What Are Feminine v. Masculine traits? (Split from Mental Equal Thread)

[Jinxu]

Mod Edit: This thread was split from Do You Need A Mental Equal In Your Partner? (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)


Is it possible to phrase that without the buzzwords? What does it mean to lead or follow? What is the submissive role compared to the dominant? Do these apply at all times, and in an all-or-nothing setup wherein one person is the dominant partner at all times and in regard to all subjects without exception and the other is always submissive about everything and has no expressly stated opinions or volition of his/her own?

Here's a list from a college Sociology text by Pearson Education, Inc:

Feminine Traits
Submissive
Dependent
Unintelligent and Incapable
Emotional
Receptive
Intuitive
Weak
Timid
Content
Passive
Cooperative
Sensitive
Sex object
Attractive because of physical appearance

Masculine Traits
Dominant
Independent
Intelligent and competent
Rational
Assertive
Analytical
Strong
Brave
Ambitious
Active
Competitive
Insensitive
Sexually aggressive
Attractive because of achievement

Source: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Storm]

Here's a list from a college Sociology text by Pearson Education, Inc:

Feminine Traits
Submissive
Dependent
Unintelligent and Incapable
Emotional
Receptive
Intuitive
Weak
Timid
Content
Passive
Cooperative
Sensitive
Sex object
Attractive because of physical appearance

Masculine Traits
Dominant
Independent
Intelligent and competent
Rational
Assertive
Analytical
Strong
Brave
Ambitious
Active
Competitive
Insensitive
Sexually aggressive
Attractive because of achievement

Source: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You have quoted form a sociology textbook what society generally considers masculine and feminine traits. It does not follow that these trends should dictate your behavior or what is best in a relationship.

[Jinxu]

You have quoted form a sociology textbook what society generally considers masculine and feminine traits. It does not follow that these trends should dictate your behavior or what is best in a relationship.

Yes, I am well aware of that. No one ever said that a person has to be 100% masculine or feminine. Just like most people here are not 100% on the I, N, T or J. Some people are are more masculine; some people are more feminine.

If you want to take the Masculine/Feminine test, you can go here:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Storm]

Yes, I am well aware of that. No one ever said that a person has to be 100% masculine or feminine. Just like most people here are not 100% on the I, N, T or J. Some people are are more masculine; some people are more feminine.

If you want to take the Masculine/Feminine test, you can go here:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

First off, I think your source was biased because all traits for women were negative, whereas all traits for men were positive. Second, I don't know what your point in listing feminine and masculine traits was. I thought it was to explain why you thought women should follow and men should lead. But apparently, I was wrong.

[Rudy]

Yes, I am well aware of that. No one ever said that a person has to be 100% masculine or feminine. Just like most people here are not 100% on the I, N, T or J. Some people are are more masculine; some people are more feminine.

Jinxu, the point is that those traits are not some transcendent standard of what masculine or feminine should be, they are just what society, on average, perceives them to be (assuming the unbiased nature of your source which, it appears, may not be a valid assumption.) They do not in any way represent some fundamental ideal of masculinity or femininity, nor are they to be aspired to.

[Jinxu]

Jinxu, the point is that those traits are not some transcendent standard of what masculine or feminine should be, they are just what society, on average, perceives them to be (assuming the unbiased nature of your source which, it appears, may not be a valid assumption.) They do not in any way represent some fundamental ideal of masculinity or femininity, nor are they to be aspired to.

*sigh* If you had read the article you would have noticed that the author also said the following sentence:

Femininity and masculinity are defined relationally, and the origin of these definitions is in the cultural need to define a masculine hero

[Rudy]

*sigh* If you had read the article you would have noticed that the author also said the following sentence:

Yes, I just did read the article, actually, and the author is actually condemning this list of traits, and using it as an illustration of what is wrong with patriarchal societies. He says that femininity is only defined in this way in order to artificially inflate masculinity.

[Jinxu]

Second, I don't know what your point in listing feminine and masculine traits was.

I was asked to by ElstonGunn.





Jinxu added to this post, 3 minutes and 17 seconds later...

Yes, I just did read the article, actually, and the author is actually condemning this list of traits, and using it as an illustration of what is wrong with patriarchal societies. He says that femininity is only defined in this way in order to artificially inflate masculinity.

What's your point? I believe those are the main textbook descriptions of masculinity/femininity. Are you gonna try to redefine it? Personally, I think this debate is a little funny because they are just words that can be applied to both men and women.


As a matter of fact, the current social trend is that males are becoming more feminine "caring" men, while females are becoming more masculine "independent" women.

[Storm]

I was asked to by ElstonGunn.

Elston asked you to reword your posts without buzzword, not list off masculine and feminine traits.

What's your point? I believe those are the main textbook descriptions of masculinity/femininity. Are you gonna try and redefine it?

Just because a textbook says it, doesn't make it true. Which, like Rudy said, was the point the author was trying to make in the article you linked. The author of that textbook failed to include positive feminine traits and negative masculine traits.

[Jinxu]

Just because a textbook says it, doesn't make it true. Which, like Rudy said, was the point the author was trying to make in the article you linked. The author of that textbook failed to include positive feminine traits and negative masculine traits.

True, but Google has its limits. If you can find another list, feel free to post it.

[Rudy]

What's your point? I believe those are the main textbook descriptions of masculinity/femininity. Are you gonna try and redefine it?

My point is that you took your lists of masculine and feminine traits from a website that pointed out the massive flaws in such a list. You managed to conveniently ignore all of the problems the blog's author pointed out with such a list, as they proved too inconvenient for your theory.

So, congratulations; you have a list of feminine and masculine traits from an unnamed Sociology Textbook, which was probably written before women were really considered the equals of men in mainstream society. A list which was dissected and rejected by the author of the very web page you got it from.

You are showing an increasingly clear pattern of looking only for data which supports your theory, while rejecting out of hand anything that contradicts it.

True, but Google has its limits. If you can find another list, feel free to post it.

Yes, let's all see who can find the prettier list of traits on the internet! They must be the correct one.

[Jinxu]

My point is that you took your lists of masculine and feminine traits from a website that pointed out the massive flaws in such a list. You managed to conveniently ignore all of the problems the blog's author pointed out with such a list, as they proved too inconvenient for your theory.

I don't really care if the author agree or disagree with the descriptions, I only care about the description itself. Whether it is oppressive or not is irrelevant.

[Rudy]

I don't really care if the author agree or disagree with the descriptions, I only care about the description itself. Whether it is oppressive or not is irrelevant.
Exactly my point. You chose these descriptions because you agree with them, not because they are supported by any evidence whatsoever.

[Jinxu]

M
You are showing an increasingly clear pattern of looking only for data which supports your theory, while rejecting out of hand anything that contradicts it.

Short answer: No I'm not. And this is a flame.

[Storm]

Jinxu, we're still waiting for you to reword your one post without buzzwords and to explain why you need to be the mental superior so that you can "lead" and what "lead" means to you.

[Sinequanon]

True, but Google has its limits. If you can find another list, feel free to post it.
If you find the list to be personally problematic, wouldn't intellectual integrity prevent you from posting it, or do you just grasp for any straws that will plug your hole in the moment? Wither honesty? Seriously.

[Jinxu]

Exactly my point. You chose these descriptions because you agree with them, not because they are supported by any evidence whatsoever.

I have a sociology professor and she list similar descriptions. I have a sociology textbook, and it list the same too. Feel free to pick up a sociology book sometime.

Yes, it's a description given by society to define a set of traits from men or women. Are all males 100% "masculine" or all females 100% "feminine"? No. Stop making pointless arguments. They are just descriptions! If you want to redefine it, go ahead. If you don't want to accept it, go ahead.

[Jinxu]

If you find the list to be personally problematic, wouldn't intellectual integrity prevent you from posting it, or do you just grasp for any straws that will plug your hole in the moment? Wither honesty? Seriously.

I was only referring to the comment in bold:


Just because a textbook says it, doesn't make it true. Which, like Rudy said, was the point the author was trying to make in the article you linked. The author of that textbook failed to include positive feminine traits and negative masculine traits.

[Rudy]

Short answer: No I'm not. And this is a flame.
No, it's not. Please look up flame. This is not one. This is a legitimate criticism of your methodology.

I have a sociology professor and she list similar descriptions. I have a sociology textbook, and it list the same too. Feel free to pick up a sociology book sometime.

Yes, it's a description given by society to define a set of traits from men or women. Are all males "masculine" or all females "feminine"? No. Stop making pointless arguments. They are just descriptions! If you want to redefine it, go ahead. If you don't want to accept it, go ahead.
Author and date? You do know that everything in textbooks isn't correct, right? I have read a few myself, though, so no need to worry on my account.

It's a bad description given by patriarchal societies to artificially define masculinity and femininity in order to support the former at the cost of the latter. There is nothing pointless about this at all. You are attempting to define femininity in an incredibly misogynistic way, and I will certainly not accept it, nor glibly let it pass.

[Jinxu]

It's a bad description given by patriarchal societies to artificially define masculinity and femininity in order to support the former at the cost of the latter. There is nothing pointless about this at all. You are attempting to define femininity in an incredibly misogynistic way, and I will certainly not accept it, nor glibly let it pass.

From a recent post:


As a matter of fact, the current social trend is that males are becoming more feminine "caring" men, while females are becoming more masculine "independent" women.

