Jump to content
Aveyond Studios Community
Sign in to follow this  
Blurble

A sudden realization regarding gender role in romances

Recommended Posts

I had an epiphany.

The epiphany was brought about through multiple incidents.

In not much of a particular order:

1. some time ago I was watching a Korean drama which involved the male and female leads switching bodies. I realized that my favorite character in the show, by far, was the male when he was inside the female's body-- there was somethign ridiculously refreshing about seing the "Girl" in the relationship take charge, be ridiculously audacious, etc. I came to the conclusion that I would be ecstatic to watch a show in which there was such a character (instead of it just being temporarily the guy in the girl's body). A female character who wouldn't back down from a fight...

2. except here's the thing. manga/books/movies etc claiming to have "strong" female characters, most frequently do not have characters I consider strong. Their strength, instead, is physical strength. But once you look past that, they are still the passive, reactive, (frequently illogical) characters that I am so sick of...

3. In the meantime I was considering the eithera/saurva and Te'ijal/galahad pairings, and what appeals to me about them (T/G in av1, av2, and the earlier av3 games... i choose to pretend that the later av3 games do not exist)

4. and then I was reading a guide to character archetypes....

 

----

 

now, some psychology

 

There is a dichotomy* in how different personality types relate to the world-- a dichotomy that has several names.

Dominant/submissive

Active/passive

etc.

 

*(quick clarification of my use of the word "dichotomy": I use it in a slightly different sense than it generally is used... usually, a black/white dichotomy means something is either black, or white. However, when I am using, it means something is black, or white, or any shade of grey in between-- HOWEVER, the more black it is the less white it must be, and vice versa.

a false dichotomy would be "are you creative or shy?" because being more creative does not, by necessity, mean being less shy... however, "are you introverted or extroverted?" would be a dichotomy, even though people come in varying shades, and some people may even be perfectly balanced between the two and thus not specifically one or the other.)

 

psychologically, they represents two fundamentally different ways of viewing the world (or relationship)

 

It is important for understanding what comes next that I am not using these words in some of their other connotations. I am using them only as how I am about to define them:

 

Dominant/active personalities view situations as fundamentally static. Thus, they feel that they need to take charge in order to make change happen.

Submissive/passive personalities, on the other hand, view situations as fundamentally dynamic. They react to them rather than taking control.

 

In romance, this essentially translates to

 

The dominant/active half of the relationship sees attraction to another person as a static state, which (s)he feels it is up to him/her to change in the direction more in agreement to his/her preference. This accounts for the dominant/active half's inclination to take the initiative in approaching the object of his/her interest and being "relentless" in his pursuit, as well as, even during an established relationship, continuing to try to "shake things up" or "get things moving".

 

whereas the submissive/passive half sees attraction between two individuals as a dynamic state, which (s)he feels is completely natural. This accounts for a submissive/passive individual's inclination to focus on the mutual attraction, or particularly the attraction felt by the other person, as to its longer-term perspectives and implications, as well as a certain expectation that the partner will continuously take action to confirm the attraction. Failure on the partner to do so results on the individual assuming that it's already changing.

(slightly modified from wikisocion.org-- taken from there because it's the quickest clearest explanation I can find, but other theories accept this premise as well)

 

 

---

 

and then suddenly it all clicked into place.

 

 

Someone explain to me why in 99.99% of any relationships I have read/watched about, the female is always the passive half of the relationship?

Even if you're going to argue that there is a slight gender preference to one side (there might be) there certainly isn't one that is that ridiculously overwhelming.

Now see, I can understand why sociocultural norms might make a female dominant/active be less overtly dominant/active than a male.

But.

That is not what I am watching/reading.

What I am watching/reading is countless extremely, extremely passive/submissive female characters.

i.e. there is no way a dominant personality would be putting up with that s---. even when toning their dominance down.

...no wonder I'm so fed up.

 

 

---

 

oh, and by the way.

does anyone have counterexamples of series/pairings etc where this is not the case? (not necessarily just examples where the female is dominant, but even example where she falls on a less submissive side of the spectrum?)

 

(Te'ijal/Galahad prior to Av3-4 being an obvious one, but add in Elini/PJ and Aveyond already has an unsual amount of these pairings. 2! So many!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-->Well, you said one of the important reasons yourself, Blurble-chan. In some cases, gender preferences prevail. But of course, that preference need not be ridiculously overwhelming.

