Gender roles and stereotypes: Which are garbage, which are true?

[LovebirdsFlying]

I got to thinking about this because my husband definitely prefers cats over dogs, and I've heard a lot of people say that's backwards. They think of men as preferring dogs, and that cats are a more of a woman's thing. How silly is that? How did that stereotype develop?

Then too, I'm participating in a discussion on a different site where a young man is asking people's opinions on whether or not men should cry. I can't believe, in the 21st century, that question is still being asked! Why shouldn't they? Here's a part of what I had to say on that subject:

The thought occurs to me, on the subject of "balance." By analogy, we are taught when we are very young that we must control urination. We don't just empty our bladders automatically, the instant we feel the urge. It isn't socially acceptable. We wait for the appropriate time and place. Barring disease or injury, the inability to control it usually indicates some weakness or incompetence. The person is still a small child, is elderly and infirm, is drunk, or is perhaps mentally challenged in some way. And then those who cannot control it are expected to manage the situation, by using protection, catheters, or some other method of making sure there aren't random puddles being left everywhere.

In the same way, we are taught to control our tear ducts. We don't just start it up whenever the urge hits. We wait for the appropriate time and place, and then we control how we release it. Generally, bawling and open-mouth wailing is the domain of babies and small children. Older children and adults have learned to be less demonstrative. There may be tears and some sobbing, but usually the vocal cords are far less involved. Even my overemotional deceased husband [not the man I'm married to now; I had given details in an earlier post] was able to control that much.

But getting back to the analogy, if boys were taught that only girls may urinate, and that boys never do, how unhealthy would that be? We teach them to control it, but we don't teach them to hold it back forever, do we?​

Please discuss.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Gender is a social role that people play. The behaviors that that role calls for depend on culture. Culture depends on variables such as biology, natural environment, etc.

I suppose that a lot of culture is based on stereotypes. I would say that where people go wrong is in having the wrong beliefs about those aforementioned variables (biology, natural environment, etc.). A lot of people seem to believe that African-Americans are, due to biology, more athletic than white people. It may be true that due to biology African-Americans are more athletic than white people, but even if it is not true a white person who has internalized such thinking might avoid, say, trying out for the high school basketball team. That might be because he/she does not think that he/she can take on the social role of "athlete". But there is more to participating in organized basketball than being an athlete. There are also non-biological, learned things like working hard, preparing mentally for games, etc., etc. In other words, games like basketball are not just about athleticism and there is the bigger role of being a player.

Therefore, I would say that to evaluate gender stereotypes we need to put them in the context of the social role that they are a part of and evaluate that role like the above evaluation of racial stereotypes and the social role of "athlete".

 

[AlexBP]

Then too, I'm participating in a discussion on a different site where a young man is asking people's opinions on whether or not men should cry. I can't believe, in the 21st century, that question is still being asked! Why shouldn't they?

If a man's particular emotional constitution leads him to cry, and if his wife or other important people in his life don't object to it, then I'd say there's no reason not to cry. I think the person who started that discussion with you may have had in mind the industry of self-help gurus, marriage counselors, and other cranks who urge men to cry regardless of temperment. For instance, when you go to a marriage seminar these days, you hear the leader insisting that men need to express their emotions, be more sensitive and communicative about their feelings, etc.. In other words, the basic idea from these seminars is that men need to stop acting like men and start acting like women. To most of us, that's not gonna fly.

 

[Gadarene]

They all are.

The clue is in the word "stereotype".

Treating someone not as an individual but by some statistic associated with a particular trait/grouping of theirs is the root of all prejudices.

In practice the labels man and woman are utterly meaningless.

 

[quatona]

Gender stereotypes: Which are garbage, which are true?

When it comes to descriptive stereotypes some of them may be of statistical value (for whatever that may be useful). None of them allows you to conclude on an individual, though.
When it comes to prescriptive gender stereotypes (which apparently your examples were about) I consider all of them garbage.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I find all of the reactions and comments so far very interesting.

There is only one thing I have a question about, and it wasn't even the whole post but only one sentence in it. The part about seminars trying to say that "men should stop acting like men, and start acting like women." That's kind of the whole point I'm making. Why is displaying emotion called "acting like women," and holding emotion inside called "acting like men"?

Yet I've heard it said at times that stereotypes exist for a reason, and have some grain of truth in them. I'm sure that statistically, most men are far less emotionally inclined than most women are. But when this leads to calling it "acting like a man" if you don't express emotion, and "acting like a woman" if you do, that's stereotype right there.

