There's an idea that has been tumbling around at the back of my mind for awhile now. The majority of us right now still view masculinity as an inherent trait of the male, and likewise femininity of the female. To see that, all you have to do is notice how many comments like "You just like a girl!" or "That's such a guy thing to do." are around you. Regardless of whether those kind of comments are insults or casual teases, the implication is the same: "You're not behaving the way your gender should behave." There is this notion that lies in the unconscious of the public mind that says "You have failed to be a male/female when you are feminine/masculine." This is apparent in the higher distaste for "fairies" or "butches" from the general public. The way a girl acts nor the way a guy acts puts any harm to society, but somehow, when the gender is switched, there is an uproar. I do not think it has to be like that. What if masculinity and femininity had no gender connotation at all however? That is, they become gender neutral adjectives like hyper, lazy, loud-spoken, reserved, to describe a set of behaviours. A guy can be soft and loves gossip to be described as feminine but still unquestionably a male. And a girl can be tough and verbally-abusive to be described as masculine but still unquestionably a female. You've probably noticed that I had picked rather distasteful traits like "gossiper" and "abusive" to describe masculinity and femininity. The instant retort from reflex is probably something along the lines of "Not all men are abusive!" But you see, the beauty of making the term gender neutral is that it does not point finger at any specific gender to make stereotypes from generalization. Rather, it simply describes a set of recurring behaviours in an individual. Someone who is masculine may be abusive, but that someone could very easily be either a male or female, because masculinity is gender neutral. Note that was just a hypothetical to grab your attention. I have no wishes to include gossipy in femininity nor abusive in masculinity either. I'm wondering...if there is some kind of social reform to reinforce this kind of thinking, maybe the world will be freer for everyone, regardless of gender, to express themselves. What do you think?
That would be the ideal situation, and I believe that the influence of gender stereotypes will eventually lessen to near-irrelevance. It'll be a tough slog to get there, and any social reforms implemented now will face stiff (or even violent) resistance from social and religious conservatives. The US managed to elect a black president about a half-decade after the civil-rights movement, and now, more or less, blacks (women, and other minorities) are further along than they've ever been. It can, and it will, happen (in some countries before others, of course, but that's the direction mankind's headed).
i still think even if we dont see these gender enforcing stereotypes in society, it will still occur, boys will be boys and girls will be girls, but not always (gay and lesbians are the exception) im saying this as a whole generalization
Well, when you want to look at what parts of gender are socially constructed you really need to do cross cultural research. For example, in virtually every culture and society around the world females have a statistically reliable mean hair length when compared to males. In this case, where it appears society plays no role in this behavior, one can assume that society is not the real factor in this phenomena, but rather it is something in our genetics. Presumably that long hair was a burden for male hunters, whereas they found it attractive in females because it was a good indicator of a long period of relatively good health. So, what I'm getting at is, I think before we can answer how we can change our society's gender roles, we need to first understand what impact it is already having on them. I believe a massive amount of our concepts about gender are a direct result of the society we live in. However, unfortunately, a lot of it is the way our species evolved in hunter/gatherer societies during the evolutionary era of adaptation. These genetic differences should really be a result of three major differences between male and female reproduction: 1. Females bare a greater evolutionary cost in reproduction (They have a limited number of eggs, and have to bare the children, and even greatly risked losing their lives in child birth back then) 2. Females can be certain about the genetic relationship to their children, whereas men cannot (During the evolutionary era of adaptation a guy couldn't just go get a DNA test, but the woman gives birth to the child, making her 100% sure it is really her biological offspring) 3. Well I don't remember the third one off the top of my head, but perhaps I'll look it up later. There's a third I assure you, but the specific causal differences aren't as important as the idea behind them. Anyway, all of the genetic differences in the sexes should really be due to one of these three differences in how men and women pass along their DNA. So essentially, anything that is not a sex difference explained by these three differences (I'll have to look up the third...) and is not consist amongst different cultures, can presumably be changed within our own culture. Now, I'm no expert on how to do that, but we clearly don't live in hunter/gatherer societies anymore, and really the gender roles in our society (genetic or otherwise) are outdated, and I would love to see them changed. I'm just being a bit of a skeptical Sally because I think that there is in fact a large genetic component within them as well. If they weren't associated with a gender, I believe masculinity and femininity would cease to exist. They are really by definition the perceived difference between the genders. They reflect, not one, but many traits in a gender. I think if these many separate traits and behaviors were not linked by their association of how one is "supposed to act" we would not see consistency in all these different behaviors. For example, if they weren't linked to gender perhaps someone in this alternate world would wear makeup, but play professional rugby. Are they masculine or feminine? Really they are neither, and I think you would see this trait over and over again since there is really no connection between wearing makeup and rugby besides the one we carry in our brains.
I think it'd be good if the world was gender-neutral and didn't try to place us into gender boxes. The word "masculinity" refers to possessing qualities or characteristics considered typical of or appropriate to a man. The word "femininity" refers to possessing qualities or characteristics considered typical of or appropriate to a woman. Therefore I think the words masculinity and femininity cannot be gender-neutral in themselves. We would need to make an entirely new word to make it work. Or not even have a word for different characteristics. Instead of saying "She is masculine because she is abusive" you could just say "She is abusive." Or "He is a gossiper." Just state his/her characteristic without labeling it as masculine or feminine. Therefore characteristics would not be associated with either sex. Characteristics would be just considered a human characteristic. I don't know if that makes sense. I do wish the world didn't have to box us into certain gender stereotypes. Who cares if a guy likes Barbies or a girl likes football?
