Gender Roles

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Well, walk into any tribal community and you'll see many people who are over the age of 40. While the average age of death was indeed about 40, you have to take into account a few things:

1. Infant mortality: the mortality rate for children below the age of 5 is obscenely high in tribal communities, this heavily skews numbers downwards.

2. It's only an average, many still live longer then 40

3. it's mostly men who die young, because men engage in the more risky activities in tribal communities. Aside from childbirth, women face few risks in the average tribal community.

In fact, in tribal societies, if you survive childhood, little is going to kill you. Tribal humans had few diseases (due to lack of domesticated animals) and the leading causes of death would be murder, killed by an animal, food poisoning and occasionally starvation.

If you survived to 40, you likely would be an "elder" and not need to engage in the riskier activities, so significant portions of the human population would have been elderly. Consider that words for grandmother and grandfather are universal in all human languages.

I actually engaged in this discussion in the Gay Marriage and LBGT issues thread a while back. Since menopause is an evolved trait, that says to me homosexuality could be too. I think both homosexuality and menopause evolved for the same reason; even if you no longer/could not ever procreate, you can help your relatives (which would have been part of your 'tribe' or hunter gatherer band) survive and pass on their genetic material, some of which is very likely to be shared between you and these beneficiary relatives (whether they be siblings or offspring in the case of a menopausal woman), thus the Darwinian benefit. Further, it decreases breeding hostility if every single member of a social group is not actively being courted for procreation.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I actually engaged in this discussion in the Gay Marriage and LBGT issues thread a while back. Since menopause is an evolved trait, that says to me homosexuality could be too. I think both homosexuality and menopause evolved for the same reason; even if you no longer/could not ever procreate, you can help your relatives (which would have been part of your 'tribe' or hunter gatherer band) survive and pass on their genetic material, some of which is very likely to be shared between you and these beneficiary relatives (whether they be siblings or offspring in the case of a menopausal woman), thus the Darwinian benefit. Further, it decreases breeding hostility if every single member of a social group is not actively being courted for procreation.

Possible, I don't think it has a genetic basis though. I think it's more a result of a case of some hormonal imbalance in the womb, IE it's "mechanical" in nature, rather then design. Sexual attractiveness, and queues are very subtle things, and even vary a lot based on your culture. It makes sense that it's a part of the brain that's easily mixed up. A fair number of other animals have also shown homosexual behavior, many of which are non-social animals, where it couldn't provide such a benefit.

So, whether you become gay or not, isn't really based on your genetics, but how you developed in the womb.

In addition, I'd say sexuality is less of an "either/or" proposition then the debate around homosexuality makes it out to be. A lot more people float on some continuum between homosexuality and heterosexuality then are hard "same gender only" homosexuals. Both communities, however, pressure members to stick to only one or the other (for instance, I've heard stories of gays who suddenly "go straight" getting ostracized by other gays). But the truth is, I'd say if our society was different, many androgynous men and women would be appreciated by both homosexuals and heterosexuals, with little debate over orientation.

Certainly, if you look at non-western societies, or classical societies (like the Greeks and Romans), they were often much more casual about same sex relationships and liaisons. Many famous men were known to have both male and female concubines. An example of such a society we are all familiar with is Japan, where homosexual acts have never been particularly illegal, and there's a long history of it's open practice. The same society also considers the idea of being exclusively homosexual to be, at best, rather strange, and at worst, at odds with familial responsibilities to continue the family line. I'd say this attitude is fairly typical of most human societies in history. Homosexuality for fun, heterosexuality for fun, and for practicality.

[C.A.]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I guess I'll just post in reply to some of the discussions.

I posted this before in the "Sexual Objectification" thread last time:

Sexual Objectification falls under the 'Phallocentrism', the idea of how a male dominant society affects all levels of culture.

While it may seem that society is indeed centralised on the masculine, it is actually femininity that holds the power. because women are the source of desire for men, men are actually the ones being manipulated by women.

Sex sells and men fall for it.

Even if its in the sense of survival of species, females are more important than males. Males can kill as many of one another to fight for females, as long as just one stands its enough for the species to survive. But if there's a lack of females the species would have a much harder chance to survive because reproduction rate relies on females.

All male animals including humans fight each other so that they can support the family which the female is the core. Women becoming much more independent and able to support themselves these days just makes the role of men even smaller.

------------

On the topic of homosexuality and genetics, actually homosexuality is genetic, not just body hormones, cultural influence, or environmental pressure.

Hormone levels plays a large part in sexual orientation and those hormones are controlled by the individual's genes that control hormonal reception.

