What qualities and/or behaviours do you think are inherent to males and females of our species, as opposed to learned? ...And is there anything in particular you think should be unlearned?
Sign In
Gender | Forum
Member
mrshll1001
Nov 3 '15
Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Agreed. Gender is a social construct, and characteristics associated with gender are learned as opposed to being inherent. There are no (viable) biological studies that support gender-specific traits. Even when considering the field of Sociobiology.
Member ShadowLover
Nov 3 '15
What about physical and chemical differences - these things alter habits and behaviours...
I think we are very different and those differences should be appreciated. When you look at the animal kingdom you see the different behaviours of males and females in each species. You can say that it is the social construct of that species but that construct was built on the differences and how to utilise them to the best advantage.
I think we are very different and those differences should be appreciated. When you look at the animal kingdom you see the different behaviours of males and females in each species. You can say that it is the social construct of that species but that construct was built on the differences and how to utilise them to the best advantage.
Chapter Head Kat
Nov 4 '15
I'd agree there is a physical/chemical difference, it's hard to argue against it and whilst there is a lot of gender framing in society, there are different hormones in men and women, when scientists find a skeleton they don't go 'oh well they were a man because they were big and strong' the human skeleton is physically different between genders. I think the actual difference comes down to the effects of estrogen and testosterone on the body as that effects our behaviour the most in society as we're less categorised today by how strong we are/our ability to climb a tree. The effects of these chemicals are very strong, just look what happens with steroids.
mrshll1001
Nov 5 '15
What about physical and chemical differences - these things alter habits and behaviours...But the way we classify difference is a matter of social construction really. Even if you accept that sex is a biological construct, it's entirely different from gender. Gender relates to postions and roles in society, whereas sex is literally what chromosomes and genitals you have -- and even then I'd argue the entire concept of sex is a societal concept which we've constructed in order to categorise things. Why don't we say all males are people with red hair and all females are everyone else?
I think we are very different and those differences should be appreciated. When you look at the animal kingdom you see the different behaviours of males and females in each species. You can say that it is the social construct of that species but that construct was built on the differences and how to utilise them to the best advantage.
In terms of utility, anthropology has revealed that hunter-gatherers basically did everything btogether -- women went hunting, men gathered etc.. Here's a link to an actual scientific paper explaining that http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6236/796
Men come in all shapes and sizes (as do women), so saying they're inherently better for doing certain things is utter bollocks. I'm 6ft and ~100kg (~200lbs) thanks to strength training (ie I look like an Orc), and I'm a computer programmer and researcher. There's no direct link between it.
Hartnell
Nov 5 '15
Google: sex roles psychology.
Here's an overview: https://psychology.jrank.org/pages/575/Sex-Roles.html
My only view is that sex roles / sterotypes exist and that ultimately as a mental construct they are mutable. Unlike sexuality, which is a different beast but connected to sex roles schematically (in people's heads only). Sex roles are mainly cognitive -- what you think about something, sexuality is what actually turns you on. The two conflict if what turns you on isn't what you think should turn you on.
The Forum post is edited by Hartnell Nov 5 '15
mrshll1001
Nov 5 '15
Google: sex roles psychology.I'm getting Http 500s when attempting to connect to the link dude sorry,
Here's an overview: https://psychology.jrank.org/pages/575/Sex-Roles.html
My only view is that sex roles / sterotypes exist and that ultimately as a mental construct they are mutable. Unlike sexuality, which is a different beast but connected to sex roles schematically (in people's heads only). Sex roles are mainly cognitive -- what you think about something, sexuality is what actually turns you on. The two conflict if what turns you on isn't what you think should turn you on.
I found a Springer journal on Sex Roles in Psychology if that's what you were referring to? I've been told that Springer publications can be funny, but I'm very early in my research career so haven't had time to form an opinion.
Can you expand on your notion of a mental construct? How does this differ from a social one?
Hartnell
Nov 5 '15
If you mean what I think you mean: social constructs are specialized mental constructs. Like a sports car is a specialized car. See "social schema" :)
The link works if you copy and paste everything except https :/ / -- I don't know what the deal with that is.
The Forum post is edited by Hartnell Nov 5 '15
Hartnell
Nov 5 '15
Expanding on mental constructs: I use the term most often to describe pre-thought models from which we think. For example a person won't think there's a monster in their closet unless they have a mental construct which contains the following:
1. Monsters can and/or do exist.
2. Monsters are capable of existing within closets.
I also refer to this as a whole as the metaphysical level because it forms the basis for what we think of as "reality" by giving the rules of possibility, probability, necessity, dependences (blah blah blah you get the idea) for which things exist (including 'reality') and can possibly exist.
Maybe this is better:
the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it,
The Forum post is edited by Hartnell Nov 5 '15
Hartnell
Nov 5 '15
The psychological warfare of getting someone to believe "you can't win" happens at this level. It's fun to play with. :)
Padowan
Nov 5 '15
I agree with Kat. Excessive testosterone in females spurs hair growth in normally masculine regions and extra estrogen in men promotes breast development and a altered ability during sex. Even in nature one of the most aggressive female critters is the Hyena due to its elevated testosterone levels.
These basic hormones affect our physical features, our behavior and our sexuality. Social construct and learning is irrelevant if you can't fight 'nature.'
Biology and chemistry influence sociology and psychology.
The Forum post is edited by Padowan Nov 5 '15
Padowan
Nov 5 '15
Nature as a mental model is a construct. But you can't deny the elements of the 'constructs of science' that control your existence.
