Columns Mar 4, 2015 at 4:00 am

Brief of Hearts

Comments

224
Wow this reminds me of the time that I got screamed at for a column for implying that women like their junk focused on as much as men, while mainstream porn focuses on the penis pleasing attention. Hunter you are getting off easy I think.

I never got to this, but I also believe deep rhythmic thrusting is a guy thing and humping is a girl thing. That sounds a little like quick orgasm is a guy thing and prolonged sexual pleasure is a girl thing though.
225
Dr Sean - Actually, most of the people I know in real life who gush do so as grandparents or great-grandparents; it's a bit different. And, in another age and time, granted, I basically raised both my sisters and managed to steer both of them clear of Princess Mode.

Ms Fan - When I played 18 holes of golf four days a week in good weather, I always played with pink balls. This was partly because I could always easily lose track of a white ball even in the middle of the fairway, but also because I was fairly well known at the course and almost everyone who found one of my balls would return it to me, so that I was able to make a box of twelve balls last out the year.
228
Hunter - I don't think anyone can argue it's still true
Bzzt wrong. Try again?
http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why…

Given identical resumes with different first names, Jennifer or John:
Despite the scientific valuation of objectivity, gender stereotypes tainted the judgments of the scientists, generating a bias that dampened the STEM career prospects of Jennifer. Even women scientists favored John. This finding supports the understanding among researchers that gender biases are not a result of in-group favoritism. Rather, gender bias is often an outcome of an implicit cognitive process in which pervasive gender stereotypes shape our judgments, regardless of our intentions. Moss-Racusin stressed that the participants in her study were likely unaware they were discriminating against Jennifer.
230
Hunter,
Well, I can have a quick orgasm from humping, even with clothes on, but I'm rarely in the mood for that. I guess humping without thrusting does more for you than most men I've known. I thought it was embarrassing for people to lose it that way. Cat where are you?
232
I find it useful to think in terms of behaviours or attitudes that are easy for human beings to learn. As an example, racism is one of those things that’s very easy for most people to learn but not everyone learns it and it can be unlearned. It’s not true or helpful to say that ‘we’re all racist’ but neither is it realistic to deny the potential and likelihood; and it’s dangerous to assume that one is not.

RE science etc. In the 1970s, american feminists were fond of pointing out that most russian doctors were women and therefore that the assumption that only male doctors were truly competent was a social construct. What got pointed out less frequently was that russian doctors didn’t have the social prestige that american doctors did. Until the 1800s in the West women were commonly considered to be too feeble-minded for rigorous academic work which served as justification for denying us education. Today, girls are considered ideally suited for academic work because we’re so dull and conformist, unlike free-spirited boys who are impelled to break free of institutional constraint. In this forum we talk a lot about the fact that women are less libidinous than men, but through most of history we talked about the fact that women's insatiable libidos would drain men of their life force.

Talking about ‘differences between men and women’ without looking at context isn't helpful. What is or isn’t being taught? What is its social significance? What things do we assume are facts but aren’t?
233
Hunter78, sexual dimorphism can be exaggerated or minimized. In sexual contexts heterosexuals will typically go for exaggeration whereas in professional contexts minimization is usually considered the way to go. (Up to a point and it’s complicated.)
234
LavaGirl,

What if the reason you’re sexually attracted to men and not women is primarily just a question of scent? What if there were no more mystery than that?
235
Hunter,
You didn't refute the study, or my point. Things have gotten better for women, you are right, that point is correct. Your point that society does not discourage women from pursuing the sciences is incorrect, clearly refuted by the study.

It does fascinate me how people choose what to believe, be it religion, science, or what feels good at the time.
236
@226: Ben (formerly Barbara) Barres would argue it's still true.
http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/20…
237
@226: No time to find the supporting data, but I believe that women, though they may outnumber men as college students (and I think their graduation rate is slightly higher) don't get hired in STEM fields as often and don't get promoted as often. Female graduate students in STEM fields don't get as much support from their advisors or faculty, and female faculty at entry-level positions (assistant professor) don't get the same kind of mentoring from their senior faculty as males and are less likely to rise in academic ranks.

I find it frustrating, Hunter, that you always fall back on women's bodies and clothing that reveals them to "prove" some point about gender essentialism. You do it in this post; you've done it many other times. I remember once in a discussion about bra straps in which you said that when women let them show it's because they know that it will drive men crazy, and it's one more way they establish their power over men, and I said that I let mine show because my breasts are too big to go without a bra, and I don't want to have to give up many styles/items of clothing. As I recall, I said that my concession is to buy bras with pretty straps. So that my allowing my bra straps to show has nothing whatsoever to do with trying to entice men, but with wanting to wear clothes that I want to wear. When I was younger, it was a sign of exceptionally poor taste and low class to allow one's bra straps (being that they were underwear, after all) to show. It was tacky and vulgar. The attitude I and many other women adopt now is more like, "people, men included, know that women have breasts and that bras exist. Get over it." It's not, "ooh, I'm gonna let my bra strap show and men will therefore suddenly realize that I have breasts and they will be so distracted thinking about that and hoping that my whole bra will somehow fall off that I can take advantage of them (I'm not sure how)."

I can't even recall how many times you couch any interaction between genders or any actions on women's parts to be some sort of battle for power--and you always come down saying that women have won that battle, are clearly controlling men through the power of their sexual allure. While that may be true for all of the women some of the time or some of the women all of the time, to paraphrase Lincoln, it's not true for all of the women all of the time.

