|
Traditionalist Conservatism Forum > Sex and Gender > gender roles |
|
| Next Topic >> |
| Author | Comment |
|
bhagawata Registered User (6/16/01 4:55 pm) Reply |
gender roles I have come to believe that, because of continuously advancing technologies, strict gender roles will be even more important than ever were in the past. A complete mechanical theory of life will be found which will lead eventually to a view of society as a wondrous machine with two seperate parts, male and female, having seperate and distinct functions. Technology has created an abormal situation but we can maintain sanity and peace by reapplying the one and only natural law, that is simply, the order and respect that should exist between the sexes, with I repeat, strict gender roles, with women employed only in the caring professions and priimary school teaching. Then there is singing and dancing of course. No need to worry about the kids because the female of the species is perfectly adapted to looking after them, while the male is not. The men ,on the other hand would be forced out of their present apathy and do virtually everything else. They would have to reach for a much higher efficiency in the workforce, of which they are potentially capable. Men have evolved to do that - to reach on higher. |
JimKalb  ezOP (6/18/01 9:47 am) Reply 
|
Re: gender roles It seems to me that sex and gender, like other things that are basic to human life and have a symbolic element, can't be defined and systematized completely. So it seems to me that a complete mechanical theory of life that tried to turn the world into a wondrous machine would try to get rid of them or turn them into something that doesn't much matter. In fact, I think that's what we see around us today. Jim Kalb |
|
Anglican21 Registered User (7/16/01 8:07 pm) Reply |
Re: gender roles I believe men oppose feminism for several different reasons, but primarily because feminism seeks to deny them power, prestige and wealth in our society. The main dominant group always grinds minority groups down, particularly white males who assume that power was particularly created for them. By denying certain minority interests groups, such as feminists, they certify and maintain their power and dominance; such too, were slave-owners in the 19th century. They dogmatically believed that blacks were biologically inferior to them. That they were “less evolved” then whites and therefore not as intelligent and could be treated likewise. Discrimination and prejudice are rooted in Fear. Fear that the slave owners had that their plantation life existence would suffer if blacks had equal rights and freedom. It has been made an argument that “Stable and functional families are necessary for a tolerable way of life.” But what defines stable and functional? Certainly you cannot play god and assume that you know the answer to this. “ …and they will not exist unless men and women each have something specific to offer that the other is entitled to rely on. Further, the natural tendencies of the sexes are different.” And what constitutes as natural? What is your definition of natural? Is ‘just because it has always existed this way’ a reasonable explanation? Slavery for one, is commonplace in the past, does that mean that it is natural and justly right?’ Mutilation of women genitalia is part of other cultures “naturalness.” Does this necessarily mean this is right as well? John Money in his Gendermaps: Social Constructionism, Femininism, and Sexosophical History, talks about: sex-roles and gender-personality. “Sex-roles—the observable behavior of men and women assigned by each culture or sub-culture on the basis of sex, gender-personality—the internal personality traits considered either 'masculine' or 'feminine' within a given culture or sub-culture. Both of these human phenomena arise from socialization rather than from 'human nature' or some other claim of genetic transmission. (James Park 2001)” On Father's Day, Oprah Winfrey hosted a show called "Father's Day Surprises" where they showcased stay-at-home dads and their lives. According to the information given in the Oprah show, there are over one million stay-at-home-dads today. Would anti-feminist groups argue that it is wrong for men to stay home with their children? "Jack is a stay-at-home dad of quintuplets! He juggles five one-year-old babies while his wife Kathy brings home the bacon. Between feeding, cleaning, and monitoring the babies, Jack is exhausted — but he says the experience has made him more sensitive. "I have a whole new appreciation for women who stay at home with their kids," he says." Support groups like the Cincinnati Stay-At-Home Dads (members.tripod.com/cincidads) have emerged more recently in our post-industrial society. How do anti-feminists react to that? To assume that roles are natural or biological is in fact wrong. Roles are learned socially. Although we are made of different biologically stuff, there should be no assumption made that these biological differences result in "natural tendencies" in gender roles. Dads can make just as great stay-at-home