The purpose of adhering to gender roles

[cantata]

Argument about whether established gender roles are important is pretty common on Christian Forums, but I'd like to address this question specifically to those who think that adherence to these roles is important. I want to ask you whether you are inclined to draw a distinction between elements of gender roles which you regard as being natural, and those which you consider to be socially constructed.

Let's talk about children. Suppose that you have a son who demonstrates a preference for wearing pink clothing. You must be aware that the association of pink with girls and femininity is entirely socially constructed. In fact, up until around the 1950s, the gender-colour association was reversed; pink was viewed as the more appropriate colour for boys, and blue for girls. Knowing this, are you troubled by your son's preference for pink? What about if he wanted to wear a mid-calf length denim skirt, rather than jeans? If you would object to or be troubled by this, is the source of your concern different from, say, if you discovered that your son wished to play with dolls or become a ballet dancer (if indeed you would be troubled by these occurances)?

What I would like to ascertain is this: does your enthusiasm for adherence to established gender roles have to do with your child's attainment of a development into adulthood that is in keeping with his or her biological nature; or is it more about adhering to the accepted roles which you regard as necessary for a child's proper social development? Is this a matter of biology - of what is "natural" for a boy or a girl - or of society - of what is expected of a boy or a girl? Or is it something else entirely?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Argument about whether established gender roles are important is pretty common on Christian Forums, but I'd like to address this question specifically to those who think that adherence to these roles is important. I want to ask you whether you are inclined to draw a distinction between elements of gender roles which you regard as being natural, and those which you consider to be socially constructed.

Let's talk about children. Suppose that you have a son who demonstrates a preference for wearing pink clothing. You must be aware that the association of pink with girls and femininity is entirely socially constructed. In fact, up until around the 1950s, the gender-colour association was reversed; pink was viewed as the more appropriate colour for boys, and blue for girls. Knowing this, are you troubled by your son's preference for pink? What about if he wanted to wear a mid-calf length denim skirt, rather than jeans? If you would object to or be troubled by this, is the source of your concern different from, say, if you discovered that your son wished to play with dolls or become a ballet dancer (if indeed you would be troubled by these occurances)?

What I would like to ascertain is this: does your enthusiasm for adherence to established gender roles have to do with your child's attainment of a development into adulthood that is in keeping with his or her biological nature; or is it more about adhering to the accepted roles which you regard as necessary for a child's proper social development? Is this a matter of biology - of what is "natural" for a boy or a girl - or of society - of what is expected of a boy or a girl? Or is it something else entirely?

Since this all boils down to the acceptance of same-gender sex acts (or will in a short time), a good parent would guide their male child to a man being a man and their female child being to a woman being a woman.

You raise children to become adults in the order of their gender. Women are not men. Men are not women. Males are not female and females are not men.

And let's not forget DNA.

In other words: normal and natural.

 

[God-free]

Since this all boils down to the acceptance of same-gender sex acts (or will in a short time),

One-track mind.

... a good parent would guide their male child to a man being a man and their female child being to a woman being a woman.

You raise children to become adults in the order of their gender. Women are not men. Men are not women. Males are not female and females are not men.

And let's not forget DNA.

In other words: normal and natural.

"Normal and natural" isn't the same for everyone. By now, you should be well aware of this.

I, for one, am happy to see some previous gender roles being reversed. Why shouldn't the female be the breadwinner while the male performs household duties and raises the kids?

~Barbara

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Gender roles are cultural constructs, albeit ones that are at least partially based on biological distinctions. That said, most of what we regard as "typically" male or female is pretty much arbitrarily assigned, especially with regards to fashion, interests, or livelihoods.

A parent's desire to keep a child within the gender norms of a particular society is based upon the urge to "fit in", to avoid social ostracisement. Cultural group identities are always formed around the concept of the "other", the maligned outsider, the one who's markedly different. Nothing creates a better sense of solidarity among a fairly heterogeneous group than the presence of someone who differs significantly from all of them.
I remember an episode from my childhood: I wanted to dress up as a famous character from children's literature, who just happened to belong to the opposite gender. I was seven years old, and did not associate any of this with the trappings of gender, not to mention sexuality. I just revered that character, and thought it would be grand to dress up in such a fashion during carnival. My parents didn't allow it: they were pretty sure that the other kids would gang up on me if I did, treating me like a social leper. Thinking back to the miserable petty-mindedness of my small-town classmates (and their parents), I consider it perfectly possible that my parents weren't exactly wrong in their estimation of the situation. However, I still begrudge the fact that I had to choose another costume, if only because things would have been different in an ideal world.

