Male Female differences/ Women Presidents etc

[aequalsa]

The problem is that you are operating on the idea that "men" (the collective) have a determinable "strength" and "women" (the collective) have a determinable "strength" and that you can compare the two. That is absurd. There is no such problem with the definition of "animal", nor "man", nor "table" nor "furniture". A chair is not "a piece of furniture more sittable than a tables". An animal is not "a living being being more mobile than plants".

It really is determinable. You can quantify these differences on a graph. Imagine two bell curves describing a jerk and lift/ military press where the top point of the male curve lands on 480lbs and the top point of the woman curve lands on 240lbs. The same with color recognition broken down to wavelengths. Or anything else really. Nothing I am aware of besides an unfortunate cat in a strange physicists box is indeterminable.

I believe physical strength is an import biological determinent, but would not say it essentializes the masculine. Heroism is much closer in my oppinion, of which strength is a often found component. But any way, do me a favor. Since none of my attempts at definitions satisfy your idea of it's proper essentialization, I'd like you to define masculinity and femininity for me. And animal too, while your at it.

[mrocktor]

Nothing I am aware of besides an unfortunate cat in a strange physicists box is indeterminable.

You are missing the point. You can determine the distribution, the average, the median, the standard deviation of strength among men. You cant determine the strength of "men", because "men" doesn't exist - only individual men exist. It is indeterminable because it does not exist.

I'd like you to define masculinity and femininity for me. And animal too, while your at it.

As I said before, I see no significant difference between man and woman with regard to their virtues, in other words what they should seek to be. A man should seek virtuous women, a woman virtous men - the virtues required of both are the same.

In popular usage, "be a man" can mean "take responsibility for your actions" - but so should a woman. "be a man" can mean "take care of yourself, be independent" - but so should a woman. I don't think there is anything in the nature of male humans and female humans that permits us to isolate a set of virtues and ascribe it to the first and a set of flaws to assign it to the second. Notice the interesting fact that there is basically no situation where a girl would be admonished "be a woman".

When I read "masculinity" I interpret it as "possession of the traits expected of males in our society" because that is usually what the writer means. It's not a proper concept, just an arbitrary construct.

Animal: "A living entity possessing the faculties of consciousness and locomotion." That's the example in ITOE, its a good definition.

[aequalsa]

You are missing the point. You can determine the distribution, the average, the median, the standard deviation of strength among men. You cant determine the strength of "men", because "men" doesn't exist - only individual men exist. It is indeterminable because it does not exist.

As I said before, I see no significant difference between man and woman with regard to their virtues, in other words what they should seek to be. A man should seek virtuous women, a woman virtous men - the virtues required of both are the same.

In popular usage, "be a man" can mean "take responsibility for your actions" - but so should a woman. "be a man" can mean "take care of yourself, be independent" - but so should a woman. I don't think there is anything in the nature of male humans and female humans that permits us to isolate a set of virtues and ascribe it to the first and a set of flaws to assign it to the second. Notice the interesting fact that there is basically no situation where a girl would be admonished "be a woman".

When I read "masculinity" I interpret it as "possession of the traits expected of males in our society" because that is usually what the writer means. It's not a proper concept, just an arbitrary construct.

And you are missing mine. Men, does exist. It refers to the whole group. All that are in, have been in, or will be in that catagory. The concept encompuses all of the traits possessed by all entities in that group. It is different from the group women in all of the ways I have mentioned and then some.

So masculinity and feminity in your oppinion are entirely social constructs with no connection to physiology. Men and women would act identically if they were not brainwashed collectively by every culture that has existed.(in almost the same ways, I'd add)

I disagree for the reasons I have previously expressed. The differences exist as scientifically verified facts. And these facts are descriptions of the reality all of your free will possessing individuals write their personalities on. The world they live in has a demonstrable impact on how we live.

And I mean this sincerely. If you actually have very few or no masculine traits and your girl friend lacks all vestiges of femininity, then you are perfect for each other. I was born with a number of masculine traits and developed more in response to them as time went by that cause me to thoroughly enjoy the contrast of myself and a feminine woman. I find no harm and only benefit in the recipricosity of this type of relationship.

By observing reality it is clear to me that , masculine does not refers to what all men personify. It refers to what most men are. It is an identification and not a moral commandment. The commandment comes in response to that identification.

