn't be an overlap is stating that "women do x and men do y" and I was saying why that doesn't have to be the case. The only reason there couldn't be overlap is if things were strictly defined. i.e. what you're hardwired for is what you get and nothing else.

But there can be overlap because that isn't the case.

So I guess you were saying something else with that but there was a misunderstanding.

 

[Coriolis]

The main area we were having trouble reconciling was to what extent you give choice. I would paint a boys walls blue, but probably not pink, (unless he asked, I'm assuming all of these situations as very young children). I would paint a girl's walls probably a more 'girly' color, blue would work but maybe my wife is fond of yellow? I don't know. What toys do you buy them? Do you buy boys GI Joes and females Barbies before they even have the capability to 'choose', or is that prescribing them to what society says they should play with?

My friend I was talking with (female) said it's unfair girls don't get to play with Lego's. She said her parents never bought them for her. I asked her if she ever asked for them.... she hadn't. Did society fail her, or was it not in her natural inclination to play with Lego's? Who knows?

It's all very complex, IMO, and I have only recently begun to think about it.

Thinking about it is more than many people do; they just follow their own upbringing, or what their friends are doing, or what popular culture promotes, without thinking.

In order to make a real choice, one must be aware of options, and free of constraints. In your example, it is unlikely a girl will ask for legos if she is not familiar with them, and/or if she thinks her parents will disapprove. For example, if she always hears her parents, teachers, etc. refer to legos as "for boys". My choice would be to avoid the "loaded colors" blue and pink. Many of my cousins have had children, and I always look for clothing gifts in bright colors (red, green, royal blue), or earth tones (brown, rust). Many infant toys now feature bright primary colors which catch the attention of babies more readily than the pastels of yesteryear. I don't send anyone Barbies or Gi Joes, but send everyone legos, blocks, trucks, toy pots and pans, balls, puzzles, games, etc. and of course, books. There are too many great toys on the market (and clothes, and home decor and . . . ) to be limited by those old standbys. Girls and boys can eventually ask for Barbie and GI Joe, or anything else, as they make friends, go to school/daycare, and become aware of other options.

 

[WALMART]

Thinking about it is more than many people do; they just follow their own upbringing, or what their friends are doing, or what popular culture promotes, without thinking.

In order to make a real choice, one must be aware of options, and free of constraints. In your example, it is unlikely a girl will ask for legos if she is not familiar with them, and/or if she thinks her parents will disapprove. For example, if she always hears her parents, teachers, etc. refer to legos as "for boys". My choice would be to avoid the "loaded colors" blue and pink. Many of my cousins have had children, and I always look for clothing gifts in bright colors (red, green, royal blue), or earth tones (brown, rust). Many infant toys now feature bright primary colors which catch the attention of babies more readily than the pastels of yesteryear. I don't send anyone Barbies or Gi Joes, but send everyone legos, blocks, trucks, toy pots and pans, balls, puzzles, games, etc. and of course, books. There are too many great toys on the market (and clothes, and home decor and . . . ) to be limited by those old standbys. Girls and boys can eventually ask for Barbie and GI Joe, or anything else, as they make friends, go to school/daycare, and become aware of other options.

Hm, very interesting. I'm a far way off from having kids, but I feel when I get there I'll do a decent job of doing the things you speak of.

 

[sprinkles]

Perhaps, I am simply stating that even a woman in a woman's body and man in a man's body under near identical circumstances will likely have some statistical difference on preference of situations and things of the like.

But maybe not. I'm mostly using my intuition, which is notoriously misleading with statistics.

It might be more clear if you expound on the meaning of 'statistical difference'

I'm pretty sure I'm getting it, it seems to imply an inferred trend and not an absolute, but this seems to be getting skipped over.

 

[WALMART]

It might be more clear if you expound on the meaning of 'statistical difference'

I'm pretty sure I'm getting it, it seems to imply an inferred trend and not an absolute, but this seems to be getting skipped over.

Hmm, inferred trend. That would likely be a good way to put it, I don't know if I could do better, to be honest.

 

[sprinkles]

Hmm, inferred trend. That would likely be a good way to put it, I don't know if I could do better, to be honest.

Yeah so basically "It tends to go this way based on collective data, but there are borderline cases, and cases that go the other way as well."


As an aside, an interesting thing I noticed with gender neutrality proponents is when they suggest avoiding stigmatized gender symbols - such as pink, or G.I. Joe toys.

