Pink Is For Boys, Blue Is For Girls

Here's a great article.  It points out 5 gender stereotypes that actually started off being the exact opposite of how they are now known.  We've talked about one or two of these before.  But this article is written with quite a sense of humor!  My favorite parts involve comparisons to the 19th century, and how people were too busy and had it too hard to take the time to really focus on defining tasks by gender.  You did the work that had to be done, and that was it.  Maybe there is something to be said for that.  Perhaps we are too focused on this.  And maybe that is, in part, why things seem to be working toward a moderation, if you will.  Things are perhaps less divided with couples along gender stereotypes.  There is a job to be done, and both are involved in getting it done.  It's hard to be sure though, since some of the data still suggests an adherence to the old stereotypes, possibly with women adding breadwinning into their predominantly assigned domestic chores.

What's it like in your household?  What is your division of labor like?



http://www.cracked.com/article_19780_5-gender-stereotypes-that-used-to-be-exact-opposite_p2.html


The more research we do, the more it seems like the only behavior consistently considered normal is the tendency to be way too strict about what normal behavior actually is -- and then being really shitty to the people who don't conform. 

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_19780_5-gender-stereotypes-that-used-to-be-exact-opposite_p2.html#ixzz37VC1gFsI

Women Will Be Taking The Lead

According to this article I found, women are already surpassing men in terms of who is going to college and who is getting graduate degrees.  The article mentions that 22% of US households had dual-incomes in 2005.  We all know this figure had to go up, and probably quite a bit, since then.  Economics alone would have made that true.  So with more and more women in the workforce, and increased numbers in undergraduate and graduate programs, you have to believe that the division of domestic labor will have to change at some point.  Some studies seem to indicate that we are already there, or at least headed there.  And some seem to indicate that not much has changed in that domain.  A woman, or any person, can only do so much.  Something has to give.  So either she is going to demand changes at home, or there will be slack to pick up that someone (presumably the man) will have to pick up or it won't get done.  It will be interesting to see how things continue to evolve as time goes on.

The biggest thing I wonder about is the children.  With both parents gone, children often end up in daycare.  I am not against daycare.  My own child was in daycare from 7 weeks of age and was never out of school since then.  I also think that most moms, given a choice, would much rather be with her babies than working for someone else.  Some men would rather have that choice as well, I think.


https://www.boundless.com/sociology/understanding-gender-stratification-and-inequality/gender-and-socialization/gender-roles-in-the-u-s/

The national trend toward a total integration of gender roles is reflected in women's education, professional achievement, and family income contributions. Currently, more women than men are enrolled in college, and women are expected to earn more graduate degrees than men over the next several years. In 2005, 22% of American households had two income earners, which suggests the presence of women in the workforce. However, in most contexts, women are still expected to be the primary homemakers, even if they are contributing to household income by working outside the home.

Gay is the Way

The original reason I started this blog was because I am fascinated about the intricacies of human relations based on differences in gender, as well as how those gender differences are manifested within both heterosexual and homosexual relationships.  I happened to find this interesting blog that was published by the New York Times last year.  I pasted some excerpts of that below.

I was taken by the reported findings that homosexual couples tend to be happier in the areas that were studied than heterosexual couples.  It seems that perhaps the balance that has been struck between the homosexuals in their relationship may at least contribute to happiness for both.  It's interesting, because apparently heterosexual couples are more likely to abide by the stereotypical division of domestic responsibilities, whereas the homosexual couples were not.  I suppose this would be an expected result.  If you have two men in a relationship, both men would probably have been raised to believe they should follow the male stereotype in the division.  With no woman to assume the traditionally female role, what would they do?  They would either have to have one of the men take on that role, or have both of the men share that role.  I thought perhaps it was the former, but it seems that at least some studies are indicating that it is instead the latter.  And it seems that heterosexual couples could learn a thing or two about homosexual ones.  It's the sharing, it's the balance of power as it were, it's the cooperation that probably leads to the happiness, and presumably also a to a healthier, more balanced and fair life for those in the relationship.





http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/gay-marriage-same-but-different/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Gay Marriage: Same, but Different

By TARA PARKER-POPE

 JULY 1, 2013 5:29 PM

...

Gay relationships tend to be more egalitarian, in part because same-sex couples don’t divide work along traditional gender lines. Gay couples also report less conflict and more happiness in their relationships. And because gay couples often lack the support of family members, they tend to receive social support from an extended network of friends.

                                            ...

One of the most notable findings was that by nearly every measure, same-sex couples reported higher levels of happiness in their relationships than straight couples. Gay couples reported far less conflict than heterosexual couples and higher levels of intimacy. Gay couples were more likely to feel that they could confide in their partners, experience high levels of affection and be happier with their sex lives.

One reason same-sex couples may report more satisfaction and less conflict is that their relationships tend to be less defined by traditional roles. Men, gay or straight, often find it easier to communicate and share perspective with other men. Women typically find communication easier with other women.

                                                                          ...

Should Coed Schools Be Abolished?

There are some studies to indicate that males and females learn differently.  Apparently some are arguing that it might be best to have boys and girls segregated into unisex classrooms as a means of bolstering their learning.  I would think it would be better to continue to have the integration, but to ensure that there are different modes of education.  Surely different styles, some geared toward the boys and some geared toward the boys, could be implemented.  Just because you may favor one method of instruction does not mean you could never learn by another method.  In fact, I would think that the only real chance you have at learning how to learn from another method is to be exposed to it.  If you are deprived of the opportunity to have that exposure and that experience, what are you learning really?