-->Hence, another reason comes to my mind. Maybe most directors/mangakas prefer their female characters to be shy/passive/not have a strong and dominating personality. Let's just say that I see this as a stereotype thingy that prevails. I've come across few movies and even fewer mangas which have strong female leads in a relationship. It is often the guy protecting the girl and being dominant. Maybe that's the way people like it. Maybe that's what they feel is more 'romantic'. >.>

-->Talking about mangas and maybe even books, I've often found that outside a relationship, it is often the female antagonists (pursuing the lead male) who have far dominating personalities. Sometimes, the supporting character roles too. But the lead female role remains passive and shy.

 

I think the only thing I think of for now is that it's become a stereotype to make the female lead submissive and the male lead dominant. However, there are a few movies which come to my mind which have the near opposite happening. Example :

1]The Proposal(movie) starring Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds.

There are a few other movies where I found that the female lead wasn't that passive :

2]The Shopaholic

3](The character of Elizabeth Bennet) in Pride and Prejudice.

3]It's a Boy Girl Thing

There are a few others but I can't remember them. ^^' And like I said, I've found even fewer mangas where the female had the dominating role. x/

Like you though, I like female leads with strong personalities. It's a refreshing change >.>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that much of it is that many guys are uncomfortable with the idea of a "dominant" woman. I know that's kind of a stereotype, but it's also true. The feminist movement happened for a reason, and it didn't change everything. In our society there is still a lot of inequality, and it shows in movies and books and stuff.

 

My favorite example of a dominant female is on the television show Burn Notice. Fiona takes the active role in the relationship, besides being an explosives and gun expert and really pretty besides. She's the reason I watch the show. =3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose in a way it's a "preset" in everyone's mind that women are the "weaker" ones and men are the on in control. Women must not "overrule" men. Modern concepts of equality and feminism aside, that whole gender thing is sort of already stuck in everyone's head and won't go away unless a conscious effort to push it aside is made.

 

I learned in an anthropology class that the gender separation thing is so ingrained in our society that we don't realize we're still doing it. Like baby toys and baby clothes for example. You don't see parents encourage boys to play with Barbies or girls to play with robots and plastic soldiers (some weird parents may be exceptions, but that's beside the point), baby boys usually wear blue and baby girls wear pink, little girls are encouraged to wear frilly fluffy dresses, girls get scolded for playing in the mud or getting scraped up while boys get off with it easily, etc. In the work environment, women usually only make 70% of what men do for the exact same job. So yeah, even with all those talk about equality and whatnot, women are still considered lower than men.

 

Oh, I LOL at how you use Eithera/Saurva as one of the examples :D It really is "the woman plays active role" in every sense of the word, considering that she's the one doing all the pushing and pulling while Saurva just... sits there and "flows with the go" :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@valkyriet:

 

1.actually, The Proposal is one of my casebook classis talk-to-me-and-I-will-launch-into-a-forty-minute-rant examples of how pervasive this stereotype is. which is to say that the previews/reviews/the fact that it starred Sandra Bullock got me really excited for a romcom which would have a totally different relationship dynamic.

And it did. For the first ten minutes of the movie. At which point Sandra Bullock's character started being revealed as "vulnerable" underneath her dom-iness and whatsisface's character was actually a bastard-dom character all along, and their entire characterization prior to that point was thrown out the window as the Hollywood romcom machine decided to, yet again, play everything accordng to formula.

 

...Sandra Bullock does star in Two Weeks Notice, however, where she most definitely is not typically submissive (and that's despite being in a secretary role to a powerful rich man, which would normally always have this problem).

 

2. In regards to it being considered more romantic... okay, maybe. The only reason I have difficulty accepting that... is because I have difficulty accepting that-- i.e, that this is more romantic. Really? In real life their are so many other relationship dynamics. why does this one (which, also, is frequently exaggerated to the point of being abusive) considered the most romantic?

3. Do you mean rival roles to the main heroine? Because I think I might know what you're talking about, although I'm not sure. And anyway casting the "dominant female" as "evil" just makes the stereotype worse, doesn't it?

 

 

-----

 

 

@iPink: if that's the case, then why is this most common in shoujo mangas written by females? (Also, I am not sure if this is true because I've never read this genre, but I have the vague impression that in shounen harem mangas it is usually the male who is passive and the females who are active? ...I could be totally off, and just thinking this because harem mangas usually have "loser" protagonists.)

