Gender or human being?

[der Astronom]

Part of it is social conditioning; females are more inclined to doing things socially more so than they already are because they are encouraged by their parents and the people around them to do so; and same with males. Who's buying the toys for the kids? The parents are. Who's buying the clothes? Also the parents. And you see role models and figures of people that would typically be associated with being a particular gender; most children, who are impressionable, are influenced by them.

Genetics and social conditioning aside, it is still possible for a female to appear to have characteristics more commonly associated with being male and vice versa; Sophie Germain was a French mathematician who was discouraged by her parents from studying math. But she did it anyways, with sympathetic male colleagues and candelight reading at night when her parents weren't aware of it. In fact, she impressed the heck out of the genius mathematician, Gauss.

 

[Valvalis]

I personally think gender roles are overrated, but I'm not sure if we will ever become a society with no separations because many people of both genders seem to enjoy the social standards set up for them. I've seen plenty of strong-enough women ask men to lift heavy things just because they don't feel like it, and they use gender roles as an excuse. And at the same time I know a lot of men who always pay for dinner etc. for their dates because they enjoy feeling like capable providers, even if their dates have more money than they do. My husband and I will occasionally do things like this instinctively, but really we prefer to have an equal division of labor--it just makes the most sense fundamentally.

 

[Dragon Mage]

Historically it made sense for men to be dominant. Women couldn't really own land etc and were seen as mentally inferior and received a different sort of education to men. The latter was true even as little as 70 years ago. I don't think that's the case now though, I don't think there has been a person as dominant in recent British society as Magret Thatcher. I think it's gradual process and that more women will be in positions of power. I don't think it will ever be equal though. Both the military and the police force are both very macho jobs, for want of a better word. For a women to rise to the top of either, would I think be very unlikely due to ingrained prejudices of both institutions.
Another thing is that people are prejudiced, at some level. I don't think all men will take kindly to what they will see as being 'ruled' by a woman. Whereas women have always be subordinated by men and would have no such qualms (generally).

I had to take a moment and ask myself if you truly realized how sexist your post is. After long consideration, I decided you had not.

I would ask how in the world can you prove that women are mentally inferior? Inferiority the type you are talking about is of a physical nature -- women are just as mentally capable of men. Be careful with your wording -- here, you are implying that men are somehow inherently superior than women in mental capacities. This is not the case. Women and men may perceive different patterns, yes, but that does not indicate one besting the other.

And I think you would be surprised about the police and military forces. Sexual assault is a problem in the military, true, but then sexual assault happens to men by men as well in such situations. When there is more of an equilibrium in the gender percentages in the military, sexual assault will drop.

As for the police force, there is nothing stopping women from joining. My aunt became a police officer and she is now a branch chief of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (or FLETC for short). She commands considerable power. That's the thing about guns, you see -- like death, they are a great equalizer. The times when a police officer must wrestle a PCP-high serial killer happens only in the movies. In real life, such criminals are shot. Several times.

And yes, people are prejudiced, but are such only because those prejudices are instilled in them from the moment they are born through socialization. Remember, 'race' and 'gender' are purely social constructions. We are all naturally equal, but we create social norms and regulations to construct barriers of 'difference' and 'superiority'. Once we abolish the prejudice in those systems and in society, then there will be no prejudice.

And where in the world did you ever get the idea that women wanted to rule men? That isn't equality.

If you would please imagine for me a world where women are more equal than men. From ancient times, matriarchy has always been the dominant system of descent, and men are considered illogical beasts and prone to delusions and mental illness. In modern times, though, this difference between the genders has closed somewhat, but men are still looked down upon. Seen as short-tempered and always choosing violence over diplomacy, people rarely trust men to be leaders. In this world, women would abhor being ruled by men. It is perfectly natural for the calm, perceptive women to take the lead.

It is only because of our biased history that makes you say men would hate to be ruled by women. The truth is, the leading party never likes to think that their rule isn't absolute and would hate to lose any of their power. That goes for any race or gender or political standing. The tyrant wants to keep all the power. Another fact that history has taught us is that the tyrant always falls.

And, excuse me, but we women VERY MUCH mind being "subordinated" by men, thank you. You, a man, like to think that we don't mind it because it makes your way of life so much easier. You assume that we like, or at least don't mind, but dominated and belittled and so you don't have to worry about being sexist. It was a nice dream for you, but it's time to wake up. The oppressed never like being oppressed. That is why the tyrant is always overthrown. It would behoove you to remember this.

I would take offense of a woman ruling over me. Call me sexist, but that's just me. I don't think we're equal beings, either. That doesn't mean that I won't treat women with respect; I always open doors for women (people in general, actually. I just let women go before me) and pull chairs out for them. I try to speak sweetly and politely to women, and not cuss or act stupid around them. I don't think it's a bad thing that I feel like a man. Someone who sets example and treats women with respect. To me, that's what a man does, and I will continue to do that, regardless of what other people think. I may be sexist, but you'll never see me beat up on a woman. I want to the best for the women in my life, and I'll do whatever it takes to bring everyone happiness. I'm just working with what God gave me. I'm a male, and I do manly things. I don't think it's wrong to separate myself from women in that respect, as it's part of who I am.

