Social Construction of Gender & Intersexed Individuals

[Smurf]

[/RIGHT]ve0]So we should just have the sexes and no gender then, right? It seems that gender isn't a helpful category or meaningful. We could just call some things sex-specific rather than speaking of gender specific, gender oriented, or gender roles. It almost seems redundant and isn't always correct.

Depends. Some people would say that gender (and most aspects of socialization) are vital for a society to function.

I've also been informed that you see behavior as primarily influenced by nurture rather than nature. In which case I'd be interested in discussing how you see some other things I was addressing.

heh, who told you that?

I'll write more later, I actually found an essay that argues not only are there multiple genders, but multiple sexes. I'll post it later - I'm going to be late for a philosophy meeting.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

heh, who told you that?

Someone who posts on this board

I'll write more later, I actually found an essay that argues not only are there multiple genders, but multiple sexes. I'll post it later - I'm going to be late for a philosophy meeting.

Sweet, have fun.

 

[Smurf]

Ditto for the rest of the upper body which is typically smaller and lighter in females and which might not help as much in an ultramarathon as it would in other types of competition.

Then again there are lots of girls that carry around quite a bit of weight on their chest. :tongue:

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Found a site on androgyny that may be useful material as well
http://androgyne.0catch.com/

 

[Smurf]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/gender/fs.html"

In 1993 I published a modest proposal suggesting that we replace our two-sex system with a five-sex one. In addition to males and females, I argued, we should also accept the categories herms (named after "true" hermaphrodites), merms (named after male "pseudohermaphrodites"), and ferms (named after female "pseudohermaphrodites").

 

[Smurf]

Oh Boy!
By*SARA WILSON
Saturday, Aug 28, 2004

Nickolaus Ludavicius started shopping when he was 5. His mother would drive him from their home in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., "at least 100 times a year" to upscale children's boutiques in Toronto and Michigan, where she would lay selected items on the counter and ask him to pick.
Gradually, he began to develop his own taste, favouring high-end designer kids labels like Jean Bouget, David Charles, Nautica and Oilily. He became vocal about his likes and dislikes. Once, upon discovering that a certain Toronto boutique carried his favourite footwear, he pressed his hands to his face, à la Macaulay Culkin in Home Alone, and cried: "Yummy! European Import Shoes!" He was 10.
Now, at 13, his unofficial school uniform is a Dolce & Gabbana junior jersey and Lucky Brand Jeans. He visits a stylist regularly for highlights and haircuts. His toilette consists of Nolita moisturizing shampoo and conditioner, Vagheggi face cream, Sebastian shaper massage texture gel mist, and Ice hair spiker blast. He does not, he says, "use drugstore stuff."
Tween boys, like Nickolaus, are fast becoming a force to be reckoned with. They're buying clothing, shoes and even jewellery in record numbers. They're shopping for skin and hair-care products. And they're booking cut and colour appointments at high-end salons. The new metrosexual has arrived, and he's barely hit puberty.
If parents can't -- or won't -- pay for their tween's indulgences, the kids buy what they like, thanks to their staggeringly high disposable incomes. According to Toronto-based youth marketing firm Youthography, 90 per cent of tween boys receive an average of $90 for their birthdays, with 66 per cent receiving about $91 as a gift on major holidays and 85 per cent receiving money as needed. And in this post-nuclear-family era, kids often have access to funds from multiple family sources. Marketers have dubbed this "the six-pocket syndrome," and it's the driving force behind tween boys' annual discretionary income of roughly $920-million.
Old-guard American brands such as Perry Ellis, Ralph Lauren and Guess, and newer hip-hop labels like Sean John and Rocawear have all spawned mini-me offspring with unisex offerings. Even mainstream department stores such as Sears and Zellers have caught the wave.
Diane Brisebois, president and CEO of the Retail Council of Canada, a non-profit industry association representing 9,000 retailers across the country, says the trend hasn't even peaked yet: In the next five years, "you're going to see more and more manufacturers developing for that age group and retailers selling to that age group."
"I would never have dreamt that he'd be into that stuff," Toronto mother Brenda McNee says, recounting her surprise upon learning that her nine-year-old son, Spencer, wanted a beaded necklace.
The necklace, which retails for $19 at Toronto children's boutique Bon Lieu, was one of 50 that owner Cerissa Abbott ordered in June for the back-to-school rush. Instead, they sold out in three days. "Jewellery's hot right now," Abbott says. "If you're a boy, you have to have a necklace. Rings are big too."
When Abbott opened her shop 18 years ago, she says, fashionable clothes for tween boys simply did not exist in Canada. "Parents would dress their baby boys well," she says. "But as soon as they started to walk, there was nothing to buy unless it had a truck or a maple leaf on it." Now, she says the city's tony Rosedale clientele typically spend at least $3,000 per season, per kid.
Whereas shopping used to be the domain of the parent, Laurie Mah of Youthography says that today kids tag along. According to the YTV 2003 Tween Report, tweens now influence $20-billion worth of purchases in Canada each year.
Mah also says the trend may have something to do with the fact that busy parents are increasingly desperate to connect with their youngsters in any way they can. "A lot of parents are aiming to please. And they do it through shopping and buying."
So taboo is the only impediment left to boys shopping -- and that's been eliminated too. Television shows like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, in which straight men are made-over by a team of über-stylish gay guys, men's magazines that treat shopping as this generation's answer to hunting, male celebrities like Ashton Kutcher, Adrien Brody and Usher, who divulge their grooming rituals in the international media, and a glut of just-for-men grooming products have banished any stigma that once surrounded male style-consciousness.
True, the term "metrosexual" was never intended to describe tween boys, but the trickle-down effect is real. Today, it's easy to find boys like 10-year-old Torontonian Daniel Luftspring, who counts among his hobbies basketball, soccer, baseball, video games and critiquing the stars' gowns on Oscar night. (Some think that style is "wearing what a famous person wears," he says, "but the point of style is to invent your own.")
Or Aaron Sommerhalder, an eight-year-old who scours his mom's issues of InStyle, Fashion and Flare for inspiration. "That's where I get all my ideas for new clothes and highlights," he says.
Sommerhalder isn't alone. Many boys visit mom's hairstylist for haircuts and colour treatments. Justin German, co-owner of Toronto salon Shagg, where clients 12 and over pay up to $95 for a haircut and $150 for a colour treatment, says the salon frequently serves tween boy customers, some as young as 8.
Bon Lieu owner Abbott's son, Brennan Dumas, now 7, was just 3½ when he announced to her that he wanted everything she bought him to feature an alligator logo -- he was referring, of course, to Lacoste's trademark image. "He just loved the little alligators," she says with a grin.
While some parents find their kids' brand consciousness cute, it's not necessarily benign. The lessons that tween marketing teaches kids -- among them, that self-expression can be bought, that personality can be defined through a brand, that clothes aren't meant to last and can, in fact, substitute for genuine emotion -- have the potential to wreak havoc on boys' fragile, still-forming identities. For now, though, most boys, like Luftspring, aren't cognizant of that. "It's exciting when you get new clothes and you look good in them," he says. "When you look good, you feel good. That's kind of basic human nature."