 

---

 

@d_a: alright, several points

 

1. I considered the factor of it being an "inbuilt preset". But the fact that women are usually physically weaker than men-- or heck, more emotionally expressive or whatever than men, which could maybe be argued both ways and I'm just basing on the amount of hugging I see amongst girls vs amongst boys-- doesn't really explain consistently portrayed weakness in other areas. I may be more open and willing to discuss my feelings than a guy might (and this has heavily to do with my being surrounded by girls amonsgt whom this is the norm, since by nature I am not), but I'm rather unclear on what relevance this has to my ability to think up a logical way of, say, even just helping my boyfriend defeat the dark lord, instead of whimpering in a useless heap on the ground while he goes and saves me*. (biggest manga tick-off example of this? One in which the girl is supposed to be a master at judo, and when her boyfriend comes to save her from a gang of rapists and is badly outnumbered and losing, she just lies there doing nothing instead of, you know, TRYING to help. because it's "romantic" oh puhleaze.)

 

*(I'm even willing to allow this happening once or twice. In One Piece both female characters are somewhat helpless during their big character arcs in which they need to be saved. But--

1. even in those arcs, helpless does not translate to "doing absolutely nothing constructive"-- Nami rouses the villagers, Robin, in handcuffs that sap her strength, still manages to try to buy some time by grabbing onto walls with her teeth

2. that's not how they relate to the world ALL THE FRIGGIN TIME.

of course one piece isn't a romance at all. nonetheless, it demonstrates that just being the damsel in distress doesn't make you submissive, necessarily)

 

 

I also considered the biological preset of men being the so-called "initiators" during sex, i.e. if they're not interested nothing happens-- but that still doesn't explain why they would be the initiators in the courting ritual, so yeah.

 

2. as for the cultural factors... but see, society might force dominant girls to act more submissive and submissive boys to act more dominant-- but fundamentally the inherent alignment remains, the same way an introvert who is forced to act extroverted will still be introverted, deep down. you can dress the girl in pink and have her play with dolls, but her relationship with the world will still fundamentally be "make things happen".

...So I understand that a female dominant character won't necessarily get away with the crap male dominant character do. They might have to be more push-pull instead of all push.

Esxcept the characters i'm seeing are not tamped-down dominants. They're doormats*! ...and in case this isn't obvious, dominant characters basically never, ever acquiesce to being doormats. if they're forced into the role they will be fighting it allll the way**.

*i.e., passive participants in their situation, expecting others to take (and of course accepting wholeheartedly when others take) the active role

**thus, not actually being doormats since they are actively trying to take the active role/resenting that this is being denied them. they just might look like doormats from a situational standpoint, but the internal condition is different

 

 

---

 

oh also. it's not necessarily like being submissive is a bad thing in a character. It's just that I happen to have gotten sick of it after seeing it so often. But it is a realistic portrayal of a large swathe of the population and it can be done well.

Plus I feel as if I'm making submissiveness sound annoying. Especially with my use of the word "doormat"-- submissive characters can actually do things other than stand around whinging. (it's just that the most extreme examples-- the ones where it is literally impossible for this character to be a dominant in disguise-- are the characters who literally will not raise a finger to do anything to control their situation***.

but that's just as extreme as the dominant character who is a super control-freak, rides over the relationship roughshod, and has no consideration for others, at all...)

 

 

***(while this is semi-irrelevant, it would actually be interesting to see a dominant character employing this tactic. but the difference is, they'd be "being helpless" in a strategic, manipulative way... They wouldn't actually be helpless, they'd still be in control.

 

they'd be "literally not raising a finger, in order to control the relationship" (ooh, commas))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I can explain this by referring to ancient literature. This is when men were the dominant type. Thus all pairings had men as dominant. As society progressed, this changed but we copy our ideas from stories we read. So the perception never changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because men are suppose to be macho while women are not? Oo?

 

If we look at chinese culture, women are suppose to be doormats and subservient to men. This mentality is pretty standard for all asian cultures. So it isn't that surprising to see the woman be subservient to the man in manga, anime, or most artform from Asia.

 

Not romance-y, but Ranma 1/2 has Akane who routinely beats up Ranma. She does become a bit soft toward the end of the series, but still has enough kick to not let Ranma walk all over her.

 

Your mileage may vary on Ponyo, Spirited Away, Howl's Moving Castle, and Porco Rosso.

 

Um....american stuff...

 

....

 

This might take a while lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's not... "macho", though.

I don't really mind women not being macho. (I also don't mind men not being macho -blink-)

It's just taking initiative in a relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@blurble:

 

men behaving masculine and dominant = macho=expected social role for men.

 

Women being feminine and submissive = expected social role for women.

 

Media encourages these stereotypes because it perpetuates the roles society says is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kfdfdhjdlkjgsdljslkdgj.

 

well, at least I've figured out a major reason WHY so much of this stuff bothers me. previously I simply knew it bothered me, and didn't have a clear distinction why.

 

(of course it's not really that clear cut, since there are plenty of pairings where the girl is passive and I'm fine with that. Heck, I really really like Ed/Mel but-- at least in my interpretation of it-- it's fairly clearly Edward takes the active role. (I'm wondering if using the expanded 4-type or 6-type paradigms might explain that away, though. E/M it probably would. But some other pairings I like, it might not...)

 

So figuring out exactly what is the distinction between "pairing that bothers the heck out of me" and "pairing I enjoy" is clearly somewhat more complicated...

 

;fllfklhfljk)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@blurble: ?? I'm not understanding this thread now >.>

 

Being half brain dead, the only romance/partial romance shows I can think of with dominant women/submissive partner are shows with lesbian couples....

 

And my sister has a similar problem to yours I think. She likes reading gay manga but she's very frustrated with finding good ones as a majority has a clear dominant male and a submissive male. The submissive would often behave exactly like a girl in a shoujo manga (cheerful, emotional, short)and even look like them. Finding gay manga that have a more equal relationship is very hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to KTC's post, I can comment on Spirited Away and Howl's Moving Castle (I can't remember much of Ponyo and I haven't seen Porco Rosso).

 

Miyazaki is a self-proclaimed feminist. He dislikes typical "weak" or passive females, hence why his films tend to star strong females.

 

In Spirited Away, for example, Chihiro is most definitely a strong female character. She starts off as spoiled and bratty, yes, and she needs lots of help from Haku starting off, but who wouldn't? Even a boy stuck in such a situation would be lost. Chihiro, however, through sheer strength of will and determination, faces her fears, works very hard, and manages to save herself, her parents, and Haku.

 

In Howl's Moving Castle, it's rather interesting because Sophie and Howl are opposites. Howl is a prodigy, a powerful wizard with seemingly limitless magic and knowledge, while Sophie is rather weak and kind of trails along and even gets caught up in a curse herself. Sophie's strength, however, lies in her ability to work hard and face her problems head-on; whereas Howl uses his magic simply to run away from his problems.

 

----------------------

 

Anyway, I agree that these kinds of social roles and norms are such an ingrained part of growing up that we are used to it. It's hard to think of anything else because "it doesn't feel right".

 

For example, I work as a nurse. As a female, people think this is normal...and it will because for ages and ages, nurses were only women and even today, the majority of nurses are women. If there's a male working as a nurse, he's a "male nurse". But why not just "nurse"? I mean, a nurse is a nurse is a nurse. Why is a nurse's sex so important that we need to make that distinction? It's because calling a man a "nurse" seems strange. It's hard picturing a man in a caring, nurturing role because our minds link such characteristics with mothers (i.e. women).

 

Extreme doormats, though, are pretty irritating - I'll agree with that. Other than that, I'm not entirely sure what we're discussing? o_O (Like, is this supposed to be a debate...or something?)

 

As for media examples of a non-submissive female character...

 

Balsa from the anime series Seirei no Moribito comes to mind. The series isn't a romance, but there is some noticeable romantic tension between Balsa and a witch doctor named Tanda. While both are very smart and logical, Balsa is physically stronger (being a warrior and all) while also having a more dominant personality. She never shows any signs of being weak-willed, overly emotional, etc., but she isn't hard as rock, either.

 

Possibly also Natsuki from the anime film Summer Wars, but your mileage may vary. She's sometimes illogical and naive, but it may be more due to her young age than her sex. Still, compared to Kenji, she's much more outgoing, willful, and spirited (Kenji being a sort of wimpy math geek). In fact, it is shown (and stated outright) that the women in Natsuki's family tend to be the leaders - indeed, the matriarch of the family is a spunky 90-year-old woman fit enough to wield a naginata and scare the entire family with it.

