Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

xWH1T30UTx

Gender Roles:

Recommended Posts

xWH1T30UTx

First of all, if you are unfamiliar with the phrase "Gender Roles," I suggest you click this link. Another thing I'd like you to keep in mind is that gender roles are not necessarily the same thing as sexism, gender stereotypes, et cetera. As a quick side note, I'm aware that this topic has been covered countless times around the internet, as with a lot of other topics. But I don't believe it's been covered on this particular forum. Lock it if there is a similar topic already, please. With that out of the way, let's get started.

 

As we know, gender roles are a part of society, as they always have been. Maybe they're not as prominent as they were some time ago, but they're a part nonetheless. As time goes on, we are seeing more and more people essentially "break the mold" when it comes to gender roles. My question to you is, do you think that they are really needed at all in today's society?

 

Some other questions that could be answered here are these ones:

 

What would you like to see when it comes to handling gender roles?

Would there be a problem caused by removing something as big as gender roles?

Is this a big issue where you live, and have you had to deal with it personally?

Or do you think that this is this not even an issue at all?

 

 

I know that I have my own opinions and & answers to these questions. I won't post them in this particular post; as they are very personal opinions based off of some very personal events. I felt that if I posted my opinions, I would come across as somewhat (for lack of a better word) jaded. I just wanted to get the discussion going with some basic questions first. I'd really like to see what everyone else thinks on the subject.

 

I'd like to apologize in advance if any of my experiences actually get in the way of discussing the topic at hand. But I think it'd be fair to give you a basic overview of what I think: Gender roles have no place in today's society. They provide nothing of value, and only cause more problems than they solve.

Edited by xWH1T30UTx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I would rather you didn't come to a discussion topic and say "I'm not willing to discuss my views", because it reflects badly and shows you have little interest in actually engaging in such a discussion, raising questions of the purpose of the topic. You'll give a much better impression if you post intelligent and reasonably supported views, even if they are controversial, than otherwise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xWH1T30UTx

 

I would rather you didn't come to a discussion topic and say "I'm not willing to discuss my views", because it reflects badly and shows you have little interest in actually engaging in such a discussion, raising questions of the purpose of the topic. You'll give a much better impression if you post intelligent and reasonably supported views, even if they are controversial, than otherwise

Good point. I just didn't want to post all of my views in the OP, as I felt that would be a bit weird for some reason. It's not that I'm unwilling to share my views on this subject, it's just that I didn't want to share them immediately. I'd seen it as starting the discussion first with some questions in the OP, and then seeing where it leads. My mind is a funny thing sometimes.

 

EDIT: Also, I apologize if my presentation on this topic is a bit off, this is the first time I was able to bring myself to discuss a topic like this on a forum. I think it's fair to say that people will understand what I'm getting at, with the questions provided in my original post. I'll try and edit it a bit.

Edited by xWH1T30UTx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

I think one of the reasons gender roles prevails so much, and in such a damaging way, is because--now bear with me--we present intelligence to children as something that exists on a sliding scale from "smart" to "dumb". This is ridiculous because intelligence is not one dimensional, it's multifaceted, it's comprised of perception, emotional understandings, perspective, cognition and countless other factors, yet we still teach kids that some people are smart and some people are dumb. As such, since the majority is not praised for their "intelligence" at around age 9 or 10 or so when the genders are separated by differing interests they cling to traits that they know gain them praise from adults, with boys it's aggressive competitiveness ("you were great on the field today Timmy, way to take the ball off that kid") and with girls it's attractiveness ("oh aren't you pretty look at your pig tails they're adorable").

 

As the "unintelligent" children are the majority they form "popular cliques" and torment their peers. This serves to instil a feeling of inferiority in the other kids, thus bullying serves as a societal mechanism to force kids to adopt gender roles, girls want to look beautiful and boys want to appear competitive and "tough" in order to appease their peer group. Thus these two different ideals are presented as coming with a kind of social status and interpersonal dominance, men for are more inclined to become businessmen or politicians because they want to appear tough and as though they can prosper in cut-throat competition, they want to be the "popular kids" of the adult world.

 

I'd like to hear what he OP thinks about this, is my theory in line with your personal assessments, or do you have a contrasting view?

Edited by Melchior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xWH1T30UTx

 

I'd like to hear what he OP thinks about this, is my theory in line with your personal assessments, or do you have a contrasting view?