The way my mind works, this leads me right to an old country song. Group, Confederate Railroad. Title, "She Took It Like a Man." The singer describes his girlfriend as emotionally fragile and dreads her reaction when he plans to end their relationship. He is bracing himself for a flood of tears, but he faces obscenities, hurled objects, and holes punched in walls instead. It's supposed to be funny. I suppose the best purpose for stereotypes is to break them for comedic effect. However, I can hear some of you already, complaining that if it were a song about a man acting that way toward a woman, it wouldn't be comical at all, but he'd be painted as a violent, abusive monster. She does it; it's funny. He does it; it's awful. If that's what you're thinking, you have a point.

I've been in therapy for PTSD most of my adult life. My (male, straight, Christian) therapist is of the opinion that we need to stop using gender ("That's women for you." "That's just the way guys are.") to explain away behavior. He says in his practice, he sees it all the time. She's the one who's closed off and distant. He's the one who's overly romantic and idealistic and doesn't base his decisions on reality. And I see that in my own life too. That other discussion I'm participating in on the other site, by the way, I didn't begin it, and I'm not the one the poster was addressing. It had nothing to do with me and had already gone into its second page before I ventured an opinion. But naturally, the first thing I did was tell of my own experience.

I noted that some of us don't have to be a man to be emotionally inhibited. I grew up on that "if you don't hush up, I'm going to give you something to cry about" garbage, and gradually I became incapable of expressing emotion, no matter who died. When I was a teenager and my boyfriend was killed in an accidental shooting, the fact that I didn't cry earned me all kinds of accolades for being "strong" and "brave" when I was actually too stunned and too overloaded to react. It was an emotional crash on my part, kind of like a motor burning out from overuse, not being "strong" and "brave" at all. Then a few years later, as a young mother, when I lost my daughter to Sudden Infant Death and was not able to cry, even my mother realized something must be wrong with me.

I also told the story of an overly emotional former husband of mine, now deceased. But this post is getting too long. I'll go into detail in a later one, if there is interest. So no, for me it's not about "men don't know how to express their emotions the way women do." I'm a little more experienced than that.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Now that I've read over what I previously posted, I find I have two questions, not just the one. "In practice, the labels man and woman are utterly meaningless." Yes, "Men do A and women do B. Let's not ever blur the two under any circumstances. Men who do B are wimps, and women who do A are butch," is an extreme. On the other hand, "Let's completely erase the distinction between men and women" seems to be going a little too far in the other direction. Could you elaborate? Or are you simply agreeing with my therapist, that "Oh, that's just men/women for you; they're all like that," should not be used to explain away behavior?

 

[quatona]

Now that I've read over what I previously posted, I find I have two questions, not just the one. "In practice, the labels man and woman are utterly meaningless." Yes, "Men do A and women do B. Let's not ever blur the two under any circumstances. Men who do B are wimps, and women who do A are butch," is an extreme. On the other hand, "Let's completely erase the distinction between men and women" seems to be going a little too far in the other direction. Could you elaborate? Or are you simply agreeing with my therapist, that "Oh, that's just men/women for you; they're all like that," should not be used to explain away behavior?

May I ask a counter-question (just for clarification)?
What is the sort of difference between men and women you feel should be kept, and for which reasons or purposes?
Or, to give an example: Do you feel that the gender icon of the posters here tell you anything of significance, and what would that be?

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

May I ask a counter-question (just for clarification)?
What is the sort of difference between men and women you feel should be kept, and for which reasons or purposes?
Or, to give an example: Do you feel that the gender icon of the posters here tell you anything of significance, and what would that be?

I love that question. It's really food for thought. Edited to put in, sorry about the impeding long answer. I don't know what to cut out for length.

The gender icon tells me whether a poster identifies as male or female. That's all. Let me note too that as a mod, if a poster hides his/her gender from public view, staff can still see it. If that's the case, I try to keep in mind that the person doesn't want the gender known publicly, and I will do my best to avoid referring to it. That is, I won't say "he" or "she" in a public thread, if I happen to mention that person.

