That is a total load of horse-hockey.*

And Mrs. Doohickie vehemently disagrees with me.

These roles do not exist!

I agree!

Ladies and gentlemen! If I may have your attention please, there is a correction to be made to your programs: tonight, the role of Masculinity will be played by Bea Arthur. Femininity will be played by Chuck Norris, as previously scheduled.

Enjoy the show.

Be that as it may, good luck putting the toothpaste back in the tube. Whether or not the roles are false or not, we're all still acculturated to live up to them (and expect others to) and any change will be glacially slow in coming.

I'll be a post-feminist in the post-patriarchy.

I'm post-prefix, myself.

What Specklet said.

These roles do not exist!

I think the roles definitely exist, but they are just that - roles, imaginings, invented characters - and that human beings should not be expected to fit them nor punished for not fitting them.

In other words, roles don't say anything about the essential, innate nature of human beings.

[Feminism] suggests .. that femininity and masculinity are false concepts.

Interesting. In combination with the lines about 'acting like a man/women' being meaningless, I take this to mean that SJL33 there are no essential differences between the sexes. Do most feminists believe this? And is it generally considered a necessary belief for being a feminist? Because if so, I may have to reconsider describing myself as a feminist in conversation.

In contrast to SJL33's comment, I agree with Mill's view that one can only ever be agnostic about the existence or nature of differences (if any) between the sexes. I haven't read any Foucault, so I don't know what his arguments are, but I don't see how they can get around Mill's argument for agnosticism.

I take this to mean that SJL33 there are no essential differences between the sexes.

No, it means that our gender roles are socially constructed. I don't think there are very many feminists who would argue that there aren't biological differences between men and woman. Similarly, there are biological differences between people of recent African descent and people of recent European descent. I don't think it's sexist or racist to make that claim. However, how we react to these differences is a learned behavior.

I think the roles definitely exist, but they are just that - roles, imaginings, invented characters - and that human beings should not be expected to fit them nor punished for not fitting them.

That's what I interpreted SJL33's comment to be.

Whether or not the roles are false or not, we're all still acculturated to live up to them (and expect others to) and any change will be glacially slow in coming.

There are men and women alive today who suffered under Jim Crow laws. That gives me some hope, at least.

I'm not talking about legalities here, I'm talking about how people act and think.

I don't think there are very many feminists who would argue that there aren't biological differences between men and woman.

And.... those biological differences directly lead to gender role differences. Although my wife is looking over my shoulder emphasizing, "No they don't!" I would say that her biological bonding with our sons made her a mom. I am definitely not a mom. (i.e., women tend to be better nurturers than men)

Once again, my wife disagrees.

Yeah, I certainly didn't interpret the comment as saying there were no physical differences between sexes.

I think she's saying that any differences in choices, preferences, attitudes etc are "nothing more than roles created by culture". I'm not saying gender roles aren't socially constructed at all, but I don't understand how she can say that they are entirely socially constructed. This assumes there are no innate differences between men and women -- but for socialisation, men are women in male bodies and vice versa -- and I think one can only ever be agnostic about that question. Therefore we don't, and can't, know whether or not femininity and masculinity are 'false concepts'.

... femininity and masculinity are false concepts. They are nothing more than roles created by culture to define and divide, roles we have allowed and perpetuated endlessly.
But they're not. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a woman acting feminine and/or a man acting masculine. What is wrong is the assumption that the terms masculine and feminine imply a different level of value or status in society, when that is the false concept. Different doesn't have to mean differently valued or respected.

I believe that men and women are hard-wired differently at their very core. Not all men are masculine and not all women are feminine, of course, but if left to their own development and without undue pressure to be one or the other, that is the way it averages out. It's not a bad thing, it just is what it is and what the hell is wrong with the sexes having different characteristic behaviours anyway? It is only when we judge a particular set of body parts/skin colour/sexual orientation/et al that we do wrong. One of those silly little things that annoys me is when people are defined by their race - we are all of the human race, you cockhead!

