Male Female differences/ Women Presidents etc

[aequalsa]

Question: Do any of you men, think they can be turned on by a woman who is intellectually and professionally superior to them? Would you want to have a romantic relationship with such woman?

On the face of it, I would have to say no. Of course there are a lot of contingencies. How is superior defined with respect to both of those traits? What is being measured? Does professionally superior=makes more money or is more psychologically rewarded? Does intellectually superior mean higher IQ or more years of college or more well read? If someone was substantially superior, I would imagine that communication could be extraordinarily difficult. I'd be telling her how "I wanna pet the rabbits, george" and she would start using a bunch of long weird "science words". I may admire her, but I doubt I could conceive of a serious relationship with so little common ground. If you are considering a doctor as superior to an architect, and I was an architect, I doubt that I would have any problem dating a doctor.

[Ifat Glassman]

Heck yeah! I want a woman who challenges me to better myself.

I want a woman to love my virtues and to have virtues I can love. To steal a phrase from IAmMetaphysical, "worship" is "love" on your knees - and I bow down to no one and expect no one to bow to me. Does that make me non-masculine? Define masculine and we can talk about it.

Mrock, reread the terms that I wrote. Even a woman who is not intellectually superior she can still challenge you to be better, love your virtues, and have virtues you love. She would also, however, and here lies the point, kick your ass in every game you can think of, solve your problems at work that you can't solve, while having less years of experience, and she is just smarter.

How is superior defined with respect to both of those traits?

I think I answered it above. I am not talking about more experience and more knowledge, but more about a better ability to acquire knowledge, solve problems etc'.

If someone was substantially superior, I would imagine that communication could be extraordinarily difficult. I'd be telling her how "I wanna pet the rabbits, george" and she would start using a bunch of long weird "science words".

Lol!! This sounds funny.

I may admire her, but I doubt I could conceive of a serious relationship with so little common ground.

Ok, so what if there is a common ground? She uses the same words as you, only she is smarter (like I said, a perfect example is that she is able to solve the problems you are facing at work, for example: she makes everything that seems really complex to you look easy).

[aequalsa]

Ok, so what if there is a common ground? She uses the same words as you, only she is smarter (like I said, a perfect example is that she is able to solve the problems you are facing at work, for example: she makes everything that seems really complex to you look easy).

I would first be very skeptical as to why someone so much better then me would be interested in me. Like I mentioned later, if we were close to the same level, trying to quantify both of our overall values would be, entertaining maybe, but not useful or accurate in any way. In romance, I prefer someone who not only is interesting or admirable intellectually but also compliments my personality. So it would depend a lot on in what particular ways she was better then me. If I was bad at math and she had trouble expressing herself on paper, I wouldn't be bothered. It's not a fruitful comparison.

If she was significantly better then me in every concievable way, then I would find the circumstance dishonest. What value could she possibly derive from the relationship? Making herself feel superior to someone bolsters her self-esteem? Or trying to debase herself like dominique marrying peter keating? I just can't imagine any good coming from a relationship that unbalanced. I don't want to recieve anything unearned anymore then I want to give something unearned. So I would not be interested in such a relationship. I couldn't pay the price and would prefer being alone to being an intellectual looter.

[hunterrose]

Question: Do any of you men, think they can be turned on by a woman who is intellectually and professionally superior to them? Would you want to have a romantic relationship with such woman?

*agrees with mrocktor*

Heck yeah! For me, the better the woman, the more she inspires me to be great.

She would also, however, and here lies the point, kick your ass in every game you can think of, solve your problems at work that you can't solve, while having less years of experience, and she is just smarter.

Then I'd be like Dagny vs. Francisco in the tennis match; if my talent wasn't better, then I'd be determined to out-will her

If she was significantly better then me in every concievable way, then I would find the circumstance dishonest. What value could she possibly derive from the relationship?

She could admire you for your greatness (even if it pales in comparison to hers). Or she could admire you for your moral strength or willpower, and these are things in which is entirely up to you as to whether she is significantly better.

[aequalsa]

She could admire you for your greatness (even if it pales in comparison to hers). Or she could admire you for your moral strength or willpower, and these are things in which is entirely up to you as to whether she is significantly better.

