Gender Roles--A new conclusion

A year or two ago I set out to study modern gender; or rather, what modern culture sees as gender. --I hold a belief in a Rational Evolution of Society, meaning that society rationally evolves or it does not change unless it makes sense to change, and that this rational society "knows best" about the particular topic. In other words: The more society's opinion evolves, the closer it gets to the platoian Truth of the topic.

Gender and sexuality has been around for a long time. It has been studied for a long time and there is a diversity of opinions on the matter. I wanted to find the platoian Truth--the root of what it means to be Male or Female. My quest was prompted by what I thought was strange: if society advanced to the point that there were no differences between men and women, would anyone care about what your gender was? would they be the same? And in light of the things I've learned on this journey, I would say yes and no. Because it is still complex, yet it IS understandable.

The differences extend beyond the physical differences: hair style, clothes, tone of voice, manerisms, and yet they are connected. It extends beyond chemical makeup, and yet, it is connected to the chemical makeup.--and strangely, humans are very astute at detecting the chemical makeup even though that makeup is so subtle.

Part of the trouble of this research endeavor is the constraint of language in describing minute differences. This quest has primarily been one of discovering the right words to use and secondarily has been actually understanding the differences. One can easily point out comparisons, such as the color blue been socially seen as associated with males, and pink associated with females, but to put into words why that is, is a challenge.

I'm going to start by describing men and women by their perceptions of each other, however, both sides are contradicting.

Women see men as both lazy and hard working. They are aroused by hard working me, and yet assume that all men are lazy. These two contradictions place the male gender into two categories: those worthy of 'mating' and those not-worthy. --Mating isn't the best term for this, but it will have to suffice. Mating as I am using it can be sexual attraction, fathering children, coming to for protection, desiring his attention, desiring to please or impress him, and many other things.

Those non-worthy men obsessive over their hobbies and interests but present and share that obsession in excess to the annoyance of both men and women, while those worthy men keep their interests and hobbies secret except to fellow interest-lovers or when prompted. Curteous communcation skills make a worthy man, whereas discourteous communication makes a man fall into the not-worthy category--with one exception. Worthy men challenge the status-quo, they refuse to submit to blind obedience without purpose, and the key to this exception is what I deem Quiet Understanding.--worthy men make the appearance that they know some further information, which prompts them to disobey and be discourteous to the status quo. One can infer that worthy men incite change, they stand alone in order to force that change, they challenge the norm seemingly because they know better than the norm. --whether they actually know or not is debatable, because this Quiet understanding is afterall 'quiet'. To effectively pull this off, the man has to remain quiet up until the moment they are challenged to explain themselves. Their plans must be kept secret up to the moment when the tension has been ratcheted up and the situation has become a sort of do-or-die.
If the man brazenly barks his agenda all over town and cries the end of times or openly disobeys the powers that be to make a point, he becomes the unworthy man who is passionate about his hobbies and interests and won't shut up about them to the annoyance of both men and women everywhere.

To be a worthy man, you must have a mind of your own, an agenda and plan of action to obtain it, and you must be constantly working towards it in secret to those who might oppose it, but opening to those who encourage it and want it just as badly.

In the viking age, the worst insult a man could be given was to be accused of being like a woman. --The same is true for these days, though the definitions are construed... The worse insult for someone who professes to be of male gender is to accuse them of being unworthy. Unworthy men carry bias as being weak, unintelligent, awkward, cowardly, and lacking in life-purpose.--making jabs at a man on any of those fields will breach him to the core unless he is so far on the worthy side that his confidence isn't affected by them.

The contradiction for women is that men are both courageous and cowardly depending on their worthy or unworthy status.

Unlike women, Men see women as a collective of categories. They generalize women into one category and assume the biases of all categories.--or more simply put, they form a personal opinion on women that they use as a paradigm for all women even when it contradicts the subject (a woman) before them.

To men, women can be any combination of the following traits: the sum of beauty, curvy, long-haired, domestic, motherly, lover of animals, pacifist, friendly, intelligent, bitchy, demanding, demonic, rude, fake, selfish, self-serving, sexual, dominant, jealous, full of and interested in gossip, passionate, naive, and many more (a longer list is due, but may constrain my argument).

The varying opinions on what a woman is can be confusing for a man (and perhaps even women)! For this reason, men don't talk about women as often to their fellow male friends because the differences of definition confuse the conversation. It is rare for two men to find this shared definition, and by very virtue of what makes a man, if he is 'worthy' then he doesn't reveal such until he is confronted--and if he is unworthy, then his opinion is taken lightly because of his annoying ethos and few will join with him in discussion.
This explanation also justifies the common statment by men that "women are an enigma." Yet, women are able to understand other women because they compare their own beliefs about what is womanly, and they compare themselves against their own biases about what a woman is and feel negative emotions if they fail to meet their own personal definition--at the same time they shun women who don't meet that same definition. In a sense, women self-regulate what it means to be a woman, and as society evolves and changes, the definition will change as well.

---

I will continue part 2 at a later time. In part two, I will discuss the ramification I philosophize occurs when we cease to make distinctions between genders and allow people to choose their gender completely.



(personal note: not a spectrum, but various levels and fronts)

Gross

Not everything grosses me out. Blood doesn't phase me. Most horrific sights don't phase me. I guess smells phase me a little if they are disgusting enough or associated with disgusting things. I used to think poop was abhorrid, but not so much anymore. Old, fermenting saliva though, that's a smell I definitely do not like, and the other day I had to experience it once more when I opened up the machinery of my sink's drain due to a clog. yuck!

But among physical things, I'm not all that grossed out by very much. What gets me is human nature.