Cat in Fez, BiDanFan, Alison Cummins have all made some very good points.

seandr: I agree with you that there does seem to be a bit of biology--perhaps genetics--at play in sex or gender differences. And I wish that we could respect that point without feeling as though it negates the other side which is that much if not most gender-differentiated behavior comes from learned social behavior and expectations, many of which are influenced by peers. In part of my long, lost post, I described keeping my kids from influences I didn't like: commercial or cable tv (the only tv allowed was PBS--my oldest didn't realize the tv could do anything else until she was about 5), Barbies or BRATS dolls, Disney Princesses, et al. And yet, at age 2-and-a-half, my oldest developed a strong preference for the shade of pink she called pink pink, and wore nothing else. The only way I could get her to play with a toy truck was to find a pink one (a small, metal, pink cement mixer), but even then, she preferred to play with other toys. She loved nothing more than dressing up in frilly, flouncy, sparkly things and she spent a year of her life dressing as Queen Frostine from the Candyland game board (which was very different from the Candyland game board of my childhoood)--and you'll notice how even Queen Frostine (a character who didn't exist in my childhood version of the game) has changed over time, becoming increasingly sexualized and also turning into "Princess Frostine," probably to compete with the Disney Princesses, but also diminishing her power. There is greater and greater emphasis on gendering toys and furthermore in sexualizing images of female characters. I find this extremely disturbing.
238
@222: "But they aren't gendered behaviours, they're dating behaviours. There are men who are clingy, women who are afraid of commitment, men who prefer to cuddle, take any cliché you like and there are both men and women it applies to. There are physical differences, coming from men's greater physical strength and women's reproductive systems, this explains the differences in roles assigned in hunter/gatherer societies. We are not a hunter/gatherer society. The only value evopsych has, in my view, is to identify the source of gender stereotypes with a view to eradicating them."

If only that was how the "research" and digestion of the results went! Well said.
239
@237, nocutename "There is greater and greater emphasis on gendering toys and furthermore in sexualizing images of female characters. I find this extremely disturbing."

Couldn't agree more. Extremely disturbing. Here is something that happened several years ago that I would like to hear sloggers' comments on: I was at a yard sale and noticed a young woman and her (4ish year old) son wandering around checking things out. The son had handled/played with several things without any interference from his mom. Then he discovered some dolls and started playing with them. When his Mom noticed, she very quickly and roughly took them out of his hands and firmly told him "NO". I was stunned. It was one of those moments when you feel like you should say something but the combination of being stunned (is this where we still are?????) and not wanting to say something that would have a negative impact left me speechless. In retrospect I think I would say something along the lines of (just casually & upbeat) "Nothing wrong with playing with dolls". For context, I live in appalachia (not always the pinnacle of enlightenment) and I'm not someone who finds it easy to barge into other people's lives. Ideas?
240
@237: "seandr: I agree with you that there does seem to be a bit of biology--perhaps genetics--at play in sex or gender differences. And I wish that we could respect that point without feeling as though it negates the other side which is that much if not most gender-differentiated behavior comes from learned social behavior and expectations,"

And that's what it comes down to regarding "nature". Trying to treat someone as nearly a different species due to their sex, race (though the concept is somewhat pseudoscientific, persons love to discuss race as a singular and homogenous entity), or sexual preference is massively douchey, and addressing them as rational human beings with choice and agency involves less opportunity for mistake and misjudgment.

Sure I judge people all the time, but that's due to their character and presentation, not their "essential [genetic] being" independent of the rest.
241
M? Gonzo - Probably just as well that you didn't say anything; you'd likely only have increased whatever punishment the boy received later. That was usually the way with me when I didn't act sufficiently masculine when in public with a parent; as long as nobody else appeared to notice, it was usually a mild punishment. Anyone's taking my side, however, caused them considerable embarrassment that they decreed to multiply my fault.

243
@227:
I never got to this, but I also believe deep rhythmic thrusting is a guy thing and humping is a girl thing.


I can't climax from either by itself, but humping isn't really a thing that does much physically for me at all. Whereas I really enjoy deep rhythmic thrusting, and if it's combined with clitoral stimulation that's basically my favorite way to get off, partnered or solo. Women vary.

.
.
.

Generally: yeah, some girls spontaneously (as far as we can tell -- hopefully kids have peer groups?) come up with 'I LOVE PINK AND FRILLS' (I actually loved pink as a kid too, although it wasn't spontaneous, it was calculated based on what colors were 'left' after my siblings chose their favorites. And yes, frills.). And I've seen boys seem to genuinely, from their hearts, come up with very gender-conforming play and preferences. I've also seen girls genuinely, from their hearts, want to play ball-games from a young age, and boys want dolls and love pink. The first kids are going to be okay in our society. It's the second group we need to be sure we aren't erasing or squashing. Yeah, they may be a smaller group, but that doesn't mean we should ignore them.

And if we expand gender norms, for kids and adults, it benefits everyone. Not just men who want to wear sparkly nail polish and purple shirts; but men who wear flannel and ride Harleys who would like to talk about their feelings, or who aren't continuously up for sex, or who want to quit their jobs and be stay-at-home dads. If we keep blindly parroting them, no one gets any of those benefits.
244
Ms Cute - I suspect we're equally appalled for not entirely compatible reasons, but, as long as this isn't one of those areas in which you want full equality except when you don't, we can probably co-defend on this brief.
245
This: "And if we expand gender norms, for kids and adults, it benefits everyone. Not just men who want to wear sparkly nail polish and purple shirts; but men who wear flannel and ride Harleys who would like to talk about their feelings, or who aren't continuously up for sex, or who want to quit their jobs and be stay-at-home dads."

Yes.
247
Alison@234; scent? Only scent? Don't think so.
So nocute, no response to my question?
I was not into gendered toys etc with my children. The opposite. I was of the generation that was going to prove there was no difference between the sexes. We were all the same.

My one daughter, when I look at pictures of my children when they were young, is dressed like her brothers. Functional play clothes.
Yet. Having reared them to adulthood, I no longer believe we are all the same.
Girls start to bleed, boys start to
Hide stiff socks all round their beds.
Our bodies, take us in different directions.
Yes, society imposes tight stereotypes. Which of course, need to be broken down.
My body went to pregnancy, birthing etc. At that time, I did want a man to behave in a protective role towards me. Towards our unborn child.
I was vulnerable, the child was vulnerable.
Rearing small children, their father and I shattered gender roles, as many modern people do.
In hindsight, not sure it was for the best . Think I would have preferred women around me, like in a tribal situation.
Yes. Men do rear children in same sex relationships, and
opposite sex relationships. So obviously, there is fluidity in behaviours.
Tight gender roles, kill authentic relating. Agree there.
Still. I go back to another quality, another aspect of our differences.
Yin & Yang..

248
@242: "Just how much time do you and your peers spend discussing race?"

