Gender Roles

[Globe]

I... strongly believe how Dave Chappelle put it in one of his comedies. He said "Chivalry is dead, and women killed it" and continued to reference how magazines like Cosmo alter the female perception of herself, and how it teaches them "how to please their men."

I don't believe equality is dead, I believe it is yet to be born, and we can thank the christian church for that. (1 Corinthians 14:34-36 anyone?) It's something we wiped out when we wiped out the Native Americans.

[CitizenOfUlysses]

Your sex doesn't determine your gender. Basic gender theory tells you this. Read Judith Butler. The idea that just because you were born with a penis means you're going to act "like a man" is complete bull. At that point, all "chivalry" does is reinforce gender norms, oppressing both men (especially more "effeminate" men) and women both. The gentleman should die. Just my two cents.

[Grumps]

I don't care what feminists say, I will be chivalrous until I die. If you're a woman, I'm going to open the damn door and you better ****ing like it.

[Danika]

it's cute though you know, to feel protected in a way but is not that we are going to take advantage from men right? i mean, i've seen cases where girls make their boyfriends pay for everything or even do what they feel like they should do. there must be a balance but of course, the simplest details such as opening a door or buying girls a chocolate don't harm (:

[Grumps]

Are conventional gender roles really that bad? I mean sexism can be taken to the extreme but are simple pleasantries really unpleasant? I see neat stuff about being a boy and neat stuff about being a girl. Both are equal and different and my eyes.

I like to feel strong when I act protective over women, likewise I think it would be nice to be pampered.

I like to be able not care about clothing and appearance so much, but sometimes I'd like to feel pretty (but can't, not in the way girls can).

I like to be able to control my emotions without being called a cold bitch, but sometimes I'd like to not care and just express my emotions as I feel them without being called a faggot.

Really, like at the classical literary romanticized concepts of masculinity and femininity. Strong and autonomous contrasting mysterious and alluring. Would you really homogenous and destroy these (you can't have even one without the other to contrast it too) for the sake of political correctness?

[winter]

I don't care what feminists say, I will be chivalrous until I die. If you're a woman, I'm going to open the damn door and you better ****ing like it.

Please tell me you find this problematic.

Please don't treat me differently because of the bits between my legs.

What if I don't like it? What if I tell you that your actions make me uncomfortable?

Would you just keep doing it?

If I ask you not to do something because it makes me uncomfortable, and you keep on doing it simply because of the bits in my pants, that is seriously problematic.

Are conventional gender roles really that bad? Yes, yes they are. They are restrictive.

Dude, you can totally feel pretty. Try trousers, a shirt with French cuffs (and therefore cufflinks) a silk vest, and a frock coat.

Or, yanno, a dress. (A dress? But oh noes, the gender roles)

Protecting someone =/= being pampered. The difference between a machete and a manicure is important to note. More importantly, protect people, not just women. Guys get mugged too.

As for the emotions? Another reason why gender roles are dud - expression of emotion is healthy, and yet the role gives guys very few ways to do so.

I'm a feminist, and I'm proud of that. It doesn't mean I'm not feminine. I do feel that gender roles need breaking down. I don't want to be doing all the thinking about food, the menial cleaning tasks, and facing the assumption that the work I choose to do is worth less remuneration, because I'd 'do it anyway'. I don't want to deal with the assumption that I will be the parent staying at home, not only because I am a woman, but because I was earning less before we had children. I don't want to deal with men that have been emotionally repressed. I don't want to deal with women who have been taught they are only good for a few things. I believe that the office culture of working beyond 9-5 needs to die, in order to allow families to spend time together.

To the OP, you know, of course,

- that 'bra burning' never happened

- that 'chivalry' only existed in the upper classes, and finally in the middle classes during the nineteenth century

- 'chivalry' is not an equivalent of good manners, that would be treating *everyone* nicely regardless of gender, class, race and so on

Reading "On Chivalry" by tenaji is well worth while.

A man needn't bee the head of a relationship - people are capable of looking after, and out for, one another without being 'above' the other.

We are not 'a true treasure', end. All people have inherent worth. The UN recognises this, we don't need someone else to do it for us.

As I've said before, gender roles = bad. Women being 'trusting and vulnerable' = gender roles. We can be socialised that way, but I'm yet to see scientific studies developing theories on female trust. Also, what on earth is this guy meant to be protecting you from? Walking you home I can understand, but it seems a bit over the top after that.

We all have to put trust in our partners - we have to trust them not to hurt us. They are the people we share the most of ourselves with, and so they have a greater capacity to do so than most other people in our lives.

[Grumps]

The problem is that you assume that gender roles are merely a limitation and that without them people will be allowed a wider range of actions, but this isn't so. The way human society works is that people fit into categories, they normalize and homogenize. Without gender roles- and you can see this already happening, we lose a lot of diversity and colour in the world. When you don't conform to expectations, you are ostracized.

You might respond with "well that's just a larger problem of discrimination, the next step is to simply get rid of discrimination", but the fact is that there is a lot of good in discrimination. Without the ability to relate more to similar people, you lose a lot. You lose camaraderie between soldiers, fire forged friendship between IBers, national spirit, even the special relation ship between family members. There is a lot of comfort to be found when you feel you are part of a group. You can't have an "us" without a "them". Look at literary works, the best way to make something stand out is to contrast it with something else. You can't have a bright colour without dark colours to contrast it against, or it all looks muted. In fact I don't even know if it's possible to get rid of discrimination.

Of course I don't support denying people the ability to work against stereotypes, but I wouldn't abolish them.

And I don't do things just because of your sexual organs, you are defined, to a large extent, by your gender. I see you call yourself a "feminist" you wouldn't have done that without your gender. Even being identified as a part of a particular group decides a large part of your personality.

Edited December 27, 2010 by Grumps

[winter]

The problem is that you assume that gender roles are merely a limitation and that without them people will be allowed a wider range of actions, but this isn't so. The way human society works is that people fit into categories, they normalize and homogenize. Without gender roles- and you can see this already happening, we lose a lot of diversity and colour in the world. When you don't conform to expectations, you are ostracized.

You might respond with "well that's just a larger problem of discrimination, the next step is to simply get rid of discrimination", but the fact is that there is a lot of good in discrimination. Without the ability to relate more to similar people, you lose a lot. You lose camaraderie between soldiers, fire forged friendship between IBers, national spirit, even the special relation ship between family members. There is a lot of comfort to be found when you feel you are part of a group. You can't have an "us" without a "them". Look at literary works, the best way to make something stand out is to contrast it with something else. You can't have a bright colour without dark colours to contrast it against, or it all looks muted. In fact I don't even know if it's possible to get rid of discrimination.

Of course I don't support denying people the ability to work against stereotypes, but I wouldn't abolish them.

And I don't do things just because of your sexual organs, you are defined, to a large extent, by your gender. I see you call yourself a "feminist" you wouldn't have done that without your gender. Even being identified as a part of a particular group decides a large part of your personality.

Okay, then. I guess I'm pro-feminist, or a feminist ally, given I don't really identify as a woman (I just look like one.) My apologies.

I see things as a gender continuum. I believe there would be far more diversity if people didn't feel that they had to be a 'man' or a 'woman'.

Maybe we don't need an 'us' and a 'them'.

You said it yourself - "When you don't conform to expectations, you are ostracized". In my eyes, ostracising people is not okay.

Then don't do things just because of my gender. Be nice to PEOPLE, not just women. It's pretty simple.

We really don't need war to appreciate peace.

[Jazmine]

Gentlemen and chivalry might exist might not. As a girl yeah I would like to have a guy occasional open doors for me etc, show he cares and all that but that doesnt mean i was to be 100% pampered. If a guy is going do to things for me why not do things for him? Dont guys like getting special attention as well? I also wanted to be treated equally to, i wouldnt want my word to be taken as less because Im a girl. There must be some sort of balance. For example my parents act equally but my dad still opens doors for my mom. They each do little things for one another without being asked. They have a good balance and a good relationship. Im not saying that this is the only thing that means a good relationship but it fit with this topic.

