# Dexter's Sister and female characters, * lets keep it CIVIL!! *



## ascanius (Apr 8, 2015)

So I have mentioned many times my thoughts on female characters and the sexes in general.  I think males and females are different and should be written differently.  I don't think any character should be written in such a way that their sex can be changed with the use of different pronouns.  So instead of going with what usually happens on threads of this topic and state my beliefs, I am going to give an example.

So lately I've been watching Dexter and I think there is an unoticed character that is worth mention in regards to how people struggle with Female characters.  I think Debra Morgan, Jennifer Carpenter who should have won an award for her role, is a great example of a female character with agency, who kicks ass without being a man with boobs.  I often find myself more interested in her story than dexter's, dexter's doesn't really change, it's kinda to the point.  Let me explain.

In one way Debra Morgan plays into the stereotypes of a woman.  She is very emotional and often makes choices based off those emotions.  She deeply wants to have a meaningfull relationship with her brother, she has daddy issues and regrets not having a meaningful relationship with her father.  She needs to be rescued. She really wants the approval of others.

At the same time she doesn't, Even though she is emotional, it is part of who she is and not a weakness, same for all the other stereotypes she may fit them but she is not the stereotype.  She may want the approval of others but at the same time she has no problem swearing up a storm and looking like she is ready to go square dancing, it's her look.  Her character is not a character that one could simply change the pronouns and have a male character, it would take a lot more work to make it convincing.

So what are your examples of a Female character that others should emulate in their writing?

Remember lets keep this thread Civil and useful for everyone's benifit.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Apr 8, 2015)

My gold standard for characterization rules is whether they could produce the people around me. (Well, most of the people--I'm not sure anyone wants to read about my boring landlord who responded to everything with a platitude.) Anyway, when people talk about how they don't want "men with tits," either they talk about people who're like tit-bearing individuals I've met, or they talk about people who I've never met regardless of tit status. If you're trying to push what women should be like, that's one thing, but if you want to portray what some women actually are like, you have a lot of leeway.


----------



## WooHooMan (Apr 8, 2015)

I think that you shouldn't care that much about going against or fitting into stereotypes.  
Also, I think a character can fit into an archetype while still being a good character.

I'm doing a story that deals with gender and I've noticed that most of my favorite characters in fiction (both men and women) tend to fall in line with gender roles to some degree.  Whenever I see a character that is clearly the writing saying "look at this, I'm defying gender norms", it just feels lame and kind of condescending to me.
I don't know what this attitude says about me but I'm not all that concerned.


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 8, 2015)

It's one thing to state whether or not someone thinks men and women are different, but I always feel there's another, much more important question. Why? What do you think is the cause of this difference?


----------



## Guy (Apr 8, 2015)

ascanius said:


> In one way Debra Morgan plays into the stereotypes of a woman.  She is very emotional and often makes choices based off those emotions.  She deeply wants to have a meaningfull relationship with her brother, she has daddy issues and regrets not having a meaningful relationship with her father.  She needs to be rescued. She really wants the approval of others.
> 
> At the same time she doesn't, Even though she is emotional, it is part of who she is and not a weakness, same for all the other stereotypes she may fit them but she is not the stereotype.  She may want the approval of others but at the same time she has no problem swearing up a storm and looking like she is ready to go square dancing, it's her look.


In other words, she's a human being.


----------



## Trick (Apr 8, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> It's one thing to state whether or not someone thinks men and women are different, but I always feel there's another, much more important question. Why? What do you think is the cause of this difference?



Biology: Chromosomes, Hormones, Build, Percentage of water in the body, sexual preference via nature, etc.

Psychology: Imposed (or chosen) social norms, developmental rates at young ages (which is also a part of biology), sexual preference via nurture, etc.

Those things being said, no one person is exactly like another and no one person is exactly average. Thus, write all characters, regardless of gender, as unique humans. If you choose to use some of the above in the formation of that character, great; if not, great. 

I am, feel and live the way I do for a variety of reasons as is the case for everyone. I might write about someone whom I feel is the opposite of me in every way and yet that character could be male, as I am. I could also write about a character very much like myself and they could be a woman. My brother-in-law has a similar relationship with his girlfriend as I do with my wife except the personalities are gender swapped in a lot of ways. We are all happy. 

As writers we create from the ground up or use existing people as influences or both. As fantasy writers, we have even more leeway (in so far as we can write outside the average more readily without fearing readership loss as much) and that is awesome.

Basically, the woman on my left and the man on my right may both be very different from me in the same or different ways or the opposite could be true because humans are as varied as the stars in the sky, if not more so.


----------



## X Equestris (Apr 8, 2015)

Trick said:


> Biology: Chromosomes, Hormones, Build, Percentage of water in the body, sexual preference via nature, etc.
> 
> Psychology: Imposed (or chosen) social norms, developmental rates at young ages (which is also a part of biology), sexual preference via nurture, etc.
> 
> ...



I think that sums it up pretty well.  Each character should be unique, just like real people.


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 8, 2015)

First, if you've just started watching Dexter, I'd advise you to stop at season 3. If you watch to the end, you'll be filled with nerd rage of epic proportions.

And yes Deb is an awesome character. Other female characters I'd say that are worth studying are every single female character from Buffy and Angel. Cordilia has one of the most epic arcs in the series. You go from hating her to loving her to loving her even more.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 8, 2015)

Cordelia's character arc really was great.


----------



## spectre (Apr 8, 2015)

A female character, who isn't mandated to her social fate -- see what I done there. Tough. Most literature I've read hasn't regarded sexes to where it was a discordant portrayal so I have no comparison to the chosen "toon". Rainbow Brite, really. She is wholly female in her role, without being brainwashed, and she is a badass with dedicated purpose. If you want more depth though I still have limited examples because Most of the fantasy I've read has been world minded I think or the opposite of what you want. Historical mentions are not mentioned though -- see how I did that? Lol, sorry I'll quit being a dork. 

Well in R. Jordan it's Queen Morgase. She is rounded, but she isn't biased. She knows how to reapproach a subject, and she remains lady like qualities that are tailored. She would be my favorite. Other's though might be Dori from finding Nemo. She's flawed, she's triumphant, brave, and endearing without any sexism. Winona Ryder in Bram Stoker's Dracula too because she is also flawed and feminine where she isn't perturbed. Her decisions are freely made and she isn't a whore like her undead friend --a little reverse humor. I really want to provide you with a list though because I'd never have thought someone would bring it up in the fantasy genre. Game of Thrones, it's obviously John's mother who dies adamant to her sequester and she is like Morgase in that fashion. Shrek's wife! Who changes, is discriminated for it, and I don't think is bogged down with superman traits, she is a strong woman-ogre. I also like the Viragon Sister's in K.C. May's Kinshield saga because the truth is, some women are butch --no sexual reference implied.



> Biology: Chromosomes, Hormones, Build, Percentage of water in the body, sexual preference via nature, etc.
> 
> Psychology: Imposed (or chosen) social norms, developmental rates at young ages (which is also a part of biology), sexual preference via nurture, etc.
> 
> Those things being said, no one person is exactly like another and no one person is exactly average. Thus, write all characters, regardless of gender, as unique humans. If you choose to use some of the above in the formation of that character, great; if not, great.



majority=average. A little standard defiance therein for you: just that.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 8, 2015)

Majority does not necessarily reflect the average. If I have a population of five, three of whom are six feet tall and two of whom are five feet tall, the average height is 5.6 feet, but the majority of people are six feet tall.


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 8, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> Cordelia's character arc really was great.



I think one of the best parts about it was that it was unexpected, but so thoroughly earned.


----------



## spectre (Apr 9, 2015)

> Majority does not necessarily reflect the average. If I have a population of five, three of whom are six feet tall...



A vast majority of people struggle and/or dislike math. Psychology is not mathematical beyond it's distortions or measureability, therefore the averages in psychology and math better represent the dichotomy of the electromagnetic spectrum's making tangible concrete subjects and absolutism which are the topics of debate.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 9, 2015)

avm31982 said:


> A vast majority of people struggle and/or dislike math. Psychology is not mathematical beyond it's distortions or measureability, therefore the averages in psychology and math better represent the dichotomy of the electromagnetic spectrum's making tangible concrete subjects and absolutism which are the topics of debate.



This post doesnt make any sense to me.

However, even if we want to assume there is an average represented by  majority for a given psychological trait, when we're dealing with human beings we are talking about a large number of traits that vary along a continuum between any two individuals. I think the point about not finding individuals who embody broadly some kind of perceived average still stands. It may be useful to talk about statistically,  but it falls apart on the individual level.


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 9, 2015)

ascanius said:
			
		

> Her character is not a character that one could simply change the pronouns and have a male character, it would take a lot more work to make it convincing.



To you, perhaps.

Personally, if a pronoun dictated that a character was male, I would have no difficulty thinking they were male regardless of their actions or personality. The author wrote them to be a male, so they _are_ male, there's no 'convincing' about it.


But I would like to point something out. The fact that some people believe that women or men acting in certain ways or having certain personalities is unnatural or unusual is a massive indictment on our society, the social conditioning of which manufactured those beliefs in the first place. The fact that these psychological differences do exist on average across the gender line is terrible! Whether they exist or not, I hope we can all agree that they shouldn't exist. We should all be free individuals with our own unique personalities, not defined by what's between our legs.


----------



## Devor (Apr 9, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> The fact that these psychological differences do exist on average across the gender line is terrible! Whether they exist or not, I hope we can all agree that they shouldn't exist. We should all be free individuals with our own unique personalities, not defined by what's between our legs.



But so many of those differences are biological.  Men have bigger brains because they have bigger bodies.  But did you know the difference is all in grey brain matter, meaning that women have a higher percentage of white brain matter in their brains?  White brain matter is the short-cut pathways that lets you process a decision quickly.  It's the part of the brain that represents experience.  Based solely on that _factual biological_ information, what kind of impact would you expect that has on the psychological differences between men and women?

I mean, just think about it.


----------



## Guy (Apr 9, 2015)

Why do so many people seem to have so much difficulty writing female characters? It's a fairly hot topic. I don't recall ever seeing a thread about the difficulty of writing male characters, but I've lost count of the threads about the challenges of writing female characters. How is it any more difficult than writing any other character? Personally, I don't think it is, yet so many writers are convinced it is. Why?


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 9, 2015)

Devor said:


> But so many of those differences are biological.  Men have bigger brains because they have bigger bodies.  But did you know the difference is all in grey brain matter, meaning that women have a higher percentage of white brain matter in their brains?  White brain matter is the short-cut pathways that lets you process a decision quickly.  It's the part of the brain that represents experience.  Based solely on that _factual biological_ information, what kind of impact would you expect that has on the psychological differences between men and women?
> 
> I mean, just think about it.



This argument hinges on the principle that somehow the brain develops fully formed and planned by our DNA, which is false. The brain develops affected by our environmental influences and, again, social conditioning. If males are conditioned from an early age to participate in logical or spatial awareness tasks more than females, their brains will naturally develop to be better suited to those things, and vice versa with regards to females and emotional awareness. The brain doesn't exist in its own little world, unaffected by anything other than biology. It changes and adapts.