^
A little something on Gender roles

 

[russ_watters]

Why would men be better in general at physical activities? Are there not a wide range of physical activities for both sexes?

Is that a joke? Men are, in general, stronger than women and in most sports - major ones, anyway - that trait factors heavily in success.

I've been talking to my roommate (loseyourname) about this, and he's given numerous examples where women would excel - piloting, Indie car racing, croquet, climbing (depends on types of climbing, eg diff of strength vs dexterity and balance), balance beam/gymnastics, horse racing (why no female jockeys?), racquetball, darts and archery (fine motor control), skiing, snowboarding, skateboarding, surfing, diving ...

Ok... So?

I'm sure we could even create new sports based on traits females excel at...

Certainly. But to me, the idea of creating a sport with specific attributes designed to favor one sex over the other seems vaguely sexist.

There is nothing wrong with existing sports. There is nothing wrong with the fact that men are better suited to play at the highest levels of the existing major sports. There is also nothing wrong with the fact that female tennis and volleyball and figure skating and gymnastics get more viewership than male tennis and volleyball and figure skating and gymnastics. In these cases, women are better able to provide the most important aspect of spectator sports: they are more interesting to watch than their male counterparts.

Here's an interesting twist: would Michelle Wie be the highest paid female athlete in the world today had there been no novelty to her ability to compete with men? Its ironic, but the rarity of that ability in a woman makes her pretty special. I'll be rooting for her.

He even mentioned that females would be useful in war because of their small size, sharper senses (in some ways), fine motor control to operate, psychological strength and ability to withstand pain and stress...Oh one more endurance.

That's highly debatable because it depends entirely on what field you get into. There are still quite a few where pure physical strength is important. I suppose that should distress me, since I'm only 5'7" and 150lb, but it doesn't...

I've heard that women have more endurance. This isn't possible in running since women expend more to run because of their pelvis is suited to birthing...

My sister runs marathons better than I do (she's run two, I've run none). Does that distress me because she's female? No, it distresses me because she's 5'1" and a year and a half older than me.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Is that a joke? Men are, in general, stronger than women and in most sports - major ones, anyway - that trait factors heavily in success.

Why must sports primarily favor strength? They do in America, but I'm not sure it is just a universal truth that this is the "way things are." I am suggesting that perhaps we've made it this way and thus it is not set in stone.

Certainly. But to me, the idea of creating a sport with specific attributes designed to favor one sex over the other seems vaguely sexist.

Would you not agree, then, that the "major" sports are sexist? They favor males over females. If there aren't enough sports for females, why shouldn't we create more? I assume this hasn't occurred to most people, but what if it was in demand, would you have a problem with it then?

There is nothing wrong with existing sports. There is nothing wrong with the fact that men are better suited to play at the highest levels of the existing major sports. There is also nothing wrong with the fact that female tennis and volleyball and figure skating and gymnastics get more viewership than male tennis and volleyball and figure skating and gymnastics. In these cases, women are better able to provide the most important aspect of spectator sports: they are more interesting to watch than their male counterparts.

Good point, why do you think that is? I don't want to be watched because my female parts are exposed and bouncing about. You forgot about cheerleading/dance competitions

Here's an interesting twist: would Michelle Wie be the highest paid female athlete in the world today had there been no novelty to her ability to compete with men?

I assume she wouldn't, but you know what they say about assumptions...

Its ironic, but the rarity of that ability in a woman makes her pretty special. I'll be rooting for her. That's highly debatable because it depends entirely on what field you get into. There are still quite a few where pure physical strength is important. I suppose that should distress me, since I'm only 5'7" and 150lb, but it doesn't... My sister runs marathons better than I do (she's run two, I've run none). Does that distress me because she's female? No, it distresses me because she's 5'1" and a year and a half older than me.

Not sure why you would be in distress, I'm not in distress because others are more physically fit than me. Anyhow, my purpose is not to critique our culture just for the heck of it. I'm interested in doing things that are not available to me because of my culture limits my opportunities due to cultural ideals and social aspects. What can I say, I'm a dreamer. I'd also like to convert our freeways into rollercoasters because it'd make driving to work worth it.

 

[Lisa!]

Why must sports primarily favor strength? They do in America, but I'm not sure it is just a universal truth that this is the "way things are." I am suggesting that perhaps we've made it this way and thus it is not set in stone.

So what do you think sports should favor? Do you think we can name them sport if they don't favor strength at all? (I know sports aren't all about strength, but it has a very important role anyway.) And you know since we don't expect women to compete with men, I can't see what's the problem here. And you know we have other kind of sports like chess and it's not about physical strength I'm not sure but I think men are more successful than women in this case.:grumpy:

Would you not agree, then, that the "major" sports are sexist? They favor males over females. If there aren't enough sports for females, why shouldn't we create more? I assume this hasn't occurred to most people, but what if it was in demand, would you have a problem with it then?

