a reply to: InTheLight
I just don't share the view that sex typing is the explanation for our differences as individuals, and the sort of way we process information.
Like I said, my mother tried very hard to "sex type" me with the opposing gender, she also did not allow me to watch many tv shows (like I love Lucy,
I Dream of Jeannie, etc.) which were sexist, I was not allowed any religious education, and in school I spent most of my time alone outside sitting
against a tree because the rest of the class was mexican and needed the first few years dedicated to learning english (and I didn't). So I was largely
cut off from much of the typical sex typing that can come from the culture at that time.
And yet... I still turned out to have a mind which works in ways that are now recognized as typically feminine! I focus on relation instead of object;
I will do just about anything to avoid conflict or violence; I will tend to maternize instead of paternize; I group ideas together associating them
horizontally, instead of vertically, in measures of value (hierarchy). I am better with language than numbers.
Perhaps that is just me (but at least you can understand why I have this view that much of our differences might be nature and not nurture).
I don't have a problem with genders being distinguished from one another. I do not have a problem with a child witnessing one parent manifesting
typically masculine traits and the other typically feminine ones (no matter what they actual gender be) As long as one is doing one, and the other the
other. < that looks like a clumsy use of words, but is quite deliberate.
Simone de Beauvoir pointed out the associations traditionally made, of the woman as "other", or "not self" (Freud explained how this forms- for most
infants, their first discover of separation, of an 'other' is their mother).
She took that as an obvious "inferior" or "second" position.
For me, that just shows how her thinking was a product of her paternalistic society- one which proclaims "ME first". The Self is most highly valued.
A child watches these two care takers interact and learns about how self and other can interact, solve differences, and cooperate.
This begins a whole internal play between their own feminine and masculine sides. They come together in the child.
I can appreciate the concept that, it might be better to show the whole enchilada already made - androgynous types of individuals. Maybe. But that is
a very high goal- humans have to become.... extremely evolved, spiritually, I guess.
I think it is very hard to illustrate in action what it means to be "other" or "self" at the same time- it is a lesson in how to weave opposites
together to make a design, not just work with gray all the time.
Sometimes you gotta be egotistical and put up the barriers, and sometimes you gotta tear 'em down and empathize with others. And sometimes put them
only half way up. But the hardest moments to really master are those extremes, so it is useful to have a role model to study which goes to the
extreme- How to be aggressive and fight, or be compassionate, conscientiously.
edit on 12-8-2014 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)