Thoughts on Gender?

Miscellaneous General
21

Student,

I disagree that cultural variations in female roles is that compelling a piece of evidence for rejecting the biological nature of gender roles. If we think of societies as ways that various ways human nature could result in an actual community, then we would expect from the get-go “outliers”. Some societies that don’t follow man’s “inherent” nature, what his psychology normally tends to.

There is an small island (I forget where, I read about it in one of Malcolm Gladwell’s brilliant books) where suicide is an exceedingly common response to extremely stressful situations and social conflict with one’s family and loved ones. This single sample doesn’t mean that human beings in general tend towards a highly suicidal pattern, the overwhelming majority of societies reject that action. Instead this was one of the more unlikely ways human nature could result in a society. Meanwhile societies generally have relatively fixed gender roles. I’ve only heard of a single society in which gender roles were entirely reversed, and other than that it’s generally men who are “in control” with women staying at home and so on, this is a pretty universal phenomenon.

Now there are two reasons why this would occur in society after society: either it’s a biological matter or it’s one of historical necessity that no longer applies to modern conditions in most areas, but is instead perpetuated by culture. I remember my mother talking about this a in regards to marriage a long time ago. She described the traditional marriage structure as a division of labor in early societies, where the basic structure made sense based off of biological differences. It made sense for the mother to stay home with the children and take the “caring” role while the stronger male performed hard labor. While I think that the extent of the difference in gender roles is certainly due to culture and historical necessity, it nonetheless I have a hard time buying into the idea that gender is wholly a social construct.

I think that this is a particularly insightful little case study. The problem of course is that we have the most pathetic sample size possible, yet the results seem powerful. Something that continues to allude me in all this, however, is the matter of transgendered individuals.

Clayton,

I think that you misinterpreted my use of the word “forcing” in this instance.

The Freudian aspect that I’m having a hard time pinpointing, and its aspect that is most essential, is how this is “transmitted”. If birth-giving is indeed an inherently sexual act, and sex itself is connected to birth-giving then where is the causal connection here? Why is this the case? From that point, what is the implication of this to gender roles? What does this mean to the broader issue of how women, or men, generally behave within society?

22

I mean, doesn’t the question answer itself? Why does it feel good to eat? Because it nourishes the body, that is, provides necessary conditions for bodiliy survival. The causal connection is that those hypothetical organisms that had an “anti-eating reflex” would quickly have perished. The same goes for childbirth - obviously, the whole reproductive process is involved, but this is the “most essential” aspect of the whole thing… the actual bringing of the living organism into the world to live.

Clayton -

23

The simple fact is that science tells us what is, not what ought to be. How someone ought to act is a perceived gender role.

24

Does anyone here have thoughts on gender roles and identity?

Women tend to have average intelligence, while men, with only one X chromosome, are more variable. Thus, the greatest minds (say, von Mises) and the worst minds (say, insane criminals) are likely to be men. But this has little bearing on the average person’s role.

Men are physically larger than women on average. But technology works to neutralize the relevance of this. For example, operating a forklift, a man cannot lift any more than a woman can. An armed woman can kill as easily as an armed man can. Birth control measures can also enable a woman to be as promiscuous as a man might be. It is physically easier for a man to commit rape, but it is no easier for them to evade forensic techniques.

Technology has led to there being no benefit from having defined roles anymore. They are merely cultural curiosities at this point.

25

If we think of societies as ways that various ways human nature could result in an actual community, then we would expect from the get-go “outliers”. Some societies that don’t follow man’s “inherent” nature, what his psychology normally tends to.

But the rules of society are not drawn from a random distribution. They are the result of interactions between people in those societies. If most men were biologically programmed to prefer to go out and work and most women similarly programmed to prefer to stay home, I don’t see how the interaction between these agents would yield anything besides a patriarchal society.

