h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I was going to say you are spot on regarding prejudice being passed down the generations, but I hesitate. We are forgetting peer pressure, an important factor once school is reached.

Of course I recognise the difficulties of kids who are 'somewhere in the middle' but I think you are taking things too far if you believe that parents would want to eradicate a child's nature. I can see that a parent might think that the child would have difficulties in life if he/she were not 'normal', but, at heart, most parents love their children as they are, and do no more than prepare them for those later difficulties. Siblings are different, they have a different agenda altogether, and I am not sure that supportive behaviour develops until much later! I dont know, you tell me.

I am not saying that a non-parent cannot understand children. I am saying that that understanding changes considerably when you have complete charge of an infant from birth. And, I am saying that a parent understands that the nature of a child is largely inborn and that nurture is much less important than it seemed before the child came along.

It may not be relevant to our argument, but I have a vivid picture seared onto my mind of a scene I once witnessed of a very large, very loud mother screaming obscenities at her child, of no more than two years as she violently tugged him/her along a road in a particularly poor part of town. If you are right, if nurture is so important, we might as well write off that kid's chances now, at birth even. But what was sadder still, and stays with me, was the indifference of others in the street, as if it was just normal behaviour, accepted by society. If you are right and nature cannot triumph over nurture, then the underclasses will destroy society. But, maybe thats another story....

Bowing to gender stereotypes needn't be quite as horrendous as "denying your true nature" and suchlike. I don't see many boys wearing skirts or dresses, but we don't look on that as a result of society oppressing them. Why then should we care overly that we don't have boys playing with barbie dolls?

(And if anyone tries to claim that male dislike for skirts is genetic, I think I'll scream...)

Nature certainly can't save us from the underclasses. Heck, rape, theft, gluttony, and a whole bunch of other non-desirable attributes are natural, which is why society spends a lot of time beating them out of people...

Bowing to stereotypes *needn't be* as horrendous as "denying your true nature" but it *can be.* It's like a lottery. If you're lucky, you'll be born with a nature that suits the stereotypes for your gender quite well. In such case, you'll fit into society rather comfortably. It's quite possible you'll wonder what all the silly fuss is about. It you're unlucky, you will find society yanks its approval of you for not fitting in properly, and you risk everything from poor relationships with your parents to bullying to near-constant unemployment. (I knew we'd get back to unemployment someday.)

I think parents like to feel they would never go against their child's true nature, but in reality many do it all the time. One recent study, for instance, detailed children who were born without a penis but with testicals. This is part of a rare genetic disease. In almost all cases, the testicals were surgically removed while the child was a baby and the parents treated the child like a girl. Now, you must understand that genetics and hormones prove these people are male. Many of them grew up to have very troubled lives, where their self-identities conflicted with their parents' and society's. There was a lot of drug addiction, criminal behavior, joblessness, inability to form relationships, and so on. In only two cases out of more than 20 did the parents listen to their children's needs, thus helping the child acclimate to society properly.

I also see this a lot with some gay and lesbian kids. The parents have serious trouble allowing them to be who they are. Things were especially harsh for those who showed "abnormal behaviors" for their gender at an early age (like playing with Barbie dolls). The parents are more often a hinderence than a help to these youth where social acclimation is concerned. And of course, society is no help whatsoever. The fact that about a third of all teen suicides are males struggling with sexuality issues is related to society's insistence on strict gender roles and behavior.

We should care whether boys are allowed to play with Barbie dolls, and girls with toy trucks because:
1) Men might be better overall at social skills and more ready for marriage and children
2) Men going into traditionally female professions might experience less prejudice from society
3) Same goes for women going into traditionally male professions, or full-time careers in general
4) Women and men doing "women's work" like teaching and child-rearing might be better paid and more respected
5) People of both genders with alternative sexualies or gender dysphoria might get more of a fair shake in life

If it weren't for jeans more men might wear skirts MRD.

(Sorry, that was dreadful!)

I am inclined to return to my original point, and repeat that there is a vast range of human characteristics and behaviour patterns, and that sex or gender differences are relatively minor amongst them.

