The Gender invention

[Brit Boi Gee]

Do you accept that there are basic differences between boys and girls or are you of the opinion that society and parents place such attitudes in their children?

M Grabucker (1988), attempted to defy the socialisation process by trying to remain gender neutral when raising her daughter. She soon found it difficult to maintain because within society there are many reinforcers for the behaviour of girls and boys. Something as simple as little girls being complimented on their prettiness, while boys never being complimented on such a thing, or the colour blue for boys and pink for girls. She argues that the patriarchal structure of society is so strong and immediate an influence, that most women, cannot distinguish between the influences of society and therfore believe them to be nothing other than innate charachteristics in boys and girls.

Now it may be absurd to state, " why cant boys wear dresses, but girls can wear trousers?" Grabucker argues: " As Long as mothers recoil in horror at the thought of their sons wearing their sisters nightdresses, beautiful though they maybe, Nothing will change in men." Young girls are being encouraged to break the mould as it were, and become more free in a mans world, but boys are being treated exactly the same as they always were by the men and women who are calling for change.

[Jack Iraq]

I do accept that there are basic differences between males and females. One has a dick, the other has a pussy.

[MiSt_Of_CoNfUsIoN]

Well society is becoming slightly more accepting of boys who do wear dresses or dress in "womens clothing" however, I don't think it will be something that will be an easy acceptance. I think there are distintive differences between boys and girls that they are born with and I think there is a heavy influence of society on what boys are supposed to wear, do, like, etc.. Same goes for girls. Its very hard to avoid them. I have one neice and one nephew and its interesting to see first hand. *shrug* Nature vs. Nurture

[Ignorant]

There are natural hormones that influence different behaviors between the sexes.

So it's not all societally-influenced... although it is reinforced.

Men have always been natural aggressors because of their protective role... and women have always been nurturers because of their roles as mothers.

Post-modern, crackpot overzealous feminists and their sympathizers try to deny this influence.

[Brit Boi Gee]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

There are natural hormones that influence different behaviors between the sexes.

So it's not all societally-influenced... although it is reinforced.

Men have always been natural aggressors because of their protective role... and women have always been nurturers because of their roles as mothers.

Post-modern, crackpot overzealous feminists and their sympathizers try to deny this influence.

"natural hormones influence different behaviours"...based on what?

first you say its hormones, then you say its just men and women having different roles. Are you seriously saying that hormones are responsible for making men aggressive and women passive? If this were the case, then all men would be aggressive, and all women would be nurturers.

You say Men have 'always' been natural aggressors, really, why?

Your view of post modern feminists ,as you put it, is biased. Modern feminists dont always try to deny the influence of biology, however, many feminists place the socialisation process of creating gender above it.

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by Brit Boi Gee

"natural hormones influence different behaviours"...based on what?

Based on scientific studies... you should read sometime.

Humans have instincts just like animals... behavior isn't entirely socially-influenced like you're making it out to be.

first you say its hormones, then you say its just men and women having different roles. Are you seriously saying that hormones are responsible for making men aggressive and women passive? If this were the case, then all men would be aggressive, and all women would be nurturers.

No, I'm saying it's both. Yes, I'm seriously saying that hormones affect aggression and passivity in both males and females. And it doesn't follow that all men would be aggressive and all women would be nurturers. These hormones are in each gender and we do a lot to stifle their effect in our behavior, so therefore many people won't act on their initial instincts... they'll reason first.

You say Men have 'always' been natural aggressors, really, why?

Ask God... He designed us. All I know is that men have a higher concentration of testosterone than women, which is responsible for sexual appettite, aggression and other masculine traits like excess body hair, deep voice, muscle mass, etc.

Women have higher concentrations of estrogen, which makes them have more feminine attributes and be more nurturing.

There was no conference back during the dawn of mankind that said, "okay, men are going to behave this way and women are going to behave that way." "Now everybody keep this up for centuries so that our descendants will have something to follow."

Yes, traditional gender roles and behavior are reinforced by society, but they weren't invented... that's where you and the feminists have it twisted.

Your view of post modern feminists ,as you put it, is biased. Modern feminists dont always try to deny the influence of biology, however, many feminists place the socialisation process of creating gender above it.

No, it's not... how is it biased? Modern feminists do deny the influence of biology and believe that men and women are equal, when we're not.

[Speedy Gunzalez]

Hahahaha.... Oh boy.

Ignorant, you know damn well that you're completely ill-informed about any feminist literature.

