The traditional family

[stevevw]

OK - but you should realize what is "traditional" in modern (post ad 1500) western society is NOT what was traditional 2000 years ago in the Mid East. It is just as man-made as everything else.

OK point taken. I did mention I was talking about western traditional families in the OP and referred to western societies and the changes that have been made so I though it was pretty obvious.

 

[Dave-W]

Yeah - but you seemed to be indicating that western tradition was biblical tradition. I was pointing out that it was not.

 

[stevevw]

Yeah - but you seemed to be indicating that western tradition was biblical tradition. I was pointing out that it was not.

What is the western tradition for families.

 

[stevevw]

Banging on and on and on and on ad infinitum about your idea of a traditional family. You seem to have had problems with your family life, so get help if that is the case.

The reason I created the thread is because I work with families and see the problems first hand. I see the single mum struggling ion their own. I see the unruly kids and the mum's not coping. I see the kids longing for a dad figure in their lives. So I get frustrated that these situations go on and on and the system actually creates the problems and want to change things for the better. That's all.

 

[stevevw]

I am not advocating for male and female traits being socially constructed; male and female is about what "bits" our bodies have, and that is biological. I am arguing for masculine and feminine traits being socially constructed; that is about behaviour and gender roles (about what we do), and that is not biological.

But as I said biology is more than the bits and pieces of the body. It is also about the brain differences, how hormones affect males and females differently and how genetics influence gender. These biological aspects influence behavior and are supported by the science for which I have linked ample support for. You keep refuting the science but you have not given any support apart for your personal view when you reject the research data.

This paragraph literally makes no sense to me. We need no further restrictions on our gender roles than are absolutely necessary. Saying so doesn't make people "in conflict with nature" or "confused," and the talk of "restrictions" sounds, well, restrictive and harmful.

By not acknowledging the biological basis for gender roles we are using an open slate view of gender roles by default. You are saying that gender roles are only determined by socially constructing them. If the science is correct on the biological influences of gendered behaviour than rejecting the biological aspects of gender will cause conflicts because we are denying what comes natural. We need to acknowledge both the biological influences as well as the socially constructed ones to better understand how best to fulfill gender roles.

If you're arguing that men and women should take up particular tasks better suited to their "natural" traits and abilities, then you're arguing for more stringent gender roles. At least be honest that that is the natural end point of your position.

No I don't have to be forced to take your view on this. You are creating an either and or logical fallacy by saying that there is either only biological influences which therefore means we have to only be subject to nature or we have to totally be free to self construct. It is a bit of both. What happens today with gender ideology of the open slate human is that people don't want to acknowledge the biological influences and take the self constructed human to the extreme at the expense of nature.

[/quote] We're still in a world where poverty, lack of access to education, and lack of employment are experienced to a much higher degree by women and girls than men and boys. Get back to me when no girl is denied the chance to learn to read because she's a girl, and then we'll talk about how we've overcome inequality.[/quote] I was only referring to western nations in my original post with the traditional family. In western nations it is pretty even with females now overtaking males in education. We could go down the 3rd world path but that opens a can of worms where there are other factors involved.

But this says nothing at all about gender roles. It's an argument for marriage, but is silent about how each person in that marriage ought to behave, or what they ought to do.

That is because the OP was not just about gender roles but about the family as well as a unit, as a couple. The stats on this are undeniable. But fatherless family issues are about gender roles IE the role and importance of the father.

What does "making fathers take responsibility" mean? That's the only part of this argument which seems to pertain to gender roles at all.

Yes as mentioned above.

Not exactly. As I posted earlier, of course both a mother and a father have much to contibute to a child's life; but most of that is just not going to be about gender.

That sounds like fathers are not really that important. If it is not about gender, then gender don’t matter, and any gender can do it.

And, again, human beings are resilient and networks of support are able to step in and ensure that if either parent is not up to the task - for whatever reason - children are still loved and cared for and able to flourish.

Yes I agree but what you are talking about is dealing with situations when the optimal setup breaks down. But it doesn’t happen that way and hence we have a crisis of family breakdowns, absent fathers, struggling single mothers, juvenile delinquents, children with developmental problems which has repercussions for society. Yes people can make things up to some degree but it is not the same as avoiding the problem in the first place by having the best/better setup.

I am talking about getting beyond this and trying to remedy the root causes not to keep trying to catch the horse after its bolted. Its too late then and damage is done. I am not saying we should not support people in these situations, I do so this for a living. I am saying we have to get beyond this if we want to begin to address the causes of the problem.

It is extremely rare for any child to need a parent to exert all of his/her strength in "protection." And it is not true that mothers are necessarily better nurturers than fathers.

The science supports this. It doesn’t mean the father is not a nurturer. It just means generally mothers are better at it. They generally come with the right traits to do it. That is why most mothers most of the time do it

(And nurture can have different aspects and place different demands on parents at different times. For example, if a father copes better with sleep deprivation than a mother - due to his superior strength - he may be a better nurturer at 3am!) This is exactly the sort of stereotypical stuff that might be true "on average" but which says nothing about how a particular couple ought to construct their life and roles together in a household.

No one is saying that just because a mother may be a better nurturer that she has to do it 24/7 and that there are times when a dad can nurture. I would hope dads do nurture their kids.

Oh, again with this "women are more emotional, men are more rational" rubbish.

You call it rubbish but it is science. Have you any substantive support for it being rubbish apart from your opinion. It is based on sections of the brain associated with these differences being more active in males and females. Once again this is general and most of the time but not a hard and fast rule.