And if it's hidden, I'm guessing that the person's reasoning might be to avoid the very stereotypes I'm talking about. A man who hides his gender might not want to have his orientation called into question if he says something that might be taken as a typically female. For example, my husband is not a member of CF, but if he were, and if he mentioned his love of cats more than dogs, someone might bluntly wonder if he's gay. Let me assure you he is not. A woman who hides her gender icon might not want to have her political views dismissed, and be told to get back in the kitchen if she takes a strong stand on a controversial topic. Yes, I'm afraid it happens, although in fairness to CF I rarely see it happen here. What's more likely to happen is that someone might see my female icon in conjunction with my stance against domestic violence, and automatically come to the conclusion that I am a militant feminist who despises all men.

The only gender lines I want to see kept, I apply to myself and my husband, and to our particular church, for doctrinal reasons. This means, in contrast to that "militant feminist" thing above, I am actually quite traditional in my views. I consider my husband the head of this household, and I submit to him voluntarily. I am the homemaker and he is the breadwinner. That doesn't mean I am inferior to my husband. We play different roles in our marriage, but the roles are of equal value. Let me assure everyone that my husband would never lord it over me or take advantage of his position. If he did, I wouldn't be so inclined to submit to him. My first husband, the one before Mr. Emotional, was very domineering, would issue orders and expect prompt unquestioning obedience, and played "wives submit" like a trump card to get his own way all the time. My pastor assures me, that's not what submission is all about. Furthermore, the commandment to husbands, "Love your wives as Christ loves the church," which my ex conveniently forgot about in demanding submission from me, is just as important.

Now, let me make perfectly clear that the traditional breadwinner/homemaker setup works for us, but I don't expect it of every marriage for those doctrinal reasons. I'm looking at us as a unique situation. For one thing, I happen to have some disabilities, both physical and psychiatric. Besides the PTSD I previously mentioned, I have mobility limitations from a car accident I was in. All of this means that even without a traditional marriage, my disabilities would have hindered me from being able to hold a career and earn a living the way my husband does. Even if I had a job, which I am working toward, I wouldn't be able to equal his earning power. After all, he's been in the same line of work for nearly 30 years, has gained the experience and the seniority, and has worked his way to the top of the pay scale. The only reason he is not in a management position is that he doesn't want the job, and chooses not to apply when the openings are available. When I do begin working, chances are it will be some low-paying part time position. Therefore most of the financial decisions would still be on him. He earned the money, which the way I see it, gives him the final say in what to do with it. But he plays his role well, and he loves me, so he will always take my needs into consideration when he makes those decisions. In fact, I often chastise him for neglecting himself. If I need something, he has no hesitation about getting it for me, but he will let his own shirts, socks, belts, etc. wear down to nothing before he will bother replacing them. I keep trying to tell him, he needs to provide for himself too.

Those gender roles, as I say, work for us. However, I don't pretend to say it should be that way in every marriage. If a woman is just as capable of working for a living as a man is, and most are, I see no reason why she shouldn't.

Doctrinally, I believe that within the church, a woman should not hold positions of authority over men, unless the men aren't stepping up and the position would be unfilled otherwise. This is my understanding of scripture, and anyone is welcome to disagree. Even among people who do believe as I do about the validity of the Bible, there will be those who read and apply those passages differently.

At our church, there is a rotation in our Sunday School class as to who teaches the lesson on what week. Both men and women may be in that rotation, even if it means a woman might be teaching that week's Sunday School lesson, with men in the class. I've been to other churches where that might be a problem. But the leader in charge of the rotation is a man, the head of the Sunday School department is a man, and certainly the senior pastor is a man. I believe this is the way it should be, but if you don't, that's OK. Yesterday I was asked if I would like to join the rotation and take a turn at teaching the class sometimes. I noticed that my husband was asked first, and that he turned it down before I was asked. That's fine with me. I am considering the position, even though I have never taught adults before. I have taught children.

So, that's my view. Traditional roles, but not rigid ones, and not in every case. And that's only within church and family, not within society as a whole. In other words, when I say I am under the authority of my husband, that doesn't mean I think all women should be under the authority of all men. Some traditionalists do, and I have a problem with that.

 

[quatona]

I love that question. It's really food for thought. Edited to put in, sorry about the impeding long answer. I don't know what to cut out for length.

The gender icon tells me whether a poster identifies as male or female. That's all. Let me note too that as a mod, if a poster hides his/her gender from public view, staff can still see it. If that's the case, I try to keep in mind that the person doesn't want the gender known publicly, and I will do my best to avoid referring to it. That is, I won't say "he" or "she" in a public thread, if I happen to mention that person.

