A r t i c l e s
Navigation

Note: This Wiki is
outdated, personal views
may have changed.
L505 A.I. bot is dead
long live THX 1138

M a i n P a g e

D i r e c t o r y

Thoughts On Social Construction of Gender


Check Those Out

Entirely socially constructed that Panties are for Women?

Men are More Powerful than Women? It is Not fair?

Claim: Men have more power and influence in society than women, and it isn't fair.

Beauty

Response: Women have more power and influence in society than men, because men find women beautiful. A woman can convince a man to do anything, because of her beauty. The man is trapped and will do anything for her beauty. If anything, men should be fighting for their rights, not women. Men are brainwashed each day with pictures of almost naked women on every magazine, and it is a woman's fault for submitting herself this way, not man's fault. Put a sweater on, Jane.

Men are not different than women?

Is it possible that these Orca's in the above picture are different physically and mentally in small, medium, or extreme ways because of social construction?

More than likely, social construction isn't responsible for the above Orca whale differences. Orca's probably aren't smart enough to create social constructions - as they are too busy eating fish, swimming, and mating.

Saying that gender is socially constructed is like saying that estrogen and testosterone don't actually exist (it's just alchemy) and they don't affect the brain development at all. Social construction of gender has become a religion full of ignorance. Unfortunately the terms and phrases "socially constructed" and "social construction" are very vague and meaningless.

Let's review what social construction of the gender means. The socially constructed gender theory states something along the lines of:

  • genders are not different, they are only socially constructed as different

We know this is basically nonsense. It is generally accepted that a female has babies and male does not. This is how we base gender. Is it also socially constructed that a male cannot have a baby? Gender serves to distinguish certain differences in nature. If we didn't label the ones who had babies as females, then we wouldn't have any point of reference. One could argue that the gender which has babies could be a male, but this would just be confusing things. That's like saying a peach can be an orange.. there is no reason an orange should be called an orange, that orange can be a peach too! Is it socially constructed that oranges are oranges, and that peaches are peaches? Isn't this just mental masturbation.. something for ivory tower social scientists to fart on about while other people are doing real science.

Hormones

A female human's hormones and physical make up make her a much slower runner than a male counterpart. Just look at the results of the Olympic world records set in running. I'm talking about general statistics here, we aren't taking those rare cases where a couch potato male is slower than an in shape female. Olympic records are statistics.

But you are confusing gender, with sex?

But does the hormone just define what sex you are, and gender is something different than your sex? That's where socially constructed gender theories are full of complete ignorance, since they don't realize that your hormones affect the decisions you make and how you act and how your brain forms. Watch the full DNA and the Brain video all the way through if you want to understand further.

Testosterone not only makes men faster runners, but also affects a man's brain during development and severely affects the way he will act and what careers he will choose. Gender and sex are related tightly, they are not separate issues like the naive "social construction of gender" folks want to brainwash you into believing

Sexism, that must be it!

The social construction of gender theory implies that the reason female humans are slower runners and the reason women are weaker is because they are put into positions into society where they cannot succeed. This seems like a conspiracy theory. If that is the case, why can't women just try harder and put themselves into positions into society where they can succeed? For example, female athletes try hard in the Olympics, and are given equal opportunity to try hard in the Olympics. They can train just as easily as a man.. in fact some women can have more time available to train longer than men. So why aren't women setting better Olympic records than men, in general? Please, again, I'm talking about general statistics here.

Physical differences between sex don't exist! Equal!

Tell us why a male shiba dog is much larger than a female shiba dog, in general? The male shiba is about 25-50 pounds while the female is about 17-26 pounds. Is this a conspiracy theory? Do the shiba dogs have some sort of government that covers this all up? Do shiba dogs socially construct things that cause female dogs to be weaker and smaller? Dogs aren't smart enough to socially construct females as weaker beings - they are just dogs. There isn't some conspiracy theory behind this all, folks.

On the other hand, there are some female spiders and female bears that are much bigger than their male counterparts. It seems random sometimes in nature, as to whether a female is bigger than a male - sometimes the female is bigger and slower (especially during pregnancy), other times the female is smaller and faster.. but weaker. That's nature for you. But this isn't socially constructed... it's called a point of reference. If a bear or a bug or a human has a baby, we call them females. This isn't socially constructed, it is just a point of reference.. just as labeling an apple is a point of reference. Is it racist, and sexist, to call a banana a banana? Shouldn't that banana be given equal opportunity to be called an apple? Or is that just adding confusion? If one wants to go around saying that bananas are apples, then it just adds confusion.

