Thoughts about "Gender is a social construct"

Arn13 · 2013-12-09T22:43:43+00:00

In my opinion, the MRM seems divided over the question. This subreddit is not an official organ of any kind, it's just a bunch of guys and girls who have enough in common to stick around. Thus I predict you'll find supporters of the idea (but not in the feminist flavour) and opponents (but not in the 1950's traditionalist flavour). Personally, I prefer an evidence-based approach and I am not convinced there is sufficient evidence, but I'm open to seeing some.

I think most MRA's will agree that, regardless of whether gender is a social construct, there will always be feminine men and masculine women. In a large group of people, there will always be differences and that's okay. Everyone is an individual. But the existence of these people does not provide any sort of argument that gender is a social construct (or not). If the norms, the trends are rooted in biology, there is still room for outliers. Men biologically tend to be taller than women - the existence of some shorter men does not mean that this is not a biological effect.

Another thing I think most MRA's will agree on, is that there is a problem with the way feminists tend to use the idea as an argument. This runs very deep but I'll try to scratch the surface. In feminist thinking, the social construct theory is intertwined with patriarchy theory: the idea is that men as a class have instated gender roles to oppress women. In this vision, the female role is associated with weakness and neediness - it is an oppressive role. The male role is seen as not oppressive, but one of power and status. It is the role of an oppressor. In this way feminists tend to use the "gender is a social construct" idea to minimize the pain of men and promote a perpetrator-victim model.

Most MRA's counter that both men and women were oppressed by their roles. The male role included male disposability. Yes, we did get more opportunity to succeed than women - but that wasn't a choice but an obligation. A man had to get out there and risk his life - if he succeeded he was seen as more valuable than a woman, but if he failed or didn't try he was either dead or the lowest valued human on earth. Men had to provide more resources than they consumed, or they were worthless.

As Pelle Billing puts it, "Gender roles have developed as a functional fit to historical circumstances." If women would have had the disposable role of dying in tribal wars, hunting parties, sinking ships, coal mines, etc. there would be a major shortage of babies. So nature and society roll the dice more with men, while giving women a safe, average status with little risk of falling down the ladder but also little room for climbing it. I believe this is the reason we have 2 sexes in the first place, rather than 1 or 3.

Arguments that reduce gender roles to something that can simply be instated at will by a group of humans, obfuscate the story behind the evolution of the gender roles from natural incentives. It presents the image that the only reason for gender roles to come into existence, was the desire of men to oppress women. That is problematic because it sweeps under the carpet how men were oppressed by their gender role - the story of male disposability, which was the only way for our species to survive.

So basically there's nothing wrong with believing gender is a social construct, but combined with patriarchy theory it becomes a way to deny that men are oppressed by their gender role and instead assert that they are using gender roles to systematically victimize women. Men did not choose or instate the roles (pressures of life did), men did not benefit from them either as a class. Some individual, very succesful men benefited from the gender roles more than women did. But other less succesful men were worse off than women due to the male gender role. On average, we suffered as much as women did - the suffering was just more extreme for some guys, while others had disproportional success. This is the story that needs to be told.

ninja_jay · 2013-12-09T22:48:20+00:00

"Gender is a Social Construct" basically means that we as a society get to decide what "being a man" and "being a woman" is, not in the sense of "Treat a baby like a boy and it will grow into a boy even if it was born with matching chromosomes" but rather that we collectively decide what activities, attitudes, fashion etc etc. that are manly, and what are feminine.

The idea is that if no social construct had been made, people would feel no shame or discomfort in dressing/acting/enjoying whatever it is they enjoy, as it is though it's not the case.

Sadly this argument is often used poorly, to suggest that somehow you can be a man or a woman simply by being raised or treated as one, which is completely false and has nothing to do with anything.

JesusSaidSo · 2013-12-09T22:46:18+00:00

Gender is a social construct based on biological elements. Gender Roles are further based on those genders and biological elements.

Gender is what comes about when beings recognize the biological differences between sexes.

For example, Paleolithic people had gender concepts. When Feminists talk about gender, they want you to think gender is a 'social construct' of the Patriarchy to oppress women.