Can women be strong? Yes.
Can women do hard jobs? Yes.
Can women be competent and intelligent? Yes.
Can women be men? No.

That's all I'm trying to say.

I honestly must applaud you. I've never seen someone so perfectly display their obvious sexist beliefs and act as if it isn't sexist at with absolute seriousness.

And yes, you are sexist for taking offense of a woman ruling over you. Let's approach this logically. Why should a woman not lead? Abstaining from any social prejudice and biases, there is no reason. Women are just as logical as a men and are just as capable as men to lead. Especially if this is a political position, because anyone that rises to a position of power in politics is very good at what they do, regardless of gender. It takes skill, a way with words, and manipulation to become politically powerful.

You only take offense to it because you've been socialized to think that, as a man, you have to be dominant. This means you have to be dominant over all other men as well as women, but society has taught you that being dominated by a woman is even worse because she isn't even part of the gender that is "meant" to "dominate". You're probably not even aware of this, but your nonchalant words say it all.

Know that you being a 'male' and doing 'manly things' is also a purely false social construction. Yes, physically men would be more adept at lifting heavy objects, let's say. But muscle strength between the sexes is so minimal (on average) that it isn't even worth mentioning. But society has fairly brainwashed you into thinking that you should do 'manly things' -- a society-defined occupation itself -- and you have unquestioningly accepted it. I would urge you to reevaluate your position.

Also know that there is nothing wrong with being respectful. I, too, treat every human being with utmost respect. I hold doors open for whoever may be behind me, young or old, male or female, white or black.

But when you say "I don't think we're equal beings" you're making a, sadly common, mistake. You think that equality is sameness, when it clearly isn't.

Equality is the state where society recognizes differences and the preserves them, but otherwise takes no actions purely because of those differences. In short, I see you, a man, very good, now I will hire you to work for me because you are a good worker NOT just because you are a man.

Sameness is the false belief that if women were made equal, they would be the same as men in every sense.

Now, the idea of sameness is just silly. Of course women cannot be EXACTLY like men -- we obviously do not have the same equipment, do we? The idea of 'sameness' is a common technique use by anti-equality groups to combat the equalization of the genders. You're statement just proves how insidious it can be.

Equality does not mean that women and men will be treated as one androgynous being. Equality means fair and equal treatment for everyone, simple as that. So, you might want to amend your statement. Men and women are equal! But they are NOT the same! This isn't a type of 'separate but equal' law, but a 'different and equal' law.

This excerpt from the The Daily (a newspaper from the University of Washington) describes it beautifully:

"That being said, while women should have equal rights, sexually or otherwise, women are not and should not be just like men. The problem is that feminism is perceived as women’s quest to take over men’s roles. There’s a reason why men and women were created differently: They each have different roles, attitudes and ways of contributing. The world needs them both.
Feminism is no longer about joining a group or rallying in Red Square. It’s about equality, not sameness. It’s about being able to run for president and being treated with legitimacy. It’s about a healthy perception of sexuality. It’s about expecting that you and your male co-worker be paid the same wage. It’s about compromise and about a state of mind."

I hope this has opened some eyes. :3

 

[Catnip]

So basically, I fell in love with Dragon Mage in this thread. She is pretty much putting down everything I had in mind. Everything I could not articulate.

I just wanted to post this, since I felt not very many people in this thread really understood the depth I was looking for, here.

I would ask how in the world can you prove that women are mentally inferior? Inferiority the type you are talking about is of a physical nature -- women are just as mentally capable of men. Be careful with your wording -- here, you are implying that men are somehow inherently superior than women in mental capacities. This is not the case. Women and men may perceive different patterns, yes, but that does not indicate one besting the other.

THIS.

 

[Donald Trump]

I had to take a moment and ask myself if you truly realized how sexist your post is. After long consideration, I decided you had not.

It's not sexist.

I would ask how in the world can you prove that women are mentally inferior? Inferiority the type you are talking about is of a physical nature -- women are just as mentally capable of men. Be careful with your wording -- here, you are implying that men are somehow inherently superior than women in mental capacities. This is not the case. Women and men may perceive different patterns, yes, but that does not indicate one besting the other.

I never said or implied they were. I said that historically they were seen as mentally inferior. SEEN.
Not that they were.

And I think you would be surprised about the police and military forces. Sexual assault is a problem in the military, true, but then sexual assault happens to men by men as well in such situations. When there is more of an equilibrium in the gender percentages in the military, sexual assault will drop.

