Some Thoughts on Gender Stereotypes

[equusregia]

rt_hon_rackman and I were in one of the stores in Downtown Disney on Sunday, helping a friend get discounts on some christmas shopping. While she looked around, I watched my daughter and hers entertain themselves by coloring some pictures of princesses. I have my opinions about the Disney Princesses (TM), which I will get around to detailing in this journal at

Comments

[tangleofthorns]

Very well said and I agree completely.

Yes, I'm replying to this just to say hello, and word, and to use Mick as a gender-gradient discussion icon.

[equusregia]

Hello, and word, and forgive me for being lame about responding to things right now. I liked the pictures you sent (baby in Keef shirt!).

You know how much I like that icon, since I sent the picture to you. He would be my idea of someone who strongly identifies with both masculine and feminine sexuality.

[tangleofthorns]

In other words, as my friend Katie said, Mick is the pretty pretty princess of shagging just about everybody.

Although of course gender and sexuality are not the same thing.

Baby in Keef Halloween costume! It is made of win.

[equusregia]

Although of course gender and sexuality are not the same thing.

A very good point. Beyond the scope of my post, but I may get around to that sometime too.

Wow...

[srisyadasti]

I feel back at MHC. Thank you, that was refreshing. My shop does have it's occasional bout of feminist discussion, but it ain't quite the same.

I'm so glad you're on LJ!

Re: Wow...

[equusregia]

I'm so glad you hounded me until I got on LJ! I do feel very collegiate, writing things like this. I actually think of lots of posts of this nature, but since I rarely have time to do the thoughts justice, I rarely end up posting them. Which is a shame. But I felt the need for a burst of intellectual thought before the baby comes and my brain turns to pudding.

[equusregia]

You are tempting me to write a whole new post, but I'll see if I can say what I want in this reply.

I agree with the concept that it's more acceptible to act like someone of a higher station than someone of a lower station. That certainly explains the flow of names, fashion, etc from male to female.

Nope, I'm definitely writing a whole new post. This one's for you, baby. And the sexually ambiguous Duke Dave.

[vito_excalibur]

Yeah, I have long believed that this is the answer.

It is exactly analogous to the way that it is considered (by and large) not only weird but actually laughable for white people to wear dreadlocks (see "wigger") but quite respectable and in some professions nearly required for black people, esp. women, to straighten their hair.

Trying to take on the characteristics of a higher social class is social climbing, which most people instinctively understand - we may not want to do it ourselves, but we know why you would. But deliberately trying to take on the characteristics of a lower social class implies that that lower class is desirable, and therefore questions the validity of the whole social ladder. And that, we as a society will not forgive.

[equusregia]

Well put. That wasn't an angle I'd thought of, but makes complete sense.

[crouchback]

Now, last time I checked, men still ruled the world, but there are certainly areas where females have greater freedoms, and playing is one of them.

I'm no so sure that men in general rule the world, vice a specific subset of men ruling the world. Heck, I'm not even so sure about the subset.

Maybe "most societies still have a major bias in favor of men" would work better.

In any event, I think there is a price to ruling (or to being a favored class). You get benefits, but there are also a lot of expectations and constraints. (This is something that people who advocate the replacement of patriarchy with matriarchy don't think about, along with the the fact that power inevitably corrupts those who wield it.)

I haven't read Norah Vincent's book yet, but I think you might find it interesting.(I've been meaning to read it ever since I read this review.)

(When I look at the actual people who rule the world-the folks who show up at Davos for the annual World Economic Forum meetings (the decision making committees there are still

[equusregia]

Do you actually know of a society that has a bias toward women?

You're right that it's a specific subset of men ruling the world, if you are talking about world leaders, plus less glamorous policymakers. But even more, men still have major societal advantages over women, many of which the men (and even the women) take for granted to the point where they don't even notice there are still inequalities in existance: e.g. higher salaries, keeping their last names in marriage, and a lower expectation when it comes to housework.

So when I say men still rule the world, I mean not only at the top (you certainly can't say that women rule the world, or that there is gender parity), but from top to bottom. They have the edge at every level of society, and that has more to do with ruling than who is sitting in the president's chair.

[crouchback]

I can't think of an extant society which I'd consider to have bias towards women, though I can think of a few in the distant past.

I don't know which way our society is trending. You have some things, like the fact that there are more women than men going to college, and they're more likely to graduate and get better grades, or you look at the fact that there are more women in the US than men, and you might wonder if we're slowly replacing patriarchy with matriarchy