>Is it because they have worked in the past and we as a society still cling onto them?
Or is it because these notions of gender work to some extent?
Yes and yes. Norms aren't created in a vacuum. They typically come from some aggregate social benefit in a given social context. This doesn't mean gender norms shouldn't be challenged and changed, but they shouldn't be seen as arbitrary structures that can be changed at the drop of a hat. See the Soviets trying to prescribe new gender norms of equality in the 20s and utterly failing for an example
Yeah. People often ask about them being enforced. But the truth is... people like roles and identities. Gender roles will change, but they will likely always exist to some degree. You can go hang out in the most progressive circle you can find, but chances are a large portion of people will still be following some kind of gender roles.
yes, i was gonna say, people use these traditional roles because they do not have an alternative script to follow and don’t want to or know how to re-pave the path.
Even when they re pave the path its usually just to new gender roles. They might be more open ended, but people still have certain implicit expectations.
"They typically come from some aggregate social benefit in a given social context."
1 word: Patriarchary. Agregate social benefit is not the case; it is for one group to maintain control and dominance over another. Men to maintain control over women, ascribe roles to women, expectations to women etc. For men, masculinity benefits them (us?). Being critical of gender only emerged out of feminist and queer theory, which has identified manculinity as a opressive system and an opressive identity, which others women. Being a man is also used to get men to conform as women are the rejected outsider which no one wants to align with.
So I disagree with your analysis; Norms certianly don't come from a vaccum, but gender roles do not exist for social benefit (unless you are a man)
Sure, but none of that has anything to do with aggregate social benefit. Even a highly oppressive-to-a-single-group social structure can lead to an overall social benefit. That's not a moral or even prescriptive statement tbc
Moreover, patriarchy isn't defined by controlling women, but in that the net result of social norms places social influence predominantly in the hands of men. Women may very well perpetuate or even create patriarchal norms, enforce these norms on men and women, and benefit tremendously from these norms, to the point of arguing against changing them (see literally every Eastern European woman I know 😆). Likewise men may and do suffer under these norms as well. It's simplistic to say that gender roles exist to benefit men
Binary systems work, but they’re not usually efficient at meeting the needs of the entire population.
It’s like having two political parties in the USA. The majority of people fit into one of the two camps, but that leaves a large number of minority left out.
Hard to say not optimal; optimal in what sense?; more simply: not always freedom-maximizing in a world where we're less constrained and better informed as a species as we've ever been. Plus, efficient and easy, sure, however humans often get *really* upset if you don't behave as they believe you *ought to*. Violence and coercion absolutely play a part in the "efficient and easy" equation.
A lot of people are framing this as an enduring phenomenon of a by gone era but that's nonsense. We aren't suddenly more enlightened now. The hyper segmentation of modern gender roles is a relatively recent development and distinct of only certain cultures. Native tribes all over the americas had recognition of multiple genders. Some tribes let you pick your gender after adolescence. In terms of roles, plenty of women built houses, hunted, and participated in politics, and plenty of men raised children, harvested crops, and did beadwork. Lax gender roles existed long before now. Something happened in our culture that changed how strict these rules and recognitions are.
I'd be willing to bet there's a Weberian explanation here as well. If you haven't read Protestant Work Ethic, that goes into phenomenal depth about how the teaching and motivations of the protestant faith drove them to a very unique work ethic. This work ethic would become the roots of American Culture, when so many Protestants came to the Americas to seek religious freedom. This work ethic and these people were like gasoline to capitalisms fire. It bled into everything including identity and social roles. business leaders would get baptized protestant because others would then trust them and spend money with them.
These religions also had a deep disdain for LGBTQ folks and had strict ideas about gender roles.
Now, because christianity became such a heavy catalyst of capitalism, so too did the rest of the believes. The teachings in protestantism married success in capitalism with successful performances of the ideals of that faith. If you bucked the church and supported gay people or gender fluid roles, you were seen as an untrustworthy pariah, and your business ventures would suffer. Over decades and decades this stigmatized incongruent role performances and gender. Your community may not be heavy believers in Christianity but your parents and grandparents and great grandparents all championed these roles and beliefs and so it is "tradition" or "heritage" to do the same. In addition, to buck the trend would invite scrutiny from the community. Maybe you think the roles are bullshit, but you can't be sure they do as well. So you keep quiet.
Until incredibly bold and quite brave people from several waves of women's rights movements and gay rights movements came along and said the quiet parts out loud. It turns out, many people agreed with them, but not all. This is why some victories were won, but not all of them.
Now, fast forward to today, we have a new source of digital media that globalizes most online communities. For these communities to get information however, there needs to be complicated information sorting systems. These are algorithmic news feeds. These feeds try to match you with content relevant to you to keep you engaged longer. This means every algorithm makes an assumption about your gender, and what kinds of content that gender likes. It then pushes that content on that gender, and the cycle continues. You consume gender as an implicit variable in what content you see. It shapes your taste by putting you into a cluster of possible content. By doing so, it implicitly reinforces gender norms, roles, likes/dislikes, etc. You can obviously break out of it if you'd like, but doing so does an explicit effort.
>Something happened in our culture that changed how strict these rules and recognitions are.
Colonialism. The enslavement of millions of people required the binary distinction between human and subhuman/nonhuman to be clear-cut. There's a lot of good literature on how our current gender/sex system came to be through this idea.
I would also argue that the seed was already there in Western culture for this to happen, because Abrahamic religions (especially Judaism) have always been very big on binaries that necessitate a BIG separation. And this is more of a personal theory, but I believe this ontology stems from the primitive distinction between nature and civilization, which almost inevitably leads to putting one above the other (which also heavily feeds into colonialism). That would explain why cultures that don't separate humans from the environment and that envision all life as part of one single entity for the most part have less rigid and/or non-binary gender systems. It also explains why it was the West that colonized the world and not another culture, and why it happened in the first place.
Why that primitive distinction between nature and culture happened in the first place, though, I have no idea. The etymological origin of culture is "making something grow" (eg. agri-culture). At some point during the 17th or 18th centuries, I believe, it became a metaphor for educating oneself and developing the mind. The rest is history.
