Is There A Gender War?

[Eddie Dane]

Straight people are so cute! They think they have to be a certain way because of their chromosomes. It's all cultural. Every single little bit of it. Be who you want to be, little straight people. Don't let anybody tell you you have to be a certain way. And try to dress better. God. Are mirrors really that rare?

So, you don't think you are certain way because of your chromosomes?

And you think that all the obvious differences between male/female behaviour are cultural? Really?

And what's wrong with the way heterosexual men dress? I mean really.

 

[Dancing David]

Firstly, are my experiences common? Is there really a "gender war"? Is there genuinely a widespread level of conflict between the sexes? I don't necessarily mean outright open hatred here, for what it's worth. I'm talking more of those little quips that slip into every day usage.

I think it is one of those areas where personal issues and social power get confused with the morphology of sexual differences.

But yes personal bias, social structure and politics often slip into social structures.

Take something that is still extant but less common in some ways, rivalry between girls and homophobia in boys. Coming up in the sixties and seventies it was apparent and more apparent in you watch movies from the 40s and 50s, that women were socially raised to compete with each other. Now some of this is normal peer group politics, but some of it was more insidious. Women seemed to be treated as though they should be in competition with each other for male attention, not as bond friends. This is still common in some area, especially where a female's value is based solely upon who she can catch.
Male homophobia, there was competition amongst men as peer politics. But as someone who is not gay but perceived as gay by stupid morons it was a problem. I was beat up for being smart and not one who followed typical male stereo types of behavior. This seems to me to be based upon homophobia, if you aren't following the herd script then you must be gay. And since men can't control their urges you are a threat. I think they were all suppressed gays.

Secondly, from our older generation, thinking back to your younger days, did this sort of thing happen then? Was there that daily good-natured (or not so good-natured) bit of "fun" that really amounted to sexism?

Humor about the sexes is always going to exist, humor exists for all aspects of society. It seems to me that there were stronger stereotypes about gender role behaviors then. But a lot of that had to do with the social norms at the time. But the prevalence of jokes about effeminate men, or how only studly men were good men (look at Jerry Lewis) and about things like the difference between Lucy and Ricky.
The issues hidden in the Dick VanDyke show and the Mary Tyler Moore Show are real, the funny woman on the DVD is not attractive, and Mary and Rhoda struggle with their identities. men are all stereotypes except for Murray.
Sorry I know I am referencing USer shows here.

Lastly, from those familiar with studying past western societies, particularly those familiar with the detailed ins-and-outs of day to day life, did this exist in our past?

In other words, assuming what I have observed is indeed present across the board in society, does this represent a divide emerging between the genders, or is it just part of the fun and games of being a human being?

Finally, a request... these topics tend to bring out that behavior, so I'd ask, aside from citing specific examples, if we could keep those digs at the inferior sex out of the thread.

For full disclosure, I am male.

I think two things, one humor is what it is, it points top all the inequality in societies. Then there are the witch trials in Europe, where it seems some pogroms against females occurred.

 

[Dancing David]

I am not so sure those good old days were all that good. I am only 32, but I talked a lot with different grandparents (I had 8, because the natural 4 all divorced and married again) They were all born between 1913 and 1929. One thing that is a bit remarkable for that time that all 4 females got an academic degree. Yet the times were so that they didn't do anything with their high level of education. They still got into the traditional wife and mother role. But it means they were on equal level with their equally high educated husbands. My grandmothers didn't indicate that they were disappointed with the way their lives turned out to be. (out of the 8 grandparents , 3 still live)

Talking to them gave me one strong impression: That generation didn't TALK to each other so much. not to eachother, not to their children (my parents generation) Only to me, at the end of their lives, a grandchild they would talk openly. I got the feeling that it was normal then, to be silent about most social issues. (The divorces also were subjects one didn't talk about)

Yup, both my grandmothers had college educations, that qualified you to be a secretary who made less than your un-college educated boss, or a school teacher.

My grandmother was thrilled when I worked in outreach mental health, show opened up to me when I worked in a DV shelter. She stated that she wishes people had talked about issues like domestic violence and child abuse when she was younger.

