Wow! Incredible replies. I've been taking a mental vacation the last few days so I haven't been around to read them until now. I am truly overwhelmed by the depth of your opinions, as I am by everything else in life at this very moment.
Cellist: Thank you!
Satanus: Hmm...
AuldSoul: Thanks for reading. Why are these mindsets needed? Perhaps the focus of my discourse was not clear. When I spoke about this, I was speaking only of personal outlook. That is to say, why view men and women like this in your daily life if you don't have to? It just causes problems to save you the work of finding out who each and every person is only by what you notice. It is just realizing what seems to be real about someone rather than inventing things in your mind. So in this area, I disagree that traditional masculine and feminine issues are needed. Nor am I sure that the system society uses for employing people based on their traits necessarily has to stereotype either - it just has to be made aware that there are really more variables than race, gender, age, etc., variables that are the actual measure of the person rather than the ones assumed by a stereotype. When you mention the societal norm, you speak of it as if we all share this idea identically - as if the norm is something collective between all of us. But we are not a hive mind, so each of us has our own idea of what that "norm" could be if we choose to think of things that way. I do not think of them that way. The reason anyone would want to believe a "norm" exists is, in my opinion, probably because they are unable to get comfortable with the fact that there are SO many different people out there and there's no rhyme or reason to any of it. So instead of just accepting all the different varieties of people they meet, giving each a chance, finding out things about whoever you bump into, you "discriminate". People take that word as "hate", but discriminate really means to sort through people in your mind. You bump into one person, they are different in a way that makes you uncomfortable, so you put them in the "I'm not going to treat this person like people I am comfortable to be around" pile in your mind. Or you meet someone you see as inferior - maybe because they're younger, or are dressed in a way that defies your idea that humans should only wear certain clothing based on their sex - and you treat them worse, like they're weird or an alien or they're threatening you somehow. So clearly this way of thinking applies to everyone we meet every day. But think about it - what's the point of using norms? Isn't it just easier to assess everyone at face value, and leave your mind empty of such notions, being on guard or being antagonistic to those who stumble into the pitfall of your own arbitrary, twisted social values? Anyone who takes part in any form of a discriminative, hateful or demeaning act against someone else is committing wrong, plain and simple. Excusing it in any way, such as by social values, no matter how necessary someone tries to make it seem to see the world this way, is wrong too. ("I am sorry. I cannot treat everybody like human beings because that is too much work.") Norms are not necessary for institutions either: We possess the method and the technology to assess every person's traits unique their own individual being rather than to some completely fabricated social structure that some very misguided and no doubt troubled people have perpetuated for ages. As individuals, in our own dealing with others, we do not need to assume about others, for all that needs to be clear will become clear if we look, listen and ask politely. All in all, I agree with most of what you said, but I felt this rant would be necessary to iron out any incongruities between our statements, so thanks for helping me think this over a little more.
Serendipity: Very good point. Interesting, the reason I know you're correct about women seeming more trusting is because I've noticed it my whole life. Yet, I've never consciously registered it. Weird, here goes... Yes, trusting seems to imply gullibility from stupidity, when that is not so. If you are a person who is emotionally free (able to express any feeling you get without supressing it from fear of it being seen - i.e. what a lot of heterosexual males do because of enculturalization, some think that openly expressing themselves in any manner would imply they are something they hate - a homosexual) then you are going to be someone who is be open to making positive connections with people. This means being more trusting than someone who is withdrawn and scrutinous. Being more trusting means being more vulnerable to being taken advantage of. It may not be that men are as trusting of women because they think they are almost different creatures entirely from themselves. It is a mental construct that obscures women from appearing as human beings just the same as men. I mean really, there is so little difference between the two sexes when you stare at the fundamentals. All of us are female for the first two weeks of conception. And last but not least, man nipples. Realizing that being emotionally free and trusting doesn't make one 'not oneself' (immasculated, or any other hated idea) is one step to men treating women as equals. Men need to be shown that they can feel and trust as women do, and then they won't see how women operate as stupid anymore. Honestly, from my perspective, I see that the only reason a man and a woman act so different is because of ideas. So let us all tear these ideas down in ourselves and hope that others notice and do the same. Wow. Another good line of thought.