As in biology? Very little. The social structures based on race politics? A great deal.

"So, it's alright for you to judge people based on their presentation, but not for others?"

You should read more before you reply, it might help you understand what people are talking about. I said I judge people by what they say and do, not because they're doing it while "being female" or "being male". You likely fail at understanding people because you want some cheat code for life that you can apply to all individuals of a particular category. Stop with these tricks, they're getting you nowhere and only hurting yourself.
249
@246: "And why would I want to prove something about "gender essentialism", when I'm only now learning what that is?"

Not being aware of the cliches that you speak and think in doesn't make them more original or insightful.
251
@LavaGirl: Nobody but a narcissist wants to date themselves of course it's good to find the , but it's important to find a partner that meets YOUR needs and not some arbitrary set of characteristics. The yang to your yin doesn't have to be based on strict gender stereotypes or other shallow characteristics. It should be based on the totality of you and your partner's interests, behaviors and desires. If you deviate, your partner should love that about you. Those of us scoffing at essentialism want everyone to be happy with who they are and not what others might want to impose on you.
252
@250: Inequality is not to be tolerated simply because persons used to be considered chattel in the past. We do not move continuously forward on the spectrum of freedom, there are regressions all the way. Lazy shrugs do not better humanity.
253
@251 "of course it's good to find the balance match", before my phone scrubbed that out.
256
"You guys sound like you just got out of Gender Studies 101."
Modern insults have gotten weird.
257
Biological essentialism - The definition was already given, deciding which gender norms are nature, and which are nurture, in order to limit the freedoms of one gender. Example:

Men are more aggressive. We should take the freedom to start wars (and govern) from men.

Women have less upper body strength. We should take the freedom to fight fires and other strenuous occupations from women.
258
EDIT BUTTON!
259
@246: Hunter: So you were being "partially facetious" about why women let their bra straps show. Then I'm sorry I took your words at face value. I confess I don't read you as facetious, ever, but I'll try to keep that in mind.

Am I supposed to read this as facetious, also: "I'll just leave it to you to talk about what's true for all women all the time? Because I have never ever claimed to talk about what's true for all women--and that's usually where I get upset. In fact, whenever I generalize, as I think sometimes its inevitable we all do, and as I think can sometimes be done with a fair degree of accuracy, I always include a disclaimer that this doesn't include every -----. I always include a variation of your mileage may vary.
260
@246 When I see men wearing spaghetti straps they usually wear a shrug on top and a chunky necklace, not wanting to call attention to their shoulders. They do usually have sexier legs than ciswomen of the same age; and they tend to show off their legs when dressing for attention. (Rather than when dressing to pass at the mall.)

None of that has anything to do with whether it's appropriate to think a woman with visible bra straps is seeking male attention.
261
@254: "What is with your deep fear (shame?) of discussing your own gender and orientation, which would provide us with some context for your opinions?"

You are an incredibly dense person, Hunter.

Knowing someone's sex is not at any way necessary to contextualize and understand the belief that persons are best understood as a whole and that attempting to pawn off components of their personality, beliefs, and behavior as defined and/or limited by their genetic makeup is folly.
265
@Hunter,
Scroll up and read whatever quote Cat in Fez coughed up. Summed it up fine. Just apologize for the "men's attention is grabbed by normal things like big changes and sex, while women's is not, they are simply fascinated by [whatever crazy shit it was this time]". Between that and the feminese mansplaining... C'mon, even I add an "I think" when I don't want to, or can't, offer proof. Unless I just feel like being insulting... is that what this is? Is confusing people about my gender part of your weekend mischievousness too?

And the title of that post should have been gender essentialism not biological essentialism. Stupid lack of edit button. Gender essentialism and racial essentialism are subsets of biological essentialism, which is a problematic subset of categorical thinking.

Will you and Undead kiss and make up already? Your mischievousness inspired me to change my avatar to a hippocampus brainbow, in keeping with my theme of cool artificial bioluminescence. Don't human brains look like they're having sex with themselves?
266
Hunter78 @255: Thus a "gender essentialist" believes there are male and female essences which predetermine the appearance and behavior of men v women. Now, I've never heard anyone espouse such a belief, but I suppose that's beside the point, important is to have a strawperson to beat up on.

Then I guess you haven’t been paying attention to either LavaGirl or JibeHo.

You often express yourself like a gender essentialist, though when cornered you’ll say you don’t actually mean what you said. (FWIW I believe you don’t mean it. Because you don’t recognize gender essentialism you don’t guard yourself against expressing yourself in gender essentialist terms and you inadvertently end up sounding like a chimpanzee. And then you ridicule people who know the difference between “women are X” and “this is a behaviour commonly attributed to women in our culture,” which makes you sound like someone who doesn’t think conflating the two is even a problem, which is another reason people attribute gender-essentialist thinking to you.)
267
Also Hunter78 — another data point for not getting when you’re being funny. Even I appreciate that Eudaemonic is obviously funny in his posts that don’t include the phrases “YOU’RE LYING” or “THAT’S NOT OKAY.” So that could definitely be a source of misunderstanding.
272
How about:

Hunter78: Women are less physically aggressive.
Careful person: Women are less likely to be physically aggressive.
Gender essentialist: Women are gentle and nurturing.
273
And I almost forgot:

Alison Cummins: Women may or may not be less physically aggressive, but they are less likely to cause serious or lasting injury.
274
Scrolling past whatever-that-was, to respond to an comment WAY upthread: @47NopeN, I am sorry for your situation. I think your depression is coloring your view of yourself, since attractiveness comes in many flavors, not just Victoria's-Secret-model.
Once-a-week sex certainly doesn't sound like your husband is not attracted to you, only that he has a lower drive. If you read Savage Love, you know that mismatched drive is a very common problem.
You don't say if you love your husband or if the marriage makes you happy in other ways. If it doesn't, then don't let your perceived lack of attractiveness stop you from leaving it! First, as I said, there are many kinds of attractiveness, and I think it likely you posses some of them, even if you don't see it; and second, you sound bitterly unhappy. You can stay where nothing will change, or you can take the path which might lead to change. Being lonely alone is actually less painful than being lonely with someone.
275
Hunter,
Well, I would say your new avatar looks obscene.
I used the same wording to describe it! Now when I lose my train of thought or find some memory hole, I think my brain is being a bad lover to itself. It's somewhat offensive yeah. I'll change it back since you tried to be nice. And I suppose you can keep using the nickname Phil, if you need a man's name to converse with, although I still think it detracts from any claim that you can treat both genders fairly.

