How weird is it that such basic concepts can cause so much furor? It is almost like a certain category of men have decided they strongly dislike a particular objective fact, and expect the rest of the world to fall in line with their new orthodoxy (because they say so). Conveniently, when it come to basic biological definitions, all of their the hard-headed skepticism and critical analysis is tucked away. However, the critical thinking boom is lowered almost instantaneously to repudiate those quaint feminist notions of sex-based oppression, patriarchy, and rape culture – now there friends, are some legitimate topics for serious Debate (because we disagree with them and it doesn’t affect us much)!
http://auntiewanda.tumblr.com/post/150750143211/terf-receipts-auntiewanda-terf-receipts
If there is a better description that leads to a more accurate description of objective reality let’s hear it. Until that time, and with general scientific consensus, the current definitions look pretty rock-solid to me.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
9 comments
November 16, 2016 at 11:41 am
Godless Cranium
“Gender is complicated, but it’s pretty easy to define: human beings are an allogamous sexually reproducing species. We have female and male sexes. Adult human females are called women. Adult human males are called men.”
That would be sex. Not gender.
“In our cultures and society we assign roles, expectations and prescribed behaviors to people based on which sex they are. This is something that has led to a lot of psychological harm and has especially put women are a severe societal disadvantage. This is what is known as gender. ”
I think it’s far more complicated than that. She makes it sound as if there is some shadowy figure handing out gender roles, and her explanation doesn’t account for genetic, developmental, biological and environmental factors.
I also think it’s wrong to assume that all gender roles harm one sex or the other. Gender roles are far more complex than that and this overly simplistic way of viewing them is what has led to the demonization of one sex over the other.
Gender roles also change over time.
LikeLike
November 16, 2016 at 2:51 pm
donesoverydone
Reblogged this on stop trans chauvinism.
LikeLike
November 16, 2016 at 2:56 pm
The Arbourist
@GC
A response from a different post – “But the reason they’re called gender roles is because they’re related to gender. And gender is the socially enforced prescribed behaviors and expectations people are pressured to follow based on which sex they are.
I mean seriously ask yourself: if gender is so indescribable and inexplicable why are gender roles so specific and why are they tied so closely to sex?”
Which set of gendered assumptions are not harmful to one sex or the other? You’d need to run your answer through the filter of which set is promoted in society and which gets rewarded in society and who happens to posses those particular traits.
How it works for women.
Also women in STEM fields.
Is this where you’re having problems coming to terms with the idea that men who built, shaped, and run this society shouldn’t be getting criticized for their actions?
Your question belays another more pressing concern and that would be the denial of patriarchy. So an understanding of gender roles without the patriarchal component will necessarily be flawed. Happy to discuss whether patriarchy exists or not, but that isn’t the topic of this post. :)
As most social constructs do. However the overall subordination of the female traits to the set of male traits has remained the same.
(refresher of gender roles here)
LikeLike
November 17, 2016 at 12:01 am
Godless Cranium
“And gender is the socially enforced prescribed behaviors and expectations people are pressured to follow based on which sex they are”
I think in some cases you’re right, but not in all. I think it’s far more complex than that.
“Which set of gendered assumptions are not harmful to one sex or the other?”
Depends on the circumstances. For example, many feminists say that men being taught not to show emotions or break down in front of other people leads us to suppress emotions and it causes harm.
In some cases I would agree.
However, sometimes it comes in handy. I remember once my GF’s son came home with a cracked open skull from being hit in the head with an aluminum bat. My GF and his sister were running around the house screaming. I saw him laying against the wall barely conscious and although I certainly felt fear, I calmly asked if anyone had called 911. They said no and I proceeded to do so, while explaining to them in a calm voice what to do in terms of first aid.
Or when my dad was dying, I remember ‘staying strong’ at the hospital for my mother, sister and for my children. We had medical decisions to make and people were looking to me to help them do that.
After he passed, I went home and wept uncontrollably. I still have nightmares about watching him die, but clearly even traits many think might be harmful in some situations, might not be so in others.
“Is this where you’re having problems coming to terms with the idea that men who built, shaped, and run this society shouldn’t be getting criticized for their actions?”
