You can give a boy a doll, but you can't make him play with it.

[Os Cangaceiros]

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/12/you-can-give-a-boy-a-doll-but-you-cant-make-him-play-with-it/265977/

Thought this article which I saw posted on another site would generate some interesting discussion.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I have a cousin (man) who, when he was little, played with girls dolls. He is an adult now and is actualy quite manly.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I never really understood the whole motor-skills thing. I loved playing with dolls when I was a kid.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/12/you-can-give-a-boy-a-doll-but-you-cant-make-him-play-with-it/265977/

Thought this article which I saw posted on another site would generate some interesting discussion.

Thanks to this source, i now know that Han Solo means him alone. Thank you.

ps: I'm not ready for this kind of fundamental societal shift. I still think in archaic views like testosterone / estrogen fueled thought patterns and not wanting females to fight at the front lines due to the potential negative affects on morale.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I still think in archaic views like testosterone / estrogen fueled thought patterns and not wanting females to fight at the front lines due to the potential negative affects on morale.
I hope this is a joke.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I actually agree with the author of the article that it's kind of disturbing that some academics think that children should be basically brainwashed against playing as they like, on the logic that we vaccinate children against disease. WTF? :blink:

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Thanks to this source, i now know that Han Solo means him alone. Thank you.

ps: I'm not ready for this kind of fundamental societal shift. I still think in archaic views like testosterone / estrogen fueled thought patterns and not wanting females to fight at the front lines due to the potential negative affects on morale.

What the hell are you talking about?
Having women fighting beside me as comrades would definetely improve my morale!
What kind of leftist are you who does not beleive in gender equality?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I agree, but on the flipside there's also the billions of dollars put in by marketing groups to advertise consistently to children at an impressionable age, which not only has pretty much the same effect but is almost guaranteed to bring something socially nasty with it.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

I hope this is a joke.

The women visibly being put at the front in attack and exposed defense capacities when not in dire circumstances no

Thought patterns just has to do with increased overt aggresiveness and how the genders view things like sex and ways of expressing themselves.

[#FF0000]

In 2004, the leader of the Sweden's Left Party Feminist Council, Gudrun Schyman,proposed a "man tax" (http://www.thelocal.se/468/20041005/)—a special tariff to be levied on men to pay for all the violence and mayhem wrought by their sex.

I like their style.

But yeah, I think that this kind of thing has less to do with sex and more to do with gender identity/expression/whatever (I don't really have the vocabulary to talk about this).

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The women visibly being put at the front in attack and exposed defense capacities when not in dire circumstances no

Thought patterns just has to do with increased overt aggresiveness and how the genders view things like sex and ways of expressing themselves.

What the fuck are you on about?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I like their style.

But yeah, I think that this kind of thing has less to do with sex and more to do with gender identity/expression/whatever (I don't really have the vocabulary to talk about this).

I think the decree about how men should sit down to urinate is funnier. I'm just assuming that one was for comedic value.

[Os Cangaceiros]

My thing as a kid was dinosaurs. I was obsessed with dinosaurs, and I had a ridiculous knowledge of every dinosaur (I esp. liked the aquatic ones). God help you if you went over to my house at that age and asked me any question about dinosaurs.

[Yuppie Grinder]

yea what is the deal with not being allowed to sit down when you piss
what if you're really tired

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

What the fuck are you on about?

I would just think that putting healthy athletic youths in extremely stressful situations together would kind of encourage certain "interactions" (this could happen with those of the same sex as well but ignore that for now). Maybe the males slack off in an attempt to impress the females, maybe plan b's would have to go into military expenditures and maybe a guy would become even more devestated if his or lover died versus a close friend. Unless we're really low on troops or defending Stalingrad i don't see why it's necessary. When i said different thought processes i just meant how various levels of estrogen and testosterone affect views on baby's and violence. That doesn't mean that women can't fight, it just means that if a man's testosterone drops after having and beginning to raise a kid, it probably has something to do with how certain chemical balances push for certain basic and subconscious reactions. This has nothing to do with equality and if raised or vhemically born a certain way, a man or woman can do anything.

Edit: Hurt morale also means soldiers being less willing to follow orders to a T

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

First of all, woman made up 60% of the Shining path and they kicked ass.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/wo...olice/835608/2

All power to India's bad ass communist woman.

Second, who gives a fuck if the bourgeois army doesn't work as well, isn't that what we want?


Oh yea, and any good communist should want the complete abolition of gender, I don't see anything wrong with anything means that don't involve force.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Why would communists want the abolition of gender? How is the abolition of gender even possible? :confused:

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

First of all, woman made up 60% of the Shining path and they kicked ass.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/wo...olice/835608/2

All power to India's bad ass communist woman.

Second, who gives a fuck if the bourgeois army doesn't work as well, isn't that what we want?


Oh yea, and any good communist should want the complete abolition of gender, I don't see anything wrong with anything means that don't involve force.

Women revolutionaries are badasses who are willing to trade a safe life for being constantly threatened with death in the wilds. Beourgois kids who conscript usually just want money, an escape or to play Rambo. Just because you aren't a part of something doesn't mean you can't analyse it. Gender integrated units in the US army would not work well.