I do not see this as fair or actually neutral. Yes, it eliminates the stigmas, at the cost of forced homogeneity.

Of course there will be neutrality if we strip out all the contentious items. I'm not arguing that it isn't effective. But if we want to see true tendencies we must allow all options, including the stigmatized ones, and more importantly not judge them nor teach the child to judge them. It's only then that we could see, scientifically, if girls actually do tend to like pink.

*my take is that most people would probably like pink anyway

 

[Pseudo]

Ok.
I must have misunderstood what you were saying. I was responding to your post:


To me, stating that there wouldn't be an overlap is stating that "women do x and men do y" and I was saying why that doesn't have to be the case. The only reason there couldn't be overlap is if things were strictly defined. i.e. what you're hardwired for is what you get and nothing else.

But there can be overlap because that isn't the case.

So I guess you were saying something else with that but there was a misunderstanding.

Yeah on this post I was stating what I thought jontherobots position was. I could have been clearer about that. Mea culpa!

 

[Pseudo]

Yeah so basically "It tends to go this way based on collective data, but there are borderline cases, and cases that go the other way as well."


As an aside, an interesting thing I noticed with gender neutrality proponents is when they suggest avoiding stigmatized gender symbols - such as pink, or G.I. Joe toys.

I do not see this as fair or actually neutral. Yes, it eliminates the stigmas, at the cost of forced homogeneity.

Of course there will be neutrality if we strip out all the contentious items. I'm not arguing that it isn't effective. But if we want to see true tendencies we must allow all options, including the stigmatized ones, and more importantly not judge them nor teach the child to judge them. It's only then that we could see, scientifically, if girls actually do tend to like pink.

*my take is that most people would probably like pink anyway

Check this out. Article is very interesting an pictures are great. http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2009/12/11/pink-and-blue-project/

 

[Coriolis]

As an aside, an interesting thing I noticed with gender neutrality proponents is when they suggest avoiding stigmatized gender symbols - such as pink, or G.I. Joe toys.

I do not see this as fair or actually neutral. Yes, it eliminates the stigmas, at the cost of forced homogeneity.

Of course there will be neutrality if we strip out all the contentious items. I'm not arguing that it isn't effective. But if we want to see true tendencies we must allow all options, including the stigmatized ones, and more importantly not judge them nor teach the child to judge them. It's only then that we could see, scientifically, if girls actually do tend to like pink.

Sometimes avoidance of the "stigmatized items" is more to avoid eliciting normative expressions from the adults around than curtailing the choices of children.

In any case, it is more effective to provide more open-ended alternatives than to ban the stereotypical ones. When kids really do have a variety of options, and can make unconstrained choices among them, they can surprise us. Then, if a girl chooses barbies and a boy chooses trucks, it more likely reflects their real desires.

 

[RaptorWizard]

WTF!!?? This thread was started what, like 2 days ago and it already has 56 pages!

 

[greenfairy]

The people who are dismissing this are doing so because in modern society, many (most?) of us see no benefit in generalizing gender roles or stereotypes. We prefer to maintain equality of opportunity, and let each person make of him/herself what he/she may.

I agree with this; however I see no reason why thinking of genders as generally different and therefore special should translate into any kind of limiting action for anyone. I will celebrate both the masculine and feminine characteristics I see in men I like, and I tend to be attracted to more masculine men. But I don't expect anything from them based on it. How people express their characteristics is their choice. I'd like a guy to physically protect me to the extent he is able, and I will protect him to the extent that I am able. It means we care about each other's safety. It's just usually the case that he can do a better job of it physically than I can. And in return I make him feel secure and good about himself, because I appreciate him.

Personal experience again. But so you know I'm not some old fashioned person who thinks men should support women and pay for their food and hold the door open and stuff and I should be home cooking.

 

[greenfairy]

I'm all for the imagination, after all, poetry, literature, movies, art, sculpture, graffiti, dance and religion are based in imagination, just as tree sprites find their home in our imagination, and all we have to do is suspend our disbelief.

 

[greenfairy]

I think some people resist the idea of gender wide norms when they don't really fit into them. I'm a not a very good at nurturing or in tune with emotion and it's hard when I'm presented with these types of ideas because I don't think I should have to feel less womanly for not fitting into someone's romantic notion of gender compliments. If you express and dissent with these idea your are typically called a feminazi, a lesbian, or accused of being in denial.

