Men from mountain, Women from valley

[EloquentBohemian]

Of course what I posted before was for illustration purposes to show that what we have lost is ritual and rites of passage in our technological societies. What needs to happen, and this would be evolutionary, is to slowly create new rituals and passage rites which reflect the sociological paths we humans have trod since our ancestors.
Mythology can be found in the works of William Gibson and the like which give new tribal organization and the integration of technology into the core of our present state.

Returning to the rituals of the past does nothing but confuse the present.
Myths do not necessarily mean gods and deities, myths are archetypal stories which go beyond personal and individual concerns and tune one into the collective, whatever that collective may be.

Perhaps our myths need to be androgynous and technoid.
Perhaps they need to encompass the advances in theoretical science.
Only time will create the myths, but these myths are a fundamental part of human cultures.

 

[Agent Intellect]

Of course what I posted before was for illustration purposes to show that what we have lost is ritual and rites of passage in our technological societies. What needs to happen, and this would be evolutionary, is to slowly create new rituals and passage rites which reflect the sociological paths we humans have trod since our ancestors.
Mythology can be found in the works of William Gibson and the like which give new tribal organization and the integration of technology into the core of our present state.

Returning to the rituals of the past does nothing but confuse the present.
Myths do not necessarily mean gods and deities, myths are archetypal stories which go beyond personal and individual concerns and tune one into the collective, whatever that collective may be.

Perhaps our myths need to be androgynous and technoid.
Perhaps they need to encompass the advances in theoretical science.
Only time will create the myths, but these myths are a fundamental part of human cultures.

we have our own myths. i think UFO's are the modern day version of dragons.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

This is an interesting tangent; the issue that this thread was started with has been exhausted so we may as well embrace this one.

I suppose being male is lucky in the sense that there are many activities associated with the male gender. I have absolutely no interest in sport (where the hell did you come from?-mum), instead I practice the seemingly "normal" activities of electronic gaming and other "geek" interests. I can't imagine somebody who is an INTP enjoying the socially accepted "normal" female activities, e.g. beauty, fashion, gossip, socialising... etc. I dress myself with consideration and shave regularly, but that’s completely different to the beauty and fashion cultures.

I suppose you should do what you want to do; if your not a girly-girl then don't act like one just because society impresses upon you to do so. Who's to say women can't engage in male associated activities; we (males in general) often have a lot more respect for women who can beat us at our own games.

 

[FusionKnight]

I'm not the typical "man's man" kind of guy; I don't play any sports, I don't particularly like watching any of them on TV, I don't tweak my car, I hate bars and drunkenness, I'm not promiscuous, etc.

However, there are elements of my personal male-ness that I do share in common with the bulk of male persons; I respond to risk, adventure, struggle, a connection with the natural world, etc. I may not share all male aspects will all males, but there is some commonality that still makes a male sanctum valuable.

 

[stercusaccidit]

I suppose you should do what you want to do; if your not a girly-girl then don't act like one just because society impresses upon you to do so. Who's to say women can't engage in male associated activities; we (males in general) often have a lot more respect for women who can beat us at our own games.

Ha. Girly-girl. I laugh at that. I used to take it as such an insult when anyone even attempted to refer to me as girly. I'm not stereotypically girly and wouldn't even know HOW to be. I more brought that up to point out the slight bias in this thread-- of course people who are males in mind and body would look for male bonding time. Although I suppose that makes me a female with the mind of a guy, and that idea weirds me out a bit.

In general I'm very secure, and am just annoyed by the fact that "feminine" seems to me to have such negative connotations. I would never want to be soft or emotional or stable or averse to taking risks. I thrive on instability! I laugh in the face of danger! Though I guess if I WERE stereotypically female I wouldn't see those as bad things. My mom's an INFP, and she sees my over-reliance on logic (is there such a thing?) as bad, and my habit of bottling up my emotions until they explode as unhealthy (which it probably is, but I get by).

Eh. I'm a traitor to the gender for saying this, but girls are weird. Or rather, they lack weirdness, and where's the fun in that?

However, there are elements of my personal male-ness that I do share in common with the bulk of male persons; I respond to risk, adventure, struggle, a connection with the natural world, etc. I may not share all male aspects will all males, but there is some commonality that still makes a male sanctum valuable.

Yes. I respond to those as well. Only I'm not male. The only things I respond to that are female are all very superficial and feel somewhat imposed on me (read: it's not fair! WHY do I have to shave my legs?). Nurturing, emotional, sensitive... HA.

 

[FusionKnight]

Not all feminine traits are negative. What about compassion, hospitality, inviting, inspiring, coaching, integrating, etc?

Of course male traits and female traits can be experienced by members of both genders; we're just talking broad generalities, knowing that the two distributions do have significant overlap...

 

[Artifice Orisit]

The only things I respond to that are female are all very superficial and feel somewhat imposed on me (read: it's not fair! WHY do I have to shave my legs?).

The same reason we have to shave our faces. Early morning, sharp blades and foggy mirrors are not a safe combination.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

I am under the impression that traits, qualities or attributes are neutral, they are not gender or genetic dependant. Nuturing can take many forms such as nurturing another's life goals or another's spiritual path. I would think that most traits are not biological-dependant and that most psychological assessments of the past, Freudian, Jungian or otherwise, were subject to their current sociological constructs, outlooks and mores.

What I think needs to occur over time is the re-establishment of ritual and myth in our lives, but those rituals and myths which reflect who we are as a species now and what we may become in the future, and not a gender-biased.
As example, and I'm not implying anything here nor insulting anyone, why does the Hebrew/Christian/Islamic God have to be depicted and referred to as male?
Or female, for that matter?
If, as any commonly accepted scripture will state, God is above any conception of Mankind, would not a better depiction, if one is needed at all, be an abstraction?
Symbols are important (they are ever-present all over the Net), so it follows that those who believe in God would desire some symbolic depiction of God, not specifically for worship, but for referring to God when speaking of God.