 

For American examples, hmm...

 

Perhaps Fiona from the Shrek films might count, although I only ever watched the first two. Still, she's a parody of the "damsel in distress" archetype in that she needs saving, but not necessarily everything as she knows martial arts, doesn't mind eating roasted rats, etc., and isn't really that submissive.

 

Ginny Weasley from Harry Potter might count, too, in that she rarely ever shows moments of weakness and is shown to be a reasonable young woman and a competent witch. It's hard to say who is the more dominant between her and Harry, though, but I suppose it's dynamic and just depends on the situation. Hermione might count, too, but she has her "freak out" moments where one of the boys has to calm her down and bring her back down to earth.

 

I'd keep going but I'm tired and need to drink some tea :3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I offer my personal opinion, I just want to note that the vocab stickler inside of me just can't let this go. I totally understand what you mean though.

 

When you use the word "dichotomy", it *must* be in reference to exactly two things. It's one of those words you really can't bend.

 

*Sorry for that annoying interruption*

 

My mantra when it comes to these types of discussions is this: "For every aspect of society, there is a biological explanation."

 

Men and women are biologically hard-wired by evolution to perform different tasks. It isn't that women are more passive, nor is it that men are more active. It just so happens that the way by which men and women understand and operate in the world are completely different.

 

Men, by nature, are more prone to risk taking and action, because of what they were inclined by nature to do. Engage in hunt, defend the group, impregnate as many women as possible. This is a fast-paced way of living with clear linear goals. Men = Quantity > Quality. They are seen as more "active".

 

Women, by nature, are selected by nature against risk taking. They are there to ensure reproductive success, to strengthen bonds formed between family units, to maintain social structure, to raise the children. They live a multi-faceted existence with many things to take into account. It is a non-linear existence and it requires a lot of detail-oriented processing.

Women = Quality > Quantity. They are seen as more "passive".

 

Even though men and women aren't limited to specific jobs in this day and age, we need to see through the idiocy of political correctness and understand that several decades of "equality" can't undo hundreds and thousands of years of biology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kleptin

True and I won't argue against what you're saying, but at the same time, that was then and this is now. Of course, evolution takes thousands and thousands of years to occur and it's a gradual process, so it's safe to say that we still have some traits of our ancestors that are of no use to us in this day and age.

 

The gender roles in today's age are changing, particularly in more liberal cultures (i.e. the U.S.A.) Nowadays, women are not expected to marry and stay at home to be homemakers. Women can have careers and can work the same jobs as men. Men, too, are no longer limited to certain jobs - there are male nurses, male homemakers, etc. We are changing to adapt to a more information and service-based kind of industry, where knowledge and skill are more useful than, say, your ability to hunt as would have been useful in the cavemen era.

 

Yet, these ideas of gender roles remain pervasive. We know that men and women can do just about the same things in everyday life, but moreso on a logical level. There are active and passive men. There are active and passive women. Deep down, however, the stereotypes persist. I have to question, then, why? Of course, certain things are passed down from parent to child, but with the power of the media, one has to question just why the media continues to perpetuate this kind of stereotyping? It's difficult to find fictional characters breaking stereotypes without being the comedic relief (i.e. the main character in the film Meet the Parents is a male nurse and implied to be a very good one, but the others make fun of him for it). Is the media just working against us, then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@aeternus: perhaps it's a positive feedback loop?

 

The media perpetuates the stereotype. The media sees its consumers want more of that stereotype stuff and continues with it. People think they they need to conform to the stereotype and look for reinforcement ie media. The media, reassured that its consumer base wants those stereotype continues it.

 

Not to mention its a risky business for the media to *not* perpetuate the stereotypes. multibillion dollars been pumped into the the industries geared toward women or men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KTC wrote:

@aeternus: perhaps it's a positive feedback loop?

 

The media perpetuates the stereotype. The media sees its consumers want more of that stereotype stuff and continues with it. People think they they need to conform to the stereotype and look for reinforcement ie media. The media, reassured that its consumer base wants those stereotype continues it.

 

Not to mention its a risky business for the media to *not* perpetuate the stereotypes. multibillion dollars been pumped into the the industries geared toward women or men.