Yeah, and that's a fair point. I'm not really the feminine stereotype either. I've had to learn how to be emotionally nurturing. (Now I can do it with intimate partners, but with random people I'm still pretty bad at it.)

 

[greenfairy]

Which are? If we use MBTI terminology the idea that the genders are hardwired for certain psychological traits means that we wouldn't see an overlap in personality types across gender.

No, but there is are slight trends in which there are more female: extroverts, sensors, feelers, and judgers according to this website:
http://mrob.com/pub/MBTI-16.html

Unless I'm reading it incorrectly, which is highly possible as it's kind of confusing.

 

[greenfairy]

My choice would be to avoid the "loaded colors" blue and pink. Many of my cousins have had children, and I always look for clothing gifts in bright colors (red, green, royal blue), or earth tones (brown, rust). Many infant toys now feature bright primary colors which catch the attention of babies more readily than the pastels of yesteryear. I don't send anyone Barbies or Gi Joes, but send everyone legos, blocks, trucks, toy pots and pans, balls, puzzles, games, etc. and of course, books. There are too many great toys on the market (and clothes, and home decor and . . . ) to be limited by those old standbys. Girls and boys can eventually ask for Barbie and GI Joe, or anything else, as they make friends, go to school/daycare, and become aware of other options.

This would also be my choice. I was given these toys when I was young, as well as toys for both genders. I had some model dinosaurs I loved. I played with puzzles all the time, and enjoyed playing with Legos with my (female) cousin

 

[greenfairy]

Yeah so basically "It tends to go this way based on collective data, but there are borderline cases, and cases that go the other way as well."


As an aside, an interesting thing I noticed with gender neutrality proponents is when they suggest avoiding stigmatized gender symbols - such as pink, or G.I. Joe toys.

I do not see this as fair or actually neutral. Yes, it eliminates the stigmas, at the cost of forced homogeneity.

Of course there will be neutrality if we strip out all the contentious items. I'm not arguing that it isn't effective. But if we want to see true tendencies we must allow all options, including the stigmatized ones, and more importantly not judge them nor teach the child to judge them. It's only then that we could see, scientifically, if girls actually do tend to like pink.

*my take is that most people would probably like pink anyway

Actually, up until the middle of this century (or at least very recently if I am mistaken), the colors were reversed. Blue was for girls and pink was for boys. I can't find the link right now, but it was in a good one about gender myths.

Edit:

Check this out. Article is very interesting an pictures are great. http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2009/12/11/pink-and-blue-project/

Yeah. I got it from a different link, but this gives some info.

 

[Coriolis]

I agree with this; however I see no reason why thinking of genders as generally different and therefore special should translate into any kind of limiting action for anyone. I will celebrate both the masculine and feminine characteristics I see in men I like, and I tend to be attracted to more masculine men. But I don't expect anything from them based on it. How people express their characteristics is their choice. I'd like a guy to physically protect me to the extent he is able, and I will protect him to the extent that I am able. It means we care about each other's safety. It's just usually the case that he can do a better job of it physically than I can. And in return I make him feel secure and good about himself, because I appreciate him.

I see no reason why the individual ways people appreciate gender must translate into limitations, but unfortunately, many people do. How they see gender becomes how everyone else should see it, or at least how they should act on it. The second bolded comment above makes the most sense: each person in a relationship cares about the other in the ways they do best, and the ways that are necessary.

Yeah, and that's a fair point. I'm not really the feminine stereotype either. I've had to learn how to be emotionally nurturing. (Now I can do it with intimate partners, but with random people I'm still pretty bad at it.)

"Had to" learn? Better for you simply to want to learn. Otherwise it's just bowing to external expectations again, whether or not they make sense for you.

 

[WhoCares]

While the original quote is sweet init's own way it's too loaded with gender identity to be relevant to me. Men our souless without women and women are in constant fear of their safety...? I'm sure in the context of it's day it would have been a perfectly apt quote.

I prefer to think of people as just people. Souls don't have genders only physical bodies do. We express that which is important to our souls regardless of what form our bodies have taken. I choose other souls that I feel connected to. I find it difficult to align myself with any form of spirituality that divides the universe into so-called masculine and feminine energies\roles\genders etc. I believe strongly in an androgynous universe.