Print

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

[Vector]

-snip-

[Rolepgeek]

It is important for deviation to be accepted.

I would say that it is important for deviation to be accomodated. Which is a subtle difference, but...still.

[Vector]

-snip-

[Caz]

Just like a woman has no business competing with a man in strength, a man has no business competing with a woman in grace. Thus, certain traits simply belong to a gender.

I wonder if he's seen male gynmasts, ballet dancers etc. That shit is graceful. Riverdance anyone?

[Neonivek]

Just like a woman has no business competing with a man in strength, a man has no business competing with a woman in grace. Thus, certain traits simply belong to a gender.

I wonder if he's seen male gynmasts, ballet dancers etc. That shit is graceful. Riverdance anyone?

Here is kind of the thing... "Strength" is quantifiable... "Grace" is not only qualitative, but a combination of features and factors.

There are sports that require "grace" that men currently dominate over their female competitors (like shooting, though unlike some sports there are women in the top echelon).

Then there is the whole "Grace is beauty" aspect where it is less that men can't compete so much that the definition of Grace being used is specifically being attributed to women and a man would need to look like a classically feminine woman to compete

[Tiruin]

I've little time to post ;~; And my post may be totally messy because I've been running on 4-ish hours of sleep lately! Stress time due to thesis!

Vector's posts are insightful here--they're in no way advocating for an incomplete viewpoint, but for a more wholesome one. Going to forward that with studies on my part, from the historical viewpoint in psychology. I'm pulling these out from my notes, so anyone can look it up.

@DL: This thread requires notes You're moving with a thread that discusses gender and other related things, the most important point here is that this is also an international forum, so you'll be getting viewpoints from many, different cultures.

It is important for deviation to be accepted.

This is a good point, a good contextual point that shouldn't be taken out of what's being discussed right now.
In many areas, there's a stricter idea of what gender is in contrast to what tradition or how the 'general norm' seemed to view it--this general norm is mostly a construct, based from observations of our ancestors who worked with the ideas of their time. In historical studies, this gender difference began relatively when societies branched out and developed--beginning as an idea stemming mostly from a biological perspective (ie Males and females were characterized by biological traits as well as observed characteristics, which if I've to reference someone in the thread, BillyTheKid has mentioned. He has a point, but it is an incomplete point), however these ideas were not meant to be the construct of how societies should be run. This period of diversification is also relative towards the society and country, which is also able to be reinforced as a belief. For example the Philippines, in several areas, have upheld the idea of one's idea of the self as well as their gender being personal and internal towards a person's being, and in contrast to some areas which have experienced colonization which hold differing ideas (ie Spanish colonized areas).

A good point here is to take in several key points:
> While there may be a biological difference between males and females; this does not segregate people into gender roles for efficiency--the perceived gap between these areas is not of significant value, that while there are notable differences, these differences do not prove any significant conclusion that this gap should be upheld.
> Deviation as Vector mentions pertains to when certain societal constructs/ideas become too rigid--that they may lose the underlying open-mindedness, wisdom, and critical thinking that creates these ideas: Their application, their context, and their roots in human nature. While the term of human nature may be misplaced at times, like concluding that 'this is inherent to human nature because this happens' (eg when people make sweeping generalizations and make stereotypes, which is but only a basic idea of constructing a concept or idea), it is important to notice that societal ideas stem from observations made in earlier times. In talking about the application of gender

[...]
Despite the difficulties of communication across cultures and subgroups, saying "diversity enriches" or "diversity is dangerous" is too simplistic (factually speaking). Passing to a Judith-Butler style argument, we really can't make that kind of statement, because whether diversity enriches or threatens is a matter of individual interactions and individual times. What we can do is teach future generations more skills for managing their differences--assuming, perhaps, a more-or-less homogeneous culture to which one belongs, but a non-homogeneous outside environment that one would do well to learn how to navigate for, if nothing else, commercial and trade purposes.

One should also put great notice to the values that's being used. At times, societies have experienced and observed certain happenings that do not fit their current understanding; how they follow up expanding their understanding creates an underlying process of thinking for meeting ideas in the future.

