Posted by Derf on December 22, 1998 at 14:23:30:
In Reply to: Re: My shot at "question time" posted by Hal on December 22, 1998 at 11:11:31:
About gender stereotypes: scientific research and hypotheses into the delicate neurological structure of male and female brains is not "gender stereotypes."
I'm talking about simplistic three-word catch-phrases that (a) are culturally-inspired, and (b) don't even apply very well to our own culture.
Here are some facts and biases of my own, both of them collected from education, observation, and relation:
1. In cultures all over the world, the "dominant" gender is the gender is the gender group that is socially assigned the task of *breadwinner*, *hunter*, or *food gatherer*. In some cultures, hunters "socially dominate" gatherers, because meat is more important to the culture than plant food.
2. Like it or not, there is a distinct pattern: the "socially dominant" group, as per the last statement, usually develops what we, in Western culture, refer to as "masculine" characteristics. The "socially dependent" group develops what we have, for better or worse, principally termed "feminine" characteristics.
3. These "characteristics," as per the above statement, do not apply to men's and women's general personalities, but to the attitudes and "roles" they adapt in their *interaction* with each other.
4. Here's what I mean by "stereotypes," translated to Enneagram-ese: average Ones, Threes, and Eights are called "men." They are, by this bias, workers and breadwinners - self-sufficient, pragmatic, and relatively uncaring. Average Nines and Twos are called "women." They are, by this bias, called nurturers - dependent, impractical, and relatively conscentious.
5. Fours, Fives, and Sevens, in case you're wondering, are called "outsiders." Fives are thought to be "too smart and creative" to inhabit gender stereotypes, and, by the general view, they operate in their own mysterious ways. The preceding is also thought of Fours and Sevens, who, in addition, by popular ideology, are often considered "childlike" (and need to "grow up" and become other types).
4. In Western culture, men's relative size and strength do not make them better "breadwinners."
5. Neither do their "superior pragmatic thinking abilities," to those of you who elect to defend this mortifying presumption.
6. A maternal urge and disposition is NOT necessarily the same thing as a nurturing, compassionate character. I've seen woman after woman scold, strike, and ignore the needs of their (obviously needy) toddlers. I am also shocked at the intolerant attitude that some mothers have toward their mentally disabled or troubled children.
7. If the faulty assumption explained above has no other drawback, it may at least give women excuses to believe they're more "compassionate," "sensitive," and "conscentious" than they really are.
8. Being a woman does not automatically give you "divine compassion," or an excuse for presumptuousness in that vein.
9. I understand that cultural roles and models are necessary, but in the Western world, and particularly in the groups and individuals affected most by the information age, some cultural notions are sacred cows and illusory dinosaurs.
10. With the facilitated education of the information age, we should learn that many of our culture's ideas about "human nature" are really just ideas about our culture.
If anyone wants to discuss this, we can arrange to move it somewhere else (since such a discussion will probably lose all connection to the Enneagram).
That's all folks... and happy holidays to all concerned (another cultural ambiguity....)
- Derf