Obviously men are victims of sexual assualt too. However nowhere near as frequently. When there is equilibrium? I doubt there ever will be, the military being, as I pointed out, inherently macho and misogynist. More woman are joing the military, but not as many as men. http://www.uscollegesearch.org/american-military-university.html

And yes, people are prejudiced, but are such only because those prejudices are instilled in them from the moment they are born through socialization. Remember, 'race' and 'gender' are purely social constructions. We are all naturally equal, but we create social norms and regulations to construct barriers of 'difference' and 'superiority'. Once we abolish the prejudice in those systems and in society, then there will be no prejudice.

As long as people are seen to be different we will have prejudice. You can't abolish prejudice. Humanity has been always been racist/sexist and will continue to be so. The people in power appoint their successors, the same prejudices continue.

And where in the world did you ever get the idea that women wanted to rule men? That isn't equality.

It certainly isn't.
Note the inverted commas that I used. Some people will view it as being ruled. Case in point, Lionheart's post.

It is only because of our biased history that makes you say men would hate to be ruled by women. The truth is, the leading party never likes to think that their rule isn't absolute and would hate to lose any of their power. That goes for any race or gender or political standing. The tyrant wants to keep all the power. Another fact that history has taught us is that the tyrant always falls.

Exactly, based upon our history, in which men have been dominant, ergo they wouldn't like a change in the status quo. Men in power aren't tyrants, especially not ones who have been voted into office, they are unlikely to be overthrown.

And, excuse me, but we women VERY MUCH mind being "subordinated" by men, thank you. You, a man, like to think that we don't mind it because it makes your way of life so much easier. You assume that we like, or at least don't mind, but dominated and belittled and so you don't have to worry about being sexist. It was a nice dream for you, but it's time to wake up. The oppressed never like being oppressed. That is why the tyrant is always overthrown. It would behoove you to remember this.

You are completely right, I want all women to stay at home and make my dinner whilst I go down to my club in my smoking jacket and we talk about sport, and if I'm feeling generous I might buy a nice vacuum cleaner for whichever inferior member of the opposite sex I happen to be coinhabiting with.
Or I may have meant that women are used to male rule, and would no similar objections, to the ones I mentioned previously, to voting for a man. I didn't imply that women enjoyed being oppressed. Nor was it sexist.

 

[Shu]

A lot of longer posts here, I had to filter through the trash just to find some good material to work with.. but still really haven't.

This is really just a big feminist thread, I don't mean to be direct. I don't belong in this thread, because I have conflicting views due to experience versuses logic. Here's what I mean. Don't be afraid to argue with a mod either, it makes for a good convo.. but here's my views.

Throughout history women have been held back to an extent. Though recently women have actually digressed as far as intelligence goes. There are some folks out there who are good and stick to the grind stone and fufill their academics and such and go on to be great. Still most are used as eye candy in most public places.

I was having a pretty in depth conversation to a game store owner the other day.. and he believed sex didn't sell in his market. Here was my response. How many female gamers are hit on by male gamers, as opposed to the opposite way around? How many people come into a game store expecting to just browse, and when they see a pretty lady behind the counter, then are more inclined to come back in and purchase a video game just to chat? Why because these fellas think these ladies have similar gamer interests as them, and to them this is their dream per se.

Receptionists in America.. can I say eye candy please? This in fact is a true gender role if I haven't seen one. A receptionist literally requires no degree and what they do can be either trivial or busy work depending what field. Even our company is guilty of hiring a Miss America type. She has long brown hair, pretty white teeth and a very calming voice. All it requires in order to be a receptionist here is to smile, take phone calls, and direct guests to wherever they need to go. They have small busy work, but mostly just sit there at the front desk all day long. Do you ever see dudes work there? Not unless they are security guards.. and that's a different job altogether.

When's the last time you saw a female bouncer? How prevalent these days are female bartenders? More and more in fact, although I see nothing wrong with it.

I'm sorry it's not just fellas forcing women into these gender roles, they take easy ways out and take short cuts. People are only assuming because of patterns. Are women less rational? It all depends which woman you subject it too, but overall I have no idea. I have seen some pretty irrational fellas too.

Are women better cooks? Heh, don't be stupid. Both are equally good, I'll eat from Paula Dean or Bobby Flay any day of the week. I think we are evolving into a more and more gender neutral environment, but there are still women who all their life they seek perfection in their body, just to one day lose it.

All for what? A job? A dude to buy you everything in life? Life in the mainstream? (Acting, singing.. etc..) Get a job.. get an education.. be independent, fall in love when you want, not because you've been watching movies that told you how magical it will be one day.

It's a two way street, women and men will be treated how they act or dress these days. If you act like a slut (girl or guy), well then props, you are getting the attention from the wrong fellas/girls. That's what I see as gender roles.

 

[Catnip]

My intent with this thread wasn't to defend one gender against the other or anything of the like. I also wanted to discuss why wouldn't it be okay to see a boy in a Barbie commercial? We are socialized to think that it's not right, but as I've said before, no one would have a real reason as to why that apparently is wrong in some sort. Since the answer would be, because he is a boy.

