Understanding male/female interactions

[Eeri-chan]

I think that the generalization is a dangerous route to go, and I also think that it's a very binary view of things. Gender is fluid, the sex of a person can be one of three things (as far as we know). However, when it comes to gender, there are at least eleven different genders that have been discovered through research. Gender is the identification of male, female, both, fluid, et cetra.

Also, the rigidity of the world's insistence on what is "male" and what is "female" creates a lot of problems between the sexes, and then the complete and utter ignorance on inter-sex creates more problems. In America 1/8 people are born inter-sex. It is more common than downs syndrome. But the world generally ignores this and continues to treat people as either "male" or "female" and those roles are very pronounced. Boys can't cry, they play with cars and fight. Girls wear dresses, play with dolls, are overly emotional, and will eventually be mothers. While we have come a long way from the days of women being forced to be housewives, not being allowed to vote, and so on, we are still a long way off from full equality, and in my opinion, I think if we stopped focusing on "male" and "female" it would help. I think it's damaging to insist on this rigid gender roles, and to say things like "You're acting like a girl" as though that's an insult is demeaning and creates the need in strictly "male" men to be "macho" and look down on women as the weaker sex.

There's also the damage done to strictly "female" identifying women who might like to play with toy cars and climb trees and wrestle. You're told to act like a proper lady, but what the heck is a proper lady? If that means I have to be a mother, a wife, and live at home then screw that.

Looking back on history, we can see the ways in which gender roles was instilled and the ridiculousness of the stereotypes put in place that are slowly being derailed. We can also see the vast differences in the way sex and gender viewed from one society to another. In England, women had to be covered at all times because even the bare ankle was attractive (I'm specifically referring to the Victorian era). This was due in part because of how utterly repressed everyone was. However, looking to Hawaii pre-colonization, they were bare and beautiful and women, men, trans, and intersex people coexisted without that repression of sexuality and covering up sex. On top of this, Queen Victoria did not create laws making lesbianism illegal because she believed that "women couldn't do such a thing" while the laws against gay men were strict. According to the time, women, who only had sex out of duty, could not figure out how to pleasure themselves or each other without a man.

I think, a lot of the misunderstandings that spring up between the sexes and the different genders comes from societies insistence on a very binary cast of gender roles. If we were more open, less confined, it would help immensely in bridging the gap between all people, not just "males" and "females," men and women. While there are natural tendencies between the sexes, there needs to be more room in defining "male" and "female." Society, environment, upbringing, culture all influence the way a person behaves, reacts, and thinks, but there is still a core of reactions that come from the chemical make up of a person. However, this should not define the gender or sex of a person so strictly. A woman may have motherly instincts, by default, but that does not mean that every woman a) wants to be a mother b) would make a good mother and c) that men can't be just as caring and devoted.

Sexuality has become a huge facet to take into consideration because it creates the diversity in sex and gender roles that would have been previously ignored prior to the Sexual Revolution of the early sixties. And even within sexuality, the stereotypes are not correct. Just as the gender roles and the stereotypes based on sex are incorrect.

If we could rid ourselves of these notions, and this need to fall into a box that says "this is what this sex is and does and it can't go outside of this box" then we'd all be better for it.

[ELDEMONIO]

Thsi is what I know.>.>

Girls liek guys who are confident.You know, guys who are willing to talk and chat about random stuff and be polite.

Guys liek girls who are confident as well.Guys want girls to come up to them since guys are like that and we are lazy like that.

[Eeri-chan]

But that's a generalization. Not everyone is woman or every man likes the same thing. By lumping people together you assume to approach every woman and every man in the same way. Some guys are shy and some women like that. And vice versa. People vary. That's what makes life interesting, ne? That's also why interaction with other people can be so complicated.

[ELDEMONIO]

I don't know.>.>

i was getting nowhere as a shy person and now that I talk more, girls come up to me more often.Strange that this new change also happened when I finally grew a pony tail. :-\

[PyronIkari]

But that's a generalization. Not everyone is woman or every man likes the same thing. By lumping people together you assume to approach every woman and every man in the same way. Some guys are shy and some women like that. And vice versa. People vary. That's what makes life interesting, ne? That's also why interaction with other people can be so complicated.

Despite it being a generalization by definition, it's essentially a basic truth. No one said about "how to approach" or anything like that, but women that like "shy" men and vice versa only like the ACT of being shy, not that they're actually shy. Most people that say they like shyness in their partner, soon show they don't as relationships progress.

As for your first post... I don't see what the point of it even is. You basically go on this femme-nazi-esque tyraid and state things that don't even apply to this topic at all.

You are arguing the extreme of "there is no such thing as gender roles" which isn't true. It's not like it was in the 60s where women were forced to be something, and men were forced to be something else, but gender roles still exist in the world, and sex does play a part in action.