So back to the column. Did any HUMP watchers see an awesome new move? Like maybe a good way to walk and fuck? Is it better with 2 feet or 4 feet on the ground?
277
@Hunter -- The definition I copy-pasted (although I like the idea I coughed it up, very feline) is at 215.

Throughout the thread, I've been criticizing use of gender essentialism by some feminists, alongside its use by others.
278
I can't imagine buying pink tools. There are none here in Europe, and for good reason. I don't think I would buy something sold to me as a " girl's" tool. Besides, I hate vomit pink. Oh, and all three of my kids also hate it, regardless of gender. The disney stuff didn't get a hold in my home, and it being foreign anyway don't make my girl an outcast for disliking it.
279
For the record, my girl's favorite color is green, as in dragons. I have no problem encouraging her to identify with them.
I like your take on aggressivity and females, Allison.
280
Hey Sissoucat. How you been?
281
@266; alison. I think YOU haven't been paying attention to LavaGirl.
I never said, any essences predetermine behaviour, of the genders.
I'm talking about something else, entirely.
These essentialists, they are who? And why has this conversation even bothered to involve such idiot ideas.
I'm saying men and women are different. What that difference is, is hard to pin point.
It's not defined by behaviours. Or pursuits. Or mental abilities.


282
Alison, I remember from a previous thread, you saying you understand why some women drive some men crazy.
That you had had experience with
Crazy women. So, when you wrote that post, what were you on about?
283
Hunter78 @276,

Gee, the essentialist doesn't sound so bad to me. If, however, they should say, "Women shouldn't be allowed as soldiers (or stockbrokers, or ... whatever)," that would be hideously discriminatory and unfair.

The problem is that if women are gentle and nurturing, they can’t be soldiers or stockbrokers. They just can’t. There’s no point in even thinking about it. It’s not unfair, it’s not possible.
284
Alison, @283; you serious?
I'm sure a few women soldiers and
women stockbrokers might take issue with that.
So, when these women soldiers and women stockbrokers come home to their partners, their children- they can't be gentle and nurturing? Can't be gentle and nurturing when the situation elicts it from them?
What bullshit you speak.
285
Hi LavaGirl, things are ok, the new format has been giving me trouble but I'm good now !
289
Hunter - I think you've got it. The men and women you speak of don't exist in reality.

Categorical thinking is often useful but not realistic. Reality doesn't fit nicely into categories. People don't sort perfectly into men/women, nice/mean, smart/dumb, like me/not like me categories. More specific categories like penis/vagina, happy/angry, high IQ/low IQ, high EQ/low EQ work better. Still a lot of people wouldn't fit "high IQ" well, an IQ of 101 or 99 are practically indistinguishable, so sometimes more categories than 2 work better eg. extremely low, below average, average, above average, extremely high. Still, people on the borders of these categories will not be described well by their category. And when you talk about your categories without acknowledging that they don't apply well to everyone, you are excluding, you are incorrectly describing many people. People don't like to be excluded or described incorrectly, they like to be acknowledged, also called a healthy ego.

Also, I'm not sure what definition of bigot you know, but I think disliking a category of people generates bigoted behavior. Certainly describing a category of people as incomprehensible, dangerous or otherwise disfavorable (without clear reason or reliable source) is bigoted, I don't see how it helps and it definitely hurts the people described this way. Social media is an unreliable source like movies, most of TV, Savage Love, or the neighbor kid. Savage Love is getting better.

Categories are great, they make quick decisions possible. But your categories of people are only in your head, only to make quick decisions about people. When you talk about them as some objective idea all people have in common you sound deluded. "Men and women are different" has nothing to do with objective reality and everything to do with how you work, how you find it convenient to classify people, and what useful trends you've noticed in your categories.

Another name for what I'm describing is "black and white thinking".
291
Ms Lava - Are you, then, relinquishing your former contention that *every* man (or was it just every *straight* man?) has an Inner Bad Boy? That came across as fairly essentialist to me at the time. Other than that, I take your point and appreciate that you have become less inclined to universalism than you were in some of your early posts.

***

Mr Hunter - I could remind the assembled company that Ms Driasis might have something to say to #268, but I won't. Nor shall I fault you for knowing which side your bread is buttered. But I shall object to any assertion that women (generally? as a gender?) are gentle and nurturing. *Some* women? Certainly. More women than men? It's a toss-up in my experience, although I acknowledge that other people will answer differently. But neither are qualities I'd ascribe to either gender in general.
293
Well, thanks Mr Venn. SL, sort of drums it all out of one, doesn't it? Seeing universals.
Bad Boy, you say? I said every straight/ gay/ crooked/ circular what have you, man, has an inner Bad Boy?
Not sure you are quoting me correctly, here. You got the reference, handy?
One says so many, off the cuff things, Eh?
294
Gee Venn, that's sad . I spend time with a lot of gentle, nurturing people. Of both sexes.
Also , as Dan might put it,
shit stains. My dear Mother, comes to mind, as an example of the latter.
Fortunately, just about to hop a freight train, way away from her.
Till next time, that some distorted sense of compassion overtakes me.

Really Hunter,@292; older men lusting after much young women, can be quite unseemly.

Lucky the Patriarchy, has no problem with it.
296
It is what keeps you deluded.
298
Spot on, Hunter.
Patriarchy, the land of sweet delusions... For the men. Don't mind us women, we'll just sweep around you, while you delude away.
Just lift your feet, will you?
300
If I understand correctly, we’ve reframed the statements.

“Women are gentle and nurturing” has now become “Gentleness, caring, competitiveness and physical aggression are traits within the human repertoire available to both men and women, with more variation between individuals than between genders or sexes.”

Have I got that right?

