posted
I came across this link on another site and thought it was interesting enough to share with Hatrack and get some feedback on it.
It is pretty clear that men and women have different roles expected of them by society. I think these roles can generally be broken down into a more nurturing, emotional one for women, and a more unemotional, intellectual one for men.
There has been some discussion in the last few decades of how useful these sexual roles, both socially and individually, are.
I think from the standpoint of society, it makes sense to have clear roles for men and women as children to work towards, and creates a more orderly society where the needs of society are sure to be met. For instance, if society knows that men are always going to do one thing, and women another, it can allocate resources, both material and ideological, more efficiently.
On an individual level, on the one hand, it is helpful to have a clear understanding of what society expects. Like having a map of the terrain before she goes somewhere, the individual has a good idea of what to expect and can prepare accordingly.
On the other hand, there are going to be people who, for whatever reason, don't fit in with society's expectations for the sexes. If society has strong boundaries as to what men and women should or shouldn't do, these people are going to be unhappy because they don't fit in. If there are weak sex roles, these people would be more free to be productive in society.
This article, in many ways, explores a certain deviant segment of society, those people who don't fit in with general societal expectations. As the article notes, some 98% of primary school teachers are female.
The question that I have for the forum is whether society should encourage or discourage the deviancy in this article.
Before you answer, consider that the answer you advocate will be used by all of society. That is, teachers are preparing children to enter society, and are supposed to model what is appropriate.
I guess the bottom line is, does the forum think in this specific case that men being more free to express their affection for boys and girls socially is a good or bad thing? In general, should the sexual roles of society be loose and flexible, or mostly strict and inflexible?
(Please note that this post is not meant to be an authoritative, knowledgeable, or exhaustive treatment of the subject. )
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think from the standpoint of society, it makes sense to have clear roles for men and women as children to work towards, and creates a more orderly society where the needs of society are sure to be met. For instance, if society knows that men are always going to do one thing, and women another, it can allocate resources, both material and ideological, more efficiently.
posted
Wow. I thought I had kind of written a fairly non-judgemental treatment of the topic. Do I come across as pushing for strict(er) gender roles? That certainly wasn't my intent. Nor was it my intent to push for looser roles. If anything, I thought my post, taken in conjunction with the article I linked to, would be seen as pro- flexible sexual roles.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not sure how you are really trying to direct this, Stormy.
I confess I didn't read ALL of the link -- I got about halfway through it and went *yawn*
All I know is -- there were male grade school teachers (a few) when I was in grade school, and also when my kids were in grade school. Most of them were great. They were serving, however, under a male principal, and probably most of them (the teachers) were in training to get their Administrative degree and move up to principal or superintendent eventually.
But I saw no gender problems. Usually the male teachers were my kids' favorites.
I imagine it is a female-dominated field because it is so low pay that mostly it is used as a "second" job by families instead of a primary. Many men who I have known who WERE teachers, went on into other fields due to pay.
quote: Not sure how you are really trying to direct this, Stormy.
quote: I confess I didn't read ALL of the link -- I got about halfway through it and went *yawn*
The study raises a number of issues, but the ne that I focused on was how men weren't trusted to be affectionate with the children. Pursuant to that point, let's hypothetically say that you have a male and female elementary school teacher. Are you really as comfortable with the man being as physically affectionate with the children as the woman? Honestly? How about at a party and there's a man you don't really know being physically affectionate to a child? (Like hugs, hand on the cheek, that kind of thing.) Would your reaction be the same as it would be if it were a woman doing it? Honestly?
Speaking for myself, my *gut* feeling is that I wouldn't be. This isn't a rational feeling on my part, and I'm not strictly sure where it comes from, though I have my suspicions.
The odd thing is that *I* am very affectionate to people in general. I am kind of a toucher and am often very physically affectionate with my friends' children.
The kicker is that when I go out, I make sure to not touch them beyond very cursory touches on the back and the like. I'm embarassed and afraid to do any more. This really bothers me that I feel this way. Disgusts me, in fact, and it makes me mad at society for putting me in that position.
But it doesn't change my gut feeling when I see other men doing it, and given many of the injustices that are perpetrated by men in the world against children, I think I have good reason to feel that way.
So, on the one hand, I don't want men to be encouraged to be more affectionate, but on the other, for reasons of fairness and my own selfish desires, I think they should.
This is one of the particular issues that I was hoping would be addressed, but it kind of falls under the general heading of people being allowed to choose their own sex roles. In fact, being able to choose what they are without reference to society.
This question, by the way, doesn't just impact teachers, but society at large. We've seen how it impacts issues of dress in the recent thread about what is 'appropriate' or not. In large part, this thread is in response to Glenn's final post in that thread.
You can't have normalcy without sacrificing the deviants. You can't have deviants without sacrificing normalcy. Pick your poison.
I think allowing and encouraging deviancy is better for individuals and society, but as I hoped I made clear in my initial post, I can see the argument for strict(er) social rules.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
y'know, I never thought about how the abscense of men in elementary education overlaps with the abscense of women in engineering, but it is the running joke that most engineers (male) marry educators (female) I guess it makes sense there's an imbalance in both professions.
posted
How would a parent feel if they brought their toddler in to daycare and found that it would be a man in the teacher's role there?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But what is normal in the first place? That's what I could never figure out. Would it be abnormal for a man to want to be a preschool teacher for example? I don't think we need strict roles. They are too... rigid. There is a need for flexibility. What if a male teacher had a female student that had lost a parent or something? Would it be inappropiate for him to put his arm around her to comfort her if that is what is instinct says to do? I myself, am a bit uncomfortable with showing affection to kids I don't know. Even working at Americorps I seldom did that, but perhaps because I am not that good at being physically affectionate in the first place.
I don't think sex roles create order, I think they create problems for the people who simply cannot or will not fit into those sort of roles. Such as a woman who is extremely ornery and good in math or something who wants to go into a "male" profession. It's just not nesasary anymore.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we should have flexibility. I also think in this society we're sometimes afraid to admit that there are actual differences between men and women, physiologically, socially and emotionally. I think those differences are what prompt the sex roles in the first place. But just because in general the differences are there, doesn't mean everyone will fit the expectations, or that we should try to make them. People should have the option to go into whatever they want to ... but if women aren't interested in chemistry in the same numbers as men, we shouldn't freak out and assume it's some sort of attempt to keep women out.
At the same time I am more comfortable with women teachers who touch their children - it seems normal, nurturing - than with men teachers who touch children, which, as unfair as it is, seems threatening. My own husband was apprehensive about taking our 6-year-old daughter on a road trip without me, in case he had to take her to the bathroom in a public place - or in case he had to prove he was her father, for some reason. It's a sad, suspicious world we live in. We can't keep men out of teaching because of unfounded suspicions - but the men should realize the reality of the world, and be careful. For that matter, so should anyone who works with children.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How would a parent feel if they brought their toddler in to daycare and found that it would be a man in the teacher's role there?
At the preschool I went to, two of the preschool teachers and more of the after-school caregivers were men. No one had a problem with it.
Of course, they also had a rule that there should be at least two adults with the group of children at all times-- whatever the gender of the adults.
But I always found that the male preschool teachers, and the male caregivers, and the male sunday school teachers, were almost without exception my favorites. Same for elementary school teachers, although that tapered off by high school-- lots of cranky old men at my high school. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But just because in general the differences are there, doesn't mean everyone will fit the expectations, or that we should try to make them. People should have the option to go into whatever they want to ... but if women aren't interested in chemistry in the same numbers as men, we shouldn't freak out and assume it's some sort of attempt to keep women out.
I agree with this to a point--as long as we keep in mind that there are actually instances of attempts to keep women out of higher positions in some fields. There's also the issue of equal pay for equal work, but I guess we can save that for another thread. Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, please start that thread! Then I can talk about why I don't self-identify as a feminist in public...
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're welcome to, if you like. I've had it up to my eyeballs with serious debates for the day.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am the nursery leader in my ward-- me and one other guy supervise and teach ~15-30 kids (ages 1.5-3 years) every Sunday for two hours.
No one's objected so far, to my knowledge-- I've been doing this since May '05.
But I admit to being a tad paranoid about my interactions with the kids. I trust males less than I do females, and a little circumspection goes a long way to alleviate subconscious worrying.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you think you touch the children as much as a women would, in the ways a woman would?
I would guess that if it's anything like the Sunday school I went to, the opportunities to touch, or the need to touch children, would be limited.
