What do you think of the male gender role?

[notN2pussy]

I don't mind killing the bug

 

[ronin001]

The male Gender, / gender roll has done pretty well for me thus far in life

 

[Abraram]

Can you give some specific examples?

Sure. At least in Western societies (which have sadly contaminated virtually all others throughout centuries of imperialism), the role of men is defined by a bunch of expected traits and attitudes, both positive and negative, yet when either ones aren't met, society judges in two radically diferent ways. I'll explain. The positive traits are hardly exclusive of the male figure. What are the qualities of a man? To be strong, intelligent, hard-working, responsible, brave, independent, and so on. But all these characteristics are expected from any adult, actually, especially in the 21st century thanks to the feminist and equal rights movements. After all, no one expects women to be dumb, lazy, irresponsible, cowardly and ever-relying on a man, at least not anymore. However, since women are still viewed by some as the weaker gender, if they lack any of these qualities, that's fine, we say, they aren't perfect. But if it is a man who fails, then he's either a feeble man or not a man at all, he needs to man up!

Let's talk now about the negative ones, which are loaded with an even worse hypocrisy. Men are (have to be, that is) stoic, untidy, promiscuous, prone to getting drunk, aggressive, etc. Those aren't just any adult's defects, but specifically masculine ones. Society "hates" men being like that, yet it expects them to be like that anyway, or their masculinity is unavoidably put into question. A man who openly expresses his feelings? Crybaby. He likes to take care of himself? Queer. He's chaste? Fag. Doesn't drink? Wimp. Avoids fights? Sissy! So, in essence, in a Western society you can be a reasonably good man by trying to get as many good points as you can, as well as by embracing and acting accordingly to your expected flaws, or you're no man at all. You can pretend these flaws trouble you, but you shouldn't get rid of them entirely. Your a man, after all...

That's why I kinda hate the word "man" ("hombre" in Spanish), and whenever I have to talk about myself and specify my gender, I rather use the word "male" ("varón" in Spanish), which happens not to be so heavily loaded with this cultural nonsense!

 

[Nudistpig]

I don't define gender. I see a narrow societal indoctrination/definition of gender vs. individuals whose experience/definition of their own selves may be much broader or more fluid than the narrow gender norm. This leads to "enforcement and repression" by the societal whole vs. the individual. I agree that that repression and enforcement is wrong. It exists because so many people cannot or will not think outside the box of their social indoctrination.

For example, XY makes me male biologically. An empathic personality type makes me seem more effeminate to many but that's just a gender stereotype of a human personality characteristic which is neither male or female nor masculine or feminine. Doesn't matter. In the minds of many I am suspect because my personality violates the rules for what it is to be male.

Rejecting all gender stereotypes makes me human. I am a human in a male body.

Im cool with that. Im not there yet for a variety of reasons. For me, definitions serve as guidelines to possible expression beyond. i get they are and can be hegemonic. I also grew up deeply gender queer so Ive had plenty of time with the normative. Claiming my space has come at a price. Do I want to be human in this way? Not sure.

 

[Nudistpig]

Quack quack quack quack quack quack quack. This is hilarious bullshit.

You're up to your usual complete lack of argument or substance. Do you or do you not understand natural selection? Human beings are the result of genetics and environment. If your diet is excellent, you may reach your genetically determined maximum height. If it is not, you may not. In this case, when the genes for height are not fully expressed in the phenotype, environment is the issue. All that makes a person a person is genetically coded and environmentally mediated. Those things never ever ever optimize.

 

[Nudistpig]

I know, but Gender is also a physical construct as well as social. Our psychological makeups differ between the sexes, to a good extent because our male and female brains have physical differences that affect how we think and behave. Gender is far from exclusively social, because our psychology is influenced by the physical makeup of our brains.

No, the physical constructs of gender are no different than any other mental structure which is to say they are grey matter embodies. Gender as a concept is, over the last 10k years remarkably NOT related to cognitive differences between male and female brains because that is sexual dimorphism. Gender is a shared cultural concept that DEALS with the male and the female but is not constituted of it biologically. Gender is not related to sex in that one is an idea or a concept and the other is a biological system. We assume it is because we mistake one for the other as you have here.

 

[Nudistpig]

We are all fully expressed. We are our DNA, it is inescapable by surgery, social whim, or *any* outside influence. But being fully expressed in no way implies perfection...the very nature of the natural world dictates that perfection both exists and is impossible...all life evolves to adapt to its environment, which changes constantly. So we are both perfect and imperfect....a perpetual Beta test for a project whose specification is never stabilized.

No, we're not. It's why people are taller now than a century ago. DNA is not immutable. There are any number of things that can affect (illness, trauma, radiation, malnourishment etc). The term "expressed" relates to the way in which genes realize their code in the phenotype they produce. Twin studies are a good place to look to see how this is so.

