I think that as society progresses towards greater equality (even if there are temporary hindrances along the way), the question as to whether efforts towards reducing gender distinction should be attempted arises in some of our minds. Clearly not everyone is going to agree on this. But I think anyone who is truly reasonable is going to desire that all people are treated more equitably, in fact as much as possible. For if this is the case and it is practiced everywhere, then it sets precedent for future generations and becomes eventually entrenched in culture - etching it in stone. That is how things would progress for it to become taboo to make a distinction based on gender bias in more minds than today. (This reminds me of how many young women I've seen call males "women", as if it were an insult! Even if they didn't believe it was a bad thing to be female and they were just trying to irritate the guy they were speaking to, it still propagates a destructive idea!)
Someone I know who speaks to me frequently from New York via MSN Messenger (I won't call them a friend because I do not really consider them as such) is a person with really chauvinistic views. He will tell me about how stupid he thinks women are, and how he manipulates women who are younger than him into situations where he can take advantage of them and leave them behind afterwards, despite their naive expectations of a more long-term relationship. I know other people who are like this to their 'victims' too. I don't know how I meet them, because I don't really have anything in common with them outside of maybe a forum on the internet, or because of a relative or what have you. Anyway, over the years, I've made a mental account of the most frequent things I hear from males - teenage boys and physically matured men - away from the eyes and ears of women.
One I hear a lot is this, though obviously not in these exact words: "Women are really dumb. In general, women are less intelligent than men." I find this to be completely false. I know many males very well and can hence report that almost none of them were any smarter than the equally as intelligent females that I knew too. Gender really doesn't play a role in intelligence; gender, as a result of culture and other factors, does play a role in shaping the personality of someone as they grow up. But intelligence itself is clearly not directly affected - it is knowledge and skills, and emotional development, that are affected. All humans, male and female, are, by comparison to anything else on this Earth, EXTREMELY intelligent. In comparison to one another, I see no difference (that is, I see genius/average/stupid men/women) except that more men have learned to be, for example, auto mechanics than women as a result of cultural influence. Things like that; skillsets and thought patterns learned more because of interest and opportunity rather than as a result of some biological flaw in the brain because of what hormones and genitals you got. I know women who are more cunning and devious than any unsuspecting man could fathom, and they manipulate minds so well half the time it's just like a subconscious act for them. I know far fewer men who are capable of this same thing. But even still, since I don't know all 6.6 billion people on this planet, I wouldn't make an assumption like "most mechanics definitely are men" or "more women are superior at being cunning and devious manipulators of their admirers than men are". Intelligent people solve problems in a related area to what concerns them, attributed to how much useful knowledge they possess and how resourceful they are at finding more. Less intelligent people are incapable of managing their plan of action to accomplish this as easily, but everyone does it to some degree. Intelligence can be disrupted by emotional difficulties or from mental disorders. So a man might be very mathematical because he has spent time at it, but a woman can easily be that way too if she were to devote her time the same way.
I don't need to make these assumptions when it comes to my personal life and views of the world, and neither does anyone else. Accepting that everyone is different means accepting that, any given person that comes along is going to have a different set of traits, which means they are accompanied by different advantages and disadvantages to possible situations. I'm not living in a wartorn strip of land where anyone wearing a different colored bandana should be shot before they get within 100 metres, and likewise I don't need to set up a mental image of "all men" or "all women" for myself because it is useless to do so. Say I'm going to interact with my mother somehow. Should I treat her like she is just any woman in the world, a random sample? No of course not, she is my mother, that is to say she possesses the trait "mother of (me)". I have memories with her. I know things about her life and what she likes. Just because I meet a woman I have never met before, should I assume she is stupid either? A random sample I should treat like an idiot because of an idea in my head I don't know is true or not? No, of course not. For one, that is a negative thing to think, so it would only likely result in an unpleasant encounter. This is why every one person should be considered equally so they can prove themselves as an individual.
You might say that, since there have been *questionable* and *controversial* studies done that maybe infer that men perhaps have more of a mathematical talent than women do, that I am wrong here and men simply have better abilities. I mean, in general, men ARE stronger physically than women. But we aren't talking about who can win a wrestling match, we're talking about the value of human beings being such that each person's value sums up to being the same as the next. We're talking about how, no matter how different, each person fits into the world somehow, in their own way. And if just ONE woman can demonstrate incredible strength, or incredible mathematical ability, then I say we should not trivialize all women in our minds just because some individuals - even the so-called "average woman" - may not possess a given trait. To say "in general" into the public ear denies the individuals who possess outstanding qualities the dignity that everyone deserves to preserve for themselves. It is an insulting thing to suggest to a genius that they are only as smart as someone who could not accomplish any of the great works of academia they did in their lifetime - it nullifies one of their most prized abilities. This is a blow to one's self-esteem - demeaning; if people who have importance to you tell you something, you might believe it and it could worsen your self-image. How does feeling bad about oneself help anything? How can anyone victimize someone like this? Because many people act selfishly at times, and do not consider the harm they are inflicting on others, even if that harm is a subtle and slow poison in the mind.