Gender can't be abolished because penises and vaginas can't be removed. The tendencies that society places on the genders can be tweaked, but doing things like banning stay at home moms or seizing GI Joes from boys
(which is essentially a war doll) should be avoided.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Why would communists want the abolition of gender? How is the abolition of gender even possible? :confused:

Because if you read On the Origin of Family, Property, and the State, then you'd know that gender roles were key in the foundation of capitalism, starting with the gender fluidly of Greek society, which dumb liberals think was progressive, and the disempowermend of woman and the stigmatism against homosexuality.

Obviously we can't do it all at once, but we need to realize that gender is the result of class society and until we abolish it, we can never achieve communism.

and I'm not talking about sex organs, I'm talking about gender roles and sexual orientation as a social category.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Thanks to this source, i now know that Han Solo means him alone. Thank you.

ps: I'm not ready for this kind of fundamental societal shift. I still think in archaic views like testosterone / estrogen fueled thought patterns and not wanting females to fight at the front lines due to the potential negative affects on morale.

Ummmmmmm, excuse me? :rolleyes:

Cool, now I can just sit around doing constructive female things like birthing and cooking during the revolution, hooray!

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Because if you read On the Origin of Family, Property, and the State, then you'd know that gender roles were key in the foundation of capitalism, starting with the gender fluidly of Greek society, which dumb liberals think was progressive, and the disempowermend of woman and the stigmatism against homosexuality.

Obviously we can't do it all at once, but we need to realize that gender is the result of class society and until we abolish it, we can never achieve communism.

and I'm not talking about sex organs, I'm talking about gender roles and sexual orientation as a social category.

Gender does not equal gender roles. I am male due to having a natural penis. Read my prior post for more info

[Os Cangaceiros]

There's nothing inherently reactionary with gender. Gender is simply an individual preference, and one that some people find quite important...why else would transexual people continue to identify as male/female despite the intense societal pressure against them. The woman who wrote the article in the OP may be affiliated with a right-wing think tank, but I have trouble disagreeing with her concluding paragraph:


Formerly called "tomboy girls" and "sissy boys" in the medical literature, these kids are persistently attracted to the toys of the opposite sex. They will often remain fixated on the "wrong" toys despite relentless, often cruel pressure from parents, doctors, and peers. Their total immersion in sex-stereotyped culture—a non-stop Toys"R"Us indoctrination—seems to have little effect on their passion for the toys of the opposite sex. There was a time when a boy who displayed a persistent aversion to trucks and rough play and a fixation on frilly dolls or princess paraphernalia would have been considered a candidate for behavior modification therapy. Today, most experts encourage tolerance, understanding, and acceptance: just leave him alone and let him play as he wants.

[GoddessCleoLover]

"Hey teacher leave those kids alone.";)

[Yuppie Grinder]

Why would communists want the abolition of gender? How is the abolition of gender even possible? :confused:

Gender is an artificial social construct like nation or race. Sex is biological. Think gender = constrictive roles prescribed to a sex.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I thought that gender was whether one personally identified as male or female.

(It is true that when one identifies as male or female, there's societal baggage attached to those classifications, although that's a seperate but related issue IMO)

[Comrade Samuel]

Gender is an artificial social construct like nation or race. Sex is biological. Think gender = constrictive roles prescribed to a sex.

Thank you for clearing this up, I'll admit when constantly hearing talk of the "abolition of gender" I feared that people wanted of some sort of Orwellian, sexless, "no natural child birth" society but abolition of gender as a social construct sounds perfectly resonable.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Yea, not even the most radical feminist is for the abolition of biological sex. :D

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Ummmmmmm, excuse me? :rolleyes:

Cool, now I can just sit around doing constructive female things like birthing and cooking during the revolution, hooray!


Read my above posts. I was thinking traditional standing armies. Seeing as though guerrilla units are completely different i'll let my above posts explain myself.

[hetz]

What exactly is a social construct in this context, and is there such a thing as artificial social constructs? What does that even mean?

[GoddessCleoLover]

Query whether at least for men whether attraction resides in the heart or more likely in a somewhat lower part of our bodies.:D

[Yuppie Grinder]

Anarchocommunaltoad, it'd probably be better to admit that you are wrong and what you said wasn't very bright.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Why is gay and straight in the exact same position at the bottom of the pic?

[Yuppie Grinder]

I thought that gender was whether one personally identified as male or female.

(It is true that when one identifies as male or female, there's societal baggage attached to those classifications, although that's a seperate but related issue IMO)

yea basically
gender is adaptive and flexible

[zoot_allures]

"A few years ago, a feminist political party proposed a law requiring men to sit while urinating—less messy and more equal." - haha, seriously? It wouldn't take much to go from that to let's trim our hair in accordance with socialist lifestyle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let's_trim_our_hair_in_accordance_with_the_sociali st_lifestyle)

Anyway, if that overview of the Swedish approach is accurate (something about which I'm quite skeptical), then obviously, what they're doing is ridiculous. I'm no supporter of traditional attitudes towards gender, but there's a big difference between just letting children develop on their own terms, and trying to force them into a particular mould. It seems like Sweden has mixed up both methods. Altering classic fairy-tales is cool with me, but banning certain toys in order to force kids away from becoming too typically male is not what I'd consider a "gender-neutral" approach.

[Luc]

Why is gay and straight in the exact same position at the bottom of the pic?

