Many of the traits you describe are not backed by any psychological research as being innate, but we are mammals and primates. Mammals and especially primates have significant gender differences, each one is 'runing a program' optimized by years of evolution for genetic success.
Males tend to be more aggressive and competitive and driven which spills over into many aspects of life. Females are more deeply social, and generally (in many social primates) are the glue which bonds the troup together. The approach to sex is very different because reproductive success for each gender comes from very different approaches
Gender, technically, is the socially defined roll. Yes I believe in differences and prefer to keep it that way to a certain extent. Some are social, some are innate. But those listed - some are just loose concepts based on nothing other than outdated views.
Gender is an ever changing state. Various countries have different concepts. Sex is the natural aspect which revolves around the biological - things like 'being more emotional' aren't related.
Men and women are different.. surprise! Alot of those examples were decided after years of research and observation. Over time, those lines have been blurred a little bit, but they're still true in many ways.
It's not very scientific, but a few months ago Mythbusters did a show about Men vs Women. One of the myths was that women were better multitaskers than men. They set up a example to test this. Each person would have to get out of a bed... after that they had to make the bed, make breakfast, iron some clothing, and all while watching a toddler and preventing him from crawling outside of a certain range.... and it all had to be done within a few mintues. The men failed this task miserably while the women did pretty well. The men tried, over and over, to do one task at a time... which did not work. The women were able to multi-task and get everything done.
There was another test where people were given a car to pack with all sorts of different things of varying sizes and shapes. The men were more adapt at this task than the women were.
Women are better communicators (duh). The best teachers I ever had were women, the classes I did the worst in over the years were taught by men.
I'm not sure I agree with "gender is an ever changing state". You're either male or you're female. I understand there are some people who are born in the wrong body, some people change from one gender to another. But once the change is made, the person IS a male or female. Gender is what it is, how we treat or what we expect from each gender may evolve, but the genders themselves remain constant.
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates To some degree it has become politically correct to brush gender differences under rubric of societal pressures, and indeed there is a lot about us that is constructed by society.
When trying to separate social from biological, though there are a few tools. We can look across societies and across species to tease out the biological influences. If the vast majority of societies display a certain trait and few or none do not, one can't assume this to be a random happening. Even one or two exceptions (surprisingly often very obscure and poorly documented) seem to go against the grain, the question remains: why so few? If an adaptation were beneficial it would appear in more than just a few. (One example is the age difference: in the vast majority of societies, when not equal age, pairing of older men with younger women is much more common than the other way around. There is nothing physical to prevent the opposite but it's not common. The answer lies in evolution.
We can learn a lot about ourselves from looking at our relatives: chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans. There, for instance you can find clues as to the 'emotional' stereotype. Females have a very different bonding pattern than males, necessitated by the requirements of genetic success, a deeply cooperative process with some of the maternal instincts as a driving force. Males form relationships too, but it's more direct survival oriented (think solidiers on a battlefield)
Aggression, for example plays out very differently for males and females. It can seem almost counter intuitive since aggression gets more males killed. But in the long run, the males who do manage to survive the aggression get a significantly higher number of matings, and their genes comprise a disproportionate amount of the next generation. For females, the strategy is different. There is little to be gained by excess matings, the number of young she can raise are limited by time, resources and stamina. Females who stay healthy and out of harms way are the most successful at contributing to the next generation.
Similar principles apply to mating strategies. For males, genetic success goes up almost linearly with the number of matings. Males inclined to mate as often, and with as many partners as possible put far more of their genes into the next generation. Females need a different strategy. There's not as much to be gained from lots of partners so there is a strategy of optimizing on the quality of the individual partner.
One can naturally piss standing up. That is the ONLY infallible difference I have discovered between a man and woman.
I might be using infallible incorrectly in this instance.
And I've only begun fucking with you people.
At the end of the day, it's all math.
"insensitive prick!" – Danielle Algo
I guess there's a biological basis for the stereotypes (culture). And as with every stereotype: actions that are in line with the stereotype tend to make it stronger, while actions that go against it are perceived as the odd exception to the rule and therefore neglected.
The most important word in the statements made in the OP is 'generally'. The stereotypes mean nothing when comparing one woman against one man.
