Let's have a calm, polite and substantial discussion about gender and sex

[Franknburger]

Antonio: I have understood that you don´t want this thread to turn into a discussion on your personal situation. Nevertheless, allow me a few remarks which may clarify the relation (or better non-relation) between your general approach on masculinity and your current situation.

First: At the age of twenty, I wasn't feeling too different from how you are feeling now (you may replace "picklish" by "a bit overweight", but that's about it). I wasn't into sports, I had no enthusiasm for arms, sport cars and the likes, male showing-off pissed me off as much as did female bitching-around, etc. Looking for true, unconditional love by a self-confident women - is that too much to ask for?

Actually, it is! At least at the age of twenty. Take the female perspective: There is that nice guy - in the sense of a really nice guy, intelligent, authentic, not showing off, probably quite a good listener. A guy you might consider to marry and set up a family with... Oops - I am twenty,  I have my own plans for life, I am not looking for family (well, maybe later, but definitely not now!). This guy is dangerous! Moreover, he does not want to get laid (which could be o.k.), or desired - he wants to be loved, unconditionally. And he shifts all the responsibility on me - no chance to get out easily, it is definitely going to hurt both of us! And - that guy is pretty mobile: Last year Paris, then California - does he expect me to follow him around the world? How dares he - I am following nobody - I am a self-confident woman!
Let's keep it to "good friends". For my sexual desires, I take some good looking but otherwise rather annoying guy, where I don't get emotionally involved too much and can always leave when he gets boring or I have other plans.

So, what now? First, the good news: Once you, and the girls in question, are in your late twenties, the situation reverts (at least it did in my case), and you are suddenly the one who can choose from a number of opportunities. That will not necessarily make things easier - now you will have to put forward the "good friends" argument, which sometimes works, and sometimes not (with one of my "good friends" - first declared by her, than by myself - I had lost contact for more than ten years, but a few years ago we have finally reconciled).

Alright - and in-between? The "macho" option isn't an option - you wouldn't feel well, and any half-way intelligent girl will immediately sense you are just pretending. You can try emotional black-mailing, though: "Friendship isn't enough for me, either there is more to our relation, or we  don't have to see each other again". Works, because you take over responsibility for the relation... ehm, in my case it worked for nine months, then she left, we got (of course) both hurt quite a lot, but ultimately managed to stay friends until today, which was quite some work.
Or, you just get a bit more playful, explore the art of flirting, and just let things happen. Remain authentic, respect the girl, but don't expect anything (especially not true, everlasting love). That's not irresponsible, it's just deliberating both of you. If you are lucky, you may come across a girl that shares your values and aims, ideally even find your muse. If not, you both had fun, say goodbye, and you try again...

[Franknburger]

Anyways, we can't ignore the purpose of humanity- reproducing. It's not wrong for men to want to "get laid", that's what we're biologically supposed to do. Same with women of course. Of course another obligation for humanity is to survive long enough for our offspring to also be able to reproduce, caring for them in the process.

That's not to say that if you can't reproduce, you're useless. You can still fulfill the second aspect of humanity. It's why all gay people (who can be fit parents) should adopt.

I think the purpose of humanity is to decide its own purpose, not to let biology dictate it.

Sorry, that's the only purpose of any species. Sure, humans are sentient and all that, but we're still animals, and the purpose of animals is to reproduce.  Anything beyond that is necessary distraction.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, society pressures men to "get laid", but your inner biology is agreeing with it. Without societal pressure, we men would still want to f[inks] anything that moves- so to speak.

Most birds and mammals communicate in one form or another, and there is quite a lot of research on how isolation / lack of communication significantly affects life expectancy. You may of course tie communication into reproduction (the mating & offspring education aspects of it), but may also regard it as a distinct feature and purpose of developed animal and human life.

