Minor things that make me irrationally angry

[ElJay]

Rakeesh, of course, on all counts.

[SteveRogers]

In my personal experience, I've never understood the sports-related, gender-based insults.  I've known plenty of women who are very skilled at sports (one of my good friends in high school broke many many many track records originally set by men); conversely, I've known plenty of men, myself included, who are just absolute trash in terms of athletics.

I imagine the stereotype is an older one, but it definitely isn't current.  Hopefully, it's decreased relevance will prevent it from continuing to exist farther down the road.

[TomDavidson]

Well, heck, Jeff explained most of what I was about to explain to you. Here's the rest:

By having "poker" and "girl poker," you create two classes of poker. One is the default, and one is the variation. You prefer the default; the variation is a less-favored form.

When you identified the differences between "poker" and "girl poker," you noted that "girl poker" is gigglier, less serious, in your experience generally played by women (which challenges to some extent your later defense of the word "girl" as just a way of denoting the youth of the demographic), and less likely to involve training and skill.

Because the descriptor on "poker" is "girl," the implication is that being gigglier, less serious, less trained, and less skillful are all properties that can be assumed of the descriptor "girl." And the active assumption of your audience is not going to be that "girl" is being used to refer to prepubescent women, here, but rather as it commonly is: to refer to women in a way that makes them seem less serious. Ergo, it will be interpreted as a synonym for "female" here, despite your observation that you did not use the word "female."

[Rakeesh]

Further, you know that's true, since your wife is still not over it. And you are just yanking our chains.

And on a different note, it's useful to me personally to refrain from insisting, when using gender-specific words or race words or nationality when those words don't actually apply to me, to avoid insisting that if I didn't intend them to be insulting or even just incorrect, then they simply aren't because I didn't consciously intend them to be (thoigh I agree, that's not quite the case here). I still remember my old Communications Boy Scout merit badge, wherein I was taught that communication wasn't just what passed my lips or left my fingers, it was also what was perceived by the recipient. And unless the word or term was especially dear to me, there was no point and no correctness in asserting ownership of it. If I don't intend offense but accidentally give it with a word, why cling to it? It's a two-way street.

This comes up at work for me pretty often, where holy shit do we mouth off to each other sometimes. One of the supervisors, he's not actually mine since my responsibility is tight and I handle the building's work in my area and answer to a district man, is black. He's a good, hardworking supervisor who keeps things running smoothly, no small skill in our business. He and I are pretty friendly, and years ago another black man was eventually fired (which takes SUCH a long time, for anyone for almost anything), and bitterly accused the supervisor of being too friendly with white employees.

He was telling me about it and it was both hysterical and baffling (thankfully, no one gave it any merit whatsoever so he was in no trouble). Laughing, I asked how long he'd been an Uncle Tom, the remark made because I knew he wouldn't take it wrong and because the actual accusation that he was was so absurd.

So anyway, when we bust each other's balls sometimes he does something which seems to favor me or another white guy, and I grin knowingly and just point to my arm, and he usually busts out laughing. Another guy, a black man has a brilliant Malcolm X impersonation. But every so often we get a redneck in there who seems delighted at racial humor for different reasons, and more than once I've said 'not cool, man, you shouldn't say that' and then when challenged asked the actual black folks on the line whether or not it was kosher. When they say yes, which isn't often, I shrug and admit I was off--base.

The point of that painfully long anecdote is that if someone takes offense to a criticism leveled at a gender or race and they actually belong to that race or gender, well, that's kind of up to them. I don't think us white dudes have a good handle on that yet, though we're getting there.

[ElJay]

Thanks for editing.

[Stone_Wolf_]

I fully admit I enjoy a good kerfluffle.  Heck, I enjoy using the word kerfluffle.

Kerfluffle.

As a phrase, "kid poker" would work just as well with out any of the controversy.

Part of the rub for me is that girl/kid poker ≠ a bad thing.  It isn't a slam.  Females in groups tend to have a lot of fun.  Ever seen a group of women at a strip club?  They feed off each other's energy, are boisterous and loud as they are enjoying a group activity.  Ever seen men at a strip club?  They look like lions on the prowl.  Quiet, focused, intent, no interactions.  The same with poker.

