Male Female differences/ Women Presidents etc

[IAmMetaphysical]

I also would not like the thread to be closed. I don't think it is a waste of everyone's time, just mine, when it seems impossible for there to be an understanding between the two parties. If Inspector is right there seem to be two sides arguing against straw men, to a point. I don't think it is conscious, just misunderstanding, and I agree with Mrock that the debate is epistemological, and that there has been an impasse reached in that area.

Carry on! Let's get this thing settled. (Just not by me, I think I'll be keeping my ideas to myself about this issue. I've run into a lot of opposition about it, and its really unsettling(not necessarily the opposition, but the nature of it.))

[aequalsa]

Also, note that once again it insists that no definition was given. Can't that qualify as a lie at this point, since I've stated one several times now?

Actually, he stated that a simple definition was not given. Not that no definition is stated. And, in fairness, he is correct. Though I don't think the subject is simple, and so am not certain that a simple definition can be provided. I'll keep thinking about it though.

[~Sophia~]

QUOTE(JMeganSnow)Genetically speaking it means the difference between having an XX chromosome pair or an XY chromosome pair. This is an essential characteristic because it is universal and it is responsible for secondary characteristics.

Is that honestly all you require to describe someone as masculine or feminine? Isn't this basically the what separates the concepts of male and female?

I agree with Viking. The concept male vs female is not the same thing as masculinity vs. femininity.

Gender differences have both physical (easily observable) and psychological bases (see one of my previous posts in this thread).

As to the concepts of masculinity vs. femininity, I see two components:

First, what we observe as the more predominant characteristic in each gender, on average, is being associated with what it means to be feminine or masculine, like the concept of physical strenght.

Second, masculinity vs. femininity are concepts of gender-role complementarity. The constant invention and reinvention of those concepts is an expression of our sense that women and men need each other and we search for ways to symbolize that need. We like our differences to be contrasted (when my attributes are being contrasted by a man - that is when I feel the most feminine- incidentally they are being contrasted the most during the sexual act); we like the feeling of mutual complementarity.

Until the invention of the birth control pill and the widespread availability of contraceptives, women were utterly biologically determined to have children and be dependent on men. Thus a lot of what we describe as 'feminine traits' was constructed around adaptation to male dominance. Its central feature is attractiveness to men, which includes physical appearance (of a sort which most men find attractive), non threatening behavior (so he sees her as a companion and not an opponent), nurturance of children, sexual availability, and sociability.

Those are changing today, for example, it is no longer 'unmasculine' to care for children, in fact, women are very attracted to nurturing single fathers. Since, many women today would like to have both the stimulating career and a family a man which helps out with child rearing is considered an asset.

What makes it difficult to provide a comprehensive definition, at least for me, is the fact that concepts of femininity/masculinity are partially constant and partially fluid.

[Viking]

Well...I meant that I am fine with the discussion being continued. Not necessarily that I would respond to everything again. I am at a stopping point myself until I have some new insight, or get a better idea of what kind of definition it is they want. I would be very interested in having someone besides us take a crack at defining the terms. That, for example, would rekindle interst in a continued dialogue for me. So I do not advocate shutting down the thread. Wouldn't want to silence anyone else with something to contribute.

No, Inspector and you have done an excellent job of proving your side. That the other side not understand is their failing, not yours.

There are basically three objections, and all are unfounded.

First one:

You cant determine the strength of "men", because "men" doesn't exist - only individual men exist. It is indeterminable because it does not exist.

This statement is just plain ridiculous. How can any argument be possible with someone who holds this view?

Second:

What I was trying to illustrate(unsuccessfully I guess) is that while concepts must arise because of differences between one set of existents and another, the relational difference can not serve as the essential characteristics for those concepts.

Again, that is impossible. Meta is looking for a simple definition, like how you would define blue and blue for concepts that are not simple. Won't work.

Third:

This is problem with defining femininity by way of it not being masculine or by not being strong. Its too vague. Of course femininity does not symbolize strength, but we don't go around defining things by means of what they don't symbolize, or by what they aren't.