[Sinequanon]

I was only referring to the comment in bold:
I don't want to cause the thread to become a big wheel-spinning exercise in you defending your list or whatever, though, I suspect you're receiving the attention you want by virtue of all this participation, but my issue was with your saying someone else should find a better list because you apparently don't have the time to find a decent one. So the crappy one will suffice? Why should we tolerate your intellectual laziness? Why would you even bother defending the point in that way? It's your responsibility to understand the context of the material you cite, not others'.

Plus I just wanted to use the phrase "Wither <something>?" :)

[Jinxu]

Jinxu, we're still waiting for you to reword your one post without buzzwords and to explain why you need to be the mental superior so that you can "lead" and what "lead" means to you.

You mean why I feel I need to play the dominant role? Maybe it's because it's in my genes.

Maybe you are confusing the word dominant with the word domineering.

[Storm]

You mean why I feel I need to play the dominant role? Because it's in my genes. ;)

Maybe you are confusing the word dominant with the word domineering.

No, I'm not. Please answer the question with some more substance than "Because I have a Y chromosome."

[Jinxu]

your saying someone else should find a better list because you apparently don't have the time to find a decent one. So the crappy one will suffice? Why should we tolerate your intellectual laziness? Why would you even bother defending the point in that way? It's your responsibility to understand the context of the material you cite, not others'.

*sigh* Fine, here's your starting point. I have yet to see any links from other posters. And no I don't have as much free time as many of you think. Also, I think the list I gave was good:

Negative Masculinity and Femininity: Neuroticism and Acting Out.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.





Jinxu added to this post, 1 minutes and 49 seconds later...

No, I'm not. Please answer the question with some more substance than "Because I have a Y chromosome."

Because it's a part of my distinct individual personality trait, which belongs to a set of 1 of 16 defined personality traits.

*Going back to writing my essay now...

[Rudy]

It's a bad description given by patriarchal societies to artificially define masculinity and femininity in order to support the former at the cost of the latter. There is nothing pointless about this at all. You are attempting to define femininity in an incredibly misogynistic way, and I will certainly not accept it, nor glibly let it pass.

From a recent post:


As a matter of fact, the current social trend is that males are becoming more feminine "caring" men, while females are becoming more masculine "independent" women.
Please explain to me how this is an argument.

*sigh* Fine, here's your starting point. I have yet to see any links from other posters. And no I don't have as much free time as many of you think:
Jinxu, you're missing the point. You are the one that wants to provide a list of masculine and feminine traits, so it is your responsibility to provide them. I, and many others, chose to reject your list as being unfounded in fact and without merit. That is your problem to solve, not mine by getting another list, because I'm fine without a list at all, quite frankly.

Because it's a part of my distinct individual personality trait, which belongs to a set of 1 of 16 common personality traits.
Are you actually admitting that your behavior is bound by your personality type? That you can exert no independent control over it?

[Jinxu]

Jinxu, you're missing the point. You are the one that wants to provide a list of masculine and feminine traits, so it is your responsibility to provide them. I, and many others, chose to reject your list as being unfounded in fact and without merit. That is your problem to solve, not mine by getting another list, because I'm fine without a list at all, quite frankly.
How is it my problem and I should care whether you will accept it or not why? How does it affect me? It seems to me like it's your choice.


Are you actually admitting that your behavior is bound by your personality type? That you can exert no independent control over it?
I am satisfy with my personality traits right now and do not wish to change or improve it for the time being.



Please explain to me how this is an argument.


It's not, I was simply giving supporting material to expand the knowledge of such material.

[Rudy]

I give you credit for being very good at ignoring my questions.

How is it my problem and I should care whether you will accept it or not why? How does it affect me? It seems to me like it's your decision.
You should care because you have zero evidence to support your theory. Not because I reject it, but because it's methodological foundation rests on quicksand. You are attempting to advance a theory. If you want to do that, you need to be able to defend that theory. So far you've only avoided direct questions about doing so.

[Jinxu]

I give you credit for being very good at ignoring my questions.


You should care because you have zero evidence to support your theory. Not because I reject it, but because it's methodological foundation rests on quicksand. You are attempting to advance a theory. If you want to do that, you need to be able to defend that theory. So far you've only avoided direct questions about doing so.

Oh I'm sorry. Please excuse me if I don't feel like I should spend the majority of my time answering your many questions because I feel that I'm not obligated to.

Evidence for what theory? When did I make a new theory? You're making assumptions.





Jinxu added to this post, 6 minutes and 53 seconds later...

No, it's not. Please look up flame. This is not one. This is a legitimate criticism of your methodology.

The moderators has become corrupted by power...;D

[Rudy]

Evidence for what theory? When did I make a new theory? You're making assumptions.

You are implicitly advancing the lists you provided as representative of "masculinity" and "femininity". That is your theory.

The moderators has become corrupted by power...;D
If you think my criticism of your methodology counts as a flame, then report it. I'm not stopping you. I assure you, however, that it is not, and all you will be doing is wasting the time of the other mods who have to look it over.

[Jinxu]

You are implicitly advancing the lists you provides as representative of "masculinity" and "femininity". That is your theory.

It's not a theory. It's a societal description. And I'm not the one who made it.

Also, I feel honored that my subject was important enough to be splitted off. :smug:

[Rudy]

It's not a theory. It's a societal description. And I'm not the one who made it.

If you support the description given by those lists, then you are advancing a theory, or an argument.

[Jinxu]

If you support the description given by those lists, then you are advancing a theory, or an argument.

Then it is written that I am...but in reality I don't support it or condemn it either, only that I accept it.

[Rudy]

Then it is written that I am...but in reality I don't support it or condemn it either, only that I accept it.

Jinxu, you posting those lists of traits is an act that indicates support. By posting the lists as though they were fact, you advanced the argument that they are valid. This is not counteracted by later claims to the contrary.

[Jinxu]

Jinxu, you posting those lists of traits is an act that indicates support. By posting the lists as though they were fact, you advanced the argument that they are valid. This is not counteracted by later claims to the contrary.
Then it is written that I support them...

[ElstonGunn]

I was asked to by ElstonGunn.

You didn't really answer my question, though. "Dominant," "Submissive," "Lead," "Follow" ...okay, there's a bunch of words that generally fall into two groups of antonyms. My question wasn't about listing for traits that don't have definite meanings, but to define the words or give examples.

What does it mean to be dominant? If I take my girlfriend out for dinner at a seafood place, even though I hate seafood, but because I know that she likes it, am I being dominant in that I chose the venue based on something that I would enjoy (her having a dinner she'd like), or am I submissive because I let her preferences dictate the evening's activity? If she surprises me with tickets to a football game, is she dominant because she made all the plans, or is she submissive because she's only going with me because I like football?

You hear about sexual dominance and submissiveness a lot, too. Who's the dominant one? The person who's doing a larger share of the "work," or the person who got the other to do that "work"? If a woman wanted to have sex in a particular position, like from behind for example, would you be submitting to her emotional preference, or would you be in the dominant physical role? Or both?

I think that these kinds of terms, like dominant and passive and such, are based on a level of definite black-and-white-ness that is rarely present in the world. You can see anything you want in it, depending on which angle you're viewing it from.

[thod]

I don't even think males are dominant when it comes to females. Male dominance is reserved for other males, the males see woman as non-combatants in that game.

Women do not act by confrontation, but by persuading their man. Provoking him into a stand off is likely to lead to stubborn entrenchment, thus she backs off, leading to the illusion of submissiveness. But matters do not end there. Woman have evolved to get their way through controlling the behaviour of their man. She will talk and cajole, the trick being to get him to think it was his idea all along. His inferior communication skills and desire to please her convinces him to act in the manner she desires. One could argue that men are but women's puppets and a front for her to hide behind. There was a lot of sense in the medieval system of making the man the head of the household, its the only way the guys would stand a chance.

[Storm]

I don't even think males are dominant when it comes to females. Male dominance is reserved for other males, the males see woman as non-combatants in that game.

Women do not act by confrontation, but by persuading their man. Provoking him into a stand off is likely to lead to stubborn entrenchment, thus she backs off, leading to the illusion of submissiveness. But matters do not end there. Woman have evolved to get their way through controlling the behaviour of their man. She will talk and cajole, the trick being to get him to think it was his idea all along. His inferior communication skills and desire to please her convinces him to act in the manner she desires. One could argue that men are but women's puppets and a front for her to hide behind. There was a lot of sense in the medieval system of making the man the head of the household, its the only way the guys would stand a chance.

I read this, and all it sounds like are a bunch of stereotypes that do not always, or even the majority of the time, hold water in the real world. There are many women who do act by confrontation. There are also passive-aggressive men in the world.

There have been studies done (sorry, I don't have links), that people will impose masculine and feminine characteristics on a person based on perception and not reality. In the study, researchers took infants and dressed them in clothing of the opposite gender (boys in pink, girls in blue). They then asked adults to interact with the children without telling them their true gender. Adults would coo over how "pretty" and "sweet" the pink clothed babies were while they cradled them gently, but handle the blue clothed babies rougher and go on about their "chubby biceps."

[thod]

I read this, and all it sounds like are a bunch of stereotypes that do not always, or even the majority of the time, hold water in the real world.

Stereotypes are a useful mental tool. They exist to enable classification according some criteria. On encountering a dog you can recall numerous facts from previous encounters with dogs. This allows you to interact quickly with this one without undergoing numerous experiments. Just because this one turns around and bites you does not detract from stereotypes. Occasionally being wrong is the risk you take for the efficiency of using them.

The fact is, women are better at language processing, they are better at multi-tasking. Men are better at visio-spatial processing. The body of evidence from experiments is overwhelming. It is not simply down to social conditioning, there are brain structural differences.

