What has happened to gender separation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wolram
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Separation
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the perceived decline of traditional gender separation in fashion and appearance over the past two decades, with participants noting that women are less focused on conventional beauty standards, such as makeup and feminine clothing. Some argue that this shift reflects broader social changes, where individuals prioritize self-expression over conformity to gender norms. The conversation touches on the cyclical nature of fashion and the rebellious tendencies of youth against established customs. Participants also highlight that personal definitions of beauty vary widely, and many modern styles serve as social statements rather than mere aesthetic choices. Ultimately, the thread illustrates a tension between nostalgia for past norms and acceptance of evolving gender expressions.
  • #61
jackwhirl said:
Communication is hard! Yes, the intent of my question was to provoke such. But also to ask what others thought in response.
What do you think?
It's a very interesting thought. I agree. It might be in some way just another point of view trying to express what is usually taught in social science classes.
Usually it's stated that there is no such thing as a typical male or female, because everyone is somewhere on the continuum of various characteristics. And in most people, the sum of these tends to lean toward one end (male or female as understood by particular culture) of the spectrum. But in each individual, at least some of the typical traits of the other gender are present.
The problem is also that these gender characteristics vary between the cultures. In anthropology, we have accounts of cultures where typical gender roles were reversed to our concept (= typical men were expected to be gentle and typical women were expected to be strong). Of course, there are not many societies like that in the world, but they exist(ed). They are probably extinct/assimilated now.
So definitely, we come to the same conclusion that it is impossible to invent universal gender characteristics.
It seems to me that claiming that whatever a person does is natural for that gender and stating that everyone is just on some place on the spectrum between culturally accepted ideals is a similar thing. It's just based on different point of view .
Your definition is certainly very interesting and refreshing for me.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
I get a little sick of these things.

Gah, that woman put her decorative piercing in one of the unacceptable cartiliginous structures! Why can't she just skewer her auricular lobule like everyone else? That would be much more pleasing to my personal sensibilities. Society is just circling the drain. :rolleyes:
 
  • #63
Opus_723 said:
I get a little sick of these things.

Gah, that woman put her decorative piercing in one of the unacceptable cartiliginous structures! Why can't she just skewer her auricular lobule like everyone else? That would be much more pleasing to my personal sensibilities. Society is just circling the drain. :rolleyes:
Haha your sound like Bones Brennan.
 
  • Like
Likes RProgrammer
  • #64
Opus_723 said:
I get a little sick of these things.

Gah, that woman put her decorative piercing in one of the unacceptable cartiliginous structures! Why can't she just skewer her auricular lobule like everyone else? That would be much more pleasing to my personal sensibilities. Society is just circling the drain. :rolleyes:
And men? Is there a point about men and women who both/each pierce their cartilaginous structures? What am I missing? Perhaps more to the point, are you saying one gender is circling society's drain and not the other? :confused:
 
  • #65
Sophia said:
It's a very interesting thought. I agree. It might be in some way just another point of view trying to express what is usually taught in social science classes.
Usually it's stated that there is no such thing as a typical male or female, because everyone is somewhere on the continuum of various characteristics. And in most people, the sum of these tends to lean toward one end (male or female as understood by particular culture) of the spectrum. But in each individual, at least some of the typical traits of the other gender are present.
The problem is also that these gender characteristics vary between the cultures. In anthropology, we have accounts of cultures where typical gender roles were reversed to our concept (= typical men were expected to be gentle and typical women were expected to be strong). Of course, there are not many societies like that in the world, but they exist(ed). They are probably extinct/assimilated now.
So definitely, we come to the same conclusion that it is impossible to invent universal gender characteristics.
It seems to me that claiming that whatever a person does is natural for that gender and stating that everyone is just on some place on the spectrum between culturally accepted ideals is a similar thing. It's just based on different point of view .
Your definition is certainly very interesting and refreshing for me.

Still, if you accept that form follows function, the difference between the male and female brains suggest otherwise.
 
  • #66
collinsmark said:
What am I missing?
User Opus_723 is a wizard. He cast reductio ad absurdum.
 

Similar threads

Replies
19
Views
7K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
495