Now there are two reasons why this would occur in society after society: either it’s a biological matter or it’s one of historical necessity that no longer applies to modern conditions in most areas, but is instead perpetuated by culture. I remember my mother talking about this a in regards to marriage a long time ago. She described the traditional marriage structure as a division of labor in early societies, where the basic structure made sense based off of biological differences.

What is the traditional marriage structure? Polygamy continues to be practiced in many countries:

It made sense for the mother to stay home with the children and take the “caring” role while the stronger male performed hard labor.

Are you so sure that actually how early societies were organized? If we look at developing nations today, I don’t think we see women being sparred hard labor. If you look at sub-saharan africa and south east asia, you will see women are just as likely to participate in the agricultural labor force as men (not simply staying at home caring for the kids). On average, women account for 43% of the agricultural work force in developing countries.

If you want to get anecdotal, women of the Yanomami are the ones primarily responsible for hard labor and farming. The food they grow account for 80% of the Yanomami diet. And it’s not easy work either. During Harvest time they cary 70-80 pounds on their backs! So what do the men typically do? Hunt (it worth noting that meat accounts for less than 10% of the Yanomami diet), socialize, and occasionally clear land so the women can farm it.

So there are def. developing cultures where women do just as much hard labor as men (and in some cases more so). But I don’t even think your characterization is true for most people in “developed” economies. I personally did not grow up in a household where the mom stayed home. My mom worked at a paper mill until she left on disability. Before her, my grandmother was a foreman at the local rubber hose plant. Before her, my great grand mother and great grand father worked together on their farm. Maybe it was how I was raised but I never grew up expecting women to be spared much in terms of “hard labor”.

While I think that the extent of the difference in gender roles is certainly due to culture and historical necessity, it nonetheless I have a hard time buying into the idea that gender is wholly a social construct.

I will say this in “favor” of the “biological determinaiton of gender roles” hypothesis. I don’t think it is a coinsidence that women are physically smaller and less powerful than men and have also historically been assigned “gender roles” that precluded them from political participation and economic leadership in the West.

26

I read it the other way: the de facto roles that the genders stereotypically adopt.

Clayton -

27

This is false on many fronts. First of all, the most important way that men and women differ - reproductive potential - is orders of magnitude different. While technology has provided the possibility of a woman having as many children as a man can have, the economic costs are still much higher for a woman than for a man; the occurrence of even one woman having anywhere near as many children as the most reproductive men seems highly unlikely.

Second, technology has not made men as objectively beautiful as women. Thus, women enjoy an automatic gender advantage: they are more objectively beautiful than men and, thus, enjoy all the economic and sexual benefits that come with that.

Even if technology could economically overcome all the differences, it is not clear to me that gender roles would necessarily become obsolete. It’s like how you can’t tickle yourself… being female or being male is a big part of how we push each other’s buttons socially, romantically, sexually, etc.

Clayton -

28

I personally can’t buy into any biological explaination of gender roles since they vary so much from culture to culture.

I don’t think biological determinism can play much into an “Austrian” outlook on sociology either, I think that falls into “scientism”

29

@Clayton

Yea, but so what? You can argue that evolutionarily people were predisposed to like eating because if they didn’t they died. Why is it that the roles in sex would have a psychological affect on individuals, and why would stimulation of the birth canal through sex necessarily be linked in any real way with child birth itself? These two things aren’t a straightforward even as sexual desire is. The major urges and bodily functions give us a clear reason why it would have developed, but this is not the case for what we are talking about or gender roles in general.

@Student

“But the rules of society are not drawn from a random distribution. They are the result of interactions between people in those societies. If most men were biologically programmed to prefer to go out and work and most women similarly programmed to prefer to stay home, I don’t see how the interaction between these agents would yield anything besides a patriarchal society.”

Because tendency is not necessity. As I outlined above there are three things that affect societal formation:

  1. Psychological tendency

  2. The general conditions faced in that society

  3. Unique happenstance

Certain conditions will necessitate that different social structures emerge, whereas some random occurrences and precedence will cause different ways that society will emerge. Just because men tend to be more dominant need not mean that things always play out in such a way to establish a patriarchy, it will merely make it more likely. With that said I’m not even certain that I consider “patriarchy” as something that is generally implied by what I consider the “male” tendency to be.