[LionsPride]

The fact is, women are better at language processing, they are better at multi-tasking. Men are better at visio-spatial processing. The body of evidence from experiments is overwhelming. It is not simply down to social conditioning, there are brain structural differences.

Observationally speaking, none of the traits you provided in your previous post included items based on any proven structural differences in brains between men and women or did I somehow miss the documentary on the Discovery channel where they found that the second X chromosome was behind the female behaviour of:

"She will talk and cajole, the trick being to get him to think it was his idea all along."

I would suggest that the above is anecdotal and an assumption based on the idea that women are stronger in language and social interprettation. You could argue that it is indeed a stereotype, but it's a far cry from being a well founded stereotype and a further cry from any sort of proven science.

[Tocsin]

Any list of "masculine traits" that doesn't include farting in bed or enjoying fart jokes is pretty bogus, anyway, in my humble opninion. ;D

As for guys who pride themselves on being "leaders," they're the ones that are the most fun to watch fall flat on their face when you stick your foot out in front of them.

[thod]

Observationally speaking, none of the traits you provided in your previous post included items based on any proven structural differences in brains between men and women or did I somehow miss the documentary on the Discovery channel where they found that the second X chromosome was behind the female behaviour of:

You missed the documentary. Do a web search and you find numerous papers on the subject.

[ATCGs]

Thod's ideas are still (in my opinion) much closer to reality than Jinxu's list, so at least we are getting somewhere.

The key question is, what defines a given trait as masculine or feminine - if it is society's perception, on the whole, that defines the M vs F of a trait then we can probably come, eventually, to some agreement as to what is perceived as masculine of feminine.

If a trait is masculine because an example can be found of a man expressing that trait, then we are very quickly going to be unable to make any sort of list at all. Likewise with women.

[Merle]

First off, I think your source was biased because all traits for women were negative, whereas all traits for men were positive.

Very few of the feminine traits are actually negative; only "weak", "unintelligent and undependable" are really negative. Some people view the other traits as negative, because society values so called masculine traits more highly. Personally, I value "intuitive", "receptive", "content", "Cooperative", "sensitive" far more highly than I value some of the "masculine" traits such as "ambitious", "competitive", "sexually aggressive", "insensitive" and "dominant". A tiny proportion of the traits listed are inherently positive or negative, the value you place on them determines their worth.

[Synamon]

"Unintelligent and Incapable" biases the list beyond salvage in my opinion. Plus the list was taken out of context, even from the source it was quoted from (and it's original source has not been supplied to provide that context either).

[Merle]

But the point of the list is that it is biased: society as a whole sees women as inferior, it also views those traits as inferior, thus those traits become feminine, while those that are more highly valued become masculine. The list is not the problem that should be debated - it merely reflects a real bias in society.

[LionsPride]

Thod's ideas are still (in my opinion) much closer to reality than Jinxu's list, so at least we are getting somewhere.

And at this rate we might reach the 1980's perception of women after a hundred or so more posts.

The key question is, what defines a given trait as masculine or feminine - if it is society's perception, on the whole, that defines the M vs F of a trait then we can probably come, eventually, to some agreement as to what is perceived as masculine of feminine.

It's not that straight forward, there are different societies and they have different perceptions. There is not "perception on the whole that defines that which is masculine and feminine" nor do I see the point of determining what this perception is. If it is perceived that women should wear green hats on Sunday is this necessarily a useful piece of knowledge that we should determine? I know that the green hat example is an obvious fallacy, but I think there are many here that would be quick to point out that "submissive" and other such more widely cited traits are equally useless for founding any sort of behaviour being that they are based on perception rather than proven qualities.

I offer what is the point in defining a quality as "masculine" if both sexes can behave in that way? If more women than men are perceived to display a quality, what is the gain to labelling it "feminine". To support men avoiding such a trait? To tell a women she is being "unfeminine" if she does not subscribe to that behaviour? I'm not seeing any advantages to such labels.

In terms of why Jinxu feels the way he does about his role in a relationship, the accurateness of his list to our perception of society is immaterial. It is an excellent description of what he believes. Now if he would just explain what the terms he posted mean to him, rather than what the terms are (as Elston pointed out) then we would be getting somewhere.

[Jinxu]

In terms of why Jinxu feels the way he does about his role in a relationship, the accurateness of his list to our perception of society is immaterial. It is an excellent description of what he believes. Now if he would just explain what the terms he posted mean to him, rather than what the terms are (as Elston pointed out) then we would be getting somewhere.

I'm just gonna say it one more time in the hope that it will click in some people's head. Yes, the words "masculine" and "feminine" are bias descriptions made by society. They have been used like that for quite some time. If you want to redefine it, go ahead. They do not reflect all men or women. Some men are more "masculine" while some are more "feminine". The same applies to women.

As for the set of traits on the table, I see each set of two traits as the opposite end of a spectrum much like what is used for the MBTI functions. Do all men possess the same degree in all the traits. No. Men may skew more towards the masculine polarity on some trait and skewed more on the feminine polarity on other traits. The same applies to women.

Also, thanks for the popularity. It's been very interesting. :wiseguy:




Jinxu added to this post, 1 minutes and 56 seconds later...

I'm also gonna post this one more time, just in case the meaning might click too. Note that I'm an using the words as descriptions. It has no meaning on what is a man or what is a woman, only that is describes a set of traits that either one can exhibit:

As a matter of fact, the current social trend is that males are becoming more feminine "caring" men, while females are becoming more masculine "independent" women.

[ATCGs]

I would have to agree that the classification of traits as feminine or masculine is of questionable value - while stereotypes can be very helpful in abstracting large swaths of people into fairly-accurate descriptions of all of them (i.e., not in an attempt to de-rail the thread, but single-issue pro-life voters), the abstraction of half of all people based on their behavior is way too broad.

There is also a key difference between the MBTI types and masculine and feminine - with MBTI there is no external measure of what a person "is" or "should be" - if a person exhibits characteristics of a different type than that person is assumed to be, it is a simple matter of changing the classification - i.e. a person who is originally called INFP actually acts much more like an INTJ - ok, just call that person an INTJ.

On the other hand, you can have an obviously male person exhibit "feminine traits" - you can't just call that person female, because he is obviously not, so it somehow casts him as being a "bad" man, or less male than other men, which opens up all sorts of other debates.

[Storm]

I'm just gonna say it one more time in the hope that it will click in some people's head. Yes, the words "masculine" and "feminine" are bias descriptions made by society. They have been used like that for quite some time. If you want to redefine it, go ahead. They do not reflect all men or women. Some men are more "masculine" while some are more "feminine". The same applies to women.

Forgive me, for I am slow and dense. But the question LP asked was "how do these traits effect your relationship, why do you want to be the "leader" and what does the word "leader" mean to you?"
Another list of traits, or telling me that you don't think the list is accurate has nothing to do with the question.

[LionsPride]

I'm just gonna say it one more time in the hope that it will click in some people's head.

Your philosophy on whether people fit on a scale of masculine or feminine is irrelevant and I don't know why you keep repeating it. What people want to know is how you define these terms you are throwing around because without definition we can't understand what you are trying to say. By "define" I don't mean in relation to the philosophy, but actual definitions and how that definition relates to a real life scenario. Elston gave excellent examples of where the confusion lies:


What does it mean to be dominant? If I take my girlfriend out for dinner at a seafood place, even though I hate seafood, but because I know that she likes it, am I being dominant in that I chose the venue based on something that I would enjoy (her having a dinner she'd like), or am I submissive because I let her preferences dictate the evening's activity? If she surprises me with tickets to a football game, is she dominant because she made all the plans, or is she submissive because she's only going with me because I like football?

You hear about sexual dominance and submissiveness a lot, too. Who's the dominant one? The person who's doing a larger share of the "work," or the person who got the other to do that "work"? If a woman wanted to have sex in a particular position, like from behind for example, would you be submitting to her emotional preference, or would you be in the dominant physical role? Or both?

Re-iterating over and over that dominant is a masculine trait and part of a scale system does not answer Elston's questions.

[Jinxu]

Forgive me, for I am slow and dense. But the question LP asked was "how do these traits effect your relationship, why do you want to be the "leader" and what does the word "leader" mean to you?"
Another list of traits, or telling me that you don't think the list is accurate has nothing to do with the question.

I forgive you. Being a leader is something you end up becoming if you have developed the various traits that makes a leader through experience and many other factors. Like the saying goes, "Leaders are not born, but are made..."

[LionsPride]

Being a leader is something you end up becoming if you have developed the various traits that makes a leader through experience and many other factors. Like the saying goes, "Leaders are not born, but are made..."

And these traits would be?

[Jinxu]

Your philosophy on whether people fit on a scale of masculine or feminine is irrelevant and I don't know why you keep repeating it. What people want to know is how you define these terms you are throwing around because without definition we can't understand what you are trying to say. By "define" I don't mean in relation to the philosophy, but actual definitions and how that definition relates to a real life scenario. Elston gave excellent examples of where the confusion lies:



Re-iterating over and over that dominant is a masculine trait and part of a scale system does not answer Elston's questions.

Forgive me, but I think Elston is confused and it is not an offense. He need to read up and research more about it rather than lazily ask a person on an internet forum if he want to know. The meaning are abstract and there are no good concrete definition. You will need to accumulate more knowledge and experience to gain insight.





Jinxu added to this post, 0 minutes and 48 seconds later...

And these traits would be?

Same for you.

[Josephine1012]

Forgive me, but I think Elston is confused and it is not an offense. He need to read up and research more about it rather than lazily ask a person on an internet forum if he want to know. The meaning are abstract and there are no good concrete definition. You will need to accumulate more knowledge and experience to gain insight.






I think the whole point is to see whether you know. I'm fairly certain, the interest here is to find out what exactly it is you're trying to say. Not the ultimate definition of submissiveness and leadership.

The terms are subjective and each person can define them differently.

If you are trying to carry an educated and respectful debate it might help to open up your mind to the fact that you don't have all the answers, well not the right ones at the very least, since your defense is to insinuate that others lack maturity and experience where clearly that isn't the case.

[LionsPride]

Same for you.

Let's pretend that your definition of leadership, dominance, intellect and others *might* be different from the Internet sites that I would read. Would you mind elaborating on these concepts so that I can see if we are talking about the same thing. For instance, I think leadership traits are charisma and the ability to secure votes from the public and or representative group. Based on this, I would suggest that you hire Angus Ried to poll women continually to determine your current rating against other men. I somehow doubt this was the answer you were looking for.

[Tocsin]

Trying to state in any seriousness that "feminine traits" include being unintelligent and incapable carries about as much credibility as saying that "girls have cooties."

The only reason a thinking person would want to print out a list like that is if they had just run out of toilet paper.

[Shorgenfunkel]

There have been studies done (sorry, I don't have links), that people will impose masculine and feminine characteristics on a person based on perception and not reality. In the study, researchers took infants and dressed them in clothing of the opposite gender (boys in pink, girls in blue). They then asked adults to interact with the children without telling them their true gender. Adults would coo over how "pretty" and "sweet" the pink clothed babies were while they cradled them gently, but handle the blue clothed babies rougher and go on about their "chubby biceps."

Interesting study, except it has one fundamental flaw: it's really hard to tell the gender of a baby unless you're the parent or you're willing to risk getting arrested. The people involved really couldn't be faulted for what they did, all babies look the same unless they're yours, and people in social situations (or other places where they're being watched) for the most part act like they think they're expected to.

What a pretty, sweet middle aged man! (cooooooooo):
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What chubby biceps!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If they did the study with people who have aged sufficiently to have their genders not be visually indeterminate (3 year olds, even) and covertly recorded the reactions to that (which would obviously be subtler), THEN some conclusions could be drawn.

[Jinxu]

Let's pretend that your definition of leadership, dominance, intellect and others *might* be different from the Internet sites that I would read. Would you mind elaborating on these concepts so that I can see if we are talking about the same thing. For instance, I think leadership traits are charisma and the ability to secure votes from the public and or representative group. Based on this, I would suggest that you hire Angus Ried to poll women continually to determine your current rating against other men. I somehow doubt this was the answer you were looking for.

Those are traits of a good politician. Does being the one in charge always mean they are great leaders? Sometime people choose poor leaders.

Anyway, here's a website:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Storm]

Interesting study, except it has one fundamental flaw: it's really hard to tell the gender of a baby unless you're the parent or you're willing to risk getting arrested. The people involved really couldn't be faulted for what they did, all babies look the same unless they're yours, and people in social situations (or other places where they're being watched) for the most part act like they think they're expected to.

The reason babies were chosen for the study was precisely because you can't tell gender easily. They also dressed babies in the same clothing as is traditional for each gender, and got the same reactions. Based on clothing alone, people assigned traditional masculine and feminine behaviors to the babies - not based on actual observations.

In another study with adults, they were asked to describe what activities men and women generally did with their friends of the same sex and then describe what they personally did with those of the same sex. For the general question, people tended to answer with traditional gender role answers "Women go shopping" "Men watch sports." Interestingly, the range of activities people did in their personal lives ranged across both gender roles.

[LionsPride]

Okay, so based on your link, the traits are as follows with definitions (pasted here for brevity).


Honest - Display sincerity, integrity, and candor in all your actions. Deceptive behavior will not inspire trust.
Competent - Base your actions on reason and moral principles. Do not make decisions based on childlike emotional desires or feelings.
Forward-looking - Set goals and have a vision of the future. The vision must be owned throughout the organization. Effective leaders envision what they want and how to get it. They habitually pick priorities stemming from their basic values.
Inspiring - Display confidence in all that you do. By showing endurance in mental, physical, and spiritual stamina, you will inspire others to reach for new heights. Take charge when necessary.
Intelligent - Read, study, and seek challenging assignments.
Fair-minded - Show fair treatment to all people. Prejudice is the enemy of justice. Display empathy by being sensitive to the feelings, values, interests, and well-being of others.
Broad-minded - Seek out diversity.
Courageous - Have the perseverance to accomplish a goal, regardless of the seemingly insurmountable obstacles. Display a confident calmness when under stress.
Straightforward - Use sound judgment to make a good decisions at the right time.
Imaginative - Make timely and appropriate changes in your thinking, plans, and methods. Show creativity by thinking of new and better goals, ideas, and solutions to problems. Be innovative!



Now pasting in the reference which I'm going to assume sparked some of this debate:

It only becomes a power struggle when the two party wish to play the dominant roles. I find that relationship works best if one party leads and the other follows. If you're a man that want to play the submissive role, then go ahead and find yourself a dominant woman. There's nothing wrong with that.

As a matter of fact, the current social trend is that males are becoming more feminine "caring" men, while females are becoming more masculine "independent" women.

Now which of these leadership traits do you wish your females to NOT do in order for you to have a satisfying relationship. Do you consider dishonest, closed-minded, cowardly, unintelligent, etc. to be good traits for a women as they are the opposite of traits that good leaders possess? If not, perhaps you would like to define the qualities that make a person a good follower as opposed to a bad leader. This will give a better perspective for everyone as to what you mean when you say you want a women to be a 'follower'.

The reason babies were chosen for the study was precisely because you can't tell gender easily. They also dressed babies in the same clothing as is traditional for each gender, and got the same reactions. Based on clothing alone, people assigned traditional masculine and feminine behaviors to the babies - not based on actual observations.

I just wanted to clarify Storm's point (correct me if I misinterpreted, Storm), "actual observation" of the babies preference for the treatment not of the people's observation of the babies sex. The study, I assume, was designed to point out the flaw in the argument that baby girls and boys react, desire different treatment based on the observation of the people claiming "he likes it because he's a tough little boy" and so on.

Note: emphasis mine.

[Jinxu]

Now which of these leadership traits do you wish your females to NOT do in order for you to have a satisfying relationship. Do you consider dishonest, closed-minded, cowardly, unintelligent, etc. to be good traits for a women as they are the opposite of traits that good leaders possess? If not, perhaps you would like to define the qualities that make a person a good follower as opposed to a bad leader. This will give a better perspective for everyone as to what you mean when you say you want a women to be a 'follower'.

The short answer is no. The long answer is it is futile to try to sucker me into a corner as your main weapon in a debate.

[LionsPride]

So your desire to have a woman to follow you and what these following traits are can not be shared on this forum because it will "make you a weapon in a debate?"

I don't understand your reluctance to discuss this. I have pointed out that the antonyms of a good leader don't cover the next topic of a good follower. We need to see a definition of both to understand your position. I can see why being honest, courageous, inspiring and open minded (and the others) would be good traits for a person to have in a relationship. If these are not traits that a woman should have for you to be pleased with her, I'm interested in how you compare the follower role.

[DanteFalling]

Yes, I just did read the article, actually, and the author is actually condemning this list of traits, and using it as an illustration of what is wrong with patriarchal societies. He says that femininity is only defined in this way in order to artificially inflate masculinity.

If so, and we accept we don't want the false security and self-deception of a projected hero, then there really isn't a need for the "feminine" as it is defined here.

Sweet, because I want my man-wife to be intelligent and assertive, not passive aggressive. :)

[Jinxu]

So your desire to have a woman to follow you and what these following traits are can not be shared on this forum because it will "make you a weapon in a debate?"

You're a little confused as to what I was implying.

I don't understand your reluctance to discuss this. I have pointed out that the antonyms of a good leader don't cover the next topic of a good follower. We need to see a definition of both to understand your position. I can see why being honest, courageous, inspiring and open minded (and the others) would be good traits for a person to have in a relationship. If these are not traits that a woman should have for you to be pleased with her, I'm interested in how you compare the follower role.

Because I don't like debating things that I find uninteresting. Masculine/Feminine traits doesn't necessary relates to what makes a good relationship. They are just orientations. Sometime a person with masculine traits and a person with feminine traits complement one another. Sometime a feminine man might complement a masculine woman. Maybe you just focus on talking about what you believe in rather than making pointless arguments.

I've wasted enough of my time on this thread.

[LionsPride]

You're a little confused as to what I was saying.

I think that is a good description of my reaction to "futile to try to sucker me into a corner as your main weapon in a debate", as you put it.

Because I don't like debating things that I find uninteresting. Masculine/Feminine traits doesn't necessary relates to what makes a good relationship. They are just orientations. Sometime a person with masculine traits and a person with feminine traits complement one another. Sometime a feminine man might compliment a masculine woman.

You are the one that described relationships working best when a person is a leader and the other a follower. I feel no such way, but I am interested in other perspectives. I don't understand what traits you assign to a good follower. Knowing this would be important to understand how those traits complement the leadership traits you described. As I don't subscribe to this philosophy, it is difficult to make these associations on your behalf to understand your perspective in this approach to relationships.

[thod]

In another study with adults, they were asked to describe what activities men and women generally did with their friends of the same sex and then describe what they personally did with those of the same sex. For the general question, people tended to answer with traditional gender role answers "Women go shopping" "Men watch sports." Interestingly, the range of activities people did in their personal lives ranged across both gender roles.

