You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Gender Stereoypes’ tag.
The demands of people for you as a third party to partake in their gender-fantasy is not a reasonable one.
What other adults think and believe in society is not my responsibility. I believe that society should be based on verifiable facts, evinced arguments, and the willingness to be compromise on contentious issues. We’re all not going to get exactly what we want from society, but through negotiation and Reason, a middling solution must be found. The best way to interrogate the issues that we all face in the broader societal context is to have the ability to discuss social issues without fear in a nuanced and usually complex way. No topic should be off limits in a reasonable discussion – yet an entire class of unreasonable arguments seems to be off that table. Those arguments deal with the ideas of personal identity and how the individual and society is supposed to interact.
The problematic identities that are causing friction in society usually involve the nebulous concept of ‘gender’. Gender is the set of socially constructed beliefs and values that are associated with the two sexes of human beings in society. For instance, males are aggressive and good leaders, while females are compassionate and good care-givers are both examples of sex stereotypes (aka gender) that individuals in each sex class are saddled with. Society is constructed around the preservation of these stereotypes and in breaking them there is usually a negative social cost involved.
Feminists, during the second wave, sought to break down these gender stereotypes and move toward an understanding of gender as an often toxic construction of norms and ideas that shouldn’t necessarily be followed. Gender non-conforming behaviour was lauded as the way forward as individuals of both sexes should be able to access and embody the traits and values that were traditionally ‘not allowed’ for them. Women could be aggressive, powerful leaders while men could be caring nurturing and family orientated – and neither would face social censure for acting outside what was considered “normal” for their sex classes.
I consider the refutation of gender norms and gender non-conforming behaviour to be the way forward in society as individuals should be able to embody whatever sex stereotypical sets of behaviours that seem right for them.
All of this is based on the notion that gender is a set of sex stereotypical behaviours that have been arbitrarily (and some times coercively) assigned to the two human sexes.
The Transgender Identity movement we know today takes precisely the opposite view of sex stereotypes and how they should play out in society. Transgender ideology states that the act of performing and identifying with one set of sex stereotypes *makes* you that stereotype AND the physical sex associated with it. So for instance, a man who likes wearing high heels and dresses (both sex stereotypical clothing types) should be regarded as a ‘woman’ (adult human female). Because, in transgender ideology, adopting femininity and feminine affect is what makes women ‘women’.
To reality based feminists and most of the general population this is a preposterous notion. Human beings inhabit a sexual binary. We are either male or female for the most part. What makes a woman or a man is simply being male or female with all the associated physical characteristics. We are defined by the sex class we are born into – the set of stereotypes prescribed for us is based on natal sex. Second Wave feminism correctly identified gender as (usually harmful) sex-stereotypes and specifically rallied against the notion that to be a proper man or a woman one must follow the normative prescriptions of gender identity.
Transgender ideology flips this around and says that people who don’t associate with set of sex stereotypes that are assigned to them must then adopt the stereotypes of the opposite sex and through gender magic the individual ‘transitions’ to actually being the opposite sex. Thus, acting a male acting in a stereotypical female fashion ACTUALLY becomes female.
This is Grade A bonafide horseshit, but it is the tenet that lies at the very heart of transgenderism – by adopting they stereotypes of the opposite sex, you become that sex… Fundamentally, the notion is nonsensical and at odds with the physical reality we all share. But it is also here where the compelled speech becomes and issue for me and the rest of society. You see, correctly observing reality is looked at as harmful and abusive because it does not align with the transgender individuals internalized notion of gender and of which sex they are. The transgender movement argues that subjective feelings of individuals should override the rights of others in correctly identifying the physical reality that is before their very eyes. A male is woman because he has feminine feelings and because he says so, and to contradict his gender delusion is to be bigoted and transphobic.
In polite society, being a bigot or phobic carries serious social consequences which is precisely why the transgender movement subverted these social norms to comport with their inner feelings of gender and the protection thereof. Individuals in society must then carefully consider the social costs to disagreeing with transgender ideology which makes it harder to discuss and grapple with. Sometimes it’s just easier and safer to go along with the gender deluded individual despite the damage being done to free speech and allegiance to material reality in society. It is this chilling paradigm that I rally against.
If we value the liberal foundation that we have based our society on, transgender ideology and those who espouse it should not get a free pass. Transgender ideology must be debated, argued, and its merits and faults examined closely in society. Compelled speech to preserve gender-feelings that do not comport with reality is an unacceptable state of affairs. The current imposition of transgender ideology is a clear and present safeguarding issue to women and children in our society because men who identify as women are gaining access to single sex spaces based on their say-so and that, if we value the safety of children and women, is a problem.