parents as women have been in past patriarchal societies. There might be more for them to learn socially, but surely no more then a single 14-year old girl who becomes a mother for the first time. There is the fact that different cultures have different definitions of gender roles. Shouldn’t the array of definitions show that there is no one general definition of right and wrong? Also, hunting & gathering societies experience high degrees of egalitarianism. Yes, they do have distinctions in their particular society that regard to function, but women have an equal position in their society, mainly due to the fact that they bring home about 60% of the food. It’s whoever “brings home the bacon” who establishes dominance in the family. So when anti-feminists say, well it's always been patriarchal, they are referring to their definition of the term learned in their own culture. Also, the greater the share in household income, the greater the equality is. Sociologists have reported that men who believe in non-traditional gender roles have a higher degree of happiness in their marriage. Also, “men with post-graduate degrees assume considerably more responsibility for such tasks as dish-washing, child care, shopping, housecleaning, and laundry (Goldscheider and Waite, 1991)” Gender roles are simply construed within the culture they exist. A good example of this is the case study explained in Man & Woman, Boy & Girl (John Money & Anke A. Ehrhardt Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins UP, 1972) where there were 2 twins (same biological nature) who were both genetically male. The difference was, a routine circumcision resulted in extreme mutilation of one of the boys and so his parents simply decided to raise him as a girl. And 'He' was a girl. He was completely socialized into the world as female and as a result thought and acted accordingly to the gender stereotypes. This resulted in a problem when he hit puberty and certain physical features due to hormones started to develop, but ‘he’ although confused, still thought himself to be a girl. As a child the parents reported the “little girl” to be neat, clean, organized, and loving to have her hair set. A persons’ roles are learned in early childhood. Children are taught and encouraged to play with toys identified with their traditional roles. In Holly Devor’s book, Gender Blending: Confronting the Limits of Duality, she explores the: “Childhood enculturation to have either conventional 'masculine' traits (such as being active and assertive, and being competent to cope with the world of work) or conventional 'feminine' traits (such as being sensitive, compassionate, and better prepared to deal with relationships). Parents create these characteristics in their children by subtle reinforcement and disapproval, even while they assume they are just observing these personality attributes emerging. (James Park 2001)” Now I'm not saying that we have to change all our "traditional" definitions of gender roles in order for equality to exist. What would be the point of that? The point or goal of feminism should be that as human beings, we are all equal in oppurtunity and treatment. Society, of course, will never be perfect. Then you might ask, what's the point of trying? Well, what would our world be like if we didn't care about children in poverty, the environment, or opposition of racism? We would live in an uncaring world. It's the underlying fact that what makes us care, is also what makes us human. There's nothing wrong with women excepting "traditional" gender roles. It doesn't however; make a society more stable or better in any way. There is no proof that a matriarchal society would be any better or worse then a patriarchal society. I happen to be living in a generation though, where the expected norms for me are to be an educated woman (both my parents hold masters degrees). I was raised in a middle to upper-class suburban community where all kids were expected to graduate high school and go on to college and more then likely, obtain a graduate degree no matter what their sex. What is happening in our post-industrial society is that more and more women are getting the educational opportunities that their mothers did not get. Our generation is educated into the thinking workforce. As a result, women are more likely to pursue white-collared careers and to also take critical inquiry and social science classes where we learn about such things as gender identity, discrimination, and gender stratification. I do agree with anti-feminists when they state that children should have stability and love in their lives, but the idea that women are more loving and naturally the ones that should take care of kids is absurd to believe in this present day. Cultural norms change. They are always being ratified and adopted. 50 years ago it would of been unthinkable that an African-American could drink from the same water-fountain as a Caucasian. In the years to come, I think there will be less of a distinction between gender roles. The individuals of my generation, Generation X, believe more in equal opportunity, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness then the previous generation. We have learned that there is little difference between us collectively such as differences between people of race; that we are all one people made up of the same stuff. It is discrimination of others that is the greatest offense to life. |
