• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No 'him' or 'her'; preschool fights gender bias

RStringfield said:
Says you.
Click to expand...
Gender roles have evolved as they have over the last million or so years for a reason, one that has everything to do with nature and evolution.
Impossible to effectively argue otherwise.

You and others continue to ignorantly imply that gender roles are completely determined by gender differences and "evolution." That is absurd and the studies have shown that that does not begin to explain the differences.
Click to expand...
Cite.

The "evolution" has clearly been influenced by dispartate legal recognition between men and women...
Click to expand...
This evolution was in place long before there was any concept of 'legal recognition'.

Women do not wear makeup and high heels because nature guides them to do so.
Click to expand...
They do it to attract a better mate, so their offspring may have a better chance at survival to the point where they too have offspring.
That has everything to do with nature and evolution.
 
Grant said:
And very often men can't relate to some other men or women to other women.
Click to expand...
This is true, though the statement I responded to referred to across-gender relations.

I doubt that eliminating the terms 'him' and 'her' will alter that much but it might make them a little shakey as to where and how they fit into the world.
Click to expand...
Eliminating the male/female pronoun in an attempt to mitigate the perception of a difference between men and women is absurdly silly.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
The reason I asked for clarification is because you have offered no studies saying that persons of opposing genders have difficulty relating to each other, thus it is just your own opinion, and one without foundation.

Do you have any studies to support this claim or are you just winging it? Or do you feel the education system should change because of relationship experiences you've suffered?
Click to expand...

We have a divorce rate of over 50%. We also have virtual industries built around explaining the differences between how men and women relate to the world and how to cope in books, magazines and on TV. I would say that indicates that the genders have a tough time relating. Its hard to determine if divorce rate are completely due to gender or gender roles, but my guess is that we may see lower divorce rates in same sex couples, espcecially if controlled for children.
 
digsbe said:
This is incredibly stupid and way over the top. There is absolutely nothing wrong with referring to kids by their gender no is it gender bias... How are they going to address things like bathrooms? Put chromosomal genotypes for the sexes up and hope preschoolers understand?
Click to expand...

that was my point. if you are going to deny that gender differences exist, then everyone should use the same bathroom. but the biggest proponents of crap like this are the first ones that would piss themselves if you suggested that little boys and little girls use the same bathroom.
 
RStringfield said:
We have a divorce rate of over 50%. We also have virtual industries built around explaining the differences between how men and women relate to the world and how to cope in books, magazines and on TV. I would say that indicates that the genders have a tough time relating. Its hard to determine if divorce rate are completely due to gender or gender roles, but my guess is that we may see lower divorce rates in same sex couples, espcecially if controlled for children.
Click to expand...

OK , So you are guessing. That seemed to be the case.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
Gender roles have evolved as they have over the last million or so years for a reason, one that has everything to do with nature and evolution.
Impossible to effectively argue otherwise.
Click to expand...

It is not impossible to argue at all. In fact your assertion is plainly stupid. There is absolutely NO DOUBT that different legal statuses of males and females have had a bigger impact on gender roles than fitness for survival has.

Cite.
Click to expand...

Gender role - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Check any of the sources at the bottom. Find me one that says that gender roles are explained without culture. There are none. It is up to you to provide citation for your absurd claim.


This evolution was in place long before there was any concept of 'legal recognition'.
Click to expand...

That is not a description of something that has developed due to evolution but of something that has stopped evolving. It stopped evolving due to men using gender roles and discrimination to keep women from gaining full legal recognition. But they have legal recognition now and our gender roles need to evolve to the new realities.


They do it to attract a better mate, so their offspring may have a better chance at survival to the point where they too have offspring.
That has everything to do with nature and evolution.
Click to expand...

::eyeroll::

That is fing stupid! Neither survival nor evolution determine nor communicate how a woman should paint her face. That is deteremined by cultural norms alone which is why such customs very greatly from place to place and across time. Women conform (there may be a survival advantage in conformity) to that due to influence of social norms. These social norms are not natural or organic they just are. They can and maybe should be changed.

if you are going to insist on keeping your head firmly lodged in your ass, then there is really not much point here. Your argument is stupid and not supported by science.
 
OscarB63 said:
that was my point. if you are going to deny that gender differences exist, then everyone should use the same bathroom. but the biggest proponents of crap like this are the first ones that would piss themselves if you suggested that little boys and little girls use the same bathroom.
Click to expand...

And so you have no point. NOBODY is arguing that the differences between gender do not exist.
 
RStringfield said:
It is not impossible to argue at all. In fact your assertion is plainly stupid. There is absolutely NO DOUBT that different legal statuses of males and females have had a bigger impact on gender roles than fitness for survival has.
Click to expand...
There is doubt, especially given that the concept of 'different legal status' has only existed for the last 5000 years or so.

