Poll: A Certain Double Standard
- Thread starter mechashiva77
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Femininity is usually equated with being innocent, weak and vulnerable.
Masculinity is usually equated with being assertive, strong, and in command.
When a woman is seen as assertive, strong, and in command then she is progressive.
When a man is innocent, weak and vulnerable then it is a step back.
We're still suffering the growing pains of age-old gendered rolls which are being subverted extraordinarily rapidly in modern times: hell, in the last ten years the different between me hugging a male friend (without beating the shit out of his back, seriously when did this become the thing to do?) has changed from 'definitely gay' to 'eh, must be close friends...or maybe they're gay?'
We're changing fast, all we need to do is wait for the previous two generations to die off and we'll be free. FREE!
EDIT -
Please?
Masculinity is usually equated with being assertive, strong, and in command.
When a woman is seen as assertive, strong, and in command then she is progressive.
When a man is innocent, weak and vulnerable then it is a step back.
We're still suffering the growing pains of age-old gendered rolls which are being subverted extraordinarily rapidly in modern times: hell, in the last ten years the different between me hugging a male friend (without beating the shit out of his back, seriously when did this become the thing to do?) has changed from 'definitely gay' to 'eh, must be close friends...or maybe they're gay?'
We're changing fast, all we need to do is wait for the previous two generations to die off and we'll be free. FREE!
EDIT -
I ask your permission to use this joke all the time and pretend I was clever enough to make it.Singularly Datarific said:
Please?
Biology.Jerram Fahey said:
I reeeeeeally don't think you know what that word means, sir. You are referring to stats and stereotypes. There is no gene for 'work 60 hours a week'.
I can attest to a similar situation with my girlfriend where we both started unconsciously following gender norms. However, the real question is should be people be derided for not following gender norms? You haven't really answered the question.Copper Zen said:
I'm pretty sure it's because girls don't have trouble getting laid like guys do.mechashiva77 said:
For a guy, getting lots of different people to have sex with you is pretty difficult, so if you can do it it's seen as fairly respectable. It requires a certain caliber of... whatever makes men appealing to women, don't ask me.
For a girl, on the other hand, finding a guy willing to have sex is kinda like shooting fish in a barrel. So having lots of sex with different people just means you choose to have lots of sex with different people. You don't necessarily have to be really attractive or likable like with a guy.
That...was never brought up at all.SimpleThunda said:
Are you accusing people of something? Cuz I'm pretty sure people don't choose to face discrimination because it's trendy.
There's always going to be double standards when the social ideal differs from reality. The social ideal for gender equality is that everyone can do everything everyone else can do, which is true to an extent, but it attempts to treat both genders as identical except physically, which is simply not true. Each gender has many unique traits in physiology and psychology that result in different reactions to situations, and different strengths or weaknesses of character.
What I'm trying to say is that everyone, genders, cultures and races included, are different. The way we're trying to enforce 'equality' now is to say everyone should do the same thing, which is wrong. Gender roles exist in every species on the planet with a gender, they're important and natural. However, that gender role shouldn't affect a person's potential for success, should they choose to follow a path that isn't on the standard for their gender or race.
This is slightly garbled, I'm quite tired, but basically what I'm saying is we should be accepting our differences and keeping gender roles, so long as no one is forced to take the gender role if that does not suit them, as lately I see a lot of people who seem to consider that a woman who chooses to give up a job and look after her children is somehow "detrimental" to the work of feminists, even though the fact she had the freedom to make that choice herself is more equality than the expectation that she should want a job, rather than being a homemaker and mother.
To the poll: I voted for them existing, on the exception that they're not enforced but chosen, as each gender has unique strengths which allow them, in general, to perform better at certain tasks than others. So long as someone can choose to ignore this and do what they want, gender roles existing as an easy to break guideline is fine.
What I'm trying to say is that everyone, genders, cultures and races included, are different. The way we're trying to enforce 'equality' now is to say everyone should do the same thing, which is wrong. Gender roles exist in every species on the planet with a gender, they're important and natural. However, that gender role shouldn't affect a person's potential for success, should they choose to follow a path that isn't on the standard for their gender or race.
This is slightly garbled, I'm quite tired, but basically what I'm saying is we should be accepting our differences and keeping gender roles, so long as no one is forced to take the gender role if that does not suit them, as lately I see a lot of people who seem to consider that a woman who chooses to give up a job and look after her children is somehow "detrimental" to the work of feminists, even though the fact she had the freedom to make that choice herself is more equality than the expectation that she should want a job, rather than being a homemaker and mother.
To the poll: I voted for them existing, on the exception that they're not enforced but chosen, as each gender has unique strengths which allow them, in general, to perform better at certain tasks than others. So long as someone can choose to ignore this and do what they want, gender roles existing as an easy to break guideline is fine.
I give the finger to my gender role every day and I get many looks and rude comments because of it. The life of a transgender is a tough one.
Because slut is a word intended for girls. Just like you don't call a man who's got a child a mother you don't call a man who sleeps around a slut. As it is now we have a lot of other negative slurs to use about men who sleep around. The "Men pride themselves in having slept with a lot of girls" thing is more about immaturity. As we grow up this is not accepted in the same way. Then men get judged for not being commit to a relationship.mechashiva77 said:
OT: Voted other. I don't think gender roles shouldn't exist, because they exist for a reason. Newsflash: men and women are different. Our brain development is different, women have less dominance in the right hemisphere than men which usually means they will be ahead intellectually for the first few years of their life before men catch up at some point (exceptions always exist though).
