Male Female differences/ Women Presidents etc

[aequalsa]

That being said, I am not sure if I am happy with the word dominated. I think of it more, in terms of, non-combative, supportive, mode where a woman is a partner and not an opponent.

I did not include it in my attempt at a simplified definition, but later clarified that i meant dominant/submissive in regard to the romantic aspect of the relationship. Not so much the put-on-wife-beater-and-yell-for-her-to-bring-me-a-beer variety of dominance. I thought that was clear from the previous conversation, so I left it out. That this issue of masculinity and femininity only ellicit "oughts" inside of the romantic context, seems clear to me.

[Viking]

I assume you're referring with her agreement with mrocktor's statement of: "The average abilities of other women, the average abilities of men - all of that matters not a whit when the individual woman makes her choices."

How does the average abilities of women say anything about the nature of woman qua woman? I can see certain oughts following from the nature of woman being something specific. But you cannot just say: Well, most women do X, so therefore X is in the nature of woman, and this implies she should do Y.

In other words, I don't think the statement you are replying to says what you think it says.

I was actually responding to this:

I don't take into account the masculine or feminine nature of my choices.

[Inspector]

But you cannot just say: Well, most women do X, so therefore X is in the nature of woman, and this implies she should do Y.

Nobody said anything about basing anything on what women (or men) do. It's about what women (and men) are.

Edited February 7, 2007 by Inspector

[IAmMetaphysical]

I understood her literally to mean in an embrace, a mans arms typically wrap all the way around the woman's arms, while she is holding around his torso. If you reversed that it would be generally a bit ucomfortable for both parties.

A lot of times my gf and I embrace in just this manner, with my arms around her waist, and her arms around my arms clasping her hands behind my back. Its hardly uncomfortable.

But I think aesthetically, and strictly aesthetically I can see your point. It is my contention that the ONLY context where masculinity/femininity has ANY bearing is in the context of how our bodies look/act. So as I said before as a symbol, masculinity can only represent certain things, and femininity as well. But I don't see the jump then to ethics, where a woman in real life, NOT ACTING AS A SYMBOL would want to play this "role."

Nobody said anything about basing anything on what women (or men) do. It's about what women (and men) are.

Note: I do not intend the following to be a "Flame" (if I got that lingo correctly) but as an observation.

I think the reason why its so annoying to discuss things with you Inspector is because you don't realize just what you are saying, or just what you are saying is implying, and where it leads.

[aequalsa]

But I think aesthetically, and strictly aesthetically I can see your point. It is my contention that the ONLY context where masculinity/femininity has ANY bearing is in the context of how our bodies look/act. So as I said before as a symbol, masculinity can only represent certain things, and femininity as well. But I don't see the jump then to ethics, where a woman in real life, NOT ACTING AS A SYMBOL would want to play this "role."

That is how she said she meant it. Symbolically.

[IAmMetaphysical]

Didn't she say something about it not "feeling right," as opposed to just not "looking" right.

[aequalsa]

Didn't she say something about it not "feeling right," as opposed to just not "looking" right.

She initially did, but clarified with the following statement.

"No.

I ment that a woman, visualizing romantic embrace with her lover, wants to be the one held.

Keep in mind that this is more of symbol for me than anything else."

[~Sophia~]

Didn't she say something about it not "feeling right," as opposed to just not "looking" right.

I definately have a preference (and not just an aesthetic one) and thus I act according to my preference. I am more than certain I am not alone on this.

[aequalsa]

If on the other hand you are saying that there are specific context in which it would be irrational to "leave" masculinity, then it would have philosophical significance. But, then you'd have to justify why it is irrational in that case to not act by the standard of masculinity - which no one has, if I recall correctly. You can't just say that it is improper to not act by the standard of masculinity in some contexts, and then not justify that with examples/rationales.

There are specific contexts. I don't recall if they have been brought up and don't feel like rereading so Ill think of one. ...............................................................ok...Boy thinks boys and girls are the same and that behaving agressively is barbaric. Boy goes to dance and waits on the periphery because he believes the girl in the pretty pink dance will come ask him to dance. While waiting and hoping for her agressive behaviour and subdueing his own, other boy who accepts that he is different asks said pink dressed girl to dance and they live happily ever after. Boy is sad.

In this context, it would not be in his best interests to not behave in a more masculine way.

[Inspector]

Note: I do not intend the following to be a "Flame" (if I got that lingo correctly) but as an observation.