[Inspector]

And animal too, while your at it.

Ask him to define a plural concept. Unless he wants to contradict himself, he'll have no choice but to say "Xs? Which one? Xs does not exist, only X!"

I suppose that African elephants (as opposed to Asian elephants) don't exist, either. Which elephant? Please show me an "African elephants!" COLLECTIVES DON'T HAVE ATTRIBUTES!!!

Edited February 2, 2007 by Inspector

[IAmMetaphysical]

See, now you're package-dealing the three.

...this is not worship. Woman is the worshipper, man is the worshipped. A man cherishes his woman. The feeling is equally strong, but what he does is from the position of strength.

Who is the one doing the package-dealing?? I just take you at your word and group "worship" into the "not strong" category that you describe. Thats what happens when you start defining things based on what they are not.

You know, sidewalks are not feminine, so then they must be masculine right? Feces is not masculine, so it must be feminine right? Water is not male, so it must be a hero-worshipper right??

[hunterrose]

And this is obvious even to the one who's not an Objectivist. Sweet irony.

It really is determinable. You can quantify these differences on a graph. Imagine two bell curves describing a jerk and lift/ military press where the top point of the male curve lands on 480lbs and the top point of the woman curve lands on 240lbs.

The bell curves would tell a woman who can lift more than the average man that 1) she is a rare woman 2) she can lift more than the average man.

Her genetics (and volitional actions) would dictate how much she could ultimately lift.

Would bell curves tell her how much she ought to lift? Or how she ought to interact with males?

[Inspector]

Who is the one doing the package-dealing?? I just take you at your word and group "worship" into the "not strong" category that you describe. Thats what happens when you start defining things based on what they are not.

Are you seriously attempting to argue that worship is a dominant (as opposed to submissive) behavior? Or that it is compatible with strength or heroism to worship (i.e. that one can be essentially engaging in both simultaneously)? Listen you don't have to agree that heroism or strength are the essence of masculinity to see that what you say is foolishness.

You know, sidewalks are not feminine, so then they must be masculine right? Feces is not masculine, so it must be feminine right? Water is not male, so it must be a hero-worshipper right??

Tell me, where did I ever use the form you accuse me of? (x is not a part of the set "masculine." Therefore, the set "feminine" must include x.)

I said: x is a part of the set "masculine," therefore the set "feminine" may not include x.

Do I have to draw you a diagram?*

Remember that the masculine is the traits that distinguish a man-human from a woman-human and/or the behavior/traits that stem from that which distinguishes a man-human from a woman-human. (I've said this before, despite the fact that certain people claim no attempt at definition was given)

If they are defined as either the differences between men and women or a set of things which is a consequence of those differences, then you DO have a valid reason to think that if X is masculine then it cannot be feminine and this in no way implies the fallacious logic form you employ above. For X to be masculine, then it must be based on something that he is as a male-human distinct from a female-human. Therefore it would be definitionally impossible for X to also be a part of the essence of the femininity.

In essence, I've said here that all elephants are gray. And you're like, "You fool! According to you, all gray things are elephants!"

*

Edited February 2, 2007 by Inspector

[mrocktor]

And you are missing mine. Men, does exist. It refers to the whole group. All that are in, have been in, or will be in that catagory. The concept encompuses all of the traits possessed by all entities in that group. It is different from the group women in all of the ways I have mentioned and then some.

The concept men exists. It is not a physical existent. The concept men has no strength attribute. It subsumes all of its referents - all male human beings - including all of their attributes. The weakest octagenarian's strength is as much refered to by the concept "men" as the strongest weightlifter's - as non essential attribute of one of the concept's referents.

So masculinity and feminity in your oppinion are entirely social constructs with no connection to physiology. Men and women would act identically if they were not brainwashed collectively by every culture that has existed.(in almost the same ways, I'd add)

They would act identically. By choosing the behavior and activities that would most further their lives.

Physical activity tends to be performed by the people most capable of doing it. Since most men are stronger than most women (not "men" are stronger than "women") the physical activities would tend to have a larger concentration of men than of women. This does not mean that physical activity is "masculine" though or that being a male has anything at all to do with it. You have to be physically strong. Period.

The shift from individual people doing that which suits them best to prescribing behavior according to sex is what I'm rejecting.