 

[sidhe]

Gender roles are totally cultural and arbitrary. I, for one, welcome our new genderqueer overlords.

P.S.: Gender roles have next to nothing with who someone wants to doink. The only relation that can be established is who someone is attracted to, but that's the role of the other, not of the self.

 

[cantata]

Since this all boils down to the acceptance of same-gender sex acts (or will in a short time)

If I had intended my thread to be about "same-gender sex acts", I would have said so.

In the meantime, please address your response directly to the OP. This:

a good parent would guide their male child to a man being a man and their female child being to a woman being a woman.

You raise children to become adults in the order of their gender. Women are not men. Men are not women. Males are not female and females are not men.

And let's not forget DNA.

In other words: normal and natural.

does not go far towards answering the questions posed therein.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Gender roles are totally cultural and arbitrary. I, for one, welcome our new genderqueer overlords.

Have you ever wondered why men in skirts prompt a much more... pronounced reaction from the average citizen than women in trousers, even if we take into account that the latter has been pretty much socially accepted for several decades now?
My theory is that "maleness" has always been the somewhat underdefined half of the "male/female"-dichotomy, with the female part being decidedly more circumscribed. In short, maleness was pretty much defined in terms of not being female, with "female" being whatever was regarded as such at the time.
(Poor "traditional" males, I might add. With women breaching more and more supposedly "male" bastions, they are fighting a retreating battle on an ever-diminishing territory of clear-cut "maleness".

(I know a VERY conservative guy who absolutely refuses to wear an apron in the kitchen, for fear of losing his masculinity. Ridiculous, isn't it?)

 

[geekgirlkelli]

Gender is fluid. I am mostly a girly-girl (so I am told) and more feminine in most ways than the vast majority of women. But my career path is one that is completely male-dominated.

My eight year old is a bit of a girly girl also, but with a dominant tom-boyish side.

My son is very much a boy, but with a sensitive side and he loves to write, loves stuffed animals, and loves to draw.

Nothing wrong with any of that. And as an aside, the world certainly doesn't need any more macho, swinging you-know-what type men.

 

[cantata]

I think masculine hegemony is essentially a matter of valuing masculinity whether it is adopted by men or women, but only valuing femininity if it is adopted by women. Female lawyers/doctors/astronauts are cool. Male nurses/daycare workers/florists are uncool.

Women do in a sense get more choices than men - they can be masculine or feminine, while men are limited to being masculine - but on the other hand, women are at a disadvantage whichever route they take. If they decide to take the masculine route, it will likely be assumed either that they can play with the big boys if they like, but they can't hope to achieve the same heights and are almost regarded as a novelty item; or they will be accused of brashness, arrogance, &c. Taking this route therefore means accepting the cultural disadvantage of a woman attempting to adopt "traditionally" male roles. If they decide to take the feminine route, they will achieve acceptance by attracting a masculine man, as femininity is only valued in the context of heterosexual relationships, rather than in its own right; if they manage this, however, they will not be respected except in the light of this achievement, while, if they fail to do so (especially if they do not conform to current trends in what is considered beautiful), they will be looked down upon.

 

[PaladinofByzantium]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

A failed experiment in attempting to prove that gender identity is primarily learned.

That said, I am a dancer, primarily in breakdancing though I also study ballet. I write poems to my girlfriend, cry at sad movies, buy her flowers once a weak just to show her that I love her, and like to sew and cook. I am often ridiculed for these behaviors but I still consider myself masculine in the fact that I adhere ot chivalrous behavior and seek to be the provider for my family. A strange thing these definitions and worth some philosophical pondering.

 

[cantata]

I hate to nag, but the OP isn't a general question about whether gender roles are important, but a question about why they are important to those who consider them so, and whether both biological (if they exist) and socially constructed elements of gender identity are equally important.

 

[geekgirlkelli]

I think masculine hegemony is essentially a matter of valuing masculinity whether it is adopted by men or women, but only valuing femininity if it is adopted by women. Female lawyers/doctors/astronauts are cool. Male nurses/daycare workers/florists are uncool.

Women do in a sense get more choices than men - they can be masculine or feminine, while men are limited to being masculine - but on the other hand, women are at a disadvantage whichever route they take. If they decide to take the masculine route, it will likely be assumed either that they can play with the big boys if they like, but they can't hope to achieve the same heights and are almost regarded as a novelty item; or they will be accused of brashness, arrogance, &c. Taking this route therefore means accepting the cultural disadvantage of a woman attempting to adopt "traditionally" male roles. If they decide to take the feminine route, they will achieve acceptance by attracting a masculine man, as femininity is only valued in the context of heterosexual relationships, rather than in its own right; if they manage this, however, they will not be respected except in the light of this achievement, while, if they fail to do so (especially if they do not conform to current trends in what is considered beautiful), they will be looked down upon.