"I don't care what feminists say, I will be chivalrous until I die. If you're a woman, I'm going to open the damn door and you better ****ing like it." Grumps your comment made me giggle. I love how you've stated that your chivalrous and people better like it. Hope there are guys like this out there everywhere who feel the same.

Equal treatment for both genders is out there people just have to find it, whether you embrace it is your business.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Jazmine

[rummandcoke]

The problem is that you assume that gender roles are merely a limitation and that without them people will be allowed a wider range of actions, but this isn't so.

Gender roles themselves, are not a limitation. The problem is when people start telling you that BECAUSE you're a woman, you are incapable of this, this and this. It's when they force you to behave in a certain way and think in a certain way, purely because you are a woman or a man. It's when people start to assume that because I am a woman, I cannot take care of myself, support myself, and earn for myself. It's when they assume that as a woman, I MUST take care of my children, cook, clean, do the laundry, vacuum and look pretty for my husband.

That goes for any other category. You can identify as whatever you choose, and yes, I agree, they DO add diversity and colour to the world. However, the issue is not the complete eradication of that. The issue is when the expectations of a certain category (ie, in this case women) are forced on the people who fall under it, and once they begin to act unlike to expectations, they become ostracized and labeled. Categories are wonderful as a mechanism for diversity, but when the expectations of a certain category begin to be forced on the people, they start to become a problem.

I do not think that feminism and chivalry need to be mutually exclusive. Men can still hold open doors for women and still pull out chairs for women, and still treat them with respect. They can do all of those things, but they need to realize that we are perfectly capable of doing those things for ourselves as well. A gentlemen to me is not someone who simply does just those things, but also someone who respects my ability to take care of myself, and my right to choose who I want to be, even if what that is goes against what women traditionally are thought to do. It's someone who acknowledges that above all, we are both equals in this world, regardless of our differences. I'd take being treated like that than like some "treasure" any day.

For the record: I'm a proud feminist. I also like chivalry. But I think chivalry today should spring more out of respect for women, than from the mindset that we are weaker and need to be protected. (Does that even make any sense?)

Oh, and OP: Feminism is not about being treated like men. It's about being treated as equals. It's not about burning your bras, it's about being recognized as a human being who is entitled to the same things that all human beings are entitled to. It is about the right for women to choose what they want to do rather than what society, or others in general, think they should do. Your question, "Honestly ladies, do we really want to be 'equal' when we can be safeguarded as a true treasure?", makes me wonder if you honestly believe that women cannot or should not safeguard themselves.

[Proletariat]

I personally subscribe to the "Men and Women are different, but equal" philosophy.

I'm sorry, but no matter how much feminists may argue in terms of ethics, it's still not going to change themselves anatomically, biologically, and chemically. And although I usually hate applying science to my personal philosophy in any gratuitous way, I just can't see how people can argue that men and women are identical. They're obviously not.

However, it doesn't mean that gender equality (equality in opportunity, specifically) shouldn't be prized, cherished, championed. In fact, I believe that full gender equality and the empowerment of women in the workplace will solve a whole range of problems on a global scale, primarily issues such as overpopulation but also trickling down to infinite facets of society. I very strongly believe in equal status, equal opportunity, but god help a feminist if she tries to guilt-trip me for what I was given at birth.

[rummandcoke]

I personally subscribe to the "Men and Women are different, but equal" philosophy.

I'm sorry, but no matter how much feminists may argue in terms of ethics, it's still not going to change themselves anatomically, biologically, and chemically. And although I usually hate applying science to my personal philosophy in any gratuitous way, I just can't see how people can argue that men and women are identical. They're obviously not.