Sexuality includes a specific way of tactile, non-verbal communication, which does not necessarily have to do with "getting laid" (though it may lead into it). I once experienced myself and a Lesbian caressing each others' lower arm for some five minutes, without any intention from her or my side of taking it any "further". In today's culture, the ability for non-sexual, tactile communication appears to disappear more and more, except for certain professions (hairdressing, physiotherapy etc.) and sports (Judo, possibly Rugby). Dancing used to provide a culturally accepted space for tactile communication between both sexes, but has widely lost that function outside Latin America. That's quite a pity, as non-verbal forms of communication are typically less loaded with social constructs (including gender), and also provide alternatives for people who have  problems in verbal  person-to-person communication.

From the asexual posters here I would be interested to learn whether your asexuality also includes low affection to tactile communication (just as people's affection to music, another form of non-verbal communication, differs), or whether you have found other, non-sexual platforms to communicate "finger to finger".

[Franknburger]

Listen, Tony, just because we don't spend allday riding around in wooden ships and pillaging coastal towns in Northern Europe, doesn't mean we're not advanced.

Which of the words in the thread's title did you have problems to understand?

[Franknburger]

I don't think America is not advanced (it certainly is by global standards), but I think that it should strive to do better by looking at countries that actually do better, instead of constantly engaging in empty self-congratulation. The same is true for other countries, of course.

To substantiate the discussion, have a look at the Global Gender Gap index (a link for downloading the full report can be found at the end of the hyperlinked Wikipedia overview).
The methodology is a bit questionable - in fact the index is not measuring gender equality, but  female development. The longer women live in relation to men, e.g., the lower the "gender gap" (quite bizarre, as men tend to live shorter than women). Similarly, education, a major area of male discrimination, is not rated as such. Nevertheless, it is the most comprehensive collection of worldwide gender indicators available.

And their 2012 rankings:
1. Iceland
2. Finland
3. Norway
4. Sweden
..
13. Germany
..
18. UK
..
22. USA
..
57. France
..
80. Italy
..
124. Turkey
..
131. Saudi Arabia
..
135. Yemen

[Franknburger]

Do you think that it's possible to hold--or, more importantly, do you think that it's possible to articulate--moral disapproval of sexual promiscuity in ways that don't have the perhaps inadvertent effects that you're describing on the way rape culture is perpetuated, or do you think that well is just too poisoned?

I think it depends on what you mean with "moral disapproval". As long as it relates to yourself, I don't see a problem at all. I also think it may be legitimate to question whether promiscuity and having a long-term relationship go together well - though I would not ask this question from a moral point of view, but rather focus on the practical aspects ("Are you really clear on whether you want a partnership or not?" "Does the partner know and accept? "Are you fair to your partner?" erc.)

Everything beyond tends to prescribe others how to deal with their bodies. And that is a red line- nobody has the right to impose his personal beliefs and values onto another adult person. Once that line is crossed, you are getting into dangerous terrain. There are still a number of steps between imposing your values, and ultimately imposing your sexuality onto somebody else, so "moral disapproval" is definitely not rape, or anywhere near to it. But the underlying pattern, namely refusing to accept another person's autonomy over his/her body, is the same.

[Franknburger]

Nathan - I recognise that you are addressing morality from a specific - the writer's - perspective. This implies the possibility for indirect and nuanced statements. Still, I do not yet fully understand your point. Which ethical norms do you think should- or, to put it softer - could in certain cases supersede respect for another person's autonomy?

But probably I have also not made my perspective fully clear. I see three morale values being in play here: (respect for) autonomy, authenticity, and fairness. In other words: There is nothing wrong with having sex with a bunch of people, as long as this is o.k. for you, and for the people you are having sex with. As stated in my first post, I even go a bit further: In a certain phase of life, the early / mid-twenties, people often tend to be pre-occupied with sorting out their own issues and plans for life, and casual sex can actually be more healthy than focusing on a "permanent relation", which lacks base, namely a clear and shared direction for life.

