Let us start by analysing the differences between the concepts "role model", "stereotype", "bipolar gender system" and "patriarchal ideology".

1. A gender role model is someone who represents the model of a man/woman. The role model is usually chosen by the person (e.g. a child) who is trying to mimic the role model. However, it is also possible for a pedagogist to "market" role models to the one who is peing socialized to the society. For example, the parents may read their children books that present positive gender role models.

An example of a role model for girls is Tarja Halonen, the (female) president of Finland. She is an example of a positive and proggressive role model: A woman who is sensitive to people's needs, easy to approach by citizend, interested in helping the poor (all over the worls), and yet rational, firm and ambitious. (A person who has good "feminine" and "masculine" qualities).

2. Stereotypes may be rational and "statistical" or predudicios - sorry for misspelling . For example a stereotype concerning the Finns may be statistically valid. If I say

"Finnish businesmen and public officials are straight forward, honest and uncorrupted but they do tend to drink incredible amounts of coffee, beer and vodka"

that is a stereotype. However, it is not a very predudicious stereotype as it is supported by statistics.

In the same way, also gender stereotypes may be rational or predudicious. Of course, we may choose a paradigm which states that all sexual stereotypes (even the rational ones) are harmful as they "force" people towards the specific stereotype. As a counterargument, one can state that there are also negative stereotypes, which presumably do not force anyone to follow them. (E.g. the stereotype of a WASP).

Stereotypes are a common and sometimes very pragmatic way of handling information. With a stereotype you may scetch a picture of the target very quickly and communicate it to others. The problem of stereotypes, of course, is that they tend to evolve into very unscientific, preducious and biased stereotypes after they have flown in human networks for a while.

3. Gender system is a system that contains
- roles for the sexes in different areas of life (family, work, political decision making, etc.)
- an idea of who are suitable for role models
- a set of stereotypes concerning the sexes

There may be several different gender systems (see below).

3a) The 20th century western bipolar gender system perceived men as important actors, decision makers and also tough and somewhat aggressive. Women were considered softer, more caring, less decisive and less active and less aggressive.

3b) The old eastern bipolar gender system is based on the ideas of ying and yang, which belong together and complement each other. Harmony of the sexes was very highly valued. Some applications of this gender system are very pro-feminist, such as the ideology behind tantra sex. (E.g. the idea that men should learn a lot from women in order to reach the same level of sexual and mental potency).

3c) Theoretical bipolar gender systems, in which the women are seen as wise and protective while men are considered childish and destructive - in some way less worthy than women. (Some pieces of this gender system have existed in some cultures).

3d) Androgynist gender systems in which women are allowed to posess masculine traits and skills as long as they have "sufficient" amount of feminine traits too. At the same time, men are allowed to posess female traits and skills as long as they have "sufficient" amount of masculine traits too.

The androgynist gender system may appear in a very liberal form, defining "sufficient" at a very low level. It may also approach the type 3b gender system, if the "sufficient" is specified on a relatively high level.

4. Patriarchal ideology is an ideology that considers the type 3a gender system or its predecessors as ideal and which therefore supports the material arrangements which enforce male superiority.

Conclusion:

Although patriarchal ideology is harmful, gender role models and gender systems need not be harmful. Proggressive role models do exist and the androgynist gender system is not too bad at all - at least in its liberal form.

[ 15 April 2005: Message edited by: SosiologiR ]

Come to think of it, this topic might be happier in 'Humanities and Science', where male contributors would feel more comfortable.

PS - 'prejudicial'?

[ 15 April 2005: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

1) President Tarja Halonen (female) is a good role model for young girls.

2) Male teachers at kindergartens are important role models for young boys - especially for those who do not live with their father.

Basically, my question is, should we deconstruct the roles altogether or should we rearrange them in an androgynist fashion? Or, should we reach for a world in which there are a dozen roles for men and a dozen roles for women? In such a world there would be no dominant role for each of the sexes. .

I feel we have the same problem as the marxists do: Should we criticise and deconstruct the existing or should we plan for something new?

Did this provide any starting points?

quote:

---

Come to think of it, this topic might be happier in 'Humanities and Science', where male contributors would feel more comfortable.

---

From your writing I got the impression, that I would be relatively comfortable (and safe), discussing this topic here, at least with you

[ 16 April 2005: Message edited by: SosiologiR ]

But you have to understand that i'm not a very good feminist. I was pretty happy with the idea of good men and women; can readily accept a world of good men, women, and people who want to be both or neither. I have difficulty accepting a world of bad people, but can manage it. I don't keep up with current political ideology; don't particularly want to deconstruct anything; believe that now - how things are now - is the only possible starting-point for next month. After next month, we might all be cinders, and it won't matter.

[ 15 April 2005: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:
Did you just change the question?

---

Yes, sorry! My male logic told me that nobody else could possibly be writing to Babble at 5 o'clock Saturday morning except for myself. Therefore, I could not guess that you were writing an answer to me just as I edited my own post.

Please, tell me what kind of role models do you favour? What do you think about the type 3b and 3d gender systems that I described above?

[ 16 April 2005: Message edited by: SosiologiR ]

Without going back to check exactly what 3b and 3d said, i can say i'm not big on the notion of 'allowed' characteristics.
We have the traits we have, whether anyone (including the current local power-structure) approves of them or not. Nobody can make a trait go away; all they can do is make us feel good or bad about the way we are; perhaps make us hide some things and pretend others. That doesn't create a happy society, and can certainly cause a lot of grief for some of its members.

As for what children need in role-models.
Boys are boys and girls are girls, however much or little overlap there may be in their emotional makeup and perception of the world.
Both benefit from exposure to adults who are comfortable with their gender, their sexual identity, their work and their family; who are competent, confident and reasonably well-suited to their environment. Both benefit from opportunities to experiment with their own identity and to interact with people of different sexes, ages and temperaments.

[ 17 April 2005: Message edited by: Anchoress ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:
That's not so much male logic as a poor grasp of statistical probability. Never mind.

---

Nonesuch, I was trying to make fun of myself. My male "logic" did not take into account the fact that there are different time zones around the world

quote:

---

Without going back to check exactly what 3b and 3d said, i can say i'm not big on the notion of 'allowed' characteristics.

---

I understand that, and accept your point of view. Everybody is allowed to be exactly what they are. Still, I believe that a genderless society is a utopy that will never become reality. People do want to see that there is difference between men and women. It is just a question of how much of a difference and what the (socially constructed) differences are.

Also, most people will be attracted to the members of the opposite sex. That means, to people who look and behave in a fashion that proves they represent the opposite sex.

This creates a world, in which everybody has the right to be attractive in the eyes of the opposite sex - or not. So, in theory you are allowed to be whatever you want to - but in practice, if you want to attract the opposite sex, you need to do something.

quote:

---

We have the traits we have, whether anyone approves of them or not.

---

If you say "we have the traits we have" that makes you sound like a biological determinist who believes our genes have made us what we are and we can not change and will not change. (Actually, that makes you sound like John Gray).

Our gender is at least 50% socially constructed. As a social construction, it may be changed by a person who is able to evaluate her/his own beliefs and attitudes that have made her/him the way she/he is.

quote:

---

Nobody can make a trait go away; all they can do is make us feel good or bad about the way we are; perhaps make us hide some things and pretend others. That doesn't create a happy society, and can certainly cause a lot of grief for some of its members.

---

I understand your point of gender pressures making people unhappy. As people want to be attractive to the opposite sex they feel they have to change themselves to certain degree - and they are sad, if they are not considered attractive. It is the invisible hand of the "dating market", which maintains the pressure. And the invisible hand means, me, you and all other individuals who prefer men who feel like men and women who feel like women.

As I told you earlier, the type 3d gender system is not necessarily a cruel one which forces women to be ultra femininen and men ultra masculine. It is a liberal society in which individuals have a high level of freedom in constructing their gender - but in which the "attraction mechanisms" still make somekind of a difference between men and women.

A genderless society may become reality when sufficient amount of men start preferring "masculine" women and when many women start preferring "feminine" men as their spouses. Until then, the invisible hand of the dating market will maintain a relatively clear segregation of men and women.

Are you ready to start the change by choosing a "feminine" man for yourself?

quote:

---

Beyond that, i think it's important for a child - and even more so, for an adolescent - to be taught morality, self-discipline and relationship management by successful (that is, happy, competent, confident, lenient) adults of their own sex.

---

I agree.

[ 18 April 2005: Message edited by: SosiologiR ]

By 'traits', i didn't mean just sexual ones, but all kinds, such as intelligence, aggression, facility with language or music, physical dexterity, sensitivity...
Every baby comes into the world with a complement of inborn traits and potentials.
These traits are found everywhere in humans, to a different degree in each person. Most boys may be more aggressive than most girls; most girls may have greater fine-muscle at an earlier age than most boys, but the traits are not divided strictly along sex-lines.
The inborn characteristics cannot be changed, but can be encouraged or discouraged, developed or stifled.

Every society values some characteristics above others, depending on the environment, culture, national aspirations, political and economic organization, etc. Every society assigns roles to men and women, according to its own [the society's] needs, rather than the individual's. Since people already come in male and female - with a set of predominantly sex-determined traits, as well as overlap and individual variation - it's not difficult to classify them.

If the society requires a high birth-rate, it tends to relegate women to breeding and nurturing; it will typically refuse to educate girls, and encourage them toward tenderness, dependence, timidity. If the society requires a wide range of skills, it tends to emancipate women; it will typically train girls as well as boys, and channel them into work outside the home.
You can't arbitrarily decide which way the trend will go - it depends on a lot of internal and external forces.

Take the US right now. For most of the 20th century, it was developing resources, industry and technology. Women - and predominanlty feminine skills - were needed in the work-force. So there was a trend toward sexual equality (never reached), universal education, low birth-rate, shared child-rearing. Therefore, girls were encouraged to be competitive, to seek higher education and good jobs.

Since the cycle was not completed (that is, working conditions, social organization and mating rituals never caught up with the idea of sexual equality), the old stereotypes, left over from a period of territorial expansion, were still in effect. So, you saw a lot of women hiding their softer traits and becoming poor imitations of men, and a lot of men becoming caricatures of men, in order to maintain a recognizable sex-gap.
This addresses the question of attractiveness. That takes several generations (and a coherent cultural self-description) to change.

Now that the US has stopped developing internally and embarked on another period of imperial expansion, it requires soldiers, a high birth-rate, an attitude of unreserved aggression toward outsiders and unquestioning obedience toward its elite, the trend in sex roles is changing again. Boys are encouraged to be strong, brave and stupid; girls are encouraged to be maternal, pious and stupid; both are encouraged to engage only in procreative sexual relationships.

Thank you for your long and analytical post!

quote:

---

By 'traits', i didn't mean just sexual ones, but all kinds, such as intelligence, aggression, facility with language or music, physical dexterity, sensitivity...
Every baby comes into the world with a complement of inborn traits and potentials.
These traits are found everywhere in humans, to a different degree in each person. Most boys may be more aggressive than most girls; most girls may have greater fine-muscle at an earlier age than most boys, but the traits are not divided strictly along sex-lines.
The inborn characteristics cannot be changed, but can be encouraged or discouraged, developed or stifled.

---

I completely agree with that.

quote:

---

Every society values some characteristics above others, depending on the environment, culture, national aspirations, political and economic organization, etc. Every society assigns roles to men and women, according to its own [the society's] needs, rather than the individual's.

---

You talk about society as an independent actor that has the power to control its members. This kind of a model is best applicable to a collectivists society in which there are very strong socialization mechanisms the society uses to "brainwash" its members.

I do not see the collectivist model completely applicable to the western countries, in which individualism is highly valued and the cultural variety in roles, attitudes and beliefs is enormous.

I feel that USA, for example, is a set of cultures, sub cultures and counter cultures. Nobody is able to tell "what the society values". USA seems to be a very pluralist country. It sems to be an exception if we find something that the society as a whole (without strong countervoices) would value.

quote:

---

Since people already come in male and female - with a set of predominantly sex-determined traits, as well as overlap and individual variation - it's not difficult to classify them.