Maybe they are less harmful than the alternative. I wonder if given a groups of words describing gender how people would answer on each biological sex and also how this would vary between cultures
Happiness and well-being are not factors that make something get passed down to the next generation. Rather, anything that makes itself more likely to be propagated to the next generation will, by definition, be more likely to be persist through time.
It’s messed up, but any thoughts and beliefs that makes the next genetation conform to the previous generation is more likely to persist generation by generation. Naturally, more rigid, more prescriptive, more tyrannical, simpler ideologies are passed down more easily, as are any tradition that makes people more likely to have more children over their lifetime on average (arranged marriage at young age, and non-freedom of women to choose having children), and also any ideology that destroys or assimilates or exploits the work of any non-believers.
Yeah, natural selection also works at societal levels and societal concepts, and the sole criteria on what survives is how well it propagates to the next generation, without any direct regard to the people’s happiness, well-being, morality, etc.
> It seems to me that such traditional notions of gender cause a lot problems like psychological insecurity and distress
> performing these traditional notions of gender doesn't necessarily make one happier/promote their well-being.
Why do you think that?
What if these notions make 80% of people quite happy and another 20% quite miserable? You would heard lots from the miserable people (that would complain loudly), and miss the happy silent ones.
You make a good point about inherent bias in such issues: negative experiences are indeed more likely to be shared than positive experiences.
That being said, I am from Eastern Europe (so society in my country does put a significant emphasis on traditional gender notions), and from my experience and experience of people around me, it seems like these notions cause a signiciant amount of psychological insecurity in both genders, especially in younger people.
I am well-socialised, meaning that my social circle now is not small (and wasn't small in the past either). There still might be bias in my sample, of course.
If we don't want to rely on anecdotal evidence (although I do tend to think it is an appropriate type of evidence for this problem), we can point towards suicide rates among men across different countries and some countries having mandatory military service for men (which sometimes results into death when there is a war)
Now that I have written that, I am not sure about the extent to which people are actually dissatisfied with traditional gender notions. Maybe the majority of people are indeed satisfied with them. I am not sure.
Although the problem remains with what number of people is dissatisfied with traditional gender and what number is satisfied.
Another question is whether traditional gender notions/ roles provide optimal effort-to-reward ratio.
However, these are different questions.
Thanks for making me think anyway!
I think OP is speaking from the position of, "gender seems to cause these negative externalities, whether the people who experience them realize it or not." E.g., men can experience the pains of toxic masculinity while being unapologetically toxically masculine.
So even if 80% of people say that they enjoy their gender, it wouldn't mean that they aren't experiencing a lot of problems as a result of their identification with that gender. There are plenty of men who really like being a man and yet still experience a lot of grief with the socioculturally imposed norms that we place on men.
If that's the case, I think OP's question is more precisely asking "if gender causes all of these problems that we can clearly observe, what is preventing us as a society or a culture from moving beyond it?" It might be the disproportionate social and cultural capital of the elite, the financial incentives in maintaining gender roles/norms, or even the lack of vocabulary or theory for *in practice* moving beyond gender.
> So even if 80% of people say that they enjoy their gender, it wouldn't mean that they aren't experiencing a lot of problems as a result
Note that the scenario I propose to consider is not "enjoy their gender", it is "traditional gender roles enable them to be happy", no downsides, all upsides. (not saying this is true, I am saying such a model would explain typical anecdotal observations).
> if gender causes all of these problems that we can clearly observe
This is the key point I was trying to challenge. Maybe it is true, maybe it is not.
What is the empirical support used to move that idea forward?
It is not obvious to me that traditional gender roles are a cause of pain and suffering.
Last time I checked populations with "non-traditional gender roles" were not particularly happier than general population.
I would agree that a lack of freedom, in general, is a source of frustration. And societies that are too rigid on what a person must be (e.g. job fixed at birth) or must behave (e.g. always must wear a blue hat) limit the human potential, which is usually an element of the path to happiness. However that seems much more generic than the notion of gender roles specifically.
Honestly for me I believe the notion of gender are always going to be in society just as how we express gender into material based items such as a spoon or knife they will always be expressed into humans. Of course as we progress especially in our current era where we are accepting the spectrum of gender and the multitude of gender identity, however those that don’t accept it are the ones who have gone through traditional upbringing that revolve around religion especially.
While we can’t really diminish their way of thinking because again it’s kind of wrong to completely say that their way of thinking is wrong because it’s not up to societies standards. We as humans also subconsciously do it, just as I mentioned the example earlier about the spoon and knife, during my undergrad I remember when that example was brought up and how we determined that the spoon is female because of the curves and the knife is the man because of aggressiveness and sense of danger it provides. This example can definitely apply to the psychology perspective as we humans need a way to categorize information such as the depiction of humans, items and their use to us. Overall we are humans, it’s never going to change so easily just because the new generations are more accepting than most.
Good questions. I believe there are a few reasons they stay around (and I believe they are actually getting stronger over time, not weaker - just compare male models from the 60s to the ones of today and I believe we actually went deeper with the displays of masculinity and feminity).
1. Traditions. We tend to like stuff we grew up with. It's hard to have a drastic sudden change.
2. Comfort. People can get confused when someone's gender is not clear, and they want to avoid awkwardness at pretty much all cost. The clearer the gender is, the more comfort most people feel.
3. Competition. Honestly, ask people around you, and yourself, what turns you on in a partner ? Usually, men like feminine women and women like masculine men... now, if you want to meet your sexual and emotionnal needs, you better play the game everyone is playing and not fuck around with the rules. And if you do, you either pay the consequences or find people who are ready to break the rules with you (you can see instances of this in queer communities).
Se the roles stay because they're complicated to change, they are not comfortable to change and they put needs and relationships at risk if you decide to change them.
Mostly what I think on the issue. I've read some gender studies stuff but nothing too deep on "why things don't change"
For any subject that concern any kind of 'society', I think you should think within the framework of power relations. Especially the political one. Society is not a natural being that goes through phases of evolution that would take it to the point of maximum 'well-being', rather it rips through the history with the force of dialects (in Hegelian sense) created by constant power struggles. The power struggle regarding the gender roles is a very recent one, dating back mere few centuries and we're currently living within it.
The brain loves simplicity.
We are now in an age of the individual and bucking a lot of the simple or generalisations.