If anyone's interested, here's a study conducted on whether or not and to what degree our environment can change our brains:http://psych.brookes.ac.uk/publications/DevSci2007.pdf
tl;dr - it can

Now, so if these psychological differences are present (which, _statistically_, they are), and if these differences are ingrained into our psyche due to environment and social conditioning (which a whole swathe of psychological experimentation and study has concluded is a major, defining influence [note, not the only influence, but by far the most important one, capable of overriding any biological influence]), then something is terribly wrong with our society.


----------



## Devor (Apr 9, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> Now, so if these psychological differences are present (which, _statistically_, they are), and if these differences are ingrained into our psyche due to environment and social conditioning (which a whole swathe of psychological experimentation and study has concluded is a major, defining influence [note, not the only influence, but by far the most important one, capable of overriding any biological influence]), then something is terribly wrong with our society.



Psychologists use what's called the Big Five personality traits as a baseline for measuring behavior.  They are openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism.  Psychologists measure these traits in countries world wide.  And somehow the gender differences on these five traits are _biggest_ in wealthy, healthy, more egalitarian societies.  That doesn't speak to social conditioning.  Quite the opposite.  That speaks to biology and self-determination.


----------



## WooHooMan (Apr 9, 2015)

Guy said:


> Why do so many people seem to have so much difficulty writing female characters? It's a fairly hot topic. I don't recall ever seeing a thread about the difficulty of writing male characters, but I've lost count of the threads about the challenges of writing female characters. How is it any more difficult than writing any other character? Personally, I don't think it is, yet so many writers are convinced it is. Why?



You answered your own question: people go on and on about writing female characters because representation of women in fiction is a hot topic.
To answer your other query: you do see threads about writing male characters but we just refer to them as "characters".  Women characters are somehow different and need to be called "female characters" specifically.
I think the general attitude is that male is the default while female is special/exceptional.

I agree with you that writing women is no harder than writing men.


----------



## Mythopoet (Apr 9, 2015)

Guy said:


> Why do so many people seem to have so much difficulty writing female characters? It's a fairly hot topic. I don't recall ever seeing a thread about the difficulty of writing male characters, but I've lost count of the threads about the challenges of writing female characters. How is it any more difficult than writing any other character? Personally, I don't think it is, yet so many writers are convinced it is. Why?



It's probably because writers are continually judged and criticized for their portrayals of female characters, but very rarely for portrayals of male characters , unless it's because the male character is a racial minority. Heaven help you if you try to write a female character that is a racial minority. You'd better get it absolutely perfect or the critics will tear you apart. As a society, we care far more about how female characters are portrayed and so its natural for writers to be more concerned about it. 

Personally, I think this is a terrible thing because I don't believe you can achieve true equality if you're constantly treating one sex like it's far more important. You can't balance the scales by going to the opposite extreme. You have to start treating both sexes as of equal importance right now. And also, because as you point out, it makes it seem like females are some rare creature that is mysterious and hard to pin down. It makes writers more afraid to write female characters, which will just end up leading to the same problem for a different reason: lack of female characters.


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 9, 2015)

Devor said:


> Psychologists use what's called the Big Five personality traits as a baseline for measuring behavior.  They are openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism.  Psychologists measure these traits in countries world wide.  And somehow the gender differences on these five traits are _biggest_ in wealthy, healthy, more egalitarian societies.  That doesn't speak to social conditioning.  Quite the opposite.  That speaks to biology and self-determination.



Just a note: the fact that there is a difference across cultures actually only proves that environment is a massive influence.

As to there being a greater gender difference in first world countries, first off I'm skeptical of that, so if you have any supporting sources I'd gladly examine them. But let's assume that you're right for now. That could be the result of a greater media presence, perhaps. The media is one of the most powerful tools of social conditioning, so in more economically developed countries, in which the media has a greater presence and capability to influence the population, this insidious social conditioning is more able to take place, and may be more powerful than the more explicitly old fashioned sexism that still exists in some places.


----------



## Devor (Apr 9, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> As to there being a greater gender difference in first world countries, first off I'm skeptical of that, so if you have any supporting sources I'd gladly examine them.



As a rule I don't like to post links to prove a point.  But I encourage you to educate yourself on the topic.




> That could be the result of a greater media presence, perhaps. The media is one of the most powerful tools of social conditioning, so in more economically developed countries, in which the media has a greater presence and capability to influence the population, this insidious social conditioning is more able to take place, and may be more powerful than the more explicitly old fashioned sexism that still exists in some places.



I can see why you would think that.  But with a lot of different media, people have a tremendous opportunity to self-select the media they want to experience.  In other countries, they get the media they get.  So again, that speaks to self-determination, which speaks to biology.


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 9, 2015)

Devor said:


> I can see why you would think that. But with a lot of different media, people have a tremendous opportunity to self-select the media they want to experience. In other countries, they get the media they get. So again, that speaks to self-determination, which speaks to biology.



Do people really have the ability to self-select their media, though? I mean, a person can not listen to a song, but that doesn't stop that song playing in a hairdresser's, or on an advert, or in the trailer to a film. And also, while currently there is a wave of self-serving media in the form of things like Netflix and the internet in general, remember that these are very recent creations, and most adults nowadays will have grown up in a time without these things. A few decades ago, even in Western countries, people got the media they were given. And even disregarding this, if every piece of media, or at least a large amount of it, instills the same messages again and again, like gender roles, those will sink in to the overall mindset of the population, regardless of whatever effort individuals take to avoid specific pieces of media.

Additionally, the media of course isn't the only factor. Parents often bring up their children in ways that enforce gender stereotypes, having the girl help the mother with the washing up and the boy help the dad with fixing the car. But, this would be present in any culture. What isn't present in every culture is the force of marketing and the toy industry. Just think about the last time you went into a toy store and saw the different sections for boys and girls. The boys all get things like action figures and soldiers and monster trucks, all of which will instills typically 'masculine' traits in them, along with other factors. Meanwhile, the girls get dolls and dollhouses (pink, of course). This is disgusting. However, one may argue that the toy industry sells dolls to girls and cars to boys because that's just what they want. They're just pleasing their target demographic. Umm... no. See, what they fail to consider is the fact that girls like dolls and boys like cars because that's all they've ever been given.

Babies, when they're born, don't have a choice in what toys they get or media they consume. The girls get put into the pink blanket and boys the blue. That's not self-determination, that's social conditioning.


----------



## Mythopoet (Apr 9, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> However, even if we want to assume there is an average represented by  majority for a given psychological trait, when we're dealing with human beings we are talking about a large number of traits that vary along a continuum between any two individuals. I think the point about not finding individuals who embody broadly some kind of perceived average still stands. It may be useful to talk about statistically,  but it falls apart on the individual level.



This is pretty much how I see any "science" that purports to study the human person. It always falls apart at the individual level. Humans are simply far too individually unique. Biology can't account for it. My personal belief is that it is our souls that make us individual persons and modern science cannot study the soul.


----------



## Devor (Apr 9, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> See, what they fail to consider is the fact that girls like dolls and boys like cars because that's all they've ever been given.



They give gendered toys to little monkeys who have none of that media or social conditioning, and they still find that the girls take the doll and the boys take the truck.  That speaks again to self-determination and biology.

Again, this is all basic research on the topic.  I encourage you to look it up.


----------



## X Equestris (Apr 9, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> Do people really have the ability to self-select their media, though? I mean, a person can not listen to a song, but that doesn't stop that song playing in a hairdresser's, or on an advert, or in the trailer to a film. And also, while currently there is a wave of self-serving media in the form of things like Netflix and the internet in general, remember that these are very recent creations, and most adults nowadays will have grown up in a time without these things. A few decades ago, even in Western countries, people got the media they were given. And even disregarding this, if every piece of media, or at least a large amount of it, instills the same messages again and again, like gender roles, those will sink in to the overall mindset of the population, regardless of whatever effort individuals take to avoid specific pieces of media.
> 
> Additionally, the media of course isn't the only factor. Parents often bring up their children in ways that enforce gender stereotypes, having the girl help the mother with the washing up and the boy help the dad with fixing the car. But, this would be present in any culture. What isn't present in every culture is the force of marketing and the toy industry. Just think about the last time you went into a toy store and saw the different sections for boys and girls. The boys all get things like action figures and soldiers and monster trucks, all of which will instills typically 'masculine' traits in them, along with other factors. Meanwhile, the girls get dolls and dollhouses (pink, of course). This is disgusting. However, one may argue that the toy industry sells dolls to girls and cars to boys because that's just what they want. They're just pleasing their target demographic. Umm... no. See, what they fail to consider is the fact that girls like dolls and boys like cars because that's all they've ever been given.
> 
> Babies, when they're born, don't have a choice in what toys they get or media they consume. The girls get put into the pink blanket and boys the blue. That's not self-determination, that's social conditioning.



I can't remember where I saw it, but there was a study involving people who sought to raise their children away from gender norms.  They isolated their children from outside cultural influences.  But you know what happened when they provided their kids with toys that we would associate with the opposite gender?  Those kids were profoundly uninterested with those toys, preferring the toys of their opposite gender siblings, the toys that would normally be associated with their gender.


----------



## Devor (Apr 9, 2015)

I mean, we know the following facts:

Men and women have small differences in the brain.

Men and women have large hormonal differences.

Boys and girls behave differently as children.

Gender differences increase in cultures where individuals are healthiest and have the most freedom.

^ Taken together, this information speaks strongly to at least some of differences between men and women being biological, and not just cultural.


----------



## X Equestris (Apr 9, 2015)

It's also worth noting that biology influences culture to some degree.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Apr 9, 2015)

This is just anecdotal so take it for what it's worth (nothing). 

I have a seven month old son. His favorite thing in the world is to rough house, fight, and toss his toys. That or chew on them but that's more a function of teething and being a baby. He has a stuffed lion toy. Since he was four months he bit, tossed, and wrestled with it. He never _ever_ cuddles that toy. When he plays with me or his mother he likes to be tossed, tickled, or be wrestled. (Wrestling is usually him lying on our chests and us rolling from side to side grunting.)

I have a niece. At this same age her favorite thing was to cuddle her stuffed toys. She would cry if you fought them. I and her father even encouraged her to wrestle with these toys. Her mom didn't care either way. My niece refused to fight them until she was about a year old or so, after conditioning from her dad and myself. 

These two experiences indicate at the least a difference between my son and my niece. However, I think this could also be indicative of differences between genders.


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 9, 2015)

Devor said:


> They give gendered toys to little monkeys who have none of that media or social conditioning, and they still find that the girls take the doll and the boys take the truck.  That speaks again to self-determination and biology.
> 
> Again, this is all basic research on the topic.  I encourage you to look it up.



I am aware of this study, but I believe it is somewhat flawed for a few reasons. Firstly, it's questionable whether or not the data can be applied to humans, as the large difference in intelligence throws a whole load of spanners in the works. In addition, its conclusions hinge on the assumption that the monkey babies aren't also subject to social conditioning within the monkeys' 'society'. How are we to know that the adult monkeys don't try to instill feminine and masculine tendencies in their children?



