Male Roles Vs. Female Roles in Fiction: Discussion/Analysis/Troperwank

Just ignore poor standard deviation that underpins correlation in its entirety, why don't you?

But, seriously: can't live without him... yet, we have to admit he was about as biased as they bleeding came. And, not a little responsible for the misuse of data that led to genocide in what is now Namibia. Which had further knock-on effects.

There's a reason he's the go-to example for what not to do in an ethnographic study if you do any cultural anthropology.

Edited by Euodiachloris on Oct 14th 2019 at 3:13:48 PM

Genes do actually have a significant impact on the way people turn out and behave, from what I've gathered, but what I read was more in terms of what you inherit from your parents (or "bloodline" in general).

Yeah, genetics tend to have a strong but not all-encompassing influence on general trends in personality. But there's a lot of non-negligible influence from upbringing as well. For example, my parents both work in math-heavy STEM careers, and though I could've taken up a softer form of biology such as more clinical work or basic science, I ended up going in an also math-heavy genomics and bioinformatics direction.

Regarding gender roles, I'm a fairly typical cis female biologywise but since my parents were not aggressive about raising me according to any strict sense of gender roles I was allowed to gravitate towards whatever I liked, and it just so happens that a lot of my preferences are what others would identify as masculine-presenting though I don't consider it as such. I keep my hair short and prefer neutral or masculine-leaning outfits for practicality reasons, and I like Legos, robots, and high-octane action genre fiction to dolls, fashion, and romance despite being someone others have described as mild-mannered.

“ Yeah, genetics tend to have a strong but not all-encompassing influence on general trends in personality.”

Couldn’t have said it better myself. The inherent differences that exist on average between men and women are a factor, and an important one, but they’re far from the only ones. Environment and upbringing play a serious role, as many have stated.

The “nature va nurture” debate is more or less settled: it’s inextricably both.

Edited by TheThoughtAssassin on Oct 14th 2019 at 12:01:52 PM

I actually think that The Thought Assassin has been pretty tactful and thorough with their posts, but at the same time, I'm wondering why they even brought biology into a subject that actually has very little to do with it.

So, maybe you could answer that question, please?

Edited by LSBK on Oct 15th 2019 at 3:37:03 AM

I've been wondering the same thing. This is all above my ig'nant white trash hick level of expertise so I've been keeping out of it, but I've been a little concerned about the existence of this conversation in the first place.

Not sure if agenda-driven sea-lion or excited college student wanting to talk about their field of study.

Edited by TobiasDrake on Oct 15th 2019 at 4:39:01 AM

I thought an accurate understanding of the science regarding why men and women have inherently, on average, different interests, temperaments, etc. would inform the discussion as to how and why masculinity and femininity are portrayed in fiction.

Edited by TheThoughtAssassin on Oct 15th 2019 at 9:35:47 AM

I’ll note that while research does point to some differences between men and women in cognition, that has never been translated to “boys like trucks and girls like dresses”. That’s socialization, not cognition.

The differences between men and women are largely academic when it comes to how they behave in modern society, or how they could behave.

Right. The specifics of dresses, trucks, makeup, etc. are all socially constructed. The average intrinsic differences are very, very rough and are absolutely molded by the environment.

Considering your response when smokycut tried to repudiate the whole "girls naturally like dolls", erm.

Also, since we have a curious crowd, here's the poster's stated purpose for his side:

"I believe this is important in framing the issue of male roles and female roles in fiction, and how these may inform why particular tropes are the way there are."

I made it very, very clear that it was a manifestation of an apparently natural affinity for "people", as explained and corroborated by a wide array of meta-analyses, such as this one by Su, Rounds, and Armstrong studying >500,000 subjects across 26 cultures around the world: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19883140

"Results showed that men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people, producing a large effect size (d = 0.93) on the Things-People dimension. Men showed stronger Realistic (d = 0.84) and Investigative (d = 0.26) interests, and women showed stronger Artistic (d = -0.35), Social (d = -0.68), and Conventional (d = -0.33) interests."