Now a gender specific thing is mother/father. There's nothing to suggest that men can't be caring enough or skilled enough to take care of a child, but there is something preventing a man from giving birth and that is his lack of female reproductive organs.
Men and women are different, thus different gender roles should exist. However I do not think they are needed. Does anyone need to fit the gender role to be a father or to be a mother? I wouldn't think so, gay couples can manage it without the need for these roles, single parents have managed it.
Now I am all for letting women and men have equal rights, but that doesn't mean I think men and women are the same. Now you might say I sound disrespectful here, but I see it as the opposite. I respect our differences rather than ignore them. If a woman wants to be masculine I can't see why not. Gender roles shouldn't prevent her from doing what she likes. If a man is feminine why shouldn't he be allowed to? Gender roles exist for a reason, but I don't think they should matter. It's merely a way of grouping people with similarities together. Just like we do with gamers, republicans, librarians, teachers or doctors. Compartmentalize our memories in order to get a general view of a person based on all the different categories that person fit into.
Now I have been rambling a lot here, but this is the way I see it.
Mmmmmmm you dirty, dirty boy. Now that the heat has been turned up, I think I'll pour myself another drink.RhombusHatesYou said:
Hmm as close minded as this sounds I think they should exist simply because they differentiate between groups. Yes I know equality for all, but equality when taking to the extreme eliminates some individualistic characteristics of people. Although if you remove gender roles maybe then more individualistic qualities surface, hmmmm I think we need gender roles just to have some sort of reference point. I mean we shouldn't necessarily assume gender roles are bad as a lot of people constantly confuse it with the negative outlook of sexism. If only people could choose to follow gender roles and not get chastised for their choice, if only...
So it's just coincidence that men fell into that role? I think not. Of course there's no 60 hour work week gene - that's absurd. What's not absurd is the notion that males are biologically predisposed to being providers and females are biologically predisposed to raising children. Does this mean ALL men are providers and ALL women are child raisers, again no of course not. But evolution has certainly geared us in that direction.Overusedname said:
So what made you bring up the whole gender role thing? I am curious to know if it is something that you are going through personally, or just something you are interested in.mechashiva77 said:
Fighting my gender role is a big part of my life, I am always curious to hear peoples opinions and thoughts on the subject, especially if they are going through it themselves.
I also try to wrap my head around how much people hate those that branch into the opposite gender roles of their sex.
So you said you felt compelled to post your topic, why was that? If anything is too personal feel free to send me a PM message!
Gender Roles SHOULD exist, because men and women are, quite bluntly, not the same, and if gender roles didn't exist it would be because people were artificially forcing them not to exist to maintain some misguided sense of equality. Men and women, generally speaking, enjoy different things, and thus gender roles exist.
What I am against, however, is the enforcement of gender roles in any way. As much as men and women are different, each individual is different too, and this leads to the inevitability of those who are not the same as what their gender role describes. There is nothing wrong with this, and people like that should not be forced to fill the gender role usually associated to their gender.
What I am against, however, is the enforcement of gender roles in any way. As much as men and women are different, each individual is different too, and this leads to the inevitability of those who are not the same as what their gender role describes. There is nothing wrong with this, and people like that should not be forced to fill the gender role usually associated to their gender.
Can I say something that should be obvious?
We are not anatomically identical. We are not psychologically, biochemically, or biometrically identical.
We are not the same.
You can apply equal rights and equal roles to many things, but not EVERYTHING.
I am not saying that gender roles are all good. Many of the are crap. However, many of them are stuff that human society has settled down to based on millennia of experience and derive from basic, biological realities.
For example, men are the "hunters". They are physically better built for that. They are stronger and more aggressive, statistically, by nature. It wouldn't make much sense to pit a male, heavy-weight boxer against his female counterpart. It wouldn't make any sense for the same male, heavy-weight boxer to try and breast-feed his newborn child...
Many of the gender roles stem from the fact that WE ARE NOT IDENTICAL or EQUAL in many things.
We are not anatomically identical. We are not psychologically, biochemically, or biometrically identical.
We are not the same.
You can apply equal rights and equal roles to many things, but not EVERYTHING.
I am not saying that gender roles are all good. Many of the are crap. However, many of them are stuff that human society has settled down to based on millennia of experience and derive from basic, biological realities.
For example, men are the "hunters". They are physically better built for that. They are stronger and more aggressive, statistically, by nature. It wouldn't make much sense to pit a male, heavy-weight boxer against his female counterpart. It wouldn't make any sense for the same male, heavy-weight boxer to try and breast-feed his newborn child...
Many of the gender roles stem from the fact that WE ARE NOT IDENTICAL or EQUAL in many things.
When I can be arsed thinking about it, it can be summarised as "People should give far less of a fuck about what other people are doing than what they do." If people find themselves happier conforming to certain gender roles, good for them, if they find themselves happier not conforming to gender roles, good for them as well. Who is anyone else to judge them about it? Arsewipes, that's who.mechashiva77 said:
People should be allowed to pick and choose what gender roles they'll adopt or shun in life for themselves without a bunch of judgemental pricks geting their feelings all hurt about it. I'd like to hurt their feelings with a brick.
Because a slut is a woman that sleeps around while a gigilo is a manwhore. Same reason you have words like Steward and Stewardess and despite certain people's best efforts to make it so English is not a fully gender neutral language. So next time you see a guy acting like an easy ho, start calling him a gigilo. It might catch on.mechashiva77 said: