Gender stereotypes, and "softness," a feminine quality?

[billyskank]

This article makes a number of assertions about the nature of femininity:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1830909,00.html

Yet, given that the issue which has most damaged Blair's leadership has been his use of hard power in Iraq, might soft power be a concept worth developing and championing? The politics that Cameron represents is trying (however cynically) to resonate with a form of soft power that existed long before the advent of policy wonks: that is, the power of the feminine itself. Could the empathy, relatedness and horizontal responsiveness that so marks a female approach to the world - call it soft, if you like - be a new and distinct input into political change and reform?

This goes beyond the traditional feminist case against patriarchy, and into positive examples of current female leadership, particularly outside the west. When Lu Hsiu-lien, vice-president of Taiwan, published her book on soft power in May, she began by saying: "The concept is not difficult to understand; yet very few leaders to date have put this concept into practice." Might this be because softness is a complex, feminine quality? And because politics is still dominated by men?

This article seems to assert that the reason for politics being the way it is is that it is practiced predominantly by men. Is this true? And are empathy and 'softness' feminine qualities, in the sense that women possess them more than men? Or is this merely a conceit?

In particular, how do you imagine the world might be if the gender power relationship were inverted? Would there be less conflict? I have observed myself that women are not less likely to fight than men, although the manner in which they fight is different. I have further observed that women are frequently extremely horrible to each other. So would a 'female' future be a better one, as suggested in this article?

It seems to me that the term 'feminine' here is being defined in these terms: empathy, persuasion, attraction, and used as such. How many women are actually 'feminine' in these terms is not discussed, or indeed how many men. This is an idealisation of course. I would say that a better meaning of the word is "the qualities that are predominantly seen in women," and start from there.

What do you think?

[LeftyMom]

1. I think there'd be real ups and downs to a greater role for women in

global politics. As a rule, women are less likely than men to embrace violence as a solution. On the other hand, once they resort to violence women are less likely to respect social norms and more ruthless in a fight.

I think a certain amount of the argument that women would be better political leaders than men generally comes from an unrealistic idealization of women generally. Additionally, women who seek positions of power are generally hardasses, though some of them are quite willing to play up the maternal archetype to thier advantage.

[billyskank]

3. I am reasonably confident that the reason so many female leaders

are "hardasses" as you put it is because they have to play the existing game, which suits such people. Hence you end up with leaders like Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel, neither of whom are really distinguishable from their male peers in policy.

I think the author of the article is right in that a future in which policies were based on empathy and understanding would indeed be far preferable, and I think she is simply using the word "feminine" as a concept rather than a practical reality. My own opinion is that if the world were reversed gender-wise, Star-Trek style, it would remain equally flawed, although the nature of many of the flaws would be different.

To change the world I think we need to change the moods of both men and women. Just people, generally. We're all in it together.

[Jamastiene]

15. You are so right.

Our governments, globally, are set up so that only the hardasses stand a chance at getting a leadership position.

[NewWaveChick1981]

2. Wow. billyskank...

The author takes masculine/feminine stereotypes and magnifies them for her arguments. :( I think you're exactly right---women don't fight less, they just have a different approach many times. I don't think this is an innate quality of women, though---it happens primarily through socialization. I worked for a women's college that was staffed almost exclusively by women, including the president. In the seven years I was there, I saw not fewer, but MORE power struggles throughout the hierarchy. The president wielded "hard" power by the definition presented within the article, and things were not "softer" because women were in the power positions.

I think your definition of "feminine" as "the qualities that are predominantly seen in women" is the best definition I've seen yet. :) The author of the article sounds like some of the "women's guidebooks" from the 1950s that strictly define gender characteristics and roles. :(

I believe things would be different if DIFFERENT LEADERS were in power (for example, Al Gore or John Kerry in the US). Because the wrong leaders have been chosen in most cases, or because of ones who have seized power, the world political arena is in chaos.

Just my opinion. :)

[billyskank]

4. I do agree that society needs to be changed

and I think that means that both men and women need their moods adjusting.

It could be that whenever power is accumulated in any centre, it becomes ruthless in the protection of its power. There may be nothing that can be done about this, except to somehow avoid excessive accumulations of power.

[Jamastiene]

24. One of the democrats who left office recently spoke of this

very topic. I think it was Fritz Hollings from South Carolina, but I can't remember off the top of my head. He said the idea of "serving the public" in government was less about serving the public and more about the accumulation of more money and more influence. He said the minute they get into office, they have to begin preparing for the next election and keeping the power took up most of their time. They really don't spend so much time thinking about the citizens of their country as they do about staying in power. It's that whole "drunk on power" phenomenon that we need to fight.