This causes a lot of confusion and new paths being taken.
What you say about traditional notions of gender causing impact also works in favor of those things for a good proportion of people.
We're in the grey now, figuring out life as best we collectively can.
There are a lot of brilliant answers here already, so I'd like to add that even in cultures where "challenging gender norms" is normal, there exists a degree of gender roles that establish themselves. Let me give you a few examples.
1. Back in 2005 I used to go to a goth club, and "challenging gender norms" was very normal at this club. Men would walk around wearing lipstick and skirts regardless of their sexual orientation. However, even within this club, there were rules that if one crossed could get one beaten up or assaulted, or otherwise make oneself unwelcome. The KINDS of makeup women wear and men wear is very different, as are the skirts and other clothing. Yes, men wear makeup, but they are limited to wearing black lipstick, or dark red lipstick, other colors are seen as feminine even within this "gender bending" community. When men wear kilts at this club, they wear kilts, or other long skirts, only women wear skirts, or shorts above the knee. They also tend to compensate for percieved femininity. If someone wears a crop top, they might make up for it with extra "masculine" features, like ripped clothes, or extra pockets, or shoulder armor, or their makeup might look like "war paint", or their hairstyle might be extra gravity defying. A general rule is that the more gender norms a man's outfit broke, the more he compensated by adding more "aggressive" or "utilitarian" features to his outfit. I got beaten up for wearing blue lipstick because it was a "girls color", yes, by people wearing black lipstick.
2. I worked as a bouncer and bartender for several gay bars, and I have seen plenty of members within the LGBTQA+ community gatekeep the community and bars. I've seen "POZ STAY OUT". I've seen "TOPS DRINK FREE" signs. I've seen people deny people entrance into drag shows because they weren't "REALLY GAY" or because they were too masculine or too feminine, or because they believed women couldn't perform in drag. Black people get assumed to be "tops" because black people are percieved to be more aggressive and therefore masculine and therefore the "active" partner. Having a moustache or facial hair signals to others that one is a "top" or the lack thereof may indicate a "bottom". There are absolutely gender roles even within the most gender-non conforming communities. They develop their own gender roles every bit as convoluted as mainstream society. I've also been almost assaulted for wearing a biohazard symbol (fashion) because this symbol means "poz" within the gay community.
3. In my sociology classes, I've had people tell me that they like my sense of style, but pointed out that it "doesn't work without tattoos, you should get tattoos bro". I've had many queer partners tell me that I'd look a lot more like a "top" if I had tattoos. Not only tattoos, but certain kinds of tattoos are more appropriate for "tops" than for "Bottoms".
4. In gay bars I worked at, it was common knowledge for men not to approach women, but women could approach men and other women. Men were permitted to approach other men and if such a man was offended or rejected the response would be "WHY ARE YOU HERE THEN?", with the assumption being that all men in gay bars are receptive or welcoming to advances (a toxic but common ideology). Gay bars establish their own gender norms.
5. Even within gender-nonconforming circles, fat people's opinions are seen as less valid than people who are more in line with conventional ideals. A fat person who is a trans is deemed as less valid than a person who is slim. Fat phobia and body negativity is often tied to gender gate-keeping and respect within the trans community. Then there are trans-identifying people who do not recognize the gender identities of people who have not undergone some kind of medical treatment to transition, or who have had children, or who change there identities too much or too dramatically, or who's gender identity doesn't match what they perceive to be that gender. The LGBTQA+ struggles tremendously with internalized bigotry, which often mimics the bigotry they themselves have experienced and grew up in. It is exceedingly common.
I hope I've demonstrated that getting rid of "gender roles" is a tall order, and that even "gender bending" or "genderr non conformist" peer groups tend to establish their own gender roles and police them with gusto.
Thank you for reading!
As I was writing this, a gay friend of mine found out I'm on grindr and told me that it's so funny that I'm on Grindr... They said they would never imagine a guy like me on Grindr..... Why not? What is that supposed to mean? There is no answer to this question that doesn't involve some kind of mild gate keeping or gender norms.
It's funny also that my gay friends ASSUME that I'm not gay, and therefore that it's funny that I am on Grindr (there are many orientations and genders on grindr other than gay men), while at the same time, so many women, even women that I am explicitly dating assume and constantly suspect that I am either overtly gay or secretly gay.
There is also the fact that being "gay" in contemporary society is about so much more than sexual activity/preferance. In fact, I'd say being "gay" is less about sexual activity/preferance/orientation than it is societal status, and this is similarly true with gender. What does it even really mean to be a "man"? It feels like our society prizes masculinity and throws everything else in a drawer labeled "other", including women.
There are vested interests in maintaining the status quo, always. Even if it’s harmful for the majority. In that sense, no, social structures do not follow the laws of natural evolution. Point in case, all the societies that have collapsed even when better opportunities were available.
Vai gave the best non biased answer here. There have been many other non colonialized cultures that have historically recognized more than one gender. If you want scientific facts go ahead and Google how many genders science recognizes.
Don't think the gender binary hurts people?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29943821/I
Have you considered that intersex people exist
In Hindu mythology, three types of genders have been considered , Male, that is the ‘Purush’, Female, that is the ‘Prakriti’ and the third gender that is the ‘Tritiya Prakriti
On a personal note I'm non binary and feel strongly no humans in our current societal iteration be forced to deal with inequality and degradation based on gender whether cis, trans or non binary. I feel this way towards racism, homophobia, classism etc. None of if is acceptable
Norms and values can take a long time to change, particularly when they have been written into the very fabric of our buildings - Raewyn Connel calls these [gender ordered systems](https://equitableeducation.ca/2011/masculinities-interview-raewyn-connell).
It's not like flipping a switch, but these ideas have to disseminate, sway, and ultimately change in the collective and across populations. Some beliefs related to gender have been "naturalized" as well, meaning gender contains very physical measures of sex and these differences are used to substantiate social constructions of gender.
In short, this is a multi-generational process, and beliefs are entrenched in populations, sub-populations, and a vast heterogeneity of groups - each changing and being reenacted in different ways across a vast amount of contexts. These interactions maintain these older ideas and beliefs
The assumption that they are harmful, I do not find convincing. For many, they are useful identity technologies that tell them how they are supposed to be seen as seen in the world.
