LogFAQs > #914259914

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, Database 4 ( 07.23.2018-12.31.2018 ), DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Masculinity
GreatEvilEmpire 12/17/18 2:20:27 AM #37:	CiIantro posted... GreatEvilEmpire posted... CiIantro posted... GreatEvilEmpire posted... Masculinity and femininity are not social constructs. Explain to me why some cultures (particularly tribal indigenous) didn't have it? Biological sex is part of nature--the way the sexes are expected to act is made up by society. There is nothing "natural" about pink being a "feminine" color. Show me research where it says that there are no concept of masculinity in indigenous tribes. And about the color pink. There are plenty of research where female babies and toddlers, who are not socially brainwashed instinctively choose the color pink while boys prefer blue. #1. That was easy: http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/article/third-gender-native-american-tribes #2. Pink was considered "masculine" in the early 1900s. Nice try though. http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/10/pink-used-common-color-boys-blue-girls/ Are you kidding? The Zuni are a bunch of fetishists. It's in their religion to have a "middle gender". It's no different than Christians' belief in the concept of heaven and hell. It's still just religion and it's religion that dictated their actions. And they're an exception, not the rule. Masculinity and femininity are natural no matter how much you deny it. And just because pink was part of a trend doesn't make it fact. What is with you using edge cases to deny fact? Here's some real research about how babies as young as 9 months old understanding gender preferences: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160715114739.htm --- Sig under construction! <cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted [p:914259914] in Masculinit... [t:77309575]...</cite> <quote><cite>CiIantro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CiIantro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>Masculinity and femininity are not social constructs.</quote> Explain to me why some cultures (particularly tribal indigenous) didn't have it? Biological sex is part of nature--the way the sexes are expected to act is made up by society. There is nothing "natural" about pink being a "feminine" color.</quote> Show me research where it says that there are no concept of masculinity in indigenous tribes. And about the color pink. There are plenty of research where female babies and toddlers, who are not socially brainwashed instinctively choose the color pink while boys prefer blue.</quote> #1. That was easy: http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/article/third-gender-native-american-tribes #2. Pink was considered "masculine" in the early 1900s. Nice try though. http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/10/pink-used-common-color-boys-blue-girls/</quote> Are you kidding? The Zuni are a bunch of fetishists. It's in their religion to have a "middle gender". It's no different than Christians' belief in the concept of heaven and hell. It's still just religion and it's religion that dictated their actions. And they're an exception, not the rule. Masculinity and femininity are natural no matter how much you deny it. And just because pink was part of a trend doesn't make it fact. What is with you using edge cases to deny fact? Here's some real research about how babies as young as 9 months old understanding gender preferences: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160715114739.htm --- Sig under construction!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1