Ship of Fools: Referencing hormones: Sexism, or the facts of life?

Thread: Referencing hormones: Sexism, or the facts of life? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024161

Posted by Loquacious beachcomber (# 8783) on :

When Toronto Bluejays major league baseball infielder Brett Lawrie was called out trying to steal third base, with two out and a batter at the plate, and repeated that play in several games, local TV personalities and newspaper columnists derided him for making hormone-based decisions which cost his team games and badly needed points. They repeated that suggestion when he hurled his batting helmet, striking the home plate umpire and earning a multiple-game suspension after being called out on strikes.
Where those commentators being sexist, or simply doing their job?
In the movie "A Bronx Tale" a father famously counsels his son not to "let the little head make decisions the big head should be making."
And of course, who has not heard the term "raging hormones" applied to the 15 - 25 age group, when they make questionable and at times tragic decions in cars, bars, and sexual activities?

Recently, a study declared that PMS does not exist and, in fact, has never existed. Does that mean that anyone whoever referenced that term was being sexist? Beyond that, does it now behoove businesses to retroactively disciplne any women who in the past have taken paid or unpaid days off, citing PMS, a non-existent malady?

What of comments directed toward women, linking behaviour to menstrual cycles or menapause? Are those comments always and without exception sexist, or do they simply reflect the facts of life?
Are comments referencing hormones, sexist only when they refer to women, or is that mindset perhaps in and of itself sexist?

In contemporary society, use of the word "fuck" is now almost considered acceptable; referencing hormone effects on behaviour is far from acceptable. Would it not be ironic if the use of "fuck" grew even more acceptable, while referring to the effects of hormones, almost certainly a major cause of the activity the ancient Anglo-Saxon word "fuck" was meant to identify, was strongly forbidden?

[ 17. November 2012, 14:19: Message edited by: Loquacious beachcomber ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Women talking about how their own hormones are affecting them is not sexist. Others making assumptions that hormones are behind women's anger (and therefore that the anger isn't for a reason) is sexist. The person experiencing hormonally-driven mood swings and their physician get to comment on it, no one else.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Some depression is thyroid and other endocrine hormone dependent. I think the topic is actually about "sex hormones", not the general class of body hormones.

Anyone who has raised teenagers will know that adolescent hormones cause and contribute to all sorts of things, from mood issues, to sleep issues.

Biology is not absent from human moods and behaviour just because we think they should be, but attributing specific behaviour in specific situations can certainly be sexist, a stereotype or accurate.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

Hormones regulate all kinds of biological systems, not just sex. Thyroid, adrenals, pituitary. Adrenaline was probably more to blame than testosterone for those non-stolen bases.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Women talking about how their own hormones are affecting them is not sexist. Others making assumptions that hormones are behind women's anger (and therefore that the anger isn't for a reason) is sexist. The person experiencing hormonally-driven mood swings and their physician get to comment on it, no one else.

Would the situation with the male baseball player be analogous?

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

Isolating any GROUP and making nasty generalizations about them based on whatever, including but limited to, women or races, is wrong. It's sexism or racism or whateverism.

For a majority, eg men, to take exception to being told to limit their language and not be sexist or racist, is absurd. We are the MAJORITY. We have the power. We have the money. We have the jobs. Sure there are exceptions but in general, it is true.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
... We are the MAJORITY. ... Sure there are exceptions but in general, it is true.

Actually, in the western world men are the minority, thanks to a significantly lower life expectancy.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

When men refer to women's hormones and 'time of the month', it usually a (very rude) way of minimising the woman's anger or sadness. It's a method of saying "you don't really have anything to be angry about, I can just ignore your anger and it will go away".

It is, as I said, very rude.

We all have biochemistry, and it all affects our mood and how readily we get angered and upset. That still doesn't mean that we get angered or upset for no reason whatsoever. I got quite upset over something last night, and I myself recognised that I wouldn't have got anywhere near as upset about it if I was in a good mood and well rested. But because I'm male, no-one makes a wisecrack about my hormones or the time of the month or my 'cycle'.

The only reason for highlighting that particular biochemical influence is because it is regular, and hence predictable. Men are not somehow immune from equivalent influences, but despite the particular comment referred to in the OP, such comments are RARELY made about men.

So yes, it's an area full of sexism.

EDIT: And the whole business about the word 'fuck' is a total irrelevance, because you're conflating totally different types of references to hormones. References to women's menstrual cycles are not references to their sexual appetite.

[ 18. November 2012, 07:35: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Ondergard (# 9324) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Loquacious beachcomber:
When Toronto Bluejays major league baseball infielder Brett Lawrie was called out trying to steal third base, with two out and a batter at the plate, and repeated that play in several games, local TV personalities and newspaper columnists derided him for making hormone-based decisions which cost his team games and badly needed points.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about... and then you start talking about hormones!

I therefore deduce that you are using some kind of obscure American sport in order to illustrate the human male's propensity to allow his masculine endocrinology to exert undue influence over his rational mind.

If that is the point you are making, then I agree that it would be desirable to teach all people, male and female, to do their thinking without succumbing to the pull of that which makes them male or female... or at least it would be desirable if all we want in life is rationality, coolness, and logic.

Personally, I'll take all the rage hormones throw at us, because I love the passion of humanity and not the unthinking and disinterested logic of machine-induced so-called thought.

