"He-man" image too strongly endorsed? Can we be open-minded like women?

[Guitar]

I put this post forward because I was afraid it would lose it's impact.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I hope you don't take offense at my starting an argument, but this seems like a completely modernized view of history (I say this because it has become the fashion to say that men are evil and women have been the true heralds of goodness in all history, at least in public schools round here). Men were not expected to be anything of the sort. Men were expected to be calm and composed... this is not to be confused with cold and emotionless. And yes, men were indeed expected to be rational - but who are you to say that women weren't? Human nature does not change. Everyone is expected to be rational in today's world, and it was the same in the 19th century. If women were thought of as "irrational", why were they left in charge of the household in most European and European-based (eg America) societies? But you are right in that they were seen as wildly emotional - which they are. Women are more emotional than men because of their hormonal make up; fact of life.

I agree.

...Yes? Fashions have changed throughout time, what are you trying to say here? Actually, while we might consider the 19th century typical dress "prudish" they were often considered quite attractive in the time. The large hooped skirts were a symbol of the way a woman's hips extend out, amongst other things, and many did show off some bosom.

I agree with this as well.

Friend, it has been a rare occasion in history where men would show off the flair of their skin. It is not a "recent" phenomenon. You're looking at the problem all wrong. You're thinking of it like territory, "women can wear this and that but men can only wear that!" Not so. Think about why women wear skirts and show off their legs. Why is it? Because men find it attractive. Do women find it attractive when men show off their legs? Not typically, no. Both sexes wearing pants is more of a cultural/practicality thing, but even in the 19th century women of certain classes/professions would wear pants. There's your answer as to why men don't show off skin and women do, friend.

Good point, except for the first two sentences. Well, in the 16th century and earlier, men would often show off a fair amount of skin. It was more acceptable than for women. Look at some historical paintings during the 16th century. Fernando Cortez (the Spanish conqueror of the Aztecs) wore a bright red miniskirt. I guess it looked fine on him and I personally don't find him bad-looking or girlish. Plus, during ancient Roman and Greek times, men wore SHORT togas while women wore LONGER togas. Maybe men found women who exposed less skin more attractive, but I won't jump to conclusions. Explain to me why this was the case.

Women were perfectly assertive in prior times, only it was not in any sort of reigning council. What has changed are the situations in which it is acceptable for women to debate with men. On the other end of the spectrum, I think it has become (and is widely becoming) more acceptable for men to be more "sensitive" and discuss their emotions, whereas in American society it has usually been more socially correct for males to keep their problems to themselves so as not to bother others.

Well, my point was that women were not expected to debate among men. I do know that there were always some women who would argue with their husbands, brothers and other women, but never in public debates until recently. Nice point. I do know that the "he-man" image is finally starting to dissolve. I merely want to give my personal blow to it. From what you said, it seems America isn't as high-class and modern as it thinks it is.

I'll have to disagree here. I wouldn't consider this a superiority complex at all. I don't understand why society is trying to "meld" the two genders together. In all of history sexes have had certain tasks and such considered more applicable to them. I, for one, consider history a mentor and don't understand why society wants to fuse these two. If a woman wants to be a lumberjack, that's just fine. I feel the job makes more sense for a man (being anatomically bigger and stronger usually), but her choice. However, I'd rather not sit at home and learn how to quilt. Why? Historically, this is something women have traditionally done and I don't have an interest in it. Am I not learning it because I feel it is "below" me? No. My reasons have nothing to do with any sort of superiority complex. Sure, there are men who disrespect women, but are you going to tell me that it doesn't go the other way around? What do we, as men, constantly hear? "Men are pigs." This is not considered sexist at all because men do tend to use women. But when a man says "Women are hos" because they dress provocatively, get drunk, and do things it's considered degrading and sexist. It's a silly double-standard. Sorry, I guess I'm rambling. =p My point is you're looking at it from one angle (one very skewed angle). But also, what would you consider "women things"? Sewing? Cooking? These are both things that were performed by both sexes but professionally by men. The common view that sewing and cooking are "girly" things is historically rubbish.

