The Deciders

[Verbal Mike]

Well, considering socialization encompasses more or less every detail of life, and consciously noticing it has to be done more or less one thing at a time, yeah, on a societal level it seems to me near impossible (except for very slow, very gradual change – like what feminism has been doing for decades.) On an individual level, since I've been practicing it myself for almost a decade (since I was a teenager) I know it's very doable... But I also notice that it requires a lot of sustained effort to avoid relapse. The patterns we're socialized into seem to function as a default or comfort zone, and that only really changes after years of reconstruction. That's a lot of effort to just move one bar, and the patriarchy is part of a goodly proportion of all our bars – it's not just one process of recognition-deconstruction-reconstruction, it's a lot of different processes, big and small, and every bar left unmoved seems to make other, related bars harder to recognize and move. (Hope I haven't stretched the BIP metaphor too far here.)

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I also want to point out that the whole "men are more aggressive" argument is a red herring. Men having more aggressive tendencies might indeed have something to do with them behaving in a more competitive manner, but really has no bearing on whether they are more likely to take over from/be condescending toward women than toward other men in the workplace. I'm afraid I don't accept the notion that men are just biologically predetermined to be sexist douchebags.

I, as a man, also do not fucking buy it.

Yeah, it seems hell of insulting. I think I would tend to file it under "how the patriarchy hurts men too".

Is it patriarchy or is it fatalism?

Patriarchy-flavored Fatalism Chips!

Made from 100% organic privilege!

I'm so sorry for fixing this.

Double fixed.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

No sorry that last paragraph was mostly an aside and absolutely not the main thing I was trying to say. The main thing is that gender roles are clearly not biologically determinedinnate, and anything that we're used to thinking of as "natural" deserves some very suspicious scrutiny.

EDITED for terminology (see strikethrough).

So homosexuality is largely a socially determined thing, a choice?

Homosexuality isn't a gender role. 

[Faust]

No sorry that last paragraph was mostly an aside and absolutely not the main thing I was trying to say. The main thing is that gender roles are clearly not biologically determinedinnate, and anything that we're used to thinking of as "natural" deserves some very suspicious scrutiny.

EDITED for terminology (see strikethrough).

So homosexuality is largely a socially determined thing, a choice?

Homosexuality isn't a gender role. 

Obviously. Are you are saying they ARE biologically determined then, or are they a a social construct, or something inbetween?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

No sorry that last paragraph was mostly an aside and absolutely not the main thing I was trying to say. The main thing is that gender roles are clearly not biologically determinedinnate, and anything that we're used to thinking of as "natural" deserves some very suspicious scrutiny.

EDITED for terminology (see strikethrough).

So homosexuality is largely a socially determined thing, a choice?

Homosexuality is not gender roles.

Also I side-eye the fuck out of anyone who claims society in general views homosexuality as natural.

Even if it is not a gender role, is it biologicaly driven or experience driven?
Homosexuality occurs in over populations of male cats, I don't know if that is environment driven or biological. I don't know thats why I am asking.

The reasons for homosexuality as a phenomenon is poorly understood, but some scientists believe that it may be a combination of genetic factors and social/environmental factors that trigger the activation of certain genes during fetal development.

People tend to hear "biology" and think "oh, genetics!" but the two are not interchangeable. All genetics is biology but not all biology is genetics, and biology can be changed by social and environmental (adaptive) pressures.

[Faust]

No sorry that last paragraph was mostly an aside and absolutely not the main thing I was trying to say. The main thing is that gender roles are clearly not biologically determinedinnate, and anything that we're used to thinking of as "natural" deserves some very suspicious scrutiny.

EDITED for terminology (see strikethrough).

So homosexuality is largely a socially determined thing, a choice?

Homosexuality is not gender roles.

Also I side-eye the fuck out of anyone who claims society in general views homosexuality as natural.

Even if it is not a gender role, is it biologicaly driven or experience driven?
Homosexuality occurs in over populations of male cats, I don't know if that is environment driven or biological. I don't know thats why I am asking.

The reasons for homosexuality as a phenomenon is poorly understood, but some scientists believe that it may be a combination of genetic factors and social/environmental factors that trigger the activation of certain genes during fetal development.

People tend to hear "biology" and think "oh, genetics!" but the two are not interchangeable. All genetics is biology but not all biology is genetics, and biology can be changed by social and environmental (adaptive) pressures.

Yes, so it is likely a largely immutable part of someone's personality if it is genetic.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So homosexuality is largely a socially determined thing, a choice?

A socially determined thing is about as far as something can be from a choice. It's something determined for you without you being aware that any determination took place.

