Gender relations

[Alexander Nicholi]

For a while I've been eerily hesitant in making this thread, but with a recent bout of writing of mine I've finally gained the courage to make this.

The purpose of this thread is similar in nature to the discussions regarding Feminism and the Men's Rights Movement, say for one key difference seemingly fatal in productivity to those two discussions: each of those before singled out a group. To me, this created an apparent divide from the get-go that was practically begging to be gorged in an inferno.

While not all too far from those, my hope in this is that members may purely discuss relations between genders (primarily male/female, but I am not to dictate); how they relate, et cetera. I see the possibility that the outruling of one-sided arguments may avert the devolution of the thread (though my expectations aren't all that candid either).

The gem below is something I wrote spontaneously and was the light for this thread's birth. I am confident in every word of it as my honest and strong-standing opinion on such things between men and women in particular. Too confused I am regarding non-cisgendered humans to make a gander, my apologies. >.>

Spoiler:

A combined visual and aural stimulation has enlightened me to the beauty of an innocent female. It is both surreal and shocking and somewhat difficult to process at first, but it is a rather nice thought. Imagining the contentedness, love, compassion, and beauty of the female spirit is like being blissfully blown to the head, but in a want of it, strangely. Parallel to that sweet loving innocence that surely sustained humanity in so many ways (physically, emotionally, socially), I'm also brought to see a crazed aspect of such a creature - a zane, if you will. In that, there is the presence of a sort of lunatic that is neutralizing to that positivity... that niceness. In men, these two things are amazingly converse: males are brutish emotionally and seek selfishly without care for much anything other than themselves at heart, but are without blatant insanity in doing so. The two counter each other, naturally leading to conflicts that will never end in the life of a thousands suns; for as long as the existence of a relative binary holds true it will continue.

With that said, I'd like to note that certain things to do with those gender binaries and their derivatives (I am not talking about sexuality) truly baffle and confuse me. The primary culprit in this bemusement of mine is "feminism" - inherently all flavors from the pacified to the inflamed. Problematic it is to introduce such an intrusion in the aforementioned setup because the change of outward gender behaviours will never, again, in the life of a thousand suns, so long as the relative binary remains, coincide with inner gender behaviours. Think about this: For males to be given the notion of being specic caretakers with their absence of core emotion is insanity; conversely, for females to be given the notion of being specic destructors with their apparent core instability is also madness.

I think an often confused aspect of such differentiations is the ambiguation between dominance/submission and roles. Many cling to the notion that males were far upperhanded socially, and this is with very good reason; however it wasn't forever like this (you can thank that thousand year Dark Age caused by some people who weren't too bright in the head when it came to, well, anything). I find a serene beauty in opposite roles that balance each other, truly, and I am certain that this cascade of gender rights and such is a direct result of that balance being upset by males. There is not any attractiveness in an imbalanced relationship of any context, is there? Such is the case with this.

What is gravely problematic with the approach to gender rights is the attack on gender roles. It is still quite obvious that one still retains the social upper hand while the other does not; at the same time more than a few major conflicts have arose from stringing up an innocent culprit. For me, "gender equality" is far too ambiguous to accomplish a goal of restoring balance between males and females, and has led to the erroneous interpretation of equality as such above. Ay, humanity!

tl;dr please for the love of mercy refrain from posting "men vwxyz" or "wimmens abcde". It's not constructive in any case o.O

 

[Racket]

Trying to solve inequality by focusing on one gender will never work. Obolishing ideas like "women can't be managers" and "its worse for a man to hit a women then it is for a women to hit a man" all togeather. Also, things like statements from medical science and statistics should not be considered offensive, unless it's irrationally overextended to be offensive.

 

[Lotus the Cat]

I had a very hard time following your writing. If you are writing this for an assignment or anything other than this thread, I recommend that you revise it. After I finished reading it I am no closer to understanding your views and conclusions as when I started.

I'm not sure of the reason behind you raising up the idea of an "innocent" woman at the start. We are just as human as men. Setting an ideal woman as "innocent" is unrealistic and unhealthy.

As for my personal experience of gender relations, in my own life I have very good relationships with male colleagues and friends. I have always found it easier to form friendships with men than women, mostly because I tend to have more common interests with men (video games) than the typical woman.

However, my experience is likely mostly positive because I deal (and have dealt) with more intelligent people. I have had men remark that I don't look like an engineer though, which I'm not certain how to interpret. As far as stereotypes of women in mostly male dominated professions, some of us are not helping. There is a woman at my work, who (I have been told), showed up to a construction site in heels. That being said, another coworker (a man this time) once showed up to a wharf site in a suit.

