Is gender a social construct?

[thisguyisatotaljerk]

This is one of the more interesting ideas put forward by the left.

I find it interesting because in no way do I see society imposing roles upon random people, and those people suddenly turning in women, or men for that matter.

Now I could be wrong, but having studied biology I was under the impression that our embryonic biology determined this.

Women are domestic. Girls like to play mommy with dolls and have tea-parties. Boys are adventurous, and like to play with swords and stab each other. Is there an evolutionary purpose behind this, or is it a mysoginist social construct?

Women have larger temporal and parietal lobe system relative to the rest of the head than men, making them more prone to emotional attachment than men. Men have a larger prefrontal lobe system in the perceptive regions which enables them to perceive the tragectory and effect of objects moving through space, making them excellent hunters.

Do you deny this?

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by jerk
Now I could be wrong, but having studied biology I was under the impression that our embryonic biology determined this.
Your impression would be mistaken. Embryonic biology determine sex- not gender. And even that does not fall into the neat binaries people like you claim.


Women are domestic. Girls like to play mommy with dolls and have tea-parties. Boys are adventurous, and like to play with swords and stab each other. Is there an evolutionary purpose behind this, or is it a mysoginist social construct?
At no stage have you made a convincing link to biology.
I don't think men killing one another serves any evolutionary pupose, do you? But I guess you're getting at the "woman: nurturer, man:hunter" stereotype. But wouldn't it be just as viable if it was reversed? Or if the caring duties were shared?

Besides you're generalising horribly AND of course the way in which children play is determined by their socialisation. I remember being allowed to play with whatever I wanted as a child, and you know what? I like playing outside, playing football and playing with cars. My brother also used to enjoy running around the house in my mum's shoes and was terrified of getting dirty.

Big deal.


Women have larger temporal and parietal lobe system relative to the rest of the head than men, making them more prone to emotional attachment than men. Men have a larger prefrontal lobe system in the perceptive regions which enables them to perceive the tragectory and effect of objects moving through space, making them excellent hunters.

Do you deny this?
Can you provide scientific studies to support this or did you just pull it out of your arse to make yourself look intelligent?

Peer-reviewed studies please.

[RedAnarchist]

So, women can't be adventurous and men can't be caring? I don't give a shit about the size of part of someone's brain - I mean, on average, men are taller, but there are some women who tower well over 6 foot and some men who hardly reach 5 foot.

[mauvaise foi]

I think you're mainly right about the biological facts. But biological facts are not the sole or even the main issue. Yes, there are average differences between men and women, and some of those differences are partly based in biology. But biology cannot explain or justify the subordinate status of women. Read Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex. She discusses in detail the different ways in which men and women experience their bodies and other issues relating to the difference between men and women, yet she goes on to argue that, even given the facts of biology and psychology, it is still wrong to trap women inside their gender and subordinate them to men. We shouldn't get hung up in meaningless debates over "Difference" vs. "Equality." The one does not exclude the other.

[bcbm]

Some aspects of gender are genetic, but much of it has to do with socialization.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by mauvaise [email protected] 7 2006, 05:14 AM
I think you're mainly right about the biological facts. But biological facts are not the sole or even the main issue. Yes, there are average differences between men and women, and some of those differences are partly based in biology. But biology cannot explain or justify the subordinate status of women. Read Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex. She discusses in detail the different ways in which men and women experience their bodies and other issues relating to the difference between men and women, yet she goes on to argue that, even given the facts of biology and psychology, it is still wrong to trap women inside their gender and subordinate them to men. We shouldn't get hung up in meaningless debates over "Difference" vs. "Equality." The one does not exclude the other.
Perhaps, (but I'll remain sceptical until I see some studies) but the examples he's cited- of apparent differences in sizes of parts of the brain, are basically meaningless. Having larger bits of brain doesn't necessarily correlate with the functions carried out by that area, and even if it did we have such a basic understanding of brain function, to extrapolate a whole set of gender differences from that is absurd.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 02:55 PM
This is one of the more interesting ideas put forward by the left.

I find it interesting because in no way do I see society imposing roles upon random people, and those people suddenly turning in women, or men for that matter.
this isn't about 'rules' in the way of laws or regulations; it's about socialisation on a mass scale decided solely on the genitalia a child possesses, which continues for their entire lives.

it&#39;s not that the government says, "right, girls must cook and play with dolls, boys must play in mud and play war games, and if they don&#39;t then them and their parents are goin to prison, yo&#33;". it&#39;s about girls being given toy baking ovens and dolls, and boys being given swords and toy cars. it&#39;s about girls being dressed in little dresses and ribbons and being reprimanded when they get them dirty, and boys being encouraged to make messes (which when they&#39;re older wom*n will prolly need to clean up <_<) it&#39;s about boys being scolded when they cry for acting like a "sissy girl", while girls are just expected to, &#39;naturally&#39;. and it&#39;s about companies exploiting these gender roles to market to children in particular ways based on their gender, thus perpetuating gender stereotypes.

and this is the same for teenagers and adults, just when we&#39;re older it&#39;s about make-up and real cars and tools and clothes.