Old Guard  Registered User (7/17/01 9:27 am) Reply
|
Oprah Winfrey ... ... is not normally cited as an authority in these parts. You'd probably get a better hearing if you cited something you saw on Sesame Street. :-) Your post is very sad. But it is a good lesson in the fundamentally Marxist nature of feminism, and in the Oprahfication of American life and politics. Jeff Culbreath "The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid." - G.K. Chesterton |
|
CDonovan Registered User (7/17/01 1:16 pm) Reply |
Re: Oprah Winfrey ... I've heard this a thousand times. It resembles a religious faith (no offense to religious people) more than it does a reasoned argument. "The main dominant group always grinds minority groups down, particularly white males who assume that power was particularly created for them." Where does this statement come from? A cold examination of historical fact or a thinly veiled well of resentment and/or self-loathing? I think it's obvious. Once again, "white males" are put forth as a monolithic group, ignoring completely the reality of life past and present. If whites have dominated Western history, it is because Western civilization is, by definition, white civilization. Power is not given or metered out according to some grand Illuminati-like conspiracy. Power goes to the superior in whatever realm defines power for the age in question. If you resent the fact that white civilization is powerful you should face reality and not pretend that it is "unjustly" so. That is projecting a moral prejudice every bit as real as the alleged "white male presumption of power". SEX roles are very much rooted in biology. Traditional sex roles are an outgrowth of biological sex roles, you are simply mistaking the cause for the effect here. The similarities in sex roles across cultures are far more numerous and compelling than the differences, but I don't expect your professors to tell you that. Your assertion about "hunter gatherer" societies are extremely speculative, as there is precious little real evidence to go by, and what evidence there is does not match up with the "egalitarian" picture you paint of prehistoric life. In contrast, there is every reason to conclude that patriarchy is universal, inevitable, and beneficial. Since there is no living example of a "matriarchal" society, feminists have resorted to inventing them in the prehistoric past where it's really anybody's guess for the most part. One of the few things that is fairly obvious about our prehistoric past is that it included violence and organized warfare, judging from the remains of fortifications and widespread evidence of human sacrifice (not to mention cannibalism). Hardly utopia. Your claims about prehistory are simply the wish-fulfillment of a disintegrating ideology in contradiction with the world as revealed by science. There are very significant sex differences that science has revealed. It can no longer be maintained that sex roles are "socially constructed" in their entirety. Those who still maintain the idea are overwhelmingly ignorant of the relevant science and do so not in the interest of truth but to protect their position. Reality is about to smack them very hard in face, and there's not much they can do about it other than try to censor it. That is a lost cause in the age of the internet. Women DO make better stay at home parents, because their bodies and minds are adapted to it by millions of years of evolution. Men are superior in their own ways as well, and society does, always has, and will continue to demonstrate these differences. There will never be equality of outcome. To set up such a goal for society is to condemn generations to futile and inhuman social engineering. I happen to be of "generation X" and I can tell you that you are severely mistaken in your assumptions about us. If anything, our defining characteristic is fragmentation. In fact there is a growing trend in art and the underground AWAY from the stale sexual determinism of Marxist-feminism and a rejection of the lit-crit cum universal dogma that "race is a fiction". We are learning, despite the best efforts of a biased media and a debased academy, that not only sexual differences but racial differences as well are quite real. Ideological thugs prefer to focus on transitory trends as evidence of "success" and "change", ignoring the fact that the dominant reality, and the reality of the street remain as patriarchal as ever. Patriarchy, you see, requires no massive propaganda effort, no cadre of indoctrinated "young revolutionaries". No dishonest and corrupt corpus of "theory" that few, let alone the authors, really take seriously enough to subject to real criticism. All patriarchy requires is the existence of human beings, and as long as that condition is met, patriarchy will still be around at the end of the day. The only possible outcome of trying to eliminate patriarchy will be a pile of bodies proportional to the severity of totalitarian social engineering deployed in the attempt. |