As for its relation to the concepts of being Transgender or Transsexual, it wouldn't be the first time Feminists held contradictory viewpoints.

Lyzzy · 2013-12-09T22:54:06+00:00

Do you mean transgender or transexual? As in changing the gender identity vs a physiological sex-change?

I think both can exist in the fact that gender roles are defined by the society at large. That makes them something somewhat specific for any given society. As for the sex of the individual, that can be defined physiologically and will leave it up to those that are better experts in anatomy and genetics to battle out a distinction. However, human physiology is so complex that there is a "gray area" between the sexes.

IMO, it's best to think of gender roles as a society-wide behavioral feedback mechanism in relation to the environment. It's a social construct based on biological and environmental constraints. Just like certain aspects of anatomy can become mal-adaptions in the case of a changing environment, so to can behaviors. Also, since the society is a part of the individual organism's environment, it becomes a form of selection pressure. Therefore, those members that best adhere to norms have a better chance of reproducing, as the society desires (hence "feedback"). Therefore, selection can lead to males that in-general like to be masculine, and females that like to be feminine. Evidence from research on other animals shows that behaviors can be genetic and innate from birth given a long enough period of selection. That helps to explain modern male and female preferences. Social pressure for gender roles is efficient when the environment is remains the same, but another thing that resists change when the environment changes.

Also, there are recent findings that show that there are factors that affect brain development independent of sex, such that the male or female-mindedness of a person may not match their sex. Things like the concentration of certain hormones during pregnancy. That seems to be one of the main reasons that one might desire to be trans. For example, a sex-change operation could make the body match the brain if the two are in conflict and the person wishes to meet social expectations.

Lyzzy · 2013-12-10T01:21:57+00:00

To get some misconceptions out of the way:

Social construct does not mean that something is entirely made up by society. It merely states that societal oppinion of it makes up a huge amount of individual oppinion. In general, something that isn't socially constructed is physics/chemistry/ etc. - the same principles have been shown to work whatever people think about it.
gender means a lot of different things depending on context, because people lack precision (see below)

but the whole idea of it being entirely as "real" as the lines between states doesn't fit.

The lines between states are the product of history. Unless geography plays into it, they are social constructs i.e they must be reafirmed and are subject to change. If that was the point you where trying to make, I agree: there appears to be some biological basis for gender norms and roles.

Beyond that It seems to be a way to be overly trans friendly, in that its making it so trans are the gender that they identify as period.

At the moment, that is the best / only definition psychologists have. However, considering the suffering of those afflicted and a lot of those trying to be trans on a lark / as an experiment, it's also a usuable one.

But then in a sense they aren't trans since if gender is a social construct then its entirely subjective in the first place.

Neuroimaging is still in it's infancy and we cannot use it to screen effectively for transgender individuals yet.

For there to be an actual "difference" between trans and cis, gender does have to be something mostly concrete for them to "become" the opposite gender of what is most associated with their sex.

If you are using gender to mean "gender identity" here, you are correct and there have been studies that show how there are in fact neurological differences.

And not assuming that "trans" is some hivemind, but this also confuses me in that there seems to be a desire to be "different" at the same time of being "not-different".

It's different for a lot of trans people. Some just want to be men / women and never think about it again, others like me can happily acknowlegde to be different.

Another query, is then if "gender is a social construct" what is gender?

a polite word for sex (male / female)
gender identity (man / woman / thirdgender / agender / genderfluid / ...)
gender roles (the provider & protector / the stoic warrior / the submissive spouse / the self-reliant woman / tomboys & sissies / ...)
outward appearance
as a verb: the (usually subconcious) act of assinging a gender to a person you just met.
each framework of ideas that is based on some of the ideas above.

There are a lot of ways to be more precise about what means in one of this, but regretably many people don't bother.

At the same time if it is a "social construct" this means that it is something that is either taught to you/enforced with in you or is just some choice you make at x age, whether you "identify" as a man or a woman (ignoring what ever other genders people feel like coming up with).

