Anti-Feminist Anger

[Flyingfig]

EvoPsych on a visceral level: :stillsick:

More seriously. I'm under the impression that EvoPsych's only reason for still being well-known is it's ability to make really stupidly simple claims which are easy to write about at the general public's level of understanding. I'm not aware that's it's taken very seriously or valued much at the academic and research level. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Interesting, thanks. I'm utterly ignorant on the topic, last bio class I took was in high school and the closest I ever got to social science was Linguistics. :blush: Anyways, seems I completely missed the link to its controversies page last night. And looking at that emphasises what I think is problematic: that it risks making bad arguments in favor of defending "traditional" gender roles or as poor excuses for otherwise unacceptable behaviors: "my genes made me do it!" Definitely worth researching more.

[Blaine]

I can see how its valid.

Most mums I know who go to infants sessions of the movies don't do it because they find crying babies enhance their movie going experience. They do it because, for various reasons, they don't have any way of getting 2 hours away from their child to see the movie.

The fact that a lot more women than men find themselves in that position surely says something about equality in child raising.

Not really. There are far more relevant and important indicators to choose from beside "hey I looked in an infant movie showing and there were mostly women in there." What about the pediatrician's office? What about dropping kids at daycare or picking them up?

I'm not saying these things are equal, in fact, I know that women still do the majority of child-raising. But something that like "infant movie attendance" is fairly random. It's not a daily occurrence, it's not child-raising, it's entertainment. And it's going to give you results as skewed as counting genders bringing their kids through the gates of Disneyland.

No, not the wearing of skirts per se, but the lack of men wearing skirts, vis a vis the amount of women who wear pants, highlights the differences that still exist in gender conformity in dress codes. When men put on a dress, it's transgressive against the gender role, whereas when women wear pants, it's gender neutral. The rigidity of the male gender role is the underlying issue, and the lack of willing transgressors in terms of the dress code reflects this.

I see what you're saying, but I don't necessarily think pants=skirts in terms of gender neutrality. You could say the same thing about long hair and short hair? That's an area that's almost completely gender neutral. All sorts of men have long hair, all sorts of women have short hair. Does that mean we've achieved gender neutrality? And how can that be so equal when skirts still are seen as patently goofy-looking on men?

Ultimately, my point is that fashion is about tastes more than anything. I don't find it telling in any way that men don't wear more skirts, other than it reaffirms my belief that men would mostly look terrible in them.

That being said, I own a kilt. And have worn it all sorts of places. So whatever.

[Merentha]

More seriously. I'm under the impression that EvoPsych's only reason for still being well-known is it's ability to make really stupidly simple claims which are easy to write about at the general public's level of understanding. I'm not aware that's it's taken very seriously or valued much at the academic and research level. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

While it was an undergraduate class, my social psychology professor mentioned that it had "serious proponents" after a friend and I discussed it with him in office hours. We attacked it for being nothing but confirmation bias, and, while he saw our point, insisted that the authors of our textbook (who had an absolutely laughable and atrocious sex/gender section) were at least somewhat respectable. So, whether its valid at the research level, I'm not sure, but it is apparently given credence among some psychology professors.

[MinDonner]

Social psychology is kind of a joke in itself though, so I wouldn't take a social-psychologist's opinion of "real" psychology too seriously anyway (perhaps there was some knee-jerk defensiveness in there too?)...

[Merentha]

Social psychology is kind of a joke in itself though, so I wouldn't take a social-psychologist's opinion of "real" psychology too seriously anyway (perhaps there was some knee-jerk defensiveness in there too?)...

Absolutely. We did come in and criticize the hell out of the book and what he was teaching, so he definitely could have been defensive.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Clarification on genes and behavior

To the extent that human beings are made of proteins, and proteins are encoded by genes, one can assert that every behavior, from one's propensity to cheer for one's home football team to one's quirk of preferring forks to spoons, is determined by genes. That doesn't make a very useful framework of discussion, imo, if our intention is to dissect what are the causes for things like gender roles.