I understand that they chose babies precisely for this reason. All that this shows is that people treat baby boys differently from baby girls. It does not show that any future differences are resultant from this behaviour. We do have examples of societies where such social differences are much lessened, we have many examples of parents raising children to prevent this. Your assumption is that any differences are sociological, that both are the same aside from this. Although such factors do play a part they are not the whole story. Young boys enjoy playing rough & tumble much more, any parent will tell you this. As with all animals, they are preparing for the environment that nature would have put them in.

Even a basic scan of the web would show you that there are neurological differences in brain structure. You can add hormones to this too. A man is optimised for his role as a hunter and warrior, he has powerful muscles anchored to wider shoulders. His narrow hips are optimal for running. Women need to run too, yet the same narrow hips impeded child birth. Thus the two sexes have diverged in form to meet their roles. This specialisation of form leads to greater success. It is hardly surprising that mental functions show the same property. The ability to plot the path of a spear to game, or block an incoming blow is of survival benefit, but only to those placed in this situation. Ones that do not encounter this situation would be wasting energy and brain capacity. Not surprising that is put to better use mastering something found in their environment. Just as the men optimised so did the women. The ancient woman's life was also short, it consisted of endless child birth and child care. Thus they did not develop for athleticism, but for interaction in a low motion environment with other women.

You mention men watching sport as a stereotype. Yet I would say that the vast majority of people to be found watching sports are men. A man watching sport is watching a hunt or a battle. He is seeing how the other hunters place themselves, their movements, and strategies. A woman just sees some guys kicking a ball around. Likewise a man watching a TV soap, sees people talking a lot but providing no information. A woman is seeing social strategies, reactions etc. Each of them is performing thier ancient functions in a modern setting.

Showing a single contrary example does not disprove this. There have always been freaks of nature, this ensures adaptation. We look at averages not individuals.

[Jinxu]

You are the one that described relationships working best when a person is a leader and the other a follower. I feel no such way, but I am interested in other perspectives.

It's simple, if both party wants to be the leader, it can create arguments. Arguments waste time because there is little progress. If the two party in a relationship spent the majority of their time arguing, then there is less time for them to get things done.

I hope this is simple enough for you to understand.

[LionsPride]

It's simple, if both party wants to be the leader, it can create arguments. Arguments waste time because there is little progress. If the two party in a relationship spent the majority of their time arguing, then there is less time for them to get things done.

I hope this is simple enough for you to understand.

In this 'simple' explanation of yours, are you implying that one person always makes the leadership decision or that the role of leader is adopted by either party at any time in a relationship provided that at any one time, one leads and the other concedes. For instance a women may declare that the room will be painted purple and the man concedes as she is the 'leader' in that case, but with the same couple when the man declares that the couch needs replacing, the woman concedes as the man is the leader? This would be an example of alternating leadership. OR are you saying that whether it's the man or the women, one is recognized as the leader all the time and the other concedes all the time?

[gestalt]

I'm a bit late to this feeding frenzy and there's blood in the water...



Dominant Submissive
Independent Dependent
Intelligent and competent Unintelligent and Incapable
Rational Emotional
Assertive Receptive
Analytical Intuitive
Strong Weak
Brave Timid
Ambitious Content
Active Passive
Competitive Cooperative
Insensitive Sensitive
Sexually aggressive Sex object
Attractive because of achievement Attractive because of physical appearance




I think your source was biased because all traits for women were negative, whereas all traits for men were positive.

That is ridiculous. The list is accurate up to the point where higher education breaks it all to pieces. Also, I know you can see that all those traits you claim to know are "negative" on the right-hand side of the above table have upsides too. Unless you've made up your mind based on your perceptual feelings after over-listening hyper-critically to the language of governance. That would certainly be ironic.

I've underlined the particular words that strike me personally as being abused by the author. My communication lense at work here, certainly not a theory.

...This would be an example of alternating leadership. OR are you saying that whether it's the man or the women, one is recognized as the leader all the time and the other concedes all the time?

You're setting him up with that question. Of course Jinxu doesn't believe that one partner should be held in bondage and never allowed to help make decisons.
Han Solo: "No time to discuss this in committee." L:Peia: "I am not a committee!"
Jinxu is saying that he prefers to not constantly debate and justify himself to his partner. That's understandable: time in a properly defined (lol) relationship would be much better spent strategizing for aggrandizement and psychological defense than fully-fanned misunderstandings started by Jinxu's wife about what brand of butter should have been bought at the supermarket last Tuesday when he went shopping. Common understanding (fully realized/accepted assumptions/stereotypes) is key.

I'm pretty sure that Jinxu would agree with the idea that if him and his wife don't have good understanding over core moral and general ethical issues, that they are not going to go very far.

If Jinxu is uneducated and so is his partner and they are happy together, fine, good for them. They live by the relationship code-language fed to them by media and the tongue of their Mother Culture. Whatever seems to work is usually the best bet. Let's not get politically correct about it.

Again, setting him up with straw man arguments is below the belt.

[steerthestars]

I'm female, and have italicized the following terms that actually apply to me.
Feminine Traits
Submissive
Dependent
Unintelligent and Incapable
Emotional
Receptive
Intuitive
Weak
Timid
Content
Passive
Cooperative
Sensitive
Sex object
Attractive because of physical appearance

Masculine Traits
Dominant
Independent
Intelligent and competent
Rational
Assertive
AnalyticalStrong
Brave
Ambitious
Active
Competitive
Insensitive
Sexually aggressive
Attractive because of achievement

[LionsPride]

You're setting him up with that question. Of course Jinxu doesn't believe that one partner should be held in bondage and never allowed to help make decisons.
Han Solo: "No time to discuss this in committee." L:Peia: "I am not a committee!"
Jinxu is saying that he prefers to not constantly debate and justify himself to his partner. That's understandable: time in a properly defined (lol) relationship would be much better spent strategizing for aggrandizement and psychological defense than fully-fanned misunderstandings started by Jinxu's wife about what brand of butter should have been bought at the supermarket last Tuesday when he went shopping. Common understanding (fully realized/accepted assumptions/stereotypes) is key.

I'm pretty sure that Jinxu would agree with the idea that if him and his wife don't have good understanding over core moral and general ethical issues, that they are not going to go very far.

If Jinxu is uneducated and so is his partner and they are happy together, fine, good for them. They live by the relationship code-language fed to them by media and the tongue of their Mother Culture. Whatever seems to work is usually the best bet. Let's not get politically correct about it.

Again, setting him up with straw man arguments is below the belt.

Sorry, but Jinxu hasn't made that clear. It would seem to be common sense, but according to Jinxu's post, it didn't seem that way:

It only becomes a power struggle when the two party wish to play the dominant roles.I find that relationship works best if one party leads and the other follows. If you're a man that want to play the submissive role, then go ahead and find yourself a dominant woman. There's nothing wrong with that.

As a matter of fact, the current social trend is that males are becoming more feminine "caring" men, while females are becoming more masculine "independent" women.

There is an implication of dominance versus submissive and the question at hand is what does Jinxu mean by dominant and submissive roles and how are those defined. The part I bolded above indicates the contrary to what you described. It suggests that one person is dominant over the other. While I agree that being "dominant" in Jinxu's example may not mean that the dominant person needs to decide the type of butter being purchased, but it does imply that one person in the relationship "wears the pants". I'm interested to know what specifically the role of "the pants" involves in Jinxu's world. It's difficult to suggest alternatives and counter perspectives to something that isn't specified. If this thread had been established based on the question "Who should wear the pants and what do the pants mean to you?" Then Jinxu's definition wouldn't be important, but the thread was started based on a misunderstanding of Jinxu's specific definition of masculine and feminine and it's relation to the idea of who leads and who follows. Under that framework, I don't think I'm being unreasonable to ask for clarification. If Jinxu had been forthright in answering the questions posed without this cloak and dagger/ paranoia nonsense, I wouldn't have to ask such leading questions.

[Zsych]

@Storm: I thought those Masculine/Feminine traits looked more like yin/yang... not necessarily the characteristics of women and men (although that is likely what they're based off of, idealized versions of male or female qualities)

With respect to INTJs... I think male and female INTJs likely have qualities that are similar enough. Both male and female INTJs for example, would be independent thinking.

[Storm]

I understand that they chose babies precisely for this reason. All that this shows is that people treat baby boys differently from baby girls. It does not show that any future differences are resultant from this behaviour. We do have examples of societies where such social differences are much lessened, we have many examples of parents raising children to prevent this. Your assumption is that any differences are sociological, that both are the same aside from this. Although such factors do play a part they are not the whole story. Young boys enjoy playing rough & tumble much more, any parent will tell you this. As with all animals, they are preparing for the environment that nature would have put them in.

You missed my point in citing the study. It wasn't to show that the difference between men and women are purely due to environmental factors. Nor was I challenging that there are physiological differences between men and women. The point of the study, and my point, was to show that people like to assign feminine and masculine traits to a person based on preconceived notions and not actual observation. While sometimes these assignments may be true, the study should make you question whether women really do possess X trait, or whether your own bias is clouding your perspective.

You have made a hasty generalization. Merely because some gender stereotypes are true (men are physically stronger than women), it does not mean that all gender stereotypes are true.

I'm a bit late to this feeding frenzy and there's blood in the water...



Dominant Submissive
Independent Dependent
Intelligent and competent Unintelligent and Incapable
Rational Emotional
Assertive Receptive
Analytical Intuitive
Strong Weak
Brave Timid
Ambitious Content
Active Passive
Competitive Cooperative
Insensitive Sensitive
Sexually aggressive Sex object
Attractive because of achievement Attractive because of physical appearance


I've underlined the particular words that strike me personally as being abused by the author. My communication lense at work here, certainly not a theory.