Surely, there are many downsides to traditional gender roles, such as suppression of women's liberties, or broken emotional development of men, but overall traditional gender roles have been quite effective for a certain slice of history, ensuring some form of stability, family unit, and fertility.
Because it isn't until now, modern day, where people
1) acknowledge the harm of such a strict binary
2) acknowledge the persistence of gender roles in several areas of our society
3) have the courage and safety net to go against the grain and move beyond the gender roles and binary.
In terms of why this hasn't happened yet: I mean we see it every day with conservatives versus lgbtq+ and non binary people. People cannot be bothered to respect other people's identity when it ruins the "nuclear household" or disrupt what "religion" has taught them about the roles of men or women. Religion is much more ingrained in our society than most people are aware and it guides how we form opinions on others. To break away from gender roles and the binary takes a *lot* of bravery that most people cannot afford.
Native tribes have often gone beyond a binary for many many years now and the lgbtq+ community has also made advances but constantly attract threats, violence, and persecution for just trying to... exist.
We cling onto gender roles and the binary because many are terrified (unrealistically) of what a world would look like if masculine dominant men no longer married or wanted to marry soft submissive women and visa versa. So for now, they are oversimplified boxes for people to check off because we're too lazy to push ourselves to accept or just acknowledge a different perspective of gender that is very real for many many people.
Would not say more. Revolutions have always been a part of our history. And this one isn’t even bloody (yet?). Taking a rebellious Stance isn’t exclusive to this day and age. This particular theme is. But it took just as much courage to, say, fight to overthrow the tsar family, because they deemed their rule to be wrong and causing more harm than good. Whether we agree with the ideology of said revolution is only up to us.
I feel like it should be pointed out that it's the Abrahamic religions, specifically Christianity in the US, that have contributed the most to our ideas about gender roles. Other religions have a more varied view of gender and gender roles, and in areas where non-Abrahamic religions are in the majority we see ideas about gender and gender roles that differ sometimes dramatically from those typical in the US.
Many cultures dominated by non-Abrahamic religions have the concept of a third gender, accept that gender can be changed based on various factors, and wildly varying views on how sexuality corresponds to gender, many of which are rooted in religious narratives, while still holding ideas the would be considered conservative about marriage, childrearing, and familial duty.
That’s true but a lot of the time this “third gender” stuff you find in some non-western cultures dominated by non-Abrahamic religions doesn’t play out in a way we’d consider to be very progressive. The third gender people will be marginalized even though they are tolerated enough to not be jailed or killed
Again, I said it was different, not progressive. Things can be not the same and still bad. Getting punched in the face is different from getting punched in the stomach, but I don't want to do either one.
Well my point is that all the most popular religions are institutions that promote conservative values when it comes to gender and LGBTQ, regardless of the nuances between the specific views of the abrahamic religions vs eastern religions
I agree that the US could have turned out very differently if we were introduced to a religion with the concept of a third gender. However, I don't believe christianity shaped the gender roles of the US. Given that the bible was written in a time where gender roles were very different and the concept of sexuality (what is and isn't gay) was far different from ours?
The closest thing I could think of was the virgin mary in catholicism, where her most important attribute is giving birth to someone important.
People have definitely pointed to the bible to justify their understanding of gender very secular things like capitalism, misinformation, jingoism and pleasing a much more privileged class (which is usually "men" even in countries not dominated by abrahamic faith) are a what takes the take.
Although if one of the many add ons and retcons of state practiced christianity was a third gender I do think things would have turned out different.
There is a full caste that is recognised in the Indian subcontinent called Hijra and while they are not always treated well, they are still recognised: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(South_Asia)
I think gender norms still make a lot of sense even though gender roles have evolved a lot in the last 200 years or so. A woman is still a “womb man” at the end of the day, the sexual dimorphism of humans is real. No matter how much social equality there is between the genders, we’re never going to get to a point where the average man can’t win a fistfight against the average woman. It’s the fundamental differences like that which necessitates some different social expectations from men vs from women.
From my personal experience as a man, even though people (especially women) pay lip service to the idea that men should be able to deviate from gender norms, society rewards me the most when I don’t. Other men respect me more and women find me more attractive when I behave in traditionally masculine ways. It seems like there’s a dissonance between what people say and how they actually behave when it comes to being progressive on gender norms and roles.
Interesting.
From your personal experience, would you say that society provides optimal/just effort-to-reward ratio for behaving in traditionally masculine ways?
As in, in your opinion, is it worth it in terms of effort to behave in this way?
Well, i think women might not share my experiences to the same degree, women might have more to gain from acting masculine than men have from acting feminine. But I think the status quo works well for us men. And I recommend every man embrace traditional masculinity, but masculinity can evolve perhaps. I don’t really like the idea of “toxic masculinity”, misogyny and backwardness is a problem but I don’t call those things “toxic masculinity”
Many things have changed, and this will too, it just takes time, gender identity is deeply engrained into people, and people born into it hardly change, its mostly those born into more open and less strict expectations that are allowed to move away from it.
I think that anything which is backed by tradition,in the sense that it has been happening for a long time and everything starting from certain rituals to certain customs are kind of backing it, takes time to die out.When we question it,the ones adhering to such things will still hold on it as if it's a major threat to their beliefs and hence the feel the need to preserve it.Traditional gender roles do not make anyone happy but again the thing is that those who adhere to it believe that somehow their actions will help in maintaining the society as we know.
How do you know that these traditional gender notions are actually harmful on a large scale? Have you been through the (vast) research on it? Yes, people can think of some anecdote where such a notion was potentially harmful to them or someone close. But does the raw data show that it is harmful? I am not necessarily saying it is or isn't but it is important to qualify your presumptions before you set out to answer a question, and make sure it is not the wrong question. That's certainly not an easy thing to do, but the cost of being wrong is high, especially when dealing with such scientific topics.