Ok why not? But for sure it should be done by women not men. Women know their abilities better than men and they know what's better for them. If you expect men to do it for you, it can't help at all again!

 

[0TheSwerve0]

So what do you think sports should favor?

I'm not saying we should favor either sex, I'm pointing out that they do (the "major" ones that is) favor male morphology. Or at least, that is the consensus, which won't change since people don't see lots of females participating. Not surprising tho, this is a Western culture is preoccupied with masculinity (or at least what we consider masculine).

Do you think we can name them sport if they don't favor strength at all?

sport

1. Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively.
2. A particular form of this activity.
2. An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.

Doesn't say anything about strength, tho you could say that males excel at physical exertion, or at least high levels...Perhaps it depends on the type of exertion.

Card playing, if you agree it is a sport. Darts, bowling, racquetball (that's more fine control than strength), ...yeah, seems like most of the sports we develop are biased, as I was pointing out.

(I know sports aren't all about strength, but it has a very important role anyway.)

why do you think that is?

And you know since we don't expect women to compete with men, I can't see what's the problem here.

yeah, why do we expect that? Why can we not have competitions where both sexes compete together? For that matter, I have brought up the idea that sports do not have to be competitive. It's cool to have segregated sports, but it seems to be that the present situation is a bit lopsided and biased.

And you know we have other kind of sports like chess and it's not about physical strength I'm not sure but I think men are more successful than women in this case.:grumpy:

I don't play chess, so I wouldn't know. I am pretty good at dominoes tho. That and monopoly (maybe I just play with easy opponents). And cards...

Ok why not? But for sure it should be done by women not men. Women know their abilities better than men and they know what's better for them. If you expect men to do it for you, it can't help at all again!

Perty much.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

There is one arena in which I think we can justify the separation of people according to physical traits that correlate with biological sex: sports. The only sport I can think of in which the elite-level women are capable of seriously competing with the elite-level men is ultramarathon running. In something like, say, hockey or the 100 meter dash, it is best to segregate - have women compete with women, and men with men.

I am, however, all for allowing the genetic freaks among the women - like Michelle Wie or Cheryl Miller - to at least attempt competing with the men.

btw, here's where this whole discussion on sports began. I agree that it does seem safer for women if they don't play these violent sports with men. My point was that the sexes don't have to be segregated for every sport. It also led me to the realization that we don't have a lot of sex-neutral sports or even sports where men and women can work together with their different abilties. Or very many sports for women that aren't male spin-offs and male biased.

 

[Lisa!]

I'm not saying we should favor either sex, I'm pointing out that they do (the "major" ones that is) favor male morphology. Or at least, that is the consensus, which won't change since people don't see lots of females participating. Not surprising tho, this is a Western culture is preoccupied with masculinity (or at least what we consider masculine).

Do you know why? Because they're mostly(or perhaps all) created by men!
You know what drives me crazy about women? They usually expect men to do something for them and change the situation. That's really funny. How on the Earth can we expect them to change the situation while they even can't see our problems most of time. I mean they're not able to see them. So if you think we need any change.

sport

1. Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively.
2. A particular form of this activity.
2. An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.

Doesn't say anything about strength, tho you could say that males excel at physical exertion, or at least high levels...Perhaps it depends on the type of exertion.

Card playing, if you agree it is a sport. Darts, bowling, racquetball (that's more fine control than strength), ...yeah, seems like most of the sports we develop are biased, as I was pointing out.

Do you think these are interesting sports? I think they're but for the one who's playing them, but you have to accept sport isn't all about self-interest these days. In fact, it's more supposed to be money-making whether you want it to be or not. It's a kind of business.

why do you think that is?

Why do you think that isn't?:tongue: You need to have enough strength to continue a sport. You can't win a tennis match if you're very talent but not strong enough.

yeah, why do we expect that? Why can we not have competitions where both sexes compete together? For that matter, I have brought up the idea that sports do not have to be competitive. It's cool to have segregated sports, but it seems to be that the present situation is a bit lopsided and biased.

Like what? I told you about chess when men and women compete together, but men are usually more successful. But ok, I have no problem with that unless you say both sexes shoud compete together in all sports or all sports should bein a way that both sexes could compete together!

I don't play chess, so I wouldn't know. I am pretty good at dominoes tho. That and monopoly (maybe I just play with easy opponents). And cards...

I do, and I don't think I'm not as good as men around me.(perhaps even better) But well I think the bests at chess are men now.

 

[arildno]

btw, here's where this whole discussion on sports began. I agree that it does seem safer for women if they don't play these violent sports with men. My point was that the sexes don't have to be segregated for every sport. It also led me to the realization that we don't have a lot of sex-neutral sports or even sports where men and women can work together with their different abilties. Or very many sports for women that aren't male spin-offs and male biased.

Role-playing games and "lives" are perhaps types of sports or games which could be considered gender-neutral?

In fact, if a live session is placed in some type of radically different society, and each participant is given a role to play within that game, then the game itself might be an entertaining way to explore different gender roles than those one experience in your daily life..

 

[Smurf]

Once again I find myself agreeing with the people I usually disagree with (that's happening a lot these last 2 days or so).

I think the idea of tayloring our culture specifically so that no aspect of it favours either sex is rather silly. I mean, would it actually serve any constructive purpose?

 

[russ_watters]

Why must sports primarily favor strength?

Because people who play sports and people who watch sports have decided that that is what they want. Sports have two purposes for players: they are fun and they are exercise (edit: and for a few, they are profitable). Sports have one purpose for fans: they are entertaining to watch.

Why shouldn't they favor strength? Why does that, alone, make sports sexist? And don't say that that means that women can't enjoy sports the way men do, because it simply isn't true. Women who play physical sports get as much enjoyment out of them as men do. It seems you want to convince women that they shouldn't even play games like soccer because they are unable to play at the same level as men. How awful! That's backwards - and even sexist against women!