I can easily prove this SCIENTIFICALLY by stating that women have more estrogen than males, and males have more testosterone than females. Both of these hormones affect behavior, therefore gender does play a part in how people act and think.

[Eeri-chan]

Despite it being a generalization by definition, it's essentially a basic truth. No one said about "how to approach" or anything like that, but women that like "shy" men and vice versa only like the ACT of being shy, not that they're actually shy. Most people that say they like shyness in their partner, soon show they don't as relationships progress.

As for your first post... I don't see what the point of it even is. You basically go on this femme-nazi-esque tyraid and state things that don't even apply to this topic at all.

You are arguing the extreme of "there is no such thing as gender roles" which isn't true. It's not like it was in the 60s where women were forced to be something, and men were forced to be something else, but gender roles still exist in the world, and sex does play a part in action.

I can easily prove this SCIENTIFICALLY by stating that women have more estrogen than males, and males have more testosterone than females. Both of these hormones affect behavior, therefore gender does play a part in how people act and think.

What I said clearly went misunderstood. Either you didn't read all of it, or you just didn't understand what I said, and I don't appreciate the way you answered. I was being as respectful as possible. And if you'd read all of it, you'd have noticed that I said, quite plainly that gender roles are based in basic truths, and that yes there are gender roles, and yes, we have a basic chemical make up.

The point of avoiding generalizing is that it can be a dangerous thing to do because that leads down the road of stereotyping incorrectly. I'm not arguing that women don't have estrogen, and that men don't have testosterone. I was arguing that you have to broaden your understanding of the definitions of "gender" and "sex, "male" and "female." On top of that, gender roles exist, otherwise I wouldn't have brought up things like "boys don't cry." I am perfectly aware that they exist. My point, however, is how damaging certain roles can be. To imply that "boys don't cry" indicates the expectation in men not to show certain emotions, and if you are a man and you cry, then you must be weak. That's a role that is damaging. While women take on the role of mother, not all women want to, though. The idea society continues to insist upon is that if a woman doesn't get married and have a baby she'll be incomplete somehow. That's ridiculous. It doesn't hold true for everyone.

And don't give me that "femme-nazi" crap. I didn't say that a woman can't make a choice to be a house wife. And I brought up things from prior to the Women's Rights movement because they related to what I was saying and the point I was trying to make. However, most of what I said has to do with the definition of gender and sex, and what the differences between those are. I don't hate men, I don't think that a woman who chooses to be a stay at home wife and mother has somehow failed the sex.

Also, I included the sex that is often ignored: inter-sex. How do you prescribe a gender role to someone with both sexes?  

I think you also misunderstood me when I said "sex" based on when you said "sex plays a part in action."  I did not refer to the act of sex. I referred to the biology of a person, as in "vagina," "penis," or both. Gender is the identification, and has little to no relation to the biological sex of a person. People often confuse the terms, so if you did I hope that cleared that up.

The topic was understanding, I was pointing out that I believe misunderstanding the different sexes comes from societies' strict gender binary. This is my opinion. I used facts to back up what I was saying. I admit, my point was not made all too clearly, and hopefully this can clear it up, but in that, you didn't need to try and get on a high horse and prove things "SCIENTIFICALLY" because I'm aware of the science involved, and I'm also aware that science hasn't yet been able to explain things like gender identification.

And one more thing, looking back at something you'd said on the first page, we basically are of the same opinion that sex does not mean someone will act accordingly. You said people are unique. I might not have said it in the same words, but that was my point. I said it in a more roundabout way, yes, but that's what I was getting at.

I don't know.>.>

i was getting nowhere as a shy person and now that I talk more, girls come up to me more often.Strange that this new change also happened when I finally grew a pony tail. :-\

Apparently your ponytail is a magical babe magnet. :) haha. Confidence is good to have, and does help. I don't deny it, but there are certain people who do like that shy person thing. You know? I mostly just think a generalization can lead to acting in the way that one thinks works with everyone. I hope that makes sense, I think I could explain that better, but I'm kind of tired. Long day of classes.  

[PyronIkari]

What I said clearly went misunderstood. Either you didn't read all of it, or you just didn't understand what I said, and I don't appreciate the way you answered. I was being as respectful as possible. And if you'd read all of it, you'd have noticed that I said, quite plainly that gender roles are based in basic truths, and that yes there are gender roles, and yes, we have a basic chemical make up.

I understood it quite well, and as I said... it has jack nothing to do with this discussion. This thread was about interactions and understanding the other gender. You are now bringing up things that were MENTIONED as a side point to compliment reasoning, but you are making that the basis of the conversation now... which once again, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC.

