Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 39

Author Topic: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles  (Read 56376 times)

LordBucket

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles
« Reply #165 on: July 26, 2014, 03:47:02 pm »

I think people are just against gender roles in general. Imposing upon people roles that they may or may not want to fulfill or teaching them to live up to them.

...like what? Examples, please.

Sometimes people expect me to deal with bugs or open jars because I'm male. Is that really so terrible? I have long hair. A couple times in my life somebody's mistaken me from a girl from behind. Because "girls have long hair." 10 seconds of awkwardness later, these events have passed.

I think it's fair to say that these are not major social problems.


Malibu Stacy?

...ok, but I note that your video is a parody from 20 years ago. 20 years ago, it was mainstream to make fun of the stereotype being referred to.

Here is what that episode was a parody of: "Math class is tough" Barbie

I think the phenomenon there is that some elements of corporate america are still living in pre-1960s. Which is why girl's toy aisles in stores are pink, and why "queens are evil, princesses are good." And why the first run of Princess Celestia toys were pink despite the character being white. In the case of "Math is tough" Barbie, despite controversy, Mattel didn't recall it...presumably because people were buying them.

So I guess the question becomes: are people upset because corporations make this stuff...or because parents buy it? Because if parents didn't buy it, corporations would would stop making it.

Samarkand

  • Bay Watcher
  • Aspiring GM
    • View Profile
Re: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles
« Reply #166 on: July 26, 2014, 04:08:21 pm »

Whether you feel it or not, there are a wealth of people out there constantly afraid to be themselves because they feel it would go against the norms imposed upon them by society. Please treat their experiences as valid, and don't trivialize the damage that is done when people are told that the combination of things they feel and do is not a valid means of living in our society.
Logged
My Area

It's it's its, not it's, not its its, not it's.

Rolepgeek

  • Bay Watcher
  • They see me rollin' they savin'~
    • View Profile
Re: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles
« Reply #167 on: July 26, 2014, 04:21:24 pm »

Examples of gender role dichotomies:

Women stay home and take care of the children, men go out and work
Women want children, men don't
Women are sluts, men are players
Women are passive, men are active
Women cry and are generally more emotional, men don't show their emotions and are generally more stoic
Women are supporting characters, men are main characters
Girls like dolls/dresses, boys like action figures/trucks
It's okay for women to dress in masculine clothing, but men who dress in feminine clothing are ridiculed
Women are nurturing, men are reserved

Examples of gender roles without dichotomies:
Women don't play video games
All men want sex
Women can't abuse men
Women shouldn't want sex
Women are subservient

I think it's fair to say that these, especially when these stereotypes are prevalent throughout a culture, are major social problems.
Logged
Sincerely, Role P. Geek

Optimism is Painful.
Optimize anyway.

EnigmaticHat

  • Bay Watcher
  • I vibrate, I die, I vibrate again
    • View Profile
Re: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles
« Reply #168 on: July 26, 2014, 04:34:22 pm »

Males are any of the three main fantasy archetypes with a bias towards warrior, females are mages mostly, thieves less often, warriors much less often.  This has been true since the earliest RPGs, LoL is just carrying on the tradition.

Would somebody explain to me which precisely are the "gender roles" that people are so upset about? I see a lot of people speaking as if it's known and assumed that these are bad(tm) things, but I see very little explanation of what it is we're even talking about.

There is a male role and a female role held by society as a whole, which is not official or recorded anywhere but far too consistent within a given society to be personal opinion.  There, that's a mostly correct one sentence summary.

Your "male acts, female is acted upon" is a single facet of gender roles as a whole.  And one of the more abrasive ones at that.

Anyone who talks about gender roles in terms of sexual dimorphism is giving you the correct answer to a different question.  It can help us guess how gender roles developed and it is relevant to questions of their validity, but ultimately it can answer neither of those questions.  How gender roles developed is a question that can only be answered with some degree of guessing*, while the question of validity is a moral/political question not one of strict fact.