I admit that I may have used the word all a bit too freely (as you can see, my post time was well past midnight). However, I still contend that most of the feminine traits are negative, or at least, negative when viewed next to the "opposite" masculine trait. For instance, "attractive because of physical appearance" isn't really that bad, but the masculine trait is "attractive because of achievement." Being "content" in of itself isn't negative, but when viewed as the opposite of "ambitious" it suddenly is.

Edit: Looking at the lists as a whole, which would you rather be? I think few would pick the feminine side.

[ElstonGunn]

However, I still contend that most of the feminine traits are negative, or at least, negative when viewed next to the "opposite" masculine trait. For instance, "attractive because of physical appearance" isn't really that bad, but the masculine trait is "attractive because of achievement." Being "content" in of itself isn't negative, but when viewed as the opposite of "ambitious" it suddenly is.

I don't want to kick the corpse of Secretariat here, but I still think the problem with the list is that the terms aren't explained. Rational and emotional aren't necessarily opposites. You could argue that someone who doesn't take emotions (whether their own or those of other people) into account is hugely irrational, in that emotions have a large influence over a person's life.

Assertive and receptive are also unclear to me. I could picture someone being open to hearing all ideas and then lobbying for what he thinks is best. Isn't that being both receptive to other people's opinions and assertive in pushing your own?

How do you deal with competitive and cooperative when you're involved in a team-based contest? Is a basketball player cooperative with his team, or competitive against the other team? Does a salesman cooperate with his marketing department or compete against salesmen from rival firms?

The terms sound alright in a theory, but they don't translate to the real world so easily.

[Jinxu]

I'm a bit late to this feeding frenzy and there's blood in the water...


I will survive...;)



Jinxu added to this post, 1 minutes and 22 seconds later...


There is an implication of dominance versus submissive and the question at hand is what does Jinxu mean by dominant and submissive roles and how are those defined. The part I bolded above indicates the contrary to what you described. It suggests that one person is dominant over the other. While I agree that being "dominant" in Jinxu's example may not mean that the dominant person needs to decide the type of butter being purchased, but it does imply that one person in the relationship "wears the pants". I'm interested to know what specifically the role of "the pants" involves in Jinxu's world. It's difficult to suggest alternatives and counter perspectives to something that isn't specified. If this thread had been established based on the question "Who should wear the pants and what do the pants mean to you?" Then Jinxu's definition wouldn't be important, but the thread was started based on a misunderstanding of Jinxu's specific definition of masculine and feminine and it's relation to the idea of who leads and who follows. Under that framework, I don't think I'm being unreasonable to ask for clarification. If Jinxu had been forthright in answering the questions posed without this cloak and dagger/ paranoia nonsense, I wouldn't have to ask such leading questions.

I leave these questions for you to figure out. Clearly, your interrogations will never stop no matter what answers I give. Think of my posts as a classic novel and you are the scholar working to deduces its meaning. Whether you are right or wrong depends greatly on how good your analytical skills are.





Jinxu added to this post, 9 minutes and 21 seconds later...


If Jinxu is uneducated and so is his partner and they are happy together, fine, good for them. They live by the relationship code-language fed to them by media and the tongue of their Mother Culture. Whatever seems to work is usually the best bet. Let's not get politically correct about it.

Again, setting him up with straw man arguments is below the belt.

I agree with the comment in bold. However, the first sentence is insulting, but okay whatever if that is what you need to feel superior. Doesn't necessarily mean it's true.

[Rudy]

I leave these questions for you to figure out. Clearly, your interrogations will never stop no matter what answers I give. Think of my posts as a classic novel and you are the scholar working to deduces its meaning. Whether you are right or wrong depends greatly on how good your analytical skills are.

Your posts are not a classic novel. If you are unable to defend their truth, or their relevance, than they can be safely discarded from consideration.

I don't want to kick the corpse of Secretariat here, but I still think the problem with the list is that the terms aren't explained. Rational and emotional aren't necessarily opposites. You could argue that someone who doesn't take emotions (whether their own or those of other people) into account is hugely irrational, in that emotions have a large influence over a person's life.
Some of them are ill-defined; this I agree. Others, however, such as timid, weak, unintelligent and incapable, cannot be coherently defined to make them positive, or even neutral attributes.

[rahdam]

Your posts are not a classic novel. If you are unable to defend their truth, or their relevance, than they can be safely discarded from consideration.


Some of them are ill-defined; this I agree. Others, however, such as timid, weak, unintelligent and incapable, cannot be coherently defined to make them positive, or even neutral attributes.

To stir the pot, on the whole, the average man is stronger than the average woman. This is a physiological truth. Hence, the labels strong/weak apply in a relative sense. That is, if man on average possesses more physical strength than a woman, then if we call man strong we might call woman weak, comparatively. Just the same as I am tall compared to one less tall that myself and short compared to someone taller than me.

[Rudy]

To stir the pot, on the whole, the average man is stronger than the average woman. This is a physiological truth. Hence, the labels strong/weak apply in a relative sense. That is, if man on average possesses more physical strength than a woman, then if we call man strong we might call woman weak, comparatively. Just the same as I am tall compared to one less tall that myself and short compared to someone taller than me.

All right; granted. One cannot say the same thing about "unintelligent and incapable," however.

[rahdam]

All right; granted. One cannot say the same thing about "unintelligent and incapable," however.

Agree. But I had to play devil's advocate with "strong/weak" :laugh:

I think while certain physiological comparisons are possible, it is impossible to make many psychological comparisons without gross (mis)use of stereotypes and broad, sweeping generalities.

[JustMel]

I don't even think males are dominant when it comes to females. Male dominance is reserved for other males, the males see woman as non-combatants in that game.

Women do not act by confrontation, but by persuading their man. Provoking him into a stand off is likely to lead to stubborn entrenchment, thus she backs off, leading to the illusion of submissiveness. But matters do not end there. Woman have evolved to get their way through controlling the behaviour of their man. She will talk and cajole, the trick being to get him to think it was his idea all along. His inferior communication skills and desire to please her convinces him to act in the manner she desires. One could argue that men are but women's puppets and a front for her to hide behind. There was a lot of sense in the medieval system of making the man the head of the household, its the only way the guys would stand a chance.


These are broad assumptions about women that I can assure you will someday come back to bite you on your ass as assumptions often do.

You should have said "SOME" women. I, for one, do act by confrontation and I do not stoop to "persuading" or trying to "cajole" my husband. I have the dominant personality in our relationship and always have but he has opinions and I respect them.





JustMel added to this post, 6 minutes and 12 seconds later...

On the other hand, you can have an obviously male person exhibit "feminine traits" - you can't just call that person female, because he is obviously not, so it somehow casts him as being a "bad" man, or less male than other men, which opens up all sorts of other debates.


I see this as a personal belief not a societal one. Not all men who do hair are gay. Some may perceive them as such but that doesn't make it true. Some will just see a man who enjoys working with hair.





JustMel added to this post, 9 minutes and 30 seconds later...

You're a little confused as to what I was implying.



Because I don't like debating things that I find uninteresting. Masculine/Feminine traits doesn't necessary relates to what makes a good relationship. They are just orientations. Sometime a person with masculine traits and a person with feminine traits complement one another. Sometime a feminine man might complement a masculine woman. Maybe you just focus on talking about what you believe in rather than making pointless arguments.

I've wasted enough of my time on this thread.

YOU started the whole debate and then have whined that you don't want to be in the debate? You posted information that was taken out of context and when called on it you said it wasn't up to you to provide the information. Starting the topic in the first place was your first step in debating it. I believe after reading your evasive responses to all requests for information that you are merely trying to start trouble and get your post count up by acting like a willful child. That's just an opinion though. Following your logic in the whole women getting men to do what they want through less than direct means I have to think that you are exhibiting very "feminine" behavior as there is no logic nor science behind your arguments, merely expressed opinions and bad examples from a source that was taken out of context. You have resorted to calling people dense and such instead of answering the direct questions put to you. Elston is not confused. He asked you to define what you meant by specific terms and you split it off and posted a list of traits that you seem to view as correct. Doesn't make them fact.

[Jinxu]

YOU started the whole debate and then have whined that you don't want to be in the debate? You posted information that was taken out of context and when called on it you said it wasn't up to you to provide the information. Starting the topic in the first place was your first step in debating it.

I may have posted the message, but I wasn't the one who started the argument. The argument was started by Storm and RudyHenkel when they started making accusation. I will admit that I participated (more than I would have liked to) in continuing it when I should have ignored some of them.

I believe after reading your evasive responses to all requests for information that you are merely trying to start trouble and get your post count up by acting like a willful child. That's just an opinion though.

Yeah..sure...as if I don't have better things to do with my time.

Following your logic in the whole women getting men to do what they want through less than direct means I have to think that you are exhibiting very "feminine" behavior as there is no logic nor science behind your arguments, merely expressed opinions and bad examples from a source that was taken out of context.

I'm fine with that. Being too masculine is very detrimental for a person in modern society. Having some feminine traits helps. Was that supposed to make me feel bad?

You have resorted to calling people dense and such instead of answering the direct questions put to you. Elston is not confused. He asked you to define what you meant by specific terms and you split it off and posted a list of traits that you seem to view as correct. Doesn't make them fact.

I was not referring to his first post. Elston made a second post about what it means to be dominant. I never claim the list to be fact hence the phase "societal description" that I have used. Maybe you should go back and read more carefully.

