4 ms·

> Boys can't truly be boys unless there are no girls. I disagree. In fact, I think this kind of stuff is very harmful for development. Imagine telling someone

> Boys can't truly be boys unless there are no girls. I disagree. In fact, I think this kind of stuff is very harmful for development. Imagine telling someone that they need "white-only" time, to unburden themselves from the special requirements imposed by hanging out in mixed company. It only serves to perpetuate out-sized notions of existing differences between genders.

Spearchucker 9y ago
It may be worth not taking that sentence too literally, and in isolation. Try to derive its intent within the broader context and spirit of the whole paragraph.
- RodericDay 9y ago
  I'm pretty sure I understand the point of your post. You specifically refer to "degrees of letting hair down" and outright say: > gender emancipation should not come at the cost of emasculation Your compassionate/benevolent/mild/well-meaning sexism is still sexism. I'm curious if you can come up with a definition of "masculinity" that doesn't exclude women from basic human virtues and duties.
microcolonel 9y ago
> Imagine telling someone that they need "white-only" time Boys and girls (at least the majority of them) behave and socialize visibly differently, and can benefit from it. Races do not have the same sorts of inherent distinct needs, and if they do it's typically more granular than "white" or "black"; more likely you want time with the Italian side of your family, or the Somali side, or with your girlfriend's Panjabi roots. Why do you think so many women occasion a "girls' night out", or men "hang out with the guys"? Boys and girls have a lot more significant physiological and sociological differences than whites and blacks. Whereas, for example, the noticeable differences between a Japanese woman and a Mestizo woman come down to things like whether the earwax is likely dry or oily, or the probable size of teeth or lips. These sorts of things have basically no relevance or importance to social relationships. Drawing meaningful distinction between the cohort characteristics of boys and girls is not sexist. I have no interest in determining the rights or freedoms of either group based on these characteristics. I would merely suggest that people in either cohort are likely to have needs that differ more than within each cohort. A hen and a rooster are both chickens, but they are meaningfully distinct as well.
- RodericDay 9y ago
  > Why do you think so many women occasion a "girls' night out", or men "hang out with the guys"? Cultural momentum. They inherit the habit from older generations. May as well ask why Swedes love saunas, or why asian cuisine uses chopsticks. My friend crowds have not had anything resembling those segregated nights out in forever, and in fact, headway is being made insofar women have men in their bridal parties and vice-versa. > These sorts of things have basically no relevance or importance to social relationships. You haven't made a case for why the physiological differences between men and women have relevance.
  - LARGEGALAXY 9y ago
    "Cultural" Such a term makes me laugh. Let's get something quick out of the way: Billions of people practice white-only time and black-only time and oriental-only time on a daily basis. When you go out in town with your in-group of mostly-white friends, then you are practicing white-only time on a subconscious level. I see all races doing this every single day of every hour. There is nothing cultural about this behavior. It is as natural as taking a breath of oxygen. Exhibit A: Babies prefer faces of their own race. https://www.rt.com/news/384606-babies-race-skin-study/ https://www.rt.com/news/384606-babies-race-skin-study/ I assume the same hypothesis can be made about men, women, girls and boys and as to why they gravitate to each other. This behavior isn't learned or cultural, it is the biological nature of our species. Please save me your pittance of a propaganda.
LARGEGALAXY 9y ago
I disagree with you. Forgoing the natural biological propensities that genders (and races) have is much more harmful for development and for this society as a whole. Start seeing reality for how it is, not how you wish it to be Roderic.
fastball 9y ago
That's a false equivalency. The biological makeup of men vs. women is a lot more distinct than a one race vs another. Firstly, there is the most obvious: sex organs and growth. Erections, ejaculation, periods, breast/hip growth, etc. are all sensitive topics, and I have not seen evidence that keeping these topics sensitive is a bad thing. Girls generally hit puberty earlier than boys, so it doesn't really make sense for 12 year old boys and 12 year old girls to be grouped together in certain situations, when girls are having a sexual awakening and boys aren't (as a cohort - obviously everyone hits puberty at different times, but society functions through generalizations). Secondly, there is the general impact of hormonal differences. Hormonal differences have a striking impact on emotional development, and that needs to be considered when raising children. Biologically, the only general difference between a black boy and a white boy is their skin color, which at an individual level makes no difference at all to their development. Obviously if society treats these skin colors differently and that impacts development, that is another issue entirely and should be handled separately from any gender issues.
- RodericDay 9y ago
  I have not seen evidence that keeping these topics sensitive is a good thing, so I think the burden of proof is on you to justify why they should be "kept sensitive". Notably, the "shame" around periods routinely gets challenged by concerned parties. Additionally, "keep sensitive" is a weird euphemism for the original, much stronger claim that boys can't truly be boys unless there are no girls. I have a buddy who's been a scout from youth til college, and the net impact of gender-segregated scouting in the USA vs. most other countries in the world is that american kids were clueless and out of place at the global jamboree he went to, since other countries have correctly obsoleted the stupid divide. If puberty is a salient point for you, maybe you need to group slightly older boys with slightly younger girls. However, before that, you'd need to justify why these developmental differences matter at all for the vast majority of socializing kids do. And ultimately that's my problem with your post. You are very scared about the idea that some of these cultural gender barriers may be torn down, and you have some biological facts in hand, but you haven't actually made a case for why these biological facts necessitate the erection of cultural barriers. The burden of proof is on you, despite the american status quo lagging behind.

