What does it mean to be womanly?

[chocky]

Inspired by the Make-up thread.

I'm perplexed. First and foremost I'm a mind. If I was pushed I would say that I am a mind learning to be human. I grasp the concept of feeling 'humanly'.

But to feel 'womanly'? What does this mean? (And not in terms of social behaviour, but of psychological - not cosmetic - make-up.)

[Hypomanic]

The way I see it is that the term 'womanly' was coined by society. I'm not sure there is one way to act. It's far better to just be yourself than to strive to conform into one role. I don't go out looking for 'manly' men or 'womanly' women to be my contacts. I look for genuine, intelligent, and similar minds. The term 'womanly' is of trivial value in essence.

[chocky]

I too look for what is genuine, and I guess I may be suspicious of 'womanly' as being a type of disguise worn on the outside. But what is actually happening within the mind's interior?

For me the term 'womanly' has no real weight or value, and I'd be tempted to call it a meaningless social construct, but evidently for many others it carries a significant psychological valency, and I can only wonder what it might mean to those who actually self-identify as womanly.

There must be some kernel, some psychological state, that the term adheres to and I am hoping others can describe some aspect of it. I'm curious - I want to know what is so different between psyches.

Can anyone understand and describe the cognizant state of 'womanly'?

[Jennywocky]

Can anyone understand and describe the cognizant state of 'manly'?

[blueback]

Womanly:
More qualifications in statements
Doesn't assume things are debateable
Attempts to generate concensus
Concerned with feelings, own and others
Finds it difficult to focus

Manly:
Statements are made without qualifications
Assumes everything is debateable
Attempts to dominate
Finds focus easy
Aggressive

Etc.

These aren't things I made up. These are well accepted results of management studies. There is a very real difference between how men act and how women act.

As I understand it, the key is that those descriptions aren't independant of each other. Women tend to want to build an agreement among all parties involved while men tend to want all parties to fall in behind them. Therefore, women tend to be more hesitant to declare that they are right while men are more than happy to say they're right and by extension to argue with anyone who doesn't agree.

I think most of the other stereotypes are socialized.

[Lucid]

I will be among the first to assert that while there are biological differences between men and women, we're all just human and we would do well to remember that. And that many of the differences are socially taught, not inherent.

Having said that, I would say that to feel either "womanly" or "manly" would mean to feel like an attractive member of whatever gender you happen to be. What that is, exactly, probably varies from person to person.

[banzai]

I think some are attributes that develop as a result of instincts, genetics, differences in chemical makeup, etc., and the rest are a result of these things being fostered by someone's environment.

The latter doesn't always happen, though.

[tiffytwotons]

Having recently used the word, I feel partly responsible .. When I say womanly, and I would because I was raised as the son my father never had, I guess I would mean...
And I've sat on this thought for a minute or two, I'm a little uncomfortable. I often feel sexless and when I feel womanly, or girlish better yet, it's not a feeling I can easily define. But when I feel strong and powerful I associate this with feeling manly. Wellnow, it looks like I've become a victim of societies ridiculous ideals. Damn.

[Tsuru]

Can anyone understand and describe the cognizant state of 'manly'?

I'd answer that, but I need to go to the garage and hang sheet rock, and then pound the brewski's until I can't feel feelings anymore. Also, GO LOCAL SPORTS TEAM!!!! *Flex Flex Flex* *Grunt Grunt Grunt*

... That's about all the insight I have on the topic. :P

[Laura_Palmer]

To me the feeling of being "womanly" only really comes out when I am interacting with a guy I am in an intimate relationship with. It probably means different things to different people, but to me it's associated with being submissive to a guy (the only person I would ever be submissive to).

[niffer]

It's when you act like you contain a uterus, and curves and stuff...how your mind is like your body. But that's just my intinctual part doing my thinking...

...I guess this is the kind of thinking you would need to use in order to figure this out though. Genderless, humanless thinking that only uses your reasoning would make this idea seem very trivial and impossible to define.

[Danisty]

Womanly:
More qualifications in statements
Doesn't assume things are debateable
Attempts to generate concensus
Concerned with feelings, own and others
Finds it difficult to focusIf this is the criteria, I'm not very good at being womanly.

[Solaris]

Womanly:
More qualifications in statements
Doesn't assume things are debateable
Attempts to generate concensus
Concerned with feelings, own and others
Finds it difficult to focus

Manly:
Statements are made without qualifications
Assumes everything is debateable
Attempts to dominate
Finds focus easy
Aggressive

Etc.

These aren't things I made up. These are well accepted results of management studies. There is a very real difference between how men act and how women act.

As I understand it, the key is that those descriptions aren't independant of each other. Women tend to want to build an agreement among all parties involved while men tend to want all parties to fall in behind them. Therefore, women tend to be more hesitant to declare that they are right while men are more than happy to say they're right and by extension to argue with anyone who doesn't agree.