*because gender roles are based on older gender roles, repeating into pre-history.  So without a time machine or unethical multi-generation psychology experiments, we won't know how sexual dimorphism contributed to the earliest gender roles.
Logged
"T-take this non-euclidean geometry, h-humanity-baka. I m-made it, but not because I l-li-l-like you or anything! I just felt s-sorry for you, b-baka."
You misspelled seance.  Are possessing Draignean?  Are you actually a ghost in the shell? You have to tell us if you are, that's the rule

GavJ

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles
« Reply #169 on: July 26, 2014, 05:52:14 pm »

Quote
It's pretty clear that children don't need to be encouraged to adopt most of the behaviors we associate with one gender or the other, because there are other cultures with very different gender roles that seem to be doing just fine, psychologically.
By this same logic, it's clear that children don't need food, because other cultures with very different food than ours seem to be doing just fine...  :-\

It MIGHT be the case that  even though a child doesn't need any particular gender role, they may still need some gender roles of some sort provided to them, and that simply ignoring the issue completely and giving them no guidance whatsoever might be bad for them.

I have no evidence this is necessarily true, but neither have I ever seen any evidence that gender roles AREN'T needed, so we shouldn't assume either way unless research is done on it.


Quote
I guess the only other way genes determine our behavior is through the direct functioning of brain/nerve cells?
I'm no super expert on hormones, but I am an expert on psychology, and I do know FOR SURE they don't do that (cause behavior via direct influence on brain organization). Almost everything about your brain's organization is much more context driven than gene driven. Genes stop somewhere at the level of like "here are some basic lobes and maybe some substructures, and here's a set of different cell arhictectures to work with. Beyond that, they don't do much for any brain detail. As one dramatic example, your visual cortex doesn't actually know how many eyes you have until it starts actually getting input from X many eyes. And if you graft a third one into an animal, it will organize itself perfectly logically for 3 eyes with 3 ocular dominance column types.

This sort of thing is typical for everything else in your brain. You don't know how many limbs you have or what their range of movement is until you try to move around (twitching in your sleep and reading off the tension has also been demonstrated to provide such feedback data to the brain about its own body's structure). You don't know how many tones you can hear until the auditory organs actually start spitting in input. Think of it sort of like genes building a tomato plant frame, and then everything about where each tiny little tendril and flower grows is dependent upon a dizzying world of contextual influence and input.

Which is great! Because as you might imagine, a non-gene-reliant method is not only more efficient information storage-wise, but also more adaptive, since your brain can learn automatically to cope with defects or injuries throughout your life, versus just one plan where if anything goes wrong, the plan stops working.

Machines that man has made from blueprints usually do one thing - they dry your hair or they move you from A to B.  And if you break a gear, the whole thing becomes a paperweight. Any organism, though, built that poorly would go extinct in the snap of a finger. Humans do all of those and thousands of other things, precisely because their blueprints do not limit or determine their behavior. It's closer, if anything, to a computer. And in a computer, do you include in the manufacturing blueprints anything that fully specifies individual programs that will exist on the machine? Nope. You only specify generic mechanisms by which inputs can organize and dictate programs...

It IS hypothetically possible to have a gene-wired behavior, but it has to be super crude and usually reliant on giant, specialized nerve clusters. For example, the leg kicking reflex when hit by a rubber mallet. Yes, genes can do things like that by in that example doing something as crude as making all nerves go through the same spot in your leg. That's the sort of level you're restricted to.

You will see many complex behaviors that appear universal, like walking. But for the example of walking, it ends up being the same because your leg and basic body structure is the same, and you all experience the same gravity, etc. So as you experiment, everybody eventually finds the same maximum efficiency solution given the common context. Not because there's some "walking genes." It's very much a system set up in such a way as to reinvent the wheel every generation. This has a cost in that it takes time to reinvent the wheel. But the savings -- of what would have had to be billions or trillions of base pairs of DNA for such a behavior -- is well worth it.

