• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Language and Gender

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I wonder how much of this is embedded within language itself. I learned Japanese for a year when I was overseas, and was surprised to learn that there were certain words and modes that were only used by women or men. The one example I remember is that women are supposed to say "ohana" for flower instead of just "hana" because it its a softer sound... more akin to a woman. As my (female) Japanese teacher explained to us. I remember the (extremely) little Thai I learned had a very distinct female/male difference in words, etc.
I have heard about those differences in Japanese. Many languages are much more strongly affected by grammatical gender. In Russian, for instance, if one writes "I went to the store" their gender is apparent in the word "went". We have very little of this in English, just the personal pronouns, and some words like waiter/waitress where we continue to use different forms for men/women.

It reminds me of an article I had read some time ago about how languages effect how we think. The example they used was having participants from a variety of backgrounds watch a video in which a lamp gets broken. Then they were asked what happened in the video. English speakers were apt to point out that "the man broke the lamp," whereas other speakers such as Japanese said "the lamp broke" with no blame portioned upon the man breaking it.

I don't mean that aside as a derail but just as to how intertwined this topic seems to be... it's hard to grasp an edge of yarn to discern where the beginning is at.
Language definitely is tied up with culture, being influenced by it, and in turn influencing it, or at least serving a significant means of preserving and propagating it. This relates to the idea of male and female culture as reflected even among English speakers, as someone described above.
 

five sounds

MyPeeSmellsLikeCoffee247
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
5,393
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
729
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I wonder how much of this is embedded within language itself. I learned Japanese for a year when I was overseas, and was surprised to learn that there were certain words and modes that were only used by women or men. The one example I remember is that women are supposed to say "ohana" for flower instead of just "hana" because it its a softer sound... more akin to a woman. As my (female) Japanese teacher explained to us. I remember the (extremely) little Thai I learned had a very distinct female/male difference in words, etc.

I see way down at the bottom that this is briefly touched upon.

It reminds me of an article I had read some time ago about how languages effect how we think. The example they used was having participants from a variety of backgrounds watch a video in which a lamp gets broken. Then they were asked what happened in the video. English speakers were apt to point out that "the man broke the lamp," whereas other speakers such as Japanese said "the lamp broke" with no blame portioned upon the man breaking it.

I don't mean that aside as a derail but just as to how intertwined this topic seems to be... it's hard to grasp an edge of yarn to discern where the beginning is at.

This seems cultural to me. Kind of like using different words or phrases when you're talking to someone of authority or higher social standing (usted vs. tu in Spanish). I don't know about Japanese specifically, but it seems to me that since their culture is so old, that they might have older and more traditional customs as they pertain to gender. I think that we probably do the same thing, but to a less obvious extent. I definitely think it's a common idea across cultures for women to behave "like ladies".
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Up the Wolves
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
19,444
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Good grief - I don't like smilies either, and don't care whom I offend by refusing to use them. On the other hand, I am quite willing to put up with those who do. I like to feel free to be me, and do my best to accord the same freedom to others. We don't all have to become best buddies, just get along reasonably and be civil.

I suppose. I dislike conflict, and I find that making efforts to adapt to others resolves 95% of all interpersonal issues in casual situations, so I try to do it.

As for the highlighted, I am a T woman and feel much more comfortable with what is usually termed the "male communication style", whether used by men or women. The main exception is that I have little tolerance for profanity, crude language, and baseless insults.
I personally don't like conflict, but if someone insists on starting one, despite my best efforts, I have no issues with striking back.

I'm fine with profanity and crude language, but baseless insults just suggest that the person has run out of things to say. At this point, it seems that they are determined to start a conflict. In these circumstances, I have no issue with giving them what they desire.

Perhaps profanity, crude language and insults are concepts independent of Feeling or Thinking? And perhaps there is a gendered component to them?

I'm going to pour over that Wikipedia article before responding to this thread again, because I think my model of this is insufficiently simplistic.


When I am among largely female groups practicing "female communication style", it is like walking on eggshells, constantly having to pussyfoot around. In the best cases, it can still seem almost surreal.