They do in America, but I'm not sure it is just a universal truth that this is the "way things are."

Soccer is by far the world's most popular sport or game (in terms of time spent doing it or dollars spent on it).

I am suggesting that perhaps we've made it this way and thus it is not set in stone.

That's not a point. Of course we've made it this way and of course it can be changed. But so what? Why should it be changed?

What you are suggesting would mean telling my sister, "I'm sorry, Karen, but since you will never be able to compete on an even keel with men in lacrosse or track, you cannot compete in either sport." How fair is that?

Would you not agree, then, that the "major" sports are sexist? They favor males over females.

Something is sexist only if it is designed to exclude a specific gender and sports are not.

To echo what someone else said, people design sports to make them fun and interesting and that means the way a woman designs a sport and a way a man designs a sport may be different. There is nothing wrong with that, and...

If there aren't enough sports for females, why shouldn't we create more?

...if women want to design sports for women, they are welcome to. Go ahead! But as it turns out, most sports that men find enjoyable are also enjoyable for women. I doubt most women are bothered by that fact. It turns out, making a sport equally "winnable" by a man and a woman is not a very important feature for most people - including women.

I assume this hasn't occurred to most people, but what if it was in demand, would you have a problem with it then?

Absolutely not! What have we been talking about here?: My entire point has been that sports have been created the way they are because that's what people want. If you want to do/create something else, go ahead! I suspect, though, that you won't have much success convincing my sister that she shouldn't be a marathon runner or Michelle Wie that she shouldn't be a golfer because they can't compete on an even keel with men. They'd probably both call you sexist.

Good point, why do you think that is? I don't want to be watched because my female parts are exposed and bouncing about. You forgot about cheerleading/dance competitions

Wow. You have such a one-track mind. Did you happen to notice the demographics of the fans at the Women's World Cup when it was in the US 6 (?) years ago? I doubt that sex was what was on the minds of the predominantly young, female crowd. And gymnastics and figure skating - do you know any men who (voluntarily) watch either of those? Even the men's competitions?

And again - so what if men watch women's beach volleyball to look at the pretty women? Why does that bother you? It doesn't bother me that my female friends watched men's swimming for the same reason. And have a look into what Kerri Walsh said about the condition of her sport (she's a top female volleyball player) in SI recently. Looking good in a swim suit means money in her pocket. And I'm sure that Michael Jordan's appearances in underwear commercials didn't make him wish people appreciated his talent more.



I assume she wouldn't, but you know what they say about assumptions...

Not sure why you would be in distress, I'm not in distress because others are more physically fit than me.

Your posts very strongly imply that you are distressed about the state of current sports as a result of people being more physically fit than you. Isn't that your entire point here? That there is something wrong with physical fitness being important for success in sports?

I'm interested in doing things that are not available to me because of my culture limits my opportunities due to cultural ideals and social aspects.

What opportunities don't you have that you should?

why do you think that is? [sports having biases]

Everything has a bias. Basketball has a bias toward tall people. Gymnastics has a bias toward short and skinny people. Engineering has a bias toward smart and mathematically inclined people. That is a fact of life and there isn't anything wrong with it - indeed, it is not possible, nor is it desirable, to eliminate such biases.

yeah, why do we expect that? Why can we not have competitions where both sexes compete together?

It's cool to have segregated sports, but it seems to be that the present situation is a bit lopsided and biased.

What, you never heard of mixed-doubles? On a local recreational level, most sports are mixed and there isn't any problem with that. In professional sports, however, most male sports are actually open to women while female sports are not open to men. Female sports are segregated, and then only for the benefit of the women in them.

For that matter, I have brought up the idea that sports do not have to be competitive.

Please reread definition 1, you posted.

Listen, if you don't like the fact that sports require physical fitness/activity, don't play them. There is nothing wrong with you not linking sports, but you not liking sports does not mean there is something wrong with sports.

Role-playing games and "lives" are perhaps types of sports or games which could be considered gender-neutral?

One of the neat things about doing almost anything online is that superficial differences such as gender, race, age, etc. are utterly irrelevant. In many pursuits, you won't even know such information about a person.

 

[Smurf]

Something is sexist only if it is designed to exclude a specific gender and sports are not.

And in that respect it could be argued that the current sports are entirely egalitarian since segregation makes it entirely possible for women to play as well.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Do you know why? Because they're mostly(or perhaps all) created by men!
You know what drives me crazy about women? They usually expect men to do something for them and change the situation. That's really funny. How on the Earth can we expect them to change the situation while they even can't see our problems most of time. I mean they're not able to see them. So if you think we need any change.

Yeah, that is annoying. But hey, when men control society, what can one do? hehe, but anyhow, I hope that comment wasn't directed at me. I don't expect men to change things, I was thinking of society as a whole. This reminds me of a conversation I was having with a friend of mine about racism. He was saying how it's up to Africans to change Africa and stop blaming the white people. Guess the same applies here.

Do you think these are interesting sports? I think they're but for the one who's playing them, but you have to accept sport isn't all about self-interest these days. In fact, it's more supposed to be money-making whether you want it to be or not. It's a kind of business.

Actually football does reflect a lot of American ideology so that isn't a new idea for me. Esp the business part - playing on a level field and working together to score. Ideology about equal opportunity runs rampant, tho it never really is equal in either realm.

Why do you think that isn't?:tongue: You need to have enough strength to continue a sport. You can't win a tennis match if you're very talent but not strong enough.

yeah, cause tennis requires the ability to hit hard...
I usu excel at air hockey, something that requires better aim rather than strenght alone, I find that pretty fun.

Like what? I told you about chess when men and women compete together, but men are usually more successful. But ok, I have no problem with that unless you say both sexes shoud compete together in all sports or all sports should bein a way that both sexes could compete together!