I'll be back to post my thoughts a little later.

[~S*T*A*R*M~]

Great question! I think it's a circular argument, really. I most definitely beleive that there are "basic" differences between men and women, culture and society laid aside. However, this brings me to my next point, is it even possible to put culture and society aside? Have nature and nurture not become so intertwined (on a societal level) that one can no longer exist without the other? Would it be unsafe to say that we "intrinsically" behave the ways that we do because our society tells us we need to upkeep certain roles. And couldn't these constructs just be based on the roles we must fulfill to achieve evolutionary success? So, which came first? When have humans not had instincts? Better yet, when have humans not had a society?


Ofcourse there are social reinforcements in place in society.. in all societies, actually. Why? Because it is necessary. It is necessary to maintain a certain order and structure within any society, and gender-based sterotypes are rooted at the foundation of this necessity. Socialized human beings find comfort in structure. Believing that women are to behave a certain way and that men are supposed to behave a certain way, and these two behaviours should complement each other is a cornerstone in our societal patchwork. So yes, there will be all kinds of positive reinforcements (usually covert) for those who stay in line and upkeep the structure. For those that don't, well, any 6 o'clock broadcast will show you the punishment & opposition. Not following suit within a society is seen as a threat that must be stopped for the sake of upward progression & basic survival of the society. Boys wearing dresses is a threat. Being a vocal woman against certain "female" sterotypes is a threat. If not, it wouldn't be so looked down upon ("he's a fag," "she's a nazi-feminist"). The constructs we follow are most definitely dictated & supported by our societies, but I think it's very important to also take our innate characteristics into consideration at the same time.

[skandelous_lala]

What I would like to know, is how in the hell to raise a child "gender neutral". Gender is a HUUUUUUGE part of a person's identity and how they perceive the world. That's just not something you can do away with.


You can throw a nature/nuture arguement out there, but it is not one or the other. It is both. A person WILL be effected by the genes in which they inherit. But they will also be effected by the enviroment in which they were raised. Studies have proved this time and time again.
So while theoretically, (although not ethical of course) you *could* raise a child in a confined enviroment where the only situations in which they encounter are those in which they see gender in a competely neutral perspective, this is just not possible in the "real world." You cannot protect children from witnessing gender bias and the standards that society sets for males/females. That enviroment is going to influence them. And while a parent might have strict control over what a child is exposed to in the early years of their lives, at least at the ages of 5-6 when they start school a whole new world is going to open up and one that obviously includes the child experiencing gender difference and bias. And again, a parent really has no control over that.

Not all of the things that define male/female in society are innate. Not by a long shot. The examples are right there in the text..who thought blue=boy & pink=girl? Who decided women wear dresses and men wear pants and not vice versa?
But still, there ARE innate qualities that seperate males and females totally and define the genders in a nice crisp line.

[Brit Boi Gee]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

Based on scientific studies... you should read sometime.

Humans have instincts just like animals... behavior isn't entirely socially-influenced like you're making it out to be...

Before you tell me to get the lowdown on the scientific studies that you didn't provide, perhaps you should look at the epistemological problems with taking science for fact. If science can prove that gender identity is solidified by biology, then how do we explain the diversity of gendered behaviour? Also,If you're going to bring the instinctual side into the debate, this by no means proves what makes men men, and women women. You are quick to establish that societal influences are of little importance in comparision to biology, but I believe you are under valuing socialisation on the grounds of sexual difference, because there isn't any evidence to suggest otherwise.

Originally Posted by Ignorant

No, I'm saying it's both. Yes, I'm seriously saying that hormones affect aggression and passivity in both males and females. And it doesn't follow that all men would be aggressive and all women would be nurturers. These hormones are in each gender and we do a lot to stifle their effect in our behavior, so therefore many people won't act on their initial instincts... they'll reason first

So basically you are saying that men have an equal amount of male hormone, and women an equal amount of female hormone and repression is responsible for any exception to the rule. I don't buy it.

Originally Posted by Ignorant

Ask God... He designed us. All I know is that men have a higher concentration of testosterone than women, which is responsible for sexual appettite, aggression and other masculine traits like excess body hair, deep voice, muscle mass, etc...

Your comment of " asking God" only solidifies your feeling of an unchanging biology which people should not try and transcend because of going against the so called naturalness of gender roles. When looking at the differences of male and female biology, it does not necceserily follow on that biological differences such as testosterone are the reason for masculine and feminine ways, but rather the socialisation process and our expections of what men and women should be, make us point our finger to the unreliabilty of strict gender division. Strict gender divisions do not always hold up to experience, unfortunately.