As this all relates to the actual thread - gender-specific roles are all so subtle and complex that they all fall in the same category as walking or high level vision -- there's simply no realistic way they can be specified by genes. They could be remotely, wispily, through infinite twists and turns, be influenced in part by genes, absolutely. But not specified by them. And therefore, in no sense of the word whatsoever "innate."

Quote
*because gender roles are based on older gender roles, repeating into pre-history.  So without a time machine or unethical multi-generation psychology experiments, we won't know how sexual dimorphism contributed to the earliest gender roles.
Meh. Gender roles between females across cultures in present day can differ by much larger amounts than gender role differences between genders in one culture.

Which implies to me that there's no solid reason to believe sexual dimorphism actually has much to do with them at all.

It could just be that ANY sexual dimorphism of ANY type merely serves as a convenient visible difference by which to specify two different groups of people, and then that the content of the gender roles you assign to those people have absolutely no connection whatsoever to the specific facts of their dimorphism.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2014, 05:55:44 pm by GavJ »
Logged
Cauliflower Labs – Geologically realistic world generator devblog

Dwarf fortress in 50 words: You start with seven alcoholic, manic-depressive dwarves. You build a fortress in the wilderness where EVERYTHING tries to kill you, including your own dwarves. Usually, your chief imports are immigrants, beer, and optimism. Your chief exports are misery, limestone violins, forest fires, elf tallow soap, and carved kitten bone.

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles
« Reply #170 on: July 26, 2014, 05:55:19 pm »

Here is what that episode was a parody of: "Math class is tough" Barbie

I'm just reading up on that, there were 270 phrases and each doll came loaded with a random 4 phrases. 1.5% of the dolls were bad at math. Some of the dolls say "I'm studying to be a doctor" and other stuff though.

According to the company apology, they considered that "maths class is tough" statement to be a "general" teenage thing that could apply or either male or female teens, and hadn't really thought through the implications.

To be fair, they get a bad rap, as there are just as many "studying to be a doctor" barbies as "maths class is tough" barbies. Plus whatever else they say, because i can only find a list of about 20 known phrases.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2014, 06:06:10 pm by Reelya »
Logged

GavJ

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles
« Reply #171 on: July 26, 2014, 07:17:14 pm »

Here is what that episode was a parody of: "Math class is tough" Barbie

I'm just reading up on that, there were 270 phrases and each doll came loaded with a random 4 phrases. 1.5% of the dolls were bad at math. Some of the dolls say "I'm studying to be a doctor" and other stuff though.

According to the company apology, they considered that "maths class is tough" statement to be a "general" teenage thing that could apply or either male or female teens, and hadn't really thought through the implications.

To be fair, they get a bad rap, as there are just as many "studying to be a doctor" barbies as "maths class is tough" barbies. Plus whatever else they say, because i can only find a list of about 20 known phrases.
That's pretty fascinating! Good on them.
Logged
Cauliflower Labs – Geologically realistic world generator devblog

Dwarf fortress in 50 words: You start with seven alcoholic, manic-depressive dwarves. You build a fortress in the wilderness where EVERYTHING tries to kill you, including your own dwarves. Usually, your chief imports are immigrants, beer, and optimism. Your chief exports are misery, limestone violins, forest fires, elf tallow soap, and carved kitten bone.

Tiruin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Life is too short for worries
    • View Profile
Re: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles
« Reply #172 on: July 26, 2014, 09:21:45 pm »

Woo, this thread expanded well :D

*reads up*

I'm siding with GavJ on the Gender role note, though only a student in Philosophy and Psych. Gender Roles seem more built on previous action than any biological instance (in recent-post-context when compared to what I said before), as in they're a construct built upon a foundation that isn't purely biological at all (pertaining to the behavior of people [ie Women are subservient and stuff like that])

