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

[Gryphos]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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

 

[Mindfire]

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]

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

^ 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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.