These roles do not exist! They only injure and shame
As an aside, sociologists or philosophers or whoever really need to stop saying 'x does not exist' when they mean something like 'x is socially constructed rather than innate'.

I believe that men and women are hard-wired differently at their very core.

But this can only ever be taken on faith -- we can never know whether or not this is true. No is ever truly free of social norms, expectations and influences, so it doesn't really make sense to say that sex differences remain if "[men or women are] left to their own development and without undue pressure to be one or the other".

In other words, roles don't say anything about the essential, innate nature of human beings.

Again, I'm not sure how you can justify this. Why couldn't, for instance, gender roles be to some extent a product of innate differences? How can we know that they aren't?

To play devil's advocate for a second, how about the fact that patriarchy exists in virtually every society in world history, and certainly in every 'successful' society. This clear pattern is unlikely to be down to chance. So what has allowed men to consistently establish social dominance over women? We can't just answer 'culture' or 'society', because although culture can perpetuate and reinforce dominance, we're still left with the question of why society favours men in the first place. If we have ruled out innate differences, what other possible causes of patriarchy are left?

Of course, the argument that patriarchy is a natural human phenomenon ultimately caused by innate differences rather than just socialisation is a descriptive argument, not a normative one. You can believe that patriarchy is natural but morally wrong, as with many other human phenomena.

I know I abuse the "what x said" privilege but what Miko and dg said. They both summed up my points really nicely but I didn't know how to go about wording them properly so I didn't bother commenting.

Hrm. One datapoint:

There are plenty of studies looking at spontaneous drawing in little girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Speaking generally, females with some forms of CAH will have excessive androgen (e.g. testosterone) activity, so will have impaired fertility, probably some male genital-like development etc.

Now if you put a buncha little girls and little boys in a room to draw pictures, girls will tend to draw houses and people, boys will tend to draw trains and cars. Your arguments for the relative effects of gender roles being forced upon them vs. biology can go on and on and on and will never be resolved because we're not about to start growing little kids in cages to test the hypothesis.

But put little CAH girls in there, who have been raised as little girls - they'll draw pictures like the little boys. Trains and trucks and suchlike. It's accepted that this has a biological basis.

Just one point, anyway. For the most part, I remain agnostic about the whole debate because I don't really care about the causes - I care about the results, i.e. what dg said above about status in society. For me it's similar to the biological basis for homosexuality vs. choice - who really cares as long as gay people end up with equal rights.

I'm tired and I'm sorry if this didn't make any sense.

What are the worst consequences of believing gender roles are socially constructed and reinforced?

matthewr: Lack of contraception, and physical size differences. You try taking charge when when you could be raped at any time, impregnated, and responsible for taking care of the child, and when you don't have the physical strength to fight back on any of those. If we're up to the era of legal rights, then add in "legally unable to own property or vote" to the list.

Miko: none, really. I just think they are both. Of course, that's a completely non-scientific gut feeling, scientific anecdotes aside.

I would be more sympathetic to the idea that gender roles are purely the product of social factors if someone could cite an example of a society where middle-aged women fight all the wars and commit the lion's share of that society's violent crimes.

But this can only ever be taken on faith -- we can never know whether or not this is true. No is ever truly free of social norms, expectations and influences, so it doesn't really make sense to say that sex differences remain if "[men or women are] left to their own development and without undue pressure to be one or the other".

Well yes, if you are seeking definitive scientific proof. I still believe, though (and it's a belief rather than a proven fact, of course), that this is the case. As unscientific as it may be, I remain convinced that this is the case because my children, who have been brought up with a conscious effort made to expose them to the full range of kidly activities, have developed along clear "traditional" gender lines, as a whole. Sure, the girls sometimes like to nail pieces of wood together but, on the whole, they prefer to play with dolls, even though we have bought them cars, trucks and other traditional "boy toys". My son, who has been encouraged to play with dolls and all other traditional "girl toys" is simply no interested, except to pretend to run over them with his trucks or see how far he can make them fly.