[Dean]

Originally posted by mauvaise [email protected] 7 2006, 05:14 AM
I think you&#39;re mainly right about the biological facts. But biological facts are not the sole or even the main issue. Yes, there are average differences between men and women, and some of those differences are partly based in biology. But biology cannot explain or justify the subordinate status of women. Read Simone de Beauvoir&#39;s The Second Sex. She discusses in detail the different ways in which men and women experience their bodies and other issues relating to the difference between men and women, yet she goes on to argue that, even given the facts of biology and psychology, it is still wrong to trap women inside their gender and subordinate them to men. We shouldn&#39;t get hung up in meaningless debates over "Difference" vs. "Equality." The one does not exclude the other.
Biology has a lot of implications for the status of women and men, but at the same time society both exacerbates biological differences and creates ones which are either untrue or unrealistic. Men being stronger than women, for instance, seems to have some truth to it based on the way steroids relate to testestosterone, but again women are often designated roles which make their muscles less relevant, and thus tehy degrade. Likewise, men are expected to do things which require more strength, and so their muscles tend to be stronger.

The housewife concept fits almost purely into the social authority. Only in that women have more nurturing capability and that they create and suckle children, a nurturing act, is from what this placement of women is drawn upon. Women have capabilites comparable, perhaps equal, to men in all fields, so this is a social construct based loosely on real biological differences.

The fact is that, while the differences between women and men cannot be ignored (if they were there would be no justification for maternity leave) they must also be understood as both biological and social. The social categorization of women and men must be destroyed, while the biological distinctions recognized and used for the benefit of all mankind.

[2ormore]

sorry ,but i&#39;m a candid here.
Does it have anything to do with socia darwinism?

:rolleyes: l

[JazzRemington]

According to sociology, Sex is physical and GEnder is social.

Sex has to do with the reproductive organs and Gender is just a socially assigned roles. It is possible for someone to have the sex of a male and have the gender of a female.

[2ormore]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 07:12 PM
According to sociology, Sex is physical and GEnder is social.

Sex has to do with the reproductive organs and Gender is just a socially assigned roles. It is possible for someone to have the sex of a male and have the gender of a female.

and what gender would it be,
the darwin one? :P

[TC]

Inequal societies based around patriarchial family structures have a clear material interest in enculturating little girls from a young age to be maternal and domestic: it helps them to sustain a population of workers that they need to keep their inefficent economy afloat. The only biological difference this implies is that men don&#39;t get pregnant so theres little interest on the part of the ruling class in convincing them that staying in the kitchen barefoot with the kids is a brilliant way to spend their lives.


Obviously sex is biological, but much of what people assume follows from biology has economic, social explainations. Human behavior almost always follows from social organization not biology.

[2ormore]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 07:16 PM
Inequal societies based around patriarchial family structures have a clear material interest in enculturating little girls from a young age to be maternal and domestic: it helps them to sustain a population of workers that they need to keep their inefficent economy afloat. The only biological difference this implies is that men don&#39;t get pregnant so theres little interest on the part of the ruling class in convincing them that staying in the kitchen barefoot with the kids is a brilliant way to spend their lives.
talk to yourserlf

them that staying in the kitchen barefoot with the kids is a brilliant way to spend their lives.

explain?

[LuXe]

I watched the TV some time ago. Then a real life documentary came on about this boy, whos penis had been cut off in a tragic accident at the hospital. Now there was this doctor, who belived gender was only a social construct. He talked with the family and they agreed to raise him as a girl. (And to start adminstering estrogen at a certain age) Now here is what happened; His whole early childhood (up to 3) was happy and normal) however he refused to play with dolls, and wanted firetrucks and aircrafts which his brother had. School was obviously hell for this kid. (Imagine yourselves) After he had given a interwiev with discovery, (Or something) he took his own life.

This, and thinking of transsexuals which changes gender, all points towards the fact that gender is not a social construct.

[Publius]

At no stage have you made a convincing link to biology.
I don&#39;t think men killing one another serves any evolutionary pupose, do you? But I guess you&#39;re getting at the "woman: nurturer, man:hunter" stereotype. But wouldn&#39;t it be just as viable if it was reversed?

It&#39;s not practical.

Women are better nurturers because they give birth (and so have an instant connection and investment in the child, which the male, evolutionarily, does not have), they are better, uh, equipped to nurture children, and men are better hunters because they are stonger, faster, and better built. Men also are much better rotating objects in their head, allowing them to traverse terrain more easily during a hunt.


Or if the caring duties were shared?

They could have been, but that doesn&#39;t make sense, evolutionarily.

It would have been a waste of resources for men to nurture and women to hunt, which means, evolutionarily, it would put humans at a disadvantage.

Yes, retrofitting sex roles thousands of years later might make sense to you, a rash ideologue, but it makes no actual sense and serves no actual purpose.

I cannot, for the life me, understand the left&#39;s obsession over this issue. Sex differences exist. Get over it.

It&#39;s not an excuse for sexism, or a reason to discriminate, it&#39;s a simple fact.



Can you provide scientific studies to support this or did you just pull it out of your arse to make yourself look intelligent?

It&#39;s all true.

These are all very well-documented, men being able to better rotate objects in their heads, for instance. Mens and women&#39;s brains also differ physiologically.

This isn&#39;t made up.


Peer-reviewed studies please.

Why should I do your research for you? Why don&#39;t you educate yourself on the subject before arguing about it? How can you expect me to take your opinions seriously when you come off as an ideologue, not someone educated on the subject objectively? It seems like you&#39;re starting from the premise "Men and women are the same" and trying to defend that. Good luck.

Read a book some time.

Try "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker.

[Publius]

According to sociology, Sex is physical and GEnder is social.

Sex has to do with the reproductive organs and Gender is just a socially assigned roles. It is possible for someone to have the sex of a male and have the gender of a female.

THis is actually, somewhat, true.

But there are also cases, well documented, of boys being raised as girls and it basically fucking them up mentally.

Gender is not all societal, by any means.

The only real truism is that people are different, overall, but certainly when it comes to trends, gender roles are fairly clearly defined. This isn&#39;t ALWAYS the case, but it&#39;s mostly true.

[Publius]

I watched the TV some time ago. Then a real life documentary came on about this boy, whos penis had been cut off in a tragic accident at the hospital. Now there was this doctor, who belived gender was only a social construct. He talked with the family and they agreed to raise him as a girl. (And to start adminstering estrogen at a certain age) Now here is what happened; His whole early childhood (up to 3) was happy and normal) however he refused to play with dolls, and wanted firetrucks and aircrafts which his brother had. School was obviously hell for this kid. (Imagine yourselves) After he had given a interwiev with discovery, (Or something) he took his own life.

This, and thinking of transsexuals which changes gender, all points towards the fact that gender is not a social construct.

This is exactly the case I&#39;m talking about.

Thanks.

[Mujer Libre]

Publius, it is common practice that when someone makes a positive assertion that they have to provide evidence, not the other way around...

As for the rest of the bullshit in this thread- I can&#39;t be fucked right now. I have to go to the gym and build some muscle. ;)

[mauvaise foi]

One of the pioneers in the study of sex differences related to parental investment was the evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers. Trivers is a radical leftist and a former member of the Black Panthers. He was a good friend and scholarly collaborator of Huey P. Newton, who was the god-father of his daughter.

[Publius]

Publius, it is common practice that when someone makes a positive assertion that they have to provide evidence, not the other way around...

It&#39;s also common practice to have a working knowledge of the subject before entering the debate.

But whatever: http://courses.dce.harvard.edu/~phils4/gen...ects%20minds%22 (http://courses.dce.harvard.edu/~phils4/genderdiffs.pdf#search=%22men%20rotating%20objects %20minds%22)

That&#39;s a good introduction which touches on many of the points brought up.

[LSD]

Like most aspects of human behaviour, "gender" can neither be wholly explained by societal pressures or by evolutionary genetics.

The brain is just as biological as any other part of our bodies and, as such, it is just as much a product of evolution. But that doesn&#39;t mean that everything we do is somehow "pre-programmed" from birth.

There is clearly an evolutionary advantage in mothers emotionaly attatching to their children. Reproduction is what evolution&#39;s about and anything which helps perpetuate the genes is evolutionarily "good".

That&#39;s why irrespective of culture or society, parents care for their children.

But the social norms of "femaleness" and "maleness" have very little to do with reproduction. Like most species, we&#39;ve developed complex behavioural rituals surrounding mating, but those rituals are only tangentially related to procreation.

Human society has transcended raw biology, our capacity for rational thought and, perhaps more importantly, our ability to communicate complex ideas means that we are able to excersize a remarkable degree of control over our reproductive choices.

That means that for probably millions of years now, our reproductive patterns have been influenced by both evolutionary factors and social ones. And social factors don&#39;t perpetuate biologically.