Women, it’s known, retain stronger, more vivid memories of emotional events than men do. They recall emotional memories more quickly, and the ones they recall are richer and more intense.
Every cell in a man’s body (including his brain) has a slightly different set of functioning sex-chromosome genes from those operating in a woman’s.
All this points to a picture of at least parts of the brain as consisting of modules. Each module consists of a neural or genetic pathway in charge of one piece of a complicated behavior, and responds to genetic and hormonal signals. These modules — or at least some of them — are masculinized or feminized, respectively, by the early testosterone rush or its absence. The mammalian brain features myriad modules of this sort, giving rise to complex combinations of behavioral traits.

Our multitudinous genetic variations interact with some of our genes’ differential responsiveness to estrogens versus androgens. This complicated pinball game affects goings-on in at least some of the brain’s neural circuits and in whatever little piece of behavior each of these neural circuits manages.
How men's and women's brains are different

Researchers at the University of Cambridge tested more than 680,000 people and found that on average women have a greater ability to recognize what another person is thinking intuitively and respond appropriately.

On the other hand men have a stronger drive to view the world through ‘rule-based systems’, striving to learn how things work through their underlying parts.

The study found that the traits can even predict which professions people choose, with those working in science, technology engineering and mathematics (Stem) scoring more highly in ‘systemizing’ or masculine traits, while those in non-stem jobs more likely to have ‘empathetic’ or feminine traits.
Women really are more empathetic and men more analytical, biggest ever study shows

So as you can see in women being more intuitive they are more attuned to their children and recognizing when they need them. That is why they are better at early attachment development. Males are better at rule based systems, logic, how things work. They are better at applying this in things like discipline and showing kids practical of behaving. But this is only a small example of how mothers and fathers (males and females differ in their biology which influences behaviour. I could link countless articles on this.

But you know, even if that were true, that wouldn't mean that men are necessarily better at discipline. Disciplining a child well requires empathy. It requires an assessment of the emotional state and limits of the child. It requires more than just brute strength or aggression, even coupled with logic, and that's why ideally it would be a task shared by both parents, who would bring different insights and perspectives to the task, not because of their gender but because of their different personal strengths and life experiences.

I agree and I am not saying that only one parent should discipline children. In fact, the research shows that each parent plays a specific role in disciplining children and both roles are needed. One without the other creates an imbalance.

Fathers discipline differently.
Educational psychologist Carol Gilligan tells us that fathers stress justice, fairness and duty (based on rules), while mothers stress sympathy, care and help (based on relationships). Fathers tend to observe and enforce rules systematically and sternly, teaching children the consequences of right and wrong. Mothers tend toward grace and sympathy, providing a sense of hopefulness. Again, either of these disciplinary approaches by themselves is not good, but together, they create a healthy, proper balance.
The Involved Father - Focus on the Family

The bigger bones, muscles etc, no, that's established. The better at protecting/nurturing stuff; that I reject as absolute psuedoscientific bunk. And I absolutely reject that this should be used to prescribe what work we do or role we play.

Can you provide some support for these papers being bunk. They come from mainstream universities and peer reviewed science in areas of study like neuroscience, genetics, psychology and biology.

The basis for women being better nurturers for example comes for the fact that the areas that have been shown to light up in women’s brains are associated with areas that are conducive for behaviors like caring, socialization and empathy etc. Therefore, this affects behavior as it makes women more tuned in and aware of these aspects. This is not pseudoscientific bunk but scientific testing and fact.

But you're making exactly the same kind of argument about what is "natural" and what our "biological differences" are!

No we now know better through the science. We can study brain activity and know what each area of the brain is linked to. Therefore, we know what different areas of the brain light up with activity for men and women. We know the brain is the center for perception and the driving force for behavior. So different brains equate to different perceptions and behaviors in some areas. This is all based on biology.

We even now know that genetics is an influence on gender behaviour. Just like with any other area like disease and disorders we are understanding the influence of genetics on who we are.
Genes Affect Sex Differences in Behavior
Genes Affect Sex Differences in Behavior
“It's as if you can deconstruct a social behavior into genetic components,” Shah says. "Each gene regulates a few components of a behavior without affecting other aspects of male and female behavior.”
Genes Affect Sex Differences in Behavior

My point was that abuse and neglect are objectively bad. But allowing each household to manage their own roles as best suits them is not objectively bad, and in fact is quite objectively good.

The problem I am talking about is addressing the breakdown in families and its affects on everyone but especially the children. Leaving people to their own devises when they have all these problems is not wise as they often make wrong choices or they have little options to get themselves out of the situation. That needs to change somehow. But leaving them to fend for themselves and propping up their present situations is not a good idea as it only results in more of the same as we have seen with these problems being passed down form generation to generation.

I wasn't wrong. It's obvious that for the parts of parenting that require our biology - reproduction and breastfeeding - our sex matters. I reject the argument that it matters beyond that.

But your limiting that biological influence to a certain period when the research shows it influence all of life, all of a child's upbringing. The gendered traits influenced by biology which I have supplied ample support for influence the relationships between parents and children beyond the initially nurturing period. It also has an influence right through into teenage years. The different ways mum's and dads behave with maleness and femaleness influence the way young people see themselves and the opposite sex.

Of course there are times when parents have to sacrifice and all of that, I just reject your claim that parenting competencies are inherently gendered.

Well that is what the science seems to say.

Mens' sheds are great; but they're not about biology at all. The fact that we need mens' sheds shows us a lot about how our society and culture treat men, though; that we need to create a male-only space for men to be able to support one another while engaged in some practical task.

A large part of why Men's Sheds are important is because of the biological differences. They feel more comfortable talking about men's stuff with men. They see things and go about things differently.