I'm more for getting past limitations (hard to do when they are so subtlely worked into our lives). I don't think all sports should be sex-neutral, I'm not trying to impose anything here. Obviously men and women like different things, so why try to impose something, esp something that isn't natural or beneficial?
Doesn't seem like there is any limitation to actually developing the things I'm talking about, but for some reason I just don't think that it'll happen.

I do, and I don't think I'm not as good as men around me. (perhaps even better) But well I think the bests at chess are men now.

Yeah, most chess players are nerds, and most nerds are men...

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Role-playing games and "lives" are perhaps types of sports or games which could be considered gender-neutral?
In fact, if a live session is placed in some type of radically different society, and each participant is given a role to play within that game, then the game itself might be an entertaining way to explore different gender roles than those one experience in your daily life..

yep, good example!

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Once again I find myself agreeing with the people I usually disagree with (that's happening a lot these last 2 days or so).
I think the idea of tayloring our culture specifically so that no aspect of it favours either sex is rather silly. I mean, would it actually serve any constructive purpose?

Read the above post to Lisa, where I mention I'm not trying to be controlling. I'm actually just pointing out the ways in which it is already controlled, and asking for some leeway. I'm not saying we should force behavior in any way. Did I say this before? I don't remember actually saying what you think I am saying.

 

[Smurf]

I'm fully against trying to start something just because women would be better at it then men. I think it's silly. We didn't start golf because blacks were kicking white ass at basketball. We shouldn't start some other crappy sport because men are kicking women's ass at everything else. It's pointless and it will only end up being segregated again. It will become famous among women because they'll continously see better games by women than the men side and they'll get their sad little feminist side ego's satisfied by that during their little girl parties after *****ing about their boyfriends who just dumped them.

[/rant]

arg. The idea that we need more sports (or anything) that group X is better than group Y at is inherently descriminatory and serves only to reinforce prejudices against both groups. Rationalizing it doesn't change that. This is not the right mindset for an egalitarian.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I'm fully against trying to start something just because women would be better at it then men. I think it's silly.

I didn't say just because, I said because I'd enjoy it. I like playing sports and games, hence I'd like to develop some more that would be tailored for me. Like movies or music or anything enjoyable. I'd like to see more movies that are scifi or fantasy. That doesn't mean I care about getting rid of crappy movies, I'd just like to have some choice. I don't want to do it just on principle, where'd you get that idea?

 

[Lisa!]

Yeah, that is annoying. But hey, when men control society, what can one do?

Nothing really. Just ask them very nicely "Please, do something for us. It's not fair this way!" and make them aware of what they never can think of it because of the lack of intelligence and they would really appreciate it! Or perhaps using her physical attractiveness to make them do what women want!(sorry I usually get angry when I hear that )
No dear. I know you don't agree with above! You know if all women thought/think like that, now we were as miserable as we used to be in the past centuries. We should do something that we think it's right and make other women to support us. And I'm sure they'll do if they like your idea.
Think of what's good for all women base on their abilities and interests and then I want to see how on the Earth men can do prevent us from doing what we all agree on this.
For get all I said and just Tell me something : why do you think men control society?

hehe, but anyhow, I hope that comment wasn't directed at me. I don't expect men to change things, I was thinking of society as a whole. This reminds me of a conversation I was having with a friend of mine about racism. He was saying how it's up to Africans to change Africa and stop blaming the white people. Guess the same applies here.

No, it wasn't. I'd be appreciate it if you tell me what you said to your friend.

Actually football does reflect a lot of American ideology so that isn't a new idea for me. Esp the business part - playing on a level field and working together to score. Ideology about equal opportunity runs rampant, tho it never really is equal in either realm.

Football isn't the most popular sport in the US anyway. But well most of sports are like that.

yeah, cause tennis requires the ability to hit hard...
I usu excel at air hockey, something that requires better aim rather than strenght alone, I find that pretty fun.

And hit right. Tennis is 1 of the sport that really requires talent. And most of time men and women play it together.

I'm more for getting past limitations (hard to do when they are so subtlely worked into our lives). I don't think all sports should be sex-neutral, I'm not trying to impose anything here. Obviously men and women like different things, so why try to impose something, esp something that isn't natural or beneficial?

I don't think anyone here is imposing anything!

Doesn't seem like there is any limitation to actually developing the things I'm talking about, but for some reason I just don't think that it'll happen.

What reasons?

Yeah, most chess players are nerds, and most nerds are men...

But hopefuly women are getting more and better every day!

 

[Lisa!]

What you are suggesting would mean telling my sister, "I'm sorry, Karen, but since you will never be able to compete on an even keel with men in lacrosse or track, you cannot compete in either sport." How fair is that? Something is sexist only if it is designed to exclude a specific gender and sports are not.

It happened in another way. I think the best woman football player had made a contract to play for men football team of a club but FIFA didn't let her. I really don't agree with it that woman should compete with men since I think it's not good for them, but well you have to accept there are always exceptions. On the other hand there are some men sport I seriously think women shouldn't play them since they're too violence and heavy for them, but unfortunately nobody does anything about them. Being equal to men doesn't mean you should be allowed to do whatever men do. But since nobody forces women to chose these sports, I think it's their own fault anyway.

One of the neat things about doing almost anything online is that superficial differences such as gender, race, age, etc. are utterly irrelevant. In many pursuits, you won't even know such information about a person.

I don't think internet stays as neat as it's now, in the not so far future and you know it's not as good as what you said even now. But yes, you're right that is most of the time.

 

[Smurf]

I didn't say just because, I said because I'd enjoy it. I like playing sports and games, hence I'd like to develop some more that would be tailored for me. Like movies or music or anything enjoyable. I'd like to see more movies that are scifi or fantasy. That doesn't mean I care about getting rid of crappy movies, I'd just like to have some choice. I don't want to do it just on principle, where'd you get that idea?

There's nothing stopping you from seeing fantasy and sci fi movies.

