Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tack]

I'm pretty sure nobody in the world actually completely fits their gender stereotype (and feels comfortable doing so)

You would be quite surprised.
Why else would 'man cards' exist?

[AlleeCat]

Why else would 'man cards' exist?

Because there's stigma attached to defying gender roles. Just because some people don't want to be outside the tiny gender box, it doesn't mean they aren't.

[Tack]

Just because some people don't want to be outside the tiny gender box, it doesn't mean they aren't.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It's funny, but it doesn't help make my point.
Which is yes, people like that do actually exist, but they are a minority. You denying their existence is the same as them denying yours.

[Orange Wizard]

No culture has an exhaustive list of Features Men And Women Are Required To Have, or whatever. That's just silly.
I was poking at the idea whereby men generally prefer to study engineering over nursing, or women generally stay at home to look after the kids instead of going out and working a billion hours a day. And wondering why people think it's bad, aside from "some people are dickwads and tell me I'm not a real woman because my hair's short", or some crap.

[misko27]

I truly struggle to address issues when I must pretend I'm arguing with a phantom, replying to comments that no one made. No quoting is a bad rule, one that actively works against it's stated goal. You cannot prevent arguments by removing one way they transmit, and the cost of trying so is significant.

Anyway, as to whether or not people fit stereotypes (in any situation, ever, period), remember statistics: There are 7 billion people out there. The human mind reels as it struggles to comprehend such a vast number, a number so large that it is functionally meaningless to us. Even if it's a one in a million, that's still hundreds of thousands of people who fit. Any standard that can be tested against even a fraction of this population would surely find someone, and most likely many more then just one, who fits like a glove. "Never" and "Always" tend to accompany inaccurate statements.

[Antsan]

I think this is exactly why Helgoland didn't want quoting. There is no need to comment on some answer by anybody else just to say "I think this is stupid". Just leave it alone and if you have got a point on why it is stupid, just post that point without pointing out what it is meant to be a counterargument to. People are probably smart enough to figure that out on their own while you are less likely to write in an aggressive style.


The point of a role is to create implicit in-groups. These are useful for people to not feel alone, to know that other people have got something in common with them and to have an idea of where to look for problems related to the properties that define the role.
This can be quite useful, but it carries the danger that forming in-groups implicitely means two things: out-groups and peer pressure. For gender roles the ramifications of the latter outweigh the benefits of implicit in-groups, as far as I can tell – I've never met anyone whose life was better because they found solace in being a man/woman.

I once read something about how the removal of gender roles diminished the diversity of our modern society, making men and women equal, removing all the differences which make life colorful and fun.
This assumes that removing gender roles means creating one large role for everyone instead of actually removing roles.

[Helgoland]

I put that in the OP - very well said, Ant.

And I'd like to remind Tack and Allee (as well as everyone else, of course) that the OP should be followed, even if it's a bit difficult breaking with habits sometimes.

[TD1]

@Tack:

The Barbie house may be the symbol of patriarchy to the feminists, but that hardly matters. They're supposedly fighting for equal rights, not to make girls stop playing with dolls. You're only making a matriarchy if you try to enforce merely the opposite of what the previous enforcers were enforcing.

Equal opportunity means that if a girl wants to go see a barbie house, it's none of your business, and she can. Much like if a boy wants to go see....eh...I dunno, a stunt man or something.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

@Tack:

yes it is funny, though I would hardly consider Ron Swanson to be the "modern man", if that's what you're going for. I guess he's stereotypical? Not to me. i've never met anyone like that. I have a grandfather who's living in the 40's but that's another matter entirely.

Gender roles are essentially gender stereotypes. There's no problem with people falling in to that category if they want, but I imagine that the number of people who identify with the archetypal man or woman are few and far in-between.

[Tack]

"modern man".

Is 'Modern man' different to the 'New-Age man'?

I think by their nature, the 'Manliest man' is hidebound and conservative. Which is an issue.

Much like if a boy wants to go see....

Tonka Trucks. Only ever Tonka Trucks.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

I am unsure of any difference of the "modern man" or "new-age man". I guess I mean more the "stereotypical man". The real problem here is in two different men's opinions of the "Manliest man". When I think of the "Manliest man", I do not think of hidebound conservatives. Not to seem... offensive? but I associate conservatism with cowardice. Cowardice in this sense being afraid of progressive thought and action for fear of losing your personal gains.

