Sweden - a country that is steadily climbing in the "****ed up" list.

[Archonsod]

Well, yes. But not everybody can or wants to adhere to those roles and it can't do any harm to make people aware of that possibility.

And the rest of society is supposed to give a **** why precisely?

 

[FrisianDude]

Not supposed to, but if society does, as in Sweden in this case, there oughtn't be much trouble with that.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

... the psychologists can go and stand in the corner with the homoeopathy peoples until they start doing proper science.

I agree on how psychology is the lowest form of science 

Please explain.

Which makes the assumption it should be changed in the first place. And the psychologists can go and stand in the corner with the homoeopathy peoples until they start doing proper science.

Exactly.

It is often pointed out how certain gender roles are social constructs. Well, so what if they are?

What if they're ****? Knowing that they are social constructs just helps you work out how to change them, if you want to.

Particular policies might be ****, but I think the goal of equal opportunity is a good one. Saying that it'll never be reached is just making the perfect the enemy of the good.

 

[Kissaki]

It is often pointed out how certain gender roles are social constructs. Well, so what if they are?

What if they're ****? Knowing that they are social constructs just helps you work out how to change them, if you want to.

Particular policies might be ****, but I think the goal of equal opportunity is a good one. Saying that it'll never be reached is just making the perfect the enemy of the good.

What if they're ****? What if they're raspberries? I agree that understanding social constructs helps us to do something about them, but you speak of equal opportunity, and imply that I have said it will never be reached. I did not. What I said was that you will never be able to eliminate social constructs. Equal opportunity would also be a social construct, as that is a notion that requires a culture in favour of it. And while I agree that gender roles are not germaine to absolute equality, I do not think they have to be all that problematic for equality, either.

I do not think absolute equality will ever be achieved, though I agree it is a worthwhile goal to strive towards. If you manage to somehow eliminate the gender types, we will only make new ones. Sexual identity is more important for us than absolute equality.


PS: I didn't understand your last sentence.

 

[Mage246]

Pretty much. Genders exist, and it accomplishes nothing for us to pretend that they do not. The gender role differentiation process will always exist unless we some day no longer have 2 genders.

 

[del_diablo]

Lets not forget the entire "gender argument" Freud(look at that name damn it!) presented.
If you have a vaggo, it bleeds, and hence you feel maternal. So please get molested physically, so its more like that.
Such a disgusting pig.

 

[Mage246]

Er.... ok. Not seeing the relevance.

 

[del_diablo]

At the least psychology has gotten a bit further than Freud.
Not seeing the relevance? Its still the most common gender argument, by the more "learned" people.

 

[ancalimon]

Reason: ignoring the political correct disease that we're already currently plagued with as well as the sheer ignorance to reality, this country has now seemingly one more issue which pushes it's "****ed up" ranking up even higher: namely gender equality - or rather gender neutrality.

It's something that has been going on here for quite a while but has lately gotten a lot of attention in the media. Seemingly there seem to be a new trend being pushed here where (in my opinion sick) people are trying to push gender equality/neutrality to a near limit (absolute limit would probably be forced surgery). Basically the debate is how children should be raised by denying their biological gender and completely eliminate "him" and "her" and replace it with what in English would be the increasingly known word "hen". All for the sake of "equality".

Supposedly we even have kindergartens now that specifically run with this policy as a "trial" now, and where parents (again, who in my personal opinion should have never been allowed to be parents in the first place) who believe in this utter nonsense may place their kids in.

Now, the reason for this system is a supposed wish to give all children the absolute equal chances possible, without being hindered by their gender and eliminate completely the whole "stereotype" of girls liking girly and pink stuff and boys...well, being boys I guess?

In my opinion I am rather horrified at the prospect of purposefully denying a child his or hers biological gender and I really wonder what kind of mental consequences this could potentially have.

Meh, I just needed to vent...

I guess that's dangerous for children. Their sexual identity might be manipulated easily that way.

 

[Kissaki]

At the least psychology has gotten a bit further than Freud.
Not seeing the relevance? Its still the most common gender argument, by the more "learned" people.

Is it?

 

[FrisianDude]

Lets not forget the entire "gender argument" Freud(look at that name damn it!) presented.
If you have a vaggo, it bleeds, and hence you feel maternal. So please get molested physically, so its more like that.
Such a disgusting pig.

