Men from mountain, Women from valley

[Artifice Orisit]

Originally Posted by Fernando_the_weasel
FYI I'm female but resort to a male name on the internet because I've discovered many times that people are condescending to women on the internet.

I can't understand the hostility; I used to think that it could be the result of friendly guy-to-guy hostility being misinterpreted. But after having witnessed it on other forum and online games it seems almost like some sort of tribalism.

In my gender's defence (why am I doing this?), I've read an article somewhere about the loss of "gender territory". Apparently some guys feel that they're losing the places where they could just-be-guys. This issue isn't restricted to the internet, when women first started frequenting bars there was an outcry against it; on the basis that guys need male-only venues.

From a scientific perspective early cultures have been know to have gender specific "sacred" places. These places served as a private area where gender specific issues could be discussed, privately. Discussions like: birds/bees, relationships/feelings, history/culture, knowledge/secrets and just general free social interaction (burping and farting competitions included).

It's quite a shame that modern societies no-longer have these "gender sacred" places, it was an important stabilizer for early society. Now relating this to internet forums, although they aren’t used to quite the same extent they were one of the last places for specifically male-to-male interaction. Thus hostility is generated by the "intrusion" of female members, disturbing the unconscious "sacred" place.

The above was copied from another thread
I've never been hostile towards someone because of their gender... well actually that's a lie, at a school camp there was the incident with the lost, ahem gay-boy trying to find his tent.
Him: It's dark, I'm confused.
Me: No fucking shit Sherlock, you think you’re confused?
(please excuse expletives)

In my defence I'm not homophobic; I just don't want them in my tent at night.
moving on...

let's discuss this, (not that incident)
is it true/false?
what are these "sacred places"?
your experiences with this behaviour?
ladies what are your thoughts?
Other relative points/issues?
Is there a rights issue here?

[Calamedes]

*freudian accent* You are not OK vit allowing homosexual men in your tent at night? Did something happen vit you und your mozer?


hahaha j/k

I see a kernel of truth in the theory, but i don't accept this as a negative thing. Yes, things were much clearer with gender roles defined, but that also restricted a lot of freedoms to do certain things. For example, if I want to go into the fashion industry as a straight male, they would generally either laugh at me, telling me I'm in denial :P, or they'd send me out on my ass and telling me to go lift weights or something. Oh wait, that's happened...

[Artifice Orisit]

Originally Posted by Calamedes

*freudian accent* You are not OK vit allowing homosexual men in your tent at night? Did something happen vit you und your mozer?

Lol Freud jokes are great, actually this was primary school, so it could have been the traumatic experience that made me... what the heck am I?
Anyway he was actually lost, but I'm not a very understanding person when I've been woken up. Although, he did spend the night with a group of girls, so he was either gay as a pink doily or damn clever for his age.

[Inappropriate Behavior]

The point about gender specific "sacred" places is valid. I think however the reason why it upset women so much over the years is that there were so many of them for us and so few for them. Consequently, the womens movement, over the last 40 years especially, has worked to get rid of all of them for both genders. Overall, that's better than it was before but perhaps in time both genders can regain one or two "sacreds" to help with our collective sanity. Otherwise we really will need a Freud to ask us uncomfortable questions about our mothers and that would be too creepy.

[Calamedes]

creepy, but amusing for those of us who are still sane and don't require his services... which basically leaves gay guys (who get both) and monkeys (who get neither) *flips wrist*

[Waterstiller]

Originally Posted by Cognisant

From a scientific perspective early cultures have been know to have gender specific "sacred" places. These places served as a private area where gender specific issues could be discussed, privately. Discussions like: birds/bees, relationships/feelings, history/culture, knowledge/secrets and just general free social interaction (burping and farting competitions included).

It's quite a shame that modern societies no-longer have these "gender sacred" places, it was an important stabilizer for early society. Now relating this to internet forums, although they aren’t used to quite the same extent they were one of the last places for specifically male-to-male interaction. Thus hostility is generated by the "intrusion" of female members, disturbing the unconscious "sacred" place.

Gender sacred places = gender segregated places?

It's quite a relief to me that modern societies are doing away with gender segregation. Here are some "gender sacred" places that, in the past, were only for men: Political office, the workforce, the pulpit, higher education, sports.. I could go on. I'm quite glad it's on its way out. Yay for equality.

Personally, I think hostility is generated not by intrusion of a 'sacred place' as much as it is a redistribution of male privilege. The internet is the new podium/bowling alley/bar and any hostility towards women is an attempt by insecure men to retain privilege.

[Fedayeen]

From what I can think of it's the women taking the men's sacred place. Bars, sports, etc. however men don't do shopping, pedicures etc. the only men intruding into the women's sacred place is the gays.

(The above sounds much more prejudice then is intended)

If I am missing anything major (which I probably am) please point it out. I feel like I missed something major that will pretty much invalidate my post.

[eudemonia]

I must say I feel sorry for guys. I think that many of you are exploited and have no sacred places to share your experiences and thoughts. Men die earlier than women in general and looking around at my contemporaries I can see some reasons why. OK so women don't get as much acccess to power as men do but often this can be a choice. Many women choose not to climb the corporate hierarchy becuase they don't want what comes with it. Some women have the choice to opt out of working (or reduce their working) and raise children if they want to - though not if the family is reliant on both wages. This can be a fruitful time for them as they make friends and re-evaluate their lives, often finding new paths to explore while they raise their children.