See, I think the problem isn't really that men can't be around children than it is that men can't be affectionate with children anything like women can. That's what I mean by the mothering man, I think.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But females can be as untrustworthy as males though.... That's what I dislike about rather rigid sex roles. People will assume that ALL women are nurturing and all men are naturally... agressive or untrustworthy which just isn't logical. But it's hard to breake out of that kind of thinking though...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, Storm Saxon, when you teach 1 1/2 - 3 yr olds for 2 hours, there are LOTS of opportunities to touch them, and many times it's needed. They cry and need to be comforted. They need help doing stuff. They need their noses wiped. They sit on laps. They just like to hug people they love, which, if you're a good teacher, they'll love you!
And I agree that females can be as untrustworthy as males ... but it's more likely that certain crimes against children will be committed by men. They've been in the news so much, we're all a little wary of them. But a smart preschool or nursery director will NEVER have just one adult in charge of such young children, regardless of their gender.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must be pretty out of the zeitgeist. I totally get wanting to make sure there are others around if your kid is being cared for by a stranger (such as a teacher); but I don't get being particularly concerned about *male* strangers doing this.
I also hear (from teachers) that the kids really love it when there's a man around, a teacher or a visiting cop or fireman or something. They want fatherly attention as well as motherly attention. They crawl all over him.
The article makes me glad I'm not a teacher. As if low pay and bureacratic supervision weren't enough ...
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think sex roles create order, I think they create problems for the people who simply cannot or will not fit into those sort of roles.
Syn, I think Stormy's point was that sex roles create order AND they create problems for people who don't naturally fit expectations. It's not a one-or-the-other thing. The whole problem is that BOTH statements are true.
quote:That's what I dislike about rather rigid sex roles. People will assume that ALL women are nurturing and all men are naturally... agressive or untrustworthy which just isn't logical.
Well, naturally, the statement, "ALL women are nurturing and ALL men are untrustworthy" is obviously false. But that isn't the assumption people are actually making. The subconscious thought process is more like this:
1. A man is touching that stranger's child in an intimate (but non-sexual) way. 2. As a man (or as someone familiar with men), I know that it is uncommon for a man to feel comfortable expressing affection to a child that way. 3. Clearly, I'm looking at a man who is different from most other men. 4. <CHILD-PROTECTION WARNING LIGHTS FLASH> A strange entity who fits outside normal behavior patterns has taken an interest in that child. Objective unknown. Protect child.
I think we have this warning system built into our brains to help us detect threats like murderers and child molestors. When someone's thought patterns are deviant enough to permit flagrantly anti-social behavior, we can detect them early and protect ourselves from them by noticing seemingly-innocuous devations from standard behavior patterns.
For most of us, all this means is heightened wariness around the strange person. Some of us alleviate these feelings by laughing the person, or by shunning them. That can really suck for the strange person, particularly if their strangeness really is completely innocuous.
But do we want to train ourselves never to have these kinds of reactions at all? Never to be extra-wary of a strange man who hangs out at playgrounds and pays a lot of personal attention to our children?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, Stormy! I am pretty shocked by your wording in the first post. Do you really think it's beneficial that society channels people into predetermined roles? That seems terribly inefficient to me, given that the roles don't fit.
And the word "deviant" is exactly what I think is wrong with gender roles. There is so much overlap in almost everything we try to assign as gender specific that it makes almost no sense to think of anything as being "normal" beyond gross anatomy.
Think historically, for instance. In the 18th and early 19th century, women would not be hired as a secretary to a man. That would be shocking! Of course men's secretaries were male!
Other professsions have made a similar change. Veterinarians which were until recently almost 100% male are now almost 100% women. Computer programmers when I started programming were nearly all male. Now they're much closer to half and half. Attorneys used to be all male, of course, yet my sister is an attorney and never got the sort of "deviant" label that I have felt because I'm an engineer. Doctors, same deal. Females broke into those fields earlier than they have in engineering.
By realizing that fact of history, I think we can see that many of the professions which are today dominated by a single gender aren't any more sex-linked in their essential character than programming or veterinary medicine were.
Now in college today, women are beginning to outperform men across the board. It's seen as a real problem, sometimes.
Is there any benefit to be had from forcing people into roles that they don't fit? I can only see a great detriment to society (losing the productivity and the luxury of being able to have the best candidates regardless of gender), and to individuals (dealing with the frustration and negative perceptions when not fitting with the stereotypes).
posted
As for alarm bells, I think they are almost always false alarms. The greatest danger of child molestation is from family members and people who are trusted insiders.
I see people's alarm bells going off about me too, as a female in engineering, and it's pretty discouraging sometimes. Once they work with me, once I break through that perception, there's never any problem. Sometimes, especially with people who aren't technically so strong themselves, it can be hard to break through.