Originally Posted by Ignorant

Women have higher concentrations of estrogen, which makes them have more feminine attributes and be more nurturing..

And Social scientists would be skeptical about placing the hormone estrogen as the determining factor of how a woman turns out. They would also have problems with assigning certain behaviours feminine and others as masculine. Not all women are nuturing, and it cannot be accounted for simply as a lack of estrogen.

Originally Posted by Ignorant

There was no conference back during the dawn of mankind that said, "okay, men are going to behave this way and women are going to behave that way." "Now everybody keep this up for centuries so that our descendants will have something to follow." .

No there was no conference, not that it would have mattered. Biology is seen as the root of all behavioural difference between men and women, but sociologists have questioned this notion, because they believe the construction of gender is much more significant than hormones, or instincts for determining the outcome of our identity as men and women.

Originally Posted by Ignorant

Yes, traditional gender roles and behavior are reinforced by society, but they weren't invented... that's where you and the feminists have it twisted.

In a sense, they were invented, otherwise we would not have expectations of how men and women should or should not act.

Originally Posted by Ignorant

No, it's not... how is it biased? Modern feminists do deny the influence of biology and believe that men and women are equal, when we're not.

It is biased because it suits your cause of conservative traditions which keep the women who do not suit the model of your femininity in shackles. Its interesting that you use the word equal. This further illustrates your will to power over women, i.e, women should know their place because they are women and can not do certain things that men can do, when exceptions to the rule exist in both cases. Patriarchy uses biology to perpetuate traditional male and female behaviour, which is arguably constructed, to keep men and women in a neat catergory which they often cannot fit into. It can be argued in modern society that what makes men men, is the " need to see the match and drink beers", but how does biology come into it? It doesn't, so now perhaps you can see why sociologists place gender above biology. It is because sexual difference isn't enough to justify the myriad of dispositions that men and women posess, and it becomes a problem when we assign gender roles to people concerning matters that are not even important to our lives, such as femininity= lip gloss and heels, but use the same biology argument to justify positions like: "women should not be educated because they may become insensitive".

[Brit Boi Gee]

Originally Posted by ~S*T*A*R*M~

Great question! I think it's a circular argument, really. I most definitely beleive that there are "basic" differences between men and women, culture and society laid aside. However, this brings me to my next point, is it even possible to put culture and society aside? Have nature and nurture not become so intertwined (on a societal level) that one can no longer exist without the other? Would it be unsafe to say that we "intrinsically" behave the ways that we do because our society tells us we need to upkeep certain roles. And couldn't these constructs just be based on the roles we must fulfill to achieve evolutionary success? So, which came first? When have humans not had instincts? Better yet, when have humans not had a society?

Yea, but the question of basic difference which you accept, ( society aside), causes the most controversy and raises the most questions. I do agree with you that nature and nurture, are somewhat interwined but it is whether you choose to conform to steretypical roles of being a woman or challenge them that counts. Biological differences are the most stark differences between men and women. why? Because there is a definate difference and there is no getting away from that, however, when it is used as a justification to uphold structures which promote untruths that are quite possibly invented, then it is oppressive. An example of this, is not letting women vote, or telling a young boy that he shouldn't cry. All these decisions were made, said and justified by the idea of biological difference.

Originally Posted by ~S*T*A*R*M~

Ofcourse there are social reinforcements in place in society.. in all societies, actually. Why? Because it is necessary. It is necessary to maintain a certain order and structure within any society, and gender-based sterotypes are rooted at the foundation of this necessity. Socialized human beings find comfort in structure. Believing that women are to behave a certain way and that men are supposed to behave a certain way, and these two behaviours should complement each other is a cornerstone in our societal patchwork. So yes, there will be all kinds of positive reinforcements (usually covert) for those who stay in line and upkeep the structure. For those that don't, well, any 6 o'clock broadcast will show you the punishment & opposition. Not following suit within a society is seen as a threat that must be stopped for the sake of upward progression & basic survival of the society. Boys wearing dresses is a threat. Being a vocal woman against certain "female" sterotypes is a threat. If not, it wouldn't be so looked down upon ("he's a fag," "she's a nazi-feminist"). The constructs we follow are most definitely dictated & supported by our societies, but I think it's very important to also take our innate characteristics into consideration at the same time.

