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

[Cute Tink]

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?

Snipped for brevity.

You may want to review this topic as far as understanding transgender people. I'm going to leave that there as the discussion is ongoing in that topic about why we experience what we do. Transgender people don't normally want to transition (not going to right it off completely as we aren't all the same) because of gender stereotypes and roles.

I also just want to briefly note that homosexuality and transgender are not the same thing. Being transgender says nothing about your sexuality. Transgender refers to your gender identity, whereas sexuality refers to what you are attracted to.

I don't really have any concern for gender roles and stereotypes. As a side note though, having been born male, I found that most of the stereotypes about guys didn't really apply to me at all.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

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).

I figured that, and didn't take any offense.

Snipped for brevity.

You may want to review this topic as far as understanding transgender people. I'm going to leave that there as the discussion is ongoing in that topic about why we experience what we do. Transgender people don't normally want to transition (not going to right it off completely as we aren't all the same) because of gender stereotypes and roles.

Thank you for the insight. I probably won't ever understand completely, not being in that situation as has been said.

I also just want to briefly note that homosexuality and transgender are not the same thing. Being transgender says nothing about your sexuality. Transgender refers to your gender identity, whereas sexuality refers to what you are attracted to.

I realize this, but the issues are often embroiled in with each other, and I didn't want a newcomer who doesn't know the rules to use what's been said here as a springboard, and accidentally post a violation.

I don't really have any concern for gender roles and stereotypes. As a side note though, having been born male, I found that most of the stereotypes about guys didn't really apply to me at all.

We bust a lot of stereotypes in this family, although we fit several too.

I can't stand soap operas or talk shows and have never sat through an episode of "The View" in my life. I would rather watch Discovery Channel than Lifetime. Basically anything marketed to women, such as the so-called "chick flick," doesn't appeal to me at all. It's all fluff and nonsense, as far as I can see. And that "Thelma and Louise" movie--gah. Hated it. Similarly, my husband doesn't get into sports on TV. Not even on Super Bowl Sunday. And, as we've established, he's a cat person instead of a dog person.

But he's the breadwinner and I'm the homemaker. Traditional roles.

The debate on the other site is still going on. To a man who insists that crying is a sign of weakness, and men don't cry because of testosterone, not because of conditioning, there is nothing wrong with never crying, and people who say crying is strength are merely justifying themselves for being too weak to hold it back, I had this to say:

Sorry, I'm just never going to agree. I don't see crying as weakness, and I don't see not crying as strength. In fact, people who are willing to cry seem emotionally stronger to me, because they don't care who puts them down for it. "I'd better not cry, because if I do they'll think I'm weak and call me names," is itself a sign of weakness, because that is showing that you are afraid of disapproval. "To heck with what others think of me, I feel the need to cry and I'm going to," is much braver, as I see it. They don't fear disapproval, and that is strength in my opinion.

And I know from personal experience that there is plenty wrong with having some devastating tragedy happen, and not being *able* to cry. Let's remember, although I am a woman, I went through many years of my adolescent and adult life where I was unable to cry, no matter who died. It didn't do my head any good not to be able to release those feelings. So I'm not saying this just because I'm too weak to hold it back myself, and I'm justifying my weakness. I know what I'm talking about.​

 

[Cute Tink]

Thank you for the insight. I probably won't ever understand completely, not being in that situation as has been said.

I realize this, but the issues are often embroiled in with each other, and I didn't want a newcomer who doesn't know the rules to use what's been said here as a springboard, and accidentally post a violation.

Fair enough.

We bust a lot of stereotypes in this family, although we fit several too.

I can't stand soap operas or talk shows and have never sat through an episode of "The View" in my life. I would rather watch Discovery Channel than Lifetime. Basically anything marketed to women, such as the so-called "chick flick," doesn't appeal to me at all. It's all fluff and nonsense, as far as I can see. And that "Thelma and Louise" movie--gah. Hated it. Similarly, my husband doesn't get into sports on TV. Not even on Super Bowl Sunday. And, as we've established, he's a cat person instead of a dog person.

I know plenty of people who both fit and break stereotypes, so I don't put much stock in them. I think people spend too much time worrying about them (especially the "men = toughness and not crying" part). But, if it is what they really want, so be it.

 

[brightlights]

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'm not sure how we move from "gender is socially constructed" to "the labels man and woman are utterly meaningless." Help me make that connection.

 

[Gadarene]

I'm not sure how we move from "gender is socially constructed" to "the labels man and woman are utterly meaningless." Help me make that connection.

Read the follow up posts then.

 

[brightlights]

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.

