"Gender has NOTHING to do with Sex"

[Mr. Harley]

I have always leaned toward nurture. As the father of a little girl, who is a toddler, I have had a few "surprises."

For example, my wife loathes pink. She is petite, her mom tried to incessantly dress her in pink, she was cute (another term she loathes - though she is ), etc. We have/had very little pink in the house. My little girl loves pink. Go figure.

Then I was determined that I would avoid the traditional "mothering" roles. Grandmother gets her a babydoll for her second birthday when I had thought she was getting her one of those American Girl dolls (historical dolls with some good role modeling). I negotiate, and we end up holding the baby doll in reserve until she's a little older, avoiding the conflict for the time being.

Well, when our little girl started putting diapers on her teddy bear, I gave up on that one too. Now admittedly some of this is imitative behavior, and she loves to help daddy work on his computers also. But I am beginning to suspect there are some strong biological tendencies, and I will simply go with the flow as she grows into her own person.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
I have always leaned toward nurture. As the father of a little girl, who is a toddler, I have had a few "surprises."

For example, my wife loathes pink. She is petite, her mom tried to incessantly dress her in pink, she was cute (another term she loathes - though she is ), etc. We have/had very little pink in the house. My little girl loves pink. Go figure.

Then I was determined that I would avoid the traditional "mothering" roles. Grandmother gets her a babydoll for her second birthday when I had thought she was getting her one of those American Girl dolls (historical dolls with some good role modeling). I negotiate, and we end up holding the baby doll in reserve until she's a little older, avoiding the conflict for the time being.

Well, when our little girl started putting diapers on her teddy bear, I gave up on that one too. Now admittedly some of this is imitative behavior, and she loves to help daddy work on his computers also. But I am beginning to suspect there are some strong biological tendencies, and I will simply go with the flow as she grows into her own person.

A lot of this is just modelling what she sees -- and little kids are sponges. When my daughter was younger, my wife and I were both teachers, and occasionally brought her with us to class. Not coincidently, my daughter spent much of her alone-time "lecturing" invisible students, spouting nonsense but in the cadences of my and my wife's teaching styles. (Of course, we may have been spouting nonsense, too.)

The other weird thing is that my wife eschews all things girlie, and I tend to eschew all things manly (except poker and a good cigar), and yet two of the things my daughter most loved most to wear at age 5 were her ballet tutu and her handyman toolbelt (not, thankfully, together).

It's a complex stew, that's for sure.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Gender is a social role, yes. Consider that in different cultures around the world, men and women have differing characteristics. For example, in Iran, men are considered the ones who let their emotions all hang out, while women are considered cold emotionally. Men read poetry while women take care fo family finances, etc.

Of course, some things are near universal. Men still are the bread winners, women still take care of children. The only society where this was an exception was in the Trobriand Isles, if Margret Mead is to be believed, and some accuse her of fudging her data. While there is some movement towards role swapping (men staying home, women bringing home the bacon) in Western socioety, it is by far the exception, and not the norm.

Now, I don't think it's wrong to have genders or even to have expected roles in society based on sex differences. What is wrong is coercing people into behaving according to them and punishing those who act differently.

Sexism and homophobia are both aspects of this, two parts of a larger heterosexism. Those who don't play their roles are punished to greater or lesser degrees. While in terms of nuturing and breadwining, it's mostly pyschological, with people made to feel as though they are lesser men or women for not chosing a particular role, for homosexuals it can be deadly. Nor was it that long ago that women in Western society who refused to conform were "allowed" to be raped in order to put them back in their places.

Remember what it was like when we were children. A boy marked as a "sissy" was not only subject to social ostracization, but was also an acceptable target for violence.

Very good post that sums up pretty much what I think, though I'd go further and claim that Mead DID fudge her data or use at least unreliable methods to obtain expected data.

On the original post, consider the aspect of "hunter", maybe add "warrior". It's just silly to believe that this is completely unrelated to sex. Of course, hunters and warriors in a society will generally be selected by physical capacities and men as a group compared to women seem to fit.
It would also be silly to believe that these aspects hadn't been in a second step highly gendered by simply excluding women from the tasks, by creating gendered rites aroung hunting and war etc.

It also seems natural to me that women tend to be nurturers when they carry a baby 9 months with them while the man might just be anywhere. How would such a reality not lead to a gendering of "motherhood"- however this may be defined in the respective societies.
The problem is rather to alledge, then, motherhood is the natural spot for women in this world (as ordered by God), and that women seeking a career have to be put back in their place (Hello Heresson, or wass it BK?). Or that men who take the main part of taking care for their families are labeled as losers.

[:) Smiley]

Well, the class's main focus is on cities, not sex, so I can see why this statement is being made. In most cases of architecture and city planning, gender has nothing to do with sex.

There is one notable exception that comes to mind, however. The urge to build towers, from ancient steeples to modern skyscrapers, has an undeniable link to male anatomy.

[Odin]

Re: "Gender has NOTHING to do with Sex"

Originally posted by Zylka

Though with that, and with tons of like examples from the class - the Proffessor had gone on to say that such traits are "so interchangeable" and dynamic (ie - it can and may be applied as male Gender trait in the future); that Gender and Sex therefore still have nothing to do with each other. "The female/male roles and gender imagery we know today are completely random and arbitrarily arrived definitions, as far as Sex is concerned"

*Odin's BS dectoctor goes off*


THERE IS NO BLANK SLATE!!!!

Very few things in human behavior are entirely cultural, just as very little in human behavior is entirely genetic. Most behavior is a mix of both genetic and enviromental influences. That professor is full of sh*t.

There is a lot of data showing the fact that there is a innate difference between men and women in various behaviors. The problem is that the PC nuts somehow get to think that said data somehow condones sexism.

[Japher]

Women (the sex) have the gender related roles they have because the have kids. Their roles are not entirely random, but based of a basic genetic fact; women have kids, and a biological clock. They chase men, because they have an animal instinct to want to be mommies. They don't hunt, because a pregnant woman could hurt the child and a mother should not take the child hunting for the same fear, and that child is precious because one day it will be able to hunt or bear children.

[Sandman]

Ask your teacher if there's any conceivable evidence that could compel her to change her mind. Either way, her position is undermined.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: "Gender has NOTHING to do with Sex"

Originally posted by Odin
The problem is that the PC nuts somehow get to think that said data somehow condones sexism.

Actually, it is the bigots who think that the data condones sexism. The PCers think that the data itself is sexist. A pertinent question, however, would be how much of our cultural baggage informs the analysis of the data.

Another point would be: since it's unethical to experiment on humans, we are currently unable to conduct double blind experiments to actually determine whether or not gender differences in children are a result of nature or nurture, or to what extent. It's true that gender differences do show up early in life, but it's also true that all these children are raised in a heterosexist society. Since it's impossible to eliminate this factor, you can't discount it as influencing results.

It's too bad you don't apply your scientific principles to your political statements. You'd make a great leftist if you did. You let your prejudices get in the way.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc . Now admittedly some of this is imitative behavior, and she loves to help daddy work on his computers also. .

computers != trucks and guns

My experience is related - fits neither the notion that its all a social construct or that traditional roles are right.

Girls arent interested in war, right? Well POTM has picked up my fascination with the Am Civil War, etc. BUT - its with the social and political aspects of the war - battles and weapons just bore her.

she likes math, and putting things togetherr - i think she could be an engineer - but she likes to use the computer mainly to communicate with her friends. Shes put together a spreadsheet - of her freinds addresses, emails, etc.

She doesnt like makeup - but likes to chat with friends about that, and isnt competitive with them. A stereotypically female tomboy?

[Chemical Ollie]

Gender Science is not

[Immortal Wombat]

If humans had much more physical sexual dimorphism, this kind of question would be bloody obvious, and if we had much less, there wouldn't be any question. We have just enough to make it awkward. Stupid monogamy.

There are plenty of animals with sophisticated enough cultures that we should be able to test various theories out on if testing on humans is unethical. But mostly Odin is right.

Very few things in human behavior are entirely cultural, just as very little in human behavior is entirely genetic. Most behavior is a mix of both genetic and enviromental influences.

[GePap]

There is a difference between gender roles and sex related behaviors.

The professor's claim that there is no connection between the real differences between the sexes and gender roles as they have been defined is obviously too extreme a position. Women are accepted as the "motherly" gender because, 1. They are the ones who can actually feed the child (before the invention of formulas) and because in fact all those brain chemicals mean they are likely to want to stay with their offspring and protect them.

At the same time, I don;t think cosmetic examples are the best, since they are trully random. For example, the notion of makeup used to be for men as much, if not far more, then women. Our current culture more than ever shows images of men in the media as hairless- only 1 US senator has a beard, and most male models shave. This would run counter to the leg shaving example.

[Spiffor]

Re: "Gender has NOTHING to do with Sex"

Originally posted by Zylka
What is this teacher aiming at?

She looks like an activist Feminist who intends to make you believe that gender is entirely un-grounded in reality so that you agree with her agenda.

I can see only one good thing about her stance: by completely separating gender and sex, she'll help even the slow students understand the difference between the two concepts.

[Odin]

Re: Re: Re: "Gender has NOTHING to do with Sex"

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Odin
The problem is that the PC nuts somehow get to think that said data somehow condones sexism.

A pertinent question, however, would be how much of our cultural baggage informs the analysis of the data.

Theres always some kind of bias in complex data, more or less. The PC nuts arn't immune to bias either

[chequita guevara]

I'm not saying they do, but they need to be combatted correctly, specifically. Their influence, while pernicious, is alrgely exagerated by the straight, white, Christian, male orthodoxy in academia and society at large. I would argue that the anti-PC people constitute the greater threat, since they tend to dismiss everything brought up by the PC, which includes their central aim of freedom.