Forcing gender roles on young children - Page 9 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#241 of 255 Old 01-18-2007, 02:31 PM
 
moonfirefaery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Goose Creek, SC
Posts: 3,364
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If you don't see any evidence here that shows sexual orientation and basic preferences are different, you may want to open a few history books. Where homosexuality was in vogue, fashionable, and popular, it ran rampant, as in Greece. Then, there was a renaissance sort of time, and women were seen as creatures of beauty instead. Homosexuality was no longer as abundant. Did that society just happen to have quite a bit of people who just happened, coincidentally, to be born gay? And then a few decades later, the opposite coincidentally happened? In the 80s when big hair was in style and everyone had it, did those people prefer it beause they were born to do it, or because it was the fashion? And if they were born to prefer it why do most of them now thing the whole big hair fad was ridiculous? That would mean their preference changed. And I don't mean their preference to wear it, but for those who did. Nearly all the rock stars had big hair, and face it, women thought they were hot with their big hair. Sexuality and our preferences are partly genetic, but there are other factors involved. And they are definitely two completely different things as they are two different areas of life.

fambedsingle2.gif Heather, 25, single mom to Corbin, 5, and Orin, 3  uc.jpg  delayedvax.gif  nocirc.gif
Oh how I miss the days of femalesling.GIF  nak.gifcd.gif  
moonfirefaery is offline  
#242 of 255 Old 01-18-2007, 04:57 PM
Banned
 
Robert Goodman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View Post
If you don't see any evidence here that shows sexual orientation and basic preferences are different, you may want to open a few history books. Where homosexuality was in vogue, fashionable, and popular, it ran rampant, as in Greece. Then, there was a renaissance sort of time, and women were seen as creatures of beauty instead. Homosexuality was no longer as abundant. Did that society just happen to have quite a bit of people who just happened, coincidentally, to be born gay? And then a few decades later, the opposite coincidentally happened? In the 80s when big hair was in style and everyone had it, did those people prefer it beause they were born to do it, or because it was the fashion? And if they were born to prefer it why do most of them now thing the whole big hair fad was ridiculous? That would mean their preference changed. And I don't mean their preference to wear it, but for those who did. Nearly all the rock stars had big hair, and face it, women thought they were hot with their big hair. Sexuality and our preferences are partly genetic, but there are other factors involved. And they are definitely two completely different things as they are two different areas of life.
Who said they weren't different things? But the point in controversy was whether they were determined by different mechanisms. What you wrote above says they're determined by the same mechanisms.

Robert
Robert Goodman is offline  
#243 of 255 Old 01-18-2007, 05:18 PM
 
moonfirefaery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Goose Creek, SC
Posts: 3,364
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
They are determined by the same mechanisms as some things but not others. For example a person's liking or disliking of vanilla ice cream is not likely to beinfluenced by what is fashionable.

fambedsingle2.gif Heather, 25, single mom to Corbin, 5, and Orin, 3  uc.jpg  delayedvax.gif  nocirc.gif
Oh how I miss the days of femalesling.GIF  nak.gifcd.gif  
moonfirefaery is offline  
#244 of 255 Old 01-18-2007, 06:01 PM
 
Jwebbal's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 1,705
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
real homosexuality has consistently remained at the same level regardless of what is in "fashion" and frankly comparing homosexuality to fashion is pretty insulting. To say that the level of homosexuality has changed over the years is simply untrue. It has remained the same, we are here and have always been here, regardless of whether society has accepted us or not, we simply went more underground when society wasn't as accepting. The current "popularity" of homsexuality has nothing to do with social acceptance. People who dabble will dabble, and those of us who are gay or lesbian remain as we always have, we just don't have to hide it like we have had to in the past and can live our lives relatively openly.
Jwebbal is offline  
#245 of 255 Old 01-18-2007, 08:06 PM
 
PrennaMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Aloha, OR
Posts: 1,142
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just to clarify, is anyone actually going as far as to refute the fact that sexual identity, what I have referred to as 'brain-gender', or the placement of hormon-signatures in a deveoping fetuss brain, after the genetalia have developed, is a biological process that does take place? Seriously, with the redundant debating, conversational in-breeding, and circling back and forth, I'm losing sight of my own point!

Allow me to clarify my addition to this conversation... The egg came first.