We need poets, mystics and storytellers to build a body of myths from which rituals pertinent to who we are can be drawn, so as to enrich and deepen the abstractions of life we explore and attempt to explain. These myths/rituals would eventually transform as we transformed as a species and not be left to degrade into dogmas. They must be dynamic, as we are, not static.

 

[stercusaccidit]

Not all feminine traits are negative. What about compassion, hospitality, inviting, inspiring, coaching, integrating, etc?

Of course male traits and female traits can be experienced by members of both genders; we're just talking broad generalities, knowing that the two distributions do have significant overlap...

Yeah, those are good traits. I don't see "inspiring" and "coaching" to be particularly feminine though. But my point was all in the wording: "'feminine' seems to me to have such negative connotations." In other words, these aren't traits I aspire to particularly, and many of them are traits I avoid. I recognize their value, but I don't feel particularly connected to them. And I'm fine with that but am sad that I don't get a word.

As to generalizations, they're useful. I just wanted to provide the perspective of someone generalized out. Shades of gray and all.

The same reason we have to shave our faces. Early morning, sharp blades and foggy mirrors are not a safe combination.

I never noticed how much the ninja looks like a bearded man. And some women shave their faces. But I am lucky enough not to have to be one of them. I don't think you HAVE to shave your faces... It's socially acceptable not to. You can win a contest (what's it called... National Beard and Mustache Competition or something like that?). I had to start shaving my legs when I overheard my cabin mates at sleepaway camp (aka hell) talking about how I looked like a man. PSHT. A bunch of ESxJs (thus, hell). I wish I could win a leg hair contest, though...

You should try shaving your leg hair. I will try growing facial hair. It will be a fun experiment.

 

[Kuu]

Well no one actually has to shave anything! If you don't want to shave then don't. Who cares what they say? Let's subvert the popular conceptions of beauty...

 

[Calamedes]

I vote not... unless the guys involved are swimmers or runners. then, i've seen it happen :P

but yeah, i don't actually bother with mirrors when i shave. I shave in the shower where the steam keeps my pores open so i get a closer shave and no razorburn. hell, i haven't gotten razorburn since i started shaving, albeit it was only 7 years ago XD

come to think of it (switching topics), i'm not sure that anybody is truly male/ female in mindset. Frankly, I have a keen interest in fashion and i'm a guy. I know lots of girls who love video games and 4chan, Gd help us all.

Therefore, I vote along the androgynous notion. just because I'm biologically a guy doesn't mean that I have to like cars and lift weights.

 

[Waterstiller]

"Feminine" does have negative connotations in many societies. It was even dismissed as facade by most feminists up until very recently. There's a stigma with even being a femme lesbian in the lesbian community. Likewise, feminine gay men are ridiculed and much less accepted than masculine gay men. Men who express their feelings or cry are often ridiculed for it.. even by their own partners. Being called a "pussy" or "girly" is widely perceived as an insult.

I can't remember if I said this somewhere already, but one of the books I'm currently reading made a point that 'while most people would concede that men and women are equal, it is clear that most do not believe femininity to be masculinity's equal'.

I find the most interesting aspect of all of this to be that a boy will get beaten up at school for the same qualities the bully supposedly finds attractive in women.

 

[Kuu]

I find the most interesting aspect of all of this to be that a boy will get beaten up at school for the same qualities the bully supposedly finds attractive in women.

Indeed. Proof of our superior advanced societies

 

[eudemonia]

. I had to start shaving my legs when I overheard my cabin mates at sleepaway camp (aka hell) talking about how I looked like a man. PSHT. A bunch of ESxJs (thus, hell). I wish I could win a leg hair contest, though...

You should try shaving your leg hair. I will try growing facial hair. It will be a fun experiment.

Hi Stercusaccidit - try lasers - a couple of sessions and the hair's gone forever - yippee

I haven't got time to go into this now, but I loved EloquentBohemian's post. I nominate you to be our official myth-weaver, ritual choreographer and story catcher.... Seriously, that sounds like a great idea for a book.

 

[Hammett]

Not all feminine traits are negative. What about compassion, hospitality, inviting, inspiring, coaching, integrating, etc?

Of course male traits and female traits can be experienced by members of both genders; we're just talking broad generalities, knowing that the two distributions do have significant overlap...

Sure feminine traits aren't negative, they just are but labelling them feminine puts an expectation on women to possess them as people usually equate masculine/feminine to a gender, same with men being expected to have masculine traits, that there is the problem for NT women and NF men, often their natural instincts go against what society says they are supposed to be. From the traits listed how could an NT women could call herself feminine?

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

How ironic

 

[Calamedes]

This forum seems to love irony. I personally find it to be just as high on the "humor scale" as puns... which I love :P

 

[FusionKnight]

I find the most interesting aspect of all of this to be that a boy will get beaten up at school for the same qualities the bully supposedly finds attractive in women.

That makes perfect sense to me. Masculinity and femininity are compliments of one another, like two sides of the same coin, or like yin and yang. When the line is blurred, or worse, when one side overtakes the other, the whole suffers for it.

I'm not really going to make any statement as to any particular person's masculinity or femininity; I just want to point out that both are necessary for a functional society, and therefore both should be encouraged and nurtured.

Furthermore, we know that gender and sex are almost always correlated. Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but if male almost always means "masculine" then having male-only or female-only rituals/myths/sanctums makes sense.

 

[ElectricWizard]

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.

As long as these gender-sacred places can be filled with laughing gas whenever I press a button on my keyboard, I wouldn't mind. In fact, that would be awesome.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

I find the most interesting aspect of all of this to be that a boy will get beaten up at school for the same qualities the bully supposedly finds attractive in women.

That makes perfect sense to me.

The balance of this reply I will address later, but this I cannot let go.

You would condone the actions of physical violence on someone just because of the traits one displays?

"This girl over here has biceps bigger than me and a shaved head. Come on everybody, let's beat the f**k out of her."

