Male Female differences/ Women Presidents etc

[mrocktor]

If you have some bad connotation with the word dominance, then feel free to institute whatever word you think is more appropriate to the context I am describing.

This seems to be the problem. Your whole idea that people "willingly submit" to each other does not square with my understanding of the word. It is not subservience to be persuaded nor to agree with someone. To submit is to accept another's judgment without question.

I cannot think of another word for the relationship you are describing other than dominance, for it is dominance you are advocating. Specifically that women should willingly be dominated - as if that were not a contradiction.

The more of a 'hero' I go after the more I have to match him. Why would he be attracted to me otherwise?

Because of your values, not of your lack of them.

EDIT:

aequalsa, the idea of masculinity/femininity as merely descriptive you have been arguing is not Epistemologically faulty. I still think your identification is completely flawed and that there is nothing in the nature of a woman that makes her want to be dominated or derive any benefit from it (this link is still missing in your chain). As merely descriptive the concepts can be worked with. Specifically (and using your recent definitions):

Being masculine makes you compatible with a feminine person.

While this may be true, it does not mean anyone should want a feminine person in the first place. I read this as "if you want a subservient toady as your partner, be domineering".

Edited February 5, 2007 by mrocktor

[aequalsa]

Inspector said he has some insight in this matter, and I'd love to hear it once people understand the definition.

I too would be interested in hearing his "oughts".

[~Sophia~]

QUOTE(~Sophia~ @ Feb 5 2007, 04:24 PM) The more of a 'hero' I go after the more I have to match him. Why would he be attracted to me otherwise?

Because of your values, not of your lack of them.

That is what I ment: matching his values.

[aequalsa]

This seems to be the problem. Your whole idea that people "willingly submit" to each other does not square with my understanding of the word. It is not subservience to be persuaded nor to agree with someone. To submit is to accept another's judgment without question.

I cannot think of another word for the relationship you are describing other than dominance, for it is dominance you are advocating. Specifically that women should willingly be dominated - as if that were not a contradiction.

Because of your values, not of your lack of them.

Well, until we come up with a more accurate word, assume my use of dominance to mean a hiearchically superior postion connected to a particular context. In this case the context I am refering to is the romantic aspect of a relationship between two people.

EDIT:

aequalsa, the idea of masculinity/femininity as merely descriptive you have been arguing is not Epistemologically faulty. I still think your identification is completely flawed and that there is nothing in the nature of a woman that makes her want to be dominated or derive any benefit from it (this link is still missing in your chain). As merely descriptive the concepts can be worked with. Specifically (and using your recent definitions):

While this may be true, it does not mean anyone should want a feminine person in the first place. I read this as "if you want a subservient toady as your partner, be domineering".

Can you point out precisely where you think the break in my chain is? From dependent pregnancy, to natural selection, to the earlier mentioned resultant physiological differences in brain structure and body design, to freewill decisions based on those capacities, it seems like a fairly direct line of inductive reasoning to me. Obviously a great many details and suporting scientific information could be provided to flesh it out, but those would mainly just muddy the water more then it is.

[Inspector]

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

Well, there's at least one woman who doesn't agree with Mrocktor. So much for his claim. Unless he wants to call Sophia monsterously evil and irrational.

[Inspector]

I too would be interested in hearing his "oughts".

You pretty much understand them. Masculinity, to a man, is a value. Femininity, to a woman, is a value. It's the way of enjoying and being happy and comfortable with what you are: your manness or womanness. It's part of romance; part of (hetero) sexuality. Something to enhance and celebrate the differences between us. This also implies that for a man, being feminine is a disvalue (and vice versa), which I agree with. We even have a word for this: emasculating. (I'm not sure if there is a word for the femininine equivalent, but that equivalent exists)

Where should this value fall within your hierarchy of values? I would think that is too dependant on context to provide a blanket answer. Generally speaking, people sacrifice lesser values all the time to pursue greater ones. There is no reason for this to be an exception. Judging by Ayn Rand's essay about a woman president, she thought that it was a pretty important value. Personally, it's pretty important to me, as well. But I don't think it has to be that important to everyone. It depends on your context.

How, then, does an individual go about pursuing this value? You must first look to the generalization of "men" and "women" to determine what is masculine and feminine. After you know this, you can look to your own individual context, to see where you excel. What gifts you can use to best effect, and what deficiencies you might be able to shore up.

So what "oughts" do I have? Contextual ones. I don't have some blanket commandment (THOU SHALT BE MASCULINE), I can only say that it is a value to be and a disvalue not. I don't have an imperative to defy your nature if you are born without normal traits, I can only say that you work with what you have and, if you are born un-masculine/feminine it would be a disvalue to attempt to enhance this deficiency.

