Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 39

Author Topic: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles  (Read 56327 times)

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles
« Reply #15 on: July 23, 2014, 09:02:18 pm »

Gender roles have nothing to do with "acting upon" or whatever, but instead developed because males are generally better suited to physical activity. I have no idea why people disregard this, or say it is false.

I was also concerned when LordBucket appeared to confuse chemistry with biology.

Lord Bucket is basically saying that instead of seeing "roles" in male and female we should instead use these three entirely non-gender related ones.

If I am understanding Her/him correctly.
Oh, okay.

They also don't make any sense, but whatever.

Let me change it so they are less... "Lets make a bomb"

The three virtues are:
-Assertion
-Adaptability
-Resistance
Logged

Leafsnail

  • Bay Watcher
  • A single snail can make a world go extinct.
    • View Profile
Re: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles
« Reply #16 on: July 23, 2014, 09:25:18 pm »

I am really confused as to what point the OP is trying to make.  The only thing I think it gives any insight into is what Angle thinks gender roles are.

If you're talking about "multiple defined societal roles, not necessary linked to sex" then what you're describing seems to be a caste system like they have in India.

I was also concerned when LordBucket appeared to confuse chemistry with biology.
LordBucket actually defines "masculine" and "feminine" in very weird ways, and then tries to use those definitions to justify sexist attitudes.  This new chemical one seems to be a minor variant.
Logged

Angle

  • Bay Watcher
  • 39 Indigo Spear Questions the Poor
    • View Profile
    • Agora Forum Demo!
Re: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles
« Reply #17 on: July 23, 2014, 09:41:23 pm »

I am really confused as to what point the OP is trying to make.  The only thing I think it gives any insight into is what Angle thinks gender roles are.

I'm trying to discuss peoples different ideas on the subject, whether they're necessary or useful, and what they should be.

If you're talking about "multiple defined societal roles, not necessary linked to sex" then what you're describing seems to be a caste system like they have in India.

Vaguely similar, except not based on birth or parentage and entirely opt-in.
Logged

Agora: open-source platform to facilitate complicated discussions between large numbers of people. Now with test site!

The Temple of the Elements: Quirky Dungeon Crawler

Leafsnail

  • Bay Watcher
  • A single snail can make a world go extinct.
    • View Profile
Re: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles
« Reply #18 on: July 23, 2014, 09:43:53 pm »

So like... jobs?  Social groups?
Logged

LordBucket

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles
« Reply #19 on: July 23, 2014, 09:55:10 pm »

Hmm. That's an interesting way to look at things. How would that correlate with other gender roles?

I'm not sure I understand the question. It's its own model. If you're looking for "sulphur is like X, mercury is like Y, salt is like Z" that doesn't always work. Imagine if you were comparing checkers and chess and somebody asked which chess piece corresponded to a red checkers piece. Somebody who only knew checkers might ask that question, but the question is flawed.

Or do you mean something else? Examples?

Quote
What league role, if any, would be high in Mercury?

If they are capable of being acted upon, they contain mercury. More specifically, they all contain mercury because they're capable of being acted upon. But like Neonivek says, any change-oriented class, or high regeneration/self healing class could be described as high in mercury. Regeneration would be closer. The ability to quickly and easily change roles would be more mercury+sulphur, since the "causing of change" and "doing the change" are different qualities.



Lord Bucket is basically saying that instead of seeing "roles" in male and female we should instead use these three entirely non-gender related ones.

Well, I'm not saying we "should" do anything. But it is an alternate model that's available, and it does describe reality better than masculine/feminine. It might be unfamiliar, but look at all the anger and disagreement over gender roles. Look at people argue over what a man or woman is "supposed to" be or do. That makes sense if you reduce people to nothing but masculine/feminine, but people are more complicated than that. Identifying as "I'm a masculine macho man! Rawrr! Women are weak and beneath me!" makes about as much sense as saying "I'm made of oxygen and I'm awesome because of it! You have carbon in you! That makes you weak!"

If you want to be feminine, then yes: do what you're told. Smile and demurely accept what you're given. If somebody wants sex, give it to them. If somebody beats you, accept it. You're accepting what they're giving you and giving them what they want. That is what "feminine" is.

But if you hear that and interpret it to mean "this is what LordBucket believes is the proper role for women" then you're totally missing the point.

Random example: ask yourself honestly, if a girl sees a hot guy in a bar and asks him out, is that feminine behavior? No. But some that somehow make it "wrong" for her to do that? Of course not. But it being "ok" for her to do doesn't make the behavior feminine just because she happens to be a woman.

If we want to talk about biological male and biological female, we can do that. But if we're going to talk about masculine/feminine, let's not be confused and assume that masculine=biologically male and feminine-biologically female. They're different things.



Gender roles have nothing to do with "acting upon" or whatever, but instead developed because males are generally better suited to physical activity. I have no idea why people disregard this, or say it is false.

Cultural conditioning.