This kind of thinking, if I can call it rational thinking at all, is what gets people killed and beaten all the time. It has no justification other than the obvious fear-generated prejudice for anything which does not fit some arbitrary and small-minded conception of the world around one.

A little personal illustrattion. My teens were in the 60's and I grew my hair long. Because I am thin and definitely not muscular, many people approaching me from behind thought I was female. Do you know how many times I was accosted just because I possessed one trait considered then as feminine?

My apologies for the personal rant, but this is one of the few attitudes which gets me steamed.

 

[Waterstiller]

(Oh, and I was that 'boy' who was beat up in school. Often. But I guess that makes perfect sense.)

 

[Dissident]

That makes perfect sense to me. Masculinity and femininity are compliments of one another, like two sides of the same coin, or like yin and yang. When the line is blurred, or worse, when one side overtakes the other, the whole suffers for it.

I'm not really going to make any statement as to any particular person's masculinity or femininity; I just want to point out that both are necessary for a functional society, and therefore both should be encouraged and nurtured.

But why cant the balance include women with some masculine traits and vice versa? How do you objectively know what are masculine and femenine traits anyway? Hair? Body complexion? Subtelty, attention to detail / lack of? Sensibility / lack of? If no arbitrary social constructions existed the overlap of traits would be way bigger.

 

[Decaf]

As my understanding of how the brain works has grew I came to an interesting realization (supposing its right that is). What if masculinity and feminity were defined entirely by the mental processes we call thinking and feeling, and not at all by the differences in chromosomes? We are fairly certain that that particular dichotomy breaks down as 60/40 in favor of their cultural predictions.

Why is it that "homophobia" is most often present in "alpha males"? Perhaps what's really happening is that someone who's personality is definitively masculine is attracted to personalities that are definitively feminine, regardless of sex. That clashes with their accepted reality (that men are masculine and women are femanine), and so they lash out at what attacks their world view. Homophobia probably has very little to do with the sexual orientation of the individual as much as that their personality is disturbingly attractive to the individual doing the harming.

So I know what you're thinking... why aren't 40 percent of men and women suffering from these problems? But the better question would be, are 40 percent of men and women suffering?

Yes and no. Not every family has strict ideas about what masculinity and feminity look like. Without that, it will undoubtedly be easier for someone possessing the alternate function to come off as weird or eccentric than "wrong". Still, it means that a large portion of humanity still suffers somewhat at the hands of society (thinking women who are forbidden to compete and feeling men who are derided for their lack of competitive spirit). Also, the other functions and orientations affect how each is expressed. Dominant extraverted feelers and thinkers probably have it worst, though who's to say...

This is another reason why I won't call myself a feminist. Frankly the argument is ignoring half the equation. Thinking women will not find freedom if feeling men can not find peace. I am an egalitarian.

So what is homosexuality? That's a tough question. I believe that taken out of a cultural setting and allowed to grow up independent of the ideas of others, humanity is bisexual. There doesn't seem to be any real difference between male and female besides minor physical differences and reproductive tasks. Everything else is psychological. Here environment plays its role in determining how someone feels, just like how the amygdala tells your body to take your hand off the red iron before the sensation of pain sets in. Its a learned response and so is sexual attraction. I believe that the stories I heard of men turning back to heterosexuality from a homosexual lifestyle when I young growing up in a Christian home were legitimate. They found the motivation to plow through and change their natural response. What's sad is that they were made to feel like it was a serious problem to begin with.

Many pedophiles were molested as children. Violent criminals often grew up in violent homes. Resourcefulness is a trait most often developed in homes where persistence and efficacy were encouraged. Unlike the first two, sexual orientation is not destructive to others and should be accorded the same degree of freedom that we give to sports preference. Also, it should not be considered mental illness even though I am defining it as a psychological condition (much like anger is a psychological condition).

That was the realization I came to (one of my more productive bathroom trips). It could be inaccurate, but it colors my approach and my responses to this subject, so I may as well write it all down.

 

[Dissident]

We are fairly certain that that particular dichotomy breaks down as 60/40 in favor of their cultural predictions.

I think that the socialization in a culture with that mindset is what causes the 60/40 in the first place, I dont have anything to support it but I think that in a neutral society in this regard, the ratio would be 50/50.

 

[FusionKnight]

You would condone the actions of physical violence on someone just because of the traits one displays?

"This girl over here has biceps bigger than me and a shaved head. Come on everybody, let's beat the f**k out of her."

This kind of thinking, if I can call it rational thinking at all, is what gets people killed and beaten all the time. It has no justification other than the obvious fear-generated prejudice for anything which does not fit some arbitrary and small-minded conception of the world around one.

I never condoned that kind of behavior. In fact, I find it deplorable. I said it made sense. In general, people want men to be men, and women to be women. It should be no surprise that men acting like women and women acting like men is generally viewed as undesirable. This is because those cases tend to dilute both masculinity and femininity, which are both necessary for a human society to thrive.

As my understanding of how the brain works has grew I came to an interesting realization (supposing its right that is). What if masculinity and feminity were defined entirely by the mental processes we call thinking and feeling, and not at all by the differences in chromosomes?

I believe that taken out of a cultural setting and allowed to grow up independent of the ideas of others, humanity is bisexual. There doesn't seem to be any real difference between male and female besides minor physical differences and reproductive tasks. Everything else is psychological.

This is actually not true. Brain structure and development are different between the sexes. Hormones alter brain chemistry, which in the early stages of development change the way the brain forms. Brain activity differs in intensity and location between the sexes as well. There are a myriad of physiological differences between the sexes that are tied to behavior, personality, psychology, etc.

I'm not saying that environment doesn't have a big effect, but there is a fundamental physiological (and neurological) difference between male and female as well.

 

[Decaf]

This is actually not true. Brain structure and development are different between the sexes. Hormones alter brain chemistry, which in the early stages of development change the way the brain forms. Brain activity differs in intensity and location between the sexes as well. There are a myriad of physiological differences between the sexes that are tied to behavior, personality, psychology, etc.