The component of genetics certain came to my mind while I was thinking about this. Two ways of changing the genes in a population come to mind: gene therapy and natural selection. Gene therapy seems to be a touchy subject for most, and honestly I don't know much about it, so I'll just drop that. I am however wondering about the relationship between humans and natural selection these days. It used to be about survival of the fittest, about flushing out genes that lowers ones fitness, ie survival and reproduction. But in the developed country, really? Medicine has made it so that those who usually would not have survived or reproduced has now gone to pass on their genes, even if they were "maladaptive genes". Some people even argue that humans are actually devolving in our current times. And on the behaviour side of genetic influence. We all know that not 100% of behaviour comes from genetics, that it's always a mix of nature/nurture. But unless you're likened to the Lamarckian view of evolution, you can't change the future behaviour of a baby by changing the parents' behaviours before conception. You're quite right to question it. Are we stuck with our badly outdated genes? But then, we humans DID change. None of us act EXACTLY like the hunters and gathers thousands years back. So aside from genes, there must be cultural and early developmental influences on adult behaviour. And a lot of people have already figured this out I'm sure, otherwise LGBTQ+ activists wouldn't be targeting highschools and even elementary schools to implement programs that seeks to educate kids about queers. I think an above poster said that you can't change an adult's way of thinking, and that's quite right; any long-lasting societal change would lie in the education of the children. I mean, just think about the classic retort "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" in politics haha. Now THAT hasn't come across my mind. Very interesting thought. I don't have any good response to that right now but I'll put it in my thinking hat
Well, it is true that we have seen some fairly quick evolutionary changes in humans. For example, with being able to drink the milk of other animals. Lactose intolerance is caused by genetics resulting from people who grow up in societies where cultures didn't drink milk. Within in a very small period of time, we adapted to be able to consume milk. When you are talking about evolution of the brain things are much slower though. The brain is a very complex structure and it changes VERY slowly. Evolution is the caused by mutations, and if someone has a brain mutation chances are they won't survive. That means that changes take place over very long periods of time. I think the very soonest a tiny change may have occurred in the evolution of our brains is probably about 3000 years ago. I'm not arguing that we can't make a large impact on gender roles in our society, I'm just being cautiously optimistic. I don't think we'll ever see a society in which no gender roles exist. Its just not the way we are set up as a species. That doesn't mean we should feed into the concept that men and women are very different. One of my professor always corrects people who say "the opposite sex" because we are not opposites, just a different sex. One thing to note is that surprisingly, parenting doesn't seem to have nearly as much of an influence on the LONG TERM personality and values of someone when compared to peer group. Friends seem to influence what kids like/dislike believe/disbelieve a lot more than their parents. Just throwing that out there...
In a perfect world I agree with the OP but, we ain't in a perfect world...yet. I was one of the stereotyped males, I lived in fear of fem boys and butch girls when I was in HS growing up in the Bible Belt, I've been out with myself since I was 4, and my protection mechanism was to be like all the other guys as a young man, I love cars and sports and acted like a tough guy, however, I was outted by my 'straight' buddies in HS in the 1970's and you know what? Nobody really cared, they loved me for me. So I maintained my Male attitude and learned to accept folks with my term here...'Gender Blur'. I love the diversity of people, and have a huge amount of repsect for folks who don't fit the mould of society expectations, the Trans community is the next big hurdle for folks to get used to and understand, and thanks to Chaz Bono, there is a voice and people are listening and reading and tring to understand, my own Mother for Gods sake is using the internet to put her Christian views on the back burner and try to understand the Trans side of things, so changes in views are comming from all over, I have hope Boy George said years ago he dreams of a world filled with coffee colored people, take out the color reference and insert sexualities and there you have it (&&&)
I'm not so much talking about changing brain structure. I mean, how exactly do you define the biological structure of a mindset anyway? Maybe it's by the pattern of neurons firing, but what about the tendency to fire those neurons in those paths? Maybe that's in genetics, maybe it isn't. While the idea of a blank state at birth is quite debunked, babies don't establish their neural network until after birth (I forgot the specific time), so I'm sure a significant portion of the firing patterns/ways of thinking/personality is still post-natal. I'm in favour of optimism because, while a perfect world cannot exist, setting that perfect world as our ultimate goal is how we can reach our full potential. You could say completely disintegrating gender roles may not be ideal (perhaps from loss of diversity), but by reaching towards that and thus shifting our world a bit, I think it will end up for the better. One major component of personality that comes to mind that is heavily influenced by parenting is one's attachment style. Whether one forms a secure or insecure attachment to others is set quite early (within 2 years) by the parents or caretakers. Drastic events or relationships later on can affect that of course, but for the most part, it's quite ingrained. @stuwee It's funny, I just talked about the possible loss of diversity from removing gender roles, but like you said, it seems more like we're overshadowing a large amount of diversity from trying to stop guys and girls from "fusing". Nice to hear that you had such great friends. That kind of tolerating mindset can be rare, but I don't think it has to be if we teach about it more in school.