And I have no idea about sexual orientation, I'm talking about gender roles here. What I do think worth mentioning is, something I read a while back, that the concept of binary sexual orientation labels is surprisingly new. Basically invented by Freud and his gang. Obviously, people have been getting it on with people of their own gender and/or sex since before they were walking upright; the point is that having a straight, or bi, or gay identity, seeing this as something that is set for adult life, etc., is only a few generations old. Before that it was just "that dude likes to secretly get it on with other dudes sometimes" (because the act itself was taboo, but the label as such did not exist.) And this suggests to me that sexual orientation as an identity is totally socially determined. That doesn't mean it's not innate for a given individual to have certain preferences, but having that define you in a permanent kind of way is apparently something society tells you to do, not biology.

But if it is determined for you then it can be changed, if it's within a persons power to change that would class that as a choice. People following socially perscribed behaviour have the choice to break from that.
Is the same true for innate behaviour? People refute agressive behaviour as innate and claim entirely social but I find that hard to swallow when other things are not. I have chemically induced depression, granted it is innate behaviour that can be overcome. For years it was completely debilitating now I can recognise it occuring and keep it largely in check.
Aggressions can be overcome, but it doesn't mean there aren't reasons for it other then social.

It is very possible that most depression is also the result of adaptive pressure, believe it or not. Our environment affects our biology, and our society shapes our environment, and the high rates of depression in certain societies compared with very low rates in others, as well as shifting rates of depression over time in certain societies, indicates that the biological switch that is flipped to cause depression is actually flipped by a certain social environment.

Sexuality is not static and often changes over time in a person.

Most of these questions just don't have a simple answer.

[Faust]

So homosexuality is largely a socially determined thing, a choice?

A socially determined thing is about as far as something can be from a choice. It's something determined for you without you being aware that any determination took place.

And I have no idea about sexual orientation, I'm talking about gender roles here. What I do think worth mentioning is, something I read a while back, that the concept of binary sexual orientation labels is surprisingly new. Basically invented by Freud and his gang. Obviously, people have been getting it on with people of their own gender and/or sex since before they were walking upright; the point is that having a straight, or bi, or gay identity, seeing this as something that is set for adult life, etc., is only a few generations old. Before that it was just "that dude likes to secretly get it on with other dudes sometimes" (because the act itself was taboo, but the label as such did not exist.) And this suggests to me that sexual orientation as an identity is totally socially determined. That doesn't mean it's not innate for a given individual to have certain preferences, but having that define you in a permanent kind of way is apparently something society tells you to do, not biology.

But if it is determined for you then it can be changed, if it's within a persons power to change that would class that as a choice. People following socially perscribed behaviour have the choice to break from that.
Is the same true for innate behaviour? People refute agressive behaviour as innate and claim entirely social but I find that hard to swallow when other things are not. I have chemically induced depression, granted it is innate behaviour that can be overcome. For years it was completely debilitating now I can recognise it occuring and keep it largely in check.
Aggressions can be overcome, but it doesn't mean there aren't reasons for it other then social.

It is very possible that most depression is also the result of adaptive pressure, believe it or not. Our environment affects our biology, and our society shapes our environment, and the high rates of depression in certain societies compared with very low rates in others, as well as shifting rates of depression over time in certain societies, indicates that the biological switch that is flipped to cause depression is actually flipped by a certain social environment.

Sexuality is not static and often changes over time in a person.

Most of these questions just don't have a simple answer.

Change based on environment and social pressures. So it is feasible that a persons sexuality could be changed through social factors just like any other outlook. Positive or negative like aggressive or sexist behaviour.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

No sorry that last paragraph was mostly an aside and absolutely not the main thing I was trying to say. The main thing is that gender roles are clearly not biologically determinedinnate, and anything that we're used to thinking of as "natural" deserves some very suspicious scrutiny.

EDITED for terminology (see strikethrough).

So homosexuality is largely a socially determined thing, a choice?

Homosexuality is not gender roles.

Also I side-eye the fuck out of anyone who claims society in general views homosexuality as natural.

Even if it is not a gender role, is it biologicaly driven or experience driven?
Homosexuality occurs in over populations of male cats, I don't know if that is environment driven or biological. I don't know thats why I am asking.

The reasons for homosexuality as a phenomenon is poorly understood, but some scientists believe that it may be a combination of genetic factors and social/environmental factors that trigger the activation of certain genes during fetal development.

People tend to hear "biology" and think "oh, genetics!" but the two are not interchangeable. All genetics is biology but not all biology is genetics, and biology can be changed by social and environmental (adaptive) pressures.

Yes, so it is likely a largely immutable part of someone's personality if it is genetic.