The point of avoiding generalizing is that it can be a dangerous thing to do because that leads down the road of stereotyping incorrectly. I'm not arguing that women don't have estrogen, and that men don't have testosterone. I was arguing that you have to broaden your understanding of the definitions of "gender" and "sex, "male" and "female." On top of that, gender roles exist, otherwise I wouldn't have brought up things like "boys don't cry." I am perfectly aware that they exist. My point, however, is how damaging certain roles can be. To imply that "boys don't cry" indicates the expectation in men not to show certain emotions, and if you are a man and you cry, then you must be weak. That's a role that is damaging. While women take on the role of mother, not all women want to, though. The idea society continues to insist upon is that if a woman doesn't get married and have a baby she'll be incomplete somehow. That's ridiculous. It doesn't hold true for everyone.

Avoiding generalizations is dumb, it's just as dumb as assuming a generalization is the end all truth. And you contradict yourself over and over. "Boys don't cry" and what not... IS NOT A GENDER ROLE. That is a false stereotype, that frankly, isn't even believed and hasn't been believed for decades. I think it's you that has the problem of understanding...

Also, I included the sex that is often ignored: inter-sex. How do you prescribe a gender role to someone with both sexes?  

Uh... do you even know what inter-sex is? An inter-sex child is not one that has both sexes. It's one that is BORN OF ONE SEX, but identifies more with the other sex. Physically, they are still that sex. One with BOTH SEXES is a hermaphrodite(I currently know 3). And even in these cases, despite having both sexual organs, they generally do identify with one sex more than the other, because the majority of their body is built towards one sex... despite having both reproductive organs(and generally these organs do not work properly).

I think you also misunderstood me when I said "sex" based on when you said "sex plays a part in action."  I did not refer to the act of sex. I referred to the biology of a person, as in "vagina," "penis," or both. Gender is the identification, and has little to no relation to the biological sex of a person. People often confuse the terms, so if you did I hope that cleared that up.

You made sense prior. Now this one doesn't make sense at all. First you say that you were referring to the physical actuality, now you are saying it has no relation to the biological sex of a person. You realize the BIOLOGICAL is the gender... Gender is NOT the identification, and that is not the biological make up. Gender identification is a mental state. Although those are separate, the gender is still the gender of the person.

I know plenty of post ops, and pre-ops. They would seriously laugh at you if they read this.

And yet, I still don't know what any of this has to do with this thread.

There are gender roles. Men think a certain way... because they're men, and women think a certain way because their women... there is physical evidence of this as well. But, it's not ALWAYS like this, and it's not because of sex that people misunderstand each other of the opposite sex. NOTHING you have said even applies to this thread as a whole, and once more, it more sounds like you're jsut trying to state your opinion because you want to state it... despite not even having a real grasp of what you "believe".

[Eeri-chan]

What I said clearly went misunderstood. Either you didn't read all of it, or you just didn't understand what I said, and I don't appreciate the way you answered. I was being as respectful as possible. And if you'd read all of it, you'd have noticed that I said, quite plainly that gender roles are based in basic truths, and that yes there are gender roles, and yes, we have a basic chemical make up.

I understood it quite well, and as I said... it has jack nothing to do with this discussion. This thread was about interactions and understanding the other gender. You are now bringing up things that were MENTIONED as a side point to compliment reasoning, but you are making that the basis of the conversation now... which once again, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC.

The point of avoiding generalizing is that it can be a dangerous thing to do because that leads down the road of stereotyping incorrectly. I'm not arguing that women don't have estrogen, and that men don't have testosterone. I was arguing that you have to broaden your understanding of the definitions of "gender" and "sex, "male" and "female." On top of that, gender roles exist, otherwise I wouldn't have brought up things like "boys don't cry." I am perfectly aware that they exist. My point, however, is how damaging certain roles can be. To imply that "boys don't cry" indicates the expectation in men not to show certain emotions, and if you are a man and you cry, then you must be weak. That's a role that is damaging. While women take on the role of mother, not all women want to, though. The idea society continues to insist upon is that if a woman doesn't get married and have a baby she'll be incomplete somehow. That's ridiculous. It doesn't hold true for everyone.

Avoiding generalizations is dumb, it's just as dumb as assuming a generalization is the end all truth. And you contradict yourself over and over. "Boys don't cry" and what not... IS NOT A GENDER ROLE. That is a false stereotype, that frankly, isn't even believed and hasn't been believed for decades. I think it's you that has the problem of understanding...

Also, I included the sex that is often ignored: inter-sex. How do you prescribe a gender role to someone with both sexes?  

Uh... do you even know what inter-sex is? An inter-sex child is not one that has both sexes. It's one that is BORN OF ONE SEX, but identifies more with the other sex. Physically, they are still that sex. One with BOTH SEXES is a hermaphrodite(I currently know 3). And even in these cases, despite having both sexual organs, they generally do identify with one sex more than the other, because the majority of their body is built towards one sex... despite having both reproductive organs(and generally these organs do not work properly).