 

[Chrysippus]

You're up to your usual complete lack of argument or substance. Do you or do you not understand natural selection? Human beings are the result of genetics and environment. If your diet is excellent, you may reach your genetically determined maximum height. If it is not, you may not. In this case, when the genes for height are not fully expressed in the phenotype, environment is the issue. All that makes a person a person is genetically coded and environmentally mediated. Those things never ever ever optimize.

Not worth a reply.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

Sure. At least in Western societies (which have sadly contaminated virtually all others throughout centuries of imperialism), the role of men is defined by a bunch of expected traits and attitudes, both positive and negative, yet when either ones aren't met, society judges in two radically diferent ways. I'll explain. The positive traits are hardly exclusive of the male figure. What are the qualities of a man? To be strong, intelligent, hard-working, responsible, brave, independent, and so on. But all these characteristics are expected from any adult, actually, especially in the 21st century thanks to the feminist and equal rights movements. After all, no one expects women to be dumb, lazy, irresponsible, cowardly and ever-relying on a man, at least not anymore. However, since women are still viewed by some as the weaker gender, if they lack any of these qualities, that's fine, we say, they aren't perfect. But if it is a man who fails, then he's either a feeble man or not a man at all, he needs to man up!

Let's talk now about the negative ones, which are loaded with an even worse hypocrisy. Men are (have to be, that is) stoic, untidy, promiscuous, prone to getting drunk, aggressive, etc. Those aren't just any adult's defects, but specifically masculine ones. Society "hates" men being like that, yet it expects them to be like that anyway, or their masculinity is unavoidably put into question. A man who openly expresses his feelings? Crybaby. He likes to take care of himself? Queer. He's chaste? Fag. Doesn't drink? Wimp. Avoids fights? Sissy! So, in essence, in a Western society you can be a reasonably good man by trying to get as many good points as you can, as well as by embracing and acting accordingly to your expected flaws, or you're no man at all. You can pretend these flaws trouble you, but you shouldn't get rid of them entirely. Your a man, after all...

That's why I kinda hate the word "man" ("hombre" in Spanish), and whenever I have to talk about myself and specify my gender, I rather use the word "male" ("varón" in Spanish), which happens not to be so heavily loaded with this cultural nonsense!

Other than the drinking, which is forbidden in Muslim societies, how do these expectations differ in Eastern cultures. I'm not seeing much if any real difference in male expectation, and nearly zero crossover to female role expectations in the last century. So I don't see any reason to single out the West.

 

[Nudistpig]

Not worth a reply.

So no, the answer is you do not. At some point you will have to actually try an argument.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

No, we're not. It's why people are taller now than a century ago. DNA is not immutable. There are any number of things that can affect (illness, trauma, radiation, malnourishment etc). The term "expressed" relates to the way in which genes realize their code in the phenotype they produce. Twin studies are a good place to look to see how this is so.

You are totally missing my point, which isn't substantially different than yours. In saying that we are our DNA, I'm saying that our bodies, including our brains are built to the exact spec our DNA calls out. In that regard we are indeed fully realized. We are of course not perfect in relation to our environment...evolution is a constantl state of playing catch-up. We adapt when there's a DNA mutation that succeeds *and* is passed down.

Because the male and female brains have numerous differences, gender is partially physical, the "hardwiring" or "firmware" that can't be changed, and partially environmental, the "software", which changes throughout a life.

Claiming that gender is entirely environmental would be as wrong as claiming that sexual orientation is entirely environmental and can be "fixed".

 

[Nudistpig]

You are totally missing my point, which isn't substantially different than yours. In saying that we are our DNA, I'm saying that our bodies, including our brains are built to the exact spec our DNA calls out. In that regard we are indeed fully realized. We are of course not perfect in relation to our environment...evolution is a constantl state of playing catch-up.

Because the male and female brains have numerous differences, gender is partially physical, the "hardwiring" or "firmware" that can't be changed, and partially environmental, the "software", which changes throughout a life.

Claiming that gender is entirely environmental would be as wrong as claiming that sexual orientation is entirely environmental and can be "fixed".

This is still not quite correct. Our bodies are never built to the EXACT specs that our DNA permits. We are not as tall, not as fast, do not absorb as much oxygen or are as fertile as the DNA calls for. Of course we are fully realized in the sense that we are full beings. But we do not represent the full potential of the code. This side section is rather tedious because someone doesn't understand the basic term "expressed" and has decided to carry on about it for pages.

Social sciences do not use the term gender to apply to the dimorphic aspects of the brain (this is sex). More recent fine grained imaging and large dataset analysis seems to be pointing to the fact that gender is in fact not visible at the level of the brain's variations, and that the distinctions we make are not as clear as we thought. I'm not sold on this, but neither do I hold to the idea that gender is 100% environmental. I don't know where that is coming from, as I have never claimed that.

What you are saying is gender for my field (and all the humanities) is sex. Once the term gender refers to the socially constructed aspects of how humans see differences, what I am saying is clearer I hope. So yes, there is a relationship between gender and sex, between ideas about ladies and gents and the things that are different between us in our brains, but it remains murky and complicated.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

This is still not quite correct. Our bodies are never built to the EXACT specs that our DNA permits. We are not as tall, not as fast, do not absorb as much oxygen or are as fertile as the DNA calls for. Of course we are fully realized in the sense that we are full beings. But we do not represent the full potential of the code. This side section is rather tedious because someone doesn't understand the basic term "expressed" and has decided to carry on about it for pages.

