While sex differences are fixed, gender differences vary between cultures and over time. Sexist attitudes are stereotypical beliefs about gender and culturally constructed and transmitted through socialization. Gender equality will happen with change of society’s socialisation patterns, they seek to promote appropriate role models in education and the family. Over time they believe such actions will produce cultural change and gender equality will become the norm. They can be seen as a critique of the functionalist view of the gender role.
Pinker concludes his commentary with psychologist Philip Tetlock’s argument dealing with taboo. Tetlock believed that the outlook on taboo was an ingrained sense to morality. Pinker ends by saying, in a sense, that sex differences are now a kind of taboo when it comes to equal opportunities between the genders. However, he believes that the mentality of taboo when it comes to gender equality confines the findings of science and free
Or an individual born female may choose to dress as a man and fulfill the role of a warrior and hunter within the tribe. Upon studying Native American society, Euro-Americans did not understand the concept of third gender and labeled these individuals as “abnormal.” In past anthologies, people of the third gender were labeled “berdache.” In recent history, Native American’s have developed their own Euro-American vocabulary to describe someone of third gender. The word is two-spirited. The difference between the words berdache (ber- dash) and two-spirited are both clearly defined and yet muddled. Common knowledge would dictate that the words are similar in meaning and are interchangeable.
The DSM and similar books are often made in western society so they can’t be used correctly in eastern societies making them culturally biased. Part of the psychological diagnosis test is a personality or intelligence test. These tests are created in and based on western society. They are based on the things that western norms are. These tests are then standardised by people of western cultures.
This understanding, however, denies any significance conventional reality. I believe that a number of Madhyamika practitioners would critique this understanding, most notably the fourteenth century Tibetan sage Tsong Kha Pa. I will argue the issues of disvaluing the body, normalizing male dominance, and maintaining rigid gender paradigms are reinforced by this understanding of ultimate truth, and that Tsong Kha Pa’s articulation of the two truths critiques this understanding and can be used to empower feminist critiques and solutions to these issues on Buddhist philosophical grounds. Because gender is only a conventional reality, many Buddhists dismiss the significance of gender issues because ultimately, gender does not exist. In Virtuous Bodies, author Mrozik writes that many use the idea of ultimate truth to show that Buddhism promotes an egalitarian gender policy.
Her theory was based upon an ‘action theory,’ stating that whoever seeks to understand what it is ‘to do’ prior to any claim of what one ought to do. Butler establishes that gender is an abstracted, mass perception which is rendered as solid because it is socially objectified. She contests through her usage of Simone de Beauvoir, that “one is not born, but rather, becomes a woman,” that gender is not a traditional identity but a repetition of acts. This repetition of acts stylizes the gender and it is not the gender that is stylized by the body. If it is the acts that stylize the gender, why do some people find it necessary to obtain a ‘reassigned’ gender?
Although I believe that Coming of Age in Samoa was an overall success there are aspects of Meadʼs research and writing that I believe she should have done differently. First, I believe that a weakness in her methodology is that she does her research on only Taʼu, one island of Samoa, but she irresponsibly generalizes her findings to all of Samoa. I believe her conclusions would be more solid if she had gone to other Samoan Islands and repeated the study to confirm the results of the research apply to Samoa as a whole. Another weakness I found in Meadʼs ethnography are her comparisons to America. I believe that Meadʼs comparisons would have been stronger if she had conducted similar fieldwork studies in America that she would be able to reference.
Paragraph 3: “The first two paragraphs of the amendment to article 3 deal with the question of minorities, which committee 3 decided required further study, and has recommended, in a separate resolution, their reference to the Economic and Social Council and the Human Rights Commission.” She uses polysendeton by using “and”. Her use of polysyndeton restates what the Soviet Amendment says. Though she does not agree with the Soviets, she continues to restate their Amendment which makes it easy for her to counter argue their human rights. The following sentence she opposes their idea. As set out in the Soviet amendment, this provision clearly
Magness explains that, “archeology is not an exact science because it involves human behavior...[which] includes the variable of interpretation”(Mangess 14). She says this to clarify to her audience that the reason there is controversy over Qumran is because there are different interpretations of the evidence. Throughout the first chapter she lays the ground work for her argument by prefacing it with background of herself and the archeologist who originally excavated Qumran: Roland de Vaux. Magness states that, “although [she] believe[s] that de Vaux was correct in identifying Qumran as a sectarian settlement, [she] disagree[s] with him on some matters such as the dating of the occupation phases of the site”(Mangess 16). Magness also tells her audience that she is going to take the evidence from the archeology of the site and from outside sources, and will interpret it as objectively as possible.
A different child, in the same routine, may find it overwhelming and may grow up to avoid large groups, preferring a life path that is more secluded. We cannot determine how each child will react to cultural influences; it is critical that the most influential aspects of a culture be identified in order to give children the best opportunities to thrive. While culture is important to the development of a child, the debate of nature versus nurture has an even longer historical importance. I personally feel that culture and biological influences have equal influence on a child, meaning that nature and nurture go hand in hand. An example of this would be a child who has been adopted and shares the same environment (culture, household) with their sibling, but not the same genetic code.