JasonEubanks  Registered User (7/19/01 5:46 pm) Reply 
|
An oxymoron - feminist equality "It is discrimination of others that is the greatest offense to life." It is? Really? Then why does feminism demand state sponsored and tax payer funded discrimination? Isn't the whole purpose of "affirmative action" to discriminate against white males? Some of feminism's most poisonous ideologues are federally funded through the various Centers for Women's Studies. Drop by one and sample some of the CWS's vile literature like "Ten Ways to be a Man" (way number 8 is sexually molest all preadolescent girls.) If the traditionalist position is that women are intellectually inferior to men a so are not deserving of equal protection with men, then how is that any different than feminist arguments for abortion? At least women in such a system are granted the right to life. We really needn't discuss the more macabre ideas like systematic extermination of all males that were hatched from more extreme fringes of feminism. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn about feminism is that is really not at all about equality or anything of the sort. It is social engineering; nothing more, nothing less. It believes in egalitarianism not equality. As egalitarianism is always accomplished by treating people in an unequal manner, what does this say about feminism if it must violate its own stated goals? The only answer is that feminism is not honest about it's goals. |
|
bhagawata Registered User (8/2/01 6:20 pm) Reply |
Re: gender roles For Anglican21. Concerning the twin boy who was brought up as a girl following a bungled circumcision. I have recently seen a full documentary on this very case and I can tell you for a fact that the twin is now living as a man, he has a wife and he is undergoing reconstructive surgery to give him back the penis which he lost. He said on the documentary that he had never been happy as a girl and that 'you are what you are'. And about the rest of your piece, get into your head the indisputable biological fact that the female of the species is perfectly adapted to looking after the offspring while the male is not. Everything about a woman, her emotional sophistication, her body language, her voice and her particular language skills, all these things have evolved together for a purpose: primarily the nurture of the offspring. Men can spend time with their kids here and there of course.Its important but its not the same. Men dont have the mysterious qualities that women have an they can never aquire them. Househusbands are a curse because they are disturbing many people and many children in various ways. Mervyn Spencer Jones. North Wales. |
|
DianeK Unregistered User (2/10/02 12:41 pm) Reply |
Gender roles You have really thought this out well. I'm a firm believer, through life and my marriage experience that true personal happiness and the success of our culture can only be found when men and women comply with what is natural. Males are so obviously the dominant force, women so obviously naturally submissive. What we're seeing in the world today is twisted, bound to fail. The result, misery for all, especially the children. |
|
JimKalb ezOP (2/11/02 8:08 am) Reply
|
Re: Gender roles I think part of the problem is that modern people try to understand things in too simple a way. They want to say that everything is the same type of thing and everything exists only to the extent it can be known and stated. The reason they want to say such things is that they make the world easier to manage. They mean you can choose what you want and manipulate things into that shape. Sometimes that approach is successful--look at modern natural science--but not always. When it's applied to human relations it doesn't work at all. Always and everywhere people have agreed, for example, that the stated is masculine and the unstated feminine. (Compare yang and yin with the "materia appetit formam ut femina virum" of Horace.) That agreement must point to some natural distinction between the sexes. The problem is that the modern way of seeing things identifies stated/unstated with existent/nonexistent or important/inconsequential. So the modern way of seeing things can understand acceptance of the natural distinction of the sexes only as a decision to treat women as inconsequential or nonexistent. When people say traditional sex roles make men dominant that may be so to the extent what's spoken dominates what's unspoken. Anyone who's been married though should realize that it's impossible to determine what that extent is. Jim Kalb |
|
bb smib Unregistered User (3/19/02 10:47 pm) Reply |
