Wouldn't gender equality be a positive thing for all?

[mkgal1]

First impressions are a complex cognitive process that absolutely involves categorization, biases and prejudice. It is absolutely necessary to have this construct so we can make sense of the world and people around us. So having stereotypes and biases is absolutely necessary. It provides a starting point for sorting people out. Then as you get to know people, you can then assess and reassess to either confirm or disprove your initial categorization. But I contend that stereotyping and categorizing is absolutely necessary, that we all do it, and there is no stopping it, as shown in my thread on stereotyping where even you did it.

They can also lead us in the wrong direction, too, though.

I made a generalization.....not stated a stereotype in your other thread.

 

[Hetta]

I guess I find it hard to understand why people are so afraid of something even slightly different. I also don't understand why equality is such a scary topic. Nobody is taking away anything from anyone else. Nobody is saying that a man can't be a big tough guy who watches boxing and has never cried in his life. It's a little limiting, but okay. Nobody is saying that a woman can't be a little fragile thing who cries over everyone's baby photos and spends hours on color coordinating her outfits with her lips and nails. That's fine. But there are many, many different kinds of people in-between these extremes. My goodness, more than I can even count.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

I guess I find it hard to understand why people are so afraid of something even slightly different. I also don't understand why equality is such a scary topic. Nobody is taking away anything from anyone else. Nobody is saying that a man can't be a big tough guy who watches boxing and has never cried in his life. It's a little limiting, but okay. Nobody is saying that a woman can't be a little fragile thing who cries over everyone's baby photos and spends hours on color coordinating her outfits with her lips and nails. That's fine. But there are many, many different kinds of people in-between these extremes. My goodness, more than I can even count.

My point is the the opposite is often true. Those who are more 'traditional' are often looked at with more fear than those who are "slightly different".

 

[mkgal1]

My point is the the opposite is often true. Those who are more 'traditional' are often looked at with more fear than those who are "slightly different".

Then that's not gender equality---that's something more like reverse discrimination or some personal bias.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

My point is the the opposite is often true. Those who are more 'traditional' are often looked at with more fear than those who are "slightly different".

Then that's not gender equality---that's something more like reverse discrimination or some personal bias.

^^^^This is what I was alluding to with my post below. We all (yes, I said it again...) carry personal biases around with us that cloud our judgement of those around us. My view is that true gender equality can't be achieved because of that. Personal biases will always be in the way. I think what I posted earlier (re-posted below) states it better.

(B)ut it really seems like more of a positive for everyone to be judged without these stereotypes than any possible negatives.

The fact is that everyone judges according to stereotypes. Here's how to test this - when we go about our day, listen to the random thoughts we have about the people we see in public. I'm sure we will be surprised by how much we actually judge others according to our own self-defined stereotypes.

 

[mkgal1]

^^^^This is what I was alluding to with my post below. We all (yes, I said it again...) carry personal biases around with us that cloud our judgement of those around us. My view is that true gender equality can't be achieved because of that. Personal biases will always be in the way. I think what I posted earlier (re-posted below) states it better.

This thread isn't about whether or not gender equality will be possible ---it's the question of why people seem to not see it as a good thing.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Cutting to the heart of the topic (I think) I recall as a young adult commenting to a child in the family, "There isn't any more, if you're a man you're supposed to do this, and if you're a woman you're supposed to do that, nowadays."

Whether that assessment is correct or not is secondary to what my aunt immediately added. "Right, and there should be!"

Which left me wondering, why should there be? And to what extent? When I was in school, the district I went to required girls to take cooking classes for half the year, and sewing for other half, while boys took wood shop for half the year, and metal shop for the other half. Some of my friends felt that they would prefer to take the classes in wood and metalworking than in cooking and sewing. They were told they may, IF they could find an equal number of boys willing to take cooking and sewing, and they could trade spots. Now really, in the 1970's, what boy would have admitted it? So my friends were stuck studying cooking and sewing instead of what they were really interested in. My opinion is that in a public school system, all four classes should be offered as an elective to both sexes, or required of both sexes, but not required of one while not open to the other.

What good reason is there that a boy who wants to play with a doll should not be allowed to? What good reason is there that a girl who wants to play football should not be allowed to? This is the kind of thing I think of when I hear "gender equality." The fact remains that probably the majority of boys would rather play football, and probably the majority of girls would rather play with dolls, and that's OK. Equality is about choice.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

This thread isn't about whether or not gender equality will be possible ---it's the question of why people seem to not see it as a good thing.

Well, I gave some serious answers to your OP that you seem not to be willing to take seriously. If I'm wrong you can let me know.

The biggest barrier I see - that I'll state again - is the belief that it will help break down personal biases, not realizing what a hurdle that will be because of the biases we all carry. HOW can we break these barriers down? Until these answers come, gender equality will remain an ideal, but the progress will be slow with much animosity.

 

[mkgal1]

Well, I gave some serious answers to your OP that you seem not to be willing to take seriously. If I'm wrong you can let me know.

The biggest barrier I see - that I'll state again - is the belief that it will help break down personal biases, not realizing what a hurdle that will be because of the biases we all carry. HOW can we break these barriers down? Until these answers come, gender equality will remain an ideal, but the progress will be slow with much animosity.