Edit: So, to be abundantly, utterly clear, girls are not naturally inclined to dolls as a physical object right from the getgo. Rather, it's just a reflection of what is, on average, a relatively small but significant difference in interest ("things" vs "people", roughly) that exists intrinsically between males and females.

Edited by TheThoughtAssassin on Oct 15th 2019 at 1:54:08 PM

You’re missing a point here. That study examines responses from adults, not children, so it’s equally likely that the results are the result of nurture rather than nature. The study draws no conclusion as to which one it is.

The general consensus of the field is that, since it's cross-cultural, it's more likely than not a result of intrinsic differences (1). It's an exercise in Occam's Razor.

What is more likely, that every major human civilization on earth, independent and separated from each other for millenia, produced the same sex differences in interest? Or that human beings are simply sexually dimorphic psychologically as they are physically?

By the by it is also something we see in newborn humans (https://www.math.kth.se/matstat/gru/5b1501/F/sex.pdf), newborn macaques (https://www.nature.com/articles/srep19669.), and rhesus monkeys (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/). I'm referring specifically to differences in interest, not toy selection (which is just a consequence of it).

1. Geary, D. C. (2009) Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association

Edited by TheThoughtAssassin on Oct 15th 2019 at 2:14:16 PM

It’s inaccurate to say there’s any strong consensus on the topic of nature vs nurture. Animal studies come with the caveat that it’s hard to draw a direct correlation with humans, and studies with children raised in nontraditional families show pretty significant differences, indicating the role of socialization is equally important, if not more, compared to genetics.

Either way, I’m curious what you’re trying to get at here considering the functional differences between male and female psychology are essentially zero.

"...and studies with children raised in nontraditional families show pretty significant differences, indicating the role of socialization is equally important, if not more, compared to genetics."

I have not once argued against this.

"Either way, I’m curious what you’re trying to get at here considering the functional differences between male and female psychology are essentially zero."

This isn't true. While there are more similarities than differences, the differences (on average) are significant and impactful, along with of course environment. But there are intrinsic differences between males and females in areas such as memory, personality, aggression, interest, sexual behavior, mental health, and empathy. And all of the literature investigating this accounts for culture and environment when conducting the experiments.

The overwhelming consensus, as I've stated many times here, is that nature *and* nurture are at play in the differences we seem between male and female. And that these may, and indeed probably do, impact the tropes we see in media.

I’d argue that the differences are nowhere near significant and impactful. Socialization has by far the largest effect on behavior, innate differences are fairly minimal. That is visible in all of the studies you’ve shared thus far, and isn’t changed by pointing out that small biological differences exist.

Given similar socialization the functional difference between men and women is minimal, again as seen in studies looking at children raised in nontraditional households.

The consensus is actually that environment likely comes after biology in terms of ranking what has the largest effect on people; twin studies, along with the infamous case-study of David Reimer, have demonstrated this.

"That is visible in all of the studies you’ve shared thus far, and isn’t changed by pointing out that small biological differences exist."

The studies that we both refer to actually say the exact opposite, namely that even smaller differences are enough to produce, on average, significant results in, for example, profession. The meta-analysis I referenced earlier explicitly said this in it's "Practical and Policy Applications" section of it's discussion.

Environment plays a part, a major part. But humans are a psychologically sexually dimorphic species with real, significant, demonstrative effects on behavior and personality.

By-the-by, and for what it's worth, this science actually vindicates and legitimizes the condition of being transgender. Since we can demonstrate that behavior and personality are tied to neurobiological differences (however small) between the sexes, and *not* a mere consequence of socialization, we can conclude that GID/GDD is a real, physical disconnect between brain chemistry/structure and the rest of the body.

Edited by TheThoughtAssassin on Oct 15th 2019 at 2:58:56 PM

Given the debate currently seen in the field I don’t see how you can so confidently claim consensus.