---

I agree.

quote:

---

If the society requires a high birth-rate, it tends to relegate women to breeding and nurturing; it will typically refuse to educate girls, and encourage them toward tenderness, dependence, timidity. If the society requires a wide range of skills, it tends to emancipate women; it will typically train girls as well as boys, and channel them into work outside the home.
You can't arbitrarily decide which way the trend will go - it depends on a lot of internal and external forces.

---

You have an interesting theory there and it may have some truth in itself.

quote:

---

Take the US right now. For most of the 20th century, it was developing resources, industry and technology. Women - and predominanlty feminine skills - were needed in the work-force. So there was a trend toward sexual equality (never reached), universal education, low birth-rate, shared child-rearing. Therefore, girls were encouraged to be competitive, to seek higher education and good jobs.

---

I agree.

quote:

---

Since the cycle was not completed, the old stereotypes, left over from a period of territorial expansion, were still in effect.

---

Agree.

quote:

---

So, you saw a lot of women hiding their softer traits and becoming poor imitations of men, and a lot of men becoming caricatures of men, in order to maintain a recognizable sex-gap.

---

This is a curious new idea to me. Yet, I agree with that to some extent. However, as you say "a lot of men" that does not contain a hint of the percentage. I feel that less than 30% of the females and males have reacted as you described. The rest have found a better balance within their gender. For example

1. Business women who look very feminine (and sexy) and who have become successful managers using their (feminine) social skills - not by manly aggression.

2. Males who look as masculine as Tom Selleck but who still feed their babies and change the diapers, without being afraid of losing their masculinity.

3. Males who are completely masculine and heterosexual, and yet, go to the manicyrist, are interested in "people topics" in converstations, like cooking and interior decoration, etc (as this it the new role model for men, promoted by several tv programs).

quote:

---

This addresses the question of attractiveness. That takes several generations (and a coherent cultural self-description) to change.

---

Here we are back to the theoretical model of an androgynist society as specified in the first message in this thread: In an androgynist society (which I feel more and more western countries resemble), females are allowed to choose "masculine" careers and to party in a "masculine" fashion, as long as they posess a sufficient amount of female characteristics. Men are allowed to feed babies, wear colorful clothes, go to manicyrist, talk about people and emotions, etc, as long as they posess a sufficient amount of masculine characteristics.

This is a model that is rather liberal and does not put intolerable pressures to most people. It is a better model than a completely genderless society.

quote:

---

Now that the US has stopped developing internally and embarked on another period of imperial expansion, it requires soldiers, a high birth-rate, an attitude of unreserved aggression toward outsiders and unquestioning obedience toward its elite, the trend in sex roles is changing again. Boys are encouraged to be strong, brave and stupid; girls are encouraged to be maternal, pious and stupid; both are encouraged to engage only in procreative sexual relationships.

---

This, I feel is your nightmare, not the plain reality. Of course, I will start believing in your analysis if you give me some more facts and observations that support your analysis.

SosiologiR

PS. Maybe you should move to Finland as our society does not seem to be an imperialist socity, favouring strong & stupid men and maternal & stupid women

[ 20 April 2005: Message edited by: SosiologiR ]

quote:

---

Nonesuch,
Thank you for your long and analytical post!

---

quote:

---

You talk about society as an independent actor that has the power to control its members. This kind of a model is best applicable to a collectivists society in which there are very strong socialization mechanisms the society uses to "brainwash" its members.

---

quote:

---

I do not see the collectivist model completely applicable to the western countries, in which individualism is highly valued...

---

quote:

---

... and the cultural variety in roles, attitudes and beliefs is enormous.

---

quote:

---

I feel that USA, for example, is a set of cultures, sub cultures and counter cultures.

---

quote:

---

Nobody is able to tell "what the society values".

---

quote:

---

USA seems to be a very pluralist country. It sems to be an exception if we find something that the society as a whole (without strong countervoices) would value.

---

quote:

---

You have an interesting theory there and it may have some truth in itself.

---

quote:

---

This is a very valuable new idea to me. Yet, I agree with that to some extent. However, as you say "a lot of men" that does not contain a hint of the percentage. I feel that less than 30% of the females and males have reacted as you described.

---

quote:

---

The rest have found a better balance within their gender.

---

quote:

---

1. Business women who look very feminine (and sexy) and who have become successful managers using their (feminine) social skills - not by manly aggression.

---

quote:

---

2. Males who look as masculine as Tom Selleck but who still feed their babies and change the diapers, without being afraid of losing their masculinity.

---

quote:

---

3. Males who are completely masculine and heterosexual, and yet, go to the manicyrist, are interested in "people topics" in converstations, like cooking and interior decoration, etc (as this it the new role model for men, promoted by several tv programs).

---

quote:

---

Here we are back to the theoretical model of an androgynist society as specified in the first message in this thread: In an androgynist society (which I feel more and more western countries resemble), females are allowed to choose "masculine" careers and to party in a "masculine" fashion

---

quote:

---

as long as they posess a sufficient amount of female characteristics.

---

quote:

---

Men are allowed to feed babies, wear colorful clothes, go to manicyrist, talk about people and emotions, etc, as long as they posess a sufficient amount of masculine characteristics.

---

quote:

---

This, I feel is your nightmare, not the plain reality.

---

quote:

---

Of course, I will start believing in your analysis if you give me some more facts and observations that support your analysis.

---

quote:

---

PS. Maybe you should move to Finland as our society does not seem to be an imperialist socity, favouring strong & stupid men and maternal & stupid women

---

[ 20 April 2005: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

you may be right when you describe how the majority dictates the values of the US. society. However, how do you know what are the values and role models favored by the majority? Do you have statistical data from attitude/value studies?

If you can not give solid data on the majority's or "power holder's" values and attitudes, I may as well give you counterarguments about the values.

For example:

1) Americans value youth, assertivenes and individualism in the form of "rebellious youth". As a consequence the society itself values people who rebel against it in some way. This has an effect on the gender role models as well: Young male rock stars may look very androgynous with their make-up, and female artists may look very "butchy". There is very littel gender pressure among artists and their followers.

"Tree huggers" and all kinds of rebellious activists are also fashionable at least on the image level (as Naomi Klein has written).

2) Americans value urbanism and modernism, which both introduce non-conservative sub-cultures to the majority: Transvestites, homosexuals, "metrosexuals", intellectuals etc.

3) Americans value narcissism, cultural and personal growth (a la Maslow). As a consequence, the "wealthy urban homosexuals" people are put to the position of a role model for heterosexual men in different shows (A queer eye on a straight man, etc.)

A good example of the liberalization of the male role model is the diminuation of the homofobia in all age groups. At present, men may act much more "feminine" and "gay" without being socially sanctioned.

That is a sign of a more androgynous society.

quote:

---

Do you have statistical data from attitude/value studies?

---

The things you mention were almost* all true a few years ago. They are still partly true today. They are manifestations of the 20th century industrial/ technological / progressive phase i was talking about earlier.
That phase is now ending. Under the current administration, many - if not most, or all - of those liberal ideas are gradually discouraged, or even attacked. (Michael Moore gets an enormous amount of hate-mail and some death-threats every day.) Dissent of any kind is becoming dangerous: protesters and tree-huggers are jailed by the hundreds (at least; probably thousands - numbers are hard to come by, because this is not publicized in the tame media. Reporters no longer report what is actually hapenning; most real US news comes to us via British or other foreign press and web-sites which are hard to evaluate.)

* I say almost, because the rebel as role-model was always fictitious. Rebellious people were admired in novels and films; in real life, they were always punished. Rock stars can look like, and do, just about anything they want, because they are not rebels at all: they are a marketable commodity - they make money, very much within the system.

[ 20 April 2005: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

Originally my discussion starter was divided to two parts:

1. What kind of gender systems are good or acceptable in theory? Would an androgynous gender system be ok? How to define an androgynous gender system?

2. Do the 21st century western gender systems have more resemblance to the androgynous gender system or the "patriarchal hegemony" as described by the radical feminists.

I have to admit you made some really interesting and frightening observations to the second question - concerning the USA. However, I have my own observations from Finland, which is very different from US as my message "Equality report from Finland" describes.

Maybe we should continue the conversation from the first question? Or, should we analyse the differences in the scandinavian and american gender systems?

We seem to agree that the perception of gender difference has something to do with sexual attraction. According to studies men in all cultures like women who look feminine (and young enough to mate). However, females have mixed feelings about masculine looks: Many women prefer slightly feminine males to highly masculine ones. (Male faces that were photoshopped to be more feminine were considered more attractive on average than the natural versions).

These attraction mechanisms have shaped the human behaviour and even our bodies during the last 200.000 years. For example, females no longer have large amount of body hair as our ancestors (as hairy females have been outselected from the mating market). Males do not have very much hair either as the androgynous male appearance has been preferred to the "ultramasculine" caveman style.

On this basis it seems that the the gender pressures on appearance are stronger towards women than the ones towards men.

On the behavioral level the gender pressures are more culturally constructed and there is more variety. In scandinavian countries a high level of androgynity in behaviour is tolerated and even valued.

There are limitations to the androgynity though. These limitations are not maintainded by "the society" or the "patriarchy". Instead, I believe they are maintainded by the "mating market". Men can behave in an androgynous fashion as long as their potential mates approve it and women may act "like men" if their potential partners approve it.

What kind of limitations people pose to androgynous behavior?

I believe that men judge women on their "overall femininity" in which appearance and behavior are summed up. For example, women may be tough, rational and issue oriented (instead of soft, intuitive and people oriented) in business and even in the family life, as long as they look feminine enough. But, if you are a masculine looking woman (by genes) you need to limit masculine behavior and intentional antifeminine looks, to remain attractive.

In the same fashion women value men on their overall masculinity. In general, a tall and athletic man has more freedom to wear jewelry, scarves and "pinkish" clothes than a short and skinny man. Also, the masculine "Tom Sellecks" may break role models on the behavioral level as no woman will ever question their masculinity. Tom Selleck could even start aerobics and sewing as his hobby, without risking his masculinity in the eyes of potential partners. For a feminine looking man the risk would be much higher.

So: 1) An androgynous gender system allows men to be like women and women to be like men - to a certain degree, which is limited by the mating market. 2) The needs of the society are not necessarily a central factor determining the role models and the gender system.

[ 20 April 2005: Message edited by: SosiologiR ]

I like harmony.

Meanwhile, reflect on this:
I doubt that Abraham would have shaved to please Sarah, or even Hagaar, and i don't think Genghis Khan could have grown a bushy beard for any of his 200,000 conquests, even if he had had time to ask, or cared about, their preference. So maybe the fact that no modern human possesses enough body-hair to keep from freezing to death is not a direct result of dating.

quote:

---

Will try to awnser on topic again tomorrow - since i realize that the male brain is digital and you won't be deflected from your train of thought.

---

I hope that may be considered as friendly nagging and "unhostile" stereotypisation

quote:

---

I doubt that Abraham would have shaved to please Sarah, or even Hagaar...

---

I think you underestimate the powers of the "mating market". A lot of behavior is determined by the real or assumed pressures that the opposite sex is posing on us.

For example, most men want to become rich and/or advance on their career. But what is the explanation to this?

1. Men are greedy, power seeking pigs.

2. Women like wealthy and successful men and therefore men need to get wealthy & successful or risk not having a mate.

(Women like wealthy men: Pamela Smock & Wendy Manning 1995)

I feel I could find dozens of examples of cases, in which the expression "society demands from men" could be replaced with expression "women demand from men". Also, vice versa, "men demand from women".

Of course there are other social pressures than the one of the mating market. I also agree that after marriage the pressures are somewhat relieved: Women feel they may gain weight (as they no longer need to "hunt" for a mate) and men feel they no longer need to engage into romantic courting (as they have already captured their prey). Yes, old Abraham would probably not shave based on simply his wifes wishes. However, the young Abraham would most likely have shaved if the woman he loved had detested his beard.

[ 22 April 2005: Message edited by: SosiologiR ]

quote:

---

2. Women like wealthy and successful men and therefore men need to get wealthy & successful or risk not having a mate.

---

quote:

---

I hope that may be considered as friendly nagging and "unhostile" stereotypisation

---

[ 22 April 2005: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

I am willing to accept a compromise, in which we see the "society" and the "mating market" both as factors determining how people behave. Both factors have an effect on each other too:

1. Western societies value youth and freedom. In other words, the society values people who are attractive in the eyes of the opposite sex.

