Male Female differences/ Women Presidents etc

[aequalsa]

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

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

I liked that movie too.

Counter-repression is a fairly big thing especially for men. A lot of the men I have been familiar with, at least here in the US, avoid behaving in a masculine way, not because it is natural to them to be feminine, but because we are spoon fed this relativistic, egalitarian drivel from our fist steps in the world. Trained very much to be like girls.

The impact of these views of conformity are fairly large. Boys in school here, account for 80% of the Failing grades and 90% of behavioural disorders. This trend correlates negatively with changes in education in the 70's, including limiting or removal of recesses and PE and increased demand for verbal learning skills which males are genetically worse at. Male brains are highly activated by physical activity, and without frequent breaks and outlets for that energy, sitting quietly in your desk with hands folded, listening to the teacher is extraordinarily hard for males to do. The current result is that what, 58% of college students are female? And this manufactured disparity keeps growing.

On the other side, I have known quite a few girls who go through this discomfort when what they are told doesn't conform to reality. They get this Annie Oakley, "Anything you can do, I can do better..." idea, and then are shocked when they reach late middle school and can't compete successfully with the boys in sports. In fact, I have known 3 adult women, who told me an identical story. Racing they were always the fastest runners in their class, until they were 12, then suddenly they were in the 58th percentile. This idea that they have to be the same and are held to the same standards has a significant negative impact on their self-esteem.

On an individual level, it is worth (re)considering why and to what extent you lack these traits and how it impacts your life. Guys who wonder why the "bad boys" always get the girl should consider it, as well as women who find themselves continually attracted jerks instead of nice guys. I will almost guarantee that the response is to masculintiy as such, and not the bad guys lack of virtue. They just often go hand in hand because the more rebellious less civilized type is far more likely to disregard social convention then the well groomed good boy.

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

In terms of the concepts, I disagree with both counts. In actuality, an individual very well might find someone who matches them better then others he has met, who may even be the same sex, but exceptions don't make the rule.

[Maarten]

In terms of the concepts, I disagree with both counts. In actuality, an individual very well might find someone who matches them better then others he has met, who may even be the same sex, but exceptions don't make the rule.

There are many ways in which two people can complement each other. Why are these masculine/feminine differences the best way to do this, as opposed to other differences in attributes? Behaviorally speaking, it is very possible for a guy to act feminine if he wants to, and for a woman to act masculine if she wants to. So, I don't think the issue here is that these values are impossible for the other person to attain. What about these masculine/feminine differences makes them more valuable than other complementary attributes a person could add to the relationship?

By the way, I am not sure if this discussion will get anywhere if we avoid using concrete examples. I think the main problem, right now, is that it is not quite clear why these generalities apply, and it is nigh impossible to prove to someone they do without giving examples that prove this generalization is based on facts.

[Inspector]

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

It would seem so. I'm presently at a loss for any ideas in terms of resolving those things, though.

[aequalsa]

There are many ways in which two people can complement each other. Why are these masculine/feminine differences the best way to do this, as opposed to other differences in attributes? Behaviorally speaking, it is very possible for a guy to act feminine if he wants to, and for a woman to act masculine if she wants to. So, I don't think the issue here is that these values are impossible for the other person to attain. What about these masculine/feminine differences makes them more valuable than other complementary attributes a person could add to the relationship?

The reason it is better is because it does not require acting. A woman does not act as though she were more aware of an individuals emotional state based on non-verbal communication, they are more aware because a greater percentage of their brain is devoted to the task of detail interpretation. A man does not behave more aggressively to appear more aggressive, he has a larger percentage of his brain dedicated to interpretting movement and has stronger hormonally induced surges of energy. If by some chance, an individual literally does not possess a trait possessed by most members of his sex, then it would not be necessarily useful for him to pursue it. But this is an exception. In the same way a man in a comma does not nullify the definition of man as a rational animal, people who literally lack the mechanisms which lead to behavioural differences, do not discredit the very observable differences.

By the way, I am not sure if this discussion will get anywhere if we avoid using concrete examples. I think the main problem, right now, is that it is not quite clear why these generalities apply, and it is nigh impossible to prove to someone they do without giving examples that prove this generalization is based on facts.