			
				X Equestris said:
			
		

> I can't remember where I saw it, but there was a study involving people who sought to raise their children away from gender norms. They isolated their children from outside cultural influences. But you know what happened when they provided their kids with toys that we would associate with the opposite gender? Those kids were profoundly uninterested with those toys, preferring the toys of their opposite gender siblings, the toys that would normally be associated with their gender.



Single case studies are rarely reliable enough to be used as evidence, but if we ignore that for a moment, your example doesn't take into account the possibility of genuine personal preference. Perhaps the girl happened to like the girl toys and the boy boy toys. I'm not saying that no girl would ever naturally like playing with dolls – many would, and many boys would, too. It's all about the individual, but our society currently tries to forcefully instill set preferences in boys and girls regardless of their individual tastes.



			
				Devor said:
			
		

> I mean, we know the following facts:
> 
> Men and women have small differences in the brain.



On average, yes, they do.



> Men and women have large hormonal differences.



To variable levels, yes.



> Boys and girls behave differently as children.



Uhuh, for reasons I've already explained. Social conditioning and environmental influence. Or, individual personal preference.



> Gender differences increase in cultures where individuals are healthiest and have the most freedom.



Freedom does not equal an absence of societal influence. It just means that societal influence will come in more subtle ways than flat out propaganda.


----------



## Ireth (Apr 9, 2015)

Jumping on the anecdote bandwagon here... I have a four-year-old brother who absolutely adores cars, trucks and tractors. He has more toys with motors and wheels than I can count. At the same time, he has a baby doll that he carries around with him, often to daycare and when we go out shopping, and he loves getting his nails painted -- both fingernails and toenails -- and wearing sparkly hairspray and lip gloss. He also gets into my mom's makeup and tries to put it on himself.


----------



## Devor (Apr 9, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> I am aware of this study, but I believe it is somewhat flawed for a few reasons. Firstly, it's questionable whether or not the data can be applied to humans, as the large difference in intelligence throws a whole load of spanners in the works. In addition, its conclusions hinge on the assumption that the monkey babies aren't also subject to social conditioning within the monkeys' 'society'. How are we to know that the adult monkeys don't try to instill feminine and masculine tendencies in their children?



A monkey is going to teach their babies to like dolls and trucks?




> On average, yes, they do.
> 
> 
> To variable levels, yes.



So on average, shouldn't they behave differently as well?




> Uhuh, for reasons I've already explained. Social conditioning and environmental influence.



I don't really find those reasons compelling.  I don't think the research supports it.  I think that if the differences were cultural, the evidence to support that statement would be pretty plain.  I mean, you're arguing against a lot of facts instead of with them.  Wouldn't it be fairly easy to find children who were raised differently and show they that they behave differently along these gender lines as well?  But I've never seen anyone make those kinds of claims.




> Freedom does not equal an absence of societal influence. It just means that societal influence will come in more subtle ways than flat out propaganda.



Sure.  But that doesn't explain why the differences would increase.  And when paired with other evidence, media as an explanation doesn't really pan out.  Men and women behave more differently in the US than in Egypt because of the toys their parents make them play with?  That doesn't make sense when compared with the other immense societal differences between those countries.

Surely being forced to wear a veil would produce a bigger difference than playing with a Barbie doll?


----------



## Devor (Apr 9, 2015)

Ireth said:


> Jumping on the anecdote bandwagon here... I have a four-year-old brother who absolutely adores cars, trucks and tractors. He has more toys with motors and wheels than I can count. At the same time, he has a baby doll that he carries around with him, often to daycare and when we go out shopping, and he loves getting his nails painted -- both fingernails and toenails -- and wearing sparkly hairspray and lip gloss. He also gets into my mom's makeup and tries to put it on himself.



The truck is a gender difference.  The rest isn't (well, depending).

Question:  Does he talk to his doll?  Girls usually do and boys usually don't.


----------



## Ireth (Apr 9, 2015)

Devor said:


> The truck is a gender difference.  The rest isn't (well, depending).
> 
> Question:  Does he talk to his doll?  Girls usually do and boys usually don't.



I don't see how the makeup/nail polish is not a gender difference while a truck is. And yes, he does talk to his doll. And feeds it, burps it, puts it down for naps... the whole shebang.


----------



## Mythopoet (Apr 9, 2015)

X Equestris said:


> I can't remember where I saw it, but there was a study involving people who sought to raise their children away from gender norms.  They isolated their children from outside cultural influences.  But you know what happened when they provided their kids with toys that we would associate with the opposite gender?  Those kids were profoundly uninterested with those toys, preferring the toys of their opposite gender siblings, the toys that would normally be associated with their gender.



Given my experience with my siblings (I'm the oldest of 5 and I was 10 years old when #3 was born, I have 2 brothers and 2 sisters) and my own children (I have 5, 2 girls and 3 boys) I can easily believe this. I've never pushed my children in any particular direction, I always been happy to watch them and see what they gravitate toward and encourage their interests. I've never discouraged the boys from playing with the girly stuff in our house or the girls from playing with the boyish stuff in our house. What I've noticed is that the boys are decidedly boys and the girls are decidedly girls. 

It's not that there isn't a large amount of overlap, because there is. And they all have interests that they all share too. (For some god forsaken reason they ALL like watching stampy cat Let's Play videos on youtube for like... hours.) But the things that they most strongly identify with themselves tend to be less shared. My boys are decidedly male and my girls are decidedly female even though they are each unique individuals. 

I have a daughter who developed a deep love of all things pink and sparkly and princessy even though she was never pushed in that direction. (Indeed, I hate pink and I'm constantly telling her to be less vain and less delicate.) 

I have a son who loves nothing so much as defeating bosses in fighting games. Particularly in RPGs where he can feel like a big hero. (He practically forced his father and I to let him start playing our MMORPGs at a young age because he would watch us, fascinated, and became desperate to play himself. We didn't push him, he just naturally became attracted to them.)

Those two have always been extremely close because they're only a year apart, but they naturally developed very different personalities. When they play together it tends to end in shouting matches because, for example, Fiona is trying to build a viable settlement in Minecraft and Maedhros is setting her sheep on fire. When they play dress up together it goes back and forth between them fighting evil side by side as Power Rangers to Maedhros the knight protecting Fiona the pretty, pretty princess. 

So my experience is that boys gravitate naturally to boyish things and girls gravitate naturally to girlish things, and sometimes those are the things they see as most close to their personal identity but there's also significant ground that is openly engaging to both.


----------



## Devor (Apr 9, 2015)

Ireth said:


> I don't see how the makeup/nail polish is not a gender difference while a truck is.



I mean it could be.  But dress up is usually gender neutral at that age.  And having a favorite toy that they keep with them is almost expected.  And the color-coding is at least partially a social construct.

Talking to a doll, though, is uncommon for a boy.  Boys usually have a degree of separation from their play.


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 9, 2015)

Devor said:
			
		

> A monkey is going to teach their babies to like dolls and trucks?



Of course not. But think about it, trucks as objects are mechanical, with moving parts, which can be manipulated, and thus relate to visuospatial tasks and ability. Those, even at a primitive level, I can certainly seen being instilled by primate society. And dolls are of a form that is roughly comparable to apes physiology, and thus the monkeys can interact with them in the same way female humans are encouraged to.



> So on average, shouldn't they behave differently as well?



Indeed, but as I've already stated, the differences in brain structure can be caused by environmental influence. As to hormones, they can only account for so much, and I believe that factors I've already discussed can have a much larger and overriding impact on personality.



> I don't really find those reasons compelling. I don't think the research supports it. I think that if the differences were cultural, the evidence to support that statement would be pretty plain. I mean, you're arguing against a lot of facts instead of with them. Wouldn't it be fairly easy to find children who were raised differently and show they that they behave differently along these gender lines as well? But I've never seen anyone make those kinds of claims.



As far as I know every culture today instills masculine traits in boys and feminine traits in girls. Remember this isn't just about the household, this is about whole societies and cultures, so in order to truly test this issue, one would have to have an entire culture condition its children along different gender lines, which hasn't been done, and arguably shouldn't be done due to ethical issues of instilling any kind of gender roles.



> Sure. But that doesn't explain why the differences would increase. And when paired with other evidence, media as an explanation doesn't really pan out. Men and women behave more differently in the US than in Egypt because of the toys their parents make them play with? That doesn't make sense when compared with the other immense societal differences between those countries.
> 
> Surely being forced to wear a veil would produce a bigger difference than playing with a Barbie doll?



See, again, I'm not entirely sure you're even right about this. Ive tried researching the matter, and haven't found anything to indicate a greater gender difference in Western countries. I can't really debate the reason for something I'm not even sure is true.


But I want to make what I see as a vital point. Rather, I want to pose a vital question, is it _good_ that there are differences between genders? Do you want there to be biologically-caused psychological differences coded in the X and Y chromosomes that defines a person for the rest of their life?

Me? f*ck no! I would hate for that to be true. _If_ it were true, I would still despise the division in toy stores between boy toys and girl toys. If I had children I would raise them gender-neutrally, not forcing dolls on the girl or cars on the boy, even though apparently their biology means they're just meant to play with them. I would let them be who they wanted to be.

I want to believe that men and women are the same, because society would be better if everyone believed that.


----------



## Mythopoet (Apr 9, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> I want to believe that men and women are the same, because society would be better if everyone believed that.



I disagree. As Madeleine L'Engle demonstrates in A Wrinkle in Time, "Like and equal are not the same thing". 

The problem with current discussions about gender is that they are trying to force both genders to be  "alike" or "the same" instead of actually treating them as "equal". Our society tends to think that if you can just make two things the same, that will make them equal. Unfortunately, that's not how it works, especially with human beings. 

What would really make the world a better place is if we could actually accept that two things can be unalike but equally valuable.


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 9, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> I disagree. As Madeleine L'Engle demonstrates in A Wrinkle in Time, "Like and equal are not the same thing".
> 
> The problem with current discussions about gender is that they are trying to force both genders to be  "alike" or "the same" instead of actually treating them as "equal". Our society tends to think that if you can just make two things the same, that will make them equal. Unfortunately, that's not how it works, especially with human beings.
> 
> What would really make the world a better place is if we could actually accept that two things can be unalike but equally valuable.



Ah yes, 'separate but equal'. Isn't that a tried and tested philosophy which only leads to good things.

In all seriousness, if our society defines men and women as being inherently different, it encourages and forces men and women into different roles in society. You end up forcing men to take up masculine professions and women feminine ones. You are creating gender roles! IN our society men and women should feel free to pursue whatever path they choose in life, and a philosophy of 'different but equal' does not encourage that.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 9, 2015)

The problem here, as it often is when this topic arises, is a failure to separate statistical likelihoods from the individual character.

You can point to traits, interests, or what have you that are more likely to be associated with males or females, and you can argue to what extent it is nature as opposed to nurture, but when you get down to the level of creating a character it is irrelevant. I don't think anyone would deny that among individuals, the distribution is all over the spectrum. You see males who, if you had a check list, would associate much more heavily with the traditionally female and vice versa. 

If you're creating a female character, and you're starting off with a list of preconceived ideas about what traits, interests, &c. that female character has to have _because she's female_, then you've already made a huge mistake in character creation. That's true irrespective of the nature v. nurture debate.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Apr 9, 2015)

To try to follow up on what Steerpike is saying, I've written terrorists, vigilantes, and a transgender self-proclaimed magical girl. I've written a man who thinks he's a reincarnated dragon and a girl who's attracted to her twin brother. I'm writing people who are possible, but by and large, I'm not writing people who are average. Why play the average game, then?

Edit: because I ought to at least try to respond to the OP, I'll drop My Little Pony again. I think the real solution to "How should I write my female character?" is to not just throw in one woman and have her be "the woman." The farm girl, the artsy dressmaker, and the shy veterinarian couldn't be more different, but they're each potentially characters a viewer could like and identify with.


----------



## Mythopoet (Apr 9, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> Ah yes, 'separate but equal'. Isn't that a tried and tested philosophy which only leads to good things.
> 
> In all seriousness, if our society defines men and women as being inherently different, it encourages and forces men and women into different roles in society. You end up forcing men to take up masculine professions and women feminine ones. You are creating gender roles! IN our society men and women should feel free to pursue whatever path they choose in life, and a philosophy of 'different but equal' does not encourage that.



No, the problem is an inherently human failure to actually live a worldview in which all people, no matter how different, are equal to ourselves. Philosophy only goes so far, because few people are capable of actually living it out moment to moment. We all tend to view the different and the other as naturally inferior, even if it is only subconsciously and unintentionally. If we could all live up to the beliefs we claim, the world would be a different place. But alas, humans are inherently flawed.


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 9, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> No, the problem is an inherently human failure to actually live a worldview in which all people, no matter how different, are equal to ourselves. Philosophy only goes so far, because few people are capable of actually living it out moment to moment. We all tend to view the different and the other as naturally inferior, even if it is only subconsciously and unintentionally. If we could all live up to the beliefs we claim, the world would be a different place. But alas, humans are inherently flawed.



You're right, people are different. All people are different from each other. But if we start saying that members of this group are like this and members of that group are like that, we create a situation in which people born into a certain group feel as though they can't exhibit qualities typical of the other group, because 'it's not natural'. Which is wrong. As I said earlier, people should be able to choose whatever path they want in life, regardless of race, sex, sexuality, etc.


----------



## Trick (Apr 9, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> people should be able to choose whatever path they want in life, regardless of race, sex, sexuality, etc.



I agree with this but you're basically just saying that we should have freewill and freedom. 

My only question for you, based off of reading all your posts in this thread, is: If societal influences are the reasons for the differences between men and women, which is present across all cultures (there is no culture I know of that has differences in gender roles significant enough to void this) where did those influences originate? When did someone suddenly say, "boys and girls should be treated different!" ? And how did this happen across cultures and land masses in very similar ways without any kind of contact?

Could it be that the inherent biological differences between men and women are at the root of societal norms and influences? Dads wanting their boys to play sports because they did and moms buying dolls for their daughters is what it is, but where did it all come from? If you believe in evolution then you may have to think about this a bit differently but, in all honesty, the only way these "norms" could be so widely and yet independently present is if they have a basis in fact. 

I also say: have kids, try out your theories and then talk about this again. I have probably lent to the masculinity of my boys in some ways but the honest truth is, the majority of the time, they like boy stuff just because they do. 

Backing up Steerpike's earlier post, none of this discussion actually needs to have any bearing on the OP because we are writing individuals who don't need to fit into boxes for any reason other than our own. Just write individuals and forget all the studies about gender blah blah blah. We are not social scientists publishing reports, we're fiction writers.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Apr 9, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> You're right, people are different. All people are different from each other. But if we start saying that members of this group are like this and members of that group are like that, we create a situation in which people born into a certain group feel as though they can't exhibit qualities typical of the other group, because 'it's not natural'. Which is wrong. As I said earlier, people should be able to choose whatever path they want in life, regardless of race, sex, sexuality, etc.




But I don't think anyone is saying x person is x way because they have an x chromosome instead of a y. I think it's a general statement that it is more likely to find a man acting with physical aggression than it is to find a woman doing so. At least, the way I think about it is distribution on a curve of some kind. Men skew towards aggression because they have more testosterone.

You're right though people should be able to choose. But it is good to recognize that sometimes people through choice fit squarely within societal gender roles and that's fine for them. I am not accusing you of saying it's bad BTW that is more of a comment about how if you write a stay at home mom type character people get upset with the writer, especially if you are male.


----------



## Trick (Apr 9, 2015)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> that is more of a comment about how if you write a stay at home mom type character people get upset with the writer, especially if you are male.



This is a fun one. You're right, people have a pretty negative reaction to stay-at-home moms and it disgusts me. People say *"choose, choose, choose; you're free to be who and what you want."*

A woman says, "I want to be a stay-at-home mom."

*"DON'T CHOOSE THAT! What is wrong with you? Is your husband forcing you into this demeaning role?"*

Woman says, "No, it's my choice."

*"Weirdo!"*

It does often feel that our current society wants everyone to be free to do everything EXCEPT.... As if raising children isn't an incredibly hard job. 

But I've gone off topic again. Drat.


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 9, 2015)

Trick said:
			
		

> My only question for you, based off of reading all your posts in this thread, is: If societal influences are the reasons for the differences between men and women, which is present across all cultures (there is no culture I know of that has differences in gender roles significant enough to void this) where did those influences originate? When did someone suddenly say, "boys and girls should be treated different!" ? And how did this happen across cultures and land masses in very similar ways without any kind of contact?
> 
> Could it be that the inherent biological differences between men and women are at the root of societal norms and influences? Dads wanting their boys to play sports because they did and moms buying dolls for their daughters is what it is, but where did it all come from? If you believe in evolution then you may have to think about this a bit differently but, in all honesty, the only way these "norms" could be so widely and yet independently present is if they have a basis in fact.



I would say that the root root root cause of it, going way back to when humanity's ancestors hadn't even left the African continent yet, would indeed probably be smoking of biological difference. Note, I don't argue that biology has no role to play, simply that the role of our environment is much more powerful. So I would say that in the beginning of the human race, this subtle biological tendency developed into a societal norm. Men were the hunters, and women the child-rearers, etc. When humans spread all over the world, they took this basic idea of gender roles with them. And this basic idea developed separately in all the different cultures into different but very similar attitudes to gender roles. That's how all over the world gender roles have developed, because they developed before humans even spread all over the world. That's my theory anyway.

So I do believe that some subtle differences may exist biologically, but I believe that these differences have been massively overstated, which leads to entire cultures being built around the concept of gender difference, which exacerbates the problem. While naturally there may be some statistical difference in traits between men and women, with social conditioning, you end up with a much more pronounced difference. Society isn't the root cause of gender roles, but it's the reason they've been maintained through to the modern age when hunter-gatherer instincts aren't really relevant anymore.



> I also say: have kids, try out your theories and then talk about this again. I have probably lent to the masculinity of my boys in some ways but the honest truth is, the majority of the time, they like boy stuff just because they do.



One day, maybe. But it is interesting to note that children will naturally imitate their parents, and often are more likely to imitate same sex parents. This is due to the fact that as they are the same sex, they simply see them as having more in common. But anyway, if a boy likes doing 'boy things' that's fine, so long as he hasn't been pressured into anything.



			
				Brian Scott Allen said:
			
		

> But I don't think anyone is saying x person is x way because they have an x chromosome instead of a y. I think it's a general statement that it is more likely to find a man acting with physical aggression than it is to find a woman doing so. At least, the way I think about it is distribution on a curve of some kind. Men skew towards aggression because they have more testosterone.



I know, but you have to understand that a statement as seemingly harmless as 'men are more likely to exhibit aggressive behaviour' can have a subtle effect on a young girl or boy. On its own it may not change much, but together with a whole volley of similar comments thrown at us in everyday life by our society, it can very much influence person's psychology. Boys might feel as though they're not meant to be in a 'feminine' or 'girly' occupation, because those are 'typically done by women', and vice versa with women wanting to do a 'man's job'. This is why I'm opposed to the words 'masculine' and 'feminine', because their use only serves to tell girls they can't be masculine because, well, it's called 'masculine' for a reason, and vice versa for boys.


----------



## Trick (Apr 9, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> children will naturally imitate their parents, and often are more likely to imitate same sex parents. This is due to the fact that as they are the same sex, they simply see them as having more in common.



If you can say this then you can't judge people for imposing gender roles (not that I'm saying you are, exactly). Just by being masculine myself, which is my nature regardless of it's sources, will influence my boys toward masculinity. I am not going to change or lie about who I am or how I feel just because I'm a parent. So, I will inevitably push my boys towards a gender role without any intention or specific action other than being myself. 

Therefore, it's a natural progression.


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 9, 2015)

Trick said:


> If you can say this then you can't judge people for imposing gender roles (not that I'm saying you are, exactly). Just by being masculine myself, which is my nature regardless of it's sources, will influence my boys toward masculinity. I am not going to change or lie about who I am or how I feel just because I'm a parent. So, I will inevitably push my boys towards a gender role without any intention or specific action other than being myself.
> 
> Therefore, it's a natural progression.



True, but while children will naturally imitate parents, I do think a conscious effort should be taken by parents to make sure their children don't feel pressured into anything. The boy may naturally want to play with cars because he sees the father driving a car, but if at any point he picks up a doll, let him play to his heart's content.


----------



## Trick (Apr 9, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> True, but while children will naturally imitate parents, I do think a conscious effort should be taken by parents to make sure their children don't feel pressured into anything. The boy may naturally want to play with cars because he sees the father driving a car, but if at any point he picks up a doll, let him play to his heart's content.



I'll say this much, my boys have never asked for a doll but both have toys that they pretend to feed, put down for naps and nurture in general. I have never made a point to stop that behavior... it's cute as hell to be honest  But my oldest has slowly stopped doing  it of his own accord. As far as I can tell, it just happened naturally.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 9, 2015)

Do you think it happened mostly naturally or due to a growing understanding of what society expects from boys?


----------



## Trick (Apr 9, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> Do you think it happened mostly naturally or due to a growing understanding of what society expects from boys?



Well, he's a smart kid, spoke sentences well before two years old, counted to ten shortly thereafter and he's only impressed me more every day since; but he's 3.5, so his understanding of what society expects from him is quite limited. I honestly believe he enjoyed it less and less. His "society" is his family and since we didn't discourage it or encourage something else in it's place, it leads me to believe that he just changed as part of getting a little older and being himself.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 9, 2015)

Trick said:


> Well, he's a smart kid, spoke sentences well before two years old, counted to ten shortly thereafter and he's only impressed me more every day since; but he's 3.5, so his understanding of what society expects from him is quite limited. I honestly believe he enjoyed it less and less. His "society" is his family and since we didn't discourage it or encourage something else in it's place, it leads me to believe that he just changed as part of getting a little older and being himself.



Yeah, could very well be. I was thinking of things like books or television, which children glean a lot from even when they're very young, but you obviously understand a lot more about his development than I do (my understanding being zero, since I don't know your son  ).