I think most of the other stereotypes are socialized.


I can agree that, perhaps, this is how the majority of each gender acts. However, I cannot agree that this is correctly defining what each gender truly is. Those characteristics come from a person's mind, and we all know that female NTs do not readily fit into social norms. Hell, most male NTs don't either (from what you all say). According to that definition, I, too, make a terrible woman.

I agree with others, in that being womanly is a much more internal, subjective definition. Sometimes I feel womanly when I am dressed in very feminine clothing. Sometimes I feel womanly when I am with a man I deeply love and respect. Being womanly is not about being weak, powerful, submissive, nor dominant for me. It is a passing feeling, and I probably just don't notice it most times.

[Antares]

I have no idea (I'm a girl), which is probably understandable... I scored close to zero on femininity, or so my test results say. I think that 'manly' and 'womanly' are from stereotypes that originated from the antiquity.

[Thistle]

Since gender stereotypes are culturally derived, there are surely many definitions of 'womanly' or 'manly' - which are contested, depending on an individuals opinion.

[Aldanga]

Womanly... hmmm. I would wilfully tackle this topic, but I have not much time. It will take some serious 'hammering out' to come up with a clear definition.

I shall attempt to answer the question tomorrow when I have more time.

[edalz]

I think "womanly" and "manly" and just names given to the generalizations made about people's behavior based on sex. I've taken many different tests about "which gender do you identify with?" (or something similar) and I almost always turn out to have a strong preference for "manly" stuff (yeah, I'm a woman).

[Ilikepepper]

While it is heavily influenced by social convention, my feelings of womanliness are associated with the following:
- willingness to be emotionally warm and expressive
- feeling that I am desirable to men
- an affirming and inclusive attitude (as opposed to competitive)
- a feeling of being 'in control' when dealing with other people in a social context. This means that I can manipulate people, but subtly.

Otherwise I feel girlish or sexless.

Note that the above is 'good' womanliness. 'Bad' womanliness happens when all the things above mask an attitude of one-upwomanship and competition (I'd rather people be honest about their intentions). So perhaps to be womanly is to be subtle and use social mechanics in getting things to work out your way.

Then changing your mind in the next second. :P

[rwyatt365]

I think "womanly" and "manly" and just names given to the generalizations made about people's behavior based on sex. I've taken many different tests about "which gender do you identify with?" (or something similar) and I almost always turn out to have a strong preference for "manly" stuff (yeah, I'm a woman).
Convenient tags used to short-cut social interactions. It helps us "fast-lane" our lives without having to delve into individual details.

"Oh, she's a 'girly-girl'...next!"

[Aldanga]

To be womanly... I have often pondered this very question. I cannot say I truly know what it is to be womanly for I have not known many true women. Most of the females with whom I've associated myself have been too immature to label as 'women'. Still, I believe I can propose a worthy, if concise, definition of what it means to be a woman.

Before I dive fully into the definition of womanhood, I must say that I do not believe that the gender-roles are 'society contrived'. Certainly they have been given much significance by society and altered at different points by the same, but I do not believe they originate from society. I believe they originate in the souls of mankind. They may not always appear because some do not realize how to bring to light these characteristics.

I can ask most any man--and sometimes ones whom I'd call 'pseudo-men'--and they know a real man when they see one. They really know, but they can't really say what being a real man means. I see similar things in women and girls. They know what a real woman looks like (in theory, at least), but don't know what it really means in their lives to be womanly. This is why i believe there is much more to the beginnings of manhood and womanhood than meets the eye.



A woman is mature female, one who is safe in her own skin.


She knows who she is and she's not afraid of it. I am not envisioning one who is obnoxious and arrogant; who I see is actually very humble in practice. By humble I don't mean demeaning to herself or overly praising of others. I mean to say that she accepts her faults as well as her talents. She understands what she can do and where she is limited. This is possibly, along with the next point, are what most make a woman attractive to a man. It's the confidence in herself and acceptance of reality. No man can resist that.


A woman must understand she is beautiful.


When a woman thinks--and truly knows--she is beautiful she really becomes beautiful. I've seen this numerous times throughout my life and it's been extremely evident. A plain girl can become as attractive as the most gorgeous Hollywood star. Along with this understanding, a woman is one who grooms herself with an understanding of her beauty and tries to accentuate this beauty. This can be in dresses and skirts or t-shirts and jean or jerseys and basketball shorts. It's all about the personality of the woman and how she highlights that beauty with her dress and make-up, if she wears any.



A woman treats others as valuable and does her best to encourage.


Some of you might disagree with me on this point and that is alright. You are wrong. A personality type does not define the person. The person defines the person. A man makes his own choices and those may not always reflect his desires or natural inclinations. I believe every one can be encouraging and it is the job of all to give encouragement at some point or another to those who really need it. Can you think of a time when someone's encouragement really picked you up when you were frustrated and gave that little bit of energy to continue on toward greatness? I believe we all should return this favor.

