Feminism and Androgyny

[quatona]

That last part is what I think of when I wonder if women can be too "feminine" just as men were too "masculine".

Well, personally I don´t think that associating physical violence with masculinity and emotional/psychological with feminity helps the analysis.

We don't equate emotional or psychological violence with physical violence, understandably to some degree, but still.

I do.

Granted, a legal system would be impossible if we punished emotional and psychological violence. I've always thought it unfair that the cruel smartass who inspires his enemy to throw the first punch could walk away with only a bruise while his enemy gets an assault charge.

Yes: physical violence is easier to pin point and to quantify. Now, I am neither a judge nor a legislator (or trying to walk in their shoes), so fortunately that´s not my problem when contemplating the topic.

Well, it's not technically a stereotype if we're taking a continuum into account.

Tbh, technicalities aren´t much of my concern.

"All girls like makeup," is a stereotype; "all girls on point X of a mascule-feminine continuum like makeup," isn't a stereotype, arguably.

The question, however, is: The latter statement [which I would reword into: "Significantly more women than men (in certain societies) wear makeup"] might not allow for the conclusions that could be warranted if the first statement were accurate.

Of course, we'll never get to the point to where we can pinpoint someone's gender identity with such precision, so we'd never speak this way, but that's not the point.

Maybe I´m not sure what is your point.
My point is:
Sloppily associating certain attributes and behaviours with masculinity or feminity had been the problem of the pre-feminist gender roles in our western societies; it also has been the problem with the feminists´ analysis and the proposed solutions.
I am not willing to perpetuate this problem in the post-feminist analysis.

 

[Paradoxum]

And it would be equally silly to deny that there is some biological essentialism not only to race and gender, but also the existence of statistical advantage: men are better at throwing whereas women are more dexterous;

But that isn't true... men aren't better at throwing; most men are better at throwing (I'm guessing). Some women are better at throwing than most men (see the Olympics). Men may tend to be better at throwing, but I don't see a reason to say much more than that. If a woman wants to throw well, that's up to her... it doesn't make her man-like.

men are better at mentally rotating shapes whereas women are better at visual memory; men are better at problem solving whereas women are better at mathematical calculations. Our educational system is structured in such a way that it favors abilities more commonly found in females than males. If, for instance, men are better at problem-solving but math curricula emphasizes mathematical calculations, we can expect to see a difference in student results. These statistical advantages are not sex differences per se, mind you, but they will nonetheless affect performance outcomes. I don't think this educational structuring was done deliberately or out of malice, but I think it's important not to downplay or outright deny our innate differences. Doing so can have dire social consequences.

I agree there is a tendency for there to be a difference. My point would just be that little more needs to be said than that. But which I mean, you don't have to stick people in boxes, but not everyone's the same even if they are the same gender.

I could be more like some men, than like some women. Gender roles are unhelpful, and repressive.

(I have no problem with equally balanced maths classes).

 

[ObamaChristian]

I think this discussion dives into a bunch of things.

First off, I think generalizations are good. We have to generalize in order to function as human beings and to function as a efficient society.

I haven't tasted every apple in the world; but I can say with a fair degree of certainty, I don't like apples because they taste bad. The good thing about my statement is that, apples don't have feelings. I am certain there are apples in this world that I might like eating, some are sweeter, some are more sour and ect.

Now I don't believe in complete individuality as I think labels and groups are helpful to a efficient society. There is always a cost when you measure the attributes of a individual, it is more timely, requires more knowledge, and therefore it is more costly. When you group people as a label, it is more effective, although more error prone. You are more likely to misjudge when you group people, but you are able to judge faster.

That being said, my views on feminist issues come out the someway.

 

[Received]

Given the evidence of um, recorded history, it's pretty much how masculinity in society operated to differing degrees.

What changed was mechanization and information ages that moved us away from the concept of being physically stronger was important in how people are valued.

