Just like introversion-extroversion or sex drive, gender is a spectral trait which follows a Gaussian distribution: occupying the extremes is rare, most people fall somewhere in the middle.
I could not disagree with this more. Gender absolutely does not follow a Gaussian distribution. By this claim, you would have a hard time determining what gender most people are. And yet I can assure you, that barring cherry-picked exceptional cases, the median human will have an exceptionally easy time sorting photographs of people into "male" and "female". What gender is, is a bimodal distribution.
Incidentally, the same criticism applies to your forced normalization of all of the other labels you are criticizing - for people's usages of terms like 'ambivert' to to make sense, it is sufficient that they believe its a bimodal distribution, not a discrete one. (And this goes doubly for sexual attraction, where 'bisexual' is definitely not the majority category)
Finally, knowing that somebody is average in a trait is useful information, because it collapses your uncertainty about that person. It's not the same thing as describing an elephant as gray.
the median human will have an exceptionally easy time sorting photographs of people into "male" and "female"
I agree, but that's sexual dimorphism, whereas I'm talking about adherence to gender roles. It's a bit confusing because He-Man both looks like a man and fully conforms to a classical archetype of how a man is supposed to behave (vice versa for Barbie), but I'm only really talking about the extent to which people adhere to gender roles, not what they look like. I was trying to make this distinction clear in a footnote but maybe it was too ambiguous.
This obviously varies from culture to culture, but I think it's fair to say that in much of the West, few people fully conform to classical archetypes of how members of their gender are "supposed" to behave. Even leaving aside overt gender non-conformance like men wearing dresses and makeup: very few men engage in hard physical labour as their primary source of income, no one bats an eyelid at a woman drinking beer or wearing jeans, women pursuing careers in STEM are generally encouraged to do so by their peers and mentors, it's not seen as embarrassing if a man knows how to bake (or a woman doesn't).
And this goes doubly for sexual attraction, where 'bisexual' is definitely not the majority category
very few men engage in hard physical labour as their primary source of income, no one bats an eyelid at a woman drinking beer or wearing jeans, women pursuing careers in STEM are generally encouraged to do so by their peers and mentors, it's not seen as embarrassing if a man knows how to bake (or a woman doesn't).
But these are all examples of historical gender norms (though I doubt there was ever a physical labour-income norm for men) not contemporary norms.
Well yeah, that was precisely the contrast I was striking in the article, or as I said in the comment above, 'few people fully conform to classical archetypes of how members of their gender are "supposed" to behave'.
If you're arguing that "contemporary" gender norms are far more open to the point that androgyny (or something approximating it) is the rule rather than the exception, then that's literally the exact point I was arguing in the article.
though I doubt there was ever a physical labour-income norm for men
Huh? Surely you accept that, for most of human history, the overwhelming majority of men earned their income through physical labour (e.g. coal mining, carpentry, assorted agricultural activities, tree felling etc.).
If you're arguing that "contemporary" gender norms are far more open to the point that androgyny (or something approximating it) is the rule rather than the exception, then that's literally the exact point I was arguing in the article.
No, the evidence you cite is just as consistent with a change in gender norms. That doesn't mean that gender norms aren't still present and clear to people.
Huh? Surely you accept that, for most of human history, the overwhelming majority of men earned their income through physical labour (e.g. coal mining, carpentry, assorted agricultural activities, tree felling etc.).
Right, but was it a norm, let alone a gendered norm? If you look at great admired male figures in most of human history, like Achilles, Jesus, Odysseus, Gilgamesh, Heracles, Caesar, King Arthur, Alexander, Buddha, Confucius, Socrates... They are distinguished mainly by just about everything except earning an income through physical labour. Fighting? Yes. Doing something physical in an adventure? Yes. Working down a mine or fixing a wheel? Hardly something for great men to do.
Among intellectuals Aristotle thought that men doing physical labour belonged with women and children in the political hirearchy: not fit for citizenship. The normative life for Aristotle was that of a leisured aristocrat, not some proletarian or peasant. Physical labour could be used to keep oneself fit and virile, or monastic labour to get closer to God, or to get out of some sticky situation (see Heracles) but it wasn't something that you were supposed to do to earn a living of all things!
Among intellectuals Aristotle thought that men doing physical labour belonged with women and children in the political hirearchy: not fit for citizenship. The normative life for Aristotle was that of a leisured aristocrat, not some proletarian or peasant. Physical labour could be used to keep oneself fit and virile, or monastic labour to get closer to God, or to get out of some sticky situation (see Heracles) but it wasn't something that you were supposed to do to earn a living of all things!