Your response betrays your true beliefs. You speak of people being men and women.

 

[brightlights]

To address the OP:

Biblically the only differences between men and women are biological and vocational. "Biological" should speak for itself. "Vocational" meaning that God has called men to have authority and responsibility for humanity and women to submit to male headship.

All other distinctions are inventions of culture.

 

[juvenissun]

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:

We teach everything with reasons. Same teaching could be backed up by different reasons. Look at the reason behind the teaching.

Also, teaching is not learning. One can teach, but there is no guarantee that others will learn. Still, depends on the reason.

 

[Cearbhall]

To address the OP:

Biblically the only differences between men and women are biological and vocational. "Biological" should speak for itself. "Vocational" meaning that God has called men to have authority and responsibility for humanity and women to submit to male headship.

All other distinctions are inventions of culture.

I love the way you worded this. This reconciles Christian beliefs with what we've learned about gender and sexuality in recent centuries. Some people seem to think that non-Christians should accept the vocational aspect of their theology as a fact of human biology.

 

[Gadarene]

Your response betrays your true beliefs. You speak of people being men and women.

Try again.

 

[Cearbhall]

I'm not sure how we move from "gender is socially constructed" to "the labels man and woman are utterly meaningless." Help me make that connection.

He said that they're meaningless "in practice." This is because they don't tell you much about a person at all. The words "man" and "woman" each encompass a huge range of people. If you consider every member of either group, you'll find very few traits that all of them share.

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?

How about that kid who testified against same-sex marriage in Minnesota and said "My dad is also very important to me because he protects me and helps me get the confidence to be a girl who is growing up to be a woman. He takes care of me in a way my mom cannot." Blew my mind.

 

[Solomonf1776]

There is a difference between men and women, and some stereotypes as legends start in some bases of truth, and others are built on misconceptions. Also as the old saying goes there are exceptions to the rule, whether its 10/90, 25/75, or 51/49.

Just thinking of some things that were proscribed to women, sewing & cooking men have done just as much in history and in modern times. And in the reverse as to war & violence (as an extreme, but a valid one, I use it due to a reference from a few years ago by someone famous) women have just as willing to go there, a majority use more subtle tactics then a male would like poison in the real world, but you get the idea.

What particularly bothers me today (this might be a bit off topic) is the attempt to treat it as if there is no difference between men and women. They cancel recess and assume that the more active boys will just sit still and when they don’t they call it ADD or ADHD (not that they might be real but way over diagnosed) and put him on drugs. And consider the portrayal of men in various media sources as bumbling and stupid. In an attempt for “so called” gender neutrality they are destroying men.

Personally on the issue of animal preference, I think that one is more of personality and less gender. After all the cat was popular to the ancient Egyptians.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Great contribution, Mr. Solomon.

Difference between men and women, yes. The sexes don't have to be identical to be equal.

I tend to agree with you on the ADD/ADHD being very real, but very overdiagnosed. In past generations, it wasn't caught at all. My brother, now 48, probably should have been diagnosed with ADHD and put on medication, but instead he was written off as a bad kid who didn't behave himself, and that got him beat half to death sometimes.

Now here comes my own off-topic rant. That's another thing that didn't used to be caught at all, but is now downright overdiagnosed: child abuse. Oh, yes, it's real. My siblings and I were victims of it. If asked, my mother will no doubt say she "occasionally spanked" us. My father, if he were still alive, would probably say the same thing. Well, those "spankings" more than once left enough welts and bruises to draw a gasping "Man, what happened to YOU?" from a classmate. Furthermore, alcoholism, multiple divorces and remarriages, constantly moving from state to state to avoid bill collectors, and sexual abuse were all involved too. But back then, only the most extreme cases of child abuse, such as actually killing or permanently disabling the child, got any action. Nobody protected us. In contrast, I've seen just about every possible act of discipline called "child abuse" nowadays. It seems parents can't do anything at all without *somebody* accusing them of that.

Those attitudes, like gender stereotypes, pendulum back and forth over generations. To get back on topic, for example, pink used to be the color for boys (think rare steak, considered manly) and blue for girls, possibly because it is associated with the Virgin Mary for reasons I'm not sure of. And down on the farm, back when most of society was rural, nobody cared what color the baby was wearing. Diapers were cloth, and made from whatever material was handy and worked well. Who cares if baby Johnny is wearing a pink calico-print diaper while baby Rebecca's was blue plaid? They'd all get washed and redistributed anyway, so the next day they'd be the other way around, and nobody even had time to give it a thought with all the work that had to be done. Furthermore, they didn't have time to divide the chore list or squabble over whose job it was to do what. Whoever was nearby changed the baby, whether it was Ma, Pa, aunt, uncle, cousin, or sibling. I'm actually not sure when "Mama stays home to clean the house and care for the children while Papa earns a living" became the standard. But even nowadays, I think Career Mom gets a lot more respect from society while Domestic Dad still has his manliness questioned. Which I think is a shame.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

It's been observed that my OP analogy has a flaw. I compared forcing back tears to holding in urine, and the contention is that squelching tears indefinitely will not lead to inevitable failure of the apparatus, as retaining urine will. Bluntly, hold it back long enough, and you're going to wet your pants. Then you won't be holding it back anymore.