Men are kept on the wage slave grind. Some men may enjoy this but a lot dont'. Even the senior men I know often do not get a chance to enjoy the fruits of their hard work, they are so busy travelling from hotel room to hotel room. Many of the men I know and have coached in the past are just wearing themselves out. For what? They never get the time to sit down and really reflect on what their lives are about. So they reach senior executive level in a company - they have heart trouble, failed marriages, alienated children and young turks after their jobs. Most of their 'friends' if they have any, are only the fair weather type and if they lost their job and their status, they would find themselves quite alone.

I strongly beleive you guys ought to have some sacred spaces to re-evaluate men's role in society and talk about what you want. But this is not the same as hounding out women from internet forums

And this is not to say that women don't have issues - its' just that men haven't really been allowed to explore their issues without women often jumping on them saying 'well what about us......' Both genders need their sacred spaces - just don't make me go to an all-womens sacred space

[Agent Intellect]

i can't say that i've ever really experienced (or witnessed, perhaps) much sexism. of course, where i work everyone gets paid a low wage! but to me its never really been an issue, i've always treated women equally as poorly as i treat men. they get absolutely no special treatment from me.

[Thomas Young]

Consequently, the womens movement, over the last 40 years especially, has worked to get rid of all of them for both genders.

That's very annoying, why get rid of them just because they can't come in and earwig our conversation. Get your own sacred place! I think by nature women are intrusive for example most of the time they want to know what we're talking about and like to get involved in male led conversation. I don't see many men getting involved in conversations woman have about lipstick and who's with who and crap like that, we don't really care its your realm not ours. See we stick to the rules and women keep breaking them. When we deny them, they go on like we're sexist.

Originally Posted by Venngennce

From what I can think of it's the women taking the men's sacred place. Bars, sports, etc. however men don't do shopping, pedicures etc. the only men intruding into the women's sacred place is the gays.

(The above sounds much more prejudice then is intended)

I Agree 100%.

[NoID10ts]

Maybe men should start throwing coed group sex parties where everyone is invited. More than likely, no self respecting woman would show and so it will be a sacred place for men by default, and no one would have to get offended.

If a woman does show up...........hey!........group sex!


Posts until everyone gets together and gets NoID10ts some help: 2

[Thomas Young]

Good idea, I'm for it

[Ermine]

Originally Posted by Cognisant

Originally Posted by Fernando_the_weasel
FYI I'm female but resort to a male name on the internet because I've discovered many times that people are condescending to women on the internet.

I can't understand the hostility; I used to think that it could be the result of friendly guy-to-guy hostility being misinterpreted. But after having witnessed it on other forum and online games it seems almost like some sort of tribalism.

I'm confused. How does my post have to do with this thread? Is the internet supposed to be a man's "territory"? And I didn't think my post referred to any hostility. I'm not even bothered much by the common jokes (eg. OMG wimm1ns 0n th3 1nt3rn3t! Naked pics?) I've just noticed that my thoughts are more appreciated when I'm gender ambiguous on the internet. If I am openly female on a forum/online game, not as much is expected of me.

[Thomas Young]

Well you are a woman.

[FusionKnight]

I love the whole idea of gender-specific "sacred" places. This theme has been a dominant aspect of my life, and I suspect of most men's lives, through either male-male bonding, or the desire for that bonding.

I think this has a lot to do with how maleness is achieved. A boy only turns into a man by learning from and imitating other men. In other words, in takes an older man to draw out the man from a boy.

I never had much of this sort of thing growing up, and I've always carried a wound because of it. Sometimes this male right of passage takes the form of hunting, fishing, or camping trips with prominent males in your life (like dads, uncles, older brothers, etc), in other cultures it might be in a sweat-lodge, etc.

I think male enclaves are just a continuation of this mentoring that happens between older men and younger ones. The barber shops in my city are a last remnant of this idea. The barbers simply refuse to cut women's hair (mainly for practical reasons; they don't know how), which leaves the shop as a male-bonding place, albeit with strangers.

I actually have a strong desire to have a place like this to go to be a guy, and get support and mentoring from other guys. This is almost impossible to find in our (U.S.) society today. Maybe something like the Lyon's Club, or Rotary Club, but they're most likely not gender specific anymore.

John Eldredge deals a lot with this subject in his book Wild at Heart.

[eudemonia]

I agree these male bonding patterns are vital in the formation of male identity. These rites of passage are important. I'm lucky I have a great godfather for my son who takes him out golfing and to football matches. He's also decided he's going to take him gambling when he's old enough. the theory being that if he's had access to it when supervised by other older men, it won't get out of hand. I don't agree but its been taken out of my hands - it has been decided that this is a male experience that his godfather wants him to have. I think us women have to admit that we don't really understand men. On the one hand we want to control them and on the other we want 'real' men.

In the UK women are taking on male behavioural patterns. On a typical Saturday night you can see women rolling drunk, being sick on the streets and screaming at onlookers where every other word is fuck. I think we're all confused about what we really want from life.