Cause they are both sexualities it was set up weird there is a better simpler version of the genderbread person I delete cause this one was too big and was killin me

[zoot_allures]

Gender does not equal gender roles. I am male due to having a natural penis.
What that means is that your biological sex is either male, intersex or hermaphrodite.

Your gender could be anything. Gender isn't determined by your genitals, or any other single characteristic.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Anarchocommunaltoad, it'd probably be better to admit that you are wrong and what you said wasn't very bright.

I mix up gender and sex i guess. Not mixing the genders in a standing army only should be applied to today in bloated military appartuses like the US which FYI still suffers from a rape epidemic.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Rape is just as much an inevitability in war as murder. Why should we care about reforming the US military, especially to further enforce gender roles within it? We're for a world without borders, aren't we?

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Rape is just as much an inevitability in war as murder. Why should we care about reforming the US military, especially to further enforce gender roles within it? We're for a world without borders, aren't we?

Jesus Christ use context. I live in America, and the only standing army i truly can speak about with confidence is the US military. It is true that rape is an evil that occurs during war, but i don't think that all advanced military structures have an ingrained rape problem like the US does. I assume people have stated that although they are against the military, they think that units should be integrated due to equality, a stance that ignores certain factors. Just cause i don't like them doesn't mean that i'll ignore that they exist.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Gender can't be abolished because penises and vaginas can't be removed.
You're confusing biological sexual traits with gender identity, and those are two different things, and for some people aren't congruent.

Your argument seems to be: "born with a penis, you're a man and always will be, and born with a vagina, you're a woman and always will be," which is anti-trans (whether intentional or not).

[Yuppie Grinder]

You're confusing biological sexual traits with gender identity, and those are two different things, and for some people aren't congruent.

Your argument seems to be: "born with a penis, you're a man and always will be, and born with a vagina, you're a woman and always will be," which is anti-trans (whether intentional or not).

Not only is it that, its short-sited, ignorant, and unscientific.

[BOZG]

"A few years ago, a feminist political party proposed a law requiring men to sit while urinating—less messy and more equal." - haha, seriously? It wouldn't take much to go from that to let's trim our hair in accordance with socialist lifestyle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let's_trim_our_hair_in_accordance_with_the_sociali st_lifestyle)

Anyway, if that overview of the Swedish approach is accurate (something about which I'm quite skeptical), then obviously, what they're doing is ridiculous. I'm no supporter of traditional attitudes towards gender, but there's a big difference between just letting children develop on their own terms, and trying to force them into a particular mould. It seems like Sweden has mixed up both methods. Altering classic fairy-tales is cool with me, but banning certain toys in order to force kids away from becoming too typically male is not what I'd consider a "gender-neutral" approach.

It's not true. It's just taken a few extreme examples and made it appear to be more common. There is however an ongoing debate about gender roles, the use of 'Hen' etc. And there is a greater receptivity to ideas of man taxes, sitting down peeing (something which is more common in Europe by the way).

One thing that was interesting in their article is that it really doesn't discuss nature vs nurture at all, outside of saying it's what some Swedes are arguing. We're expected to take for fact that boys develop in a few certain way as do girls but nothing is mentioned about the environment in which it occurs which makes me quite skeptical.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

My thing as a kid was dinosaurs. I was obsessed with dinosaurs, and I had a ridiculous knowledge of every dinosaur (I esp. liked the aquatic ones). God help you if you went over to my house at that age and asked me any question about dinosaurs.

Off-topic: but must be said: You should know then, that aquatic reptiles are not dinosaurs!

[Os Cangaceiros]

I would've known it then. :(

I actually googled "aquatic dinosaurs" right after posting that and found that out...

[Sasha]

restricted "Anarchocommunaltoad" for hopefully curable sexism (hence restriction, not ban), thread moved to OI so that they can still participate

[Flying Purple People Eater]

My thing as a kid was dinosaurs. I was obsessed with dinosaurs, and I had a ridiculous knowledge of every dinosaur (I esp. liked the aquatic ones). God help you if you went over to my house at that age and asked me any question about dinosaurs.
T-Rex is a wimp.

Giganotosaur master race.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Jesus Christ use context. I live in America, and the only standing army i truly can speak about with confidence is the US military. It is true that rape is an evil that occurs during war, but i don't think that all advanced military structures have an ingrained rape problem like the US does. I assume people have stated that although they are against the military, they think that units should be integrated due to equality, a stance that ignores certain factors. Just cause i don't like them doesn't mean that i'll ignore that they exist.

Unfortunately, I know this to be true as one of my friends was raped on an Army base however women get raped in general, everywhere. Sad but true, why bar women from being in combat under the premise of possible rape? If that were the case and we're following your logic a little bit further, women in America also get raped walking down the street, at parks while exercising, parking garages, parties, etc. Is one to assume to be safe we either have stay in doors at all times or where a rape-axe? I got it! What if the rape-axe product was standard issue for women in the US military, would you support it then?

[l'Enfermé]

If a presented a barbie doll to one of my nephews for his birthday, he would punch me in the nuts :(

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

If a presented a barbie doll to one of my nephews for his birthday, he would punch me in the nuts :(

Make sure to get Ballerina Barbie and not Malibu Barbie; perhaps this could be avoided.