You know, these posts of yours, the ones like this? They tend to make people more inclined towards the other side of the argument.

 

[Adorno]

... the psychologists can go and stand in the corner with the homoeopathy peoples until they start doing proper science.

I agree on how psychology is the lowest form of science 

Please explain.

Two things: 1) psychology can only create knowledge of the human mind, cognition, feelings etc.
but fails to explain the reasons behind these psychological phenomena.
It can show men and women think differently but explaining the complex social structures behind it is a different matter.

2) following the highly praised methods of being objective is very difficult.
Performing controlled, randomized, double blinded trials is virtually impossible (not saying that it should).
There is a branch of psychology that attempts to only examine humans as physiological beings,
but that makes its research so narrow that not much is achieved, and still suffers under no 1) above.

Psychological research should always be scrutinized very carefully even if widely accepted methods are used.

Lets not forget the entire "gender argument" Freud(look at that name damn it!) presented.
If you have a vaggo, it bleeds, and hence you feel maternal. So please get molested physically, so its more like that.
Such a disgusting pig.

You know, these posts of yours, the ones like this? They tend to make people more inclined towards the other side of the argument.

Freud was essentialistic in explaining the female psyche. The physiology of women and men explained their psyche. 
Like women starting with libido focused on the clitoris to later move to the vagina explained female hysteria.

 

[Suspicous Pilgrim]

Neurology and physcology are supposed to work hand in hand.

 

[Archonsod]

Neurology and physcology are supposed to work hand in hand.

They're not. Or if they are they fail to do so quite horribly. Although admittedly current neuroscience is still very much at the handwavium level, but at least they try and include some math.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

What if they're ****? Knowing that they are social constructs just helps you work out how to change them, if you want to.

Particular policies might be ****, but I think the goal of equal opportunity is a good one. Saying that it'll never be reached is just making the perfect the enemy of the good.

What if they're ****? What if they're raspberries? I agree that understanding social constructs helps us to do something about them, but you speak of equal opportunity, and imply that I have said it will never be reached. I did not. What I said was that you will never be able to eliminate social constructs.

I said change, not eliminate. The idea of gender "roles" goes further than mere recognition that genders exist. So if schooling can affect the ideas people have about gender roles, and make them less ****, I'd say that's a good thing all else equal.

For the record, I don't particularly support the policy being discussed here.

Please explain.

Two things: 1) psychology can only create knowledge of the human mind, cognition, feelings etc.
but fails to explain the reasons behind these psychological phenomena.
It can show men and women think differently but explaining the complex social structures behind it is a different matter.

I'm not sure your example is really outside the scope of psychology. But even if it was, I'm not seeing how a limited scope puts psychology in the same category as homeopathy. Chemistry doesn't explain complex social structures - is that a failure of chemistry?

2) following the highly praised methods of being objective is very difficult.
Performing controlled, randomized, double blinded trials is virtually impossible (not saying that it should).

Actually those are quite common in psychology. Studies of memory, perception, social behaviour, psychotherapies and so on frequently use random allocation, control conditions and blinding.

Psychological research should always be scrutinized very carefully even if widely accepted methods are used.

Unlike medical, biological, chemical or physical research?

Psychology might be messier than physics, and it's important to account for that, but I don't see why it should be counted as a black mark against the field. You can follow scientific principles no matter how messy the topic of study. If psychology, like homeopathy or other pseudo-sciences, did not follow the principles of science, then I might agree with calling it a "low" form of science.

Neurology and physcology are supposed to work hand in hand.

They're not. Or if they are they fail to do so quite horribly. Although admittedly current neuroscience is still very much at the handwavium level, but at least they try and include some math.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuropsychology

 

[Swadius 2.0]

Freud was essentialistic in explaining the female psyche. The physiology of women and men explained their psyche. 
Like women starting with libido focused on the clitoris to later move to the vagina explained female hysteria.

Freud has gone through a lot of revision and in some instances taken a back seat to several other explanations for psychological attributes.

 

[Mage246]

Exactly, so why bring it up?

 

[Swadius 2.0]

Because it appears Adorno isn't aware of his decline in importance in the realm of explaining human psychology.

 

[Mage246]

Didn't del_diablo bring up Freud first?

 

[Swadius 2.0]

It appears I've missed the italicized was in Adorno's post.