What it is like to be a Woman

"If you want to know what it is like to be a woman, ask one."

This notion is almost amusing to me. Many assume that women are what gender roles describe them to be. This is to say that, typically, women are emotional, irrational, motherly and sexually reserved. This "outline" of women is a social construct; not every women fits those terms. Some women may fit none of those terms. In today's society it means many different things to be a woman. Even though the fight for women's equality is not done it is certainly at a different place than before. Now, women do not have to fit those certain roles or behaviors. Now, women do not have to be sexually reserved or motherly. Some women choose to have no motherly responses and others choose to expound upon their sexuality.

To know what it is like to be a woman cannot be determined by society, it is determined by women themselves. So I agree that if you want to know what it is like to be a woman, you should ask one, instead of assume the truth of a gender role that is far too dated.

Emotions and Gender

 Is one gender inherently more irrational and or emotional than another?

 When discussing the sexes it often comes up that one gender is more irrational than the other, and that irrationality usually comes from one gender portraying emotions more openly than the other. Typically this more irrational gender is women. However, is it fair to say that women are inherently more irrational than men or any other gender? It is known that women are more likely to cry when they are upset or if they are angry. This emotional reaction may be due to brain chemistry or how the emotion is handled. However, the fact that crying or showing emotions is something women are known to do, or that it is known as a feminine trait, is something constructed by societal gender roles. In this society, it is okay if women cry; however, if men show emotions or cry openly they are not seen as emotional - they are seen as effeminate. Whether the emotional reaction has to do with their brain chemistry or not is often left out or not regarded. This theory is skewed because it is very obvious that emotions and gender are not linked in the sense that one controls the other.

So is one gender more irrational or emotional than the other? Perhaps the reasons behind the emotions are due to the different combinations of  brain chemistry. However, much of the belief  regarding irrationality and emotions is constructed by society as a way to demand compliance with gender roles. I do not believe that one gender is more irrational or emotional than the other - I believe that is a societal perception of the genders.

Response to Skyla's post

Her response post is here http://skylasreality.blogspot.com/2012/11/post-2.html

In Skyla's blog post she commented on my idea of people who advocate for issues without being critical thinkers. I used the example of the LGBTQ community and she took it in another direction, one which I did not originally consider. Skyla considered this concept with people and politics. She used the example of her being raised in a democratic household and then having both political parties to her. She uses the idea of people who vote without knowing the issues; this is something I had not originally considered. However, it is very true that we cannot accurately take part in the voting process or in politics if we do not critically think. The issues which we are voting on and for are ones that we need to be able to understand in full and think about without a party bias. 

Considering this, I think it is important to realize that we must critically think if we truly want to make a difference and not vote just to say we voted. Today the stakes in politics become higher and higher, and as voters and citizens, if we choose to take part in this process we need to be critical thinkers. I believe firmly that we cannot ignore being a critical thinker if we want to fight for issues that matter or vote or advocate for different things.

Response to Avery's Post

His post is here http://asfcr2012f.blogspot.com/2012/11/positive-isms.html

Avery's post in response to my one from last week was another interesting idea that I had not initially thought of when discussing the idea of ending negative isms. Avery brought up the fact that by eliminating these negative isms, we also get rid of positive isms like feminism, which depending in your opinion is considered a positive ism.  However, these isms arrive because of negative ones. For example, feminism arrived in response to sexism. There begins the cycle of eliminating negative and positive isms.

It would interesting if eliminating isms in general happened, because I believe it would be better if we got rid of isms all together; that way there are no negative or positive connotations to one party. That way everyone can remain equal in all senses. After reading Avery's response I was able to consider that idea. I had not initially thought of it as an elimination of both sides of the ism spectrum. I think perhaps that is the resolution to the problem of isms that are created by a lack of critical thinking. If we did think critically we could do away with all forms of isms because we would be able to look at people and groups of individuals without a basis or without a preconceived judgement.

Advocating without Understanding

Can we fully advocate for a certain social group if we cannot critically think about the issue?

Once again, if we look at what it means to critically think then we understand it means to think logically, analytically, and without prejudice. Also, we know that not everyone is a critical thinker and there are some who never will critically think.

So, can we as people advocate for a certain social group, like the LGBTQA community, if we do not critically think about the issue? To me, that does not make a lot of sense. For us to consider the rights of another group then we must be able to think critically, thereby leaving all prejudgments, religious beliefs, and other personal feelings aside. However, not everyone is able to do that, and not everyone involved with these groups can do so. To consider and understand the issues of these parties we must know enough details well enough to analyse them and offer help to them without other matters getting in the way.

So no, I do not believe that we can fully advocate for a social group if we are not critical thinkers ourselves.

To End All Isms

If everyone was a critical thinker, would we still have isms?

It occurred to me that being a critical thinker means to be someone who thinks of things clearly, analytically and without allowing personal beliefs to skew one's thoughts. If that is true, then if we could all be critical thinkers it would be possible to no longer have negative isms. Now, to make it clearer, negative isms are a way to belittle a group of people - for example, racism, sexism, heterosexism and so on. These terms are used against a group of people to lessen them as individuals.

With that in mind, it is not fair to say that everyone is a critical thinker, but if everyone became a critical thinker they would be more able to identify and analyze the differences between themselves and others without a stigma based on past beliefs or religious affiliation affecting their point of view. Critical thinkers would be more able to see another from a logical point of view. For instance, a critical thinker would not use racism against an African American because their skin color will have nothing to do with understanding them as a person. Overall they would be able to evaluate different people without the stigmatizing them based on their ethnicity or orientation or gender identity. It would be a less hypercritical situation and more of a critical analysis of the person as a whole.

Free Will in Life

A week or so back we discussed Free Will and I found it to be something that still makes me think. I keep wondering how many things in my life, which I believe I do with free will, are really determined. For example, I have studied for every test I have taken since beginning school. Our discussion made me question whether I really had the choice to do that extra work or not. If so, why did I choose to do so? The idea that everything that we do is preconceived and predetermined makes me think that even considering free will is a bit ridiculous. I have found myself wondering why we ever thought in the first place that we had the free will to do school work, have a job, or function in society. It would seem as though free will is merely a social construct; it is something we believe we have when in actuality we do not.

It is also interesting to think of things like this from a deterministic point of view, which in this respect seems to make more sense. It would seem as though those feelings or preconceived actions are more easily understood as being something determined. Perhaps we as humans are determined to follow in the path of what we know we are obligated to do, what is right (right in the sense that passing in homework and studying is a good habit that we are conditioned to know to have positive results.)

I really enjoyed the conversation about this we had the week before; however, I do feel as if there is much more on this subject that can be explored.