Sexual identity is placed in utero. This isn't a tiding of doom, nor a socially generated, scientific hypothesis gaining momentum through tyrannical scrutiny... as a matter of fact, it's widely accepted as part of the process, and, from what I've read, for the most part, ignored after the fact. Most folks don't have the knowledge base that there is any kind of gray area... a penis on an ultrasound means a boy, no penis means it could be a girl, and most docs don't discuss the hormonal/neurological aspect. It's like saying, "Yes Ms. Jones, you are having a baby, and tho it has a penis, we're not sure it's gonna be a boy that acts like (your concept of) a boy"... that would go over REALLY well with the Joneses, most of whom just wanna go out and get the layette, the booties, call the grandparents, and pass out cigars. (Disclaimer: the vast population of MDC seems to be a community unto itself whose denizens aren't in keeping with the Jones mentality; a large group of "exceptions to the generalizations"...)

As for "fashionable" behavior... that is exactly what I started out saying... that someone's behavior does not necessarily reflect what is going on with them neurologically. And kissing girls for the sake of kissing girls, no matter how many girls I may kiss (and there have been a few! ) will not make me gay. That behavior will not create a neural trace with a catalystic impact strong enough to change the "land mass" of my sexuality. HOWEVER, a sever seizure that permanently blocks certain pathways, causing my brain to have to re-route synapes connections, might. That I don't know about, and the theory is really a fascinating one.
PrennaMama is offline  
#246 of 255 Old 01-18-2007, 08:12 PM
 
PrennaMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Aloha, OR
Posts: 1,142
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Btw, some folks hypothesize that the homosexual behaviors the Greeks displayed can be likened to what still happens in parts of the world, now, where some men, in business or government deals, sublimate one-another, ritualistically, using certain "homosexual behaviors".

Kinda like how dogs mount one another to establish dominance.

The theory some are suggesting is that young men, and pre-pubescant males were seen as a threat. To reduce them to sexual play-things was a way to 'set an example'; culturally it may have taken on a life of its own, but perhaps the practice had another intent, when it started...

Who knows?
PrennaMama is offline  
#247 of 255 Old 01-18-2007, 09:06 PM
 
moonfirefaery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Goose Creek, SC
Posts: 3,364
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm not comparing it in the context of our society, but in others throughout history. If you offer the explanation that homosexuality remains at the same level, but becomes more prevalent when it is accepted, that's understandable. However, scholars believe that in ancient Greece the homosexual tendancies had to do with the general fact that in that society men were seen as objects of beauty. When that changed to women, heterosexuality became more prevalent. Does that mean that there was just a surge of homosexuality, and the heterosexuals went undergrand, and then that reversed? That's possible. Homosexuality isn't just biological. What about women who fall in love with women without ever having had any prior lesbian tendancies? That proves that love is about more than sex, and yet our sexual desires tie in with our feelings of affection. Clearly sexual orientation is about a number of things, just as our other sexual preferences do. Fat women were once seen as the most beautiful and were lusted after. At one point it was pale women. Now society sees thin, tan, tall women as beautiful. Biology definitely plays a huge role, but that's not it. I'm a person who has been bisexual since I first began having feelings of attraction for anyone, not one who dabbles, and I'm not insulted at all by the thought that sexual preferences can be influenced by society.

That is an excellent alternate theory that I've never before heard. Very interesting. I believe they even had rules about what was acceptable when older men were with younger men. How does that fit in?

fambedsingle2.gif Heather, 25, single mom to Corbin, 5, and Orin, 3  uc.jpg  delayedvax.gif  nocirc.gif
Oh how I miss the days of femalesling.GIF  nak.gifcd.gif  
moonfirefaery is offline  
#248 of 255 Old 01-19-2007, 01:33 AM
Banned
 
Robert Goodman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View Post
They are determined by the same mechanisms as some things but not others. For example a person's liking or disliking of vanilla ice cream is not likely to be influenced by what is fashionable.
I suspect fashion does operate on things like that. Its effect isn't overwhelming, but I think it's enough to tip things in marginal cases like ranking of flavor preferences.

It works that way with music, for instance. You can't like a song you've never heard. Beyond that, there does seem to be some effect that gets you to like the song more from hearing it repeatedly. Then it has to fight against the tendency to get sick of a song from hearing it too much. Fashion, by definition, will determine how often you're exposed to the song being played by others. But it can't tip things enough to make you like a song that you thoroughly dislike.