Gender role - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Check any of the sources at the bottom.
Click to expand...
Sooooo.. you cannot provide a source and illustrate how that source supports your assertion. Thank you.

That is not a description of something that has developed due to evolution...
Click to expand...
Absolutely it is. :duh:
The fact that these roles were in place long before the concept of legal recognition ever existed destroys youe argument in its entirety.
Gender roles predate 'legal recignition' by hundreds of thousands of years; their basis has everything to do with the nature of men and women themselves.

That is fing stupid! Neither survival nor evolution determine nor communicate how a woman should paint her face.
Click to expand...
The fact that women paint their face differently in different places only means that the women understand the likes of their potential mates.
The impetus behind painting the face remains as described.

You clearly do not understand the issue at hand. Given that, you just as clearly cannot have an effective conversation regarding same. Your argument is based on a false premise and therefore cannot do anything other than fail.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
There is doubt, especially given that the concept of 'different legal status' has only existed for the last 5000 years or so.
Click to expand...

You are making no sense. Only the last 5000 years? That ONLY is all of recorded history. But you need more? Where the hell do you expect to get it?


Sooooo.. you cannot provide a source and illustrate how that source supports your assertion. Thank you.
Click to expand...


Sooo I provide several sources and you are ignoring them. You are making an extraordinary claim, one that is unheard of and it is up to you to provide proof of it.

Absolutely it is. :duh:
The fact that these roles were in place long before the concept of legal recognition ever existed destroys youe argument in its entirety.
Gender roles predate 'legal recignition' by hundreds of thousands of years; their basis has everything to do with the nature of men and women themselves.
Click to expand...

Evolution did not stop once we wrote laws and it's utility did not vanish. It is absurd to believe that current gender roles are COMPLETELY a function of evolutionary advantages expressing themselves and not due to culture which includes legal traditions. If gender roles were determined solely by evolution then they would be almost identical across culture. They are not.

The fact that women paint their face differently in different places only means that the women understand the likes of their potential mates.
The impetus behind painting the face remains as described.
Click to expand...

You have to be kidding? In some cultures no makeup. In some places they put plates in their lips. In some places they bind the feet in order to force them to develop crippling deformities. Some women cinch their waist until it is altered. These behaviors are not evolution nor are they done for survival. These behaviors are primarily influenced by culture.

The fact that you are even arguing this is just totally bizarre.

You clearly do not understand the issue at hand. Given that, you just as clearly cannot have an effective conversation regarding same. Your argument is based on a false premise and therefore cannot do anything other than fail.
Click to expand...

My argument is based on the SANE premise that culture has an influence on gender identity. Yours is based on some pointless attempt to deny what is widely known and recognized. Your argument is absurd.
 
Grant said:
Do you have an example or two?
Click to expand...

here's a fun example: we are having an office pitch-in next week. the men (except the gay ones) signed up for drinks, napkins, etc. the women are expected to cover the real food. insignificant, but to me, very telling.

another one......why are childless by choice married women looked at with a skeptical eye? of course, this is not so much for the younger generation, but even my daughter (29), who has chosen not to have children, gets questioned.
 
RStringfield said:
And so you have no point. NOBODY is arguing that the differences between gender do not exist.
Click to expand...

oh, that's right, they are arguing we should "pretend" that the differences don't exist. my bad :roll:
 
Layla_Z said:
I like the idea of making sure toys are designated a girl or boy but not using he or she seems extreme. I bet they are wasting their time. The kids will come in with their own bias anyway.
Click to expand...

This is why you should proofread people. I meant, "I like the idea of making sure toys are NOT designated for a girl or boy"
 
RStringfield said:
You are making no sense. Only the last 5000 years? That ONLY is all of recorded history. But you need more? Where the hell do you expect to get it?





Sooo I provide several sources and you are ignoring them. You are making an extraordinary claim, one that is unheard of and it is up to you to provide proof of it.



Evolution did not stop once we wrote laws and it's utility did not vanish. It is absurd to believe that current gender roles are COMPLETELY a function of evolutionary advantages expressing themselves and not due to culture which includes legal traditions. If gender roles were determined solely by evolution then they would be almost identical across culture. They are not.



You have to be kidding? In some cultures no makeup. In some places they put plates in their lips. In some places they bind the feet in order to force them to develop crippling deformities. Some women cinch their waist until it is altered. These behaviors are not evolution nor are they done for survival. These behaviors are primarily influenced by culture.

The fact that you are even arguing this is just totally bizarre.



My argument is based on the SANE premise that culture has an influence on gender identity. Yours is based on some pointless attempt to deny what is widely known and recognized. Your argument is absurd.
Click to expand...
As I said:
Your argument is based on a false premise and therefore cannot do anything other than fail.
Nothing you have posted here does anything to change that.
 
OscarB63 said:
oh, that's right, they are arguing we should "pretend" that the differences don't exist. my bad :roll:
Click to expand...