I think the reason why its so annoying to discuss things with you Inspector is because you don't realize just what you are saying, or just what you are saying is implying, and where it leads.

Thanks for the forewarning at the beginning of your post. It helps.

If you think that what I am saying leads to something, then why not ask something along the lines of: "Inspector, doesn't your position, '<quote>' imply X?"

And if you're up for it, show how you think my statement leads to "X."

This as opposed to, "Inspector, I don't agree with your position, 'X'!" Because you really aren't certain that my position is in fact "X."

Then, I will have a chance to respond with how I think it does not lead to "X," and if you are clear enough I would be able to find where you misunderstood my position. Because I'm pretty sure that's what is happening.

Edited February 7, 2007 by Inspector

[mrocktor]

I definately have a preference (and not just an aesthetic one) and thus I act according to my preference. I am more than certain I am not alone on this.

I'm also sure you are not alone. The issue is to what extent is this Sophia's preference (and taht of the women who agree with you) as oposed to a metaphysical necessity of women, due to being what they are.

[hunterrose]

He is, primarily, a man. (male) Effeminacy is contrary to his manly nature.

I don't think my above explanation will suffice for you, so I expect you'll have questions. Try to point me to where the disconnect is, and I'll do my best.

I largely agree with what you and others consider to be natural masculine traits, and somewhat agree on the feminine traits. That said, I don't see the objective reason why every man benefits from acting masculine and every woman from acting feminine... is there one?

If a woman doesn't benefit from acting feminine, then why would it matter whether femininity is "in her nature" or not?

Man boobs, heheh.

There are specific contexts. I don't recall if they have been brought up and don't feel like rereading so I'll think of one. ...............................................................ok...Boy thinks boys and girls are the same and that behaving aggressively is barbaric. Boy goes to dance and waits on the periphery because he believes the girl in the pretty pink dance will come ask him to dance. While waiting and hoping for her aggressive behavior and subduing his own, other boy who accepts that he is different asks said pink dressed girl to dance and they live happily ever after. Boy is sad.

In this context, it would not be in his best interests to not behave in a more masculine way.

Okay. Yet there are analogous instances when it is in a woman's best interest to behave in a masculine way, and instances where it is in a man's best interest to act feminine.

I understand the argument that most girls are feminine, and if you want one of these typical girls, you have to do what typical girls like. However, if some (atypical) guy likes tomboys who like effeminate men, in what context is it in his best interest to act masculine?

[Maarten]

That being said, I am not sure if I am happy with the word dominated. I think of it more, in terms of, non-combative, supportive, mode where a woman is a partner and not an opponent. It does not mean that she is passive when it comes to decision making or that she sacrifices her needs and wants for the sake of his. But she is definately not in competition with her romantic interest. She is not trying to overpower him.

Could you explain why you think it is detrimental for the woman to be in competition with her romantic interest? And furthermore, which type of competition are you talking about, here? There are different ways in which you can compete with someone, and I would be interested in knowing whether you think all of these are generally a bad idea for a woman to engage in, or whether there are some types of competition that are okay and others that aren't?

*edit* I would also be interested in anyone else's views on this matter.

Edited February 8, 2007 by Maarten

[Inspector]

I largely agree with what you and others consider to be natural masculine traits, and somewhat agree on the feminine traits. That said, I don't see the objective reason why every man benefits from acting masculine and every woman from acting feminine... is there one?

When I say that it is a value, this isn't saying that it is always the highest value. I.e. it is quite possible that in an individual's context, the benefit gained from pursuing another value could be greater. It isn't a contextless absolute.

But what I am saying is that, for a man, masculinity is good. For a woman, femininity is good. Each is a recognition and embracing of one's sexual nature as a man or woman. Your identity as a man or woman. By being masculine, you feel efficacious qua man (male). By being feminine, a woman is efficacious qua woman (female).

Have you ever seen that gap commercial, "I enjoy being a girl?" http://youtube.com/watch?v=H1Qv-37rLRY, check it out. That's it in a nutshell.

I guess the male equivalent would be this, although it is a bit silly. Still, you get the idea.

If a woman doesn't benefit from acting feminine, then why would it matter whether femininity is "in her nature" or not?

If they don't benefit from it in a particular instance, then they shouldn't do it. But knowing it is in her nature is to know that it is a value; something good. That it may be worthwhile in other contexts.

Man boobs, heheh.

Hehe, I was wondering if anyone would catch that.

