posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
orichalcum at 01:12pm on 20/09/2005
orichalcum at 01:12pm on 20/09/2005So, I'm about to go off and teach Gender and Sexuality in the Ancient World, and give my students the following anonymous survey:
Gender and Sexuality in the Ancient World
Anonymous Introductory Survey
This survey is designed to make you think about your assumptions about gender, sexuality, and the ancient world, and also to collect general data about the opinions of the class. This is not a test, and you will not be graded or evaluated on your responses in any way. Please answer briefly and completely honestly. Your confidentiality will be respected.
1. Do you think that women and men are fundamentally different emotionally and mentally? In other words, are there significant biological distinctions in the way that men and women think and their suitability for different mental tasks, or are such distinctions entirely the result of culture and upbringing?
2. Do you think that sexual orientation is biologically or culturally determined? In your opinion, are people born gay, lesbian, or bisexual, or does something in their environment cause their orientation to change? Is this distinction different for men and for women?
3. List three nouns or adjectives that you associate with the ancient Greeks, e.g. “tragedy” or “intelligent”.
4. List three nouns that you associate with the ancient Romans.
And coincidentally, outlawradio and karakara have alerted me to two news articles about the changing face of gender roles and attitudes towards sexuality in the modern world - one on how 60% of Yale undergraduate women interviewed said they wanted to stop working or work only part-time once they had kids: (sorry for bad link but on public computer): http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/20/national/20women.html?pagewanted=1
and another on the FBI's recent increase in agents to fight adult pornography: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901570.html, while meanwhile I found a third article interesting which detailed a recent study showing a vast increase in the number of women under 30 who have had sexual experience with other women (14% in the 18-29 range) (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/16/national/16sex.html?hp&ex=1126929600&en=4cb329962222f612&ei=5094&partner=homepage), unmatched by the number of guys with same-sex experience, who are at about 7%, the same as higher age ranges.
Just on the basis of these articles, it seems like American society is careening in a series of rapidly different directions in terms of attitudes towards gender roles and appropriate sexuality. It's a time of change maybe - maybe as important as the 60's. Or maybe, this is just a bubble in a general peaceful trend towards more equality.
Comments invited. You can also respond to the survey if you want, even anonymously.
Gender and Sexuality in the Ancient World
Anonymous Introductory Survey
This survey is designed to make you think about your assumptions about gender, sexuality, and the ancient world, and also to collect general data about the opinions of the class. This is not a test, and you will not be graded or evaluated on your responses in any way. Please answer briefly and completely honestly. Your confidentiality will be respected.
1. Do you think that women and men are fundamentally different emotionally and mentally? In other words, are there significant biological distinctions in the way that men and women think and their suitability for different mental tasks, or are such distinctions entirely the result of culture and upbringing?
2. Do you think that sexual orientation is biologically or culturally determined? In your opinion, are people born gay, lesbian, or bisexual, or does something in their environment cause their orientation to change? Is this distinction different for men and for women?
3. List three nouns or adjectives that you associate with the ancient Greeks, e.g. “tragedy” or “intelligent”.
4. List three nouns that you associate with the ancient Romans.
And coincidentally, outlawradio and karakara have alerted me to two news articles about the changing face of gender roles and attitudes towards sexuality in the modern world - one on how 60% of Yale undergraduate women interviewed said they wanted to stop working or work only part-time once they had kids: (sorry for bad link but on public computer): http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/20/national/20women.html?pagewanted=1
and another on the FBI's recent increase in agents to fight adult pornography: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901570.html, while meanwhile I found a third article interesting which detailed a recent study showing a vast increase in the number of women under 30 who have had sexual experience with other women (14% in the 18-29 range) (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/16/national/16sex.html?hp&ex=1126929600&en=4cb329962222f612&ei=5094&partner=homepage), unmatched by the number of guys with same-sex experience, who are at about 7%, the same as higher age ranges.
Just on the basis of these articles, it seems like American society is careening in a series of rapidly different directions in terms of attitudes towards gender roles and appropriate sexuality. It's a time of change maybe - maybe as important as the 60's. Or maybe, this is just a bubble in a general peaceful trend towards more equality.
Comments invited. You can also respond to the survey if you want, even anonymously.
(no subject)
I know, I'm a child.
(no subject)
Survey questions
1. Yes. In fact, I believe this has been well-proved by the failure of gender reassignment surgeries in the past. http://www.moss-fritch.com/medical_error.htm
2. I tend to think there is a biology "template", that can be altered with cultural influences. (Like the bird-song analogy.) But whether this involves desire, identity, or behavior is a hard question. Logically, I think that the spectrum approach is a better one to take rather than "gay", "straight", "bi", etc. since sexual arousal and emotional love are so mixed up. (It seems to me that in theory two members of the same sex can be in love, and even express that love in sexual actions, without having a general preference for one gender or another.) The points where we pin names to the spectrum is cultural. There are certainly taboos and cultural influences thatalter the behavior as well. For example, same-sex experiences between women (but not becoming pure lesbians) seems to be less and less taboo, even expected of college-age women. And straight women know that it is a turn-on for straight men, which may make them more likely to experiment to increase their own sexual attractiveness to men(see Girls Gone Wild for rampant examples). But the reverse is not true for women.