If you actually have very few or no masculine traits and your girl friend lacks all vestiges of femininity, then you are perfect for each other. I was born with a number of masculine traits and developed more in response to them as time went by that cause me to thoroughly enjoy the contrast of myself and a feminine woman. I find no harm and only benefit in the recipricosity of this type of relationship.

I have plenty masculine traits (I'm using my definition of "masculine" above) such as being confrontational, which you pointed out yourself. My girlfriend has both traits that would be considered "masculine" and others that would be considered "feminine". I wish I had the positive traits associated to "femininity" to an even greater degree than I do (perceptiveness, empathy) - they would do no harm to my self respect.

I defy you to state a single virtue for a man that is not a virtue for a woman. And vice versa.

By observing reality it is clear to me that , masculine does not refers to what all men personify. It refers to what most men are. It is an identification and not a moral commandment. The commandment comes in response to that identification.

So the commandment is "be like everyone else". That does not square with Objectivist morality.

I suppose that African elephants (as opposed to Asian elephants) don't exist, either. Which elephant? Please show me an "African elephants!" COLLECTIVES DON'T HAVE ATTRIBUTES!!!

Notice the not so subtle bait and switch. From discussing a secondary attribute of the existents subsumed under a concept (the "strength" of "male human beings") he switches to the defining differentiator for the concept (which would be "rationality" of "rational animals").

How long is is "African elephants" 's trunk Inspector. Feel free to give the length in meters or inches.

Edited February 2, 2007 by mrocktor

[Inspector]

How long is is "African elephants" 's trunk Inspector. Feel free to give the length in meters or inches.

Man I don't even need to argue with him. Just give him some rope and watch him go...

The shift from individual people doing that which suits them best to prescribing behavior according to sex is what I'm rejecting.

Ah, but seriously: I'm going to plant the suggestion that you check the premise that this need be a dichotomy. I think that you think that our line of thinking would require something of you that it wouldn't. I mean unless you really were born to be a nancy boy and proud of it.

[aequalsa]

So the commandment is "be like everyone else". That does not square with Objectivist morality.

Nah, the commandment is that "nature to be commanded, must be obeyed".

[Viking]

I agree completely with what aequelsa and Inspector have said on this subject.

It seems the root of the agreement seems to be that people do not agree with this statement:

Freewill is not a floating abstraction. It exists within the context of causality.

Am I right? @ mroktor, and the other people that share his view, do you not agree with the above statement?

Edited February 2, 2007 by Viking

[IAmMetaphysical]

I agree with it. My gripe is with defining femininity by way of its relationship with masculinity, and somewhat vice-versa.

[Inspector]

I agree with it. My gripe is with defining femininity by way of its relationship with masculinity, and somewhat vice-versa.

Does that help, what I clarified?

[IAmMetaphysical]

No, it did not clarify. 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. The differences are integral to the fact of the distinction between the two concepts, but what is essential about something must be what it is, what its most distinguishing characteristic is, or that thing about it which most sets it apart from ALL other existents, not just its relative existents directly subsumes under a wider concept, in this case the wider concept is "gender." My illustration was meant to point out that you have to say more about femininity than just that it isn't the masculine and therefore its proper relationship to the masculine is to worship it.

And your point about worship assumes a faulty definition of "worship" if we are to give it a rational expression. Its only rational meaning can be: "reverence for that which you are not." I would add that the irrational version involves as well "and what one can never be," as in: evil men must worship the virtues of the gods which they can never hope to attain. Your idea of "worship" apparently means "the weak revering the strong" so obviously to you, it is impossible for a (physically) strong person to worship a (relatively physically) weak person. Thats fine if you accept your definition. I don't and even if I did, it wouldn't be proper for anyone to practive such a thing.