Oh, and I can't get the image of NoID10ts and Thomas Young in a group sex party together - but they both seem up for it

[FusionKnight]

Originally Posted by eudemonia

I think us women have to admit that we don't really understand men. On the one hand we want to control them and on the other we want 'real' men.

Eudemonia, I think you'd find Wild at Heart a fascinating read. This is one of the sad topic it explores; that masculinity and femininity are compliments to one another, and when, for example, women feminize men, both sides lose. Men lose their identity, and women (and society) lose the benefit of having "real" men.

[NoID10ts]

Originally Posted by eudemonia

Oh, and I can't get the image of NoID10ts and Thomas Young in a group sex party together - but they both seem up for it

Fantasizing about us like this is very demeaning.


Seriously, though. I think most men just need time to unwind and have a guys only time.

It seems like the ladies need this as well, but I can't comment on that other than to say I always envision it being reduced into some sort of tickle fight ().

In college, I was part of a fraternity (of complete outcasts mind you) and the guys would all get together and go create mischief and smoke cigars and say things we would never say in the presence of women (for fear of our lives). Even now, I have a friend who is a bit of a gun nut, that I go to the firing range with and we feel very masculine in the "Hunter" sense of the word. It's all a bit silly when I really think about it, but there is something about that time that is valuable to me. Is it something primitive within us?

[FusionKnight]

You use the word "primitive" but I think I'd prefer the word "fundamental". Regardless, I agree.

Masculinity and Femininity are inherited by those we're around. The sad part is so many of us don't get the initiation we need, and so we can't give it to our children (or other younger men), and the cycle continues.

I'll just speak about masculinity since I'm male (did anyone doubt? I don't think I've said before). There's something about maleness that expresses itself in "wild" ways. By this I mean in ways that resemble the wilderness. Maleness wants to be strong, stable, protecting, overcoming, fighting, striving, hard on the exterior, noble, sacrificing, free etc. We want to be like stones, like mighty oaks, like the eagle or the stag. All of these aspects, when they find their appropriate expression, are boons to society.

The catch is that the male-specific expressions of these traits cannot be developed around women. They have to be developed by men, through mentorship and "fathering" by other men. I think this means we require men-only times/places for this growth and development to happen. It doesn't really matter what/where these places are (bowling alleys, bars, camping trips, fraternal clubs, barber shops, etc), there just needs to be someplace where men can learn to be men from other men who have, in turn, learned from other men.

[eudemonia]

Fusion, I'd love to read the book - it sounds intriguing. You know the more you describe maleness in that 'wild' way, the more I think we have trapped men in bureaucratic, meaningless jobs that they are not suited for. I am reading something on management vs leadership at the moment. This guy's theory is that they both require different mind sets. Leadership is about risk, chaos, disorder in order to create the right order, freedom, independence and passion. Management is about order, predictability, safety, sociability which verges on conformity, lack of deep commitment, doing what's right vs doing the right thing.

The more I think about it, it feels uncannily like male vs female - with men being the leaders and women being the managers. Which would make sense from an evolutionary stand point.

My only problem is that I prefer men's company to womens. I would probably last two seconds in a female sacred space - it would be evens on whether I would run away first or be kicked out by the female tribe.

[Decaf]

I don't want to go too much into my viewpoint because I think it would only serve to derail an interesting conversation, but I disagree with a lot of what's been said. Masculinity and femininity are complimentary, but I don't think they are gender specific. I think the cultural demand of gender specialization is the only reason it appears to be do.

As I see it, even alpha males need to feel like someone is there to protect them when they're down. Even the most submissive person needs to feel like they have SOME control over their lives. I know plenty of women that are bored to tears by "feminine" talk. Many prefer the company of men because they think more along the same lines and want to talk about more interesting things. These women are sometimes labeled "Butch" or "Tomboy" and accused of lesbianism despite no apparent romantic interest in the same sex (remember Dodgeball?)

On the flip side there are men that aren't homosexual that don't enjoy talking about cars and science fiction. They'd prefer to talk about relationships and personal information, but if they reveal that interest they are labeled gay and derided.

I agree that there is a rite of passage, but I don't believe its so different between men and women. Somewhere along the line each person has to learn that self-sacrifice is important in building a world that is worth living in.

My cousins are some of the most well adjusted kids I know. They have a stay at home dad and mom who's a physician. It works for them and I admire my uncle Ben's insistence on bucking expectations by not having a steady job of his own. Not everyone is suited to that arrangement, but those that are should not be pressured into unhappiness by fitting their square peg through a round hole.

OK, sorry, and here I was trying to be brief...

[Dissident]

Originally Posted by eudemonia

In the UK women are taking on male behavioural patterns. On a typical Saturday night you can see women rolling drunk, being sick on the streets and screaming at onlookers where every other word is fuck. I think we're all confused about what we really want from life.

That happens here too, I have to admit that I hate it. If it happens in such different cultures it may be a global hideous trend, I wonder why tho.

[FusionKnight]

Of course, as in anything human, gender tendencies are just that: tendencies. If male and female traits were put in "normal curve" format, I think the means would lie quite aways apart, but there would be significant overlap in the tails.