The thing is, its very hard to look to, or measure our innate charachteristics, which would take us in a suitable direction.Its interesting that you use the word structure to allude to society being held together in a functioning way. Radical feminists argue that it is a functioning system, but it is certainly not productive, and its certainly male dominated at the expense of women.

(See radical feminism)

[Brit Boi Gee]

Originally Posted by skandelous_lala

What I would like to know, is how in the hell to raise a child "gender neutral". Gender is a HUUUUUUGE part of a person's identity and how they perceive the world. That's just not something you can do away with..

Yes, and M grabucker, thought it would be fairly easy to do. She argued that the patriarchal structure of gender is such an immediate influence to our every day lives, that most people just come to accept the differences between boys and girls as biological and innate, when it is really the deeply penetrating effect of a society that has constructed gender.

Originally Posted by skandelous_lala

You can throw a nature/nuture arguement out there, but it is not one or the other. It is both. A person WILL be effected by the genes in which they inherit. But they will also be effected by the enviroment in which they were raised. Studies have proved this time and time again.
So while theoretically, (although not ethical of course) you *could* raise a child in a confined enviroment where the only situations in which they encounter are those in which they see gender in a competely neutral perspective, this is just not possible in the "real world." You cannot protect children from witnessing gender bias and the standards that society sets for males/females. That enviroment is going to influence them. And while a parent might have strict control over what a child is exposed to in the early years of their lives, at least at the ages of 5-6 when they start school a whole new world is going to open up and one that obviously includes the child experiencing gender difference and bias. And again, a parent really has no control over that..

Yes, I agree. It is very hard to limit the effect of a society which has already determined how boys and girls should turn out. But does that mean we should accept the system and live in it? Perhaps if we did, women would still have no rights to education, and no rights to vote. You would almost certainly not be in the position to become a career focused independant woman had it been the case.

Originally Posted by skandelous_lala

Not all of the things that define male/female in society are innate. Not by a long shot. The examples are right there in the text..who thought blue=boy & pink=girl? Who decided women wear dresses and men wear pants and not vice versa?
But still, there ARE innate qualities that seperate males and females totally and define the genders in a nice crisp line.

why would the innate differences be in a 'nice crisp line', when societal differences are not?

That's something you've got to ask yourself.

[~S*T*A*R*M~]

Originally Posted by Brit Boi Gee

... but it is whether you choose to conform to steretypical roles of being a woman or challenge them that counts. Biological differences are the most stark differences between men and women. why? Because there is a definate difference and there is no getting away from that, however, when it is used as a justification to uphold structures which promote untruths that are quite possibly invented, then it is oppressive. An example of this, is not letting women vote, or telling a young boy that he shouldn't cry. All these decisions were made, said and justified by the idea of biological difference.

Why do you assume it's a choice? What are these "untruths?" Untruths according to whom?

[Speedy Gunzalez]

Originally Posted by Brit Boi Gee

Before you tell me to get the lowdown on the scientific studies that you didn't provide, perhaps you should look at the epistemological problems with taking science for fact. If science can prove that gender identity is solidified by biology, then how do we explain the diversity of gendered behaviour? Also,If you're going to bring the instinctual side into the debate, this by no means proves what makes men men, and women women. You are quick to establish that societal influences are of little importance in comparision to biology, but I believe you are under valuing socialisation on the grounds of sexual difference, because there isn't any evidence to suggest otherwise.



So basically you are saying that men have an equal amount of male hormone, and women an equal amount of female hormone and repression is responsible for any exception to the rule. I don't buy it.



Your comment of " asking God" only solidifies your feeling of an unchanging biology which people should not try and transcend because of going against the so called naturalness of gender roles. When looking at the differences of male and female biology, it does not necceserily follow on that biological differences such as testosterone are the reason for masculine and feminine ways, but rather the socialisation process and our expections of what men and women should be, make us point our finger to the unreliabilty of strict gender division. Strict gender divisions do not always hold up to experience, unfortunately.



And Social scientists would be skeptical about placing the hormone estrogen as the determining factor of how a woman turns out. They would also have problems with assigning certain behaviours feminine and others as masculine. Not all women are nuturing, and it cannot be accounted for simply as a lack of estrogen.



No there was no conference, not that it would have mattered. Biology is seen as the root of all behavioural difference between men and women, but sociologists have questioned this notion, because they believe the construction of gender is much more significant th