When I said that many DNA affect behaviors, but that is not the same as many behaviors are affected by gene, I was using genes and DNA interchangeably. What I meant is that many genes have direct, measurable effects on human behavior, e.g. genes that determine our level of tasting bitterness leads to different eating habits, or genes that cause our brain chemistry to malfunction leads to schizophrenia. That is not the same as saying that many, or most, of our behaviors are defined by a set of genes. There are so many things that we do, each day, that are results of our cognition, our social environment, and our personality, instead of results of a protein/enzyme reaction. Is there a set of genes for me to choose a pair of jeans instead of a pair of khakis this morning? Is there a set of genes that make me take the parking spot on the left instead of the one on the right? Is there a set of genes that make me not answer the phone this morning?

Some of what makes us human are genetically determined. The sum of our human condition, however, is not the sole product of genes.

In gender issues, there are undeniable biological factors at work. But largely, we are products of our social conditionings when it comes to how we perceive gender (not sex), how we react to it, and how we integrate it into our lives.

And yes, I consider the application of evolutionary concepts to how social interactions change over time one of the most egregious abuse of the theory. What utter bullshit to make claims that our gender roles in society are results of evolution. Pure and utter rubbish.

Re: Blaine

I see what you're saying, but I don't necessarily think pants=skirts in terms of gender neutrality. You could say the same thing about long hair and short hair? That's an area that's almost completely gender neutral. All sorts of men have long hair, all sorts of women have short hair. Does that mean we've achieved gender neutrality? And how can that be so equal when skirts still are seen as patently goofy-looking on men?

But that is the point. Men wearing skits are still deemed goofy. It goes to the current view on masculinity, and what defines it, and how rigid it is.

Also, I made no claims that gender neutrality is achieved upon the equal presentation of men-in-skirts compared to men-in-pants. I am pointing out that the discrepancy in our accepted dress code reflects the rigid gender roles. These roles manifest themselves in many ways, and eliminating one of them is not a sign that the root cause is eliminated.

Incidentally, long hair being un-masculine is a rather modern concept, isn't it? For most of human existence, men have long hair just as readily as women do, though they do keep it differently, at times.

Ultimately, my point is that fashion is about tastes more than anything. I don't find it telling in any way that men don't wear more skirts, other than it reaffirms my belief that men would mostly look terrible in them.

Aesthetics is significantly influenced by culture, no? I am not disputing that in the westernized countries, men wearing skits would not be seen as attractive. I'm questioning the why behind it, and framing that as one example of the on-going genderized outlook of our society, in answer to TheKassi's point that we can simply choose what roles we want, now.

[Guest Raidne]

On the hair thing, there are still employee dress codes that require long hair for women and short hair for men.

[Blaine]

But that is the point. Men wearing skits are still deemed goofy. It goes to the current view on masculinity, and what defines it, and how rigid it is.

Or, possibly it just looks goofy. Intrinsically.

But whatever. If this is what qualifies as a serious gender problem facing society, then maybe the Canadian anthem is indeed the most important issue in the world.

[TerraPrime]

Or, possibly it just looks goofy. Intrinsically.

But whatever. If this is what qualifies as a serious gender problem facing society, then maybe the Canadian anthem is indeed the most important issue in the world.

And, again, it's not that the inherently goofiness of men wearing skirts that is the pressing gender issue we face. It is one example, out of many, that illustrates the existence of rigid gender roles, which is an important gender issue of today.

[TrueMetis]

Some of what makes us human are genetically determined. The sum of our human condition, however, is not the sole product of genes.

So to be clear, what you are saying is some behaviors are genetic and some aren't. Correct?

[TerraPrime]

So to be clear, what you are saying is some behaviors are genetic and some aren't. Correct?

Yes, if by "genetic" you mean "solely determined by our genotype."

[Blaine]

And, again, it's not that the inherently goofiness of men wearing skirts that is the pressing gender issue we face. It is one example, out of many, that illustrates the existence of rigid gender roles, which is an important gender issue of today.