 

The media here perpetuates that women are supposed to be awful people who use men, and that men are supposed to be big, dumb, overly muscled, and have drinking problems. They portray politicians almost the same as they portray royalty, and celebrities are all bad people.

 

 

:( This is why I don't watch TV or listen to much normal music...

because some girls are nice, and some guys aren't drunks, bodybuilders, or stupid. Politicians here shouldn't be a ruling class, and some celebrities have actually made it through clean careers, but you rarely hear about them... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“The media here perpetuates that women are supposed to be awful people who use men, and that men are supposed to be big, dumb, overly muscled, and have drinking problems.”

 

^And there’s also this definition due to that reason:-

 

Yawning: the only time some married men get to open their mouth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@KTC-

Quote:

If we look at chinese culture, women are suppose to be doormats and subservient to men. This mentality is pretty standard for all asian cultures. So it isn't that surprising to see the woman be subservient to the man in manga, anime, or most artform from Asia.

 

I'm sorry but this is the second time you have posted something that says Asian culture is medieval. Western culture was medieval too. Asian culture is no longer medieval. Women are no longer floor mats. See that in China, around half the women work. This thinking is no longer prevalent. I'm sorry you think this is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@theone: China is getting better true, but old traditions still cling quite strongly. One only needs to look at the rate of female infantcide in asia to see this.

 

Cultural values become manifest in cultural norms and behaviors. Gender roles and the implications of these expectations on Asian women are particularly relevant to the topic of Asian women and work-family studies. Traditional Asian gender roles prescribe for women to place the role of wife and mother above all others; men are expected to be the family breadwinner and spokesperson. Asian cultural values consequently encourage distinct spheres for men (e.g., work) and women (e.g., home) and a gendered household division of labor in which the burden of household duties such as housekeeping tasks and childcare rest heavily on women. For example, the Japanese Gender Equality Bureau found that husbands did little to no household duties or childcare regardless of their wives’ working status (Gender Equality Bureau, 2004). Similarly in traditional Korean culture, there is also an unequal diffusion of responsibility such that wives are expected to assume the role of caregiver and prepare family meals after returning from her job, even if her husband is unemployed (Kim, 1996). Lo, Stone, and Ng (2003) also point out that women in Hong Kong, unlike their Western counterparts, are expected to invest a great amount of time into helping their children with their homework.

 

Wolf (1985) in her examination of the development of women in modern China is quick to note that while there are a host of traditional rules and customs that still mitigate the role and action of women in China, women have taken a more proactive role in carving out a clear "space" for themselves. For instance, Wolf note that the Three Obediences that govern the behavior of women are still in place. These Obediences include: "as an unmarried girl a woman must obey her father and her brothers; as a married woman she must obey her husband; and as a widow she must obey her adult sons" (p. 2). Despite the existence of these unwritten social customs, Wolf goes on to note that women in China have taken it upon themselves to develop a more stable existence. "Women, in their struggle for some security in their day-to-day existence with the all-powerful male-oriented family and its larger organization, the lineage, worked like termites hollowing out from within places for themselves and their descendants" (p. 11). Wolf asserts that to combat the patriarchy of society, women have attempted to build family structures that could outweigh the importance of the social and cultural norms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aeternus wrote:

@Kleptin

True and I won't argue against what you're saying, but at the same time, that was then and this is now. Of course, evolution takes thousands and thousands of years to occur and it's a gradual process, so it's safe to say that we still have some traits of our ancestors that are of no use to us in this day and age.

 

The gender roles in today's age are changing, particularly in more liberal cultures (i.e. the U.S.A.) Nowadays, women are not expected to marry and stay at home to be homemakers. Women can have careers and can work the same jobs as men. Men, too, are no longer limited to certain jobs - there are male nurses, male homemakers, etc. We are changing to adapt to a more information and service-based kind of industry, where knowledge and skill are more useful than, say, your ability to hunt as would have been useful in the cavemen era.

 

Yet, these ideas of gender roles remain pervasive. We know that men and women can do just about the same things in everyday life, but moreso on a logical level. There are active and passive men. There are active and passive women. Deep down, however, the stereotypes persist. I have to question, then, why? Of course, certain things are passed down from parent to child, but with the power of the media, one has to question just why the media continues to perpetuate this kind of stereotyping? It's difficult to find fictional characters breaking stereotypes without being the comedic relief (i.e. the main character in the film Meet the Parents is a male nurse and implied to be a very good one, but the others make fun of him for it). Is the media just working against us, then?