[Prometeo liberado]

I used to play with a liitle doll called Gwen Stephani and that was glorious. Im ok now.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I had a lot of Lego, tanks and spaceships as a child, but I also remember playing with dolls' houses and enjoying it. I remember most girl's toys didn't have what I would now call "depth". Tanks and spaceships can have all sorts of cool adventures, but what can one do with a toy kitchen set? Apart from the obvious.

Kids may not have the vocabulary to articulate it, but they are acutely aware of the expectations of their parents and others they might respect the opinion of. Criticisms, even those made in jest, can be crushing to a kid if they come from such sources.


If a presented a barbie doll to one of my nephews for his birthday, he would punch me in the nuts :(

He prefers Sindy?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

restricted "Anarchocommunaltoad" for hopefully curable sexism (hence restriction, not ban), thread moved to OI so that they can still participate

Damn you admins! All you do is restrict and ban, you never try to educate anyone!

[Sasha]

Damn you admins! All you do is restrict and ban, you never try to educate anyone!


did you even bother to read my post;


restricted "Anarchocommunaltoad" for hopefully curable sexism (hence restriction, not ban), thread moved to OI so that they can still participate

:confused:

[Will Scarlet]

" Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. A revised edition of her book The War Against Boyswill be published next summer."

WHY ARE YOU MAKING ME READ THIS?



Is it discriminatory and degrading for toy catalogs to show girls playing with tea sets and boys with Nerf guns? A Swedish regulatory group says yes.Yes.


A Swedish regulatory group says yes.Problem solved!

Children are prescribed gender roles literally from birth, and then if they act according to these roles that proves it's natural. This kind of thing:

http://img215.imagevenue.com/aAfkjfp01fo1i-6143/loc599/492477993_pureideology1_122_599lo.jpg
http://img230.imagevenue.com/aAfkjfp01fo1i-8095/loc453/549247622_pureideology2_122_453lo.jpg
This is fine, it has no effect because It's Natural. In fact according to the article it is a moral imperative, because it is unethical to try to raise children without forcing them into this gender binary.

[l'Enfermé]

Doing laundry is just so much fun, didn't you know?

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

My boy (2,5 years old) plays with dolls. Occasionally they get run over by his cars too.
It's just a matter of what he want's to do right then.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Children are prescribed gender roles literally from birth, and then if they act according to these roles that proves it's natural. This kind of thing:

http://img215.imagevenue.com/aAfkjfp01fo1i-6143/loc599/492477993_pureideology1_122_599lo.jpg
http://img230.imagevenue.com/aAfkjfp01fo1i-8095/loc453/549247622_pureideology2_122_453lo.jpg
This is fine, it has no effect because It's Natural. In fact according to the article it is a moral imperative, because it is unethical to try to raise children without forcing them into this gender binary.

It's not all nurture. When my little princess was born, my wife and i swore we would not give in to traditional gender-shit. She would not wear pink.
...
Hey, guess what! She loves pink and doesn't want to wear anything else.
She's 5 now...we have no say in it anymore.

[Zukunftsmusik]

I actually agree with the author of the article that it's kind of disturbing that some academics think that children should be basically brainwashed against playing as they like, on the logic that we vaccinate children against disease. WTF? :blink:

I don't think most academics think children should be "brainwashed" to not play as they like. I think the main point is that poeple's choice in toys are extremely narrow, gender-wise. The choice of how you want to play (or how you want you child to play) is basically rigged, more or less.

[Zukunftsmusik]

It's not all nurture. When my little princess was born, my wife and i swore we would not give in to traditional gender-shit. She would not wear pink.
...
Hey, guess what! She loves pink and doesn't want to wear anything else.
She's 5 now...we have no say in it anymore.

Parents aren't the only source of "nurture", obviously - "society" in general has an even greater say, IMO

[Raúl Duke]

I sometimes played with my sisters' toys with my sisters. I usually played with my "action figures" (dolls) toys alone. Me and my sisters would play video-games together...

hmmm

The man tax and the other Swedish stuff....ummm wot?
I don't want that.

[GoddessCleoLover]

IMO the Swedish stuff is nanny-state liberalism, not proletarian socialism and we ought to avoid it.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

It's not all nurture. When my little princess was born, my wife and i swore we would not give in to traditional gender-shit. She would not wear pink.
...
Hey, guess what! She loves pink and doesn't want to wear anything else.
She's 5 now...we have no say in it anymore.
At one time, pink was for boys and blue for girls.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't think most academics think children should be "brainwashed" to not play as they like. I think the main point is that poeple's choice in toys are extremely narrow, gender-wise. The choice of how you want to play (or how you want you child to play) is basically rigged, more or less.

Well it's narrow in that if a child chooses toys that are not seen as "in-tune" with their gender, they may be subject to ridicule etc. but the author herself says that's a bad thing, and that forcing kids out of "gender normative" behavior is basically akin to forcing them into that behavior. While I'm not convinced that's happening on the same level that societal pressure is being exerted the opposite way, I agree with the basic point.