When people say that gender is a social construct, they usually mean gender roles, the gender binary (i.e that there are only 2 genders) or the idea that sex always is the same as gender. Again, biological factors (such as suffering horribly because of being made to live with hormonal levels not suited for your brain or failing to see yourself as the gender society has in mind for you, both called gender dysphoria) can play a huge part in that decission.

So with this train of thought unlike homosexuality trans is not something you are born with it is entirely a choice. And then there is "gender queer" what ever that is.

Queer literally means weird or different and some people embrace that as a label as they like to subvert societal expectations of their sexuality, gender roles and so on.

*better examples

oysterme · 2013-12-10T02:19:15+00:00

I asked my transgender friend "If gender norms were gone, would transgenders not exist?", and she directed me to this comic, which really helped me out.

rightsbot · 2013-12-09T21:52:16+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

JimHarbis · 2013-12-10T08:40:51+00:00

I agree completely.

FoundLacking · 2013-12-09T23:02:48+00:00

Honestly, I've always that strict gender roles is more trans-friendly, surprisingly enough. Isn't the entire idea behind it that if you tend to enjoy girly things and have a girly personality that that literally means you're a girl?

aussietoads · 2013-12-10T00:23:51+00:00

The real test of whether a gender is a social construct or for real is simply whether you can breed without artificial support, or support from third parties.

The last time I looked, only males and females, that is men and woman can breed as a pair, regardles of any so called social construct.

A child from Bruce and Bruce or from Eva and Eva. I don't think so.

ThePigmanAgain · 2013-12-10T00:30:57+00:00

Gender is a social construct, the other aspects of what makes you a man are biological factors i.e sex. The whole concept of gender is very dangerous to the plutocrats. If men start separating what really makes them men (i.e their biology) from what they are taught makes them men (i.e a lot of bullshit that's been shoveled into their heads ) they will be far less likely to do as they are told. This is why the gender rules are enforced more strictly for men and why the word is being deliberately debased into something useless.

TheIdesOfLight · 2013-12-10T00:44:05+00:00

TL:DR If "gender is a social construct" trans don't be real.

Well, I guess that whole "the MRM is an ally to Trans* people" shit is out of the window, isn't?

jojotmagnifficent · 2013-12-10T01:43:54+00:00

I agree with the the base concept of "gender" in that it separates social views of how men and women should behave from physical aspects of sexual dimorphism. I HATE the way it gets used 90% of the time though.

For starters, I'm pretty sure the word gender has existed a lot longer than the modern feminist concept of "gender" has, so it annoys me that they try and hijack an existing word, obfuscating it's meaning (which as far as I am aware has always been synonymous with sex) and hinder communication. Same goes for calling someone a man/woman, it's generally understood that you are talking about the persons sex with those comments but feminists get in a tizzy over it. If they want to make new stuff they should make new names for it instead of confusing things by fucking with old meanings. It's just as stupid as the whole "literally = figuratively" BS.

The whole thing with trans people and gender is a little confusing and it's easy to see why it gives off the impression that it implies being trans is a choice. Gender kinda has to be broken up into 2 parts to make sense, internal and external expression. The external expression tends to be the only one that people consider talking about this stuff as it's the most visible, and that is the learned behaviors that are always talked about. The internal expression is pretty much just related back to sex in that it is the sex individual perceives themselves. That bit tends to get ignored by feminists though cause it's not really compatible with the "social construct" shtick. But hey, thats ideology for you, your supposed to ignore the inconvenient parts no matter the consequences right?

TL;DR - the concept is valid but feminists are WAY too overreaching with it's application. They also need to stop trying to change existing words to fit it and just make up some new ones. Feminists only tend to consider part of "gender" when it comes to dealing with trans people, but you kinda need to consider another, non-socially constructed part of it for it to make sense.

Also, gender queer = "I would be gay if I was the sex I want to be". i.e. a male who is a trans women is attracted to women.

Title	Thoughts about "Gender is a social construct"
Author	justcallmeaddie
Upvotes	11
Comments	38
Date	December 9, 2013 9:51 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1shtcm/thoughts_about_gender_is_a_social_construct/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/thoughts-about-gender-is-a-social-construct.1156603 https://theredarchive.com/post/1156603

Comments