First of all, I don't think anyone did define femininity that way. If someone did, they were wrong, technically. A more proper definition for that aspect would be that they are physically weak. (Not trying to offend anyone here, but being very explicit in this case seems necessary.)

So we aren't defining something by saying what it is not, we are defining it by what it is compared to something else.

Edited February 5, 2007 by Viking

[Inspector]

Actually, he stated that a simple definition was not given. Not that no definition is stated. And, in fairness, he is correct. Though I don't think the subject is simple, and so am not certain that a simple definition can be provided. I'll keep thinking about it though.

I didn't read "simple" to be the key word there. I took it to mean that it would be simple to provide an objective definition, but nobody had done so.

If the problem is that my definition is too complicated, then I disagree. It's simple enough.

Edited February 5, 2007 by Inspector

[Inspector]

This statement is just plain ridiculous. How can any argument be possible with someone who holds this view?

You said it, not me. But I was thinking it pretty hard.

***

Meta, so you know, I agree that at least one of us isn't understanding the other here. I was really hoping that you might come to understand what I was saying. If nothing else, you spurred me to state my position in what I consider to be a very clear way and I value that achievement. I'm not cross with you, just perplexed at what your position is and why you don't understand mine.

[Inspector]

What makes it difficult to provide a comprehensive definition, at least for me, is the fact that concepts of femininity/masculinity are partially constant and partially fluid.

Could you provide an example of one that is fluid?

[hunterrose]

I'm not dainty by sheer genetics but I'm damn well a woman and anyone that wants to tell me otherwise had better be prepared to observe said lack of daintiness in action.

That's my girl!

I propose some sort of moratorium on gender topics for some specific amount of time.

What's the fun in that

NESCIUS: Yes, these elephants are most interesting! Not as large as the usual african elephant, not as small as the asian! I bet they are Middle Eastern!!

What makes it difficult to provide a comprehensive definition is the fact that concepts of femininity/masculinity are partially constant and partially fluid.

Agreed.

You cant determine the strength of "men", because "men" doesn't exist - only individual men exist. It is indeterminable because it does not exist.

This statement is just plain ridiculous. How can any argument be possible with someone who holds this view?

I think what he means is that you can't determine whether a man is as strong as he "ought" to be, or whether a woman is stronger than she "ought" to be - because the "ought" is not validated. I don't think it is ridiculous; I seriously doubt mrocktor meant you can't calculate the average man's/woman's strength, but rather meant that averages are in no way related to what an individual man/woman ought to do.

What I was trying to illustrate(unsuccessfully I guess) is that while concepts must arise because of differences between one set of existents and another, the relational difference can not serve as the essential characteristics for those concepts.

Again, that is impossible. Meta is looking for a simple definition, like how you would define blue and blue for concepts that are not simple. Won't work.

I think Meta's point (that e.g. masculine would be better defined as "strong" and not as "stronger") is very, very good. A man who could bench 600 lbs is strong, regardless of whether or not he is in the company of 800 pound lifters, and a man benching 300 is in no way less masculine simply because of the prescence of a female 400 lifter. IMO even more important, if there are oughts to be derived from masculinity/femininity, I see absolutely no reason why/how they would be derived from relational differences. Why base what a person ought to do on collective statistics?

A more proper definition for that aspect would be that they are physically weak. (Not trying to offend anyone here, but being very explicit in this case seems necessary.)

I agree that it is necessary. But totally disagree with the "physically weak definition as proper" statement.

The problem isn't so much with compiling the average strength of the sexes and noting that the male average is greater than the female average. The problem is (and probably always is with such threads)

• You said "physically weak" but meant "physically weaker", don't you? Otherwise you're agreeing with Meta
  
• Quite simply, some women aren't physically weak. No reason is ever given as to why such women ought to act by a collective standard of weaker (inferior?) women
  
• Stating that the "average" woman is physically weaker is one thing; to state that a woman ought to remain "physically weaker" (to the extent of her ability) would not be a derivative of an analysis of averages and is totally unfounded
  

That the other side does not understand is their failing... we aren't defining something by saying what it is not, we are defining it by what it is compared to something else.