What's The Deal With The Lights?

I was watching the very first episode of "The Walking Dead" with my son tonight.  In it, the two lead characters who are Sheriff Deputies are having a conversation about some differences between men and women.  The one character spent quite a bit of time complaining that his significant other would never shut a light off.  She'd walk in a room and turn on the light.  But then when she would leave the room, she wouldn't bother to shut the light off.  Obviously that is a huge waste of energy, so I get the complaint.  But he makes it sound like she's too stupid to shut the light off.  I don't think it's stupidity, just laziness.  It's kind of like when guys don't bother to put the toilet seat back down.  Guys just can't be bothered.  So it must be that girls can't be bothered to turn off the lights.  However, I find that perception rather odd.  I have never noticed any gender difference in that type of thing.  Most people I know are very good about turning off the lights.  It must be because we're all so money-conscious these days, since the economy went in the toilet.  But historically, I really don't feel like energy conservation (or lack thereof) jumps out as a common stereotype based on gender.  Has anyone out there noticed such a tendency in your life?  I would be interested in getting some comments about what you have experienced.  Thanks!

Men Do Have Emotions

http://www.bustle.com/articles/30575-are-women-more-emotional-than-men-5-studies-examining-common-gender-stereotypes

I found another great article about gender stereotypes.  Hmmmm, which part to choose to write about today?  Let's look at what the article says about the stereotype that women are the ones who are emotional.  I pasted that part of the article below, or you can check out the entire article using the link above.

I find this study extremely interesting.  First of all, who would voluntarily administer themselves electric shocks?!?  Seriously!!!  And second, I find it very interesting that men had stronger emotional reactions than the women and yet reported having less of a reaction.  That is very interesting indeed.  I think a lot of times women think that men don't care.  This study implies they care a great deal, but they just won't tell you about it.  It could be as the article states, that perhaps men are unaware of their emotional reactions.  It could also be, as it states, that men are aware of their emotions but keep their outward reaction contained.  Some thoughts that come to my mind about this are that perhaps men are quite aware of their emotional reactions, but they have learned to keep them internalized to such a degree that it has essentially festered.  So maybe it seems like a big internal reaction because it can't be expressed externally.  It's kind of like a pot with the lid on it.  Eventually pressure rises on the inside because the heat cannot escape.  So there's a build up until either some steam escapes or the heat is turned down.  Perhaps men have a more physical reaction than women, but they feel less of a need to vent that reaction.  Perhaps they have a higher tolerance for retaining the internalized emotions.

Do you have any thoughts about any of this?  Anything you want to add?

A sad new study released last week finds that most men would rather experience electrical shocks than be alone with their thoughts. (Yes, really.) Here’s how the study worked: First, men and women were asked to sit in a room alone and think about nothing — aka meditate — a task which prompted most of them to have negative thoughts. Then, they were given the same instructions, but with the added option of administering a small electrical shock to themselves, presumably as a distraction. Only a quarter of women chose to self-administer a shock, but a whole two-thirds of men did. (One man shocked himself 190 times.)

In other words, most men would apparently rather experience physical pain than be alone with their own thoughts. That’s a pretty bleak assessment of the male psyche, and even the most charitable interpretation — that men are more “sensation seeking” than women — is drenched in gender normativity and stereotypes.

. . . 

STEREOTYPE: MEN ARE LESS EMOTIONAL THAN WOMEN

In one study, two groups of volunteers — half men, half women — had their physiology measured with skin conductance electrodes while being shown videos with varying emotional content. The men exhibited stronger emotional reactions than women to all categories of video, and responded twice as strongly to content described as “heart-warming” than did their female counterparts. At the same time, the men in this study reported feeling less emotion than they actually did (to the extent that electrodes can quantify emotion). In a separate survey by the same researchers, 67 percent of men said that they were more emotional than they appeared. 

There’s a lot to untangle here. The fact that men reported a weaker emotional response than they actually had would seem to imply that men are, in some way, unaware of their own emotions. On the other hand, a majority of men said that they experienced more emotion than they let on in public, which suggests at least some degree of awareness about their own emotional states. Perhaps the larger lesson here is that one of the biggest gender norms out there is wrong, and that when confronted with the expectation to appear emotionless, men react in unpredictable — and at times, contradictory — ways.

Sharing Responsibilities

http://m.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/07/children-of-same-sex-couples-are-happier-and-healthier-than-peers-research-shows/

I read this interesting article today.  Although there is plenty in it worth discussing, the item I'm picking out to discuss now is, "same-sex couples are likely to share responsibilities more equally than heterosexual ones".  I found that very interesting.  Would this be because of the existing stereotypical roles assigned to male and female, so that when there is one of each, the breakdown in responsibility more easily falls in line with those roles?  And then when there is the absence of that traditional definition of a gender role, when it's 2 females and no males, or 2 males and no females, the traditional roles aren't so easily applied?  We used to say things like, "she wears the pants", and "she is the man in the relationship", and so forth.  Perhaps homosexual couples really do not break into stereotypical roles like some of us thought.  Perhaps it is a truly more equal division of responsibilities, more gender neutral.