A number released recently showed the pay gap between men and women is currently sitting at about 18% in Australia. This figure worries me. We should be able to earn the same for the same job. The numbers are probably so skewed due to the difficulty for women in trying to have a career and having a family. There is prejudice there, which is not just coming from men but other women.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

I had a very hard time following your writing. If you are writing this for an assignment or anything other than this thread, I recommend that you revise it. After I finished reading it I am no closer to understanding your views and conclusions as when I started.

I'm not sure of the reason behind you raising up the idea of an "innocent" woman at the start. We are just as human as men. Setting an ideal woman as "innocent" is unrealistic and unhealthy.

The first paragraph outlines human nature differences between genders. As I continued, I attempted capitalizing on the abolition of roles and such not being as good a solution as stabilizing those roles to counteract, check, and balance each other in an opposite but equal manner. At present it's apparent this isn't happening.

Maybe I drolled on a bit too long in the beginning of the drabble, but still I put my best effort into trying to highlight the balances both genders create in themselves and each other.

Things like wage gaps and social disadvantages of the statistical caliber are not beneficial to society nor are they fair in any case. Obviously, they need to go; they're not justified. To me, getting paid less than the opposite gender has no valid benefit to gender roles and is counterproductive to creating a system in which men and women are (to use a mathematical parable) equivalent but not congruent. That may be a weird way of putting it, but basically what I'm saying is that an optimal social construct is a harmonious one. Think about it: most animals handle an equal but opposite gender construct relatively conflict-free; why can't we?

 

[ShivaDF]

Okay, I have no idea what the analysis you quoted in the first post is supposed to mean. But I can still share my views on this topic.

First of all, I understand the idea that "gender equality" is problematic. People can't be "equal." Nothing in the universe is "equal." However, most people who use this term mean equal under the law. This I fully agree with. However, equality under the law only helps so much. Both men and women need to be raised with and introduced to the fact that men and women really aren't that different except in terms of their bodies, and that no gender should be oppressed.

On another note, I've heard many a time that "feminism" is a bad term, and that all feminists should call themselves "egalitarians" or something similar, if what they want is for women to be treated equally under the law and by others. But I find this to be a stupid idea. After all, why should a movement rooted in ending the oppression of females have to remove "fem" from its name? And besides, to change the name now would depower it by disassociating the movement from its past.

 

[Nick]

can you rewrite this in english please?

 

[£]

"Never use a long word when a short one will do."

"Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific term or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent."

I'm probably guilty of making some poor word choices myself at times though, to be fair!

You could probably write "be kind and respectful to everybody you come across" and you'd probably have written something more constructive for society to live by. The more we make a deal of SINGLING GROUPS OUT and picking at how we're doing on each front, the more estranged our society will be in the long run.

It's a pity the merits of human decency don't make for gripping front page news.

 

[Oryx]

Believing women are both inherently innocent and insane is a common Madonna/***** complex that fuels sexist beliefs and policies across the world.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

At least I'm not the only one who was left clueless.

Anyways, treat people as who they are, don't give a crap about their sex/gender/blah blah blah it's pretty simple, really. Take things in context, if a woman is making a joke about making sandwiches for men in a kitchen it doesn't mean she is doing it out of submission; a person doesn't "act" like a man and doesn't "act" like a girl, the only people who force toys to have gender are the people buying them, consensual S/M isn't rape ect.

I mean, use common sense really. That's how I do it.

 

[BadPokemon]

The first paragraph outlines human nature differences between genders. As I continued, I attempted capitalizing on the abolition of roles and such not being as good a solution as stabilizing those roles to counteract, check, and balance each other in an opposite but equal manner. At present it's apparent this isn't happening.

Maybe I drolled on a bit too long in the beginning of the drabble, but still I put my best effort into trying to highlight the balances both genders create in themselves and each other.

Things like wage gaps and social disadvantages of the statistical caliber are not beneficial to society nor are they fair in any case. Obviously, they need to go; they're not justified. To me, getting paid less than the opposite gender has no valid benefit to gender roles and is counterproductive to creating a system in which men and women are (to use a mathematical parable) equivalent but not congruent. That may be a weird way of putting it, but basically what I'm saying is that an optimal social construct is a harmonious one. Think about it: most animals handle an equal but opposite gender construct relatively conflict-free; why can't we?

The post was extremely confusing. However, i think i disagree with your point of view. Not all women are innocent and not all men are selfish. We all have our own personalities and flaws. You are stereotyping male/female in the wrong fashion (not that you should stereotype). Male and females do have different attributes, but that doesnt mean we aren't equal. I view the man as the head of the household, but the woman has just as much importance. i agree with you that woman should be payed as much as men.