There are exceptions to everything, and the poor kids F uses as an example are so far outside the norme that they were bound to have major problems. Physically, they may be repaired but I am sure they will be scarred for life, and will have reacted to their 'outsider' status in all sorts of ways.

In my limited experience, a lesbian/gay kid can be accepted by family, friends and peers if they are of sufficiently strong character even at a very early age, and that character will see them through to a fulfilling life. As in any animal group, however, the weak will be rejected and picked upon, despite - perhaps even because of - the best efforts of liberal minded adults. And if that weakness is coupled with an outward show of difference, they will be picked upon, or 'forced' into unnatural (for them) behaviour patterns.

Man the species is a tribal creature. 'Outsiders' to the tribe are rejected. Grounds for rejection can include sexuality, or age, or colour, or heritage, or...the list is endless. What makes life interesting is the fact that we can belong to a great many 'tribes' at the same time. We can also be rejected by many groups at the same time. We are all outsiders in some context or other. What then matters are the signals, the badges, the speech patterns etc that we all give, to make our tribal affiliations clear. A man wearing a skirt is saying, "Hey, I am a member of the 'up yours' totally unconventional tribe" and will expect, and even look for, rejection from what he sees as the mainstream. But a member of the same tribe as him will recognise the signals and communicate. Another argument against sex as an obstacle to understanding. Sex, in this context, is the least relevant 'signal'.

Oh, my! What a lot of conversation I have missed! Wish I hadn't! Fascinating!

I strongly agree with the comments about homosexual children and how they may be negatively influenced by their parents (whether the parents mean it or not...). I studied theatre in college, and many of my classmates were just coming to terms with their sexuality. Perhaps it was being away from home and feeling strong enough to establish their own identity. No doubt being attracted to a theatrical life may have been a result of the silent understanding there seems to be that homosexuality is more acceptable if one is an artist of some ilk. I wonder, though, if strength of character is really an issue. Don't we all develop our character based on our experiences? Maybe what we survive really does make us strong...As to the poor kids who are genetically different, as F pointed out, or kids who are born with transgender or crossgender issues, I can only hope that the strength of nurture wins out for them. Gad, it's tough being different!

As to the tribal nature of Mankind...How can we tell if the things that are put forth (and seem to have been put forth since the dawn of civilization, sometimes) about gender roles (no boys with dolls, no girls with trucks, etc.) are based on "genetic" stuff or learned behavior. Consider the mounting evidence that homosexuality may be a charateristic that people are born with. If that is the case, then the likelihood is that there have always been homosexuals (and asexuals and hypersexuals and all the other possibble permutations of sexuality), and the that typical reaction to this behaviour is learned rather than instinctive. I have read that in the days of early Christianity, there were ceremonies to unite in marriage same sex partners. Most of the religious writing equalting the female with the devil dates from the Middle Ages. The Irish Catholic Church (quashed by the Roman Catholic Church long ago...) allowed women to be ordained as priests and to minister all of the Holy Sacrements. These may seem like disjointed points (what a poetic ring that has!), but all of our behaviour as humans is based on BOTH nature and nuture. Nature may provide the impetus, but Nuture strengthens (or weakens) and pushes the behaviour into a way of life. Unless each of us acts on our own beliefs and teaches our portion of the next generation to do the same, there will always be misunderstanding and conflict. Of course, writing this just now, I realize that doing exactly that has always (and probably will always) be the reason for war and hatred and misunderstanding. Sheesh! Thought I had it all ironed out only to find myself mired in the age-old problems again. Sigh!

Sometimes it is really tough to find your "tribe". Sometimes you have to have the strength to be a tribe of one and not give a damn what other people say. Might get you killed in some parts of the world, though. Fortunately, most people are successful at belonging to several different tribes at once. And to return to the original thread of the conversation...Isn't one's gender just another "tribe"?

