Should Gender Stereotypes be challenged?

[MTL]

Isn't that what makes us men?

I think your and my definitions of 'man' are worlds apart, because in my funny little world what makes a man a man is a penis and/or male gender identity. I really don't see why you need to possess specific personality traits to be considered a man, but...hey.


Point being, be you. If you're aggressive and dominant or whatever, fucking go for it. Good for you. Just don't go around telling other people what they're supposed to be. That's called being an asshole.

Amen.

I have seen frail women show more integrity and bravery in the face of adversity
than many big strapping, aggressive guys.

Ergo, she has bigger balls than they do.

[Losty]

OP, did that in the 70's and 80's. To old now to challenge. Easier to ignore or side step. Functional eunuch.

You sure did. That photo album that you had me go through had some doozies...

Good lord that is....Mmm gawds that just....

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yes, they should be challenged. People are individuals, not stereotypes.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

So it seems you're strong for challenging stereotypes.
How exactly would you advice someone to go about this? To challenge these stereotypes, that is.

Uh, be the kind of person you want to be, regardless of gender expectations and such.

Is it really so fucking hard for some people to think this way?

That question was directed at Ben Davis since he was strongly against ignoring stereotypes because it was supposedly a form of silent acceptation if you don't raise your voice against it. So that's why I asked him what he'd want to do about it?

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Yes, they should be challenged. People are individuals, not stereotypes.

Challenged how? Would you be kind enough to elaborate on that?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yes, they should be challenged. People are individuals, not stereotypes.

Challenged how? Would you be kind enough to elaborate on that?

By being oneself rather than conforming to social expectations.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I guess my point is, these characteristics are not a result of gender stereotyping, these characteristics were formed as a result of thousands of years of years lived in the wild and in the society. So is it really smart to challenge them?

Is/ought fallacy spotted, assuming your premises are correct, which is debatable.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

1. It can be scientifically proven that men have a higher testosterone in their body which are the reasons for their aggressive and competitive nature.
2. It can be proved by basic observation that it is not society that dictated how men and women should function through stereotypes. Look at some animals, like say - dogs, no one taught them how boy dogs should behave or how girl dogs should behave - they have no society to impose "stereotypes" on them, yet they project distinctive characteristics that categorize them as a male and female.

Do you understand now that people are the way they are not because of stereotypes? Stereotypes were created because people were the way they were in the first place. You're getting the concept backwards.

[GrandizerII]

1. It can be scientifically proven that men have a higher testosterone in their body which are the reasons for their aggressive and competitive nature.
2. It can be proved by basic observation that it is not society that dictated how men and women should function through stereotypes. Look at some animals, like say - dogs, no one taught them how boy dogs should behave or how girl dogs should behave - they have no society to impose "stereotypes" on them, yet they project distinctive characteristics that categorize them as a male and female.

Do you understand now that people are the way they are not because of stereotypes? Stereotypes were created because people were the way they were in the first place. You're getting the concept backwards.

1. Yeah, that's just one example. Is that the only one you can come up with to back up your points empirically?

2. I don't trust anecdotes as much as I do empirical studies. And plus, what may be true of dogs and cats are not always true of human beings. That itself has been empirically supported, time and time again. We are far more complex beings than dogs and cats.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

1. It can be scientifically proven that men have a higher testosterone in their body which are the reasons for their aggressive and competitive nature.
2. It can be proved by basic observation that it is not society that dictated how men and women should function through stereotypes. Look at some animals, like say - dogs, no one taught them how boy dogs should behave or how girl dogs should behave - they have no society to impose "stereotypes" on them, yet they project distinctive characteristics that categorize them as a male and female.

Do you understand now that people are the way they are not because of stereotypes? Stereotypes were created because people were the way they were in the first place. You're getting the concept backwards.

1. Yeah, that's just one example. Is that the only one you can come up with to back up your points empirically?

2. I don't trust anecdotes as much as I do empirical studies. And plus, what may be true of dogs and cats are not always true of human beings. That itself has been empirically supported, time and time again. We are far more complex beings than dogs and cats.

Forgive me for asking, but why exactly is the scientific proof that a relatively higher testosterone in an average male body is the causation for aggressive, competitive and other related characteristics not enough to convince you that it is not because of social conditioning that males are aggressive, competitive etc but because of their inherent nature? Is that a logical fallacy I see?