Because people who say “women are gentle and nurturing” typically mean that women who aren’t gentle and nurturing are defective and/or aberrant. See JibeHo who believes that women are gentle and nurturing, therefore that if women ran the world there would be no war, poverty or ecological destruction. (Yes, she actually said that. I believed that too for about five minutes in my late teens.)
301
@278 & @79 sissoucat: Bon jour! Comment tallez vous?
How is everything your way?
302
@293 LavaGirl: Thank you for the reminder. I need a "Bad Boy" break tonight---Brad Pitt's 28 year old "J.D." in Thelma & Louise, with some red wine and snacks should do very nicely.
Like Geena said in the '66 T-Bird---"....the Call of the Wild! WA-HOOOOO!"
Susan: "Ha-ha--you are disturbed!"
Geena: "Yep--I believe I am! WAHOO!"

303
Venn@291; not sure I would have said every s/g/b/etc Man, has an inner BadBoy. I mean, I spend time with Spiritual men, no sign of BadBoys in them.
Perhaps I said, I like a Man, with a bit of inner BadBoy. Not being very spiritually developed myself.
304
Hey Grizelda. Sounds like a plan. Enjoy your repeat repeat.. Of T&L.
My boys have Tarentino on repeat viewing. Gruesome movies. My daughter, is a ' Dirty Dancing 'freak.
305
Of course, I shouldn't talk about my Mother, that way. She gave birth to me, for that, I thank her.
306
Hey Grizelda. Everything fine by me, except that I'd really like a lover this spring and I'm about to reach out to prospective ones at work (a big no-no of mine), so desperate am I for a little action. Eh. Life. I don't hold much hopes of success, still, one never knows for sure until one's asked, so.
I wish I were more articulate so I could intervene more into the ongoing discussion. I tend to agree with Alison's reframing.
307
How is everything currently Grizelda ? Nice and good, I hope ?
308
@256: I did use the word sexist @152. That’s what sparked the whole discussion.
And if Undead is jumping to conclusions about you based on their interpretation of the history of your posts, if they’re so inaccurate, why did I jump to the same ones? Hmm.
For the record, if I’m wearing a top with spaghetti straps it’s because it’s hot outside.

@270: Alison’s got it @272, but going back to the point about PHYSICAL differences between males and females vs MENTAL/EMOTIONAL ones. Saying things like “Men have more upper body strength” is based on differences between male and female physiologies. Saying things like “Men are aggressive” is generalising a personality trait and is a sexist comment. (I’ll use the word “sexist” rather than “gender essentialist” because it’s easier to type, and you and I both understand what it means.) LavaGirl’s posts about yin and yang reflect PHYSICAL differences between herself, mainly due to her ability to reproduce, and men.

It’s a tricky line, but you seem to omit the qualifying language that stops your statements from being sexist. If someone calls themselves a feminist but says things like “Women are nurturing,” they too are being sexist.

@275: Your name is just being abbreviated for conciseness, like they do mine. Not Hunter’s fault if the first syllable of it happens to also be a male name.

@276: Ah, crap. You still don’t get it. :(

BECAUSE people think, “Women are gentle and nurturing,” the conclusion “and therefore they shouldn’t work in dangerous jobs” naturally follows. Beliefs like “women are gentle and nurturing” have directly led to women being excluded from certain career paths. If people were to think, “Women tend to be gentle and nurturing, but some are tough and like physical challenge,” there would be a lot less difficulty for women (and men) to do whatever job they want to do. As it is now, if you’re hiring firefighters and a woman shows up, the hiring manager thinks “Women are gentle and nurturing, obviously a man would be better for this job.” The essentialist belief that doesn’t sound so bad to you prevents that woman from getting a job for which she’s trained intensely and can do just as well as anyone.

@284: Read Alison’s comment, her whole point is, well, what I’ve just said above.
310
@300. Well how bout we let women run the world, and then we might find out.
You really are very dismissive Alison of others' points of views. And patronizing. But you know. Superior Canadians and all.
311
So. Domestic violence , where more men kill their partners or ex partners. This come about because of socialisation , alone?


312
Hunter78, Now we’re back to:

Hunter78 1: Women are less physically aggressive.
Careful person: Women are less likely to be physically aggressive.
Gender essentialist: Women are gentle and nurturing.
Alison Cummins: Women may or may not be less physically aggressive, but they are less likely to cause serious or lasting injury.
Hunter78 2: On average, women are gentler and more nurturing than men.

The gender essentialist is making a statement about the core nature of womanhood. In the first case you’re making a statement about all women; in the second case you refer to average people who may or may not exist. The careful person and I are making frequency observations about observed behaviour.

*** *** ***
My writing instructor would be asking me why I was making a statement such as the long and convoluted one. If we have words to describe gentleness and nurturing, presumably they exist? And isn’t that all I’ve said?
313
And if women are equal to men in physical power and aggression, then why don't the women in Middle Eastern countries rise up against the Masculine powers? Again, just socialisation?
314
This conversation, way too reductionist for me. It's pissing me off no end. Best for my mental health, to now leave this week's column alone.
315
LavaGirl @310,
Not superior Canadians. Just committed critical thinkers who’ve been thinking about a topic for a while. I took science and learned to make disprovable statements generally.

“If women ran the world it would be Eden” is not disprovable. If women ran the world we wouldn’t be humans as we know us. “If humans were bonobos we’d have more sex and less ecological impact” is disprovable, but then we’d be bonobos and not humans.

As a species we do bad things and both men and women are members of the species. Neither sex can be dissociated from what the species accomplishes as a group. As individuals both men and women do bad things.

JibeHo seemed to think that the core nature of womanhood is low testosterone and that testosterone is the source of all evil. Maybe she meant that if humans didn’t have testosterone that we would be good and nice and save the planet but we evolved testosterone and its various receptors for a reason. They serve a purpose. It’s more likely that as a species we would die out without it.

Yes, I challenge people to defend their views if I think they’re wrong. Some “views” are incorrect. Not everything everyone thinks or says is true. If they can successfully defend their statements then I learn something. If they can’t, they’ve learned something.
316
Mr Hunter - Once upon a time, all for which you were famous here (Ms Cute will appreciate the Brodie reference) were your quarrels with Ms Driasis.