And if it's hidden, I'm guessing that the person's reasoning might be to avoid the very stereotypes I'm talking about. A man who hides his gender might not want to have his orientation called into question if he says something that might be taken as a typically female. For example, my husband is not a member of CF, but if he were, and if he mentioned his love of cats more than dogs, someone might bluntly wonder if he's gay. Let me assure you he is not. A woman who hides her gender icon might not want to have her political views dismissed, and be told to get back in the kitchen if she takes a strong stand on a controversial topic. Yes, I'm afraid it happens, although in fairness to CF I rarely see it happen here. What's more likely to happen is that someone might see my female icon in conjunction with my stance against domestic violence, and automatically come to the conclusion that I am a militant feminist who despises all men.

The only gender lines I want to see kept, I apply to myself and my husband, and to our particular church, for doctrinal reasons. This means, in contrast to that "militant feminist" thing above, I am actually quite traditional in my views. I consider my husband the head of this household, and I submit to him voluntarily. I am the homemaker and he is the breadwinner. That doesn't mean I am inferior to my husband. We play different roles in our marriage, but the roles are of equal value. Let me assure everyone that my husband would never lord it over me or take advantage of his position. If he did, I wouldn't be so inclined to submit to him. My first husband, the one before Mr. Emotional, was very domineering, would issue orders and expect prompt unquestioning obedience, and played "wives submit" like a trump card to get his own way all the time. My pastor assures me, that's not what submission is all about. Furthermore, the commandment to husbands, "Love your wives as Christ loves the church," which my ex conveniently forgot about in demanding submission from me, is just as important.

Now, let me make perfectly clear that the traditional breadwinner/homemaker setup works for us, but I don't expect it of every marriage for those doctrinal reasons. I'm looking at us as a unique situation. For one thing, I happen to have some disabilities, both physical and psychiatric. Besides the PTSD I previously mentioned, I have mobility limitations from a car accident I was in. All of this means that even without a traditional marriage, my disabilities would have hindered me from being able to hold a career and earn a living the way my husband does. Even if I had a job, which I am working toward, I wouldn't be able to equal his earning power. After all, he's been in the same line of work for nearly 30 years, has gained the experience and the seniority, and has worked his way to the top of the pay scale. The only reason he is not in a management position is that he doesn't want the job, and chooses not to apply when the openings are available. When I do begin working, chances are it will be some low-paying part time position. Therefore most of the financial decisions would still be on him. He earned the money, which the way I see it, gives him the final say in what to do with it. But he plays his role well, and he loves me, so he will always take my needs into consideration when he makes those decisions. In fact, I often chastise him for neglecting himself. If I need something, he has no hesitation about getting it for me, but he will let his own shirts, socks, belts, etc. wear down to nothing before he will bother replacing them. I keep trying to tell him, he needs to provide for himself too.

Those gender roles, as I say, work for us. However, I don't pretend to say it should be that way in every marriage. If a woman is just as capable of working for a living as a man is, and most are, I see no reason why she shouldn't.

Doctrinally, I believe that within the church, a woman should not hold positions of authority over men, unless the men aren't stepping up and the position would be unfilled otherwise. This is my understanding of scripture, and anyone is welcome to disagree. Even among people who do believe as I do about the validity of the Bible, there will be those who read and apply those passages differently.

At our church, there is a rotation in our Sunday School class as to who teaches the lesson on what week. Both men and women may be in that rotation, even if it means a woman might be teaching that week's Sunday School lesson, with men in the class. I've been to other churches where that might be a problem. But the leader in charge of the rotation is a man, the head of the Sunday School department is a man, and certainly the senior pastor is a man. I believe this is the way it should be, but if you don't, that's OK. Yesterday I was asked if I would like to join the rotation and take a turn at teaching the class sometimes. I noticed that my husband was asked first, and that he turned it down before I was asked. That's fine with me. I am considering the position, even though I have never taught adults before. I have taught children.

So, that's my view. Traditional roles, but not rigid ones, and not in every case. And that's only within church and family, not within society as a whole. In other words, when I say I am under the authority of my husband, that doesn't mean I think all women should be under the authority of all men. Some traditionalists do, and I have a problem with that.