Yes, there needs to be a sensitivity to gender interactions, and labeling things that are incompetent as female.  I agree.  But if we take it to the point that anything that has a gender tag attached to it -only- means the worst we will miss out on some of the good differences between what -are- very different genders.

Males and females are different.  Thank god.  I fully support gay rights, but I could never marry a dude.  And I'm not just talking about the humping either.  I -like- that girls are more sensitive and softer.

Of course not all people conform to gender trends.  And that's fine.  But gender trends still exist.

[ElJay]

Part of the rub for me is that girl/kid poker ≠ a bad thing.  It isn't a slam. 

As Rakeesh so eloquently pointed out, you don't get to decide that. Three adult women immediately told you it was offensive. You have a choice of continuing to use it knowing that it's going to offend, or you can graciously accept the feedback. It is highly unlikely that you're actually going to convince anyone that this is an example of going too far in political correctness.

[Stone_Wolf_]

Thanks for editing.

Of course.  I am familiar with the rules, I just didn't think "ass" would qualify as foul language, considering it is basically calling someone a donkey.  But no big.  I save my swears for when I'm really pissed off, so that why they mean something.

[rivka]

It isn't a slam. 

Repeatedly asserting this does not make it so.

[SteveRogers]

Of course.  I am familiar with the rules, I just didn't think "ass" would qualify as foul language, considering it is basically calling someone a donkey.

*blinks*

[TomDavidson]

I -like- that girls are more sensitive and softer....Of course not all people conform to gender trends.

*sigh* It is my hope that you will look back on this someday and facepalm.

[Stone_Wolf_]

People -do- have every right to decide for themselves what is and isn't offensive.

But I do not buy that only members of the group who is mentioned get to have a voice on if something is offensive or not.  We must all choose the line we walk.

I choose to push the limits a bit.

As to convincing people...well, that is what discussion is for.  I have come to terms with the concept that sometimes I will stand alone on things that I think are universal.  And I do change my views about things...especially when it comes to what I view as a "common" or "uncommon" view.

But if you think that yall are going to change my mind about something my very own wife can not, then you are a silly person.

I will say this though.  If I am in a group of people I do not know well and do not wish to insult, I will use the phrase "kid poker" and reserve the phrase "girl poker" to those people I know and who know me well enough to chalk any offensiveness up to my personality while knowing my heart..

[Stone_Wolf_]

It isn't a slam. 

Repeatedly asserting this does not make it so.

Only if the intent of the speaker has no bearing.

[rivka]

Not nearly as much as you think it has.

[Stone_Wolf_]

I'm having trouble parsing that.  Would you mind rephrasing?

[Dro_Trebor]

It isn't a slam. 

Repeatedly asserting this does not make it so.

Only if the intent of the speaker has no bearing.

Only if there is implicit trust that the speaker is self-aware enough to speak about these touchy issues in an intentional and clear manner.

But, you know, I don't know you, so I'm going to lean toward benefit-of-the-doubt/wait-and-see. I wouldn't do that on every issue, but this just seems like it could be more about terminology than world view.

[Stone_Wolf_]

I -like- that girls are more sensitive and softer....Of course not all people conform to gender trends.

*sigh* It is my hope that you will look back on this someday and facepalm.

So, you think that as a gender females are sharper edged, more competitive, less cooperative, more likely to resolve their differences with anger and violence then men?  Or what?  I mean, I'm not insisting absolutes about all members of any gender here, just that there are propensities which are common to if a particular human has a pair of X genes or only the one.

[Stone_Wolf_]

Well, not mater what else has transpired in this section of thread, I did learn that the phrase "girl poker" is commonly offensive.  And that is a good lesson.  Thanks SakeRiver!

[Dro_Trebor]

I -like- that girls are more sensitive and softer....Of course not all people conform to gender trends.

*sigh* It is my hope that you will look back on this someday and facepalm.