> The notion of a stereotype, in a cognitive context, is the creation or categorization of ideas to fit a general understanding. From these constructs further ideas are added or modified until it becomes a form of deconstruction--from general to specific. When discussing the whole theme of this thread, stereotypes are not the endpoint, because this covers aspects of one's life from societal, to cultural, to personal, to familial and otherwise.

Edoot: Ohai Caz!

Just like a woman has no business competing with a man in strength, a man has no business competing with a woman in grace. Thus, certain traits simply belong to a gender.

I wonder if he's seen male gynmasts, ballet dancers etc. That shit is graceful. Riverdance anyone?

I've recalled people thinking about how 'prevalent' BillyTheKid's ideas are. In a wholesome context--it's as prevalent as the culture that promotes it. It isn't a predominating idea in many areas, taking in a worldwide context, and it is predominating in many areas; the general sense of that begins in the culture of the society, community, or family as the smallest part.
But prevalence does denote the scope of ideas being spread there. It is misleading to say what he's saying, in a holistic sense, because of how rigid it is in hindsight, and in foresight of its non-applicability in reality.

Also I do recall other people speaking about genetic traits. Reudh brings up very good points on these notes.

There is already a word for that, which is sex (and intersex people for those that have rarer mix like XXY). Gender usually refers to the social implication and expectations of the stuff, although they do get mixed up sometime.

Klinefelter males are not "intersex". They are still male, they do not possess any characteristics of females, besides reduced (compared to XY males) testosterone production.

Especially when descriptions are used like these.

[Neonivek]

Despite the difficulties of communication across cultures and subgroups, saying "diversity enriches" or "diversity is dangerous" is too simplistic (factually speaking).

Well... Anecdotally without diversity a society stagnates significantly.

It is why Japan murdered the brains out of China in terms of technology and economics even today... and Japan isn't even non-xenophobic.

Diversity harming tended to stem more from a society being unable to adapt to the changing environment OR from the changes highlighting problems that existed previously but couldn't manifest (Alcoholism for example).

It is one of the reasons why people push for diversity so hard... because it are societies that push the hardest against change that are hurt or do hurt the most.

Basically Cultural, social, or technological stagnation is bad yo.

[Caz]

Here is kind of the thing... "Strength" is quantifiable... "Grace" is not only qualitative, but a combination of features and factors.

I'd say they're both qualitative. Strength of what? Strength of conviction, strength of character, or are you talking about how much someone can deadlift? Yea, yea, we all know and accept that men are usually stronger than women physically. If we're using the word strength in those terms, then you could say strength is more of a male trait.

Then there is the whole "Grace is beauty" aspect where it is less that men can't compete so much that the definition of Grace being used is specifically being attributed to women and a man would need to look like a classically feminine woman to compete

Dunno man, have you seen some of those male models? Yowza. But yeah, I don't get the whole 'grace is feminine' thing. Maybe if you're talking about upper class 'ladies', but then there's the same kind of 'social grace' in that class that is expected for men also.

Edoot: Ohai Caz!

First time I post on Bay12 in months and you appear on my tail. Really gotta get that tracking device out of my molar.

[Neonivek]

I'd say they're both qualitative. Strength of what? Strength of conviction, strength of character, or are you talking about how much someone can deadlift?

We are definitely talking about how much someone can deadlift... given the context.

Unless you honestly believe that women can't compete with men in terms of strength of character xD

[Caz]

Unless you honestly believe that women can't compete with men in terms of strength of character xD

We'd be talking about it, sure, but the original quote was from that other guy. And yeah, there are a *lot* of people out there who do believe that exactly.

[saigo]

It is important for deviation to be accepted.

I would say that it is important for deviation to be accomodated. Which is a subtle difference, but...still.

Accepted is a better word than accommodated. We cannot accommodate for every deviation. People who are different from the norm need to accept that they are different from the norm, rather than everyone else changing the norm to suit a minority.

We'd be talking about it, sure, but the original quote was from that other guy. And yeah, there are a *lot* of people out there who do believe that exactly.

"A lot" is vague, and not helpful to the discussion. Do you have any statistics?