No. I would say the same about any sex, race etc. I don’t believe in broad brushes or general condemnations. If an individual does something stupid, misogynistic etc, then I absolutely think they should be called on it. I would say the same about females.
“o an understanding of gender roles without the patriarchal component will necessarily be flawed. Happy to discuss whether patriarchy exists or not, but that isn’t the topic of this post.”
Fair enough. I obviously don’t believe it exists but you’re right, that’s a discussion for another day I think.
“However the overall subordination of the female traits to the set of male traits has remained the same.”
I don’t think they’re necessarily subordinate. Like above, different ‘roles’ are advantageous in different circumstances.
I do think people should act (within the law) in any general way they want. If men want to wear pink, for example, then they should do so. I don’t think people have to stick to their specific gender roles etc.
LikeLike
November 17, 2016 at 10:25 am
The Arbourist
@GC
If gender is so indescribable and inexplicable why are gender roles so specific and why are they tied so closely to sex?
Arguing for complexity is sounding more like – here is a structure that clearly shows the sexist backdrop of our society and, given my worldview, does not compute.
This may not be the case, but it would seem that there should be alternative answer or definition as to what gender roles are and how they work in society that doesn’t support the idea that we live in a patriarchal society.
Offering such a definition would be helpful in defending your alternate view – non-patriarchal society – and what not.
It is handy for females to demure to men and take up less space in their presence, almost all the time. I’m not sure where one would find this ability coming in ‘handy’, at anytime. (Other than the sad usual of making sure not to anger men, as they may indeed resort to violence – so handy in that sense)
I am sorry for your loss, watching family pass is a traumatic experience.
I appreciate the examples offered, but when discussing gender roles in society, the focus needs to be more on groups/classes of people and how societal expectations affect them in their cohorts.
So it wasn’t men who build our society, and shaped to their preferences, and has it benefiting them?
Seems reasonable. It would depend though, given this position, if you believe that somehow intrinsically we in society are all listened too, respected. and given the same chance as everyone else.
I would argue that factors like sex, race, and class all have an effect on how one’s speech/actions are viewed in a society and that an individual analysis that doesn’t take this into account isn’t particularly useful when it comes to addressing problems in society.
This particular individualistic view seems to be associated with much of the neo-liberal platform which foregrounds the idea that making individual choices and espousing identity – is useful in society.
To a certain extent, it is, but at the cost of downplaying the role of social forces and cohesion that are the main-drivers of change in society. Also, the neo-liberal critique tends to avoid the societal factors that necessarily limit and inform the choices, an individual is allowed to make. Critiques of how race, sex, and class work in society do not necessarily paint with a broad brush, but deal with collective forces in society – that are most definitely present in society – and need to be addressed on the collective level.
Let me list a few of the traditional female gender stereotypes – Not aggressive, dependent,easily influenced, submissive, passive, home-oriented, indecisive…
Now let me apply your thought. Being passive and submissive really doesn’t work too well in most professional fields – should then females focus on other circumstances were these traits (the ones they are taught and expected to follow) are useful? It would seem like homemaking and other domestic roles fit the bill quite nicely.
A peek at the male traits: Aggressive, independent, active, worldly, decisive, logical, analytical…
These traits seem to be the ones that are valued in society (hello patriarchy) and are advantageous in most professional and social situations (almost like society comes with preferences built in patriarchy again).
So, if there is one assumption of yours that needs to be challenged it is the idea that -as individuals- we are all treated the same. The STEM study I linked to speaks directly to that, and the answer is – no, we are not all treated the same.
If this isn’t the case, how would you explain the results of that STEM study, or a similar one where ‘white-sounding’ names and ‘black-sounding’ names were used? (Link to study here)
LikeLike
November 17, 2016 at 10:45 am
Godless Cranium
“Arguing for complexity is sounding more like – here is a structure that clearly shows the sexist backdrop of our society and, given my worldview, does not compute.”
Sexism exists. Both men and women are capable of it.
For example from WHO: http://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index2.html
“It is handy for females to demure to men and take up less space in their presence, almost all the time. I’m not sure where one would find this ability coming in ‘handy’, at anytime.”
I’m not sure where you live, but I don’t see this at all. There are many very strong women in my life who dominated their jobs, their families, a room etc. The idea that all women are delicate little flowers that must bow and scrape to men is both wrong and offensive to many women. It’s why so many don’t agree with feminism.