Edited February 9, 2007 by Inspector

[~Sophia~]

(~Sophia~ @ Feb 6 2007, 08:03 PM) That being said, I am not sure if I am happy with the word dominated. I think of it more, in terms of, non-combative, supportive, mode where a woman is a partner and not an opponent. It does not mean that she is passive when it comes to decision making or that she sacrifices her needs and wants for the sake of his. But she is definately not in competition with her romantic interest. She is not trying to overpower him.

Could you explain why you think it is detrimental for the woman to be in competition with her romantic interest?

That has not been my claim.

And furthermore, which type of competition are you talking about, here? There are different ways in which you can compete with someone, and I would be interested in knowing whether you think all of these are generally a bad idea for a woman to engage in, or whether there are some types of competition that are okay and others that aren't?

I cartainly do not mean that, for example, while playing tennis she should deliberately play below her ability to let him win. Also, having what I would call passionate, discussions about movies or politics or books (or whatever) certainly keeps things interesting and keeps the couple moving forward in their relationship. Competition in the area of play is healthy.

Romantic relationships already begin with a sense of achievement through competition. One or both partners took the initiative and successfully pursued someone who may have been seen as a prize by others.

There is no question that healthy competitive spirit in a romantic relationship can bring out the best in both partners. Each individual accomplishment promotes a positive sense of 'if she can do it, so can I' (and vice versa) and provides a tangible example of what ambition and drive can do. Demonstrating your own ambition might make a romantic partner break out of a slump and become more energized.

However, what I call a combat mode in a relationship leads to nothing but conflict. It is a mistake to get so caught up in the pursuit of 'winning' that you lose sight of the benefits of NOT winning. Winning can not become more important than reconciling the facts, more important than the time spend together, more important than having a good time, more important than the overall quality of a relationship. Viewing your lover as an opponent you have to always outcompete is detrimental to their romantic feelings for you. I think that is true for both sexes but especially so when it comes to man's feelings for a woman.

Life together should not be a constant head-to-head battle.

Successful couples find, respect and embrace the complementary aspects of each other and approach issues they encounter non-competitively (like partners not opponents).

[IAmMetaphysical]

And if you're up for it, show how you think my statement leads to "X."

I'm not really up to it because I think it's fruitless, because our disagreements are more fundamental and those need to be dealt with first, e.g. we have differing ideas about the concepts "gender," "masculine," "feminine," "worship," "dominant," "strong," "weak." We also have a disagreement regarding the role of quantatative differences between existents in regards to classification. We should resolve these things before we talk about application, which I suspect we agree on a bit more than it seems.

[blackdiamond]

Hello everyone, i haven't participated in the debates here in a long time but it is always enjoyable to watch Inspector take on everyone on this hot issue! as usual, i come to his rescue. So, here goes:

Why do you think the prostitution business has always been identified with women (as the sellers) all over the world? i can't imagine any place in the world (it's very rare if it's even there) where men are standing in the streets waiting for women to pick them up, and you can't tell me that there are no poor men who are in some need of some cash from some lonely rich women.(Admittedly, there are some male prostitutes, but even they are so ashamed of it, that i personally have never seen one standing on the streets, not even in the dark; it is just against male nature to wait to be 'taken').

My theory? the man is the "buyer", the woman the "seller", at any level of sexual or romantic relationship - all the way from prostitution to true, lasting love. The man, by his nature, is the one who goes out and gets (or buys); the woman does the waiting for the getter (buyer) to come (no pun). Ayn Rand was just a keen and honest observer. (And Inspector is just a good intro-spector!)

Blackdiamond.

[Maarten]

But what I am saying is that, for a man, masculinity is good. For a woman, femininity is good. Each is a recognition and embracing of one's sexual nature as a man or woman. Your identity as a man or woman. By being masculine, you feel efficacious qua man (male). By being feminine, a woman is efficacious qua woman (female).

How can you claim that masculinity is good, even if for a certain person in a certain context it is not a value at all? Obviously it would be self-defeating to be masculine in a situation where you could have gained a much greater value by not being masculine, and I do not see how you can still say that masculinity was good for the person in that particular context. Whether something is good or not depends entirely on context, and you can't just say that something is good, period.

Perhaps you do mean that: generally speaking, masculinity is good for a man, and femininity is good for a woman, but it does not sound that way from the statement you made above. Could you clarify what you meant there?

[Maarten]

However, what I call a combat mode in a relationship leads to nothing but conflict. It is a mistake to get so caught up in the pursuit of 'winning' that you lose sight of the benefits of NOT winning.

What are these benefits? Do you think that these benefits are more significant for either of the sexes than for the other?