In the life of a woman, her main encouragement should be toward her man. Her words can make him as Hercules or destroy him. He demands her respect, desires her love and worships her words. This is one area where I find many women failing. They are cutting and demeaning to an extreme. Many men understand smack-talk and sarcasm and use it joyfully, but there is a point where that starts to tear at the skin and dig down into the soul, leaving the hollow shell of what was once a confident man. This is where the real problem often starts in a relationship.



That's all I've got for now. Of course, there are minor exceptions to these rules in how they are implemented and to what extent. Still, I think this pretty much covers my idea of a woman. I'd love to hear your responses and take you all up in debate.

[Solaris]

To be womanly... I have often pondered this very question. I cannot say I t
A woman is mature female, one who is safe in her own skin.



A woman must understand she is beautiful.



A woman treats others as valuable and does her best to encourage.




Excellent, I agree with almost your whole post (though didn't see the need to repost the *entire* thing). You put much of what I think into words quite well, kudos to you.

[rwyatt365]

· A woman is mature female, one who is safe in her own skin.
· A woman must understand she is beautiful.
· A woman treats others as valuable and does her best to encourage.

Some of you might disagree with me on this point and that is alright. You are wrong. A personality type does not define the person. The person defines the person. A man makes his own choices and those may not always reflect his desires or natural inclinations. I believe every one can be encouraging and it is the job of all to give encouragement at some point or another to those who really need it. Can you think of a time when someone's encouragement really picked you up when you were frustrated and gave that little bit of energy to continue on toward greatness? I believe we all should return this favor.

In the life of a woman, her main encouragement should be toward her man. Her words can make him as Hercules or destroy him. He demands her respect, desires her love and worships her words. This is one area where I find many women failing. They are cutting and demeaning to an extreme. Many men understand smack-talk and sarcasm and use it joyfully, but there is a point where that starts to tear at the skin and dig down into the soul, leaving the hollow shell of what was once a confident man. This is where the real problem often starts in a relationship.
Aldanga, thank you for this well thought out response. Like Solaris, I applaud you for this post. I'd like to dwell somewhat on the third point that you made, only to say that this is a pet peeve of mine concerning many women that I have had relationships with. I won't say that it's necessarily a "woman-thing", but should apply equally to men and women.

It has been my experience that the women I have dealt with have in no way been encouraging. In fact, it seemed that it was their goal in life to discourage and attack any flaw or weakness in their partner. I don't expect never-ending adulation, but never-ending criticism was not called for either. I've heard all of the "for your own good", "constructive criticism", "it'll make you stronger" catch phrases that are supposed to soften the blow – but the fact is…they don’t.

My analogy of this phenomenon is of a person that peeks their head out of their doorway only to be cracked over the head with a baseball bat. Every day, the stick their head out, and every day they get smacked over the head. It won't take too many repetitions of this for the peeker to stop sticking their head out of the window. They will (in the simplest cases) either stay indoors, or find another exit point (one, preferably without a bat-wielder at it). The man tries something ("sticks his head out") and gets whacked by biting comments from his partner. He repeats and gets the same treatment. Eventually he shuts down, or goes elsewhere.

The constant onslaught of negativism and criticism is wearing on the spirit and soul. I've asked the question several times, "if you wanted a man, why do you treat him like a bad dog?", and having done so, how do you expect him not to act like a whipped puppy when you're done? It's amazing how many women there are that verbally, emotionally, or mentally castrate their partners and then wonder why he acts like he doesn't have balls. You created him, now live with it.

Men are not exempt from this scenario either. I'm just commenting on this from my point of view.

[Solaris]

Aldanga, thank you for this well thought out response. Like Solaris, I applaud you for this post. I'd like to dwell somewhat on the third point that you made, only to say that this is a pet peeve of mine concerning many women that I have had relationships with. I won't say that it's necessarily a "woman-thing", but should apply equally to men and women.

It has been my experience that the women I have dealt with have in no way been encouraging. In fact, it seemed that it was their goal in life to discourage and attack any flaw or weakness in their partner. I don't expect never-ending adulation, but never-ending criticism was not called for either. I've heard all of the "for your own good", "constructive criticism", "it'll make you stronger" catch phrases that are supposed to soften the blow – but the fact is…they don’t.

In a relationship with an ISFP, I ended it when I realized I was sort of doing this. I tried to explain to him that there actually wasn't anything truly defective about him, just that we weren't compatible. I didn't want a door mat, I wanted a man. Probably the most F tendency I have, is the desire for people to be themselves -- their true, genuine, unfiltered selves-- and be accepted for it. The reason though, is that it just makes more sense to embrace your strengths, acknowledge your weaknesses, and build off the two. To me, this can only happen when you really acknowledging who you are. I tried not being myself, it never goes well. I can't be "less" me, as then I become somebody else.