That other mention about many girls not wanting to seem like geeks seems true too, though I'm hard-pressed to say that about Canada now anymore. There are a lot of intellectual girls here. But, Canada is a very liberal place and women's rights have made some tremendous progress here (such as when lobbyists convinced Parliament Hill to pass a bill allowing women to walk around topless in public, since men can do it). Now that Canada has made homosexual marriage legal, it is clear that Canada is slowly progressing towards true freedom of being, so it is not surprising that trends are starting to shift here. It is an encouraging thing because it shows that if similar changes are made in other places, the same results could possibly follow. Thanks a bunch for your reply!
Leolaia: Funny you should say it's diffuse and complex - I call it Chaos, and I praise its existence every day. I agree with that first paragraph absolutely, and I would love to read more on these issues. If you could recommend some resources I would be very interested in learning more. One thing I noticed is that you said people pick up on how to be a go-getter or an introvert. On this one thing I would have to say that being extraverted or introverted has more to do with socialization and home environment in the way that, each gender is subject to repression of some kind. It doesn't seem to be so much chosen as imposed, is what I mean: Women 'have' to be one way, men 'must' be another, yes, but as individuals each of us deals with these pressures differently. I am not a woman so I can't say what women go through, only what I have observed: That many seem to be ambitious only so much as what a man can provide for them (and so suit their tastes accordingly to make themselves in an image that is promoted in media as a hot woman, not only by looks but by how well she pleases her man), and the others have seen the light and fight every step of the way to be themselves rather than imitate. But that is not to say that women who choose their preferences within the realm of social norms are comitting any wrong; and this is perhaps what hinders the progression of gender equality in an odd way. Many are just too comfortable, too scared or too apathetic to do anything about it. Instead they just adapt to life as life as presented itself; it's natural to do this, but I don't imagine it feels that good compared to being the person that just radiates from inside you no matter how weird to others it may seem. It really boils down to choosing what you care about most, doesn't it? Do I care about feeling like myself, natural and free, able to walk around bright-eyed and smiling and not be harassed in some way by someone else, or do I care more about just co-existing with other people so much as they don't point their finger and laugh so I can feel like I fit in with them some way (even though there is no real connection, it's all mental)? Men's side of this is just as dark. Men are constantly warded away from being homosexuals; a homosexual is seen as someone without strength that partakes in disgusting acts (someone who is hated). The details beyond that may only be particular to one mind, but the regiment becomes the same: "Avoid gay. Look masculine so the chicks won't think I'm a fruit and look the other way when I express myself in a way that doesn't fit the paradigm." (Everything seems to revolve around getting laid because that is the goal men are introduced to by older men and media as they reach puberty is; get the girl, do whatever you can to get her. It's a hunt for trophies; but not to be confused with regular carefree promiscuity. This is the "macho" man, though I imagine that term is growing outdated.) This can cause an intense amount of introversion. Poor misguided souls, men and women are, with these mental constructs shown to them by their parents and at school as they get older. It only seems to be worse in tightly-knitted religious communities like the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses, where religious values supercede the already rigid social values, imposing an even more mentally devastating system of artifical order upon an individual's mind - changing a human being into a robot. ("Artificial" because the Watchtower Society is operated by far fewer people than the amount of people associated with creating or maintaining the social norms everyone faces. Since they are directly controlling it through their intepretation of the Bible, they are directly manipulating peoples' lives. A young girl watching {read: studying} Britney Spears or Christina Aguilera on television is not undergoing quite the same thing, though similar in effect.) Please get back to me about that literature. Thanks a lot! (FYI, a lot of the new vocal trance music that comes out has undertones of shedding the skin society grew on you and finding the beauty in everything by realizing oneself again. There are counter-cultures in existence that subvert all of the socialization we are talking about...people run to these counter-cultures to be free...but I guess the point is that people shouldn't need to run to counterculture to be themselves. The idea "culture" should be destroyed. Praise Chaos.)