I completely agree with everything you've said; a child's upbringing has a lot to do with the idea of gender roles. This applies to every generation of children, of course. But I think the reason it's becoming an issue now more than ever is simply because of a "clash." What I mean by this is that when a child is raised to be outside of the social "normality," it's really hard for said child to adapt to an environment that is "normal." This seems to be happening more and more often from what I've seen.

 

An example that I can give of one such "clash" happening is one from personal experience. As a child, I was introduced to two very different environments. One being my home life, which consisted of my mother letting me make my own decisions and develop on my own. I felt like she never "forced" me to like certain things based on the fact that I am a male. I was very free, and it was nice to know that I could make my own judgements on whether or not I truly enjoyed something or not, regardless of how socially acceptable it was.

 

The other being at school. I live in a small town with people who aren't exactly open to the idea that a boy should wear make-up, for example. As a result of this, I was severely bullied throughout the course of my school life. Not only by the other students, but the staff as well. Which I found to be completely ridiculous. As a result of all of this, I was completely miserable. So miserable, in fact, that I found it hard to focus on school, and eventually one thing lead to another and I left completely. I am attending on online school at the moment.

 

Currently, I am finding it hard to get a job based on my appearance and other interests. And it's hard for me to essentially function outside of my home, without getting judged, among other things. And to me, that is absolutely unacceptable. Nobody should be discriminated against for being who they are. If a boy chooses to do "feminine" things, let him. And if a girl chooses to do "masculine" things, let her. I see no possible way of hurting anyone just because I choose to do something as trivial as wear makeup or have long hair.

 

Personally, I'm perfectly happy with the way that I am. I'm glad that I'm able to make my own choices when it comes to appearance; a lot of people aren't given that freedom in their home life. To me, there's nothing better than the feeling of being who you are and doing what you wish to do, but there's also nothing worse than having the feeling of being restricted by others and society in general. I have to much pride to change the way that I am, and I've tried to even change myself to "fit in." But I was miserable in doing so. I think it's ridiculous to force someone to change so they can get a job.

 

Now, I'm aware that my situation mainly consisted of appearance, which is a lot more noticeable than other personal traits. I'm also aware that there are plenty of ways around the situation that I'm in, but at the moment they're just not viable. in the society that we live in. I apologize if my personal experiences got in the way of my ability to present things in an understandable matter or anything like that. But, the main point of that personal story was nothing more than to give an example about how much gender roles can truly effect a child, teenager, or adult in society.

Edited by xWH1T30UTx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

Perhaps that is more to do with coming from small town America? I can't imagine someone here being unable to function in society simply because they have long hair and wear make-up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xWH1T30UTx

Could be. Maybe my situation's a fairly uncommon one. But my point still stands. Gender roles definitely do have a profound effect on people. Another possible example of this would be a constant internal battle with one's self. Something I've seen in some of my peers is that they're having to deal with the issue of gender roles, but basically within the opposite situation of mine.

 

Let's take my closest friend, for example. We'll say his name is Jim. So, Jim was raised in an environment that basically consisted of his father teaching him to always "act tough, like a man should." He was raised to enjoy activities like sports, as well as being taught that men are always tough and always have all the responsibilities. All "very manly things" at least according to gender roles.

 

Due to this, he did very well in school. Nobody bullied him or questioned him because he always would fit in with the general population. He'll also probably end up in a career that's generally reserved for males, in which he will do well in.

 

But the problem now is that Jim is finding himself questioning all of his father's teachings. Jim doesn't want to be tough. Jim doesn't want to play sports. He finds himself wanting to do things that may be socially unacceptable for a "man" to do. The truth is, he doesn't know what he wants, or what he really enjoys in life. Whenever he does or tries something that is "feminine" (Like showing some basic emotion,) he instantly shuts down because it's not "what a man would do." Something I thought to myself is, "why doesn't Jim just change and make his own decisions?" The answer is because he doesn't want to disappoint his father.

 

So while Jim's struggle is more or less internal, and wouldn't be obvious if you didn't know him really well, it's still something that he's having a very hard time with. Now, obviously some men really are tough, and they really do enjoy things like sports. But I'm beginning to wonder how many of them only do it because they were taught it was "manly." It's really hard to tell because again, this part of it is a more internal struggle, which they may not ever show. They won't ever shed a single tear because it's not "manly." And that's really sad to me.

 

Now, obviously the examples I've provided are extremes. The reason they are extremes is because this is an issue in which my closest friend and I have experienced in extremes. I'd say it's the biggest obstacle we've had to deal with personally. I do realize that not every child has to really deal with gender roles, but then there's the ones that do. I believe that society would be much better off without these, but I don't think that it will happen for quite awhile. It takes generations for things like this to truly change, but I honestly can say that I hope to see it gone. As soon as possible.