No gender

There are even worms out there who have no gender.. they replicate themselves. Plants also pollinate themselves (some of them). But we aren't talking about worms and plants in this article.. we're talking about humans and Orca whales. Look at the picture. Can you honestly see any social construction in that picture? Or do you see mechanical differences that are socially constructed by the whales.. i.e. the whales have different fins only because the whales have socially constructed it?

Being a scientist is sexist

Scientists really aren't being sexist, they are just labeling the female as the female for the same reason that an orange is not labeled as an apple. An orange is orange in color and isn't crispy white like an apple is. Should we argue that it is socially constructed that oranges are oranges? No - the social construction argument is a waste of time (and all those university students who land on this page for your research, I hope you tell your professor that it was a waste of time to even have to take a course on such a topic - I do check my web statistics occasionally and see you come by - hello!)

Are molecules different than ions? Are scientists being biased and racist and sexist by labeling molecules something different than ions? Maybe they are just trying to help society by giving us points of reference. In nature, it is generally accepted that the female is the gender that has babies. This is just a point of reference, don't read too much into it, for crying out loud.

Who intended us to be different

Maybe nature really did intend us to be slightly different, or even more than slightly different. This would be in order to specialize our strengths and weaknesses. Maybe it was through adaptation. Female good at carrying and feeding babies. Gee is not that a good thing?

The words are just points of reference

With humans, usually the male is stronger and usually the male doesn't have breasts, and usually the male human can run faster in a sprint race. If Gender is socially constructed, then so are ovaries and sperm. Why can't a female have sperm and cause a male to be pregnant? Again, gender is just a point of reference. Getting all uptight about gender, and getting uptight when scientists say that females are the gender that have babies, is the same as getting uptight when a scientists says that sodium is different than potassium. For creeps sake, it is just a point of reference.

Instinct.. must be socially constructed?

If you put a child inside a room with a snarling dog, and this child was had not been socialized, that child would know that the dog is dangerous and the child would fear that snarling dog without any "social construction of dog snarling". We have built in systems in our brain to prevent us from being killed - it is called instinct.

We also have built in gender detectors. Those who believe in socially constructed genders will have a hard time agreeing to this. It is true, as I speak from real world experience.

If you put a baby inside a room with a woman and a man, he would eventually go to the woman due to her body shape and voice. There are built in functions in the brain for SURVIVAL. In order to survive a man has to navigate to a woman. Male and female children have to be attracted to females for breast feeding. This is NOT socially constructed. Children will be attracted to mothers to breast feed if they are young enough - even if the child has not been taught (socially constructed) to breast feed. It may take the child a while to figure it out, and s/he may starve for days if s/he doesn't figure it out quick enough, but s/he will eventually figure it out. Somehow, without communicating in English, animal babies go to their mom's breast.

Gender attraction, Sexual attraction

Here's some personal experience with my built in gender detector (small proof that gender is not just socially constructed). I was a child about 3 years old in the swimming pool change room. It was the men's change room. While walking around naked I was startled to see girls in the men's change room. There were some young girls with their father. I guess he figured that his girls were so young that it would not matter if they came in with him.

As I was 3 years old, I knew nothing about "sex" or female private parts. In fact I wasn't even aware that females had different private parts than men private parts - I knew girls were different in some ways but I didn't know why. I felt nervous about the girls seeing me naked and I didn't know why I was nervous. I didn't feel nearly as nervous of males seeing me.

While walking around naked to my locker, as a 3 year old child, I kid you not, I got a hard-on as soon as I came near the girls. I thought there was something wrong with my penis. It was swelling and I wondered why. I had no knowledge about gender sex differences, and I was never socialized about sex or hard-ons or anything sexual. There was something in my brain telling my 3 year old penis to swell and get bigger, because of the voices I heard in the change room (girl voices), and because the girls were cute (I was 3, how was I to know), and because I was already naked walking around.

Later when I was about 12 years old I always remembered this incident as the most funny incident in my life - because at the time I didn't know what a hard-on was and I thought I had a "medical swelling dick" problem.

There are cells/hormones inside our bodies and brains that are not socially constructed. Just the sound of a woman's voice can get a guy "hard" even if he doesn't know what "romance" or gender is. Even if the guy does not know what the purpose of marriage is, or what differences there are between the genders, he still can figure out gender without any social construction - it's programmed partially into his brain at birth.

Sexual attraction is most definitely not socially constructed. Is it an adaptation? Could there have been a unisex at one time - and we evolved to be different? Were we once like the unisex worm with no gender, who replicates himself? Did the amoeba have gender?