***

Ms Lava - It was in your early days. A straight male LW was not attracting his partner much, and you advised him to channel his Inner Bad Boy. I took exception to the concept that such a quality was universal, but you maintained that it was, or nearly so, and doubled the universalization by adding that women were attracted to Bad Boys. At least one of the women made it quite clear that she did not care for Bad Boys at all.

As for gentle and nurturing, I also know multiple people who would qualify for the terms; it's just that they are far from a majority of either gender.

***

Ms Fan - I notice that your objection to the scarlet G and/or N only takes into account situations in which the stereotype is used to women's disadvantage. "Some women can be firefighters" does not necessarily imply that "some men can be nannies" although you do seem to accept the latter sentiment as well as the former. We may be dancing on the edge of Ms Cute's wanting full equality except when she doesn't here.
317
LavaGirl @311,
Domestic violence , where more men kill their partners or ex partners. This come about because of socialisation , alone?

That’s a really interesting question!

I don’t know if women are equal to men in physical aggression or not and I don’t think I said they were. I think we can agree though that men are more likely to cause serious or lasting physical harm.

Not all men kill their partners or exes, so there’s something special about those who do.

Women are more likely to kill their children than their partners. Maybe more women would like to kill their partners but are not usually physically strong enough?

Maybe it’s socialization, or learning. Maybe it’s testosterone. Maybe it’s available choices. Maybe all of the above. Can you easily separate them? What we know is what we observe, but that’s different from making a statement about the core nature of manhood. We’re social animals and we all operate within a context.

If we decide that partner-killing is a specifically masculine quality, does that make partner-killers more in touch with their masculine energy?

If more women than men are killed by intimate partners, does that mean that to be a woman is to be a victim? (Many women have claimed it does.) Or does it mean that society requires resources for men, women and children to protect themselves from violent homes, but not necessarily in equal amounts? Do we need to believe that men are inherently murderous and that women are inherently victims to allocate funds proportionately to observed numbers?

If we accept that biology means that men are more likely to harm or kill another person, does that mean we have different standards for them? No? So why does it matter?
318
... I should add, many do hold men and women to different standards with respect to murder. In particular when a man kills a child, it’s bad. When a woman kills a child it upsets the balance of nature and she deserves very special punishment and horror.
319
Was only going to read, not comment.. Apologies Venn, you have caught me out. Or have you?
My experiences have been with men whose masculine energy was
Pretty delineated, as masculine. And they all, have had a quality of being a little on the edge. BadBoy, a good enough description.
The men I have been with, were socialised, like me- before the eruptions of Feminism, in the 70s..
Maybe a better description, is slightly feral. Guess, my experiences informed my perceptions.
Still. I do hold, for both sexes, that a little feral behaviour, a little danger,
Causes tension. To me, it's the tension, that creates the fun.
BadBoys are not scared of their sex. BadGirls, the same..
Have never put myself forward as politically correct, Venn. I mean,
I saw 50 shades, and enjoyed it.
And I do hold there are masculine and feminine principles.
I don't think the sexes, are the same. There are qualities and experiences we have in our sexes,that create a difference.
I do believe both sexes are capable of the full range of being human.
. Loving and compassionate, hateful and murderous.
322
Yes, Hunter78 @320. Agreed.

Which is why I try to restrict my statements to the observed and not make unwarranted inferences or assumptions about causes. It’s why unqualified statements about ‘who women are’ and ‘who men are’ are highly problematic. Assuming that casually-perceived differences between sexes (however you define them*), are biological, immutable and objective is ideology, not science.

If what you are trying to do is use this forum to determine which, if any, personality traits are grounded in sexual biology and how they relate to social behaviour, I think you need to head to the lab instead. You aren’t going to learn enough about biology here to make a difference.

What we talk about here is behaviour and problem-solving. We can do that completely agnostically wrt to the sexual biology of the brain — which is good! That’s how we work with other people — as individuals. If there’s a mismatched-libido couple the solutions are similar no matter which (if any) sexes are involved. Your relationship with your wife is your relationship with your wife. You can learn things from discussion with others in similar situations, but if there’s a problem the two of you need to work it out between you, as individuals.

We sometimes discuss patterns of behaviour and desire that map roughly onto gender but people don’t start getting annoyed until someone starts universalizing.

*Since you earlier stated that you accept that anyone who says they are a man or a woman is what they say they are regardless of their biology, how do you reconcile that with your special interest in sexual biology as a determining factor of personality?
323
@290: "We watched the world in black and white for decades, and didn't see it as especially distorting. We filmed black and whites into the 50s and beyond."

Is this one of those dumb statements that's supposed to be a joke, or a sincere dumb statement? It's a cringeworthy analogy. Whether people can enjoy black and white films and media is irrelevant to the idea that it is a bad idea to think in polarizing, black and white terms, throwing out all nuance that doesn't serve your preconceived ideas.

If that's your argument, color TV adoption rates lagged akin to people with archaic ideas about genetics controlling all behavior uniformly and predictably in modern times.

"We don't want to close fields of study, simply because they may upset someone's ideological precepts, or they don't seem to have an immediate legislative impact."

Keeping an open mind requires that you actually investigate and look into ideas versus latching onto every potentially ignorant one because it matches your preexisting expectations for "male" and "female" behavior.
324
@Alison: behaviours or attitudes that are easy for human beings to learn

Loving your comments here, this one in particular. Another perhaps more general way I think of this is that some behaviors and attitudes require more resources/energy to maintain among our species. Fighting racism, for example, requires educational and political energy to override human propensity for xenophobia, which researchers have been able to replicate simply by giving red shirts to half the kids at a summer camp and blue shirts to the rest ("Die, you blue-shirted scum!") . Another example - communism on a large scale requires tremendous political energy - a totalitarian government, to be specific - in order override human preoccupation with reciprocity and helping one's own.

I think we share the same world view, more or less, although I suspect we differ in our focus and emphasis, and for obvious reasons - with gender roles, you're an exception, arguably an exceptional exception, whereas I fall within the trend. Thus, it's easier for me to allow for the possibility that tackling gender differences would require energy to override certain human propensities, and that eliminating them entirely may, like communism, cause more harm in the end than good, in which case, perhaps our resources would be better spent simply helping the exceptions to thrive.
325
I'll play the "Why does Hunter want to leak his ideas about gender everywhere when they seem to be pissing people off? What is his point, what is he after?" game.