Social sciences do not use the term gender to apply to the dimorphic aspects of the brain (this is sex). More recent fine grained imaging and large dataset analysis seems to be pointing to the fact that gender is in fact not visible at the level of the brain's variations, and that the distinctions we make are not as clear as we thought. I'm not sold on this, but neither do I hold to the idea that gender is 100% environmental. I don't know where that is coming from, as I have never claimed that.

What you are saying is gender for my field (and all the humanities) is sex. Once the term gender refers to the socially constructed aspects of how humans see differences, what I am saying is clearer I hope. So yes, there is a relationship between gender and sex, between ideas about ladies and gents and the things that are different between us in our brains, but it remains murky and complicated.

I'm not saying gender is sex. I'm saying that gender and sex are neither mutually inclusive nor mutually exclusive. Each has an influence on the other, so-to-speak. And indeed it is still, to science, a complicated murky thing. We've made great strides in understanding how the brain works, but clearly are far closer to the beginning than the end of our knowledge.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

Not worth a reply.

^^^^^^^Virtual white flag^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Nudistpig]

I'm not saying gender is sex. I'm saying that gender and sex are neither mutually inclusive nor mutually exclusive. Each has an influence on the other, so-to-speak. And indeed it is still, to science, a complicated murky thing. We've made great strides in understanding how the brain works, but clearly are far closer to the beginning than the end of our knowledge.

Well this is reasonable and rational.

 

[Chrysippus]

^^^^^^^Virtual white flag^^^^^^^^^^

My original post is still my opinion:
‘Gender roles? Have no idea what those are. There are physical differences between men and women, and Gender roles? Have no idea what those are. There are physical differences between men and women, and IMHO what is ’maleness ’ or ‘masculinity’ is socially and culturally conditioned and how individuals respond to the conditioning..’

 

[Abraram]

Other than the drinking, which is forbidden in Muslim societies, how do these expectations differ in Eastern cultures. I'm not seeing much if any real difference in male expectation, and nearly zero crossover to female role expectations in the last century. So I don't see any reason to single out the West.

Actually, Islam is one of the main Abrahamanic religions, alongside Judaism and Christianity, so regardless of how hard Muslims try to distance themselves from the West, they are in essence the same. If you go further East into Asia, or deep into the Americas' ancient cultures, you can find more original societal structures where the roles and expectations of each gender aren't the same as in the West. But as I pointed out at the beginning of my previous post, most of these societies have been contaminated by the expansion of Western powers. Only a handfull have survived to the present day, for example, their location up in the Himalayas shielded Nepalese people from the influence of British colonialism, unlike most of India, and to this day, old practices like polyandry still exist in those mountanous regions. In my homecountry's state of Oaxaca live the ancient Zapotec people, in whose society three genders are recognised (men, women and muxes), and it's only recently, with the expansion of the Catholic Mexican-mestizo (a mixture of Mesoamerican and Spanish) culture, that their traditional societal structure at risk of dying out. That's why I single out the West, my friend.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

Actually, Islam is one of the main Abrahamanic religions, alongside Judaism and Christianity, so regardless of how hard Muslims try to distance themselves from the West, they are in essence the same. If you go further East into Asia, or deep into the Americas' ancient cultures, you can find more original societal structures where the roles and expectations of each gender aren't the same as in the West. But as I pointed out at the beginning of my previous post, most of these societies have been contaminated by the expansion of Western powers. Only a handfull have survived to the present day, for example, their location up in the Himalayas shielded Nepalese people from the influence of British colonialism, unlike most of India, and to this day, old practices like polyandry still exist in those mountanous regions. In my homecountry's state of Oaxaca live the ancient Zapotec people, in whose society three genders are recognised (men, women and muxes), and it's only recently, with the expansion of the Catholic Mexican-mestizo (a mixture of Mesoamerican and Spanish) culture, that their traditional societal structure at risk of dying out. That's why I single out the West, my friend.

These expectations predate Western colonialism by centuries.

 

[malakos]

These expectations predate Western colonialism by centuries.

Inside, and outside, the West. In cultures following Abrahamic religions, and others not. As more typical of civilized cultures in general, really.

This is a really poor example of trying to apply a critical eye to Western civ.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

Inside, and outside, the West. In cultures following Abrahamic religions, and others not. As more typical of civilized cultures in general, really.

This is a really poor example of trying to apply a critical eye to Western civ.

Well, to be clear I dislike arguing religion only slightly less than arguing politics. Note that you've never seen me in the Poli forum except when I spotted wally stating he wished to commit suicide just before Christmas.

At any rate, Abraram's post reeked of seeking an excuse to bash the West. We've wandered *way* too far afield of this thread's topic.