Just because someone "cannot do" some task does not make them inferior to anyone. It means that they are not suited for the task. And that person's circumstances that prevented them from doing that task may have been completely out of their control, so how can you attribute that to their value as a human being? "Usefulness" is not a measure of the worth of a person, nor is any person useless. To say they are is to be ignorant of a way that they could interact with productive results; even someone who is a paralyzed can be studied so that some day paralysis can be cured if they wish to volunteer for such a study. Just because one person in particular can't lift much and can't do math, or isn't sexually attractive to you, or believes in things you think are ridiculous (an area I have fallen short before in younger years) doesn't make it OK to judge them harshly, so of course it doesn't make it OK to say "all right, the whole group's like this - treat 'em all badly". Just because all men possess the same genitals does not mean they are all strong, nor does being female suggest that all one is good for is staying home and taking care of the kids.
Something that one can generalize about all people is something that all people possess. For instance, we all possess a brain, heart and lungs. We all eat and drink, and sleep at some point. But you can't even say all people have legs - amputees sometimes don't - and be correct. It's a false statement. "All men are strong" is a false statement, and so is "all men are weak". It is just as false as "all people are strong" or "all people are weak": The measure one uses to judge how strong a fellow human being is entails recalling how strong a human usually is by what you have seen, and by that reasoning, people who are equal to that measure are average, people who perform greater than that are above average, and people who perform lesser are below average. Therefore, they are not all measuring at the identical level on the scale you are thinking of, and to say they are all the same is false. Even if every person you ever met had the same strength, it does not really imply that every human you haven't met is just like that too, and once again it is unnecessary to make that assumption.
Equality: because it sucks to feel bad.
Contemporary Gender Distinction - Why?
by rune 17 Replies latest jw friends
-
rune
-
Cellist
Very well put, Rune.
Cellist
-
Satanus
As far as child custody goes, the system is stacked against men/fathers. Tv commercials, i notice many are antifather/antiman. They often make the father look/act stupid, while the rest of the family is laughing at him. A polysporin and a sunburn/suntan spray come to mind.
S
-
AuldSoul
Rune,
Very well thought out thread. I applaud the sentiments, but I wonder whether we could achieve a cultural acceptance of the idea of gender equality in a different way. Obviously, there is no rational reason to hold on to archaic notions of work that is feminine and work that is masculine, but the mindsets that you mentioned are needed. Both the historically "masculine" AND the historically "feminine."
What I believe we should try to change through education is devaluation of one mindset (skillsets and thought patterns) or personality versus the other as though they are in competition. They are both needed by society. I agree that generalizations are troublesome, however I also believe they have merit if kept in their proper context (designing educational systems that more broadly meet the needs of both genders, etc.).
I have said before that I don't know who this guy "Norm" is, but if I ever meet him I'm gonna kick his ass. He's way to perfect. The reality is that if we measure ourselves by the societal norm none of us will feel adequate. The reality is that no one is normal. Which means we must, at some point, begin to address the needs and desires of one another individually. We must, at some point, begin to see one another as individuals and not hold one another to stereotypical norms. Perceiving anyone through the lens of a norm would be provably irrational since we know no one exists that is normal.
I advocate for finding and appreciating that which makes us unique as individuals (so long as that uniqueness is not destructive or encroaching on the rights of others), which seems to be the point you were making as well. If we approach one another from that mindset we will avoid looking at each other through stereotype goggles, it is certain we will find more wonder in the world than we previously dreamed possible.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
serendipity
As far as child custody goes, the system is stacked against men/fathers. ;
Back in the early to mid 90's when I had to investigate the topic of child custody, I found out in Texas that men have a 50/50 chance of at least getting shared custody of the children i.e. the children spent half time with each parent.
Tv commercials, i notice many are antifather/antiman. ; They often make the father look/act stupid, while the rest of the family is laughing at him. ; A polysporin and a sunburn/suntan spray come to mind.