Personally I think both sports and movies are stupid...

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Nothing really. Just ask them very nicely "Please, do something for us. It's not fair this way!" and make them aware of what they never can think of it because of the lack of intelligence and they would really appreciate it! Or perhaps using her physical attractiveness to make them do what women want!(sorry I usually get angry when I hear that )
No dear. I know you don't agree with above! You know if all women thought/think like that, now we were as miserable as we used to be in the past centuries. We should do something that we think it's right and make other women to support us. And I'm sure they'll do if they like your idea.
Think of what's good for all women base on their abilities and interests and then I want to see how on the Earth men can do prevent us from doing what we all agree on this.

Ok, I think I kind of understood that. I thought you were serious at first, damn sarcasm. I'm not losing any sleep over this, just something that was pertinent to the thread. I do agree that if you want the status quo to change, you've got to work hard. In the end, I don't care enough about sports to do this myself.

For get all I said and just Tell me something : why do you think men control society?

I don't think men control every society, I'm just talking about ours. Plus, I kind of go with Foucault on this -

(Nader, 1995: 711) For Michel Foucault, in contrast, power was "not a group of institutions and mechanisms that ensure the subservience of the citizens" but a force that permeated all realms of social life, with no real center and no one employing power tactics.

In culture, the certain aspects have to be in the right place at the right time for things to "lock." It's not that men are consciously in control of everything, it's that our culture is based on Judeo-Christian patriarchy (and other supporting ideas), men are perceived to be the ones that should be in power, and hence they are. Now, I know today we say that a person's sex should not matter when it comes to wielding power (not everyone says this), but we still have way more males in positions of power at every social level, top and bottom. We can postulate as to why this is, perhaps men are just more interested in being in power. Yet, it seems that even if that were true, why would there be such a huge disparity? And why is the gap closing as time goes on? I'm sure we could have a great discussion as to why this is, but for my part, I know that cultural roots plays at least some part (and it usu plays a large part more often than not). Same thing in Turkey, they're also from the Judeo-Christian tradition, and men are also perceived to be the rightful possessors of control - (Delaney, 1986: 498)

The seed carries the spark of life which is theoretically eternal but demands that men produce sons to carry it down the generations. In Turkey, women continue to bear children until a son is born. The son is the incarnation of the father and the one who can continue the patriline. Sulale, the Turkish word for patriline, is derived from the Arabic and means something like reproductive semen. There is a saying, 'A boy is the flame of the line, a girl the embers of a house'. In other words, seed is imagined as a kind of torch passed from father to son, ad infinitum, while women are the fuel consumed in the process...
In Turkish village men are imagined to have the creative power within them, which gives them a core of identity, self-motivation or autonomy. Women lack the power to create and therefore project themselves. Men's bodies are viewed as self-contained while women's bodily boundaries oscillate and shift...Physical attributes, filtered through this logic, take on moral qualities. The notion that a woman's intelligence is not as sharp as a man's suggests that she lacks the proper equipment to penetrate the ambiguities of life, she does not have a core principles to determine the line between right and wrong but oscillates and shifts according to the influences brought upon her.

There's much more in the article to explain this, if anyone thinks the anthropologist is twisting words and ideas to fit their thesis. Something very similar exists in Western culture (no matter how unconscious or veiled), hence men here are instinctually given control over much of society. Yet, we have consciously acted to change this. So we are somewhere between our ideal and reality.

No, it wasn't. I'd be appreciate it if you tell me what you said to your friend.

We were listening to an NPR report about the state of Africa - indemic warfare with no end in sight, horrible living conditions, poverty...hell pretty much. I was saying "If only those damn Europeans/Americans would leave them alone and let them solve their own problems." He was saying that by now, Europeans/Americans are trying to help Africans, but it seems to me (and I haven't researched this much), that if Europeans are anywhere, it's likely got to do with their own gain. He seemed to think that the aid Europeans/Americans give was invaluable at this point. We talked some more and he concluded by pretty much saying that despite who is at fault, things won't get better unless the Africans themselves get heavily involved. No point in sitting around and whining about it, the only thing to be done is deal with an unfair situation to get out of it. I don't see involvement from the outside as being as useful as internal work. The same applies here, if I as a woman want sexist things to change, the only way they will (in reality, not ideally), is if I do most of the work. However, my point in bringing up that men are in control and that we are such a male oriented culture was not to whine about it, but to show how this patrilineal ideology affects us in our everyday lives...which is pertinent to our discussion of sex and gender.

Football isn't the most popular sport in the US anyway. But well most of sports are like that.
And hit right. Tennis is 1 of the sport that really requires talent. And most of time men and women play it together.

I always thought football was the most popular sport here. Is it baseball?

I don't think anyone here is imposing anything!
What reasons?
But hopefuly women are getting more and better every day!

It seemed that people were misunderstanding what I was saying, that I was somehow acting like a feminazi.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

There's nothing stopping you from seeing fantasy and sci fi movies.

No there isn't, but the point is if they don't make em then I can't watch em. Luckily, they do I'm sure there is something that isn't available due to cultural norms that I would like, not that it's really that important to me.

Personally I think both sports and movies are stupid...

you're a regular Shakespeare...

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Because people who play sports and people who watch sports have decided that that is what they want. Sports have two purposes for players: they are fun and they are exercise (edit: and for a few, they are profitable). Sports have one purpose for fans: they are entertaining to watch.

Yes, people have decided, but their decisions are influenced by culture. I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be this way (it only matters if it's limiting someone, even then we have to specify what kinds of limitations we want or don't want), I'm saying that it is an example of how cultural norms and ideas about social aspects (eg gender, kinship, economic practices, religions/ideologies/cosmologies) get reinforced through institutions - in this case sport can be considered a social institution:

institution

1. The act of instituting.

A custom, practice, relationship, or behavioral pattern of importance in the life of a community or society: the institutions of marriage and the family.

One long associated with a specified place, position, or function.