I think more men would be willing to quilt than women willing to be a lumberjack. Maybe you should have used a better analogy. You made an excellent remark about the double-standard being recently practiced. But this double-standard is also the fault of men, not just female chauvinists. Men are called pigs because of their male attributes and flaws, such as eating chips on a sofa while watching television for hours, not caring for the family and house, and most importantly being aggressive or violent or argumentative. If they made an attempt to adopt the positive qualities of women (such as watching television WHILE cutting the potatoes and/or vacuuming the floor, cooking food for the family, and being honest and willing to accept other people's actions rather than being violent), maybe they wouldn't be "pigs" anymore.

First of all, women need different treatment in that situation because they are more emotional and need a little more sympathy. If my male friend lost something I would help him just the same. You may mistake the fact that I'm not telling him 'everything's going to be okay' or hugging him as a lack of kindness or compassion - but that's just silly.

Maybe I have a SERIOUS mental problem, but if I was the crying man I would feel better and more comfortable if another man said to me, "Calm down, everything's going to be okay. Are you feeling bad?" than if he said, "DUDE! Take a chill pill! You look so UNCOOL in this condition, buddy!"

On another note, society is trying to breed generations of males to be "sensitive and emotional" so if that's what you really want you might soon be getting your wish. I still don't understand where you get this "superiority" concept, though.

That's great. Name one country where that happens the most. Maybe I'll move there, since it's probably the least likely country to break into a war in the near future due to lack of damaging testosterone.

What are you trying to say here? I really wish you'd stop tagging men as emotionless just because we're less open on average.

Sorry, I did go a little too far in that respect.

Respectfully adopting her practices? Listen friend, let's take skirts for example: skirts, compared to pants or shorts, are unwieldy and difficult. Why do women wear them? Because it's "womanly", "proper", or "attractive." I have no problem with this. Women would laugh at and ridicule a man in a skirt (not all of them, obviously). My point is women have these historical tendencies, too, that belong to them. Why aren't arguing that they should be abolished? You seem to think that because women adopted practicalities like pants, we should adopt impracticalities like skirts. I'm confused?

Skirts aren't always impracticalities. Women also wear skirts for comfortability, not always as an act of selfless servitude to men. My female friends have often said, "I'll wear a skirt today, so I can feel cool and comfortable." Obviously, they take pride in their privilege to wear skirts. Pants are practical, I know. But skirts are also practical, only for different occasions. If you wear a skirt that falls below your knees, you can be modest by not showing off your legs like with a miniskirt while at the same time, you can be cool because the breeze travels between your legs. With pants, you can either have long pants that are modest but sweaty hot or you can have shorts that expose your skin but are nice and cool. With a long skirt, you get all the benefits in these areas at least. Additionally, a skirt (particularly a mid-length/short skirt) is very practical for wearing out in the rain because if water collects on it, it drips off due to the lack of surface area and dries off quicker for the same reason. This is as opposed to pants, which when you go out in the rain collect water and then seep between your legs and stick to your skin like glue, taking a long time to dry off. Often you would feel like changing them. I'm not necessarily saying that all guys should walk around in a skirt, but they should think about why women wear them and if maybe they are missing out on something.

After reading this, I am tempted to stop being chivalrous, wear skirts, and watch Opera. =p

Haha, that's very funny, but it doesn't really help the negative image of female practices.

I just made these posts to free my emotions on this topic. Hey, I've got manly flaws too, but not out of pride, just not to embarrass myself.

I do wear a night dress at home though. It makes me most comfortable when I sleep and is easy to maintain and slip on and off. I expect you all to ROFL and call me a girly pansy for revealing to you my UNTHINKABLE confession. -______-

 

[bna_li]

Dude, move to Singapore. I guarantee you it's OK to be unmanly. Not only is it OK to be unmanly, it's OK to be openly gay. I saw a guy working at 7-11 who looked like the woman man in Shrek.