----------



## Trick (Apr 9, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> Yeah, could very well be. I was thinking of things like books or television, which children glean a lot from even when they're very young, but you obviously understand a lot more about his development than I do (my understanding being zero, since I don't know your son  ).



He is read to a lot, by my wife especially since she opted to be a stay-at-home mom, but by me before bed most nights. I can't say I've noticed any books at his level that really differentiate between boys and girls that much. His TV watching is pretty limited too (just movies actually, no stations) but I don't see everything he does so it could affect him. He's definitely full spectrum on gender traits in other ways but so many kids are. I don't even think people who want their kids to fulfill such-and-such traits are too intense when their kids are very little.


----------



## Guy (Apr 9, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> It's probably because writers are continually judged and criticized for their portrayals of female characters, but very rarely for portrayals of male characters , unless it's because the male character is a racial minority. Heaven help you if you try to write a female character that is a racial minority. You'd better get it absolutely perfect or the critics will tear you apart. As a society, we care far more about how female characters are portrayed and so its natural for writers to be more concerned about it.


But since that particular goal is impossible, I quit worrying about it and write the characters as I see fit. And I operate under the assumption that if I can do it then, by definition, it isn't that hard and end up baffled why others can't do it (meaning if a shmuck like me can do it, how hard can it be?)


> Personally, I think this is a terrible thing because I don't believe you can achieve true equality if you're constantly treating one sex like it's far more important. You can't balance the scales by going to the opposite extreme. You have to start treating both sexes as of equal importance right now. And also, because as you point out, it makes it seem like females are some rare creature that is mysterious and hard to pin down. It makes writers more afraid to write female characters, which will just end up leading to the same problem for a different reason: lack of female characters.


And this strikes me as particularly odd given our genre. It's fantasy, a world entirely of my creation. I can make the social and cultural norms whatever I want. You'd think fantasy writers would have the least difficulty overcoming this, yet here we are, chasing our tails yet again.


----------



## Devor (Apr 9, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> Rather, I want to pose a vital question, is it _good_ that there are differences between genders? Do you want there to be biologically-caused psychological differences coded in the X and Y chromosomes that defines a person for the rest of their life?
> 
> Me? f*ck no! I would hate for that to be true. _If_ it were true, I would still despise the division in toy stores between boy toys and girl toys. If I had children I would raise them gender-neutrally, not forcing dolls on the girl or cars on the boy, even though apparently their biology means they're just meant to play with them. I would let them be who they wanted to be.
> 
> I want to believe that men and women are the same, because society would be better if everyone believed that.



Why should it be bad?  Is it bad that some people are introverted and others are extroverted?  That some carry the past, while others focus on the future?  We self-identify with these traits or we don't, without any other indicators.  But they're still very much defined by our biological makeup.  I think you only see it as a problem because there's some outside label on gender.  But I'm not talking about labels.  I'm talking about biology.

Let me put it another way.  If we were all ponies with magical tattoos on our butts saying who we are and what we're good at, wouldn't it be naive to think we should be somebody else?

That's why I don't understand the strength of your reaction.  I get that nobody wants to be an abstraction of their gender, and that people should be seen as individuals.  Absolutely.  And I'll be the last person denying the role of choice in anything.  But is there something _wrong_ with feminine traits that we should deny that women even have them?

To me, that sounds far more oppressive and damaging, to hold this belief that every woman who behaves a little differently than a man is doing so because society conditioned them that way, because society wronged them.


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 10, 2015)

Devor said:
			
		

> Why should it be bad? Is it bad that some people are introverted and others are extroverted? That some carry the past, while others focus on the future? We self-identify with these traits or we don't, without any other indicators. But they're still very much defined by our biological makeup. I think you only see it as a problem because there's some outside label on gender. But I'm not talking about labels. I'm talking about biology.



Do you honestly believe that introversion and extroversion, or philosophical outlook, are coded into our DNA? Hell, why not make everything coded into our bloody DNA? There's got to be a gene somewhere inside me that makes me prefer cats to dogs, or love marmite. You know, there's probably a gene somewhere that makes me want to be a fantasy writer! Look, it may sound all nice and neat to say that we are nothing but fleshy robots with all our emotions and thoughts coded into our hardware at construction. But our minds are not hardware, they're software, software which gets naturally updated over time by our experiences and interaction with the world around us. The mere fact that personalities can change over time proves that our personalities are not biologically chiselled in stone. I'm not the same person I was five years ago.



> Let me put it another way. If we were all ponies with magical tattoos on our butts saying who we are and what we're good at, wouldn't it be naive to think we should be somebody else?



Wouldn't it be cruel to tell us we can't be somebody else? What if a pony came about that didn't like the tattoo it was given? What if it exhibited traits that the tattoo said it shouldn't? Why not just get rid of the tattoos and let the ponies be who the hell they want to be?



> That's why I don't understand the strength of your reaction. I get that nobody wants to be an abstraction of their gender, and that people should be seen as individuals. Absolutely. And I'll be the last person denying the role of choice in anything. But is there something wrong with feminine traits that we should deny that women even have them?
> 
> To me, that sounds far more oppressive and damaging, to hold this belief that every woman who behaves a little differently than a man is doing so because society conditioned them that way, because society wronged them.



You're right, that would be oppressive and damaging, which is precisely why I'm not arguing that point. I have never said that there's anything wrong with 'femininity' in women or 'masculinity' in men. If a woman wants to, she can be girly to her heart's content, and she can also be boyish. A boy can be boyish, but he can also be girly. Some girls are naturally girly, and some are naturally boyish, and some boys are naturally boyish, while some are naturally girly.

The problem is not with 'feminine' traits. The problem is with assuming a woman has feminine traits _because_ she is a woman. The mere presence of 'masculine' women disproves that utterly. If femininity is coded into the double XX chromosome, then all women would exhibit feminine traits. As it is, not all do, so obviously it can't just be an issue of biology.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Apr 10, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> I would still despise the division in toy stores between boy toys and girl toys. If I had children I would raise them gender-neutrally, not forcing dolls on the girl or cars on the boy, even though apparently their biology means they're just meant to play with them. I would let them be who they wanted to be.


If someday you have daughters, and they discover Disney Princesses and Disney Fairies are a thing, they will want the dolls. (And probably the videos of Tinkerbell and friends.) There are "girly" Lego sets now: Lego Friends and Lego Elves (a fantasy-themed sword-and-sorcery series). The girly Legos are more colorful than the ones I grew up with, and the Lego people are more realistic looking and have stylish hair and sometimes skirts.

These are not toys forced upon my daughters; but they are toys my daughters like.

As a writer, I think a woman can slay a dragon as well as any man can. As a martial artist, I don't take my opponent's gender into consideration. There is a difference between point-sparring and full contact, but I won't make that into a gender thing. I don't want a crooked nose, so I play for points. As a husband, I recognize distinct differences between men and women, as does my wife, and I am glad of these differences. As a father, I see my girls imagine themselves as princesses, fairies and mermaids, and it's cute. I won't feed them the line that "girls can be knights, too." I _do_ tell stories where the princesses, fairies and mermaids solve their own problems as opposed to having the (male) knight ride in and rescue the girls.

When I say "as opposed to," I'm really opposing an outdated storyteller's mentality. Many children's stories written these days have female protagonists who don't need a male hero to rescue them. I LOVE Paper Bag Princess! (Google it!)


----------



## Mythopoet (Apr 10, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> But our minds are not hardware, they're software, software which gets naturally updated over time by our experiences and interaction with the world around us. The mere fact that personalities can change over time proves that our personalities are not biologically chiselled in stone. I'm not the same person I was five years ago.



Biology is not "chiselled in stone", for one thing. Our physical selves are changing all the time. So I don't think that when people say that biology has something to do with personality, they mean that our genes determine our personality and thus that our personality is "chiselled in stone". But denying that our physical nature has a relationship with our personality is just as flawed. 

You may be a different person than you were 5 years ago, but you are certainly not an entirely different person. Personality develops over time, but it very rarely changes drastically. People have an essence that is themselves from an extremely early age. In my experience, my kids have started displaying their essence as toddler (at least, that is when I am first able to really observe it). They continue to grow and develop over that, but they are still observably themselves. 



Gryphos said:


> The problem is not with 'feminine' traits. The problem is with assuming a woman has feminine traits _because_ she is a woman. The mere presence of 'masculine' women disproves that utterly. If femininity is coded into the double XX chromosome, then all women would exhibit feminine traits. As it is, not all do, so obviously it can't just be an issue of biology.



Again, I don't think that anyone here really thinks that it is "just" an issue of biology. That is a straw man argument. The "pro-biology" people in the discussion have, to my understanding, really only been saying that biology is _*a*_ factor, not that it is the only factor. So please, stop arguing against that straw man, it doesn't really have anything to do with what people here are actually saying. 

Furthermore, no one has claimed that all women should display feminine traits. Or that all men should display masculine traits. We call "feminine traits" as such because, _in general over a large population_, they tend to show up in females far more often than men. And the opposite is true of masculine traits. This does not mean, and nor is anyone here claiming, that feminine and masculine traits only show up in females and males, respectively. This is another straw man. Nor is anyone claiming that any individual man or woman is expected to display their respective gendered traits. Again, a straw man. 

But it is undeniably human experience that "feminine" traits show up much more often in females and "masculine" traits show up much more often in males. This observation has always been true for as long as humans have existed. It is part of human nature. Again, this observation has nothing to do with individuals, only with large groups. Denying it is foolish. The only real way to deny it is to deny the existence of "masculine" or "feminine" at all. But this directly contradicts all of human experience. Nonetheless, that does seem to be what many in our society are trying to do. Abolish gender entirely and make men and women the same. I oppose this. I think the world would be a far worse place without the feminine and the masculine.


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 10, 2015)

Mythopoet said:
			
		

> Biology is not "chiselled in stone", for one thing. Our physical selves are changing all the time. So I don't think that when people say that biology has something to do with personality, they mean that our genes determine our personality and thus that our personality is "chiselled in stone". But denying that our physical nature has a relationship with our personality is just as flawed.



How then is our personality affected by our physicality to any great degree?



> You may be a different person than you were 5 years ago, but you are certainly not an entirely different person. Personality develops over time, but it very rarely changes drastically.



Note the 'rarely' you use. Even if it is not common, the fact that personalities _are_ able to drastically change shows the power of environmental influence.



> People have an essence that is themselves from an extremely early age. In my experience, my kids have started displaying their essence as toddler (at least, that is when I am first able to really observe it). They continue to grow and develop over that, but they are still observably themselves.



The child stage is the time when the mind is most impressionable. Any influences had in this stage will likely persevere into adulthood, especially if environmental influences throughout the child stage remain consistent.



> Again, I don't think that anyone here really thinks that it is "just" an issue of biology. That is a straw man argument. The "pro-biology" people in the discussion have, to my understanding, really only been saying that biology is a factor, not that it is the only factor. So please, stop arguing against that straw man, it doesn't really have anything to do with what people here are actually saying.



Indeed, biology is a factor. I simply argue it's a very, very small factor. That, it appears, is where the disagreement arises.



> Furthermore, no one has claimed that all women should display feminine traits. Or that all men should display masculine traits. We call "feminine traits" as such because, in general over a large population, they tend to show up in females far more often than men. And the opposite is true of masculine traits. This does not mean, and nor is anyone here claiming, that feminine and masculine traits only show up in females and males, respectively. This is another straw man. Nor is anyone claiming that any individual man or woman is expected to display their respective gendered traits. Again, a straw man.



I have long accepted that these traits do exist in averages among the male and female populations. What I've been arguing is two fold: a) that this difference (in the modern world) has its primary roots in social conditioning, and b) there shouldn't be a difference and the difference shouldn't be considered.



> The only real way to deny it is to deny the existence of "masculine" or "feminine" at all. But this directly contradicts all of human experience. Nonetheless, that does seem to be what many in our society are trying to do. Abolish gender entirely and make men and women the same. I oppose this. I think the world would be a far worse place without the feminine and the masculine.



Why?


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 10, 2015)

Lots of great philosophizing here. Allow me to add my two cents.

I do believe that men and women are inherently different. But, as regards writing, I feel that these differences are too... intangible to be really worth focusing on for their own sake. They aren't something you can enumerate on a list or build a character around, and if you try it'll probably ring false. It's just something... intuitive. I don't build my female characters around a list of traits that I deem feminine or restrict them to certain roles because of their sex. I've got warriors and mothers, politicians and shepherds. But at the same time, I don't write them the same way I do men. Something about them just feels... different. It's an emergent quality. If I tried to write them as men it would feel off. I wouldn't say men and women are simply different because biology anymore than I would say they're different simply because socialization. The world is more complex than that. Science is an amazing tool and I value it, but it's not a panacea or a universal question-answerer. It has limits. I believe we live in a universe where not everything is quantifiable, and the essential difference between man and woman may well be one of these things.

And I do believe that men and women are inherently different, and that to deny this difference is probably not wise. You could almost describe my view on this, personality, and other things, as essentialist. Biology is a factor, and one that cannot be denied. Likewise social conditioning. But I think that beyond all that, a person simply *is* who they are. That they are created to be who they are, and that their life is best when they remain true to that essential part of themselves. And within that essential self is made the distinction between man and woman. This doesn't make one less than the other. That would be like saying night is less important than day, or that water is less important than soil. It doesn't make any sense. As for gender roles, I think they are useful and only become a problem when culture exaggerates them to extremes and makes them unnecessarily rigid. But there is nothing wrong with the principle that a man should be a father and a woman should be a mother, or even that a man should be masculine and a woman should be feminine. The only error is in what our culture defines those things to mean and how it treats people who may see things differently. The argument that we should abolish all notions of gender altogether strikes me as odd. To put this metaphorically: hammers can serve a wide range of purposes, as can blades. And both come in many different varieties. But we live in a society that says hammers may only be used to break rocks, and blades may only be used to cut grass. As a result, we lose a great many good and useful functions of both tools. But to solve that by saying that hammers should be used as blades and blades should be used as hammers indiscriminately is not a wise solution. It only creates confusion.

Gryphos asks why we should maintain differences between men and women. Why our choices should be circumscribed by what seem like arbitrary rules. But I would argue both that our choices are not circumscribed and that the rules are not arbitrary. I say our choices are not circumscribed because as humans we do have free will, even if we use it to be foolish. And I say that the rules are not arbitrary because I believe they are part of the Creator's ordered universe. Each person is given a purpose, a path to follow in life. By this I do _not_ mean that you are predestined to make a set of choices, or even that you must make a specific set of choices or else your life will turn out horribly. What I mean is that each person's life has an ordained general direction, like the placement of a thread in a tapestry, or the flow of a river. You are perfectly free to deviate from it if you choose, but if you follow it instead, your life will be better for it and your fullest potential will be realized. Now, I fully recognize that this is not scientific and that my point of view may not be very compelling to someone who isn't Christian (or Taoist, as I think they believe something similar), and even less so to someone is irreligious altogether. But it's my point of view nonetheless.


----------



## Devor (Apr 10, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> Do you honestly believe that introversion and extroversion, or philosophical outlook, are coded into our DNA?



We are genetically predisposed to many of these kinds of traits, yes.




> The mere fact that personalities can change over time proves that our personalities are not biologically chiselled in stone. I'm not the same person I was five years ago.



Sure, people change.  And our choices and our experiences will affect our biology.  But along which lines do we change?  And does it really _counter_ those genetic predispositions?  I don't really think so - I think we either build on the strengths of our genetic dispositions or we end up developing weaknesses that haunt us all our lives - but really, damned if I know.




> Wouldn't it be cruel to tell us we can't be somebody else?



Everything, everywhere, will tell you that the first step of finding happiness involves some degree of accepting who you are.  How is saying so cruel?




> The problem is not with 'feminine' traits. The problem is with assuming a woman has feminine traits _because_ she is a woman. The mere presence of 'masculine' women disproves that utterly. If femininity is coded into the double XX chromosome, then all women would exhibit feminine traits. As it is, not all do, so obviously it can't just be an issue of biology.



So if there's nothing wrong with these traits, what does it matter if they're biological or socially conditioned?  Nobody's denying that everyone is different.  We're arguing about _cause_, not _prominence_

Should we consider the exceptions to be the result of social conditioning as well?  Because then we could condition them not to be exceptions - isn't that a statement that follows your reasoning?


----------



## Feo Takahari (Apr 10, 2015)

I asked this in a PM, but I think I'll make it broader. Where is the need for this question coming from? Where are the readers who're saying "I don't like these female characters! They're not enough like women!" I mean, obviously some of the women in this thread have their own ideas, but when I look at what female critics complain about, it's generally about things like female characters being killed off to build male characters' angst. This whole thread seems sort of . . . airy-fairy, like it's completely divorced from the current arguments over how women are written.


----------



## WooHooMan (Apr 10, 2015)

I've heard it said that the great thing about sci-fi is that it allows people to explore their possible future.  I propose that the great thing about fantasy is that we can explore who we are now or in the past.

If you believe that gender differences are the result of biology, you could create a race of elves who are all feminine or a race of dwarves who are all masculine or a race of gender-neutral gnomes, whatever.
If you believe that gender differences are the result of culture, you can create a culture that would breed different gender norms.
And that ends up being the framework of a story/character.

This whole discussion is worth having here because it's the kind of talk that gets writers thinking.  And that leads to stories being made.
Who cares about critics and their gender politics?


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 10, 2015)

Mindfire said:
			
		

> As for gender roles, I think they are useful and only become a problem when culture exaggerates them to extremes and makes them unnecessarily rigid.



Gender roles of any kind are restrictive by definition, and when enforced by law, oppressive. Are you suggesting that gender roles should be enforced by law? If yes, then there's no hope for you. If no, then what's the point?



			
				Devor said:
			
		

> We are genetically predisposed to many of these kinds of traits, yes.



Well, there's not much more to say here but that I disagree.



> Sure, people change. And our choices and our experiences will affect our biology. But along which lines do we change? And does it really counter those genetic predispositions? I don't really think so - I think we either build on the strengths of our genetic dispositions or we end up developing weaknesses that haunt us all our lives - but really, damned if I know.



Along which lines do we change? Any. Some changes are difficult, and some almost impossible to bring about due to how deeply ingrained a state is into our psyche, but everything _can_ change.



> Everything, everywhere, will tell you that the first step of finding happiness involves some degree of accepting who you are. How is saying so cruel?



Because it's limiting. Instead of telling people "you are who you are, and there's nothing you can do about it, so try to accept it", why not say "you can be whoever you want, if it will make you happy"? The person you're telling it to might not feel the need to change. They may already be fine with 'who they are'. In which case, great! They may also want to become something that isn't 'them' and so will end up enjoying their life much more. In which case, great! Everybody wins, see?



> So if there's nothing wrong with these traits, what does it matter if they're biological or socially conditioned? Nobody's denying that everyone is different. We're arguing about cause, not prominence
> 
> Should we consider the exceptions to be the result of social conditioning as well? Because then we could condition them not to be exceptions - isn't that a statement that follows your reasoning?



We _shouldn't_ be conditioning people to be anything, that's my entire point. We shouldn't pressure people into trying to fit into boxes, and let them develop into the people they choose. This we must be agreed on, at least. And, what one must consider is the possibility that even acknowledging these boxes' existence is enough to pressure impressionable minds into them (note: no, there is nothing inherently wrong with being in a box — the problem is that people are forced into them, and many may people may have ended up in a box when they wouldn't have under non-conditioned circumstances). The existence of these boxes is what leads to sexism ("What's this woman doing as CEO? Women are naturally more suited to child-rearing and so should stay at home with the kids."). These boxes do more harm than good, and we would lose nothing by ignoring them.


----------



## Devor (Apr 10, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> And, what one must consider is the possibility that even acknowledging these boxes' existence is enough to pressure impressionable minds into them . . .



For the most part, I'm pretty sure you're arguing against the science.  But just how malleable do you think people are, Gryphos?

I mean, I don't normally like to do this, but this once I'll break my rule:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDlSWcx--Pk

^ Most of the _science_ looks like this.  The older you get, the more you become the "you" that you were always going to be.

Because biology.


----------



## X Equestris (Apr 10, 2015)

Conditioning occurs whether we want it to or not.  It's not always societal.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 10, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> Gender roles of any kind are restrictive by definition, and when enforced by law, oppressive. Are you suggesting that gender roles should be enforced by law? If yes, then there's no hope for you. If no, then what's the point?



Lol what? That is the most ridiculous strawman I have ever seen. I'm not even sure how to engage with it because its relationship to anything I said is tangential at best. Superman would look at this statement and say, "Forget tall buildings, now _that's_ one heck of a leap!"


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 10, 2015)

Devor said:


> For the most part, I'm pretty sure you're arguing against the science.  But just how malleable do you think people are, Gryphos?



Very. Just ask the Nazi education system.



> I mean, I don't normally like to do this, but this once I'll break my rule:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDlSWcx--Pk
> 
> ...



That video has very little to do with what we're discussing. It's message is that parenting books don't mean shit and that if you're a parent who cares about raising a child, you're going to do a good job. *shrug* Sure. I don't disagree. It's already established that children will often imitate qualities of their parent, so a parent who's a good person will be statistically more likely to raise a kid who will grow into a good person.


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 10, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> Lol what? That is the most ridiculous strawman I have ever seen. I'm not even sure how to engage with it because its relationship to anything I said is tangential at best. Superman would look at this statement and say, "Forget tall buildings, now _that's_ one heck of a leap!"




You said that gender roles are 'useful'. Do you believe that they should be enforced by law?


----------



## WooHooMan (Apr 10, 2015)

Hey Mindfire, Gryphos, take it easy.  We're having a pretty good discussion on gender so far.  Don't do none of that "you're hopless. Lol wut" crap.  You two are better than that.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 10, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> Because it's limiting. Instead of telling people "you are who you are, and there's nothing you can do about it, so try to accept it", why not say "you can be whoever you want, if it will make you happy"?


Well, um, because it's not really true. We like to say "you can be whoever you want to be", because it sounds nice. But if you really think about it, it doesn't make any sense. You can change your circumstances, you can even change your attitudes, beliefs, and opinions to a certain extent, you can aspire and achieve, but at the end of it all, you're still you and I'm still me. That's the raw material, the starting point we're all given to work with. And if you want to make positive changes in life, it helps to understand that.




Gryphos said:


> We _shouldn't_ be conditioning people to be anything, that's my entire point. We shouldn't pressure people into trying to fit into boxes, and let them develop into the people they choose. This we must be agreed on, at least. And, what one must consider is the possibility that even acknowledging these boxes' existence is enough to pressure impressionable minds into them (note: no, there is nothing inherently wrong with being in a box – the problem is that people are forced into them, and many may people may have ended up in a box when they wouldn't have under non-conditioned circumstances). The existence of these boxes is what leads to sexism ("What's this woman doing as CEO? Women are naturally more suited to child-rearing and so should stay at home with the kids."). These boxes do more harm than good, and we would lose nothing by ignoring them.


That's all fine and dandy if we were all living in some kind of perfect abstraction. But the fact is, humans are social creatures. People _will_ be conditioned, for good or ill, just by the fact of being around other people. Heck, just by the fact of existing. People who say "don't condition children" sound so strange to me. Because by the very act of attempting not to condition a child, _you are conditioning the child_. That's how humans learn everything, and it's inevitable. But the fact that a belief is partially conditioned does not make it any less valid. Our own decisions have as much, or more, say in our lives than boogeyman social forces. Unless you believe in some form of determinism.


----------



## X Equestris (Apr 10, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> You said that gender roles are 'useful'. Do you believe that they should be enforced by law?



What he said, in the part that you quoted earlier, was that they became an issue when they were too rigid.  I think being enforced by law qualifies as "too rigid".


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 10, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> You said that gender roles are 'useful'. Do you believe that they should be enforced by law?



I also believe religion is useful. And I believe that Christianity is more than just useful, it's true. Will you next accuse me of wishing to establish a theocracy?


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 10, 2015)

WooHooMan said:


> Hey Mindfire, Gryphos, take it easy.  We're having a pretty good discussion on gender so far.  Don't do none of that "you're hopless. Lol wut" crap.  You two are better than that.



Apologies. I was overcome by astonishment.


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 10, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> I also believe religion is useful. And I believe that Christianity is more than just useful, it's true. Will you next accuse me of wishing to establish a theocracy?



I didn't accuse you of anything. I asked. So what do you mean exactly by gender roles being 'useful'?


----------



## X Equestris (Apr 10, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> I didn't accuse you of anything. I asked. So what do you mean exactly by gender roles being 'useful'?



If the idea had no practical use, would it have come into existence in the first place?


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 10, 2015)

Mindfire said:
			
		

> Well, um, because it's not really true. We like to say "you can be whoever you want to be", because it sounds nice. But if you really think about it, it doesn't make any sense. You can change your circumstances, you can even change your attitudes, beliefs, and opinions to a certain extent, you can aspire and achieve, but at the end of it all, you're still you and I'm still me. That's the raw material, the starting point we're all given to work with. And if you want to make positive changes in life, it helps to understand that.



But what I'm trying to say is 'who we are' is changeable. You _are_ your circumstances, your attitudes, your beliefs, and your opinions. And all of those can change. And that's amazing!


----------



## X Equestris (Apr 10, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> But what I'm trying to say is 'who we are' is changeable. You _are_ your circumstances, your attitudes, your beliefs, and your opinions. And all of those can change. And that's amazing!



And not every change is possible.  There are physical limitations on what a human can do, for example.


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 10, 2015)

X Equestris said:


> And not every change is possible.  There are physical limitations on what a human can do, for example.



Hey, you never know, the way technology and bio-engineering is going.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 10, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> I didn't accuse you of anything. I asked. So what do you mean exactly by gender roles being 'useful'?



Remember all that stuff I said about an ordered universe and ordained life-paths? Basically that. We're talking about intangibles here, but an adequate articulation of the abstract truth might be that gender roles are, in their purest form, an emergent expression of the Creator's order and as such can be useful in helping someone find their path in life. Concrete example: If I wonder what I ought to be as a man, I might look to my father, who has embodied manhood for me throughout my entire life. I recognize our differences in personality and preference, but his example is still helpful in guiding me towards the principle of masculinity.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 10, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> Hey, you never know, the way technology and bio-engineering is going.



Transhumanism kind of makes me sick to my stomach, actually. Not a fan. Even tattoos and cosmetic surgery make me cringe.


----------



## X Equestris (Apr 10, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> Hey, you never know, the way technology and bio-engineering is going.



But even if such technological advancements come to pass, there will still be limits.  They'll just be in a different place.  And then you add the extra hurdle of how someone on the low end of society can acquire them.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 10, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> But what I'm trying to say is 'who we are' is changeable. You _are_ your circumstances, your attitudes, your beliefs, and your opinions. And all of those can change. And that's amazing!



I would not agree. Because I believe in an intangible spark that both encompasses and transcends all of these. A sort of essential personal quality we're gifted with when we enter this life. It can be strengthened or weakened, but not really changed. Like I said, it's that starting point, the core from which everything else extends. You might call it the soul.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Apr 10, 2015)

Gryphos et al.,

I think there are certain cores of personality that are inalterable at a basic level. Somethings are just hardwired into your system. My son was a day old, in the NICU for breathing his own poop in the womb, and strapped to an IV and on a nasal breathing thingy. (I don't know the name because medical science confuses me.) That was when he heard his mom's voice for the first time. He tried to turn his head to see her. Day 2 he kept his eyes open all day, staring at mom and me. This pattern continued throughout his hospital stay. He stayed up all day and fought taking naps like the plague. Fast forward to now, he's the _exact same_. Hates nap time, wants to stay awake and is involved in everything. He hates, hates, hates not being a part of the action. We'll see how this changes, but I doubt it will. He was born that way. No conditioning in the hospital after a day. The degree to which he is like this might change, but at his core, he's a curious, stubborn, little stinker.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 10, 2015)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> Gryphos et al.,
> 
> I think there are certain cores of personality that are inalterable at a basic level. Somethings are just hardwired into your system. My son was a day old, in the NICU for breathing his own poop in the womb, and strapped to an IV and on a nasal breathing thingy. (I don't know the name because medical science confuses me.) That was when he heard his mom's voice for the first time. He tried to turn his head to see her. Day 2 he kept his eyes open all day, staring at mom and me. This pattern continued throughout his hospital stay. He stayed up all day and fought taking naps like the plague. Fast forward to now, he's the _exact same_. Hates nap time, wants to stay awake and is involved in everything. He hates, hates, hates not being a part of the action. We'll see how this changes, but I doubt it will. He was born that way. No conditioning in the hospital after a day. The degree to which he is like this might change, but at his core, he's a curious, stubborn, little stinker.



An excellent example. I'd go so far as to say that even if this trait of your son's wasn't indelible, trying to change it wouldn't be a wise idea.


----------



## Trick (Apr 10, 2015)

My son Emery tore a hole in his lung the first time he cried, which apparently is somewhat common but his was larger normal and they kept him in the NICU for a week. It was a hard time but he healed up and is healthy. The point of this story is that while in the NICU, they took every precaution possible to keep him from crying or moving, to avoid surgery. He was medically sleeping most of that time. The day we brought him home, we laid out a blanket and laid him on it on the floor. He immediately began to move and spun his body 360 degrees and then kept going, pushing with his feet and pulling with his hands. At a week old, this kind of movement is nuts but that's just Emery. He'll be 2 in six days and he has never stopped moving. He got genetics from my wife's side when it comes to his build and he is short for his age but he is stronger than is 3.5 year old brother who is almost a foot taller than him. This is just who he is and he wasn't conditioned while he was asleep for a week. His grandpa is exactly the same way: Short, strong and always moving. Their personalities are even similar - and they were before they ever spent time together.


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 10, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> Remember all that stuff I said about an ordered universe and ordained life-paths? Basically that. We're talking about intangibles here, but an adequate articulation of the abstract truth might be that gender roles are, in their purest form, an emergent expression of the Creator's order and as such can be useful in helping someone find their path in life. Concrete example: If I wonder what I ought to be as a man, I might look to my father, who has embodied manhood for me throughout my entire life. I recognize our differences in personality and preference, but his example is still helpful in guiding me towards the principle of masculinity.



I see. Thank you for clarifying. I disagree with the concept you describe, but I can't really argue with it as this goes into the realm of pure subjectivity. I still don't believe the concepts of 'masculinity' and 'femininity' actually exist and are largely social constructs.



> Transhumanism kind of makes me sick to my stomach, actually. Not a fan. Even tattoos and cosmetic surgery make me cringe.



That's a shame. Personally, I find the endless possibilities of how humanity can improve itself (given sufficient technology) fantastic. And I think tattoos can be pretty cool.



			
				X Equestris said:
			
		

> But even if such technological advancements come to pass, there will still be limits. They'll just be in a different place. And then you add the extra hurdle of how someone on the low end of society can acquire them.



And eventually those limits may well be overcome. You're right, true limitlessness is probably impossible, but even if humanity never becomes truly limitless, there will be a shitload less limits then there were previously. As to the issue of social class, that's a whole different topic for another thread, but one I do happen to have a lot to say about.



			
				Mindfire said:
			
		

> I would not agree. Because I believe in an intangible spark that both encompasses and transcends all of these. A sort of essential personal quality we're gifted with when we enter this life. It can be strengthened or weakened, but not really changed. Like I said, it's that starting point, the core from which everything else extends. You might call it the soul.



Again, here we arrive at an area of pure subjectivity. See, I don't believe in this spark you describe. I take an approach and view that the 'soul' doesn't exist as its own property or force. Rather, if there is a 'soul', I would describe it as the essence of ourselves. By this I mean our personality, the way each and every one of us is different from everyone else in countless, incomprehensible ways. The way I think, the way I act, my opinions, my views, the memories locked away in my head, _that_, all together, _is_ my soul.



			
				Brian Scott Allen said:
			
		

> I think there are certain cores of personality that are inalterable at a basic level. Somethings are just hardwired into your system. My son was a day old, in the NICU for breathing his own poop in the womb, and strapped to an IV and on a nasal breathing thingy. (I don't know the name because medical science confuses me.) That was when he heard his mom's voice for the first time. He tried to turn his head to see her. Day 2 he kept his eyes open all day, staring at mom and me. This pattern continued throughout his hospital stay. He stayed up all day and fought taking naps like the plague. Fast forward to now, he's the exact same. Hates nap time, wants to stay awake and is involved in everything. He hates, hates, hates not being a part of the action. We'll see how this changes, but I doubt it will. He was born that way. No conditioning in the hospital after a day. The degree to which he is like this might change, but at his core, he's a curious, stubborn, little stinker.



The earlier the experience, the more it affects someone. Some things are extremely difficult to change, to the point that it's veritably impossible.

A note: When I say everything can change, I'm not saying everything is easy to change. Deeply ingrained instincts and personality traits will be nigh impossible to remove or alter. I'm just saying that there is physically the capability and potential for change, however tiny, in every aspect of our personalities.



			
				Trick said:
			
		

> My son Emery tore a hole in his lung the first time he cried, which apparently is somewhat common but his was larger normal and they kept him in the NICU for a week. It was a hard time but he healed up and is healthy. The point of this story is that while in the NICU, they took every precaution possible to keep him from crying or moving, to avoid surgery. He was medically sleeping most of that time. The day we brought him home, we laid out a blanket and laid him on it on the floor. He immediately began to move and spun his body 360 degrees and then kept going, pushing with his feet and pulling with his hands. At a week old, this kind of movement is nuts but that's just Emery. He'll be 2 in six days and he has never stopped moving. He got genetics from my wife's side when it comes to his build and he is short for his age but he is stronger than is 3.5 year old brother who is almost a foot taller than him. This is just who he is and he wasn't conditioned while he was asleep for a week. His grandpa is exactly the same way: Short, strong and always moving. Their personalities are even similar - and they were before they ever spent time together.



Very interesting. I would say that since he was asleep for his very first few days, there would be no potential for outside influences to override the innate inherited traits.


----------



## Devor (Apr 10, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> That video has very little to do with what we're discussing.



I deserve that - I posted the wrong video.  The kids were noisy so I couldn't hear to check it.  The longer version went into the research on twins who are separated at birth, which is where their conclusions on parenting come from.  Among other things, they find that when social conditioning "lets up," which it does as you get older, people revert to themselves - the person determined in large part by their biology.




Brian Scott Allen said:


> He was born that way. No conditioning in the hospital after a day. The degree to which he is like this might change, but at his core, he's a curious, stubborn, little stinker.



I've got three boys and all three have very different behaviors which go all the way back to the day they were born.  My oldest was a happy little guy who kicked off the swaddling blankets and was giddy about everything.  My second was a scared little guy who screamed at the slightest provocation.  And my third son, who spent two weeks in the NICU, watches quietly and takes it all in.  Social conditioning didn't create these traits.  And in the case of my middle son, social conditioning hasn't fixed it.  :furious:


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 10, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> I see. Thank you for clarifying. I disagree with the concept you describe, but I can't really argue with it as this goes into the realm of pure subjectivity. I still don't believe the concepts of 'masculinity' and 'femininity' actually exist and are largely social constructs.


As I said, not particularly convincing if you aren't Christian. Even less so if you're not religious at all.



Gryphos said:


> That's a shame. Personally, I find the endless possibilities of how humanity can improve itself (given sufficient technology) fantastic. And I think tattoos can be pretty cool.


My issue with tattoos and cosmetic surgery, beyond the childish icky-factor, is that it is more or less irreversible. If you screw it up or have second thoughts, you're stuck with it for life. That's horrifying. As for the rest, I would ask at what point does this "improvement" go so far that we cease to be human? But that's more a question for sci-fi than fantasy.



Gryphos said:


> Again, here we arrive at an area of pure subjectivity. See, I don't believe in this spark you describe. I take an approach and view that the 'soul' doesn't exist as its own property or force. Rather, if there is a 'soul', I would describe it as the essence of ourselves. By this I mean our personality, the way each and every one of us is different from everyone else in countless, incomprehensible ways. The way I think, the way I act, my opinions, my views, the memories locked away in my head, _that_, all together, _is_ my soul.


I think our beliefs are the inverse of each other. While you might view the "the soul", or "the heart" as scripture often calls it, as a sort of construct made up of all the things you described (if you believed in it), I would instead describe it as the center from which all those other things are the outflow.


----------



## WooHooMan (Apr 10, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> I still don't believe the concepts of 'masculinity' and 'femininity' actually exist and are largely social constructs.



But they do actually exist, otherwise we wouldn't be affected by them.  Just because they are or could be a social norm rather than a biological factor doesn't mean "fixing" them is as easy as ignoring them or denying they ever existed in the first place.
I think you mean to say that you don't believe that masculinity/femininity exist in nature or you believe they aren't inherent traits to people.



Gryphos said:


> I see. Thank you for clarifying. I disagree with the concept you describe, but I can't really argue with it as this goes into the realm of pure subjectivity. I still don't believe the concepts of 'masculinity' and 'femininity' actually exist and are largely social constructs.



Personally, I don't care for transhumanism but for a different reason than Mindfire.  I find a lot of transhumanist are misanthropes who enjoy the fantasy of humanity being fundamentally changed on both a social and biological level.  Of course, this isn't to say that misanthropy is the sole appeal of transhumanism or that all tranhumanists are misanthropes, that's just the exposure I've gotten.  In the same way that your experience with gender norms have led you to believe that gender is a social construct with a negligible biological basis when it could potentially be the other way around.

Generally, I tend to be very pro-humanism - I love humanity - so saying you want to change humanity doesn't really sit well with me even though I see the potential good.  My humanist philosophy has also led me to believe that the gender norms of masculinity and femininity can be equally good and probably shouldn't be done away with completely.  Key words being "believe", "can be" and "probably".


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 10, 2015)

WooHooMan said:
			
		

> But they do actually exist, otherwise we wouldn't be affected by them. Just because they are or could be a social norm rather than a biological factor doesn't mean "fixing" them is as easy as ignoring them or denying they ever existed in the first place.
> I think you mean to say that you don't believe that masculinity/femininity exist in nature or you believe they aren't inherent traits to people.



I mean to say that what people label as masculine and feminine are a collection of individual traits all under the same umbrella term. The actual _things_ masculinity and femininity don't exist, only the traits they encompass actually exist, if you see what I mean.



> Personally, I don't care for transhumanism but for a different reason than Mindfire. I find a lot of transhumanist are misanthropes who enjoy the fantasy of humanity being fundamentally changed on both a social and biological level. Of course, this isn't to say that misanthropy is the sole appeal of transhumanism or that all tranhumanists are misanthropes, that's just the exposure I've gotten. In the same way that your experience with gender norms have led you to believe that gender is a social construct with a negligible biological basis when it could potentially be the other way around.
> 
> Generally, I tend to be very pro-humanism - I love humanity - so saying you want to change humanity doesn't really sit well with me even though I see the potential good. My humanist philosophy has also led me to believe that the gender norms of masculinity and femininity can be equally good and probably shouldn't be done away with completely. Key words being "believe", "can be" and "probably".



I love humanity. I think it's fan-tucking-fastic, but that doesn't mean I want it to stay the way it is forever. Think of it like a computer. I love my computer. It's pretty sweet. But if the opportunity came about to upgrade it to an even better computer, I'm not gonna hesitate.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 10, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> I love humanity. I think it's fan-tucking-fastic, but that doesn't mean I want it to stay the way it is forever. Think of it like a computer. I love my computer. It's pretty sweet. But if the opportunity came about to upgrade it to an even better computer, I'm not gonna hesitate.



For reasons I cannot adequately express, I find this simile disturbing. 

Also, on a tangential note, I'd suggest reading CS Lewis's Space Trilogy. As good a fiction for expressing my side of this issue as can be found.


----------



## WooHooMan (Apr 10, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> I mean to say that what people label as masculine and feminine are a collection of individual traits all under the same umbrella term. The actual _things_ masculinity and femininity don't exist, only the traits they encompass actually exist, if you see what I mean.



I don't think I see what you mean.
Just because something is conceptual, that doesn't mean it's non-existent.

If I'm understanding your logic right, I could say that "words" don't exist.  They're just a bunch of sounds and symbols that we, as a society, have given meaning to.
I could say that science isn't a "thing", it's an umbrella term for many academic disciplines like biology, physics, geology and so forth.

I'm not trying to defend the social norms; I'm just saying that pretending they aren't real or have no basis at all isn't the best way to fix them.



Gryphos said:


> I love humanity. I think it's fan-tucking-fastic, but that doesn't mean I want it to stay the way it is forever. Think of it like a computer. I love my computer. It's pretty sweet. But if the opportunity came about to upgrade it to an even better computer, I'm not gonna hesitate.



I said specifically that misanthropy isn't a trait of transhumanists.  I'm certainly not implying that you're a misanthrope if that's how you're reading this.
I'm just saying that the exposure I have had to transhumanism have also included misanthropy (which I'm deeply against) which has led to me having an unjustly negative perception of transhumanism.

I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong in our assessments of transhumanism.  I'm saying our experience with the concepts of transhumanism (and gender) have shaped our perceptions.
Everyone has different views so, y'know, whatever.  Live and let live.


----------



## ascanius (Apr 10, 2015)

Wow, I just wanted to see other peoples examples of well done female characters, thought it would be interesting.  However I cannot say this conversation hasn't been interesting from the peeks I managed to steal at work.

Well, I'm sure everyone knows my thoughts but I figure I'll clarify.  First I think social conditioning and biology contribute equally but not in by creating so called traits or interests.  The types of toys, colors, or job someone likes seem more like interests and I think that is very much social.  With regards to behavior and biology, biology has a subtle influence that works behind the scenes.  For example men and women have different densities in two types of neural pathways in the brain.  Men have much higher densities of pathways in each hemisphere than of the brain than females.  Females have greater densities of pathways between hemispheres than that of the male brain.  What this means is males have a lot more resources dedicated to a task that involves that hemisphere than does a female.   Females have more resources to connect each hemisphere meaning they have more resources dedicated to linking tasks our thought processes from two hemephers together.  I think biology plays a major role in how we percieve and process the world around us but I think it is social influence that helps shape our opinions and beilefes about that information.  A computer analogy would be males having an overclocked GPU while females have and overclocked multicore processors, or the difference between a Minix os and linux os. 

As to the whole transhuminism, I think it is a horrible idea.  Last I heard there was a push by the scientific community to impose a moritorium on genetic engeneering humans, which is possible.  There are so many problems with this idea that is unsettling that people would try.  Already we are having unintended consequences of things we thought were good.  Antibiotics for one and antibiotic resistant drugs, like MERSA and TB, or look at genetic engeneered crops that the problems they are having with resistent pests.  DNA is much much more complicated in animals, plants are very very versitle, even right now we could change DNA for a trait the problem is we don't know how it will affect everything else, you need to know what an intron extron are to really understand what I'm getting at. I does sound like a cool idea but we simply don't know if a year, 50 years, or 100 yars  later what the consequences are. 

Thanks for those who mentioned female characters, I'm going to look them up when I have time.  I'm noticing that I may have been too quick to write off Buffy.


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 10, 2015)

ascanius said:
			
		

> Thanks for those who mentioned female characters, I'm going to look them up when I have time. I'm noticing that I may have been too quick to write off Buffy.



Whoa, whoa, whoa! – hold the goddamn phone... You don't like Buffy?


----------



## ascanius (Apr 10, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> Whoa, whoa, whoa! – hold the goddamn phone... You don't like Buffy?



Umm..... the last time I watched it no, not at all, though I may have to try it out again.  It was years ago that I last tried to watch it, so who knows.


----------



## Devor (Apr 10, 2015)

Hey, after a lot of thought I've decided that I have to agree with Gryphos . . . 

I mean, what the hell ascanius?  Buffy's awesome.  Get past season 1 and you'll be hooked.


----------