[Skittles]

5. I WILL KICK THE AUTHOR'S ASS

THAT IS WHAT I THINK

[billyskank]

7. Skittles!

:loveya: :yourock: :hi:

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

6. My female friends are WAY more viscious than my guy friends and I

They just prefer lots of verbal blackmailing and gossiping, where as my guy friends and I would just beat each other up a little.

ON EIDT: Although, like all things, it really depends more on the person.

[billyskank]

8. Guys are often pretty straightforward in their animosity

Like I said, I think I agree with the article, when understanding her use of 'feminine' as a concept, expressing the qualities she describes. Just bearing in mind that it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with real life women, that's all.

[sarge43]

9. People, regardless of gender, in a subservient position in their

society will tend to be 'softer' and more empathetic. They must be in order to survive. They can't afford to be aggressive when they have little or no power, physical, social, economic etc. Empathy is a necessary attribute in order to sense the superior's behavior and reactions. The only aspect of 'feminine' behavior that may be inherent is mothers who are aggressive, violent and non-empathetic may not be as successful raising their children as mothers who are. So, successful behavior may continue to breed the behavior, but that's very ify.

That said, I don't believe women are inherently one jot nicer than men nor do I believe men are incapable of gentleness and empathy.

The Suffragettes claimed that when women got the vote, they would clean up the political process and governance. Still waiting.

[distantearlywarning]

11. Social psychological research says

you are absolutely correct! People of lower status more readily learn and display behaviors that suggest they are interested in understanding and cooperating with other people, especially high status people. It's a very reasonable explanation for the "women=soft" hypothesis.

[distantearlywarning]

10. I've heard this "soft" thing all my life

but never understood it. I've never been very "soft". Empathetic, sometimes. I know guys who are "softer" and more people oriented than I am. I also know some girls who are "softer" than I am and some that are "harder" (whatever the hell that means anyway). I agree with the OP that women are just as aggressive as men, but tend to express it differently given social norms regarding the acceptability of direct conflict between women. And as our culture becomes more accepting of women being physical, we have seen a corresponding increase in female physical violence (and morons write hysterical books about this trend as though it is some kind of extremely alarming fundamental change in women's biological makeup rather than just a totally understandable reflection of changing social norms :eyes: )

I do not think that the world would be more peaceful if women ran it. I think that the world would be just as violent but we would all be forced to pretend it was more peaceful or be ostracized and gossiped about.

[billyskank]

12. It seems that we are somewhat agreed

that the real problem is concentrations of power, such as are seen in hierarchies, and which are invariably jealous and ruthless in defence of their power.

[Jamastiene]

23. You make a good point about the world being just the same

if women ran it. Here is a good question to pose to someone who disagrees on that point: Which wolf do you think will fight harder for the pack? The alpha male or the alpha female? The only answer I see to that question is depends on which leader they had, the alpha female or the alpha male. They only have one alpha at the time. They would both fight the same if they perceived the pack as threatened in any way.

[jobycom]

13. Gender is an artificial construct

We emphasize certain human qualities and classify them as "male" or "female," but both genders have equal amounts of each quality. They may vary from person to person, but not gender to gender. Men and women are encouraged by society to bring out qualities associated with their gender. When either gender fails to do this, they are labeled as defective. Soft men. Hard women. Etc.

A world run by women would be the same as a world run by men, with maybe a few emphases here and there changed. I think if such a change was made, then at first there would be a difference, because the women we would choose as leaders would be those with the qualities we think of as feminine, and they would, for political reasons, emphasize those qualities. But that would fade. There would still be economic conflicts. There would still be ideological differences. War would still be easier as a solution than diplomacy, no matter who ordered the troops around. The world would not function any more sanely.

The biggest gain of electing more female leaders would be in better utilizing the full talent pool of the species. We would increase the odds of a smart candidate, since we would not automatically exclude half the potential smart candidates out there. But the changes would still be minimal, as people would continue to elect George W Bushes or Kay Bailey Hutchisons instead of Bill Clintons or Hillary Rodhams.

The secret to better government are bette people, which is why the Republicans so vehemently oppose improvements in education. Better people means fewer Republican voters.

[billyskank]

16. "Better people means fewer Republican voters"

Or, people demanding a different kind of Republican candidates. Which I am sure is just as undesirable in the opinion of the ruling elite.

[Jamastiene]

14. From the time that men are born, they are conditioned to be

hard and mean, on average. A man who was raised to be gentle can be gentle, but unfortunately, too often, men will try to be hard and mean to "fit in" or "be acceptable in society."