So, you think that as a gender females are sharper edged, more competitive, less cooperative, more likely to resolve their differences with anger and violence then men?  Or what?  I mean, I'm not insisting absolutes about all members of any gender here, just that there are propensities which are common to if a particular human has a pair of X genes or only the one.

I think generalizations that fail to work as absolutes become a source of contention and, if you consider the audience (i.e., if you know well who you are conversing with), use of generalizations has more potential to offend than to illuminate.  There are topics which, by default, should be spoken of with as few generalizations as possible: gender, sex, politics, race, and religion would be the top of the list, I think.

And, really, all everyone seems to have been saying is "when you're in a hole, don't dig."

[SteveRogers]

I -like- that girls are more sensitive and softer....Of course not all people conform to gender trends.

*sigh* It is my hope that you will look back on this someday and facepalm.

So, you think that as a gender females are sharper edged, more competitive, less cooperative, more likely to resolve their differences with anger and violence then men?  Or what?  I mean, I'm not insisting absolutes about all members of any gender here, just that there are propensities which are common to if a particular human has a pair of X genes or only the one.

I think the issue is a lot of people are beyond trying to force these distinctions upon any gender as whole when it would be really easy to find a personal example disproving it.  [sarcasm]  People take issue with putting individuals into a stereotype group.  Weird.  [/sarcasm]

[Rakeesh]

*sigh* It is my hope that you will look back on this someday and facepalm.

This is another one of those gender-beliefs which becomes stranger the more one looks at it. Women are, for example, socially expected to bear greater insult than men without lashing out or responding in kind. It's not considered 'feminine' for instance to respond with a blow when viciously insulted, whereas with men a violent reaction would be held understandable or even appropriate. This equates to an expectation of enduring insult and attack stoically, and yet it is this very endurance which is attributed to 'softness'.

Sensitivity, too, is a funny one when you consider that white American men have been complaining (with some justice, in rare cases) of being marginalized or unjustly stereotyped by our civilization and its media in the last forty years or so. Think about that-even now in 2012, things are still going extremely well for adult white men when one examines the lot of other races and genders-but we complain we get a bad rap in television sitcoms with bumbling idiot dads. Which is perfectly true in many cases, actually, but if you're complaining about that chances are your lot is pretty good.

But it's supposedly *women* who are the more sensitive gender. Politicians, media figures, police officers, military, religious figures, the list goes on, all overwhelmingly male-and yet we still complain about sitcom portrayals of men. I'd say we're pretty damn sensitive.

I think the issue is a lot of people are beyond trying to force these distinctions upon any gender as whole when it would be really easy to find a personal example disproving it.  People take issue with putting individuals into a stereotype group.  Weird.

Crazy, amirite? In a bit of a flip of what you're saying, it's also incredibly difficult to find a personal example that *fits* the stereotype without also finding a whole hell of a lot of corresponding cultural and parental and peer pressure on them to conform when they were children.

Put another way, when girls (excuse me, females;) ) as a gender aren't raised being handed dolls and easy bake ovens and praised for playing house, when it is rare instead of ordinary for a girl to be shooed away from a game of touch football when they're still in single digits, when 'boys being boys' is no longer a phrase used towards children...when that happens, and women *still* appear to be 'softer' and 'more sensitive' and 'less competitive' when they're all grown up, *then* it might be time to start drawing conclusions of gender roles from anecdotes. Well, not really, but it would be less absurd.

I had a long discussion with my father that went nowhere about gender roles and how early childhood behavior proved it. It was considered decisive to him that when he was a child, the toy he went for was a toy truck, and girls were generally happier with a doll. He said this without ever been involving with child-rearing aside from his own family and his own childhood. He hadn't helped run a daycare or even babysat at all, ever, that I know of, much less made a scientific study of the subject. None of that carried as much weight as him picking s truck, and his sister a doll.

[Stone_Wolf_]

All things considered I am gong to abandon the phrase "girl poker".

It carries too much baggage.  Instead I am going to delineate between "serious poker" and "just for fun poker".

I'm bet my wife will be pleased.

[Shigosei]

People -do- have every right to decide for themselves what is and isn't offensive.

But I do not buy that only members of the group who is mentioned get to have a voice on if something is offensive or not.  We must all choose the line we walk.