But let's remember to distinguish between "male and female" and "masculine and feminine." Biological male/female does not necessarily mean "exclusively masculine/exclusively feminine."

I think if you divorce the concept of masculine/feminine from biology, and think of them as impersonal forces the give/receive, actor/acted upon, dichotomy makes sense. It's simply popular for people view these things in terms of biology because biology is familiar.

I suggest that it makes more sense to conceive of fundamental forces with an explanation that is internally self-consistent, and suggest that individual humans are complicated entities that are a mix of those forces...than to arbitrarily say that "masculine/feminine" are an inconsistent mix of traits that we apply to biological male/female...sometimes, and not very consistently. Thinking of our perception of masculine/feminine as purely a result of culture and habit, just doesn't make a very useful model.

Which is at the heart of the angst and confusion surrounding the issue.

It makes sense, to conceive of "that which acts upon / that which is acted upon." It's an internally consistent way of looking at things. If I use a pencil to write on a piece of paper, I am acting upon the pencil and the pencil is receiving my action. In this relationship, I am male and it is female. The pencil, in turn, is acting upon the paper. In this relationship the pencil is male and the paper is female. Nobody gets angry over this.

But once you try to pigeon hole people into "you're a guy so you're supposed to do X and you're a girl so you're supposed to do Y" that's when people get angry.



He's making some complicated symbolic metaphor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy

The three-way mercury/suphur/salt model is simply more usefully descriptive than the two-way masculine/feminine model. We can have all sorts of arguments about "what's masculine and feminine" and "proper roles" and so forth, but we're unlikely to come to a consensus. The model is flawed, and often doesn't describe things very well. For example, if a guy beats up all the other guys and tells women to take their clothes off and they eagerly do, one might tend to think of him as masculine. Think James Bond. But what if a guy "white knights" and protects the virtue of women...but never sleeps with them? Is that masculine? Well...you tell me. Is it feminine? Well...probably not. But the behavior is a common behavior of "biological males." But is that behavior masculine or feminine? Tough to categorize. The masculine/feminine model just doesn't accommodate it very well. But it's easy to categorize as salt.



LordBucket actually defines "masculine" and "feminine" in very weird ways,
and then tries to use those definitions to justify sexist attitudes.

I request fewer accusations and more courtesy.

Tiruin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Life is too short for worries
    • View Profile
Re: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles
« Reply #20 on: July 23, 2014, 10:12:17 pm »

I agree that gender roles are subjective, but I also think they serve some purpose, or can, at least. I also think that they should be entirely optional, and decoupled from sex and gender (Which I suppose would make them something other than gender roles- just roles, I guess?)
Whatever gender roles exist have no usage other than to give an appropriate meaning used by the roles itself as a utility or as a description of a function.

Meaning: At this age and time, we can perfectly live without any cut-out roles by a gender as a generality. They serve some purpose in giving a basic idea of what a person can do, but not define a person by telling who they are in all holistic value. They are terms representing an idea. :P

Biologically, this speaks about the differences in male/female. Prior knowledge goes only so far as to prove it stems purely physically--mentally, psychologically or whatever else, the differences are few, if any, to make any significant factor to separate both or give an advantage of one over the other.

Any ideas of about one kind of role being better than any other are born out of the self, out of the ego-mind that seeks to create hierarchies of "superior" and "inferior". These concepts do not exist in nature and the potential of the person to which such roles are attributed.

Though I'm breaking off into a tangent here :P Those roles you see used in LoL describe the basic ideas about the character in question (and basically what they did to develop themselves into such), and are not supposed to be used as a generalizing idea towards a populace...the tangent part is a poke on generalizing terms. ._.
Logged

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles
« Reply #21 on: July 23, 2014, 10:48:17 pm »

Quote
If you want to be feminine, then yes: do what you're told. Smile and demurely accept what you're given. If somebody wants sex, give it to them. If somebody beats you, accept it. You're accepting what they're giving you and giving them what they want. That is what "feminine" is.

even classically your job is to say no because men can't help themselves. Your job is to control both your and your SO's sexuality.

As well you are not meant to "accept beatings" either.

I think you are confusing "feminine" with "Pimp Whores"

Don't get me wrong, I know where you are coming from... It is just that... what you are describing is about 10 levels beyond the source. Transforming villainy into super villainy like some sort of break up song.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2014, 10:52:27 pm by Neonivek »
Logged

Angle

  • Bay Watcher
  • 39 Indigo Spear Questions the Poor
    • View Profile
    • Agora Forum Demo!
Re: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles
« Reply #22 on: July 23, 2014, 11:12:32 pm »

Eh, there are some versions of femininity that sound like that. There are more that don't, however. In particular, I think you'll find most of the various western Feminine roles have been much closer to what Neonivek describes.
Logged

Agora: open-source platform to facilitate complicated discussions between large numbers of people. Now with test site!