[hunterrose]

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

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

Okay, fine.

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

If a man can rationally "take" and rationally "leave" masculinity in every instance, then masculinity would be of no philosophical relevance.

Masculinity, to a man, is a value. Femininity, to a woman, is a value. It's the way of enjoying and being happy and comfortable with what you are: your manness or womanness... This also implies that for a man, being feminine is a disvalue (and vice versa).

Wouldn't being feminine be a value to a effeminate man as a way enjoying and being happy and comfortable with what he is?

[Inspector]

Wouldn't being feminine be a value to a effeminate man as a way enjoying and being happy and comfortable with what he is?

No, because he is a man and not a woman. This would be like telling a cripple to embrace, celebrate, and expand his disability.

So

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

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

No, that's no good. That's just dominance. No rooting it in maleness/femaleness and no explanation as to why.

I've yet to see a better definition than what I came up with:

...[T]he 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)

Edited February 6, 2007 by Inspector

[aequalsa]

If a man can rationally "take" and rationally "leave" masculinity in every instance, then masculinity would be of no philosophical relevance.

Of course it is. He can rationally take it in some contexts and rationally leave it in others. Not "at the same time and the same respect", so to speak.

[Inspector]

If you have some bad connotation with the word dominance, then feel free to institute whatever word you think is more appropriate to the context I am describing.

Why are you still talking to it? For the sake of your health and sanity, I plead you to desist.

[hunterrose]

No, because he is a man and not a woman. This would be like telling a cripple to embrace, celebrate, and expand his disability.

Being handicapped is in no way like being feminine, regardless of the sex of the person.

I was understanding you to mean that masculinity (to a man) is a value because it's the way of enjoying and being happy and comfortable with what you are. So doesn't it equally apply that being effeminate, by the same logic, is the way of enjoying and being happy and comfortable with what an effeminate man is by his nature?

To simply say "no, because he is a man and not a woman" doesn't say why that matters.

That's just dominance. No rooting it in maleness/femaleness and no explanation as to why.

He's given explanations and rootings.

He can rationally take it in some contexts and rationally leave it in others. Not "at the same time and the same respect", so to speak.

What I mean is that, if in every context a person is rational regardless of whether he "takes" or "leaves" masculinity, then IMO it has no philosophical significance.

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.

[Inspector]

Being handicapped is in no way like being feminine, regardless of the sex of the person.

I disagree. For a man, it is quite like it, in my opinion.

I was understanding you to mean that masculinity (to a man) is a value because it's the way of enjoying and being happy and comfortable with what you are.

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

So doesn't it equally apply that being effeminate, by the same logic, is the way of enjoying and being happy and comfortable with what an effeminate man is by his nature?

Being comfortable with being crippled doesn't mean liking it, celebrating it, or seeking to be more crippled.

It's a little strange that you, a bodybuilder, don't grok "manliness." 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.

[mrocktor]

Well, there's at least one woman who doesn't agree with Mrocktor. So much for his claim. Unless he wants to call Sophia monsterously evil and irrational.

Except she contradicts herself in her next post. She is not monstrously evil nor irrational, she merely has not achieved full integration of her knowlege.

That is what I ment: matching his values.

Trading value for value is not being dominated. In fact it is the very opposite of being dominated.

Being handicapped is in no way like being feminine, regardless of the sex of the person.

His basic assumptions shine through don't they?

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.

His justification is what he just provided: "just because".

[mrocktor]

Can you point out precisely where you think the break in my chain is? From dependent pregnancy, to natural selection, to the earlier mentioned resultant physiological differences in brain structure and body design, to freewill decisions based on those capacities, it seems like a fairly direct line of inductive reasoning to me. Obviously a great many details and suporting scientific information could be provided to flesh it out, but those would mainly just muddy the water more then it is.

Sorry about leaving this unanswered. From you succint summary of your reasoning I conclude that your error is in identification. What is a woman? A rational animal of the female gender. Her body and means of reproduction are a fruit of natural selection, as you mentioned, and that is certainly very relevant if she chooses to reproduce. Her mental attributes may also be different from other individuals' - and that may make one course of action better than another in order to achieve some goal of her choice.

The mistake, in my opinion, is in failing to identify the fact that reason and volition are a clean break from the animals' means of survival. The woman's tendency to put on less muscle, the fact that in nature she needs a male to be excited in order to reproduce, the fact that her antecedents may have been dependent on males for nourishment or protection - all of that is immaterial. A woman who wants to be physically strong needs only to go to the gym and engage the help of a nutritionist if she is serious about it, a woman who wants to reproduce needs only to seek a fertility clinic (she does not need to ever talk to a man), a woman does not need a man to provide for her nor to protect her.