Similarly, you can't like an ice cream flavor you've never tried. But if vanilla becomes the standard flavor, then no matter how much you care about it initially, you can find ways to like it with various toppings, so that you become used to the taste of it. I don't know about now, but the first time I tried Dairy Queen (they're not big around here), I was surprised and disturbed to find out they had only vanilla ice cream (probably a pinch of real vanilla and mostly vanillin, to cut cost -- or maybe all vanillin, to cheapen it even more), and relied on toppings for variety. But I could imagine getting to like vanilla (even artificial) more if that was all I could get.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that sexuality, in terms of numbers, is influenced by fashion. When we introspect, it's hard to imagine our having a different appetite for sexual activity, but we don't know what might have been had our pasts been different.

Robert
Robert Goodman is offline  
#249 of 255 Old 01-19-2007, 01:45 AM
Banned
 
Robert Goodman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jwebbal View Post
real homosexuality has consistently remained at the same level regardless of what is in "fashion" and frankly comparing homosexuality to fashion is pretty insulting.
Now see, that's what I mean. People think it's so gul-durn important, they get huffy. Nobody named names, and I don't know anybody's sexuality here, so why should a homosexual, a heterosexual, or someone anywhere in between be insulted by a comparison of homosexuality to fashion?

Quote:
To say that the level of homosexuality has changed over the years is simply untrue. It has remained the same, we are here and have always been here, regardless of whether society has accepted us or not, we simply went more underground when society wasn't as accepting.
How do you know? How could you possibly know that? How far back do the surveys go? The other side has no surveys to quote either, so the claim that the percentages of different sexual preferences have changed over time is unproven, but you can't say it's false either.

Quote:
People who dabble will dabble,
Heh. I bet some bisexuals would get huffy about your use of the word "dabble", like they're not serious about their sexual affairs. It does seem a little demeaning compared to a word like "experiment" or "try different things".

Robert
Robert Goodman is offline  
#250 of 255 Old 01-19-2007, 03:23 AM
 
Jwebbal's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 1,705
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
For your information, my sexual orientation is bisexual.
Jwebbal is offline  
#251 of 255 Old 01-19-2007, 08:50 PM
 
PrennaMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Aloha, OR
Posts: 1,142
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Oh wow. :

Robert don't your fingers cramp up after a bit? Goodness...!

You seem to just debate for the sake of reading your own words in print! I'm teasing you, here, but really... you say things like "how do you know?" and continue to refute what a person MIGHT say, despite not having heard the response to your question, yet...

moonfirey: I have never claimed that homosexuality, or homosexual behavior is purely biological. I merely state that sexuality of any kind begins with the formation of genetalia, and then continues its beginning in the brain, in utero.
PrennaMama is offline  
#252 of 255 Old 01-19-2007, 09:30 PM
 
moonfirefaery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Goose Creek, SC
Posts: 3,364
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Prenna - I agree with you.

fambedsingle2.gif Heather, 25, single mom to Corbin, 5, and Orin, 3  uc.jpg  delayedvax.gif  nocirc.gif
Oh how I miss the days of femalesling.GIF  nak.gifcd.gif  
moonfirefaery is offline  
#253 of 255 Old 01-20-2007, 04:12 PM
Banned
 
Robert Goodman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrennaMama View Post
You seem to just debate for the sake of reading your own words in print! I'm teasing you, here, but really... you say things like "how do you know?" and continue to refute what a person MIGHT say, despite not having heard the response to your question, yet.
Because this is not the first time I've seen this issue argued. There seem to be a lot of people out there with a great emotional investment in their idea of what causes people to adopt certain sex roles, and I'm skeptical about all of them. That frequently puts me in the middle as I challenge both sides.

Robert
Robert Goodman is offline  
#254 of 255 Old 01-25-2007, 09:48 PM
 
PrennaMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Aloha, OR
Posts: 1,142
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
Because this is not the first time I've seen this issue argued. There seem to be a lot of people out there with a great emotional investment in their idea of what causes people to adopt certain sex roles, and I'm skeptical about all of them. That frequently puts me in the middle as I challenge both sides.

Robert
As I stated before, the "idea" isn't mine. It's just neurology, and neo-natal neurology, as I also pointed out, is a new field. Be as skeptical as you like... the world used to be flat, too!

(moonfiery: thanks... I never set out to be soap-boxy... sorry if I did!)
PrennaMama is offline  
#255 of 255 Old 01-25-2007, 09:58 PM
 
Cassandra M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm glad I have one of each so I have a variety of toys and they choose whatever to play with. Kalob is into trucks and pirates, Karina has never been into dolls. She loves anything art and horses.

They've never been pressured to play or not play with anything. Karina has numerous dolls and could care less. Kalob probably played with them more than she ever has.

P.S. Kalob loves getting his toe nails painted and "make up" as much as Karina does.
Cassandra M. is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off