I saw the direction this thread was heading, though, since it is much easier to argue girls playing with 'boy toys' vs. boys playing with 'girl toys'.

You did make some really good points, Shu. A lot of women do put themselves in such places -all on their own. I really don't have anything to say to that, since it's true as fuck.

Get a job.. get an education.. be independent, fall in love when you want, not because you've been watching movies that told you how magical it will be one day.

Yup.

 

[Dragon Mage]

So basically, I fell in love with Dragon Mage in this thread. She is pretty much putting down everything I had in mind. Everything I could not articulate.

Aww gee, I don't know what to say. *blush* Thankies!

I never said or implied they were. I said that historically they were seen as mentally inferior. SEEN.
Not that they were.

Ah, that's what I thought the case was. Meanings can get lost when put down in words, and a lot of communication is through body language. A common dilemma in forum discussions. Sorry to assume the worst, but I decided it best to cover all bases first then apologize for any mistakes after. :3

Obviously men are victims of sexual assualt too. However nowhere near as frequently. When there is equilibrium? I doubt there ever will be, the military being, as I pointed out, inherently macho and misogynist. More woman are joing the military, but not as many as men. http://www.uscollegesearch.org/ameri...niversity.html

Oh I don't doubt that not as many women join the military as men, but that doesn't mean such will always be the case. Give a few centuries and I'm sure you'll see a more balanced number in gender enlistment. It may be a slow process, but it is a sure one.

As long as people are seen to be different we will have prejudice. You can't abolish prejudice. Humanity has been always been racist/sexist and will continue to be so. The people in power appoint their successors, the same prejudices continue.

I wouldn't be so fatalistic in such a claim. Yes, prejudice will continue if only for the simple reason that we don't know what it's like to be another gender/religion/race. I'm not homosexual, therefore I could never understand homosexuality as well as a gay person does. So yes, as long as there is difference, we will continue to view others as odd or different, but that is an entirely accurate statement considering that we only have our own life experience to judge things by standards, such as what is 'normal' or what is 'beautiful'. In such cases, prejudice is merely a noticing of difference and making personal selections based on those differences we like or dislike (such as choosing who to date and not to date.)

But don't be so pessimistic, please! The very fact that we acknowledge the cycle of prejudice and how it is institutionalized means that we can take action against it, and have been doing so for at least one hundred years now (though that will depend on what country you live in). Compare the prejudice from the 1700's to now, and you'll see we've come a long way. But there's more to go yet, and people will continue to abolish all forms of harmful prejudice.

Exactly, based upon our history, in which men have been dominant, ergo they wouldn't like a change in the status quo. Men in power aren't tyrants, especially not ones who have been voted into office, they are unlikely to be overthrown.

lol, I used 'tyrant' as an analogy only. In some cases and cultures, however, tyrant would be very accurate. Look at ancient Chinese culture (which hasn't progressed as much as you would think). China has to be the most sexist country out there. If you look at family records, only the man's name is put down in the family tree. The wife is listed as "Female of [Family name]". She isn't referenced as a human, but as livestock almost. Ancient China has some incredibly cruel practices against women, and lots of those prejudices continue today.

In any case, my point being that men in general don't like to acknowledge that the society they live in is unfair as it negatively affects women, but women won't, and haven't, let it stand that way and will 'overthrow' the system of inequality. Men are not evil, but the sexist ideas they (and some women) want to preserve, are. Please note that this doesn't mean ALL men hold such ideas; most don't even know they are benefiting from privileges they haven't earned, but in general, no one likes to think the way things are going must be changed and jeopardize their status quo.

I'm glad we have agreed on this! :3

You are completely right, I want all women to stay at home and make my dinner whilst I go down to my club in my smoking jacket and we talk about sport, and if I'm feeling generous I might buy a nice vacuum cleaner for whichever inferior member of the opposite sex I happen to be coinhabiting with.
Or I may have meant that women are used to male rule, and would no similar objections, to the ones I mentioned previously, to voting for a man. I didn't imply that women enjoyed being oppressed. Nor was it sexist.

Oh, I never once thought that you really believed women enjoyed being oppressed. But you remain mistaken that women wouldn't object to male rule. The very fact that feminism exists just proves how much women don't like male rule. And by male rule, I mean a patriarchal rule that favors men over women. No, women wouldn't mind if a man was voted as president or made king... as long as he ruled fairly, he's perfectly fine. The male rule that is being objected to is the sexist kind.

Does that clarify? Male rulers are only objected to when they are practicing sexist ideas. Likewise, men should not protest to female rule unless that woman is practicing sexist ideas as well.

Women are not desensitized to sexist male rule, as you say. We're very much aware of it. And just because we've suffered under it, and still continue to, doesn't mean we'll condone its continuation.

Throughout history women have been held back to an extent. Though recently women have actually digressed as far as intelligence goes. There are some folks out there who are good and stick to the grind stone and fufill their academics and such and go on to be great. Still most are used as eye candy in most public places.