I don't think anybody's saying that only members of a group get to have a say, but that there's a reason to put a lot more weight on their opinion.  Society is generally set up to favor majorities (or the more powerful), and members of the majority don't often realize what it's like to be in the minority. Minorities, on the other hand, are frequently reminded that they are a minority and society is less interested in meeting their needs.

Let me give an example: I'm left-handed. Since most people are right-handed, the world is built to favor them. Scissors, can openers, computer mice, those chairs with little desks you see in lecture halls -- most of the time, they're designed with righties in mind. The average lefty is going to be much more aware of this bias. If I point out something that makes things difficult, and ask for some accommodation, is the correct response for righties to say, "The world is fine the way it is! After all, we don't intend to make things hard for you"? That the right-handed majority makes life more difficult for lefties accidentally rather than purposefully doesn't mean it's okay for them to keep doing it unnecessarily once they're made aware. Likewise, if I tell you that you are helping to perpetuate stereotypes about women that make my life harder, you might want to consider that I'm more likely to have an accurate view of that than you are.

And thank you for changing your poker terminology.

[ElJay]

Cool, S_W.

[Stone_Wolf_]

I for one do believe that we are, to a certain extent, hard wired for certain gender roles.  The science is hotly debated it appears.  Is it ingrained or learned?  I say both.  But for me the big deal isn't that gender roles are real, it is that they are not moral.  Or to phrase it better, it is not immoral to defy gender roles.  It makes sense to me that females would be better suited for child rearing, while males would be better at big picture type problem solving.  Just as it makes sense that males are taller, have more muscle mass and females have double layers of fat and prominent mammary glands.  We are built for different jobs.  And recognizing that we have different proclivities does not marginalize those who choose to embody those gender roles nor those who choose to not to conform to them.

Anyone can and should do anything that makes them feel satisfied and fulfilled without being judged (talking gender roles, not murder here).  I for one am a stay at home dad.  My wife is the bread winner.  I feel no lack of manliness changing diapers, sweeping floors, making diners and folding laundry. I'm also a big, strong guy into martial arts and weapons. 

I have a soon to be three year old boy and a year and half year old girl.  The toys they play with are not divided up into "boys" and "girls" toys, and often if cold a child will get which ever blanket is closest (and cleanest) at hand regardless of color scheme.  That being said, I can tell the difference between the way the two play.  The boy is much more reckless physically, and is more likely to play with a problem solving game.  He still cuddles a stuffed animal, but less often then the girl, although almost never does he play with a doll, where as she will.

[Stone_Wolf_]

Likewise, if I tell you that you are helping to perpetuate stereotypes about women that make my life harder, you might want to consider that I'm more likely to have an accurate view of that than you are.

Absolutely one should take other people's opinions into consideration, especially when their particular view might add relevant perspective.  Where I draw the line, which I might have been reading into Rakeesh's words, is that you default to other's judgement.  In the end one must set their own standards, just as one should live to fulfill their own needs and -not- base their happiness on the acceptance of others.

[SteveRogers]

Let me give an example: I'm left-handed. Since most people are right-handed, the world is built to favor them. Scissors, can openers, computer mice, those chairs with little desks you see in lecture halls -- most of the time, they're designed with righties in mind. The average lefty is going to be much more aware of this bias. If I point out something that makes things difficult, and ask for some accommodation, is the correct response for righties to say, "The world is fine the way it is! After all, we don't intend to make things hard for you"? That the right-handed majority makes life more difficult for lefties accidentally rather than purposefully doesn't mean it's okay for them to keep doing it unnecessarily once they're made aware.

This is only vaguely related, but I have issues with a lot of right-handed things as well.  Though I am right-handed, I've long been told I "do things like a leftie," and it makes it difficult for me to use things things designed specifically for right-handed people.  I despise the desks typical in college classrooms because the way I hold my hand/arm when I write doesn't really work with the desks either.  But for different reasons (ie it isn't just that the desk is oriented in the wrong direction).  It's been an interesting yet frustrating experience a lot of the time.