An established organization or foundation, especially one dedicated to education, public service, or culture.

I'm not saying that sports don't have other uses, like simply having fun or getting exercise. Not every person thinks of survival when they surf the net, but ultimately that behavior can be considered useful for survival. In the same way, sports reinforce values that keep our society on top. Perhaps people even enjoy watching or participating because they do hold that this is the way things should be. I'm not making a moral judgment (though I can if you want me to).

Why shouldn't they favor strength? Why does that, alone, make sports sexist?

Again, I'm not saying should or shouldn't, I'm saying that if we want to have more opportunities for all members of society, we should design things accordingly. If we don't care, then leave things the way they are.

That alone doesn't make it sexist. It is designed so that only men can play, or at least that only males can play males. It's centered on male competition. That alone isn't sexist, since women can play against women if they want. I was pointing out, however, that sports in general are tailored so that men will succeed. This is expected when we see that our culture (once again) is concerned with "maleness" and male competition. So, if most of our sports are tailored for male participation, then our sports are biased (and I'm not saying a negative or positive way). Or perhaps partial, or whatever word is appropriate here. They are designed indirectly, then, to exclude women. If we want to give women more opportunities to play sports (and everyone the opportunity to play together), then we can develop sports that are not so biased.

And don't say that that means that women can't enjoy sports the way men do, because it simply isn't true. Women who play physical sports get as much enjoyment out of them as men do. It seems you want to convince women that they shouldn't even play games like soccer because they are unable to play at the same level as men. How awful! That's backwards - and even sexist against women!

I never said women couldn't get enjoyment out of it, but I think because we could all be missing out on something because of this bias. That's pretty much true in every realm, so we have to choose where we want to not have these limitations. I see for you that you are perfectly content the way things are, while I am not (not to a great degree tho). Is this not where this whole argument springs from?

Soccer is by far the world's most popular sport or game (in terms of time spent doing it or dollars spent on it).

yes, the world. I was talking about America, however.

That's not a point. Of course we've made it this way and of course it can be changed. But so what? Why should it be changed?

If it's important enough to people to have other opportunities available for them. If not, then it probably won't be changed. Personally, I'd like to have a wider variety of sports available to me.

What you are suggesting would mean telling my sister, "I'm sorry, Karen, but since you will never be able to compete on an even keel with men in lacrosse or track, you cannot compete in either sport." How fair is that?

When did I suggest that? If a person enjoys what they're doing, they are welcome to do it. It doesn't have to be either/or (another Western foundation - false dichotomies).

Something is sexist only if it is designed to exclude a specific gender and sports are not.To echo what someone else said, people design sports to make them fun and interesting and that means the way a woman designs a sport and a way a man designs a sport may be different. There is nothing wrong with that, and...if women want to design sports for women, they are welcome to. Go ahead! But as it turns out, most sports that men find enjoyable are also enjoyable for women. I doubt most women are bothered by that fact. It turns out, making a sport equally "winnable" by a man and a woman is not a very important feature for most people - including women.

As I said before, it's pretty much by default that they are sexist. I don't think the people who developed the games did so with the primary intention of excluding females, but it did happen. Yep, we are welcome to change things, but because it goes against the status quo, it won't be as easy as it is to get male sports off the ground. Again, I'm not saying the current sports aren't available, I'm proposing that we could increase our enjoyment and fun if we had a wider variety (is this not true with a lot of things? or is sports not one of those things?).

Absolutely not! What have we been talking about here?: My entire point has been that sports have been created the way they are because that's what people want. If you want to do/create something else, go ahead! I suspect, though, that you won't have much success convincing my sister that she shouldn't be a marathon runner or Michelle Wie that she shouldn't be a golfer because they can't compete on an even keel with men. They'd probably both call you sexist.

Again, false dichotomies...
I didn't say we should tell females they shouldn't play sports simply because men will do better at them. I'm saying having a wider variety would be better.

Wow. You have such a one-track mind. Did you happen to notice the demographics of the fans at the Women's World Cup when it was in the US 6 (?) years ago? I doubt that sex was what was on the minds of the predominantly young, female crowd.

Nope, but are cheerleaders and soccer/football players dress differently. I doubt the latter's uniforms are designed to titillate.

And gymnastics and figure skating - do you know any men who (voluntarily) watch either of those? Even the men's competitions?

Have you noticed a lot of guys feel their masculinity is questioned if they watch those? Why aren't they threatened by watching cheerleaders, however?

And again - so what if men watch women's beach volleyball to look at the pretty women? Why does that bother you?

It does not bother me. But if my only choices were to play sports that are designed for men or to play sports tailored to titillate men, I'd find myself wishing for a third option. Again, I find what's out there to be limiting. I'm not pushing to abolish those sports, I enjoy swimming and volleyball myself, but I am pointing out that even there, we have the masculine in mind.

It doesn't bother me that my female friends watched men's swimming for the same reason. And have a look into what Kerri Walsh said about the condition of her sport (she's a top female volleyball player) in SI recently. Looking good in a swim suit means money in her pocket. And I'm sure that Michael Jordan's appearances in underwear commercials didn't make him wish people appreciated his talent more.

yep, appearance and material oriented culture. Of course this makes sense. I'm an American too, therefore I'm also concerned with what I look like and how many toys I have.

Your posts very strongly imply that you are distressed about the state of current sports as a result of people being more physically fit than you. Isn't that your entire point here? That there is something wrong with physical fitness being important for success in sports?

Nope, I actually bask in my unfitness.
And, people can be physically fit in other ways. I'm thinking of the Darwinian use of the term fit. It doesn't have to mean strength or health. Whatever helps you win in a game can be called a state fitness. EG video games, I'm pretty good at those, but I'm not "physically fit" in the sense we normally think of.

why do you think that is? [sports having biases]
Everything has a bias. Basketball has a bias toward tall people. Gymnastics has a bias toward short and skinny people. Engineering has a bias toward smart and mathematically inclined people. That is a fact of life and there isn't anything wrong with it - indeed, it is not possible, nor is it desirable, to eliminate such biases.

yep, I addressed that above somewhere. I also think that biases aren't necessarily negative. Even limitations are needed in some cases. I'm not sure they're needed in this case, however, since we're talking about having fun.