This is misunderstanding of classical antiquity attitude. It was not about "labor".
In ancient mindset, only free man, man worthy of being a citizen, was an independent man.
Who was an independent man?
Slaves were obviously dependent, had to obey their masters or else.
Wage laborers were also considered slaves who had to sell themselves every day in order to survive.
City dwelling artisans were dependent on their customers - if no one wants to buy the shoes you make, you are hosed.
The same about merchants.
In ancient mind, the only independent people were farmers living on their land - both small farmers working their land themselves and large landowners sitting in atrium and watching the slaves.
large landowners sitting in atrium and watching the slaves.
is sufficient for my purpose: there was not a general norm that hard physical labour should be one's primary source of income, which was the original claim under contestation.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I could not disagree with this more. Gender absolutely does not follow a Gaussian distribution. By this claim, you would have a hard time determining what gender most people are. And yet I can assure you, that barring cherry-picked exceptional cases, the median human will have an exceptionally easy time sorting photographs of people into "male" and "female". What gender is, is a bimodal distribution.
Incidentally, the same criticism applies to your forced normalization of all of the other labels you are criticizing - for people's usages of terms like 'ambivert' to to make sense, it is sufficient that they believe its a bimodal distribution, not a discrete one. (And this goes doubly for sexual attraction, where 'bisexual' is definitely not the majority category)
Finally, knowing that somebody is average in a trait is useful information, because it collapses your uncertainty about that person. It's not the same thing as describing an elephant as gray.
I agree, but that's sexual dimorphism, whereas I'm talking about adherence to gender roles. It's a bit confusing because He-Man both looks like a man and fully conforms to a classical archetype of how a man is supposed to behave (vice versa for Barbie), but I'm only really talking about the extent to which people adhere to gender roles, not what they look like. I was trying to make this distinction clear in a footnote but maybe it was too ambiguous.
This obviously varies from culture to culture, but I think it's fair to say that in much of the West, few people fully conform to classical archetypes of how members of their gender are "supposed" to behave. Even leaving aside overt gender non-conformance like men wearing dresses and makeup: very few men engage in hard physical labour as their primary source of income, no one bats an eyelid at a woman drinking beer or wearing jeans, women pursuing careers in STEM are generally encouraged to do so by their peers and mentors, it's not seen as embarrassing if a man knows how to bake (or a woman doesn't).
Completely agree.
But these are all examples of historical gender norms (though I doubt there was ever a physical labour-income norm for men) not contemporary norms.
Well yeah, that was precisely the contrast I was striking in the article, or as I said in the comment above, 'few people fully conform to classical archetypes of how members of their gender are "supposed" to behave'.
If you're arguing that "contemporary" gender norms are far more open to the point that androgyny (or something approximating it) is the rule rather than the exception, then that's literally the exact point I was arguing in the article.
Huh? Surely you accept that, for most of human history, the overwhelming majority of men earned their income through physical labour (e.g. coal mining, carpentry, assorted agricultural activities, tree felling etc.).
No, the evidence you cite is just as consistent with a change in gender norms. That doesn't mean that gender norms aren't still present and clear to people.
Right, but was it a norm, let alone a gendered norm? If you look at great admired male figures in most of human history, like Achilles, Jesus, Odysseus, Gilgamesh, Heracles, Caesar, King Arthur, Alexander, Buddha, Confucius, Socrates... They are distinguished mainly by just about everything except earning an income through physical labour. Fighting? Yes. Doing something physical in an adventure? Yes. Working down a mine or fixing a wheel? Hardly something for great men to do.
Among intellectuals Aristotle thought that men doing physical labour belonged with women and children in the political hirearchy: not fit for citizenship. The normative life for Aristotle was that of a leisured aristocrat, not some proletarian or peasant. Physical labour could be used to keep oneself fit and virile, or monastic labour to get closer to God, or to get out of some sticky situation (see Heracles) but it wasn't something that you were supposed to do to earn a living of all things!
This is misunderstanding of classical antiquity attitude. It was not about "labor".
In ancient mindset, only free man, man worthy of being a citizen, was an independent man.
Who was an independent man?
Slaves were obviously dependent, had to obey their masters or else.
Wage laborers were also considered slaves who had to sell themselves every day in order to survive.
City dwelling artisans were dependent on their customers - if no one wants to buy the shoes you make, you are hosed.
The same about merchants.
In ancient mind, the only independent people were farmers living on their land - both small farmers working their land themselves and large landowners sitting in atrium and watching the slaves.
Fair points, but:
is sufficient for my purpose: there was not a general norm that hard physical labour should be one's primary source of income, which was the original claim under contestation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link