I think that often expressions of masculinity are mistaken for masculinity itself. Enjoying cars, hunting, having a career, etc. can all be expressions of masculinity, but are not an all-inclusive list. In fact, I don't particularly enjoy cars, I've never been hunting, and I'd much rather let my physician wife earn our money so that I can pursue my real interests, rather than being stuck in a 9-5 job I hate.

I think men tend to be externally-minded, but the masculine traits of protection, strength, self-sacrifice, fighting, etc. can be applied inward to relationships and child-rearing also. Masculinity isn't about what you do, but about how you do it.

Of course, masculine traits can be twisted into very ugly and destructive things like bullying, chauvinism, lack of sympathy, etc. But these are inappropriate expressions of masculinity. They don't imply that masculinity itself is evil or wrong.

[FusionKnight]

Originally Posted by eudemonia

Fusion, I'd love to read the book - it sounds intriguing. You know the more you describe maleness in that 'wild' way, the more I think we have trapped men in bureaucratic, meaningless jobs that they are not suited for. I am reading something on management vs leadership at the moment. This guy's theory is that they both require different mind sets. Leadership is about risk, chaos, disorder in order to create the right order, freedom, independence and passion. Management is about order, predictability, safety, sociability which verges on conformity, lack of deep commitment, doing what's right vs doing the right thing.

I think this is a very interesting observation. Of course, we're dealing in generalities, and there may be many individuals for whom this does not apply, but I think many, many men have been "domesticated", squashing their "wild" side in order to fit into a peaceful, orderly, safe, and secure "feminine" society. If this goes far enough, there's nobody left to take on roles like that of a Firefighter which requires acceptance of danger, violence, self-sacrifice, and a general "wildness". The example of the firefighter is simply to illustrate that these male tendencies are required for society to function properly, just as femininity is required; squash either, and everything becomes unbalanced, and everybody suffers.

(Sorry for the double-post, but I realized I didn't comment on Eudemonia's post, and I thought it was a good one.)

[fullerene]

Masculinity and Femininity are inherited by those we're around. The sad part is so many of us don't get the initiation we need, and so we can't give it to our children (or other younger men), and the cycle continues.

This thread is good for my sanity... I've been convinced of this for something like 9 months now, and everyone try to talk to looks at me like I'm crazy. I'm actually fairly sure that I wrote almost the exact same thing, in many more words, somewhere else buried on this forum. "Forcing" women into the housewife spot, as feminists would probably put it, was the most damaging thing our ancestors could have done (regardless of whose fault it actually was)... you give tremendous power to the one who raises your kids. I don't have any grounds on which to say "the essence of maleness is gone from the world," but my brother and me certainly both got hit pretty hard by this. Both of my parents pushed a lot of feminine virtues, and (still) try to push us away from risk and adventure and danger in all forms (I'm 19, brother's 23). Just the other day I said I might want to go get a job giving tours in the Peruvian Rainforest this summer, where they need English speaking tour guides, and my mom immediately started on all the dangers and other reasons why that was a horrible idea. We certainly saw plenty of anger from my dad... but it wasn't "good" anger by a long-shot... more like the anger of a child who doesn't get his way. Having feminine virtues pushed constantly and listening to their parents discount anything else isn't good for anyone.

I don't think I would say we're scarred or anything... but I think it's only by a very conscious act of will. Even the feeling I get from fighting against such obviously artificially implanted ideologies is a little rejuvinating, just for the sake of some struggle. I'm almost certainly going to go do something crazy within the next few years as a result (though if it's touring the rainforests, I don't know)... and my brother took up Muai Thai kickboxing, his only real hobby in as long as I can remember (ever since lifting weights). Needless to say, I think that (at least some of) the younger generation is suffering for the values society has chosen--whether they realize it now or will find it out later.

[Decaf]

Industrialization is to blame. Trades used to be passed down from father to son, so at a young age sons accompanied their fathers to work and daughters accompanied their mothers. With industrialization jobs were too strict. You couldn't bring your kids because you were always working for someone else and it wouldn't be allowed. So sons went with their mothers instead or got jobs of their own. As industrialization brought household conveniences, the need to leave the house vanished altogether. With the civil rights movement child labor became illegal and now boys had nothing to do at all, so truancy was invented. Force boys to go to school until they were old enough for putting them to work was more palatable. The male role became to earn the money for the household. An almost exterior role, with no required participation with the family.

I just think we as a society haven't successfully coped with that problem yet.

[FusionKnight]

This topic is very fascinating and important to me; I'm glad we're having it.

John Eldredge wrote two books: Wild at Heart (about masculinity) and Captivating (about femininity). He typified masculinity and femininity by the questions they ask:

Masculinity asks "Do I have what it takes?", in other words, am I strong enough, am I smart enough, am I good enough...

Femininity asks "Am I lovely?", or said another way, am I worthy of being loved, am I beautiful, am I worth fighting for...

I think this may be one of the best descriptions I've ever run across.

[Decaf]

Now that I'm thinking about this subject and what some of you have said... I wonder if what we're experiencing is society's emergence from an industrial society to an information society. Maybe its our job to redefine what some of these concepts mean.