Well, I don't trust anyone with a "gender roles" agenda. I don't agree that the research supports your position,

How can you say that when I have supplied ample support. It is like someone saying I reject the science for showing that smoking is bad for your health. It is illogical. Tests show brain activity in males and females is different and this affects the way they see the works and how they behave. The hormone are differences and this affects brains. The epigenetic influences are different and this affects behaviour. I have supplied suport for all.

and if we followed your argument, we would see everyone (and women in particular) far worse off. We need to equip and empower people, not reduce their options and disempower them.

No we would be better off because we are acknowledging the natural differences and people are much better off when they are in tune with nature than when they fight it.[/quote][/quote]

 

[Paidiske]

But as I said biology is more than the bits and pieces of the body. It is also about the brain differences, how hormones affect males and females differently and how genetics influence gender. These biological aspects influence behavior and are supported by the science for which I have linked ample support for. You keep refuting the science but you have not given any support apart for your personal view when you reject the research data.

I no longer have library access to research journals to find articles to refute your claim; but I have enough knowledge in the field (having a degree in biological sciences majoring in genetics) to know that nature vs. nurture is highly contested, and that, on the whole, the science comes down on the side of nurture being more important.

Which means it's less about our biology and more about our experience.

If the science is correct on the biological influences of gendered behaviour than rejecting the biological aspects of gender will cause conflicts because we are denying what comes natural. We need to acknowledge both the biological influences as well as the socially constructed ones to better understand how best to fulfill gender roles.

No. This is the problem with your argument. Nobody is saying we should "deny" what comes naturally, (in the end we can't do that, anyway), and nobody is saying biology has no influence on us at all. But trying to use biology to put people in little boxes according to their gender is far more of an exercise in denying what comes naturally, because it limits people far more than they are naturally limited.

We should encourage people to explore and cultivate their own strengths, gifts, personalities, and so on; and pursue behaviours which allow them to flourish as the unique individual they are, not just stick them in pre-determined roles marked "male" or "female."

We could go down the 3rd world path but that opens a can of worms where there are other factors involved.

It's important to acknowledge the global reality of women's oppression, though.

But fatherless family issues are about gender roles IE the role and importance of the father.

Only if you think "being present as a parent" is a gender role. I'd argue gender roles don't come into play until we start talking about whether mothers and fathers have to take on gender-specified tasks in the household.

That sounds like fathers are not really that important. If it is not about gender, then gender don’t matter, and any gender can do it.

Well, to some degree, that is true. Humans are resilient and for millennia have relied on extended family and community networks, especially when one parent is absent (which makes sense given that historically, many people would have died while their children were still young).

Now of course it's better if fathers are present and involved than if they are absent. But that doesn't mean it's automatically dooming a child if they are not.

The science supports this. It doesn’t mean the father is not a nurturer. It just means generally mothers are better at it. They generally come with the right traits to do it. That is why most mothers most of the time do it No one is saying that just because a mother may be a better nurturer that she has to do it 24/7 and that there are times when a dad can nurture. I would hope dads do nurture their kids.

SOME mothers. In SOME conditions.

But not all. Not always. Let's not force people into roles which may not be good for anyone in that situation.

You call it rubbish but it is science. Have you any substantive support for it being rubbish apart from your opinion. It is based on sections of the brain associated with these differences being more active in males and females.

First, just because an area of the brain is more active doesn't mean the outcomes in a person's actions are more effective.

Second, this is all about averages. A big part of my concern here is that your approach would see the people who are outliers forced to conform to the "average," to their own detriment and that of everyone around them.

Can you provide some support for these papers being bunk. They come from mainstream universities and peer reviewed science in areas of study like neuroscience, genetics, psychology and biology.

Maybe start here. Do follow the links.

The different ways mum's and dads behave with maleness and femaleness influence the way young people see themselves and the opposite sex.

This might be true, but it has nothing to do with gender roles.

Here's the problem I have with your whole line of argument. It totally denies individual human beings their identity.

Take my household as a case study. It so happens that in my household, I occupy the role more traditionally associated with the father. I am the breadwinner, I'm the sterner disciplinarian, I'm the one who's prone to more active leadership, planning, and so on. (I work in an area until very recently denied to women, too, one which many people argue women can't do, and I'm good at it, even if I say so myself). My husband works casually during school hours (admittedly in IT, a stereotypically "male" field), does the school stuff, the therapy stuff, the domestic stuff, the nurturing stuff (and is far better at it than I am). He's a more go-with-the-flow personality who's quite happy to let me set the direction in lots of ways.

According to you, this is us "going against our nature," and should presumably be corrected by each of us adopting a more "traditional" role, even though it wouldn't suit our gifts and personalities, and in my case at least, is highly likely to have a severe impact on my mental health.

Why on earth should I take your argument seriously when it is so clearly out of touch with the reality of so many people's lives (we're hardly the only couple for whom this is true), and would be so harmful, so limiting, and so particularly damaging to women?

We wouldn't be "better off," we'd be regressing profoundly.

A large part of why Men's Sheds are important is because of the biological differences. They feel more comfortable talking about men's stuff with men.

Biology or socialisation? I'd say socialisation...

 

[stevevw]

I no longer have library access to research journals to find articles to refute your claim; but I have enough knowledge in the field (having a degree in biological sciences majoring in genetics) to know that nature vs. nurture is highly contested, and that, on the whole, the science comes down on the side of nurture being more important.

Which means it's less about our biology and more about our experience.