Also what's a night dress?

 

[Twinx]

Just wanted to say that you make a good point.
And I have to add, some people are saying that it's just where you live when it's actually everywhere, but some places more than others..

Thanks
~DC =)

 

[doesn't matter]

Do you want to wear a skirt? That's all I really gathered from the post. If so, you should wear a low-cut, revealing skirt of black satin. Or you could compromise and wear a toga or kilt. You'd get a few stares but once you explain that it's a toga/kilt, you'll be welcomed once more (b'-')b

You can call him "effeminate", but please, please, please, PLEASE don't call him "GAY", because that would mean that he likes men, which he probably doesn't. It's so childish. Women don't call other women "dykes" or "lesbo" for wearing jeans and being emotionless, so PLEASE respect what other men do as straight, unless it's obvious he likes men.

So we shouldn't respect them in that case?

And you get those more .. blunt people everywhere, in every gender. Don't hold women higher than men, we're equal, remember? :P

 

[Dactylus]

I'm glad we agree about so many things. Let's move on to where we don't, friend. c:

Good point, except for the first two sentences. Well, in the 16th century and earlier, men would often show off a fair amount of skin. It was more acceptable than for women. Look at some historical paintings during the 16th century. Fernando Cortez (the Spanish conqueror of the Aztecs) wore a bright red miniskirt. I guess it looked fine on him and I personally don't find him bad-looking or girlish. Plus, during ancient Roman and Greek times, men wore SHORT togas while women wore LONGER togas. Maybe men found women who exposed less skin more attractive, but I won't jump to conclusions. Explain to me why this was the case.

No problem. Ahem.

Friend, it has been a rare occasion in history where men would show off the flair of their skin.

This is not to say it was a nonexistent occasion. The ancient Greeks were indeed famous for wanting their women to be more modest while their men would, say, partake in the Olympics naked. However, I'm fairly sure that it was not every city-state that adopted this standard in totality. Not too sure about the Romans on that particular subject. About Hernando Cortez...a short red miniskirt? It's true that he did appear to have a skirt at times, but I'm fairly sure that was continuation of his upper garments below his armor. And even if they weren't, please note that he always wore leggings either way.

Don't forget a few places in the middle east also didn't allow women to dress freely. Once again, it was a rare occasion, but it still existed.

Well, my point was that women were not expected to debate among men. I do know that there were always some women who would argue with their husbands, brothers and other women, but never in public debates until recently. Nice point. I do know that the "he-man" image is finally starting to dissolve. I merely want to give my personal blow to it. From what you said, it seems America isn't as high-class and modern as it thinks it is.

Why's that? Because our ancestors were rugged, polite, and responsible (fiscally and otherwise), understanding that everyone had their problems and they didn't need you adding to them? Now, if you want to take a shot at my country, that's a different matter entirely. Bring up your issue and I'll be glad to prove it wrong. c:

I think more men would be willing to quilt than women willing to be a lumberjack. Maybe you should have used a better analogy. You made an excellent remark about the double-standard being recently practiced. But this double-standard is also the fault of men, not just female chauvinists. Men are called pigs because of their male attributes and flaws, such as eating chips on a sofa while watching television for hours, not caring for the family and house, and most importantly being aggressive or violent or argumentative. If they made an attempt to adopt the positive qualities of women (such as watching television WHILE cutting the potatoes and/or vacuuming the floor, cooking food for the family, and being honest and willing to accept other people's actions rather than being violent), maybe they wouldn't be "pigs" anymore.

Women are called b*****s and hos for going to a club wearing revealing shirts and miniskirts, accepting drinks from several men because they don't want to pay themselves, then going home without giving any of those guys a second thought. That is, unless the man was especially hot or fashionable, then he might merit speaking to her again. Otherwise he was just a tool to get a free drink out of. Now, not to say that there aren't men who do more or less the same thing, but there are also men who take care of their houses with a diligence unparalleled (my father included). Friend, you seem uncompromisingly intent on bringing up only the bad kind of men and only the good kind of women. There's good and bad examples in either gender.