What is true is that people do exhibits most of the traits in one category more than the other in their personality. This is probably the reason why sociologists grouped them together and called one masculine and the other feminine. It's probably that from their observation they have found that most men exhibits more of the masculine traits and most women exhibits more of the feminine traits. And another fact is that some of these traits are similar to the traits you would find in an MBTI description of a Thinker or Feeler. If you had look into some statistics, you would had discover that most men are Thinkers and most women are Feelers.

[JustMel]

If you had look into some statistics, you would had discover that most men are Thinkers and most women are Feelers.

Ihave looked at the statistics and I'll tell you the same thing I say to anyone else who wants to base their arguments solely on statistics: Both sides can and do skew their statistics to fit their argument. The only way to get accurate data is to talk to every person in the world and determine which traits they have or don't have and then determine if there is a corelation between your lists and the actual data not some statistic that was based on a group of stepford wives. The talking to every person isn't going to happen---it's too big of a task.

More women that you would think associate themselves with more of the masculine traits you listed as opposed to the feminine ones. The problem is that some men seem to think that women lose their feminity when they obtain power. This doesn't have to be true.

While you're off to your essay or whatever I'm off to blow more things up on Resident Evil 5.

[Jinxu]

Ihave looked at the statistics and I'll tell you the same thing I say to anyone else who wants to base their arguments solely on statistics: Both sides can and do skew their statistics to fit their argument. The only way to get accurate data is to talk to every person in the world and determine which traits they have or don't have and then determine if there is a corelation between your lists and the actual data not some statistic that was based on a group of stepford wives. The talking to every person isn't going to happen---it's too big of a task.


Your argument using the limitations of statistics is a poor one. Using a good enough sample size, statistics can produce answers that is close to reality. The rest of your arguments are just baseless claims. You don't even know where I got the information from.

More women that you would think associate themselves with more of the masculine traits you listed as opposed to the feminine ones. The problem is that some men seem to think that women lose their feminity when they obtain power. This doesn't have to be true.


Now you're making accusations and arguments that has little to do what I had said.

While you're off to your essay or whatever I'm off to blow more things up on Resident Evil 5.

I like Resident Evil 5 too, but I can care less if a woman or man plays it. I'm glad that you have the chance to enjoy it.

[JustMel]

Your argument using the limitations of statistics is a poor one. Using a good enough sample size, statistics can produce answers that is close to reality. The rest of your arguments are just baseless claims. You don't even know where I got the information from.



Now you're making accusations and arguments that has little to do what I had said.



I like Resident Evil 5 too, but I can care less if a woman or man plays it. I'm glad that you have the chance to enjoy it.

You can consider it a poor argument that doesn't make it any less true. You haven't given us the source of your data to back up your claim in this debate so it's impossible to prove or disprove your claims.

[Jinxu]

You can consider it a poor argument that doesn't make it any less true. You haven't given us the source of your data to back up your claim in this debate so it's impossible to prove or disprove your claims.

I'm not gonna to because you'll just continue arguing. If you want some stats, you can find them yourself. It's in my best interest to officially end my debate with you here and now so I can focus on other more important things.

[LionsPride]

I'm not gonna to because you'll just continue arguing. If you want some stats, you can find them yourself. It's in my best interest to officially end my debate with you here and now so I can focus on other things.

Oh, well as long as it's official. We'll consider your side null and void since you are unwilling to defend it yourself. If a person doesn't want to support their own opinion, I can't see why I would find it valuable to find support for it on their behalf.

Okay everyone, Jinxu's out. Where were we? Might I pose the questions:

Are there real masculine and feminine traits or do they only exist to create division/contrast? Is there any value to having them and if not, is it possible to ever really get rid of them?

[Merle]

I would say that taken as a whole women are more cooperative (using words from the list) ... I would see that trait in opposition to 'independent' from the masculine list: women are generally more inclined to cooperation, to working towards a shared goal and putting the needs of the group ahead of their own personal wants. I think that is a relic of our original roles in early human society and I really do think it is a "feminine" trait.

[TheLastMohican]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think that settles it.

[BobetteKyle]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think that settles it.
:laugh::p

[Sinequanon]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think that settles it.
I have to say, it is a compelling argument...

[Hatsumomo1]

Reading that list made me feel like I stumbled upon that white supremacy site again.

So why is stupidity seen as a feminine trait? In fact, why are most of the feminine traits negative?

[Rudy]

Allow me to offer a counterpoint:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That is, yes, man and women are not perfectly equal. Each sex, on average, has certain edges in some ways. However, they are close enough in overall abilities and function that we cannot say that one is superior to the other in any fundamental way.

[Sinequanon]

Allow me to offer a counterpoint:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That is, yes, man and women are not perfectly equal. Each sex, on average, has certain edges in some ways. However, they are close enough in overall abilities and function that we cannot say that one is superior to the other in any fundamental way.
The wavy lines just make it look like their naughty bits smell.

[Rudy]

The wavy lines just make it look like their naughty bits smell.

Do not mock the power of mathematic symbolism! ;)

[ATCGs]

I would have to say that classifying traits as masculine and feminine is ultimately a waste of time. While it's true that a given trait might be expressed by - on average - more men than women or vice versa, saying that a trait inherently belongs to a single gender implies some sort of defect when those of the opposite gender express that trait. That just strikes me as utter hogwash.

Further, the actual definitions of these traits are so nebulous and situational (as exemplified by several posts in this thread) that identifying traits when they are expressed is, in and of itself, a risky proposition.

[Cocoa]

Mod Edit: This thread was split from Do You Need A Mental Equal In Your Partner? (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)



Here's a list from a college Sociology text by Pearson Education, Inc:

Feminine Traits
Submissive
Dependent
Unintelligent and Incapable
Emotional
Receptive
Intuitive
Weak
Timid
Content
Passive
Cooperative
Sensitive
Sex object
Attractive because of physical appearance

Masculine Traits
Dominant
Independent
Intelligent and competent
Rational
Assertive
Analytical
Strong
Brave
Ambitious
Active
Competitive
Insensitive
Sexually aggressive
Attractive because of achievement

Source: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Totally arbitrary list, means absolutely nothing! Such ideas are a construction designed to keep the "masculine" identity holders in power. "Passive, cooperative, timid..." HA!

I refuse to subscribe to such nonsense, I don't care what "scientist" came up with it.

[Sequoia]

I'm going to give away my age in this post, sigh.

I first saw that list during my undergraduate days in college over 30 years ago. I found it just as ludicrous then. It was originally written sometime in the 1800's and full of the cultural bias of the times.

I am astonished it is still around today.

Allow me to offer a counterpoint:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That is, yes, man and women are not perfectly equal. Each sex, on average, has certain edges in some ways. However, they are close enough in overall abilities and function that we cannot say that one is superior to the other in any fundamental way.


Rudy, I like your equation; sums things up nicely.

[JustMel]

I'm not gonna to because you'll just continue arguing. If you want some stats, you can find them yourself. It's in my best interest to officially end my debate with you here and now so I can focus on other more important things.

I haven't been arguing. Trust me if I felt debating with you could possibly open your mind I might engage but alas I seriously doubt it would and I try not to waste my time on antiquated ideals, bless your heart though for thinking it was an argument.

If you had anything more important to do you wouldn't be here arguing with adults.

[ElstonGunn]

While it's true that a given trait might be expressed by - on average - more men than women or vice versa, saying that a trait inherently belongs to a single gender implies some sort of defect when those of the opposite gender express that trait.

Those are two separate questions. Which one are we talking about-- Which traits are inherent to each of the genders? Or, which traits does each gender, for whatever reason, end up expressing more often? Biological and physical characteristics notwithstanding, I think it would be prohibitively difficult to answer those questions. There's a lot of cultural influence and personal biases, probably too much to allow for a reliable answer.

So as a third possible question, I suggest, Which traits are people more likely to take notice of each gender expressing, or have a bias toward when thinking in general terms about gender? I think that would be interesting.

Someone could say, "Women are inherently and/or more likely to end up being unintelligent and incompetent," and I wouldn't bother taking that person too seriously (unless I wanted to piss away a bunch of time futilely trying to prove how dumb of a statement that is). But on the other hand, if you said that people are more likely to notice the instances when women are being unintelligent and incompetent, or that people are more likely to think of them as being that way in general, then I think we might have an interesting discussion (but probably not still).


Further, the actual definitions of these traits are so nebulous and situational (as exemplified by several posts in this thread) that identifying traits when they are expressed is, in and of itself, a risky proposition.

That's why I think discussions on this subject are, most likely, ultimately a waste of time. Even if we were able to come to some kind of general agreement (which isn't going to happen), the best we'd have is a bunch of vague, nebulous generalizations that only apply in theory or as abstract concepts. Is there much of a use for that?

[Beulah]

These traits bear no relationship to sex or the sexes natural biases whatsoever. Only to crippling expectations set up by patriarchical societies that colour the perceptions of the many and make them live life without authenticity.

What makes me laugh is that the stereotypic male qualities are often borne by women in greater but generally equal measure eg strength but they're just less likely to be noticed for it.

Except among Native Americans - where some tribes spear their men through the chest and hang them to the wall etc ritually torturing simply to give them a similar character building experience to what women are perceived to experience in getting knocked about while giving birth.

Men too usually have the so called fem traits in equal if repressed supply.

Men and women are absolutely alike at the end of the day - in their most intimate soliloquays - in their feelings and concerns before marriage, over children, friends and on their death beds. Sometimes the pretense of sex typed identity foist on us from a young age falls away. It is a pity people don't transcend their physical shell more often.
I'm not a he or she but just me and it is tiresome to ALWAYS have people adjust how they relate to me based on sex. It frequently results in wrong assumptions.