Having come into this conversation rather late, I have a lot of points to reply to, so this posting will be rather long.
The hunter gather points will be dealt with first.
All of the species that are omniverous (as far as I know so far) are hunter gatherer groups. You can only progress past this when the language level gets above a certain point and you can start having an oral history of what sort of seeds and berries are good to eat. Once the language level reaches this point you can start to change towards a more agrarian society, but not before then.
Once you get to the farming society, you then have to stop the hunter gatherers from hunting through your crops, hence the problem with the american indian populations in the wild west. Once you have farming, you can then afford to feed people to do one thing very well, and you get the sort of specialisation that is prevelent today.
Note: this is seperate from if it is a male/female dominated hierarchical stucture, which is a totally seperate point.
Then you have the point about alternate sexualities.
TRANSLIFE INTERNATIONAL (a transvestite and transexual magazine) has managed to seperate seven different sorts of thing where people can have a gender bias in their lives, and that is discounting people who are neutral or both in their orientations. These include your physical sex (ie reproductive gender), your brain sex (do you think like a male or a female), your sexual orientation (hetrosexual / homosexual) and a number of other TOTALY independent modes of displaying gender biases.
The question of wether males or females are more social vs competetive seems in my experience to be totally due to upbringing.
Then there is the question of individuation that is relevant here, but not discussed. When you have identical twins, they share all of their dna and for a reasonable lenght of time, very similar experiences. however, eventualy they develop their preferences in different ways due to their differing experiences. This is individuation (the act of becoming a unique individual).
What most people don't seem to realise is that this happens in all children, and again from my experience, the sooner that you can get this process started the more balanced and adjusted the personality of the individual seems to become. The individual gets used to the process of making their own decisions earlier in life, and thus when peer preasure (including parents) tries to push them in a particular direction, the individual has personal preferences already mapped out, and thus is harder to force into steriotypical molds, and also is less likely to force others into them.
Then there is the idea best experesed in star trek called i.d.i.c. (infinite diversity in infinate combinations). This has as its basic assumptions that each person has different cultural and life experiences and assumptions, and if you throw these individuals together in new and unusual cofigurations, you are more likely to get these different assumptions coming to light, whereupon the individuals can change their assumptions or not in light of their new knowledge. (it works, Some of my friends and I have this sort of system running, and it sure is interesting).
Then you have a mainly unknown science in the u.k. (and some of the u.s.) called "general semantics". this recognises the fact that language works by mutual misunderstanding in the same directions, and has developed some tools of thought that help you to spot when these assumptions that you are using are different to those of the person that you are talking to.
And just to throw one other peice of research into the air here, it seems from my (and other friends) observations that it is the cultural values that children aquire through games and storyies that they share with each other that largly determine what sort of an individual the child will grow into. If you deliberately add some stories (like star trek for example) that include some new good examples and bad examples, it seems to affect the value systems that the children have at school.
making the children grow up bilingual also challanges the assumptions of their peer groups, as the other culture will also have assumptions, but not the same ones.
I am sure there was one other point I meant to cover, but I seem to have lost it for now, which considering the lenght of this posting is hardly suprising. If you want to start up any of these points as a seperate thread, why not drop by my researcher page, and start it there.

Welcome back, S. As you see we continue to compete for the title of forum with the longest entries! And did I see the word 'Gad'; in there somewhere. Forsooth!

I had assumed that at least the disposition towards homosexuality and the other expressions of sexuality (what on earth is a 'Hypersexual'??) was 'in the genes', i.e. nature, and not learned behaviour. So, I don't really get what you are on about.

Do you not think that 'strength of character' (whatever that means) is nature too, not nurture?

Aside - I often wonder if the whole of life (not to mention the Universe and Everything!) isn't actually a war-game, with all the different 'tribes' lining up against each other, in different formations and alliances for each battle.

Absolutely, spot on, precisely......the point I was trying to make all along is that gender is just another tribe, and no more or less important than the many other tribes to which we each belong.

X, don't worry about length, it seems to be the norme we have created here! Look back a few pages.

What is important about separated twin studies is the similarity between differently nurtured identical children, i.e. the importance of nature.

It is also interesting to look at sibling differences, where children have been brought up (nurtured) together, but nevertheless exhibit big differences in behaviour and attitudes.