[Agent Intellect]

i've read before that the absence of a male father figure is a major factor in young males in the inner cities reverting to gangs. being raised by single mothers and having no positive male role models, it often turns them to act out and violent behavior. i can personally attest to that, having observed it in my friends older and younger brother. i'm not really going to go into details about them, but their dad is jobless, being bed ridden with a permanent back injury and on disability, he's usually in bed, spaced out on painkillers, and the absence of that masculine, male role model has caused their family some... problems.

[Jordan~]

I'd like to interject that I'm young and gay, I prefer the company of males, and none of my straight friends (or even straight guys in my year who aren't my friends) mind me changing in the same changing room as them in the slightest - I guess they don't think I have no self restraint. Consider that the possibly gay kid who was lost spent the rest of the night in a tent full of girls - he was outnumbered, they might have taken advantage of him! D:

[Agent Intellect]

Originally Posted by Jordan~

I'd like to interject that I'm young and gay, I prefer the company of males, and none of my straight friends (or even straight guys in my year who aren't my friends) mind me changing in the same changing room as them in the slightest - I guess they don't think I have no self restraint. Consider that the possibly gay kid who was lost spent the rest of the night in a tent full of girls - he was outnumbered, they might have taken advantage of him! D:

a lot of straight guys do seem to have the misconception that all gay guys are just waiting for them to look away for just a second so they can jump them. but, on the other hand, i think its more the mentality that leads to having seperate mens and womens changing rooms: girls don't want all the guys to be gawking at them (even though, in my opinion, only the immature ones would) just like guys don't want gay guys gawking at them (once again, i think only the immature ones would (and only the hot guys would have to worry about that, amirite?)).

[Jordan~]

You are right! And heck, I do, but I'm subtle about it! You'd need to be a bit dense to stand there slavering like a dog at a butcher shop window. I don't get the whole "gawking" argument - sure, when you're parading about scantily clad on some Meditteranean beach puffing out your plumage, you soak up all the glances, but the moment you're in a changing room it's suddenly terrible and immoral. It's like the whole thing with women's breasts: nipples on show = obscene, nipples covered up = fun for the whole family.
Really, if you're prudish enough to want gender or... attraction, or whatever, segregated changing rooms, you're probably prudish enough not to pounce at the first glimpse of genitals. And it's all the Victorians' fault. In the ancient world, oiling your body for the delight of your erastes before a naked wrestling match in public = a-okay. In many ways, they were more socially advanced than we are.

[Waterstiller]

Originally Posted by FusionKnight

This topic is very fascinating and important to me; I'm glad we're having it.

John Eldredge wrote two books: Wild at Heart (about masculinity) and Captivating (about femininity). He typified masculinity and femininity by the questions they ask:

Masculinity asks "Do I have what it takes?", in other words, am I strong enough, am I smart enough, am I good enough...

Femininity asks "Am I lovely?", or said another way, am I worthy of being loved, am I beautiful, am I worth fighting for...

I think this may be one of the best descriptions I've ever run across.

Are these all questions everyone should be able to ask, regardless of sex? I'd say that these are universal questions that humanity asks, and the differences are merely semantic.

Interestingly.. my transition to female would be one of the most masculine things I've ever done under this sort of questioning.

(Not that I have a better definition of what femininity and masculinity are.)

[eudemonia]

Originally Posted by cryptonia

Just the other day I said I might want to go get a job giving tours in the Peruvian Rainforest this summer, where they need English speaking tour guides, and my mom immediately started on all the dangers and other reasons why that was a horrible idea. We certainly saw plenty of anger from my dad... but it wasn't "good" anger by a long-shot... more like the anger of a child who doesn't get his way. Having feminine virtues pushed constantly and listening to their parents discount anything else isn't good for anyone.

You have to bear in mind that more women are SJ's and far fewer women are NT's (according to a link someone referred to in this forum from similarminds.com, but I can't now find the page). Many women are programmed to provide stability and order for their young (which works well up to a certain age) it is usually the father's job to override this instinct and introduce some danger and risk into the mix. Having said this Richard Branson wrote in his biography about his mother who postively threw him into risk. This is one of his stories:
"My mother was determined to make us independent. When I was
four years old, she stopped the car a few miles from our house and made me
find my own way home across the fields. I got hopelessly lost."
There are other stories like this: http://www.virgin.com/AboutVirgin/Ri...biography.aspx
She seems to have been a bit of a hero, and from his description of her probably an NT.

The trouble is that it is so difficult to buy your own house nowadays that boys often stay at home well into their twenties. This is dire for their maturity. Home is the mother's domain; it is the domain of order and SJness. Boys have got to break the ties with the mother in order to become a man (and many women resist this, though they love it when they finally meet their sons as 'men'). It's difficult when you don't have a father fighting the mother for the son's right to embrace risk and chaos. Then, the boy will have to find it within himself to break the ties (code for 'go for it Cryptonia ).

[Kuu]

Originally Posted by Jordan~

In many ways, they were more socially advanced than we are.

I've always thought so. Their social conventions were more close to what is natural for human diversity, than today's narrow minded values...

Originally Posted by Waterstiller

Are these all questions everyone should be able to ask, regardless of sex? I'd say that these are universal questions that humanity asks, and the differences are merely semantic.