Messaging in society differs depending on which sex class you happen to inhabit. I for one, have never experience this much fucking elation eating crunchy green water.
The RPOJ comes for thee.
It has been way to long since the last RPOJ post. My apologies faithful readers.
Today’s lovely winner is Anthony writing on his blog ‘How to be Happy’ – with the catchy tagline ‘Personal philosophy driven by experience and reason’. My suggestion is to clarify his tagline a bit, I’m thinking along the lines of ‘How to be happy’ – ‘Just get a mirror so you and I can admire the stupid bloviation drizzling straight out of my asshole. ‘
Anthony while explicitly stating that there are no judgments being made, proceeds to glorify and argue (and thus judge) for a host of negative stereotypical roles associated with females. Surprisingly uncommon practice for dudes…
—–
“First of all, I’m fully aware that some men out there date women who are just as, if not more, successful and career-focused than they are. And I think that is perfectly fine. The goal of this piece is to explain why some people act a certain way—not to condemn anyone or state how things should be.”
I’m guessing that your piece is going to be outside the realm of sociological interviews and surveys; thus you will be taking your opinions and generalizing them to men as a whole in an attempt to make your shit smell marginally sweeter. (kinda like focusing on the corn kernels, but that might be a touch on the gross side)
I’m not sure what is worse, dealing with actual dirtbag MRA’s who state their misogyny straight up, or the pseudo intellectual poltroons that try to obfuscate their dire man-wank arguments in bland generalizations and stolid prose.
“I want to address the question: Why are some men (I’d say, more than half) less attracted to women who are very career driven?”
My question is why all the damn covert ops? These are your (thinly veiled) preferences, and in reading your article, it sounds like the ‘ideal woman’ for you is the insipid patriarchal standard woman version 1.0 – Demure, supportive, submissive and preferably pregnantly barefoot in the kitchen while being totally dependent on you and thus a slave your manly whims.
You sir, at your earliest convenience, fuck right off.
*Phone ringing*…
*Arbourist answers:* What are you saying? I’m jumping to conclusions before presenting the evidence?? – oh jebus its so painful to read this shit and deconstruct it.
*Arbourist still talking on phone:* Pulling shit out of my ass? Fine. FINE. Let’s go see what Douche-stick McClown-Nozzle (‘Anthony’) has to say and demonstrate the slightly rancid smell and lousy arguments that typify his MRA’s codswallop.
“Why are some men (I’d say, more than half) less attracted to women who are very career driven? I think lots of women assume it comes from jealousy, insecurity, or sexist beliefs. I’ll try to present a more nuanced explanation, based partly on my own sentiments.”
Manslator: Tut-tut! You women and your frilly pink woman brain judgments. It will take the intellectual prowess(?) of a man to break this hard cookie of a conundrum down and show you how nuanced the answers really are. I mean ascribing insecure sexist behaviour to men is really quite unreasonable. Instead, let’s focus on how women’s actions are making men do bad things, because as we all know women are responsible for what men do…
“Having children has become de-emphasized over the years, but I still believe it’s a strong motivator of serious relationships. After all, it is a natural thing, an ability we share with other animals, and so it’s deeply rooted in our psyche: like the urge to have sex.”
Ah yes, because natural means ‘good’ right? Measles are natural, Polio is natural yet somehow we don’t automatically make that rhetorical jump of Polio (being natural) is good because it is in nature (which is inherently good, somehow.)
Sex is a natural act but, participating in said act are two human beings with feeling and preferences. Some people may not like having sex it doesn’t mean they are unnatural, or wrong, it just means they are autonomous human beings with preferences of their own. Stop moralizing on the basis of what is ‘natural’.
“Of course, if a man plans to have a family, it’s important to him and probably not something he’ll compromise on. Plus, even if he’s not sure, but he might want one, he’s going to want a woman open to the possibility.”
Given a man’s contribution to having children is quite insignificant to the female input involved, finding a woman who wants to endure pregnancy, labour, and child rearing seems like a good plan.
“So, suppose I am interested in kids. Suppose also that I work hard and have a stable career (after all, most successful women are attracted to men at least as successful as them). Then, I would naturally be wary about dating women who have careers that require similar or more effort than mine. The fear is that, once we have children, both of us will be too busy to give them quality time: to make their meals, help them with homework, take them to events, etc.”
You cheeky fucker. You didn’t just dress up the patriarchal notion of women being the ‘proper’primary care givers, with concerns about (what about) the children? Cleaning the
house, cooking food, interacting with children can be done by either sex (*mindblown!*). The notion that women should be the primary care givers and thus expected to give up their personal ambitions to raise your brood is on page one of the ‘How to Patriarchy’ manual.