2. Societies value alpha males who are considered attractive and sexy by all females. On the mating market all men try to prove that they are "alpha males" and all females try to attract the alpha males.

According to economics or administrative sciences social systems may be perceived as markets or as hierarchies.

Based on that, I am just saying that the western society is not a clear hierarchy (a clear, independent actor). Instead, it resembles a market in many ways. It consists of a political market, religious market, scientific market (of new ideas and theories), mating market, etc.

If we want to make a compromise, we may also see society as a network, which is the "in between" of the hierarchy and market.

When analysing networks we need to see the hierarchal decision making and the decentralised, market like decision making at the same time.

I agree that the western societies have some hierarchal decision making and value forming mechanisms. Do you agree that western societies also have the market like decision making processes, in which the values of the society are created on a market - by large amount of people?

I feel that women often do not see how highly individual men plan their life and actions in order to please women (and to get in bed with them). This motive has an enormous effect on how men behave.

Conclusion: The sex roles are not determined only by the society as a hierarchal organization. Also the mating market has an important effect on the way people behave and what kind of roles are valued.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fed:
I think male/female relationships are like a choir singing: some sing low parts and others sing high parts, but it is the mixing of the voices that produces beauty. The high-voiced and low-voiced singers have to listen to each others' parts to make sure their volume and timing are in synch. If one dominated over the other or where off-beat from the other it would sound awful. But together they sound better than any one voice singing alone.

---

I like your metaphora, and agree with you about the ying/yang gender system. However, did you know that many feminists (majority?) oppose the ying/yang system? They call it a "bipolar gender system" and they see no good in it.

[ 22 April 2005: Message edited by: SosiologiR ]

quote:

---

Originally my discussion starter was divided to two parts:
1. What kind of gender systems are good or acceptable in theory? Would an androgynous gender system be ok? How to define an androgynous gender system?

---

Theory depends on what kind of society we hope for.
If we want stability, sustainability, a reasonable division of labour (diverse skills; no group burdened unfairly with unpleasant, tedious or dangerous work) and wealth (no huge gap between richest and poorest); the basic needs of all members met; a high level of health and education; a wide range of leisure activities, technological progress and arts – in other words, the most attainable comfort, fulfilment of potential and happiness for the greatest possible number, then an androgynous system - insofar as I understand your description of it - will work.
I’m not up to defining it at this time.

quote:

---

2. Do the 21st century western gender systems have more resemblance to the androgynous gender system or the "patriarchal hegemony" as described by the radical feminists.

---

I have no idea what radical feminists are saying about patriarchy, though I’m sure it’s not complimentary.
My own take on it: Patriarchy works for, and may even be necessary in, an aggressive society - one that is either expanding its territory or consolidating its conquests. The two most important things in such a society are property (especially land) rights and military might. Patriarchy is the easiest system in which to raise a large army and to insure the orderly inheritance of wealth. Such societies will also have a patriarchal religion (one big male god making all the rules and enforcing them by severe punishment). Civil law will be similar and subordinate to religious law: a whole lot of harmless activities will be forbidden. Gender and class roles will be narrowly defined, strictly enforced and difficult to escape. Typically, women will be second- or third-class citizens with few rights and many duties.

*Note. Patriarchy doesn’t just oppress wives and devalue daughters. It also represses sons, who are obedient and expendable, and it positively squashes children. It usually has a large, poor, terrified underclass. And it treats domestic animals like inanimate objects. In fact, the only people it honours are old, rich, powerful males. The sons of rich, powerful men, if they survive submission to the fathers and military service, can hope to become patriarchs; nobody else has a chance.
Funny sub-note on Catholicism, that great perpetuator of the patriarchal system: only males can be its leaders; they have power and privilege, yet are forbidden to exercise the single function that defines a patriarch.

quote:

---

Maybe we should continue the conversation from the first question? Or, should we analyse the differences in the scandinavian and american gender systems?

---

quote:

---

These attraction mechanisms have shaped the human behaviour and even our bodies during the last 200.000 years. For example, females no longer have large amount of body hair as our ancestors (as hairy females have been outselected from the mating market). Males do not have very much hair either as the androgynous male appearance has been preferred to the "ultramasculine" caveman style.

On this basis it seems that the the gender pressures on appearance are stronger towards women than the ones towards men.
On the behavioral level the gender pressures are more culturally constructed and there is more variety. In scandinavian countries a high level of androgynity in behaviour is tolerated and even valued.

---

Major departure here.
I’ll go along so far as to agree that all animals desire to attract the largest possible number of mates, and mates best suited to prevailing external conditions: the ones most likely to produce viable offspring and be able to provide the necessities of life for dependent young. Sexual taste, or preference is not a whim, but a direct result of environmental pressure. That’s where physical adaptation comes from.

I’ll also go along with cultural construct –
Humans have big brains, a lot of imagination: they always try to improve on Nature. When humans organize in groups, there is more variety of work, social roles, and sexual mores. Everything you see in human groups, after millennia of civilization, is partly biological and partly cultural. Therefore all aspects of a person’s thought, behaviour and interaction with others can be considered a social construct.
- but with the proviso that you don’t elevate a few thousand years of European-style patriarchy to a force of Nature. Of course the pressure on women is greater: men have been setting the standard! Also, on the subject of appearance: don’t generalize the affects of modern western consumerism to the entire species.

quote:

---

There are limitations to the androgynity though. These limitations are not maintainded by "the society" or the "patriarchy". Instead, I believe they are maintainded by the "mating market". Men can behave in an androgynous fashion as long as their potential mates approve it and women may act "like men" if their potential partners approve it.

---

quote:

---

What kind of limitations people pose to androgynous behavior?
I believe that men judge women on their "overall femininity" in which appearance and behavior are summed up. For example, women may be tough, rational and issue oriented (instead of soft, intuitive and people oriented) in business and even in the family life, as long as they look feminine enough. But, if you are a masculine looking woman (by genes) you need to limit masculine behavior and intentional antifeminine looks, to remain attractive.

In the same fashion women value men on their overall masculinity. In general, a tall and athletic man has more freedom to wear jewelry, scarves and "pinkish" clothes than a short and skinny man. Also, the masculine "Tom Sellecks" may break role models on the behavioral level as no woman will ever question their masculinity. Tom Selleck could even start aerobics and sewing as his hobby, without risking his masculinity in the eyes of potential partners. For a feminine looking man the risk would be much higher.

---

In the human species, there are individuals with a wide variety of characteristics, both physical and mental; a variety of needs and desires. The majority is obviously male or female and heterosexual: easy to classify, easy to train within a wide or narrow range of social behaviours. A minority is obviously male or female and homosexual: easy to classify at birth, less easy at puberty; very difficult to force into heterosexual roles. A smaller minotity will always be difficult or impossible to identify, classify and train.
If the society is stable and prosperous and enjoys a high degree of individual freedom, the non-obvious minority can be accommodated. All types can find suitable mates. We don’t have to attract every member of the appropriate sex; we only need a few potential mates; one or two long-term companions. For each masculine-looking, independent, forceful heterosexual woman, there is an equally unusual man who is turned on by those characteristics. For every skinny, sensitive man who likes to knit, there is a woman who finds that combination adorable.

You don’t need to engineer people’s social, or love or sex lives. You don’t need to decide what range of appearance and behaviour is acceptable. People can work it out; can find one another. All we need do is allow every child to develop hir potential and seek hir own happiness.

quote:

---

So: 1) An androgynous gender system allows men to be like women and women to be like men - to a certain degree, which is limited by the mating market. 2) The needs of the society are not necessarily a central factor determining the role models and the gender system.

---

quote:

---

I agree that the western societies have some hierarchal decision making and value forming mechanisms. Do you agree that western societies also have the market like decision making processes, in which the values of the society are created on a market - by large amount of people?

---

quote:

---

I started wondering, why women so easily "get away with it" when they stereotypisise men. Is there possibly a double standard for women? Just wondering.

---

[ 24 April 2005: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

[ 24 April 2005: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

I agree with most parts of your message. Therefore I will quote only those places that need commenting or counterarguments:

quote:

---

...you don’t elevate a few thousand years of European-style patriarchy to a force of Nature

---

No, I am not doing that.

quote:

---

If the society is stable and prosperous and enjoys a high degree of individual freedom, the non-obvious minority can be accommodated. All types can find suitable mates. We don’t have to attract every member of the appropriate sex; we only need a few potential mates; one or two long-term companions. For each masculine-looking, independent, forceful heterosexual woman, there is an equally unusual man who is turned on by those characteristics. For every skinny, sensitive man who likes to knit, there is a woman who finds that combination adorable.

---

That sounds a bit idealistic. Are you sure you are not mixing the world as it should be to the world that exists? I find it very hard to believe that for every fat woman there is a man who likes fat women - or that for every skinny, unathletic male nerd there is a woman who likes skinny, unathletic nerds?

If we draw up some statistics and empirical results, we will probably find out that 90% of men do not like "fat" women and 35% of women are "fat" (depending on how we define fat).

This is an "unfair" world. Everybody does not find a parner that would like them just the way they are.

quote:

---

You don’t need to engineer people’s social, or love or sex lives. You don’t need to decide what range of appearance and behaviour is acceptable. People can work it out; can find one another. All we need do is allow every child to develop hir potential and seek hir own happiness.

---

I totally agree. I am not telling, how people should look or behave. I am just telling that certain level of masculinity is demanded from men (by the women) and a certain level of femininity is demanded from the women (by the men).

A tall, muscular, altto voiced woman will take a risk if she purposefully decides not to wear makeup and not to wear feminine clothes. The risk of lowering her chances of finding a mate.

What should the society do? Of course, the society could try to help the feminine men and masculine women by trying to promote looks and behaviors that break the role models.

However, I see that there is some biological determinism in the attraction mechanisms. A completely genderless society is utopy. The vast majority of men will always like women that look or behave slightly different from men. Women will always like men who look or behave slightly different from women.

If you show me a culture in which this assumption does not hold true, I will be ready to re-evaluate it.

[ 24 April 2005: Message edited by: SosiologiR ]

quote:

---

That sounds a bit idealistic. Are you sure you are not mixing the world as it should be to the world that exists?

---

quote:

---

I find it very hard to believe that for every fat woman there is a man who likes fat women - or that for every skinny, unathletic male nerd there is a woman who likes skinny, unathletic nerds?

---

quote:

---

If we draw up some statistics and empirical results, we will probably find out that 90% of men do not like "fat" women and 35% of women are "fat" (depending on how we define fat).

---

Incidentellay, many boys avoid sports because they are not strong enough to compete with natural athletes: they can't win. Who is most cruel to those boys - their mother or their father? their female schoolmates or other boys?

We didn't even mention pressure to conform to an artificial standard from adults and peers of the same sex.

Ok, you were talking about the ideal gender model. You were also talking about freedom: How everybody should be as they like.

How about the other side of freedom: Allowing everybody like the opposite sex as they like it? How srong pressure should the society put towards its members to get their likings correct? For example, if the society wants people not to get melanoma, how strong measures should be taken against the idea that "tan is beautiful"?

Is it the society and the government that should decide what is beneficial and correct and then try to force its members to behave in the correct fashion?

I am a bit fraid of this kind of "dictatorship of the politically correct".

When I was in school, I had a teacher who tried to motivate (pressure?) all kids not to take an academic career and instead, go to the "professional's institutes" in which they would become hair stylists, car repairers or factory workers. That was because the teacher considered it politically correct as she was a socialist and wanted everybody to became a worker (so that they would end up voting the socialists).

How strongly should we pressure our sons not to wear blue clothes instead of red? How strongly should we forbid our daughters playing their princess and Barbie games - if we feel they are politically incorrect?

I believe that we have a free rider problem here: The society would be better off if all parents taught their children to be androgynists, and if a large amount of people had the courage to break sex roles in their career choices and in their style of clothes, hair etc.

However, for the individual hirself being too androgynous (man too femininen and woman too masculine) might be a sacrifice for a good cause. They would end up in a risk of not getting a spouse they like.