But I also know "sand-box relations" (in fact, they rather start in high-school, but nevertheless) that are still intact after decades. Moreover, there is the typical German word creation of "Lebensabschnittspartnerschaft" (life stage partnership): You go together with a partner through a certain stage of life (usually (a) high school (b) the initial "wild" college years; (c) the more focused final college years; (d) first job(s); etc.) and switch to the next partner for the next phase. Some people choose one model, others another, and they are all morally acceptable, as long as they are generally o.k. for all partners (I say "generally", because things like changing from one partner to another always leave wounds, but that is another issue).

[Franknburger]

Let's try to put the discussion into a more general framework:
1. The two sexes are biologically different as concerns their reproductive functions, physiognomy, health risks, life expectancy, etc. Around these biological differences, social differentiations, i.e. gender roles, have evolved. Some of these are biologically unavoidable - pregnancy, birth, post natal depressions, breast feeding etc. considerably limit a woman's scope of activity before and after giving birth. Others, such as women's traditional focus on household-related activities, are social constructs. But the border between biological necessity and social convention is anything but clear-cut.

2. As the two sexes are biologically different, gender equality can't be the objective. The same applies to 'gender neutrality' . Avoiding gender discrimination sounds better, but is in fact just a means without an end. Take women's army service as an example. To the extent it ensures that equal numbers of men and women get killed in wars, it obviously reduces discrimination. But the ultimate aim should be that nobody, neither men nor woman, is killed in wars. Hence, the approach should be to set up human, non gender-specific aims, and design gender-sensitive strategies to ensure these aims are achieved for women and men alike.

3. Societies, and with them gender roles, evolve and change. This affects both individuals and society as a whole. A few decades ago it was a sign of politeness for a man to hold up the door for a women, today it is often regarded as patronising. When it comes to building a family, however, most women will still look for signs that the man is going to stay with them during pregnancy and birth, and actively participate in raising and educating the child(s). The nature of these signs, be it fighting with rivals, presenting red roses, or discussing education ideals over a bottle of red wine, will vary from individual to individual. As has been stated here before - it is not about assertiveness (especially not about specific ways of being assertive), but about authenticity, sensitivity, and also the ability to compromise (including making clear which points are not for compromise).  

4. Most cultures tend to have a professional segregation by gender along the following lines: Women focus on activities in or close to the household (and the children/ grandchildren), including child and health care, gardening, food preparation, purchasing, retail, and managing household finances. Men do the out-of-house activities (fieldwork, forestry, hunting, mining, army/security) and those requiring physical strength (metallurgy and metal processing, construction, etc.). Industrialisation increased demand and income opportunities for "male" professions, while women remained in subsistence activities.  Over the last decades, however, many countries have changed from an industrial to a service economy, which means higher labour market demand for female professions and skills.
The changes are most  profound where gender segregation is strongest, namely the Middle East. "Female" sectors tend to outgrow manufacturing. Last time I checked (already a few years ago), e.g., the education market in Pakistan was growing by more than 7% a year. Similar trends apply to the financial and health sectors, which are (at least on the operational level) much more a female domain there then in the West. The effect is a reversal of employment and income opportunities. Add in globalisation - a multinational company will fill senior management with expats, but hire local office assistants (female), and drivers / gardeners (male). Guess who earns more. [In Arab countries, women currently account for roughly a quarter of the labour force, but around a third of professional and technical workers].
Effects: Men see their economic opportunities, and also their traditional role as main income earner, endangered. Who is to blame - the West (those multinationals and banks that give the good-paying jobs out to the women). And the women - they put on a scarf, pursue their careers, and keep quiet otherwise as they know they will be on the winning side anyway (women tend to be well trained in waiting patiently for their time to come).