 

So, with that, I'd like to ask, do you think that gender roles should be completely done away with in society? Or do you think that as we change and evolve, it'll be a non-issue soon enough? Or maybe something else?

Edited by xWH1T30UTx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli
I think one of the reasons gender roles prevails so much, and in such a damaging way, is because--now bear with me--we present intelligence to children as something that exists on a sliding scale from "smart" to "dumb". This is ridiculous because intelligence is not one dimensional, it's multifaceted, it's comprised of perception, emotional understandings, perspective, cognition and countless other factors, yet we still teach kids that some people are smart and some people are dumb. As such, since the majority is not praised for their "intelligence" at around age 9 or 10 or so when the genders are separated by differing interests they cling to traits that they know gain them praise from adults, with boys it's aggressive competitiveness ("you were great on the field today Timmy, way to take the ball off that kid") and with girls it's attractiveness ("oh aren't you pretty look at your pig tails they're adorable").

 

As the "unintelligent" children are the majority they form "popular cliques" and torment their peers. This serves to instil a feeling of inferiority in the other kids, thus bullying serves as a societal mechanism to force kids to adopt gender roles, girls want to look beautiful and boys want to appear competitive and "tough" in order to appease their peer group. Thus these two different ideals are presented as coming with a kind of social status and interpersonal dominance, men for are more inclined to become businessmen or politicians because they want to appear tough and as though they can prosper in cut-throat competition, they want to be the "popular kids" of the adult world.

 

I'd like to hear what he OP thinks about this, is my theory in line with your personal assessments, or do you have a contrasting view?

This assumes that the popular kids are all the dumbest, which is a myth perpetuated by the media. I remember at least in elementary school the dumbest kids were relentlessly picked on because it was so easy.

 

Gender roles have a very deep root in Western Christian society, to such an extent that even in our modern secular society it isn't going away quickly. In time it will fade, but not nearly soon enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

 

This assumes that the popular kids are all the dumbest, which is  a myth perpetuated by the media.

They aren't "dumb" but for whatever reason they aren't recognised as intelligent by their teachers, at least not to the extent that other kids are. It's been my experience that the most demonstrably intelligent kids found very little social popularity until around the age of seventeen when people are willing to accept what we identify as "intelligence" as a positive, valuable trait, as long as it isn't rubbed in their face.

 

 

I remember at least in elementary school the dumbest kids were relentlessly picked on because it was so easy.

Well I wouldn't say the "dumbest" kids (again, not a sliding scale). These are people without the capacity to succeed socially. They simply weren't able to work out "if I do well on this test/play football/wear nice clothes people will praise me". They aren't necessarily lacking in cognitive ability, they're simply, for whatever reason, unable to associate efforts to impress with personal gain the way other kids are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

The real problem with gender roles is that it's too often asserted that women should fulfill one role and men another, and this is where you encounter the unhappiness of people who were forced into fulfilling such roles even if it's not what they really wanted to do. Feminism has explored this in great detail, exploring women who wanted to escape from the "home maker" tradition and start careers, but the male side of it is often unexplored and not given a lot of credence. However just as you mentioned, many males may not be happy in their "gender roles". So while there may be a man who is a terrific athlete, his real dream may be to design clothes or bake cakes, but due to society's conditioning and instilled morals he doesn't view this as an acceptable career for a man to do.

 

I think that's really at the root of it, is that gender roles define behaviors. You're kind of coming at it from the angle of appearance, but that's only after the fact... After a person has decided that they want to behave differently, they do so by looking differently. It's important to notice that distinction, because even if you have men who dress "masculine" they can still be belittled or demeaned by their choice of career if it is decidedly "unmasculine" (not totally effeminate) by the general consensus which society somehow formulates.

 

This all just compounds though when you consider men who want to dress differently and enjoy careers that involve activities society does not perceive as appropriate for that particular gender. I think there's been a lot of exploration of this on the female side with feminism, but men are a little slow to the game with accepting that sexism effects us as well. Part of the barrier there is that men feel like they're not supposed to complain about that sort of thing, so to even get most men to acknowledge this side of things is unlikely, let alone get any to seriously examine whether they're doing what they really want, or what they think they're supposed to be doing.