TV oftens portrays men as incompentent, stupid, egotistical, buffoons. Advertising is still ruled by men, so it's puzzling why men doing the creative content in advertising are willing to sellout their fellow men. On the other hand, women influence or control most money spent, and perhaps the commercials portray men negatively to pander to women.
There's a huge double standard as to what's acceptable to communicate negatively about men VS. women. Male-bashing is alive, well and accepted.
-
serendipity
Hi Rune,Interesting thoughts. There are a lot of stereotypes and preconceptions that need to be busted, hopefully in my daughter's lifetime.
One thing I want to comment on:
though obviously not in these exact words: "Women are really dumb. In general, women are less intelligent than men."
I would say "the average" women is pretty more trusting, and therefore more naive than the average men. That may make them appear less intelligent. I think there have been studies that show men are more cynical overall.
Though it's not as prevalent as when I was a teenager, high intelligence is not considered a particularly attractive feature for a women. Many girls lose interest in math and science once they hit adolescence. They don't want to be considered geeks. High intelligence also intimidates many young men, who may not be so confident of themselves, especially if they're geeks. They may like smart girls, but not girls smarter than themselves.
At some age, though, men seem to accept this. I hear men say "My wife/gf/signficant other is smarter than me." and don't seem to be particularly bothered by it. Maybe this will trickle down to the adolescents in another generation or so.
-
Leolaia
Rune...I enjoyed your post and you raised some good thoughtful questions. I think you would be interested in reading some of the fascinating stuff in feminist studies which probe into the mechanics of how gender differentiation and subordination occurs in our society (or in human societies in general). In particular, the work on how social categories arise and are perpetuated is especially relevant. Social categories like gender, race, class, etc. do not exist in the real world as discrete, neat entities...the real world is much more messy and diffuse and complex. Our social institutions depend on categorization, which oversimplifies this variation & complexity and imposes clear boundaries between categories, and sets up norms and rules pertaining to each. This defines the "core" of each category, while policing the boundaries. So a person who otherwise would be intermediate between categories would be forced to chose between them, such as a mixed race person trying to fit in into one group or another. Or behavior that would otherwise be unproblematic is judged negatively when it either does not follow the norms of the category or may reflect norms of another category.
So a woman, for instance, may be regarded as "butch" if her styling and social practice is variant according to the norms of the category she is socially assigned (by virture of her biological sex), and which also corresponds in part to the norms of another group that is opposed to the group she is in. Those who "think in categories" (i.e. with stereotypes in mind; stereotypes apply certain core traits or norms on all members of a given group) may say that she is "trying to act like a man", assuming that she is stylistically adopting "male" practices. This viewpoint reinforces hegemonic gender norms because it disenfranchies such practices and styles as "illegitimate" for women and naturalizes them as belonging to another category. In reality, it is actually quite arbitrary which practices get assigned to which gender. This arbitrariness is evident not only cross-culturally but also through time... how we construct "femininity" or "masculinity" is always undergoing change and contestation. For instance, in Japan, the normative idealized femininity for women is a very deferential style in which the woman uses a lot of honorifics and devices to index her social politeness, while men are expected to speak in a more coarse, blunt style to each other as well as to women. It is the exact opposite in some parts of Indonesia. There men are expected to cultivate a sophisticated speaking style with lots of politeness markers, while women are expected to speak more bluntly and less elegantly. In both cases, however, the social evaluation is the same: men have higher status and privilege, while women's styles are valued less. Thus the "meaning" of each individual practice can vary widely. Politeness in Japan is a sign of one's inferior social place, while in Java it is a highly-valued style that indicates one's prestige and training. Bluntness in Japan is a sign of one's superior social status (because one can afford to make less of an effort to be "polite"), while in some parts of Indonesia, bluntness means that you lack social sophistication and privilege. And these practices are themselves undergoing constant change and contestation. So, for instnance, the older demure, deferential style in Japan is competing with a newer "cuteness" style which explicitly lacks many of the deferential features of the former. It is a newer kind of femininity that breaks free of some contraints of the older style while including new constraints of its own (since "cuteness" is to be taken less seriously, and may be thought of as less polite, than more traditional styles).