You understand that you are defining what a group is on average compared to what another group is on average? And group averages will not objectively lead to a conclusion of what members of a group ought to do?

[softwareNerd]

...it is no longer 'unmasculine' to care for children, in fact, women are very attracted to nurturing single fathers. Since, many women today would like to have both the stimulating career and a family a man which helps out with child rearing is considered an asset.

What makes it difficult to provide a comprehensive definition, at least for me, is the fact that concepts of femininity/masculinity are partially constant and partially fluid.

Sophia, You make the point that things we consider masculine and feminine change. By this, I assume you mean that regardless of the underlying need and cause, much of the concretization and symbolism is a matter of cultural convention (i.e., not arbitrary, but not timeless either).

How would you integrate this with the following:

...Some men are so masculine (due to both their mental and physical strength) that they cause women to almost feel faint in their presence, others well... less so.

Would you say that the concretes that cause women to swoon in the presence of certain men (or men to react to certain women) change with time? Edited February 5, 2007 by softwareNerd

[Inspector]

I think what he means is that you can't determine whether a man is as strong as he "ought" to be, or whether a woman is stronger than she "ought" to be

But that is getting seriously ahead of the discussion. I've barely breathed a hint of what this information means someone ought to do. And what hints I have given have a lot of questions about context.

I think Meta's point (that e.g. masculine would be better defined as "strong" and not as "stronger") is very, very good.

I think it's very, very nonsense. Any claim of "strong" necessarily has an implied comparison. Any time you say someone or something is strong, you mean strong compared to something or someone. Usually, the implied comparison is between X and "most men." But "strong" does not exist as a platonic Ideal, independent of anything to be compared to.

A man who could bench 600 lbs is strong, regardless of whether or not he is in the company of 800 pound lifters

He is strong compared to most men, even if his immediate company is much stronger than he. Do you see how a comparison is still taking place?

if there are oughts to be derived from masculinity/femininity, I see absolutely no reason why/how they would be derived from relational differences. Why base what a person ought to do on collective statistics?

Patience, grasshopper.

Quite simply, some women aren't physically weak. No reason is ever given as to why such women ought to act by a collective standard of weaker (inferior?) women

Why do you seem to imply that this is a Godly Commandment That Trumps All Context?

I'd say that if a woman wants to be feminine, then she ought not seek to be strong/display physical strength, etc.

You understand that you are defining what a group is on average compared to what another group is on average? And group averages will not objectively lead to a conclusion of what members of a group ought to do?

Information about what males are by their nature is useful to determine what individual males ought to do to emphasize their maleness because first you need to know what maleness, in general, is. Only then can you look at the context of an individual male, to determine what abilities and traits he possesses or does not possess, and what action he should or should not take.

But, you know, nobody asked this. I just got condemnation and a bunch of straw man assumptions.

[mrocktor]

This statement is just plain ridiculous. How can any argument be possible with someone who holds this view?

Only if you actually know Objectivist Epistemology.

[IAmMetaphysical]

I didn't read "simple" to be the key word there. I took it to mean that it would be simple to provide an objective definition, but nobody had done so.

In all fairness I do believe I gave a rational objective definition to the genders, but it was pretty much ignored. I think we're all in agreement here that there has to be an objective standard for defining something, the disagreement I think (hope) is in which attributes of the genders serve as the most distinguishing.

[aequalsa]

I didn't read "simple" to be the key word there. I took it to mean that it would be simple to provide an objective definition, but nobody had done so.

If the problem is that my definition is too complicated, then I disagree. It's simple enough.

You may be right. I assumed that if it was simple definition(like a noun), the discussion would not have carried on this long.

In all fairness I do believe I gave a rational objective definition to the genders, but it was pretty much ignored.

Inside the context of posts defending the subject it is hard to seperate the definition itself from supporting information. Maybe if you could restate your definition in some easily recognizable way such as

Simple definition of masulinity= "........................"

it would be easier to dispense with the part of the conversation where we all claim that no one provides a definition.

[aequalsa]

Until the invention of the birth control pill and the widespread availability of contraceptives, women were utterly biologically determined to have children and be dependent on men. Thus a lot of what we describe as 'feminine traits' was constructed around adaptation to male dominance. Its central feature is attractiveness to men, which includes physical appearance (of a sort which most men find attractive), non threatening behavior (so he sees her as a companion and not an opponent), nurturance of children, sexual availability, and sociability.

I think this context of non-competetiveness you bring up is vitally important(central actually) to the discussion. To feel deep affection and protectivness for someone, competetiveness has to be out. Even women's faces are more child-like then men's (lacking hair, bigger eyes with an open brow, smaller nose and ears) adding to the lack of competetiveness. Their smaller frame and lack of strength are obvious indicators of lack of competetiveness. However, lacking any of those differences, a woman can still make herself less competetive by posture and behaviour. (tilting her head and looking down to the left with dropped arms-exposed-, for example). A pair-bond circumstance(originally required for the excessively long and energy consuming, human child-rearing process) is dependent on cooperation.

The feelings that exist including endorphine release and sexual arousal are likely heavily tied to our biology in this way, encouraging behaviour in accordance with it. As Sophia pointed out, pregnancy is a state of almost complete dependency so women most able to encourage caretaking behaviours by men, by virtue of their physical stature or behaviour, tended to reproduce successfully, and those who didn't died off, leaving us with evolution's typical mishmash of traits. All of which are trying to accomplish the same ends, reproduction. The most effective way of insuring compliance is submissiveness. So those traits are as Ayn Rand indicated, the essential aspects of femininity and masculinity.

So

simple definition of masculinity=those physical, mental and behavioural traits associated with dominence

simple definition of femininity=those physical, mental, and behavioural traits associated with submissiveness.

Thanks Sophia.

[mrocktor]

simple definition of masculinity=those physical, mental and behavioural traits associated with dominence

simple definition of femininity=those physical, mental, and behavioural traits associated with submissiveness.

That is good. Finally a genus/differentia definition though "associated with" is still a little more loose than desireable. From your definition it is still possible to state:

• Masculinity is evil. Rational volitional beings should not seek to dominate others of their kind, it is against their nature to do so and can only harm them (see Objectivist Ethics)
  
• Femininity is evil. Rational volitional beings should not submit their mind to others (see Objectivist Ethics).
  
• There is no evidence in support of the thesis that male humans should be masculine.
  
• There is no evidence in support of the thesis that female humans should be feminine.
  

See, proper definitions are a lot easier to demolish than vague floating abstractions. They do deserve honest consideration though.

[aequalsa]

That is good. Finally a genus/differentia definition though "associated with" is still a little more loose than desireable. From your definition it is still possible to state:

• Masculinity is evil. Rational volitional beings should not seek to dominate others of their kind, it is against their nature to do so and can only harm them (see Objectivist Ethics)
  
• Femininity is evil. Rational volitional beings should not submit their mind to others (see Objectivist Ethics).
  
• There is no evidence in support of the thesis that male humans should be masculine.
  
• There is no evidence in support of the thesis that female humans should be feminine.
  

See, proper definitions are a lot easier to demolish than vague floating abstractions. They do deserve honest consideration though.

Only if you package deal non-volition and the use of force with dominance. A Supervisor at work is dominant to his employees. The employees however, choose to be in a submissive position because it is in their best interests. The same is true of this circumstance. Women might choose to be in a submissive position to men to encourage harmony and discourage competetiveness, because the gains of a supportive partner outweigh any disvalues attached to submissiveness.

If they are acting in accordance with their nature and with freewill, for what is in their own best interests, calling them evil is decidedly incorrect, as well as, I imagine, vulgerly insulting to a rational woman in that position.

