3 ms·

Well, the argument comes from the fact that the most gender equal countries still have very high level of men and women assuming traditional gender roles. http

Well, the argument comes from the fact that the most gender equal countries still have very high level of men and women assuming traditional gender roles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask And we are not sure what that is.

beaconstudios 10y ago
I think the more time goes on, the more the idea of gender roles being 100% socially constructed seems untenable. It would make sense in a world where human being are purely rational agents, but we still carry the baggage of evolution and having to survive in nature. It doesn't seem unreasonable to think that some of the specialist selections (including psychological) that have evolved into men and women would persist in modern times.
- icebraining 10y ago
  While it's certainly not unreasonable, the fact that current societies - even very equal ones - show gender roles is hardly good evidence, or makes the social construction theory untenable. All of our societies are also a continuum stretching for millennia, so it's very hard to say what a truly equal society looks like, let alone predict how people would behave in it.
  - macspoofing 10y ago
    >the fact that current societies - even very equal ones - show gender roles is hardly good evidence, or makes the social construction theory untenable. Gender roles is what you would expect from a species that developed distinct genders. For example, the simple fact that hormone levels are different between genders, should strongly imply differences in behaviour which should bleed into day to day choices. The fact that one gender specializes with birth, while the other with insemination would strongly imply this difference would in some way segregate genders within a developing culture, and so on. So I cannot imagine how the "social construction theory" could possibly be correct.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      "strongly imply" - exactly. It certainly implies. It certainly seems the more likely explanation. What I'm saying is that there's a big leap from "strong imply not X" to "X not possibly correct".
bluehat 10y ago
Can't we use peer-reviewed studies instead of entertainment? I really feel like you're not doing your position justice...

beaconstudios 10y ago

I think the more time goes on, the more the idea of gender roles being 100% socially constructed seems untenable. It would make sense in a world where human being are purely rational agents, but we still carry the baggage of evolution and having to survive in nature. It doesn't seem unreasonable to think that some of the specialist selections (including psychological) that have evolved into men and women would persist in modern times.

icebraining 10y ago
While it's certainly not unreasonable, the fact that current societies - even very equal ones - show gender roles is hardly good evidence, or makes the social construction theory untenable. All of our societies are also a continuum stretching for millennia, so it's very hard to say what a truly equal society looks like, let alone predict how people would behave in it.
- macspoofing 10y ago
  >the fact that current societies - even very equal ones - show gender roles is hardly good evidence, or makes the social construction theory untenable. Gender roles is what you would expect from a species that developed distinct genders. For example, the simple fact that hormone levels are different between genders, should strongly imply differences in behaviour which should bleed into day to day choices. The fact that one gender specializes with birth, while the other with insemination would strongly imply this difference would in some way segregate genders within a developing culture, and so on. So I cannot imagine how the "social construction theory" could possibly be correct.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    "strongly imply" - exactly. It certainly implies. It certainly seems the more likely explanation. What I'm saying is that there's a big leap from "strong imply not X" to "X not possibly correct".

bluehat 10y ago

Can't we use peer-reviewed studies instead of entertainment? I really feel like you're not doing your position justice...