Yes! What is the need for matching values with genitalia? Tradition holds no grounds by itself! Humanity has been terribly oversimplified by stupid gender stereotypes.


And thinking of these questions, I think that the idea of "Sacred places" has some merit. Not gender-segregated since I do not accept the masculinity/femininity duality. But definitely people need sacred places where they can be themselves, without any expectations, to ask questions without being judged wrong, with privacy and intimacy, with friends or sympathetic strangers, to slow down and talk and bond. I think those bonding moments or traditions that Fusion talks about are very good for that, but since they are gender-segregated, they add expectations that can not always be fulfilled, causing much anxiety... because of the confusion of gender and values and personality types. (That's why I love about the MBTI. It talks about personalities and their values, but does not mess around with gender nonsense.)

I think that this forum is one of those places, even if it is virtual. (It's been a hectic week, it's good to be back and take a break to think and read ). Would it be better if it were gender-segregated? No, that would be foolish, we would be loosing half of the world's potential insight...


Fusion, all this talk about the "wild" man reminds me of Nietzsche's conceptions of masculinity and femininity as value categories... though it seems it was more an unfortunate naming based on philosophical precedents, rather than misogyny (yet this is much argued).

[eudemonia]

Originally Posted by Tekton

What is the need for matching values with genitalia? Tradition holds no grounds by itself! Humanity has been terribly oversimplified by stupid gender stereotypes.


And thinking of these questions, I think that the idea of "Sacred places" has some merit. Not gender-segregated since I do not accept the masculinity/femininity duality. But definitely people need sacred places where they can be themselves, without any expectations, to ask questions without being judged wrong, with privacy and intimacy, with friends or sympathetic strangers, to slow down and talk and bond. I think those bonding moments or traditions that Fusion talks about are very good for that, but since they are gender-segregated, they add expectations that can not always be fulfilled, causing much anxiety... because of the confusion of gender and values and personality types. (That's why I love about the MBTI. It talks about personalities and their values, but does not mess around with gender nonsense.)
I think that this forum is one of those places, even if it is virtual. (It's been a hectic week, it's good to be back and take a break to think and read ). Would it be better if it were gender-segregated? No, that would be foolish, we would be loosing half of the world's potential insight...

Tekton I agree with you and that is one of the things that this forum provides. But sacred spaces based on gender are also vital. We have to start to acknowledge the differences between the genders, without stereotyping or promoting simplistic generalisations.

These differences can be quite surprising. Men have different brain structures to women. They have smaller corpus callossums for example - the bit that links the left and the right hand side of the brain. Psychologists claim that this makes it harder for men (in general - taking into account the normal distribution curves) to articulate their emotions than for women. Also you have to take into account the effects of the different hormones. Testosterone does make men more eager to embrace risk and danger. More boys are born than girls because more boys die in adolescance due to this tendency.

We have to accept these differences and explore their implications rather than pretend that they do not exist and are simply the result of cultural conditioning.

[Agent Intellect]

while i do recognize differences in male and female (and in between) i find it funny that people feel they can't talk about certain things in front of the opposite sex. i've never had a problem saying what i want to say to anyone, regardless of gender, except for maybe asking the girl out, but that wouldn't happen in an all male setting, either. perhaps i could argue that it would be a masculine trait to overcome ones fear of having to hold back in the presence of other genders, of being able to be oneself no matter whats found between someones legs? because to me it sounds like the men are putting on a mask for society and think they need someplace to go in order to remove that mask.

[Waterstiller]

Originally Posted by Tekton

But definitely people need sacred places where they can be themselves, without any expectations, to ask questions without being judged wrong, with privacy and intimacy, with friends or sympathetic strangers, to slow down and talk and bond. I think those bonding moments or traditions that Fusion talks about are very good for that, but since they are gender-segregated, they add expectations that can not always be fulfilled, causing much anxiety... because of the confusion of gender and values and personality types.

I completely agree with this and think that's the true focus of the "gender sacred" places people have in mind. Bonding and a place to be yourself.

I think these places are often naturally segregated by interests, and to exclude people on their genitalia is an archaic notion. Women with a more masculine gender identity should not be prohibited from any of these 'sacred' places - they actually belong.

Men and women have major biological differences - yes - but it's also a fact that there are major differences between members of a sex. Everyone is exposed to different hormone levels in the womb.. many men grow up being forced to be masculine when all it is, is 'should' behavior. And everyone here should understand how 'should' behaviors generally can be a pain in the ass.

Is there any reason as to why a masculine woman, who is interested in all the things a man is interested in, should not be allowed in male gender sacred places? Is she allowed if she dresses in men's clothes? Is 'she' allowed when 'she' comes out as a trans man and starts taking testosterone?

Why shouldn't a girl be able to go on the camping trip with her dad and brother? Lets say the brother is miserable and hates dirt, and the sister loves fishing.

Considering the way this thread has gone with parenting: What do you think about same sex parenting?

Fun things to watch:

P&T Bullshit: Family Values

P&T Bullshit: Family Values

30 Days Episode on Same Sex Parenting

[Calamedes]

Originally Posted by Waterstiller

Why shouldn't a girl be able to go on the camping trip with her dad and brother? Lets say the brother is miserable and hates dirt, and the sister loves fishing.