I'm not saying that environment doesn't have a big effect, but there is a fundamental physiological (and neurological) difference between male and female as well.

I'm aware of that, but all things in science carry with it the presuppositions of the researchers. I wish I had studied biochemistry when I had the opportunity, but I'm interested in studying the causality that really exists in the brain. The only empirical evidence I have to question those long accepted ideas are the existence of people that defy the culturally expected behavior. What effect on personality do hormones really have when we have populations that are nearly dichotomous independent of the sex condition?

 

[EloquentBohemian]

I never condoned that kind of behavior. In fact, I find it deplorable. I said it made sense. In general, people want men to be men, and women to be women. It should be no surprise that men acting like women and women acting like men is generally viewed as undesirable. This is because those cases tend to dilute both masculinity and femininity, which are both necessary for a human society to thrive.

Okay.
Sorry I went off on a tangent. It would be a sore spot with me.
I apologise. Please take no offense at my immature ranting.
One of those moments where my emotional component took over driving the happy little Bus to Nowhere.

 

[FusionKnight]

No sweat, I understand.

 

[Waterstiller]

It should be no surprise that men acting like women and women acting like men is generally viewed as undesirable. This is because those cases tend to dilute both masculinity and femininity, which are both necessary for a human society to thrive.

And how are men supposed to act? Women? Specific examples would be rather helpful in wrapping my mind around your stance on this. Further, it would also help if you explained in detail how a man acting out one of the female examples is detrimental to society.

You can't just say sweeping statements such as that without backing them up. That's not very INTP-like.

This is actually not true. Brain structure and development are different between the sexes. Hormones alter brain chemistry, which in the early stages of development change the way the brain forms. Brain activity differs in intensity and location between the sexes as well. There are a myriad of physiological differences between the sexes that are tied to behavior, personality, psychology, etc.

I'm not saying that environment doesn't have a big effect, but there is a fundamental physiological (and neurological) difference between male and female as well.

Are you denying that there might be overlap? Brain structure and development are different among a sex. There is no denying that. Yes, the averages are different, but that's all they are. How is any of this different from saying "men are strong, women are weak"? Try telling that to a woman on the women's basketball team.

It's not two sides of a coin, it's not yin and yang, it's not black and white. There's all sorts of grey area. You're ignoring homosexual, pansexual, transgender, genderqueer, and intersex people. And even all the normal men and women who are a mix of masculine and feminine.

 

[Waterstiller]

Kevin Barnes, Mika, and Bill Kaulitz.

Tegan & Sarah, Katherine Moennig, and Daniela Sea.


Hardly detrimental. <3

 

[eudemonia]

I am not quite sure if there is an argument here. Are those who are advocating non-gender stereotyping suggesting that those who want to participate in exclusively male or exclusively female sacred spaces/rituals cannot? Or are they simply wary of the possibility that these sacred spaces might be enforced upon the unwilling? Are those who are arguing for sacred spaces/rituals suggesting that everyone be forced to take part, regardles of predisposition?

I would have thought it were obvious, that for those who want and would benefit from exclusively male rituals or female rituals that they be allowed to get on with it, without imposing on others.

I know you have moved on a bit from that argument but I'm wondering if you are not all arguing against something that the other side is not saying ie is this about inappropriate generalisations? Or are you saying that without social norms, there would be no such thing as female or male typical behaviours? that we are born 'a-sexual' and learn to become male or female? Hence gender rituals are in and of themselves 'bad'.

sorry to be so thick!

 

[FusionKnight]

I think you summed it up nicely, Nia.

My position is basically derived from the principle of free association; i.e. "I am free to create a voluntary association with whomever I wish, and nobody has a right to enter my association; membership is at my discretion, and can be revoked by me for any reason at any time."

If you're gay feel free to create a gay sanctum, if you're an African feel free to create an African sanctum, if you're a computer programmer feel free to create a programmer's sanctum, and if you're a man feel free to create a male sanctum.

Since I'm a male, and I see a need for male sanctums, I'm advocating in favor of their existence/revival. My personal male sanctum will conform to my personal ideas of masculinity and those who disagree aren't invited. They are free to create their own sanctums according to whatever concepts they wish.

 

[Decaf]

sorry to be so thick!

Apology accepted We're all arguing for slightly or significantly different things, so I'd be surprised if you anyone could find an encompassing definition, but that seems as good an understanding as can be gotten.

I'm of the opinion that behavior is largely asexual. I think a boy growing up believing that he is a girl (and having nothing in the environment suggest otherwise) would end up indistinguishable from a girl raised in identical circumstances except for the personality they bring with them (and obviously different experiences at puberty).

We can not effectively provide that kind of atmosphere because nearly everything in our environment reinforces gender identity (pink vs blue pajamas, barbie vs cowboys, sports vs shopping). Even trying to remove those preconceptions is unlikely to succeed when the similarities between the child and their same sex parent are obvious. Once a child learns what is expected of them (and they are very smart and dedicated to this task) the culturation begins.

But on the topic of sanctums, while I believe making divisions is destructive to community, the simple matter of fact is that people want to spend time with others that share common traits. Skin color, gender, sexual identity, hobby, life goal, etc... are all legitimate ways of doing that because they represent likely commonalities. A rich white man and a working class white man probably wouldn't share the same sanctum, but a post office employee and a warehouse manager might. I feel like making the division specific to sex is destructive, but I don't feel like people should always deal with a mix of others regardless of commonalities. This is why some women fit in with male social groups. As long as the understanding is there that there are similarities it works. Once someone loses that understanding it doesn't (i.e. one of the guys tries to sleep with the girl, the commonalities start to diverge).

Male sanctum? No, I think its a bad idea, not because it isn't useful, but because its simultaneously too specific and too general.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

I would have thought it were obvious, that for those who want and would benefit from exclusively male rituals or female rituals that they be allowed to get on with it, without imposing on others.

I concur.