If I were you, I'd consider finding a different example that is less subjective to illustrate your point. Preferably one that actually inhibited or excluded, if you want to make a point that people would actually care about. Or am I just blind to number of people who need to see men in skirts to feel equal?

[john]

Or, possibly it just looks goofy. Intrinsically.

But men have all different types of legs so that makes no sense. Do women intrinsically look good in skirts?

Although i have to admit that, depite being Scottish, i seriously dislike the kilt.

[TrueMetis]

Yes, if by "genetic" you mean "solely determined by our genotype."

Alright then.

[Lord Mord]

Blaine23,

Or, possibly it just looks goofy. Intrinsically.

That response fails. "Goofy" is subjective, and "intrinsically" is absolute. As a matter of sheer, direct logical phrasing they cannot be coupled.

[Alexia]

Incidentally, long hair being un-masculine is a rather modern concept, isn't it? For most of human existence, men have long hair just as readily as women do, though they do keep it differently, at times.

Okay, as a woman who doesn't self-identify as a feminist I've been lurking for most of this thread, but I felt like responding to this. I have a number of male friends with long hair (one guy grew his hair out way longer than mine) and I don't really think its considered un-masculine. Matter of fact, I find men more attractive with short ponytails.

On the hair thing, there are still employee dress codes that require long hair for women and short hair for men.

Really? I know that some dress codes will require men to have short hair but I was always taught that the rule of thumb is the older you (a woman) get, the shorter the hair in a professional environment.

[Security Squish]

On the hair thing, there are still employee dress codes that require long hair for women and short hair for men.

The closest thing we have to that in our dress code is that women are allowed 1 pair of stud earings and the men can't have any. Only gender difference I could find. Kinda sexist I guess.

[Acid Rainbow]

The closest thing we have to that in our dress code is that women are allowed 1 pair of stud earings and the men can't have any. Only gender difference I could find. Kinda sexist I guess.

In general, women have a harder time in our society, but the gender roles for men are so much stricter. Like a previous poster said, women can wear pretty much what they want, while men can't. In my old workplace, male employees were forced to wear their hair short and couldn't have piercings. Women could do it, though.

When I was in high school, we had school uniforms. Nothing formal, just a short-sleeved shirt and khaki pants or skirts. In the rulebook, it said "female students can wear pants or skirts", but nothing about male students. So a high school friend of mine (a guy) decided to go to school in a skirt one day. Not only was he mocked by the other guys, but he was actually summoned to the director's office and sent home. Later, he caused a headache for the director when he sued the school for gender discrimination.

[MinDonner]

The dress code issue is an interesting one. The effect of it would appear to be discrimination against men, as women generally get wider choices of clothing and hairstyle, but the cause of it is another matter. Why, after all, are men (at the very least) looked askance at for wearing skirts, or wearing pink, or too much jewellery, or fancy haircuts... or, say, knitting, or doing embroidery, or reading romance novels, or any other stereotypical "female" pursuits? Can it really be any reason other than the fact that girly stuff is seen as unmanly and therefore inferior?

(see also: homophobia, the decline in pay and status of various jobs (eg. secretaries) as soon as they become female-dominated, etc, etc, etc)

[TheKassi]

The reason why women tend to have more dress code options then men in some areas is because because men are far less sympathetic then woman in discrimination lawsuits. If most employers had their way both groups would have much tighter restrictions because consumers, male and female alike, tend to have narrower ideas of professional then many American companies must adopt to avoid prosecution.

That is however changing. I am not sure in which direction, but it is changing. At my company there was a huge blow up over which bathrooms Transgender employees were allowed to use. Many women were outraged that men were using their facilities. The Transgender argument was “we are women.” regardless of the disposition of genitalia and chromosome. 'State law' on the subject is however 'clear' so the company didn't have to stick it's neck out by even considering the possibility that we had to tell our Transgender employees they were restricted to the male facilities.

That didn't end the outrage, but bigots will be bigots. The harassment was minor enough that it could be handled via discreet 'unrelated' layoff.