3. Mathematics, Olympics, stories
4. Roads, warriors, architechture
(no subject)
"'What does concern me,' said Peter Salovey, the dean of Yale College, 'is that so few students seem to be able to think outside the box; so few students seem to be able to imagine a life for themselves that isn't constructed along traditional gender roles.'"
I think they can imagine it, but don't see it as doable. This is reasonable, but still sad, in the same way it's sad that I gave up on paleontology, orchestra conducting, and physics, because I didn't see a way to make it in those fields. My other thoughts:
Are we giving men enough opportunity to stay home with the kids? Could we do better on this, both by making it possible in more jobs, and by making it more appealing as a choice? I must admit, I already think the idea of a man staying home at least part-time to care for kids while his wife works full time is a very sexy idea, but maybe I wouldn't if I didn't also see it as unusual. I don't want to make men do what I refuse to do, but maybe
While I don't have the same wants as the women quoted in that article, I don't think Yale women of a generation ago felt they could say these things. Is that a good thing that today's Yale women feel they can? Perhaps. Are they being realistic? Quite likely. Is it realism in the face of our culture refusing to give them better options? And is it that they don't want to stay in the workforce because the workforce penalizes them for jumping out for a while and they just don't want to set their hopes on a great career? Oh, I'd put money on that being part of it.
Staying home is a great idea. But we have long failed at helping women to feel connected and engaged while staying at home, and we don't do enough to make staying at work doable. (I say this despite being in a place where women AND men are finding ways to make it work, and getting better than average support for it.) We can do better about not penalizing people for jumping out of the workforce to have kids or care for a parent or all manner of other stuff, and I think it be better for us to have more options.
The Economist had articles in its July 23-29 issue this year about how it might well help corporations to have more women stay in the system, and maybe if we become more caregiver friendly we'll have a happier healthier workforce. I like that idea; no idea how to _accomplish_ it, but I like it.
(no subject)
Here's a hopeful spin on the New York Times article: that parenting is seen as valuable enough socially that young, bright talented women want to do it. Once it's socially valuable enough, it may be less difficult for men to do the same. Still, if you really want to combat gender roles give your little boys baby dolls to play with. Still, it's hard to tease out the biological from the cultural, but there's evidence that parenting skills are learned to a large degree, even among monkeys and apes.
I still have hope that workplaces will become more flexible about allow people time to parent and have careers, but that will be hard as long as healthcare is tied to full-time employment. I can't shake the daydream though of someday having my own company with on-site daycare for my own kids and my employees.
(no subject)
I'm seeing a generational effect--a lot of the top students now may have had mothers with careers of their own, but at a time when the business world was not overly accommodating of working parents. The college students of today may have been latchkey kids with mothers that tried to balance children and work and found it very difficult, and have passed that feeling down.
My mother tells me that women of her generation were made to feel guilty about being stay-at-home moms because of the prominence of feminism of the day. That isn't as true any more. In fact I think employers, at least in white collar jobs, are getting more and more accommodating of family for both genders. (IDEO has paternity leave, and a flexible workspace that allows babies in the building for short times. No daycare yet, though.)
There does seem to be a growing societal consensus that if one can afford it, a parent at home is ideal. I'm actually finding myself having to adjust to the fact that I thought I was going to be the one working while Michael raised the kids and worked at home, but now with law school I'm probably going to be the primary caregiver, and will take some time off if we can afford it. But I'm ok with that, and it doesn't make me feel repressed by society or guilty of betraying my gender. It will be just my own choice.
(no subject)
To me, the big problem is all about gender roles. Stay at home dads should be just as acceptable (and common) as stay-at-home moms. So, to me, the depressing thing was that only 4 respondents suggested that the women polled expected to have stay-at-home partners, or at least that that was a serious possibility. (And even those may not indicate expectations of stay-at-home dads, because some of those 4 may not be straight.)
(no subject)
Then I saw that slate, curse them and their paid reporters, beat me to it.
http://www.slate.com/id/2126636/ (ps: Mr. Shafer, I resent the term social-science dropout.)
I think an important note missed there is that even in the Yale alumni survey, absolutely no data supports the main thesis: that the number of women who are choosing to stay at home at a given age is growing: all that doing a cross-cut survey like that of five different alumni classes yields a correlation of working gap with age, not that this is a generational attitude.
(I'm also not keen about that data too: I'd be willing to put even money on it being another self-selecting questionairre, or even better, a survey conducted in 1999 at the reunions, and published in 2000; either of those could be highly unrepresentative.).
Most likely, a meaningful percentage of women are giving up their careers (although I wouldn't use any of those percentages in the articles), and that this is probably a higher amount than at least some of us would have guessed: I don't see* any data which should make us think this trend is growing, let alone that the cause of this is generational. I barely see any data at all.
* I'm guessing that if you tracked back to the 60's, you would find that fewer women abandoned their careers, but I'm not sure this is meaningful either, since like the SAT's back in the 60's, the pool of people involved was very different and much much smaller. What you'd really want is a longitudinal study of capability vs working. If you sorted that out, I think you'd find a level or increasing amount of women working in families from 1950 onwards.