We have been using concrete examples, but the answer is invariably about an exception to the rule, so I'm finding them unuseful without first explaining the conceptual context.

[Inspector]

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

I mean it in the same sense that Ayn Rand said that "Sex is good," but also abhorred prostitution, promiscuity, and religious joyless-procreative sex. I guess I’m just used to speaking that way, where it is automatically assumed that my statements are not contextless absolutes. I could, I suppose, follow up everything I ever say with “within the proper context, of course,” but I think that would get a bit tedious. I think I’ve posted enough here so that it can be assumed that I know what context is and how it is needed.

I guess in other words yes, I meant generally speaking.

[aequalsa]

... a man in a comma .....

Help! ,I,'m stuck in a comma...help....

,me,

Coma, of course is what I had in mind.

Edited February 9, 2007 by aequalsa

[Inspector]

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

Wait, what? I thought you disagreed with me not only that strength was a differentiator, but also that if it was, that its opposite was a part of the formula of femininity?

[Inspector]

On an individual level, it is worth (re)considering why and to what extent you lack these traits and how it impacts your life. Guys who wonder why the "bad boys" always get the girl should consider it, as well as women who find themselves continually attracted jerks instead of nice guys. I will almost guarantee that the response is to masculintiy as such, and not the bad guys lack of virtue. They just often go hand in hand because the more rebellious less civilized type is far more likely to disregard social convention then the well groomed good boy.

Brother, you said it! If you understand and integrate masculinity (rather than the parody of it that is popular nowadays), then you will have every "bad boy" trait that women find so desirable without being an ass.

I think that the fall of masculinity coincides not only with feminism, but also with the fall of the "hero," in general. Altruism destroyed the hero in our art, making him into a goody-two-shoes. The villain and the anti-hero both stepped up to the plate at that point to fill the vaccuum. Now, they are admired in our culture. This is part of the reason why so many masculine men are a-holes these days. But although it has become a package deal, women just want manly men, not a-holes (well, the rational ones anyway). If you can be the former without being the latter, (i.e. by having a proper concept of the hero, and thus masculinity) then you'll have a significant advantage in attracting a mate.

[Inspector]

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

Interesting. As I recall, though, didn't she end up in the feminine role with that scruffy Mongolian character?

[aequalsa]

I think that the fall of masculinity coincides not only with feminism, but also with the fall of the "hero," in general.

That's a good point. There is a seeming cynicism toward real heroes. Especially a desire to tear down real ones. It is interesting that super heroes are widely liked and accepted though. Ostensibly because they are more then human, they carry no obligation to live up to their example. I am not really into comics, so I haven't done a thorough analysis, but I always preferred batman as a child for exactly that reason. He was human. An ideal which I could(theorectically) live up to. Admittedly my gymnastics leave a bit to be desired and I lack quite a few nifty gadgets, but that's ok...I'm a work in progress...

It is really sad though. I think the admiration and mimicking even of admirable people can make ones life better in a lot of ways.

[Inspector]

I always preferred batman as a child for exactly that reason.

Gotta love Batman.

Yes, it is sad. We lost so much in terms of culture. If you hear Dismuke talk on it, you really get a sense for what we are missing; for what was destroyed. But you take the small remaining bits of goodness as they come, like burning embers in the ashes. And embers can be used to ignite the fire again someday; don't forget that.

[softwareNerd]

This is off-topic, but I wanted to comment on this:

The impact of these views of conformity are fairly large. Boys in school here, account for 80% of the Failing grades and 90% of behavioural disorders. This trend correlates negatively with changes in education in the 70's, including limiting or removal of recesses and PE and increased demand for verbal learning skills which males are genetically worse at. Male brains are highly activated by physical activity, and without frequent breaks and outlets for that energy, sitting quietly in your desk with hands folded, listening to the teacher is extraordinarily hard for males to do. The current result is that what, 58% of college students are female? And this manufactured disparity keeps growing.

If there's good research that males learn better with some physical activity is thrown in, I wouldn't dispute it. However, I would dispute that these types of demands are responsible to a significant degree for boys doing worse than girls in school.

[aequalsa]

This is off-topic, but I wanted to comment on this:If there's good research that males learn better with some physical activity is thrown in, I wouldn't dispute it. However, I would dispute that these types of demands are responsible to a significant degree for boys doing worse than girls in school.

This difference is a fairly recent phenomenon, but the shift occurred in concurence with changes in curriculum, designed to benefit girls who were seen as having difficulty. Unfortunately, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, and will hopefully be corrected if the problems get worse. Grades are arbitrary for the most part. You can easily design a class where everyone fails or everyone gets A's. You can also design one based on visual rather then audial learning and cause girls to fail in higher numbers.

One small example of the interplay I alluded to is testosterone during puberty and adolescence. It is responsible for increased spatial-mechanical brain development in the right side of the brain. Boy's have 20x's the amount of testosterone as girls do and during this period, experience several spikes of it a day. While girls have estogen and oxytocin helping to develop the left, verbal center of the brain. Hearing words literally causes girls to focus whereas with boys, in this age group especially, have their minds activated primarily by active, kinesthetic activity. They don't literally need to be running laps, but they do require tactike stimulation to keep their minds in a state of focus. Even twirling a pencil helps in this regard.

[aequalsa]

This is off-topic, but I wanted to comment on this:If there's good research that males learn better with some physical activity is thrown in, I wouldn't dispute it. However, I would dispute that these types of demands are responsible to a significant degree for boys doing worse than girls in school.

I would add that lack of physical activity is not the only factor, but I am becoming more and more convinced that it is the main one.

Another interesting fact they have discovered under pet and mri scans is that the female brain in a resting state is as active as a male brain in an active state.(which is also identifiable by the fact that the male brains, on average have 15% less blood flow then females.) Male brains isolate an activity and focus on it to the exclusion of other things. Once the investigation is ended, male brains go into a "rest state" for a period of time before it is ready to accept a new task. Girls experience no such alteration and are able to stay focused through rapid changes in subject matter. The end result being that girls are better multitaskers and boys are better isolators. Brief excercise or movement will often aid the transition for males.

With memorization this leads to another interesting difference. Girls are to memorize disparate information much more quickly then boys, while boys significantly outperform girls when memorizing information that is hiearchical in nature. This leads me to believe that this rest period is similiar to what dreams are believed to do; aid in the integration of absorbed facts.

[softwareNerd]

I would add that lack of physical activity is not the only factor, but I am becoming more and more convinced that it is the main one.

In my son's Montessori school the classes are very quiet, with walking around allowed if the kids need to get stuff etc., but no really vigorous exercise. They get daily recess, but no more than other elementary schools. In his class, the top few in reading, creative writing and math are boys. From what I know of the particular kids, I do not think this is a coincidence -- the larger predictive factor is parental expectation and values. Edited February 9, 2007 by softwareNerd

[mrocktor]

but exceptions don't make the rule.

Exactly. Exceptions break the rule.

Wait, what? I thought you disagreed with me not only that strength was a differentiator, but also that if it was, that its opposite was a part of the formula of femininity?

I don't differentiate by strength. But those who do are saying woman's nature is to be weak.

[aequalsa]

In my son's Montessori school the classes are very quiet, with walking around allowed if the kids need to get stuff etc., but no really vigorous exercise. They get daily recess, but no more than other elementary schools. In his class, the top few in reading, creative writing and math are boys. From what I know of the particular kids, I do not think this is a coincidence -- the larger predictive factor is parental expectation and values.

A montessori school is a bad representation of schools in this country, and one I would suggest as the alternative balanced approach, since it emphasizes learning as an individual process. Allowing children to learn at their own speed and it the ways most suited to them at any particualr point in their development. Unfortunately, most schools do not follow their example. They also have an extraordinary number of hands on activities which allow for "activity" for the male children. Like I mentioned, activity does not have to mean running laps.

I would not argue that parental expectations and values play a large role, but would add to that, that the teaching techniques of the parents(the childs first, longest, and probably most important teachers) are also more significant in a childs learning, then his formal school.

And to clarify, these findings do not mean that a boy can't be great at language or that a girl can't be great at math...only that the internal approach is different and must be approached differently pedagogicly.

[aequalsa]

Exactly. Exceptions break the rule.