Narkissos: Excellent post!!! Now let me try to make war with it. :) Mathematics do not always need to be applied in situations like these, nor do I see how it becomes a problem: Physics act through us all the time, defining and shaping each of us, is that not an expression of mathematics? All things that occur are mathematically sound in that way. What you speak of is an imbalance in some societal equation; what we are speaking of here is uprooting what has been tradition for ages and creating a new system by completely obliterating the ashes of the old one. This isn't impossible. If you were to write an equation to define society's balance based on how people are acting in this continuum of ours, you would merely be quantifying it in your own terms: That is to say, nobody is going to get it perfect because there is too much that is subjective/personal/arbitrary. Since this is so, then we can subjectively, personally, arbitrarily, choose to say "let's stop this now" and begin to live our lives a different way. By doing this we have already begun uprooting the system of socialization and have started setting an example that others can take notice of. Most people will not change at first. Change is slow. But look at how things are today: A century or so ago, women couldn't even vote. Rebalancing things - rebalancing this equation - means that everyone wins in a way and everyone loses in another. This is foreign, it is change; it is probably beyond our lifetime because humans are slow to adopt major societal changes unless unsavory methods are used. But we must believe in it and try to make it reality, if it is meant to be - if it is mathematically sound - then it will happen eventually. Because we are the same agents as the ones we are trying to subvert into thinking like us from their system of hate and control, we are already succeeding just by changing ourselves. The best you can hope for is to attempt and watch what unfolds. Saying, "Trying won't accomplish anything." is building a mental wall for yourself, imagining a 'likely' possibility that is in fact not actually real because the future is always beyond us. You must try to live in the world as you want it to be, or how can you be happy? This is, unfortunately, what people see as anarchy. But I am not talking about going wild and nuts. I am talking about being free to express and grow into the creature that the universal force - physics, God, mathematics, spirit, whatever - shaped you to desire to be. The truth is that in Chaos, you can be killed, loved, scorned, admired... for it. But all is well; a day in Chaos is filled with those plagued by Order, once adulthood is reached you can simply avoid almost all things unpleasant to you by making changes to your life. But truly, a world where anyone can wander anywhere without fear, discrimination or hate being brought against them is the "unachievable goal": Just because all agents in Chaos do not let go and open to this state of more free, simpler being, does not mean that the attempt has failed. If one place exists on this earth that is free of it then we have succeeded. If one mind experiences bliss because it has cast off all of its chains then I feel fulfilled in thinking this way. This is far too important to trivialize for any reason; happiness is the ultimate feeling in life. Bliss is attained by being completely free of all bonds, physical and mental. History will always inevitably occur as time appears to pass for us, I don't care if it's a great story or not. Being desireless is the opposite of being oneself: being oneself is the ultimate realization of desire. Being free to flourish into the being that nature made you, free of obstructive mental constructs, acting with what flows naturally. When we speak of equality we are not speaking of a goal of a system: We are speaking of a state of being - a feeling inside yourself that is powerful through open expression - attained through agreement between human beings. There is no society that operates this way yet. There is only a vague appearance of it. Chaos is vast and thus no total agreement will probably ever be reached; so what? Then the argument and the struggle for individuality continues forever as we, the individuals, continue to defy all ideas deemed insurmountable by those who would stop us in our tracks. No one should be trapped from being who they are. That is a hell; that is not a life. I would rather live in a confusing disarray of variation (which COULD eventually be quanitified well in every conceivable way mathematically) than a systematic hell of order and complacency brought on by apathy and selfishness. If your idea of entropy stops you from realizing your dreams: Destroy your idea of entropy, or at least dissassociate it from that which it obstructs you from being happy. You can reach Nirvana while alive if you realize you are completely in tune with how you desire to be. Dreaming there will be no end is the same as giving up; why not live your life for what you believe and make even a dent? At least you get to be yourself the whole time. This line of thinking applies to all struggles for freely co-existing in a state of open expression and happiness; I do not speak only of gender distinction in my reply to you. Our ancestors, freshly born of chaos, were wild and untamed, without all the technological gifts of today to keep them safe and sheltered. Their own wild nature had to be subverted into a system of Order - a patriarchal male-bonded society - in order to function and survive against rival humans; in a sense a system of necessity was founded where everyone had to conform with one another in some way to function and be productive. This may have developed initially naturally the same way it did for chimpanzees, before things within humanity became termed "artificial". Living as a group, being part of a group is what makes us strong. Individually we are weak, though today any given human may possess enough knowledge and technology to survive on their own: Just as the free open market economy is a chaotic slew that seems to balance itself, so too can human social interaction on a massive scale when everyone is set loose to do anything they want without fear of reprisal so long as no harm is done to others. We have the means of survival so that now no one needs to be without food and only needs to contribute a small portion of their life to a job of some sort to gain money to exchange for the inputs into a worthwhile life. Those of us who are fed, clothed, and have money in our pockets are ready for this new change, so we should allow ourselves to be! Just because things have performed within an apparent pattern in the past does not mean we cannot shatter that pattern tomorrow. Most of the actors just won't be willing to act in the new play, at first. I am glad you made this post Narkissos. Please find as much as you can wrong with what I said so I can clarify it to a greater extent: It is an invigorating line of thought.