Holy crap, it's my family :P... except replace "sister [who] love fishing" with "sisters who like ice hockey and basketball" hahahaha

oddly enough, my parents never pushed the whole "should" business. Sure, my dad tried (yes, tried... and failed) to give me the "birds and the bees" talk, but that was about all the father-son bonding we had. That also means that I walk into go clothes shopping with my mother (although I hate shopping...) because she respects my fashion advice. On the other hand, my one sister (who, like i mentioned, plays ice hockey... with guys) also plays hockey with my dad. In our family, it doesn't matter if you're a girl or a guy; you do what makes you comfortable and it's all fine.

[Artifice Orisit]

Originally Posted by Jordan~

nipples on show = obscene, nipples covered up = fun for the whole family.

Lol Well this has been interesting.

[Ermine]

Originally Posted by FusionKnight

This topic is very fascinating and important to me; I'm glad we're having it.

John Eldredge wrote two books: Wild at Heart (about masculinity) and Captivating (about femininity). He typified masculinity and femininity by the questions they ask:

Masculinity asks "Do I have what it takes?", in other words, am I strong enough, am I smart enough, am I good enough...

Femininity asks "Am I lovely?", or said another way, am I worthy of being loved, am I beautiful, am I worth fighting for...

I think this may be one of the best descriptions I've ever run across.

While this is a good description, what about thinking women? I, for example, am obviously a straight woman but I still ask both questions on a daily basis. I want to be attractive and I want to proactively attract. I want to be pretty and have what it takes.

[EloquentBohemian]

Originally Posted by FusionKnight

Masculinity and Femininity are inherited by those we're around. The sad part is so many of us don't get the initiation we need, and so we can't give it to our children (or other younger men), and the cycle continues.

This is an aspect of life which is absent in our modern industrialized lifestyles: initiation. Boys are not initiated into manhood and girls natural initiation into womanhood, menstruation, was seen, up until the last 30 or 40 years, as something to hide or be ashamed of.
If I may quote from The Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell:

"...but we know what the aborigines do in Australia. Now, when a boy gets to be a little bit ungovernable, one fine day the men come in, and they are naked except for stripes of white bird down that they've stuck on their bodies using their own blood for glue. They are swinging the bull-roarers, which are the voices of the spirits, and the men arrive as spirits.
The boy will try to take refuge with his mother, and she will pretend to try to protect him. But the men just take him away. A mother is no good from then on, you see. You can't go back to Mother, you're in another field.
Then the boys are taken out to the men's sacred ground, and they're really put through an ordeal - circumcision, subincision, the drinking of men's blood, and so forth. Just as they had drunk the mother's milk as children, so now they drink men's blood. They're being turned into men. While this is going on, they are being shown enactments of mythological episodes from the great myths. They are instructed in the mythology of the tribe. Then, at the end of this, they are brought back to the village, and the girl whom each is to marry has already been selected. The boy has now come back as a man.
He has been removed from his childhood, and his body has been scarified, and circumcision and subincision have been enacted. Now he has a man's body. There's no chance of relapsing back to boyhood after a show like that." - (The Power of Myth, pp. 81-82)

Initiation rituals, male and female, have disappeared from our modern societies. There are no celebrations or rights of passage that I know of except perhaps in the Jewish faith; but not to the extent of altering the psychological patterning from child into adult.

These rituals took place on grounds sacred to male and female seperately. Men were forbidden to enter Female sacred places and vice-versa. A woman's initiation is given by Nature, but this bodily change was honoured and held sacred by the women she knew in her tribal society. It was celebrated by women and a girl entering this phase of her life was brought into the mysteries of womanhood and childbirth by other older wiser women whom she knew and respected, and of which men never knew of nor took part in.

Male circumcision was an act which designated a boy's entry into adulthood, a scarring which one could not deny and which would remind one of one's initiation, not the act of an impersonal doctor in a sterile hospital with no reason other than convention to justify it.

This is what we are missing now-days, rituals of passage and sacred spaces, not religious spaces, but places set aside to honour and respect one's own individual humanity and the acceptance as an equal member of the tribal whole.

Modern societies have lost ritual, sacred space and mythology. We base our lives on accumulation and distance. Perhaps the Internet will spawn some different form of sacred space, but I am doubtful.
And I mean sacred space as spoken of in the above paragraphs, not some place where boys or men can get together and talk dirty and burp and scratch themselves.

We must either regain our myths, male, female and tribal, or write mythologies anew which reflect the world we have created.

[FusionKnight]

I don't think anybody is suggesting that all sacred places be gender segregated, but certainly there should be some. For example, to get support and growth in my INTP-ness, I might come here, where (usually) there are only other INTPs who understand me, and from whom I can learn etc. To get support in my Christian faith, I might go to a Bible study with other's who believe like I do, and can help me learn and grow. Like those examples, I also require a place to find that support, growth, learning for my male-ness.

I just love that description of the aboriginal rite of passage. I think that sort of thing is desperately needed in today's society. I especially love the symbolic act of the men taking the boy away from mother's safety. I read another description of this rite (in Eldredge's book, I think); when the transformed boy comes back to the village, he is introduced to his mother. He now has a different name, and his mother pretends not to know who he is. He's really become someone new. She re-learns who he is, at the same time he is learning manhood.

