 |
| |
|
|
Zylka
|
|
That is a concept we are expected to accept in a University course I'm currently taking. The course is an Urban Studies requirement called "The Gendered City"; with fairly general status - more or less regarded as a second year class.
We first went over the lesser assertion that "Gender does not equal Sex". I imagine near anyone is able to accept such idea by dividing the two terms into independent definitions:
Gender - Set(s) of roles and symbolic imagery attributed to each sex
Sex - Biological physicality defining a human as Man or Woman
Ie.) for Sex - in defining the term on the most visible scale (duality of Man and Woman)
Male:
-Penis & Testes. Lack of (feeding capable) breasts
-Reproduces genes by insemination
-[More] Testosterone; and all physical attributes associated with the chemical (Larger, higher muscle mass, squarer chin and leaner face, [More] bodily and facial hair, etc.)
Female:
-Vagina, Ovaries & Uterus. (Feeding capable) breasts
-Reproduces genes by facilitating birth
-[More] Estrogen; and all physical attributes associated with the chemical (Smaller, higher proportion of fat mass, more rounded, softer face, [Less] bodily and facial hair, etc.)
Ie.) for Gender - in defining the term on scale of what has been widely accepted in the past and/or present as a gender trait
Man:
The Color Blue
Breadwinners
Hunters
Aggressive
Woman:
The Color Pink
Mothers
Nurturers
Passive / Gentle
[...]
Regarding both those lists, most will likely agree that the definition of Gender is full of polarized traits that are much more random and arbitrarily defined than the traits in Sex. Most would just as likely degree that the traits in gender differ in that they are interchangeable. Yet getting back to the title quote of this thread.. Our Proffessor seems to hope that our class comes to "realization" that those traits (and others) under Gender, have NO binding, route, or exaggerative form of any trait that can be found in Sex.
Knowing there was a similar thread a while back discussing Gender vs. Sex, it would still be wonderful to refresh and explore new ideas regarding the problematic definition. To explore such in a challenging way, it would obviously be great to hear from minds like Che, St. Leo, and Zkribbler. Hopefully there are others out there who can shed light on perspectives that lean in similar fashion.
In my own, off top of the head example for class challenging her assertion - I pointed out cosmetic leg shaving as a Gender trait which exaggerates the Sex based feminine form of [less] body hair.
Though with that, and with tons of like examples from the class - the Proffessor had gone on to say that such traits are "so interchangeable" and dynamic (ie - it can and may be applied as male Gender trait in the future); that Gender and Sex therefore still have nothing to do with each other. "The female/male roles and gender imagery we know today are completely random and arbitrarily arrived definitions, as far as Sex is concerned"
Do you agree? What is this teacher aiming at? Her definition of both Sex and Gender seem not to differentiate from that described above. So how do you, yourself, perceive the notion?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I look forward to male mothers!
go arnold go
JM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Verto
Where's my soft-core porn? |
Off topic. Entirely.
Please, for the love of God please, let me shed my responsibilities in LLLLLLLLOOOOOOlllLLLmmmmmmmmmaaaoRRFF threads to be part of something shock free. At least every once in a while.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
basically, I think she is somewhat correct (like blue for example)
and somewhat wrong (like mothers for example)
in otherwords, I think our sex (physics characteristics) impacts our behaviors, but maybe not in all areas (some being contructs)
as for which is which, besides some obvious ones, I don't know
JM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
some people view
man:
physicist
which makes some women (Admitly weird) feel like they are wrongly gendered, or something
JM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:37
|
|
Gender is a social role, yes. Consider that in different cultures around the world, men and women have differing characteristics. For example, in Iran, men are considered the ones who let their emotions all hang out, while women are considered cold emotionally. Men read poetry while women take care fo family finances, etc.
Of course, some things are near universal. Men still are the bread winners, women still take care of children. The only society where this was an exception was in the Trobriand Isles, if Margret Mead is to be believed, and some accuse her of fudging her data. While there is some movement towards role swapping (men staying home, women bringing home the bacon) in Western socioety, it is by far the exception, and not the norm.
Now, I don't think it's wrong to have genders or even to have expected roles in society based on sex differences. What is wrong is coercing people into behaving according to them and punishing those who act differently.
Sexism and homophobia are both aspects of this, two parts of a larger heterosexism. Those who don't play their roles are punished to greater or lesser degrees. While in terms of nuturing and breadwining, it's mostly pyschological, with people made to feel as though they are lesser men or women for not chosing a particular role, for homosexuals it can be deadly. Nor was it that long ago that women in Western society who refused to conform were "allowed" to be raped in order to put them back in their places.
Remember what it was like when we were children. A boy marked as a "sissy" was not only subject to social ostracization, but was also an acceptable target for violence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
basically, I think she is somewhat correct (like blue for example)
and somewhat wrong (like mothers for example)
in otherwords, I think our sex (physics characteristics) impacts our behaviors, but maybe not in all areas (some being contructs)
as for which is which, besides some obvious ones, I don't know
JM |
Absolutely Jon.. but what she's actually asserting (in example) - is that Women putting on lipstick is an accepted Gender trait on a completely random basis. That the initial development of the practise had no connection to sexual traits or imagery whatsoever.