“What is the traditional marriage structure? Polygamy continues to be practiced in many countries:”

Yet these are usually arranged in the same way: men dominant, woman stays at home and has a more caring for children/housekeeping role. I actually think it’s “more natural” for individuals to tend towards polygamy, particularly for us men with our urges.

“So there are def. developing cultures where women do just as much hard labor as men (and in some cases more so). But I don’t even think your characterization is true for most people in “developed” economies. I personally did not grow up in a household where the mom stayed home. My mom worked at a paper mill until she left on disability. Before her, my grandmother was a foreman at the local rubber hose plant. Before her, my great grand mother and great grand father worked together on their farm. Maybe it was how I was raised but I never grew up expecting women to be spared much in terms of “hard labor”.”

I was actually always raised in a female-dominated household, but nonetheless I’ve also been exposed to what I see as differences in actions between females and males. How these differences manifest themselves is interesting, and less than straightforward, but there does seem to be some regularity, and I have a hard time buying that it’s entirely due to nurture. I don’t know if I’ve ever talked to anyone about the opposite sex who denies that there seems to be some fundamental differences in “how we work”. This will necessarily have societal consequences, but these consequences will not always be the same, and under radically different situations, such as what we see in the developed world, they will be very different than what we see in other situations. Nonetheless, classically and even today we see there as some regularity between sex and gender roles. I think it’s hard for people in our world to fully understand what a truly genderless world would be like.

“I don’t think it is a coincidence that women are physically smaller and less powerful than men and have also historically been assigned “gender roles” that precluded them from political participation and economic leadership in the West.”

Do you think these two things are linked?

Edit

Vive,

“I don’t think biological determinism can play much into an “Austrian” outlook on sociology either, I think that falls into “scientism””

I actually fully disagree with this. i think that human biology is intimately linked with a fuller understanding of Austrian Economics. Praxeology can tell us what can be, yet psychology along with other human sciences can tell us what is likely to be.

30

I have a thought.

I think there’s an ongoing process of pussyfication of the white middle class youth by the public school system in many western countries, who are being over exposed to female oriented education.

31

objectively beautiful

Clayton, isn’t that nonsensical?

Edit: maybe you meant “(inter-subective) beauty commanding a higher objective exchange value”.

Surely this applies to female models vs. male models. But we are talking about typical roles. Is this really of relevance for typical people?

32

@baxter: No, it’s not.

Clayton -

33

OK, if “objective beauty” per se is valid, please let’s hear a definition of it.

34

Markers of beauty are symmetry, male-typical secondary sexual features in men, female-typical secondary sexual features in women, etc. There are more, female-specific markers of beauty (red, full lips, large, perky breasts, light-colored hair, etc.) and some that are shared by both male and female (light eyes), etc. This has absolutely nothing to do with inter-subjectivity nor with assessing the frontiers of physical attractiveness. Beauty is averageness and women are much closer to the average on many measures - including facial symmetry and secondary-sexual features - than men. As Christopher Hitchens once put it, “Most men are fantastically unattractive” which he held to explain why men have to rely on humor and other gimmicks to attract women.

Clayton -

35

Yet these are usually arranged in the same way: men dominant, woman stays at home and has a more caring for children/housekeeping role.

I don’t feel like this has been established. I agree men do tend dominate the relationship. But do women typically stay home and focus on child rearing and housekeeping to the exclusion of other work (such as farming)? I don’t think so. I have already linked to one study that women are just as likely to participate in the agricultural labor force as men in developing countries. And a case of at least one cultural where they actually work harder and provide more than men.