In many spider species, the female eats the male after mating. Female wolves are superior to males. In many species of wildlife, the females are superior to the males (insects as well). I wouldn't say they are conflict free.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

The post was extremely confusing. However, i think i disagree with your point of view. Not all women are innocent and not all men are selfish. We all have our own personalities and flaws. You are stereotyping male/female in the wrong fashion (not that you should stereotype).

I executed the stereotype on purpose – it's what both genders all around behave like at their best and their worst. In my eyes I see the act of learning to accommodate the qualities of opposite genders and suppress the negatives of one's own as a means of becoming and being a constructive and acceptable human being. The degree and manner in which this task is applied decides the attractiveness of one's general behavior. :)

 

[ANARCHit3cht]

This essentially sums up for my views, about any equality issues: You either stop campaigning for equality or quit *****ing when you get it. For example, women want "equality" but then they perpetuate archaic ideas like the man is supposed to provide for her, that men aren't supposed to hit women, etc etc. Minority ethnicity want equality, but then they go around using racial slurs, condemning the "white man" and otherwise being just as vulgar as white people potentially are to them. Gay people want the freedom to marry, the freedom to be who they are and express how they feel, but the moment someone who mentions the fact that they don't believe in Gay marriage(while not necessarily saying they want to persecute gays) they get called attacked as if they aren't allowed to have their own opinion. Religious people very much enjoy their freedom to practice said religion, but many of them do not respect the freedom of other people to practice the religion--or lack of--that they believe, instead self-righteously believing that their religion is the only one that is correct/matters etc for no other reason than the fact that is is the one they believe in.

Equality will not happen anytime soon, because most of these people are only looking for the perks of equality, while attempting to deny the negative parts that naturally come with it. And you can't do that. It's all or nothing.

 

[Nick]

Equality will not happen anytime soon, because most of these people are only looking for the perks of equality, while attempting to deny the negative parts that naturally come with it. And you can't do that. It's all or nothing.

Equality will never happen. Human nature prevents it.

 

[ANARCHit3cht]

Equality will never happen. Human nature prevents it.

That's a rather pessimistic way of viewing things... and it's just not in MY nature to look at things so negatively. Equality is more than capable of happening, people just have to be willing to do what is necessary to achieve it. And, sadly, that's just not what people are willing to do at this time. It will come around, I can assure you of that. The only question is when? For it to be achieved, not everyone needs to agree that something needs to work in that specific way. Rather, they simply need to respect and tolerate the idea that certain people aren't always going to have the same lifestyle of walk the same path as you... and that it is more than ok for others to have differing opinions or ways of life. You don't have to outright agree with it and embrace, but you can't belittle it or insult simply because its not something you do or something you don't understand.

 

[Her]

human nature doesn't exist
it is an idea pushed long pushed by those in power as a way of rationalising why they don't want things to change, why it's futile to fight against the way things are as it's human nature to be that way
this concept has particularly gained ground in the advent of capitalism, the ideology that is responsible for the present condition of the world today
hiding behind 'human nature' is a way to rationalise an act that would otherwise be considered immoral

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Human nature DOES exist, it exists in the form of generalized behaviours that humans exercise because we still function on instinct in many ways - essentially it's a word used for instinct. For example, human nature tends to lean on selfishness with individuals but generosity in larger populations because individual survival is extremely important, but since humans rely on living in groups to survive, helping support the group is also important. This is exactly why communism doesn't work.

Now, human nature will likely change over time due to the very different conditions that humanity lives in now. Humans are no longer defending themselves against animals and rival tribes, but rather working together to keep their society running.

In addition, human nature is not insurmountable (just like instinct). It is traditionally human nature to be suspicious and uncaring of people who are unlike yourself, the origin of racism. However, humanity has made significant steps against this trait. Some people still are this way but things are much better than before. This greatly changing social pressure may eventually cause this part of human nature to simply not exist in the future.

Also, for the love of god, this is not Tumblr, please use punctuation. It makes posts far more easier to read.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

human nature doesn't exist
it is an idea pushed long pushed by those in power as a way of rationalising why they don't want things to change, why it's futile to fight against the way things are as it's human nature to be that way
this concept has particularly gained ground in the advent of capitalism, the ideology that is responsible for the present condition of the world today
hiding behind 'human nature' is a way to rationalise an act that would otherwise be considered immoral

I was going to make a thoughtful and insightful post. Then I caught site of your Mariah Carey avatar. I thought something was off, and then it hit me: that is the worst photo of Mariah Carey I have ever seen. It is not a flattering photo. The lighting makes her look older, and in some of the shadows, uglier as well. I'm not a fan of the Mariah Carey, but I would advise you to find another photo of your favorite person to put where your avatar is.