This is very true. I have found that outside the tight circle of people I work with closely, I am not as well respected as I was before transitioning. I call on a vendor and they hear my voice and seem to expect that I won't know what I am talking about. Usually they back off once they realize that I'm amongst the best in my very specialized field, but I've actually had things said to me very patronizingly like "You're the chief engineer? Thats SO nice..." talking in a voice like you'd talk to a kid. That's annoying. So I have learned to use it to my advantage in some situations by playing dumb. You don't think I can do my job? Fine, you can do it for me then. I'll make certain vendors look up part numbers for me instead of looking them up for myself, stuff like that, acting as if I don't know what they are and don't know how to look them up.

I probably shouldn't do that because it just precipitates the stereotypes, but it helps offset my irritation over their expectation that I am simply a dumb chick who doesn't know anything and probably got where I am by sexual favors.

 

[geekgirlkelli]

I hate to nag, but the OP isn't a general question about whether gender roles are important, but a question about why they are important to those who consider them so, and whether both biological (if they exist) and socially constructed elements of gender identity are equally important.

Sorry if I helped throw your thread off track...

In some ways I like the distinctions and think they are important, but I don't think anything that is purposely taken to an extreme is a good thing, like a guy being overtly mean and domineering in an attempt to prove masculinity, or even a transwoman way overdoing trying to be feminine in an attempt to prove femininty.

 

[BananaSlug]

I think an important part of figuring out the role gender identity in society is studying the role of gender identity in other societies. Does masculinity and femininty have the same views in other cultures as in America? I alway thought masculinity was defined as being chivalrous, caring, and protective rather than being mannerless, chauvinistic, and "macho."

 

[Gremlins]

I hate to nag, but the OP isn't a general question about whether gender roles are important, but a question about why they are important to those who consider them so, and whether both biological (if they exist) and socially constructed elements of gender identity are equally important.

I think they're important to people who consider them important because they're tied to their own sense of power and importance, and because, like all social conservatives, they are therefore scared of any change that affects their perception of reality. I think the way the perceibed 'right' gender role has been tied to the gender roles of the ruling class is probably significant aswell. The Victorian 'Angel in the Kitchen' was a reality only for the middle classes; working class women worked harder and longer than their husbands; a survey of Dundee taken in 1901, I think it was, found that about 20% of households were dependent upon a single female breadwinner, 25% on a single male one, and 55% on both man and woman working.

 

[WatersMoon110]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

A failed experiment in attempting to prove that gender identity is primarily learned.

A very good (and very sad) point. Even though gender is primarily a cultural concept - there is something in our biochemistry that seems to lead most of us to identify as one gender or another.

It's a very complex process, and there is so much that I don't yet know about how a given person's gender identity develops! I can't wait to learn more, as humans discover more about sex, gender, sexual orientation, and the way humans develop.

 

[WatersMoon110]

I hate to nag, but the OP isn't a general question about whether gender roles are important, but a question about why they are important to those who consider them so, and whether both biological (if they exist) and socially constructed elements of gender identity are equally important.

Important in regards to human development? Or important in regards to society? Or important to a given person who is considering the question?

I think that cultural gender roles tend to be important to people who feel somewhat limited by their own role in society. I've never really cared much about what a given gender is supposed to act like - other than to be amused that I tend in many ways to be more comfortable doing "guy things" than "chick stuff". I think that people should act like themselves, and I like them or dislike them for who they are.

 

[quatona]

Excellent question, cantata.

(Personally, I think gender roles are important because else there wouldn´t be gender roles.)

 

[angellica]

Have you ever wondered why men in skirts prompt a much more... pronounced reaction from the average citizen than women in trousers, even if we take into account that the latter has been pretty much socially accepted for several decades now?

There are "trousers" that are made specifically for women that aren't made for men. There are not skirts made for men. That's why the different reaction.

 

[QuakerOats]

I know I've said this before, but I think humanity likes, or even 'craves,' order in general, which I think contributed, and continues to contribute, to gender roles. If you look at an Amish family, for example, you'll see that men have their designated roles, and women have theirs, and so on. The roles in question draw upon the natural strengths of each sex in a [very] general way, and are reinforced by social values constructed around said strengths. It really makes for a well-oiled machine-everyone in their place. Thus, I can see why some folks 'cling' to this way of 'running' things-it puts everyone in a neat little box, and preserves an order easily understood.

There are "trousers" that are made specifically for women that aren't made for men. There are not skirts made for men. That's why the different reaction.

Actually, there are.