The Temple of the Elements: Quirky Dungeon Crawler

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles
« Reply #23 on: July 24, 2014, 12:45:57 am »

Eh, there are some versions of femininity that sound like that. There are more that don't, however. In particular, I think you'll find most of the various western Feminine roles have been much closer to what Neonivek describes.

There are some that get REALLY close to that don't get me wrong.

It wasn't that long ago where the basic view is that if your wife is giving you gap you should slug her or that it is the Wife's job to keep the husband sexually satisfied. Heck some of these views still persist today in our own society.

It is just that... what Lord Bucket said takes these, and amplifies them well beyond even that. Which is as I said turning villainy into super villainy.

I cannot think of any examples of a society that honestly believed that a woman's job is to accept terrific abuse for no reason other then it is her job to be abused... Nor many societies, other then possibly a tribal society, where a woman is expected to accept and reciprocate all advances.

Maybe sub-cultures... or individual groups... but for the life of me I don't know of any.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2014, 12:55:49 am by Neonivek »
Logged

Chagen46

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles
« Reply #24 on: July 24, 2014, 02:41:50 am »

Gender roles have nothing to do with "acting upon" or whatever, but instead developed because males are generally better suited to physical activity. I have no idea why people disregard this, or say it is false.

Oh go fuck off back to r/MensRights and bitch about the evil wimminz over there, and please don't bring your MRA bullshit over here.
Logged
Great! my fps improved significantly and now my sewer is full of corpses like it should be.

Sergarr

  • Bay Watcher
  • (9) airheaded baka (9)
    • View Profile
Re: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles
« Reply #25 on: July 24, 2014, 02:50:56 am »

Gender roles have nothing to do with "acting upon" or whatever, but instead developed because males are generally better suited to physical activity. I have no idea why people disregard this, or say it is false.

Oh go fuck off back to r/MensRights and bitch about the evil wimminz over there, and please don't bring your MRA bullshit over here.
You brought the tumblr first. You lose.
Logged
._.

Orange Wizard

  • Bay Watcher
  • mou ii yo
    • View Profile
    • S M U G
Re: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles
« Reply #26 on: July 24, 2014, 03:40:39 am »

Gender roles have nothing to do with "acting upon" or whatever, but instead developed because males are generally better suited to physical activity. I have no idea why people disregard this, or say it is false.

But what about all the details of gender roles unrelated to physical activity? If that was all there was to it, then shouldn't we see the overwhelming majority of men holding jobs that required physical labor, and most other jobs, including politics and management, left to women?
No, that's not all there is too it. And I haven't really studied the subject to any extent, so I'm afraid I can't really contribute any further.

I mostly wanted to stamp on the "men and women are the same, and any differences are oppressive social constructs" nonsense before anyone decided to try that one.
Logged
Please don't shitpost, it lowers the quality of discourse
Hard science is like a sword, and soft science is like fear. You can use both to equally powerful results, but even if your opponent disbelieve your stabs, they will still die.

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles
« Reply #27 on: July 24, 2014, 03:45:16 am »

Gender roles have nothing to do with "acting upon" or whatever, but instead developed because males are generally better suited to physical activity. I have no idea why people disregard this, or say it is false.

Oh go fuck off back to r/MensRights and bitch about the evil wimminz over there, and please don't bring your MRA bullshit over here.

What aspect of this is "objectionable" anyhow?

The idea that PERHAPS gender roles originated from these gender differences is hardly a shocking or sexist idea and the logic behind it is rather straight forward.

As for why people say it is false... It is because it isn't necessarily true from a historical standpoint, or rather it isn't "obviously true". Some people go by the theory that the reason why gender roles first arose had more to do with pregnancy and the fact that men don't have to go through that (or rather because of biology). Others go by men psychology in that they are much more possessive and thus they had more inclination to create these roles to ensure their dominance (or that women have less inclination to do so).

But really the source of gender roles doesn't really matter. If we wanted to get truly historical then there is a lot of gender role aspects that seem ridiculous on all fronts.

Quote
I mostly wanted to stamp on the "men and women are the same, and any differences are oppressive social constructs" nonsense before anyone decided to try that one.

That is only something you get from radical feminism and not a lot of people here practice it. Sure they have enough swing to rewrite Wikipedia pages, but otherwise no they are aren't that wide.

Mental capacity though... that has real controversy.

As well socially there are aspects of it that can be looked at as well.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2014, 03:48:37 am by Neonivek »
Logged

Eotyrannus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Here to throw dinosaurs at people
    • View Profile
Re: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles
« Reply #28 on: July 24, 2014, 03:47:42 am »

As a note of interest, scientific studies have shown that the male face and the ability to punch people in the face both evolved simultaneously. So there might be some reasons for 'men punch things'.
Logged

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles
« Reply #29 on: July 24, 2014, 03:49:52 am »

As a note of interest, scientific studies have shown that the male face and the ability to punch people in the face both evolved simultaneously. So there might be some reasons for 'men punch things'.

Wouldn't that say it evolved with women too? I mean to my knowledge the strongest punch (Per square Inch) is currently held by a woman.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 39