When I have my own kids, I want to make sure rites like this are a part of their lives (male or female)... maybe without the circumcision though... :P

[Artifice Orisit]

Originally Posted by EloquentBohemian

And I mean sacred space as spoken of in the above paragraphs, not some place where boys or men can get together and talk dirty and burp and scratch themselves.

Exactly, although another place for specifically that could be a good idea...

Interesting, I was thinking of aborigines when I began this thread; but I never knew they practiced circumcision.

[EloquentBohemian]

Scarring and tattooing have always been signifiers of some right of passage, not a means of decorating the body. Scars and tattoos purposefully administered tell a personal story of the individual and one's position in the tribe. Hence, the Yakuza and Soviet prisoners, as two examples. The tattoed numbers of Jews from Nazi concentration camps tell an immediate story and place them within the context of human history.

Circumcision, and this is garnered from anthropologists examining tribal practices over the last couple of centuries and conjecture from stories and conversations from tribes, is a major rite of passage from boy to man. Just as woman bleeds at first passage from child to woman, so too must boy bleed in his passage to man. The scar and "disfigurment" are there for life so as to remind the individual of his passage and his relationship and responsibilities to the tribe.

Today, especially in Western societies where circumcision is practiced as a medical norm at birth, a boy sees no real changes outside of a bit more hair, a lowering of the timbre of the voice and a "distention" (...and extention) of a certain part of his anatomy. There are no disfigurements or scars, no traumatic experiences to his psyche and no forced seperation from his mother to bring him through this stage in life.

There are many ramifications to this which I'm sure Freud would have a thing or two to say about.

[Waterstiller]

I wonder what the aborigines think of a girl with androgen insensitivity syndrome who doesn't 'naturally' come of age as a woman because her period never comes.

Not all boys grow to become men, either.

Ya'll sound like old men yearning for the good ol' days. Nostalgia for myths instead of coming to terms with the replacement. Facts. :p



(and I sound like an annoying feminist! :))

[Artifice Orisit]

Let’s give him a circumcision! That will stop the Nostalgia.

I seem to be getting progressively inane, must be about time for me to log out.

[stercusaccidit]

I find all this slightly depressing. INTP is a typically male type. Being logical and unwilling to express emotions are typically male characteristics. In other words, you guys are all typical males, so of course you tend to be comfortable around other males and of course you want some time away from those emotional, irrational females. But then there are us INTP females. We're completely atypical. Growing up, I felt constantly isolated from my gender to the point where I even (to my parents extreme discomfort) wished I was a boy. I'm more secure now, but I still have nothing in common with SJ types-- similar to most of you, I'm sure.

The difference is that you are male, and you are also at least somewhat typically masculine. Not necessarily in liking sports or fishing or whatever else there is (I can't speak for that), but personality-wise. That makes you kind of biased on this topic. Of course you would enjoy an all-male sanctum and feel nostalgic for it. But-- and I feel whiny saying this-- what about me? We create those sanctums-- male and female. I have one in which I'm not allowed and one in which I feel extremely uncomfortable. In other words, I have none. While I agree that there are clear differences between the two genders, all these differences do is define what is typical. And such sacred places only cater to those who fall within the boundaries of typical. Most of you are typical and only taking into consideration those who are typical as well.

As a side note, it's also kind of depressing to know that, based on the definitions of femininity and masculinity presented here, I will never be referred to as feminine. I never WANTED to be girly, but I AM female, so I think it's an adjective that I at least have a right to... Oh well.

[FusionKnight]

Originally Posted by stercusaccidit

Of course you would enjoy an all-male sanctum and feel nostalgic for it. But-- and I feel whiny saying this-- what about me? We create those sanctums-- male and female. I have one in which I'm not allowed and one in which I feel extremely uncomfortable. In other words, I have none. While I agree that there are clear differences between the two genders, all these differences do is define what is typical. And such sacred places only cater to those who fall within the boundaries of typical. Most of you are typical and only taking into consideration those who are typical as well.

*not rude* So what?


You can find/create a personality-based sanctum, a hobby-based one, or even a career-based one. Not all sanctums created by/for all people are for you (or anybody else)! That's okay!

Create a female INTP sanctum, if that's the support environment you need. But for the bulk of male persons, we need this kind of sanctum. That's not to say other groups can't have sanctums based on other things.

[stercusaccidit]

Originally Posted by FusionKnight

Create a female INTP sanctum, if that's the support environment you need. But for the bulk of male persons, we need this kind of sanctum. That's not to say other groups can't have sanctums based on other things.

Yes, I recognize the need for gender segregated sanctums, it's just-- like I said-- kind of depressing. I didn't mean to imply that I would deny men and women these sanctums, although looking back I see that it comes across like that. More that it's a different thing, and I guess I just wanted to point that out. The male/female divide is huge. There is really nothing comparable. Hobbies, personality types, careers... None of it is even remotely similar. I AM female. And yet I'm not female enough. So I bow down to the need of the majority and feel sad that I can't have that.

Yeah. So, basically, that whole post (and this one), are me whining.

Heh. I'm so F-ish today. And the first thing I thought when I typed that was fish. I think it is sleep time.