Spearchucker 9y ago

It may be worth not taking that sentence too literally, and in isolation. Try to derive its intent within the broader context and spirit of the whole paragraph.

RodericDay 9y ago
I'm pretty sure I understand the point of your post. You specifically refer to "degrees of letting hair down" and outright say: > gender emancipation should not come at the cost of emasculation Your compassionate/benevolent/mild/well-meaning sexism is still sexism. I'm curious if you can come up with a definition of "masculinity" that doesn't exclude women from basic human virtues and duties.

microcolonel 9y ago

> Imagine telling someone that they need "white-only" time Boys and girls (at least the majority of them) behave and socialize visibly differently, and can benefit from it. Races do not have the same sorts of inherent distinct needs, and if they do it's typically more granular than "white" or "black"; more likely you want time with the Italian side of your family, or the Somali side, or with your girlfriend's Panjabi roots. Why do you think so many women occasion a "girls' night out", or men "hang out with the guys"? Boys and girls have a lot more significant physiological and sociological differences than whites and blacks. Whereas, for example, the noticeable differences between a Japanese woman and a Mestizo woman come down to things like whether the earwax is likely dry or oily, or the probable size of teeth or lips. These sorts of things have basically no relevance or importance to social relationships. Drawing meaningful distinction between the cohort characteristics of boys and girls is not sexist. I have no interest in determining the rights or freedoms of either group based on these characteristics. I would merely suggest that people in either cohort are likely to have needs that differ more than within each cohort. A hen and a rooster are both chickens, but they are meaningfully distinct as well.

RodericDay 9y ago
> Why do you think so many women occasion a "girls' night out", or men "hang out with the guys"? Cultural momentum. They inherit the habit from older generations. May as well ask why Swedes love saunas, or why asian cuisine uses chopsticks. My friend crowds have not had anything resembling those segregated nights out in forever, and in fact, headway is being made insofar women have men in their bridal parties and vice-versa. > These sorts of things have basically no relevance or importance to social relationships. You haven't made a case for why the physiological differences between men and women have relevance.
- LARGEGALAXY 9y ago
  "Cultural" Such a term makes me laugh. Let's get something quick out of the way: Billions of people practice white-only time and black-only time and oriental-only time on a daily basis. When you go out in town with your in-group of mostly-white friends, then you are practicing white-only time on a subconscious level. I see all races doing this every single day of every hour. There is nothing cultural about this behavior. It is as natural as taking a breath of oxygen. Exhibit A: Babies prefer faces of their own race. https://www.rt.com/news/384606-babies-race-skin-study/ https://www.rt.com/news/384606-babies-race-skin-study/ I assume the same hypothesis can be made about men, women, girls and boys and as to why they gravitate to each other. This behavior isn't learned or cultural, it is the biological nature of our species. Please save me your pittance of a propaganda.

LARGEGALAXY 9y ago

I disagree with you. Forgoing the natural biological propensities that genders (and races) have is much more harmful for development and for this society as a whole. Start seeing reality for how it is, not how you wish it to be Roderic.

fastball 9y ago

That's a false equivalency. The biological makeup of men vs. women is a lot more distinct than a one race vs another. Firstly, there is the most obvious: sex organs and growth. Erections, ejaculation, periods, breast/hip growth, etc. are all sensitive topics, and I have not seen evidence that keeping these topics sensitive is a bad thing. Girls generally hit puberty earlier than boys, so it doesn't really make sense for 12 year old boys and 12 year old girls to be grouped together in certain situations, when girls are having a sexual awakening and boys aren't (as a cohort - obviously everyone hits puberty at different times, but society functions through generalizations). Secondly, there is the general impact of hormonal differences. Hormonal differences have a striking impact on emotional development, and that needs to be considered when raising children. Biologically, the only general difference between a black boy and a white boy is their skin color, which at an individual level makes no difference at all to their development. Obviously if society treats these skin colors differently and that impacts development, that is another issue entirely and should be handled separately from any gender issues.

RodericDay 9y ago
I have not seen evidence that keeping these topics sensitive is a good thing, so I think the burden of proof is on you to justify why they should be "kept sensitive". Notably, the "shame" around periods routinely gets challenged by concerned parties. Additionally, "keep sensitive" is a weird euphemism for the original, much stronger claim that boys can't truly be boys unless there are no girls. I have a buddy who's been a scout from youth til college, and the net impact of gender-segregated scouting in the USA vs. most other countries in the world is that american kids were clueless and out of place at the global jamboree he went to, since other countries have correctly obsoleted the stupid divide. If puberty is a salient point for you, maybe you need to group slightly older boys with slightly younger girls. However, before that, you'd need to justify why these developmental differences matter at all for the vast majority of socializing kids do. And ultimately that's my problem with your post. You are very scared about the idea that some of these cultural gender barriers may be torn down, and you have some biological facts in hand, but you haven't actually made a case for why these biological facts necessitate the erection of cultural barriers. The burden of proof is on you, despite the american status quo lagging behind.