I would personally argue (as I've been taught from various Discovery channel / National Geographic Health programs on the sexes) - that the practise of lipsticking is a means of getting attention via sexual association.
More definitively, that lipsticking came about in subtle, perhaps subconscious symbolization of the fuller, more deeply colored female genetalia when aroused.
I also argue that while Blue for boys is indeed a fairly random and non connected Gender trait, that Pink for girls has sexual connotations just as vivid as the aforementioned. Am I really that much of a G-D pervert, or does this kind of stuff actually have bearing in reality for anyone else???
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I think that there is large bits that are sexual imagery..
but might sexual imagery change, dependent on the society? (in a society where few men see female genetalia for example)
JM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
I have always leaned toward nurture. As the father of a little girl, who is a toddler, I have had a few "surprises."
For example, my wife loathes pink. She is petite, her mom tried to incessantly dress her in pink, she was cute (another term she loathes - though she is  ), etc. We have/had very little pink in the house. My little girl loves pink. Go figure.
Then I was determined that I would avoid the traditional "mothering" roles. Grandmother gets her a babydoll for her second birthday when I had thought she was getting her one of those American Girl dolls (historical dolls with some good role modeling). I negotiate, and we end up holding the baby doll in reserve until she's a little older, avoiding the conflict for the time being.
Well, when our little girl started putting diapers on her teddy bear, I gave up on that one too. Now admittedly some of this is imitative behavior, and she loves to help daddy work on his computers also. But I am beginning to suspect there are some strong biological tendencies, and I will simply go with the flow as she grows into her own person.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by shawnmmcc
I have always leaned toward nurture. As the father of a little girl, who is a toddler, I have had a few "surprises."
For example, my wife loathes pink. She is petite, her mom tried to incessantly dress her in pink, she was cute (another term she loathes - though she is ), etc. We have/had very little pink in the house. My little girl loves pink. Go figure.
Then I was determined that I would avoid the traditional "mothering" roles. Grandmother gets her a babydoll for her second birthday when I had thought she was getting her one of those American Girl dolls (historical dolls with some good role modeling). I negotiate, and we end up holding the baby doll in reserve until she's a little older, avoiding the conflict for the time being.
Well, when our little girl started putting diapers on her teddy bear, I gave up on that one too. Now admittedly some of this is imitative behavior, and she loves to help daddy work on his computers also. But I am beginning to suspect there are some strong biological tendencies, and I will simply go with the flow as she grows into her own person. |
A lot of this is just modelling what she sees -- and little kids are sponges. When my daughter was younger, my wife and I were both teachers, and occasionally brought her with us to class. Not coincidently, my daughter spent much of her alone-time "lecturing" invisible students, spouting nonsense but in the cadences of my and my wife's teaching styles. (Of course, we may have been spouting nonsense, too.)
The other weird thing is that my wife eschews all things girlie, and I tend to eschew all things manly (except poker and a good cigar), and yet two of the things my daughter most loved most to wear at age 5 were her ballet tutu and her handyman toolbelt (not, thankfully, together).  
It's a complex stew, that's for sure.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wernazuma III
|
 |
Decolonize!
Aug 2000
time: 06:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Gender is a social role, yes. Consider that in different cultures around the world, men and women have differing characteristics. For example, in Iran, men are considered the ones who let their emotions all hang out, while women are considered cold emotionally. Men read poetry while women take care fo family finances, etc.
Of course, some things are near universal. Men still are the bread winners, women still take care of children. The only society where this was an exception was in the Trobriand Isles, if Margret Mead is to be believed, and some accuse her of fudging her data. While there is some movement towards role swapping (men staying home, women bringing home the bacon) in Western socioety, it is by far the exception, and not the norm.
Now, I don't think it's wrong to have genders or even to have expected roles in society based on sex differences. What is wrong is coercing people into behaving according to them and punishing those who act differently.
Sexism and homophobia are both aspects of this, two parts of a larger heterosexism. Those who don't play their roles are punished to greater or lesser degrees. While in terms of nuturing and breadwining, it's mostly pyschological, with people made to feel as though they are lesser men or women for not chosing a particular role, for homosexuals it can be deadly. Nor was it that long ago that women in Western society who refused to conform were "allowed" to be raped in order to put them back in their places.
Remember what it was like when we were children. A boy marked as a "sissy" was not only subject to social ostracization, but was also an acceptable target for violence. |
 Very good post that sums up pretty much what I think, though I'd go further and claim that Mead DID fudge her data or use at least unreliable methods to obtain expected data.
On the original post, consider the aspect of "hunter", maybe add "warrior". It's just silly to believe that this is completely unrelated to sex. Of course, hunters and warriors in a society will generally be selected by physical capacities and men as a group compared to women seem to fit.
It would also be silly to believe that these aspects hadn't been in a second step highly gendered by simply excluding women from the tasks, by creating gendered rites aroung hunting and war etc.
It also seems natural to me that women tend to be nurturers when they carry a baby 9 months with them while the man might just be anywhere. How would such a reality not lead to a gendering of "motherhood"- however this may be defined in the respective societies.
The problem is rather to alledge, then, motherhood is the natural spot for women in this world (as ordered by God), and that women seeking a career have to be put back in their place (Hello Heresson, or wass it BK?). Or that men who take the main part of taking care for their families are labeled as losers.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-09-2005 08:49
|