My personal view on this issue transcends male and female. I agree with you that women are often aggressive and mean as well. And yes, women do fight differently, but they do in fact fight too. I think it has to do with evolution more than it has to do with gender. Hormones may play a role, but a man or woman full of testosterone can control themselves and be soft, if their mindset is more evolved. I really think it has to do with the evolution of humankind. The less violent people are more evolved than the more violent people. Gender may seem to play a role to most people, but I think that's just the "societal norms" of our era.

What we need are, regardless of gender, more evolved thinking people to be our leaders. Chimpy definitely does NOT qualify for the position. He needs to be locked inside a cave with bin Laden and the other less evolved violent subhuman characters until he learns to think or rot there. I personally don't care which happens. I'd rather never see him again.

My aunt has a saying about ignorance, which, imo, plays a big role in violent tendencies. She says that ignorance should be eliminated or eradicated. Either way, the human species needs to grow up and learn to resolve conflicts in a more intelligent way or else. I agree with that idea.

[ismnotwasm]

17. Another problem with stereotyped gender differences

Is that people with opposite "feminine" or "masculine" traits are so often pegged as gay. The problems with that are it's put in a negative light, as though there is something wrong with being gay or transgendered.

[billyskank]

18. Or indeed as if there's something wrong with being straight and

having "feminine" qualities.

I'm sure many gay guys are quite macho, while I am the quite the opposite but hetero. Many people think I am gay though.

[Jamastiene]

22. From what you describe, you are an example of what I see as

the more evolved human. Sooner or later, hopefully sooner, more and more people will just be who they are instead of trying to overdo it to prove themselves straighter or gayer than anyone else around according what local customs. I have known many feminine lesbians try to "butch" up to fit what they think they are supposed to be instead of just being who they are. I have seen many feminine men try to work out, act all machismo, even take steroids, and overdo it just to prove they are straight.

The reason I say you are a more evolved human being is that you are who you are and seem to see no need to prove anything. That is my definition of a real man and a real human. You know you have nothing to prove. It's all in the mindset. You are you. That is a precious thing. I like people who are just themselves and are honest about how they feel. Too bad there aren't more people like you in the world. Stay as you are, please. I'd rather you have those qualities and be a cool guy, like you have been so far to me, than try to fit some generic boring mould that society will try to make you fit. Fight that other mindset until the bitter end, is what I always say. Our species claims to be so much more knowledgable than it really is, in all honesty. We really know nothing yet.

[billyskank]

25. ...

:hug:

[Jamastiene]

27. ...

:hug: Too bad there aren't more people like you in the world. It would definitely be a better place. :loveya:

[ismnotwasm]

26. Absolutely

I had a teacher once I was doing the "is he or isn't he" thing. He was a gentle male nurse with certain "effeminate" qualities. I try not to judge, but this time I did. I decided, even though it didn't matter, and was no business of mine, that he was gay.

And I was absolutely wrong.

That's the last time I did that. When I catch myself trying to "guess" someone's sexuality, I remind myself of that time, and I also remind myself again that it doesn't matter, and unless I'm the one involved with someone, it's not my business.

[Jamastiene]

28. I catch myself amazed from time to time when

someone on DU that I have been chatting with turns out to be gay, because I never pay attention unless it's the topic of conversation and it's relevant. I do wonder when I have a crush on another woman if she is or isn't, but only because it kind of matters then.

You are so right. It's easy to misjudge whether or not someone is gay or straight by their mannerisms. It is not until we scratch the surface and get to know the person that we can tell for sure if they are gay or straight.

I don't assume unless someone outright says they are.

[Jamastiene]

19. Precisely.

There are many feminine straight men and many masculine straight women. They get pegged as gay when really they are straight. Also, there are many masculine men who are gay who get pegged as straight just because they are masculine. Let's not forget the women known as "lipstick lesbians." I think part of the reason for the ignorance on the topic and the lack of clear research to explain it all is that most people don't have the mental capacity to wrap their mind around the truth. It takes all types to keep this world going and there are all types of people in the world. That is why I love individualism and hate the idea of being lumped into a category of any kind, personally. It makes me feel like our society must want us all to be generic, ho-hum, and run-of-the-mill. No wonder we no longer have any great philosophers or inventors. We've been stuffed into a mould of mediocrity that just doesn't fit.

[RevCheesehead]

20. WWMTS?

What Would Maggie Thatcher Say?

[billyskank]

21. I am quite sure she would consider it a load of tree-hugging hippy crap

:rofl: