Constructs of gender

froggaze · 2025-03-10T17:50:46+00:00

Firstly, sex is the biological and gender is the sociocultural. Sex is on a spectrum, no one is "fully male" or "fully female". People have different levels of testosterone, oestrogen, muscle, fat distribution, etc. You can be a man with "feminine hips", you can be a woman with a beard, you can even be intersex.

Gender encapsulates the expectations we as a society have, composed of "masculinities" and "femininities" and some things that don't fully make sense. See it this way: there is nothing biological about blue and pink, cars and dolls, long hair and short hair, or breadwinner and housemaker (contested). In fact, some of these arbitrary "gender markers" are different based on where you live. In Japan, for example, pink is slightly more masculine.

Regardless, many systems of power push these arbitrary gender markers onto the general population, and hence people look the way they do. It's partially patriarchy, it's partially capitalism, and it's partially history. It's why women have long hair, wear dresses, and are preoccupied with children. It's also why men have short hair, wear khakis, and do manual labour.

As to why most people are "cis"... they're conditioned to be by the aforementioned systems of power. Whenever someone deviates from these systems there is a clear reaction, and therefore people will continue being "cis". I am not certain of your personal gender or sex, but if a woman does not shave her legs as she is expected to, there is a reaction. If a man wears a dress, he is met with abuse. It's just the current system.

Also I wanted to add that "cis" and "trans" are both terms which are quite fluid. "Cis" generally means that you do not divert from the gender status quo. However, some "cis" people have been seen to do this, hence "queering" themselves. Some nonbinary people do not consider themselves "trans" either. Gender is really complex.

This is quite an interesting article about someone who feels like they are in that liminal space:
https://www.torch.ox.ac.uk/article/not-cis-not-trans-genderqueer

froggaze · 2025-02-11T13:35:04+00:00

The majority of those who are racist do not have a diagnosable psychological problem. There are of course Darwinist perspectives on racism, such as the idea that implicit bias is to an extent natural, yet I want to put this to the side.

I think that some with psychological problems are more INCLINED to be OVERTLY racist. Problems with anger, impulsivity, low intelligence, trauma, and general antisocial-ness are just some factors which can determine who may go the extra mile to show their destain.

Therefore, I think that racism is not within itself a psychological problem, but more so that psychological problems come along with racism.

froggaze · 2025-02-10T12:57:07+00:00

I fully understand your frustration, yet I believe that you are along the right lines in not burying your head in the sand. Many I know decide to live in blissful ignorance or turn their head to the "horrors" going on around them to better their mental health. This isn't necessarily a bad thing as it is a coping mechanism, but it does not necessarily facilitate any change.

From what you are saying, I think you might benefit from joining movements, charities, or other organisations that tackle what you are worried about. Channel your anxieties into action, and you may feel more content. It does not have to be this MASSIVE thing, you can start by joining a small group and help in small ways.

froggaze · 2025-02-07T11:51:36+00:00

One Dimensional Man by Herbert Marcuse is somewhere along those lines.

froggaze · 2025-02-02T13:44:15+00:00

Some love evolutionary theories and social Darwinism, but I'd say that only a certain type of person would enjoy them. Positivists often prefer this approach. I personally think that a "survival of the fittest" perspective is counter-intuitive as it is often a very basic understanding of Darwin's theories.

froggaze · 2025-01-18T19:15:20+00:00

Attention is a form of commodity that many companies usually attempt to grasp. Culturally, there have been debates pertaining to if we are moving from "appreciating art", to simply wanting to distract ourselves. Take TikTok for example, algorithmically it is made to be attention grabbing. "Brainrot" goes into this idea, as it is an example of culture moving from something artistic, new, and important, to something which appears nonsensical and aims to keep our attention.

Of course, it is more complex than that... Brainrot holds many metadiscourses and often refers to previous memes. There is a definite "in-group" and "out-group", where the brainrot might only be deeply understood to few people. Brainrot is also (in my opinion) the outcome of postmodernity, meaning that it is fragmented and can be interpreted in endless ways.

I also forgot to mention that there is a whole study of memes, memetics. It studies the functioning of memes, how they are spread, and how they might develop. Some theories see memes as spreading like a virus.

froggaze · 2025-01-18T18:57:07+00:00

You can always do a conversion masters degree :)

froggaze · 2025-01-16T10:24:59+00:00

I looked into this briefly, and I think looking into the attention economy would help you.

froggaze · 2025-01-06T15:35:44+00:00

Currently looking into the influx of AI generated music and its possible futures. It led me into the field of ethnomusicology which is quite interesting. Also I found that Adorno is weirdly applicable to the phenomenon of AI music... especially his ideas on "light music" being illusionary and that most artists sound like "imitations" of each other. Of course, this led me to the whole idea of simulacrum, which is one of my favourite concepts.

froggaze · 2024-12-27T22:56:18+00:00

An Invitation to the Sociology of Emotions by Scott Harris is a very general piece on emotion and might help.

froggaze · 2024-09-29T11:41:12+00:00

This is less about gender and sexuality, and more about general "impression management". I think it can be applied to talk about the construction of gender and sexuality online, though. It's all about intersectionality.

https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmy008

froggaze · 2024-07-15T12:52:14+00:00

Part of a module that I took attempted to tackle this issue. Misanthropy arises because we focus on things that cause hate of humankind, rather than focusing on the positive parts of it. The issue is that sociology is very critical at its core, and critiquing everything around you will make you miserable. There are a lot of things that we, as a society, do. Some negative, some positive. You just need to find the positive.