 

In the future if we avoid instilling ideas of "Well you're a man so you should want to be an athlete or a hunter," or "You're a woman so you should want to stay home and bake cookies," then things like, "Well you shouldn't wear makeup because you're a man" will follow. However, until you can break down the very basic gender roles at that root level, then a man wearing makeup or a woman with short hair in flannel will always buck the conventional trend of society. While some of society grow more tolerant to this over time, it's still not necessarily acceptance that it is "okay" and people still contend that it is a "strange" or "abnormal" thing to do even if they have no problem with it, because it still flies very much in the face of convention.

 

I think the unfortunate thing is how often the male perspective of these things goes unexplored. You often hear women talk about how men are insensitive, avoid their feelings, etc. That's because men are conditioned to behave like that... That is our "gender role" that we're supposed to fulfill. Women long ago recognized the role men wanted them to fulfill and fought back against it, got support amongst themselves, etc. However there's still A LOT of women who think the traditional idea of a woman ( stay at home with kids, bake cookies, change diapers ) is what they should do. So even when you examine the progress that's been made with women in this sense, it gives you an idea of how far we've got to go in society as a whole. Right now, it seems like women acknowledge the effects of sexism and gender roles on males much more than males themselves do, and even when males do realize and acknowledge this effect, garnering support amongst their male peers to change is much less likely.

 

I think it's interesting to compare the pressures and the roles that males and females feel they need to fulfill, and think that both genders would do a lot of good by actually talking about such things. For example, I might suggest that males have this overwhelming pressure on them to be "tough" and "masculine", to be "strong" and not show weakness in the face of adversity or pain. This is different than what is expected of females, but on the other hand they're under overwhelming pressure to be "attractive", to be "lady like", and to somehow maintain a certain "sophistication" over men... I believe a woman would probably be able to better describe these types of roles than I can, but the point is both genders are under these pressures, but it is are too common for each gender to ignore the other's problems and contend that theirs is more significant or that they're the only burdened one.

 

I think as another person pointed out, these "roles" and conventions are pretty heavily indoctrinated into Western culture. As much exploration as people have put into the topics of sexism and gender roles, we're still so far from a society from accepting that these roles shouldn't be there to suggest we can some how do away with them. Too many people still believe that this is just "the way it should be", and past that a lot of these roles are beneficial to society, so they view it as the "glue" that holds our social structure together. I mean, you need people at home raising kids, you need sports and competition... Those things build communities, and so it sends the message that these "gender roles" are appropriate and lead to good things. What really needs to be understood is that it's the role itself that is important, not the gender of the person fulfilling it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango
The real problem with gender roles is that it's too often asserted that women should fulfill one role and men another, and this is where you encounter the unhappiness of people who were forced into fulfilling such roles even if it's not what they really wanted to do. Feminism has explored this in great detail, exploring women who wanted to escape from the "home maker" tradition and start careers, but the male side of it is often unexplored and not given a lot of credence. However just as you mentioned, many males may not be happy in their "gender roles". So while there may be a man who is a terrific athlete, his real dream may be to design clothes or bake cakes, but due to society's conditioning and instilled morals he doesn't view this as an acceptable career for a man to do.

I think this is a bit of an archaic understanding of the pressure to conform to your gender's role. It's not that certain careers are off limits, or rather, it's not that society has a place for men and a place for women that compliment each other, making the idea of gender roles a bit outdated, it'd be more correct to call them "gender expectations". It's more that a lot of (read: almost all) two-parent households refuse to adopt an androgynous parenting dynamic, instead the archaic notion that women should coddle and nurture and men should discipline and advise their child persists. The consequence of this is that women grow up expecting all men to conform to the standards in their head; to be like their fathers, while men do the same with their mothers.

 

Women grow up and expect men to be stoic and paternal, in other words, to have their sh*t together, and this leads to them being dismissive of their feelings; they personally feel that a man's feelings are not their problem, even in the case of family members, boyfriends and intimate friends. With men, they expect women to be unrealistically "kind" nurturing and maternal, and yes, this also persists when talking about girlfriends and close female friends.

 

Women have it much worse than men in my opinion, because while society doesn't see fit to punish a crying man (because we know on some level that men have feelings, and should ideally have a right to express them), a women who deviates from the expectations placed on her will invariably be met with anger, there are societal mechanism in place to punish the women who don't treat us the way our mothers did. The most obvious being the word "bitch". Think for a minute and it becomes clear that there is no male equivalent of this word, it is unique in it's application to women, and it serves only to punish even appropriate hostile or cold attitudes from women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shaboobala

In the course of evolution nature has gone to endless trouble to see that every individual is unlike every other individual. We reproduce our kind by bringing the father's genes into contact with the mother's. These hereditary factors may be combined in an al­most infinite number of ways. Physically and mentally, each one of us is unique. Any culture which, in the interests of efficiency or in the name of some political or religious dogma, seeks to standardize the human individual, commits an outrage against man's biological nature.