The worst consequences of believing gender roles are entirely socially constructed could possibly be that people might be judged for "choosing" or "giving in" to being too "feminine-acting" or too "masculine-acting" ... I could certainly see it as becoming yet another way to judge people.

I definitely agree with those who are saying it really doesn't matter. Nobody should need to qualify, nature vs. nurture, or in any other specific way to get equal rights and treatment.

I think the only roles that exist are the ones we play and that those are dictated by birth, society, and will. As miko said "Human beings should not be expected to fit them nor punished for not fitting them."

women tend to be better nurturers than men

That's only because women are allowed to be better nurturers than men.

If men weren't under the constant anvil of being strong, and tough, and unemotional, I bet they'd be just as good nurturers as any woman.

I hate labels.

Labelist.

There was an article recently on either "To The Best Of Our Knowledge" or "This American Life" where a female to male transsexual described the experience of receiving huge doses of testosterone. Despite years of being strongly feminist, not only did he find it impossible not to check out the bums of passing pretty girls, but he also admitted that suddenly, he understood science on a level he'd never understood it on before. It's a single data point, but I thought it very interesting.

I think there are profound psychological differences between men and women. This is not to say that any sex should be forced into any particular societal role, but I think we need to recognise that those differences exist. Generally, women are more tuned in to social signals, can empathise better, are more capable of multi-tasking. Men are more single-minded or focused, tend less towards conflict when in large groups, are physically stronger.

I don't think these difference are bad things, or that they naturally enforce gender specialisation though. And it's all on a continuum. I do also believe that to deny the existence of these differences is currently harming feminism.

Exactly - those who traditionally identify as "feminists" seem to have trouble reconciling that males and females can be different but still be equal. A universal acknowledgement (or, even better, embracing) of those differences accompanied with an acceptance that this has no bearing whatsoever on the value of individual people would do far more to further the cause of exterminating discrimination than all the bra-burning that has happened since the '60s.

You know, when you actually look at the evidence for all of this, it's really weak. It's filled with "common sense" and "as we all know"s, but the actual psychology pretty much always comes down to: There is much greater difference among members of the same gender than there is between the genders.

The only characteristic for which that has not historically been true is aggression, but the idea of "relational aggression" (spreading rumors rather than beating someone up) is new, and the few cross-gender studies I've seen on that are leading me to believe that there's not much gender difference in aggression, just in how that aggression is expressed (which is likely a socialization thing).

So I don't think it's "feminists" who are denying actual reality. It's a society that fetishizes the differences between men and women, and that declares those differences the basis for attraction, that upholds this idea that there's a huge gulf between men and women's innate beings. The science says otherwise.

And when we assign these common-humanity traits to specific genders, we limit both men and women's full humanity. That's why people fight against this stereotyping.

What are the worst consequences of believing gender roles are socially constructed and reinforced?

In practical terms, it means you see every situation where the gender balance is not 50-50 as necessarily a product of damaging social norms and/or discrimination, when there's actually a possibility that the imbalance is actually due to women and men making different choices because they have different innate preferences. By trying to 'fix' the situation, you can end up making a fair situation less fair, and hence increasing discrimination rather than decreasing it.

In abstract terms, unquestioningly accepting something that you should really be agnostic about is just inherently wrong.

There is much greater difference among members of the same gender than there is between the genders.

I've no doubt that that's absolutely true, but it does nothing to support your argument that there are no innate differences. Comparing between-group variation (σ) with in-group variation and saying that in-σ is so much higher than between-σ that we can say between-σ is so small as to be negligible doesn't make much sense.

I would agree that in-σ is far greater than between-σ, but the key point that you omit is that the male and female in-σ are probably near-identical. In this situation, even a tiny amount of between-σ really does matter.

Similarly, the fact that people sometimes exaggerate or fetishize innate differences doesn't mean they aren't there.