I think you also misunderstood me when I said "sex" based on when you said "sex plays a part in action."  I did not refer to the act of sex. I referred to the biology of a person, as in "vagina," "penis," or both. Gender is the identification, and has little to no relation to the biological sex of a person. People often confuse the terms, so if you did I hope that cleared that up.

You made sense prior. Now this one doesn't make sense at all. First you say that you were referring to the physical actuality, now you are saying it has no relation to the biological sex of a person. You realize the BIOLOGICAL is the gender... Gender is NOT the identification, and that is not the biological make up. Gender identification is a mental state. Although those are separate, the gender is still the gender of the person.

I know plenty of post ops, and pre-ops. They would seriously laugh at you if they read this.

And yet, I still don't know what any of this has to do with this thread.

There are gender roles. Men think a certain way... because they're men, and women think a certain way because their women... there is physical evidence of this as well. But, it's not ALWAYS like this, and it's not because of sex that people misunderstand each other of the opposite sex. NOTHING you have said even applies to this thread as a whole, and once more, it more sounds like you're jsut trying to state your opinion because you want to state it... despite not even having a real grasp of what you "believe".

Inter-sex is the new term for hermaphrodite. Trans is the term for someone who is of one sex, but identifies as the opposite of their biological sex. I know plenty of tensgender people and transsexual people. This is the new term that is considered PC. Also, a "true hermaphrodite" has to have a fully formed ovary and a fully formed testis, or two ovatestes, and that's rare. There are many variations within inter-sex. And yes, some inter-sex people do identify as one more than the other. But there are times when they start out identifying one way, then because of the hormones changing in their body switch. But that doesn't change that there are people who identify fluidly. I'm not trying to get in some heated debate, which you seem intent on doing by trying to demean my intelligence in your rude responses.  

You misinterpreted my use of "boys don't cry." No duh it's bullshit. Why else would I use it in explaining that gender roles are bull. Yes, it was once a common concept in teaching young boys, that is still used by some. I know men cry. But there are people who still treat the male sex as though by being a man you can't express emotion.

Don't tell me what I do and don't believe, or tell me that I don't understand. Your response to me indicated you didn't, if you would approach the matter in a respectful way, and try just a bit to see what I was saying instead of jumping to immediate attack and morphing my words to suit said attack, you would see that I actually agree with you on certain things, and just because I might have differing views doesn't mean I'm an idiot or that I don't comprehend what I'm saying. I've been taking Queer studies. I know the difference between inter-sex and transsexual and transgender, I know people in the process of taking their hormones and people who are post-op, I understand the different between sex and gender identification, and the word "gender" is used more commonly to define the identification of a person. While it is interchangeable, I was using it in this context.

I did my best to relate this to the topic of interaction, but because you insisted on making this into some drag-down, beat-down discussion it has devolved and no longer relates to the topic at hand. I don't really give a shit though because you have absolutely no manners, and it's ridiculous that you think you can feasibly argue in such a rude, condescending manner as though I don't know what I'm talking about. I know what I believe in, I know what I'm talking about, and that's that. I may not agree with you 100% but I do know that you said something prior to this that I agreed with. I see no reason why you couldn't have approached this in a more mature manner, and I thank you to do so in the future. I wasn't trying to start anything, and I wish you wouldn't lash out so pointlessly. I'm trying to maintain a level head in this, but you are seriously pushing my patience in that and I do not like it one bit. You've been nothing but rude since the off in replying to me. You have no right to do that and I don't appreciate it. An educated discussion does not require such backhanded and blatant insults.

[PyronIkari]

And my point is from the beginning it NEVER HAD anything to do with the topic at all... though

1/8 people are born a hermaphrodite? Ha... hahahaha.... hahahahaha. I'm guessing you some how horribly types .018%. But to clarify that's roughly 1 in every 5556 people.

No I didn't misinterpret your misuse of boys don't cry... because that's not the gender role at all, that's merely a stereotype. The gender role is that men have to be strong and tough... "Boys don't cry" is an example of the gender role, but not the gender role at all.

Oh, I'm sorry, you've been taking classes... in "queer studies" sorry, I understand you are an expert on the subject matter because you've taken a few classes on the subject, especially when that this still has jack nothing to do with the subject, and psychology/train of thought/reasoning/ethics are more on the subject matter.

And you're still wrong. The word gender isn't what people identify with. The word gender by definition is physical sex. If you ask a pre-op what gender they are they will tell you their physical sex, but then usually follow it up with "But I more identify with..." the sex they most identify with.

But who am I to argue, you take some classes. For someone that is so picky about terminology, your grasp on it is very... wavering.