 

-Brave New World Revisited

 

-Posting quotes from great works of literature without context, evaluation or debate is not intelligent discussion.-

 

In the course of evolution nature has gone to endless trouble to see that every individual is unlike every other individual. We reproduce our kind by bringing the father's genes into contact with the mother's. These hereditary factors may be combined in an al­most infinite number of ways. Physically and mentally, each one of us is unique. Any culture which, in the interests of efficiency or in the name of some political or religious dogma, seeks to standardize the human individual, commits an outrage against man's biological nature.

 

-Brave New World Revisited

 

Man as species on this earth has two forms within his range of potentially habitable ecosystems. One form is male, one female. The male and female are not roles within our society so much as they are an ancient set of forms found in nature that balance out each other's respective energy. The form comes from the dna code.

 

Different cultures play out gender roles in different ways but the forms are still constant. So when a culture or individual begins to question the purpose or practicality of gender only in the limited context of society, this speaks to a great disconnect between the zeitgeist and the laws nature.

 

A culture (any culture, it doesn't matter) may or may not encourage freedom of sexual expression, but this should not come at the expense of recognizing that men and women have different energies and motivations within themselves which are mutually exclusive of each other(but in a way that balances out so that we don't kill each other when we are going through our mating rituals).

 

Society is like a thin ideological veil we place over the screaming wrath of nature to feel better about ourselves. Discussing the "practicality" of gender roles in relation to cultural systems only totally overlooks the Nature aspect and implies these differences are only superficial and we already know everything about gender. Men are designed differently. Women are designed differently. The differences run deep. That's about all I know. This is not about what we perceive and experience as individuals in the purely sexual dynamic. There are masculine and feminine archetypes which express themselves in our lives whether we like it or not, outside of sexual things.

 

Trying to distort this fundamental truth and duality is tampering with an aspect of our nature which is a delicate balance and is already f*cked-up enough to begin with(given how our natural mating cycles are constantly and mercilessly interupted by the powers-that-be ) . These are ancient archetypes, and their existence should be respected and not denied because they are real and we don't know much about how they were created/work.

Edited by shaboobala

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango
I don't know why people have to equate equality with "standardising". Nobody is saying you can't celebrate your differences, just that you shouldn't be restricted or defined by these perceived differences - there's a word for that: discrimination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

People tend to assume that "equality" means identifying everyone as one and the same. Not that everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law, and in freedoms and opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

 

Man as species on this earth has two forms within his range of potentially habitable ecosystems. One form is male, one female. The male and female are not roles within our society so much as they are an ancient set of forms found in nature that balance out each other's respective energy. The form comes from the dna code.

If this is how you feel then do feel encouraged to outline what behaviours are intrinsically male and what behaviours are intrinsically female. And could you also explain why these behaviours are mutually exclusive - because I haven't noticed any aspect of human behaviour being exclusive to one gender? And what are these "energies" (not really a scientific term in this context) and what are these motivations? As I understand it goals--outside of making sure you eat and reproduce--are indeed a social construct.

 

 

Society is like a thin ideological veil we place over the screaming wrath of nature to feel better about ourselves.

A popular rationalisation for social conservatism, but as far as I can tell, a fallacious one. Societies have existed for as long as there have been human beings (in fact, Neanderthals would have had something resembling a society as well) the only thing that's changed is the scale. A country only differs from a tribe in it's complexity. People like to think that prior to Mesopotamia and Egypt everyone was running around in a free-for-all completely unrestrained by social constructs before "artificial" proto-civilisations came along, but that is simply not the case. Just because we identify something as a "social construct" doesn't mean it hasn't always existed. Society is in our nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shaboobala

 

Man as species on this earth has two forms within his range of potentially habitable ecosystems. One form is male, one female. The male and female are not roles within our society so much as they are an ancient set of forms found in nature that balance out each other's respective energy. The form comes from the dna code.

If this is how you feel then do feel encouraged to outline what behaviours are intrinsically male and what behaviours are intrinsically female. And could you also explain why these behaviours are mutually exclusive - because I haven't noticed any aspect of human behaviour being exclusive to one gender? And what are these "energies" (not really a scientific term in this context) and what are these motivations? As I understand it goals--outside of making sure you eat and reproduce--are indeed a social construct.