One anecdote: I was working with a hydraulic supply firm and found a design error in one of their designs for us. (I learned so much about hydraulic design from working with these people, because I had to check everything they did. ) Anyway, I called and asked a question (the best way to point out design errors is to ask specific technical questions that show the flaw, and let the designer see it that way) and was told a slightly politer paraphrase of "There, there, little woman, don't you worry your pretty head about it. We know what we're doing." So I said it looked wrong to me, pointing out the exact error, and asked for an explanation of how that could possibly work the way they showed it. I was told to go ask my male boss and he could explain it to me. I said their design was wrong and I wouldn't pass it until it was fixed. The designer finally talked to *his* boss about it (who also wasn't technically very strong) and came back again and told me it was fine, that they didn't need to explain it to me, but that they know what they were doing. <laughs> It was getting ridiculous at this point, so I finally called the number one technical guy on their staff, sent him the drawings, and showed him the flaw. He saw the error immediately and was quite embarrassed. He went back to the other two and said "She understands hydraulics better than anyone. Listen to her when she tries to help you out by showing you your mistakes." (The problem would have cost their company a lot of money if it wasn't caught.) Thereafter, we had a fine working relationship, and they showed me the same respect they would show to any of my male colleagues who had questions. The problem was that they wouldn't open their eyes and look, based only on my authority. They were sure they were right.
I think some people feel that any women in engineering have issues of some kind. Either that they're in a job where they don't belong, and can't do good work, or that they are trying to prove something, or there to meet guys, so they can get married and quit work, or something of the sort. They make these assumptions, and it hinders them and causes problems. The idea that maybe I'm in this profession because I'm good at it and love it, is something they don't seem to think of until they've worked with me a while and know me.
So I do think the alarm bells are bad things. Like a fire alarm that goes off 3 times a day, they miss the real dangers and only cause trouble and inefficiency for all involved.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, while I was thinking of this, several more anecdotes came to mind. It's something I deal with on every new job, with every new batch of customers, contractors, etc. So there are some funny things that stick out in my mind.
There are also real advantages to being female. The novelty of it seems to mean I get my pick, on large jobsites, of the best people to work under me. Also, many of the guys will knock themselves out to do what I need them to do. They almost seem to compete to do their very best work for me. Another thing is that I feel I can get people to be on my side more easily sometimes than my male colleagues can. Whereas there's a lot of competitive head-butting that goes on at jobsites sometimes, I feel I have an advantage in making friends and getting things done from a positive angle that way, rather than having to shout or be dominating to get the resources I need. I can be very determined and insistent about things too, if necessary, (see anecdote above) but it's a great advantage that I usually don't have to.
The actual millwrights, electricians, and instrumentation techs are usually great, in fact. The people who are placed under my authority seem to have no problem whatsoever. It's like "this is something we need to ask the engineer, and she's the engineer, so we ask her". They're just happy to have someone who can help with their technical issues that arise. I've never felt any difficulties with that, contrary to what I expected. It's been wonderful!
quote: Wow, Stormy! I am pretty shocked by your wording in the first post. Do you really think it's beneficial that society channels people into predetermined roles? That seems terribly inefficient to me, given that the roles don't fit.
How to put this....
I am a bit dismayed that several people seem to believe that I am arguing for a narrow definition of gender roles, or a socially mandated definition of gender roles. I am not. As I mentioned a couple posts up, I tried to examine both sides of the issue. I, myself, lean very heavilly towards allowing individuals to define who they are.
quote: Is there any benefit to be had from forcing people into roles that they don't fit? I can only see a great detriment to society (losing the productivity and the luxury of being able to have the best candidates regardless of gender), and to individuals (dealing with the frustration and negative perceptions when not fitting with the stereotypes).
The problem of forcing people into roles they don't fit was specifically acknowledged in my posts as being a problem. The thing is is that you have to balance that problem against the issue Dog raised. In addition to that issue, there are a whole raft of things that are productive about definite socially enforced (gender) roles within a society that basically boil down to order. As others have noted in the past, it's possible that many of the things that can be problems that exist in the U.S. today are a result of the abundance of social opportunities available to women and men, opportunities that didn't exist to the extent they do now because of a more strictly enforced social order some decades a go: divorce, porn, the use of proper English, chivalry, sahms, drug addiction, latchkey kids. As Dog pointed out, sometimes the idea of deviancy has practical applications inasmuch as it protects us from harm.