This is the same free rider problem as exists with antibiotics: Everybody would be better off if the doctors did not prescribe so many antibiotics to people - as the resistance of bakteria to antibiotics would not develop so rapidly. However, when an individual chooses whether or not to use antibiotics, the choice is often "yes - I want to use antibiotics" despite the negative external effect to the society.

(Have you studied economics so you are familiar with the free rider problem and external effects?)

Conclusion: Androgynous behavior is beneficial to the society (in most modern settings). However, on the individual level the overly androgynous behgaviour might be somewhat harmful. Therefore, the androgynous behavior will not become the standard among people, if people are given the choice by themselves.

And, if the government takes the choice away from the people, we end up in an even worse situation.

Do you have ideas of how to solve this problem?

[ 24 April 2005: Message edited by: SosiologiR ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SosiologiR:
Ok, you were talking about the ideal gender model. You were also talking about freedom: How everybody should be as they like.

---

quote:

---

How about the other side of freedom: Allowing everybody like the opposite sex as they like it?

---

quote:

---

How srong pressure should the society put towards its members to get their likings correct?

---

quote:

---

For example, if the society wants people not to get melanoma, how strong measures should be taken against the idea that "tan is beautiful"?

---

quote:

---

Is it the society and the government that should decide what is beneficial and correct and then try to force its members to behave in the correct fashion?

---

quote:

---

I am a bit fraid of this kind of "dictatorship of the politically correct".

---

quote:

---

When I was in school, I had a teacher who tried to motivate (pressure?) all kids not to take an academic career and instead, go to the "professional's institutes" in which they would become hair stylists, car repairers or factory workers. That was because the teacher considered it politically correct as she was a socialist and wanted everybody to became a worker (so that they would end up voting the socialists).

---

quote:

---

How strongly should we pressure our sons not to wear blue clothes instead of red? How strongly should we forbid our daughters playing their princess and Barbie games - if we feel they are politically incorrect?

---

quote:

---

I believe that we have a free rider problem here: The society would be better off if all parents taught their children to be androgynists, and if a large amount of people had the courage to break sex roles in their career choices and in their style of clothes, hair etc.

However, for the individual hirself being too androgynous (man too femininen and woman too masculine) might be a sacrifice for a good cause. They would end up in a risk of not getting a spouse they like.

---

My grandmother told me to pretend i was less intelligent than i was, because boys don't like too-bright girls. She meant to protect me. And she was right: most average boys didn't like me. If i'd listened to her, i could have married an average boy... and been miserable! Since i didn't listen to her, i married quite late, when i found a man who appreciates the very thing about me that was supposed to be a handicap. Just lucky: there was no guarantee. If i had never found him, i'd have stayed single, which is better than a bad marriage.

quote:

---

This is the same free rider problem as exists with antibiotics: Everybody would be better off if the doctors did not prescribe so many antibiotics to people - as the resistance of bakteria to antibiotics would not develop so rapidly. However, when an individual chooses whether or not to use antibiotics, the choice is often "yes - I want to use antibiotics" despite the negative external effect to the society.

---

quote:

---

(Have you studied economics so you are familiar with the free rider problem and external effects?)

---

quote:

---

Conclusion: Androgynous behavior is beneficial to the society (in most modern settings). However, on the individual level the overly androgynous behgaviour might be somewhat harmful. Therefore, the androgynous behavior will not become the standard among people, if people are given the choice by themselves.

---

quote:

---

And, if the government takes the choice away from the people, we end up in an even worse situation.
Do you have ideas of how to solve this problem?

---

Look: Most people are average - that's how the average came to be. Most people will think, want and do exactly what you expect. Most boys will grow up to be standard heterosexual men, with predictable tastes and preferences. Most girls will grow into standard heterosexual women, with the usual tastes and preferences. That's fine, and it won't change society. Given a little more acceptance, a little more encouragement, a little more choice, the un-average minirity might have a better chance at happiness, and society might get a few more artists, inventors and acrobats. Where is the harm in that?

[ 24 April 2005: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

My reservation is that people usually are not given anything like a free and informed choice. Might be worth a try.
They will still make stupid decisions, but at least it will be their own stupid decisions, not something they were forced into.

---

Precisely.

quote:

---

Where did i say government should take choice away? I keep saying and saying that we need more freedom, not less; more participation, more choices, more individual self-expression.
...

Given a little more acceptance, a little more encouragement, a little more choice, the un-average minirity might have a better chance at happiness, and society might get a few more artists, inventors and acrobats. Where is the harm in that?

---

There is no harm at all. I prefer a society in which individuals are given the choice.

However, how are we going to change the society, if we take a "laissez faire" approach? How should the government and the "equality officiers" work towards a better world?

How strictly should we demand that teachers encourage kids to try undtraditional roles? How strictly should we forbid advertisements, in which women look feminine and men masculine?

Should we forbid all advertisements where there are, for example, good bodied male construction workers spreading asfalt with nothing but jeans on - and advertising some soft drinks?

Should all government bodies quit using words "she" and "he" and replace them with an androgynous word? Should we pose extra taxes to makeup as makeup is something that strengthens the existing sex roles?

Should the governmental and municipal organizations stop stereotyping men and viewing them as potential rapists, batterers and child abusers - or as "strong men" who never need any help in their family chrisis?

How should the government and the public sector in totality advance towards better gender models?

[ 25 April 2005: Message edited by: SosiologiR ]

quote:

---

I like your metaphora, and agree with you about the ying/yang gender system. However, did you know that many feminists (majority?) oppose the ying/yang system? They call it a "bipolar gender system" and they see no good in it.

---

Was not aware of this, not being one to follow this sort of thing in academic circles....

From what I understand of that field, which ain't much I admit, some folks seem to think most to all sex-differentiated behaviour comes from what one is socialized to do.

As a layperson in the subject, but an observer of human nature nonetheless, methinks that is a great generalization. I think there are actual, real, differences in tendencies and differences in interests between the sexes. But you don't really see that on an individual-to-individual basis, only when taking large samples and comparing them.

It's like saying "Men are taller than women." This is true on aggregate only, and tells you nothing whatsoever about this particular woman's height with respect to that particular man's.

So it will be with yin and yang in love. The majority of men will be (insert whatever) and the majority of women will be (insert some other whatever). But when one is speaking of this particular woman and that particular man, you can make no prediction whatsoever about that characteristic you are discussing.

quote:

---

However, how are we going to change the society, if we take a "laissez faire" approach? How should the government and the "equality officiers" work towards a better world?

---

We won't. It will change itself, gradually, as we remove repression and discrimination.
All government has to do is pass and enforce equitable laws: equal vote, equal rights, equal opportunity, equal pay. Then wait.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fed:
... some folks seem to think most to all sex-differentiated behaviour comes from what one is socialized to do.

---

During 1850-1940 the majority of scientists believed that most human traits have a hereditary background. This ideology received its crudest example in nazism, which developed a thority of "the characteristics of nationalities".

During 1940-1980 the majority of scientists believed that all human traits are socially determined. The crudest example of this was the Soviet communism, which aimed at creating the "homo sovieticus" a socially conditioned man, who would be 100% free of hereditary phenomena.

After 1980 the advancements in genetics and psychology have shifted the tables again, so that majority of psychologists see human traits as 50% hereditary and 50% environmentally determined. The sociologists - who still are living their glorious past of the 1940-1980 era are reluctant to admit the effects of genes in human behaviour. However, even that is gradually changing as new articles in sociological journals indicate.

Sexual attraction is one of the central phenomena in the survival and spreading of the human species. According to several studies a lot of the human sexual attraction is based on a hereditary mechanisms. That is proven by studies which notice certain similar tendencies in all primates and in all known human cultures.

For example, symmetric faces and bodies are seen attractive. Men in all cultures consider 14-25 year old women as sexually the most attractive. In all cultures the "optimal ratio" between female hip size and waist size is about the same (waist clearly thinner than hips), even if the sociocultural factor determine, whether skinnier or heavier women are preferred.

Given the strong hereditary mechanisms in sexual attraction, I do not consider a genderless society realistic although it could be nice and liberating on the conceptual level.

I consider the androgynous gender model, in which

- there is notable distinction between men and women (on the aggregate level)

- there is a lot of liberty for individuals expressing characteristics or behaviors of the opposite sex

a more realistic alternative.

So, my question to Nonesuch is, what will happen after the discrimination has been removed or reduced to an "insignificant level"? Will we automatically shift to a genderless society - or to an androgynous society?

What if the old bipolar gender system - based on people's individual choices and market mechanisms - still seems strong after all discrimination has ended? How should the government and the feminist movement promote the androgynous model (or the genderless model, if some prefer that)?

SosiologiR

PS. I see that we are at the point of "no significant discrimination" in Scandinavia after two or three decades. At that point about 50% of managers will be females, based on direct extrapolation of present trends. Salary discrimination will have fallen below the level of 1% of the salary in each job and there will be more and more jobs, in which women are actually being paid more (as they are better in certain tasks and skills, on average).

[ 26 April 2005: Message edited by: SosiologiR ]

quote:

---

what will happen after the discrimination has been removed or reduced to an "insignificant level"? Will we automatically shift to a genderless society - or to an androgynous society?

---

Why would we want a genderless society, when we have so much fun with the first two, plus the new genders we've been inventing?
What it would more likely shift to - in 50-100 years - is a far wider and more diverse range of sexual and gender identities; a far more diverse range of self-presentation and relationships. Our great-grandchildren might even discover that pairing is only part of life - and maybe not for everyone the most important part.

What would probobly happen is no massive, obvious change in the next generation. The one after would be generally more relaxed about sex, choices, self-presentation and mating.
Even so, most boys and girls (boys and boys; girls and girls) will pair up pretty much the same way they do now: the symmetrical, clear-skinned, well-muscled, bright-eyed, cheerful, self-confident ones will have their pick of partners, while the homely, timid and weak will take whatever they can get. Any of those pairings may be happy or unhappy in the long term - but at least, if they are unhappy, it won't be because the initial attraction was based on pretence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:
Why would we want a genderless society, when we have so much fun with the first two, plus the new genders we've been inventing?

---

Ok, we are both hoping for the plurality of role models. Within the pluralist contex, is also the Mars & Venus model one of the several acceptable role models? How would you call a society, in which there are 6 male models, 6 female models - and in which 60% of people chooce to be either martians or venusians? How can you distinguish between a) pluralism and b) dominance of certain models? How do you distinguish between free choice and a socially conditioned choice (in which also advertisements and commercial movies have had their effect)?

quote:

---

Because, if all parents have an equal say in all aspects of how the society is organized, every child will eventually be recognized as an individual (rather than an economic function), cherished, properly fed, appropriately educated and encouraged to express whatever is special about them.

---

Yous said that society is an independent actor that poses requirements and puts pressure on its members - e.g. to create economic value to the society. How would that change as a consequence of

1. Excellent laws against discrimination

2. Improved upbringing of children by parents and teachers

3. Equal say of parents on political issues?

quote:

---

Ok, we are both hoping for the plurality of role models. Within the pluralist contex, is also the Mars & Venus model one of the several acceptable role models?

---

quote:

---

How would you call a society, in which there are 6 male models, 6 female models - and in which 60% of people chooce to be either martians or venusians?

---

quote:

---

How can you distinguish between a) pluralism and b) dominance of certain models?

---

quote:

---

How do you distinguish between free choice and a socially conditioned choice (in which also advertisements and commercial movies have had their effect)?

---

quote:

---

Yous said that society is an independent actor that poses requirements and puts pressure on its members - e.g. to create economic value to the society. How would that change as a consequence of

1. Excellent laws against discrimination

2. Improved upbringing of children by parents and teachers

3. Equal say of parents on political issues?

Are these really sufficient conditions for the big change you are describing and hoping for?

---

[ 28 April 2005: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

Theory was beautiful and very convincing. Total gender equality. Girls were just like us boys, except with breasts. Seriously, the absolute worst label that could be stuck on anyone was: discrimination. Any kind of discrimination was evil!!!

Of course it all came from anti-American and pro-Soviet propaganda: Uncle Tom and racial discrimination; Anna Frank and anti-semitism. Our teachers did not make a difference between discrimination and discrimination. All form of it was BAD!!!

This value system got internalized (at least in me and my cohort) and I was shocked by comments from my first manager in the first job I ever had: suggesting that female engineers were, by nature, inferior. I was actually outraged by this incredibly stupid and vicious comment.

When I lived in Finland, in 1972, I was much impressed by many of the women I had the chance to meet. My impression of many Finn males I met was of often weak, irresponsible, whimsical and impulsive nature. Many families I observed were ‘guided’ by the practical, strong and intelligent females. I have seen many puliukkos, but very few puliakkas (not sure of the spelling).

I married a woman who didn’t care about cosmetics, clothes and appearances, but one who was highly intelligent, incisive, sensitive, caring (and had a great ass).

I was not attracted to her as an unusual aberration: I represented the value system of most of my male compatriots, as we were: product of a social engineering experiment performed in post-war Hungary. Most of my high-school and University colleagues were attracted to, and married, similar kinds of women.

This social engineering experiment WAS successful in creating gender roles and value systems during its tenure. A value system I most miserably miss today, since the one I grew up with still seems natural and sensible, while the current system of artificially manufactured allures seems stupid, pointless and contemptible.

I have had female managers in Canada over the last three decades: my feelings about them was always pity and contempt: they tried so hard to imitate their male counterparts – without much success. They were aggressive, shrill, hysterical, abusive and most of all: unattractive.

Young female managers in Hungary (of my generation), on the other hand, were anything like that. They acted from the assumption of natural equality and they came through exactly that way. Cultural assumptions were on their side and they just acted naturally, normally and we male ‘subordinate’ engineers accepted that without any qualms.

I am sure that it was only true for my generation: raised and educated under the new system and there was a lot of resentment with older folks (my father among them), but the value of social engineering based on desirable sex roles of equal opportunity was clearly demonstrated in my own experience.

My bottom line?

Treat people based on their own merit, giving them the same freedom of choice for sexual role and expectation and you will end up with a world containing a healthy mixture of the whole range of options: from pretty dumb blonds (male and female) to highly intelligent super achievers (male and female) – they will all find someone who finds them attractive.

[ 29 April 2005: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

you write so moderately and wisely that I have to agree with you. I have only a few questions:

1) Should the governmental "equality officials" work against some kinds of role models - for example, the traditional housewife role model?

2) How do you know that martians are considered superior to the venusians? I have actually read a couple of Gray's books and have not spotted this kind of ideology.

3) Can we evaluate a female role model separately from evaluating the "counterpart" role model matching the specific female role model?

4) How do you personally evaluate whether a certain set of role models is fair and just in a relationship (that you are observing from an aquaintance point of view)?

I am just pondering about the chance of the bipolar gender roles being fair in a given relationship, in a given (primitive) society: For example, men committing all the hardest and most dangerous works (in a bit more primitive society) and women doing all the time consuming but less risky and less unpleasant chores.

I believe that a bipolar gender system may be fair in certain conditions - at least if the legislation guarantees equality to a sufficient degree.

Actually, I see the risk of trouble and potential inequality in some individual couples, when people break the traditional role models:

1. Some men want to keep their traditional priviliges and at the same time, free themselves from all traditional male chores and chivalrious codes.

2. Some women want to keep their traditional priviliges (being treated as princesses by the men, etc.) and free themselves from all traditional female chores and virtuous codes.

When traditional gender roles are broken, people do not know any longer what is expected from them - and what is fair. The idea of "what is fair" needs to be settled again and again in all modern relationships. This causes either

1) a lot of frustration and power struggles

2) either party withdrawing from the power struggle and becoming oppressed or

3) in some cases an equal relationship

Unfortunately many couples end up in the type 1 relationship. This tendency is partly caused by the fact of the fierce "gender war" that feminists and MRA's are fighting in the western countries.

Of course I know that "in a lovingful relationship there are no quests for power". However, very few marriages are so lovingful that the power struggles do not creep into the daily life at all.

PS. I hope I did not make myself sound too much like the pope and "doctor" Grey.

[ 30 April 2005: Message edited by: SosiologiR ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SosiologiR:

1) Should the governmental "equality officials" work against some kinds of role models - for example, the traditional housewife role model?

---

quote:

---

2) How do you know that martians are considered superior to the venusians? I have actually read a couple of Gray's books and have not spotted this kind of ideology.

---

quote:

---

3) Can we evaluate a female role model separately from evaluating the "counterpart" role model matching the specific female role model?

---

quote:

---

4) How do you personally evaluate whether a certain set of role models is fair and just in a relationship (that you are observing from an aquaintance point of view)?

---

quote:

---

I am just pondering about the chance of the bipolar gender roles being fair in a given relationship, in a given (primitive) society: For example, men committing all the hardest and most dangerous works (in a bit more primitive society) and women doing all the time consuming but less risky and less unpleasant chores.

I believe that a bipolar gender system may be fair in certain conditions - at least if the legislation guarantees equality to a sufficient degree.

---

quote:

---

Actually, I see the risk of trouble and potential inequality in some individual couples, when people break the traditional role models:

---

quote:

---

When traditional gender roles are broken, people do not know any longer what is expected from them - and what is fair. The idea of "what is fair" needs to be settled again and again in all modern relationships. This causes either

1) a lot of frustration and power struggles

2) either party withdrawing from the power struggle and becoming oppressed or

3) in some cases an equal relationship

Unfortunately many couples end up in the type 1 relationship. This tendency is partly caused by the fact of the fierce "gender war" that feminists and MRA's are fighting in the western countries.

---

quote:

---

Of course I know that "in a lovingful relationship there are no quests for power". However, very few marriages are so lovingful that the power struggles do not creep into the daily life at all.

---

quote:

---

PS. I hope I did not make myself sound too much like the pope and "doctor" Grey.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Francis Mont:
This value system got internalized (at least in me and my cohort) and I was shocked by comments from my first manager in the first job I ever had.

---

I see your point - living up according to the theory of equality is inspiring. However, I do not see the socialist system, overall, very successful in producing equality between sexes.

In most socialist countries, I believe, there was a standard for "men and women being equal" meaning that 95% of women had a career outside their home. Yet, 95% of the household chores and taking care of children were the responsibility of the women. The domestic violence against women was very common - maybe as a consequence of the high consumption of Vodka. There were also strong double standards for men and women, concerning sexual freedom.

Please, tell me

1) Was Hungary a positive exception in the socialist world?

2) If so, for what reason?

(BTW, I have seen "The unbearable lightness of being" and liked it very much. It showed one interesting female role model, the woman who was played by Lena Olin).

quote:

---

When I lived in Finland, in 1972, I was much impressed by many of the women I had the chance to meet. My impression of many Finn males I met was of often weak, irresponsible, whimsical and impulsive nature. Many families I observed were ‘guided’ by the practical, strong and intelligent females. I have seen many puliukkos, but very few puliakkas (not sure of the spelling).

---

I believe there might be some truth behind your stereotypisation. However, things have changed quite a bit. For some reason the biggest changes in Finnish "male whimsiness" have happened after Finland won the world championship in ice hockey year 1995 and joined the European Union. We are no longer the barbarian and provincial tribe of whimsy puliukkos

quote:

---

I married a woman who didn’t care about cosmetics, clothes and appearances, but one who was highly intelligent, incisive, sensitive, caring (and had a great ass).

---

You seem to be confirming my hypothesis of "sufficient femininity" and "sufficient masculinity" .... The great ass gave her freedom to behave in an androgynous fashion (no risk of having been consideret unfeminine).

quote:

---

Most of my high-school and University colleagues were attracted to, and married, similar kinds of women.

---

Ones with great asses, you mean? (Sorry, I could not resist picking up this).

I am curious about the attraction mechanisms between the sexes. In Finland we have a situation, in which very many women prefer comfortability and practicality of clothes and hair style over femininity and attractivity. That works fine in a "closed economy" (closed mating market). However, the borders are open in Finland too. I hear a lot of Finnish men telling that they would prefer a feminine looking Italian, French or Russian woman to the Finnish women.

quote:

---

I have had female managers in Canada over the last three decades: my feelings about them was always pity and contempt: they tried so hard to imitate their male counterparts – without much success. They were aggressive, shrill, hysterical, abusive and most of all: unattractive.

Young female managers in Hungary (of my generation), on the other hand, were anything like that. They acted from the assumption of natural equality and they came through exactly that way. Cultural assumptions were on their side and they just acted naturally, normally and we male ‘subordinate’ engineers accepted that without any qualms.

---

In Hungary the work towards equality was gender neutral. In Canada and US the fight for equality is not gender neutral: It is a war between the sexes.

I believe this kind of constant gender war creates the "aggressive, shrill, hysterical, abusive and most of all: unattractive" female managers you were talking about.

quote:

---

Treat people based on their own merit, giving them the same freedom of choice for sexual role and expectation and you will end up with a world containing a healthy mixture of the whole range of options: from pretty dumb blonds (male and female) to highly intelligent super achievers (male and female) – they will all find someone who finds them attractive.

---

I agree mostly. However, there will always be imparity of expectations on the mating market: Everybody will find someone who finds them attractive - but not necessarily anyone who would meet their "standards". Therefore, people either need to reduce their standards or to use artificial means to make themselves more attractive.

Should I accept a smoker (as my mate) or should I make myself visually more attractive to attract someone who does not smoke? This kind of subtle estimations are constantly made by young singles. These selection mechanisms are a very strong factor shaping the role models.

For example, if all single men started to present a strong dislike towards smoking women, that would a me much more effective way for reducing female smoking than any governmental anti-cigarette campaign. (And the same applies to male smoking).

[ 30 April 2005: Message edited by: SosiologiR ]

quote:

---

I admit to personal prejudice, having read only the first book - and i didn't finish that one before i threw it against the wall. As a Martian, you wouldn't easily spot the bias - which is not expressed as an ideology, but rather implied in a set of smug little assumptions.

---

The first book was so bad that I could not complete reading it either. It was a collection of biblical metaphoras, targeted to a dumb audience. "Mars and Venus in bed" was much more interesting and so was "Mars and Venus eternally together".

I have tried to evaluate whether the role models in Gray's books are fair - whether they demanded as much from both sexes. I believe the models are relatively fair although 99% of feminists would probably fall into rage by reading what Grey expects from women. (A Venusian is, possibly, unable to spot how much is expected from men in these books?).

quote:

---

quote:3) Can we evaluate a female role model separately from evaluating the "counterpart" role model matching the specific female role model?

I'm not sure. Skeptical about evaluation in any form. We can describe, but even description ought to happen in some kind of context. So, hesitantly and reluctantly, i suppose it's no.

---

So, I guess you understand the way I compare the male role model and female role model in Gray's books to see whether they together construct a fair model for (some) relationships.

quote:

---

Which partner gets their own way more often? How is money-management decided? Who does more of the unpleasant work? Which one falls quiet first in a group discussion (on any subject) where they argue opposite sides? ... Clues like that - dozens of them, over time - give you8 an idea of how well-balanced a couple is.

---

Your list of criteria seems to suggest the possibility of couples in which the man is in a weaker and unequal status compared to the woman. I guess you do not consider that very rare either(?)

quote:

---

Point taken.

---

You are a challenging discussion partner. I cannot get into an argument no matter how hard I trie

quote:

---

Relations with other living creatures involve politics. Conflict, diplomacy, subterfuge, compromise - the works.

---

The power struggles within couples appear in different degrees of severity. In the mild form it is just negotiation and compromise. In the severe form it is hostile "list keeping" of who has done more chores and who is a better parent for the children. The constant "need to prove that one is doing more than the other" undermines the love and makes all romantic feelings to disappear.

[ 30 April 2005: Message edited by: SosiologiR ]

What I was trying to illustrate was the fact that kids raised with healthy positive values can internalize them for life. Even if the practice around them does not match the theory, the theory still can be so beautiful and convincing, that the kid says: “this is what I want to believe in!” Or some practice seem so horrible that the kid says: "I will never do this thing myself"

It is very important to expose young people to choices, both good and bad. I believe that without overwhelming pressure to the contrary (given free choice) many if not all young people will choose positive, rather than negative values.