Thanks for your response, and thanks for considering my questions!
I´m not sure, though, that I can relate to all of it, or better: I´m not sure how all of it is relevant to the question at hand:
1. I don´t think that being a female makes you more prone to be understood as "being against domestic violence" (and on top, I don´t think that - outside of some obscure circles of which I hope nobody here identifies with - "being against domestic violence" is equaled to being a "militant feminist"). Actually, in real life I don´t know a single person (independent of their gender) who defends domestic violence. Of all feminist postulations, the opposition to domestic violence is about the least "militant", if you ask me. From my perspective, it isn´t even particularly "feminist".
2., and more importantly: I do not seem to understand how your personal way of conceptualizing your and your husbands relationship has any bearing on how anyone interpretes a gender icon. Even you (who has a very particular way of understanding your personal relationship with your husband) are aware that this is not (and, as you say, should not be) necessarily the model for other couples. Even less would a person who doesn´t share your personal concept of marriage entertain the idea that a gender icon would indicate a particular (yours or any other) understanding of partnership/marriage.

IOW: a gender icon doesn´t tell you anything about the idea the person has about marriage/partnership. Thus, I am not sure how your confessions about your personal partnership - as interested as I am in hearing about how other persons conceptualize their personal relationships - is relevant for the question what a gender icon tells you.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Thanks for your response, and thanks for considering my questions!
I´m not sure, though, that I can relate to all of it, or better: I´m not sure how all of it is relevant to the question at hand:
1. I don´t think that being a female makes you more prone to be understood as "being against domestic violence" (and on top, I don´t think that - outside of some obscure circles of which I hope nobody here identifies with - "being against domestic violence" is equaled to being a "militant feminist"). Actually, in real life I don´t know a single person (independent of their gender) who defends domestic violence. Of all feminist postulations, the opposition to domestic violence is about the least "militant", if you ask me. From my perspective, it isn´t even particularly "feminist".
2., and more importantly: I do not seem to understand how your personal way of conceptualizing your and your husbands relationship has any bearing on how anyone interpretes a gender icon. Even you (who has a very particular way of understanding your personal relationship with your husband) are aware that this is not (and, as you say, should not be) necessarily the model for other couples. Even less would a person who doesn´t share your personal concept of marriage entertain the idea that a gender icon would indicate a particular (yours or any other) understanding of partnership/marriage.

IOW: a gender icon doesn´t tell you anything about the idea the person has about marriage/partnership. Thus, I am not sure how your confessions about your personal partnership - as interested as I am in hearing about how other persons conceptualize their personal relationships - is relevant for the question what a gender icon tells you.

I have a tendency to go off on tangents. Basically a gender icon tells me nothing but that the person identifies as male or female. The rest of it was to answer the question of what gender lines I would like to still see in place.

But yes, people have accused me of being a militant feminist and despising men, because I objected to mistreatment of women. That puzzles me as much as it does you.

 

[quatona]

I have a tendency to go off on tangents.

No problem.

Basically a gender icon tells me nothing but that the person identifies as male or female. The rest of it was to answer the question of what gender lines I would like to still see in place.

I see. I still am a little confused, though: You mentioned certain gender lines as being part of your personal preferences - but then immediately distanced yourself from them as general rules applying to everybody. (Don´t get me wrong - I am not criticizing this; I am just not quite understanding how this relates to the topic at hand: the rejection of prescriptive gender stereotypes (which you and I seem to agree in) doesn´t prevent anyone from having their personal ideas of marriage(partnership) - au contraire, it rather seems to encourage everyone to find the way that fits best with them.

But yes, people have accused me of being a militant feminist and despising men, because I objected to mistreatment of women. That puzzles me as much as it does you.

I see.
Maybe it was the emphasis on "mistreatment of women" - as opposed to a more general "mistreatment of fellow humans or (even more generally) fellow beings" - that contributed to this inaccurate labeling?

Point being: There is no need to differenciate by gender when we want to express our opposition to mistreatment, in the first place.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Well, I suppose that confusion also extends to transgender issues. Now, before I go into that, [Mod Hat briefly on] I am obligated to remind everyone that homosexuality can only be discussed in limited areas on these forums, and this isn't one of them. So let's be careful not to bunny off down that trail, and I'm talking to myself here as much as anyone. The reason I mention it is for the benefit of newcomers or lurkers who might not know that rule, and might take something we say here as a springboard for that topic. Transgender issues in this thread only apply to the original topic of gender stereotypes. [Mod Hat off.]

