The Torah certainly defines specific things for men and for women to do- but over the past millenia, those laws have turned into men having specific strengths, hobbies, and persona's that women and men must fill. While certain things may be true on a general basis, the idea that one person can or cannot do something based on their gender is ridiculous. Physical differences aside, there is no real codified law specifying gender roles. There is however, socially created limitations for what is 'acceptable' or not for men and women to do. There are people who do nothing but joke and make fun and perpetuate stereotypes of what a man should do and what a woman should do. Is this acceptable? Does every man and woman meet every criteria of their social expectations? Do they even have to?
This isn't to say that men and women can't do what society has set as their "place", but it is to realize that men and women by no means have to do what society tells them.
Personally, I have to mention the toll that gender roles can take on the life of someone who doesn't conform to what society believes they should or should not be doing. Be it hobbies, interests, skills or behaviors- too often I was judged based on societies "norms" and "standards" for how a man should act and what they should be interested in. I can tell you that not everyone fits that mold- and forcing them too, or expecting them too, or challenging them to- or making fun of them if they don't, will NOT impact who they are and how they behave. It will only hurt them.
It is up to us to look at each other, regardless of sex, to choose our friends, hire our employees, and just to relate to each other as individuals. Before we comment on what a man or woman can or cannot do, or who is meeting social norms appropriately or not, just think- how much does it really matter?
Hello FrumGay,
ReplyDeleteThe idea that gender roles are socially constructed is part of the foolishness of feminism. Feminists often talk about how that the differences between men and women is not something genetic but rather something that was socially constructed.
Tell me why I should accept this concept? The responsibility of proof for this concept is on you, not on me who is skeptical of it. I am sure you would agree with me that there are differences in DNA between men and women, so why should I not believe then that these differences will lead to genetic gender differences? I am also sure you would agree that there are difference psychological diseases that only men suffer and not women while there are diseases that only women suffer and not men, so why should I not believe then that these difference will lead to genetic gender differences?
Of course, there are differences between men and women. To deny this fact is to hide from the fact that the world is not fair and not equal. In our society it is heretic to suggest this statement that people are not equal and that all people, all races, all sexes, everything, are different.
You ask about a difference between men and women. Okay, I tell you one. Women make terrible firefighters. Sorry, if it insults the girls here, but they do not have the upper body strength to be able to lift as much as male firefighters. Sure you can find a few exceptional cases of women who made good firefighters but those are exceptions, not the norm.
Some gender roles are socially constructed. I would say that the gender role that men cannot/should not cry is a socially constructed gender role. But at the same time men are more emotionally stable than women, this is not a gender role, this is a psyhological trait that is genetic. This is not a gender role that needed to be assigned, but it is innate in the differences between men and women.
Spinoza, there are so many offensive statements in your post that I hardly know where to begin. For the sake of clarity and continuity, I'll start with your very first sentence, where you reference "the foolishness of feminism." I suppose in your mysogynistic and narrow world view, women still shouldn't have the right to vote or own property? Because you are "skeptical of the concept" that men and women, respectively, are victims of society's imposed gender identities? That's quite an assertion. Men and women are physiologically different beings, whose chemical makeups render them emotionally dissimilar as well as physically disparate. This does not mean that one sex is inherently superior to the other as you rather obviously imply in your comment.
ReplyDeleteYou go on to say "there are difference psychological diseases that only men suffer and not women while there are diseases that only women suffer and not men..." I challenge that statement. Apart from post-partum depression, that statement seems to be based in... well, nothing.
We then move on to this little gem: "Sorry, if it insults the girls here, but they do not have the upper body strength to be able to lift as much as male firefighters." Yes, as a population, men do possess more brute strength than women. But women, as has been proven time and again, possess keener analytical skills, sharper instincts, and can certainly compensate well for their reduced physical capacity with many other key criteria. If your statement had any merit, I would imagine the FDNY and other fire departments would cease to hire women. And yet, they do hire women, and not - as you no doubt would argue - for the benefit of "affirmative action." Shocking though it may seem, women have been and continue to be an asset to fire AND police departments nationwide. There are myriad articles supporting this assertion. But frankly, if anything "insults the girls" it's your unabashed use of the word "girls" to describe FG's female readership. How ignorant.
