I have spend the last couple of post showing how despite the desire to get away from traditional roles that we still live them out here in the United States. It is not as simple as men dominating women with their aggressiveness. I have used dancing and my study on height to show how women respond more positively to the male aggressiveness and to the image of men as masculine protectors. Let's face it. If women really did not like aggressive men we guys would get a clue and become less aggressive. We simply like women too much.
Now is this something that is innate or is this gender difference purely cultural. As a sociologist I know that at least some of it is cultural. We know that is the case because while gender roles are a cultural universal, how those roles manifest themselves vary by culture. But is what we call masculinity all cultural? I am beginning to have my doubts about that.
I suspect that there is some innate basis for the aggressiveness of men. It may have evolved in evolution. It may be given to us by God. But it seems that despite being told that we guys should be more sensitive that we still act like Neanderthals and many women seem to love it.
I have no big prescription as to what to do about it except that we should be more open to the possibility that male and females act differently because we are different in ways that are not just physical. Saying that is taboo since we like to believe that there are no real differences between men and women. Some want to believe that all of the different economic and social outcomes between men and women is due to sexism. Sexism exists and it is a problem. We need to deal with it as much as we can. But as they say it is also true that at times "boys will be boys" and that this is different from what the "girls" will do. We probably should factor that in to sex differences as well.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Friday, September 23, 2011
The Male/Female Thing part 2 - Height
I am a data nerd. There I said it and now I feel better. Yes it is true that I get some sort of sick enjoyment out of the collection of data. Maybe that explains what happened when I had a friend come over a few months ago and when he left we had an whole new research project in mind. I was excited. I got to collect more data!!!!!
Well our project was to look at the role that height plays in physical desirability, especially as it pertains to women. As a single tall man I am fascinated, and gratified, by the interest that tall women have in men who are even taller. So we set up a survey with open ended questions to find out why height was so important to both men and women.
I have not fully analyzed the data. But one factor comes out again and again to me. A good percentage of the women, not most but a sizable minority of them, mention "protector" or "protect" as part of their reason why they want a tall man. These women are college students and the vast majority of them are under 30 years of age so we are not talking about older women living out values from a traditional time. A good percentage of women are looking for men to protect them.
Now how can a taller man be a better protector than a smaller man? He is not in a better position to protect them from economic ruin is he? Furthermore while we still have differences in the economic opportunities of men and women, they clearly are more equal than in the past. It is reasonable for a woman today to think that she does not need a man for financial protection today, which is something that was less true in the past. I guess a tall man makes a bigger target for a gun and can offer physical protection. But are women really looking for men to be physical beasts? That sounds kind of barbaric to me. But it does suggest that the traditional male role of protector has not gone away in our society.
We talk about equality in our society but traditional gender roles are alive and well in our society. We can make all the rules we want and try to enforce some sort of PC mentality on people but we tend to run back to traditional gender perspective. What are we to think of this phenomenon?
One possibility is that traditional gender roles have been so embedded in our society that we have not had enough time to get rid of them. Perhaps if I do this research fifty years from now the word "protector" will not show up. Perhaps if I do the research in Europe women would not talk about wanting men to protect them. So in time we may see more egalitarian gender attitudes. The alternative possibility is that traditional gender attitudes are embedded in our very nature. Sociologists hate such possibilities and as a sociologist I should not bring it up. But I am a trouble-maker.
What is clear is that the narrative that men and women are alike in their romantic aspirations is not accurate. Men do not look for women as protectors. We fool ourselves if we think of men and women as wanting the same thing in relationships. Distinctive gender roles is alive and well in the United States. Whether that is a good thing or not depends on the values we bring to that question.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Well our project was to look at the role that height plays in physical desirability, especially as it pertains to women. As a single tall man I am fascinated, and gratified, by the interest that tall women have in men who are even taller. So we set up a survey with open ended questions to find out why height was so important to both men and women.
I have not fully analyzed the data. But one factor comes out again and again to me. A good percentage of the women, not most but a sizable minority of them, mention "protector" or "protect" as part of their reason why they want a tall man. These women are college students and the vast majority of them are under 30 years of age so we are not talking about older women living out values from a traditional time. A good percentage of women are looking for men to protect them.
Now how can a taller man be a better protector than a smaller man? He is not in a better position to protect them from economic ruin is he? Furthermore while we still have differences in the economic opportunities of men and women, they clearly are more equal than in the past. It is reasonable for a woman today to think that she does not need a man for financial protection today, which is something that was less true in the past. I guess a tall man makes a bigger target for a gun and can offer physical protection. But are women really looking for men to be physical beasts? That sounds kind of barbaric to me. But it does suggest that the traditional male role of protector has not gone away in our society.
We talk about equality in our society but traditional gender roles are alive and well in our society. We can make all the rules we want and try to enforce some sort of PC mentality on people but we tend to run back to traditional gender perspective. What are we to think of this phenomenon?