The interesting thing is that I often feel this way when I'm surrounded by men who are feelers (probably mostly introverted feelers). They'll express outrage at something, for instance, and when I don't understand the outrage, and express that, I find that I have to handle that very carefully. The mistrust that grows in the room is palpable.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
As for the highlighted, I am a T woman and feel much more comfortable with what is usually termed the "male communication style", whether used by men or women. The main exception is that I have little tolerance for profanity, crude language, and baseless insults. "Your solution is idiotic because of x, y, and z", on the other hand, is OK. This style has been the norm throughout my education and professional life, and always seemed to reflect the "natural me". When I am among largely female groups practicing "female communication style", it is like walkingn on eggshells, constantly having to pussyfoot around. In the best cases, it can still seem almost surreal.

I hate that feeling. It's like...nails on the mind.

Always induces a desire in me to say something just to provoke them, so then at least I could feel more relaxed. I have wondered on whether or not there is some intrinsic psychological barrier between myself and individuals who give me that sensation, as if we are already on different perspective clouds before we even begin and trying to leap between them is some insurmountable challenge, unless I were to rock the waters retained in their cloud and start a dialogue free of that 'pussy footing' pressure.

Maybe it is judgement on both sides that creates this barrier?

Frankly I just want to feel free to be myself in any given situation, unfortunately social pressures are never that simple and it is not so much what people think, as much as how they act based on what they think. The amount of conflicts I have had to endure in my youth simply because someone disliked my way of being, even though I was not infringing on their own freedom, has taught me that it is worth sticking to your guns on that principal alone. Although I sometimes feel hypocritical since I am not always free and easy in my mannerisms, perhaps because I am quite strongly Fe influenced and therefore aware of the social standings in a group.

Incidentally I read most of that wiki article you linked at the start this morning, but I was suddenly reminded by my phone alarm that work was a 'beckoning.

In any case I found it very interesting and informative. I was reminded by this thread on something my employer and I were having a conversation about at my second job helping with some accounting. Essentially she told me when writing an email requesting payment, ( or any other question or request), of an invoice to a customer, always ask the males would you? and the females could you?.

I queried her about this since I didn't understand the significance straight away. She pointed out that if you ask a man if he could do something then to most men it sounds like a challenge to their competency but if you ask most women if they could do something that is a polite question asking if they would be so kind.

In the reverse asking a woman if they would do something sounds demanding whereas to a man it sounds like a directive. Of course I don't believe it works as a general rule and my boss said she didn't really care for social norms, but it is an interesting idea and at the least it works most of the time when trying to get response to something urgent to do with invoices. :D
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I suppose. I dislike conflict, and I find that making efforts to adapt to others resolves 95% of all interpersonal issues in casual situations, so I try to do it.

I personally don't like conflict, but if someone insists on starting one, despite my best efforts, I have no issues with striking back.
Nor do I. Like you, I don't like conflict, but find it hard not to be myself. Usually my accommodation involves simply keeping my mouth shut, or letting someone else have their way when it is not really important. I do believe in picking one's fights. At the same time, people will find me remarkably accommodating of their individuality. Many things that others will judge someone for seem unimportant to me, as long as the person acting in a constructive and considerate way.

I'm fine with profanity and crude language, but baseless insults just suggest that the person has run out of things to say. At this point, it seems that they are determined to start a conflict. In these circumstances, I have no issue with giving them what they desire.

Perhaps profanity, crude language and insults are concepts independent of Feeling or Thinking? And perhaps there is a gendered component to them?
Perhaps. To the extent that my communication is colored by gender, this is probably its strongest influence. I know men, though, from whom I have never heard vulgarity or "bad" language, and plenty of women who can cuss with the best of them. I don't like this from either sex. It's not that I find it immoral or unlady/gentleman-like, it is just ugly, conversational noise.

The interesting thing is that I often feel this way when I'm surrounded by men who are feelers (probably mostly introverted feelers). They'll express outrage at something, for instance, and when I don't understand the outrage, and express that, I find that I have to handle that very carefully. The mistrust that grows in the room is palpable.
I would probably be confused by men who spoke using the feminine model, since I would be expecting the opposite. The few F men I know don't seem to do so, but we interact at work, and professional communication in my field tends to follow the masculine model, for everyone.

Incidentally I read most of that wiki article you linked at the start this morning, but I was suddenly reminded by my phone alarm that work was a 'beckoning.
There are much better references out there. I linked it just to start the ball rolling. The one from Nicolita seems very comprehensive, but it may be awhile before I have time to dig into it.

In the reverse asking a woman if they would do something sounds demanding whereas to a man it sounds like a directive. Of course I don't believe it works as a general rule and my boss said she didn't really care for social norms, but it is an interesting idea and at the least it works most of the time when trying to get response to something urgent to do with invoices. :D
Sounds like much ado about nothing to me. I would write "please send your payment promptly" or "we will expect your payment by [date]" to both men and women, but that's probably not "nice" enough for anyone who worries about would/could.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
Sounds like much ado about nothing to me. I would write "please send your payment promptly" or "we will expect your payment by [date]" to both men and women, but that's probably not "nice" enough for anyone who worries about would/could.

Yeah I sometimes send emails like that and to be fair so does she, thinking back I may have remembered that wrong. I think the would and could were requests for other things such as corrections to information from the haulage and missing files. Which doesn't really change the principal that demands such usages.

However the whole idea does make me wonder once again that the only reason for social conduct and worrying about what others think in a social standing context.....is because there are other people who worry about such things and because there are such a large number of people who do believe in the importance in these nonexistent standards of behaviour, to get anything done in a world filled with such people there is, unfortunately, a certain acquiescence to that standard. I do acknowledge the biological ancestry of our social conditioning, but I don't think that really has a place any more and is just that.....conditioning.

Emotions for example are useful for certain evaluations of likes, dislikes so that we can feel motivated to make choices and pretend to have free will. But most of the time there is too much of an indulgence in it and often to no end other than pointless assumptions and unproductive actions and outbursts.

Which is strange coming from myself as I admit openly that I am quite emotional, I dislike this aspect which is obvious from my thread and posting history.

I suppose I am just trying to work out it's necessity. Would the world be worse off with less emotionally reactive people?

Sorry this is going off topic a little.
 

Galena

Silver and Lead
Joined
Mar 12, 2013
Messages
3,786
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I queried her about this since I didn't understand the significance straight away. She pointed out that if you ask a man if he could do something then to most men it sounds like a challenge to their competency but if you ask most women if they could do something that is a polite question asking if they would be so kind.

In the reverse asking a woman if they would do something sounds demanding whereas to a man it sounds like a directive. Of course I don't believe it works as a general rule and my boss said she didn't really care for social norms, but it is an interesting idea and at the least it works most of the time when trying to get response to something urgent to do with invoices. :D
I, for one, did feel a subtly different tonal dinging in the two different versions of the message that corresponded to your boss's protocol and was weirded out by how it had nothing to do with what I thought of the rule. What I think being that if a change in a single letter in an e-mail makes a difference in how you treat a business directive, you've emotionally brought something to work that you shouldn't have. Part of choosing to work within a system is being prepared to swallow and use the language that runs it most efficiently. When people who aren't ascend to management, that's where such political red tape comes from. Alternately, you're in the service sector, where you accommodate the public's full range of sensitivities because all you ever know about the next person to walk in is that you must persuade them to pay you.

That said, I almost certainly make hundreds of adaptive linguistic adjustments every day without being aware. Not only is conditioning a ubiquitous thing, but I'm on the chameleonic end of humanity even within the conditioned (though not without some mixed feelings about the strategy). For record, too, my full presentation is pretty overtly "feminine".

Emotions for example are useful for certain evaluations of likes, dislikes so that we can feel motivated to make choices and pretend to have free will. But most of the time there is too much of an indulgence in it and often to no end other than pointless assumptions and unproductive actions and outbursts.
From what source do you draw "most"? Whose experience? I'm not ready to disagree and think you're bringing up a intriguing question, but if you don't like something about yourself, you can get negatively biased about how well that trait serves the rest of the world. I know that firsthand...

I suppose I am just trying to work out it's necessity. Would the world be worse off with less emotionally reactive people?
You said above this that our emotional nerves do carry some benefits. It's also known that they're more or less sensitive depending on the person and time: a spectrum. Too much and you get the problems that have already been discussed. Too low also gums up socialization in its own way. I'd put the question this way: at what levels of emotional reactivity, on either the high or the low end of it, do the cons begin to outweigh the pros in most situations? You could say that's what a lot of abnormal psych is about. If the topic doesn't fit here, a new thread would do well because of the volume of history/sources investigating what you're wondering. But if you make it, perhaps rephrase the titular question, "with less emotional reactivity". ;)
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
I, for one, did feel a subtly different tonal dinging in the two different versions of the message that corresponded to your boss's protocol and was weirded out by how it had nothing to do with what I thought of the rule. What I think being that if a change in a single letter in an e-mail makes a difference in how you treat a business directive, you've emotionally brought something to work that you shouldn't have. Part of choosing to work within a system is being prepared to swallow and use the language that runs it most efficiently. When people who aren't ascend to management, that's where such political red tape comes from. Alternately, you're in the service sector, where you accommodate the public's full range of sensitivities because all you ever know about the next person to walk in is that you must persuade them to pay you.

Well my first job where getting people to pay me would be the case is a retail one, but I hate working with customers since I apparently don't smile enough, so normally I'm in the back. This job I referenced is my new second job and it's more that it is a haulier company and we both have to pay and issue invoices as I am basically an office worker to an accountant.

In truth I don't think it's really that this difference in terminology works, or that it is a truth to adhere to, when I said in my last post that it works in getting money off people, I'm not really sure why I put that since in truth it's more than just emailing in the first place is probably a good enough prompt. As for political red tape....yes I agree with you, these guidelines and rules and systems...all in the name of making money...that stupid 'bottom line' I'm really not fond of it and it is getting worse in the sectors I work in, or at least in retail.

It's interesting you talk about a feminine presentation as I have been mistaken for female on more than a few forums in my time. I think this stems from, when I was younger, an intense dislike of the men I had to grow up around. I really did hate them, there aren't any accurate terms for it, but I had an almost innate aversion to the superficial posturing adopted by most men in the area. The stereotypical swagger, the obsession with 'manliness' and all the ridiculous assumptions and social 'rules' that went with such a mindset. So many people trying to be something, rather than just being.

The biggest realisation to my mind was that most of these men were as irrational if not more so, than the women they often derided for being so. Like tom cats fluffing their tales, it's territorial and ridiculous, the difference is that cats actually have a purpose in what they do, humans generally don't, a cast off of behaviour from our past that has been turned into some kind of necessary social conditioning, except I don't know who is telling us that it is necessary only that most of the people I talk to about this subject offline believe it to be inherent and necessary.


From what source do you draw "most"? Whose experience? I'm not ready to disagree and think you're bringing up a intriguing question, but if you don't like something about yourself, you can get negatively biased about how well that trait serves the rest of the world. I know that firsthand...

I suppose my only source is me and my experiences and heuristic observations. Most of the issues in my life and from conversations, others as well, has stemmed from a momentary lapse, (Pink Floyd :smile:), in reason based around interference from emotions that clouded my judgement in a situation. When younger I didn't recognise it at all. It was only with age that I suddenly understood and recognised the effects it can have on a person.

A counter-argument could be made that the positive emotions do the same as the negative ones and both influence us to reaction or action in a given situation, providing the right influence or trigger. But my experiences as a youth have made me somewhat emotionally stunted, I can make people feel comfortable in a social situation and I have been able to learn that others actually are affected by what my face is telling them to the point now where I probably look quite emotive and open in my facial expressions, it's become a habit after all. Although I would say if people saw me in a social environment I was comfortable in I would look quite the loud extravert.

But I really do have a problem expressing actual emotion and it's not because I think of it in terms of weakness, although demonstration of such certainly can weaken a persons social image if they care about such a thing. It's more I don't want anyone to either worry about me, or if angry be intimidated; as I was by anger as a child. For sure underneath I seethe with emotion and I am always surprised that others are surprised when I do have an outburst, because so many expect me to be more rational than that.

Luckily I have little problem with disappointing their expectations. I'm not entirely sure what the link with language is here, but I do know I am more conciliatory than the men I know. This is not a source of pride or shame, it just is. However I certainly have elements to my body language that could be called feminine. What I have noticed though is I can get away with elements that some would associate with femininity without criticism that women are not able to, for example being sensitive or empathetic, the vile hypocrisy in this never stops being a glare to my attention.

You said above this that our emotional nerves do carry some benefits. It's also known that they're more or less sensitive depending on the person and time: a spectrum. Too much and you get the problems that have already been discussed. Too low also gums up socialization in its own way. I'd put the question this way: at what levels of emotional reactivity, on either the high or the low end of it, do the cons begin to outweigh the pros in most situations? You could say that's what a lot of abnormal psych is about. If the topic doesn't fit here, a new thread would do well because of the volume of history/sources investigating what you're wondering. But if you make it, perhaps rephrase the titular question, "with less emotional reactivity". ;)

Maybe I should, though I am not sure on how many would be interested as I've made similar threads before. Your insight into the spectrum of emotional reactivity and tying it to the cons and pros is a better point than my own and one I'd missed. I suppose I am just jealous of those who see the world in a more logical sphere, for me it is a mess and while I can control myself, I understand as well that my emotions and the contexts that arouse them, are almost instinctive with almost no room for conscious considerations, just an immediate release of whatever biological reaction is associated with a certain emotion, which I then have to quickly pounce upon lest I do something I will most certainly regret.

I am at my most calm and collected behind a computer screen, sad really.

But enough whinging, back to the topic!
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
What connections do you see between gender and how people use language, including both spoken and written language? I mean here the way people write and speak, not the subjects they choose to discuss. For those of you who speak languages other than English, do you see the same connections there? How much of this is really based on gender rather than on T/F differences?
Lot of tl;dr posts in this thread. Man-posts! ;)

It never really occurred to me as worthy of consideration, until I started posting anonymously on forums like this one, and was met with persistent disbelief that I could be female.
Needless to say, I have no problem employing a more combative style. I use humour quite aggressively. And I like vulgarity. Whenever I'm tempted to repudiate vulgarity because it's not "ladylike", I suppress that reaction in favour of a chortle.

I wasn't deferring to the other speaker as I typically do. Suddenly, what felt like out of nowhere, he started to insult me as a harpist. I was blindsided and realized that I had somehow insulted him deeply.
Yes. I think women tend to uncritically absorb these rules about how to communicate in ways that men will not find threatening. I think it says more about their status than it does about anything innate. But it can be hard to push against such conventions if you are by nature an agreeable sort of person who does not like to give offense. Of course, the real problem here is the taking of offence being contingent on the speaker's gender.
I wonder how much of this is embedded within language itself.

"Language is irredeemably sexist. For one thing, women can’t be virtuous. A virtue is that which is proper to a man. The Latin for man is vir, and virtus is the Latin word for manliness. Virtue is basically the same thing as virility. So if a woman were to be virtuous she would become a man-woman, which is a frightening idea. A man-woman might be so bold as to have her own opinions. She might even express them, at which point she would become a virago. To be fair, virago was originally a word for a heroic woman; but that’s still rather sexist, as it implies that heroism is a purely manly quality. " ~Mark Forsyth
 
A

Anew Leaf

Guest
"Language is irredeemably sexist. For one thing, women can’t be virtuous. A virtue is that which is proper to a man. The Latin for man is vir, and virtus is the Latin word for manliness. Virtue is basically the same thing as virility. So if a woman were to be virtuous she would become a man-woman, which is a frightening idea. A man-woman might be so bold as to have her own opinions. She might even express them, at which point she would become a virago. To be fair, virago was originally a word for a heroic woman; but that’s still rather sexist, as it implies that heroism is a purely manly quality. " ~Mark Forsyth

I posit that I am what I am regardless of language used to describe me. Air still has oxygen regardless if the lungs clutching it know it to be oxygen or not.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Biology.... I'm inclined to think that very little gender differences are based on biology. The human body has 23 chromosomes, only one of which has anything to do with sex. I'm sure this is vastly over-simplifying, but how different could men and women inherently be if there is only 1/23rd of something that is actually "different"?

I know that's genetics for idiots, but given that no one has yet been able to map genes to psychology completely, it's a reasonable assumption to make.

