Poll: A Certain Double Standard
- Thread starter mechashiva77
- Start date
There's a couple of interesting things I've come to observe about them...mechashiva77 said:
* It's extremely rare to find complaints on roles from the gender that benefits from them.
* The majority of gender chastising seems to come from within the same gender.
...there's more, but those are the two big ones.
Gender roles aren't necessary, but they shouldn't be shunned. What about those people who just want to follow the crowd? They should have some popular personality to decide on in case they can't find one more appealing than another, and basing that around gender or race isn't a completely outlandish idea. After all, men have more testosterone, and women have more estrogen, thus resulting in innate differences for the most part.
A gut feeling tells me I'm quite wrong...
A gut feeling tells me I'm quite wrong...
Gender stereotypes (I hesitate on the usage of 'roles' here) are not themselves good or bad, but they exist. And much as we like to tout progress, patriarchy still exists. Remembering that imitation is the highest form of flattery, of course women acting like men is more tolerated than men acting like women. Why would you want to act like what is commonly considered (culturally speaking) to be the inferior gender?
Same thing with literally every other cultural stereotype out there: acting straight is more acceptable than acting gay, acting white is more acceptable than acting Latino, etc. Obviously it's fine to act like whatever culture you're associated with, but if you're going to deviate then it's more acceptable to act like the dominant culture in whatever pertinent spectrum than anything else.
Again, I'm not saying whether this either ought to or ought not to be the case. Ought has little to nothing to do with how culturally acceptable something is in practice.
Same thing with literally every other cultural stereotype out there: acting straight is more acceptable than acting gay, acting white is more acceptable than acting Latino, etc. Obviously it's fine to act like whatever culture you're associated with, but if you're going to deviate then it's more acceptable to act like the dominant culture in whatever pertinent spectrum than anything else.
Again, I'm not saying whether this either ought to or ought not to be the case. Ought has little to nothing to do with how culturally acceptable something is in practice.
i dont believe it should exist. but it does, sadly.
the double standart stems from male oriented society. it is ok for woman to do our thing because it is our thing and by doing it we reinforce it so its a "good thing" if even woman want it. us doing woman thing on the other hand....
1. im a 10 year old that should grow up and make many children that will lead me to go bankrupt just because "thats how you do it"
2. im a sore looser that cannot get a girlfriend and should hang myself.
and while its true that im a looser that is still pretty darn insulting.
the double standart stems from male oriented society. it is ok for woman to do our thing because it is our thing and by doing it we reinforce it so its a "good thing" if even woman want it. us doing woman thing on the other hand....
thats strange, because whenever i tell anyone that i dont want kids im classified under two categories instantly. those categories are:
1. im a 10 year old that should grow up and make many children that will lead me to go bankrupt just because "thats how you do it"
2. im a sore looser that cannot get a girlfriend and should hang myself.
and while its true that im a looser that is still pretty darn insulting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=gZcSEE7TuGUAaron Sylvester said:Aren't there female football teams? If there are female rugby teams here in NZ (granted only at school/club level) there must be female football teams somewhere
you've gotta log in to see it, seeing as it's "inappropiate", but it's legitimate female football (if not revealing)
(the local team practices by my friends backyard...jealous? we can see everything from about 20 ft away in his kitchen)
OT: I know plenty of people who fit the stereotypical gender roles, but they didn't pick them because "HURR DURR I'M A MAN/WOMAN SO I'M GOING TO DO THIS!"
they picked it because they wanted to, either because they are passionate about it/too lazy to do something else.
(my best friends fiance is getting her degree then immediately being a stay at home mom, she wants fuck all to do with ever having a career, and my best friend is pissed about it but figures oh well.)
Someone's probably already put forward the exact same argument, but whatever; my two cents:
Gender roles will always exist as long as males and females exist. Despite what new-agers tend to think about gender fluidity and things like that, the male and female bodies are biologically different. There are relatively few actually transgendered individuals; the rest are little more than fetishists. Gender fanboys/girls. People that are enamoured with the idea of roleplaying a different gender, without any mental condition. These people tend to cross-dress and identify with the other (or either) gender yet still retain many emotional and behavioural traits common to their biological sex. Gender abolitionists like to overlook the fact that male and female bodies/minds are empirically different. So there will ALWAYS be things that either biological sex prefers/excels at, from which gender roles spring from.
On the question of whether or not these roles should be forced upon people, no I don't think they should. Women shouldn't have to stay at home and raise the kids, and men shouldn't have to work 60 hours a week to support their family. If that's what they want to do - and biology suggests the majority do, to varying extents - then go for it.
Gender roles will always exist as long as males and females exist. Despite what new-agers tend to think about gender fluidity and things like that, the male and female bodies are biologically different. There are relatively few actually transgendered individuals; the rest are little more than fetishists. Gender fanboys/girls. People that are enamoured with the idea of roleplaying a different gender, without any mental condition. These people tend to cross-dress and identify with the other (or either) gender yet still retain many emotional and behavioural traits common to their biological sex. Gender abolitionists like to overlook the fact that male and female bodies/minds are empirically different. So there will ALWAYS be things that either biological sex prefers/excels at, from which gender roles spring from.
On the question of whether or not these roles should be forced upon people, no I don't think they should. Women shouldn't have to stay at home and raise the kids, and men shouldn't have to work 60 hours a week to support their family. If that's what they want to do - and biology suggests the majority do, to varying extents - then go for it.
Yeah, I know!
How come when a girl sleeps around with a bunch of men, but when I do the same all of a sudden I'm gay?
How come when a girl sleeps around with a bunch of men, but when I do the same all of a sudden I'm gay?
I've learnt better than to say I have evidence for this, but I think gender roles originate in differences, psychological and physical, between males and females, and therefore that they are not 'needed', shouldn't be enforced, and will exist without encouragement from society. I can't prove this of course, just as those who say they are purely social constructs and without them the interests of different genders would be much more diverse cannot prove that (as far as I know). I think there is a lot less pressure in modern society, even to the point where parents don't want their child exposed to 'typical' gender stereotypes (like dolls and pink for girls, cars and blue for boys), to conform to gender roles. As far as I know, gender is not much of a factor at all in determining whether you can study in your preferred field and become employed (unless it's construction or something like that). And yet more females still study the arts rather than pursue jobs in mining or science.
And other than that, basically I think it's because women sort of had their femeninity forced upon them and treated unfairly/given special treatment that they are allowed to do typically male things now. It's empowering because males were dominant in ages past. Which is kind of sexist, because when I think about it it's like I've said "Girls can do it because if you say anything about it, that means you're enforcing gender roles which is taboo because they're women." Trousers are also more practical.
tl;dr: I have no evidence for anything. Good day to you.
And other than that, basically I think it's because women sort of had their femeninity forced upon them and treated unfairly/given special treatment that they are allowed to do typically male things now. It's empowering because males were dominant in ages past. Which is kind of sexist, because when I think about it it's like I've said "Girls can do it because if you say anything about it, that means you're enforcing gender roles which is taboo because they're women." Trousers are also more practical.
tl;dr: I have no evidence for anything. Good day to you.
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.