Winning can not become more important than reconciling the facts, more important than the time spend together, more important than having a good time, more important than the overall quality of a relationship. Viewing your lover as an opponent you have to always outcompete is detrimental to their romantic feelings for you. I think that is true for both sexes but especially so when it comes to man's feelings for a woman.

Life together should not be a constant head-to-head battle.

Successful couples find, respect and embrace the complementary aspects of each other and approach issues they encounter non-competitively (like partners not opponents).

What about the nature of a woman (or more specifically, the nature of a woman in a romantic relationship) makes it more detrimental for her to act like that, than it would be for the man to do that?

[mrocktor]

Viewing your lover as an opponent you have to always outcompete is detrimental to their romantic feelings for you. I think that is true for both sexes but especially so when it comes to man's feelings for a woman.

I agree with you 100%. Which is why despite being a male, I don't try to dominate my mate. If my essence were "strength" and hers were "strength worship" (which in this structure is just euphemism for weakness*), basically by my nature I'd have to "win" - or give up the relationship.

Why do you think the prostitution business has always been identified with women (as the sellers) all over the world?

Because women have always been economically dependent due to the structure of most societies up to the late 20th century; because judeo/christian morality has always been lenient with men (creating a mass market for the few "rotten" women) and extremely strict with women (meaning a male prostitute would have no one to sell his services to); because due to the whole pursuer/pursued standard for male/female behavior it is much easier for a woman - any woman - to "get some" if she wants to...

Plenty of reasons realy. Oh, and male prostitutes are out there. There are plenty, even if you have never seen them. And even if most their clientelle is homossexual men. And even if you were right about male prostitution, a concrete does not a principle make.

* - If you differentiate masculinity from femininity by "strength", the feminine's essence is "weakness". If "masculine" is A, feminine is non-A since that is the differentiator between them.

Edited February 9, 2007 by mrocktor

[aequalsa]

How can you claim that masculinity is good, even if for a certain person in a certain context it is not a value at all?

Because it, like all values are contextual. I could construct a scenario where food(a value, generally) is held out of reach over a cliff. That food is no longer a value if you have to jump off the cliff to reach it. Even if you are very hungry. Maculinity and femininity are values generally, because they promote your life. The fact that they can be a disvalue in certain contexts, does not alter that.

[Maarten]

Because it, like all values are contextual. I could construct a scenario where food(a value, generally) is held out of reach over a cliff. That food is no longer a value if you have to jump off the cliff to reach it. Even if you are very hungry.

I agree with this.

Maculinity and femininity are values generally, because they promote your life. The fact that they can be a disvalue in certain contexts, does not alter that.

How do masculinity and femininity promote your life?

[Ifat Glassman]

Have you ever seen that gap commercial, "I enjoy being a girl?" http://youtube.com/watch?v=H1Qv-37rLRY, check it out. That's it in a nutshell.

I wish they would keep the music, but put this girl instead: From Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

There was this scene in the movie, where the head of the bandits stole her comb. She took a horse and chased after him, no matter what the dangers were or who she would have to face. She was in the middle of the desert, she left her carriage, her family, and the option of a safe return home and continued riding to the unknown (reminds me of Dagny chasing after the plane). When she met him she was exhausted, but kept fighting.

She got her comb back eventually .

Not to stick my head too deeply into this thread, but... how can something be a value to be pursued if it's already your nature? I mean, if I am feminine, then this is just who I am, there is no point in trying to "achieve it". If I am not feminine, why should I bother dressing in pink, being tender and going to hair saloons?

Therefor, it seems to me like the only thing to be pursued here is counter-repression. As long as one does not repress their desires and needs, they act as what they are, there is nothing more to pursue.

[aequalsa]

I agree with this.

How do masculinity and femininity promote your life?

To try to keep it in generalities, without referring to examples like we have previously, I would say that the differences that exist cause a symbiotic relationship where the whole becomes greater then the sum of two parts. This is most often expressed by people in the Jerry Mcguire, "You complete me." way. Taken out of context, this can lead to assumptions that this feeling implies a moral shortcoming. That it is not the case however. It is not a lack of any virtue or purpose in my life, but rather a lack of one of the highest values which I can hold. The idea is that I want someone who matches me rather then mirrors me. Makes for a better fit.

[mrocktor]

The idea is that I want someone who matches me rather then mirrors me. Makes for a better fit.

You don't have to be a "masculine"-"feminine" pair to match. Hell you don't even have to be male and female to match.