Oh, and a quick little quip about 'being violent'... our society has become too coddled. Kids can't even touch each other these days without getting in trouble, and they get to a geater age, have no idea how to defend themselves, and get the living fluff beat out of them. It is good for young men to fight. It is healthy. It builds stamina, strength, confidence, and courage. There's a reason why every society (except for extremely high classes in later centuries) has allowed it's young boys to fight to an extent. Just saying. =p

Maybe I have a SERIOUS mental problem, but if I was the crying man I would feel better and more comfortable if another man said to me, "Calm down, everything's going to be okay. Are you feeling bad?" than if he said, "DUDE! Take a chill pill! You look so UNCOOL in this condition, buddy!"

Silly exaggeration/misinterpretation of what I said. =p

That's great. Name one country where that happens the most. Maybe I'll move there, since it's probably the least likely country to break into a war in the near future due to lack of damaging testosterone.

USA. And I feel that women would be more prone to get into war if they held offices power. It's a fact that the election year after women received the right to vote campaigns became far, far, FAR more geared towards emotional appeal than fact. And it worked. Women voted in vast floods for whoever made the greatest emotional appeal or "acted like the better choice". Before this elections were based almost completely on raw fact because the candidates knew that the men of the time wouldn't fall for such hooey and would probably see them as worse. Sure, there are women who are just as calm and collected as men, I know many of them and they're some of my best friends (I have more female friends than male), but I'm sorry - it's a fact of life that women are more easily directed by emotion than men are on average.

Oh, about me saying the United States.. if you're going to bring up the war on Iraq please do it privately with me. I don't want to turn this thread into a political debate.

Skirts aren't always impracticalities. Women also wear skirts for comfortability, not always as an act of selfless servitude to men. My female friends have often said, "I'll wear a skirt today, so I can feel cool and comfortable." Obviously, they take pride in their privilege to wear skirts. Pants are practical, I know. But skirts are also practical, only for different occasions. If you wear a skirt that falls below your knees, you can be modest by not showing off your legs like with a miniskirt while at the same time, you can be cool because the breeze travels between your legs. With pants, you can either have long pants that are modest but sweaty hot or you can have shorts that expose your skin but are nice and cool. With a long skirt, you get all the benefits in these areas at least. Additionally, a skirt (particularly a mid-length/short skirt) is very practical for wearing out in the rain because if water collects on it, it drips off due to the lack of surface area and dries off quicker for the same reason. This is as opposed to pants, which when you go out in the rain collect water and then seep between your legs and stick to your skin like glue, taking a long time to dry off. Often you would feel like changing them. I'm not necessarily saying that all guys should walk around in a skirt, but they should think about why women wear them and if maybe they are missing out on something.

Sorry, I was talking solely about high skirts, my bad. Even so, I only know one or two girls personally who think skirts are more comfortable than other leg garments. Good point, though.

I do wear a night dress at home though. It makes me most comfortable when I sleep and is easy to maintain and slip on and off. I expect you all to ROFL and call me a girly pansy for revealing to you my UNTHINKABLE confession. -______-

I would never do that, I thought that'd come across by now, guy. =p

For my last point...you say the two genders are equal, but you really seem to be holding women in higher regard than men.

 

[Guitar]

Also what's a night dress?

A night dress is a night gown, a dress/garment that is worn at night for bed. Men and women used to both wear night dresses but recently, only women have since men have some strange issues with the idea of wearing them.

This is not to say it was a nonexistent occasion. The ancient Greeks were indeed famous for wanting their women to be more modest while their men would, say, partake in the Olympics naked. However, I'm fairly sure that it was not every city-state that adopted this standard in totality. Not too sure about the Romans on that particular subject. About Hernando Cortez...a short red miniskirt? It's true that he did appear to have a skirt at times, but I'm fairly sure that was continuation of his upper garments below his armor. And even if they weren't, please note that he always wore leggings either way.