I'm sorry it's not just fellas forcing women into these gender roles, they take easy ways out and take short cuts. People are only assuming because of patterns. Are women less rational? It all depends which woman you subject it too, but overall I have no idea. I have seen some pretty irrational fellas too.

You're absolutely right, Shu, in that many women do portray themselves, and their gender, quite poorly.

There was a lengthy article on why this happens in my textbook, but I'll just sum it up here. When the female revolution came about -- the time when a woman could bare her ankles in public and not be ostracized for it -- it was accompanied with the idea of sexual freedom. Woman were basically free to express their sensuality, to assert themselves and their beauty instead of adhering to antiquated Victorian ideals: Ideals that dictated that women should be as covered as possible, take up as little space as possible, were prone to fainting and weak of mind and so on and so on.

The problem with the women that you are talking about, Shu, is the younger generations that confuse sexual freedom with sexual objectification. The differences between the two are enormous. Sexual objectification portrays women as nothing more than sex toys to rut upon and exist for male satisfaction. Porn is perhaps the largest industry that utilizes sexual objectification. Women, mainly teenagers, mistake shaking their bosoms for a "Girls Gone Wild" video as sexual freedom; thus why they participate in it so.

Though actions are being taken to counteract such mistakes and to enlighten women what constitutes as negative sexual portrayal, it's still a long and slow battle. And it's true, some women do use their sexual charms to get their way, but then so do men use their own gender roles for the same results.

Think about it. How many times to men try to assert that they are "the right one for the job" or that they can "beat the competition"? Men sacrifice they're identity as emotional beings that suffer from stresses and depression in favor of an image that is physically dominating and 'unbreakable'. Such gender roles never work to the benefit of either one.

It might interest you to know that in the article in my textbook, it was titled 'Claiming And Education'. ;3

I also wanted to discuss why wouldn't it be okay to see a boy in a Barbie commercial?
...
You did make some really good points, Shu. A lot of women do put themselves in such places -all on their own. I really don't have anything to say to that, since it's true as fuck.

Agreed, agreed! But it's important to know that men do the same thing to themselves just as much. You see it when a father pampers his daughter when she got a splinter but tells his son to be tough when he falls out of a tree. You see it in commercials were men are seen as extremely aggressive and competitive and are, for lack of a better phrase, waving their manhood about like it's the ultimate achievement. You see it in movies when a woman must explain to the ignorant male the emotional factors that make so-and-so do this and not this.

Men are socialized from the get-go to not cry, to be tough, and to crush and destroy any opponents. It's an incredibly savage image, one that limits gender equality more than any prejudice against women.

To explain what I mean, look at the career choices open to men and women. Now it's generally okay, and greatly encouraged, for a woman to take a competitive and confrontational career. Women can cross over into what men must do but men cannot cross into the field that a defines what a 'woman' is. That means men cannot show any emotion at all, or indicate any weakness or failing in any ability whatsoever. Men are, essentially, in a constant battle against what they are -- a human being with failings and emotions as well -- just to prove that they are, indeed, a human male. And this defensiveness of one's masculine identity never drops for a second, because others are always prodding, looking for a weakness that might be less than 'manly'.

Personally, I find that a sorry and miserable way to live.

While I was enraged by the small-minded, petty prejudice one sees as early as the 3rd grade, in the long run I still have all the options of the world open to me. Men can only occupy a small portion of that to be considered 'normal' and if they do step into 'woman territory' they must make it as masculine as possible. Like cooking -- when a woman cooks, it's work, but when a man cooks it's an art!

The womens movement has allowed for great success, but it will never be complete until the men of society are released from their own societal prison. When the vague concepts of 'female' and 'feminine' no longer becomes a stigma to men, then there will be true equality.

 

[Shu]

Well then I ask you this, because this is my own opinion backed by no books.

Relationship vs Friend:

Relationship:

Would you rather have a lazy fella who is comfortable with just whatever job he can scrounge up? (which may not be easy with this economy) Or would you rather have a guy who is confident in himself enough to try for the competitive market and get out there and at least put forth effort to get himself to where he wants in life?

Friend:

If you have a guy friend, which most girls do.. single or not (hehehe).. then do you think it's weak when a dude cries for getting fired for something he truly brought upon himself?

That's the difference between us men who see eye to eye with eachother, and how women see men. If one of my guy friends cries over losing a job because of something stupid he did, then I'm pretty blunt about it. Which may seem like an ass of me, but I mean consequences are consequences to me.

--------

The way I see it is, I do treat ladies differently. I don't know why and maybe I was pre programmed to, but the dudes I'm close with I treat similarly.. as in I listen and such and take it all in if they have problems.. but that's all I can be is an ear. Since I'm not single anymore.. I don't try to be anything more than that for a girl either. It gets folks in troubles because it is pathological. Girls who cry to their dad, and sometimes wish for a guy who will be there for them like their dad was. I won't be that guy though.. because of experience..

