Gender is not, contrary to feminist doctrine, a social construct.

saint2e · 2013-09-22T20:11:01+00:00

I once saw a documentary where the host traveled to the US and the UK to talk to evolutionary psychologists and gender researchers. They talked about stuff like this, how gender roles are present moments after birth, how the more progressive a country is, the more people default to their gender roles, how men and women are biologically different etc. The gender and equality researchers and spokespeople in Norway just flat out refused and denied all the claims. They talked about how it they found this empirical evidence because they wanted to find it, and that this was the problem, not the actual facts.

james3563 · 2013-09-23T01:13:13+00:00

'Gender is socially determined, but sexual orientation you're born with,' is the orthodoxy nowadays.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFKmzR5Aejg

5th_Law_of_Robotics · 2013-09-22T21:57:39+00:00

[permanently deleted]

fukuaneveryoneuknow · 2013-09-22T21:09:54+00:00

Feminist take on gender is entirely tabula rasa influenced.

Any person who isn't pants on head retarded can gleam that a species whose sexual dimorphism is so extreme will also be biologically motivated in different ways dependent on their gender.

It's not even hard to observe these differences, the typical feminist response to this idea though?

lulz biotruthz nekberd!!11

blarghargh2 · 2013-09-23T04:10:14+00:00

I'm glad someone is finally saying this. I am so tired of people saying women should be in the military. Obviously only men are, biologically, supposed to die in wars. Maybe people will also stop talking about how the higher suicide rate for men is a problem. After all, men aren't supposed to talk about their feelings, it's against nature.

Elecroam · 2013-09-23T05:05:25+00:00

Thanks for posting this

CMOS222 · 2013-09-23T05:12:43+00:00

I think one question that is overlooked or people concerned with "reconstructing" gender fail to address is, even assuming for the sake of argument gender is a social construct, what compelling reason is there that make it necessary to "reconstruct" it?

Let's take a similar biological characteristic: handedness. The conventional thinking in western culture is that most people are right-handed, approximately 10% are left-handed. In some ways being a lefty confers disadvantages as most things are made for right-handed users. But in some ways it is advantageous because the individual learns to be more flexible in using many types of equipment.

In past western cultures and in some current cultures, left-handed people were stigmatized, but this has almost completely disappeared in modern culture. But regardless of whether handedness is biologically or socially based, there is no compelling reason to "socially reconstruct" handedness so that the population is 50-50, or everybody is ambidextrous. Doing so would just place an enormous educational, psychological and social burden on society that most people would regard as unnecessary. Handedness CAN, and IS, "socially reconstructed" only when there is a physically compelling need to do so, e.g., paralysis or amputation.

So if gender and sexuality are analogous to handedness, the question follows: even assuming gender is a social construct, what compelling reason is there for "reconstructing" it? As an end in itself? If so, how or why would societies and individuals be better off? To take another example, we COULD reconstruct the traffic system in North America so that everybody drives on the left, as in the UK. But why would it be worth the burden to American and Canadian society?

The criticism that can be made is that some simple-minded people think that simply because something CAN be "socially constructed", it automatically follows that it SHOULD or WILL be constructed. Which doesn't make common sense. I can probably construct a meth lab in my basement, if I put enough effort into it. It doesn't logically follow that I should do so.

DaytimeJunkie · 2013-09-23T01:46:22+00:00

This confuses the concepts of sex and gender.

NiceIce · 2013-09-23T00:10:31+00:00

Gender is socially constructed. That's what the word gender means, it means the socially constructed aspects of being a man or woman! Of course, such a concept is very harmful to those who would like to shame us into certain actions by saying we aren't "real' men, so the word has, especially in the U.S, been turned into a mere synonym for sex. Sex = nature, gender = nurture and the two put together equal what we all know as "man" and "woman."

HTARCADE · 2013-09-22T21:23:49+00:00

Please stop circle jerking...

It's neither one nor the other but a combination of both. Both culture and biology affect what our preferences are for certain things.

guywithaccount · 2013-09-22T22:38:26+00:00

The problem with the nature/nurture question is that until people can determine and prove exactly HOW any gendered personality trait is biologically determied, the extent to which biology determines gender is pure speculation.

All the psychological studies in the world are never going to get you closer than "hmm, that's interesting" until there's some well-tested hard science to back it up.

ArmedPigeon · 2013-09-23T19:01:51+00:00

Hello. I’m a feminist. Let’s talk, MRM.

I’ve always had a certain respect for your movement. While you do seem to often have an unhealthy fixation on bickering about feminism, you also manage to make men interested in gender equality which is undoubtedly a good thing. I also understand that your movement is still in its infancy, and I have hope that you will eventually grow to a point where you can sustain yourselves purely on the basis of the issues you raise rather than having to live off constructing enemy-images of other movements. That’s why it’s frustrating to see posts like these. Not because it bickers about feminism but rather because it does so at the expense of everything MRM says it stands for.

Let us be clear here: The Men’s Rights Movement is a movement that seeks to solve social issues for men in society. You talk about male-only conscription, custody battles and so on. However, you need to understand that these are all issues founded in the social stereotyping of the male gender (“Male disposability” is a common example I often hear you mention) and if you suddenly agree with this article that there is no social construction of gender, then you are hurting your own cause.

The fundamental thing that feminism and MRM has always agreed on is that there are social gender-stereotypes in society that actively hurt people. While the two movement may disagree on the specifics of this, we have always agreed that there are negative stereotypes. This is why it’s so frustrating to see that there are MRAs that are so eager to vilify feminism that they are willing to even give up on this fundamental stance purely because an article manages to phrase it as a “Feminist doctrine”.

MRM is about changing the status quo. It’s about men wanting to escape being stereotyped by society because of their gender. If you so easily fall into the trap of declaring that society’s stereotypes have no influence, then you also give up on the principle goal of your movement. I have to ask you to make a choice: What’s more important to you? Fighting social problems for men or bickering about feminism? When it comes to this article, you simply cannot have both.

Hanshen · 2013-09-22T23:08:10+00:00

great article. I'm not sure it entirely convinces me that gender isn't socially constructed however. It's extremely difficult to distinguish where socialisation begins really. Merely removing gender distinction in the classroom doesn't mean it isn't prevalent in the rest of society. I'm almost sure that gender has a biological aspect though, I merely contest that this article definitively disproves social constructivism for me.

giegerwasright · 2013-09-22T23:45:34+00:00

Gender is very simple. You can twist it to make your feelz flutter better any way you want, but that won't change it. Gender is very simple.

If you're a dude, you're a dude. No matter what you cut off, stuff in, or wear. You're a dude.

If you're a chick, you're a chick. No matter what you cut off, stuff in, or wear. You're a chick.

Express it however you like, but it won't change what you actually are. In the words of Ricky Roma, "Be that thing that you are."

blah blah blah what about durr hurr people born wiff boff.

They're mutants just like people born without arms or eyes or that thing that makes you look like Reptile in Mortal Kombat. And the overwhelming chances are that you are not one, but are instead desperate to feel more special than you are. Live with it.

Title	Gender is not, contrary to feminist doctrine, a social construct.
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	117
Comments	102
Date	September 22, 2013 7:00 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1mwpoj/gender_is_not_contrary_to_feminist_doctrine_a/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/gender-is-not-contrary-to-feminist-doctrine-a.1163198 https://theredarchive.com/post/1163198

Comments