 

 

I never used the specific word "behaviour". Semantical error on your part. And everything I said in that first paragraph is a fact. I use the word "energy" a lot, because there is no better term imo.

 

To clarify: Behaviors are expressed biofeedback loops. They are manifest and quantifiable. Human energy(in the most literal sense, running through your nerves like wiring, stemming from biochemical metabolic processes, creating body heat) is largely potential. Waiting to be expressed/used in nature. The

"mutual exclusivity" factor of the sexes comes from the fact that mammals are born into either male or female form. Inside this form our energy is manifested. The form comes from the Dna code. Quantifiable facts. The morphology of the nervous plexii(some of which communicate directly with the genitals, all inter-communicate) and metabolic organ systems/glands(metabolism is drive, drive is the precursor to direct motivations, personal goals are cognitive disinhibitors of motivation) in men and women is differently expressed by the original Dna code. The nervous impulses and energy flux and flow within the respective body is confined and molded within pre-defined morphological limits. The energy is confined in the form.

 

Any dialogue questioning the very *purpose* of the genders within a given society is a sign of mental illness. A fundamental disconnect with reality. Man must have purpose or man is sick. Wo-man must have purpose or woman is sick. You see what I mean?

 

Hence; "an outrage against man's biological nature."

 

 

Society is like a thin ideological veil we place over the screaming wrath of nature to feel better about ourselves.

A popular rationalisation for social conservatism, but as far as I can tell, a fallacious one. Societies have existed for as long as there have been human beings (in fact, Neanderthals would have had something resembling a society as well) the only thing that's changed is the scale. A country only differs from a tribe in it's complexity. People like to think that prior to Mesopotamia and Egypt everyone was running around in a free-for-all completely unrestrained by social constructs before "artificial" proto-civilisations came along, but that is simply not the case. Just because we identify something as a "social construct" doesn't mean it hasn't always existed. Society is in our nature.

 

*Please don't label me, politically, when I never professed any leanings.*

 

Here I misspoke. Semantical error on my part. I meant culture; many cultures have the potential to exist in a single given society. See what I'm saying? To lift the -cultural- veil, if you will, means to face natural law alone. Natural law is the realm in which all recognizable animals exist. It is the realm that our much more rugged and pre-hominid(or pre-monkey, for that matter) ancestors lived in. It is in our DNA, in our blood, in our "energy". It is our common sense. Our reference point. Which can become distorted by cultural beliefs and/or illusions. Natural law doesn't care for cultural custom. It's about the truth of

the matter.

 

I agree that society is in our nature. I disagree that a country only differs from a tribe in it's complexity. Tribes are small collections of close-knit people, they make whatever laws they agree on. Disputes are settled in interpersonal fashion. It is hard to fool people with whom you are close. Countries are about enforced conformism through hierarchy. Impersonal control. Countries assume that patriarchy is absolute truth,and so along these lines all law is formed and formalized through beaurocracy. Tribes are in our nature. Cities, and governments, *cough*scientificmindcontrol*cough* and seething social corruption are new.

 

Mostly personal opinion: Regarding the expression of actual behaviour. Consider how the prolonged removal of desired sexual stimuli from the environment creates different behavior patterns and (degrees of)reactions in men versus women(Ie:prison)... Could this stem from intrinsic factors which lie deeper than morpholgy(ie: DNA)? In my opinion men/males have more potential energy for affective action and Women/females have more potential energy for nurtering action(keep in mind that actions can be a deliberate choice; or an autonomous response). It's not just about testosterone in a cage, Hormones and enzymes play key roles as catalysts but they still function in relation to the limits and design of the larger systems(body). Which is based on... the DNA. Which can't be changed much without soon killing/terribly crippling the person.

 

Now consider where most sexual stimuli in our modern, global, internet environment comes from(or at least is indirectly linked to)... The PTB. They designed(within their culture of absolute authority) the social environment back in Babylon, and through the arms of government(and private/corporate agendas) pump that data stimuli(in various ways) straight into the brain and cognition. Influencing without your knowledge(or consent, for that matter) of it. Including beliefs about gender. The culprit for the "confusion about roles" is a cultural poison meme being leaked into the public dialogue. I've heard this come up a lot lately. So yes, the roles are needed. However, it is up to the individual to determine their own purpose as a human/man/woman and make the choices -based on the culture(cultures largely influence sexual custom). Global culture is f*cked(anyone disagree?) and no person, or group, or organization, or government has the right to dictate how an individual wishes to express their interpretation of our own role as man or woman. The argument that there "is no role" can be a viable subjective interpretation but the objective facts point me elsewhere.