I recently began re-reading the novel Frankenstein for a class. I appreciated it the first time, but this time certain details have been brought to my attention that are conflicting within me. You see, Frankenstein is largely a feminists' story...a story about how "the men's world" is monstrous and to be abhorred--or so they claim. As I read the story again, I notice how Shelly is setting up the story in a way that tears down the cultural structure she lived in. --It isn't that I feel she had good reason to do so, because I believe in her time women were considered lesser beings to be subjected to the whims of men, but what I am conflicted about are HER reasons for doing so.

Let me just jump to the case, otherwise this article will be too lengthy, and without pointing fingers at specific people, because no matter how I put it, it is controversial:

Women will never be on the same intellectual, spiritual, emotional, or physical level that men are. --Now before you jump the gun and accuse me of being sexist, let me state something about men:

Men will never be on the same intellectual, spiritual, emotional, or physical level that women are.

How can that be? How can they both be that way? How can men and women NEVER cross paths?--Because they ARE men and women. We are different.

A comment was made today in class that "that's what women do...they give birth to women". What do men do? They do not hold the keys to life. Men go to war and bear the burdens of death--or they ought to.

My ethos may betray me, but I am under the experiences in life to say that women ought not enter man's world, just as men ought not enter women's world. And I don't mean to make a clash between definitions here. I mean to say that women are in the sentries of life. They are the guardians of all godly powers of procreation.

In my religion, there is a document that explains what the purpose and definition of a family is. In that document it explains some details about what the role of husbands and fathers are, as well as the role of women. Paraphrasing, it states that women are in charge of nourishing the family and children. It says little more than that about women, and yet it goes into quite a deal of depth about how men are to preside over the family, to ensure the proper material provisions, etc. etc., and then it states that men, too are to nourish the family and children. For quite some time in my life I have wondered why women would be given a charge over something that men were also meant to do, and that was the only thing they were to do. I believe very much in my religion and am under the understanding that this document is from God, and so the thought of questioning hasn't ever conquered my soul. But still (let me put yourself in my position), if God told you this, would you not wonder what the grand meaning of it was?

A week or so ago, I believe I have come to an understanding of the meaning of this, and it has only solidified my understanding of humanity and how a perfect society would exist. (That's what religion is all about isn't it? explaining how perfect society functions and seeks to work towards that perfection [heh, don't quote me on this, it's a thought provoking question])

In the perfect world, one which will one day encompass this earth, women WILL nourish the family. Not in an intellectual, cultural, emotional, physical, or spiritual sense, no. To nourish is "to strengthen, build up, or promote", to "sustain", or to "cherish, foster or keep alive". In the perfect world, women will be the guardians of relationships. They will protect and encourage the development of relationships. They will build a home where friendship, loving, bonding, respecting, and leading and following is permitted. For, without relationships, what are we as a human race? We are nothing. We have nothing if we are not connected in some way.

It took me quite a deal to realize this; but the more I look for evidence of it, there is a copious amount of evidence for this truth. What does Satan do that is one of the banes of women? He encourages them to gossip--to tear down relationships. He forces them to be timid, so that when dignity and honor and respect and love are on the line, they are too scared to permit it. He attacks their ability to give birth to God's spirit children, and when they lose their virginity in a bloody mess of disgust, not sanctioned by a committed relationship of marriage, he causes them to question the existence of true relationships.

To keep alive. Women are to devote their lives to keeping alive relationships, particularly the important ones.  If a person were to be dying--dying an emotional death in which they had no friends, no family, nothing. Would not the Samaritan woman rescue him?

Men, too, have a responsibility to nourish relationships, but in the perfect world, men will provide the bulk of the physical work--the work that brings in food and shelter and continued prosperity. This isn't to say that women won't work--relationships are formed by working together. What this DOES mean, is that men are to be the leaders. they are to preside. to be the head. And a good leader knows that his best employee is himself, he leads by example, he does what he can to reach the goals that he and his followers are trying to accomplish.
In a family, the man is to be a leader and the woman is to ensure that the relationships are fused tightly together. If either party fails to fulfill their purpose, then the whole structure crumbles, because a leader can only lead if the communication lines are in place so that his ethos supports following. If the son and the father are at odds with one another, the woman should step in to assist a tighter connection between them. Leaders never maintain their rule by themselves, but they require the help of others. The wife should help the husband.

Let me clarify something important: Women and Men CAN be equal, but they cannot be compatible if they are equal. What I mean is (insert some philosophy here) that if two people who were identical, except for their genders were to meet, they would not be compatible. They would likely be at odds with one another. They would not get along. This is because good relationships are formed when different people come together and bring their own pathos, ethos, and logos to the table. Opposites attract best because they balance each other out and create order. Two ends of a magnet repel one another because they are too similar.

So Mary Shelly brings up an interesting social ideal, but I do not buy into it. If I lived in her time I would fight against it, because I see now that what she wanted was a great social change. She wanted women to be on an equal plain as men were, yet their society was structured in a way that it was prosperous to the purpose of men and women. I largely believe that Shelly's argument is fallicious(sp?): what she is really at odds with is the intellect of man. Men of her day were stupid. They were pompous, they were arrogant, and to be such is no crime if they truly are what they say. But these men did not possess the wisdom to understand that women had a greater purpose that they were not permitting.

As I study this gross history of ours, I sometimes recognize where society got off track. I believe that these notions of equality in men and women are so off track now that our society has become worse in this area than it was back then. We were fools to stray from the system of Judges and families. And ever since we took our own path, we have ever been striving to fill in holes that 'our' system could never facilitate. This has made for a gross looking, odd smelling, complex machine.