My point is not that men don’t historically dominate relationships with women. In fact, onsidering the relative physical strength of men, should we be suprised matriarcy is rare? My point is

  1. While women do tend to do most of child rearing (historically and in developing countries) this does not mean they are spared other duties (such as agricultural labor). In fact, it seems like they are often responsible for raising the children AND supplementing their families incomes. And in some cultures, like the Yonamami, this means the men can get by doing very little.
  2. It seems like a stretch to say that women prefer the arrangement where they rear children and work. And even more of a stretch to say that are biologically determined to prefer this arrangement.
36

i think that human biology is intimately linked with a fuller understanding of Austrian Economics. Praxeology can tell us what can be, yet psychology along with other human sciences can tell us what is likely to be.

Let me see if we are on the same page.

What if (as Mises seems to have thought) that Freud and Psychoanalysis were part of prax (in the branch of thymology)? Our utilizing and contextualization of biology gives it its meaning. I think (?) student may have hinted at this when he said it is the actual factual interactions between individual subjects in societies.

I do think there are ways to talk about these things and make meaning of them (perhaps not on this forum, as I stated earlier it would be rather difficult): But any hard line philosophic, scientific, psychological, and I can’t believe I have to say this -aesthetic (even if it is “scientific”) end can’t really establish much. We can probably look at the phenomenology of things - but to talk about the science of gender or “evolution says X”, I don’t think much is going to be accomplished.

Back to your original question: it may be best just to talk about what is actually meant by nature / nurture - and see if a theory could be formed around it: is it a category that matters, is there a better way to frame the subject, etc, etc. I don’t really have a thought on it right now - but I think that may be the more interesting, and to the point of things in your OP’s concern, correct?

I’m really busy now, hopefully I can have more time thursday to really think about / clarify anything I said. In fact, due to time constraints, I am doing a 48 hr ban on everything fun in my life starting … now

37

“My point is not that men don’t historically dominate relationships with women.”

Is this a general comment or one that is aimed at a specific society? Because if it is general then you are absolutely wrong. Patriarchal societies are dominate throughout the historical span. Matriarchies are an extreme rarity.

38

“My point is not that men don’t historically dominate relationships with women.”

Double negative. So IOW:

“My point is that men do historically dominate relationships with women.”

IOW:

I agree that matriarchies are rare. :slight_smile:

39

Student,

I think that I’ve been rather unclear of what I’ve really wanted to talk about here which I really f***ed up in the title and termed “gender roles” when in reality I’m just talking about gender and the generally different behaviors in males and females. While this most certainly relates to gender roles, I’m much more interested in just the matter of nurture nature as it applies to sex and thereby gender.

Anyway, I just can’t buy into the idea that gender roles are entirely social constructs. Even in the cases you are citing it would appear that men (even if they are just lazing around which I also have a hard time believing considering how close to starvation many of these groups live) are doing things (hunting) that they are more suited to. Child-rearing is universally female in nature, as is the fundamental setup of marriage in term of dominance.

Anyway, for most of these roles the fact is that they deal with physical traits and strength, something that doesn’t apply in the modern world.

So I’d like more of a discussion on the role of gender, its source, and what the more “inherent” traits of the sexes are, if there are any.

Vive,

What I’m fundamentally saying is that psychology can theoretically shed A LOT of information on economic relationships. Praxeology can tell us, for instance, some tendencies that would happen if human beings were generally relatively risk averse. Meanwhile psychology could theoretically tell us if people are risk-averse or not. Psychology can then help us to predict certain outcomes, as well as help us to explain why certain outcome occurred. For instance it could help us to explain generally how much people fight wage cuts and help us to understand how sticky wages tend to be.

I understand the difficulties in universalizing these findings over time and space, as well as actually testing these tendencies to begin with and I think that this is why behavioral psychology is currently being abused and will be abused onward into the future especially when combined with neo-classicism, this does not alter the fundamental possibility of psychology and economics to pair up with one another and for psychology to aid in our understanding in the real economy, as well as what to focus on in praxeological theory.

40

title changed

(still busy) so do you want to focus on nature / nurture and maybe the relationship of psych with the social sciences / philosophy of the social sciences?