The interesting thing is that even though social categories are fictive simplifications of social and cultural diversity and complexity, we usually orient ourselves socially vis-a-vis other people with these constructs in mind. It is far easier to think in terms of one's class membership than thinking about the scores and scores of tendencies, habits, social orientations, traits, etc. that a person actually exhibits. Especially if you don't know a person well and have not had an opportunity to get a more holistic impression of who the person is. Thus, social categories do have a social reality in that they have very real effects. It has been said that race is not real but racism is. And not only do we evaluate others with these ideological constructs in mind, but we also individually also adopt social practices in order to enact our own identity and sense of place in the social world. Every single gesture, speech element, the way we walk, the way we carry ourselves, etc. everything we do is socially loaded and has the potential to index these broader social categories. So in growing up, we are all socialized to know how to be a girl or a boy, or how to be a jock or a nerd, or how to be a go-getter or an introvert, and we learn how to manipulate stylistic resources to have the desired effects we want (or for those more socially challenged, perhaps less mastery). These resources, when enacted, have the effect of constructing us as belonging to one group or another. In other words, they have a performative effect....like a doctor who declares, "It's a girl" when a child is born (thereby initiating her social place as a girl) or a priest who says, "I hereby declare you man and wife" (thereby putting the marriage into effect), so do all the things we do construct our own social place. Some people may want to express their alignment to social norms, other people want to do things that indicate their non-alignment to hegemonic norms. There is a whole discipline of "queer theory" that looks into how some people transgress norms or parody the constructed nature of social categories, thereby revealing their artificiality.
The real ugly side to all of this is that categories play a direct role in constructing inequality. Because usually the constructing of difference through categories privileges one group over another...it is rare in our society for two socially polarized groups to have the exact same evaluation and prestige as the other. Usually the relationship is assymetrical. And discrimination and inequality depend on stable, clear, distinct categories which clearly define who is privileged and who is not. So not only do they solve a cognitive problem in simplying the complexity of the real world, but they also facilitate such things as sexism and racism. It is also important to distinguish between racism and racial prejudice. Racism may involve prejudice but it can exist without it. Prejudice is due to "thinking in categories", e.g. assuming or applying to an individual expectations and evaluations through the person's perceived class membership to a category, thereby linking the individual to attitudes about the social group. It may be done maliciously, or done silently through omission or neglect. But there is also the system of inequality in the system itself. A person could support a system of inequality that disenfranchises others not because he/she hates or have prejudiced views towards others, but because that system benefits himself or himself in certain ways....maybe without even realizing how he/she may benefit at the expense of others. But then this question opens another can of worms on how that translates into practice. The main thing to come away with is that categorization and inequality do go hand in hand. If we want to reduce inequality between groups, one way is breaking down some of the boundaries between groups. Is the opposition against gay marriage primarily about anti-gay sentiment, or is it also (or more) about maintaining norms defining gender distinctions between men and women?
Anyway, just thought I'd offer some thoughts.
-
Bstndance
Serendipity - "Advertising is still ruled by men, so it's puzzling why men doing the creative content in advertising are willing to sellout their fellow men. "
That's an easy one. The biggest advertiser in the nation is Proctor and Gamble and women are the largest buyers of P&G products. This goes way back to the time of the original radio "Soap Operas" :-) -
Narkissos
Thought-provoking thread...
The problem to me is that equality (or superiority, or inferiority) has no absolute meaning outside of pure (unapplied) mathematics. Practically it depends on the quality scales and standards you choose. Any social structure will build on and further differences, categories, stereotypes, class consciousness, concurrent value scales and power struggle. What determines the structure configuration synchronically, at any point of time, also determines its modification diachronically, in the course of time. When we speak of equality we refer to the entropical "goal" of the system, which is fictitious, because as it "tends to entropy" it generates new differences.
Would a perfectly equal "society" made up of fully interchangeable monads make sense? Wouldn't it also be desireless and history-free? And was it ever achieved if not in a limited way, space and time, at the cost of greater "unequality" elsewhere?
Now it is entirely possible that a particular social / symbolical distinction stops making sense within a given society and that gender discrimination follows slavery, nobility or "non-whites" into the shameful past of the West. But that won't be the end of human unequality.
The ocean has been around for some time but it is not perfectly flat yet...
-
Leolaia
How about having a rotating egalitarian system, like the Valentinians did? Give everyone their time of being "more than equal".
Of course, not even Communist ideology went that far...
It seems to me that inequality is epiphenominal of organization. Cognitive categories are central to organization, yet such organization tends to unfold in a hierarchical way. It would be nice if everyone in our society has equivalent power, like the members of the Supreme Court. But without a controlling mechanism (and I'd hate to think what that would be), entropy and construction of new assymetric differences would always be a part of the system. But do the disparities and inequalities between people need to align with social categories? I suppose in order for them to be semiotically useful they need to be.