I also don’t have access to my Uni’s library. I have studies in the area of sociology and psychology specializing in child, adolescent and family. I can google/google scholar the subject and find dozens of articles that support how biological aspects influences gender behavior. So therefore, you should be able to do the same if social constructive influences are more of an influence than biology and find even more. But using your experience is not a good support as it can be influenced by your personal views. That is why peer reviewed articles are best as they are verified by peers for that kind of stuff. Plus The support I have linked is repeated by different sources so that shows it is well supported.

No. This is the problem with your argument. Nobody is saying we should "deny" what comes naturally, (in the end we can't do that, anyway), and nobody is saying biology has no influence on us at all. But trying to use biology to put people in little boxes according to their gender is far more of an exercise in denying what comes naturally, because it limits people far more than they are naturally limited.

I have said several times now that no one is trying to put anyone in boxes. You are using a false dilemma logical fallacy when you take what I have said and turn it into some agenda about forcing parents into roles. Rather I think because you have strong feminist views perhaps this is influencing your perception and that admitting any biological influences you wrongly perceive limit parents to roles when this is not the case. It simply acknowledges what is.

We should encourage people to explore and cultivate their own strengths, gifts, personalities, and so on; and pursue behaviours which allow them to flourish as the unique individual they are, not just stick them in pre-determined roles marked "male" or "female."

The point you keep missing is that I am talking about dealing with the breakdown in families. These parents cannot pursue behaviors that make their family flourish as they have done the opposite so need help to change that behaviour. Leaving them to their own devices will only continue the same problems. That was the point of starting this thread as I was frustrated with the same problems being observed and the root causes were not being addressed.

Only if you think "being present as a parent" is a gender role. I'd argue gender roles don't come into play until we start talking about whether mothers and fathers have to take on gender-specified tasks in the household.

Gender specific influences are much more complex than the stereotypical behaviors. They can cover interactions on various relational aspects of being a male and female. The fact that an absent father can result in a lack of discipline for children especially boys or can affect a young girls view and relationships with the opposite sex speaks to the importance of the fathers role in their child's development.

Well, to some degree, that is true. Humans are resilient and for millennia have relied on extended family and community networks, especially when one parent is absent (which makes sense given that historically, many people would have died while their children were still young).

But that just supports my argument that being a single parent is not best. That you need to compensate in other ways. That having two parents is better/best in the first place. I am talking about the avoidable consequences of family breakdowns.

Now of course it's better if fathers are present and involved than if they are absent. But that doesn't mean it's automatically dooming a child if they are not.

No one is saying that. Like you say humans can find ways to overcome these situations to a degree. But that should not be a reason that we don't pursue what is best/better as you said having a father present is better that if they were absent. Once again I feel that you are trying to deny or avoid acknowledging the best/better as a goal as you think it has some agenda behind it.

But acknowledging what is best/better is just acknowledging something and people don't have to do that. But if we don't have any idea about what is best/better than we are like lost ships in the night. We usually have an idea for what is best/better with everything why not this area considering we have so many problems.

SOME mothers. In SOME conditions.

But not all. Not always.

Actually it is most mothers according to the science.

Let's not force people into roles which may not be good for anyone in that situation.

Once again no one is saying that. Acknowledging the best/better ideal is not forcing people into that. It is giving advice as to what may be best/better for a child's development according to the science. We do it with everything else, why are you being so resistant with this.

First, just because an area of the brain is more active doesn't mean the outcomes in a person's actions are more effective.

No it is because the area or the brain is more active that it affects the way a person see's things and therefore the way they behave, that's all. We now have extensive knowledge of how the brain effects us.

Second, this is all about averages. A big part of my concern here is that your approach would see the people who are outliers forced to conform to the "average," to their own detriment and that of everyone around them.

No you keep thinking this is about making people do something. It is not and only about acknowledging the facts. If we say that people who followed a CSRIO diet had the best/better outcomes we are not forcing anyone to go on a CSRIO diet. It is merely putting info/adice/recommendations out there for people to use as a guide. They may vary the CSRIO diet and only use some components of it, apply the info in their own way or not use it at all and come up with their own version. But if we don't put that info out there then people are usually lost in what to do.

Maybe start here. Do follow the links.

The article you link is itself a dubious one that makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims and refers to suspect articles that rely on personal opinion rather than qualified critiques. For example the link that claims “Confirmed is in inverted commas because it’s very easy to “confirm” even the most surreal of notions with brain imaging techniques”. Does not work which usually means the link has been pulled for some reason.

Then other the link that claims to critique the studies goes on to say "The research itself is a technical tour-de-force which really needs a specialist to properly critique. I am not that specialist. But a few things seem odd about it:" is admitting that the critique doesn’t come for someone qualified enough to critique it. Go figure.

But the main article it is critiquing does support what I am saying here.
Ragini Verma, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, said the greatest surprise was how much the findings supported old stereotypes, with men's brains apparently wired more for perception and coordinated actions, and women for social skills and memory, making them better equipped for multitasking.

"Women are better at intuitive thinking. Women are better at remembering things. When you talk, women are more emotionally involved – they will listen more."

The findings come from one of the largest studies to look at how brains are wired in healthy males and females. The maps give scientists a more complete picture of what counts as normal for each sex at various ages.

The scans showed greater connectivity between the left and right sides of the brain in women, while the connections in men were mostly confined to individual hemispheres. The only region where men had more connections between the left and right sides of the brain was in the cerebellum, which plays a vital role in motor control. "If you want to learn how to ski, it's the cerebellum that has to be strong," Verma said. Details of the study are published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Male and female brains wired differently, scans reveal

Another factor that makes the above more valid is that I have posted other articles/papers that say similar things. So they all cannot be wrong. Results are usually validated when they are repeated which seems to be the case.