Edited February 5, 2007 by aequalsa

[mrocktor]

Only if you package deal non-volition and the use of force with dominance.

Does a woman have a choice about being a woman? No. You are package dealing gender with inferiority and prescribing subservience. That is intellectually and morally repugnant to the utmost degree. Even to an intellectual inferior, integrity is a virtue. You do not submit your mind to another, period.

The employee/supervisor relationship is not one of submission but of voluntary cooperation. If he is not satisfied or disagrees with his boss, the employee walks away. Not so for the poor woman who's nature - in your view - is to be inferior and dominated "for her own good".

I am certain that any rational woman reading what you wrote and what I did would be deeply insulted. By you.

Edited February 5, 2007 by mrocktor

[~Sophia~]

Sophia, You make the point that things we consider masculine and feminine change. By this, I assume you mean that regardless of the underlying need and cause, much of the concretization and symbolism is a matter of cultural convention (i.e., not arbitrary, but not timeless either).

Some of it is cultural convention.

Yes it is not timeless but it is not causeless. I think of it as a quest for perfect complementarity. As society changes and thus what is complementary - some of those standards also change.

How would you integrate this with the following:

Would you say that the concretes that cause women to swoon in the presence of certain men (or men to react to certain women) change with time?

No. This is the part which I think is pretty much constant. It transcends cultures and time. A hunter who was both mentally and physically strong was the one who got to mate. That strong physical and mental presence is still what makes women feel weak at their knees today. Notice that it is a combination. With the popularity of strenght training today there are many men who are close to that physical ideal but not that many who have this effect on women.

[aequalsa]

Does a woman have a choice about being a woman? No. You are package dealing gender with inferiority and prescribing subservience. That is intellectually and morally repugnant to the utmost degree. Even to an intellectual inferior, integrity is a virtue. You do not submit your mind to another, period.

The employee/supervisor relationship is not one of submission but of voluntary cooperation. If he is not satisfied or disagrees with his boss, the employee walks away. Not so for the poor woman who's nature - in your view - is to be inferior and dominated "for her own good".

I am certain that any rational woman reading what you wrote and what I did would be deeply insulted. By you.

If you have some bad connotation with the word dominance, then feel free to institute whatever word you think is more appropriate to the context I am describing. Those words work for me satisfactorily because I do not view assuming a submissive position as equatable to "submitting your mind to another".

If I go to work for someone...they are in charge and tell me what to do. I may disagree, and then bring it up with my boss, or I may make the realization that he knows more then I do, and submit to his greater expertise in the matter. My choice to place his oppinion above my own at work in the decision making process is volitional and in my best interests. The dynamic is the same in relationships. The true anarcho-communism thing never works because you rarely have complete consensus. Human interaction voluntary falls into a hiarchical format because that is what works for reality. An individual has to make the decision, whatever it is. So people choose to put themselves in dominant or submissive positions. Dominance gives you greater freedom of action and choice but carries with it greater responsibilities and obligations. People choose both in different circumstances and for different reasons.

Once again, since you seem to forget that I have said this before, these traits exist to varying degrees with different individuals. A dominant, masaculine woman could very well find a submissive, feminine man and reverse the behaviours to some effect. However, due to innate physiological differences, the masculine and feminine behaviours and traits tend to be associated with men and woman, respectively. Freewill exists. But people's free decisions occur with reference to reality. Like the example I brought up many long pages ago. If I were short, I could not freewill myself to reach the peanut butter on the top shelf. I would need to take alternate steps to gain my values.

Men and womens choices are in response to their nature and their environment. Their natures are generally different so their choices and behaviours are different. They are different in the way I suggest above because that's what they are, not because that's what I want them to be.

[Viking]

I think what he means is that you can't determine whether a man is as strong as he "ought" to be, or whether a woman is stronger than she "ought" to be - because the "ought" is not validated. I don't think it is ridiculous; I seriously doubt mrocktor meant you can't calculate the average man's/woman's strength, but rather meant that averages are in no way related to what an individual man/woman ought to do.