Lastly "But at the same time men are more emotionally stable than women, this is not a gender role, this is a psyhological trait that is genetic. This is not a gender role that needed to be assigned, but it is innate in the differences between men and women." is simply untrue. I don't know on what research or publication you are basing this outrageous statement, but men being more "emotionally stable" than women is not only insulting to women, it's an outright fictionalized version of reality.
On the upside, you've just proven what a dolt you really are.
"Spinoza, there are so many offensive statements in your post that I hardly know where to begin.":
ReplyDeleteOffensive does not make me wrong. Friedrich Nietzsche, one of my heroes, was extremely offensive, but he was correct about a whole lot of things. Since when does truth need to be communicated in a polite manner?
"I suppose in your mysogynistic and narrow world view, women still shouldn't have the right to vote or own property?":
Where did I say that? Can you quote me in where I said that? I said I am anti-feminism. On my blog I have an 8 part series about the problems of feminism if you want to read it. Just because I am against feminism does not mean I am against women being treated equally. Besides feminism has nothing to do with equal treatment of women but special privledged treatment (more on that on my blog if you want to read it).
"Because you are skeptical of the concept that men and women, respectively, are victims of society's imposed gender identities?":
No, because I am skeptical to the idea that male brains and female brains function exactly in the same manner. There is no reason to believe in this. Nature is unfair. Why should we assume that nature will make men and women have the same brain structure? Now if the brain structure is different then it it immediately follows that they will have, to a certain degree, different psychological traits.
"If your statement had any merit, I would imagine the FDNY and other fire departments would cease to hire women.":
The reason why the fire department hires women firefighters is because the feminist movement made is mandatory for the fire department to give females easier training than men. This defeats the whole notion of "equality". Why should women be hired if they cannot pass the same tests that men can pass. Likewise, on the jobs that women dominate over men I would not support any special treatment to men. That is the whole point of what equality is about.
"But frankly, if anything insults the girls it's your unabashed use of the word girls to describe FG's female readership.":
I do not appologize for using the word "girls". Go a penis and get over it. There are things that I do not like, I do not talk about how deeply offended I am and how my opponents needs to change the language in how they speak. I do admit I did use the word "girls" deliberately because I knew it would anger some of the feminists. It entertains me watching how angry they get over mere words.
No, your brutish offensiveness does not, in and of itself, make you wrong. However false assertions about mental disease, and the imaginary influence that the feminist movement has had over the hiring practices of the fire department does.
ReplyDeleteAs far as it goes I'm more angered by your poor diction and atrocious spelling than I am by your unfounded and factually inaccurate tirade about females and feminism.
Nietzsche? Your a long ways from that.
Also, let me know how and where I am supposed to "Go a penis." I bet that will be a fascinating discourse.
"No, your brutish offensiveness does not, in and of itself, make you wrong.":
ReplyDeleteSo why bring it up then? It is unnecessary in this conversation. I find you offensive too, with your political correctness and the manner in which you speak. I do not mention it, other than now (for the sake of illustration), because it is irrelevant in this discussion.
"However false assertions about mental disease, and the imaginary influence that the feminist movement has had over the hiring practices of the fire department does.":
So you actually believe that male and women brains are the same in their structure? Because there is no one else who believes in that.
And yes it were the feminists who pushed for fire department to make entrace exams easier for women. I have a question, do you believe that women should be given easier fire entrance exams?
Lastly, you did not refute the questions and ideas I brought up above. I challenged you to show me where I say that women are inferior in what I said. And I challenged you to show me where I said women cannot own property. I am waiting.
"As far as it goes I'm more angered by your poor diction and atrocious spelling than I am by your unfounded and factually inaccurate tirade about females and feminism.":
Right because we all know that spelling determins who is right and who is wrong. But that is besides the point, you can read my posts on feminism. They are factually correct. If you find them wrong then correct them. I wrote everything I wanted to say about feminism there.