A woman is a rational animal. She is free to choose the way she will live. Her individual aptitudes and abilities will make some paths easier than others - but she is free to choose a difficult path if that is what she wants (i.e. what she thinks will most further her life). 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 - except on how she will be perceived by others. In a world of "uga uga" macho men like we have seen here (of all places) the independent self suficient woman is sure to be seen as inferior - but she is actually the only one capable of a proper relationship. The women who define themselves in relation to "their" men don't own "their" men, and don't own themselves.

[Inspector]

So doesn't it equally apply that being effeminate, by the same logic, is the way of enjoying and being happy and comfortable with what an effeminate man is by his nature?

Let's concretize this for a second, maybe that will help.

Are you suggesting that a man who suffers from, say gynecomastia should embrace this fact, and go buy low-cut blouses from womens' stores. Also, how about a bikini top for the beach? Maybe a skirt, while he's at it.

Or, is perhaps the fact that he is a man more primary, and his feminine traits an aberration which are contrary to his more fundamental nature?

Masculinity is about embracing your nature as a man (male), and being the manliest man you can man. Not about some leftist mush of liking yourself as a perfect little snowflake, flaws and all. (ditto femininity, for females)

[~Sophia~]

Trading value for value is not being dominated. In fact it is the very opposite of being dominated.

Those are two different concepts all together. The first concept is what we exchange (the currency) the second is a mode of exchange.

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.

One reason why women like their lover to have a slight edge is because they like to feel protected (although not many would admit that - especially the feminist types). It does not mean that they are not able to handle life on their own, many women do so with great competence. But in the occasional moments of mental and physical exhaustion they want someone they can lean on. Words like: 'Everything is going to be just fine' would be just empty words, with no real 'weight' to them, if it came from someone who was weaker.

Do men have the same need to feel protected by a woman? I think not. They seek companionship but not protection. They seek someone to protect.

Where the world dominant fits much better, for me, is in terms of who takes the lead in romance, who is the one that sets the tone of a romantic relationship, who is the pursuer.

[~Sophia~]

When I think about a contrast between femininity and masulinity - I think of romantic embrace.

Would it feel right, comfortable, natural, desirable (to both women and men on this forum) for a woman to be the one who would put her arms arround the man in a romantic embrace? How would both of them feel if a woman did that all the time - or at least half the time? Is that what a woman desires when she thinks of embracing her lover?

Edited February 6, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[IAmMetaphysical]

I don't get what you mean. My girlfriend embraces me all the time, I don't have to be the initiator all the time, when I want to hug her I do, when she wants to hug me me she does, she does not wait passively for me to engage her, when she wants something, she gets it. Is that too masculine of her??

[~Sophia~]

I don't get what you mean. My girlfriend embraces me all the time, I don't have to be the initiator all the time, when I want to hug her I do, when she wants to hug me me she does, she does not wait passively for me to engage her, when she wants something, she gets it. Is that too masculine of her??

Where did I mention anything about waiting passively to be engaged?

To me it is something I do to my child not my lover. A woman can initiate a hug without it taking a form of her embracing a man. I can do it on occasion but that is not the first thing that comes to my mind when I think of romantic embrace. Is it for you?

Edited February 6, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[IAmMetaphysical]

Then I have no idea what you mean when you say "romantic embrace." Its impossible for my girl to hug me harder than I can hug her becuase I am much stronger than her, is that what you mean?

[~Sophia~]

Then I have no idea what you mean when you say "romantic embrace." Its impossible for my girl to hug me harder than I can hug her becuase I am much stronger than her, is that what you mean?

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.

[Alethiometry]

A woman is a rational animal. She is free to choose the way she will live. Her individual aptitudes and abilities will make some paths easier than others - but she is free to choose a difficult path if that is what she wants (i.e. what she thinks will most further her life). 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 - except on how she will be perceived by others. In a world of "uga uga" macho men like we have seen here (of all places) the independent self suficient woman is sure to be seen as inferior - but she is actually the only one capable of a proper relationship. The women who define themselves in relation to "their" men don't own "their" men, and don't own themselves.

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

[Viking]

What I mean is that, if in every context a person is rational regardless of whether he "takes" or "leaves" masculinity, then IMO it has no philosophical significance.

Yeah, one cannot ignore it in every context. Inspectors post # 381 is a good explanation of this that I agree with.

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

Do you really think that the differences between men and woman do not imply any oughts whatsoever?

[Maarten]

Do you really think that the differences between men and woman do not imply any oughts whatsoever?

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.

[aequalsa]

Then I have no idea what you mean when you say "romantic embrace." Its impossible for my girl to hug me harder than I can hug her becuase I am much stronger than her, is that what you mean?

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.