You do not need to be defensive about my comment regarding my experience in Finland. I did not mean it in a derogatory way: I liked most people I met in Finland, both male and female. I did not say anything that suggested barbarians – I merely tried to bring up another example from my own observations of possible gender roles.

I corresponded with my wife for six months before I met her. By that time I was in love with her mind. The great ass was a bonus and I would have married her without any additional inducement (welcome as it was). She never needed an excuse to show her intelligence, even though it scared off many men until I showed up.

I guess most people choose what they want to attract others with. I assume that most people pick something they feel strongest in: looks, brains, money, power, sensitivity, talent, competence,…at least I know I did. Interestingly, I always found it annoying if some people were attracted to me for some of my qualities I did not much care about.

And here is the biggest danger in thinking in terms of role models. Living up to role models implies pretense (role playing) and that will sooner or later backfire. Once a woman told me in a ‘considering’ tone: “I could be everything you are looking for” – I was smart enough to reply: “do both of us a favour and be what you are”.

This is why I believe in an educational/social-engineering context the best policy is training for equality in opportunity. In primitive times when large muscle-masses were required for survival, I could see some need for ‘division of roles’, but in our high-tech industrial societies there is no role that either sex could not fulfill.

This does not mean that statistically speaking males and females do not exhibit preferences toward a different mixture of mental/physical/emotional self-expression, but I am convinced that any ‘a priori’ assignment of roles and, most important, expectation (often manifesting in all kinds of pressure) is very harmful to the psychological development, self-fulfillment and social competence of both sexes.

Due to Aldous Huxley’s influence in my late teens I decided to be always true to myself and expect the same from those I called friends. This has worked extremely well for me all my life, in both marriage and other relationships. One of my favourite books is Eric Knight’s “This above all”. Shakespeare knew his stuff, we have to admit.

[ 01 May 2005: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

quote:

---

(A Venusian is, possibly, unable to spot how much is expected from men in these books?).

---

quote:

---

Your list of criteria seems to suggest the possibility of couples in which the man is in a weaker and unequal status compared to the woman. I guess you do not consider that very rare either

---

quote:

---

You are a challenging discussion partner. I cannot get into an argument no matter how hard I trie

---

quote:

---

The power struggles within couples appear in different degrees of severity. In the mild form it is just negotiation and compromise. In the severe form it is hostile "list keeping" of who has done more chores and who is a better parent for the children. The constant "need to prove that one is doing more than the other" undermines the love and makes all romantic feelings to disappear.

---

A fresh thought.
Something we haven't really addressed is the hormonal factor. How the expectations and requirements of the 'mating market' change with age.
Very young women (maybe i can get away with the word 'girls') are often attracted to a more primitive masculine type, even though the boy may have few desirable mental and emotional traits. They enter bad marriages; allow their own human potential to go unfulfilled; sometimes put up with physical abuse.
Very young men are often attracted to a simplistic physical model of feminine attractiveness, even though the girl may not have the emotional and mental trait that complement their own. They enter bad marriages, take on an artificial (and too demanding) role as dominant male; put aside their personal ambitions and dreams; become frustrated and resentful.
If they both survive this phase, they may go on to find partners better suited to their particular needs.

I'm wondering how much of your survey is the result of hormonal control and how much is the product of mature thought. The age of respondents may be a powerful factor.

PS - I know this wasn't addressed to me, but it's tempting.

quote:

---

I hear a lot of Finnish men telling that they would prefer a feminine looking Italian, French or Russian woman to the Finnish women.

---

[ 01 May 2005: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Francis Mont:
This is why I believe in an educational/social-engineering context the best policy is training for equality in opportunity.

---

I agree with you that this kind of engineering would be most effective. However, the engineering may also be used for bad causes: Teaching kids that the bipolar gender system MUST be broken and that the ones who live according to it are regressive bastards who should be sent to a re-engineering camp by the ideological police.

quote:

---

I am convinced that any ‘a priori’ assignment of roles and, most important, expectation (often manifesting in all kinds of pressure) is very harmful to the psychological development, self-fulfillment and social competence of both sexes.

---

I agree that pressure is bad. I am thinking of a case in which an educated young couple is trying to decide what kind of roles they want to play in their marriages - e.g. in the form of division of chores: They read several books that present some alternative models. They use the books as "cooking books" to try out some of the suggested models. No external pressure - just a couple trying to make each other happy.

I am sure, you will now tell that this kind of role playing is bad. However, I know several people who are themselves in a highest degree when they are playing roles.

One relative of mine felt very fake to me when I was 13-19 years old. Now I understand that she is "a naturally born fake" and as such, the most of herself that she could possibly be.

If you object putting pressure on people, then you should object putting pressure on people in order to get them "less fake" and to get rid of their roles.

[ 03 May 2005: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

quote:

---

My biggest problem with the first book was his failure to show how much alike men and women are; in how many situations we feel the same way, even if we express it differently. It's so much easier to understand the other's annoyance, or hurt, or impatience if you realize that it's exactly like your own.

---

I agree to this in many cases. For example, Grey felt a bit too tough against men when he demanded that men should

- learn to listen to the negative feedback, anger and emotionally loaded critique from their wife without getting angry and hurt (as men are supposed to be calm, rational and supportive)

- learn not to tell negative feedback to their wives in an emoationally loaded and angry fashion (as women can not take criticism)

I feel that was patriarchal thinking in a form that harms men and prevents equalism. However, if the wife is willing to meet some similar requirements of being a "feminine woman" then these tough reguirements could be seen somewhat justified or equal, when paired together (?)

quote:

---

Very young men are often attracted to a simplistic physical model of feminine attractiveness, even though the girl may not have the emotional and mental trait that complement their own. They enter bad marriages, take on an artificial (and too demanding) role as dominant male; put aside their personal ambitions and dreams; become frustrated and resentful.

---

Well, men seem to be centered around feminine looks when they are 16-25 years old... and again, when they get their chrisis of the middle age. That leaves only some 15-20 years of maturity in between

quote:

---

Might this not be a 'grass-is-always-greener' phenomenon? You see a coat in a shop window and want it - especially if you can't afford it.

---

Your analogy is not completely suitable as it suggests that the foreign women would be harder to get than the Finnish ones. That is not precisely true as the world is full of feminine women who live in the developing and ex-socialist countries, who would also be somewhat tempted to move to our country to raise their standard of living.

Therefore, the foreign women (e.g. the feminine looking and behaving Russians) are not something that is harder to get than the somewhat unfeminine and picky Finnish women.

That is why so many men "dream" of a Thai girl or a Russian wife. They want a feminine woman and they believe that money may marry beauty. ("Dream" is in parentheses as most men would still prefer an intelligent and feminine Finnish woman).

The code of dressing is also changing among younger women. While many 40-50 year old women here wear low heel shoes and very comfortable and unsexy clothes, the younger ones try to show their femininity - even if they aim at becoming business women or managers of a kind.

More and more female managers look like the female heroines of the Hollywood court room soap operas (business women with expensive suit, relatively short skirt, high heels and long hair).

We are going away from the "Soviet Finland" genderless style towards the a role model that combines the intelligence, power and career with being feminine and even somewhat sexy. This is a role model that pleases many younger women - but very few feminists as they consider the model as having too many pieces from the "old and bad" role models.

[ 02 May 2005: Message edited by: SosiologiR ]

quote:

---

the a role model that combines the intelligence, power and career with being feminine and even somewhat sexy. This is a role model that pleases many younger women - but very few feminists as they consider the model as having too many pieces from the "old and bad" role models.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:
...the self-defined feminists on this forum how they dress and present themselves, most would tell you that they are anything but 'genderless'. Makeup, pretty hair and sexy clothes are very much a part of their personae.

---

Ok. They are role models for women. They send a message: "Be intelligent, equal... and yet feminine by your looks".

However, some fundamentalist feminists are against make-up, bras, fashionable clothes, dieting, etc.

Can you tell me, which is the "dominant role model" that feminists are communicating to young girls?

quote:

---

Can you tell me, which is the "dominant role model" that feminists are communicating to young girls?

---

Easy: Depends on the feminist.

[ 03 May 2005: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

However, some fundamentalist feminists are against make-up, bras, fashionable clothes, dieting, etc.

---

quote:

---

Ok. They are role models for women. They send a message: "Be intelligent, equal... and yet feminine by your looks".

However, some fundamentalist feminists are against make-up, bras, fashionable clothes, dieting, etc.

Can you tell me, which is the "dominant role model" that feminists are communicating to young girls?

---

As a man, I can say that IMHO, a lack of make-up, bras, fashionable clothes, deiting, etc. can make a very atractive, and feminine, woman.

quote:

---

I just want to say..it would be cool if guys can wear make up!

---

quote:

---

Therefore, the foreign women (e.g. the feminine looking and behaving Russians) are not something that is harder to get than the somewhat unfeminine and picky Finnish women.

---

quote:

---

....they believe that money may marry beauty.

---

quote:

---

More and more female managers look like the female heroines of the Hollywood court room soap operas (business women with expensive suit, relatively short skirt, high heels and long hair).

---

(Psst! I think people are looking at us.)

[ 03 May 2005: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
Easy: Depends on the feminist.

---

That is a bit like escaping the question. If I ask you "What is the average height of men in Canada", I am not expecting an answer "Depends on the man".

I see that this is a common way of fighting against stereotypes. But come on, we have such thing as "descriptive statistics" and the "statistical grouping algorithms". They are not stereotypes although they describe the population on an aggregate level.

"If you forbid me to define groups, you deny my personality." (Adopted from somebody).

[ 03 May 2005: Message edited by: SosiologiR ]

The media - including feminist magazines - picks up some men and women and put them to the status of a role model. There is no need to fear the idea of thinking of someone as a good role model. (It is very nihilist if everybody is pressured not to resemble anybody else in any manner).

The female role models may be characterised on the following dimensions:

1. Intelligence - blondishness

2. Friendliness - angryness

3. Success and admiration - loosers and antiheroes

4. Feminine beauty - genderlessness

5. Natural antimaterialism - artificial materialism

Some women like Naomi Klein (Canada) and Anni Sinnemaki (Finland) are intelligent, friendly looking, successful, admired, femininely beautiful and naturalistically antimaterialist by their image. That is a stereotype that I consider a very positive role model.

Then there is the stereotype of the "militant feminists" who are ingelligent, angry, not so succesfull (by the standards of the majority), somewhat genderless by looks and "idealistic materialists" (as they take the marxist materialism as their starting point).

A third role model for girls is the intelligent, friendly, successfull, admired, femininely beautiful group of materialist business women, such as Tyra Banks (US) or Lenita Airisto (Finland).

As a parent of a daughter, I am trying to introduce role models like Naomi Klein, Anni Sinnemaki, Tyra Banks and Lenita Airisto to my daughter - instead of the more angry "suffragette" kind of role models.

(Well, I value what the suffragettes have achieved but do not want my daughter to end her life jumping in front of a car driven by a mean representative of the patriarchat).

PS. The female beauty may be the result of genetically good looks, artificially boosted looks or by the positive attitudes and friendliness that shine through in each gesture and face.

[ 04 May 2005: Message edited by: SosiologiR ]

quote:

---

Bad and possibly insulting analogy, though i was only thinking of the object of desire being far away, and maybe turning out not so desirable close-up.

---

No problem. I was just pondering and then wanted to present a more detailed view to the phenomenon.

quote:

---

But, since you picked on it, i can't help noticing that you've changed the nationality of the foreign women.

---

Yes, partially. I recall switching "French, Italian and Russian" to "Russian".

quote:

---

Now we're in a different 'mating market'. It's not about men showing their softer side, as long as they have enough traditionally masculine characteristics, in order to attract desirable mates; now it's about men offering a higher standard of living to the type of woman they desire.

---

I believe we are still talking about the common male need to find a female who makes the man feel masculine - when compared to the woman. I believe the difference raises attraction - at least when the man is an "alpha male". The ones who are not alpha males do not dare to search for very feminine and sexy women as they might fear that their own masculinity does not mach up with the woman's femininity (unless the man is much richer than the woman which makes him feel more confident).

Hmm. Is there any sense in that ?

quote:

---

1. How much did - and still do - those 'genderless' older women and their ideology contribute to the present prosperity? How necessary are those older women to the maintenance of prosperity? (Can you afford to piss them off?)

---

I believe that all people should be valued no matter how feminine or masculine they look. However, when a single person is searching for a mate, they have the right to value looks over personality - if they wish. They have the right to do correct choices - and mistakes.

quote:

---

2. How does this effect the future of the society? Would an influx of sexy young foreign brides change the economy? What would happen to the choice of role-models available to the next generation?

---

I can not predict the effect of the importation of young brides. However, I see that the importation of partners is a relatively equal phenomenon in Finland: A few percent of the Finnish women go after Mediterranean, French or black men - and about the same amount of men seek for a Thai or Russian woman. In the next generations that will probably raise cultural and racial plurality and induce liberal ways of looking at ethical minorities.

quote:

---

What if Hollywood gets tired of this stereotype? Do we follow the next Hollywood fashion, or go Dallas, or Tokyo, or Rio de Janeiro?

---

I do not know. Yet, it is relatively sure that the American, English and French fashion AND role models will gradually make their way to Finland too.

quote:

---

Anyway, what are the men wearing? What model are they using as a standard of sexiness? And how well does it work?

---

Men are different in respect to that. Age and marital status have a huge effect: Young single men spend a lot of money to their looks, go to gyms, try to get a tan, etc. Quite a few of them like "new masculinity" which is characterized by piercings, (limited) jewelry and the introduction of more colours to shirts, ties etc. They color their hair as frequently as women.

Married men over 30 years old, however, spend very little on their clothes (unless their wife tells them otherwise), use a cheap haircut, do not wear jewelry and are careful with using feminine colours in shirts and ties.

Also, we will have to take into account the sub-cultures as the
- intelligentsia (more scarves than average men)
- black dressing heavy metal men (medieval jewelry, some black makeup, long hair)
- motor cyclists (long hair and beard)
- hippies

Probably you have all the stereotypes and sub-cultures also in Canada, do you?

quote:

---

(Psst! I think people are looking at us.)

---

quote:

---

I believe we are still talking about the common male need to find a female who makes the man feel masculine - when compared to the woman. I believe the difference raises attraction - at least when the man is an "alpha male". The ones who are not alpha males do not dare to search for very feminine and sexy women as they might fear that their own masculinity does not mach up with the woman's femininity (unless the man is much richer than the woman which makes him feel more confident).

---

my quote:
1. How much did - and still do - those 'genderless' older women and their ideology contribute to the present prosperity?

quote:

---

I believe that all people should be valued no matter how feminine or masculine they look.

---

I believe that most people have simultaneously attraction towards difference (as the opposite sex) and liking of similarities (same interests etc). The differences create irrational attraction and fascination which is mostly sexual and possibly inherent. The more there are differences, the more there are also challenges and difficulties, for example, if the way of communicating and thinking is not shared by the couple.

What is said above applies to the difference of the sexes (and genders) and also to the ethnic differences: In several occasions one maximizes sexual attraction by selecting a partner from a foreign country - and brings a lot of challenges to the relationship as well.

I believe that big visual differences may be the key to sexual attraction (on average) - whereas small mental differences could be the key to a more harmonous and less challenging relationships (on average).

Examples:

1) A marriage between a dark Irish man and a blonde scandinavian woman would contain a high level of visual difference and therefore attraction (on average?) - whereas the similarity of cultures would not create much challenges on the mental / cultural level.

2) A marriage between a masculine looking man and a femine looking woman is likely contain a lot of attraction (based on differences) but the harmony of the relationship also requires a lot of similarity on the mental/cultural level to create harmony and avoid unnecessary challenges.

When people (not just men) are young, they let their hereditaty attraction mechanisms rule: They search for relatively big differences in looks and in social / ethnic backgrounds. When they get older and wiser, they start to appreciate harmony over "beastly attractions" and seek for a higher level similarity, at least on the mental / cultural / ethnic side.

Did I manage to make the model a gender neutral one? So - the young men are not the only ones who are vulnerable, when following their simple attraction mechanisms.

NOTE: The attraction model presented above is based on studies that have been performed in several human cultures and also among other primates such as chimpanzees. It is not a deterministic biological model as it shows how people may "raise above" their biology.

quote:

---

I didn't ask whether you valued them, but whether you need them to keep up the standard of living which attracts the other kind of woman. That's a lot more important.

---

We need the group of 'genderless medium aged women' (assuming that there is such a group), based on their economic importance to society. However, their importance would not be diminished if they used higher heels, make-up and more jewelry. (This is not to say that they should use them).

Another example, I have heard some women say that

quote:

---

Men should do something to their appearance. The unathletic, unmasculine computer nerds, who are pale as olms, are a disgrace to mankind and offer nothing of interest to a self conscious and critical single woman.

---

Does that sound like "noticing the economic value" of the nerds?

(It is not just the men who pose requirements to women - it also acts vice versa).

[ 04 May 2005: Message edited by: SosiologiR ]

quote:

---

I believe that most people have simultaneously attraction towards difference (as the opposite sex) and liking of similarities (same interests etc). The differences create irrational attraction and fascination which is mostly sexual and possibly inherent.

---

quote:

---

The more there are differences, the more there are also challenges and difficulties, for example, if the way of communicating and thinking is not shared by the couple.

---

quote:

---

I believe that big visual differences may be the key to sexual attraction (on average) - whereas small mental differences could be the key to a more harmonous and less challenging relationships (on average).

Examples:

1) A marriage between a dark Irish man and a blonde scandinavian woman would contain a high level of visual difference and therefore attraction (on average?)

---

quote:

---

- whereas the similarity of cultures would not create much challenges on the mental / cultural level.

---

quote:

---

2) A marriage between a masculine looking man and a femine looking woman is likely contain a lot of attraction (based on differences)

---

quote:

---

When people (not just men) are young, they let their hereditaty attraction mechanisms rule: They search for relatively big differences in looks and in social / ethnic backgrounds.

---

quote:

---

Did I manage to make the model a gender neutral one? So - the young men are not the only ones who are vulnerable, when following their simple attraction mechanisms.

---

quote:

---

We need the group of 'genderless medium aged women' (assuming that there is such a group), based on their economic importance to society. However, their importance would not be diminished if they used higher heels, make-up and more jewelry. (This is not to say that they should use them).

---

quote:

---

Men should do something to their appearance. The unathletic, unmasculine computer nerds, who are pale as olms, are a disgrace to mankind and offer nothing of interest to a self conscious and critical single woman.

---

Factor 1: Differences in looks attract all primates. This is based on the fact that genetic diseases will become too common in small populations. Therefore those populations that get a high percentage of mates outside the population, have an advantage over other populations. This selection process has given us an inherent interest in different looking (on average).

Factor 2: Too big differences scare people. That is due to the selection mechanisms that try to avoid the mating of two members of different species (which would result in unfertile offspring).

Factor 3: People are different. According to psychologists, the level of excitement seeking varies inherently - and also by the way in which kids are brought up. Therefore, there will be people who dare to pick (very) different looking mates and others who dare not. This does not apply only to looks, but also to cultural differences (which may either be seen as exciting or frightening).

People also differ by age: 17-25 year olds are usually more excitement seeking than 30-35 year olds.

Is that a better model now?

[ 05 May 2005: Message edited by: SosiologiR ]

quote:

---

And in a relationship based on something like money and beauty, the dynamics, the expectations, the power-structure are entirely different from a relationship based on mutual romantic love.

---

quote:

---

Their importance wouldn't be diminished - just their ideals, their politics, their vision of a more intelligent, more constructive future, and their self-respect. Besides, why would they want to change? Especially into high heels. Have you ever actually worn high heels? Try it for a day.

---

Seems that I irritated you quite a bit. I did not intend to say that the 'genderless middle aged women' should start wearing make-up and high heels.

It is their own choice to wear what they wear. Sometimes they wish to take into account their husband's opinions, sometimes not. The same applies to husbend: Some go to the gym and quit smoking if their wives tell them to - others do not. Some let their wives tell what kind of hair to have and what clothes to wear.

For most married men their looks are not a heavy ideological statement, which would be so important to them that they would not change their looks if their wife asked for a change. Many women, though, consider not using make-up, high heels etc. an ideological statement. Therefore they would not change their looks even if their husband hinted he wanted some kind of a change. (Are you one of the ideological statement makers?)

[ 05 May 2005: Message edited by: SosiologiR ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SosiologiR:

You seem to be saying that female beauty may not be the cause of (true) romantic love? Are you also saying that male influence, success and power (almost equal to money) may not be the cause of (true) romantic love? I believe that some people ARE at such a level that beauty or money may cause a lot of attraction - and eventually romantic love.

---

quote:

---

Seems that I irritated you quite a bit. I did not intend to say that the 'genderless middle aged women' should start wearing make-up and high heels.

---

What i was irritated about:
You brought in the standard of living as a factor in mating. When i addressed that; considered various aspects of it, and possible repercussions, you shifted focus.
You brought up the older feminists who are ideologically opposed to a bipolar gender system; whenever i refer to them, you shift focus again.

quote:

---

Chances are that those women, and also women like me, past mating and reproducing age, have no substantial influence over the next generation. We are neither participants nor role-models.

---

I believe that we defined role models in such a fashion that there may be dozens of different types of role models - including the role model (or stereotype) of 'strong, intelligent and yet slightly genderless middle aged woman'.

The young women take their pick, based on these models.

--

I appreciate the consent that we gained in this thread on the following items:

1) A gender system build around half a dozen of male role models and a half a dozen of female role models is ok. (So, we do not need to get rid of role models - instead, we need more of them to allow for a real choice for young men/women).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zoot:
They're not. They may cause wild flings, they may factor into initial attraction, but no, they don't "cause" love. Not love by any definition I'd care to give it, anyway.

---

Zoot, I did not say that money or beauty cause love. I tried to say that they may be the starting points of attraction to some people... and the attraction may gradually evolve into love.

NOTE: Beauty and money are not just "beauty" and "money". People interpret them as indicators of some higher things that they value. For example

- Facial beauty may be interpreted as indicator of honesty, reliability, friendliness, etc. (as shown by studies in which people reasoned the personality of a person just based on their looks)

- Bodily beauty may be interpreted as indicator of will power (remaining in good shape) and health which are both valued by most people.

- Money may be considered an indicator of influence, power, will power, ability to do hard work, success, popularity, etc. if combined with some other hints that may be received from the personality and social status.

[ 05 May 2005: Message edited by: SosiologiR ]

quote:

---

I believe that we defined role models in such a fashion that there may be dozens of different types of role models - including the role model (or stereotype) of 'strong, intelligent and yet slightly genderless middle aged woman'.

---

- use no make-up
- wear low heels
- do not use skirts
- often wear loose and comfortable clothes that hide their feminine shapes
- spend less money on clothes, cosmetics and haircuts than the average
- do not flirt with the members of the opposite sex
- do not act in any "blondish" manner, e.g. acting helpless or ignorant in order to get help from men

If we use terms such as "genderless" or "unfeminine" we implicitely approve the traditional bipolar gender system - and that is obviously something you do not wish to do. I understand you completely.

My problem is, that I have the terms "masculine" and "feminine" in my vocabulary. That means that I also sometimes think in terms of "unfeminine" and "unmasculine". That gets me in trouble with feminists very often.

quote:

---

My problem is, that I have the terms "masculine" and "feminine" in my vocabulary. That means that I also sometimes think in terms of "unfeminine" and "unmasculine". That gets me in trouble with feminists very often.

---

No word ever needs to be banned.
If you ban something, it becomes 'dirty'; forbidden and exciting; it appeals to the rebel - even if only the facile pseudo-rebel. It begins a new underground or subcultural or counter-cultural life. Very few words deserve that.
Once perception and understanding expand; once assumptions, expectations and stereotypes become constrictive or outdated, words naturally change meaning, or fall into disuse.

quote:

---

- use no make-up

---

quote:

---

- wear low heels

---

quote:

---

- do not use skirts

---

quote:

---

- often wear loose and comfortable clothes that hide their feminine shapes

---

quote:

---

- spend less money on clothes, cosmetics and haircuts than the average

---

quote:

---

- do not flirt with the members of the opposite sex

---

quote:

---

- do not act in any "blondish" manner, e.g. acting helpless or ignorant in order to get help from men

---

I'll tell you one thing for free: Utopia is a lot more interesting than pink and blue.

