this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2024
12 points (92.9% liked)

Actual Discussion

219 readers
1 users here now

Are you tired of going into controversial threads and having people not discuss things, circlejerking, or using emotional responses in place of logic? Us too.

Welcome to Actual Discussion!

DO:

DO NOT:

For more casual conversation instead of competitive ranked conversation, try: [email protected]

founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
 

Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion). You’re encouraged to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are appreciated. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!

This week's Weekly discussion thread will be focused on Gender. Here is the definition we will be using so everyone can use the same terminology.

Here are some questions that should help kickstart things:

  • Why do you feel it started entering public consciousness in regards to humans about 15 years ago?

  • Was it needed?

  • Did it do what it was intended to do?

  • Are things better or worse now in that specific area?

  • Is there anything you do not understand or would like to discuss about the idea of gender?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I'm going to make a longer comment with some of my more personal thoughts later but the one part that caught my attention initially was the ~15 years part.

Now I'm not going to be a stickler about precise time ranges but certainly in the 90s there were significant discussions about male/female gender roles.

While discussions about trans/gender identity topics only really picked up steam in I would say the last ~7 years these sorts of things were pretty common discussions in feminist academic circles for quite some time even before that, so it's likely that the discussion would have happened sooner or later, even if in a different way than it did.

Last comment about timing - I suspect politics had something to do with it. More cynical analysis might say it's been used as a wedge between the American right and left (as passion for fighting over, say, gay marriage has lessened) and there's a cynical argument to be made that both parties actually want it to be a contentious issue because it helps then to differentiate and appeal to their base in different ways.

Some equally cynical analysis from the left specifically associates the rise of gender as a topic (and several other social issues) as a way to distract the new left from economic issues (ex: occupy Wall Street, Bernie Sanders-esque stuff). While I don't think most on the left would claim the aforementioned social issues are unimportant they would claim that they're of secondary importance when a great number of people are struggling just to get by with the situation only slowly getting worse.

I'll make a separate post later on my personal feelings more on-topic.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Those "significant discussions about male/female gender roles" were almost always taken from white/European and Abrahamic perspectives, however, in the '90s.

"Gender" (as opposed to sex, which is to say the social construct rather than the biological—which is itself not as clear as people like to believe!) roles are a human universal. Every society that has ever walked the Earth, to my knowledge, has fairly clearly-defined gender roles (albeit with some societies having 'third genders' and others with gender role-switching, like some native groups in North America having sexual females choosing to be treated as male genders). What is not universal, however, is the specifics of what those roles are.

Who controls the money? In traditional patriarchal Abrahamic-influenced areas it's "obviously" the men. (Except in the cases where it isn't, but let's not get too complicated, OK?) In the ancient Norse it was "obviously" the women. Who's the head of the household? Again in the patriarchal Abrahamic environments it's "obviously" the men. And again in ancient Norse society it was the women: they were literally the bosses of the homesteads. There were very obvious gender role differences in ancient Norse society ... but equally obviously the differences were split along different lines.

And then let's talk China. From the outside perspective it's "obvious" that men are the bosses and women are subservient. You can see it in the public behaviour and even in the works of art. (We'll come back to that art thing later, mind.) The key word you're likely missing, however, because it seems unimportant, is "public". Publicly women defer to men. But ... who controls the money? In most Chinese cultures (yes, plural, there's over 50 of them!) women do. (In some Chinese cultures it's the women who decide marriages, divorces, etc.!) And in any of the Chinese cultures, woe betide the man who publicly humiliates his wife. Or who takes a decision that impacts the household without consulting with his wife. You do it? You. Are. Fucked. (And not in the good way!)

Even in the art works you can see evidence of this. In The Peach Blossom Fan Li Xiangjun, a courtesan, has the power to turn down a marriage proposal from a politically powerful man in favour of a lesser scholar. This leads directly and indirectly both to the fall of the Ming Dynasty (!). In The Palace of Eternal Life the emperor's consort Yang Guifei has so much power over the emperor that his preoccupation with pleasing her led to the fall of his reign. In The Fragrant Companion (an openly sapphic play in the 17th century!), the scholar Fan Jiefu's wife, Cui Jianyun, sees the daughter of Lord Cao's daughter, Cao Yuhua, and carries on a secret affair with her before, after many hijinks, managing to arrange her lover becoming her husband's second wife so they could be together openly. (And her husband has no objection to being, in effect, cuckolded by another woman.) So even in the public-facing entertainments of China you see little glimpses of how gender roles aren't quite cleaved along the same lines as western/Abrahamic ones.

No matter where you go in the world you will find strong gender roles (with, in some cases, noticeable fluidity, but not flat-out 'makes no difference' levels of it). This appears to be one of those very rare human universals. The specifics of the expression of those roles, however, varies wildly and in often-surprising ways.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

One thing I would note is that it wasn't all that uncommon for the women to handle the finances in my family, and it's a thing I've heard is frequently the case. You also get a lot of situations where "officially" the man of the house is "in charge" but everyone knows who is really running the show. I think there was probably a lot more subtlety/nuance/individual variety than we give credit for. Then again my ancestors are largely celtic and if you know anything about celtic women...