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

[mkgal1]

What you are explaining is ideal, and not realistic over an entire spread of any nation that considers itself a "melting pot." There are too many cultures - many that are very old - that like the foundation. In a worldly sense in which everyone's culture is a carbon copy of cosmopolitanism, then it may work.

For example, if there actually existed a nation of Amazons, do you think 5'5" men would be considered symbols of strength? Or, would a group coming from a theocracy mentality appreciate liberal paganism? A country that has a history of patriarchal hegemony would not have an easy transition (if any) into gender equality. It would dissolve culture known for centuries, and present a new and unknown culture - which means uncertainty, which means fear. And, with that fear usually comes violence in physical, political, psychological, economic - some form.

I would think that being in a culture that's considered a melting pot would actually help promote equality, instead of it being a barrier or hindrance.

When the majority of people *are* similar (or are compelled to appear similar)....I'd imagine there's more of a "stand out" effect if someone comes in that appears "different". If the group is made up of many diverse cultures, then no one really stands out---you know what I mean?

IOW......in a sea of red roses.....one lone white rose is going to get noticed.

But....in a mixed bed of flowers....they all just sort of go together and blend.

 

[ValleyGal]

There are more than 100 varieties of roses, but they are still roses. If they were people, I don't really think they would be offended as being classed as a rose rather than each individual name.

Or you can classify them by colour.....the point is, there are classification systems and we all belong to them, no matter how individualistic you (or anyone) is.

ETA - in your flowerbed, you can bet that a violet will say "that's a rose, and roses grow thorns." That rose might be a wildrose (I'm not sure they have thorns, but they might). Still, it is not unreasonable for the violet to say a rose will grow a thorn. It is not unreasonable to say "that's a violet, so it will bloom purple and will remain short." Even if that violet is an inch taller than the other violets, it would be unreasonable for that violet to freak out "I'm an individual! I do NOT fit in with all the other violets because I'm taller!" The truth is, it's still a violet and will grow shorter than roses.

 

[vincenticus]

It all depends on how you qualify the word "better".

Some people think a wealthy, educated, technology-saturated society that's completely devoid of morals and honor is "better".

To each their own.

Why yes, I do happen to think a society that is objectively longer lived, healthier, more educated, more connected, and technologically advanced superior to waxing nostalgic about an unspecified (and non-existent) time in the past which followed your concepts of morality and honor.

Of course, to each their own. Quickly though, cause you were probably going to die of smallpox.

 

[mkgal1]

There are more than 100 varieties of roses, but they are still roses. If they were people, I don't really think they would be offended as being classed as a rose rather than each individual name.

That's actually my point.

There are many different kinds of men.....many different kinds of women---they are still men (even if they're different than the set standard)....and still women (even if they're outside of the set standard). I don't think there's any problem to call a man a man or a woman a woman. That's what I'm saying.

Or you can classify them by colour.....the point is, there are classification systems and we all belong to them, no matter how individualistic you (or anyone) is.

And that's fine---as long as the classification is based on truth--and not just a short-cut classification (like...."women are emotional"...."men have no emotions").

 

[Lollerskates]

I would think that being in a culture that's considered a melting pot would actually help promote equality, instead of be a barrier or hindrance.

When the majority of people *are* similar....I'd imagine there's more of a "stand out" effect if someone comes in that appears "different". If the group is made up of many diverse cultures, then no one really stands out---you know what I mean?

IOW......in a sea of red roses.....one lone white rose is going to get noticed.

But....in a mixed bed of flowers....they all just sort of go together and blend.

But, we are talking about culture and not roses. In other words, it would be interesting to hear how a white rose feels being in a sea of red roses, if it were possible. What trials, problems, shortcomings, and grand experiences befalls the white rose?

In the States, since there are so many cultures, normalization would be traumatic, as many individual cultures would not want to change for the "betterment" of the union, and would want to hold to their traditions no matter the perceived trajectory of "progress." For example, would you be willing to say a pledge to someone deemed a god other than the Most High? There is nothing new under the sun, and this type of progress has happened many times before. A melting pot is not ideal for equality, unless you regulate the amount of equality each person can have. Either be a Christian that is not too "Christiany," or be considered a religious zealot. Be for Women's rights, but not too for them - otherwise be considered a FemNazi. You cannot entertain any other extreme of your culture if you live in a place that entertains all cultures, but does not allow for extremity of either sides. This is especially true in a place like the States that thinks calling someone a name makes someone racist, not liking the activity of homosexual makes you homophobic, or hiring predominantly male firefighters makes you my misogynistic. In other words, when a region disallows extremes of cultures, and does not understand the true meaning of oppressive discourse and action, then anything not bounded by the "universal normalization" is deemed derogatory and offensive.

You can't have a culturally diverse nation in unity; it is contradictory.

 

[mkgal1]

To follow along with my flower metaphor......it would be like having the belief that in order for a rose to be considered a rose....it has to have thorns (and that's the guideline). No thorns, it's not a rose.

This rose has no thorns.....but, it's still a rose:

 

[mkgal1]

But, we are talking about culture and not roses. In other words, it would be interesting to hear how a white rose feels being in a sea of red roses, if it were possible. What trials, problems, shortcomings, and grand experiences befalls the white rose?

In the States, since there are so many cultures, normalization would be traumatic, as many individual cultures would not want to change for the "betterment" of the union, and would want to hold to their traditions no matter the perceived trajectory of "progress." For example, would you be willing to say a pledge to someone deemed a god other than the Most High? There is nothing new under the sun, and this type of progress has happened many times before. A melting pot is not ideal for equality, unless you regulate the amount of equality each person can have. Either be a Christian that is not too "Christiany," or be considered a religious zealot. Be for Women's rights, but not too for them - otherwise be considered a FemNazi. You cannot entertain any other extreme of your culture if you live in a place that entertains all cultures, but does not allow for extremity of either sides. This is especially true in a place like the States that thinks calling someone a name makes someone racist, not liking the activity of homosexual makes you homophobic, or hiring predominantly male firefighters makes you my misogynistic. In other words, when a region disallows extremes of cultures, and does not understand the true meaning of oppressive discourse and action, then anything not bounded by the "universal normalization" is deemed derogatory and offensive.

You can't have a culturally diverse nation in unity; it is contradictory.

Again.....I think you're misunderstanding what my stance is. I'm saying almost the exact opposite of what you're understanding me to say.

What we often have are attempts to homogenize people based on only two groups of people (men separate from women). Human traits are then divided up and sort of "assigned" to each gender....like a ration of some sort (she gets the "kind" and "gentle" traits....he gets the "strong" and "stoic" traits--for example). It's limiting. It boxes people in.

I agree with you, actually.....we are much more diverse than that.

Ironically.....by accepting that...I *do* believe there's more of a possibility to have more unity.

 

[Lollerskates]

Again.....I think you're misunderstanding what my stance is. I'm saying almost the exact opposite of what you're understanding me to say.

What we often have are attempts to homogenize people based on only two groups of people (men separate from women). Human traits are then divided up and sort of "assigned" to each gender....like a ration of some sort (she gets the "kind" and "gentle" traits....he gets the "strong" and "stoic" traits--for example). It's limiting. It boxes people in.

I agree with you, actually.....we are much more diverse than that.

Ironically.....by accepting that...I *do* believe there's more of a possibility to have more unity.

Well I won't write another essay, but I do think we genuinely disagree on one point: I do not think diversity generates any unity. Quite the contrary.

Although, I do understand your point. I just think it is idealistic, and not realizable.

 

[mkgal1]

it would be interesting to hear how a white rose feels being in a sea of red roses, if it were possible

I do think it's possible to hear that perspective.

Ana the 1st described (back on page 3 of this thread) one way that some men are considered a bit of a "white rose in a sea of red roses"-- when men are expected to follow certain sports (like football and baseball)....not tennis. If you want a conversation stopper---that's a good one. Just mention that you (as a man) don't really follow *any* sport, and see how suddenly most men will back away from you.....slowly...as if you just sprouted two extra heads or something.

 

[mkgal1]

Well I won't write another essay, but I do think we genuinely disagree on one point: I do not think diversity generates any unity. Quite the contrary.

Diversity...on its own....probably doesn't generate unity. I agree. All you end up with are factions.

But...if there is acceptance of diversity...and biases are removed (that's probably the greatest key)....*then* I do believe unity may happen.

 

[mkgal1]

I think that Chip Ingram describes this very well (about the biases we all have):

You look at life through a lens that came from parents, and grandparents, and where you came from, and the part of the country, or the part of the world.

Second, apart from interaction outside our group, we grow up assuming our view accurately defines reality. You’re a little kid and you don’t know any better. And they say, “This is what’s true about black people. This is what’s true about those white people. This is what’s true about people from the South. You know those people from California, what they’re like? Well, here’s how rich people are. Well, you know those homeless people, what their real problem is? They need to…”

All those things are implanted into your mind. And you assume, unless you get outside your world, your group, and your box, that your view really is in alignment with reality.

Third, generations of socialization and indoctrination create barriers, at best, and hatred at worst, with those that are different from ourselves.~Agenda # 5 - Perpetuate Prejudice, Part 1

I believe the same thing can happen between the genders.

 

[Lollerskates]

Diversity...on its own....probably doesn't generate unity. I agree. All you end up with are factions.

But...if there is acceptance of diversity...and biases are removed (that's probably the greatest key)....*then* I do believe unity may happen.

As do I, which is why even though I agree with your last paragraph, I still think it is idealized. It will never happened until all is perfected. It doesn't mean I am right; I hope the world proves my cynicism wrong ten fold. I genuinely hope for that.

 

[mkgal1]

As do I, which is why even though I agree with your last paragraph, I still think it is idealized. It will never happened until all is perfected. It doesn't mean I am right; I hope the world proves my cynicism wrong ten fold. I genuinely hope for that.

I'm not holding my breath, expecting it to happen....but I'm genuinely surprised that so many people have almost a repulsion towards the idea---let alone see it as a good thing. IOW.....instead of others seeing gender equality as having *anything* to do with "things being perfected"....they see it as just the opposite (as you can see by the responses in this thread).

 

[ValleyGal]

That's actually my point.

There are many different kinds of men.....many different kinds of women---they are still men (even if they're different than the set standard)....and still women (even if they're outside of the set standard). I don't think there's any problem to call a man a man or a woman a woman. That's what I'm saying.


And that's fine---as long as the classification is based on truth--and not just a short-cut classification (like...."women are emotional"...."men have no emotions").

But we are emotional. Not only that, but we are also more expressive than men. That is not to suggest that ALL women are more emotional than ALL men. There is NO ONE on earth who believes that every stereotype applies to all people in a given group - that would be foolish and immature.

FTR, men have emotions, but they do not have the same brain structure as women to facilitate expression of those emotions as easily as we do. Again, that does not mean ALL men can't express as well as ALL women. But these are generally true statements.

It makes no sense for someone to become so defensive about being cast with a stereotype that is common to a given group. I am not an emotionally expressive person. Do I get upset when I hear the stereotype about "emotional women"? No. Why? Because almost all my female friends are very emotional and sensitive and expressive about it. So I know the stereotype is true....I just happen to be one of the diverse ones within the group. So be it....but I don't need to get all huffy and say that the stereotype is wrong and we should not label and we need to embrace diversity and not to paint me with that same brush....imo, that is truly unnecessary and does nothing more than prove to me that this person has some real issues to work out.....just like ALL of us.

 

[Lollerskates]

I'm not holding my breath, expecting it to happen....but I'm genuinely surprised that so many people have almost a repulsion towards the idea---let alone see it as a good thing. IOW.....instead of others seeing gender equality as having *anything* to do with "things being perfected"....they see it as just the opposite (as you can see by the responses in this thread).

That is unfortunate. I personally have never thought as women being unequal. Each sex has different "powers and abilities." It upsets me that this thread is even relevant. If this was a perfect world, the resounding answer would be a yes, and the page would have ended in two pages at most. Intrinsic equality between sexes should be inherently known. Abilities are something different that can diversely define INDIVIDUALS, not a sex. And, certainly not the measure of a sex's equality.

 

[mkgal1]

That is unfortunate. I personally have never thought as women being unequal. Each sex has different "powers and abilities." It upsets me that this thread is even relevant. If this was a perfect world, the resounding answer would be a yes, and the page would have ended in two pages at most. Intrinsic equality between sexes should be inherently known. Abilities are something different that can diversely define INDIVIDUALS, not a sex. And, certainly not the measure of a sex's equality.

I agree---thanks for your input.

 

[mkgal1]

But we are emotional. Not only that, but we are also more expressive than men. That is not to suggest that ALL women are more emotional than ALL men. There is NO ONE on earth who believes that every stereotype applies to all people in a given group - that would be foolish and immature.

FTR, men have emotions, but they do not have the same brain structure as women to facilitate expression of those emotions as easily as we do. Again, that does not mean ALL men can't express as well as ALL women. But these are generally true statements.

It makes no sense for someone to become so defensive about being cast with a stereotype that is common to a given group. I am not an emotionally expressive person. Do I get upset when I hear the stereotype about "emotional women"? No. Why? Because almost all my female friends are very emotional and sensitive and expressive about it. So I know the stereotype is true....I just happen to be one of the diverse ones within the group. So be it....but I don't need to get all huffy and say that the stereotype is wrong and we should not label and we need to embrace diversity and not to paint me with that same brush....imo, that is truly unnecessary and does nothing more than prove to me that this person has some real issues to work out.....just like ALL of us.