I've given consideration to your answers. The thing is, you've responded by saying things like, " knocking down the typical stereotypes also affects those who fit the stereotypes" (which isn't true) and, "Those who are more 'traditional' are often looked at with more fear than those who are "slightly different"....which is a personal bias and not what the topic is. As Hetta said so well, " Nobody is taking away anything from anyone else. Nobody is saying that a man can't be a big tough guy who watches boxing and has never cried in his life. It's a little limiting, but okay. Nobody is saying that a woman can't be a little fragile thing who cries over everyone's baby photos and spends hours on color coordinating her outfits with her lips and nails. That's fine. But there are many, many different kinds of people in-between these extremes. My goodness, more than I can even count."

Also....Vincenticus added more thoughts on how stereotypes are limiting and are barriers to us relating to each other when he posted, "No one is advocating doing away with the differences between men and women. No one is advocating creating a genderless society. People are advocating doing away with the gender stereotypes and resulting prejudices. Gender stereotypes, like racial stereotypes, do nothing but limit ourselves and our understanding of others. There is no "typical" anything, and the assumption that physical aspects of a person translate to personality traits is illogical."


So.....let's discuss the idea as an ideal, and not worry about what's possible or not.

 

[mkgal1]

Equality is about choice.

That's it, exactly.

 

[ValleyGal]

My son had access to everything from beanie babies all the way to cars and trains. Most of the time he liked playing pirates or dinosaurs, but a couple of his beanies were very special to him - he would sleep with one of them, but he typically played with "boy" things....and this is typical of young children. Given the choice, most young boys will pick toys like cars, tractors or other traditionally "boy" playthings, and girls will pick softer toys, dolls and toy kitchens.

Even in infant studies, baby boys are very different than baby girls. So suggesting that there are differences in the genders is not stereotyping them, but simply celebrating our God-given differences.

Social construction happens on top of the natural differences, and there is nothing wrong with this either. If God had not intended there to be differences, he would have created us all the same, and culture would never change. So there are obviously differences as well as similarities. Every culture and every age has varying degrees of differences and similarities.

The Bible fits all people for all time, so while there is equality, there is also "difference" as someone noted earlier. But....we are also not to take it to the other extreme where each person has nothing in common with anyone else alive, just to avoid inaccurate stereotyping. As I said, equality would be a great thing....but there will be a lot of growing pains to reach that point, and both sides (male and female) contribute to both the good and the bad - when you look at society as a whole. Individualism to an extreme, imo, is contrary to God's word....after all, we are categorized by being part of the same faith. And believe me, the stereotype of Christians in the "south" (southern US) is actually very damaging, but they can't see how they contribute to their own persecution and live down to the stereotype.

Any and every social change will hurt some people....there is no avoiding it.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

I've given consideration to your answers. The thing is, you've responded by saying things like, " knocking down the typical stereotypes also affects those who fit the stereotypes" (which isn't true)

How is it not true? And I've said much more than what you've quoted. I don't appreciate cherry picking.

 

[mkgal1]

How is it not true? And I've said much more than what you've quoted. I don't appreciate cherry picking.

Because it's not an exchange or a competition.....equality doesn't mean restricting or limiting people, it is expanding options....allowing people to truly be themselves & be able to live up to their best potential.

I wasn't going to go through and re-post everything that's already been posted.

 

[mkgal1]

Any and every social change will hurt some people....there is no avoiding it.

If people are hurt by things being equal and just---that is shifting the hurt to the proper place (IMO). IOW.....if someone must be hurt.....that is placing the consequence where it belongs.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

So.....let's discuss the idea as an ideal, and not worry about what's possible or not.

This is what I don't understand. Here, you suggest "discuss(ing) the ideal as the ideal", yet in another thread you stated the same concept that I did (predetermined beliefs forming an overall impression about others):

http://www.christianforums.com/t7832645/#post65996578

So discussing the ideal, by necessity, has to include a discussion of our biases.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Because it's not an exchange or a competition.....equality doesn't mean restricting or limiting people, it is expanding options....allowing people to truly be themselves & be able to live up to their best potential.

I wasn't going to go through and re-post everything that's already been posted.

If you mean that you'd prefer the exchange not continue, I can bow out.

 

[mkgal1]

If you mean that you'd prefer the exchange not continue, I can bow out.

No....that's not what I'm implying.

You originally posted: "knocking down the typical stereotypes also affects those who fit the stereotypes"

I said: "(which isn't true)"

You asked, "How is it not true?"

....and that's how I responded..."that it's not an exchange or a competition...". If my words weren't descriptive enough....I re-posted Hetta's & Vincenticus's posts (as they were, IMO, articulate and what I've tried to express). I said way back, earlier in the thread, that knocking down stereotyping is making allowance for more variety....more diversity. That's my summary and play-by-by of this thread.

 

[mkgal1]

This is what I don't understand. Here, you suggest "discuss(ing) the ideal as the ideal", yet in another thread you stated the same concept that I did (predetermined beliefs forming an overall impression about others):

http://www.christianforums.com/t7832645/#post65996578

So discussing the ideal, by necessity, has to include a discussion of our biases.

No, it doesn't have to include a discussion of our biases.

Please refer to the OP:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7832309/

 

[Lollerskates]

.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

No, it doesn't have to include a discussion of our biases.

Please refer to the OP:

I did refer to the OP but that sort of went nowhere.