[ 07 May 2005: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

When describing the stereotype of "genderless women" I did not speak of how things should be or should not be. I was just scetching out the characteristics that describe certain group of women.

(I was not telling that such women are good or bad or should look different or not look different).

Also, please note that in the theory of androgynism the term "genderless" refers to people who exhibit very few masculine and feminine characteristics and behavioral patterns.

Thet term "androgynous" is a bit conservative as it spreads the dimensions of masculinity and femininity based on the traditional idea of masculinity and femininity. As a result, some people could end up typified as "genderless" even if they do not agree with the definition of the dimensions (masculinity and femininity).

Note also, that genderless is the opposite of a andgrogynous (= person having both masculine and feminine characteristics).

Our western culture, however, has created the most efficient ways of manipulating the attractions:

1) Lipstick creates illusion of fertility and sexual arousal (even if worn by an older woman who is not aroused at all).

2) High heels magnify the curve of the rear end (which acts as a visual stimulus to males).

3) Mascara and eye make-up give the impression of bigger eyes (big female eyes are considered sexy in all cultures as they give the impression of youth and delicasy).

4) Enlarged (silicon) breasts give an augmented impression of femininity by showing how clearly different from men the woman is, and by hinting that she is still of a fertile age (as the breasts are of "young shape").

etc. etc.

I believe there are certain attraction mechanisms that are inherent in males, as they work in the same way in all known cultures. Our culture has learned to fake the attractions more efficiently than any other culture.

If I had been brought up on a farm in the 18th century, near a small village, I would have probably considered any woman with some kind of breasts and a waist thinner than the pelvis, a very sexy one. However, I live in the 21th century urban environment. In my world there is a lot of inflation around femininity and what is considered sexy.

It's like pornography: In some cultures the glimpse of a womans ankle would be considered as very arousing. In our culture one might need the sight of a topless woman tanning herself on the beach, with a belly piercing. That is inflation.

quote:

---

However, once we live in an inflated world, it is very difficult for the women, who do not want to participate to the attraction faking process, to claim being feminine. You may try, but it will be difficult especially if one is not so young and thin any longer.

---

Whenever someone posts something reasonable they are booted. See perfect example here:
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=000615

I can easily see your point and even agree with it in many ways. Below are some things that came to my mind during the last week:

The american culture is really centered around looks and the pressure to look masculine/feminine is very high. When I was an exchange student in USA I was "horrified" about the following things - along with other exchange students from all over the world:

- people kept asking "are you having a bad hair day today" if someone had not washed his/her hair in the morning

- people reasoned that if someone does not have 100% strait teeth his/her parents must be poor (as welthier parents would surely have straightened the teeth with the help of a dentist)

It is easy to view these features of US culture all the time. Some features cause laughter in Finland (e.g. putting jaw implants to men to make them look more masculine) but others are gradually being adopted here too. So, it is easy for me to agree with you with the criticism of the overly looks centered culture and the heavy pressures that are put to individuals who do not follow the standards.

Also personally, I do not like too much the make-up standards and dressing standards of US. For example, I considered the women of the Survivors more beautiful when they were on their islands than afterwards, with an exaggerated make-up, artificial looking hair, high heels and a bimboish gown.

(I have followed several reality tv programs and I am trying to tell myself that it is only for scientific reasons, being an empirical observer )

However, I wish that you could also see the issue from an other angle - trying to put yourself in the boots of a man from Finland.

Here the pressure to look feminine/masculine is a lot weaker than in US. For example women go to sauna very frequently and after that they seldom put make-up on if they are just along with their family or friends. There are a lot of women who wear comfortable clothes that would be considered awfully genderless by most New Yorkers.

My point is though, that maybe the "genderless" looking women are not fully being themselves. For example, very many women look sexy and feminine when they are singles - and feel themselves highly feminine. When they get married, get a career, have children, they cease to see themselves as lovers and reduce themselves to a mother, working womand and a "friend of their husband". They no longer feel feminine and often loose their internal sensuality and sometimes even their interst in sex.

In my view, Nonesuch, is correct when she links attractiveness and attraction with socialization. Here in North America, we are nothing but target markets. This has been shown repeatedly as we are reshaped and molded through 'fashion'. Also, our fixation on youth and being clean, beyond soap and water. Consider that what we consider downright fat, 100 years ago was considered buxom and very attractive.

In societies relatively untouched by commercialism, and living close to their land, fat women are considered more desirable. Their weight, not only is an indicator of health, but also of wealth. All these things are conditioned either by deliberate design, or by natural environment. African-American men generally, have appreciated abundant women, although, this is changing as they are acheiving higher numbers of middle and upper class and are being targeted by marketing.

Your argument, in my view, is voided for the same reason that the 'biological imperative' argument for male infidelity is, as well.

The most important feature of both primate and human is their attachment system. Complex attachment patterns account for almost everything within a relationship. One might argue that men who are fixated on biology based attraction, have an attachment problem. Perhaps problem is too strong of a word. But, attachment wounding to various degrees.

One example that would support attachment versus biological imperative, would be the many actors and 'rock stars' who have access to many beautiful women, but stay married and apparently remain in love with their wives as their wives enter into old age.

How can you not consider Capitalism, Socialism, and our new movement Neo-Conservative (Fascism) as a social scientist? It seems to me they can not be divorced from your topic.

Words like shrill and hysterical are derogatory words used to describe women. Especially the word shrill.

Women are experiencing a horrendous backlash all over the world right now. I'm sure FInland is no exception. I have known many Finns and while their society is so progressive in many ways, it remains a very sexist society.

I would say that I am definitely a Feminist. How could any thinking woman not be? However, I resist specific definition. I lean towards Socialistic Feminism. Probably would have been a reformer, if I were brave enough and able to be, in the last century. I accept there are gender differences - anyone who has been around 2 year olds can attest to that. Although, the idea that one is better than the other needs to be eliminated, rather than the differences. So, I'm also one who believes men and women are different. But, equal. With the rise of Neo-Conservatism, I am very angry with the patriarchy right now. And, so I slide into women are superior. However, I don't really believe that to be true because nature doesn't work that way.

Thank God/Goddess for angry women! They always end up saving the world.

[ 15 May 2005: Message edited by: Blueiris46 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blueiris46:
Right now Scandinavia is experiencing a role change from 'woman as mother' to 'woman as worker', in order to facilitate the eventual elimination of social services.

---

Scandinavia shifted from 'woman as mother" to 'woman as worker" about 3 or 4 decades ago. I see no connection of this with "eventual elimination of social services."

quote:

---

The World is being colonized by an imperialistic invasion of Neo-Conservatism.

---

There might have been an "invasion of Neo-Conservatism" around Margaret Tatcher's time. Not any longer. For example, we have a social democrat as president and the conservatives (who resemble the American Democrats) are at the opposition.

quote:

---

Countries, like Scandinavia, which had traditionally good social programs, even as one might argue, that woman was oppressed through 'woman as mother', via those programs, likely will not recognize their countries, unless this movement is stopped.

---

Scandinavia is not a country. Could you specify this progress as I have not noticed it. Do you mean the financial problems of the Scandinavian states, which have caused need to reduce public spending?

quote:

---

Consider that what we consider downright fat, 100 years ago was considered buxom and very attractive.

---

Fat was considered a symbol of wealth those days. Nowdays, the symbol of wealth is plastic surgery, and looking like 35 years old when you are actually 60.

quote:

---

Your argument, in my view, is voided for the same reason that the 'biological imperative' argument for male infidelity is, as well.

---

What argument do you mean? Do you mean my theory of differences causing attraction?

quote:

---

The most important feature of both primate and human is their attachment system. Complex attachment patterns account for almost everything within a relationship. One might argue that men who are fixated on biology based attraction, have an attachment problem. Perhaps problem is too strong of a word. But, attachment wounding to various degrees.

---

You might be correct on this one. However, what do you belive, is the percentage of these men who are fixated to the bilogy based attraction? Is it 20% or 80%? If it is 80% it is a significant phenomenon that should not be ignored.

quote:

---

One example that would support attachment versus biological imperative, would be the many actors and 'rock stars' who have access to many beautiful women, but stay married and apparently remain in love with their wives as their wives enter into old age.

---

Well, that is not a good enough statistical proof. If you take examples of celebrities, you could think about George Clooney as well. (He seems to have 12 different girlfriends every year and the average age of the girls is around 25-30 years).

quote:

---

How can you not consider Capitalism, Socialism, and our new movement Neo-Conservative (Fascism) as a social scientist? It seems to me they can not be divorced from your topic.

---

I think we already dealt with socialism in this thread. The connection of Neo-Conservative ideologies and the gender system have been pointed out by Nonesuch, although this kind of analysis does not very well fit my home country.

quote:

---

Women are experiencing a horrendous backlash all over the world right now.

---

There are two interpretations for the backlash:

1. Male chauvinists are noticing they are in danger of being relieved of their elite position.

2. Male right activists are fighting for their human rights as feminists are no longer interested in the equality of the sexes.

I think there could be some truth in both of these interpretations (especially as the feminists in the Babble are not very serious proponents for the equality of the sexes).

quote:

---

I'm sure FInland is no exception.

---

Yes, the men's right activists are becoming more active here too (as they feel that women have reached equality and are advancing towards oppressing men).

quote:

---

I would say that I am definitely a Feminist. How could any thinking woman not be?

---

I know some female men's right activists and also some male feminists. The question should be about ideology - not about a biological determinismi that would make females feminists and men as men's right activists.

quote:

---

I accept there are gender differences - anyone who has been around 2 year olds can attest to that. Although, the idea that one is better than the other needs to be eliminated, rather than the differences. So, I'm also one who believes men and women are different. But, equal.

---

It is impossible to separate socialism and Neo-Conservatism from the topic at hand and have a complex discussion.

No, another wave of Neo-Conservatism is happening and you are in for a shock in Finnland. This may be fine with you, I don't know. Perhpas if you google Finland and Neo-Conservatism, or Neo-liberalism, or Imperialism you might find some information. Thatcher/Regan/Mulroney were only the first wave. With Washington captured, we are all in for it.

Finland's financial problems may be manufactured as ours were. Google Argentina and Neo-Conservatism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blueiris46:
No Scandinavia did not make that shift in social service policy forty years ago. It has only been shifting for the last while.

---

I guess this is a communication problem. I do not know what shift you are talking about. I thought you were talking about women entering the labour force.

quote:

---

It is impossible to separate socialism and Neo-Conservatism from the topic at hand and have a complex discussion.

---

Maybe I am not aiming for an overly complex discussion. Sometimes simple theories and explanations are better than complex ones. However, I am interested in hearing your comments about how the socialism and neo-conservatism effect the sex roles.

quote:

---

No, another wave of Neo-Conservatism is happening and you are in for a shock in Finnland.

---

This is very hard for me to believe as our president is a socialist who was one of the founders of SETA (Organization for sexual equality for homosexuals) and our foreign minister is a socialist who belongs to Attack.

The conservative party (which is more democratic than the US democrats) is in opposition.

So, where on earth do you spot this neo-conservative wave or "conspiracy"? I see no traces of it.

quote:

---

From your responses, I take it you are anti-feminist.

---

That depends on the definition of feminism: If feminism is considered as a social movement for the equality of the sexes, then I am a feminist. If feminism drops equality from its list of priorities, then I am an anti-feminist.

quote:

---

Also, you might be having a problem with tenses and plural vrs singular.

---

I am sure that I do have. I just could not resist making a notice of your text "Countries like Scandinavia". That was stupid of me as I am sure that I will be making far many linguistic mistakes than you.

[ 15 May 2005: Message edited by: SosiologiR ]

I don't have time to participate in these threads, but right now in the world we are going through a growing menace. Keep your eye on those conservatives. Read about privatizaton of social services in other countries and watch what is happening. Scandinavia is less vulnerable in some ways but it is and will be under this attack as well. They start by telling lies about the financial affairs of one's country. Watch your country if you value you services. It is happening in Canada and the US right now. It happened in New Zealand and in Argentina a while ago.

Corporate special interests have hijacked gov't.