Don't start on semantics, or we'll never get out of here!

I dunno - I'd put strength of character down as at least partically nurture - you've heard the expression "what doesn't kill me makes me stronger", no doubt...

I wasn't that woried about the length, (see some of my other entries), but as the first post I have made to the forum, I thought it better to apologise for it in advance, as I had no idea how big it was going to be in advance (it was only about half as long as I thought it would be).
The thing with the twin studies has to do with differentiation, and points out that when the nature is identical, it still happens, so that particular facet of personality MUST be due to nurture.
I was also not "getting started on semantics". Semantics (in this case) is about piccy points in the language, "general semantics is a related, but very different science to do with how people make assumptions, how to spot them in others, and in yourself, andwhen you have spotted them, how to change them quickly, and if assumptions are not being talked aboutin this forum, then that's news to me
If you want to find out more about general semantics, theinstitute is on http://www.general-semantics.org/ and it covers that point much better than I can.

Oops, I forgot to answer the point about strength of character. Strength of character is an aspect of personality that determins how prone you are to being pushed around by other peoples opinions, even when your own opinions about the subject differ. It is thus related to, but not the same as, will power.

Well, X, I am about to depart on happy hols, so if you think I am going to start swotting up on semantics, general or otherwise, I am going to disillusion you!

Actually, I will admit also to knowing little of identical twin studies. It would be interesting to know how much of our sexual identity is 'in the genes' and how much the result of nurture, or perhaps more importantly in view of Fragilis' concerns, how much of the genetic idendtity, i.e. nature, can in fact be altered by nurture.

Anyway, answer the question, is it possible to understand the opposite sex, or not?

It is quite definately possible to understand anyone, opposite sex or not. What you have to do is treat every new person you meet as an individual, and as you talk to them use your asumptions as retractable values that are removed as soon as you spotthat they are different from what you think they are. This is where general semantics (I wish he had come up with a better name for it, but too latenow) comes in. It deals with the relationships between the human nervous system, and the outside world, and has developed tools to make it easier to spot the afore mentioned incorrect assumptions.
I have found (since 1984, so I must be doing something right) that as long as I listen, don't pidgeon hole people, and am generally unjudgemntal about what I am being told, that it is quite possible to understand, and get on with anyone (including women, men, transvestites, s&m fetishists, mad people, etc) as long as you model who they are, and redefine your group assumptions from the set of poeple who you know in that group, and treat the group assumptions as retractable, penciled in values, that will only do until you find what the correct values for those variables are. Can't you tell from the phrasing that I am a programmer , Oh well, I hope that that has givien at least a partial answer to your questions, and remember, general semantics has nothing to do with the way that the french say "you can't say that thing that way, it gramatically wrong.
Ps why don't you drop by my researchr pageand web site, and see if you can find anything that explaines this better. If you can't then tell me, and I will try to get something on there that does.

See what happens? You take a little holiday in the woods and come back to find volumes of postings.

Nature versus nurture - interesting. I am a twin (fraternal) therefore think that nurture is only as good as the genetic construction allows it to be. The genetic composition provides the foundation that everything else is built upon. You can build identical houses on these foundations but they will behave differently.

One possible flaw I can see in the excellent system suggested by Xyroth (don't make assumptions and remember any judgements you make are fallible), is that your observation of a person is based upon what they are saying and not what they are thinking. Therefore, as I mentioned before, there is a good chance that the communication will be hindered as the one speaking is not always saying preceisely what they mean. This is not always specific to gender (and is based upon the personalities involved) but gender adds an extra barrier to circumvent.

I do not believe that gender differences can be dismissed as another "tribe", as most of the tribal associations discussed are social (or rather cultural) and therefore would fit into the nurture category.
All of us are members of many different tribes, mostly due to our cultural background but also because of interests. These tribes are useful in such social creatures as a way to gain immediate acceptance to other members of the same tribe. Unfortunately, they can also be used negatively by members of other tribes.