What is Natural in regards to gender??? I'm sorry but gender is a social construct. Sex is natural, and we all have biology that places us into a 'sex'. Gender roles comes from a social notion of what we should or should not be doing. Saying that a mother has a special kind of instinct to raise children and clean the house (and men don't), doesn't explain why some mothers kill their children, and why they get depressed from being trapped in the house slaving over the man. For some woman, childbearing and rearing CAN'T be the only life for them. Just as some men get great satisfaction from taking over this role - why else would you have house-dads? As for woman 'naturally' submissive, men 'naturally' aggressive - you can not generalise like that! Sure some woman may be submissive, some are aggressive, and the same can be said for men. It's like saying black is bad, white is good - it's untrue. There are bad in both races, good in both. It's unfair to say 'you are like this, you have to do that.' It doesn't suit all people. |
|
JimKalb ezOP (3/20/02 11:52 am) Reply
|
Re: What is Natural in regards to gender??? If gender were simply a social construct then it would exist in some societies and not others, and where it existed its content would be arbitrary--there would be no resemblance between masculinity and femininity East and West, ancient and modern. That's not the way things are though. As to social roles, I don't see how the objection can be limited to men's and women's roles. Doesn't it really apply to all social expectations whatever? After all, if I'm expected to do something or be some way I don't seem why it matters whether the expectation arises because I'm a man or for some other reason. Jim Kalb |
|
bb smib Registered User (3/26/02 8:05 pm) Reply |
Re: What is Natural in regards to gender??? It is a social construct because of the assumptions that just because we CAN have babies, it is our role to LOOK after them. It is social because these roles are idea's that we instill in male and female babies as soon as they are born. (You are a boy, you must behave this way...) It is a problem because some people can't conform to the role that society forces onto them, or expects them to be. Why do you think male suicide rates are so high? A perfect example is the colour blue for boys and pink for girls - colours don't have biology which says yes, you are male and you are female, yet they are catoragised as having a sex. When I had my son, I swore that I was going to dress him in both pink and blue. I was given sooooo much blue! So he ended up wearing a lot of blue anyway. It is this type of thing that I am referring to when I say gender is a social construct. |
|
JimKalb ezOP (3/27/02 10:19 am) Reply
|
Re: What is Natural in regards to gender??? Dear Tina, But if the view that women have some special connection with babies and small children is just a social construct why is it so widespread in so many societies--so far as I know in all, without exception? And how does the male inability to nurse figure into the view that the mother/child bond is just an arbitrary invention? It's true people start treating boys like boys and girls like girls as soon as they're born. They can't help themselves. Does that show the distinction is artificial, or does it show it's natural? Convention does enter into the distinction--in English "Marie" is a girl's name, while in French it can be the equivalent of "Marius" and so masculine--but that's true of all human things, even the most natural, like eating and speaking. Your big issue I think is what happens to people who feel at odds with social expectations. I don't think that issue has anything special to do with sex roles since there are always going to be expectations. What happens to people who don't like getting up in the morning? Who dread meeting strangers? Who find it hard to be civil to people they don't much like? Who get bored easily and don't like routine? Who are impulsive and find self-control difficult? Many people find social expectations on those things difficult and burdensome. Does that show the expectations should be abolished? The basic question I think is what pattern of expectations makes for a happier and more productive life for most people in general. Lately there's been an attack on the traditional pattern of expections regarding sex and gender. I don't see that people are better off as a result. If suicide is your standard rates have gone up rather than declining--especially in the case of young people. Jim Kalb |
|
bb smib Registered User (4/2/02 10:11 pm) Reply |