Oh, and can we please ban the color pink for like one generation or so? Not just because it's ugly (it is!), but because it doesn't seem to be able to play well with others and therefore becomes very divisive.
=== Not ALL LIVES MATTER until BLACK LIVES MATTER ===
I'm referring to the benefits of traditional female roles which was mentioned in an earlier post:
Women, even within our modern cultures, usually have to directly provide for young children. Things aren't necessarily avoided if they're unsafe for the female, but if they're unsafe for the children they must care for. (Male or female). Or, avoided if they're no as easily done with the children they care for.
The idea of a nanny, wet nurse, babysitter, or any sort of alternate mom is not new, but has never been the norm.
Though, I'm not tryin to dispute that men, as far as potential fathers for children, are seen as expendable in most cultures, because its true.
I say it this way, because it highlights the basic core of the issue. Women are not expendable because children rely directly in them. This - men explore, and war. In order to encourage this behavior for the lords, czars, presidents, kings - the basics of male instincts and cultural views are exploited.
There's less effort to exploit the mirrorin concerns for women, thus, we have more women with mothering/parenting disassociation and distance. These necessary values/traits are often discouraged and looked down on.
Ultimately, the mirroring female traits are actually negated in societies, making the opposite (not having kids, not getting married) more appealing because who wants to be seen as embracing negative values? No one.
Just stating what anthropology has concluded, and I agree with.
Religion and politics should keep out of this debate.
A stereotype, while not actually defined as such, is generally considered to be misinformed, ignorant, oversimplified, and wrong. I do not typically propagate or subscribe to stereotypes in that way.
I am a huge advocate of evolution and genetics. It is true that the male and the female of our species have developed different evolutionary traits. This is not to say that one is better than the other, just different. Unfortunately, and I know I will get a lot of hate for this, people are not all created equal. We have different traits and genes that may help or hurt us in life. To be different, is not to be greater or lesser in an absolute sense. One can, however, be superior or inferior in a more specific way.
Allow me to elaborate. One may be born with a physical challenge such as being smaller, weaker, or even having a physical disability. That same person may have a mind that is far superior to others and works in ways that neither you nor I can understand; this makes the person very valuable to our species even though genetics have been "unkind" in the physical aspect. The same can go in the other direction. Both are valuable in our world and both have a place. Of course there are those who are endowed with both, and that just sucks for everyone else. That's genetics and evolution (grossly oversimplified for the purpose of this thread) for you.
My point being, the same applies to males and females. They are not equal nor the same, but one is not inferior to the other by any stretch. Superiority is based on an INDIVIDUALS genetics and has NOTHING to do with gender.
By the way, I love the pictures in the opening post ... hilarious and awesome.
I forgot about the latter portion of the original post. Here goes ...
I believe that stereotypes are culturally driven, but have origin in fact even if the facts have been severely misconstrued and slanted over time by many different individuals and groups.
Also, I believe responsibility should be shared between both genders. That is not to say that they both should have to do the same tasks together. If both people in a relationship work and earn similar amounts of money then they should share chores and in-house tasks as well. If one works and brings in all the money, whether it's the male or the female is irrelevant, then the other one should take care of the household tasks. If they both work and one earns significantly more than the other than the in-house burden should be adjusted accordingly. Basically, whatever works for the couple is fine. As long as both parties are happy and equally invested in the common goals that they have set together, no one should tell them how to make it work.
I hope my views are helpful. Thank you for posing this question; it is extremely relevant and very important.
I do believe there are gender differences, if there weren't we would all be asexual. Thank goodness we aren't - bless the differences!
As for the stereotypes, many of them are culturally created but some are biological in their origin. I mean women are better suited to care for children - that is a fact supported by nature. And most men are better at more physical jobs. That is just the way it is.
I do think the "gender blending" that has offered in the last several years has had a detrimental effect on society and I long for the pre 60's era when men went to work and the women stayed home taking care of the house.
Ok please put your male-chauvinist, Neanderthal jokes here!
I hope we are talking of the same thing because I love gender bread cookies and a glass of cold milk.
Of course there are gender differences. We produce different hormones and our brain functions are different.