I’d put environment first and then biology. Reimer isn’t a great example here, even if he is a TERF favorite, given the wildly unethical behavior his doctors displayed which many rightfully point out taint any results derived from his case.

I don’t think anyone is advocating for tablula rasa here, but you’re vastly overstating the importance of genetics.

There is *some* debate with exactly how much these differences are inherent, but the consequences of these differences in real-world behavior, profession, etc. aren't hotly contested. The most kickback I got from my committee on my thesis was specifically on interest in STEM professions, but not on the greater disparity we see globally.

I'd give you all the literature I have showing where these differences are, how big they are, how they impact social behavior, but I've done enough of that here and it's hijacking the forum.

Actually... no? Unless you're talking very specifically about the academic communities around, say, Salt Lake City and Beijing, of course.

Other academic circles are a whole lot less sold on a strictly genetic Mars-Venus difference.

There're just too many epigenetic and environmental factors to factor in, mate. Besides which, gender roles in Western nations are currently in a period of flux: this always brings a wish to simplify matters, both in studies and wider culture.

I trusteth it not. Give it another 70 years of both data collection and refining our still currently uncomfortably flawed tools of data analysis, then we can start drawing real conclusions.

Biology does play a part. But, the X and Y chromosomes are not the largest banks of switches on the block by a long chalk.

Besides which: a hell of a lot of study needs to go into how female biology actually does work before we can wax lyrical on the behavioural affects. There is a lamentable lack of knowledge in all aspects of women's medicine. Not to mention also massive gaps in paediatric and geriatric medicine for both main genders (not to mention any others).

It's all well and good making sweeping statements based on a greater understanding of male biology (ages 18-60)... when that's but one wedge of the humanity pie.

More research on male menopause, not just female, and those behaviour changes. Then we can start really talking about the effects of hormones on behaviour. And, that's also probably going to be impacted by whatever other surprises come out about the very badly named citric acid cycle (it's barely about citric acid, and it's only a cycle if you stand on your head for three hours and squint at it the whole time) in the next forty or so years.

Edited by Euodiachloris on Oct 15th 2019 at 9:20:29 AM

You make very good points, and I didn't mean to paint men and women as "from Mars and Venus", respectively. Just that most of the evolutionary psychology and psychometric community agree, roughly, that there are robust differences between the sexes regardless of culture.

But, like I said, I think this discussion has run its course, and we should turn it back to tropes and fiction, nay?

Almost forgot the other great big blank area of "oops: how did we miss this for a good ~600 years?"... the lymphatic system.

Now we've worked out a few places where it joins both central nervous and vascular networks.

Oooph, talk about some needed careful poking to work out what else of massive import we've maybe missed anatomically...

Edited by Euodiachloris on Oct 15th 2019 at 9:40:15 AM

Except, they didn't there have been multiple matriarchal civilizations, or civilizations where women were just as much warriors as the men.... See the Celts, and the general concencus on the history side of thing is that humans used to be much more eaglterian until we started making cities, and then it was born from trying to make sure paternity was accurate. :/

You try to artificially limit it by saying MAJOR human civilization, but the thing is by limiting it to that, you taint your own data by ruining the most important part INDEPENDENT, every major human civilization had contact with each other, and traded ideas and culture, taking things from each other... Fun fact, Samurai have been to mexico.... The world is a lot more intraconected then you seem to think.

Yep. They’ve found female viking warrior corpses too, iirc.

Basically, I'm actually coming at my suspicion from a historical standpoint. As a historian, one of the things you find is that we are the masters of cherry picking evidence to suit theories. Very often, the conclusions we reach are pre-determined and you rarely find academics reaching outside their cultural assumptions.

The female warrior bodies among Vikings? IMMEDIATELY after they were found, they were challenged and said to have been honorifics to non-fighting women. Why? Because if they were admitted that Viking women fought that would do something much worse than make an academic who said they didn't fight sexist.

It would make them WRONG.

And that cannot stand.