Gender Discussion

[Ville]

-

Edited September 11, 2021 by Ville

[Daft]

I think you're confusing sex and gender a little.

 

To save some time...

 

[Ville]

-

Edited September 12, 2021 by Ville

[Magnus]

I don't think he was really trying to be helpful.

[Rummy]

I think you're confusing sex and gender a little.

 

To save some time...

 

 

How? Man/Woman = Gender, Male/Female = Sex, no?

 

To say sex will have no influence on gender would be silly, so you can't disregard it. It looks to me like a post referring to gender, and aiming to deal with gender.

[EEVILMURRAY]

[Daft]

How? Man/Woman = Gender, Male/Female = Sex, no?

 

To say sex will have no influence on gender would be silly, so you can't disregard it. It looks to me like a post referring to gender, and aiming to deal with gender.

 

I didn't at any point say disregard it - please, point to the part where I said they were mutually exclusive. But the first post is apparently about Gender and then says we can't ignore biology and then starts talking about hormones and whatnot - well, actually, it is possible to ignore biology. Gender is a performance.

 

Making sweeping generalisations like 'most men' do this and 'most women' do that is also...seriously, what's the point in saying that? At that point you've already glossed over the personal nuances of identity.

 

Yeah, of course 'biological factors' make more sense, but that's part of society's current discourse. Read Young's 'Throwing Like a Girl', there's probably an online version somewhere.

 

Not even going to bother next time. I'm out. *Drops mic to the floor*

[Rummy]

I didn't at any point say disregard it - please, point to the part where I said they were mutually exclusive. But the first post is apparently about Gender and then says we can't ignore biology and then starts talking about hormones and whatnot - well, actually, it is possible to ignore biology. Gender is a performance.

 

Making sweeping generalisations like 'most men' do this and 'most women' do that is also...seriously, what's the point in saying that? At that point you've already glossed over the personal nuances of identity.

 

Yeah, of course 'biological factors' make more sense, but that's part of society's current discourse. Read Young's 'Throwing Like a Girl', there's probably an online version somewhere.

 

Not even going to bother next time. I'm out. *Drops mic to the floor*

 

Well, I apologise for misinterpreting your post, I only had a line and a picture to go on. I definitely didn't mean to discourage you from posting any further. I think the comments of 'most men' and 'most women' actually follows on from Moogle's original post;

 

Anyway, I'm not sure what consensus we have here that parents are one of the biggest causes of sexist attitudes and underlying causes. Personally I think they're the biggest. Most people go on about the gender pay gap, but if you've done any research in it, you'll know that it doesn't really exist, at least not as a product of sexism. It's more to do with women stopping their careers to look after children, and not wanting to pursue such fields (such as studying courses like engineering, physics, maths etc., all of which have a higher correlation with career success than course like english and art). There's also large amounts of evidence that women are less motivated by money than men.

 

So when you look at that, it's clearly not discrimination that's the problem, it's women's attitudes/personalities. So we have to look at two different possibilities, women are different creatures than men, and don't want to pursue those things, or society cause women to be the above. Which brings me back to parents. Look at most little boys, they wear jeans and a t-shirt, are constantly playing sports, playing outside, exploring. Their toys are things like lego, k'nect, mechano, computer games etc., which teach them how to build, design, engineer, think quickly etc. Girls on the hand wear nothing but pink, everything they own is pink, they wear dresses and are told off for getting them dirty. Their toys are things like dolls and kitchens. And then we wonder why so many of them are mothers, nurses, teachers etc. (n.b. I'm not having a go at those professions, they're some of the professions I admire the most, but they aren't well paid, and this is about the pay gap).

 

Yet whenever you mention this, a lot of people get defensive. I mentioned it to my sister-in-law. "We're not making her that way, she's only ever wanted to play with dolls and kitchens, that's what she wants." Well of course she does, that's all she's ever had. She's only ever owned one car toy, it was pink and didn't have moving wheels. I bought her some Tigger pyjamas. My sister-in-law complained because they were "boys pyjamas" (i.e. they were green and blue). She was going to take them back and exchange them for some pink Minnie the Mouse one. I put my foot down, and she kept them, but my niece hardly ever wears them. Then when my niece is a few years older (even know in fact at aged 2), when you ask her what she wants she'll say "a doll/kitchen/teddy". People will say that she wants that of her own accord, but that's all she knows. She's been brought up in a sea of pink, and anyone who's been in the girls' toy section will know how disgustingly pink every single item is.

 

Yet when she grows older, and isn't that great at spatial awareness, analytical thinking and logic, but is good at emotional responses, and being caring, people will blame the male CEOs for her not achieving as highly in her career as her male counterpart. But nobody will blame the parents, of course not, that's a far too emotionally defensive can of worms to open.

 

I thought it was quite an interesting approach to it, and I'd definitely agree that parents probably have a huge influence - I'm struggling however to think of any obvious examples in my own upbringing with a big brother and bigger sister though. My dad, btw, is a nurse/has been for like 40 years.