“I am sorry for your loss, watching family pass is a traumatic experience.”
Thank you.
“I appreciate the examples offered, but when discussing gender roles in society, the focus needs to be more on groups/classes of people and how societal expectations affect them in their cohorts.”
This is why we will not agree. Everything to you is about classes and who is more oppressed. I’m in favor of individualism and you collectivism.
“So it wasn’t men who build our society, and shaped to their preferences, and has it benefiting them?”
It’s clearly benefiting women as well. Also, the pendulum is swinging in the other direction. More women are getting higher educations than men, for example. More young women are making more money than young men. Women often get lighter sentences for the same crimes a man commits. The list can go on.
“I would argue that factors like sex, race, and class all have an effect on how one’s speech/actions are viewed in a society and that an individual analysis that doesn’t take this into account isn’t particularly useful when it comes to addressing problems in society.”
Sometimes they do have an effect. But calling one group of people racists or sexists or oppressors isn’t going to make that any better. It’s going to do the opposite. That’s why painting with a broad brush never works.
You’re also never going to force everyone to be good people. This is reality. Not a Utopian feminist universe.
“Also, the neo-liberal critique tends to avoid the societal factors that necessarily limit and inform the choices, an individual is allowed to make.”
Women are allowed to make the same decisions any man can.
“Now let me apply your thought. Being passive and submissive really doesn’t work too well in most professional fields ”
That’s a feminists ideas of those gender roles. Not reality. Again, I know a lot of independent women who are very strong, including my GF. Women are running some of the most influential countries, such as Germany. One was nearly elected in America. Women can make any choice they want to do and can pursue it just like men.
“If this isn’t the case, how would you explain the results of that STEM study, or a similar one where ‘white-sounding’ names and ‘black-sounding’ names were used? (Link to study here)”
Not sure what race has to do with this conversation. I mean, you can be a black woman or man.
And I’m not saying sexism doesn’t exist or doesn’t play a factor sometimes, but I don’t think it’s as pervasive as you think, and I certainly don’t think all men are oppressors like patriarchy theory demands we believe. I also think men can suffer sexism as well, such as from the examples given above. Yet I wouldn’t say I live in a matriarchal system because not all women are guilty of these things.
LikeLike
November 19, 2016 at 11:20 am
The Arbourist
@GC
It’s just that its worse in one direction that the other. Or did you not see the individual in the US that publicly stated that grabbing women by the vagina (and other fun sexist foibles) was an acceptable practice and then wrote it off as ‘locker-room talk’ just ascended to the highest office in the land. Good times.
I’m seeing stuff on fruit-fly sex. Is there a specific part of the document that is relevant to what is at hand? :)
Because *you* don’t see it, does not mean it isn’t a feature of our society.
In the classroom – “The male tendency to dominate in some classes did not surprise us, since talkativeness studies in general have concluded that men dominate mixed discussion groups everywhere — both within the classroom and beyond. What did surprise us was the degree to which male domination appeared to depend on gender demographics: when the teacher was male and the students in a particular class were predominantly male, then male students dominated the discussions. In none of the demographic circumstances studied did women students talk as much as men.”
In the workplace – ““Speaking up in forceful, assertive ways is especially risky for women,” said Grenny, coauthor of the New York Times bestseller Crucial Conversations. “An emotion-inequality effect punishes women more than men. Women are burdened with the assumption that they will conform to cultural stereotypes that typecast women as caring and nurturing. Speaking forcefully violates these cultural norms, and women are judged more harshly than men for the same degree of assertiveness.”
YA Entertainment – “No one can argue that viewing again and again an imbalanced fictional “world” where females are often underrepresented or unmotivated can be good for young females or young males. Females take up half the space in society, yet, especially in films aimed at children, they appear much less frequently than do males. Nevertheless, when they do make it onto the silver or small screen, their portrayals can undermine their presence by being “hyper-attractive” or “hypersexual” and/or passive. It is certainly not the intent of this research to suggest that all female portrayals be uplifting or inspirational nor that “pretty” females not be depicted. Rather, the findings from all four studies point to the need for a shift: away from creating females as adornment, enticement,
or with inclination to romance as the main or exclusive personality trait or motivator.