Sorry...I don't buy it. A great woman is not going to admire a mediocre man because "he tries really hard". If she appears to, then something else is wrong with her that has been left out of the scenario.

[IAmMetaphysical]

Why is being not as able as someone necessarily make you "mediocre"? Just because you're not first, doesn't mean you're last.

Mrock: I still find it very flattering that you quote me after all this time, it truly is sincere. Thank you.

I'm developing "meta-isms." YES!

Glad to see you back contributing on the forum also.

[aequalsa]

Why is being not as able as someone necessarily make you "mediocre"? Just because you're not first, doesn't mean you're last.

I was talking about someone "significantly better in every concievable way."

[Ifat Glassman]

I would first be very skeptical as to why someone so much better then me would be interested in me.

If she was significantly better then me in every conceivable way, then I would find the circumstance dishonest. What value could she possibly derive from the relationship? Making herself feel superior to someone bolsters her self-esteem?

...

I couldn't pay the price and would prefer being alone to being an intellectual looter.

Wait a minute bro... Are you calling me a looter? . You see I would like to be with someone who is smarter than me. I find it incredibly sexy when someone is able to challenge me, and beat me.

The reason I asked this question is to figure out whether or not men are the same. I don't know this for sure but I think a lot of other women feel the same as I do in this regard (want someone who is stronger, more knowledgeable, smarter perhaps, someone who can handle things better than they can- in many areas).

[Expecting herds of female users to jump on this thread and tell me I don't know shit]

You see it seems strange to me that I would enjoy a relationship where someone is better than me, yet that a man might find it damaging to his ego(?) , and an obstacle in his way to psychologically "own" a woman (?).

However, after re-thinking about it, I think that perhaps my question was a bit misleading: I did not mean "significantly better in every conceivable way". I just meant smarter - which is a main trait but still just one out of many. I also didn't mean "worlds apart" smarter: but more like on the extremities of the same scale (if people can be smart from millimeter to Mega-meters , then she is 10Kmeters and he is 1Km).

Like I mentioned later, if we were close to the same level, trying to quantify both of our overall values would be, entertaining maybe, but not useful or accurate in any way.

Yeah, I agree. it would be very idiotic to quantify it, and would indicate some second-handishness.

[aequalsa]

Wait a minute bro... Are you calling me a looter? .

Wouldn't dream of it, Sis.

You see I would like to be with someone who is smarter than me. I find it incredibly sexy when someone is able to challenge me, and beat me.

The reason I asked this question is to figure out whether or not men are the same. I don't know this for sure but I think a lot of other women feel the same as I do in this regard (want someone who is stronger, more knowledgeable, smarter perhaps, someone who can handle things better than they can- in many areas).

I expect your right, but would guess few would admit it in this post 1970's day and age...so watch out for the herds.

[Expecting herds of female users to jump on this thread and tell me I don't know shit]

You see it seems strange to me that I would enjoy a relationship where someone is better than me, yet that a man might find it damaging to his ego(?) , and an obstacle in his way to psychologically "own" a woman (?).

I wouldn't say that for me it would be psychologically damaging. It would just feel "off" in that same way that a couple where the girl is taller then the guy seems off. (No, Im not saying it's not immoral to date a woman taller then you) Just doesn't fit with my conception of men, women, or romance.

However, after re-thinking about it, I think that perhaps my question was a bit misleading: I did not mean "significantly better in every conceivable way". I just meant smarter - which is a main trait but still just one out of many. I also didn't mean "worlds apart" smarter: but more like on the extremities of the same scale (if people can be smart from millimeter to Mega-meters , then she is 10Kmeters and he is 1Km).

A moderate difference would not be a problem either way. Scratch that...It would make a difference if it meant I couldn't win. I have to win. Maybe it's a sign of psychological immaturity on my part, but if I throw a woman against the wall for a passionate kiss and she manuevers out of my embrace and pins me to the ground, I will lose all sense of masculinity. It would be the boy version of "not feeling pretty". (It'd be ok if I let her win)

Intellectually I think it would be the same. If she tossed me around like a philosophical rag-doll I think I would have trouble feeling masculine around her and as a result would have difficulty responding to her sexually. If it was in regard to certain subjects that she was more expert in, it would be tolerable, but if it was generally the case that she was superior, then I believe there would be problems.

