Male Female differences/ Women Presidents etc

[Inspector]

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.

But I think his point is that those other differences do not necessarily fall under masculinity and femininity since they may fall outside of the scope of their sexual role/identity. I hadn't considered this before but on the face of it, it seems plausible.

Edited January 31, 2007 by Inspector

[IAmMetaphysical]

When discussing the defining characteristics of concepts one must concentrate on the ESSENTIAL characteristics of those concretes one wants to subsume under the concepts of the two genders. You guys are right in saying that without femininity, there would be no need for the concept of masculinity(and vice versa) but this is not a reason to assume that inherent in the essential characteristics of each group is the necessary negation of the other group. Nor does the opposite view mean that there is no difference whatsoever. Just as a plant is not a "non animal" nor is a mammal a "non reptile", the masculine is not the "non female", all the characteristics which make up the essential characteristics of this group of concretes exist without relation to its complementary gender, the opposite genders only necessitate the abstraction, just as the existence of mammals and reptile necessitates a differentiation of the two, but does not necessitate that mammals and reptiles be opposites.

Masculine traits(like strength) are identified as being STRENGTH not "non weakness." A man is not "stronger than a woman," a man IS strong. A woman IS graceful, IS curvy, not "curvier than a man." Man is not "more rational than a dog" s/he IS the "rational animal." The genders are not quantitative, they are an abstraction of type. In essence the genders tell us the overall theme of a person's body. They tell us that this person has a certain overall quality about them, a quality that is determined by the essentail nature of each of the two sexes' basic bodily themes. All males have feminine qualities, and all females have masculine qualities, but a feminine woman and a masculine man have an overall quality that determines their theme. A woman who works out and has a semi-muscular body but large breasts and hips is still a feminine woman. (Note: breasts don't necessarily have to be large to be feminine but if a woman's muscles are large enough and overshadow her feminine qualities, then her overall theme will more masculine. Also note that a woman who works out so much as to lose her cycle, grow a beard, develop a strong chin, etc, will be masculine no matter how large her breasts are).

The only objective standard that can be used in determining gender is physical, as all psychological effects of brain structure are a difference of quantity and not quality, not type, they do not distinguish the two genders from each other enough. A woman's innate ability to socialize better does not create a wide enough gap to be able to call that ability strictly feminine. (Note: those psychological effects of a woman's sexual cycle can be considered gendered, as they are a direct result of her mostly exclusive female sex hormones. A man does possess estrogen to an extent, but they have little to no effect on his behavior, the same goes for testosterone in the female.)

As for the sexual act, the "roles" do stem from an application of their bodily types, but thats way down the line, and I won't begin to discuss that here.

[aequalsa]

But I think his point is that those other differences do not necessarily fall under masculinity and femininity since they may fall outside of the scope of their sexual role/identity. I hadn't considered this before but on the face of it, it seems plausible.

What I don't follow in the reasoning is why the sexual role is masulinity and femininity and why those terms do not refer to the totality of masculine and feminine characteristics as concepts. Or is the point that the essential aspect of those concepts is the sexual aspect?

When discussing the defining characteristics...

Now, it's late and I don't want to make any promises yet, but I think I agree with your post on this subject.

[~Sophia~]

The only objective standard that can be used in determining gender is physical, as all psychological effects of brain structure are a difference of quantity and not quality, not type, they do not distinguish the two genders from each other enough.

Is it your view then that children are born psychologically unisex?

Because the view that we are molded into male and female roles by parents and society is becoming less and less credible.

Men's and women's brains vary in numerous ways, including the receptors for sex hormones. Variations in these hormones, especially before birth, can exaggerate or minimize the typical male and female patterns in cognition and personality. Boys with defective genitals who are surgically feminized and raised as girls have been known to report feeling like they are trapped in the wrong body and to show characteristically male attitudes and interests.

Transsexuals often claim they were born the wrong gender. Those are only preliminary studies but Investigators from the Netherlands Institute for Brain Research in Amsterdam reported that their study of six male-to-female transsexuals showed that a tiny structure deep within a part of the brain that controls sexual function appeared to be more like the type found in women than that found in men.