Also scientists have found that the ratio of the lengths of your index and ring fingers can indicate your sexual orientation and has genetic evidence that ties to the androgen receptor gene, which is responsible for controlling masculine hormones.

[fanty]

Originally Posted by C.A.

While it may seem that society is indeed centralised on the masculine, it is actually femininity that holds the power. because women are the source of desire for men, men are actually the ones being manipulated by women.

You conveniently forget the fact the women are being controlled by the patriarchy as a commodity, so back to men it goes.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by C.A.

On the topic of homosexuality and genetics, actually homosexuality is genetic, not just body hormones, cultural influence, or environmental pressure.

Hormone levels plays a large part in sexual orientation and those hormones are controlled by the individual's genes that control hormonal reception.

Does homosexuality run in families? Most homosexuals end out having heterosexual children so...

[Zakoo]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Does homosexuality run in families? Most homosexuals end out having heterosexual children so...

That's because he is saying non sense, there's no gene/allele of homosexuality, that's total bullshit.
Never saw such thing, next is the gene of the rapist?

Men, sometime we are reaching high level here. And nonetheless, I doubt a weak testosterone or AMH rates makes you desire for an butt instead of a vagina.

[Kyero Fox]

I was going through Channels when Johnny test was on and one of the sisters said "this world would be nothing without women, NOTHING!" I just laughed "Yea and I could say the same without men." and changed the channel. Suprised they put in sexism in cartoons.

[C.A.]

Originally Posted by Zakoo

That's because he is saying non sense, there's no gene/allele of homosexuality, that's total bullshit.
Never saw such thing, next is the gene of the rapist?

Men, sometime we are reaching high level here. And nonetheless, I doubt a weak testosterone or AMH rates makes you desire for an butt instead of a vagina.

Sorry, maybe because you are French so you don't understand english well and also not for genetics. DonQuigleone asked whether homosexuality run in families, because most homosexuals end up having heterosexual children.

This sentence actually supports what I'm saying. Exactly because homosexuals can't produce children with each other, since they're the same sex, that's why there is no way homosexuals can pass genes to their children. And since homosexual families have heterosexual children, it means that environmental and pressure didn't create homosexuals in the family.

If environmental pressure doesn't necessarily cause homosexuality, it increases the probability of genes affecting sexual orientation.

If you claim that I'm saying nonsense, google it yourself and tell those nonsense scientists whose research suggests homosexuality is a combination of genetics, hormones and environment. In fact its the other way round, social pressures force homosexuals to become heterosexuals.

Here, I've googled some for you that says homosexuality has shown to be hereditary and is a combination of various genes along with hormonal and environmental influence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation
http://phys.org/news84720662.html
http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/...=EMBOR-201205_
http://io9.com/gay-gene/
http://phys.org/news84720662.html
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...rally-selected

Originally Posted by fanty

You conveniently forget the fact the women are being controlled by the patriarchy as a commodity, so back to men it goes.

Phallocentricism is very hard to get across, the closest analogy I can think of is democratic governments and people.

Governments have the power, they are like men, they appear to be in control. But they are actually serving the people, or women in this analogy. The government is chosen by the people after winning their votes, like how men need to fight with other men, show the women they care and will devote themselves in order to gain the affections of women.

Governments exist because there are people, patriarchy exists because women exists. Women are the reason why there is a patriarchy, they are actually the ones in control, this is the most laymen I can go to explain phallocentricism.

In a traditional, patriarchal family, a good husband will support the wife, he won't mind that she stays at home and tend the housework. A woman would not want a patriarch to stay at home and not work. Men also have to fight wars and hold other responsibilities in order to protect women.

Why is it that the traditional patriarch, a man who supposedly has 'power' and 'control', need to serve the family and protect the woman and child, need to fight wars for the kingdom or nation? There was no such 'power' and 'control' over women, the women's existence instead gives men a responsibility to work, serve and protect, they are the actual ones in 'control'.

History is supposedly written by great men, but only because they are forced into the position of the patriarchal power.

And now women who have fought for equality, is only asking to get the same treatment and rights but not to hold that phallus that bears the responsibility. Phallocentricism further skews towards women as they gain more power but still want men to bear responsibility and men are still doing that. Women were never the 'weaker' sex and yet now that they have equal rights, they still want to have the 'privileges' of being the weaker sex.

[fanty]

Um... first, it is the governments that hold the power, not the people. Most governments aren't actually democratic, and most democracies are corrupt beyond salvation. And even in the most democratic nations the governments love to screw over their populations.

With that out of the way...

Women do not hold the power. Like one wise person said, if women held the power, then they would have noticed it by now. The reason why women have to fight so hard, is because they are constantly being kept out of power and denied everything that could possibly be denied them. Denied property, denied education, denied to make their own choices and denied the right to own their own body. And even in the west, where women have won access to many of the things that used to be denied them, the patriarchy still makes damn sure to deny them whatever it can still withhold.

Saying that women control the patriarchy is like saying that slaves control the slave industry. Sure, without the slaves, there would be no slave industry, but it's not the slaves who are in control. Slaves are a commodity, just like women are a commodity in a patriarchy.

Let's take a look at a very obvious real-life example: Saudi Arabia.

If women control the Saudi partirchy, then why do they not allow themselves to drive? Why do they not allow themselves to choose their own husbands and why do they not allow themselves to vote? Why do they deny themselves the right to have sex outside wedlock and why do they deny themselves the right to dress however they want? Why do they mutilate their genitals and why do they get themslves married off at the age of 9? Why do they not allow themselves to do sports and why do they get themselves lashed and stoned? Why do they not allow themselves to walk around unescorted and why do they not allow themselves to find jobs?

If what you are saying is right, then Saudi women are a bunch of retards, which is obviously not the case. Saudi women are enslaved by the partiarchy, and that's all there is to it.

In the west, it's all slightly more sublte because of the battles that a 100 years of feminism has won, but the partiarchy is still very much alive and healthy, and it always tries it's damnedest to bounce back.

In any case, the stuff you are saying has been rebutted over a 100 years ago. I'm too busy, so I'll just direct you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_theory

[C.A.]

If you've heard of the supposedly Thomas Jefferson quote:

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

While governments hold the 'power' they are serving the people, they are doing politics so that the people can hold the nation together.

Just like the patriarch, while he holds the 'power', he has to serve and protect the woman. If the patriarch is a tyrant, a man that mistreats his wife, the family will fall apart.

The relationship between man and woman is not the same as a master or slave in this case. My argument is about in order for a man to hold a family together not through tyranny, he has to give in and serve the woman, in such a case a patriarch is not the one who is in control.

I'm afraid that I probably can't hold up this argument because the subject of phallocentricism is too complex.

[Ithekro]

How many men are "masters of their home" yet fear their wifes? Or at the very least listen to their wifes to the point that if you were unaware of the concept of patriarchy, you would swear the woman was the one in power?

[C.A.]

Henpecked husbands, husbands who pamper their wives or even guys who can't talk back against their girlfriends are all examples of phallocentricism where the women hold the power over the relationship.

[Ithekro]

There was a Star Trek: Enterprise episode about Orion Green "Slave" Girls. Normally we had considered them slaves up to this point. We discover that the relationship is one of deception. The male "slavers" are the slaves to their chemically and seductively controlling female masters. the "slave trade" is basically a scam where the females get "sold" to a likely prospect. They are then drained of their income and eventually have to either sell their new slave back to the "slaver" to make ends meet, or is killed in some way. The "slave" then returns to her "slaver" and repeats the process. Or find herself a new "slaver" to restart the process. All the money actually goes to her and she controls everyone chemically.

The Green Slaves are the one in power...just they make it look like they are slaves because it helps them gain more power and wealth.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The Green Slaves are the one in power...just they make it look like they are slaves because it helps them gain more power and wealth.

That reminds me of chapter 4 "The Lorelei Signal"" of Strar Trek: TAS (hey, the animated series is considered canon). I bet nobody here saw it

[Ithekro]

It was similar. Though the Orions seemed to effect the women as well (only ones not effected, if I recall, were T'Pol (Vulcan) and Tucker (via mental bond with T'Pol).

[LeoXiao]

I think our concept of "rights" has a lot to do with supposed gender equality. A long time ago, most people, men or women, were not "free" in the same sense that citizens of developed nations are now. There were caste systems, and almost no social mobility. People wouldn't even think of insulting their kings, and considered them to have a divine right and even responsibility to be hereditary dictators. In East Asia, for instance, the Confucian ideal has as one of its main points the idea of harmonious relations between the ruler (君) and the ruled, and the ruler was compared to the father.

The rulers and nobility were the ones in power, but traditionally and philosophically they carried massive burdens and worries, perhaps even more stressful than the work of a peasant. They had luxuries and servants, but were they really better off? I'd say it's debatable.

Likewise, because men could not get pregnant, they had to go out and do work, which was often dangerous or back-breaking labor that by all means sucked ass. They may have made the money and had the say over major household decisions, but it's not like they actually had better lives than women, who were much better-sheltered, if sometimes abused. Women also had a lot of power over children and were responsible for a great deal of their core upbringing.