[Skyrunner]

And besides, even if you say strength is strength, what kind of strength? Deadlifts, curls, weighted squads, kegels...?

[Neonivek]

"A lot" is vague, and not helpful to the discussion. Do you have any statistics?

Now THAT is something that would be hard to do even with statistics

Because often we are talking about double standards.

The whole women are chaste and men are satyrs for example. Where it is the woman's job to regulate the sexuality of other men

So one might say "well doesn't that mean men have less strength of character?" but remember... In that situation the man cannot be faulted Only the woman can have a slight against her character.

And besides, even if you say strength is strength, what kind of strength? Deadlifts, curls, weighted squads, kegels...?

ALL quantifiable

The only aspect that wouldn't be is "fighting strength" because it cannot REALLY be measured... only contested.

[misko27]

I'm trying to change the discourse from top-down "the culture ought to be built on so-and-so principles" discussions (unless anyone here has the ear of a politician?), because such discussions are ones in which the people talking here have, essentially, no influence or controlling stake. I'd rather talk about things we actually have control over.

I'd argue even most politicians don't have that sort of power. The power to remake culture and define cultural norms is one only deeply authoritarian societies have any real hope of achieving (not that you can't try, and I'd say most societies do attempt to do so to various extents, but to be really successful it does basically demand society-wide brainwashing). It's even rarer that they are successful, and as for how often they actually ingratiate the intended norms? Who even knows.
 
And questions about who has the sort of right to decide in what matter society will be remade (because that is essentially what is necessary) are also icky. There is a reason that the whole point of Plato's Republic is essentially "Here is a system I have designed such that eventually, an extreme minority, consistently showing aptitude and achievement, open-mindedness and thoughtfulness, physical strength and statesmanship, and wisdom and virtue, can be bred and taught and educated all their lives, so as to maybe create individuals who would be wise and virtuous enough to be allowed to redesign society from the bottom up."

Of course no one ever let Plato even get that far. Philosopher-Kings we are not.

But do you remember Sartre? He said that one always has a choice, namely the choice of suicide. If society killed everyone who didn't fit the gender roles, there would technically be the choice of deviating, but not a choice that most would consider to be an acceptable choice.

Do you remember Hobbes? He'd argue that the choice between death and another option is no real choice at all. Some people may, given certain circumstances, choose death, but no one can ever be morally expected to give away their life (if someone lined you up on a wall and put a gun to your head demanding you claim women are inferior, no one has a right to hold anything you say against you). To choose death may be deeply virtuous given the context, but to choose your own life is not inversely evil. I'd go further and say that it is precisely because choosing your own life is not evil that sacrifice is noble. But that is off-topic.

Also damn Vector can you write a book? Please? Your wisdom is persuasive, and you discuss these issues in ways that are much more compelling then how it is usually put to me. Given that I am literally drowning in people who want to explain these issues to me (I go to a whole school full of people that focus on these issues), I promise that is no minor compliment

It is why Japan murdered the brains out of China in terms of technology and economics even today... and Japan isn't even non-xenophobic.

That may not be the best example, given that both Japan and China have had or continue to have elements of deeply xenophobic cultures. China is actually quite arguably much less xenophobic, given that under the Qing Dynasty they were, after all, being ruled by Manchus, and the ROC was founded as "Five Races Under One Union": The Han, the Manchu, the Mongols, the Hui, and the Tibetans. By contrast Japan... oh Japan. Their relationship with the Ainu, and with Okinawa, speaks volumes. A better argument would be pointing out the 200 years of stagnation (well, 100 years of being pretty ok, 100 years of stagnation and decline) that occurred under Japan's closed period that left it vulnerable to Western Imperialism. These issues are complicated, and a one-off comment doesn't do them justice.

Also I am getting ninja'd into oblivion. I will post, and darn the consequences.

[Neonivek]

ROC was founded as "Five Races Under One Union": The Han, the Manchu, the Mongols, the Hui, and the Tibetans.

Miiiiight not be the best... example... given what happened and how it happened.

Also why do people forget Mongolia is a place that exists?