I know you have moved on a bit from that argument but I'm wondering if you are not all arguing against something that the other side is not saying ie is this about inappropriate generalisations? Or are you saying that without social norms, there would be no such thing as female or male typical behaviours? that we are born 'a-sexual' and learn to become male or female? Hence gender rituals are in and of themselves 'bad'. sorry to be so thick!

Would it be that we are born biological male, female or hermaphrodite (genetics) and that we learn to become masculine or feminine (gender) in accordance with the norms for those designations inherent in the sociological and cultural group/situation we are born into.
Therefore, within each sociological/cultural context gender rituals would be acceptable until they begin to contravene the context. When they begin to contravene, one of three actions could occur:
- the participants in the rituals re-conform to the context
- the context adapts to the participants
- the sociological/cultural structure begins to unravel or decay, leading to a re-structuring/rebirth or a dissolution/death of the entire context

 

[Waterstiller]

I know you have moved on a bit from that argument but I'm wondering if you are not all arguing against something that the other side is not saying ie is this about inappropriate generalisations? Or are you saying that without social norms, there would be no such thing as female or male typical behaviours? that we are born 'a-sexual' and learn to become male or female? Hence gender rituals are in and of themselves 'bad'.

Yeah, we've moved in other directions. I'd agree with FusionKnight's sentiment regarding personal 'gender sacred' places. Basically, you're definitely allowed to be with whoever you want to play with. There's a problem, however, when you're talking about what is best for society at large. The two sides of the coin argument falls (the fuck) apart when trans women are forced into a male prison. It might seem unrelated to the issue, but it's that 'gender sacred' mindset that allows stuff like this to happen.

What you're talking about (and what a few others seem to be talking about) are the stances of gender essentialism and gender constructionism. Which are both only partly true in my opinion. I would say that gender is socially exaggerated. I dunno if I want to argue this point so much, though I might if provoked. If anyone is at all seriously interested in gender, check out Julia Serano's Whipping Girl. She's a lot less annoying and much more mature than I am. And she's a biologist.

Edit: I really enjoyed both Decaf's and EB's posts and think they're on the right track.

But I DO wanna argue with our knightly friend over this:

It should be no surprise that men acting like women and women acting like men is generally viewed as undesirable. This is because those cases tend to dilute both masculinity and femininity, which are both necessary for a human society to thrive.

And how are men supposed to act? Women? Specific examples would be rather helpful in wrapping my mind around your stance on this. Further, it would also help if you explained in detail how a man acting out one of the female examples is detrimental to society.

You can't just say sweeping statements such as that without backing them up. That's not very INTP-like.

 

[Agent Intellect]

honestly, if i want a "sanctum" of people that think like me, i'll invite them over for a few beers in my living room. then only those invited will even know about it. it just seems kind of weird to build the tree house and put the "no girls aloud" sign on the front. plus, what gets accomplished if everything just thinks alike? debate is much more fun then agreeing with people.

 

[Ogion]

Well even if your group of similar minded people, Agent Intellect, are there because of the shared interest they all bring their own background and composition of other interests with them. The similarities just is the starting point and the hook of ongoing conversations, much like it is on this forum, isn't it?

To the discussion in general i confess that in my everyday life gender isn't much of a topic. But then again, when observing a little bit more attentive and willing you could observe it more often. Like whenstanding in front of a seminray room and waiting for the lecturer to show up most 'random' groups of people are either male- or female composed. Just some of the groups or some of the time the two meet and be together. But this certainly isn't some selfcensoring or cognitive act, it is much mroe just subconscious behaviour. At least i think so.
Now i am a bad example, since being introverted and thinking oriented i am not much of a peoples person and am not chatting with much persons anygender. But that brings another possible separation. We could start having 'Type(tm)-specific sacred places' ('INTP-forum' anyone?).

So in the end i think we should (from the perspective of society's rules) just let the people do their own things and if someone wants some cowboysanctuary let them have it. And if there is the league of Masculine Barbiedoll Admirers, so what?
Just one downside: There may just be a support group/sanctuary pro anorexia or what ever. So there could be a sanctuary which actually promotes something other persons would see as harmful. I think personally that this is the price to pay for freedom, but there might well be a society not willing to pay that price...

Ogion

 

[EloquentBohemian]

it just seems kind of weird to build the tree house and put the "no girls aloud" sign on the front.

What if they're quiet? Can they come in?


sorry... just couldn't pass it up.

 

[eudemonia]

I have been following this thread with interest and its made me think about my own beliefs quite a bit. I think I was a gender constructionist probably until I had my own children. This is a bit homespun based on my own experience so forgive me, but I was amazed by what I learned from having children.

I have a T girl and an F boy . Right from the very beginning my daughter was more aggressive and challenging than the typical girl. My son, was more sensitive and certainly less aggressive than some of his male peers. What was fascinating however, was from the first day, almost, I found that I could not influence their interests and that some of their interests conformed to their gender roles and some didn't.

From an early age, I wanted to encourage my daughter to be more socially skilled and sensitive in her relationships - I couldn't. she never touched a doll. I wanted her to get into horse riding along with lots of her friends. She wasn't interested. However, whilst she wasn't a typical girl in this sense she quickly developed into a young woman (way before her peers) and got into boys, looks, fashion etc. All of sudden, she was a typical girl - when I didn't want her to be this early in her life. It was like something took control of her brain at 13.

So too with my son. I didn't have any toys as weapons - so he picked up sticks and used them as swords. He liked action men dolls. He loved sport and was obsessed with football, cricket, rugby, loving to watch it on TV. Whilst he was indeed more sensitive than his peers there was nothing he loved more than being in his gang kicking a football.

I noticed that girls mature earlier - physically, pscyhologically, mentally, academically (and this is confirmed everywhere in academia and by teachers and parents). At their parties girls liked to gossip, chat, relate, cry etc Boys just liked to physically interact. Girls seemed more complex. The problems that girls encounter at school were highly convoluted involving who was in, or out ,who liked whom, who didn't like whom, who said what - like a mini soap opera really.
Boys were more straightforward. If a boy got out of line, he was kicked into line, and then they just got on with it.