In other words, how long will your 'construct-tive capability' (your psychological brain) last without water?
Even better; without glucose?
In other words, how long will your 'construct-tive capability' (your psychological brain) last without water?
Even better; without glucose?
mrshll1001
Nov 5 '15
Nature as a mental model is a construct. But you can't deny the elements of the 'constructs of science' that control your existence.Here's a link to an awesome TED Talk on perception of reality. Basically from an evolutionary point of view, accurate perception of reality isn't actually that beneficial. We're basically running on a Human Operating System like Windows. Now digital data exists as 1s and 0s, but on Windows/Mac/Linux you interact with files and folders. Those files and folders don't actually exist, they're constructs of the operating system designed to let you interact with the world.
In other words, how long will your 'construct-tive capability' (your psychological brain) last without water?
Even better; without glucose?
Same is true of things such as water. Water is a metaphor we interact with. Yes you'll die without it, but does that mean it's there? Not as we understand it. It's an icon on a desktop.
Padowan
Nov 5 '15
Now I have to contend with two geeks. ;)
I'll watch your video and Hartnell and I have had this discussion before. Obviously he has yet to convince me that perception determines "Reality." Sure, it determines your reality - but there is 'existence' beyond our interface of perception or we would have nothing to perceive.
If there is an interface then there is a computing system and 'something' to interface with. Otherwise it would be an 'INNERface.'
Hartnell
Nov 5 '15
@mrshll: Added.
As she said: we've had similar conversations before. Have fun. :)
Member ShadowLover
Nov 5 '15
My point is society would function better if it embraced the differences of males and females rather than just pretend we are the same.
As an example - the epidemic of young single mothers in western countries...
When my mother and I went to school, in grade nine as a female you did about ten lessons in caring for babies. I don't think they do that anymore. And I think I was the last generation to experience a year of compulsory cooking and sewing. I guess it was expected that one day these lessons would benefit us. ie. it was expected that one day we would be wives and mothers.
Now such things aren't really spoken about and girls are told they can do anything they want and that they don't have to be wives and mothers, which is absolutely true, but by pushing them so hard towards achieving a career, we have somehow taken away a girl's freedom to choose without guilt - pick any career you want because you can, or just be a lowly wife and mother... Motherhood in young women is a natural thing but now society looks down on it.
Women should have the right to have a career if they are as individuals, wired that way. But in fighting so hard for that right (as though it was what every female wanted as opposed to deserved) I think women shot themselves and society in the foot.
I am certainly not saying girls should be rushing out to get married and have babies. I am saying that young women are inherently designed to want to have babies and to love and raise them. You can say they are just careless, but they know how babies are made and most don't have abortions after the fact.
The point is, society can tell a girl that they should have a career and that they should want more out of life than family, but nature will win through. Society pays for this because now collectively, the tribe pays to support the mother and children. As it should.
But would it not work better to let girls know that not wanting a career is okay. That it is okay to want to have a partner and raise children... Maybe then we could advise them better about choosing mates. ie. If a nineteen year old female wants to partner up and breed, she probably shouldn't be looking at nineteen year old males... I'm not sure what age males yearn to take on such responsibilities because I'm not male.
I think working with nature would benefit our children and strengthen family units.
As an example - the epidemic of young single mothers in western countries...
When my mother and I went to school, in grade nine as a female you did about ten lessons in caring for babies. I don't think they do that anymore. And I think I was the last generation to experience a year of compulsory cooking and sewing. I guess it was expected that one day these lessons would benefit us. ie. it was expected that one day we would be wives and mothers.
Now such things aren't really spoken about and girls are told they can do anything they want and that they don't have to be wives and mothers, which is absolutely true, but by pushing them so hard towards achieving a career, we have somehow taken away a girl's freedom to choose without guilt - pick any career you want because you can, or just be a lowly wife and mother... Motherhood in young women is a natural thing but now society looks down on it.
Women should have the right to have a career if they are as individuals, wired that way. But in fighting so hard for that right (as though it was what every female wanted as opposed to deserved) I think women shot themselves and society in the foot.
I am certainly not saying girls should be rushing out to get married and have babies. I am saying that young women are inherently designed to want to have babies and to love and raise them. You can say they are just careless, but they know how babies are made and most don't have abortions after the fact.
The point is, society can tell a girl that they should have a career and that they should want more out of life than family, but nature will win through. Society pays for this because now collectively, the tribe pays to support the mother and children. As it should.
But would it not work better to let girls know that not wanting a career is okay. That it is okay to want to have a partner and raise children... Maybe then we could advise them better about choosing mates. ie. If a nineteen year old female wants to partner up and breed, she probably shouldn't be looking at nineteen year old males... I'm not sure what age males yearn to take on such responsibilities because I'm not male.
I think working with nature would benefit our children and strengthen family units.
Member ShadowLover
Nov 6 '15
Actually mrshl1001, I believe careers are directly aligned to hunter/gatherer notion. In particular - hunters. Men these days hunt dollars. Some are very successful at this - they enjoy the hunt and the kill (I saw this first hand when I worked in the sales industry - the most successful hunters loved the jugular). Females on the other hand (generally speaking) enjoy gathering pretty things that will make their home and family comfortable. ...Commonly known as shopping!
Society hasn't changed instinct... Just means.
Society hasn't changed instinct... Just means.
The Forum post is edited by ShadowLover Nov 6 '15