Of course, That's not to say that I would want someone that I could easily beat. Ideally, I would want to step out of the ring barely alive, but still victorious.

[mrocktor]

I also didn't mean "worlds apart" smarter: but more like on the extremities of the same scale (if people can be smart from millimeter to Mega-meters, then she is 10Kmeters and he is 1Km).

She's this smart and she wants me! I don't see how that can ever be a problem for me.

[IAmMetaphysical]

Maybe it's a sign of psychological immaturity on my part, but if I throw a woman against the wall for a passionate kiss and she manuevers out of my embrace and pins me to the ground, I will lose all sense of masculinity.

Stop defining masculinity as "stronger than a woman" and you'll cease having this view. The view that the masculine or the feminine must depend on its relation to another is second-handed, masculinity and femininity stand on their own. Feminine is not "non-masculine" and vice versa. Of course the existence of the distinction necessitates two "themes" but they don't have to necessarily be opposed to each other.

[Inspector]

Stop defining masculinity as "stronger than a woman" and you'll cease having this view. The view that the masculine or the feminine must depend on its relation to another is second-handed, masculinity and femininity stand on their own.

I don't agree. Masculinity and femininity are necessarily relational concepts. Relational to each other as they define what men are qua man (male) as opposed to woman and what women are qua woman as opposed to man (male). If males did not exist then femininity could not exist and if females did not exist then masculinity could not exist.

I wouldn't say that for me it would be psychologically damaging. It would just feel "off" in that same way that a couple where the girl is taller then the guy seems off. (No, Im not saying it's not immoral to date a woman taller then you) Just doesn't fit with my conception of men, women, or romance...

A moderate difference would not be a problem either way. Scratch that...It would make a difference if it meant I couldn't win. I have to win. Maybe it's a sign of psychological immaturity on my part, but if I throw a woman against the wall for a passionate kiss and she manuevers out of my embrace and pins me to the ground, I will lose all sense of masculinity. It would be the boy version of "not feeling pretty". (It'd be ok if I let her win)

Intellectually I think it would be the same. If she tossed me around like a philosophical rag-doll I think I would have trouble feeling masculine around her and as a result would have difficulty responding to her sexually. If it was in regard to certain subjects that she was more expert in, it would be tolerable, but if it was generally the case that she was superior, then I believe there would be problems.

Of course, That's not to say that I would want someone that I could easily beat. Ideally, I would want to step out of the ring barely alive, but still victorious.

(quoted in full to be clear what part I'm referencing)

I don't see anything wrong with any of this. (Your earlier statement of "looters" was a bit off, or maybe badly worded because you seemed to imply that this was universally bad as opposed to just emasculating. Ifat called you on it and I think you said that you didn't mean it that way.)

[Inspector]

I... want someone who is stronger, more knowledgeable, smarter perhaps, someone who can handle things better than they can- in many areas).

You see it seems strange to me that I would enjoy a relationship where someone is better than me, yet that a man might find it damaging to his ego(?) , and an obstacle in his way to psychologically "own" a woman (?).

That shouldn't seem strange. Think about it... How could the symmetry be complete if the man wanted the same thing? If he did then you couldn't both get what you want. It makes perfect sense that if you want someone who can best you that he should want someone he can best (in the ways in which you want to be bested, of course, and to the proper degree). At least, if a relationship is to be possible.

[aequalsa]

Stop defining masculinity as "stronger than a woman" and you'll cease having this view. The view that the masculine or the feminine must depend on its relation to another is second-handed, masculinity and femininity stand on their own. Feminine is not "non-masculine" and vice versa. Of course the existence of the distinction necessitates two "themes" but they don't have to necessarily be opposed to each other.

I meant the psychological immaturity comment to be a bit tongue in cheek. My view doesn't actually bother me. I also agree with inspector that they are relational terms. I would agree that man is not non-woman in a philosophical way because they have far more traits in common then they do that are different, but masculinity is what femininity is not, and vice versa.

[aequalsa]

She's this smart and she wants me! I don't see how that can ever be a problem for me.