Well, yes and no. It's not that simple. Even though I spoke about "flipping a switch" earlier, it isn't always just an on-off switch. It might be a dimmer switch. Genetics and the role genes play in biological expression are really complicated. So is the role biochemistry plays in genetic expression. If someone is expressing a trait that all of their family members carry but don't express, clearly they had no choice in that expression, and they most likely have no choice in the level it expresses itself at. However, "immutable" is probably the wrong word to use because sometimes traits don't appear until late in life, or disappear late in life, or simply shift over time.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So homosexuality is largely a socially determined thing, a choice?

A socially determined thing is about as far as something can be from a choice. It's something determined for you without you being aware that any determination took place.

And I have no idea about sexual orientation, I'm talking about gender roles here. What I do think worth mentioning is, something I read a while back, that the concept of binary sexual orientation labels is surprisingly new. Basically invented by Freud and his gang. Obviously, people have been getting it on with people of their own gender and/or sex since before they were walking upright; the point is that having a straight, or bi, or gay identity, seeing this as something that is set for adult life, etc., is only a few generations old. Before that it was just "that dude likes to secretly get it on with other dudes sometimes" (because the act itself was taboo, but the label as such did not exist.) And this suggests to me that sexual orientation as an identity is totally socially determined. That doesn't mean it's not innate for a given individual to have certain preferences, but having that define you in a permanent kind of way is apparently something society tells you to do, not biology.

But if it is determined for you then it can be changed, if it's within a persons power to change that would class that as a choice. People following socially perscribed behaviour have the choice to break from that.
Is the same true for innate behaviour? People refute agressive behaviour as innate and claim entirely social but I find that hard to swallow when other things are not. I have chemically induced depression, granted it is innate behaviour that can be overcome. For years it was completely debilitating now I can recognise it occuring and keep it largely in check.
Aggressions can be overcome, but it doesn't mean there aren't reasons for it other then social.

It is very possible that most depression is also the result of adaptive pressure, believe it or not. Our environment affects our biology, and our society shapes our environment, and the high rates of depression in certain societies compared with very low rates in others, as well as shifting rates of depression over time in certain societies, indicates that the biological switch that is flipped to cause depression is actually flipped by a certain social environment.

Sexuality is not static and often changes over time in a person.

Most of these questions just don't have a simple answer.

Change based on environment and social pressures. So it is feasible that a persons sexuality could be changed through social factors just like any other outlook. Positive or negative like aggressive or sexist behaviour.

It's not at all rare for a person's sexual expression to be changed by positive or negative associations. In many cases it may be a type of repression, where the person is simply repressing one aspect of their sexuality in favor of expressing another. Girls and boys who are molested may become hypersexualized toward the gender of the person who molested them, if the molestation aroused them at the time, whereas if it was a fearful or violent experience with no associated pleasure, or if they experience an overwhelming sense of shame, they may completely shut off towards the gender of the person who molested them, and express sexuality only toward the other gender.

A woman who is raped may afterwards become a lesbian. A man may get out of a lengthy marriage with a wife who never cared about his sexual pleasure and find that his sexual experiences with men are much more pleasurable and satisfying. People change, and environment, including social environment, affects that.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

None of that, by the way, is meant to explain the causes of homosexuality. It is just some examples of pressures which can influence a shift in sexual expression.

Sex, by the way, is a drive. It's one of the very, very few things that anthropologists consider instinctive. However, they don't consider the ways in which we express it to be instinctive, but rather, learned.

[Faust]

Ok, I that sounds about right.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I totally forgot about this thread. Verb was ON FIRE toward the end.

And apparently RWHN doesn't believe in white male privilege in the US, which is actually unsurprising, yet something I totally did not remember.

[Doktor Howl]

I totally forgot about this thread. Verb was ON FIRE toward the end.

And apparently RWHN doesn't believe in white male privilege in the US, which is actually unsurprising, yet something I totally did not remember.

If it was anyone other than RWHN, I'd say they didn't understand - as I didn't understand - privilege.

But it was RWHN, and so it is the fault of CHEATING BITCHES AND SLUTS WHO MAKE HIM BE THAT WAY.  Only he dated a hot Black woman at work.  So hot.  Much Black.  And then one day he hadn't.  Which to me says he never had, and said he had until that BITCH turned him down.

[Faust]

"Native Americans shouldn't view white guys with suspicion; we deserve to be viewed as innocent unless we actually fuck them over."

Yes, If I recall the Irish persecution of the Native Americans was quite brutal. Hoopy indians still shudder at the sight of the fierce white devil of Kilgarven.

I'm sorry ALL whites oppressed the Native Americans.

Hi Faust from 2012, we have a thing now called "Not all men", you might not understand it, or why your message was retarded, but you will.