Where did all the oughts come from? I'm not aware of anyone on my side saying that one ought to act masculine if one is a male. Straw man.

I think Meta's point (that e.g. masculine would be better defined as "strong" and not as "stronger") is very, very good. A man who could bench 600 lbs is strong, regardless of whether or not he is in the company of 800 pound lifters, and a man benching 300 is in no way less masculine simply because of the prescence of a female 400 lifter. IMO even more important, if there are oughts to be derived from masculinity/femininity, I see absolutely no reason why/how they would be derived from relational differences. Why base what a person ought to do on collective statistics?

I think its unimportant. Strong and weak already imply a comparison, just like rich and poor. We don't say richer and poorer unless we are comparing someone to something other than the average. The same goes for strong and weak.

You understand that you are defining what a group is on average compared to what another group is on average? And group averages will not objectively lead to a conclusion of what members of a group ought to do?

I wouldn't compare them to another group, I'd compare them to a group that they are a part of. Such as humans. And again, NO I'm not saying how people ought to behave.

[Cogito]

Where did all the oughts come from? I'm not aware of anyone on my side saying that one ought to act masculine if one is a male. Straw man.

If you aren't saying one ought to act masculine if one is a male, what exactly are you saying then?

[~Sophia~]

• Masculinity is evil. Rational volitional beings should not seek to dominate others of their kind, it is against their nature to do so and can only harm them (see Objectivist Ethics)
  
• Femininity is evil. Rational volitional beings should not submit their mind to others (see Objectivist Ethics).
  
• There is no evidence in support of the thesis that male humans should be masculine.
  
• There is no evidence in support of the thesis that female humans should be feminine.
  

We are talking here about romantic dominance and not any other kind. Being non-competitive in relations with my romantic partner does not imply my inferiority or intelectual/mental submission. The more of a 'hero' I go after the more I have to match him. Why would he be attracted to me otherwise? But in the end, after putting up a 'good fight' or stimulating interaction - I do not have the need to beat him. He needs to be at least my equal or better. That is what femininity means.

[aequalsa]

If you aren't saying one ought to act masculine if one is a male, what exactly are you saying then?

That you should not try to not act masculine if you are masculine. And further, if you are male, then you probably are more masculine then feminine, and it should be no surprise. That there isn't some universal, gender-nuetral, ideal that all ought to aspire to. That you shouldn't expect other men to act not masculine or women not feminine. The result of this is that, if you want women to respond to you sexually, then masculine behaviours will help far more then they hurt. Being masculine makes you compatable with a feminine person.

Further on the individual level, the specific ways and traits where these behaviours correlate help to understand why any two particular people, click or don't. Two masculine people in a relationship would be in an almost constant state of conflict. If you can see what traits you have that are dominant, it would be of great help in choosing a person that is specifically compatibale to you. This is in addition to, and possibly more important then finding someone with a similiar philosophy, since it is directly tied to their sense of life.

[Viking]

Bah, I should have read on before I replied, Inspector beat me to it.

If you aren't saying one ought to act masculine if one is a male, what exactly are you saying then?

I'm basically saying hey, this is what masculinity is, take it or leave it.

----------

Now, to be fair to hunterose, I see that someone on my side (Inspector) has in fact prescribed some oughts this is. I haven't thought about it too much, so far I've been more concerned about settling on a definition, but I see how it could be possible. Men and women are different in many ways, mentally and physically, so one should at least take this into account to some degree, otherwise one would be practicing evasion. Inspector said he has some insight in this matter, and I'd love to hear it once people understand the definition.

The result of this is that, if you want women to respond to you sexually, then masculine behaviours will help far more then they hurt. Being masculine makes you compatable with a feminine person.

Another good reason to act masculine/feminine.

[aequalsa]

Another good reason to act masculine/feminine.

Thats the most important one.