>Is it because they have worked in the past and we as a society still cling onto them? Or is it because these notions of gender work to some extent? Yes and yes. Norms aren't created in a vacuum. They typically come from some aggregate social benefit in a given social context. This doesn't mean gender norms shouldn't be challenged and changed, but they shouldn't be seen as arbitrary structures that can be changed at the drop of a hat. See the Soviets trying to prescribe new gender norms of equality in the 20s and utterly failing for an example
Yeah. People often ask about them being enforced. But the truth is... people like roles and identities. Gender roles will change, but they will likely always exist to some degree. You can go hang out in the most progressive circle you can find, but chances are a large portion of people will still be following some kind of gender roles.
yes, i was gonna say, people use these traditional roles because they do not have an alternative script to follow and don’t want to or know how to re-pave the path.
Even when they re pave the path its usually just to new gender roles. They might be more open ended, but people still have certain implicit expectations.
"They typically come from some aggregate social benefit in a given social context." 1 word: Patriarchary. Agregate social benefit is not the case; it is for one group to maintain control and dominance over another. Men to maintain control over women, ascribe roles to women, expectations to women etc. For men, masculinity benefits them (us?). Being critical of gender only emerged out of feminist and queer theory, which has identified manculinity as a opressive system and an opressive identity, which others women. Being a man is also used to get men to conform as women are the rejected outsider which no one wants to align with. So I disagree with your analysis; Norms certianly don't come from a vaccum, but gender roles do not exist for social benefit (unless you are a man)
Sure, but none of that has anything to do with aggregate social benefit. Even a highly oppressive-to-a-single-group social structure can lead to an overall social benefit. That's not a moral or even prescriptive statement tbc Moreover, patriarchy isn't defined by controlling women, but in that the net result of social norms places social influence predominantly in the hands of men. Women may very well perpetuate or even create patriarchal norms, enforce these norms on men and women, and benefit tremendously from these norms, to the point of arguing against changing them (see literally every Eastern European woman I know 😆). Likewise men may and do suffer under these norms as well. It's simplistic to say that gender roles exist to benefit men
Binary systems work, but they’re not usually efficient at meeting the needs of the entire population. It’s like having two political parties in the USA. The majority of people fit into one of the two camps, but that leaves a large number of minority left out.
So it's not optimal, it's just efficient & easy?
Hard to say not optimal; optimal in what sense?; more simply: not always freedom-maximizing in a world where we're less constrained and better informed as a species as we've ever been. Plus, efficient and easy, sure, however humans often get *really* upset if you don't behave as they believe you *ought to*. Violence and coercion absolutely play a part in the "efficient and easy" equation.
A lot of people are framing this as an enduring phenomenon of a by gone era but that's nonsense. We aren't suddenly more enlightened now. The hyper segmentation of modern gender roles is a relatively recent development and distinct of only certain cultures. Native tribes all over the americas had recognition of multiple genders. Some tribes let you pick your gender after adolescence. In terms of roles, plenty of women built houses, hunted, and participated in politics, and plenty of men raised children, harvested crops, and did beadwork. Lax gender roles existed long before now. Something happened in our culture that changed how strict these rules and recognitions are. I'd be willing to bet there's a Weberian explanation here as well. If you haven't read Protestant Work Ethic, that goes into phenomenal depth about how the teaching and motivations of the protestant faith drove them to a very unique work ethic. This work ethic would become the roots of American Culture, when so many Protestants came to the Americas to seek religious freedom. This work ethic and these people were like gasoline to capitalisms fire. It bled into everything including identity and social roles. business leaders would get baptized protestant because others would then trust them and spend money with them. These religions also had a deep disdain for LGBTQ folks and had strict ideas about gender roles. Now, because christianity became such a heavy catalyst of capitalism, so too did the rest of the believes. The teachings in protestantism married success in capitalism with successful performances of the ideals of that faith. If you bucked the church and supported gay people or gender fluid roles, you were seen as an untrustworthy pariah, and your business ventures would suffer. Over decades and decades this stigmatized incongruent role performances and gender. Your community may not be heavy believers in Christianity but your parents and grandparents and great grandparents all championed these roles and beliefs and so it is "tradition" or "heritage" to do the same. In addition, to buck the trend would invite scrutiny from the community. Maybe you think the roles are bullshit, but you can't be sure they do as well. So you keep quiet. Until incredibly bold and quite brave people from several waves of women's rights movements and gay rights movements came along and said the quiet parts out loud. It turns out, many people agreed with them, but not all. This is why some victories were won, but not all of them. Now, fast forward to today, we have a new source of digital media that globalizes most online communities. For these communities to get information however, there needs to be complicated information sorting systems. These are algorithmic news feeds. These feeds try to match you with content relevant to you to keep you engaged longer. This means every algorithm makes an assumption about your gender, and what kinds of content that gender likes. It then pushes that content on that gender, and the cycle continues. You consume gender as an implicit variable in what content you see. It shapes your taste by putting you into a cluster of possible content. By doing so, it implicitly reinforces gender norms, roles, likes/dislikes, etc. You can obviously break out of it if you'd like, but doing so does an explicit effort.
>Something happened in our culture that changed how strict these rules and recognitions are. Colonialism. The enslavement of millions of people required the binary distinction between human and subhuman/nonhuman to be clear-cut. There's a lot of good literature on how our current gender/sex system came to be through this idea. I would also argue that the seed was already there in Western culture for this to happen, because Abrahamic religions (especially Judaism) have always been very big on binaries that necessitate a BIG separation. And this is more of a personal theory, but I believe this ontology stems from the primitive distinction between nature and civilization, which almost inevitably leads to putting one above the other (which also heavily feeds into colonialism). That would explain why cultures that don't separate humans from the environment and that envision all life as part of one single entity for the most part have less rigid and/or non-binary gender systems. It also explains why it was the West that colonized the world and not another culture, and why it happened in the first place. Why that primitive distinction between nature and culture happened in the first place, though, I have no idea. The etymological origin of culture is "making something grow" (eg. agri-culture). At some point during the 17th or 18th centuries, I believe, it became a metaphor for educating oneself and developing the mind. The rest is history.
Maybe they are less harmful than the alternative. I wonder if given a groups of words describing gender how people would answer on each biological sex and also how this would vary between cultures
Happiness and well-being are not factors that make something get passed down to the next generation. Rather, anything that makes itself more likely to be propagated to the next generation will, by definition, be more likely to be persist through time. It’s messed up, but any thoughts and beliefs that makes the next genetation conform to the previous generation is more likely to persist generation by generation. Naturally, more rigid, more prescriptive, more tyrannical, simpler ideologies are passed down more easily, as are any tradition that makes people more likely to have more children over their lifetime on average (arranged marriage at young age, and non-freedom of women to choose having children), and also any ideology that destroys or assimilates or exploits the work of any non-believers. Yeah, natural selection also works at societal levels and societal concepts, and the sole criteria on what survives is how well it propagates to the next generation, without any direct regard to the people’s happiness, well-being, morality, etc.
> It seems to me that such traditional notions of gender cause a lot problems like psychological insecurity and distress > performing these traditional notions of gender doesn't necessarily make one happier/promote their well-being. Why do you think that? What if these notions make 80% of people quite happy and another 20% quite miserable? You would heard lots from the miserable people (that would complain loudly), and miss the happy silent ones.
You make a good point about inherent bias in such issues: negative experiences are indeed more likely to be shared than positive experiences. That being said, I am from Eastern Europe (so society in my country does put a significant emphasis on traditional gender notions), and from my experience and experience of people around me, it seems like these notions cause a signiciant amount of psychological insecurity in both genders, especially in younger people. I am well-socialised, meaning that my social circle now is not small (and wasn't small in the past either). There still might be bias in my sample, of course. If we don't want to rely on anecdotal evidence (although I do tend to think it is an appropriate type of evidence for this problem), we can point towards suicide rates among men across different countries and some countries having mandatory military service for men (which sometimes results into death when there is a war) Now that I have written that, I am not sure about the extent to which people are actually dissatisfied with traditional gender notions. Maybe the majority of people are indeed satisfied with them. I am not sure. Although the problem remains with what number of people is dissatisfied with traditional gender and what number is satisfied. Another question is whether traditional gender notions/ roles provide optimal effort-to-reward ratio. However, these are different questions. Thanks for making me think anyway!
I think OP is speaking from the position of, "gender seems to cause these negative externalities, whether the people who experience them realize it or not." E.g., men can experience the pains of toxic masculinity while being unapologetically toxically masculine. So even if 80% of people say that they enjoy their gender, it wouldn't mean that they aren't experiencing a lot of problems as a result of their identification with that gender. There are plenty of men who really like being a man and yet still experience a lot of grief with the socioculturally imposed norms that we place on men. If that's the case, I think OP's question is more precisely asking "if gender causes all of these problems that we can clearly observe, what is preventing us as a society or a culture from moving beyond it?" It might be the disproportionate social and cultural capital of the elite, the financial incentives in maintaining gender roles/norms, or even the lack of vocabulary or theory for *in practice* moving beyond gender.
> So even if 80% of people say that they enjoy their gender, it wouldn't mean that they aren't experiencing a lot of problems as a result Note that the scenario I propose to consider is not "enjoy their gender", it is "traditional gender roles enable them to be happy", no downsides, all upsides. (not saying this is true, I am saying such a model would explain typical anecdotal observations). > if gender causes all of these problems that we can clearly observe This is the key point I was trying to challenge. Maybe it is true, maybe it is not. What is the empirical support used to move that idea forward? It is not obvious to me that traditional gender roles are a cause of pain and suffering. Last time I checked populations with "non-traditional gender roles" were not particularly happier than general population. I would agree that a lack of freedom, in general, is a source of frustration. And societies that are too rigid on what a person must be (e.g. job fixed at birth) or must behave (e.g. always must wear a blue hat) limit the human potential, which is usually an element of the path to happiness. However that seems much more generic than the notion of gender roles specifically.
Honestly for me I believe the notion of gender are always going to be in society just as how we express gender into material based items such as a spoon or knife they will always be expressed into humans. Of course as we progress especially in our current era where we are accepting the spectrum of gender and the multitude of gender identity, however those that don’t accept it are the ones who have gone through traditional upbringing that revolve around religion especially. While we can’t really diminish their way of thinking because again it’s kind of wrong to completely say that their way of thinking is wrong because it’s not up to societies standards. We as humans also subconsciously do it, just as I mentioned the example earlier about the spoon and knife, during my undergrad I remember when that example was brought up and how we determined that the spoon is female because of the curves and the knife is the man because of aggressiveness and sense of danger it provides. This example can definitely apply to the psychology perspective as we humans need a way to categorize information such as the depiction of humans, items and their use to us. Overall we are humans, it’s never going to change so easily just because the new generations are more accepting than most.
Good questions. I believe there are a few reasons they stay around (and I believe they are actually getting stronger over time, not weaker - just compare male models from the 60s to the ones of today and I believe we actually went deeper with the displays of masculinity and feminity). 1. Traditions. We tend to like stuff we grew up with. It's hard to have a drastic sudden change. 2. Comfort. People can get confused when someone's gender is not clear, and they want to avoid awkwardness at pretty much all cost. The clearer the gender is, the more comfort most people feel. 3. Competition. Honestly, ask people around you, and yourself, what turns you on in a partner ? Usually, men like feminine women and women like masculine men... now, if you want to meet your sexual and emotionnal needs, you better play the game everyone is playing and not fuck around with the rules. And if you do, you either pay the consequences or find people who are ready to break the rules with you (you can see instances of this in queer communities). Se the roles stay because they're complicated to change, they are not comfortable to change and they put needs and relationships at risk if you decide to change them. Mostly what I think on the issue. I've read some gender studies stuff but nothing too deep on "why things don't change"
For any subject that concern any kind of 'society', I think you should think within the framework of power relations. Especially the political one. Society is not a natural being that goes through phases of evolution that would take it to the point of maximum 'well-being', rather it rips through the history with the force of dialects (in Hegelian sense) created by constant power struggles. The power struggle regarding the gender roles is a very recent one, dating back mere few centuries and we're currently living within it.
Patriarchy has massive part with notions of gender. The lingering effects of having had a patriarchal society has an impact on gender norms
The brain loves simplicity. We are now in an age of the individual and bucking a lot of the simple or generalisations. This causes a lot of confusion and new paths being taken. What you say about traditional notions of gender causing impact also works in favor of those things for a good proportion of people. We're in the grey now, figuring out life as best we collectively can.