In movies – “Male characters received two times the amount of screen time as female characters in 2015 (28.5% compared to 16.0%). In films with a male lead, male characters appearing on screen nearly three times more often than female characters (34.5% compared to 12.9%). Male characters spoke two times as often as female characters (28.4% compared to 15.4%). In films with male leads, male characters spoke three times more often than female characters (33.1% compared to 9.8%).”
Children Learning Gendered Use of Space – This research demonstrates the many ways that practices in institutions like pre-schools facilitate children’s acquisition of
gendered physicalities. Men and women and girls and boys fill social space with their bodies in different ways. Our everyday movements, postures, and gestures are gendered. These bodily differences enhance the seeming naturalness of sexual and reproductive differences, that then construct inequality between men and women
(Butler 1990). As MacKinnon (1987) notes, “Differences are inequality’s post hoc ex-
cuse . . .” (p. 8). In other words, these differences create a context for social relations in which differences confirm inequalities of power.
The experience of men and women in society are markedly different, your formulation, whether speaking from personal incredulity or anecdotal experience is incorrect when applied on the societal level.
Neglecting either form of analysis (individualism/collectivism) is detrimental with regards to analysis social problems. Ignoring class analysis – and thus most of sociology – will not lead to an accurate view of society. Perhaps the sole focus on individualism, may serve a personal goal, but most certainly not the one of obtaining an accurate view of how society works and how it is structured.
So class analysis *is* useful, at least when providing evidence for your argument – curious that. Anyhow, I would be interested to see your list of claims on how the pendulum is swinging toward women. I’d also like to see the sources involved in those claims – as many similar lists have appeared in the manosphere ‘proving’ women have ‘gone to far’ in society. Most of these lists are a testament to perceived lost of male privilege in society – not to insinuate that yours is, but my skepticism remains quite high – as the argumentation reminds me muchly of my quality fun times with MRA’s and the manosphere in general.
Absolutely. But not pointing out racism and sexism isn’t really a good option either. Racism and sexism need to be discussed, argued and continually brought to light. If we are to follow Reason in society then the arguments of sexist and racist people must be discussed – how else are we to progress?
Okay? You do realize that you can make the same (and it has been made) argument against the atheist movement and secular society. Our society has progressed toward a more secular norm precisely because atheists persisted, despite the general religiosity of the culture.
Dismissing feminism – the liberation of females from the structures of patriarchy – smacks of the same sort of concordance with the status-quo.
Really? Are women allowed to fully control what goes in their body with regards to their reproductive rights? Just like a man? Fascinating stuff.
Anecdata is nice, but ‘gender roles’ are far from exclusively a feminist thing. You don’t get to append an entire social science for the convenience of your argument.
Choosing the example of politics will not help your case –
Only 22.8 per cent of all national parliamentarians were women as of June 2016, a slow increase from 11.3 per cent in 1995 [1].
As of September 2016, 10 women are serving as Head of State and 9 are serving as Head of Government [2].
Rwanda had the highest number of women parliamentarians worldwide. Women there have won 63.8 per cent of seats in the lower house [3].
Globally, there are 38 States in which women account for less than 10 per cent of parliamentarians in single or lower houses, as of June 2016, including 4 chambers with no women at all [4].
So, no the political realm is not even the ballpark of equality and should be held up as a example of how much more work feminism has to do, rather than a counter argument to why feminism isn’t necessary.
Systemic racism exists. Systemic sexism (patriarchy) exists. Despite your anecdotal objections.
#notallmen makes an appearance. Nice. Not all men, but *enough* men still behave in ways that perpetuate and continue the systemic sexism in society that harms women.
Well because we don’t live in a matriarchal system for one, and once again, sexist attitudes cause damage to both women and men, but disproportionately the damage is done to women.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 19, 2016 at 11:14 pm
Karla Gjini
someone needs to brush up on liberal vs radical..
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 5, 2016 at 5:29 am
Sexism Alive and Well in 2016 – as its always been. | Dead Wild Roses
[…] I would like to thank a recent commenter here on DWR for the placement of a tidy swarm of bees squarely in my bonnet. The honour, of course, goes to Godless Cranium for this nugget of wisdom shared on a previous thread: […]
LikeLike