So yea.. we do treat each other differently, but I think it's because of individual experience upon each other as opposite sexes. If you come off as flirtatious you throw bad signals as a friend in my opinion, unless I'm open to it as well. Vise Versa. The sooner people recognize that women and men are the same at the core.. the better off they'll be.

Not every single second of every minute will a girl be feminine, same with fellas. There will be times when a dude breaks down and acts like a cry baby. Which may or not be a turn on or turn off (I don't mean sexually).

So yea. we are pre-programmed, but I think we have come very far in distinguishing huge differences.

 

[Catnip]

Men can only occupy a small portion of that to be considered 'normal' and if they do step into 'woman territory' they must make it as masculine as possible. Like cooking -- when a woman cooks, it's work, but when a man cooks it's an art!

I just kind of giggled slightly to myself and literally said out loud, "that's fucking true!"

I never thought of it that way. To me, it was just like... a woman is able to cook, a man is able to cook; that's that. But there's a lot more insight to it apparently. Wow. And it's little things like that, things we barely notice, which make huge impact.

 

[Dragon Mage]

Well then I ask you this, because this is my own opinion backed by no books.

Relationship vs Friend:

Relationship:

Would you rather have a lazy fella who is comfortable with just whatever job he can scrounge up? (which may not be easy with this economy) Or would you rather have a guy who is confident in himself enough to try for the competitive market and get out there and at least put forth effort to get himself to where he wants in life?

This is a trick question and you know it; shame, Shu! Obviously this would depend upon the person and the situation. If he couldn't get any other job and had to settle for what he could find, then that is putting forth effort, which anyone would desire in a partner. It's the only job he can get but he's still sticking to it instead of sitting around and collecting unemployment, which is doing more than some people do in the same situation.

But if there were other jobs available and he couldn't be arsed to get them, well that would be the end of the relationship, wouldn't it?

See, it all depends on what's going on.

Friend:

If you have a guy friend, which most girls do.. single or not (hehehe).. then do you think it's weak when a dude cries for getting fired for something he truly brought upon himself?

That's the difference between us men who see eye to eye with eachother, and how women see men. If one of my guy friends cries over losing a job because of something stupid he did, then I'm pretty blunt about it. Which may seem like an ass of me, but I mean consequences are consequences to me.

But... EVERYONE would have the same reaction as you, Shu. That's practically a code of America -- responsibility. If you whine about something you brought upon your own head, you've no one to blame but yourself. This isn't a man-only, woman-only reaction: It's a universal one!

And no, I wouldn't think he's weak for crying about his own mistakes, but I would think he's being whiny and feeling sorry for himself unnecessarily. I can understand feeling bad about losing your job, but when you caused that because of what you did? No excuses. This goes for anyone and everyone.

The way I see it is, I do treat ladies differently. I don't know why and maybe I was pre programmed to, but the dudes I'm close with I treat similarly.. as in I listen and such and take it all in if they have problems.. but that's all I can be is an ear. Since I'm not single anymore.. I don't try to be anything more than that for a girl either. It gets folks in troubles because it is pathological. Girls who cry to their dad, and sometimes wish for a guy who will be there for them like their dad was. I won't be that guy though.. because of experience..

I see what you mean -- and I applaud the way you carry yourself through this. Yes, it is a mental thing that when someone thinks that you can be trusted and you listen, that it means you're also interested in them. And this goes for men as well, because I'm personally dealing with a dilemma caused by such unintended ideas. So it's only natural for you to be open to an extent to a girl so as not to give her the false impression that you're interested.

But with your friends, you don't have to hold back as such because, obviously, they know you are not interested in them in anything more than a platonic way. This is a well-known technique used often in that mysterious process called flirting. But I don't think it stems from girls that confide in their fathers from childhood or anything. It's courting, plain and simple.

So yea.. we do treat each other differently, but I think it's because of individual experience upon each other as opposite sexes. If you come off as flirtatious you throw bad signals as a friend in my opinion, unless I'm open to it as well. Vise Versa. The sooner people recognize that women and men are the same at the core.. the better off they'll be.

Not every single second of every minute will a girl be feminine, same with fellas. There will be times when a dude breaks down and acts like a cry baby. Which may or not be a turn on or turn off (I don't mean sexually).

So yea. we are pre-programmed, but I think we have come very far in distinguishing huge differences.

I agree completely! Especially with that third line!

But be chary with 'feminine' and the idea that men breaking down and crying is an unnatural thing for men. Everyone cries. If men weren't supposed to cry, they wouldn't be born with tear ducts. They'd just lick their eyes with a super-long tongue to keep them from drying out. xD

And 'feminine' is a socially defined set of characteristics and features, many of them false and weird. I'm pretty sure you know all this already, but it never hurts to cement the reality, right?