A guy walks up to you and says, "I'd like to buy your watch. I'll pay you a 10 million dollars for it." Seem strange? Probably wondering what else is going on that you don't know about. The same thing happened to Peter in the Fountainhead. He forgot(evaded, actually) to ask why she would want to marry him. The reasons turned out to be unpleasant in the end. But this is with a significant difference between the two. With a less significant difference difference in quality between the two people, it would be less important.

It probably hinges on ones level of masculinity or femininity. A very masculine guy is going to want a very feminine woman, and a feminine woman will be more attracted to a masculine guy. Masculinity does not mean, male. I lived in madison, WI long enough to say with certainty that there are women in the world more masculine then myself.(of course, we were competing for the same romantic partners, so the male-female differentiaion starts to break down in more ways then one.)

If an individual man has a large number of feminine traits, he'll respond more to a woman with masculine traits. If he is more in the middle, he'll probably want a woman who is the same.

[mrocktor]

but masculinity is what femininity is not, and vice versa.

But what are they then? A simple genus/differentia definition would end this argument. I submit that you cannot provide such a definition, Ayn Rand didn't provide one herself so I'm betting Inspector won't either. They are invalid concepts until you do so, arguing about them is pointless.

Masculinity taken as "what men do" is only a measure of what men do, or are expected to, in our society. It is detached from the nature of man, there is no rational link between the nature of male humans and this behavior. The same goes for femininity as "what women do". Masculinity as "non-femininity" and vice versa is a circular non-definition.

All these arguments presented with authority about a non-defined subject are just the natural consequence of accepting feelings as the equivalent of knowlege:

Well, yes they could integrate it by knowing it subconsciously.

EDITED to add:

It probably hinges on ones level of masculinity or femininity.

I disagree entirely. It clearly hinges on the three sided balance of adubla, frombach and grumkish. A more adublan will want a balance of frombaching and grumkism, while a balanced adubla-frombach is pretty uninterested in grumkism altogether. On the other hand, a high level of grumkish demands some adubla for compatibility. The possibilities are endless though.

Debating meaningless concepts is fun.

Edited January 30, 2007 by mrocktor

[aequalsa]

But what are they then? A simple genus/differentia definition would end this argument. I submit that you cannot provide such a definition, Ayn Rand didn't provide one herself so I'm betting Inspector won't either. They are invalid concepts until you do so, arguing about them is pointless.

Masculinity taken as "what men do" is only a measure of what men do, or are expected to, in our society. It is detached from the nature of man, there is no rational link between the nature of male humans and this behavior. The same goes for femininity as "what women do". Masculinity as "non-femininity" and vice versa is a circular non-definition.

All these arguments presented with authority about a non-defined subject are just the natural consequence of accepting feelings as the equivalent of knowlege:

EDITED to add:

I disagree entirely. It clearly hinges on the three sided balance of adubla, frombach and grumkish. A more adublan will want a balance of frombaching and grumkism, while a balanced adubla-frombach is pretty uninterested in grumkism altogether. On the other hand, a high level of grumkish demands some adubla for compatibility. The possibilities are endless though.

Debating meaningless concepts is fun.

Honestly, man, the sarcasm isn't necessary, but i'll answer anyway.

If you had read a book on the subject published since 1985 or so, you would realize that there are a slew of differences between men and women, physical and mental, that have direct ties to their innate biology. Their bodies are different, their brains are different, their hormones are differnent, their capacities are different. This 70's feminist notion that we are all the same, and only society "socializes" us to be different is known beyond any shadow of doubt to be incorrect. Buy a little girl a tonka truck and she will use it to transport GI JOE to his friends house for tea. Give a boy a couple barbies and he'll have them in a boxing match. These differences derive from biology. Humans have freewill... Training can make them different in the same way that tying a left-handed kids left hand behind his back and beating him until he stops using it makes him "right handed". But in general, these traits and capacities will express themselves because a is a. Women will generally lift with their hips, because that is where they have strength, not because society socialized them to.

As to defining it, masculinity is a concept refering to a groups of traits primarily associated with males. Femininity to females. As such, no one trait accurately differentiates it from the other item in it's genus which I would call sex characteristics.