Gender Differences for a Good Reason

Is it good that men and women are different? Yes, for survival. A woman should be built to carry a baby - that's why she has curvy hips. The folks who believe in socially constructed genders are missing the whole point of having two different and specialized sexes. There are advantages to having one sex built to have babies. If this sex happened to be a man - than so be it. But in our world, it is the female who has babies. That is just the generally accepted rule.. i.e. you don't go around calling females men. That just confuses the issue.

Stick to the scientific labels please. I realize that labels are bad and all, but please. We have to have some sort of reference. An apple isn't socially constructed to be a banana. Okay? Labelling a banana a banana is not being racist or sexist.. it is just being scientific. Without some form of reference or some form of labeling, we have no direction.

Does this mean that a female has to stay at home all day long even when she isn't having babies? No. Does this mean that over time man couldn't evolve to have babies, if he put the effort into it? No - but it would take a long long time, and equalizing the man with the woman serves no purpose - unless we can clone ourselves. We need one sex to be better at carrying babies. Or our babies will die.

Another thought: Where does a social construction come from? Who thinks up these social settings and encourages these social constructions? Our brains. It doesn't come from thin air. So even if it is a social construction, the social construction comes from our brains - and our brain is physical, making it a physical construction, not a social construction. Nothing can truly be "socially constructed" from "social matter". Spontaneous combustion doesn't hold up either.

Social and Environment Settings

Even if a woman was placed into social settings where she could succeed (she was given better running trainers for the olympics, let's pretend) - she would eventually still be slower than a man due to her breasts and estrogen. If she continues to be more like a man, she will not be very good at having babies - she will lose her breasts, she will possibly lose her eggs and ovaries, she will not be able to produce milk for her baby, her hips won't expand and she will not be flexible enough to have a baby, etc. etc. There have been countless proofs of this in the olympics where women that won a medal got it taken away from them because their body was one of those in-betweens where they took hormone pills to become more of a man.

Is there harm in equalizing the sexes? Yes, until we can clone ourselves or replicate ourselves from ourself. Even if we can clone ourselves, we still may need sex as a backup utility (where is the fun?). Cloning can go wrong. Although, there are unisex plants and worms out there that have survived for eons such as Peas and the self replicating worm. But it would take thousands of years to adapt to be more like the self replicating worm - and do we really want this, or is this social construction nonsense just a bunch of feminism gone wrong?

The author of this article must be a sexist pig!

I personally prefer to see a woman on the front of a magazine in a nice sweater, not in a skimpy bathing suit. Until women stop wearing bathing suits on the front of magazines, women will continue to be more powerful than men in society - because most men, don't prefer sweaters. I happen to. Men, should be fighting for their rights! Not the other way around. Unfortunately, men are stupid, and continue to be manipulated by women in bathing suits. Fortunately, I'm not one of those men, and I'm not stupid, and every time I see a woman in a bathing suit getting paid to be in a bathing suit, I laugh at her for committing such a silly act. No one is stopping women from having respectable careers like being a scientist, other than maybe the fact that testosterone causes your brain to be different... and you may choose a different career path because of it.

It is the woman who voluntarily took the paycheck to pose for so called sexist magazines: she volunteered her body. That doesn't make it man's fault. Nobody's fault but her own. Women choose to objectify themselves by taking a paycheck. It's not like government is forcing them to become sunshine girls.

Think about all the power that woman has over millions of stupid men who actually work 8 hours a day so they can afford their Penthouse and Playboy subscription. A woman must be very powerful if she can get a man to buy a magazine that just has pictures of skin in it. Imagine if naked women started using their power responsibly.. for example a woman who wears a bathing suit or panties, or a bra that says "stop smoking! don't do drugs!".

You're still confusing gender with sex

Nope. Gender and sex are tightly related and if you think gender is magically separate from sex you've been brainwashed by the feminist cult or the social construction of gender cult. Once again, I refer you to DNA and the Brain with James Watson, the co-discoverer of DNA. Our sex hormones deeply influence our gender and the paths we take in life, not just our physical sex. The summary of the video is that many men have more aspergers like brains due to how testosterone affects the brain during development. But you have to watch the whole video to fully understand. Also when a very smart woman marries a very smart man, you get an autistic child.. not something we should be aiming for!

In Extremely Bad Taste

World War 2 was probably caused because some man wanted to impress the lady in the bathing suit. Not directly.. indirectly.
See also: Creating-vs-Calling-Out-Sexism

About
Note: This Wiki is outdated, personal views may have changed.

This wiki contains info on life, health, humans, nature, programming, database, fads, paradigms, poems, principles, theories.

Articles may contain statements which some may find helpful and encouraging, or even discouraging.

Beware, I believe in the Grand Justice system.
_ _ _