"Nietzsche? Your a long ways from that.":
You missed my entire point. By today's political correctness standards Nietzsche would also be called a sexist, racist, and all other terms. Just like me. I think he was more offensive than I was.
"Also, let me know how and where I am supposed to "Go a penis." I bet that will be a fascinating discourse.":
I meant to write, Grow a penis.
Wow...I meant to comment on how I find the post quite accurate. Then I read the comments, and it is definitely hard to resist responding to some of them. I will resist the urge to go on full attack as I feel that polite, intellectual discourse is far more productive than bickering and name-calling. I do want to say, however, that growing up I had FAR more lower body strength than upper despite being a man; I could hardly lift 120lbs, but could leg press over 800lbs. A female friend, however, could bench press over 200lbs and beat all but one person in the school. Yes, typically men have more upper body strength and women less, but it certainly is not a hard and fast rule. I know quite a few women who can lift more than I.
ReplyDeleteAs for the post itself, I was not the athletic type growing up, and far preferred music and theater to sports. I was made fun of constantly for being a "sissy" or a "fag." A very straight friend of mine had the same experience growing up; he got only slightly less taunting thanks to his love for watching football. Add to that the death threats for being Jewish and my high school career kinda sucked. My few friends were the ones who found me and my differentness interesting and liked me for me.
"I will resist the urge to go on full attack as I feel that polite, intellectual discourse is far more productive than bickering and name-calling.":
ReplyDeleteHow was what I wrote name calling? Do I lack arguments? Do I lack developing my point? Do I lack reasoning my position? I admit that I have an aggresive tone. But that is just how I write. If I used insults in place of arguments then you can reject me for being worthless. But I did not do that anywhere. I would also like to see examples of "name calling". The only name calling that I see is saying "girls". That is it. Does that now automatically discredit all my points?
"Yes, typically men have more upper body strength and women less, but it certainly is not a hard and fast rule.":
I said that women make bad fire-fighters. Why is this so wrong to say? Women, in nearly all cases, are not physically as strong as men when it comes to lifting. They have a more challenging time passing the qualifying exams. If a women does qualify and she is just as strong as the guys then good for her. But in general this is not the case.
Therefore, I still do not understand what is so controversial about saying "women do not make good fire-fighters"? Is it also controversial to ask that "white people suck at basketball?".
All of this political correctness blinds people from basic common sense that they would accept otherwise.
"Yes, typically men have more upper body strength and women less, but it certainly is not a hard and fast rule.":
ReplyDeleteI said that women make bad fire-fighters. Why is this so wrong to say? Women, in nearly all cases, are not physically as strong as men when it comes to lifting. They have a more challenging time passing the qualifying exams. If a women does qualify and she is just as strong as the guys then good for her. But in general this is not the case.
Therefore, I still do not understand what is so controversial about saying "women do not make good fire-fighters"? Is it also controversial to ask that "white people suck at basketball?".
All of this political correctness blinds people from basic common sense that they would accept otherwise.
I'm gonna ignore the raging battle in the comments, and just add my opinion with regards to the article itself.
ReplyDeletePersonally, being an orthodox Jewish girl I find myself disagreeing. At school, we weren't taught that we had to maintain certain 'roles' and that we weren't allowed to do things that men do for the simple reason that we're women. I believe that men and women are different. But our differences don't make either less or more capable than the other. Equality is about being able to celebrate our differences, not being able to be the same (this is where personally feminism can irk me too, sometimes. I find sometimes this can get confused.
As a Jewish woman, I'm not upset that I can't be a rabbi, because that doesn't make me any less able to help others and be a leader in the community. I can run a business and work if I want to, as long as I maintain my integrity and modesty. Just because I may be expected to be a wife and mother, that doesn't make me an oppressed housewife: It makes me a woman with responsibilities. And having those responsibilities doesn't make me any less than a man; it just makes me different.
Men have the obligation to pray three times a day, and it doesn't make them inferior to women!
And there is no halachic argument saying that men can't do the dishes or dress the kids. If he still maintains his responsibilities, then fine!
I think that today sometimes people tend to confuse being gender equal with being gender neutral, if that makes any sense?
Again, this is just my opinion, feel free to disagree.