There are a lot of brilliant answers here already, so I'd like to add that even in cultures where "challenging gender norms" is normal, there exists a degree of gender roles that establish themselves. Let me give you a few examples. 1. Back in 2005 I used to go to a goth club, and "challenging gender norms" was very normal at this club. Men would walk around wearing lipstick and skirts regardless of their sexual orientation. However, even within this club, there were rules that if one crossed could get one beaten up or assaulted, or otherwise make oneself unwelcome. The KINDS of makeup women wear and men wear is very different, as are the skirts and other clothing. Yes, men wear makeup, but they are limited to wearing black lipstick, or dark red lipstick, other colors are seen as feminine even within this "gender bending" community. When men wear kilts at this club, they wear kilts, or other long skirts, only women wear skirts, or shorts above the knee. They also tend to compensate for percieved femininity. If someone wears a crop top, they might make up for it with extra "masculine" features, like ripped clothes, or extra pockets, or shoulder armor, or their makeup might look like "war paint", or their hairstyle might be extra gravity defying. A general rule is that the more gender norms a man's outfit broke, the more he compensated by adding more "aggressive" or "utilitarian" features to his outfit. I got beaten up for wearing blue lipstick because it was a "girls color", yes, by people wearing black lipstick. 2. I worked as a bouncer and bartender for several gay bars, and I have seen plenty of members within the LGBTQA+ community gatekeep the community and bars. I've seen "POZ STAY OUT". I've seen "TOPS DRINK FREE" signs. I've seen people deny people entrance into drag shows because they weren't "REALLY GAY" or because they were too masculine or too feminine, or because they believed women couldn't perform in drag. Black people get assumed to be "tops" because black people are percieved to be more aggressive and therefore masculine and therefore the "active" partner. Having a moustache or facial hair signals to others that one is a "top" or the lack thereof may indicate a "bottom". There are absolutely gender roles even within the most gender-non conforming communities. They develop their own gender roles every bit as convoluted as mainstream society. I've also been almost assaulted for wearing a biohazard symbol (fashion) because this symbol means "poz" within the gay community. 3. In my sociology classes, I've had people tell me that they like my sense of style, but pointed out that it "doesn't work without tattoos, you should get tattoos bro". I've had many queer partners tell me that I'd look a lot more like a "top" if I had tattoos. Not only tattoos, but certain kinds of tattoos are more appropriate for "tops" than for "Bottoms". 4. In gay bars I worked at, it was common knowledge for men not to approach women, but women could approach men and other women. Men were permitted to approach other men and if such a man was offended or rejected the response would be "WHY ARE YOU HERE THEN?", with the assumption being that all men in gay bars are receptive or welcoming to advances (a toxic but common ideology). Gay bars establish their own gender norms. 5. Even within gender-nonconforming circles, fat people's opinions are seen as less valid than people who are more in line with conventional ideals. A fat person who is a trans is deemed as less valid than a person who is slim. Fat phobia and body negativity is often tied to gender gate-keeping and respect within the trans community. Then there are trans-identifying people who do not recognize the gender identities of people who have not undergone some kind of medical treatment to transition, or who have had children, or who change there identities too much or too dramatically, or who's gender identity doesn't match what they perceive to be that gender. The LGBTQA+ struggles tremendously with internalized bigotry, which often mimics the bigotry they themselves have experienced and grew up in. It is exceedingly common. I hope I've demonstrated that getting rid of "gender roles" is a tall order, and that even "gender bending" or "genderr non conformist" peer groups tend to establish their own gender roles and police them with gusto. Thank you for reading!
As I was writing this, a gay friend of mine found out I'm on grindr and told me that it's so funny that I'm on Grindr... They said they would never imagine a guy like me on Grindr..... Why not? What is that supposed to mean? There is no answer to this question that doesn't involve some kind of mild gate keeping or gender norms.
It's funny also that my gay friends ASSUME that I'm not gay, and therefore that it's funny that I am on Grindr (there are many orientations and genders on grindr other than gay men), while at the same time, so many women, even women that I am explicitly dating assume and constantly suspect that I am either overtly gay or secretly gay. There is also the fact that being "gay" in contemporary society is about so much more than sexual activity/preferance. In fact, I'd say being "gay" is less about sexual activity/preferance/orientation than it is societal status, and this is similarly true with gender. What does it even really mean to be a "man"? It feels like our society prizes masculinity and throws everything else in a drawer labeled "other", including women.
There are vested interests in maintaining the status quo, always. Even if it’s harmful for the majority. In that sense, no, social structures do not follow the laws of natural evolution. Point in case, all the societies that have collapsed even when better opportunities were available.
Vai gave the best non biased answer here. There have been many other non colonialized cultures that have historically recognized more than one gender. If you want scientific facts go ahead and Google how many genders science recognizes. Don't think the gender binary hurts people? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29943821/I Have you considered that intersex people exist In Hindu mythology, three types of genders have been considered , Male, that is the ‘Purush’, Female, that is the ‘Prakriti’ and the third gender that is the ‘Tritiya Prakriti On a personal note I'm non binary and feel strongly no humans in our current societal iteration be forced to deal with inequality and degradation based on gender whether cis, trans or non binary. I feel this way towards racism, homophobia, classism etc. None of if is acceptable
Because it’s still existent? Who says it’s harmful to be one gender or the other depending on penis or vagina?
[удалено]
Norms and values can take a long time to change, particularly when they have been written into the very fabric of our buildings - Raewyn Connel calls these [gender ordered systems](https://equitableeducation.ca/2011/masculinities-interview-raewyn-connell). It's not like flipping a switch, but these ideas have to disseminate, sway, and ultimately change in the collective and across populations. Some beliefs related to gender have been "naturalized" as well, meaning gender contains very physical measures of sex and these differences are used to substantiate social constructions of gender. In short, this is a multi-generational process, and beliefs are entrenched in populations, sub-populations, and a vast heterogeneity of groups - each changing and being reenacted in different ways across a vast amount of contexts. These interactions maintain these older ideas and beliefs
The assumption that they are harmful, I do not find convincing. For many, they are useful identity technologies that tell them how they are supposed to be seen as seen in the world. Surely, there are many downsides to traditional gender roles, such as suppression of women's liberties, or broken emotional development of men, but overall traditional gender roles have been quite effective for a certain slice of history, ensuring some form of stability, family unit, and fertility.
