#61430- Singleton responses

[Marduk]

Vorpal, how do we decide which gender constructs are essential to our roles in The Great Plan of Happiness, and which are neutral to this purpose or even detrimental? Or are there any that fit in those two camps? Surely society has dictated that pink is for girls, and blue is for boys, but this has no bearing on our eternal goals. "Homogenizing" this color dichotomy is, at worst, harmless, right? What about males not showing emotion? Is it destructive to God's plan to have males show emotion? This has long been culturally unacceptable (think "crying like a girl") but this is at least starting to change, if not already changed.

[vorpal blade]

Marduk, I wish I had the knowledge and wisdom to answer your questions. However, that never stopped me before, so I'll say a few things.

I feel pretty sure that nurture has a lot to do with many, if not most of the differences we see. I feel confident that some male-female differences are by nature, though these things can sometimes (always?) be overcome by careful training. Not all boys are the same, and not all girls are the same, and some boys are going to have traits we traditionally associate with girls, and vice versa. And, we don't always know why.

My guess is that there are male traits which come by nature and help the male in his divinely appointed role to preside, protect, and provide. Exactly which traits those are is very hard to say. Boys tend to be more physical and fight or play with guns and swords and such. Not all boys, for unknown reasons. Perhaps this tendency helps in the male role to protect his family. I object to the feminization of our society, which tries to make sissies out of boys and stamp out their combative nature, or the urge to fight to protect.

I imagine God shows emotion, but I also image that God doesn't melt into a puddle of tears when faced with some opposition. Neither does a good woman, but sometimes a certain manly steel is needed in the role of presiding, protecting, and providing where withdrawal into tears would not be appropriate. Sorry, I'm opening myself up to all kinds of criticisms, but hopefully you get the right idea. The way a woman typically resolves conflict works in the sphere of nurturing.

Typically little girls are drawn to dolls, which they cuddle and try to feed and mother. It seems they instinctively nurture them. Little boys seldom do that when given a doll to play with. You could argue that this is merely imitating the behavior they see in their parents, but most of us who have had little children see it as much more innate than that. I suppose you could train a boy to play with dolls the way girls do, but I think you have an uphill battle with that.

Well, that's probably enough for now.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

There are biological/hormonal differences between men and women, but they're actually quite slight. Socialization is kind of like a centrifuge — it tends to separate and amplify these differences into extreme caricatures. Socialization also superimposes arbitrary differences completely unrelated to biological/hormonal factors. Middle ground ("androgyny") is stigmatized, even though males and females naturally have far more in common than they have differences.

So, here are some examples of things I consider to be basically entirely social constructions:

• Hair length and styles, shaving of facial/body hair
  Clothing and shoe styles
  Piercings
  Colors (Pink/Blue)
  Cosmetics/nail painting
  Masculine/feminine cars
  Posture and gesture
  Language
  Dating patterns
  Who pushes the stroller
  Gender-appropriate careers (i.e. secretary vs. accountant)
  Exercise/body image
  College majors

Most other gender differences I would consider to be socialized distortion/amplification of minor innate sex differences.

For those who are interested, there's an extremely in-depth article here that outlines historical debates on these issues within feminist discourse. It's a little opaque (even for me, and I've read my share of academic feminism), but it lays out some interesting—and unresolved—issues.

[Dragon Lady]

Who pushes the stroller

This is really a male vs. female thing? So… who is it supposed to be? Yellow and I switch off without a thought. If anyone does it more (when we're together, anyway), it's me, simply because pushing a stroller burns more calories than walking, so if I'm going to be walking, I might at least burn more calories doing so. Though, often Yellow will push it because he's much better at pushing it one handed so that we can still hold hands when we walk.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

I can cite studies if you're interested. Men are more likely to push the stroller of a male child than a female child. It's believed that men are more involved now in public child care than they have been in the past.

[Tao]

I can cite studies if you're interested. Men are more likely to push the stroller of a male child than a female child. It's believed that men are more involved now in public child care than they have been in the past.

Hmmm, that is interesting. As DL, I'd not be able to guess one way or the other on that one.

Though I wonder if fear of appearance may play a role. I know as someone who considers children to be life's greatest joy, I've been warned repeatedly not to show any/undo affection towards young girls for fear of being mistaken as some sort of pervert. I'd not think that pushing a stroller would be lumped into that category as well, but I can't claim to understand much of any of what passes for that particular type of logic.

[TheBlackSheep]

Typically little girls are drawn to dolls, which they cuddle and try to feed and mother. It seems they instinctively nurture them. Little boys seldom do that when given a doll to play with.

I'm definitely not a parent, but I spend many hours a week parenting. It's true that the kids I work with aren't your run-of-the-mill kids (they are all the children of drug addicts, which is why I work with them), but I've found it interesting that more of our little boys are interested in nurturing dolls than our little girls. I work with the kids who are six to thirty-six months old. Sometimes they are a little bit older depending on whether or not they are ready to move up to the next class. Many of the little boys I have seen come and go take their nurturing very seriously. They support the babies' heads, feed the babies, and put them down for naps, despite many of their mothers' very strong ideas about gender roles and attempts to masculinize their young children.

Like I said, these aren't necessarily your average kids, and our little boys also enjoy decimating towers and driving cars and other stereotypically masculine games, but my time with them has strengthened my belief that these types of things are more nurture than nature.

[Marduk]

so choice of major is entirely a gender construct? What about things like speech? Aren't women supposed to be more naturally communicative? And what about military careers? Aren't more men naturally combative? It seems that'd fit more into amplification of natural differences.

Also, I'm not asking what differences exist, I'm asking which (if any) should be encouraged.

[Dragon Lady]

Ok, this is going to seep with non-references. Sorry. If I find it again, I'll post it here. But I read recently that males living with (or in close proximity to) a pregnant (and maybe nursing?) woman have a marked increase in their nurturing levels.

And I've been trying to find this blog again that referenced it, but I can't for the life of me figure out the right key words to search for in my Google Reader to find it. Grrr.

[mic0]

So, I really don't want to revive the debate on feminism, but I would like to share this video. It gives a little more perspective on women in the 1960s, and the "housewife syndrome." Just interesting to think about.