Which is a great discussion: the conflation of physical power with overall power. Does having physical strength -- and males unambiguously have more of it than females -- make you more powerful those with less? To me the answer is obviously not. Power is much more in the hands of the psychological and emotional manipulators (women) in any society with a minimum adherence to law. Things would be different if we didn't have civilization.

 

[Received]

I see no reason to assume that traditional gender roles (as observable in a particular society at a particular point in time) are - unlike the number of our extremities - directly determined by evolution.

I'm not saying they're directly determined; in any environment there is learning, and with learning you mediate otherwise direct or immediate expression of genes.

At the same time, a person's social environment from which learning has arisen is itself evolved; unless we accept this, we're left with the infinite regress of "the learners learned from the learners before them, who learned from the learners before them," ad infinitum.

 

[Received]

Maybe I´m not sure what is your point.
My point is:
Sloppily associating certain attributes and behaviours with masculinity or feminity had been the problem of the pre-feminist gender roles in our western societies; it also has been the problem with the feminists´ analysis and the proposed solutions.
I am not willing to perpetuate this problem in the post-feminist analysis.

I'd say the problem of prefeminist societies is the idealization of masculine values over feminine ones. So a women who doesn't have physical power but has psychological power is valued less because the ruling value is the masculine one. Says who? Says the men with physical power, because you can smack your wife around if she disagrees with you. Now women can joyfully smack men around for being idiots because they have a more just legal system and therefore society on their side.

 

[Received]

What gender roles? I'm not sure there are any gender roles, and if there are, I'm not sure what those roles are. I don't think anyone except the most conservative and sexist people think that women should stay home, and only men work, for example.

Maybe gender roles is too strong a word to use. I do think, though, that there is some degree of biological essentialism at play that probabilistically but not absolutely determines whether each sex will be most fulfilled in the tasks they do. Speaking in probabilities, men are going to be happier doing stuff with their hands, just as women are going to more than likely enjoy relating to other people. There's nothing sexist or stereotyping about this, so long as we keep probabilities and not absolutes in mind.

I don't see why it's obvious, or even likely true. I'd say that a particular sex might have a tendency to be a certain way, based on genetics. But a tendency is different from a gender role. I'd say gender roles are completely based on culture.

Yeah, you're right.

I'm not sure I'd agree that genes are more important than environment, for determining who someone becomes. It could be true, but so could the opposite.

I just fall back on psychologist remarks that over 50% of our behavior and personality is genetically based. But in a way I think genes and environment are incommensurate. I compare biology (determined by genes) to the ammo and environment (in terms of learning) with how you pull the trigger and use the gun.

 

[Paradoxum]

Maybe gender roles is too strong a word to use. I do think, though, that there is some degree of biological essentialism at play that probabilistically but not absolutely determines whether each sex will be most fulfilled in the tasks they do. Speaking in probabilities, men are going to be happier doing stuff with their hands, just as women are going to more than likely enjoy relating to other people. There's nothing sexist or stereotyping about this, so long as we keep probabilities and not absolutes in mind.

I agree that there can be tendencies based on biology, but it's unlikely everyone will fit in those stereotypes. So I think I agree with you, though I disagree with how you've phrased it.

I don't think you should say 'men are going to be happier doing stuff with their hands'. I know you said about probabilities before that, but the way you phrase it still makes it seem like there's a certain way you should be to be a real man or woman.

Just say, 'more men tend to be happier doing stuff with their hands'. You don't need to say, men ARE going to be happier. I'm not even sure if the statement is true, but I'll just assume it is.

I don't see the need in emphasising this stuff. If any individual enjoys working with their hands, or relating to others, or both, then good for them, regardless of gender.

Sorry I keep disagreeing with you slightly.

Yeah, you're right.

I just fall back on psychologist remarks that over 50% of our behavior and personality is genetically based. But in a way I think genes and environment are incommensurate. I compare biology (determined by genes) to the ammo and environment (in terms of learning) with how you pull the trigger and use the gun.

Maybe it is over 50%, I don't know.