Re: What is Natural in regards to gender??? James, You bring up good points. My main point is that all woman aren't good mothers and do not go along with the expectation that (all) woman are born to give birth and nurture children. On the same hand, I know that men are quite capable of taking on the womans 'role' and being a better 'mum' than some women. I also know that some woman would rather kill themselves than be trapped in the kitchen or washing their husbands clothes. I know from experience that as soon as a woman gets pregnant, the expectation is that they will have to drop everything to nurture their baby. I have had people tell me that I've ruined my life because I had a baby when my carreer hadn't even started yet (I was at uni), and now, I'm a bad mum because I put my child in day care while I finish what I started. I've been told I'm selfish because I can't give up my career for my son, and become a housewife and mother. I don't think I'm selfish, because as far as I'm concerned, I'm not letting my baby (who, yes, I love more than anything) get in the road of my goals. On top of this, I didn't let my goals get in the road of my baby (I didn't [couldn't if I was paid a million dollars] have an abortion). This is why I feel that these roles are not 'natural'. I know a lot of women who would have, and have aborted babies to persue a career... not exactly the 'mother, submissive, nurturing' type huh. By natural I mean something that comes naturally, I guess, but it is not just black and white. Sort of like breathing, eating... these are natural, and not taught. You say we can't help ourselves when we treat boys as boys and girls as girls - of course we can! Humans are smart! As soon as we are aware of something we can change it. Saying this is like saying a rapist can do what he does because he couldn't help himself. It's a habit - something that has been developed and put into place by constant practice. No, it's not natural - we can change this habit. Now I know that experience moulds our thinking and beliefs, but I was really concerned when I read DianeK's submission: "that true personal happiness and the success of our culture can only be found when men and women comply with what is natural. Males are so obviously the dominant force, women so obviously naturally submissive." My posts have pretty much been in rebuttal to this... |
|
JimKalb ezOP (4/4/02 8:04 am) Reply
|
Re: What is Natural in regards to gender??? Dear Tina, I agree there are some women who are not cut out to be mothers. Situations can turn anything into the best that's available but I doubt there are many men who would be good substitute moms. Babies don't even respond to men and women the same way. So what happens when a woman doesn't much like domesticity etc.? I suppose the same that happens whenever someone doesn't feel suited for something that people with a lot of general justification think she ought to do, like (in modern industrial society) go to school and try to get good grades, get up every morning and go to work, support herself, obey rules and regulations, etc. She might: 1. Get used to it. A lot of life is like that. 2. Most people are somewhat flexible and most responsibilities can be carried out in somewhat different ways. So maybe she could do 60% of what people think she should do the way it's usually done, 20% more-or-less do with shortcuts etc., 10% get someone else to do it, and let the last 10% slide. 3. The percentages can change depending on circumstances. It's possible for example that the man really would be willing and able to take on an unusual share of the duties. The function of role stereotypes is not so much to prescribe how things must be done in all instances than to set a basic pattern so there's a system of things people can normally rely on and they don't have to negotiate everything from zero. People might look at you funny if you do something at odds with what they expect but life goes on and all you can do is your best. Again, these comments aren't just for sex role expectations, I think they apply to social expectations in general. Expectations are necessary, they don't always fit completely, and when they don't similar sorts of things happen. Sometimes the adjustments are successful, sometimes they aren't, sometimes it's a mixture. That's life. I think you overestimate how much people can simply decide to change basic tendencies like responding differently to boys and girls (and for that matter to men and women). If you drive nature out with a pitchfork she'll sneak back in somehow. There may be a natural way of breathing, but children are taught how, when and what to eat. Speaking is absolutely natural for human beings, it's one of the things that defines us, but we all must learn a particular language. And so it goes--man is naturally cultural, and cultural habits are intertwined with natural tendencies. I think modern ways of thinking make the "dominant/submissive" business impossible to understand. They're too one-dimensional, everything has to be a simple mechanical system. The fact of the matter is that men are usually more direct, but on fewer issues, women more indirect, but there are more things they want. A great deal of feminine energy goes into setting things up so the man will make the right decision, and men often enough see what's going on and just try to guess what the right answer is to "do you think we should" questions. Most of the time with married couples it's impossible to figure out who actually decided what. Jim Kalb |
|
bb smib Registered User (4/5/02 11:05 pm) Reply |