Don't forget a few places in the middle east also didn't allow women to dress freely. Once again, it was a rare occasion, but it still existed.

Ah, sorry for the misspelling. My history sucks. :p

I also misinterpreted what you said. Sorry for that also.

Why's that? Because our ancestors were rugged, polite, and responsible (fiscally and otherwise), understanding that everyone had their problems and they didn't need you adding to them? Now, if you want to take a shot at my country, that's a different matter entirely. Bring up your issue and I'll be glad to prove it wrong. c:

Sorry, I'm not the debating type of person, which is why I'm not throwing back everything you throw at me.

Men are called b*****s and hos for going to a club wearing revealing shirts and miniskirts, accepting drinks from several men because they don't want to pay themselves, then going home without giving any of those guys a second thought. That is, unless the man was especially hot or fashionable, then he might merit speaking to her again. Otherwise he was just a tool to get a free drink out of. Now, not to say that there aren't men who do more or less the same thing, but there are also men who take care of their houses with a diligence unparalleled (my father included). Friend, you seem uncompromisingly intent on bringing up only the bad kind of men and only the good kind of women. There's good and bad examples in either gender.

Oh, and a quick little quip about 'being violent'... our society has become too coddled. Kids can't even touch each other these days without getting in trouble, and they get to a geater age, have no idea how to defend themselves, and get the living fluff beat out of them. It is good for young men to fight. It is healthy. It builds stamina, strength, confidence, and courage. There's a reason why every society (except for extremely high classes in later centuries) has allowed it's young boys to fight to an extent. Just saying. =p

Good points. You are more open-minded than me.

Silly exaggeration/misinterpretation of what I said. =p

Exactly. I'm too blurry in the head.

USA. And I feel that women would be more prone to get into war if they held offices power. It's a fact that the election year after women received the right to vote campaigns became far, far, FAR more geared towards emotional appeal than fact. And it worked. Women voted in vast floods for whoever made the greatest emotional appeal or "acted like the better choice". Before this elections were based almost completely on raw fact because the candidates knew that the men of the time wouldn't fall for such hooey and would probably see them as worse. Sure, there are women who are just as calm and collected as men, I know many of them and they're some of my best friends (I have more female friends than male), but I'm sorry - it's a fact of life that women are more easily directed by emotion than men are on average.

Women will resort to killing less than men, since even though men are less emotional, they are more aggressive and more likely to start wars. Although you have made a good point about women being bad at making rational decisions.

Oh, about me saying the United States.. if you're going to bring up the war on Iraq please do it privately with me. I don't want to turn this thread into a political debate.

No intentions to do so, friend.

Sorry, I was talking solely about high skirts, my bad. Even so, I only know one or two girls personally who think skirts are more comfortable than other leg garments. Good point, though.

Thanks! At least I made one good point. 8D

I would never do that, I thought that'd come across by now, guy. =p

Great. Your friends are very lucky to have a friend as respectful as you.

For my last point...you say the two genders are equal, but you really seem to be holding women in higher regard than men.

That's where I went wrong. The reason I acted like women were better was to mentally slap men about their wrongdoings but I was merely looking at one side of the coin. Thank you for pointing this out to me.

^___^

 

[Dactylus]

Oh, no, you made several good points. Just because two people argue about a topic doesn't mean they both can't have good points. c:

I can tell you really don't want to argue about this anymore, dude. That's cool. We've both learned some interesting things. Nice talking to you, 8D.

 

[DarkKnight541]

Women will resort to killing less than men, since even though men are less emotional, they are more aggressive and more likely to start wars. Although you have made a good point about women being bad at making rational decisions.

I would just like to say that there is no justifiable reason for killing. Both women and men can be aggressive, and wars just come from prejudice and irrationality.

 

[Dactylus]

What if a person is intent on killing your family and is in your house?

 

[DarkKnight541]

That's another matter entirely. Defense is an instinct in all things, killing for the sake of money or land is only a human trait.

 

[Dactylus]

I would just like to say that there is no justifiable reason for killing.