However, it doesn't mean that gender equality (equality in opportunity, specifically) shouldn't be prized, cherished, championed. In fact, I believe that full gender equality and the empowerment of women in the workplace will solve a whole range of problems on a global scale, primarily issues such as overpopulation but also trickling down to infinite facets of society. I very strongly believe in equal status, equal opportunity, but god help a feminist if she tries to guilt-trip me for what I was given at birth.

Most people who identify as feminists (like myself) are actually people who DO agree with that. Asking to be treated like a man is about as stupid as it gets when the differences are so obvious. HOWEVER, despite those differences, women and men are still equal.

Any "feminist" who tells you otherwise or asks to be treated exactly like a man either a) does not understand what feminism is about or b) is completely blind. That's pretty much all there is to it.

[Proletariat]

I personally subscribe to the "Men and Women are different, but equal" philosophy.

I'm sorry, but no matter how much feminists may argue in terms of ethics, it's still not going to change themselves anatomically, biologically, and chemically. And although I usually hate applying science to my personal philosophy in any gratuitous way, I just can't see how people can argue that men and women are identical. They're obviously not.

However, it doesn't mean that gender equality (equality in opportunity, specifically) shouldn't be prized, cherished, championed. In fact, I believe that full gender equality and the empowerment of women in the workplace will solve a whole range of problems on a global scale, primarily issues such as overpopulation but also trickling down to infinite facets of society. I very strongly believe in equal status, equal opportunity, but god help a feminist if she tries to guilt-trip me for what I was given at birth.

Most people who identify as feminists (like myself) are actually people who DO agree with that. Asking to be treated like a man is about as stupid as it gets when the differences are so obvious. HOWEVER, despite those differences, women and men are still equal.

Any "feminist" who tells you otherwise or asks to be treated exactly like a man either a) does not understand what feminism is about or b) is completely blind. That's pretty much all there is to it.

I apologize for my misunderstanding. I suppose I had radical feminism in mind when writing the above post.

[pumkinns]

i'm loving this topic.

well, in my opinion there are still a few gentlemen out there. and you'll be surprised when they show up.

I'm all with the idea that men are the head of the family, but in some cases it is bad.

If a woman makes more money than her husband how do think the relationship will turn out to be? well it'll be a disaster, because well guys have the mentality of supporting his family, and if his wife makes more money than him then his "ego" will get hurt.

we discussed this in class the other day and out of 20 guys only 3 of them were okay with their wives getting a higher paycheck than them.

so if we have limits, then might as well stop dreaming.

I want to continue my dad's business, expand it and make it even more international, i guess i'll earn even more than my dad is nowadays, well guys tend to have problems with that sort of thing. because outside form working and providing, protecting, and loving what can they do. women on the other hand can hold a family, she has a softer heart, and has something everyman doesn't have MATERNAL INSTINCTS..

correct me if i'm wrong, but it is true that physically men are stronger than women. so they can also be a protector, it's a fact that men can be twice the size of women, but that doesn't have to make them the more superior.

[Grumps]

Another point is that women working mean instead of one breadwinner, there is two. The classical nuclear family only required the head male to work, but the influx of female workers (and other factors) it has become impossible for one middle class man working 9-5 to support their family without supplementary income. Female breadwinners (in conjunction with their partners who have already been working) necessitate multiple pillars of financial support for many families, making it much more difficult for single parents and low income families in general.

[horhey4]

Well, I believe that it is that exact attitude that makes women (and men) feel like they are the weaker sex. I watched a Ted Talk about empowering women, for those of you who don't know what TED is I suggest you google it. The talk was about woman and why still to this day there are more male heads than their are woman. Her conclusion was simple, astonishing, and well quite sad. Woman are not heads of companies as much as males because they feel that they can't. That belief is the only thing from changing the statistics of how many male and female leaders we have in the U.S. and World.

So ladies, next time you think you can't, think again, you can. I want to be alive to see the day that there are just as many female leaders are there are male.

[Grumps]

But why? Why do you want that?