But really it goes beyond this-or-that toy, or whether a boy played with dolls or a girl played with a dump truck. It's also the way children play; the "large-group rough-and-tumble play" of boys and the "intimate theatrical play" of girls, as mentioned in the article.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

At one time, pink was for boys and blue for girls.
Exactly this. While it's undeniable that early development does form slight perspectives we take upon the world, the majority of our likes and wants are inevitably decided by the opinions of the current 'cultural standard', as you would call it. Being constantly barraged with gendered fucking colour of all things, along with what 'looks sexy' later on, is not a 'natural state of mind' at all - It's nothing more than a socially constructed shackle!

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Oh come on. I already said that i mixed up gender and sex (and am still confused why people say sexual orientation) and the women military thing would be better replaced with reforms on how women rape victims are treated in the US military. Until that is done it kind of is irresponsible to ut women in such situations when they will not be supported.. I'll find my explanatory posts if necessary.

[hatzel]

Yeah whatever, but your first post in the thread was...


I'm not ready for this kind of fundamental societal shift. I still think in archaic views like testosterone / estrogen fueled thought patterns and not wanting females to fight at the front lines due to the potential negative affects on morale.

...which has absolutely nothing to do with your new claims of leaping to the defence of women in (seemingly exclusively) the US military and saving them from abuse...

[Kenco Smooth]

At one time, pink was for boys and blue for girls.

This appears to be an urban myth (http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/did-boys-use-to-wear-pink.html) actually

[soso17]

I'm not going to be knitting a sweater for my comrades during the revolution. I'm going to be right there fighting with them as equals.

I, however, will be knitting and crocheting my fingers to the bone. Take that, gender roles!

[Luís Henrique]

Because if you read On the Origin of Family, Property, and the State, then you'd know that gender roles were key in the foundation of capitalism

I don't think Engels ever confused the interacitons between biologya and sociology with grammar...

Up to the invention of that awful neologism, everybody spoke of "sexual roles". And indeed "gender roles" is, or should be, a pleonasm.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Gender is simply an individual preference

To the extent that "gender" has an actual meaning - which I find exceedingly doubtful - it is anything but an individual preference.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Yea, not even the most radical feminist is for the abolition of biological sex. :D

Valerie Solanas was.

But then she was to feminism what Pol Pot was to communism. Without the power, luckily.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

What that means is that your biological sex is either male, intersex or hermaphrodite.

Your gender could be anything. Gender isn't determined by your genitals, or any other single characteristic.

If you have one set of genitals, the specific related gender will be enforced over you from birth. If you disconform, you will have a lot of trouble until you either conform your tastes to your body, or your body to your tastes (and, in that latter case, even after that).

If your set of genitals isn't either typically male or typically female, you will have a lot of trouble, regardless of what your tastes are.

Luís Henrique

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Yeah whatever, but your first post in the thread was...



...which has absolutely nothing to do with your new claims of leaping to the defence of women in (seemingly exclusively) the US military and saving them from abuse...

Morale means more than you think. A lot more rape victims (the army would reach navy levels), and punishments for "elicit" relationships would harm the US Army in its current form. It should be reformed first (probably better if it were abolished). And lets not kid ouselves that men and women think exactly the same. Varying levels of estrogen and testosterone do slightly affect thought patterns, you people are just taking my words out of proportion.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

And finally, when i say front lines, i do mean advanced armed forces like the US. I thought revolutionary guerrilla units and worker uprisings were supposed to be fluid and avoid setting up front lines against technologically superior foes?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This appears to be an urban myth (http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/did-boys-use-to-wear-pink.html) actually

Only if you take the word of Marco Del Giudice over documentary evidence.

[Luís Henrique]

IMO the Swedish stuff is nanny-state liberalism

I think nanny-state liberalism is a lot less ridiculous than "man-taxes" or mandatory sitting while peeing.

How would sat-peeing be enforced? Cameras within male restrooms? If that is not 1984-ish, I don't know what would be.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

restricted "Anarchocommunaltoad" for hopefully curable sexism (hence restriction, not ban), thread moved to OI so that they can still participate

Policy might have changed, but as far as I remember it, we ban spambots, trolls, sockpuppets, and fascists, and we restrict uncurable reactionaries - which would include incurable sexists.

Or is sexism a particular kind of reactionarism that demands harsher action than marginalist economy, nationalism, 'free'-market apologism, conspiracy theories, etc.?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Only if you take the word of Marco Del Giudice over documentary evidence.

I sincerely hope Del Giudice is wrong, but I would like (love, indeed, as I have always believed that this is taught rather than inherited) to see the documentary evidence.

Luís Henrique

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

I'VE SERIOUSLY EXPLAINED MY ERROR 20 TIMES NOW! Instead of responding to that people keep bringing up the same damned post instead of seeing how i messed up by being vague.

[Os Cangaceiros]

To the extent that "gender" has an actual meaning - which I find exceedingly doubtful - it is anything but an individual preference.

Luís Henrique

Well obviously societal and biological forces impact one's perception of gender. But that's kind of true with everything...

[Kenco Smooth]

Only if you take the word of Marco Del Giudice over documentary evidence.

Not at all, how anyone could look at those NGram stats and claim otherwise is beyond me.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Fuck it goodbye forever.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Fuck it goodbye forever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usfiAsWR4qU

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Sorry for coming in late, and only skimming the thread, but I notice a certain problematic in the original article w/r/t the idea that there is a fundamental sex-binary, rather than a spectrum.
For example, they note "Girls with CAH tend to prefer ["boy toys"]," which premises a pure "girl form" with a distinct set of preferences and a particular hormonal balance, positing girls out side of that as a deviation from a more authentic "girlness". This is of course silly; if we do away with the premise of sex as fixed points which children are sexed in relation to, the whole house of cards collapses, since, obviously, as the article states, some girls prefer boy toys (and, presumably, vice versa).