"Who am I? What is expected of me?" In a lot of instances, a social answer to these questions is beneficial to an orderly and clean society, is beneficial to individuals because there is no question what their future holds. You, yourself, have noted this in the past in reference to how men should treat women, what is o.k. in Mormon society.
A lot of people have been arguing that, sure, teachers of both sexes should be monitored, etc. However, I think that this misses the larger question of my post, actually kind of misses the point of it entirely. How useful is a strong set of sexual roles in society? Is it more beneficial to society for those roles to be mostly loose and determined by the individual, or rigid and enforced by society?
I come down with you, Tatiana, on the side of looseness and flexibility, but I think it's a fair statement to say that with that looseness and flexibility, there will be repurcussions that aren't so good.
It really comes down to which set of problems you want, I think. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've come to realize that it takes a person with a certain suite of qualities to break into a profession that is predominantly held by the other gender.
If you're a female going into some of the harder core types of engineering, not only do you have to be very good at what you do (if only I were far better still!) but you have to have the sort of personality that it doesn't bother you much when you confound people's expectations. You have to have the strong sense of direction so that when you are gently channeled, again and again, into softer cleaner work (sales, or administrative) you resist that channeling. You have to be the type of person who can follow your internal compass, against the grain of what nearly everyone around you is expecting and unconsciously telling you to do (sometimes demanding that you do). A compass instead of a weathervane, perhaps. I do know that many girls would be brilliant at what I do, far better than me, I'm sure, and yet they might find it impossible to be thought "weird" or "unfeminine" or to resist being channeled by the expectations of those around them into something that doesn't suit them as well, and which they aren't as good at, but that seems more feminine to the people with whom they're working.
My hope is that by doing what I do, I'm helping in some way to open doors for other girls in my field. Maybe if enough of us oblivious ones go ahead on our own headings, we will beat down a path that the more timid or sensitive ones can follow. If we do that, then we as a society won't lose the wonderful contributions that those women may make, and that will be a great thing.
Imagine how many Marie Curies have lived and died and never had a chance to contribute. Surely that is a terrible waste!
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I am a bit dismayed that several people seem to believe that I am arguing for a narrow definition of gender roles, or a socially mandated definition of gender roles. I am not. As I mentioned a couple posts up, I tried to examine both sides of the issue. I, myself, lean very heavilly towards allowing individuals to define who they are.
The main reason I was shocked is that I'm so used to agreeing with you on social issues like this. I'm relieved that I misunderstood. I think I read the word "deviant" as rather a slap in the face. Try it on and see what you think. Would it bother you to be called deviant in a serious discussion with someone with whom you usually agree? Perhaps I should have read that as meaning "outside the stereotype" rather than "unnatural or wrong"?
quote:(T)here are a whole raft of things that are productive about definite socially enforced (gender) roles within a society that basically boil down to order.
I don't see this as being productive of order in the least. Rather, I think order or disorder is equally likely with enforced gender roles than without, perhaps moreso without, because when you try to enforce rules that go against people's very natures, they end up having to rebel. They have no choice in the matter. So you generate a lot of rebels or outcasts that are simply unnecessary, and might otherwise be far more productive and happy members of society.
quote: Divorce, porn, the use of proper English, chivalry, sahms, drug addiction, latchkey kids. As Dog pointed out, sometimes the idea of deviancy has practical applications inasmuch as it protects us from harm.
Divorce rates are higher partly because women are no longer trapped by economic necessity into marriages that are abusive or in which the husband is an addict, or unrepentantly unfaithful, etc. This is surely a good thing, both for society and individuals. Eventually this is bringing a better model of marriage into widespread currency, one in which the couple has an equal partnership. This is a huge benefit to men as well as women, and also to society as a whole. In the meantime we have growing pains, but ones that are necessary and healthy, in my opinion. This is similar to the problem we had of not being able to get good servants once blacks were given better opportunities, after the civil rights movement.
Porn? Porn has been around a long time. I don't see evidence that changing gender roles have caused it to be worse. If anything, it's become possible to question pornography for the first time, because of the greater power of women in society.
Use of proper English. Again I see no possible connection here. The classes have always used different grammar and vocabulary, due to differential access to education, and perhaps a human tendency towards group identification by speech patterns. The upper classes have always defined their particular variety as being proper. Do you see a change here that's connected to gender roles?
