The purpose of adhering to gender roles

CatholicApologistNeale said:

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

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

Click to expand...

Gender identity is not the same as gender roles or gender expectations.

Gender roles and expectations have always confused me. I had the good fortune of being raised in a home where my parents did not say things like "girls don't do that". They didn't use the phrase "tomboy" my mother thought it a sexist notion that a girl who enjoyed certain activities was somehow something "other" than your average girl.

When the costumes I picked out for Halloween were "boys" costumes, Daniel Boone, Darth Vader, Batman... she just sewed them up along with my sisters various Holly Hobbie, Snow White and Victorian Lady costumes she never suggested I pick more "girly" costumes. When I refused dresses she put me in pants, when I wanted my long hair chopped off she cut it off. I wore boys clothes and played with trucks and tools and had my action jackson and planet of the ape figures attack my sister's barbie dolls.

I never felt I wasn't a girl, I had no gender identity issues. I didn't choose Daniel Boone because I wanted to be a boy, I liked the hat... it was much better than the bonnet that the western frontier girl got to wear.

For much of my childhood and teen years people would often mistakenly call me a boy. I understood that they seemed to think girls had to look and act a certain way, I just didn't understand why, or why my not acting that way seemed to drive some people (teachers, classmates, neighbors) batty.

I was never taught that certain jobs or chores were for men and others for women, and despite my parents fitting rather traditionally into their own gender roles in marrriage I never got the impression it was anything but their personal choice--we never were given any impression that it was expected that we girls would choose to be "at home". My parents seemed to take on whatever needed to be done around the house equally.. so even though my mother was the one at home during the day we didn't get the idea that one of them was the cook and the other the one who fixed stuff around the house.

While my sisters fit more comfortably in "female" roles they also talk about being as confused as I by the black and white views of our peers and their parents when it came to being a girl or being a boy.

A few weeks ago I was in target.... and this woman was basically screaming at her son to get out of the "girls aisle" (he was in the aisle full of purple and pink toys.. barbies and the like) - he must have been about 4 and he was mesmerized by some computer toy.. she finally walked down the aisle, grabbed his hand and said "These are girls toys, the boys toys are HERE" and she hauled him down another row. I'm bewildered by this type of thing. Who cares if he plays with a computer toy that is purple as opposed to blue?

I tend to view gender roles and expectations as a means of control, it might be "easier" for some people, maybe even most people if there are clear rules, but I don't think it's always best.

Gender roles are cultural constructs which are constantly changing.

Polycarp_fan said:

In other words: normal and natural.

Click to expand...

What is considered "normal" or "natural" are always matters of opinion and never particularly desirable in and of themselves.

Gender roles have only been necessary because society had never seen a reason to go beyond them; now society realizes that no roles are 'feminine' or 'masculine'. One activity does not support one's manhod, or womanhood, in any manner; activities are supposed to support your personhood.

Its not healthy to say "interior decorating, cooking and the theatre are for women only" and "the military and sports are a man's arena". In many cultures, the women will hunt, rule with laws, govern and arbitrate disputes, and it is the men who farm, gather, take care of the children, sew, cook, etc. Societies can work perfectly with any set of gender roles.

These are the kinds of mores and stereotypes unhealthy and destructive to society.

A woman can be a better warrior than a man; as a man can be a better interior decorator. Breaking beyond these constraints is healthy,

Sure, I'dbe worried if my son dressed in mon's clothes, wore makeup and wanted to play the role of mommy while playing 'house', but if that made him happier than the other roles, why deny him that? Why deny that happiness? they say nowadays that sadness is a debilitating sickness and causes more harm than what we realize.....just a thought....

cantata said:

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.

Click to expand...

Isn't the answer in your question?

Ideas of what is important or what is a priority are socially constructed.

Wouldn't the answer to why people believe specific behaviours to be important for someone of a certain gender be that those beliefs are constructed by the society they are living in?

While gender roles and gender identity are two different things, the one does affect the other. Had I lived in a society where gender roles were much more androgynous in nature, I likely would have felt much less of a need to change my outward appearance so as to be recognized in my proper gender (gender identity).

And for me, it really had nothing to do with clothing, it had everything to do with wanting to be recognized as who I am and not wanting any longer to be associated with all things masculine and trying to measure up as a male in our society, which for me, was next to impossible anyway.

Aya! I am not wording things well this morning. Anyway, what I am trying to say is that I think that gender roles typically do affect how one views and reacts to their own gender identity.

geekgirlkelli said:

While gender roles and gender identity are two different things, the one does affect the other. Had I lived in a society where gender roles were much more androgynous in nature, I likely would have felt much less of a need to change my outward appearance so as to be recognized in my proper gender (gender identity).

Click to expand...

I wonder how different things would be in the US would be if we had a traditional idea of a third gender, Hijra, like Bangladesh does?

WatersMoon110 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I've noticed that most of us tend to identify as one gender or the other but I'm wondering if that is more nurture than nature. Society views gender as completely binary, it is probably the first way that we as society classify people. I have to wonder, if society did not view gender as binary, if people would tend to identify as one of the two genders or if instead we'd find that people act as feels right to them without putting a gender label on how they act/who they are.

One of the interesting things about gender is the way society reinforces it. As a general rule, a person is treated differently depending on if people see them as male or female -- and this reinforces the idea of the two genders and people feeling the need to be one or the other.