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

I think you are having trouble discerning what he is talking about because its a thinly veiled assault on women that tries not to, yet still is. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Posted by AmyBo (# 15040) on :

That's a pretty common bully tactic used by someone in power to diminish a minority's objection to a bigoted assertion- well, it happens to us, too, you know! because a tiny pinch - from one member of the majority to another, no less! - is just as bad as the historical repression they've been engaging in.

Poor white men don't have all the power anymore. [Waterworks]

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

I would think that both are examples of sexism, because they reinforce gender binaries and reduce human beings to victims of biology.

And that means that they both suck, because human beings have, to a considerable extent, the freedom to make themselves into what they believe themselves to be. And that is a fact of life.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
When men refer to women's hormones and 'time of the month', it usually a (very rude) way of minimising the woman's anger or sadness. It's a method of saying "you don't really have anything to be angry about, I can just ignore your anger and it will go away".

It is, as I said, very rude.

We all have biochemistry, and it all affects our mood and how readily we get angered and upset. That still doesn't mean that we get angered or upset for no reason whatsoever. I got quite upset over something last night, and I myself recognised that I wouldn't have got anywhere near as upset about it if I was in a good mood and well rested. But because I'm male, no-one makes a wisecrack about my hormones or the time of the month or my 'cycle'.

The only reason for highlighting that particular biochemical influence is because it is regular, and hence predictable. Men are not somehow immune from equivalent influences, but despite the particular comment referred to in the OP, such comments are RARELY made about men.

So yes, it's an area full of sexism.

EDIT: And the whole business about the word 'fuck' is a total irrelevance, because you're conflating totally different types of references to hormones. References to women's menstrual cycles are not references to their sexual appetite.

and another one for the hell of it [Overused]

Well done, that chap! Couldn't have said it better myself (but I would have had a go, anyway)

And while I'm here, in reference to the OP, the 'facts' of life, as far as the influence of hormones on people on an individual basis go, are still very much up for debate. The rest is statistics, which should really always be served up with a legal disclaimer.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I would think that both are examples of sexism, because they reinforce gender binaries and reduce human beings to victims of biology.

I agree with most of your post and I agree about reducing people to biology--though that's not by definiton sexism perhaps--but I rather suspect that a woman who behaved in such a ridiculous way would not also get a comment about her hormones. To be sexism there it has to be a case where he is accused of being uniquely masculine. I would prefer the example of adults who see two boys fighting or play-fighting and say "Boys will be boys!" as an example of reducing-to-biology sexism toward men

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

LB,

I fail to understand the logic that some use of sexism justifies other uses of sexism. That seems to be the gist of your argument to me.

What I am guessing is that you do not see sexism in your examples.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The person experiencing hormonally-driven mood swings and their physician get to comment on it, no one else.

Your notion that the woman is the only one who "experiences" her mood swings is charming.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The person experiencing hormonally-driven mood swings and their physician get to comment on it, no one else.
Your notion that the woman is the only one who "experiences" her mood swings is charming.

--Tom Clune

it's one thing to notice a mood swing, and quite another to assume that it must be because of "that time of month" , and more importantly, imply that this means that whatever caused the anger must really not be the problem.

I can tell you that I and most women know acknowledge that there are times when we are less tolerant of things that we are at other times. this means that the rest of the month we are MORE tolerant than the situation deserves, not that once a month we are less so ;-)

but seriously.. when facing someone's anger, it's never wise to say that that anger is due to a hormonal surge (regardless of the sex of either person). When people feel anger (or any other emotion) they FEEL it. it isn't just a matter of hormones, although the hormones certainly can be involved.

I think that denying that any hormonal impact exists is just as stupid as saying that all emotions someone feels are due purely to hormones, and can't possibly therefore be justified. Yes, hormones play a role. yes, the male and female hormones are different, and may cause different reactions, and female hormones are certainly more regular in their cycles (males also have cycles, they are just less obvious). I don't think it's sexist to recognize this. I do think it can be sexist to point it out and say that this is the reason a woman is acting a certain way at any given time, and therefore dismiss the reaction as not important.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Women talking about how their own hormones are affecting them is not sexist. Others making assumptions that hormones are behind women's anger (and therefore that the anger isn't for a reason) is sexist. The person experiencing hormonally-driven mood swings and their physician get to comment on it, no one else.

No problem with that at all, as long as those same people refrain from making caustic comments about "testosterone poisoning" and the like.

I can certainly understand how it would be obnoxious for a woman to have every expression of anger or annoyance, or every change of mood, attributed to "PMS". But the same standard of behavior should apply to everyone.

Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I would think that both are examples of sexism, because they reinforce gender binaries and reduce human beings to victims of biology.
I agree with most of your post and I agree about reducing people to biology--though that's not by definiton sexism perhaps--but I rather suspect that a woman who behaved in such a ridiculous way would not also get a comment about her hormones. To be sexism there it has to be a case where he is accused of being uniquely masculine. I would prefer the example of adults who see two boys fighting or play-fighting and say "Boys will be boys!" as an example of reducing-to-biology sexism toward men

At a playgroup, when my kids were small, a boy slugged a girl. The boy's mother apologised energetically to the girl's mother who replied brightly... 'That's alright, it's not as if a girl did it.'

Unpack that!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0