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Sorry for coming in late, and only skimming the thread, but I notice a certain problematic in the original article w/r/t the idea that there is a fundamental sex-binary, rather than a spectrum.
For example, they note "Girls with CAH tend to prefer ["boy toys"]," which premises a pure "girl form" with a distinct set of preferences and a particular hormonal balance, positing girls out side of that as a deviation from a more authentic "girlness". This is of course silly; if we do away with the premise of sex as fixed points which children are sexed in relation to, the whole house of cards collapses, since, obviously, as the article states, some girls prefer boy toys (and, presumably, vice versa).

I will simply add that if we are to consider gender as fluid rather than binary, then I think that we should just go a step further and abandon the idea of "gender" as a category and just allow individualism to reign freely without having to bother with these classifications. (Not that I am a right-wing individualist who believes in Laizze faire, but that's not the point)

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Sorry for coming in late, and only skimming the thread, but I notice a certain problematic in the original article w/r/t the idea that there is a fundamental sex-binary, rather than a spectrum.
For example, they note "Girls with CAH tend to prefer ["boy toys"]," which premises a pure "girl form" with a distinct set of preferences and a particular hormonal balance, positing girls out side of that as a deviation from a more authentic "girlness". This is of course silly; if we do away with the premise of sex as fixed points which children are sexed in relation to, the whole house of cards collapses, since, obviously, as the article states, some girls prefer boy toys (and, presumably, vice versa).


I will simply add that if we are to consider gender as fluid rather than binary, then I think that we should just go a step further and abandon the idea of "gender" as a category and just allow individualism to reign freely without having to bother with these classifications. (Not that I am a right-wing individualist who believes in Laizze faire, but that's not the point)

This is ridiculous. Is gender or is sex the birth determined one? (A reason for my kicking was saying that gender is set at birth when i thought i meant sex)

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

This is ridiculous. Is gender or is sex the birth determined one? (A reason for my kicking was saying that gender is set at birth when i thought i meant sex)

Neither!
Or, rather, "sex" is set at birth (insofar as "sex" refers to a set of biological characteristics), but not as something that is necessarily "male" or "female" - since there is a pretty broad spectrum of bodies, displaying a wide variety of characteristics which can, at "best", be said to approach one or the other. Further, since sex has to do with a whole host of characteristics and hormonal relationships, it might be "set" at birth, but who knows where it might go depending on any number of factors that impact sexual development.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Neither!
Or, rather, "sex" is set at birth(insofar as "sex" refers to a set of biological characteristics), but not as something that is necessarily "male" or "female" - since there is a pretty broad spectrum of bodies, displaying a wide variety of characteristics which can, at "best", be said to approach one or the other.

Is this something becoming more and more accepted by mainstream academia or is this for doctrinal purposes? If its backed up by science than i rescind the argument that having a penis means anything.

[freehobo]

Don't let bourgeoisie science fool you. :confused::lol:

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Is this something becoming more and more accepted by mainstream academia or is this for doctrinal purposes? If its backed up by science than i rescind the argument that having a penis means anything.

I'm not saying having a penis doesn't mean anything, only that it doesn't mean anything in-and-of-itself beyond its factual character (ie having a penis means, by definition, that you have a penis). Of course, given context it means a lot of things.
My point, in any case, was simply that anchoring ideas about gendered behaviour to "sex" is pretty flimsy, if sex is at the same time anchored to gendered understanding.
The article basically says, "Girls (gender) like girl-play/girl-toys because they are girls (sex). Those girls (gender) who like boy-play/boy-toys are likely hormonally different from girls (sex), and, therefore, don't count." Dig the conflation going on?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

If its backed up by science
Science isn't ideologically neutral.

[Luís Henrique]

Neither!
Or, rather, "sex" is set at birth (insofar as "sex" refers to a set of biological characteristics), but not as something that is necessarily "male" or "female" - since there is a pretty broad spectrum of bodies, displaying a wide variety of characteristics which can, at "best", be said to approach one or the other. Further, since sex has to do with a whole host of characteristics and hormonal relationships, it might be "set" at birth, but who knows where it might go depending on any number of factors that impact sexual development.

Sex is basically set before birth, by one's chromosomes. It is a binary, male and female; there are exceptions (sexual chromosome trisomias and monosomias, true and false hermafroditism), but they are widely recognised as anomalies. There are people who undergo surgery in order to change their phenotypical sexual appearance, but genetical sex cannot be changed.

"Gender" is a social construct, and consists of those characteristics, sexual or otherwise, that are socially perceived as adequate for each sex - or for socially constructed third "genders" (that are often imposed into bodies by sexual mutilation - eunuchs, hijra, castrati). It is "arbitrary", but it isn't anything maleable or fluid, and those who don't fit the existing pigeon holes are strongly discriminated against.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

The article basically says, "Girls (gender) like girl-play/girl-toys because they are girls (sex). Those girls (gender) who like boy-play/boy-toys are likely hormonally different from girls (sex), and, therefore, don't count." Dig the conflation going on?