[ElJay]

I think some statements like that are ok, but I don't get why you'd include men being better at big picture problem solving as one. For one, I don't think they are. I think men have traditionally made a lot of the big decisions, so a lot of people think of it as a male role. But I don't see any argument for it being an inherant difference.

[Dagonee]

Well, that's because you can't see the big picture.

[ElJay]

*thwack*

[Dagonee]

[SteveRogers]

I think some statements like that are ok, but I don't get why you'd include men being better at big picture problem solving as one. For one, I don't think they are. I think men have traditionally made a lot of the big decisions, so a lot of people think of it as a male role. But I don't see any argument for it being an inherant difference.

There's been a lot of research into this in my field, but I can't for the life of me remember much about it off the top of my head.

[Shigosei]

One problem with some stereotypes is that they might be self-perpetuating. Stereotype threat is one reason why you should be careful with stereotypes.

[Dan Frank]

I don't think we're hardwired for gender roles, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.  Cultural gender norms certainly exist, with exceptions.

Something I'm curious about: Is a negative gender stereotype offensive because it's negative, or offensive because it's a stereotype?  Or, this is my guess, both?

But that means it's still at least partly offensive solely because it's a stereotype, right?

I mean, if you said "You play weak poker," that's offensive because it's negative.  If you say "you play girl poker," and the person surmises that you think the poker they play is weak, it's presumably still offensive for this reason... but also offensive because it's a stereotype, right?  Because if Stone Wolf said "you play non-serious poker," and then someone was offended, and then he said "No, no, I don't think there's anything wrong with non-serious poker, it's cool." I suspect people would understand and accept his intent and not be insulted. "Non-serious" isn't inherently negative.

So let's unpack the phrase "girl poker" a bit.  Just taking the word at completely face value, it's also not inherently negative.  But within our cultural context it certainly is. Because our culture places less value on "girly" things most of the time.  Okay, so is it the "girly" acts themselves that are less valuable, or is it a cultural perception that anything girls like must be less valuable?  Or a little bit of each?

Well, let's look at another flavor of gender stereotypes.  Intuitive.  Sensible.  Empathetic.  Socially adept.  Mature.  Some of these are worn quite proudly by a lot of women.  But aren't they still offensive?  I mean, aren't stereotypes inherently somewhat offensive?  So why embrace any of them, even the positive ones?  From a broad standpoint, it doesn't help the case of people arguing against negative female stereotypes to turn around and embrace the positive ones... unless the reason they are fighting a specific negative stereotype is not because it's a stereotype, but because it's a false stereotype.

By false stereotype, I just mean: A stereotype which doesn't apply to a significant portion of the group being stereotyped.  Some negative stereotypes are false by this metric, but lots more aren't.  And many of the ones that are false, are false now, but weren't back when they first became popularized.  Again, I'm not saying that any of the stereotypes have ever been indicative of all of a given group.  But everyone grows up in a cultural context, and that effects who they are, and often people end up conforming to social/gender/racial roles without realizing they are doing so.

So... what are people fighting, here?  Or, what do you think (general you, anyone can answer) we should be fighting?  Stereotypes?  Negative stereotypes?  False negative stereotypes?

[Stone_Wolf_]

... I don't get why you'd include men being better at big picture problem solving...

Fair question.  Mostly I'd say it was how I was raised, ie my parents always told me that men are in general better with big picture and women better with detail oriented/emotionally oriented.  Once that is called into question, I can't say as I have an answer, other then it seemed to make sense.  I'll have to keep an open mind about that in future, perhaps my conclusions were being influenced by what I was taught.

[Dro_Trebor]

So... what are people fighting, here?  Or, what do you think (general you, anyone can answer) we should be fighting?  Stereotypes?  Negative stereotypes?  False negative stereotypes?

All of the above to some extent.  There are problems with stereotypes, more problems with negative stereotypes, and even more problems with false negative stereotypes.

But, you know what, we ALL have them. If there's one thing I think is generally true of humanity is that we all tend to think in generalizations and it takes a lot of conscious effort to break through those preconceptions and generalizations to get a more accurate understanding of the true complexity of whatever issue/subpopulation/whatever. 