To bring this back on topic. That somebody else I tried to be was a more traditional woman. I'm not, and I'm never going to be. I can do traditional things, but would only do them because it's what I want to do. I have never felt the need to fit into societal constructs. I like what I like, I know what it is (usually) and I pursue it.

[Aldanga]

Aldanga, thank you for this well thought out response. Like Solaris, I applaud you for this post. I'd like to dwell somewhat on the third point that you made, only to say that this is a pet peeve of mine concerning many women that I have had relationships with. I won't say that it's necessarily a "woman-thing", but should apply equally to men and women.

Thank you, both you and Solaris, for your acknowledgement. It is much appreciated. This topic, personal identity within the sexes, has been a concern of mine for a couple of years and I've dedicated much thought and analysis to it.

I believe you to be very correct in your first assessment. That is actually a point toward which I was leaning. It is necessary for both women and men to be encouraging; but, seeing this thread being on womanhood, I decided to make small point of that and continue on with the main purpose of describing a woman.

I have experienced much what you are referencing with regard to destructive women. That is the largest issue relationships in this day and age face. You cannot retain a strong relationship when there is not goodwill between the parties, much less respect and love. Extreme and destructive criticism destroys much--if not all--goodwill.

I have yet to decide, but my thought on the cause of such criticism is this: women believe they need to be strong. They have to be able to always defend themselves. It may include hurting other people, especially male partners; but they'll understand, right? Aren't men all about survival and being strong?

This is the point that women--and I use the term loosely--often overly-emphasize: that men are all for strength and character. While this may be somewhat true, men want their women also to be delicate. That has to do with the whole 'saving the princess from the castle' desire of men. In the same line, strength and character are not made evidenced by destruction of another individual to save yourself, such as the demeaning of men by women or vice versa. I'd say in one sense character and, more deeply, love are destruction of one's self to save another individual. This happens via thoughtful and intentional personal sacrifice.

[blueeyedsusan]

Womanly means being really glad to be able to have multiple orgasms. It is not being a "barbie" doll or becoming anyone perceptions of what is "womanly"

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I think most of the other stereotypes are socialized.
And they say sexism is dead!





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 1 minutes and 1 seconds later...

I will be among the first to assert that while there are biological differences between men and women, we're all just human and we would do well to remember that. And that many of the differences are socially taught, not inherent.

Having said that, I would say that to feel either "womanly" or "manly" would mean to feel like an attractive member of whatever gender you happen to be. What that is, exactly, probably varies from person to person.
This sounds right to me.





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 1 minutes and 31 seconds later...

Having recently used the word, I feel partly responsible .. When I say womanly, and I would because I was raised as the son my father never had, I guess I would mean...
And I've sat on this thought for a minute or two, I'm a little uncomfortable. I often feel sexless and when I feel womanly, or girlish better yet, it's not a feeling I can easily define. But when I feel strong and powerful I associate this with feeling manly. Wellnow, it looks like I've become a victim of societies ridiculous ideals. Damn.
Funny..........when I feel strong and powerful I feel very womanly.





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 4 minutes and 10 seconds later...

To me the feeling of being "womanly" only really comes out when I am interacting with a guy I am in an intimate relationship with. It probably means different things to different people, but to me it's associated with being submissive to a guy (the only person I would ever be submissive to).
I feel womanly when I am sexually submissive, sexually dominant, mothering my children, debating an interesting point with a receptive and intelligent partner, performing some caregiving act for my family etc.





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 2 minutes and 23 seconds later...

I have no idea (I'm a girl), which is probably understandable... I scored close to zero on femininity, or so my test results say. I think that 'manly' and 'womanly' are from stereotypes that originated from the antiquity.
I scored as very androgynous.

[thod]

If you think men and women are simply 'people' peering out from different shaped bodies than you are delusional. There are very real differences in mental processes that can be measured with scientific rigor. It not suprising you get different behaviours.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Womanly means being really glad to be able to have multiple orgasms. It is not being a "barbie" doll or becoming anyone perceptions of what is "womanly"
Have you heard this one?

When god was finished passing stuff out to Adam and Eve he said to them, "Well....I have two things left. The first is the ability to pee standing up."
Before Eve had a chance to speak Adam quickly said, "I'll take that."
With a sidelong look at Adam.....Eve said, "O.K. What's the other thing?"
To which god replied, "Multiple orgasms."





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 1 minutes and 55 seconds later...

If you think men and women are simply 'people' peering out from different shaped bodies than you are delusional. There are very real differences in mental processes that can be measured with scientific rigor. It not suprising you get different behaviours.
True.

[Lucid]

If you think men and women are simply 'people' peering out from different shaped bodies than you are delusional. There are very real differences in mental processes that can be measured with scientific rigor. It not suprising you get different behaviours.