Now, as a participant, I have known a good many transgender people in my life, and I always wonder, do they think there is something negative about being one gender, that they reject it and want to identify as the other despite their particular biology? I have a good friend who was born intersexed (ambiguous). At the time of his early 1940's birth, whenever something like that happened, the only thing doctors did was tell the parents they have a girl who needs corrective surgery, then remove any male parts and construct a female. He was raised as a girl, but he says that even as early as two or three years old, he wondered why his parents wanted to put dresses on him and give him dolls to play with, because, in his words, "I knew that wasn't what I was." Although (until he lost it to cancer) he at one time had a functioning uterus and was able to give birth to two sons, it took him three days apiece to deliver preterm six-pound babies, because his hip structure is male. Men's pelvises are not designed to allow passage of babies, and that gave him a lot of trouble. Nowadays they probably would have performed a cesarean both times, rather than to allow a mother to remain in active labor for that long. I wonder too if the fact that he did end up losing his female parts to cancer at a relatively young age is an indication that those particular organs were not healthy enough for reproduction in the first place, further evidence that he was meant to be male, and the doctors at his birth removed the wrong half of him. Today, to all external appearances he is a man, despite the fact that nothing has been done hormonally or surgically to make him one. In other words, no testosterone treatments or anything, but he has facial hair and a deep voice, and identifies as male. I've seen his high school senior photo, and I'll say he looks more natural as a man now than as a teenage girl then, with a dress, a female hair style, and makeup. "Tony Dow in drag," I thought when I saw that photo of him. Yes, put a dress, a wig, and makeup on that linked photo of the actor, and that's what my friend basically looked like.

My question for him was whether or not so-called "male privilege" had any bearing on his decision to live as a man. I've had that conversation a few times myself, when some aspect of my behavior offended a boyfriend or a male authority figure. "Hey! I don't ever want to see you do that again." "But what's wrong with it? You do it yourself." "That's different. I'm a man. But you can't do that. It isn't ladylike." My transgender friend assured me that he understood what I meant--after all, he himself did grow up as a female in the 40's and 50's--but that no, male privilege wasn't the whole story. There was nothing shameful or inferior, in his opinion, about being a woman. It just so happens that he isn't one, that's all. But I still wonder, what nowadays can he do as a man that he can't do as a woman? Now in his late sixties, I know he spends a lot of his time on transgender websites discussing transgender issues, and it does puzzle me. I can accept that he is a man, and I'm not going to try to tell him that he isn't one just because of his (artificially constructed) anatomy. But most men don't obsess over the fact that they are men, not women. Why does he? I suppose that's something I'll never get. Nor do I understand why someone born with a Y chromosome and unmistakably male anatomy would insist that, "No, I am not a man. I am a woman." What can that person do as a woman that can't be done by a man? Wear dresses and makeup? Show emotions freely? Is that all there is to it?

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

By the way, I'm going to change the title of this thread to "gender roles and stereotypes." Formerly it was just "gender stereotypes." I think adding "roles" would expand the scope of discussion.

 

[quatona]

But I still wonder, what nowadays can he do as a man that he can't do as a woman? Now in his late sixties, I know he spends a lot of his time on transgender websites discussing transgender issues, and it does puzzle me. I can accept that he is a man, and I'm not going to try to tell him that he isn't one just because of his (artificially constructed) anatomy. But most men don't obsess over the fact that they are men, not women. Why does he? I suppose that's something I'll never get. Nor do I understand why someone born with a Y chromosome and unmistakably male anatomy would insist that, "No, I am not a man. I am a woman." What can that person do as a woman that can't be done by a man? Wear dresses and makeup? Show emotions freely? Is that all there is to it?

Personally, my gender identity is of little significance to me, and I have similar questions as you have. I suspect that we will never quite "get it", simply because we never experienced this mismatch between sex and gender and we never had to put any effort in aligning them and having our gender identity acknowledged. I suspect that the emphasis on their gender and often their tendency to strive traditional gender stereotypes (in times in which there are strong tendencies to overcome gender stereotypes and roles) is partly owed to the fact that those stereotypes (despite being increasingly questioned) still are very present (and, in case of older transgendered persons, have been even more present in those times when they noticed there´s something unusual about themselves), and - if you are particularly sensitive for them (which transgendered people are, for obvious reasons) they jump in your face at every turn.

In short: It´s quite common that you value and emphasize something you had to put effort in more than a person who had it all the time and didn´t even have to spend a thought on it.

 

[Gadarene]

Now that I've read over what I previously posted, I find I have two questions, not just the one. "In practice, the labels man and woman are utterly meaningless." Yes, "Men do A and women do B. Let's not ever blur the two under any circumstances. Men who do B are wimps, and women who do A are butch," is an extreme. On the other hand, "Let's completely erase the distinction between men and women" seems to be going a little too far in the other direction. Could you elaborate? Or are you simply agreeing with my therapist, that "Oh, that's just men/women for you; they're all like that," should not be used to explain away behavior?

There is no meaningful distinction that can be drawn between men and women. There is not one trait or function to my knowledge that is unique to either. Not even biological ones, given that (a) we don't check someone's equipment or chromosomes when evaluating their gender, which is the inconsistency people barrel headlong into when discussing trans individuals, and speaking of which (b) trans individuals put paid to the idea that men cannot be pregnant, and women cannot inseminate.

Of course one can stereotype and make generalisations, but the sort of statements these produce seem incredibly facile to me. I post on quite a few gender issues boards, and it still staggers me how the most equitable-minded people can make statements like "learning how to be confident is part of being a man", or words to that effect. Confidence is a positive trait that isn't exclusive to either men or women, so why bother to associate it with being a man? And IME you can replace the term "confidence" with pretty much whatever you want - there will exist people of the opposite gender who blow that generalisation out of the water.

 

[AlexBP]

There is only one thing I have a question about, and it wasn't even the whole post but only one sentence in it. The part about seminars trying to say that "men should stop acting like men, and start acting like women." That's kind of the whole point I'm making. Why is displaying emotion called "acting like women," and holding emotion inside called "acting like men"?

Yet I've heard it said at times that stereotypes exist for a reason, and have some grain of truth in them. I'm sure that statistically, most men are far less emotionally inclined than most women are. But when this leads to calling it "acting like a man" if you don't express emotion, and "acting like a woman" if you do, that's stereotype right there.

Yes, what I said is a stereotype. Guilty as charged.

It would be more perfect if every person on earth could get to know everyone else as a fully-rounded individual, including knowing all the instances in which that individual differs from stereotypes, both gender and otherwise. But in reality there's not enough time for that. Even among the few hundred people that I'll truly get to know in my lifetime, there's not enough time for that. For the handful of people that I know best, I can try to explore their inner lives and find out their individual facets. I do that with my wife, parents, siblings, and a few others. However, for the vastly larger number of people that I deal with in this life, it would be impossible to get to know them on that level.

Hence, when dealing with someone who I'll only know loosely or for a short time, I have to make judgments about how best to interact. Some would say that in such a situation, we should try to treat every person exactly the same, but I find that to be impossible. Instead, when choosing how best to interact with a person, I must make educated guesses based on the categories that I know that person to be in. Male vs. female is one such category distinction. There are certain traits I expect from a male and others from a female. It's true and readily acknowledged by all that there are some individuals who break the pattern of gender stereotypes, and perhaps some dislike being treated according to stereotype. However, for the majority it is a useful thing to use when interacting with them.

 

[Cearbhall]

They all are.

The clue is in the word "stereotype".

Treating someone not as an individual but by some statistic associated with a particular trait/grouping of theirs is the root of all prejudices.

In practice the labels man and woman are utterly meaningless.

I agree.

Here's a hint: If you have to pressure someone not to do something and you would be ok with someone of the opposite sex doing it, it's probably garbage.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I agree.

Here's a hint: If you have to pressure someone not to do something and you would be ok with someone of the opposite sex doing it, it's probably garbage.

I made reference to that in one of my long posts. I'll capsulize it here.

"Hey! I don't ever want to see you do that again!"
"But what's wrong with it? You do it yourself."
"That's different. I'm a man. I get to do that, but you can't. It's unladylike."

The genders can be reversed, of course, but the conversation usually went that way when I offended a boyfriend or a male authority figure.

 

[Cearbhall]

I made reference to that in one of my long posts. I'll capsulize it here.

"Hey! I don't ever want to see you do that again!"
"But what's wrong with it? You do it yourself."
"That's different. I'm a man. I get to do that, but you can't. It's unladylike."

The genders can be reversed, of course, but the conversation usually went that way when I offended a boyfriend or a male authority figure.

One of my top pet peeves. It seems like we're in agreement (I was directing my hint at everyone, to be clear, I didn't mean to come across as harsh toward you as the OP).