What is the social significance of gender according to Freud?
446458
I'm a psychologist and I can tell you that a majority of Freud's work revolved around sex and gender. Particularly relating to the first 6 years of live.Most of his views were very misogynistic and have been disputed hotly by female psychoanalyst however, many of his believes seem to hold water.I recommend you study him up on the net, there are many good resources.
526359
First of all, never have an introductory paragraph end with a question like the first answer you got.  First you need to decide whether or not you find it significant.  Then, if you do, give 3 reasons why.  If you don't, give three reasons why not.  If you can't decide, do a pro/con essay and gives arguments for both sides.\n\nUse this as an example:\n\nIt is quite often noticed that the current dress trends for boys and girls have become somewhat less gender specific.  They days of girls wearing dresses and boys wearing shirts and ties is gone, and a blurring of genders has replaced them.  The significance of this points to three things, the femininization of boys due to touchy-feely media outlets such as Oprah and Dr. Phil, the continually diminishing lack of respect young people have for traditional values and social norms, and a selfish focus on instant gratification in an age where the internet puts even the most inaccessible items at your fingertips.\n\nStart it out like that, and develop those arguments, and you're sure to do well.
937497
Do you want laypersons terms that the general populace might be able to comprehend, or do you want upper level comprehension? :O)~\n\nIntersexes are either genital shapes and sizes not congruent with current dominant standards of genital shape and size preferences.\n\nIntersexes are also people whose chromosome patterns might not be xx or xy (such as xxy or xxxy, or xxxo, or xo, or mosaic meaning a mix of chromosome patters across different cells)\n\nIntersexes are also a mix of both of the above two options.\n\nThe thing about labeling someone intersex, is that when people from the medical community are deciding whether or not to label someone intersex, they often fluctuate as there is not set standard of criterion across the board. \n\nSome use size standards, such as a phallus that is larger than .9cm is too large for a female, therefore if the doctor feels that the [infant] should have been female according to the doctors preferences looking at genitals and /or chromosomes etc the doctor might trim the phallus or remove it (social construction of the female sex)\n\nAnd if the phallus is smaller than 2.5cm and/or the doctor feels that the [infant] would be unable to stand while urinating as an adult, on an [infant] the doctor feels should have been male according to the doctors preferences looking at genitals and/or chromosomes etc, the doctor might choose to do genital reconstructions and possibly hormone replacement therapy to construct the [infant] as a female regardless of chromosomes etc.\n\nSex is on a spectrum, you see, where the categories of male and female are not static, meaning, not absolute categories, but rather made up of cultural preferences, they are invented labels put on varrying places on the sex spectrum in order to validate a cultures claims of categories of sex, to perpetuate the segregation of human beings.\n\nIntersexes are often marginalized or stigmatized by societies in order to preserve the western binary gender and sex systems which declare that there are only two sexes, and only two corresponding genders, that both are biological, and that the placement of certain sex and gender labels on human bodies mean something, signify something, often socially and religeously. For this reason, many intersexes are subjected to cosmetic surgery, isolation, shame, discrimination, invalidation, and less access to vital medical care and information about their bodies. And often when they are given medical care or information, it is in such a way that highlights cultural preferences/standards for "male" and "female" and downplays the validity of a natural human body which does not conform to these cultural preferences.
442587
something that represent our gender.
342180
yes, the media does teach gender behavior the media is one of the most powerful tools out there it warps and manipulate people by the masses. especially the young they set a standard for people to follow and they glorify it as its the best thing. best defense agaist this to be aware of what you watch.
32422
What makes anything male of female? It is their physical characteristics. Since Gd is purely spiritual, Gd cannot be either male or female!\n\nNow, there are certainly characteristics that we stereotypically assign to being either male or female. For example, we call compassionate a feminine characteristic, while we call powerful a male characteristic. But there are powerful females, and compassionate males. Gd certainly has any and all of these characteristics that we normally stereotypically assign to being male or female, but Gd, being purely spiritual, is actually neither.