No one is getting "huffy" that I know of.

However.....my point is that general stereotypes that cause us to size up other people (instead of their individual attributes) are not helpful. I gave the obvious ones earlier---like how women used to be considered the natural nurturers and child custody was based on that belief. Mothers can be narcissistic....and fathers can be wonderful single parents. When looking at individuals.....what's the use in trying to apply general rules---especially if they prove to be untrue in those cases? Doesn't that cause extra "work"?

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Okay, let's address this one by one.

To me...it seems like knocking down the typical stereotypes (like the narrow definitions of what it means to be "feminine" and "masculine") would be a *good* thing---a liberating thing---that would offer *more* choices....more ability to "color outside the lines" so to speak and still be accepted.

On the surface, this is good and liberating. The ability to "color outside the lines" is certainly something that we hear culturally, and something that has been coming into the Evangelical church. However, knocking down the typical stereotypes also affects those who fit the stereotypes. So the question I have is: for those that fit "the narrow definitions of what it means to be 'feminine' and 'masculine'", what does "gender equality" mean for them? Typically they are not seen as part of the "equality" paradigm because they stick to older norms.

Doesn't it emasculate men to have the idea that the bigger and stronger....less emotional kind of guy that has an occupation like lumberjack is more of a man than a guy that has an ectomorph build...is a writer/poet that is fluent in both articulating and being aware of his own emotions as well as the emotions of those he loves....and has no interest in sports?

No. One would have to be in the mind of a man to understand that men (culturally) have made a shift in what it means to be a man. Imo, the typical "man in construction" is considered just as much a man as one who is in fine arts. Same for one who is more or less emotionally available. But this goes back to my previous point. Is the "construction guy" who is less emotionally available excluded from the gender equality paradigm? And if he is, then it's not truly equality.

Wouldn't it be better for everyone if those ideas were something of the past?

I don't know. It would depend if we accept all as equal, no matter their gender role or stereotype. The OP doesn't suggest that.

What about child custody after a divorce? If the typical idea that women are the nurturers was taken off the table (which I think it has, in a lot of courts---thankfully) isn't that better for everyone? Shouldn't that be judged on more than just gender? Isn't there such thing as women that *aren't* the best sole custodial parent?

I agree with you here. The courts may well be interested in both parents being custodial - and if so that's a cultural shift for the positive. I wonder, though, how much fathers actually fight for this as opposed to simply acquiescing to lawyers that push for the mother having custody because they are the "more fit" parent. That's something I think needs more study.

That's just the obvious things that come to mind.....but it really seems like more of a positive for everyone to be judged without these stereotypes than any possible negatives.

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

Are there even negatives?

I think I've covered a few.

 

[ValleyGal]

No one is getting "huffy" that I know of.

However.....my point is that general stereotypes that cause us to size up other people (instead of their individual attributes) are not helpful. I gave the obvious ones earlier---like how women used to be considered the natural nurturers and child custody was based on that belief. Mothers can be narcissistic....and fathers can be wonderful single parents. When looking at individuals.....what's the use in trying to apply general rules---especially if they prove to be untrue in those cases? Doesn't that cause extra "work"?

I never suggested anyone got huffy. I said *I* don't get all huffy....

First impressions require us to have a way (construct) of categorizing and sizing people up. Not only do we have our own internal biases going on, but we are also subconsciously aware of their micro expressions and body language, which is given on the part of the person being stereotyped - what have they "internalized" as a stereotype?

Iow, an overweight person can internalize that heavy people are lazy and unintelligent based on today's stereotype, or they can internalize the "jolly" overweight person - and their internal belief will come out in how they present themselves, contributing to another person's perception of them. This will either add to, take away from, or neutralize a social bias.

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

 

[mkgal1]

On the surface, this is good and liberating. The ability to "color outside the lines" is certainly something that we hear culturally, and something that has been coming into the Evangelical church. However, knocking down the typical stereotypes also affects those who fit the stereotypes. So the question I have is: for those that fit "the narrow definitions of what it means to be 'feminine' and 'masculine'", what does "gender equality" mean for them? Typically they are not seen as part of the "equality" paradigm because they stick to older norms.

For those that fit within the typical definition----they'd still fit. The "lines" have only been broadened in order to allow more people in.

Like my rose metaphor. Not all roses have thorns, so a thorn-less rose shouldn't be left out or excluded from the group---it's still a rose. Same thing as a man who doesn't like football.....he shouldn't be excluded from the group "real men" because of that.