And, realistically, the only way someone does that is by first caring about it.  And that leads to the second true fact--we can't care about everything.

[rivka]

Well, that's because you can't see the big picture.

Apparently men are also more likely to make obvious jokes.

[Stone_Wolf_]

There is simply too much data available with each blink of the eye to not learn through generalities.  And in and of them selves I would say there is nothing wrong with them either.  Where the rub comes is if one holds on to those generalities so tightly that they can not adapt to individuals who defy them.

People are 100% individual, which means to make any sense out of anything you have to group them mentally or simply live in a world without guidelines, which I'm not sure is possible to do and remain sane.

If I'm robbed at gun point by a group of elderly white women, and I see a group of elderly white women on the street the next day, I will likely attempt to avoid them and feel fearful, even though that particular group of elderly white women might only be out and about searching for the latest drivers for their video cards or the new album from Lady Gaga and mean me no harm what so ever.

[SteveRogers]

People are 100% individual. . .

I thought people were 70% water.

[Dagonee]

Well, that's because you can't see the big picture.

Apparently men are also more likely to make obvious jokes.

It's on the Y chromosome, and it gets worse with age. It's a little known fact that a man over 40 who doesn't ask a little kid to pull his finger at least once a year will DIE!

[Stone_Wolf_]

I thought people were 70% water.

 And invention, my dear friends, is 93% perspiration, 6% electricity, 4% evaporation, and 2% butterscotch ripple.

[SteveRogers]

Well, that's because you can't see the big picture.

Apparently men are also more likely to make obvious jokes.

It's on the Y chromosome, and it gets worse with age. It's a little known fact that a man over 40 who doesn't ask a little kid to pull his finger at least once a year will DIE!

It's true.  I read that paper just the other day.  Very solid statistics.  One of the better longitudinal correlational studies I've read.

[ElJay]

... I don't get why you'd include men being better at big picture problem solving...

Fair question.  Mostly I'd say it was how I was raised, ie my parents always told me that men are in general better with big picture and women better with detail oriented/emotionally oriented.  Once that is called into question, I can't say as I have an answer, other then it seemed to make sense.  I'll have to keep an open mind about that in future, perhaps my conclusions were being influenced by what I was taught.

Just FYI, I've never heard that as a stereotype before. So I think it probably does have a lot to do with your parents' opinions or perhaps their own strengths and weaknesses.

The only gender based stereotypes I really think are valid are ones like "Most men have more upper body strength than most women." The rest of it we just can't have any idea how much is influenced by cultural expectations; plus even if they have some basis in fact, they make life harder for the young people growing up who don't conform to their gender's expectations. And even if the stereotype is 90% accurate, that 10% is a lot of little kids who are hurt and frustrated because they don't fall into the expected patterns of behavior.

[Sparrow]

The only gender based stereotypes I really think are valid are ones like "Most men have more upper body strength than most women." The rest of it we just can't have any idea how much is influenced by cultural expectations; plus even if they have some basis in fact, they make life harder for the young people growing up who don't conform to their gender's expectations. And even if the stereotype is 90% accurate, that 10% is a lot of little kids who are hurt and frustrated because they don't fall into the expected patterns of behavior.

THIS TIMES A MILLION.

Also, I'd add that having or enforcing expected patterns of behavior based on gender can make it extra-difficult for genderqueer folks or others who don't fit into a binary notion of gender.

[Dro_Trebor]

Well, that's because you can't see the big picture.

Apparently men are also more likely to make obvious jokes.

And laugh at them too!

[Teshi]

I -like- that girls are more sensitive and softer.

Meeheeheeheehee...

Mostly I'd say it was how I was raised, ie my parents always told me that men are in general better with big picture and women better with detail oriented/emotionally oriented.  Once that is called into question, I can't say as I have an answer, other then it seemed to make sense.

"Make sense" is a far cry from even the anecdotally supported, "is what I have observed" or the socially scientific, "is what people have been surveyed say" or the scientific, "has been objectively shown to be valid". It's so general and unspecific as to be totally invalid even as an idea that simply "makes sense"-- what does "better with big picture" or "detail oriented" even mean? How can I assess myself in this manner?
 