Below is a partial list of some of the traits that I have come across in reading that are physiologically connect to ones sex which also conform to my observation. If you are actually interested in understanding the facts of the matter, read up on it. If you prefer to believe we are all the same and equal, in that feminist egalitarian socialist way, then no skin off my hairy masculine knuckles. Just don't pretend around me that science and reason are on your side. The facts are out there if you wish to look at them.

Examples of Masculine traits- Greater physical strength, more exploratory behaviour, better gross body movements, more awareness of action, coarser skin, harder bodies, singleminded absorbtion in activity, better spacial recognition skills, being agressive-dominant, more repressive, etc

Examples of Feminine traits- Better fine motor skills(gentleness), softer skin and bodies, visual awareness to detail, better sense of color recognition, better sense of smell, better sense of hearing, faster and more complete language acquistion, more emotionally responsive, higher sensitivity to touch, multitasking, being submissive, more emotional, etc

Our difficulty in explaining these very complex issues are a result of your ignorance of the topic, and not our lack of reason. Study the subject and you will find what ayn rand found to be perceptually self-evident....now this might seem strange...men and women are different....*gasp*

[Ifat Glassman]

Wouldn't dream of it, Sis.

if I throw a woman against the wall for a passionate kiss and she manuevers out of my embrace and pins me to the ground, I will lose all sense of masculinity.

Intellectually I think it would be the same. If she tossed me around like a philosophical rag-doll ...

That was SSSOOOOOO funny. Especially the "rug-doll" thing.

Of course, That's not to say that I would want someone that I could easily beat. Ideally, I would want to step out of the ring barely alive, but still victorious.

These are exactly my preferences, only in reverse. I like the way you put it. But I would like to win from time to time, for the fun/laugh/satisfaction of it.

[mrocktor]

Honestly, man, the sarcasm isn't necessary, but i'll answer anyway.

That was not intended to be disrespectful, merely to illustrate.

I have X and Y chromossomes. I have, however, a very low tendency to build muscle mass compared to most males. My build could at best be described as "wiry", never "muscular". I know women who are much more muscular. I have a somewhat hairy body, though another XY friend of mine, who is of oriental descent, does not. For every one of your listed traits, those you indicated as "male" are merely those strongly correlated to males - biologically.

Your failure is that you are ascribing to these traits the definition of "masculinity" and "femininity". In a meaningful discussion, "masculinity" and "femininity" have to be definitions of types of behavior. Human behavior is chosen, no amount of statistical correlation is enough to determine that men should behave in a certain way and women in another.

If you want to discuss physical traits and their distribution between males and females, go ahead. I'm not interested. I don't give a damn about things that are out of human control. If you say "being 6 feet tall is unfeminine because most women are short" all a 6 foot tall woman can do is cry or tell you to go to hell. Now if you say "telling me to go to hell is unfeminine" you have to explain why.

And on the "why" you fail spectacularly and completely. That being because the terms "masculinity" and "femininity" you use are not concepts. A proper definition such as: "masculinity - the set of physical traits strongly correlated with males" won't let you do what you want with the pseudo-concept (namely: posit that such and such behavior is right for males).

[aequalsa]

That was not intended to be disrespectful, merely to illustrate.

I have X and Y chromossomes. I have, however, a very low tendency to build muscle mass compared to most males. My build could at best be described as "wiry", never "muscular". I know women who are much more muscular. I have a somewhat hairy body, though another XY friend of mine, who is of oriental descent, does not. For every one of your listed traits, those you indicated as "male" are merely those strongly correlated to males - biologically.

Your failure is that you are ascribing to these traits the definition of "masculinity" and "femininity". In a meaningful discussion, "masculinity" and "femininity" have to be definitions of types of behavior. Human behavior is chosen, no amount of statistical correlation is enough to determine that men should behave in a certain way and women in another.

If you want to discuss physical traits and their distribution between males and females, go ahead. I'm not interested. I don't give a damn about things that are out of human control. If you say "being 6 feet tall is unfeminine because most women are short" all a 6 foot tall woman can do is cry or tell you to go to hell. Now if you say "telling me to go to hell is unfeminine" you have to explain why.