That's not a conflation, it is merely a false assumption. If liking "boy play" was related to biology, then evidently there would be a biological difference between "actual girls" and tomboys. The problem, for the article writer, is that this is merely absurd speculation; there is no indication anywhere that tomboys are any less feminine than stereotypical girls, or that their demeanour is related to genetics, endocrinology or biology whatsoever, or that conversely genetical and endocrinologically "normal" girls would prefer "girl play" to "boy play".

Luís Henrique

[Os Cangaceiros]

or that their demeanour is related to genetics, endocrinology or biology whatsoever, or that conversely genetical and endocrinologically "normal" girls would prefer "girl play" to "boy play".

Luís Henrique

Wait what? The article does link to a study that does indicate at that possibility:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12414881

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Shit...is this gender/sex bullshit still ongoing?

As i explained in an earlier post (here) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/communism-according-avanti-t176466/index.html?p=2539029&highlight=dictionary+cambridge#post2539029) gender and sex are the same thing!

Now sexual preference or sexual-orientation is something completely different.
But just quit the sex-gender-discussion already!

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

As i explained in an earlier post (here) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/communism-according-avanti-t176466/index.html?p=2539029&highlight=dictionary+cambridge#post2539029) gender and sex are the same thing!
Except gender and physical sex don't always match.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Except gender and physical sex don't always match.

This is a word thing. Terminology. It has nothing to do with the way i think about it.

Do you mean sex as in the act, or sex as in how someone is born (with a penis, a vagina, or something in between)?

If you mean someones born sex it is the same as gender.

What you probably mean is if someone is born a man, but feels a woman. ff course that can be a mismatch.
If you think you could be happier changing your sex/gender, go ahead! Please do so. Free yourself.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

This is a word thing. Terminology. It has nothing to do with the way i think about it.

Do you mean sex as in the act, or sex as in how someone is born (with a penis, a vagina, or something in between)?

If you mean someones born sex it is the same as gender.


Please read the thread, as a number have already explained the difference between gender and biological sex.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

If you mean someones born sex it is the same as gender.
No, it isn't, but considering what a strict gender binary there is, of course language will reflect that. Language is as ideological as it gets.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Please read the thread, as a number have already explained the difference between gender and biological sex.

Okay did it. Now read this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/communism-according-avanti-t176466/index.html?p=2539029&highlight=dictionary+cambridge#post2539029) thread where i explained why they are the same.

Semantics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics), ain't it a *****?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Okay did it. Now read this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/communism-according-avanti-t176466/index.html?p=2539029&highlight=dictionary+cambridge#post2539029) thread where i explained why they are the same.
Now read my post where I explain that language merely defines gender as our society understands it, as a strict binary.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Now read my post where I explain that language merely defines gender as our society understands it, as a strict binary.

True, but words are words. What i said was not specifically what i think, but what is factual.
Sorry about that.

Now, can we finally quit this noncense and get back to where people don't feel at ease with their socially defined sexuality.

Or lets return to what the OP actually said: What about boys and girls?

I say, so fucking what if my girl wants to play soccer or ride a dirtbike
So what if my boy plays with dolls and joins the ballet? If they're happy, i'm happy!

[zoot_allures]

True, but words are words. What i said was not specifically what i think, but what is factual.
Sorry about that.
Definitions are simply conventions, not facts. There are facts about the conventions, but not about the definitions themselves. Definitions are fluid and change with use. Sometimes redefining words is necessary to elucidate concepts that were difficult to express under the original definitions.

In anthropology and certain strands of sociology, psychology, etc, the terms "gender" and "sex" are defined in a clearer, more technical manner and a distinction is drawn between them - with "sex" referring to simply the "biological" aspects (your reproductive organs, your chromosomes, etc) and "gender" referring more to personal identity and social role. This has been the case for decades now.

The dictionary definitions you provided do hint at this - so the Cambridge definition of gender: "the physical and/or social condition of being male or female" or the Oxford definition of sex: "either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions".

But yes, the dictionaries are more vague - this is because everyday language is more vague. Dictionaries detail the general, everyday definitions, not necessarily the technical ones. Thus physicists, when doing physics, understand the term "energy" in a very different way than non-physicists do in everyday conversation. It'd be absurd to suggest that the physicists' definition is "wrong" just because you can find a different definition in the dictionary.

You're certainly welcome to deny the distinction between sex and gender. But if you do, you need to provide reasons beyond the dictionary. A large number of people from various different fields find it useful to distinguish sex and gender; to the extent that in some of those fields this distinction is now (and has been for decades) consensus.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Definitions are simply conventions, not facts. There are facts about the conventions, but not about the definitions themselves. Definitions are fluid and change with use. Sometimes redefining words is necessary to elucidate concepts that were difficult to express under the original definitions.

In anthropology and certain strands of sociology, psychology, etc, the terms "gender" and "sex" are defined in a clearer, more technical manner and a distinction is drawn between them - with "sex" referring to simply the "biological" aspects (your reproductive organs, your chromosomes, etc) and "gender" referring more to personal identity and social role. This has been the case for decades now.

The dictionary definitions you provided do hint at this - so the Cambridge definition of gender: "the physical and/or social condition of being male or female" or the Oxford definition of sex: "either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions".