They also compared the brains of two dozen "ordinary" men and women. Half the men in the control group were heterosexual and half were homosexual. Yet, regardless of their sexual orientation, they all had that particular structure 50% larger than that in the women. When the researchers examined the same structure in transsexuals, they found that it was more like the women's than the men's. In fact, it was on average, slightly smaller than the women's.

[mrocktor]

It is not a matter of right or wrong at all.

Then I frankly don't care. Statistical analysis of traits in human beings does not interest me in the slightest - I live and deal with individuals not with averages, means or medians. Don't bring up "you are a man so act like a man" or "you won't be happy unless you act masculine" or yet "you won't be attractive to women if you don't act masculine" - you have given up all claim to prescribe behavior until you retract the above.

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

It is a fact that they are, until they are properly defined. Not a matter of belief.

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.

Precisely, since your definition is useless without its hierarchical antecedent.

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.)

The only controversial point is the one about behavior. "Man is essentially active, while woman is relatively passive and receptive" may describe most men and most women, it does not describe all and it does not account for the fact that people choose their sexual behavior.

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.

Very good. This restricts the discussion to the only scope where it can be reasonable. Note that it excludes any considerations about the woman's job out of hand - president or otherwise. Now we merely lack a proper definition of the terms. Taking from your list of physical facts, how about:

Masculinity: the character of someone who sexually acts in accordance to the male anatomy

Femininity: the character of someone who sexually acts in accordance to the female anatomy

I'm willing to bet that this definition is much stricter than you (or the others) would like. But it is a proper definition. Please do improve on it.

The only objective standard that can be used in determining gender is physical, as all psychological effects of brain structure are a difference of quantity and not quality, not type, they do not distinguish the two genders from each other enough. A woman's innate ability to socialize better does not create a wide enough gap to be able to call that ability strictly feminine.

I agree with your post up to here, but here you don't go far enough. It is not a matter of quantity when we get to behavior, skills and abilities: it is a matter of choice.

Because the view that we are molded into male and female roles by parents and society is becoming less and less credible.

Can you reference a single study that has a proper control group (i.e. a group of females not raised in a society with our male/female role standards and that came to display our society's standard "female behavior")? Outside of sexual behavior - the physiological part - I do stand by the idea that all men (I suppose in this discussion I sould say "humans") are born metaphysically equal, though their particular traits vary wildly.

[hunterrose]

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(?).

The idea of finding a "superior" woman to be damaging (as opposed to perhaps neutral) to one's ego/masculinity is strange to me as well.

If she tossed me around like a philosophical rag-doll I think I would have trouble feeling masculine around her.

This wasn't on your list; is this a matter of masculinity?

Stop defining masculinity as "stronger than a woman" and you'll cease having this view.

Good point.

But what are they then? A simple genus/differentia definition would end this argument. I submit that you cannot provide such a 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...

I disagree entirely. It clearly hinges on the three sided balance of adubla, frombach and grumkish.

:D

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.

What meaning can we derive from situations in which some of those roles are reversed? If the answer is "none", then aren't these facts largely meaningless?

[aequalsa]

Then I frankly don't care. Statistical analysis of traits in human beings does not interest me in the slightest - I live and deal with individuals not with averages, means or medians. Don't bring up "you are a man so act like a man" or "you won't be happy unless you act masculine" or yet "you won't be attractive to women if you don't act masculine" - you have given up all claim to prescribe behavior until you retract the above.

So then, you only care about "morality"? No interest in the facts of reality that morality is properly based on?

So the next time I hire someone I should go to the school of dance by my gym and see if any of the young ladies there would be interested in carrying 200lbs up a 40' ladder onto a roof. That way I am treating the world in the proper androgeninous way. No reason I can think of why I would be less likely to find a good employee there then anywhere else. If I was working for a company that made deoderant, I shouldn't focus my search for smellers on women even though studies indicate that they have a far superior sense of smell to men. When looking for a date, I also should ask people I think are men, because they might be women. Treating them as individuals, I really can't know what their gender is until they tell me, or better yet, prove it to me deductively.