 

[Dancing David]

I think the stereotype "women like jerks" is valid, but cause and effect are reversed. It is not that women particulrly like jerks -- rather, men whom women find attractive act like jerks BECAUSE THEY CAN.

If a young man finds out he can easily get a lot of women dues to his looks, money, or position on football team, he begins treating them like dispensable tissues because he knows he can always get another one. Women badmouth him (deservedly) -- after they break up with him. He does not care because by then he is screwing the next one.

A young man who does not have same advantages has to be nice in order to attract women. He still does not get as much action as the rich handsome jerk. Bitterness and "women like jerks" stereotype ensues. No, women do no like jerks. They like rich and handsome. Rich and hadsome gets spoiled and becomes a jerk.

As an aside I think that the chimp studies hold true. The stud muffin chimp postures around, has public sex occasionally with the females. The friendly/submissive chimp spends more time with the females, has more sex (less public) and engenders more children.

However the big issue in humans is the attraction factor, some women are attracted to studly dominant men, many are not. the question si what kind of people are you attracted to and are they attracted to you. I seem to have been a magnet for women who liked friendly submissive men but then wanted a macho stud machine. this was very confusing for me. My soluotion, I went after nice women that I was attracted to, rather than letting the weird ones select me.

 

[69dodge]

she laughs at the idea that she's been somehow "conditioned" to accept a role as mother and husband.

I laugh at that idea too.

(Don't shoot. I'm not in a war against funny mistakes. I just like joking about them.)

 

[Stout]

oops....damn typos

or was it a Freudian slip ?

 

[Dancing David]

Funny, there are differences in morphology in humans. yet humans have no instinct after the age of six weeks. there are biiological differences due to hormones and the like. But there are no instincts to vary between the sexes.

 

[Mark6]

I must point out that there are feminists who claim exactly that. They call it false consciousness.

Hi Mark...interesting article.

You're welcome!

I'm familiar with the basic premise but I'd never heard the term false consciousness.

As Thinking Girl mentions, it originated with Karl Marx.

I guess what this boils down to, to grossly oversimplify it is a nature vs. nurture argument.

I'm leaning toward the nature side when I said what I said above.

While Thinking Girl does not sound like someone I would want to have a dinner conversation with, I can sympathize with the desire she expresses at the end of the article:

Under an equal society, I would be free to wear whatever I wanted to wear, because there would be nothing negative attached to the wearing of lipstick of high heels or pencil skirts or corsets. I would be free to have children or not without any snide remarks about my womanhood. I would be free to do whatever I wanted to do without negative attachments placed on me for either being too feminine or not feminine enough. That is what my feminism is about.

IOW, she wants no behavior to be judged on the basis of being associated with men or with women. Which I think would be a good thing. Unfortunately, I do not believe this is going to happen as long as men and women remain distinct sets. I may have mentioned it before on this board -- true gender equality will arrive only when technology enables a complete, functional, and fully reversible sex change to be performed on one's self, or with minimal assistance.

 

[Stout]

Hi Mark...

Thinking girl struck me as a bit of a paradox in that she seems to be talking feminism, but her substance looks more like it has to do with the ways women interact and judge each other.

I lived through ( and even participated in ) feminism in the 1990s, to the point of even dating a feminist lawyer, and when it came right down to the core beliefs, I found the philosophy just as rife and corrupted with the same hatred it professed to be against. IMO, 1990s feminism went too far , remember when "oogling", the simple act of looking at a woman was up for consideration as a crime....yet the feminists I knew were very concerned about their appearance.

Kind of like Naomi Wolfe and her Beauty Myth...in every TV interview I saw with her, she spent some time trying to look hot. What was, specifically, the message she was trying to get across ? I walked away a confused guy...

Thinking Girl's paragraph that you quoted confuses me in the same way. So she's talking about dressing provocatively, about wanting to dress for attention, yet she feels that, somehow, there's a negative about this. Not from men It's other women that are going to give her the snide remarks, yet she seems to think that this somehow fits into the framework of feminism.

I highly doubt it's men who are making comments about her womanhood and her choice not to have children.

I like your idea if the instant reversible sex change idea At first read, I found it humorous, but on reflection, I think you nailed it....big time.

 

[Mark6]

Thinking Girl's paragraph that you quoted confuses me in the same way. So she's talking about dressing provocatively, about wanting to dress for attention, yet she feels that, somehow, there's a negative about this. Not from men It's other women that are going to give her the snide remarks, yet she seems to think that this somehow fits into the framework of feminism.

I highly doubt it's men who are making comments about her womanhood and her choice not to have children.

I agree -- in my experience, women are far more judgmental about the looks and behavior of other women than men are. Although men sometimes judge each other on the basis of their girlfriends' appearance. A young man may get laughed at because is dating a fat girl. Not sure how common it is.

I like your idea if the instant reversible sex change idea At first read, I found it humorous, but on reflection, I think you nailed it....big time.

Thank you -- I was utterly serious!

I got the idea from a throwaway line in Alastair Reynolds' "Chasm City" -- in part because it is a throwaway line. When Tanner Mirabel comments on Zebra's appearance -- her skin is all black and white stripes, hence her nickname, -- Zebra replies: "In Canopy, we look however we want to look. I was not always female either, you know." The fact that Zebra was once a man is never mentioned again in the entire book, nor does Tanner react in any noticeable way. There is no indication he even thinks about it when he makes love to Zebra few pages further.

That's true equality of sexes -- you are what you want to be, and nobody looks down on you for it.

 

[Dancing David]

There was a story on my local NPR about Second Life and how this straight man was masquerading as a lesbian, he fell in love (in character) with another lesbian and realized that he really was falling in love with this other person..
Who turned out to b another straight man masquerading as a lesbian.

Enquiring minds want to know!

 

[Skeptic]

There *is* a war between the sexes, but it's not going anywhere.

Too much fraternization with the enemy.

 

[tyr_13]

Just a few quick thoughts.

As a young(ish) male, it does not seem like I am valued nearly as much as females of my age.

Some examples: the series of "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" clothing and accessories. The drastically higher rates of suicide, homeless, and workplace fatalities in men. If these situations were reversed, think how people would react.

Another that annoys me, as I am going back to school, is that at my school, there are various scholarship open exclusively to women, ethnic minorities, etc., but none for white men. I do not see how this is fair.

When I mentioned things like this, or was even upset growing up, I would mostly get the "suck it up and be a man." This just told me that my feelings were readily discounted and of no concern to me.

So I have no coherent message, just a few rambling points.

You know, I've notice all that too. A man dies and no one really cares, but if it were a woman, "OH NO!" Of course if it is a hot, rich, white girl who dies while doing something plainly stupid it gets national media attention.

I had a hard time getting scholarships for college as well. Some said I had no leadership experience (I guess doing Student Council every year in high school didn't count because I was never elected to it, and neither did Prom Committee, because I lost that election as well, and neither did Spirit Week Committee, because I lost that election, who would think that high school popularity contests would bite me in the ass?). Others I couldn't get because I'm not Christian, and then there were the ASS load that were only for minorities and women. I refused to use my native American ancestry in part because of principle, and mostly because I don't look native American. In the end my high grades, amazing test scores, and other activities didn't get me one dime. Thankfully I live in New York and am dirt poor, so the state payed most of my way through college.

I went to a mostly female college (which most are these days anyway), and there were some feminazi around. The stupid mistake I made was going to the Vagina Monologues without a female or gay person to accompany me. Besides the hateful looks, I got to hear, "he's just here to get laid," said about me by women three times. (How did I know they were talking about me? There weren't any other guys who fit the, 'big guy with long hair' description.) I think the feminist movement has to get over blaming men for what sexual discrimination against women still exists, and start helping men with the discrimination against them if the movement is to move forward.

As far as the 'nice guy syndrome' goes, there is more than the simple 'spoiled' cause and effect. I agree that happens, but what also happens is that women learn what they are supposed to desire from other women. Jerks get more women publicly, and women tend to associate being a desirable male with the actions of a jerk. Men see this, and I know many an otherwise nice guy act like a jerk just to get women. Women wanting jerks creates more jerks. Also, nice guys not getting attention from women not only messes up many nice guy's confidence, but other women then think that there has to be something wrong with the nice guy if no women have deemed him worthy. For example, someone told me women want to feel lucky, that their guy could have gotten other women but chose her. So if a guy doesn't have other women after him, women want him even less. My thought is, don't any women want to be smart? Wouldn't finding an amazing guy that other women don't recognize as amazing make them feel smart?