 

[variant]

Which is a great discussion: the conflation of physical power with overall power. Does having physical strength -- and males unambiguously have more of it than females -- make you more powerful those with less? To me the answer is obviously not.

Not if you don't intend to fight with a club, spear or sword or bare hands.

I think the tradition of conflating physical power with overall power comes out of an era where physical force was more important.

Power is much more in the hands of the psychological and emotional manipulators (women) in any society with a minimum adherence to law. Things would be different if we didn't have civilization.

This is ambiguous, men are pretty good at manipulation too, they just do it differently.

I mean, say, religion is mostly made up by men, and asserts masculine power more than any other artifice.

 

[quatona]

I'm not saying they're directly determined; in any environment there is learning, and with learning you mediate otherwise direct or immediate expression of genes.

Now, the big question would be: "Which is which?", and by associating certain traits with masculinity and others with feminity you anticipate the result of the work that´s yet to be done.

At the same time, a person's social environment from which learning has arisen is itself evolved; unless we accept this, we're left with the infinite regress of "the learners learned from the learners before them, who learned from the learners before them," ad infinitum.

Ah, initially I thought that when you spoke about evolving you were referring to the ToE.

 

[quatona]

I'd say the problem of prefeminist societies is the idealization of masculine values over feminine ones.

To which I would respond: As long as you simply accept or propagate the idea of there being masculine and feminine values, you perpetuate the problem.

So a women who doesn't have physical power but has psychological power is valued less because the ruling value is the masculine one. Says who? Says the men with physical power, because you can smack your wife around if she disagrees with you. Now women can joyfully smack men around for being idiots because they have a more just legal system and therefore society on their side.

Personally, I think that psychological power can win hands down over physical power. If you are able to psychologically manipulate the physically powerful person you even gain both.

 

[Cearbhall]

Feminism, I guess, is about killing off the stupidity involved with the power abused by masculinity.

Exactly. Masculinity is absolutely fine. Having a superiority complex is not. The latter is what makes some men think that we're attacking the former...

But what did feminism really rebel against? Not masculinity per se, but hypermasculinity -- masculinity that wasn't balanced with femininity, and consequently isn't in the psychologically balanced state of androgyny, which plenty of studies point out is best for the individual and especially relationships.

 

[Gladius]

I disagree that androgyny is a preferred state than either 'pure' masculinity or femininity. In fact, its the biggest falsehood promoted by some feminists.

Androgyny is a lack of a sexual identity. A grey, neutral, boring, politcally correct brain fart. It's not some wonderful blend of male and female 'energy' or emotions.

Honestly, if women have some problem with males being masculine (and masculinity is not sexism, mysogyny, discrimination or violence, as they all have their own definitions) that's their mental issue to deal with, not ours.

I don't take issue with women being feminine, and the majority of us men (at least at this stage) prefer them that way.

 

[Cearbhall]

I disagree that androgyny is a preferred state than either 'pure' masculinity or femininity. In fact, its the biggest falsehood promoted by some feminists.

Yeah, I don't completely agree with the second quote that I put in my post. I agree with the hypermasculinity part in the sense that some men think they should be macho simply because it's the best thing they can be.

 

[Received]

Maybe I should say with an inclination toward androgyny. I'm yet to experience someone who is so perfectly androgynous that it's a 50/50 split.

 

[FireDragon76]

Psychological research is fairly convincing that androgyny, at least, valuing both masculine and feminine qualities in a person, is a lot healthier.

I also find the whole idea of "muscular Christianity", offputting, for that reason and many others. A lot of conservative, Protestant Christians are A-OK with locking men into self-defeating, emotionally crippled patterns of living, even though I don't think the Bible really affirms their sort of masculine ideal, which owes more to the late Victorian era.

 

[Received]

Agree. At the same time, though, I think Christianity has emphasized central tenets and ideas of the faith too much in a feminine way. E.g., love is seen as a womanly thing, even though love is really the highest expression of power a person could wield.