See what I'm getting at? The definitions are not moral, they are simply descriptions of the world. You don't get a choice about existence. The morality comes into effect when you decide what to do with that knowledge. Ignore it or take it into account to whatever degree is necessary for your purpose.

is this a matter of masculinity?

Yeah...that would be related to the strength description.

[mrocktor]

(...)

You would do well to say "I need a strong person" in your add for the burden hauler and "I need a person with a refined sense of smell" for the perfume tester. That would be vastly more effective than an add requiring "A masculine person" and a "feminine person" respectively.

But that is just common sense.

[aequalsa]

Can you reference a single study that has a proper control group (i.e. a group of females not raised in a society with our male/female role standards and that came to display our society's standard "female behavior")? Outside of sexual behavior - the physiological part - I do stand by the idea that all men (I suppose in this discussion I sould say "humans") are born metaphysically equal, though their particular traits vary wildly.

Did you not understand her post? She is refering to nuerological studies. These are empirically observable differences available due to PET scans and ultrasounds. They are not psychological correlations and therefore do not require the unethical and legally undoable experiments you require to be deductively satisfied. Causation is becoming directly observable on a cellular level.

You would do well to say "I need a strong person" in your add for the burden hauler and "I need a person with a refined sense of smell" for the perfume tester. That would be vastly more effective than an add requiring "A masculine person" and a "feminine person" respectively.

But that is just common sense.

It would be common...and then I could use common sense further and decide where I post that add. In an hunting and fishing magazine or glamour.

[IAmMetaphysical]

Is it your view then that children are born psychologically unisex?

My view is that children are basically unGENDERED. I make a distinction between sex and gender. Sex is zz, zy, gender is feminine and masculine.

[aequalsa]

My view is that children are basically unGENDERED. I make a distinction between sex and gender. Sex is zz, zy, gender is feminine and masculine.

At what age do you believe they become boys and girls?

[Maarten]

At what age do you believe they become boys and girls?

Not to answer for Meta, but my interpretation of his post is that while boys are boys from birth, and girls are girls from birth, it is not determined at that stage whether they will act in a masculine or feminine way, and that could go any way (I assume).

[aequalsa]

Not to answer for Meta, but my interpretation of his post is that while boys are boys from birth, and girls are girls from birth, it is not determined at that stage whether they will act in a masculine or feminine way, and that could go any way (I assume).

So then not only masculine and feminine traits, but also gender, is wholly a matter of choice? That comes down to a complete denial of biology.

[Maarten]

I think you are missing the distinction he is making between gender and sex. Assuming for a moment that the "sex is zz, zy" comment is a typo and that he meant to say: "sex is xx, xy", then I do not think he is at all saying what you think he is saying. Sex would then be the purely biological side, and gender the psychological side (the masculine/feminine part).

edit: XX and XY referring to the sex chromosomes, obviously

Edited January 31, 2007 by Maarten

[aequalsa]

I think you are missing the distinction he is making between gender and sex. Assuming for a moment that the "sex is zz, zy" comment is a typo and that he meant to say: "sex is xx, xy", then I do not think he is at all saying what you think he is saying. Sex would then be the purely biological side, and gender the psychological side (the masculine/feminine part).

edit: XX and XY referring to the sex chromosomes, obviously

Right, no..I understand that. At least I sincerely hope that he admits the difference between boys and girls outwardly, as it were. What I meant to say is that he denies the biology of any difference in the brains of xx and xy people. That is why I wonder what age he believes gender is established by.

Edited January 31, 2007 by aequalsa

[Inspector]

Consider the following statements in proximity to each other:

My view is that children are basically unGENDERED. I make a distinction between sex and gender. Sex is zz, zy, gender is feminine and masculine.

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.

Yes, children are not born determined to embrace or fight their sexual roles as men or women. So they are born unGendered in that way. But they are born with a nature that they can choose to embrace or fight. Now, what do our principles have to say about whether reality should be embraced or fought?