Thod, you've proven yourself in other threads to be a sexist. Stop trying to use weak logic and pseudo science to justify your emotional reactions to gender issues. Nobody's trying to say that men and women are exactly the same, but whether you like hearing it or not women are just as capable as men.

[thod]

Thod, you've proven yourself in other threads to be a sexist. Stop trying to use weak logic and pseudo science to justify your emotional reactions to gender issues. Nobody's trying to say that men and women are exactly the same, but whether you like hearing it or not women are just as capable as men.

I agree. Equal opportunities to all. But that in no way means that all are looking at the world in the same way or will take advantage of those opportunities in the same way. When you say "just as capable" what are you refering to? There are differences in visio spatial processing, social procesing etc. Heck men appear in mens dreams 70% of the time, but womens dreams they appear equal frequency, sort of suggests sub concious differences. You have got yourself so caught up in idealism that you are unwilling to accept facts. Its like denying african guys have big lips, they do, it doesnt mean its bad, but its not logical to say everyone has the same lip size just to avoid the difference and reach consenus.

[Lucid]

I agree. Equal opportunities to all. But that in no way means that all are looking at the world in the same way or will take advantage of those opportunities in the same way. When you say "just as capable" what are you refering to? There are differences in visio spatial processing, social procesing etc. Heck men appear in mens dreams 70% of the time, but womens dreams they appear equal frequency, sort of suggests sub concious differences. You have got yourself so caught up in idealism that you are unwilling to accept facts. Its like denying african guys have big lips, they do, it doesnt mean its bad, but its not logical to say everyone has the same lip size just to avoid the difference and reach consenus.

Thod, read my previous post again carefully. I'm not saying that men and women aren't different. But you're putting way too much stock into these differences you mention:

In just about everything I can think of from IQ tests, to chess grandmasters, to disabilites you get more men at the the extremes. The average may be the same but the spread isnt. So you get more ultra smart men and more ultra dumb.

So if you are running for president, which require extreme attributes, you will always have more male candidates. They are not their because of inequality, they are their because they realy are better at it.

You're basically saying here that men are smarter than women, on average, and that their visual spatial processing makes them better presidents. You obviously didn't know this, but the two world champion chess players (they beat Bobby Fischer) are a pair of Romanian girls.
Regarding your claims about men being better presidential candidates I'll repeat my argument: women are better communicators, they're better negotiators, they're more socially competitive and they're better multi-taskers. Which of these attributes makes them unsuited for leadership positions in modern society?
If we take the strict stance on abilities that you seem to be advocating, thod, men are best suited for hunting and gathering, physical fighting and acts of physical strength. Which means that they'd be pretty useless in modern society as anything but manual laborers.
Obviously this isn't the case. Taking the "physical abilities" argument to the extreme you seem to be does a disservice to both genders.

You're making an argument that women are mentally weaker, less capable of rationality, less capable of positions of responsibility or authority and then you try to tell us that it doesn't mean it's bad? Maybe it's not bad for you, maybe you don't mind if women aren't treated equally, but I do. Don't presume to tell me what's bad and what isn't when it comes to making statements about my abilities.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

You're making an argument that women are mentally weaker, less capable of rationality, less capable of positions of responsibility or authority and then you try to tell us that it doesn't mean it's bad? Maybe it's not bad for you, maybe you don't mind if women aren't treated equally, but I do. Don't presume to tell me what's bad and what isn't when it comes to making statements about my abilities.
Thod sounds like a case of prejudism. In other words he makes adverse judgments and opinions about, in this case women, that are formed without knowledge or examination of the facts.

He has a preconceived preference or idea about women and, thereby, holds unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions.

[Lucid]

Thod sounds like a case of prejudism. In other words he makes adverse judgments and opinions about, in this case women, that are formed without knowledge or examination of the facts.

He has a preconceived preference or idea about women and, thereby, holds unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions.

There seem to be a few people like this on the forum. I'd think that NTs would be above this kind of crap, but I'm consistently disappointed. Maybe it's because some INTJs don't really have the ability to socialize... therefore they don't actually meet many women so they don't know what women are actually like.
Or perhaps they're just so set in their prejudice that any women they do meet are automatically judged this way.

[blueeyedsusan]

Thod, you cannot be an INTJ and reply like that, obviously you are an imposter.
You cannot know how I think be I woman or man, that is a fact.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

There seem to be a few people like this on the forum. I'd think that NTs would be above this kind of crap, but I'm consistently disappointed. Maybe it's because some INTJs don't really have the ability to socialize... therefore they don't actually meet many women so they don't know what women are actually like.
Or perhaps they're just so set in their prejudice that any women they do meet are automatically judged this way.
A little something about prejudism..........