Edited by shaboobala

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

 

I never used the specific word "behaviour". Semantical error on your part

What? We can only be defined by our behaviour. Do you, or do you not believe, that men and women are genetically predisposed towards radically different behaviours in a broad societal context?

 

 

Human energy(in the most literal sense, running through your nerves like wiring, stemming from biochemical metabolic processes, creating body heat) is largely potential.

To be honest, this doesn't make any sense. Your argument isn't very coherent.

 

 

I meant culture; many cultures have the potential to exist in a single given society. See what I'm saying? To lift the -cultural- veil, if you will, means to face natural law alone.

Again, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of humanity's societal relations. There was never a point in history when we lived according to the "laws" of nature free of any cultural bondage. We've always lived in a culture. It's easy to think of tribes as being nothing more complex than a pack of animals, but that is simply not the case. They are simply smaller, less complex countries. You talk of culture as if it stands to pervert the laws of nature, but culture is also in our nature, and it always has been, cultures don't cover are basic nature like a "veil" as you so incorrectly put it. Tribes had superiors, they fought wars, they indoctrinated their kids into acceptable forms of behaviour, they were made to conform to this, through the tribes heirachy, a system you incorrectly identify as only coming about during proto-civilisations and only occurring in large, centralised and organised societies. The preferred cultural model of behaviour isn't at odds with our nature, our minds are designed to be shaped by our culture. There's nothing artificial about culture.

 

If you honestly feel that you can lift the "veil of culture" to reveal some intrinsic nature, then please illustrate how that works in a cogent fashion. Culture is nature, not an "illusion". Governments, and "social corruption" are by no means new - they are inherent to humanity.

 

Gender roles are a product of culture, the men were stronger so they went hunting, the women stayed and cared for the young. This is common to all primitive culture, simply because they are all reacting to similar circumstance: the need for strong hunters. These roles are not inherent to our minds, and have no practical bearing on a modern, information based society.

 

 

In my opinion men/males have more potential energy for affective action and Women/females have more potential energy for nurtering action

Right, and what are the practical application for these roles in a modern, information based society?

 

Our society, at the moment, doesn't have any clearly defined, complimentary gender "roles" it only has arbitrary expectations, mostly regarding demeanour (see my above post: men should be stoic, women should be kind) and societal mechanisms to punish any non-adherence to these expectations. Are you arguing for actual, practical gender roles, or simply defending the existing expectations? Inaccuracies and misconceptions aside, your argument isn't coherent. Just what is your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shaboobala

 

What? We can only be defined by our behaviour. Do you, or do you not believe, that men and women are genetically predisposed towards radically different behaviours in a broad societal context?

 

Who says we can only be defined by our behaviors? Behaviorists?... I am workbot. Initiate maximum efficiency work cycle #0001ALPHA001. Engage. Affirmative. I would argue that a man can be defined by his spirit or character alone. Do you need scientific definitions of spirit and character(or the dreaded "energy") or can you make the cognitive leap on your own?

 

 

Human energy(in the most literal sense, running through your nerves like wiring, stemming from biochemical metabolic processes, creating body heat) is largely potential.

 

To be honest, this doesn't make any sense. Your argument isn't very coherent.

 

How does it not make sense? It's crystal clear. See, I even made an analogy about wiring and everything. You asked me to explain it and I did. Is "energy" such an ethereal and esoteric concept that your mind boggles at the very mention of it, or, what!? What do you want from me?

 

 

 

Again, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of humanity's societal relations. There was never a point in history when we lived according to the "laws" of nature free of any cultural bondage. We've always lived in a culture.

 

 

How about the point where you were primordial ooze, or a worm, or a fish, or a repto-mammal, or a proto-mammal, or a monkey, or a proto-hominid. And who's to say you have even the slightest glimpse of actual human history? History before records. And even the records themselves are subject to the whims and agendas of the people writing them. Not to mention the whims and agendas of the egomaniacs invariably running the show at whatever point in... "civilisation"(not very civil imo) when it was recorded.

 

 

It's easy to think of tribes as being nothing more complex than a pack of animals, but that is simply not the case. They are simply smaller, less complex countries.

