Gender is a social construct.
That's just nuts.
A social construction, or social construct or a social concept is an invention or artifact of a particular culture or society which exists solely because people agree to behave as if it exists, or agree to follow certain conventional rules.
social construct. - Bing
Exactly. Gender is a social construct. Society tells us that girls cry and boys don’t. Society tells us that boys like blue and girls like pink. Society tells us that boys play with trucks and girls play with barbies. Society tells us that boys are rough and girls are gentle.
Reality tells us that it is all bullshit. That there are boys who cry and girls who fight. There are boys who dance and girls who play hockey. There are boys that wear makeup and girls that work on cars.
As a little girl I liked blue, played in mud puddles, and grew up to be a college basketball player. As someone who has always broken gender norms, I can assure you, it’s a social construct.
I actually agree with you, Aries, on this I too was a huge tom boy when I was a kid and I've always had a bit of a "male identity." There is no doubt in my mind that the classical gender role ideals are a product of Christianity; it's rather to be expected considering that like 90% of "traditional American values" are rooted in the teachings of the bible. Not to say we can't buck that system, but where I will [possibly] diverge [as I do not know where you stand on the following Aries], and clarify my agreement to the idea is at the aspect of expecting everyone to conform to the feminist individuals opinions.
Social construct is a two way street...
Just as feminists and gender norm breakers argue it is "unfair" to be put into a role of X merely by ones birth gender, it is also unfair to /punish/ folks for discussing issues within the context of their /own/ social construct upbringing; that is to say, as an example, when I started working corporate and some men were raised, and truly believed, that I was simply too soft and emotional to do the job. I was able to understand things from /their/ perspective and /their/ upbringing - [to recognize that they had concerns for the success of the business, for their own careers - and frankly I cannot blame them for that; upper management can absolutely /destroy/ a business no matter how great the product is - and let us not forget the very valid fears that are touched upon by the OPs topic - fear of saying the wrong thing, offending the wrong woman, and getting fired or sued over it.] Because I understood the idea of "social construct" (the term didn't really exist back then, but the general idea certainly did,) I was also comprehend the nuances of some guy's reactions/interactions toward/with me without turning it into "they hate women" or "they want women barefoot in the kitchen" and "subservient to men" (and frankly folks who spout this latter catch-phrase about "traditional" American men have /clearly/ never met/seen a happily married husband and wife.) Those "assumed thoughts" are NOT typically what is being thought, more typically it is a... base emotional reaction to an... esoteric threat; and some people, (and I'd say perhaps especially men who have a family reliant upon their paycheck,) react to such perceived threats with some measure of verbal aggression, be that trying to get the woman to quit or lobbying against it as a hiring policy, or whatever.
That "verbally aggressive" reaction is actually no different than what happens in same sex worker conflict interactions. Negative fear mongering of feminists and "victim status pimps" that attempts to alter that particular /normal/ dynamic into an "evil" or a "war on women." That is to say, it is not always sexism or patriarchy that drives men to object to women working. And similarly, it is not usually sexism that drives men's objections to things like women going out to bars or "not having a man." This is the deceptive "twisting" that folks do when they're pushing an agenda, to gain support via sympathy, when more often than not the base reason that men object to the latter two is because they are both socially and biologically trained/engineered/designed to protect women. When one get wrapped up in an "agenda" - well meaning as it might be - they very often overlook reasonable explanations and grasp onto the worst possible scenario because it validates or supports their position (aka confirmation bias.)
Its like me, I'm a woman so my opinion counts on this shit too, but too often when I attempt discuss my opinion on the negatives of the women's movement I am labeled sexist. (I won't get into the details of my reasons for being "anti-feminist" because it's not really related to the topic at hand, nor particularly my response and opinion on this particular OT sidetrack. It'll have to suffice for me to say that I do not believe women are incapable, but rather more along the lines of, just because you /can/ doesn't mean you /should/.)
To bring this OT side-line back on point with the OP here, I would suggest that in the arena of "sexual harassment" there is also a shit ton of "twisting" happening along with the accompanying "misunderstanding" when it comes to shit like compliments, sexual jokes and innuendo, and other "harmless" items that are being taken out of context in the quest to "pimp an agenda."
There are obviously things that cross the line; to example one of the court cases in the link I'd put up for ChrisL; a supervisor telling a female employee they'd like to do them doggy style on the desk is quite obviously way, way over the line. I also think that there is room for improvement here; I can easily see, and support, getting rid of sexual jokes and innuendo in the workplace (most places have honestly,) but just as employers usually have a handbook to explain the rules for employee behavior at work, there also needs to be a kind of "social" handbook on what is and is not acceptable behavior - it is not fair to decide after the fact that simply asking a girl out for a drink is sexual harassment, that hitting on a girl is sexual harassment, that putting a hand on a woman's shoulder is sexual assault, when /all/ of those things have traditionally been completely acceptable behavior.
I mean despite being uhm "aggressive" in my pickup methods back in the day [just grabbing them and "making a move",] and I can certainly see how someone could find that "scary" (even if I didn't intend it that way) so I'm more than willing to uhm... "de-normalize" that as "acceptable" or uhm agree to call it "sexual assault" I guess, (not to say I think us alpha aggressive folks have to stop coming on that to those who similarly enjoy it, but rather we need to have a bit more uh... discussion... no... idk something prior to acting somehow... I'm not sure what nor how yet.) I mean honestly, as a mother of four boys, I am not apposed to having a ******* legal document that has to be signed before they can touch or kiss, much less make out or have sex, but I also kind of see how that might be a bit unrealistic and perhaps me being biased to protecting my children from getting sued over a misread of interest and ******* their lives over - many jobs won't hire someone with any kind of assault/harassment on their record (even a restraining order) because the businesses are held liable for anything their manager/supervisors do wrong. (Which I'll go OT again to point out is yet another reason that managers and CEOs make so much more money than your average pleb)