No they are arguing that we should not emphasize differences that don't seem to be based on gender alone. You have a penis that makes you male. Whether you wear pants or a dress does not make you male. Whether you are referred to as him, her or friends does not make you a male.
 
RStringfield said:
You have a penis that makes you male. .
Click to expand...


and many would argue that point. they would say that just because you have a penis, doesn't mean you are male....unless you "feel" male.

remember the "pregnant man" sensation from a few years back? the "man" that turned out to have a fully functioning vagina, uterus and ovaries?
 
PzKfW IVe said:
As I said:
Your argument is based on a false premise and therefore cannot do anything other than fail.
Nothing you have posted here does anything to change that.
Click to expand...

Weak evasion. What false premise? Make an assertion, don't offer some vague and pretentious bull**** while running away.

You have not shown any premise of mine is false. Your premise that gender roles are completely explainable with evolution is just absurd. There is not one serious student of this that would even entertain this ridiculous claim.
 
OscarB63 said:
and many would argue that point. they would say that just because you have a penis, doesn't mean you are male....unless you "feel" male.
Click to expand...

Yes, they would be arguing that gender roles are different than gender, which is the point. They would not be arguing that gender does not exist as you claimed.
 
RStringfield said:
Weak evasion. What false premise?
Click to expand...
You arent payng attention; I have only said this several times...
Gender roles were in place long before there was any concept of 'legal recognition'.
Thus, any argument trying to relate the genesis of gender roles to 'legal recognition' must fail.

Make an assertion, don't offer some vague and pretentious bull**** while running away.
Click to expand...
Don't flatter yourself, as you are only barely amusing enough to spend as much time as I have on you.

You have not shown any premise of mine is false.
Click to expand...
I have, you just havent been paying attention.

Your premise that gender roles are completely explainable with evolution is just absurd.
Click to expand...
Hardly. Gender roles developed over tens of hundreds of thousands of years, and are all on the natural differences between men and women.
Men did x because they were suited to it. Women did y because they were suited to it. All of this happened before there was any concept of civilization, and, across the whole of humanity, have not significantly changed. Thus, it is impossible to argue that civilization had any appreciable effect on these roles.

There is not one serious student of this that would even entertain this ridiculous claim.
Click to expand...
That only means they, too, don't understand the issue.
:shrug:
 
PzKfW IVe said:
You arent payng attention; I have only said this several times...
Gender roles were in place long before there was any concept of 'legal recognition'.
Thus, any argument trying to relate the genesis of gender roles to 'legal recognition' must fail.
Click to expand...

I have not been making any such argument. I argued that legal traditions and culture have influenced CURRENT gender roles. You have little ability to tell us what gender roles existed before law since we don't have any sources. We can't really know where gender roles first diverged from gender and so your claim on the GENSIS of gender roles absurd anyway.

Don't flatter yourself, as you are only barely amusing enough to spend as much time as I have on you.
Click to expand...

You have offered nothing of value to the discussion, so please feel free to find some better use for your time.

I have, you just havent been paying attention.
Click to expand...

BS! Apparently, you are arguing some stupid point that I never made.

Hardly. Gender roles developed over tens of hundreds of thousands of years, and are all on the natural differences between men and women.
Men did x because they were suited to it. Women did y because they were suited to it. All of this happened before there was any concept of civilization, and, across the whole of humanity, have not significantly changed. Thus, it is impossible to argue that civilization had any appreciable effect on these roles.
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? Gender roles vary widley across culture. For instance, in Russia medicine developed as a domain of women while in Europe it is dominated by males. Other jobs have changed gender distincitions within the same culture over time. Evolutionary psychgology is still rather controversial but you are arguing something no one has.
 
RStringfield said:
Yes, they would be arguing that gender roles are different than gender, which is the point. They would not be arguing that gender does not exist as you claimed.
Click to expand...

wrongo, boyo. they argue that gender is immaterial. if a person with a penis can claim to be a woman and a person with a vagina can be considered a man, gender is meaningless and therefore does not exist.
 
You have little ability to tell us what gender roles existed before law since we don't have any sources.
Click to expand...

Women can breastfeed. This means it was best they stay near the shelter with the baby. This developed into the woman being responsible for the kitchen, garden and other household responsibilities. Gender roles for children were based on their abilities and for elders upon physical limitations and wisdom.
 
Last edited:
PzKfW IVe said:
That only means they, too, don't understand the issue.
:shrug:
Click to expand...

No it means they do not have their head firmly planted in their anus like you do. There is not one person that believes that evolution can explain all of culture and gender roles. There are just now, SOME that argue that evolutionary processes provide insight into culture and psychology. That alone is still rather controversial.
 
ecofarm said:
Women can breastfeed. This means it was best they stay near the shelter with the baby. This developed into the woman being responsible for the kitchen, garden and other household responsibilities.
Click to expand...
Bazinga.
x2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom