Masculinity v. Femininity
- Thread starter Amara
- Start date
I was talking about liberal feminism since it has been the most influential, I have a lot of respect for most strands of feminism but have a great disslike for liberal feminism. Obviously I agree with Marxist-feminists, and would consider myself a Marxist-Feminist (but a Marxists first and foremost)
peace
MX!
peace
MX!
This thread has almost been abandoned. Let me try to keep it going a little longer with my two cents.
There are innate biological differences between the genders that determine their roles to some extent. Yet due to a bizarre form of political correctness, there's a popular notion that it's somehow chauvinistic even to hint that any innate differences exist.
What most ppl don't get, including professionals, is that innate differences can be acknowledged without interpreting those differences in a manner which reinforces gender stereotypes. It shouldn't be a question of either/or. Either deny innate sex differences, or use sex differences as a justification for maintaining traditional sex roles.
The cultural and professional failure to recognize sex difference in child development has done substantial harm over the past thirty years. Stuck in a mentality that refuses to recognize innate, biologically programmed differences between boys and girls, many educators and policymakers don't fully appreciate that boys and girls enter the classroom with different needs, different abilities, and different goals.
Gender is not socially constructed but is an innate biological characteristic. Gender runs to the core of human identity and social meaning—in part because it’s biologically primed and connected to differences in brain structure and function, and in part because it’s so deeply implicated in the transition to adulthood.
One hundred years from now, scholars may look back at the disintegration of early twenty-first century culture and conclude that a fundamental cause for the unraveling of our social fabric was the neglect of gender in the raising of our children. We offer kids no guidance about what it means to be an adult woman or an adult man. No other culture has ever abandoned young ppl making the transition to a gendered adulthood as completely as the current postindustrial societies of North America, Western Europe, and Australia/New Zealand.
We need to create a society that has the courage and wisdom to cherish and celebrate the innate differences between the sexes while at the same time enabling equal opportunities for everyone.
There are innate biological differences between the genders that determine their roles to some extent. Yet due to a bizarre form of political correctness, there's a popular notion that it's somehow chauvinistic even to hint that any innate differences exist.
What most ppl don't get, including professionals, is that innate differences can be acknowledged without interpreting those differences in a manner which reinforces gender stereotypes. It shouldn't be a question of either/or. Either deny innate sex differences, or use sex differences as a justification for maintaining traditional sex roles.
The cultural and professional failure to recognize sex difference in child development has done substantial harm over the past thirty years. Stuck in a mentality that refuses to recognize innate, biologically programmed differences between boys and girls, many educators and policymakers don't fully appreciate that boys and girls enter the classroom with different needs, different abilities, and different goals.
Gender is not socially constructed but is an innate biological characteristic. Gender runs to the core of human identity and social meaning—in part because it’s biologically primed and connected to differences in brain structure and function, and in part because it’s so deeply implicated in the transition to adulthood.
One hundred years from now, scholars may look back at the disintegration of early twenty-first century culture and conclude that a fundamental cause for the unraveling of our social fabric was the neglect of gender in the raising of our children. We offer kids no guidance about what it means to be an adult woman or an adult man. No other culture has ever abandoned young ppl making the transition to a gendered adulthood as completely as the current postindustrial societies of North America, Western Europe, and Australia/New Zealand.
We need to create a society that has the courage and wisdom to cherish and celebrate the innate differences between the sexes while at the same time enabling equal opportunities for everyone.
Who is denying sex difference? It is a reality that no-one can deny. And we do not neglect gender - gender is all around us, we have certain images in our minds from the outset of socialisation what it is that we as men and women are to provide. Gender is alive and well, as evident for one, by certain views on this board.
I see the roles changing, I see less of a need for segregation as a result of modernisation. That does not lessen in any sense the worth that various sexual characteristics bring, nor does it affect the fact that children will always be raised in gendered forms. The ability to broaden ones perspective and view gender outside its narrowly constructed form, in my opinion is better for society as identity is less restricted, there is room for personal and subjective development rather than enforced guidelines which tell us who we are and what our role in this society is.
I guess that is where construction comes in, I think certain gender characteristics go beyond that which is natural or biological.... some of those distinctions are built on questionable premises to me. It is not my natural instinct to want to nurture in my passive, domestic environment. I have ambition and desire to achieve in the public realm....thus my so called "natural" role is foreign to me, it was not constructed into my immediate value system. Mine is quite different. That does not ruin the gender role, that role still exists and is there, but my horizons have been opened for achievement in a sense that is fulfilling for me, as an individual.
I see the roles changing, I see less of a need for segregation as a result of modernisation. That does not lessen in any sense the worth that various sexual characteristics bring, nor does it affect the fact that children will always be raised in gendered forms. The ability to broaden ones perspective and view gender outside its narrowly constructed form, in my opinion is better for society as identity is less restricted, there is room for personal and subjective development rather than enforced guidelines which tell us who we are and what our role in this society is.
I guess that is where construction comes in, I think certain gender characteristics go beyond that which is natural or biological.... some of those distinctions are built on questionable premises to me. It is not my natural instinct to want to nurture in my passive, domestic environment. I have ambition and desire to achieve in the public realm....thus my so called "natural" role is foreign to me, it was not constructed into my immediate value system. Mine is quite different. That does not ruin the gender role, that role still exists and is there, but my horizons have been opened for achievement in a sense that is fulfilling for me, as an individual.
Of course there is a wide variety within one sex with regard to individuals' presentation of gender traits. Some men are more feminine than masculine; some women are more masculine than feminine. My point is the fact that there are gender variations does not mean that those variations are socially constructed. You may not be saying they are, but most books written about this subject do. They are based less on fact, and more on the authors' personal beliefs or political agendas.
So, yes, you can be female and not be that nurturing and be more career-oriented. But since an argument of mine is that for the past thirty years or so, gender has been neglected in the raising of children, ironically, your not being that nurturing may very well be a consequence of that neglect. So instead of it not having been "constructed into your immediate value system;" rather, you were not exposed to what was natural to your gender. I'm not saying this is the case with you. But we have no way of knowing what is a natural variation for us and what was socially constructed or destructed in us. My point is simply that there are real variations between the sexes that are distinct in general.
So, yes, you can be female and not be that nurturing and be more career-oriented. But since an argument of mine is that for the past thirty years or so, gender has been neglected in the raising of children, ironically, your not being that nurturing may very well be a consequence of that neglect. So instead of it not having been "constructed into your immediate value system;" rather, you were not exposed to what was natural to your gender. I'm not saying this is the case with you. But we have no way of knowing what is a natural variation for us and what was socially constructed or destructed in us. My point is simply that there are real variations between the sexes that are distinct in general.
Has it been neglected though? Or just taken on a varied and more open form? I guess I see there are more positives in less strictly construed gender environment than there are negatives... like I said because it allows me choice which I wouldnt have in my 'natural' gender form.
I think it is a tribute to modernisation and as you may call it, 'gender neglect' that we can have masculine women and feminine men.... I'd imagine there was less acceptance of such characteristics thirty years ago to the point that it confused identity and lead people to believe they were lesser individuals, or quite simply 'not normal' if the gender roles were not adhered to. People were conditioned to believe, perhaps against their instincts that to be normal is to be a certain type of 'boy' or 'girl' - to do certain things, act in certain ways etc. I guess that is why I see it as not necessarily natural, because like MX meantioned in regards to that study, we are treated certain ways and expected to do certain things as we grow up and thus fit a particular social model.
I guess ultimately there is no way to determine what is constructed or natural... still it is just a matter of not taking our socialised forms for granted, rather than accepting gender as given - critically assessing its origin.
I think it is a tribute to modernisation and as you may call it, 'gender neglect' that we can have masculine women and feminine men.... I'd imagine there was less acceptance of such characteristics thirty years ago to the point that it confused identity and lead people to believe they were lesser individuals, or quite simply 'not normal' if the gender roles were not adhered to. People were conditioned to believe, perhaps against their instincts that to be normal is to be a certain type of 'boy' or 'girl' - to do certain things, act in certain ways etc. I guess that is why I see it as not necessarily natural, because like MX meantioned in regards to that study, we are treated certain ways and expected to do certain things as we grow up and thus fit a particular social model.
I guess ultimately there is no way to determine what is constructed or natural... still it is just a matter of not taking our socialised forms for granted, rather than accepting gender as given - critically assessing its origin.
How do you see that more masculine women & more feminine men are a tribute to modernisation? Maybe you & i see things differently, but what kind of things do you see as "masculinating" a woman? What can make a man feminine? It seems to me that youre mixing up acceptance of people in general/their genders to accepting their sexuality.
The differences between the genders have always been there & its due to their biological differences & makeup (as has been said). However 'masculine' a woman can be, she's still going to be "emotional" due to something such as pms (for example). Her biological makeup is what attributed the "role" to her & no amount of modernisation will remove that. The views that were around 30, 50 or 80 years ago regarding capabilities have changed & i see that as a good thing & thats what i see as the "tribute to modernisation".
The differences between the genders have always been there & its due to their biological differences & makeup (as has been said). However 'masculine' a woman can be, she's still going to be "emotional" due to something such as pms (for example). Her biological makeup is what attributed the "role" to her & no amount of modernisation will remove that. The views that were around 30, 50 or 80 years ago regarding capabilities have changed & i see that as a good thing & thats what i see as the "tribute to modernisation".
Characteristics that are evident in literature and society in general that declared what it is to be masculine or feminine have changed as society has undergone a process of modernisation. Women entering the workforce and public office - primarily male dominated areas, particularly the political.... women in the armed forces. Stay at home dads. The 'sensitive new age guy.' Small examples of how gender roles are opening up, the categorisation is less distinct. It has nothing to do with sexuality. It is the advancement of society beyond the restricted notions of what we are and are not 'supposed' be like. I'm not denying biology, I'm not denying difference. That was clear. But what I see as a positive aspect of modernisation is that people like me can advance ourselves as we would see fit as individuals in addition to being a woman rather than being restricted solely to what the 'natural' role determines. In any case, my point was about construction and how that shapes and determines our perceived roles.
I agree with Amara, to believe that masculinity and femininity arn't manupilated by the media is wrong, they are social constructions that inform us of our gender role...biology doesn't determine that image. Plus the media is a lot more plural, many different intepretations of both gender roles have been made, there isn't a set mould for either.
Gender is sociological, Sex is biological - Its better not to confuse the two.
-MX
Gender is sociological, Sex is biological - Its better not to confuse the two.
-MX
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.