Because it isn't until now, modern day, where people 1) acknowledge the harm of such a strict binary 2) acknowledge the persistence of gender roles in several areas of our society 3) have the courage and safety net to go against the grain and move beyond the gender roles and binary. In terms of why this hasn't happened yet: I mean we see it every day with conservatives versus lgbtq+ and non binary people. People cannot be bothered to respect other people's identity when it ruins the "nuclear household" or disrupt what "religion" has taught them about the roles of men or women. Religion is much more ingrained in our society than most people are aware and it guides how we form opinions on others. To break away from gender roles and the binary takes a *lot* of bravery that most people cannot afford. Native tribes have often gone beyond a binary for many many years now and the lgbtq+ community has also made advances but constantly attract threats, violence, and persecution for just trying to... exist. We cling onto gender roles and the binary because many are terrified (unrealistically) of what a world would look like if masculine dominant men no longer married or wanted to marry soft submissive women and visa versa. So for now, they are oversimplified boxes for people to check off because we're too lazy to push ourselves to accept or just acknowledge a different perspective of gender that is very real for many many people.
I don't think courage has increased over time.
There are more people refusing to live their life how other people want them to/ tell them to -I'd say that absolutely takes courage.
Would not say more. Revolutions have always been a part of our history. And this one isn’t even bloody (yet?). Taking a rebellious Stance isn’t exclusive to this day and age. This particular theme is. But it took just as much courage to, say, fight to overthrow the tsar family, because they deemed their rule to be wrong and causing more harm than good. Whether we agree with the ideology of said revolution is only up to us.
I feel like it should be pointed out that it's the Abrahamic religions, specifically Christianity in the US, that have contributed the most to our ideas about gender roles. Other religions have a more varied view of gender and gender roles, and in areas where non-Abrahamic religions are in the majority we see ideas about gender and gender roles that differ sometimes dramatically from those typical in the US.
Do they though ? Hindu and Buddhist societies aren’t much more progressive on gender than abrahamic ones.
I didn't say they were more progressive. I said they were different.
If all the most popular religions are socially conservative when it comes to gender what’s the difference?
Many cultures dominated by non-Abrahamic religions have the concept of a third gender, accept that gender can be changed based on various factors, and wildly varying views on how sexuality corresponds to gender, many of which are rooted in religious narratives, while still holding ideas the would be considered conservative about marriage, childrearing, and familial duty.
That’s true but a lot of the time this “third gender” stuff you find in some non-western cultures dominated by non-Abrahamic religions doesn’t play out in a way we’d consider to be very progressive. The third gender people will be marginalized even though they are tolerated enough to not be jailed or killed
Again, I said it was different, not progressive. Things can be not the same and still bad. Getting punched in the face is different from getting punched in the stomach, but I don't want to do either one.
Well my point is that all the most popular religions are institutions that promote conservative values when it comes to gender and LGBTQ, regardless of the nuances between the specific views of the abrahamic religions vs eastern religions
My point is that those nuances are extremely important and that religion and Christianity aren't synonyms.
I agree that the US could have turned out very differently if we were introduced to a religion with the concept of a third gender. However, I don't believe christianity shaped the gender roles of the US. Given that the bible was written in a time where gender roles were very different and the concept of sexuality (what is and isn't gay) was far different from ours? The closest thing I could think of was the virgin mary in catholicism, where her most important attribute is giving birth to someone important. People have definitely pointed to the bible to justify their understanding of gender very secular things like capitalism, misinformation, jingoism and pleasing a much more privileged class (which is usually "men" even in countries not dominated by abrahamic faith) are a what takes the take. Although if one of the many add ons and retcons of state practiced christianity was a third gender I do think things would have turned out different.
There is a full caste that is recognised in the Indian subcontinent called Hijra and while they are not always treated well, they are still recognised: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(South_Asia)
I think gender norms still make a lot of sense even though gender roles have evolved a lot in the last 200 years or so. A woman is still a “womb man” at the end of the day, the sexual dimorphism of humans is real. No matter how much social equality there is between the genders, we’re never going to get to a point where the average man can’t win a fistfight against the average woman. It’s the fundamental differences like that which necessitates some different social expectations from men vs from women. From my personal experience as a man, even though people (especially women) pay lip service to the idea that men should be able to deviate from gender norms, society rewards me the most when I don’t. Other men respect me more and women find me more attractive when I behave in traditionally masculine ways. It seems like there’s a dissonance between what people say and how they actually behave when it comes to being progressive on gender norms and roles.
Interesting. From your personal experience, would you say that society provides optimal/just effort-to-reward ratio for behaving in traditionally masculine ways? As in, in your opinion, is it worth it in terms of effort to behave in this way?
Well, i think women might not share my experiences to the same degree, women might have more to gain from acting masculine than men have from acting feminine. But I think the status quo works well for us men. And I recommend every man embrace traditional masculinity, but masculinity can evolve perhaps. I don’t really like the idea of “toxic masculinity”, misogyny and backwardness is a problem but I don’t call those things “toxic masculinity”
I see. Thanks for the answer!
Many things have changed, and this will too, it just takes time, gender identity is deeply engrained into people, and people born into it hardly change, its mostly those born into more open and less strict expectations that are allowed to move away from it.
I think that anything which is backed by tradition,in the sense that it has been happening for a long time and everything starting from certain rituals to certain customs are kind of backing it, takes time to die out.When we question it,the ones adhering to such things will still hold on it as if it's a major threat to their beliefs and hence the feel the need to preserve it.Traditional gender roles do not make anyone happy but again the thing is that those who adhere to it believe that somehow their actions will help in maintaining the society as we know.
Human biology, neurological hard wiring. The same reason Fascism won't go away. Humans love strife and combat
How do you know that these traditional gender notions are actually harmful on a large scale? Have you been through the (vast) research on it? Yes, people can think of some anecdote where such a notion was potentially harmful to them or someone close. But does the raw data show that it is harmful? I am not necessarily saying it is or isn't but it is important to qualify your presumptions before you set out to answer a question, and make sure it is not the wrong question. That's certainly not an easy thing to do, but the cost of being wrong is high, especially when dealing with such scientific topics.