My wider point about this whole matter is this: "strength" should not define masculinity as such because every human is utterly physically weak, this includes Mr. Universe at his prime. Plop Mr. Universe in nature without his reasoning mind and he would die within the day. That is why the relative disparity between the sexes' physical strength is moot. All the strength anyone needs(male or female) in order to lift thousands of tons into orbit is the strength needed to think and then push a button. In practical rational usage, the ability to bench press 400 lbs is useless. Masculinity SYMBOLIZES human strength in an abstract aesthetic form. It is a symbol of the efficiency and practical usage of human thought (in a very primitive way.) To this end, a woman's body has some of these features, she has arms and legs that are streamline and her muscles can be seen and their purpose is straight forward (if she is fit.) But as a whole a woman's body SYMBOLIZES something very different, its THEME is sexual reproductivity, fertility, or in other words(to draw a contrast) if the essence of masculininty is the concretization of productive application of thought, a feminine body is the concretization of the celebration of life, of the unabashed display of the capacity to experience pleasure(this is why I didn't want to mention this earlier as I am still working through this and trying to make the wording less loaded, I originally used "sex object" but that has a whole host of associations with it and I ran into a clusterf*ck in the chat with that one)Note that I say "her body" not HER. So while she need not be rail thin and "weak" to be feminine, she does need to display those secondary sexual characteristics who's use(biologically) is the attraction of a mate(blushing, red lips, rump, breasts, etc)the bearing of children(wide hips, distribution of fat)and rearing of children(breasts.)

So while a feminine woman's relation to a masculine man will be to revere prodcutive application of thought via the symbol of his body, it does not stand to follow that the masculine's relationship to her can not be to revere her concretization of "sexual beauty." He is no way revering her lack of strength, he is "worshipping" the virtues she DOES represent, and since human physical strength is nothing compared to the strength of man's mind, her relative weakness is unimportant and definately not essential to her nature as a female or as a feminine being.

[Inspector]

My illustration was meant to point out that you have to say more about femininity than just that it isn't the masculine and therefore its proper relationship to the masculine is to worship it.

But as I said, that is a straw man. It's not at all an accurate characterization of my position.

We need to establish where we agree and where we disagree.

Do you agree or disagree that masculinity/femininity is: the differences between men and women, and the consequences that stem (or should stem) from those differences?

[Viking]

No, it did not clarify. 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.

How does that even make sense, though? How can it be that the difference between man and women is what gives rise to the concepts of masculinity/femininity, yet these differences are not the essential characteristics?

[IAmMetaphysical]

Because an essential characteristic must serve as that attribute which most ditinguishes a group of existents from ALL other existents, not just its most closely related ones. So in the case of rational animal, the difference between us and other animals is important, but pointing out the fact that we are animals as well separates us from non-animals, from non-life, from plants, etc. That is why it is improper to refer to us as the "rational mammal" or "rational primate."

Do you agree or disagree that masculinity/femininity is: the differences between men and women, and the consequences that stem (or should stem) from those differences?

I think gender exists because of the biological differences between the bodies of normal men and women (a result of sexual selection mostly). The consequences are the applications of rational thought through these two mediums, so certain things which are consequences of these two body types can be said to be gendered, but in my view it is not the differences between the sexes that is key to determining how a woman should act qua woman, or male qua male. The differences only speak to how they should(or will) interact. A woman on a desert island will still be feminine.

[aequalsa]

Because an essential characteristic must serve as that attribute which most ditinguishes a group of existents from ALL other existents, not just its most closely related ones. So in the case of rational animal, the difference between us and other animals is important, but pointing out the fact that we are animals as well separates us from non-animals, from non-life, from plants, etc. That is why it is improper to refer to us as the "rational mammal" or "rational primate."

I think gender exists because of the biological differences between the bodies of normal men and women (a result of sexual selection mostly). The consequences are the applications of rational thought through these two mediums, so certain things which are consequences of these two body types can be said to be gendered, but in my view it is not the differences between the sexes that is key to determining how a woman should act qua woman, or male qua male. The differences only speak to how they should(or will) interact. A woman on a desert island will still be feminine.

These are relative and descriptive terms. Consider words such as weak and strong. If I identify a man as strong, what does that mean? Does it mean no other men have strength? Or that no other entity can be stronger? No man is stronger? The terms are relational to each other, and have a context attached to them. Part of that context is what all other men and women are. What traits they possess.

A woman on a desert island would be feminine in the same way that she would have rights. The facts don't disappear, but they do become irrelevent.

[Inspector]

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.

Because an essential characteristic must serve as that attribute which most ditinguishes a group of existents from ALL other existents

That makes absolutely no sense. If the concepts arise because of the differences between one set of existents and another, then the relational difference MUST serve as the essential characteristics for those concepts. If not the relational difference which gave rise to the concepts, then what pray tell would be the essential characteristics?

