|
Post by Smithee on Mar 24, 2012 20:14:24 GMT 10
People have tried to raise "genderless" children, or girls as boys and vice versa, and all it did was screw them up in the head. Half arsed attempts in the wider context of our already gendered societies. Other societies express their gender norms very differently.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 25, 2012 0:36:19 GMT 10
People have tried to raise "genderless" children, or girls as boys and vice versa, and all it did was screw them up in the head. Half arsed attempts in the wider context of our already gendered societies. Other societies express their gender norms very differently. They are the exception and not the rule.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 25, 2012 6:59:29 GMT 10
Half arsed attempts in the wider context of our already gendered societies. Other societies express their gender norms very differently. They are the exception and not the rule.Their norms show what is considered the "rule" in those societies, each comprising at least thousands of individuals and thereby falsifying the innateness of presumed universal traits. We need to avoid being ethnocentric, something which is difficult when we are only familiar with the norms of our own society, a blinkered world view which seems highly prevalent common in the US (I expect Australians would not fair much better). As you explained yesterday, domestic violence is learnt in childhood — so too is its unacceptability. Historically, wife beating was even a feature of our own societies condoned by custom, magistrates and clergy, with husbands sometimes being chastised for not beating their wives enough. As a disturbing old English proverb said, "A woman, a dog and a walnut tree, the more you beat them the better they be." Thank goodness that norm is no longer taught in our societies.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 25, 2012 12:04:16 GMT 10
Women and men are different. Some may cling to the myth that they are different because an evil cabal of males have placed a pink bonnet on a baby girl. Of course this ignores the vast numbers of successful athletes and leaders that wore that pink bonnet.
Yes, the sexual revolution was shallow. If it was so wildly successful in reversing differences we would not even be having this discussion and I am sure that some proponents of its success will also run to the banner that those bad males are still holding them down. Absolute and total bullshit. I know it and you know it as well.
The weight of evidence for diffences between males and females is awesome. Know I won't teach you biology. Go take a vacation and see for yourself.
In the mean time you might want to consider approaching Brethren and friends in a more open and less underhanded manner. "Smithee" go ahead, cards on the table Brother.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 25, 2012 18:19:49 GMT 10
Women and men are different. Some may cling to the myth that they are different because an evil cabal of males have placed a pink bonnet on a baby girl. This is the type of comment that makes me think Evolutionary Psychology is very different from bona fide Psychology. Girls develop femininity in the same way as a Prince develops a regal manner. Both are from the way they are treated. Even you had said "gender is wholly a social construct". Sex is a biological issue, as has been well pointed out. There isn't much to guess about there. I am undecided right now about some of the phenomena in which primary and secondary sex characteristics are ambiguous. More time and study. All that aside, the biological differences between males and females are robust. Gender is wholly a social construct. Like all other social constructs they do not exist in a void and they derive, at least in part, from our biological differences.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 25, 2012 18:26:19 GMT 10
In the mean time you might want to consider approaching Brethren and friends in a more open and less underhanded manner. "Smithee" go ahead, cards on the table Brother. Not that it makes any difference to what I have been saying, not that I have to tell you anything and not that I think you have always been frank. I am careful about my online identity and Smithee is not quite my real name but it is a nickname. If you like call me Alan.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 25, 2012 18:50:45 GMT 10
Yes, the sexual revolution was shallow. If it was so wildly successful in reversing differences we would not even be having this discussion and I am sure that some proponents of its success will also run to the banner that those bad males are still holding them down. Absolute and total bullshit. I know it and you know it as well. The sexual revolution is still happening. Would you like to turn back the clock?
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 25, 2012 23:01:48 GMT 10
Yes, the sexual revolution was shallow. If it was so wildly successful in reversing differences we would not even be having this discussion and I am sure that some proponents of its success will also run to the banner that those bad males are still holding them down. Absolute and total bullshit. I know it and you know it as well. The sexual revolution is still happening. Would you like to turn back the clock? That's not what he is advocating and you know it.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 25, 2012 23:04:12 GMT 10
They are the exception and not the rule. Their norms show what is considered the "rule" in those societies, each comprising at least thousands of individuals and thereby falsifying the innateness of presumed universal traits. We need to avoid being ethnocentric, something which is difficult when we are only familiar with the norms of our own society, a blinkered world view which seems highly prevalent common in the US (I expect Australians would not fair much better). As you explained yesterday, domestic violence is learnt in childhood — so too is its unacceptability. Historically, wife beating was even a feature of our own societies condoned by custom, magistrates and clergy, with husbands sometimes being chastised for not beating their wives enough. As a disturbing old English proverb said, "A woman, a dog and a walnut tree, the more you beat them the better they be." Thank goodness that norm is no longer taught in our societies. Custom, magistrates and clergy being key here. Prior to the imposition of Christianity, women had a much higher place in ancient Northern European society and culture. Again, this is learned behavior over-riding innate behavior.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 26, 2012 5:16:14 GMT 10
Custom, magistrates and clergy being key here. Prior to the imposition of Christianity, women had a much higher place in ancient Northern European society and culture. Again, this is learned behavior over-riding innate behavior. Now all we need do is locate that learning-free and darned elusive innate behaviour, presumably that of Rousseau's "Noble Savage."
|
|