It has also been said that women don't want jerks, but confident guys. My problem with this is that most women I've asked can't tell the difference between being an ******* and being confident. Personally, I think talking to women like a real person, and listening, shows confidence where the actions of jerks shows insecurity.

I too have been assumed to be gay because of being a nice guy. The worst is when it comes from a woman you're actually perusing in a romantic way. Oddly this has gained me several gay, bi, and lesbian friends. The lesbian and bi females are normally women I've asked out before being informed of their status. Thankfully my gay male friends have assured me that 1) I don't act 'gay' and none of them ever thought I was 2) I'm not **** ugly, and 3) I'm not a socially inept idiot. This makes it all the more perplexing why no woman I have ever asked out has said yes.

Women like nice smart guys when they get in their 30's? I'm sorry, that's ********. Not ******** in that it isn't true, but as in it sucks coal. So in their 20's women get to have the ********, and epic amounts of sex, and then in their 30's they'll get us nice guys to help raise the kids the ******** won't? Sounds like the women come out on top two decades in a row there.

Is the most sound strategy to be a dick when you're in your 20's and a nice guy when you get in your 30's? If so, can someone give me jerk lessons while I still have some years left of my 20's?

Oh right, the topic. Sexism works both ways, and sucks both ways. But for many people there is no, 'gender war', just wants and needs (and frustrations).

 

[Mark6]

Here is a very insightful article on this whole matter:

Love in the Time of Darwinism

Unfortunately, it is not likely to help Tyr_13. But it explains a lot.

young men face a bewildering multiplicity of female expectations and desire. Some women are comfortable asking, "What’s your name again?" when they look across the pillow in the morning. But plenty of others are looking for Mr. Darcy. In her interviews with 100 unmarried, college-educated young men and women, Jillian Straus, author of "Unhooked Generation," discovered that a lot of women had "personal scripts"—explicit ideas about how a guy should act, such as walking his date home or helping her on with her coat. Straus describes a 26-year-old journalist named Lisa fixed up for a date with a 29-year-old social worker. When he arrives at her door, she’s delighted to see that he’s as good-looking as advertised. But when they walk to his car, he makes his first mistake: he fails to open the car door for her. Mistake Number Two comes a moment later: "So, what would you like to do?" he asks. "Her idea of a date is that the man plans the evening and takes the woman out," Straus explains. But how was the hapless social worker supposed to know that? In fact, Doesn’t-Open-the-Car-Door Guy might well have been chewed out by a female colleague for reaching for the office door the previous week.

 

[gumboot]

That's an interesting article...

And I think a lot of women are trapped in a dilemma of their own gender's making. Like the article says, a lot of women want a Mr Darcy - a gentleman who will open doors for them, plan an evening for them, and generally bend over backwards to provide for their wants. The problem is, that's a product of the man-dominated world.

When women attacked patriarchal society and demanded equal rights they destroyed the gentleman.

Simply put, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you want to be on equal footing with males, you can open your own car door.

I think a lot of women understand and appreciate this - I've been picked up for dates, I've had partners pay for my meal, and so forth, no worries - but there's some women who can't let go of the romantic notions of the 19th Century.

 

[Hokulele]

Like the article says, a lot of women want a Mr Darcy -

And many others want Colin Firth.

Rawr.

 

[Bikewer]

Having been in law enforcement for 40 years, I was witness to the first attempts to integrate women into the patrol ranks. Prior to that, female officers were relegated to "juvenile" duties, or acted in other administrative capacities.
These first women officers went through a lot of grief. For many, the only way to survive was to prove that they were "just as tough as the boys". This led to a lot of over-reaction...
Nonetheless, I think it's generally true that women have been accepted into the ranks, as they have in associated fields such as fire/paramedic/EMS, etc.

Still, it's apparent that there is still a potent sexist element in the work force generally.
We still hear of inequitable pay for the same job, often justified by things such as "women get pregnant." , or "women call in sick too frequently", and so on.
There are still plenty of men in executive/supervisory positions of an age that older sexist viewpoints are still in evidence.