Well, there is logic in that statement. And after thinking it over, I decided, so what? Name me one analogy that doesn't fall flat somewhere. My original premise is that we teach both boys and girls to control body functions such as urination, but we don't expect them to hold it in forever. We don't want them to get the idea that they should never urinate, only that there is a proper time and place to do that. The analogy's important point is, crying is nothing more than just another body function. Boy or girl, we need to teach children to control it, but not to banish it altogether. The fact that tear ducts and bladders function more differently than alike doesn't negate that.

Furthermore, I'm not convinced that insisting on squelching the tears doesn't result in some sort of damage to the physical system, at least psychosomatically. It did in my case. Entirely through holding it in, over time I became completely unable to cry, no matter what. But even before the total loss of the ability set in, I noticed something strange, beginning from about seven years old. It occurred to me that other people shed tears, but I didn't. When it overpowered me and I couldn't hold it in (see, there can be a failure of the apparatus here) my eyes might brim, but they never overflowed like other people's did. I wondered if something was wrong with me.

Technically, I suppose, yes there was. When psychotherapy restored my ability to cry, at first I was back to brimming but never overflowing, and again I wondered if there was some kind of structural deficiency going on. But gradually that cleared up, and now I'm the same as anybody else. It was all my brain, and not my tear ducts.

Weird how these things happen. But in any case, no one will ever convince me that becoming an absolute stoic who never cries is a healthy thing to do, whether man or woman.

 

[Forest Wolf]

If you do what you've always done you shall get what you've always gotten.

At this stage of the human species gradation from cave dwellers unto 21st century global conflict techno-reality, we are allowed to stand in witness to what the gender role hard wire programming has made of the world.

Perhaps its time for a change.
Women are not the weaker sex.
Men thinking themselves superior have caused the world to be what we see, while the women have accepted their seat as watcher of what's evolved under that Patriarchal dominance.

One that's reiterated in the youth through the marketing of toys befitting the genders station so as to implant the hard wire programming of dominant or submissive character, male or female, so as to mature into the future while assuming those roles that eventually are thought to be innate according to one's sex.

Little girls as soon as they are able to walk unassisted are handed a doll, pointed toward a play kitchen complete with dishes and cookware, so they can begin to learn to be the housewife and mom.

Little boys are given guns, and play battery operated cars, so they can grow to be authoritarian and independent.

Break the mold and re-form reality.

 

[Cearbhall]

One that's reiterated in the youth through the marketing of toys befitting the genders station so as to implant the hard wire programming of dominant or submissive character, male or female, so as to mature into the future while assuming those roles that eventually are thought to be innate according to one's sex.

And the strange thing is that toys didn't used to be made in colors that indicated for whom they were made. Now you walk into an aisle of pink plastic toys. That's a relatively knew thing.

 

[Solomonf1776]

Now here comes my own off-topic rant. That's another thing that didn't used to be caught at all, but is now downright overdiagnosed: child abuse. Oh, yes, it's real. My siblings and I were victims of it. If asked, my mother will no doubt say she "occasionally spanked" us. My father, if he were still alive, would probably say the same thing. Well, those "spankings" more than once left enough welts and bruises to draw a gasping "Man, what happened to YOU?" from a classmate. Furthermore, alcoholism, multiple divorces and remarriages, constantly moving from state to state to avoid bill collectors, and sexual abuse were all involved too. But back then, only the most extreme cases of child abuse, such as actually killing or permanently disabling the child, got any action. Nobody protected us. In contrast, I've seen just about every possible act of discipline called "child abuse" nowadays. It seems parents can't do anything at all without *somebody* accusing them of that.

That actually reminds me of two cases one from a forensic show years ago and another from one about ER staff (Doctors & Nurses) the first one involved a mother who children inherited a rare genetic condition which would cause a condition similar to being poisoned by antifreeze, the mother was convicted until someone was able to get an expert who proved she was innocent of murder and child abuse. The other was a child brought into the ER who as it turned out (in the end) had a genetic condition which made his bones a little bit brittle, not extremely but he could never play football or such, and he was shocked by the leading questions asked by the children’s services person. Now its you're guilty till proven innocent.