I will leave it at this for the moment as I am a bit busy but will get back to the rest of your post soon.
kind regards
Steve

 

[Paidiske]

I have said several times now that no one is trying to put anyone in boxes. You are using a false dilemma logical fallacy when you take what I have said and turn it into some agenda about forcing parents into roles.

Well, for the life of me I don't understand what you actually want if it's not gender roles, because you seem to keep arguing for them as the "biological," "natural," "best" ideal we should all be striving for.

The point you keep missing is that I am talking about dealing with the breakdown in families.

But this has nothing to do with gender roles!

These parents cannot pursue behaviors that make their family flourish as they have done the opposite so need help to change that behaviour. Leaving them to their own devices will only continue the same problems. That was the point of starting this thread as I was frustrated with the same problems being observed and the root causes were not being addressed.

I can fully agree that some parents need help to be good parents. I just don't think being a "traditional family" equates to being good parents.

But that should not be a reason that we don't pursue what is best/better as you said having a father present is better that if they were absent. Once again I feel that you are trying to deny or avoid acknowledging the best/better as a goal as you think it has some agenda behind it.

You yourself have acknowledged that you have an agenda; you want policies, social structures etc. to support what you see as "best." But I am skeptical that it is actually best for everyone.

We do it with everything else, why are you being so resistant with this.

Why wouldn't I? I see your propositions as a threat.

Another factor that makes the above more valid is that I have posted other articles/papers that say similar things. So they all cannot be wrong.

Of course they can. There's just as much to be found supporting other positions.

 

[stevevw]

Well, for the life of me I don't understand what you actually want if it's not gender roles, because you seem to keep arguing for them as the "biological," "natural," "best" ideal we should all be striving for.

No that is what you are projecting into the debate. I have said that we have to acknowledge the biological influences as well as the socially constructed ones. That just because we acknowledge the biological influences does not mean we are forcing people into those gender roles. The issue between ourselves is that you don't believe that biological influences have much of an influence whereas I do. So it is a matter of degrees.

But this has nothing to do with gender roles!

It has everything to do with gender roles. Gender roles are part of what makes a healthy family and child upbringing. One example is if you believe that a fathers role in a family is not that important/relevant then this can contribute to diminishing the role of a father. This is being seen in how women are now saying they can start a family without a father. This new view has stemmed from the idea that the fathers role is not needed. This also contributes to accepting that single parenthood is just a normal part of modern society and should be accepted which undermines trying to change things.

I can fully agree that some parents need help to be good parents. I just don't think being a "traditional family" equates to being good parents.

Once again of course it does. The quality of parenting is also linked to how people value the family. The roles they play is a big factor which is related to traditional family setups.

You yourself have acknowledged that you have an agenda; you want policies, social structures etc. to support what you see as "best." But I am skeptical that it is actually best for everyone.

No I have not said "I want" this to happen. I have said however you see and value the family will affect the type of policies and values you have as a society. I said at the moment we have certain values and attitudes about families and relationships that contribute systemically to the breakdown of families. I said that is what we need to change rather than keep on addressing the end results.

Why wouldn't I? I see your propositions as a threat.

That's because of your own preconceived ideas of what would happen that you are injecting into things which says more about you that what is actually happening. I have not said anything that would justify your concerns. You turn what I say about some research facts into some agenda about gender roles. This is the same view with gender ideology. Someone quotes a fact about men or women and some thing this is an attack on gender identity. This is PC.

Of course they can. There's just as much to be found supporting other positions.

That doesn't make sense. In science when something is replicated it validates it. It is not a coincident. One test result is dubious but many are confirmation. We accept this with everything else why does it not apply to the biological influences on gendered behaviour. When you say supporting other positions it seems like your talking about a view rather than a scientifically tested outcome.

 

[stevevw]

This might be true, but it has nothing to do with gender roles.

Of course it does. haven't you read the links I have posted. They talk about or example how a fathers role in things such as play and discipline with children influence children's attitudes to what a male is. So it is important for fathers to have this interaction with kids. As one article said that fathers discipline differently to mothers so both parenting roles are needed to give a balanced and healthy approach to discipline.

Educational psychologist Carol Gilligan tells us that fathers stress justice, fairness and duty (based on rules), while mothers stress sympathy, care and help (based on relationships). Fathers tend to observe and enforce rules systematically and sternly, teaching children the consequences of right and wrong. Mothers tend toward grace and sympathy, providing a sense of hopefulness. Again, either of these disciplinary approaches by themselves is not good, but together, they create a healthy, proper balance.
The Involved Father - Focus on the Family

These differences primary stem from the differences in brain connections to certain areas of the brain which have been verified in tests. So generally males will think more along the lines of rules and consequences for actions. Whereas mothers will think along the lines of being sympathetic and supporting kids when they do break the rules. Both roles are important to offer a balance. If one is missing then it becomes imbalanced. It is hard for the same person to be sympathetic and the rule enforcer at the same time.

Here's the problem I have with your whole line of argument. It totally denies individual human beings their identity.

What does individual human beings their identity even mean. That could mean many things. But fulfilling specific gender roles does not deny personality. If someone is naturally a good carer that doesn't mean all carers have the same personality. The natural ability is an underlying trait but the personality is then overlaid on top of this.

Take my household as a case study. It so happens that in my household, I occupy the role more traditionally associated with the father. I am the breadwinner, I'm the sterner disciplinarian, I'm the one who's prone to more active leadership, planning, and so on. (I work in an area until very recently denied to women, too, one which many people argue women can't do, and I'm good at it, even if I say so myself). My husband works casually during school hours (admittedly in IT, a stereotypically "male" field), does the school stuff, the therapy stuff, the domestic stuff, the nurturing stuff (and is far better at it than I am). He's a more go-with-the-flow personality who's quite happy to let me set the direction in lots of ways.