Do you really not understand my meaning or are you just being contentious? Because my point was, which I have repeated several times, is that the existence of a hermaphrodite does not cause damage to men or women as concepts. The exception of a hermaphrodite does break the rule, but that is only relevent if you are, in fact, a hermaphrodite. For everyone else that is a man or a woman, the concepts men and women have useful meaning.

[~Sophia~]

Gotta love Batman.

Yes, it is sad. We lost so much in terms of culture. If you hear Dismuke talk on it, you really get a sense for what we are missing; for what was destroyed. But you take the small remaining bits of goodness as they come, like burning embers in the ashes. And embers can be used to ignite the fire again someday; don't forget that.

Interestingly (but not surprisingly), one place in which a male hero is still vibrant and triving is in romance novels.

In 2005, the Romance Industry Statistics reported that romance novels comprised an astonishing 54.9 percent of paperback novels sales. Of these readers, almost 80 percent were women between ages of 17 and 54, and 63 percent of that group had a college degree.

Knowing how many people today are raising their male children with the notion that masculinity is toxic and degrading to women I suspect that this trend will continue. I mean if you can't meet him at least you can read about him.

Part of the success is that most writers of romance novels are women and they give their male characters all the attributes that another woman would want in a man. The description of desirable males, is exactly the description of heroes desired by the heroines in romance novels.

And guess what?

- Most romance novels promote patriarchal values.

- They emphasize love and relational fidelity.

- Male hero is strong, incredibly masculine, both when it comes to his physical and mental traits - but at the same time emotionally available (part warrior part lover).

(P.S I dont read such novels but I have read a few in my lifetime).

Edited February 9, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[desertlily]

Interestingly (but not surprisingly), one place in which a male hero is still vibrant and triving is in romance novels.

- Most romance novels promote patriarchal values.

I've never once, read a romance novel, but I've known a lot of male heroes. I wish there were more of them.......why do you seem to devalue the concept?

Also: what, in your perception, are "patriarchal values" in real life (as opposed to in novels)?

[~Sophia~]

I've never once, read a romance novel, but I've known a lot of male heroes. I wish there were more of them.......why do you seem to devalue the concept?

I don't think I understand the question. I will answer the other when I get home from work.

[~Sophia~]

I've never once, read a romance novel, but I've known a lot of male heroes. I wish there were more of them.......why do you seem to devalue the concept?

Like I mentioned, I am not sure what you mean.

"I wish there were more of them..."

So do I!

Also: what, in your perception, are "patriarchal values" in real life (as opposed to in novels)?

I am not an expert in the area of romance novels but I am assuming the same in both meaning traditional gender roles with a dominant male archetype.

[~Sophia~]

QUOTE(~Sophia~ @ Feb 9 2007, 04:13 AM) However, what I call a combat mode in a relationship leads to nothing but conflict. It is a mistake to get so caught up in the pursuit of 'winning' that you lose sight of the benefits of NOT winning.

What are these benefits?

What are the benefits of harmonious romantic relationship in which partners are supportive of each other instead of being in constant competition with each other ("I will show you just how better I am than you in everything")?

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

No, both parties equally benefit.

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

Detrimental for her in what way? She certainly won't die from it. But will she be successful in sustaining a long term romantic relationship with a man (if that is her goal)?

For most women, NOT out-performing/out-competing their romantic interest does not interfere with their femininity and their satisfaction in a relationship (in fact most women prefer a man to have a slight edge over them), but for most men - it does, because masculinity is tied to performance.

Edited February 10, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[IAmMetaphysical]

but for most men - it does, because masculinity is tied to performance.

Why must it be performance IN RELATION to another's performance?? If I am playing someone in a game and I play very well, and they play even better and win, I am in no way ever mad or angry, I am happy and I enjoy that type of competition. If I play lousy, and someone else plays god-awful, that does not make me feel accomplished. Why do you assume that a relationship, if it doesn't involve masculine dominance will necessarily mean competition in an irrational or even rational manner??

[Inspector]

Why do you assume that a relationship, if it doesn't involve masculine dominance will necessarily mean competition in an irrational or even rational manner??

I see double question marks so you seem passionate about this. You would be perfectly comfortable being bested by a girl in a physical competition? Would you be able to feel romatic toward that particular girl?