Hold on. I might be jumping to the worse case scenario here. Let’s wait, and see. Perhaps Professor Dipshit von Clownstick (‘Anthony’) is going advocate for the solution of equally sharing the work between parents or a similar arrangement in which both parties make compromises in order to parent their children.
“You might say it’s not fair to expect the woman to do be the one to care for the kids. But it’s not about fairness, it’s about compatibility. If I want a family, but I have a PhD and I’m doing research everyday and I’m passionate about it, I’m naturally going to look for a woman who has a less demanding job, so someone will have time for the kids.”
Being proved right is going to my head.
Assumption one: Male careers are more important than female careers.
Assumption two: My passion for ‘x’ makes it a physical impossibility for me to take care children.
Conclusion: Anthony needs, not a equal female human being, but rather he needs a Den Mother who has less lofty aspirations and importance in the world. To receive sperm and raise his whelps while Anthony engages in the manly man business of being a real, successful human being.
Also Concluded: I am much in love with ‘natural’ patriarchal stereotypes that place my interests above those who are unlucky enough be born with a vagina.
“And if I meet a girl who’s just as absorbed in her work as I am, I’m not going to hate on her, but I’ll be less open to a long term relationship. I want someone who complements me, not someone exactly like me.”
Because having to do equal time on the second shift is completely unacceptable! I have the man-parts that naturally disqualify me from such unsavoury scut-work. (*near terminal eye-roll*)
“Finally, there is the fear that a career-focused woman will wait before having children, or put her job before her family.”
Oh you mean put her interests first and achieve for herself instead of being the submissive self sacrificing walking womb that you desperately desire. Anthony, your take on the humanity of female-folk seems rather dim.
“Personally, I find women who place their personal material success before their family life unattractive. Again, I am not judging them; it is just how my attraction works. And I believe a lot of men (and women) feel the same.”
Men place material success ahead of their family all the damn time. In some places in the world, where your patriarchal (wet-dreams) stereotypes are not as strictly enforced, I’m deeply sorry (not sorry) that you have to deal with these uppity women and their notions of autonomy.
Also, was I not totally right on scrying that “a more nuanced explanation” would equal -“pulling my own sexist stereotypes out of my ass and generalizing them to look more palatable”
Boom.
“As I said, it seems common that successful women like men who are at least as successful as they are. The problem is, men with intense jobs like someone who balances them out, not someone exactly like them.”
Manslator: I want a domestic servant and someone who prioritizes my needs over their own.
“For example, imagine I’ve had a long day doing research, and I’m a bit stressed. I’d rather come home to a wife who could ask me about my day and have a meal ready and diffuse my stress with a carefree attitude, than a wife who had an equally stressful day and wants to vent about it. “
Because women should not talk about their stress, man-stress is much more important, because men say so.
“Also, if I am naturally a very busy person, it will be hard to schedule quality time together if my partner is just as busy.”
JFC. I haven’t looked at any more of Anthony’s blog, but I can bet he’s also an egalitarian, at least as far it means – “I get to do what I want as my boundaries are sacred, *you* on the other hand, are going to have to schedule yourself around me and the other inconveniences of adult life.
“I can’t generalize, but I can say that in my limited experience, on average, I’ve found women who are more career focused to be harder to get along with.”
Really? I just can’t see it. Women who have to put up and compete against misogynistic men in the work place don’t have time for your vacuous patina of woman hating pablum?
Shocking.
“I think some women have experience with men doubting their competence, and so they react by always trying to prove themselves, even to men who aren’t trying to start anything. “
Just wow dude. You have no idea do you. It seems like you’ve talked with, or at least talked at with women and the point they were making grazed you as it flew over your head. Everything in patriarchy that women do is called into question. Women usually have to work twice as hard, just to stay even with their male counterparts.
Perhaps just for instant exercise that withered area of your brain that is in charge of empathy and imagine what it would be like if you were not in the default category of male human, that your competence was questioned at every turn.
Might make you a little defensive and quick to react no?
“It makes a guy constantly on edge because he is afraid she will start an argument.”
Getting called out on your shit isn’t a pleasant experience. Oh my fair summer child, the patriarchy is strong with you.
“Also, in my experience, successful women can be more likely to find faults in their partner and be critical, rather than accept him as is.”
Having standards and not putting up with his shit – ’tis a sin according to Anthony. Of course women acting like full human beings and not submissive birthmares seems to put all the bees in Anthony’s bonnet. Women with high standards and low tolerance for bullshit seem to be quite literally Anthony’s kryptonite. Tough cookies to you Anthony, but believe it or not females are fully human beings with similarly important dreams and aspirations that, *gasp* may not centre around what a dude wants. :)
These are not good for women and men in society, let’s do our best not to replicate them. No thanks to Anthony mind you…
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…