According to you, this is us "going against our nature," and should presumably be corrected by each of us adopting a more "traditional" role, even though it wouldn't suit our gifts and personalities, and in my case at least, is highly likely to have a severe impact on my mental health.

Why on earth should I take your argument seriously when it is so clearly out of touch with the reality of so many people's lives (we're hardly the only couple for whom this is true), and would be so harmful, so limiting, and so particularly damaging to women?

We wouldn't be "better off," we'd be regressing profoundly.

Most of the things you mention like bread winner role, type of work, domestic duties are to do with socially constructed ideas of gender roles which is not what I am talking about. I am not denying the socially constructed ideas and that they can be wrong simply because they are socially constructed. Therefore if there is anything we should not fix it is the socially constructed ideas of gender roles. But that opens the door for people to justify all sorts of roles for parenting and undermines any natural traits.

What I am talking about is the biological influences that make maleness and femaleness. They primarily are associated with biological aspects such as brains, hormones, genetics and the physical attributes. We should not deny these either. What you are saying is that all gender traits are socially constructed. I am saying that there are some that are biologically influenced. That doesn't mean there may be some exceptions.

But what the science has been finding is that those males and females that do tend to go against the usual maleness and femaleness biologically influenced behaviors have similar biology to the opposite sex. This supports the fact that these traits are biologically influenced even though they are the opposite because it is the biology that has influenced the opposite behaviors. This flies in the face of the gender ideology which claims gender identity is completely subjectively created in the mind. They don't want any science to link behaviour to biological influences as this would undermine the ideology.

So this rejects that the brain which is the engine of the mind has no influence. That the different wiring between males and females doesn't make any difference. This is the conflict between supporters of gender ideology and those who support the science that biology is a big factor in influencing gender identity and I think is also the conflict between our positions. Yours is just a offshoot of the gender ideology and what gender ideology was built upon which was taking the socially constructed human and making it science and the only way genders are created.

Biology or socialisation? I'd say socialisation...

I'd say both. That to me is the imbalanced view. That is the problem in that you reject biology as an influence. That you are too afraid to even acknowledge the biological influences. In all things the science, psychologists, sociologists and biologists recognize that the true position is that there is an influence from both. It is the agenda of gender ideology that wants to reject the biological aspects as the subjective view allows them to create the vast array of gender identities and claim they are natural human conditions based on the science.

Here's another paper that says the same thing that biology plays an important part in gender behaviour. That it is about both social and biological influences.

Scientific research shows gender is not just a social construct
A meta-analysis of research, reviewing 16 studies on the subject that collectively included some 1,600 children, found that both biology and society affect boys’ and girls’ toy choices. The researchers found a huge effect size (1.03 for boys playing with boys’ toys more than girls, and 0.9 for girls playing with girls toys more than boys; anything above 0.8 is considered “large”) across geographical regions.

This runs counter to the popular narrative that gender differences expressed in childhood play are determined entirely by social expectations. Social factors certainly do have influence, and the paper found evidence of this: For example, as boys got older they were increasingly likely to play with conventionally male toys, reflecting the impact of environmental rather than biological causes. But overall, the data reflect broader findings in psychology, which show that biology and society interact to cause gendered behavior. In other words, contrary to the popular progressive belief, gender is partly socially constructed—but it’s not just a social construct.
Scientific research shows gender is not just a social construct

 

[Paidiske]

Steve, I can no longer make sense of your posts. In one paragraph you deny that you're pushing for gender roles, in the next paragraph you are supporting gender roles. ("Gender roles are part of what makes a healthy family..." etc. etc.)

You can't have it both ways. Either you want to reduce us to our biology, or you don't. You can't promote gender essentialism, and then when the inevitable consequences of that are pointed out, argue that that's not really what you're promoting.

I reject your views because they are inherently limiting of human potential, and because when our society has bought into those views in the past, it has always played out in deeply patriarchal and sexist ways. That is completely unacceptable. And it will not actually fix the problems with which you are so deeply concerned!

 

[stevevw]

Steve, I can no longer make sense of your posts. In one paragraph you deny that you're pushing for gender roles, in the next paragraph you are supporting gender roles. ("Gender roles are part of what makes a healthy family..." etc. etc.)

No I have said I am not forcing gender roles onto anyone. That doesn't deny there are gender roles. There is a big difference. You are misreading things. Saying there are biological influences on gender behaviour is not pushing a particular gender role. It is merely acknowledging the influence. You equate mentioning biological gender behaviors with forced gender roles not me. That is your narrative not mine.

You can't have it both ways. Either you want to reduce us to our biology, or you don't.

There's the problem in this sentence. "Either you want to reduce us to our biology, or you don't". The fact that you keep thinking I want to reduce parents to biological gender behaviors highlights your misreading of what I am saying. Show me where I have said this.

You can't promote gender essentialism, and then when the inevitable consequences of that are pointed out, argue that that's not really what you're promoting.

Show me where I have said that we should promote gender essentialism.

I reject your views because they are inherently limiting of human potential, and because when our society has bought into those views in the past, it has always played out in deeply patriarchal and sexist ways. That is completely unacceptable. And it will not actually fix the problems with which you are so deeply concerned!

You are creating a false dilemma logical fallacy because I have not promoted or supported the ideas you claim. Show me where I have.

At the end of the day you still haven't addressed the facts I have presented through many scientific articles that gender behaviour is influenced by biology such as with brain differences, hormones, genetics and the physical differences in bodies. Biology affects behaviour not just in gender roles by generally. It causes males and females to think and see things differently. This does not deny different personalities.

But even personality can be influenced by both nature and the environment. Have you ever heard someone way he is his fathers son. he inherited his fathers personality. This is through genes. We can also be affected by our parents and grandparents through epigenetics (how genes are expressed). So a parent who lived a certain life maybe (stressed) can affect the way genes are expressed in the offspring as someone more prone to get anxious. A mothers lifestyle during pregnancy can affect gene expression and these factors can affect personality and behaviour.

Nature vs nurture: how does our personality develop?
Research into twins and adoptive children has shown that our genetic make up has a stronger influence on our personality that child rearing; providing support for the 'nature' side of the argument. It has also been found that all the traits we inherit, including personality traits, are greatly influenced by our genetics and biology - further supporting the nature argument.
Nature vs nurture: how does our personality develop? - WorkStyle

So it is nature that forms the basis for personality traits and the environment can fine tune this into individual differences. Twins may inherit similar natural traits or abilities but the environment such as the relationships and social interactions or lack of them with parents and others or types of environments may cause differences in how this is expressed in each person. But even the types of environments before birth of parents can be an influence on biological outcomes IE mother stressed can effect growth of fetus.

So it is a complex mix of environment and biological influences.But in most articles I have read biological influences (nature) has just as much if not more of an influence than environment because it is there from the beginning and can only be fine tuned but never erased.

Too much stress for the mother affects the baby through amniotic fluid
Too much stress for the mother affects the baby through amniotic fluid

Besides I think like the feminism debate we had and gender roles are too fixed on one aspect of how families have broken down in society. Though important it would be good to get back to a broader view of what causes families to break down and how we can prevent it happening.

 

[Lazarus Long]

No I have said I am not forcing gender roles onto anyone. That doesn't deny there are gender roles. There is a big difference. You are misreading things.

There's the problem in this sentence. "Either you want to reduce us to our biology, or you don't". The fact that you keep thinking I want to reduce parents to biological gender behaviors highlights your misreading of what I am saying. Show me where I have said this.

Show me where I have said that we should promote gender essentialism.

You are creating a false dilemma logical fallacy because I have not promoted or supported the ideas you claim. Show me where I have.

At the end of the day you still haven't address the facts I have presented through many scientific articles that gender behaviour is influenced by biology such as with brain differences, hormones, genetics and the physical differences in bodies.

Are you interested in discussing the toxic masculinity displayed in some "traditional families"?

 

[stevevw]

Are you interested in discussing the toxic masculinity displayed in some "traditional families"?

I discussed toxic masculinity earlier in this thread if you want to go back and check it out. Starts about here #197 and continues to about here #247.
This page seems to have a lot of discussion about toxic masculinity. Jist search the word toxic masculinity.
The traditional family

 

[Paidiske]

No I have said I am not forcing gender roles onto anyone. That doesn't deny there are gender roles. There is a big difference. You are misreading things. Saying there are biological influences on gender behaviour is not pushing a particular gender role. It is merely acknowledging the influence. You equate mentioning biological gender behaviors with forced gender roles not me. That is your narrative not mine.

No, sorry, you yourself have used the term "gender roles" in this thread as something which should be promoted for the good of the family. You might not want to "force" them, but you're certainly not happy with a laissez-faire approach, seeing that as one of the causes of the problems you see in your work.

Show me where I have said that we should promote gender essentialism.

Steve, just about this entire thread has been about you pushing gender essentialism. You claim that men are one thing, women are another. We should go with what is "natural" and "best" according to our gender. And so on. That's gender essentialism in a nutshell.

At the end of the day you still haven't addressed the facts I have presented through many scientific articles that gender behaviour is influenced by biology such as with brain differences, hormones, genetics and the physical differences in bodies. Biology affects behaviour not just in gender roles by generally. It causes males and females to think and see things differently. This does not deny different personalities.

Well, I dispute that those "facts" are as well established as you like to think (although I saw you neatly dismiss the criticism of them that I did link to).

And given that I see the thrust of this argument as being basically an argument for oppression, I'm not really interested in indulging it. I'd rather note how harmful it is and refuse to engage for that reason.

Besides I think like the feminism debate we had and gender roles are too fixed on one aspect of how families have broken down in society. Though important it would be good to get back to a broader view of what causes families to break down and how we can prevent it happening.

I would be very happy to have a constructive discussion about how we can eradicate extreme poverty, which is seen as one of the leading contributors to family breakdown, rather than scapegoating "non-traditional" families.

 

[stevevw]

No, sorry, you yourself have used the term "gender roles" in this thread as something which should be promoted for the good of the family.

No that is where you are confusing the research showing what is best for kids with forcing parents into gender roles. The research I have provided is primarily all about what is best for kids. Because they happen to suggest that certain family setups are better than others does not mean ii is about gender roles. Besides society talks about gender roles all the time about what is best and what is not ie good and bad gender roles.

You might not want to "force" them, but you're certainly not happy with a laissez-faire approach, seeing that as one of the causes of the problems you see in your work.

Once again where have I said this. In fact, I have said the opposite which shows you are reading things into what I have said. IE
stevevw said
#259 It is just putting out there what is best for the family according to the science and giving people something to aim for if they choose. If they don't there is no crime.

#356 I think you will find that I have taken a balanced approach. IE support people/families as they are and where they are at. We need to consider all aspects and not just one. addressing the end results and the root causes. Taking a social justice approach #299 to the problem i.e. the system can sometimes be at fault and not the individual.

#530 I am not saying men and women should be restricted to certain roles and there should be no room to test and experiment.