What, you never heard of mixed-doubles? On a local recreational level, most sports are mixed and there isn't any problem with that. In professional sports, however, most male sports are actually open to women while female sports are not open to men. Female sports are segregated, and then only for the benefit of the women in them.

I have, and I do enjoy those. But, it'd be interesting to see what kinds of sports we could develop aren't sex biased. Someone mentioned RPG, which is a pretty awesome game. I'm sure there are sports we could develop which would just as exciting.

Listen, if you don't like the fact that sports require physical fitness/activity, don't play them. There is nothing wrong with you not linking sports, but you not liking sports does not mean there is something wrong with sports.

Again with the assumption that I find what we already have negative and not fun. And, the false dichotomies! I'm being imaginative here, and I imagine all sorts of things that could be fun that we don't already have. Why don't we have them? Because of the status quo. Why does the status quo not want them? Because of culture.

Please try to read what I say more carefully, I'm not attaching rightness or wrongness to sports.

 

[Smurf]

No there isn't, but the point is if they don't make em then I can't watch em. Luckily, they do I'm sure there is something that isn't available due to cultural norms that I would like, not that it's really that important to me.

Possibly. I don't think there's anything unavailable that I would enjoy too much. Aside from a healthy society to live in.. unfortunately so few of those exist and they have such short life spans.

you're a regular Shakespeare...

Whatever that means.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Billiards is a sport that doesn't really favour either sex as far as I can tell. The only way in which it is generally considered a males game is due to billiards at one time becoming associated with the unsavoury and proper ladies weren't supposed to be hanging out in pool halls.
The womens billiards tournemants here in America are just as popular as mens tournaments as far as I know. The womens league players tend to be more popular such as "The Black Widow" lol. For some reason they don't mix so it could be that men tend to do better at it then women but I'm not sure about that. When I see amatuer leagues though they tend to be mixed.

 

[Smurf]

I didn't say just because, I said because I'd enjoy it. I like playing sports and games, hence I'd like to develop some more that would be tailored for me. Like movies or music or anything enjoyable. I'd like to see more movies that are scifi or fantasy. That doesn't mean I care about getting rid of crappy movies, I'd just like to have some choice. I don't want to do it just on principle, where'd you get that idea?

I think this is a corrupt argument. Why arn't these sports talored to you? Just because women in general are not as good as men does not mean you can't enjoy a sport just as much. I think that when you say that it's not talored to you and your definition of something being talored to your group is one that makes your attributes the requirements for winning your not really egalitarian anymore, you're taloring for a specific group.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I think this is a corrupt argument. Why arn't these sports talored to you? Just because women in general are not as good as men does not mean you can't enjoy a sport just as much. I think that when you say that it's not talored to you and your definition of something being talored to your group is one that makes your attributes the requirements for winning your not really egalitarian anymore, you're taloring for a specific group.

yep, you're the one making the value judgment not me. I never said sports designed by men and for men were wrong or bad or negative, I just said that they are limiting and that having a wider variety would give everyone more opportunities. I'm just being redundant at this point...PS I got the 100th post! schwing!

 

[Smurf]

PS I got the 100th post! schwing!

Check again...

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Damn, thought I saw the 100 posts with mine being the last...

The count is different when you look at it from the social sciences forum itself, as of now it says 102 posts when here it says 103. I got the 100th reply it seems

 

[Smurf]

So are we going to talk about social and natural psychology or not?

 

[0TheSwerve0]

pffft, hold your horses...
I guess so, but I think you should start the new thread. Unless you want to continue it here.
And what exactly is the thesis? I guess from what I know humans are equally influenced by nature and nurture. My teacher presented a study for my sex differences class, I think http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug97/862927470.Ge.r.html" is the same one:

Genetic influence for homosexuality?

They looked at the pedigree for male homosexuals to see if it ran in the family. They found that Researchers found that the concordance rate for homosexuality is highest among identical twins, lower among fraternal and lowest in adopted siblings. Such a pattern is evidence for a genetic basis to homosexuality... the closer you are genetically to your sibling, the more likely you both are to be gay. If you are not genetically related, you are less likley to both be gay, even though you grew up in the same home. However, it should also be stressed that the researchers found aconcordance rate of around 50% for both gay and lesbian pairs of identical twins... *not* 100%. In other words, half of those with an identical twin who is gay are also gay, half are not. This probably means that, although genes play a role in sexual orientation, they are likely *not* to be the only factor, as they are for traits like eye and hair color.

The final piece of evidence comes from studies on gene linkage. Remember the pedigree analysis that suggested a gene for male homosexuality on the X-chromosome. To review some basic genetics, girls inherit 2 X-chromosomes, one from each parent. Boys get an X-chromosome from their mother, and a Y-chromosome from their father. The fact that gay men tended to have more gay relatives on the mother's side than on the father's suggested that, if homosexuality was inherited, the gene would be on the X-chromosome.

So there is a link, just not a really strong one. Plus, there aren't any studies for women. There are other studies that claim male homosexuals have "female" looking brains, eg the INHA3 and studies on how lower levels of testosterone in the womb are related to this (related to sexual preference). But what about females? Do lesbians have brains that look like males?

Oh, found it, here's my notes on the study (http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/textonly/browseablepublications/geneticsandhb/report_418.html" )
Percent indicates the proportion of siblings that were both homosexual
_______________________Male____________________Female

identical twins___________52%______________________48%
fraternal twins___________22%______________________16%
adopted siblings__________11%______________________6%This also relates to a book I read by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Sykes" )

edit: he also says he's not sure, but it was just a hypothesis that helped to explain it in part.
Should I move this to a new thread?