Are these just stereotying influcences? Yes, and no. We know that girls are more fluent at language (generally speaking) and boys are significantly more spatially aware. However, - there is a drive for pleasure that makes a child receptive to one influence and less receptive to another. My daughter didn't like dolls but was definitely motivated by fashion. They followed their desires; they did what brought them pleasure. All this behaviour seems to conform to an evolutionary biology paradigm whereby girls would have been the community makers whilst boys would have been the hunters. It would make sense for girls and boys to have evolved separate functions and processes.

I suppose what I'm saying is that it's far more complex than simply socialisation vs essence. There are stereotyping influences around but children are far more independent than we give them credit for - they are not just tabula rasas for society to imprint upon. In some circumstances, my children chose what influences to take on board (which often did not fit the social norms for their gender) but in other circumstances they manifested very typical female/male behaviours.

There is no doubt that the misfits get a hard time of it - the nerdy girls and the sensitive boys. But what is interesting is that despite the pressure to conform and drop these attributes, they don't. They carry on being nerds and/or sensitive despite the huge pressure not to be. And they suffer for it.

Finally, I am a bit sorry that Fusion's ideas did not get more of a look in really. I think that there is something to celebrate in being male/female which is wonderful. I feel that there is a lolt of gender confusion around which causes a lot of unhappiness. For example, girls are now behaving like men wrt sex. There is a feeling that girls are now more casual and predatory in their sexual relationships than men. I think I was called a prude in another thread, but I do think that casual, loveless sex is more damaging to women than to men. Call me a prude, if you will, but I don't agree with casual one-off sex with strangers. I think many women feel they have to ape male behaviour to keep up with them. I see this at work too. It's a shame that women can't celebrate their differences more and learn to respect their bodies in a way that is different to men. Screeming drunken women being sick in the middle of the street on a Saturday night, falling unconscious on the floor, legs akimbo for anyone to take a look (yes I have seen this) just seems wrong to me and damaging for the girl.

But this kind of thinking probably shows my age more than anything.

Btw, personally, I would not have anything to do with female sacred spaces myself. But I have no problem with men having their exclusive male sacred spaces and would not wish to intrude. Even though it annoys the hell out of me that men's breakfasts at our local church are much more interesting than the female variety.

 

[Ogion]

Hey, thanks for the long post. Lots of interesting thoughts in it.
(Just wanted to say this, so that is a response to your post )

Ogion

 

[Hammett]

But I DO wanna argue with our knightly friend over this:

It should be no surprise that men acting like women and women acting like men is generally viewed as undesirable. This is because those cases tend to dilute both masculinity and femininity, which are both necessary for a human society to thrive.

Must say that comment has been intriguing me as well...

And when I say intriguing I mean annoying

 

[Taylored]

I am pretty sure if a man or a woman needs a gender specific sanctuary they will find one, or make one.
It is a relatively simple concept. If you need something, buy it or make it.

 

[loveofreason]

I wouldn't want to confuse the terms sanctuary and sacred space.

I see gender as a relative thing. Compared to most girls I'm masculine. Compared to most guys I'm feminine.

When it comes to seeking sanctuary the critical ingredient (for me) is freedom from both perceived and actual threat. Otherwise it simply doesn't meet my definition of sanctuary, nor my needs in seeking it. So virtually always for me this means that sanctuary is the absence of all other humans.

A sacred space however can be a very challenging thing. More challenging than daily life. It could be a time and place set aside for the most challenging of rituals. A transformative rite. An initiation. A journey. This has been well noted already.

Have the lost male haunts* really met the definition of either sanctuary or sacred space? If they were neither, then just what do/did they represent? Were they the best corruptions of a timeless need that we could muster in our diseased cultures? And if we have lost them isn't it a good thing that the loss of something so inadequate to the need forces us then to focus on that very bereavement that the substitute disguised? Just as we are now doing?

And isn't it grand to say, oh, here is a need long neglected and the mythic tradition that unlocks our understanding of it, so that now we have the language and the touchstone with which to re-imagine what sacred ritual and sacred space may be - bringing forward the rich texture of our ancestors' lives to give a new graciousness and power to the future?

*I call them haunts because they are the ghosts of sacred spaces. The real, vital, living spaces were extinguished long ago. Same goes for any as yet untrammeled female haunts - err... lingerie parties? Tupperware? Shopping? Just what do 'normal' women do together anyway? Eh, whatever. Just ghosts and unassuaged aching.

 

[FusionKnight]

But I DO wanna argue with our knightly friend over this:

Originally Posted by FusionKnight
It should be no surprise that men acting like women and women acting like men is generally viewed as undesirable. This is because those cases tend to dilute both masculinity and femininity, which are both necessary for a human society to thrive.

And how are men supposed to act? Women? Specific examples would be rather helpful in wrapping my mind around your stance on this. Further, it would also help if you explained in detail how a man acting out one of the female examples is detrimental to society.

You can't just say sweeping statements such as that without backing them up. That's not very INTP-like.

Alright, let me try an explain my position. I'm not really going to try and convince you that it's right, just try to describe more what I meant and maybe some reasons for it.

First of all, I see gender and sex as intimately connected. There are certain biological/physical factorss that affect gender: hormones, brain structure, etc. This is simply a fact. I'm not saying all aspects of gender are determined by biology, but it is indisputable that there is some baseline difference between the genders based on their sex. For example, from wiki:

"It is well established that men have a larger cerebrum than women by about 8–10% (Filipek et al., 1994; Nopoulos et al., 2000; Passe et al., 1997a,b; Rabinowicz et al., 1999; Witelson et al., 1995)." However, what is functionally relevant are differences in composition and "wiring", some of these differences are very pronounced. Richard J. Haier and colleagues at the universities of New Mexico and California (Irvine) found, using brain mapping, that men have more than six times the amount of grey matter related to general intelligence than women, and women have nearly ten times the amount of white matter related to intelligence than men.