I think gender exists because of the biological differences between the bodies of normal men and women (a result of sexual selection mostly). The consequences are the applications of rational thought through these two mediums, so certain things which are consequences of these two body types can be said to be gendered, but in my view it is not the differences between the sexes that is key to determining how a woman should act qua woman, or male qua male.

What is this postmodernist language you're using? "Can be said to be gendered?" What does that mean?

Must we back up a further step? Do you agree that masculinity and femininity exist and are the result of metaphysical facts and not man-made ones?

If so, and if you agree that they are the result of metaphysical facts, then do you believe that the facts in question are the biological differences between men and women?

[JMeganSnow]

Because an essential characteristic must serve as that attribute which most ditinguishes a group of existents from ALL other existents, not just its most closely related ones.

Not quite, although I give you a B for effort. It is not necessary to differentiate the referent of a concept from all other existants because the members of that group are already so differentiated. So all you really need to do is to differentiate it further from the group.

That being said, it IS improper to define something by what it is not because saying what something isn't does not at all indicate what it is. I think that's been mentioned already, however.

I frankly disagree that masculinity means possessing traits proper to a male and femininity means posessing traits proper to a female, however: the terms encompass many things that are outside the realm of "the proper" because they are not subject to volitional control. They simply mean possessing male or female traits. 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.

I am interested to discover whether there are psychological secondary traits that are definitively masculine or feminine, meaning not "proper" to a male or female but characteristic to a male or female because of that whole chromosome thing. Thus far my efforts to discover said characteristics have been thorougly hindered by this bullcrap about "proper" traits and the seemingly endless assignment of characteristics to one category or another. "Women should be dainty." "Men should be strong." Well I'm not dainty by sheer genetics (I'm BIG, bigger than most men) 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. My brothers and father aren't intrinsically strong: they have to work at it just like I do.

Let's hear some evidence of actual traits rather than argument about what you think ought to be proper.

[Viking]

That makes absolutely no sense. If the concepts arise because of the differences between one set of existents and another, then the relational difference MUST serve as the essential characteristics for those concepts. If not the relational difference which gave rise to the concepts, then what pray tell would be the essential characteristics?

Indeed.

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?

[aequalsa]

Let's hear some evidence of actual traits rather than argument about what you think ought to be proper.

The things I mentioned much earlier in this thread are backed by scientific data. Mainly you are going to want to look at current brain science for that information.

One example that demonstartes it brilliantly(I brought this up before in antoher thread, but will explain briefly) is the female infant's propensity to more easily recognize facial differences. This causes an increase in eye contact maintained with parents as well as a greater interest. The result of that is that female infants are held by a parent 3 hours per day on average whereas males are held 1 hour/day on average. This balloons into large scale differences later. Females being held more and in the presence of parents are spoken to more often and develop linguistic skills more rapidly and to a greater degree then most males. Males, left on their own, tend to develop more exploratory behaviours and brain mapping skills helpful with navigation in two dimensions. (spatial skills)

[IAmMetaphysical]

Not quite, although I give you a B for effort.

This is incredibly condescending. I am highly offended.

A concept does distinguish an existent from ALL other existents by way of its GENUS or as you put it "because the members of that group are already so differentiated." In the case of man his essential characteristics are that he is rational, and that he is an animal. Without the animal, he would not be distinguished adequately enough from non-animals. So when defining the genders, you must say for instance that masculinity is the "gender symbolizing strength" not "the non-weak gender", because the latter could include various instances of androgeny. 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.

The genders ARE different, but its not the RELATIONAL differences which are essential. So its not the fact, yes the FACT, that men are more often than not stronger than females that makes them masculine, as a male who is relatively weak is still masculine.

[IAmMetaphysical]

A woman on a desert island would be feminine in the same way that she would have rights. The facts don't disappear, but they do become irrelevent.

This is where our difference of opinion lies. You see gender as relational, I don't. I don't see how we can resolve it.

[aequalsa]

This is where our difference of opinion lies. You see gender as relational, I don't. I don't see how we can resolve it.

Perhaps if you were to give an example, related or not, of something equitable in the level of abstraction, which is not defined in terms of it's differences to other things in it's genus.