Yes, we are pre-programmed but based on experiences only and the nuances of social courting. Social courting meaning, you not expressing too much interest to avoid giving the impression of desiring a full relationship. That is pure human courtship behavior! So nice to see it in practice without the taint of ANY gendered stereotypes. *applauds*

I just kind of giggled slightly to myself and literally said out loud, "that's fucking true!"

I never thought of it that way. To me, it was just like... a woman is able to cook, a man is able to cook; that's that. But there's a lot more insight to it apparently. Wow. And it's little things like that, things we barely notice, which make huge impact.

LOL, yes you don't even notice it until someone brings it up. And you're exactly right, it's little things like that which are so pervasive in society and how we think that causes the bigger problems like sexism.

A wonderful quote from my textbook: "When men do the dishes, it's called helping. When women do the dishes, that's called life."

This method of ranking by gender, and what is considered natural and unnatural for the genders is what causes so much trouble. Trying to change that way of thinking is a great challenge though.

 

[Catnip]

Something's been on my mind.

When an older woman falls in love with a younger man, she is referred to as a cougar, while men who fall in love with younger women are simply just men. Nobody thinks anything of it, really. I'm not so sure they are called anything when they're the ones going after older women, either. Not that I know of, anyways.

Why is that? And aren't so-called 'cougars' only truly 'cougars' when they are going after young men? That would make a lot more sense. Instead of telling a woman she is a cougar even when she didn't truly intend to love a younger man, it just happened. She didn't... "hunt" for that younger male, I suppose one could say.

 

[Stoic Hero]

If an older man loves a younger woman, he's a pedophile.

 

[Catnip]

If an older man loves a younger woman, he's a pedophile.

Younger doesn't always need to mean 6 years old. A 25 year old male can fall in love with a 20 year old female and not be labeled as anything.

 

[Stoic Hero]

And a 25 year old woman falling in love with a 20 year old man isn't a cougar. A cougar is a 42 year old woman falling in love with an 18 year old man.

 

[Catnip]

And a 25 year old woman falling in love with a 20 year old man isn't a cougar. A cougar is a 42 year old woman falling in love with an 18 year old man.

Sure.

That doesn't answer my question one bit.

 

[Dragon Mage]

Ah, I just saw this had new posts. :3

When an older woman falls in love with a younger man, she is referred to as a cougar, while men who fall in love with younger women are simply just men. Nobody thinks anything of it, really. I'm not so sure they are called anything when they're the ones going after older women, either. Not that I know of, anyways.

Why is that? And aren't so-called 'cougars' only truly 'cougars' when they are going after young men? That would make a lot more sense. Instead of telling a woman she is a cougar even when she didn't truly intend to love a younger man, it just happened. She didn't... "hunt" for that younger male, I suppose one could say.

I think this attitude stems from the fact that women mature earlier than men and therefore can be married off younger then men can and be expected to start making babies. And this actually true -- women do mature faster than men. Girls reach adolescence at around 14 whereas men are around 18 to be fully mature. But this does vary a fair amount.

I believe the Sun King of France (Louis the XIV, I think) had a wife that was 12 years old. Girls have always been married to older men since ancient times, because a marriage is supposed to be reproductive and every man wants children -- especially sons -- to carry on his name. So he wants a fertile wife. And if she's younger, then she's fertile for so much longer.

Although, please note, this does not justify such young wives. Ask a dog breeder about such things and they will tell you that they never breed a bitch (female dog) when she has just become fertile. Not the first year of maturation. Afterwards, yes, but not at first. This is because females have some very resource-expensive and delicate equipment. Imagine you've just made a super-computer from scratch -- it has hundreds of feet of wiring and chips and fans and belts and you flip it on for the first time ever. Do you really expect that computer to be able to play Halo 3 perfectly? Of course not. There are adjustments that must be made, things to calibrate, etc. A female reproductive system is much the same -- it take some time for everything to start running perfectly smoothly -- it is well known that a girl will have inconstant periods for a year or so while the body adjusts. That is why females mature earlier -- it takes much longer for all the equipment to settle in.

And sorry, I'm not trying to be disgusting here, just going by the facts. My point is that while women do mature earlier, that does not mean they can immediately start turning out babies. Of course, way back then, they didn't know this, and they really didn't care.

In any case, this idea of marrying younger women has simply stayed with society from those very old reasons since ancient times. Back then, it was a functional reason. To us today, it is just the norm for younger women to be with an older man, though we'd be hard pressed to say exactly why.

As for the term 'cougar' know that it is a very derogatory term. It also generally applies to women of greater significant years than her male counterpart. Say, a 20-year old woman and a 13-year old boy (the problematic teacher romance...) Or a 40-year old woman and a 20-year old man. And 'cougar' is also meant to imply that the woman isn't necessarily a golddigger, but she is in it for the physical relationship -- therefore she is 'preying' or 'hunting' on the young for her own satisfaction.

This can also go both ways, you know. A younger man that goes for much older women might be called a 'loser', on the premises that he can't 'catch' a young (same age) or younger woman and so only older women -- who are supposed to be less attractive and thus desperate for sex -- is the only thing that the man can get and it essentially 'doesn't count' because such older women are thought to jump on anything that will have sex with them.