Women are not gentle and nurturing at all.
Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0DTHEQg…
Not suitable for work.
326
(cont) Perhaps an example of "more harm than good" is in order. My sister-in-law is a PhD housewife with very strong opinions. Rather than going out and getting a fucking job, she expressed her feminism by clashing with her son whenever he engaged in certain normal boy/child behaviors (e.g., pretending his fingers were a gun, fighting with his sister). As her son grew older and angrier and more confrontational, she eventually saw the light and became more accepting of him, thank god, because the screaming matches that took place during our visits were horrible.
327
@325: People tend to prize beliefs that are "not politically correct" whether they do anyone any good or not.

They may also couch them as "biotruths" that we "can't handle" instead of backing them with any actual thought and research. We're annoyed at their lack of originality, they're the same recycled social conservative ideas about male and female impulses that are unable to he controlled or channeled by a rational mind, nothing new or interesting.
328
The desire to learn and grow seems hampered by the glee one gets from being a contrarian against some odd caricature of feminism, and lazy recycling of stereotypes as genetic and not learned/structural. Not that this is unique to sex and gender, overbroad assumptions of racial biology are another favorite of evo-psych enthusiasts and "researchers" who use not biology but surveys and sampling. It's very bizarre how it gets support from persons who under normal circumstances loathe social science.
330
seandr @326,

Question: would she have been as outraged by a daughter who pretended her fingers were a gun?

People have more similarities than differences. Nitpicking over the differences and trying to assign quantified origins to each one is missing the forest for the trees: we are very, very alike.

Back in the days before video games, kids were sent out to play. There they explored, built forts, threw stones at critters, played hunt and hide games, lit fires, dropped in on neighbours, practiced riding their bikes. I know I did most of those things with my friends — both girls and boys. That isn’t gendered play and it’s most of the play that kids do. Inside I built stuff with blocks, rearranged my train set, dressed dolls, packed my little sister into a closet and played astronaut, played with my friends’ gun-type toys (a cap gun and one that shot little frisbees), played house, played doctor, coloured. Some of that’s gendered, but I did all of those things with both my girl friends and my boy friends. We watched television (no videos) together — Star Trek, Rocket Robin Hood, Scooby Doo, Sesame Street, Ultraman. I did crafty things, sewing and knitting and crocheting my own inventions. I taught myself to cook. But mostly I read. Lots of classic stuff for girls — Heidi, Little Women, What Katy Did, The Secret Garden, Ballet Shoes, the Little House series and Harriet the Spy.

My mother had opinions about what we should be exposed to. She didn’t like Babar (racist, colonialist) but I did and that was confusing. My friends had barbies but I knew better than to ask for one, though I wasn’t sure why exactly. This led to me feeling like I couldn’t trust my own judgement, second-guessing myself. Not good. When I got older I decided that if my younger sibs asked me for something for Christmas that I wouldn’t argue with them about whether it was something they should want — if they asked for it, they should be rewarded for telling the truth. (Not complicated stuff — say, a Red Hot Chili Peppers CD for a 13-year-old.)

So my point of view is not that difference should be stamped out but that we are already extremely similar. If there are a few little things here or there that map out roughly on sexual, racial or other trait lines, so what? Redheads are more likely to be libidinous and hot-tempered. Ok, and? So? The important thing is whether you and I want to have sex, or whether you and I are arguing, not whether your melanin variant spikes your temper.

I don’t favour overdetermining sex, or cultivating sexual or gender differences, or seeing them when they aren’t there, or enforcing them. There are good things that people do that are more likely to be done by woman-people; other good things more likely to be done by man-people. So? They’re good things no matter who does them. There are things that are bad for people no matter who they are, like dependence, isolation or poverty. Some of these things affect woman-people more than man-people, but they’re bad because they’re bad for people.
331
@316: Nope, it doesn't. I agree that the assumption that men are NOT gentle and nurturing, which leads to the conclusion that men should not be hired as nannies, is equally problematic. Or any other stereotypical assumption which leads to reduced opportunities based solely on gender-based expectations. Glad that's clear now.

@318: Interesting that even people most vocally committed to the concept of equality can make exceptions, for personal reasons. The way our brains work.
332
RE some things being difficult to combat because they’re so easy for us to learn, like racism, xenophobia, classism and sexism — good point. It’s hard but worth it. People aren’t born racist and learning to become racist doesn’t make them better people and it isn’t good for society.

People tend to want to help their own, true — so we try to set limits on how destructive they’re allowed to get with that. Leave your money to your kids, fine. Leave the presidency to your kids? We’re going to vote on that first. (Sort of. Maybe.)

We can’t make people perfect by telling them to be and we shouldn’t — we all have strengths and weaknesses and the important part is the social mix — but we don't have to pretend that racism or sexism are okay just because they’re easy to learn. They’re not okay. They’re actively destructive.
333
@331, I’m not sure that people who see maternal infanticide as particularly outrageous are vocally committed to the concept of equality.

They might be mothers who want lots of recognition and social status for the act of parenting. Women are virtuous, women are the bedrock of society, women raise the next generation of cannon fodder. So when a woman demonstrates that mothering doesn’t come with an automatic halo she is vilified.

For instance. A lot of women call that kind of thinking feminism because it's all about how fundamentally wonderful women and women’s domestic sphere are. I don’t. I don’t think most people call it equality though.
334
seandr @324, you say that Alison is “an exception” why you “fall within the trend,” and you say that “perhaps our resources would be better spent simply helping the exceptions to thrive.”