Poke on one part

Quote
As this all relates to the actual thread - gender-specific roles are all so subtle and complex that they all fall in the same category as walking or high level vision -- there's simply no realistic way they can be specified by genes. They could be remotely, wispily, through infinite twists and turns, be influenced in part by genes, absolutely. But not specified by them. And therefore, in no sense of the word whatsoever "innate."
That the differences are subtle enough to be confused as biological due to how early some roles (as a generality) are taught.
Logged

Samarkand

  • Bay Watcher
  • Aspiring GM
    • View Profile
Re: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles
« Reply #173 on: July 26, 2014, 09:26:53 pm »

I think there shouldn't be much of a question that the way gender roles are constructed currently is problematic. The real problem is how they can be reconstructed. A binary doesn't work, trying to put everyone in one of two boxes is bound to leave a lot of people out, but that's our current structure. The real question is if there just need to be more boxes, if there needs to be a continuum, or if we need to get to a point where the idea of gender is not meaningful with regards to behavior. Its a challenging question, even those who agree the current system is problematic disagree about what developments can take place.
Logged
My Area

It's it's its, not it's, not its its, not it's.

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles
« Reply #174 on: July 26, 2014, 09:35:19 pm »

Quote
Examples of gender roles without dichotomies:
Women don't play video games
All men want sex
Women can't abuse men
Women shouldn't want sex
Women are subservient

Trust me... these also have dichotomies... Just they don't always have direct dichotomies (As in "Women have This and men have the opposite").

For example "Women can't abuse men" dichotomy is "Men are strong and in control".

Same with "All men want sex" with the dictonomy of "Women shouldn't want sex"

"women don't play videogames" goes to "Videogames are a guy thing"

Though I might be mixing things up... since "cause" doesn't necessarily imply a dichotomy.

Mind you the "double" aspect of the Double standard is why I honestly think that handling sexism without handling both sexism towards males and females is pretty much a lost cause... Well that and many male issues directly affect women (The male "be tough and controlling" leading to them abusing women for example) and vise versa. You aren't going to eliminate "women are the weaker sex" until you deal with "men are the strong sex".
« Last Edit: July 26, 2014, 09:43:29 pm by Neonivek »
Logged

Tiruin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Life is too short for worries
    • View Profile
Re: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles
« Reply #175 on: July 26, 2014, 09:42:36 pm »

I think there shouldn't be much of a question that the way gender roles are constructed currently is problematic. The real problem is how they can be reconstructed. A binary doesn't work, trying to put everyone in one of two boxes is bound to leave a lot of people out, but that's our current structure. The real question is if there just need to be more boxes, if there needs to be a continuum, or if we need to get to a point where the idea of gender is not meaningful with regards to behavior. Its a challenging question, even those who agree the current system is problematic disagree about what developments can take place.
> Get all the positives and mark it as that, without the negatives.
Seems that simple for me.
Aspire.
Logged

Samarkand

  • Bay Watcher
  • Aspiring GM
    • View Profile
Re: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles
« Reply #176 on: July 26, 2014, 09:45:06 pm »

I think there shouldn't be much of a question that the way gender roles are constructed currently is problematic. The real problem is how they can be reconstructed. A binary doesn't work, trying to put everyone in one of two boxes is bound to leave a lot of people out, but that's our current structure. The real question is if there just need to be more boxes, if there needs to be a continuum, or if we need to get to a point where the idea of gender is not meaningful with regards to behavior. Its a challenging question, even those who agree the current system is problematic disagree about what developments can take place.
> Get all the positives and mark it as that, without the negatives.
Seems that simple for me.
Aspire.
But people want to aspire to different things. The point is that positive means different things to different people. Some fall into the nurturing role easily, and see it as a positive. Others do not, at all.
Logged
My Area

It's it's its, not it's, not its its, not it's.

Rolepgeek

  • Bay Watcher
  • They see me rollin' they savin'~
    • View Profile
Re: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles
« Reply #177 on: July 26, 2014, 09:46:15 pm »

Quote
Examples of gender roles without dichotomies:
Women don't play video games
All men want sex
Women can't abuse men
Women shouldn't want sex
Women are subservient

Trust me... these also have dichotomies... Just they don't always have direct dichotomies (As in "Women have This and men have the opposite").

For example "Women can't abuse men" dichotomy is "Men are strong and in control".

Same with "All men want sex" with the dictonomy of "Women shouldn't want sex"

Mind you the "double" aspect of the Double standard is why I honestly think that handling sexism without handling both sexism towards males and females is pretty much a lost cause... Well that and many male issues directly affect women (The male "be tough and controlling" leading to them abusing women for example).
*sigh*

Neonivek, you understand that the best way to handle sexism that adversely affects men is to deal with the more prevalent and more harmful sexism that adversely affects women, right?

I didn't want the dichotomy part to become a point of discussion. It was a way of phrasing it, nothing more. Whether it's a dichotomy or not is besides the point.

As well, what suggestions would you have for stopping sexism against men, then? Because a lot of sexism against men portrays it in a positive light, which is the problem; "Men are strong and in control" is positive, while "Women are weak and are controlled" is not. However, "Men are strong and in control" can have negative consequences as well because it becomes believed that if they aren't, they aren't really men. Where this becomes really obvious is in domestic abuse, and rape; the argument goes something like this:

"Men are strong and in control, while women are weak. Therefore, women cannot truly harm men, and any abuse they direct towards men should be simply taken without comment because it can't actually harm them, after all; they're only women! Men who try to bring this up are obviously only trying to get attention. Women are the only ones who can be abused in domestic relationships."

This is, of course, untrue. But the way to solve it is not to promote the idea "Men are not strong and not in control". That's stupid. That's going to be ridiculed by everyone, because you're trying to bring about equality by pulling down one gender rather than lifting up the other. Instead, you remind people that women are strong too(not 'can be strong', but 'are strong'), and are the equal of men in every way that counts(don't bring up fucking sexual dimorphism/athleticism bullshit into this, please). Then, when these cases come up, the woman is not dismissed as too weak to actually hurt the man.

So goodie for you, Neon. You understand that sexism affects both genders. However, unless you have a better idea for how to handle the issue as a whole, the best approach is to start with the oppressed gender.
Logged
Sincerely, Role P. Geek

Optimism is Painful.
Optimize anyway.

Samarkand

  • Bay Watcher
  • Aspiring GM
    • View Profile
Re: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles
« Reply #178 on: July 26, 2014, 09:51:58 pm »

-snip-
Agreed. I think there are a lot of negative affects of sexism towards men (I'm male and do ballroom dance competitions, and this is often met with mocking from peers). However, the solution to this is to understand sexism towards women as being more than just a woman's problem, and start getting involved as a man. Equality is best sought be elevating women, and by phasing out language like "You throw like a girl".
Logged
My Area

It's it's its, not it's, not its its, not it's.

Rolepgeek

  • Bay Watcher
  • They see me rollin' they savin'~
    • View Profile
Re: A Strange Idea about Gender Roles
« Reply #179 on: July 26, 2014, 10:00:03 pm »

-snip-
Agreed. I think there are a lot of negative affects of sexism towards men (I'm male and do ballroom dance competitions, and this is often met with mocking from peers). However, the solution to this is to understand sexism towards women as being more than just a woman's problem, and start getting involved as a man. Equality is best sought be elevating women, and by phasing out language like "You throw like a girl".
Not even necessarily phasing it out, though that would probably be the best practical solution, but making it positive instead. Or rather, 'You throw like a woman'. Now, consider your first reaction to that phrase. It seems negative, because of the cultural connotations. Consider the phrase 'You throw like a man'. Now tell me, was your reaction to that the same? Likely not, because being manly is considered good, and being womanly is considered bad. However, I would much rather it be that being either, or neither, or both, were all considered good.

This is not entirely an altruistic wish on my part; I identify as androgynous, so...
Logged
Sincerely, Role P. Geek

Optimism is Painful.
Optimize anyway.
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 39