One possibility is that traditional gender roles have been so embedded in our society that we have not had enough time to get rid of them. Perhaps if I do this research fifty years from now the word "protector" will not show up. Perhaps if I do the research in Europe women would not talk about wanting men to protect them. So in time we may see more egalitarian gender attitudes. The alternative possibility is that traditional gender attitudes are embedded in our very nature. Sociologists hate such possibilities and as a sociologist I should not bring it up. But I am a trouble-maker.
What is clear is that the narrative that men and women are alike in their romantic aspirations is not accurate. Men do not look for women as protectors. We fool ourselves if we think of men and women as wanting the same thing in relationships. Distinctive gender roles is alive and well in the United States. Whether that is a good thing or not depends on the values we bring to that question.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Friday, September 16, 2011
The Male/Female Thing part 1 - Dancing
As a sociologists you can learn about society even while you are learning about something else. For example, this summer I decided to brush up on my country and swing dancing skills. I did so in part because I was tired of going to parties where they played country music and having to sit out the dances. I must say it has been fun although at times it can be frustrating to learn a new skill. I am much more confident with my academic skills than my dancing ones and that is part of the challenge. But daring to try new things can be a topic for another blog.
Now I have to be brutally honest with myself. When it comes to this partner type of dancing, where it is not freestyle, then I am not that great at it. I am getting better. But I am not nearly as good as I would like to be. Part of it is my ignorance of how you are suppose to do things. But I gain more knowledge with every dance. But part of it is my lack of skill in leading the dances. Do not know if that will change any time soon.
Anyone who does country or swing dances knows that this is one of the last areas where men are unashamedly expected to take the lead. Like any good academic I have learned about the patriarchal nature of our society and do not want to be one of those guys that pushes women around. You know. The bad guys. But a lot of taking the lead in dance is just that. More than one woman has complained that I do not push hard enough with my movements and they do not know what to do. A good male dancer has a firm enough "lead" that his female partner knows what he wants and can execute it.
I am working on being firmer with my lead but I know this will take a little time with me. The idea of using my strength to guide a women into doing something can feel like I am forcing a women. And I do not want to do that do I. I mean all of the feminist have talked to me in my head about the horrors of male dominance. Hey. I can blame the feminist for being a bad dancer. Heaven help me if I take blame for myself for not being as good of a dancer as I would like.
If it was just the dancing then that would be one thing. However, I have made other observations while attending the dance classes. You see these classes happen at a night club. And it seems that the guys who are most aggressive in pursuing dance partners are the ones who seem to have none of the soul searching I have about pushing women around on the dance floor. They have no problem with the lead on or off the dance floor. They also seem to be the ones that the females get exited about when they are approached by them whether it is for dancing or just basic social interaction.
Is it possible that dancing is a metaphor for male/female relationships? Despite all of the lessons we have learned lately about egalitarian male/female relationships that men taking a lead is a natural process. Sociologists will say that this is due to social conditioning. There is undoubtedly some truth to that. But we have had a few decades now of challenge to the male dominance paradigm yet in everyday life it still plays out with men expected to take the lead.
Of course I could be wrong. I often am. If dancing and the night club scene is the only place where this happens then we have a limited arena where traditional gender values continue to play themselves out. And I point out that they play themselves out with the full permission and endorsement of the women in that venue. But there is other evidence for the persistence of these traditional values to take into account. However the blog is long right now and so I discuss this other evidence in my next entry. Until then.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Now I have to be brutally honest with myself. When it comes to this partner type of dancing, where it is not freestyle, then I am not that great at it. I am getting better. But I am not nearly as good as I would like to be. Part of it is my ignorance of how you are suppose to do things. But I gain more knowledge with every dance. But part of it is my lack of skill in leading the dances. Do not know if that will change any time soon.
Anyone who does country or swing dances knows that this is one of the last areas where men are unashamedly expected to take the lead. Like any good academic I have learned about the patriarchal nature of our society and do not want to be one of those guys that pushes women around. You know. The bad guys. But a lot of taking the lead in dance is just that. More than one woman has complained that I do not push hard enough with my movements and they do not know what to do. A good male dancer has a firm enough "lead" that his female partner knows what he wants and can execute it.
I am working on being firmer with my lead but I know this will take a little time with me. The idea of using my strength to guide a women into doing something can feel like I am forcing a women. And I do not want to do that do I. I mean all of the feminist have talked to me in my head about the horrors of male dominance. Hey. I can blame the feminist for being a bad dancer. Heaven help me if I take blame for myself for not being as good of a dancer as I would like.
If it was just the dancing then that would be one thing. However, I have made other observations while attending the dance classes. You see these classes happen at a night club. And it seems that the guys who are most aggressive in pursuing dance partners are the ones who seem to have none of the soul searching I have about pushing women around on the dance floor. They have no problem with the lead on or off the dance floor. They also seem to be the ones that the females get exited about when they are approached by them whether it is for dancing or just basic social interaction.
Is it possible that dancing is a metaphor for male/female relationships? Despite all of the lessons we have learned lately about egalitarian male/female relationships that men taking a lead is a natural process. Sociologists will say that this is due to social conditioning. There is undoubtedly some truth to that. But we have had a few decades now of challenge to the male dominance paradigm yet in everyday life it still plays out with men expected to take the lead.
Of course I could be wrong. I often am. If dancing and the night club scene is the only place where this happens then we have a limited arena where traditional gender values continue to play themselves out. And I point out that they play themselves out with the full permission and endorsement of the women in that venue. But there is other evidence for the persistence of these traditional values to take into account. However the blog is long right now and so I discuss this other evidence in my next entry. Until then.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Money is not everything
Ever play the game - If I had a million dollars I would____. Unless you are already a millionaire of course you have played this game. Don't we all think about what if we had a big pot of money. We could insure financial security of our families or support a favorite religious or political cause or even just buy some new fancy toys. Yeah, It is kind of fun to fantasy about having a lot of money.
But do you know what Nevin Shapiro decided to do with his riches? He decided to spread his cash to University of Miami football players. His "support" of the team allowed him to pal around with the players and coaches. Imagine a 40ish year old man throwing money around on cars, prostitutes and even an abortion so that he can hang out with 18 and 19 year olds. The word pathetic comes to mind.
Nothing wrong with supporting one's alma mater. As a college professor I like to see more support for the school I work at. But to do it to impressive athletes is pretty sad. The Miami players are not smarter, or more moral, or more charismatic than other college students. Their physical prowess may warrant their receiving scholarships but not adoration of supposedly mature adults.
This merely indicates that merely because individuals have money does not mean that they are better individuals than others. In fact Shapiro made his money on a Ponzi scheme which reinforces my already low level of respect for him. Wealth does not make a person better. If that person is immature without money then chances are that he or she will be just as immature with money. In fact with money the person can be worse since he or she will have resources to indulge in their immaturity.
Why is this important. We are a society that holds those with wealth in high esteem. Ever watch the Millionaire Matchmaker. All of these beautiful women throwing themselves at men who are able to get their attention because of their wealth. The message is that the way for a man to attract the opposite sex is to be rich. Not to be nice. Not to be smart. Not to be mature. It is not the Nice Guy Matchmaker or Intelligent Guy Matchmaker or Mature Guy Matchmaker. It is the Millionaire Matchmaker. I guess Shapiro can be a featured guy on this show after he gets out of jail.
My point is not to attack the show. The show is merely reflecting the values of the larger society. My point is that those values do not serve us well. There is nothing wrong with making money. But we do not have to place those who are wealthy on pedestals. In fact we would do well to remember that many of them are losers like Shapiro. Then we may be able to move ahead in a world where all people have equal value, regardless of their bank account, and are judged on their own moral and intellectual merits instead of on their wealth.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
But do you know what Nevin Shapiro decided to do with his riches? He decided to spread his cash to University of Miami football players. His "support" of the team allowed him to pal around with the players and coaches. Imagine a 40ish year old man throwing money around on cars, prostitutes and even an abortion so that he can hang out with 18 and 19 year olds. The word pathetic comes to mind.
Nothing wrong with supporting one's alma mater. As a college professor I like to see more support for the school I work at. But to do it to impressive athletes is pretty sad. The Miami players are not smarter, or more moral, or more charismatic than other college students. Their physical prowess may warrant their receiving scholarships but not adoration of supposedly mature adults.
This merely indicates that merely because individuals have money does not mean that they are better individuals than others. In fact Shapiro made his money on a Ponzi scheme which reinforces my already low level of respect for him. Wealth does not make a person better. If that person is immature without money then chances are that he or she will be just as immature with money. In fact with money the person can be worse since he or she will have resources to indulge in their immaturity.
Why is this important. We are a society that holds those with wealth in high esteem. Ever watch the Millionaire Matchmaker. All of these beautiful women throwing themselves at men who are able to get their attention because of their wealth. The message is that the way for a man to attract the opposite sex is to be rich. Not to be nice. Not to be smart. Not to be mature. It is not the Nice Guy Matchmaker or Intelligent Guy Matchmaker or Mature Guy Matchmaker. It is the Millionaire Matchmaker. I guess Shapiro can be a featured guy on this show after he gets out of jail.
My point is not to attack the show. The show is merely reflecting the values of the larger society. My point is that those values do not serve us well. There is nothing wrong with making money. But we do not have to place those who are wealthy on pedestals. In fact we would do well to remember that many of them are losers like Shapiro. Then we may be able to move ahead in a world where all people have equal value, regardless of their bank account, and are judged on their own moral and intellectual merits instead of on their wealth.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)