|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:57 pm
princess lolifoxxx Tarkanos I don't shun emotion because of gender roles. I do it because I hate most of humanity. I sometimes think I have a predisposition to hate most people. But mentality and physicality are only slightly related. Gender roles are just a society thing. But if you look at the 1950's and then look at now, you will see a huge difference. I don't think you can say that mentality and physicality are only slightly related. You act a certain way because of your body. Think about it: when you're overweight, you develop an awareness of the fact, and dress and act accordingly. Therefore it only stands to reason that if you have a p***s, unless you are subject to a positive influence otherwise, you will define yourself by its presence. Ah, but does it really have to be that much of an effect? Girls wear jeans, where once it was looked down upon. Certain things may change, but you are always free to act as you will. Each person will react to their own circumstances differently, so you can't generalize the effect of a bodily dimension.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 6:35 pm
I think it all has to do with what had come before us. We evolved from apes (or so I believe), and the apes are usually ruled by an alphamale (hence the fierce competition between some of the more testoterone-fueled guys), and that females were mostly involved in mating, which is where we got our earlier view of women being possessions. The reason that most women are viewed as weaker than men is that we usually sent the men to fight each other, so they grew muscles, while we had the women staying home and doing the household chores. Women are generally more emotional because they were constantly in social contact with each other, while the men were either raining with each other or killing each other.
There's more I'll add later, but I'm really busy (school tests right before winter break... AAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:53 pm
princess lolifoxxx Tarkanos I don't shun emotion because of gender roles. I do it because I hate most of humanity. I sometimes think I have a predisposition to hate most people. But mentality and physicality are only slightly related. Gender roles are just a society thing. But if you look at the 1950's and then look at now, you will see a huge difference. I don't think you can say that mentality and physicality are only slightly related. You act a certain way because of your body. Think about it: when you're overweight, you develop an awareness of the fact, and dress and act accordingly. Therefore it only stands to reason that if you have a p***s, unless you are subject to a positive influence otherwise, you will define yourself by its presence. I don't believe that people define themselves based on their genitalia. Besides, gender and sex are two different things. Sex is the physical nature of our bodies that define us as male or female. But gender is different. A woman is no longer just a creature with a v****a, and a man is no longer just a creature that has a p***s. There are certain traits, habits, and behavioral patterns attributed to those words, and that is what gender is. That is why someone's sex can be female and their gender be that of a man. Or even, people might exhibit traits from both genders, or have their particular gender role be flexible between the two extremes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:26 pm
Vanadia Gold princess lolifoxxx Tarkanos I don't shun emotion because of gender roles. I do it because I hate most of humanity. I sometimes think I have a predisposition to hate most people. But mentality and physicality are only slightly related. Gender roles are just a society thing. But if you look at the 1950's and then look at now, you will see a huge difference. I don't think you can say that mentality and physicality are only slightly related. You act a certain way because of your body. Think about it: when you're overweight, you develop an awareness of the fact, and dress and act accordingly. Therefore it only stands to reason that if you have a p***s, unless you are subject to a positive influence otherwise, you will define yourself by its presence. I don't believe that people define themselves based on their genitalia. Besides, gender and sex are two different things. Sex is the physical nature of our bodies that define us as male or female. But gender is different. A woman is no longer just a creature with a v****a, and a man is no longer just a creature that has a p***s. There are certain traits, habits, and behavioral patterns attributed to those words, and that is what gender is. That is why someone's sex can be female and their gender be that of a man. Or even, people might exhibit traits from both genders, or have their particular gender role be flexible between the two extremes. O, believe me, I'm totally up for 'third gender' and all that, but what I'm saying is that the general public is not, and has no interest in accepting anything beyond their binary gender definitions. Sex and gender are, of course, seperate; but in the eyes of most people, a person who is physically female but self-defines as male is 'weird'. We're still expected to replay the gender roles as defined centuries ago. Sure, women can now wear jeans and not be thought of as cheap, but that's a small concession in a world that still characitures 'house-husbands' as 'cissy' and football players as 'real men.' As for the argument that Tarkanos made that you 'are always free to act as you will', one does find that severely impaired when as a child you are taught one thing is normal and another is not. Think about it: even comics portray cross-dressing as unusual and silly, as opposed to an eploration of gender.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:11 am
It's just a cultural thing.
In times of total war, or of national disaster, it all is torn away to reveal the huge strength and the great weakness of individuals.
Male and female partisans crossing mountain ranges with rifles and artillery. Male and females leading heroic rescues after an earthquake, and men and women utterly broken, sobbing and inconsolable, after relatives are lost in floods.
Humanity is the real thing. Gender difference are hard-wired, but not necessarily of central importance so far as societal duties are concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:00 am
In those cases the limits were pushed and people looked beyond gender to the humanity within.
What can we do now that would allow us to pull from that same humanity without calling forth a crisis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:36 pm
Larmyth In those cases the limits were pushed and people looked beyond gender to the humanity within. What can we do now that would allow us to pull from that same humanity without calling forth a crisis. Castration? JK razz As for how those people looked beyond gender, I don't believe so (relentless cynicism). Perhaps some individuals do, and certainly the women who take up arms do challenge their personal perceptions of gender, but it could also be argued that from a macroscopic point of view, partisans don't neccessarily look beyond gender, but allow women to join for pragmatic purposes, like filling up ranks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