5. Another area where gender fortunes have switched is education. Only a few decades ago, women had substantially lower access to education then men, as many parents believed them to anyway become housewives and mothers. In the meantime, not at last due to improved income opportunities for women, almost all countries around the world, except for a few though populous countries in South Asia and West Africa, have come close to achieving equal and universal female access to primary and secondary education. Suddenly, trends that were thought to be country- or culture-specific become visible worldwide: Boys are significantly more likely to drop out of school than girls, in the USA as in India. And women are over represented among fresh collage graduates in Norway, Barbados, Argentina, Georgia (Rep,), the Phillipines, even Saudi Arabia (plus more than 80 other countries around the world).
Obviously, the concept of formal education that is prevailing worldwide(classroom-based, frontal teaching) is hostile towards boys/men. In fact, it is as well hostile to girls/ women. They just have found "better" ways to deal with it (listening quietly and patiently, producing sketch after sketch in their exercise books), while boys rebel, start talking to each other or fooling around, and may ultimately get kicked out for lack of discipline. As such, the objective can't be having equal drop-out rates for boys and girls. Instead, there is need to develop models of formal education that are conducive to boys' and girls' specific ways of acquiring relevant knowledge and skills.

6. The fact that female opportunities have improved with respect to education, jobs and income does not mean there is no room for further improvement. Women are still under-represented in politics and senior management, face problems in combining motherhood and career, tend to earn less than men, etc. However, the answer is not "feminism" vs. "patriarchy", and especially not gender struggle. The answer is with defining objectives for human development, and acknowledging that both genders have to overcome constraints in this respect, some of which are gender-specific, while others are universal.

That was quite long. Hope I did not kill the thread with it..

[Franknburger]

Your second point's example is silly, Franknburger. When we make "gender-sensitive strategies" for how soldiers are used based on their gender or sex we are making an assumption that the physical, mental, or emotional characteristics of the stereotype are correct. Exceptions to the rule are the rule, therefore basing the abilities of a person on qualities that allow for massive variation (such as various measure of intelligence and skill by relying on gender) is inefficient and easily outdated. We need to evaluate the individual individually. Might it then occur that one sex is more capable of some tasks than the other sex when we aggregate them? Of course it will - but those who can be best utilitized in other ways will be properly allocated immediately. Also, the ways one sex differs from the other, on average, can easily shift based on the way society has unconsciously influenced them over time. The model of our "gender-sensitive strategy" would become outdated in only a short time. No, we need an "individual-sensitive strategy" to truly make the best of what we have. You say as much in later points which confuses me. How does a woman's ability to become pregnant influence her ability to scale a wall, have a fast reaction time, or think laterally? It doesn't.

I can't be bothered replying to anymore than that, so I apologise if I missed something.

You obviously miss the difference between strategy and tactics. I never intended to speak about how soldiers are being used (tactics). My point was about human development objectives (and winning a war is not a human development objective, but maintaining peace is), and pointing out that ways to achieve these objectives (i.e. strategies) may, in most cases even have to vary by gender. That this is not a "once for all" thing, but needs regular adaptation as gender roles themselves are fluctuating, goes without saying. An  "individual-sensitive strategy" would, of course, be nice,  but meets practical difficulties, as we are dealing with billions on individuals on this world.

Before we go further on this line of discussion, may I suggest you to take a look at the current mainstream of discussion, e.g. by the World Bank, the UN, or US-AID.
Essentially, my aim was to give an overview on the concept of gender mainstreaming, without becoming too theoretical. If that has lead to misunderstanding, I apologize.

[Franknburger]

I'd also add along the "'socially constructed' vs 'biologically innate' is a false dichotomy" line that given increasing understanding of neuroplasticity it's very possible that social influences can lead to biological differences within an individual's lifetime. Like for example it seems like it'd make sense that if girls are socially pressured away from math beginning in childhood than that would result in physical differences in regions of the brain having to do with mathematical processing by adulthood.

I agree to your general point, but I think your example isn't particular well chosen. Managing (household) finance is part of the traditional female role, even today in the "West" (have a look at any accounting department and you know what I mean). And this role implies pressure of girls towards math - at least towards achieving solid arithmetic competence. Moreover, mathematical competence is neurologically linked to other competences, such as music - and playing an instrument has traditionally been part of "higher daughters" education.
Map reading (->outdoor-oriented->male) might be a much better case to discuss when it comes to neuroplastics -and this Forum's membership structure is making respective gender differences pretty obvious.