Chivalry is alive and well. I don't see any change here either, except for details of what is considered chivalrous, perhaps. Now cooking a nice dinner for your wife is seen as a great and manly act of chivalry, as it truly is. The amount of chivalry has, if anything, increased. While before it was primarily directed toward unmarried attractive girls, women's greater status in society has given them much more social capital which can translate into positive male attention.
Fewer sahms, and more latchkey kids. Again, I see these as growing pains, necessary for us to correctly value the benefit to society and family that homemaking and childcare provide. When a new model of the family emerges, one in which all adults are expected to contribute equally, a more ideal paradigm of the balance between work and home will, of necessity, come about. The new model will be of great benefit to both men and women, and to society as a whole. Men will no longer be systematically deprived of the closeness and joy that primary caretakers share with their offspring.
Drug addiction? How is this connected to gender roles? I have known a lot of addicts, in my family history, and in my lifetime. It really surprises me that you find so many of these things connected to changing gender roles, where I've never heard or imagined a connection to exist before, and can't even guess how it might follow.
quote:"Who am I? What is expected of me?" In a lot of instances, a social answer to these questions is beneficial to an orderly and clean society, is beneficial to individuals because there is no question what their future holds. You, yourself, have noted this in the past in reference to how men should treat women, what is o.k. in Mormon society.
Expectations can definitely help shape people in positive ways. I don't see that any positive expectations need to go away. I think we should still expect people to be honest, kind, generous, polite, clean, hardworking, respectful, etc. I'm not sure what you mean by what I've noted in the past. As far as I can think, I've never advocated any way in which men should treat women that I don't hold equally important for women to treat men. I'd be quite interested in knowing what you mean, since I'm as prone to gender bias as the next guy, and I like to catch and correct myself when I think that way.
quote: How useful is a strong set of sexual roles in society? Is it more beneficial to society for those roles to be mostly loose and determined by the individual, or rigid and enforced by society?
I come down with you, Tatiana, on the side of looseness and flexibility, but I think it's a fair statement to say that with that looseness and flexibility, there will be repurcussions that aren't so good.
I'm glad we agree on the main point. I think the only thing we disagree on is the extent of the possible repercussions. I think they're all good long-term, and only a few are bad short-term. You seem to feel that we will have a much larger set of permanent ill-effects that we'll have to accept.
posted
No, I'm actually unclear as to what the results might be. That's why I made this thread. I *want* them to be either non-existent or minimal, but I tried to be objective and look at it from a point of view that others sometimes have taken. I think that their analysis is possible, and I think there is evidence for it, but I hope it won't happen, and will advocate for social liberality, i.e. social mores derived largely from individuals or small groups, which I think has much better evidence supporting it as being optimal for both the individual and society.
I thikn where I erred in my last post was when I said "...there are a whole raft of things that are productive..", rather than "may be".
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's ask the same question about race. Perhaps that will illustrate the perspective from which I view this issue. What are the benefits to society of rigid racial roles, for blacks, whites, asians, and hispanics? Is there an increased order, in that everyone knows their place, and what's expected of them, that we have had to give up in order to gain the benefits of the civil rights movement? What is the right direction for society to take on this issue?
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand now. I guess my chagrin was that we were still asking that question. Sort of like "the woman question" that the 19th century Russian intellectuals were forever arguing, i.e. "Are women actually sentient beings?"
Also my chagrin came from my surprise that you linked things like drug addiction to changing gender roles. I guess I didn't realize anyone thought that, though it seems quite possible that they do. Some old people feel that uppity colored folks (including hispanics, asians, and blacks as "colored") have caused everything wrong with society today, too. Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you think you touch the children as much as a women would, in the ways a woman would?
I would guess that if it's anything like the Sunday school I went to, the opportunities to touch, or the need to touch children, would be limited.
See, I think the problem isn't really that men can't be around children than it is that men can't be affectionate with children anything like women can. That's what I mean by the mothering man, I think.
I have noticed that I'm significantly more physically affectionate with my children than other parents.
The last nursery leader was a strictly hands off sister-- very little interaction (other than interventions) occurred between her, her helpers (who were of the same opinion) and the children. In my opinion, this made the children act out more. When I took over from her, it was natural for me to play with the children on the floor, to roughhouse (just a little), to tickle and chase them around, etc, because that's how I interact with my own kids.