A very sick and twisted view, but there you have it. :\

 

[Catnip]

I see....

I notice that women are more focused on when it comes to things such as sex. If a woman sleeps around, she's quickly labeled as a slut or a whore. Men are mostly ignored if they sleep around. If they're noticed, they get put under the term 'player' which judging by the way some males take it in a flattering way, isn't as awful as being called a slut. Regardless, though; it's guaranteed that if two individuals, opposite sex, slept around at the same time, the woman would be a lot more focused on. What's worse is that other women allow this to happen. I find they are the ones quickest to notice, actually.

 

[Dragon Mage]

In fact, Catnip, you've pointed out the ever infamous "double standard" that is well-known and recognized in society. A man sleeps around a lot, and more kudos to him. A woman sleeps around a lot, and she's a slut.

And get this: A woman is expected to be chaste and polite. But often times, society teaches that a woman is being coy and a tease, not chaste, when she turns down all advances. A woman is actually flirting, not being polite, when you talk to here. It's a real Catch-22. Women can really do nothing that firmly gives the message of "I'm not interested," -- men always think that women are always interested.

Of course, realize that's a very generalized statement and is by no means the absolute truth. It is just a an example of one particular kind of viewpoint that perpetuates such behavior.

And you bring up the fact that this is a woman's stigma that is policed by other women. This is seen most often with certain virginity cults (as there is one mentioned in Haiti in the book Breath, Eyes, Memory) where the rules that benefit only men and harm women is maintained only by those very women. I've honestly no idea how this happens or why -- the only reason I can think of is that that was how the mothers were raised and they teach their daughters to do the same.

 

[Shu]

Mmmm I think I can finally say we are moving far away from that aspect. Now what my overwhelming concern is, is that due to the over saturation of the market of bullshit romance stories and such.. people always think there are better folks out there when sometimes what they got is the best thing for them. They don't know they are privelaged enough to have until weathered by experience.

So let me break it down so people can mutually understand this. Take Dick.. Dick works an overwhelming amount of hours at work, but provides for himself and his girlfriend/and or wife. Well let's say Dick is weathered at times, but doesn't like to bring work home with him. As in he doesn't like to complain at the house about his job to his wife. So when his wife... let's say... Jane (dick and jane etc. ) asks how his work was.. he just says the same thing every time in order to not make his day sound bad. Well Dick actually had an awful day, so physically he's tired.. so sometimes Jane wants more attention.. and he can't give it. So Jane automatically thinks.. well I can do better if he keeps acting like this. Meaning.. some other guy will come along to sweep her off her feet, if Dick doesn't do the job. Jane doesn't have to pay a penny, aside from her own bills, but those are generally from buying clothes, shoes, and make up.

The above is just an example from the guys point of view, and can easily be flipped to the other gender as well.. with the house wife/girl friend who does all the chores, but doesn't care to complain to her husband/boyfriend.

Now the whole aspect where "Chivalry is dead" comes into play here. Often times people, both men and women just get plain bored of each other. While other times, outside factors are actually hindering their outlook on their own life, which internalizes and takes affect on their own relationship. So the whole Chilvary aspect is pretty much killed because even when the good girl or good guy is playing their role, they still get eaten up inside by some of the effed up things that happen in the real world.

So the need for sex/cuddling/general love is not quenched and in today's society people are giving it the okay to move on because people don't want to lift a finger to work out their differences, because it's far easy to start fresh and go down the same path of destruction.

Same thing with the need for "SOME!!!!" women to feel beautiful all the time. If they don't, and feel dirty in any way.. such as can't put on make up before they exit the door, can't put on a nice shirt and would not dare to put a t-shirt.. Ladies even if you are noticed by some folks for having the look that kills, just remember whatever you attract per se, is usually based on how you look. I'm not saying.. be ugly, but I'm saying be careful not to look like a porn star or a harlet. Same goes with fellas, if you got an open shirt pollo and no t-shirt underneath, while wearing tight jeans.. well some women notice this look. Most of the fellas that wear this attire don't have a brain though, but the few that do are given a bad wrap.

Men and women are becoming more mutually the same. I see it like this if you are man who sleeps around.. well I don't think a lady would be impressed, only your shallow brothers would. I'm not sure a lady likes to hear how many times you dipped your wick and to how many other ladies.. Also the perpetual fear for STDs now is all that more prevailent these days. I mean dating folks and having sex is normal, but to be a Man whore.. good luck being alone for the rest of your life, and having that non emotional sex.

Women, you already have the labels as slut/whore.. etc.. And I feel bad, because it goes both ways. Maybe one day it will be equal, but I don't find it wrong for some one to sleep around bit, unless it hinders other relationships.. that's their life... and if that's what they want to do.. by all means, but just remember.. men and women.. careful.. I think there is STDs for a reason in this world.