989133
The soul is sexless, like (the true) 'God', like 'angels'. \n\nThe physical body is the thing with a gender, and liberation has nothing to do with it.\n\nReincarnationists generally believe we return as male in some lifetimes and as female in others, depending on our free will and our willingness to accept challenges and learn.
275799
They are such multi-faceted beings !!!\n\nFemale dysfunction.  Despite significant anatomic and embryologic parallels between men and women, the multifaceted nature of female dysfunction clearly is distinct from that of the male.
56433
Almost everything. Gender is a huge determinant; no surprise that for most cultures that's the primary means of assigning what people are to wear. The culture itself tells a person a lot. What that person might actually like. Peer pressure from family, friends, and society at large. Trends and lifestyles, and the desire to be accepted by others. Fears and hopes. The work or job one does. One's religion and faith. \n\nSo many pressures for such a simple thing. But most cultures really do believe that "the clothes make the man (or woman)" and don't tolerate deviance in such an important matter.
1131681
according to sigmund freud, everyone is born bisexual. a person may (or may not) have masculine or feminine tenancies, but these are activated (or not)  by how xe experiences the world during crucial childhood development. \n\nthis is, of course just a theory; nobody really knows why we are all attracted to what or whom we are attracted. most of human society supports the "concept" of heterosexuality, so its not surprising that some people don't realize that they are attracted to the same sex right away- or that this attraction often comes as a shock to them and their family/acquaintances. \n\nthe term lesbian has been applied to homosexual women with reference to the girls' school of saffos on the greek island of lesbos. \nin other words... this is girls club hon ;) no boys allowed.
479816
Sigmund Freud said some time a rose is just a rose
1128926
hullo Freud.\n\nOK time for u to read child psychiatry....\n\naccording to 'IL Soggy yes.
1020759
Masculinitiy is good for both sexes . A very few of societys established masculine behaviour and most of  feminie behaviour are bad . Exaple :  Man try to hide sorroness and donot able to cry easily though it is helpful for health. So , it shoud be avoided.\n On the otherhand omens excessive dependency and willing to be dominated are socities established role . It is also have to avoid for better life.
1078236
Well, I'm a man and I have to say I agree with your assessment completely.  I'll explain my own opinion a bit, here.\n\nAs you say, the attribute of being female is only a part of being a woman.  Female is just a sex, it might refer to any animal, and it focuses on sex, which is only a part of being a woman.\n\nThe same negative impression is left when you call a man simply male.  It is concerned with his sex (or gender if you will), it does not even consider whether or not he is human or his individuality.\n\nWoman on the other hand actually has a much more complete and positive meaning.   It includes the word man in it, which suggests the person is human, it even means that a (male) human or man cannot denigrate a woman without denigrating by implication himself, as man is a part of the word -- woman.\n\nAlso the prefix wo-  probably referred to the idea of helpmate or companion, signifying a special sort of human.  \n\nUsage has always suggested that woman was a preferred appellation over female.   It's only recently, the last 50 years or so, that radical attempts to rewrite language have occurred.  Because some feminist activists believed that being a "mere" woman was inferior to being a man and led to denigration (and likely because they were overly concerned by a misinterpretation that the Bible account might suggest that women were less than man as they were built upon a man's rib)  they decided they'd choose female as the preferred term.  The fact that it readily symbolized sex must have been clear to them, but then in the 1960s women some feminists liked to believe that the reason men hated women was because they were afraid of a woman's sexuality, her otherworldliness, and so it was the root of their power (although they were clearly saying it was the root of their persecution too -- a non sequitor in either case -- and clearly a strange focus on one mere attribute of womanhood).\n\nNotice the same thing has happened to "lady".   Originally, a Lady was the formal way to address a woman of some noble rank.   But by the time Feudalism is long dead, lady is being used in terms like "my old lady" or "lady of the evening" etc.  I never called my mother "an old lady" or "an old maid" nor would I ever call my wife that, which is the more usual degrading usage.  Because her being old has nothing to do with it, if she was old it would be a blessing meaning I had been lucky to partner with her all those years, and because any man who complains about his marriage while doing nothing about it is a mere boy, whether he calls himself "male" or not.\n\nI have to tell you, a lot of men find the words the feminists have bestowed upon women to show a certain lack of respect for women in general.   Many men, such as myself, do not understand why they find such significance in changing preferred identifiers or terms, especially since most of us viewed "women" and "ladies" as complimentary terms that brought complete or classy images to mind.  Female is definitely a step down, as you already described, as it minimizes or diminishes what it is to be a complete woman.\n\nIt's funny.  Some women hate to be called any of the following, but almost always they hate these less than being called a "woman" because of the modern stupidity and bias to the word, yet all of these are less than the term woman:\n\nbabe, baby, gal, girl, sweetie, honey, sugums, love-y, honey buns, old lady, flirt, sexy lady, sex symbol, etc.\n\nThey also seem often to dislike being called cute, even though what a man is TRULY saying by that is that he somehow can't get you out of his head AND that he considers you anti-lady of the evening {edit sheesh}.   He's trying to say that there is something genuinely clean, affable, and loveable in you, but that it isn't just sexual attraction.  Often it suggests that he sees you as youthful,
213441
does it really matter? if we assign gender to any deity, it's really missing the point, isn't it?
298357
What did Freud have to say about homosexuality? \n\nFor those who don't know, Freud among other professional dignitaries signed a statement, in 1930, which called for the repeal of the law penalizing homosexual relations between "consenting adult males." \n\nIn 1930 Freud again spoke in the Vienna public press on the subject of homosexuality. This time he appeared as a co-signatory to a statement addressed to a joint Austro-German legal commission which was considering the revision of the penal code. Among the other signatories were Artur Schintzler, Franz Werfel, and Moritz Schlick. The statement noted that the commission was reported as deadlocked over a proposal to repeal Paragraph 175, the law penalizing hosexual relations between "consenting adult males." But the deadlock should be broken. "Humanity, justice and reason" all required the repeal, and it should be agreed to immediately. "Homosexuality," the statement continued, had "been present throughout history and among all peoples." The laws which penalized it represented an "extreme violation of human rights" \n\nSigmund Freud's basic theory of human sexuality was different from that of Ellis. He felt that all human beings were innately bisexual, and that they become heterosexual or homosexual as a result of their experiences with parents and others (Freud, 1905). Nevertheless, Freud agreed with Ellis that a homosexual orientation should not be viewed as a form of pathology. In a now-famous letter to an American mother in 1935, Freud wrote: \n"Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too.... \n\n"If [your son] is unhappy, neurotic, torn by conflicts, inhibited in his social life, analysis may bring him harmony, peace of mind, full efficiency whether he remains a homosexual or gets changed...." (reprinted in Jones, 1957, pp. 208-209, from the American Journal of Psychiatry, 1951, 107, 786). \n\n1905:  Freud Invents Sexuality\n\nIn his 1905 Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality Sigmund Freud invented the idea of sexuality is a process independent of an individual's sex.  Thinkers before Freud from Ulrichs to Westphal to Krafft-Ebing believed that most men are born "normal" (i.e. heterosexual) but that male inverts inherit some female mental characteristic that makes them sexually attracted to members of their own sex.  Freud rejected the idea and argued that the direction the sexual drive takes has no necessary relationship to inherited sexual characteristics. \nInstead, Freud theorized, all children are born polymorphously perverse - their sexual desires can be drawn toward any object - and it is their childhood experiences that cause their sex drive to be directed to members of the opposite or the same sex.  Freud did not condemn homosexuals or other "perverts" and he was skeptical that homosexuality could be cured, but Three Essays continued the psychiatric tradition of labeling non-heterosexual sexuality "perversions" and "aberrations".  One section of the book even gives child-rearing tips to help parents lead their children to "normal" heterosexual adjustment.\n\nSince Freud rejected hereditarian theories of the causes of homosexuality, he also rejected the notion that homosexuals or inverts are necessarily feminine.  According to Freud, whether a boy grows up to have a masculine or feminine personality has nothing to do with the direction of his sexual desire.  Thus, depending on
318364
I don't think that it really matters per say on gender. But on the way we perceive things differently. The gender can effect the way that we react to things differently.