Those attitudes, like gender stereotypes, pendulum back and forth over generations. To get back on topic, for example, pink used to be the color for boys (think rare steak, considered manly) and blue for girls, possibly because it is associated with the Virgin Mary for reasons I'm not sure of. And down on the farm, back when most of society was rural, nobody cared what color the baby was wearing. Diapers were cloth, and made from whatever material was handy and worked well. Who cares if baby Johnny is wearing a pink calico-print diaper while baby Rebecca's was blue plaid? They'd all get washed and redistributed anyway, so the next day they'd be the other way around, and nobody even had time to give it a thought with all the work that had to be done. Furthermore, they didn't have time to divide the chore list or squabble over whose job it was to do what. Whoever was nearby changed the baby, whether it was Ma, Pa, aunt, uncle, cousin, or sibling. I'm actually not sure when "Mama stays home to clean the house and care for the children while Papa earns a living" became the standard. But even nowadays, I think Career Mom gets a lot more respect from society while Domestic Dad still has his manliness questioned. Which I think is a shame.

Since I started writing seriously, I’ve done some research into medieval life and boys and girls were dressed in the same white dresses until the age of 6 or 7 up until the fifties, if you look up some old photos of children you'll see that, and after that they would be dressed in the same or similar clothing as their respective parent. As to basic gender rolls that goes back in history since most mothers stayed with the children to take care of them, for the obvious biological reasons, it’s the way things developed. Something else to point out that noble women rarely nursed their own children leaving that to wet nurses.

 

[Gadarene]

Since I started writing seriously, I’ve done some research into medieval life and boys and girls were dressed in the same white dresses until the age of 6 or 7 up until the fifties, if you look up some old photos of children you'll see that, and after that they would be dressed in the same or similar clothing as their respective parent. As to basic gender rolls that goes back in history since most mothers stayed with the children to take care of them, for the obvious biological reasons, it’s the way things developed. Something else to point out that noble women rarely nursed their own children leaving that to wet nurses.

It's a bit of a generalisation, but a lot the gender roles that are supposedly "just the way things are" are really only throwbacks to around the Victorian era. Before that, for example, women were regarded as the sexually predatorial gender and men were just interested in "higher" things than that.

 

[Solomonf1776]



If you do what you've always done you shall get what you've always gotten.

At this stage of the human species gradation from cave dwellers unto 21st century global conflict techno-reality, we are allowed to stand in witness to what the gender role hard wire programming has made of the world.

Perhaps its time for a change.
Women are not the weaker sex.
Men thinking themselves superior have caused the world to be what we see, while the women have accepted their seat as watcher of what's evolved under that Patriarchal dominance.

One that's reiterated in the youth through the marketing of toys befitting the genders station so as to implant the hard wire programming of dominant or submissive character, male or female, so as to mature into the future while assuming those roles that eventually are thought to be innate according to one's sex.

Little girls as soon as they are able to walk unassisted are handed a doll, pointed toward a play kitchen complete with dishes and cookware, so they can begin to learn to be the housewife and mom.

Little boys are given guns, and play battery operated cars, so they can grow to be authoritarian and independent.

Break the mold and re-form reality.

Gender has nothing to do with the level of cruelty one can inflect, I personally know that from my mother and the way she treated me, the fact that men are on top when it comes to atrocities doesn’t mean that women if put in the same position could be just as cruel and sadistic. Many don’t even need to be in that position to do those things. From mothers who will try to off the competition of their children to women who kill for pleasure it doesn’t matter. Villains like Elizabeth Báthory the blood countess & Agrippina the Younger mother of Nero, and leaders like Queen Elizabeth, Catherine the Great, and Joan of Arc. All humans, male and female are flawed and are equally capable of right and wrong.

I would also point out there is more to gender then what toys they play with, its been shown that children will gravitate to those gender specific things when given a choice with no input or reinforcement from others.

 

[Solomonf1776]

It's a bit of a generalisation, but a lot the gender roles that are supposedly "just the way things are" are really only throwbacks to around the Victorian era. Before that, for example, women were regarded as the sexually predatorial gender and men were just interested in "higher" things than that.

Again I point out the obvious biological reasons, mother's nurse fathers don't, and if there are several children it would be problematic for the father to stay at home historically and the mother to work. Unmarried women, older widows, women without children, and women with older children could go out (and some did) and work. Some times historical generalizations had some merit to them, like it or not.