Re: What is Natural in regards to gender??? Just a quickie cause I came in to read this between lectures... James, have you ever had a baby??? You don't teach them how to eat... It is an instinct. As soon as they are born they have a rooting instict - you stroke their cheek and they will look for something to suck on. It is almost impossible to make a baby eat if they are not hungry - they eat when they are hungry. You can't force food down their throat and say now is the time to eat, so eat! As to what to eat, fair enough - these days there is so much junk that you do have to teach healthy eating habits... I know a lot of kids who have a closer bond to their fathers than they do their mums, and their dads look after them just as good as what their mothers did. A dad can show love and understanding just like a mum. A dad can change a nappy and cook for the kid, can read stories and play games. A dad can nurture their childs intellect and emotional state. You generalise when you say dads can't do the same as a mother - some men aren't scared to show their feelings and be truthful to their child. Some men treat woman equally and get that same respect back - they don't need to hide behind power games to make them feel more of a man... |
|
JimKalb ezOP (4/6/02 8:04 am) Reply
|
Re: What is Natural in regards to gender??? When your baby gets older I think you'll find yourself teaching him how to eat like a human being. In a big multifaceted world more than one type of person is needed, and your second paragraph fails to take that into account. It seems to me the masculine character is more suited to public and the feminine to private life. Both are essential to human life. Why pretend that masculinity is simply a matter of power games and hiding feelings, so that it would be better if it were abolished? Jim Kalb |
|
PatriarchySucks Registered User (4/14/02 8:12 pm) Reply |
Re: What is Natural in regards to gender??? It's one thing to teach a baby how to eat like a human being, but it's quite another to teach boys to play with cars, trucks, toy guns, G.I. Joes and Lego while putting little girls in frilly little dresses and having them play with Barbie and Ken or My Little Pony. Sex is a fact of life - you are usually born either male or female. Gender, on the other hand, is something that has been constructed and passed down from countless generations to perpetuate sex-roles in a patriarchal society. "Masculine" and "Feminine" have nothing to do with biology and everything to do with politics and control. There's nothing "natural" about girls playing with dolls or boys playing with guns. They are simply doing as they are trained to do. I was a tomboy growing up who loved to fight and get dirty and play with Hot Wheels. My best friend was a little boy who liked to play with stuffed animals. What's natural is kids being allowed to do whatever they LIKE to do without being pressured to conform. There's also nothing natural about binding women's feet in China or wearing high heels in America. It's alllll a construct that influences every move that we make in life. That is, unless you reject the patriarchy's rules.... |
|
JimKalb ezOP (4/15/02 5:38 am) Reply
|
Re: What is Natural in regards to gender??? I urge you to get to know children better, and then decide whether a fixation on trucks is something parents inflict on small boys. Tomboys and their male equivalents do exist, and Christopher Robin is not the only boy who has been attached to a stuffed animal, but the overall picture is glaringly obvious. I have no idea why someone would think that letting kids do what they want would mean less sex role-typing. Kids do it to themselves and each other, and the role of adults I think is to civilize the tendency, for example by holding up examples of civilized adult male and female behavior. I do agree that the way children are brought up should reflect their natural tendencies as well as adult notions of how things ought to be. Nonsexist education is an extreme case of the latter. I don't see anything specially natural about kids being allowed to do whatever they like without pressure to conform, by the way. "Whatever" is a strong term. Man is naturally a social and cultural animal, which means that children are always and everywhere encouraged to act in some ways rather than others, and sometimes disciplined for doing what they like when their elders think it's not the thing to do. Anything else would be unnatural and destructive. Jim Kalb |
|
patriarchsucks Unregistered User (4/15/02 8:53 pm) Reply |
Re: What is Natural in regards to gender??? I think it would be nice if you would stop using the word "man" as a general term for "human". Men do NOT represent the entire human race. |
|
BytheSkyLight Unregistered User (5/3/02 8:32 pm) Reply |
excuse me... "Man" does indeed refer to the entire human race. I know of feminists who use the term. Of course, most feminists are very petty. |
|
Next Topic >>
|
 Topic Commands Click to receive email notification of replies  Click to stop receiving email notification of replies |
|
- Traditionalist Conservatism Forum - Sex and Gender - On to Restoration! -
| Upgrade your account to ezSupporter... |  | ...and never see another ad or pop-up again |
Powered By ezboard® Ver. 7.3u
Copyright ©1999-2003 ezboard, Inc.