***

Now, a few might comment, "well, what if I am born deficient in masculine traits? How can you expect me to be masculine if I am thin by nature, or short by nature? Or xxx by nature?"

WELL GO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

First off, I was born skinny. My genetics want me to be skinny. I was all angsty about this growing up until I finally decided to go tell my genetics where they could stick it and got myself to the gym and did something about it.

Yes I know some stuff you can't change. Until genetic science advances, I will only be able to gain so much in the gym. And there's no gym to make you taller and such. But lucky for you masculinity and femininity aren't one-dimensional. A single deficiency isn't a big deal because there are just so many ways a man can be masculine or a woman feminine. Too skinny? Grow a big viking beard! Cultivate intersting odors! Take up the martial arts! Learn how to disassemble a carburetor!

But above all, remember what Kevin said: It's about being comfortable with yourself. That reads: CONFIDENT. If you know you are a man in the ways where it counts, then believe me that's all you need.

Yes, I am sure there are some unfortunate folks that are born deformed and can never hope to know the joys of being masculine or feminine. But since when was life a hospital? Since when did we define man by the standard of the deformed? What do our principles have to say about that?

Edited January 31, 2007 by Inspector

[mrocktor]

Consider the following statements in proximity to each other:

One of them is clear and concise, the other is pretty much circular reasoning.

But they are born with a nature that they can choose to embrace or fight.

Nope. They are born with certain biological traits which they will choose how to use. Certain choices may be more or less effective at achieving certain objectives - none of you sexual determinists has forwarded an argument as to why a male acting "masculine" (as hodge-podgely defined by yourselves) is good. In fact aequalsa has denied that he is defending such an idea.

Now, a few might comment, "well, what if I am born deficient in masculine traits? How can you expect me to be masculine if I am thin by nature, or short by nature? Or xxx by nature?"

WELL GO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

And what if I don't give a damn? I don't want to be Rambo. I don't want a friggin beard and I sure as hell don't want to stink. My interest in obsolete automobile technology is also nil. And guess what? My life is vastly improved by not putting time and effort to things that do not contribute it - such as conforming to "machismo".

But above all, remember what Kevin said: It's about being comfortable with yourself. That reads: CONFIDENT. If you know you are a man in the ways where it counts, then believe me that's all you need.

I derive my confidence from my mind, not my sexual organs nor from conforming to popular manifestations of manhood.

Yes, I am sure there are some unfortunate folks that are born deformed and can never hope to know the joys of being masculine or feminine.

I laughed out loud.

Edited January 31, 2007 by mrocktor

[hunterrose]

The definitions are not moral, they are simply descriptions of the world. You don't get a choice about existence. The morality comes into effect when you decide what to do with that knowledge.

In other words, there is a moral way to act on the facts of masculinity/femininity and an immoral way to act on these facts???

[~Sophia~]

Masculinity and femininity are correlative - meaning that the voluntary action, the style of behaviour grows from physiological facts of the sex act. Masculinity requires self-assertiveness in the role of romantic initiator and aggressor; femininity requires self-assertiveness in the role of a challenger, a responder to man's advances. Neither is all-or-nothing trait. I think there is a high correlation between certain physical characteristics and degree of masculinity/femininity. Some men are so masculine (due to both their mental and physical strenght) that they cause women to almost feel faint in their presence, others well... less so.

Edited January 31, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[aequalsa]

In other words, there is a moral way to act on the facts of masculinity/femininity and an immoral way to act on these facts???

Yes, exactly. If a shorter woman does not take into account her shortness when reaching for the can of peanut butter on the top shelf, she would spend an awful long time there reaching. Getting a stool is the proper step to take in that circumstance. To not take your nature into account when making decisions would be unbennificial to your life and therefore immoral by objectivist standards.

[aequalsa]

And what if I don't give a damn? I don't want to be Rambo. I don't want a friggin beard and I sure as hell don't want to stink. My interest in obsolete automobile technology is also nil. And guess what? My life is vastly improved by not putting time and effort to things that do not contribute it - such as conforming to "machismo".