No one has complained yet (AFAIK) about the way I do things. There are some things I can't do (diaper changing, potty trips) that are church mandated because I'm a guy. Also, as JennaDean mentioned, guys aren't allowed to have 1-on-1 time with the kids. But that's not a terribly big insult to me-- I understand the worry.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rigid race roles from the past would be terrible for me. Not only would i not get to go to college, but I'd be lynched for wondering why the hell I have to clean someone else's house when I bearly like cleaning my own... Not to mention the trouble I'd get for reading, wanting to be educated... Aw, man. I'd hate that. I think society would be better off if we'd just find a way to stop stereotyping and to look at people as individuals, but it's hard for me to do that at times, even though I am trying to teach myself to stop that.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Scott, maybe Mormons are ahead of the curve on this matter or something. Or maybe you're such a non-threatening guy, no one would ever dream of Scott being mean to the kids. Maybe it's just an unfounded perception I have, or maybe it's something about me. :/
In any case, I'm happy it's not a problem for you.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think from the standpoint of society, it makes sense to have clear roles for men and women as children to work towards, and creates a more orderly society where the needs of society are sure to be met. For instance, if society knows that men are always going to do one thing, and women another, it can allocate resources, both material and ideological, more efficiently.
The last word is your problem. All of this assumes that efficiency is the highest good.
quote:There are some things I can't do (diaper changing, potty trips) that are church mandated because I'm a guy. Also, as JennaDean mentioned, guys aren't allowed to have 1-on-1 time with the kids.
Scott, just to make you feel even better, changing diapers and potty trips aren't allowed by any Nursery leader, man or woman. Has to be the parents. And if there's any regulation on whether a nursery leader can be alone with the kids, it's gender-neutral, too. In my ward we ALWAYS have 2 nursery leaders with the kids, and they're both women. Although some branches don't have enough people, so I would guess this is more a strongly encouraged practice and not a mandate.
Seems the Church is fully aware that creepiness and abuse can come from either gender. Wow. What a sad thing to be "ahead of the curve" about.
posted
Our ward does that as well. If our girl needs a diaper change, she is brought to one of us. And there is never just one adult in the nursery.
I don't think I have a visceral negative reaction to men being affectionate with children. I think I find it endearing. But it is sad that the perpetrators of sexual abuse are more often male than female. I don't know why that is.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nods* Same thing in our ward. If the helper(s) aren't at the nursery when the parents get there with the kids, parents are asked to stay until more adults arrive. It's quite common in our stake for men, often as part of a married couple but sometimes not, to be called to the nursery. I would have no problem with walking in and finding any of them holding, rocking, carrying, hugging, or tickling my daughter. In fact, I would have more of a problem if such interaction never occured in the nursery. But I'm never afraid that my child is going to be abused in the nursery-- even though I don't leave her with an outside-the-family babysitter because I'm so paranoid, I never have a problem leaving her there.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, I'm confused - you aren't allowed to change diapers because no one is, or because you're a man?
I remember my ex-husband screaming like a lunatic when he discovered that Mr. Opera (my then-fiancee) was changing Operaetta's diapers. He told me that he wouldn't trust any man except his brother to change his daughter's diaper. He made it pretty clear that it was fine for any woman to change Operaetta's diapers, but not men. That struck me as sad.
quote:Scott, I'm confused - you aren't allowed to change diapers because no one is, or because you're a man?
No one but parents.
That said, and I don't disagree with the worry, there is a feeling within the church that men are not as trustworthy with children as women.
So, if a woman were to change a diaper, parents would think, "That's odd; wonder why she just didn't bring him here?" Whereas, if I were to change a diaper, alarm bells would go off.
I wouldn't feel comfortable allowing any of my guy friends to change any of my children's diapers; I dunno. It's a mistrust that built in. I'm not sure it's wrong; I don't think it's hurtful.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't find that I am as distrusting of males as what seems to be the norm in society.
While, at times, that has not been to my benefit (I end up trusting someone I shouldn't have) -- I wonder if overall the reason these kinds of things don't really enter my head is because I had such a strong and good relationship with my dad.
He was a very affectionate man, although never crossing the line to being sexually inappropriate. But he was not afraid to show love to his daughters with hugs and appropriate touches and words. So I don't automatically suspicion all men who are affectionate with children, like some people do.
I never had any issues with the male teachers and my kids -- I really don't know if they were affectionate or not, but I doubt it would have bothered me if they were, unless one of the kids were to express uncomfortableness about it.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