Gray matter is used for information processing, while white matter consists of the connections between processing centers. Other differences are measurable but less pronounced. Most of these differences are known to be produced by the activity of hormones, hence ultimately derived from the Y chromosome and sexual differentiation. However, differences arising from the activity of genes directly have also been observed.

Also, I'm a Christian, so my understanding of the "intent" of creation is greatly influenced by Genesis. This means I consider the male-female paradigm to be a fundamental characteristic of the way humans were designed to be. Even if I were an evolutionist, I think I would have to come to the same conclusion, since evolution would have developed both sex and gender for specific reasons.

Because I believe that gender is a fundamental aspect of how humans were intended to exist, I also believe that evading the male-female duality is harmful and destructive, both to the individuals involved and to society in general. It's like insisting we eliminate protein from our diet. We'd do okay for awhile, but with time we'd get sicker and sicker, and eventually our body's systems would start to break down.

I think there is also some tangible real-world evidence to back up my thoughts. I'm not going to produce a big list of them unless provoked though, because my intent is not to convince anybody else that you should believe as I do. I was asked to explain, so that's what this post is.

Let me lastly be clear about what I am not saying. I am not saying that society should force anyone into a role they are not willing to take on. Nobody should be forced into conformance with my understanding of gender, or anybody else's. As some of you know, I consider myself libertarian (or more acurately, anarcho-capitalist), so I would never advocate any forceful segregation of anybody based on any characteristic, biological or otherwise.

For example, if there were a law forbidding women to hold public office, I would be vehemently against it because it forces women to conform to a non-political role. However, if a bar-owner wanted to have a men-only bar, I would never dream of stopping him, since it doesn't force anything on anybody. By entering his bar, you agree to abide by his rules, whatever they are. Nobody has any right to regulate someone else's private affairs, including the bar owner's.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

Excellent and illustrative post, eudemonia, male as I am in many aspects of life, sports just do not interest me neither did gym in school. To see how you daughter changed when subject to a more socially intense situation is fascinating. I never "cliqued" in high school, even with the "brainy" kids (...we didn't call them nerds when I went to school) and the male bonding thing of sports, etc. didn't fit with my psyche. Books, chess, etc.

FusionKnight, I would agree that gender and sex are intimately connected.
The part about men's-only bars reminded me that this is the way it used to be in hotel bars. There was a general bar for couples and there was a "men's bar" which tended to be a bit more basic in decoration and where guys would sit around discussing sports, work, politics, etc. If a lady (...and that's what they were called) wanted to enter the men's bar for any reason, she had to have an escort and if a lady was escorted into the bar, you could hear the tone of the conversations change.

I think you summed it up nicely, Nia.

My position is basically derived from the principle of free association; i.e. "I am free to create a voluntary association with whomever I wish, and nobody has a right to enter my association; membership is at my discretion, and can be revoked by me for any reason at any time."

If you're gay feel free to create a gay sanctum, if you're an African feel free to create an African sanctum, if you're a computer programmer feel free to create a programmer's sanctum, and if you're a man feel free to create a male sanctum.

Since I'm a male, and I see a need for male sanctums, I'm advocating in favor of their existence/revival. My personal male sanctum will conform to my personal ideas of masculinity and those who disagree aren't invited. They are free to create their own sanctums according to whatever concepts they wish.

Again, I couldn't agree more. I think that our societies are fragmenting more. The homogeneous nation concept has gotten blown out of proportion as it filtered down into the people, the "if you're not with us, you're against us" idea. But humans are more complex than that and fundamentally social creatures. Cliques will always exist, it is part of our nature, but clique/groups only become detrimental to society as a whole when they attempt to impose their ideologies on other cliques/groups.

I wouldn't want to confuse the terms sanctuary and sacred space.

Actually, a sanctuary is a sacred space, like a church or sacred grove. In sacred spaces/sanctuaries, the laws and mores of the society were moot because this was the realm of the gods/goddesses manifest on the earth. If I'm not mistaken, one can request sanctuary still in a Catholic church and the law cannot touch one if the priest grants that sanctuary.

When it comes to seeking sanctuary the critical ingredient (for me) is freedom from both perceived and actual threat. Otherwise it simply doesn't meet my definition of sanctuary, nor my needs in seeking it.

Precisely. Sanctuary actually means "sacred place or receptacle". A church is a sanctuary/sacred place. The chalice used for Holy Communion is a sanctuary/sacred receptacle as the wine within is made sacred by the blessing and viewed as the blood of Christ.

So virtually always for me this means that sanctuary is the absence of all other humans.

...and how INTP is that!

A sacred space however can be a very challenging thing. More challenging than daily life. It could be a time and place set aside for the most challenging of rituals. A transformative rite. An initiation. A journey. This has been well noted already.

A very interesting point. This is its original meaning. It is a space where you and your God or Goddess commune. Where you pay homage to and they listen. It is a space set aside from ordinary life where the personal and private conversations between you and your chosen deity may occur without disturbance. Its entire structure and design reflects this attitude. Churches were designed by Masons who were guildsmen sworn to secrecy about the methods and designs of the churches they built. Sacred Groves were recongnised for their unique features and the feelings one got when entering these places.

A bar is not a sacred space and the bartender is not a priest/priestess.
A group of men or women getting together to socialize with their gender peers is not a sacred event.
I think there needs to be another term for this.
Any suggestions?

Have the lost male haunts* really met the definition of either sanctuary or sacred space? If they were neither, then just what do/did they represent? Were they the best corruptions of a timeless need that we could muster in our diseased cultures? And if we have lost them isn't it a good thing that the loss of something so inadequate to the need forces us then to focus on that very bereavement that the substitute disguised? Just as we are now doing?