And on the "why" you fail spectacularly and completely. That being because the terms "masculinity" and "femininity" you use are not concepts. A proper definition such as: "masculinity - the set of physical traits strongly correlated with males" won't let you do what you want with the pseudo-concept (namely: posit that such and such behavior is right for males).

It is not a matter of right or wrong at all. It is a matter of what is and what is not. Your personal examples are not relevent. You could have mammary glands and these descriptions would remain the same. The existence of a hermaphrodite does not cause the differentiation between men and women to not exist. In the same way, someone who lacks some commonly possessed masculine or feminine trait does not eliminate the usefulness of the concept as a predictor of behaviour or as an indentifier of their nature. If I say a male tiger weighs between 440-700lbs and a female weighs between 265-400lbs, and you tell me you have 450lb female tiger, it does not disqualify my statement. It just means your cat is fat.

These traits I mention are not correlated, by the way...they are causal. If a larger percent of the male brain is devoted to processing observed movement, then men will generally be more aware of movement and respond to it more quickly. If a woman has more fluctuations of hormone levels due to a reproductive process, then their moods will fluctuate in particular way different from males. If their visual cortex spends more of it's capacity on integrating many small details, then they will develop a better relational ability. That is they'll be more aware of facial expressions and what they mean.

Freewill is not a floating abstraction. It exists within the context of causality. To act freely, you must have something to act on. Our identities define our capacities. If I am tall and a girl is short, she cannot will herself to reach a can in the top cabinent. She would probably go get a stool. By that same token, I would have no impetus to go get a stool since I can easily reach the can. Our innate traits do not define, but do impact our behaviour and choices. A human is defined as a rational animal, despite the fact that he is not always rational. A man is still a man if he lacks a particular trait that most men possess. An individuals masculine identity is connected to the fact that if they are a man, they will almost always have more masculine traits then feminine traits. Not that they are identical to every other man.

[KevinD]

I find it very sad that anyone — particularly a man — could ever believe that masculinity and femininity are "meaningless concepts."

Simply speaking, masculinity is the psychological state of a man who has attained a very high level of comfort with the fact of his maleness; with his male sexuality and with everything it implies — i.e., with his sexual role relative to woman. Likewise, a woman can be said to be appropriately feminine to the extent that she enjoys an easygoing, accepting relationship with herself in this same regard; to the degree that she embraces, rather than fights, her sexuality and her sexual role relative to man.

Now, we could argue all day and night what exactly is a man's sexual role relative to woman, and what exactly is a woman's sexual role relative to a man. But there are certain basic and noncontroversial facts about sex which only a very naive, evasive, or excessively abstract kind of person could possibly not be aware of. (Facts such as: Man is the one who enters, and woman is the one who is entered; man is essentially active, while woman is relatively passive and receptive; that literally nothing can happen in sex without the man's interest and intense desire; that a woman could be taken without her consent — which is, of course, a terrible crime — but a man never could be; that man is the essential initiator and prime mover in sex, the one most crucially responsible for setting the direction and overall tone of a sexual partnership.)

Masculinity and femininity most definitely are relational concepts; they pertain exclusively to the sexual interaction of man and woman. If an issue or topic does not fairly directly involve sex or sexuality, it cannot in any meaningful sense be said to be an issue of masculinity or femininity.

Edited January 30, 2007 by Kevin Delaney

[aequalsa]

they pertain exclusively to the sexual interaction of man and woman. If an issue or topic does not fairly directly involve sex or sexuality, it cannot in any meaningful sense be said to be an issue of masculinity or femininity.

I completely agree with you up until this part. I think that sexuality is the place where they are most relevent, but differences between men and women exist outside of that as well.

[KevinD]

I think that sexuality is the place where they are most relevent, but differences between men and women exist outside of that as well.

Surely there are many important differences between men and women which do not directly pertain to sex. However, strictly speaking and by definition these cannot be issues of masculinity or femininity, for exactly the reasons described in my message above.

[aequalsa]

Surely there are many important differences between men and women which do not directly pertain to sex. However, strictly speaking and by definition these cannot be issues of masculinity or femininity, for exactly the reasons described in my message above.

I don't follow. Would you highlight which reasons you mean?

[KevinD]

I don't follow. Would you highlight which reasons you mean?

The entire second and third paragraphs.