What I’d urge you to consider is that probably most people have some aspect where they would prefer to fall outside the trend, even if they are okay with their gendered role in general. I don’t want to label the few people who are significantly at odds with their gendered role as “exceptions” and carve out special accommodations for them. I’d much rather shift our society to reduce the negative consequences for everyone of picking from the other gender’s options.
335
*while, not why in my first line @334.
336
@334: "I don’t want to label the few people who are significantly at odds with their gendered role as “exceptions” and carve out special accommodations for them. I’d much rather shift our society to reduce the negative consequences for everyone of picking from the other gender’s options"

Absolutely. Less relying on societally "acceptable" gender expression as a crutch, and trying to carve out exceptions for "deviance" does not work well because genetics and reductionist policies are used used to further marginalize a person, or at least quickly dropped by conservative lawmakers as trying to treat those persons "as special".
337
@306 & @307 sissoucat: It is wonderful to hear from you! I hope your pursuit of a new lover blossoms well for you. Spring is a beautiful time for love.
I am pursuing a masters degree in Music where I completed my undergraduate studies way back when---my competition with living in a college town being as fierce as it is, an MA opens more doors--or at least more sustainable wage job possibilities.
Additionally, my health has improved so much that I'm finally, after 18 years, off blood pressure medication. I credit this to my amazing naturopath and gynecologist for my diet changes for the better, and a long overdue medical procedure that corrected what had plagued my life since adolescence. Life is good.
338
Thanks, EricaP. Perfect.

Yeah, I’m weird. If someone asks my opinion on “which would be best” I’ll give it but with the proviso that if I like X, everyone else will like Y so they should go for that instead. This is most obvious at work but elsewhere too.

But seandr, I think what you’re talking about is sexuality and gender weirdness. Most people think of masculinity and femininity as a continuum, with butch on one end and femme on the other end and most people somewhere in the middle. Say you ask people to fill out a survey as follows:

Which do you like better, kittens or pit bulls?
Which would you rather watch, ice dance or hockey?
Which hobby do you prefer, cake decorating or boat building?
Which is your favourite colour, pink or black?

Then the kitten/ ice dance/ cake decorating/ pink contingent get 4 femme points, the pit bull/ hockey/ boat building/ black contingent get 4 butch points and the pit bull/ ice dancing/ cake decorating/ black contingent are asexual.

But what if you asked the survey questions a little differently and plotted the results on an XY graph?

How much do you like kittens?
How much do you like pit bulls?
How much do you like ice dancing?
How much do you like hockey?

That way you can get people very far from the origin who like lots of everything in both categories, people very close to the origin who don’t like much of anything, and other people scattered around closer to one axis or the other. Turns out that the more points a person has the happier and healthier they are. Period. It doesn’t matter how you gender them, more traits is just better than fewer traits.

I’ve got lots of both kinds of traits, is all. I don’t like anything really strange except in the sense that I’m curious; it’s just that I like both. The weirdest part of me is how analytical I am and the second weirdest part is how loud I am about private things. So I don’t really see how to carve out special space for specially exceptional me. Like women? Check. Like men? Check. Take sexual initiative? Check. Like to be courted? Check. I’m fine in any space and feel constrained in all.
339
@grizelda : lovely. Studying is one of the happiest memories of mine, and had I studied music as a young girl I might have been better at it now- or in a nicer job. Studying music is heaven... Good for you. I'll tell you if I manage to find someone interested in what I have to offer. Good night for now !
340
Alison @300: “See JibeHo who believes that women are gentle and nurturing, therefore that if women ran the world there would be no war, poverty or ecological destruction. (Yes, she actually said that. I believed that too for about five minutes in my late teens.)”

I was happy just reading other people’s comments in this thread having learned my lesson the last time about offering my own opinion. But please, if you’re going to quote me at least get it right. I said I’d like to see what the world looks like after 100 years of having women in charge (to the same extent that men have been for the last 2 centuries). My feeling is that things would improve. But I also conceded that the axiom that absolute power corrupts absolutely might be proven correct.

In case it matters, I’ve never played with a doll in my life, and there isn’t a single dress or pair of spaghetti straps in my closet.

The fact that Alison and Philo et al are so aggressively condescending all the while they are pigeon-holing other posters as sexist or gender essentialist (hate that term) is infuriating. Especially when it seems their whole point is that we shouldn’t put people in boxes


Alison @315 “JibeHo seemed to think that the core nature of womanhood is low testosterone and that testosterone is the source of all evil. Maybe she meant that if humans didn’t have testosterone that we would be good and nice and save the planet but we evolved testosterone and its various receptors for a reason. They serve a purpose. It’s more likely that as a species we would die out without it.”

Stop quoting me when you clearly have no idea what I think about these issues. Just stop. The reason I didn’t clarify my thoughts in the earlier thread is because I find you insufferable to talk to. You personally insulted my intelligence and I cannot stand people with your communication style. So I disengaged. Because you’re kind of an asshole. The sarcastic comment about how you would automatically discount any further contributions on my part because I haven’t read your definition of relevant literature was the final straw

341
@340: "gender essentialist (hate that term)"

It'd be more useful to define why you loathe the term, it exists to represent a specific class of real world attitudes.
342
For god's sake, undead. Go take a Happy Pill. Or find someone to love you.
You present as such a miserable person. All negative, narky energy.
343
JibeHo; nice to see you here. Nice to see you throw off that nasty , rude energy.
344
Undead, how would that be more useful? My views can't be reduced to a simple term. If you try to paint me as a gender essentialist, which is what Alison seems determined to do, then it follows that I have nothing to say of value.

That seems just as destructive as stereotyping people based on gender.
345
Thank you LavaGirl. I'm trying.
346
I'm happily paired in my personal life, but I don't see what that has to do with my patience for ignorant attitudes here or elsewhere.

If peace is what you want, try taking less direct personal offense when I'm not speaking to you?
347
Lava, I guess we're ignorant now. By the way, thanks for coming to my defense...
348
Undead; Ignorant attitudes? Who the fuck are you to decide what's ignorant or not.
You're rude. Putting people down to prove what? And really, as far as I know, Ayn Rand was a fascist. No kind loving heart energy, at all
350
And I wasn't directing that to you either, so enjoy whatever circle of outrage you wish to participate in.
351
JibeHo; my pleasure. I like your style.
I like your truth telling.
352
Like I said, undead. Go take a Happy Pill. Soften your heart a bit.
Peoples opinions, are just as valid as yours. You may disagree. Your right, your business.
But like Alison, when you need to denigrate others to prove Your Perceptions, cause that's all they are;
You both come off as thugs.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.