[rummandcoke]

i'm loving this topic.

well, in my opinion there are still a few gentlemen out there. and you'll be surprised when they show up.

I'm all with the idea that men are the head of the family, but in some cases it is bad.

If a woman makes more money than her husband how do think the relationship will turn out to be? well it'll be a disaster, because well guys have the mentality of supporting his family, and if his wife makes more money than him then his "ego" will get hurt.

we discussed this in class the other day and out of 20 guys only 3 of them were okay with their wives getting a higher paycheck than them.

so if we have limits, then might as well stop dreaming.

I want to continue my dad's business, expand it and make it even more international, i guess i'll earn even more than my dad is nowadays, well guys tend to have problems with that sort of thing. because outside form working and providing, protecting, and loving what can they do. women on the other hand can hold a family, she has a softer heart, and has something everyman doesn't have MATERNAL INSTINCTS..

correct me if i'm wrong, but it is true that physically men are stronger than women. so they can also be a protector, it's a fact that men can be twice the size of women, but that doesn't have to make them the more superior.

If a man cannot bear to be in a relationship that will damage his ego to the point where said relationship will fall apart, then that relationship wasn't good to start with. A woman who is married shouldn't have to limit her abilities in order to please her husband or her family if she has the capacity to change the world. What you call a "limit" is not a limit, and instead exactly what is wrong with society in the first place. Men and women alike need to realize that just because a woman makes more does not mean that she is encroaching on anyone's job opportunities or seeking to hurt someone's ego. If a woman has the capacity to do it, then she should, regardless of the fact that she is a woman.

If a housewife has the ability to be a CEO of an international corporation, the president of a country, a doctor, a lawyer, or any high paycheck profession, then she shouldn't be expected to stay at home simply because she is a woman and being any of those things would hurt her man's ego. Think of the positive contributions she could have made to the world. All of that will never come to be because of something that prevents equality.

Men are physically stronger than women, yes. But both genders have the ability to protect, just in different ways. And it is important to realize that just because these differences exist does not make one better than the other. BOTH are necessary in order to function, and if one is downplayed or written off, then it is bad.

And your point about men only being able to work, provide and protect is sexism as well. Men may not have maternal instincts, but they do have their own ways to show that they care for their family and for those around them. Just because the equation is like this:

Men = Work + Money + Protection + Love

Women = Work + Money + Protection + Love + Maternal Instincts

Doesn't mean that women should ONLY focus on maternal instincts because they alone have them. Nor does it mean that simply due to maternal instincts, women are somehow "better" and men need to work extra hard in order to feel like they contribute something.

[rummandcoke]

But why? Why do you want that?

Because, again, women have the intelligence and the capacity to do so. Not utilizing that is a huge loss to the world. If every human being, male and female alike, were educated to their full potential, the world would be a much better place. Women, despite what everyone says, do have things to contribute to the world, especially in the corporate world. And men, unlike what everyone believes, are not emotionally stunted individuals who don't care for their families. Their love for their children can and does rival that of the mother. Just because it is different does not mean that it is bad.

[Proletariat]

Here's what I don't understand: why does it matter if men are physically stronger than women? We haven't had economies completely based on manual labour for a hundred years, at least in industrialized nations. Is humanity defined by our physical strength? Would the strongest man out-armwrestle a Grizzly? Or is humanity defined by our intellectual supremacy, and the fact that what has made our species stronger than any other on this planet is our mind?

And should you reach the conclusion that, indeed, physical strength isn't the defining character of humans, and intelligence is, then I must now point out the fact that universities on average skew 60/40 for women to men; some even more. Does this mean that women are in fact superior to men?

What I'm really trying to say is that there isn't such thing as gender roles, at least not in industrialized societies. There is only the abilities, skills, knowledge and merit of the individual, not on whether the individual happens to belong to a group or not. That's why I hate the idea that "women/men are better/worse at some jobs than the other gender" as much as I hate affirmative action, or communism. All three are essentially the same thing.