Someone loud and brash said to me last night (applying the stereotype) "you lack confidence". I smiled quiety and said that "actually I'm extremely confident" - its likely my strongest trait little did she know - it is why I rarely assert, rise to bait or rock the boat - only that once in a blue moon where something is going really wrong - my confidence allows me to be very relaxed which clearly is taken as passive by some. Based on my sex. So funny.

[Prunesquallor]

These traits are traditionally given masculine/feminine labels by a moronic patriarchal society. So in that (relatively pointless) sense, they are, yes, masculine/feminine. Obviously, however, they bear no relation to reality.

[Tough Love]

Then it is written that I am...but in reality I don't support it or condemn it either, only that I accept it.

Im finding it difficult to understand to what purpose you have posted the traits - That could just be me not getting it, but to be honest i was a bit... um... ''offended'' by the list.

[SelfMadeBum]

I'm just gonna say it one more time in the hope that it will click in some people's head. Yes, the words "masculine" and "feminine" are bias descriptions made by society. They have been used like that for quite some time. If you want to redefine it, go ahead. They do not reflect all men or women. Some men are more "masculine" while some are more "feminine". The same applies to women. Buuut if 'masculine' traits are very often found in women and 'feminine' traits in men... does it not logically follow that these traits are not founded on sex but on individual personality? That these traits are not truly sexually determined, but simply exist as personality characteristics separate from sexuality?

For example, if I think all red balls are big and yellow balls are small, and I keep encountering small red balls and big yellow balls... isn't my big red ball/small yellow ball theory debunked?

[Plastikcat]

Feminine Traits
Submissive
Dependent
Unintelligent and Incapable
Emotional
Receptive
Intuitive
Weak
Timid
Content
Passive
Cooperative
Sensitive
Sex object
Attractive because of physical appearance

Masculine Traits
Dominant
Independent
Intelligent and competent
Rational
Assertive
Analytical
Strong
Brave
Ambitious
Active
Competitive - absolutely NOT
Insensitive
Sexually aggressive- absolutely NOT
Attractive because of achievement

[themuzicman]

Yeah, the list is horrible. But that isn't to say that there aren't specific male/female traits:

1) Men, on average, have 40% muscle mass and 40% more red blood cells. All you need do is look at the difference between male and female body builders (if you can find ones NOT on steroids, at least).

2) Center of gravity. A man's center of gravity tends to be in his chest. A woman's in her hips. (which makes them great belly dancers, btw.) If you doubt me, have a man and a woman stand with their heels against a wall, and put a laundry basket in front of them. Then have them bend at the waist, pick up the basket, and stand.

3) Body chemistry. ('nuf said.)


Do these result in behavioral tendencies? I would certainly hope so. Not so dumb as the list presented up front, but in behavioral differences, nonetheless.

[ArtistTyrant]

Essentially, no one will completely fit the mold of "masculine" or "feminine". In any case, items taken from both lists can be strengths or weaknesses depending on the situation, can't they?

[Jinxu]

Buuut if 'masculine' traits are very often found in women and 'feminine' traits in men... does it not logically follow that these traits are not founded on sex but on individual personality? That these traits are not truly sexually determined, but simply exist as personality characteristics separate from sexuality?

For example, if I think all red balls are big and yellow balls are small, and I keep encountering small red balls and big yellow balls... isn't my big red ball/small yellow ball theory debunked?

he he he..you took the bait and resurrected this thread. Anyways, I have not found that most women act masculine. However I have noticed that most women here do tend to lean towards that end of the spectrum. You, however, may have noticed today there are a higher percentage of "masculine" independent women and "feminine" caring men. What you may not realize is that in the past it wasn't like this. Take a look at another time period, say the 1950's or 1980's. Men were very masculine and women were very feminine during those time. What has been happening is that lately there has been a trend in society where men and women are reversing gender roles. If you even go farther back and look at a longer time period, you will see that there is a cyclical nature in the relationship between men/women and gender roles.

As for your ball analogy, it's not a theory but a description. Probably a description that was made during a time when men were more masculine and women were more feminine.

[SelfMadeBum]

he he he..you took the bait and resurrected this thread. I can never resist an opportunity to call BS. :)

Anyways, I have not found that most women act masculine. However I have noticed that most women here do tend to lean towards that end of the spectrum. You, however, may have noticed today there are a higher percentage of "masculine" independent women and "feminine" caring men. What you may not realize is that in the past it wasn't like this. Take a look at another time period, say the 1950's or 1980's. Men were very masculine and women were very feminine during those time. What has been happening is that lately there has been a trend in society where men and women are reversing gender roles. If you even go farther back and look at a longer time period, you will see that there is a cyclical nature in the relationship between men/women and gender roles.Consider these changes which have produced more masculine women - are they natural/biological or social? As far as I know, the biological make-up of the woman hasn't changed significantly in the last few decades. If societal changes can spur changes in gendered behaviour, this would indicate that there are no real natural influences behind these 'descriptions' but they exist as manipulations by society.

Do you not recognise how society manipulates the individual by convincing him/her that s/he must act in certain ways? Do you not realise how fluid the characterisations have therefore become? How unreliable? How readily both 'descriptions' as you call them can be applied to many of both sexes and therefore it's weakness as an adequate description?

As for your ball analogy, it's not a theory but a description. Probably a description that was made during a time when men were more masculine and women were more feminine.'Feminine' and 'masculine' are societal constructions that change constantly. How then can they be any appropriate description of either when it changes across time and culture?

You acknowledge that women are more masculine... if this becomes the norm, then won't the very definition of what it means to be a woman change, bringing a new description of feminine? And if so - will you accept this new more masculine female or hold women today to the 'feminine' standards of yesterday?

[Jinxu]

Do you not recognise how society manipulates the individual by convincing him/her that s/he must act in certain ways? Do you not realise how fluid the characterisations have therefore become? How unreliable? How readily both 'descriptions' as you call them can be applied to many of both sexes and therefore it's weakness as an adequate description?

There is no manipulation because society is made of of people. As people change, society changes with them. You cannot force people to act a certain way if they do not want to. And by people I mean the majority. If you talking about the individual instead of the majority, then yes there is a influence on the individual to act the same as the majority. It only becomes a problem for the individual if he/she does not wish to act like the norm.

Let's look at today for example. Like I told you before that there is a trend in society where men are becoming more feminine and women are becoming more independent. Now go look at movies, music lyrics, magazines, etc. What is being said now is that it is okay for men to be more caring and women should be more independent. Your theory would say that society is influencing men and women to change gender roles. I think that theory is wrong. My theory is that men and women are switching gender roles first and society is adapting to that change.

You acknowledge that women are more masculine... if this becomes the norm, then won't the very definition of what it means to be a woman change, bringing a new description of feminine? And if so - will you accept this new more masculine female or hold women today to the 'feminine' standards of yesterday?

No, I will just consider today's women to be more masculine while I go find myself a more feminine woman to marry. ;P

I don't doubt that someone else will try to redefine it. I believe there are even articles in magazine today about what it means to be a modern man and gives feminine traits to define him. However, it'll only be the norm for a short while. By the time an extreme is reached, gender roles will reverse again and we'll be back at square one. So, in my mind it's really pointless to try to redefine it. This argument will continue forever.

[SelfMadeBum]

^ In other words, you aren't truly interested in what is 'feminine' but those specific characteristics you listed. You like them so you will take that description no matter how women have changed or how inappropriate those descriptions are.

You've just admitted as much.

[Jinxu]

^ In other words, you aren't truly interested in what is 'feminine' but those specific characteristics you listed. You like them so you will take that description no matter how women have changed or how inappropriate those descriptions are.

If you are saying that I have no problem with the list, then the answer is yes. I believe I said that or something like that before. I believe you even quoted me on that too. There's even 4 pages in this thread debating on what I think about the list. Now it's 5 pages.

[SelfMadeBum]

You're missing it.

You admitted that although women are changing (and correct me if I'm wrong, but if the majority of women act in a certain way, is this not the acceptable definition of 'feminine'?) that you would prefer those characteristics on the list... even though the majority of women are no longer like that.

This means you are less enamoured with who women really are than with those ridiculous descriptions on that list.

[Jinxu]

You're missing it.

You admitted that although women are changing (and correct me if I'm wrong, but if the majority of women act in a certain way, is this not the acceptable definition of 'feminine'?) that you would prefer those characteristics on the list... even though the majority of women are no longer like that.

This means you are less enamoured with who women really are than with those ridiculous descriptions on that list.

Like I said, you can try to redefine it if it is important to you. I don't consider it to be important to me. I don't consider the list to be right or wrong. What I think is that you want the list to be modified so you can still call yourself "feminine" while acting strong and independent.

[SelfMadeBum]

^ I am a woman; by default everything I am and do is feminine since that is my domain. :)

That being said, it must be important to you since you said if the definition of feminine changed to a more masculine shade, you would prefer that your female is a throwback of sorts.

I grow tired of this.

[Jinxu]

^ I am a woman; by default everything I am and do is feminine since that is my domain. :)

That being said, it must be important to you since you said if the definition of feminine changed to a more masculine shade, you would prefer that your female is a throwback of sorts.

I grow tired of this.

Take a nap then. I don't really have any interest in debating with you further either and it sound to me you just confirm what i said about you wanting to still be described as "feminine while acting strong and independent". Any yes, of course I do prefer to be with a feminine girl. :wiseguy:

[SelfMadeBum]

If you don't think 'strong' and 'independent' are feminine traits you must not know many women.

/the end.