And isn't it grand to say, oh, here is a need long neglected and the mythic tradition that unlocks our understanding of it, so that now we have the language and the touchstone with which to re-imagine what sacred ritual and sacred space may be - bringing forward the rich texture of our ancestors' lives to give a new graciousness and power to the future?

*I call them haunts because they are the ghosts of sacred spaces. The real, vital, living spaces were extinguished long ago. Same goes for any as yet untrammeled female haunts - err... lingerie parties? Tupperware? Shopping? Just what do 'normal' women do together anyway? Eh, whatever. Just ghosts and unassuaged aching.

Ghosties scare me.

Tupperware parties even more.

 

[Jordan~]

There is no innate property of masculinity, nor any innate property of femininity. These are social constructs, and vary greatly from culture to culture, like marriage etc. To say that masculinity and feminity are vital to human existence is, as such, very ethnocentric.

 

[ElectricWizard]

There is no innate property of masculinity, nor any innate property of femininity. These are social constructs, and vary greatly from culture to culture, like marriage etc. To say that masculinity and feminity are vital to human existence is, as such, very ethnocentric.

Basically.

 

[Decaf]

For example, girls are now behaving like men wrt sex. There is a feeling that girls are now more casual and predatory in their sexual relationships than men. I think I was called a prude in another thread, but I do think that casual, loveless sex is more damaging to women than to men. Call me a prude, if you will, but I don't agree with casual one-off sex with strangers. I think many women feel they have to ape male behaviour to keep up with them. I see this at work too. It's a shame that women can't celebrate their differences more and learn to respect their bodies in a way that is different to men. Screeming drunken women being sick in the middle of the street on a Saturday night, falling unconscious on the floor, legs akimbo for anyone to take a look (yes I have seen this) just seems wrong to me and damaging for the girl.

That attitude may be damaging, but this perception of that attitude is damaging too. It doesn't leave room for middle ground.

Now, I'm gonna take a risk that Mai won't be mad at me for posting how she feels about this, but I think its an important unheard point of view.

Mai is more sexually aggressive than I am. I still have a stronger libido, but I am, by nature I suppose, not very sexually aggressive. When I try to be it feels uncomfortable and comes off as immature. So here's the dilemma. When I meet someone and don't immediately pursue (to a slight degree, because obviously flagrant is unattractive) sexual relations to some degree, women get the sense that I am not interested in them. I'm a man after all, right? One of the several reasons I never had a even a non-serious relationship until I was 22. That relationship started almost immediately after I read a book on body language, which now helps me compensate for my lack of aggression by broadcasting passive signals of interest (which is supposed to be the realm of women, not men, but works for me).

Now for Mai. She falls in love easily (INFJ) and is very, very skilled at progressing a relationship (if it can survive the progress). Its a time and emotion saving defense mechanism. She is also naturally sexually aggressive, but feels terribly insecure about it. Why? Because even if she truly likes someone, having sexual relations with them early in a relationship makes her a ****, doesn't it? It would raise my "coolness meter", but would cause derision to be heaped on her. Even if that derision wasn't public, the years of growing up having women who did that called nasty names would make her feel terribly. Images of <insert Nia's story> would prove to her that to obey her natural instincts would make her a less worth-while individual.

So in a sense I suppose I have feminine traits, and she has masculine traits, but neither of us can really be defined by those particular characteristics. I don't think masculine or feminine fit me particularly well and I don't think they fit her very well either. That's why stereotypes of people like us hurt.

Geez... I think out of all my posts that's probably number 10 that contains something personal about me... That's above my average

 

[EloquentBohemian]

There is no innate property of masculinity, nor any innate property of femininity. These are social constructs, and vary greatly from culture to culture, like marriage etc. To say that masculinity and feminity are vital to human existence is, as such, very ethnocentric.

Agreed, but the qualities of masculinity and femininity stem from the biological and psychological matrix of each general genetic distinction.
There are masculine qualities and feminine qualities and the qualities of each will overlap to some extent. It is the degree of the qualities within each biological gender which leads each culture to generalize and set one quality in one camp and another in the other camp.

I consider all qualities to be inherent in both biological genders, but the degree of the qualities will vary.
To posit an imaginary arbitrary scale of 1 to 10 for inherent qualities for purposes of discussion only, one could rate the degree of each quality within the cultural structure one is within and also within one's own self.
As example, the general norm for nurturing in Culture 'A' for females may be 8 and for males would be 3; but for Culture 'B', it may be 6 for females and 5 for males.
Using Culture 'A' again as reference, an individual male may have 7 for nurturing and he would be considered 'feminine', and a female may have a 4 and be considered masculine.

Qualities are inherent. Cultures designate those qualities. Cliques, which are subcultures, designate those qualities also.

 

[FusionKnight]

There is no innate property of masculinity, nor any innate property of femininity. These are social constructs, and vary greatly from culture to culture, like marriage etc. To say that masculinity and feminity are vital to human existence is, as such, very ethnocentric.

I suggest you read the Biology and Brain sections of the wiki article on gender (also quoted in my above post). It appears to be an indisputable fact that there is at least some biological sex-related differences in psychology, brain function, and personality between male and female homo-sapiens.

From wiki:

Prior to recent technology that made study of brain differences possible, observable differences in behaviour between men and women could not be adequately explained solely on the basis of the limited observable physical differences between them. Hence the, then plausible, theory that these differences might be explained by arbitrary cultural assignments of roles. However, Money notes concisely that masculine or feminine self-identity is now seen as essentially an expression of dimorphic brain structure (Money's word is "coding"). The new discoveries have an additional advantage over the theory of cultural arbitrariness of gender roles, as they help explain the similarities between these roles in widely divergent cultures (see Steven Pinker on Donald Brown's Human Universals, including romantic love, sexual jealousy, and patriarchy).

 

[Waterstiller]

Wow, this thread really started to turn into a positive discussion. I blame Eudemonia. <3


I can't respond to anything right now, but I need to say that I appreciate FusionKnight's response and clarification. And I also greatly enjoyed Decaf's post; personal is good.