For the average situation in ancient times, men may have had more authority and thus freedom, but women had more security, which was in limited supply, and so back then people probably thought (and with justification) that they were doing the right thing in making women safer at the expense of their self-agency, because let's face it, what good is freedom if it severely limits your lifespan?

In the modern age, people don't have as many physical dangers to fear, and children have a much higher chance of surviving to become adults. It is no longer a social inefficiency to have women doing men's work, because life is easier. And with these economic changes, political and philosophical changes also happened that removed kings for power and created the liberal ideal of freedom for all.

But the way I see it, "freedom" is still not really the best thing in the world. People still want and oftentimes lack security, they lack job security, they lack health (caused by ability to eat whatever oily food you want), intact families, etc etc. but to gain these securities, you have to lose some freedoms. One must strike a balance, and so I'd argue that in spite of all the social and technological changes we've seen in the last 200 years, gender, in addition to other norms, are no quite obsolete, though they do not have to be applied strictly and certainly not by law.

[Zakoo]

Originally Posted by C.A.

This sentence actually supports what I'm saying. Exactly because homosexuals can't produce children with each other, since they're the same sex, that's why there is no way homosexuals can pass genes to their children. And since homosexual families have heterosexual children, it means that environmental and pressure didn't create homosexuals in the family.

If environmental pressure doesn't necessarily cause homosexuality, it increases the probability of genes affecting sexual orientation.

First off, homosexuel can have child with each other, but it's reserved for women, it is possible.

Second, if an homosexual has a child with an heterosexual, it gives its allele to the child whether you like or not, the fact that the child isn't homosexual proove that either : there is no gay gene, or that the heterosexual allele is dominant.

Third : your reasoning "if the children aren't homosexual but heterosexual while having homosexual parents, then the environnement doesn't cause homosexuality" is wrong, because you are taking only one factor to generalize to the whole environnement. Thus creating a biased experimentation.

Fourth : All the link you are giving are absolutely all highly arguable research either based on how they did, or how the conclusion is given. For example : The thing on mad science says that scientists discovered the gay gene, but they can't even explain the woman-woman relationships with this. Let's not even talk about the ratio of lenghts you linked, where it's saying black and white that there's no relationship between the two. While some are even saying total bullshit : Listen I quote :

Females are carriers of the affected genes (since fathers always transmit Y-chromosomes to their offspring in the course of normal fertilization). Females rarely manifest the sex-linked trait, however, because their second X-chromosome masks the mutated gene.

Hell yeah, this website is saying that a father forcibly gives the Y chromosom. Yes, yes of course.

I'm not saying your scientist are doubtful, science will answer to this question earlier or later, but the websites you're giving, and your reasonning are awefully wrong, you are doing a bit like this :

Spoiler for big image:

[C.A.]

So do you have any evidence to support your claim that homosexual genes are nonsense and bullshit?

And you're saying fathers don't pass the Y chromosome to sons?

The paragraphs under "Gay genes on the X-chromosome" which you quote is discussing exclusively about males having the possible gay genes as it may be sex linked. Because its discussing exclusively about males, that's why it is saying fathers always transmit the Y chromosome, to the son.

So are you making an argument against me or against the topic?

[Zakoo]

Originally Posted by C.A.

So do you have any evidence to support your claim that homosexual genes are nonsense and bullshit?

And you're saying fathers don't pass the Y chromosome to sons?

You are supposed to show me proof and not me, because so far there has been no proof of a gay gene. That scientists are researching towards this goal doesnt mean there is one.

Sex-linked traits are also on the Y chromosome, both X and Y are considered as allosome. If the "gay gene" was on the X chromosome, which is possible if it existed, then the easiest experiment would be to take in vitro both a female and a man with the same allele and make them reproduce, if the offspring is a homosexual ( since the parents have the same allele, then the offspring must have it) then there would have probably be such a gene.
Yet such an easy experiment was never made, or should I say, it must have been made on rats, but has been fruitless.

As for your last question, I don't even see what you are trying to convey.

Tl;dr : You perfectly know it, sir, so far there has been no proof the gene gay, as such we consider there is none, this is how science work, not the other way around.

[C.A.]

If you actually know how to speak and not sound rude and offensive, I could have had a discussion with you. Its disappointing to know that there's a science person like you.

Hey there's no proof that the Higgs boson exists and yet the scientists still hung on to the standard model for so long.

And the one thing I perfectly know is that there there has been more and more indications of homosexuality being related to genes being discovered.

Your argument with me ends here.