Just to clarify a point I made earlier (Autumn of 1897 I think), when talking about the effects of being made redundant on men compared to women, I was not saying that that a female sole-provider in the same situation would be faced with the same difficulties, but that a man, raised to consider himself as the provider of the partnership, would have extra psychological (perceived) baggage that would add more stress to the event.
As another thought, until a culture decides that all "tribes" (as long as they do not cause harm to others) should be accepted, such negativity will continue.

(Violence is a negative trait that must be beaten out of people )

Is there much more mileage in this topic or is it time to move to another? All voices are equal and all thoughts have a purpose. The company is enjoyable and the chairs comfortable.
{A chair is only a web with cushions}

Shhh.

The thing about the focus on the individual that has been said to be a weakness, is that it is THE strength of the system. You still have the assumptions about groups, but they are derived from the individuals that you meet, rather than societal steriotypes, and they are only used until you see any behaviour that differs from what the assumptions would predict. You then use the past behaviour of the individual to check on the other possible values of the variable that you had assumed the value off. The important point is that you are moddeling the individuals, and comparing what they said with what they would have said if you were right in your assumptions.

But how much do people realistically do these comparisons? Every minute of every day? Of course not. I think, to a certain extent, people see what they want to see and ignore things that don't fit into their framework of understanding.

I shall go back to gay people to give an example. There are people who assume that all lesbians are butch and masculine. In their minds, lesbians wear plaid and Birkenstocks. If they see such a person on the street, they assume that person is a lesbian. They assume everyone else is not. For that person to be completely disabused of their stereotype, every person on the street would have to hold up signs with their sexual orientation on them. You see?

To what extent do we commit this same fallacy with gender? Sure, we can adjust our understanding of our immediate family and close friends. But what about people on the street? How often do we treat them like stereotypes even after they have done something to distinguish themselves?

But surely, F, if the Birkenstock shod lesbian is wearing those badges, i.e. tribal markings, surely she is intending to be understood as such, as a member of that social grouping. That is her sign, her statement of self to the rest of us. She wants us to communicate with her on that basis. If a Sikh wears a turban in public, he expects to be understood as a Sikh. If a punk wears a purple mohican, the business person their suit, that is his/her badge...and so on. The signs and badges we use are many, but recognisable. If you distinguish yourself as a stereotype you must expect to be understood as such.

If you choose not to wear such badges, or confuse by wearing the wrong ones, then you are perhaps more confident in yourself, and either not interested in the judgement of others, or expecting other people to find out more about you before passing judgement.

But why is such stereotyping a barrier? If a birkenstock shod lesbian wins the Nobel Prize for literature, she is not marked as a lesbian Nobel Prize winner, but as a Nobel Prize winner full stop. Or am I being naive?

Welcome back, Q. Yet another wise contribution. I am away myself now for a couple of weeks, and expect to find this thread well and truly concluded on my return, but it doesnt seem to me that we have reached a plateau of understanding yet, and while the discussion is enjoyable...pull up a chair.

What about the Birkenstock shod person who isn't a lesbian? Or indeed, the woman wearing a mni-skirt, full makeup, knee highs, the works - but doesn't want to get raped...?

Luke - wondering what Birkenstocks are anyway...

Dont go there, MRD. I'm just trying to get Frag cross! (They are shoes, of the comfortable kind) Anyway, its not just about shoes, it is a 'look'.

So what if you dont know the badges, and your 'tribe' is wrongly assigned! Does it really matter. Moreover, the same item may be a different badge in a different context. These shoes might have connotations in the US that they don't in the UK (Where, since I am making the point, they might me more usually associated with old ladies, like, say 'K' shoes. So perhaps if an old English lady travels to the US she might be taken for a.... and so it goes.

Actually, its a good point. You wear your badges to make a point to society in general, but don't generally account for the lunatic fringe. Your example is saying I've got it, I'm flaunting it, and does so knowing full well she will attract criticism from some. Thats part of the reason why. Safety is another factor altogether. I would hope that society is accepting of all the tribes within it, at least in terms of not physically attacking the minorities, the tribes, within it....but further thought, thats not really true is it?