My bad. ;p

Also, that's a very common misconception. Animals kill for the sake of land and resources constantly. And I mean constantly.

 

[Legobricks]

AMUSING HOW THIS THREAD SHOWS A WESTERN POINT OF VIEW. Just felt like pointing that out.

It's interesting, this. I have mixed and contradictory feelings about it. I've made myself aware at how women steal everything manly and turn it around so men can't use it without succumbing to ridicule. It either shows how women have some kind of witty intelligence that lets them get away with everything, or how from being the 'lesser' sex in many cultures, they've just picked up things as men moved on to newer ones (though they seem to have caught up these days, and wear almost everything men do). In the end, all it does is go to show how women have the upper hand in the more social aspects of life — which are the parts of life that matter these days. Women also have the better end of sex if you consider various things I'm best not mentioning here unless I want a warning.

Women will resort to killing less than men, since even though men are less emotional, they are more aggressive and more likely to start wars.

If women ruled every country, I'm very much sure they'd end up just as warlike before long. If your statement that men are less emotional happens to be true, women, in all their emotion, seem more likely to start a fight over something, no?

 

[Dactylus]

I agree...[random kanji]. Since 8D and I stopped our argument, I didn't bring it up, but I believe women would be more prone to war. Not because of increased aggression, but because of spurred aggression brought on by emotional-based irrationality. PMS is a perfect example.

No, I'm not making fun of you or joking, girls. Think about it.

If two lands were ruled by women and one land did something that was crossing the line but normally could be glossed over or dealt with otherwise and the ruler of the victimized land was PMSing... could it not be possible that her previous rationality might be skewed a bit? Agree or disagree as you want. I really don't want to argue that point, but there's my stand on it. c:

Oh, [random kanji]? What did you mean by western point of view?

 

[bna_li]

Hey, I never heard of men wearing that before.

Hear that girls? You're more prone to war. Now vote for Obama and don't vote for Hilary.

 

[Tamaki]

The He-man image is pretty ridiculous... it's sad that men can't wear pink, cry, or hug their friends without being called gay and fags.

Who is it that said guys have to be emotionless in the first place, anyways? I mean, they're people just like women, only with y'know, different junk down there. It's not like they're a completely different species or anything.

It made me sad when one of my friends, who is a guy, cried when one of his friends died, only to be laughed at by other guys for not "sucking it up." It also made me sad in health class when most people said guys shouldn't wear pink or cry.

These are just my feelings, agree or disagree as you please.

 

[bna_li]

I use a pink mouse for my computer. Those guys are jerks.

 

[txteclipse]

During the 19th century and even more before then, men and women have been completely and obviously separate and were expected to do completely different things. Men were expected to be cold, rational and emotionless on the outside; women were expected to be more emotional and irrational. Men wore tight pants, because showing the shape of the body was more "manly", sometimes wearing skin-revealing shorts and short sleeves; women wore long dresses with long sleeves so they could hide the shape of their body.

Since the beginning of the 20th century, women have progressed monumentally in their social rights, while still keeping any of their previous rights they had earlier. It has become acceptable for women to wear tight jeans or shorts or short sleeved shirts. However, their skirt hems have shortened to a length that reveals the legs, and since men have recently liked covering their legs, revealing the skin has become a womanish thing. However, it is still okay for women to wear long dresses, if they like, and switch around according to how they feel. It has also become acceptable to speak loudly and debate topics for a woman. They can now be aggressive and assertive, but it is perfectly acceptable for them to discuss their emotions quietly with others as well as display their emotions.

Now the funny thing I'd like to point out is that women won't hesitate to be "manly", or adapt men's habits and styles, but men are so afraid of doing ANYTHING that is related only to women. It seems to be a strong case of "superiority complex", on the men's side. They disrespect women and think of themselves as higher than them. So women doing "men's stuff" is fine because they are adapting a "higher" standard, and it also seems that it is perfectly fine for them to "drop" to their own "lower" women's standard. But men are "better" than women, so they are expected to maintain their "high standard" and NEVER lower themselves the the "lower standard of the inferior gender".