Also, I'd add that having or enforcing expected patterns of behavior based on gender can make it extra-difficult for genderqueer folks or others who don't fit into a binary notion of gender.

Surely this covers almost everyone. I can't think of anyone who is particularly helped by having to fulfill a specific gender role. I identify as female and am content being female, but the times it has mattered have either been because of prejudice against men or women (e.g. if I am seen as more emotionally in tune than a male teacher, if I am seen as helpful to girls as a female person who is interested in science and technology, or if I am a female person filling a usually male role who experiences more difficulty because I am female). The times it has been beneficial to me to be gendered is usually because I am bucking gender trends or to the detriment of the other gender-- surely neither of those occurences is particularly desirable in a society.

On the other hand, and I suspect this applies to others here, if it wasn't for my awareness of my bucking gender trends, I suspect I might be a different person. Am I determined to not flap my hands when things go wrong technologically (even though I know very little) because it frustrates me that women are seen as being technology-shy, or is that my natural personality? 

[Dan Frank]

Well, that's because you can't see the big picture.

Apparently men are also more likely to make obvious jokes.

It's on the Y chromosome, and it gets worse with age. It's a little known fact that a man over 40 who doesn't ask a little kid to pull his finger at least once a year will DIE!

He also has to generate a steady stream of Dad Puns.  Not to be confused with regular, clever puns, Dad Puns are only the most predictable, most groan-inducing puns that everyone's heard 100 times before.

[Dan Frank]

The only gender based stereotypes I really think are valid are ones like "Most men have more upper body strength than most women." The rest of it we just can't have any idea how much is influenced by cultural expectations; plus even if they have some basis in fact, they make life harder for the young people growing up who don't conform to their gender's expectations. And even if the stereotype is 90% accurate, that 10% is a lot of little kids who are hurt and frustrated because they don't fall into the expected patterns of behavior.

THIS TIMES A MILLION.

Also, I'd add that having or enforcing expected patterns of behavior based on gender can make it extra-difficult for genderqueer folks or others who don't fit into a binary notion of gender.

I'd argue that having expected patterns of behavior based on gender is largely the cause of people who don't fit into a binary notion of gender, actually.

Edit: I've been reminding myself to strive for clarity, so let me elaborate slightly: If there were no expected gender roles, what would "gender" even mean?

[Stone_Wolf_]

The reason we use generalities is to have some grasp of the world around us, which is far too complicated and nuanced for our puny brains to grasp as a whole.  The difficulty lies in that our simplified version will not be 100% accurate, therefore we make up a story of how the world works that we can deal with, and constantly run into stuff that defies that story.  As we grow and mature, the story changes, and we are better able to apply a fluid and flexible story to the world.

I am firmly of the belief that a man should never, ever, hit a woman.  Let's be clear, that is a sexist belief.  That women are physically weaker is an accurate generality, but that women require protecting is sexist.  I'm okay with that.  If it were simply a matter of physical size, this rule would not apply to any situation where the woman was larger then the man, which happens. But the rule has no caveats.  It is true for children and adults, boys don't hit girls, men do not hit women. 

If women are exactly the same as men, just with few physical differences, this rule is silly.  If men and women are just the same then the rule should be that physically larger people shouldn't hit physically smaller people.  But it isn't.  Not that hitting of any kind is generally okay.

If every single male but one was suddenly killed, and all the women in the world were fine, by the next generation the species would be fine (maybe a slightly greater occurrence of particular genetic malformations from such a small gene pool from the father).  Heck, even if every single male died today, sperm banks would ensure the species would continue.  But the other way around?  One female or no females, and humans are done for.

Women have a special ability...the ability to nurture life with in their own bodies and bring it into the world that men can never have (no matter how many times you watch Jr. on vhs).   Is part of the belief that women are "softer" or "need protecting" a simple survival instinct?  Quite possible.

 [/random thoughts]

[Dan Frank]

I am firmly of the belief that a man should never, ever, hit a woman . . .

Since women are exactly the same as men, just with few physical differences, this rule is silly.

FTFY.