But yes, the dictionaries are more vague - this is because everyday language is more vague. Dictionaries detail the general, everyday definitions, not necessarily the technical ones. Thus physicists, when doing physics, understand the term "energy" in a very different way than non-physicists do in everyday conversation. It'd be absurd to suggest that the physicists' definition is "wrong" just because you can find a different definition in the dictionary.

You're certainly welcome to deny the distinction between sex and gender. But if you do, you need to provide reasons beyond the dictionary. A large number of people from various different fields find it useful to distinguish sex and gender; to the extent that in some of those fields this distinction is now (and has been for decades) consensus.
Uhmm...still not done?



Or lets return to what the OP actually said: What about boys and girls?

Can we go back on-topic now?

[zoot_allures]

Uhmm...still not done?

Can we go back on-topic now?
If people say things that I disagree with, I'm going to challenge them. You're welcome to ignore me, of course; but if what you want is for me to not reply to you, the answer is to stop saying things that are wrong.

In any case, I think this discussion is perfectly relevant, if a little tangential, given the thread topic.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

If people say things that I disagree with, I'm going to challenge them. You're welcome to ignore me, of course; but if what you want is for me to not reply to you, the answer is to stop saying things that are wrong.

You consider them wrong, i consider them right. We can debate about it 500 posts long, but it would not make a difference. So why would i put my energy into such a discussion?

In the mean time, the OP is still getting no answers to HIS questions!

[zoot_allures]

You consider them wrong, i consider them right. We can debate about it 500 posts long, but it would not make a difference. So why would i put my energy into such a discussion?
I don't think online debates ever make a difference really. There's a Zappa quote that I'm often reminded of whenever I get involved in an online debate: "One of my favorite philosophical tenets is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people's minds."

Unfortunately, it seems reasonably accurate!

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

You consider them wrong, i consider them right. We can debate about it 500 posts long, but it would not make a difference. So why would i put my energy into such a discussion?

I think, the thing is, that it's not about considering "right" and "wrong" in the abstract, but about considering the material meaning of discourse. Words aren't neutral, and conventional discourse around sex/gender is the backbone of a norm that means literally hundreds (if not more) of trans* and gender non-conforming people are murdered every year. I've personally been assaulted for being (perceived as) a boy wearing a dress (to clarify, I don't identify as trans*, I'm just really, really punk). This doesn't come from nowhere, and the equation of sex and gender, and the rigid binary of man/woman within both is ideologically central to its realization in sex/gender policing.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

I think, the thing is, that it's not about considering "right" and "wrong" in the abstract, but about considering the material meaning of discourse. Words aren't neutral, and conventional discourse around sex/gender is the backbone of a norm that means literally hundreds (if not more) of trans* and gender non-conforming people are murdered every year. I've personally been assaulted for being (perceived as) a boy wearing a dress (to clarify, I don't identify as trans*, I'm just really, really punk). This doesn't come from nowhere, and the equation of sex and gender, and the rigid binary of man/woman within both is ideologically central to its realization in sex/gender policing.

No matter how it's used, punk is sexist. It is the original term for prison *****. There are many homosexuals who are okay with being called gay but that is not allowed here. "Punk" shouldn't be either.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

No matter how it's used, punk is sexist. It is the original term for prison *****. There are many homosexuals who are okay with being called gay but that is not allowed here. "Punk" shouldn't be either.
Um, lots of people use the term gay as in homosexual here. Maybe what's not allowed is using it in the sense of "that's so gay" where gay is used to mean something bad.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Um, lots of people use the term gay as in homosexual here. Maybe what's not allowed is using it in the sense of "that's so gay" where gay is used to mean something bad.

Weird i was told not to. That info will save a lot on typing time.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Weird i was told not to. That info will save a lot on typing time.

I thought the issue involved your use of the term "b..ch"?

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

I thought the issue involved your use of the term "b..ch"?

Not at all it involved me saying that the US army wasn't ready for troop sex integration and thinking that gender had something to do with penises

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Um, lots of people use the term gay as in homosexual here. Maybe what's not allowed is using it in the sense of "that's so gay" where gay is used to mean something bad.

Still pretty fond of the old meaning of gay (happy/frivolous)...

[GoddessCleoLover]

Still pretty fond of the old meaning of gay (happy/frivolous)...

The old meaning is fine by me, too. Some American cultural conservatives act as if the newer connotation has somehow caused a contamination. i ascribe that to the repressed and narrow-minded mentality of the average American cultural conservative.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Still pretty fond of the old meaning of gay (happy/frivolous)...

Maybe it's childish, but I can't help but snigger when the word is used like that:

http://i45.tinypic.com/2m2dy84.jpg

[Luís Henrique]

Wait what? The article does link to a study that does indicate at that possibility:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12414881

Yeah, this is the stuff I don't believe in.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Because if you read On the Origin of Family, Property, and the State, then you'd know that gender roles were key in the foundation of capitalism,

On the Origin of Family, Property, and the State is not about the foundation of capitalism.


starting with the gender fluidly of Greek society, which dumb liberals think was progressive, and the disempowermend of woman and the stigmatism against homosexuality.

"Greek society" predates capitalism by at least two thousand years.

Luís Henrique