Polycarp_fan said:

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.

Click to expand...

Actually, despite what you try to claim in your post, the vast majority (over 80% from what I recall) of cross-dressers are heterosexual.

I think it's something to do with sex or something or nothing.

Oneofthediaspora said:

I think it's something to do with sex or something or nothing.

Click to expand...

??

Gender roles in this household don't have much to do with clothing, although should my 13 year old son decide he wanted to wear a skirt I would need to know why. Yes, it's culturally unacceptable for a guy to wear a skirt here in the US. If we were in Scotland, totally different thing.

I never cared much for pink = girls and boy = blue. When I found out I was having a boy with each pregnancy, I never veered towards blue. It was always green and yellow. Some might say that yellow is a bit feminine, but I don't really care.

I do want my men to be manly men. But they can do this without being complete jerks about it. And I think girls can be feminine and strong. (I'd like to think I'm a good example of that but that could just be my ego speaking!!)

The way the bible talks about gender roles is very important to me, regardless of what culture states. My faith comes before culture. So yes, I submit to my husband. And my husband respects me. It may sound archaic, but it's worked in our marriage.

"men (humankind) are the glory of God, women are the glory of men"

Paul addresses the issue of women making themselves to look like men, probably not born out of the desires of the flesh, but because of gnosticism, which was a belief at the time that told women that in order to be saved they need to become like men. Paul, I believe is saying that the beauty of women is a good thing, and not a bad thing, and that if she tries and takes away her beauty, then she is depriving her husband of his natural God given desire for her, which can reek harm, especially in her marriage, amoung other things.

I think some christians are concerned about things that harm themselves and their family, such as being concerned about the number of children in daycare and what effect that has on children, ect. A lot think the only way to fix it is by controlling women and putting them back in the 1930's roles. It is a hard issue to solve though for all couples.

LJSGM said:

"men (humankind) are the glory of God, women are the glory of men"

Paul addresses the issue of women making themselves to look like men, probably not born out of the desires of the flesh, but because of gnosticism, which was a belief at the time that told women that in order to be saved they need to become like men. Paul, I believe is saying that the beauty of women is a good thing, and not a bad thing, and that if she tries and takes away her beauty, then she is depriving her human of his natural God given desire for her, which can reek harm, especially in her marriage, amoung other things.

I think some christians are concerned about things that harm themselves and their family, such as being concerned about the number of children in daycare and what effect that has on children, ect. A lot think the only way to fix it is by controlling women and putting them back in the 1930's roles. It is a hard issue to solve though for all couples.

Click to expand...

It's kinda like the intentions are good, but not really. In my case, if I go back to work, my husband then becomes Mr. Mom and stays at home with the kids, so daycare is not an issue - but that is important to us that one of us is able to be at home when the kids are. We're not so "old-fashioned" that it's the dad who MUST work and the mom who MUST stay home with the kids. Shoot, we have the best of both worlds right now because we're BOTH home with the kids (gotta love being married to a pastor!!). And our kids will benefit from it, I believe.


By the by, not that it has much to do with anything, but I wear pants because they're comfortable and warmer than skirts. I don't wear them because it makes me feel a certain way, like I'm in control or something. I hope that makes sense. I also have short hair.

PreachersWife2004 said:

My faith comes before culture. So yes, I submit to my husband. And my husband respects me. It may sound archaic, but it's worked in our marriage.

Click to expand...

I'm curious about what this means. Do you have an example of application?

Braunwyn said:

I'm curious about what this means. Do you have an example of application?

Click to expand...

He is ultimately the decision maker. We make decisions together, but if we disagree totally, then I submit to his decision. We've only had to do that once, and that was in terms of a family vacation. We are very good at the art of compromise. A good (true) man doesn't lord his authority over his wife, though, which is why I've only had to defer once.

Does that help?

It's not like I'm little miss meek and mild around him, although I do respect him. And we do have our quabbles, but by and large we have a very happy, very calm, very wonderful marriage.

To me, I'm still uncertain what "submit" means.

The bible tells us that we should "submit" to one another, (like a wife to her husband), unto the Lord.

Now, what does that mean?

To me, it means that we are to give to each other what they need and desire (unless it's wrong), a selflessness (that women are so good at, right?).

PreachersWife2004 said:

He is ultimately the decision maker. We make decisions together, but if we disagree totally, then I submit to his decision. We've only had to do that once, and that was in terms of a family vacation. We are very good at the art of compromise. A good (true) man doesn't lord his authority over his wife, though, which is why I've only had to defer once.

Does that help?

Click to expand...

Well, that doesn't really sound like submission to me. And if compromise and making your partner happy (by going on vacation where he wants) is all submission amounts to, than it seems reasonable enough to me. OTOH, my understanding of submission, plus how I've seen others use the term, has always incorporated an unfair power hierarchy.

LJSGM said:

To me, it means that we are to give to each other what they need and desire (unless it's wrong), a selflessness (that women are so good at, right?).

Click to expand...

hmmm...need or desire. Preacherswife2004's example seems to be in the desire category (who knows though). IRT selflessness, that will probably vary from person to person. If my dh and I discussed a vacation and I mention where I might like to go, it would be pulling teeth to get him to tell me if he would like to do something else. Our arguments tend to be fighting for what the other wants in such circumstances. That can be a bit unproductive though.