OT: I think I got lost here somewhere. The feminine innocence was, I'll admit it, quite creepy and left a flavor of Lolita in my mouth. It was not a pleasant experience. I would advise the OP to cut and edit it's work to make it more legible, and the message more clear-cut, to the rest of us.

 

[Entermaid]

Some of the assumptions have some truth; it's just a matter of degree.

For example:
Women are more likely to be innocent, with a greater predisposition to coyness, passivity, and nurturing natures.

Well, it means by examining a sample of a population, women will tend to carry greater values in each of the categories above. The mean/median of the bell curve will be higher in women than in men. Though, there will also be some men that possess these characteristics in greater degree than the average woman. Mind you, a statistician will have to account for the affects of income differences, among variables that affect behavior that are not specifically biological sex or gender identification.


Example Distribution of height:

- Men are on average taller than women.
- Women are on average shorter than men.
- Men tend to have greater variation of height than women, given that the bell curve is wider for men...meaning 95% of the male population falls within a greater range of numbers than women.
- Some women are taller than men.
- Most women are shorter than men.
- No woman is taller than the tallest man.
- No man is shorter than the shortest woman.

- This is a simpler quantitative measurement, social scientists have to implement more creative measures to quantify attributes like passivity and nurturing behaviors.

 

[Oryx]

Some of the assumptions have some truth; it's just a matter of degree.

For example:
Women are more likely to be innocent, with a greater predisposition to coyness, passivity, and nurturing natures.

Well, it means by examining a sample of a population, women will tend to carry greater values in each of the categories above. The mean/median of the bell curve will be higher in women than in men. Though, there will also be some men that possess these characteristics in greater degree than the average woman. Mind you, a statistician will have to account for the affects of income differences, among variables that affect behavior that are not specifically biological sex or gender identification.


Example Distribution of height:

- Men are on average taller than women.
- Women are on average shorter than men.
- Men tend to have greater variation of height than women, given that the bell curve is wider for men...meaning 95% of the male population falls within a greater range of numbers than women.
- Some women are taller than men.
- Most women are shorter than men.
- No woman is taller than the tallest man.
- No man is shorter than the shortest woman.

- This is a simpler quantitative measurement, social scientists have to implement more creative measures to quantify attributes like passivity and nurturing behaviors.

The problem with "quantifying" things other than basically height is that you can never remove a person from their culture. Say we find women are more nurturing than men on average. Does that mean that women are biologically predisposed to it, or does it mean that as soon as girls are born we start showing them images of nurturing women, such as the prevalence of SAHMs on TV and the very small amount of SAHDs, the fact that more girls get chores than boys and boys are more likely to get paid for them as if it's a job, not taking care of the house, etc., and the girls start to mold themselves after that image? If the images society pushed on us were reversed, would men be more nurturing than women?

 

[Entermaid]

The problem with "quantifying" things other than basically height is that you can never remove a person from their culture...

There are always limitations to using quantitative analysis alone, but with synthesizing data as well as scientific theory, we can develop social theories which can explain differences in a variety of things, including differences in biological sexes.

Males of most mammalian species are benefited more by aggression than females are rewarded for aggression. Though both sexes can be benefited by aggression and passivity (and negatively impacted by too much of either), along sexual reproductive lines, females are more likely to reproduce without as much use of aggression. Actually, females with equal to average male aggression are likely to be outproduced by less aggressive females.

The main difference is that females may only reproduce one litter or single infant at a time. Whereas males are may reproduce multiple litters or infants at a time. An egg is a high reproductive investment, whereas a sperm is a relatively low reproductive investment. Females tend to be benefited by coyness in order to select a single mating partner, whereas males can engage in increasing offspring, and are benefited by more aggressive behavior, competing with other males and engaging in sex with more females.

Quantitative statistics demonstrate more aggression in males of mammalian species than in female species. Furthermore, we can view cross-national analysis to control for cultural variance of crime statistics among biological sexes. The results overwhelmingly show that women are by far less likely to commit violent crimes like murder and assault, as well as engaging in risky behavior. Key indicators, among numerous others that would represent a "passivity/aggression" scale.

We can look at a variety of behavior studies and control for z variables, such as societal influences within a country as well. This can actually be done through cross-national (cross-cultural) analysis, as well as experimental data, among different groups. Infant studies have even shown differences in aggressive behavior between sexes.

So, in short, yes, there are limitations, but based on a variety of evolutionary biological, psychology, and social research, there seems to be differences in behaviors of men and women. And just think about the implications of stripping away culture and differences in behavior among men and women. The polarity in behavior would increase exponentially, without the existence of laws and social customs regarding rape, violent crime, marriage/relationships, among other social constructs - social constructs of which are derived from our nature.