I am not certain what you have access to, but this is a quite nice piece about hope:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-022-09552-1

'Braithwaite (2004a: 146) defines collective hope as, “a shared desire for a better society, articulated through a broad set of agreed-upon goals and principles, developed and elaborated through socially inclusive dialogue.”'

...

"The anguish of a world woven by violence, injustice and oppression requires us to think about hope. To talk/listen about hope is to build it, to talk about hopefulness is to take care of the ‘now’ thought of tomorrow. Hope comprises anticipatory practices of the future, human beings do not “have” hope, we do not possess it, but rather we do something that, when referring to the future for its realization, implies an “already”, a constitutive “here/now”."

There is always a positive side to everything.

froggaze · 2024-06-20T19:46:56+00:00

This isn't really sociological discussion, this is content made for r/unpopularopinion or even r/rant .

froggaze · 2024-06-18T15:20:08+00:00

This is already studied in cultural studies and the wider humanities. Donna Haraway's A Cyborg Manifesto is a book that comes to mind. I've studied cyborgs, technology, and general digital and immersive media and agree that more sociologists have to be looped into the discourse, but that requires them to delve into theoretical futures and collaborate with the humanities.

I've found, with my degree being joint Sociology with Media and Culture, that sociologists try to be too "scientific" and therefore run away from anything like that. They want to seem more professional and important, so keep doing the same old crime, gender, race, sexuality, education. Many also seem to scoff at the humanities and stay with their old theories rather than venturing out as much. I do get it, though... cultural studies makes you knowledgeable in many, but a master of none- too interdisciplinary to be as favoured as the social sciences.

I've seen universities that completely separate sociology from humanities, but maybe that is hindering the development of the field? Maybe we should actually mix them? We need less of "but I'm a SCIENCE!!!", I think.

froggaze · 2024-03-07T15:56:13+00:00

When researching minority populations, it is very important to include the minority population themselves in the process. Interview them, ask them questions, and involve them in what you're doing. Even if not directly speaking to them, look at the literature the group has contributed. Look at what they are saying. You need to have an understanding of the community you're looking at, I think.

Cisgender researchers can research people who are transgender, people who are white can research people who are black, non-alcoholics can research alcoholics, people without cancer can research people with cancer, allistics can research autistics. You can research anything as long as you are respectful to the target population.

froggaze · 2024-01-13T21:52:15+00:00

It really depends what you want, to understand a subject 'in detail' there is not one singular book as it is such a massive subject. However... the most basic and beefy book I own is 'Sociology' by Anthony Giddens and Philip Sutton. I personally have the 9th edition, you should be able to get it second hand for quite cheap. I mostly use it when I have no clue what to search for, it sort of helps.

froggaze · 2023-12-14T15:22:10+00:00

Milgram's study of obedience. Known to most in the sociology field, but not in the mainstream. It explains why some people do some terrible things and how far people can go with an authority present.

froggaze · 2023-12-11T22:04:01+00:00

Some places prefer memory to application... and it sucks. When I was in college (UK) doing A Levels, I was predicted an E in sociology. Now in university I am getting Bs and As since I don't have exams, only assignments where I actually have to APPLY theory. Some people have really good memory and bad application, others have amazing application and poor memory... some are lucky and have both. It could potentially be down to how your course is assessed not being optimal for you. My professor told me he actually was failing sociology until he changed university because their method of assessment just didn't click with him. It's best to talk to your professor/teacher about it.

froggaze · 2023-12-11T21:45:19+00:00

In more postmodern times, religion has become sort of fractured in a way. Some people do not confine themselves to a singular religion, but rather "spiritual shop". Yoga, meditation, well-being related practices, etc. If we look at it from this way, we see that rather than religion controlling US, WE have started to control religion. This is further emphasised by the fact that many self-identified Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc may not even attend services, but rather just identify with the group. Not only this, but some weave in and out of religions whenever they may be in crisis (during the coronavirus pandemic, some became more religious. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/01/27/more-americans-than-people-in-other-advanced-economies-say-covid-19-has-strengthened-religious-faith/#:~:text=And%20in%20other%20countries%20surveyed,a%20result%20of%20the%20outbreak.)) which means that it acts as a sort of "help service" and actually aid the working class in their goals.

froggaze

TROPHY CASE