[misko27]

(Hey, it's a text wall! Those are fun. And one without quotes to break it up, oh joy) I disagree completely about the quotes. I believe the intended purpose is basically that advice "'I' statements, not 'you' statements" e.g. what I've been doing, but banning quotations doesn't make that happen. I do that anyway, but then with resentment at Helgo *cough* the moderator *cough* for creating a silly rule which would cause a backlash, then not enforcing it much at all. People who speak aggressively still do (or at least will when they are angry), and those who didn't, still don't. And as the ghost I'm conversing with just said, people are smart enough to figure out to know whether something is directed at them, which includes hostility. If someone is going to be mean, they can follow all the rules and still show their anger in their post; I'll speak for myself: If it gets to the point where I am mean to someone, I will be very mean and lacking quotes won't stop me. And I think this entire paragraph is it's own example: I'm increasingly upset with the rule, and the only reason I'm not more vocal (read: angry) about it is I'm the sort of person who isn't vocal to begin with. I'll leave my argument here in any case (and note I end my argument because I'm the sort who does that, not because lack of quotes leave me impotent to express my frustration), but I hope I've made my objection to the rule clear: Quotes don't hurt people, people hurt people.

Anyway, first I want to go ahead and speak for myself and say I am pretty comfortable with my gender. I am. I'm not the spitting image of everyone's personal understanding of a stereotype by any means (not that it matters: We really shouldn't agree on such a high barrier as to be included. I don't agree with everything my representative in Congress says, but at least 90% of the time I agree, and I for one will not jump ship over 10%. And I don't agree with everything my countrymen say, but I do agree the most of the time, and I can say I prefer to be associated with them than to not be). I'm more comfortable in it than out of it. And my experiences are as real as those of the people who aren't comfortable. We can't deny that any group exists merely because we believe (or prefer) that they didn't, and I think that's the whole point of the discussion.

Furthermore, I think it's somewhat strange to speak of gender as a grouping that that can simply be decided as bad (I disagree with that anyway, but I digress). There are far more social issues then the ones just mentioned that come out of groups, but all must be made in light of the fact that grouping is just inherent to humanity, and mitigating the difficulties that they create does more good then trying to tear them down: you can reform a clique, but tearing apart helps no one (not that gender is a clique of course). I remember a of mine teacher who was arguing (as a devil's advocate) for a world where everyone is the same race (although you could make the same argument for same ideology, or same whatever), asking "Is diversity inherently good? If we had a choice, would we have it?". I had several arguments in favor of diversity, but one thing that really got him was how hypothetical it was: that world will never exist, even if it is ideal. Favoring such a world entails so many assumptions as to be a waste of time: Where did that world come from?

Now unlike everything else I've said, this is an absolute truth: There is no blank slate, where we can create our ideal person or our ideal society without resistance or an imprint of what was. Anything we do stands on the ashes of what came before and is changed by them. Going back to the world without race example, how did this world develop? Did it just develop in such a way that race didn't exist? Or did it come from a world where it did? What are the legacies of that? Was it violence, racial miscegenation, what? Is everyone merely one race, or truly uniform? And if I instead imagine instead a world where race doesn't matter (ignoring that there will always be something left over from before), what prevents it from returning? Some sort of mass social engineering? My answer is that we don't have a choice to be in that world without race.

Regardless of how much damage something may do in society, there are some things which simply cannot be dealt with in a final matter as a whole and must be dealt with through individuals. We can make things less likely, but we cannot hope to always prevent their issues. We can help people who struggle with gender (or conflict, or peer pressure, or what-have-you), but we can't rely on trying to stop it.

[Phmcw]

@orange wizard

I'll start with the problem of forum communication. Properly diiscussing this topic would require a reasonable amount of time and beer in a quiet bar, forum only allow for a limited conversation, both because I'd bore you if I wrote a wall of text, and because writing said wall of text would be boring.

Gender roles, and roles in general are helpfull because they allow you to position yourself in the wolrd and simplify decision making, and harmfull for a variety of reason, both historical and systemic.


First, establishing a standard will inevitably lead to peoples enforcing this standard as holly. That's nothing new.

Second when peoples tend to blindly follow standard and when they are arbitrary that lead to missed opportunities. And gender roles are in a large part arbitrary, as proved by the fact that they can vary a lot among cultures.

Third I think that arbitrary standard lead to peoples trying to rationalize them, which make them waste time and may even damage their mental well-being.


The solution I advice and to say out loud that gender roles are arbitrary and that anyone is free and welcome to breach them wheneve they like.

[Angle]

So much text... PTW