Ironically this confrontational statement comes across as very agressive and masculine. So here you are displaying your masculinity in a non physical, but not explicitly intellectual way.

To demonstrate, the opposite would be that "you don't feel that being Rambo would make you more emotionally fulfilled as a man. And that you don't understand why anybody would want to work on old cars anyways...there just so dirty."

A gender nuetral rendition would be that "you do not believe that physical strength in any form leads to success in attaining individual subjective happiness . Having particular interests associated with you biological sub-genus is inconclusive in its correlation to self-esteem."

But you chose with freewill to write it your way, of course. No propensities or aspects of your nature as a man had an affect. You certainly didn't feel the faint surge from adreniline when your belief was attacked motivating you to the action of responding to inspector with derision. Obviously no impetus to compete is evident in your approach. Your tactic is primarily empathetic and cooperative, seeking to reconcile, rather then divide.

[hunterrose]

Yes, exactly. If a shorter woman does not take into account her shortness when reaching for the can of peanut butter on the top shelf, she would spend an awful long time there reaching. Getting a stool is the proper step to take in that circumstance. To not take your nature into account when making decisions would be unbeneficial to your life and therefore immoral by objectivist standards.

But that's not a matter of moral or immoral responses to one's gender-specific nature; that would equally apply to a short man. This is what I mean:

• Sam (male) is sexually turned on by people of the opposite sex who are stronger and smarter than him. Is there anything irrational with this decision?
  
• Cathy (female) prefers to take charge in her romantic relationships. Is this a matter of right/wrong?
  

Personally, I would say "no" to either of these questions. Regardless of whatever qualities the majority of men/women possess, it leads IMO to no "oughts". It is meaningless in terms of what the rational man qua man or woman qua woman ought to do.

[aequalsa]

But that's not a matter of moral or immoral responses to one's gender-specific nature; that would equally apply to a short man. This is what I mean:

• Sam (male) is sexually turned on by people of the opposite sex who are stronger and smarter than him. Is there anything irrational with this decision?
  
• Cathy (female) prefers to take charge in her romantic relationships. Is this a matter of right/wrong?
  

Personally, I would say "no" to either of these questions. Regardless of whatever qualities the majority of men/women possess, it leads IMO to no "oughts". It is meaningless in terms of what the rational man qua man or woman qua woman ought to do.

The height example was of minimal importance. I only meant to demonstrate the importance of integrity between ones nature and actions.

Regarding your example, I would say it is absolutely a matter of right or wrong in direct proportion to what traits they possess and to what extent they possess them. The immorality(in the sense of being not best for them) comes when one denies, ignores, or represses their nature. A woman who chastises herself for wanting to feel protected or a man who believes that he should not be sexually agressive with a woman that he wants severely(assuming a proper relationship) would both fit this discription.

[Alessa36]

There are a couple other topics on this subject:

Miss Rand's female characters are almost all slender or fragile in build, almost as if she didn't think that a physically strong woman was a good one. In today's society, women do not want to be seen as weak, in any form.

"[Dagny's] naked shoulder betrayed the fragility of the body under theblack dress, and the pose made her most truly a woman. The proud strength became a challenge to someone's superior strength, and the fragility a reminder that the challenge could be broken." -AS

I think AR Depicted women as fragile or slender to Highlight the fact that the Mind is whats most powerful. Dagny had such confidence and such a great mind that most men were intimidated by her even though she was smaller, slighter in stature. She certainly was small enough to be "raped" by most average men, however only a man of greater mind would be able to grasp her brillance and dare to take her physically.

Edited January 31, 2007 by softwareNerd
Fixed close-quote tag

[mrocktor]

Ironically this confrontational statement comes across as very agressive and masculine.

Guess what? My girlfriend would respond in the same way if you advanced the thesis that she should be submissive, non-competitive and non-confrontational. Go figure. Maybe because self confidence, rationality and intolerance of the arbitrary are traits that rational animals should have, no matter what's between their legs.

Personally I like women, not rugs. If you need to dominate someone in order to "know the joys" of life you are a second hander. Period.