In other words, it is fine for a woman to bawl out her feelings, cry and hug her friends, but it's also perfectly fine for her to be cold and emotionless. However, a man must always be cold and emotionless because he is superior to the woman and most not lower himself to her level. If your female friend was crying for losing her jewelry, you would try to help her or comfort her, but, tell me honestly, WOULD YOU treat your male friend as kindly or compassionately if he acted the same manner?

You can call him "effeminate", but please, please, please, PLEASE don't call him "GAY", because that would mean that he likes men, which he probably doesn't. It's so childish. Women don't call other women "dykes" or "lesbo" for wearing jeans and being emotionless, so PLEASE respect what other men do as straight, unless it's obvious he likes men.

Men are stuck trying to maintain their pathetic "he-man" image and they think it's the mature thing to do, but they don't realize that it is the exact opposite of what they think. Not respecting the other sex as your equal by adopting her practices just like she respectfully adopts yours is extremely immature and is just as bad as preventing her from adopting your practices, which was done over a century ago.

Men, please please get over it. If you really, truly, honestly respect women as your equals, then respect what they do and don't avoid repeating their practices like the plague.

This is unbelievably rank with gender bias. I'm floored, actually.

It seems to be a strong case of "superiority complex", on the men's side. They disrespect women and think of themselves as higher than them. So women doing "men's stuff" is fine because they are adapting a "higher" standard, and it also seems that it is perfectly fine for them to "drop" to their own "lower" women's standard. But men are "better" than women, so they are expected to maintain their "high standard" and NEVER lower themselves the the "lower standard of the inferior gender".

Are you serious? All guys disrespect women and think of themselves as higher than them? And we all have a "superiority complex" when it comes to women that prevents us from acting like them? Really now? Do you see how prejudiced that sounds?

Guess what: a lot of guys don't show much emotion. I don't. My friends don't. But we don't have some gigantic plot to supress women; it's just our personality. That's right: we are they way we are just because that's who we are. Now guess what else? There's also a fair amount of guys that do show emotion. Do I have a problem with that? No. Why? It's just how they are.

Not respecting the other sex as your equal by adopting her practices just like she respectfully adopts yours is extremely immature and is just as bad as preventing her from adopting your practices, which was done over a century ago.

Now, if I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that I should take on the characteristics that you've attributed to women (showing emotions a lot, etc.) because men and women are equals now, so we should all act the same. Well, what if I don't want to be emotional? Is that a crime? The way I see it, if everyone was the same, life would be really boring. I am how I am: I shouldn't have to change just because you felt you needed to.

 

[bna_li]

He was generalizing. He was just trying to prove a point. Now I'm sure you're not that way but on a whole I guess that's the picture we give.

 

[txteclipse]

Generalizing is the root of prejudice, though. It's grouping a bunch of people under one description, and that causes all sorts of problems.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you didn't truly mean that you think all men are this way and that you were caught up in the moment, but admitedly it's really disconcerting to see something like that.

 

[Idiot!]

From as far as I know, Malaysia is a Muslim, multiracial and multicultural country. That means Malaysians have to be tolerant to live in peace. Don't they have to be open-minded?

I have seen girls who hate pink and guys who like pink. It's perfectly fine. Afterall, since when is [insert colour here] is a [insert gender here] colour?

There are girls who hate dresses and prefer short hair to long hair. Are they losing their feminity? No. They are using their girl power to stand up against the stereotyping of society. Then there are boys I've seen that turned down temptations by their peers when persuaded to commit a sin. Are they scared? No. They know it's the wrong path, and they know it's wrong to follow it. They had the courage to choose to be "defined as scared" by others than to commit a sin. Really confident people are not afraid of stereotyping, they're strong enough to go against the flow to fight for what they think it's right.

Cooking and sewing aren't considered housework now. In fact, they are very useful skills. Wouldn't you be proud if you can wash your own clothes or bake a cake by yourself, regardless of gender?