Look at all the hooplah over the election. The potential election of a female president (or vice-president) is still a Big Deal on the political scene.

 

[luchog]

I think the stereotype "women like jerks" is valid, but cause and effect are reversed. It is not that women particulrly like jerks -- rather, men whom women find attractive act like jerks BECAUSE THEY CAN.

However the big issue in humans is the attraction factor, some women are attracted to studly dominant men, many are not. the question si what kind of people are you attracted to and are they attracted to you. I seem to have been a magnet for women who liked friendly submissive men but then wanted a macho stud machine.

While I agree that this is often the case, I don't agree that it's invariably cause and effect. A lot of women do choose the jerks, simply because they're jerks, due to two factors: One, they're conditioned to by their culture and their upbringing. In all the studies of abused women, they more often than not choose their abusers because they were abused by their fathers So they're choosing something that they're familiar with, that they understand how to deal with, even if it's a suboptimal situation. Second, women are programmed too choose strong, self-confident males; it's part of our genetic heritage. That doesn't mean muscular and macho; it means someone who has demonstrated that they're capable of fighting for their place in the world, and can be good providers. This is why so many women are attracted to powerful figures. The problem is that it's often diffcult to differentiate between someone who is truly strong and self-confident; and someone who is just a macho jackass.

And try to dress better. God. Are mirrors really that rare?

Oh please, have you seen the way the queers around here dress? Honey, just because it's got a label, doesn't mean you should walk around looking like a refugee from a bad '70s teen flick. Stop letting the cute but clueless GAP clerks tell you how to dress. Especially if you're 40. "Tossled" only looks good if you have the hair for it, and don't have the gut. And for all you drag queens out there, the leopard print mini only works if you have the legs for it, dear; and for Dorothy's sake, shave!

We still hear of inequitable pay for the same job, often justified by things such as "women get pregnant." , or "women call in sick too frequently", and so on.
There are still plenty of men in executive/supervisory positions of an age that older sexist viewpoints are still in evidence.

I don't have the link handy, but there was a study done a while ago that amply demonstrated that those are serious factors in the "pay inequity". Women are more likely to accept a first offer instead of negotiating, they're more likely to accept non-monetary benefits in lieu of pay, they're less likely to consent to working large amounts of overtime, or work non-standard shifts with a compensatory pay differential, and they're more likely to take a lower paying job that offers greater flexibility of schedule and a more comfortable working environment. In fact, it's largely due to the increase of women in the workforce that things like flex-time, non-monetary compensation, attention to ergonomics, and the reduction of "bullpen" environments have become far more common.

 

[gumboot]

I am also wondering if some of this gender-conflict is just a normal social bonding dynamic, and maybe a sign of affection and closeness.

I'll use the example of nations to illustrate.

New Zealand and Australia are two very similar nations in many ways. We share a very close national identity and attitude towards the world, we have similar sense of humour, values, and so forth. We even very nearly became one country not so long ago (and you hear talk of it from time to time). When we go out into the big wide world, particularly when we face adversity, more often than note we stand shoulder to shoulder. You could say we're the best of mates.

And yet, listening to us, you'd think we hated each other. For Kiwis, mocking Australians is practically a national sport, and for Aussies I suspect it is equally true of mocking New Zealanders. In particular, these jabs focus on differences between the two countries, as if we were polar opposites.

The same thing happened in my family, and seems quite common. Siblings fight with a degree of ferocity that can be quite staggering. Yet face them against the outside world and you watch how quickly those siblings close ranks.

Could it be the same with males and females? Is that good-natured rivalry really just a basic part of human bonding? When I joke with my mates about women being manipulative and deceitful, am I really just, in some strange human way, reinforcing my profound affection for the female of the species?

Worth thinking about?

 

[MattC]

I've observed a noticeable difference in the ways each gender presents conclusions. Women seem far more likely to say "Well I feel..." whereas men more often employ "I think..."

It doesn't seem that each gender employs a different method of thinking to arrive at their conclusions despite the literal interpretation of their words, merely that they weight the incentives differently.

~ Matt