The end of gender?

[redfox]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/06/24/137398402/gender-is-dead-long-live-gender?sc=fb&cc=fp

A very interesting article... I'm going to get the book out of the library. This post actually belongs in a forum we don't have, about science. So here it is - what do you think of the article?

[iris lily]

The Nature vs Nurture argument changes periodically as to which side is favored by those who are trendy. I think psychology is a weak and infant science. Some truths come out of some studies, sometimes, and are accepted by some people for some period--and that pretty much wraps up psychological studies in a nutshell.

Do you think there's something new in the book? This book has strong reviews as an opinion piece and is probably interesting based on the author's ability to argue a point and write. And that is worth a lot! So many interesting topics get bogged down in plodding writing. A survey of gender literature, no matter how biased, is welcome when the writer is lively.

This author takes on the "nature" argument and refutes all studies (well, all that she chose to include) with her apparent premise that viewing behavior as biology based, is bad.

So it if it is bad, what do you do with that result? Just tell everyone? Then we will all immediately throw off the shackles of our gender conditioning, that which has been bogging down our lives, and we will dance freely and joyously in the street, selecting different gender partner (oh wait--we won't even know which gender they are because THAT IS NO LONGER A BASIS FOR ANYTHING!) to have wild monkey sex with since we are free and all.

No, I don't think so, humans choose roles for complex reasons. Sometimes those choices are "good" in that they support healthy happy development. Sometimes those roles, whether chosen or not, are not so good. It's all pretty complex and making gender roles a scapegoat isn't new in the modern scheme of things.

[Spartana]

Gender and role are two seperate things. Gender is nothing more than a biological fact of your DNA. Roles are things we choose to do in our lives. Why a person chooses what roles they will have in their life have nothing to do with gender. It's more about societal expectaions and upbringing IMHO. Even motherhood is a chosen role. A woman may procreate but can "choose" to have nothing to do with that child after it is born. The labels "male" or "female" we assign to certain inanimate objects and activities or jobs aren't inate to those objects, activities or jobs. They are just neutral things that we have "choosen" to assign a gender role to.

[loosechickens]

hmmmm....I agree with both Iris Lily and Spartana.....no need to even duplicate comments....both said what I would have said, looking really at two different aspects, and said it better.........

I do think that the very human propensity to live up (or down) to expectations, society's, parents and teachers, peers, and our own, have a great deal of effect on our ways of seeing ourselves, our potential, possible talents, etc. About gender, roles, or any other things..........

[Zoebird]

actually, *sex* is the biological fact of one's DNA. Gender is largely an individual social construction based on sex, society, and their own experiences and contemplations. Roles are choices that we may make based on gender and sex -- among many other things such as interest, talent, and personality, social expectation, desire, etc. not necessarily focused solely on gender or sex.

my son is male by sex, and largely "masculine" by gender, and only has the role of "child" at this point. My son is very masculine in a lot of ways -- as we socially identify his behaviors. I believe his behaviors stem from his personality AND his sex, as well as the way we have socialized him, though I have been conscious not to socialize him in any specifically "masculine" or "male" way (eg, it is said that mother's of boys are less likely to respond to crying than mothers of girls, in an effort to "toughen them up" or get them to "behave like a man").

I think that the "end of gender" is possibly very real, but I don't know whether or not it extends out of this book or research -- ie, whether I would agree with this argument. Instead, i take the arguments or ideas (not science) from the transgendered/sexual community, wherein they assert that there are thousands of genders, and that most people can be lumped into "sorts" of genders that are a myriad of mixes of masculine and feminine and neutral attributes. In a sense, each person expressing their sex and themselves through various gender attributes and roles based on their own inclinations and choosing.

[Spartana]

actually, *sex* is the biological fact of one's DNA.

OOPs - you're right, I should have used "sex" instead of gender as that is what I meant. Basicly I meant that "gender as it relates to one's biological sex" isn't something that will ever end. You can't change it at the core level, and you can only change the attributes of your physical sex with chemical or surgical means. I'm female and can't magically grow a penis or facial hair or lose my breasts. But "gender roles" can end since they are choosen for the most parts. While I think there was a time when it was logical to choose certain gender roles based on biological funtioning - a man's strength and speed and "possible" greater agression meant he was the logical person to hunt the wooly mammoth while the women - the only gender who could procreate - stayed at home and tended the cave. So "sex" (and the many physical attributes biology gives to each sex) at a biological level led to gender roles at a social level. Now we have a more equalitable society in terms of gender roles and so they are often crossed or eliminated.