 

 

I don't think it's that simple at all. **Countries are about enforced conformism through hierarchy. Impersonal control as opposed to being around familiar faces. Countries assume that patriarchy is absolute truth,and so along these lines all law is formed and formalized through bureaucracy. Tribes are in our nature. Mind-numbing bureaucracy, cities, mechanical governments, *cough*scientificmindcontrol*cough*, and seething social corruption are new.** Countries nowadays put everyone through a meat grinder that cripples the weak and sends the most ruthless to the top. The assumption of course being, that you and i need a "leader" for "our own good" to direct our delicate souls to spiritual salvation. AS if man wasn't born to be free.

 

 

You talk of culture as if it stands to pervert the laws of nature, but culture is also in our nature,

and it always has been, cultures don't cover are basic nature like a "veil" as you so incorrectly put it.

 

I speak of global internet culture, yes. Because it is fake, perverse, out-of-touch. It's not even a real veil, it's a made-in-china gucci knockoff.

 

 

Tribes had superiors, they fought wars, they indoctrinated their kids into acceptable forms of behaviour, they were made to conform to this, through the tribes heirachy, a system you incorrectly identify as only coming about during proto-civilisations and only occurring in large, centralised and organised societies.

 

 

Wars only occured when it was unavoidable. See, nature built checks and balances into human hierarchy. But these only work on a face-to-face basis. Hence, the rampant faceless corruption of today. The modern culture does all these things in a much more insane way, to an infinite degree. I never said hierarchy came about during proto-civiization. You are assuming things, putting words in my mouth etc.

 

 

 

The preferred cultural model of behaviour isn't at odds with our nature, our minds are designed to be shaped by our culture. There's nothing artificial about culture

 

I agree, but at a certain point of stress the mind becomes ill instead of adapting. Like when all the food is systematically poisoned. Like when the prison-industrial complex is a profiteering enterprise. Like when you have to "work" for your "boss". Like when entirely conceptual constructs like "money" and "taxes" can end your life. Oh, but im sure that the Neolithic mammoth hunters or the bushmen or whatever would adapt to concepts like this no problem... After all... are they not inherently corrupt? They would take Wall Street by storm! It's only human nature. /sarcasm

 

 

If you honestly feel that you can lift the "veil of culture" to reveal some intrinsic nature, then please illustrate how that works in a cogent fashion. Culture is nature, not an "illusion".

 

I don't claim magic powers. It's a metaphor... to a point you are conveniently tip-toeing around. A man alone is frail in nature, and so culture shields us from many unpleasant things we would otherwise feel and deal with like most animals(I'm not saying culture is baaaad). I'm saying you are blind to the self-evident truths because you can't see past the techno-sh*t culture. bored.gif Culture=nature? And freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. War is peace! Death to the individual. Assimilate to the amalgamized collective of confused and deranged livestock or die. Still... nothing?

 

 

Governments, and "social corruption" are by no means new - they are inherent to humanity.

 

Yea people can play tricks and be sneaky with each other. Yea, people self-organize into "governing bodies". However, the current scale and degree(seething) of both government and corruption are unprecedented. Like a viral machine/program/virus/matrix/leviathan showing no signs of stopping. The virus feeds on potential human energy. Like the matrix! Hey do you get that metaphor?

 

 

Gender roles are a product of culture, the men were stronger so they went hunting, the women stayed and cared for the young. This is common to all primitive culture, simply because they are all reacting to similar circumstance: the need for strong hunters. These roles are not inherent to our minds, and have no practical bearing on a modern, information based society.

 

Are you somehow beyond the primitiveness? It couldn't be... repression, could it? moto_whistle.gif Do you sh*t out cherry gumdrops in the morning too? Man is a born hunter by nature. We have the killer focus. We have the instinct to immediately find weakness in another creature and exploit that weakness. This is why we relate to cats and dogs on a base level. Whereas, we show less sympathy for the herbivorous "prey" animals. That's not even taking the darkest sides of man(tribal genocide) into account. Seriously, man can kill pretty readily within a range of different stimuli. Inherent in the mind, yes. The same cannot be said of creatures living in a situation similar to ours. Such as cows. Maybe sheep. Or like, guppies. Their nature is not that of the hunter.

 

 

Right, and what are the practical application for these roles in a modern, information based society?

 

Who says it's a matter of practicality? Why is that a given with you? See, the fact that a man or woman's place in the world as they see it has been reduced to.... practicality(standardized) is the very point that Huxley(I'm piggy-backing on his logic) was making about our evolution being perverted and diverted by social control. The role is up to the individual to determine and that's it. Nature provides the mold which cannot be... "defined" and put in a neat little box and sold as a neat little package to fit into the sterile horror of techno-sh*t reality.

Edited by shaboobala

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.