[Daft]

Well, I apologise for misinterpreting your post, I only had a line and a picture to go on. I definitely didn't mean to discourage you from posting any further. I think the comments of 'most men' and 'most women' actually follows on from Moogle's original post;

 

I didn't mean it in any kind of aggressive way and my signing off is just because I'll got OTT in this discussion and I'd rather STFU than word vomit out a half comprehensive ramble.

 

You should definitely check out that book, though. It's on JSTOR, if you have access.

[Rummy]

Ahh, I don't have JSTOR access, but I shall find a way to find it think I got it.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Rummy

[Ville]

-

Edited September 12, 2021 by Ville

[Daft]

Well surely you can muster the amount of willpower to make a brief summary of your argument at least? I mean now you're just pointing to books here and there, "go read it"... o_O

 

Yeah, my bad. I should have said, you don't need to read the whole thing. I think the first ten pages of the intro to get the gist.

 

@Ashley would probably be better at explaining all this.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

One of the things I find most annoying about the whole "nature vs. nurture" debate is that leaning to a biological explanation for gender roles will quickly attract harsh accusations of being a supporter of gender roles - i.e. a blatant case of the naturalistic fallacy.

[Diageo]

Nature versus nurture is such an old debate I don't know why people keep bringing it up. It's clear that both influence each other dramatically and both need to be considered in tandem. Nutrition, social interactions and external stimuli all influence genetics, epigenetics and brain structure, and vice versa.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Nature versus nurture is such an old debate I don't know why people keep bringing it up. It's clear that both influence each other dramatically and both need to be considered in tandem. Nutrition, social interactions and external stimuli all influence genetics, epigenetics and brain structure, and vice versa.

 

Hence why it's such a problem that feminism is keen to ignore or outright dismiss evolutionary explanations for the development of gender roles. Again the problem seems to be an inherent fear that saying that something is natural legitimises it, a mistake made far too often on both sides of the fence.

 

Have I mentioned lately that I really fucking despise the naturalistic fallacy?

[Diageo]

Yes .

[Ashley]

Oh no I've been drafted in to describe Butler...and I assume in a slightly less flippant way than "basically we should all go have big orgies".

 

Okay, from what I recall (and it's been a while since I've read her work and queer theory in general):

 

Butler argues that sex and gender are different. Sex is biologically inherited. You are (typically) born with either male or female reproductive organs. However, gender is performative and you can choose how to 'act out' your gender (she, or others, may argue that the choice can be limited by other factors such as society, upbringing etc I can't recall). In essence, what we consider gender is merely social or personal acts, and as such we can pick and choose which acts we engage in. To be incredibly simplistic; doing construction work is a male act and cooking is a feminine act (obviously not true, but for the sake of explanation let's say this is a commonly believed social norm), but your sex doesn't impede or affect your ability to do this. If you are a female and want to be a welder then you can just choose to do that.

 

Random quotes from my undergrad notes:

 

Fluidity provides for any number of genders: ‘the ability to freely and knowingly become one of many of a limitless number of genders for any length of time, at any rate of change. Gender fluidity recognises no borders or rules of gender.

 

Gender exists as itself, that is, as an idea, an invention, a means of oppression and a means of expression. Many in the community would see themselves as existing outside of gender, of being oppressed by it but using its icons and signifiers to say who they are.

 

Butler argues that “she calls the ‘heterosexual matrix’, in which ‘sex’ is seen as a binary biological given – you are born female or male – and then ‘gender’ is the cultural component which is socialised in the person on that basis.

 

Your body does not determine your gender or identity, and this will not help us to predict your desires.

 

Identity is a performance already – it’s always a performance. The self is always being made and re-made in daily interactions.

 

There is no gender identity behind the expression of gender;…identity is performatively constituted by the very “expressions” that are said to be its results.

 

And some counter-arguments:

 

The reality for many people much of the time is that their sexualities remain remarkably constant and stable over time even when lived experience may contradict this.

 

We are not free to choose our performances or masquerades at will – like a type of ‘improvisational theatre’…Mostly we can only enact those behaviours which have long since become familiar and meaningful to us in expressing ourselves.

 

If I'm wrong...meh it's Friday.

 

Now we can all get a laugh out of Daft's picture of Butler, right? Also starting to think he may have handed that in as an essay and got an A because that's how SOAS rolls.

Edited March 15, 2013 by Ashley

[Raining_again]

I saw an interesting discussion on the embarrassing bodies clinic, where male and female "brains" aren't necessarily tied to gender, they did various tasks that are deemed appropriate to males and females. One of the male tasks was a flatpack, and one of the female tasks was a memory type task. Apparently very male brains can (but not always) be associated with autism.

 

They had a range of people taking these tests and they the typical results, as well as a male with female brains (a teacher) and a female with male brain (she was in the construction industry)

[MoogleViper]

I saw an interesting discussion on the embarrassing bodies clinic, where male and female "brains" aren't necessarily tied to gender, they did various tasks that are deemed appropriate to males and females. One of the male tasks was a flatpack, and one of the female tasks was a memory type task. Apparently very male brains can (but not always) be associated with autism.

 

They had a range of people taking these tests and they the typical results, as well as a male with female brains (a teacher) and a female with male brain (she was in the construction industry)

 

But that's just saying that all men think like this, and if you think differently then you have the wrong brain.