"There are many stereotypes we learn as children. We do not test these and many times we do not have the opportunity to test them. We learn them as facts and behave as if they are the truth. Then, later in life, when situations come up, we behave automatically out of these earlier stereotyped learnings. This type of learning is not easily accessible for discussion or awareness, but it simply stays with us for later effortless, seemingly automatic application. Since the learning is not tested and not challenged, it is not evaluated and not likely to be changed.

The result is a situation where people report that they are not prejudiced, yet when conditions come up, they often behave in prejudicial ways, based on their "earlier learnings." Conditions that do not get people’s full attention, or conditions where they are not fully aware of the other person’s group membership, will often result in a prejudicial response from one’s "earlier learning." This is one way of understanding why many people who say they are not prejudiced will, when tested, behave in prejudiced ways."

[thod]

ah so now you pull out old posts. Clearly I have an audience.

You're basically saying here that men are smarter than women, on average, and that their visual spatial processing makes them better presidents. You obviously didn't know this, but the two world champion chess players (they beat Bobby Fischer) are a pair of Romanian girls.
Regarding your claims about men being better presidential candidates I'll repeat my argument: women are better communicators, they're better negotiators, they're more socially competitive and they're better multi-taskers. Which of these attributes makes them unsuited for leadership positions in modern society

Nope thats what you are saying. I am saying you will get more male presidential candidates. Once again you ignore what the other person is saying, and the fact to simply follow your idealism. There are more male candidates for president in every country and every election, thats fact. You may not like it but its fact, wake up, stop believing the world will change because you think it should. your internal models are incorrect.

You're making an argument that women are mentally weaker, less capable of rationality, less capable of positions of responsibility or authority and then you try to tell us that it doesn't mean it's bad

Argh stop telling me what I am saying. It is you that are saying this because you want someone to argue with. Since you cant find someone you just make things up.

I am not INTJ i am INTP. And I have clearly met many women and many men. I grew up with 3 sisters ffs. I do not find the women I have had relationships with to be the same as men. I admit i have never had that kind of relationship with men. I have to go by my observations, that is what a rational being does. There are differences, to me, the vary between indivduals but taken on average they are there.

[Lucid]

Nope thats what you are saying. I am saying you will get more male presidential candidates. Once again you ignore what the other person is saying, and the fact to simply follow your idealism. There are more male candidates for president in every country and every election, thats fact. You may not like it but its fact, wake up, stop believing the world will change because you think it should. your internal models are incorrect.

So you're just pointing out that there's more male candidates than female candidates? Then where does the "it's because they really are better at it" part come in? Do you see how a statement like that might be taken to mean that you're saying that men are better at leadership positions than women? If you're trying to say something other than that, you should make sure you're clear on that.

Argh stop telling me what I am saying. It is you that are saying this because you want someone to argue with. Since you cant find someone you just make things up.

I'm not just trying to argue with someone. If you aren't saying the things you seem to be saying then A) I apologize. and B) you should rephrase your statements because they are (apparently) coming off in a way other than that which you intended.

Why don't you try to explain to us what you're actually trying to say and we'll see if we can go from there.

[robin.]

Nope thats what you are saying. I am saying you will get more male presidential candidates. Once again you ignore what the other person is saying, and the fact to simply follow your idealism. There are more male candidates for president in every country and every election, thats fact. You may not like it but its fact, wake up, stop believing the world will change because you think it should. your internal models are incorrect.
I think that, especially with the president example, it's important to take the role of society into account instead of simply attributing it to the characteristics of the sexes. In many countries, girls simply aren't offered the level of education necessary to become president (or hold any powerful office, for that matter). In addition, I think you have to take note of a kind of "societal inertia" that is present in all countries. Opinions and biases change slowly. If there have always been male presidents due to education issues, people will probably associate a male with the word "president" even if there is no longer a disparity in education. This kind of mindset will either actively discourage girls from working up to such an office, or they simply won't see it as an option because "that's just not what girls do." It takes a long time for people's opinions to catch up with reality, especially with respect to sensitive issues such as sexism, racism, etc.

[OneBadMother]

I take a middle ground. Sexism exists. So does sexual dimorphism. It's true that more geniuses are men, but also the lowest IQs. Males are generally physically stronger and females have higher pain tolerance and don't get sick as often. And you know what? Maybe the reason why some of us feel out of place is because we're out of the norm, at least mentally speaking. :P I know that I will never be a woman as portrayed by Aldanga's ideal. Nor a man as such ideals would go.

So, without such paradigms of behavior and thought applying to me, I'm free to be who I am, a girl who prides herself mostly on her cleverness. I will never be a genius. I don't know whether I'll ever become top of my field or accomplish something truly great or get married or have kids. But I'll try everything I can and won't let other people's expectations stifle me, whether "high" or "low". Maybe I'll do all of the above. Maybe none. I'll dress in feminine clothing every once in a while, and not bother most days. Most importantly, I'll be myself and not worry about whether I'm achieving womanlihoodnesstasticity or not.