The institution of monogamy, for instance, is entirely a product of social evolution. There&#39;s no biological advantage in it whatsoever. And yet, today, it&#39;s bascially the dominant form of sexual relationship on earth, in one form or another.

That pretty conclusively demonstrates just how powerful society is as a shaper of behaviours, even sexual ones. Sure, our evolved behaviours are still there, but their importance is drastically less than in less complex animals.

At this point, the only remaining relevent biological behaviours are the most basic ones, those directly related to procreation and those which have been integrated into societal paradigms.

So, for instance, parents not only take care of their children because it "feels" right, they do so because a million years of that "feeling" have turned it into a social imperative: parents who don&#39;t take care of their children are socially shunned.

But society doesn&#39;t need a base in biology to have that power. Five hundred years ago, a western woman would be mortified to walk topless in public; but that&#39;s not because there&#39;s any biological prohibition against such behaviour, it&#39;s because social values have power in and of themselves.

Luckily, those values can be changed.

And, ultimately, it doesn&#39;t even really matter where oppressive behaviours come from. Whether the paradigm of female servility comes out of some adavistic genetic trait or pure social construction.

Either way, we have a social obligation to put an end to it.

Men and women aren&#39;t "the same" any more than a 20 year old and a 60 year old are "the same", but from a policy perspective, both have the right to be treated and considered equally.

[thisguyisatotaljerk]

Ok, well there are a lotta high quality replies here.

Publius, can I congratulate you. You stole my thunder. Your rebuttals to the agenda going on here were awesome.

To that person who suggested I should come up with a peer review study detailing the differences in innate gender behaviour - can I suggest you get out more. Men behave VERY differently from women, at an innate level.

Let me give you a little example shall we...

About 8 years ago, I brought this chick home, and she went CRACKERS over like the tupperware and containers my family had in my kitchen. A guy would never behave like that. Ironically she was something of a feminist. :rolleyes:

Anyway, I just think you guys need to get out more if you think men and women behave according to artificial constructs. The constructs are there for a reason - an innate one which is determined by gender biology, not social engineering.

[apathy maybe]

"About 8 years ago, I brought this chick home, and she went CRACKERS over like the tupperware and containers my family had in my kitchen. A guy would never behave like that. Ironically she was something of a feminist."

I quite like tupperware ... Well it is not the actual company that I like, just the concept.


Anyway ... While my psychology is a few years out of date (2003), but I do know a little. Yes there are differences between males and females. However, as I understand it, only a few of these differences are &#39;genetic&#39; as such. A few more are more generally biological (from hormones and so on), but the intellectual and knowledge differences are purely social.

Women are just as capable of doing high end mathematics and science as men (for example), similarly men are just as capable of cooking, looking after children, and so on as women.


The crap put forward by the original poster about women being domestic and boys being adventurous is just that crap. It does not account for "tomboys", or boys who like being domestic.

[Mujer Libre]

I just thought I&#39;d make a brief point as well- that studies carried out on adult human brains are essentially a moot point because the human brain develops considerably during growth and development, and the extent to which different parts of the brain develop depends on the amount of stimulation they receive.

So if boys are constantly given spatial stimulation, it&#39;s no wonder they develop stronger neural connections in those areas.

Sure, there may be some genetically determind brain differences that apply in general (though certainly not in all cases) neural development occurs well into early adulthood- so culture and nurture play significant roles in determining the differences in how men and women turn out.

[t_wolves_fan]

I&#39;d love to see someone explain why nearly every single society on the face of the earth generally has the same gender roles, despite lack of communication with other societies.

My memory is slipping, anyone remember that matriarchal society that whooped Cyrus&#39; ass in the Caucuses?

[Avtomatov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 01:39 PM
I&#39;d love to see someone explain why nearly every single society on the face of the earth generally has the same gender roles, despite lack of communication with other societies.

My memory is slipping, anyone remember that matriarchal society that whooped Cyrus&#39; ass in the Caucuses?
Maybe that is the best one to use for human development, and it developed its prominence by a process of natural selection of memes. It doesnt really matter anyway, we dont need gender roles anymore, we would be better off without them.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Avtomatov+Oct 11 2006, 12:04 AM--> (Avtomatov @ Oct 11 2006, 12:04 AM)
[email protected] 10 2006, 01:39 PM
I&#39;d love to see someone explain why nearly every single society on the face of the earth generally has the same gender roles, despite lack of communication with other societies.

My memory is slipping, anyone remember that matriarchal society that whooped Cyrus&#39; ass in the Caucuses?
Maybe that is the best one to use for human development, and it developed its prominence by a process of natural selection of memes. [/b]
Except that the fact that it no longer exists indicates it was eliminated via natural selection.