 

I'm going to be perfectly honest, I have a lot of difficulty trying to approach this response.

 

Are you saying that since in these past 50 years, society has changed the gender roles, we should see a genetic change or evolutionary shift to suit that?

 

If that's the case, my rebuttal is going to be very, very long.

 

In order to potentially avoid that, I'll try to restate my position more clearly.

 

You were searching for an explanation as to why men and women retain certain gender-specific activities in the media even though our society is so immersed in a culture of gender equality.

 

To me, that question is no different from asking why men and women are still sexually attracted to the opposite sex even though the world is getting overpopulated.

 

It's because it's deep-rooted in our biology. So rooted that it's not enough for society or the media to force it otherwise.

 

On that note, the media and society aren't there as tools for people to change thought. The media and society are a reflection of an already existing change. The fact that these roles are retained in the media show that they have a realistic appeal. A nurse is only seen as a female-oriented job because humans were responsible for that association. We can change what we have levied against ourselves. We cannot uproot nature.

 

There will always be a difference in the way men and women perceive the world and as such, a difference in the way the media portrays men and women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a side note about the chinese thing, there's nothing scarier than a mad chinese woman.

 

I AM SO SICK OF PEOPLE ASKING IF MY MOM IS SUBMISSIVE! THAT IS A TOTAL CRAP STEREOTYPE INVENTED BY FEMINISTS TO SLANDER ASIAN WOMEN!!! :x

Women are women are women, it doesn't matter where they're from, only who they are.

 

 

gender roles =/= submissive =/= inequality

 

If I happen to like wearing pants, big deal. You know some cultures have certain gender based concepts in reverse, like some asian countries where teenage guys actually dye their hair pink.

 

It's judgmental to think its wrong for a manly guy and an effeminant girl to date. Thats just mean. I mean, if you tried to make laws about that, my friend Shizuka would never be able to date because of how girly she chooses to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@fish: stereotype invented by feminist? Feminist did not invent the stereotype. It's a cultural thing. Please read the two quotes I posted in the previous post. And a side addition about the female infantcide.

 

China is a patriarchal society that places its men far above women. No point in denying this. While times are changing, China (and many parts of the world frankly) still got a long way to go with changing deeply rooted traditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KTC wrote:

@fish: stereotype invented by feminist? Feminist did not invent the stereotype. It's a cultural thing. Please read the two quotes I posted in the previous post. And a side addition about the female infantcide.

 

China is a patriarchal society that places its men far above women. No point in denying this. While times are changing, China (and many parts of the world frankly) still got a long way to go with changing deeply rooted traditions.

 

Feminists create and perpetuate rumors like this to ensure there is no cross race marriages. Every race has their own way of doing this. Although the chinese version tends to be nice and direct :D I have too much experience with the aggressive anti-mixing measures of most races. Its sad that this type of racism is so socially accepted, but if I make a racial joke, with my skin color... oh no... I've violated the law! Terrible! How could I be so awful?!

I put modern feminists in the same supremacist circle with male masochists or racial supremacists. They disgust me.

 

 

Thats the public face, unless the guy is a raging drunk. They always seem sweet and submissive to outsiders. It's when they want you out of their kitchen (with a knife that weighs 15lbs in hand) that you learn that this is a bit more complex that just "asian women are submissive"...

Bottom line is, you take a random crowd from any, and you will find at least one submissive woman and one self centered supremacist man. Like most things, what you look for, you will probably find. There are submissive (and conversely, agressive) American women, Brittish women, Indian women, even Australian women. China has a reputation for something that is a personality present everywhere.

 

 

Meh... I don't care either way though... I like nerdy girls. 8)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@fish:

 

...what? Your post is like a conspiracy theory mixed with plenty of scapegoating/blaming. It seems you don't understand what a feminist is and/or are looking for something simple to blame your problems on.

 

A feminist is someone (could be a man or woman mind you) who advocates social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. She/he is simply trying to close the gap between men and women. True there are some hardcore men-hating feminists, but that is the stereotype.

 

If you support women getting rights and becoming more equal to men when it comes to social, legal, job, political, etc. realms, than you are a feminist.

 

How the heck does that lead into stopping mix race marriages?

 

And I don't even understand your next paragraph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...