[Provoker]

Ironically, feminists have erased what it means to be feminin. Now you see men cooking and women kickboxing. The fundamental dynamics of 'male' and 'female' roles have changed. This is one cause of increased marriage failures in recent years. Before there was traditional roles, where as now everyone wants to be free and an individual binded by nothing. It doesn't suprise me that this is the way history turned. Capitalism is a system predicated on self-interest and greed. With more members of the household working the bourgeoisie are able to accumulate more wealth.

Anyways, I doubt this is sustainable in the long-run.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Ironically, feminists have erased what it means to be feminin. Now you see men cooking and women kickboxing. The fundamental dynamics of 'male' and 'female' roles have changed. This is one cause of increased marriage failures in recent years. Before there was traditional roles, where as now everyone wants to be free and an individual binded by nothing. It doesn't suprise me that this is the way history turned. Capitalism is a system predicated on self-interest and greed. With more members of the household working the bourgeoisie are able to accumulate more wealth.

Anyways, I doubt this is sustainable in the long-run.
It's not really ironic when you think about it. Feminists are people (male and female) who work toward equality between the sexes. Since feminine ideals are based on the desires of males because males have dominated females for many centuries and since the traditional roles of men and women within society and within marriage have been dictated by men to satisfy a male sense of entitlement, then it isn't suprising at all that feminists would try to get rid of these male constructed ideas.

[pavman]

I'm just commenting on this from my point of view.

I agree to an extent. But look long enough and hard enough, and you'll find someone who is encouraging, and who doesn't take advantage of you. Too bad I gave her up a while back...drat.

Oh well, guess I'm stuck with these other losers... I wouldn't take it personally; I think a lot of women get it into their head that they are the center of your universe and don't know how to respond to your needs (or even perceive what those needs ARE). Esp. the ESFJs out there (possibly all ESFs). Realize that since women's liberation there is more strife because neither men nor women realize their proper role responses in the natural order. Don't mis-read that.

I'm reading The Five Love Languages, Men's Edition right now, and it seems women could benefit from reading the normal edition. I have known a number of women who don't have a clue on how to act/respond to their man, and truly seem to act as if sex is the only/most important thing they can do for their man, but expect their man to do all this shit for them. Not sure if this is because of society's perpetual sex is great campaign, or if its simply because there's a lot of immature women running around out there...

Anyway, just my $.02... I've already concluded that ALL women are crazy, so now I'm just trying to find a crazy I can deal with. :) Yep, I sure do make friends fast on boards ;)

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I agree to an extent. But look long enough and hard enough, and you'll find someone who is encouraging, and who doesn't take advantage of you. Too bad I gave her up a while back...drat.

Oh well, guess I'm stuck with these other losers... I wouldn't take it personally; I think a lot of women get it into their head that they are the center of your universe and don't know how to respond to your needs (or even perceive what those needs ARE). Esp. the ESFJs out there (possibly all ESFs). Realize that since women's liberation there is more strife because neither men nor women realize their proper role responses in the natural order. Don't mis-read that.

I'm reading The Five Love Languages, Men's Edition right now, and it seems women could benefit from reading the normal edition. I have known a number of women who don't have a clue on how to act/respond to their man, and truly seem to act as if sex is the only/most important thing they can do for their man, but expect their man to do all this shit for them. Not sure if this is because of society's perpetual sex is great campaign, or if its simply because there's a lot of immature women running around out there...

Anyway, just my $.02... I've already concluded that ALL women are crazy, so now I'm just trying to find a crazy I can deal with. :) Yep, I sure do make friends fast on boards ;)
I would indeed agree that there is more strife for men since, as women become more equal, men lose the power and control (and all the percs that come with that position) that they have enjoyed for so long. I would even go so far as to say that the control has lasted so long and is so engrained in many societies.... that men have a sense of entitlement to these percs.

[rwyatt365]

I'm reading The Five Love Languages, Men's Edition right now, and it seems women could benefit from reading the normal edition. I have known a number of women who don't have a clue on how to act/respond to their man, and truly seem to act as if sex is the only/most important thing they can do for their man, but expect their man to do all this shit for them. Not sure if this is because of society's perpetual sex is great campaign, or if its simply because there's a lot of immature women running around out there...
Ah, another point of contention...sex. Sex (for me) is part of the relationship, not the relationship. Almost all of the women that I have been in a relationship with have treated sex as the be-all-end-all of the relationship; that sex is what makes a relationship good, and what keeps a relationship good.

For me, sex and sexuality is a thread in the tapestry of a relationship. Having it there can enhance the picture and fortify the relationship, but it is but one part of the whole. All the sex in the world will not "cause" a good relationship.

Being "a woman" does not imply being a sex goddess. Being a sex goddess does (to me) imply being a slut. ("oh no he didn't!!")