Even you acknowledged that we are restricted to some extent by our biology in our gender roles when you said this. I said

stevevw said: ↑
“It is conflicting with nature when the self-identified or socially constructed overrides the biological”.
Then you said
Paidiske said
We can't override our biology; we have to live within it. What we don't have to do is use biology as an excuse to draw even narrower (social, cultural) confines in which people might live.

So isn’t that acknowledging that there is some narrowing of gender roles because of biological differences but we don’t want to take things to an extreme and make biology everything about controlling gender roles by making it even narrower. If so, that is exactly my position and something I have stated. IE

stevevw said
#550 Just because there are some very important biological differences does not mean we still can't allow individuality with talents or allow the opposite sex to do things that may have been socially constructed

You are creating an either and or logical fallacy by saying that there is either only biological influences which therefore means we must only be subject to nature or we have to totally be free to self-construct. It is a bit of both.

What I find ironic is that what you believe is a laissez-faire in society now is more restrictive and binding than what you think I am proposing. There are many regulations and policies which bind parents to certain roles and ways of behaving. I have gone through some already such as the way the government controls single parents by tightening their obligations to get work, the way the government does or does not support working mothers with their policies. The way the governments economic policies force couples to both work to make ends meet and buy a home to start a family. The governments policies on forcing children into foster care especially indigenous children which is well known etc.
Families, policy and the law
Families, policy and the law
Five Reasons Why Government Should Be Involved in Raising Kids
* Children have their own legal identities and interests—separate from their parents’—worthy of protection.
* The well-being of children affects not only them and their families but society as a whole.
* Parents don’t always make the appropriate sacrifices for their children.
* Parents sometimes lack the information needed to make the right decisions. They sometimes fail to grasp the link between early childhood experiences and positive outcomes in later life.
* Parents don’t always have the resources to invest in their children.
Five Reasons Why Government Should Be Involved in Raising Kids - Ideas Matter

Steve, just about this entire thread has been about you pushing gender essentialism. You claim that men are one thing, women are another. We should go with what is "natural" and "best" according to our gender. And so on. That's gender essentialism in a nutshell.

No once again you are putting words and thoughts in my head. I have said some biological differences occur which are associated with the brain, hormones, genetics and physiological differences. You have rejected all but the physiological. But I have supplied ample evidence for this which you have also rejected.

But a fair assessment for what I have said over this debate will show that I have given a balanced view of supporting both biological and socially constructed influences which is non-existentialist. IE

steve said
#259 I agree with sharing no matter what the setup.
I agree and people are smart and can work smarter and find ways to make it work. This is the reality of today's family life. I think we need more support for ideas outside the box that all parents to have the best of both worlds. People can choose what they want to do in a democratic society.
It is just putting out there what is best for the family according to the science and giving people something to aim for if they choose. If they don't there is no crime. But just like they put out what is best for a diet the reason is to help people have a better life.

Well, I dispute that those "facts" are as well established as you like to think (although I saw you neatly dismiss the criticism of them that I did link to).

And given that I see the thrust of this argument as being basically an argument for oppression, I'm not really interested in indulging it. I'd rather note how harmful it is and refuse to engage for that reason.

I would be very happy to have a constructive discussion about how we can eradicate extreme poverty, which is seen as one of the leading contributors to family breakdown, rather than scapegoating "non-traditional" families.

You have a right to reject my position but don't claim that your position is no more than personal opinion. Also don't claim that I am being oppressive when I have clearly shown that I support those who are disadvantaged and oppressed in my work. You are misreading things and attributing to me ideas I have clearly not said and have clearly shown I have taken a balanced view on this. IE in response to Hedrick’s post #120
hedrick said

In general I agree that two-parent families tend to be better. But policies or moral requirements to force that don't necessarily improve things, because one-parent families typically result from unfortunate situations where you want to look for the best possible result but not necessarily an ideal one.

stevevw
Yes I agree and in community development a social justice approach is best where those who are most disadvantaged need the most support because the focus is not on the personal reasons why people have ended up in that situation but that the system is basically unjust and oppressive and dis-empowers people. So, they need representation to help them get fair and equal access to opportunities in life.

 

[Paidiske]

Sorry, steve, I no longer perceive you to be engaging in this discussion in good faith, when you are denying what I can clearly see you have said in previous posts.

I'll be bowing out now.

 

[stevevw]

Sorry, steve, I no longer perceive you to be engaging in this discussion in good faith, when you are denying what I can clearly see you have said in previous posts.

I'll be bowing out now.

Fair enough, you have a right to your perception. Good debating with you.
Kind regards
Steve

 

[Rescued One]

The reason I created the thread is because I work with families and see the problems first hand. I see the single mum struggling ion their own. I see the unruly kids and the mum's not coping. I see the kids longing for a dad figure in their lives. So I get frustrated that these situations go on and on and the system actually creates the problems and want to change things for the better. That's all.

How do family problems get solved?

 

[stevevw]

How do family problems get solved?

Family problems can never be completely solved but we can make thing better. It all depends on what value you put on the family. But we can lend more support to keeping families together with family therapy and education, equipping parents to be better parents with knowledge and skills. Valuing the role of the father in child upbringing by supporting their role. Creating family friendly policies that help parents cope with working and looking after their kids, more flexible work environments etc.

We can not only promote positive family policies and support but we can not push anti-family friendly policies and measures. Like penalizing mum for wanting to stay home and look after their kids. However we see and value the family is how we will end up treating the family. All I know is now we have a big problem with family breakdowns and we need to do something.

Like why do families breakup so much. Is there something wrong with the way couples see or value their relationships. Can we change this so that coupes and families breakup less. There are a lot of ways to support families. We just have to stop and think about what is causing the problems and try to come up with some solutions.