[Lucid]

I agree to an extent. But look long enough and hard enough, and you'll find someone who is encouraging, and who doesn't take advantage of you. Too bad I gave her up a while back...drat.

Oh well, guess I'm stuck with these other losers... I wouldn't take it personally; I think a lot of women get it into their head that they are the center of your universe and don't know how to respond to your needs (or even perceive what those needs ARE). Esp. the ESFJs out there (possibly all ESFs). Realize that since women's liberation there is more strife because neither men nor women realize their proper role responses in the natural order. Don't mis-read that.

I'm reading The Five Love Languages, Men's Edition right now, and it seems women could benefit from reading the normal edition. I have known a number of women who don't have a clue on how to act/respond to their man, and truly seem to act as if sex is the only/most important thing they can do for their man, but expect their man to do all this shit for them. Not sure if this is because of society's perpetual sex is great campaign, or if its simply because there's a lot of immature women running around out there...

Anyway, just my $.02... I've already concluded that ALL women are crazy, so now I'm just trying to find a crazy I can deal with. :) Yep, I sure do make friends fast on boards ;)

Welcome to being an INTJ :)
But saying that women are crazy doesn't offend me. Long ago I realized that all men are crazy.

I think women putting down their partner or being verbally abusive is incredibly common. It seems like when men are abusive in a relationship often they are physically abusive. But because women are not as physically strong as men they tend to be verbally abusive more often. Also, verbal abuse is more socially acceptable and not really illegal so I think there may be more of it.

However, I think the phenomena you describe above is just a matter of people being shitty and has very little to do with gender. Men do it as much as women, in my experience and it's just a matter of a person thinking that he or she is the only person in the universe (or at least in the relationship) who matters. And there's just no excuse for that.

[OneBadMother]

Ironically, feminists have erased what it means to be feminin. Now you see men cooking and women kickboxing. The fundamental dynamics of 'male' and 'female' roles have changed. This is one cause of increased marriage failures in recent years. Before there was traditional roles, where as now everyone wants to be free and an individual binded by nothing. It doesn't suprise me that this is the way history turned. Capitalism is a system predicated on self-interest and greed. With more members of the household working the bourgeoisie are able to accumulate more wealth.

Anyways, I doubt this is sustainable in the long-run.

Uhh, poor women have always been working, and marriage was never idyllic. Also, who says that the women in really high-crust families even work? :P

[Provoker]

It's not really ironic when you think about it.

You're not thinking about it.

Wait, will you agree with this proposition as a starting point women /= men? This is quite fundamental but I want to make sure we're on the same page. Moreover, do you recognize any of the following: biological, physical, emotional, and intellectual differences between the two?

No doubt feminism has come into vogue in the last 30 years but I tend to support a mosaic model more than a melting pot one. In other words, while embracing women I recognize that they are unique and I don't recommend stripping them on their identity. The American melting pot model seeks to assimilate everything into one, and gender differences are no exception. You joined this forum to connect with other INTJs because we are unique right? If the whole world assimilates as INTJs than being an INTJ ceases to be meaningful. The same is true of women. We must support gender equality within the confines of a mosaic model, that is, having institutions that accommodate to women while at the same time not erasing her identity.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

You're not thinking about it.

Wait, will you agree with this proposition as a starting point women /= men? This is quite fundamental but I want to make sure we're on the same page. Moreover, do you recognize any of the following: biological, physical, emotional, and intellectual differences between the two?

No doubt feminism has come into vogue in the last 30 years but I tend to support a mosaic model more than a melting pot one. In other words, while embracing women I recognize that they are unique and I don't recommend stripping them on their identity. The American melting pot model seeks to assimilate everything into one, and gender differences are no exception. You joined this forum to connect with other INTJs because we are unique right? If the whole world assimilates as INTJs than being an INTJ ceases to be meaningful. The same is true of women. We must support gender equality within the confines of a mosaic model, that is, having institutions that accommodate to women while at the same time not erasing her identity.
I totally agree that there are biological and physiological differences that effect each sexes physical makeup, as well as, various body systems (including the brain). I also agree that there are sociological differences between the way women are treated and the way men are treated which predispose them to differences in their general behavior and way of thinking.

I appreciate your desire not to strip women of their "identities". However, my concern is that this identity has been largely placed on women by male desire and, therefore, is it really a woman's identity?

"We must support gender equality within the confines of a mosaic model, that is, having institutions that accommodate to women while at the same time not erasing her identity."
This last statement sounds alot like "separate but equal". This arguement was used in an attempt to maintain seperation between blacks and whites in the 60's.

Basically, I am not overly worried about keeping anything status quo. Let's go ahead and shake things up and redefine what it is to be a woman and a man. After all, we're never going to lose that basic biological and physiological difference are we? Let's see how far we can take things in our quest for equality and let the chips fall where they may.