The discussion now seems to be centering on the fact that people are capable of adapting to a more male or female style. This doesn't imply that the male/female style isn't T/F, however. Every Thinker supposedly has a Feeling side and vice versa, so I suspect that when this adapting occurs, they are merely using the "opposite" function. The relevant question is if the women who are Thinkers feel as out of step in a "male communication style" environment as the women who are Feelers. I suspect that if this were to be polled, the answer would be no.

I can tell you that I feel very odd in a place where every post has 15 smilies, but I'm sure I could post those smiles if I needed to. If someone is using a lot of them, I do tend to adapt and start using those as well. I also have found I feel very odd and out of place in social environments with a lot of NF men. The things I say seem to bump up and offend the NF men just as they might with the women female communication style environment described above. I cannot seem to avoid causing offense or making faux paus. (Of course, in those days, I was less comfortable with my Intuition, so maybe I'd do better these days.)

Also, I found something relevant on the socionics Wiki.... they've mapped the judging/rational functions to communication styles. (Feeling is called Ethics so it doesn't get confused with emotions here.) I wish there weren't so many weird translation issues here, but my communication style, as an introverted Thinker, is "cold-blooded" which makes sense. Introverted feelers are '"sincere." Extraverted feelers are "passionate", while extraverted thinkers are "firm."

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Communication_styles

Aren't all four of those terms gendered? And, no surprise, the feminine-sounding qualities of "sincere" and ''passionate" are linked to Feeling, while "cold-blooded" and "firm" are linked to Thinking.

Im a feeler and don't use 15 smilies in my posts. In fact I think it's degrading in many cases, like low self-esteem more than feeling like "don't take little ol me seriously I just want peoples to like me."

I guess I can see why two or three people called me Istj for that reason, but I don't want to soften my blows with smiley bs unless I really mean it. Its like I wouldn't want people to head pat me that much, like im one of those feeble minded assholes that over use smilies.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
I don't understand this last paragraph. Wouldn't the appropriateness of providing comfort depend significantly on the topic of the thread - e.g. someone venting about personal troubles vs. discussing some political topic? By irrationality do you mean subjectivity, and why would this be connected with trying to make others feel better? When I am speaking subjectively, it is going to be rooted much more directly in my own personal experiences.

I agree about the gender-based acculturation. Do you get those negative reactions ("bitch", etc.) IRL also, or mainly online? It is not something I have experienced. Finally, what do you mean by a conversational tone - more informal or casual? How would you describe the opposite tone that men would take: professional, formal, business-like?


Again, do you see this IRL as well?


Thanks for the reference. It looks fascinating - but quite long, and will certainly address many of my questions, though likely prompt more. Seeing correlation of gender and language as culturally based makes sense, and viewing it as a statistical reality rather than a definitive conclusion about individuals is what I would expect. I still see significant correlation with T and F, which explains why F men and T women often feel out of step with expectations for their gender; their "gender culture" to use the paradigm of the reference. I know I feel this quite strongly. I will no doubt have more comments after reading some of the papers.


I don't see the contradiction. First, the statement is qualified by "sometimes" and "often", implying that sometimes both men and women can adjust their typical gender-based style to conform to the situation. The conventions one is raised with can become deeply rooted, though. It is why even those of us (men and women) who try the most to be inclusive and unbiased will every now and then slip up, allowing some unconscious reflex to surface. At best we will see it for what it is, and know better next time. Someone with less awareness won't even do that. It is not surprising, then, that both men and women will sometimes stick with their prevailing gendered style, even when not suited to the circumstances. The image of a man just "calling a spade a spade" in a group of painfully polite women, or a woman introducing "feminine touches" in an all-male enviroment should be familiar, and are often the basis for humor in entertainment and fiction, precisely because the audience understands the cultural contradiction.

No of course I don't see it as much irl ( people feel safer to be bigoted on line) except amongst the lowest class, who I have a feeling I've had more personal exposure to than you, which is why I have heard the word bitch more.

Only online are middle class sexists so uncouth outside of dysfunctional relationship arguments.

Im also more probing and dramatic and emotive than you. Your tone some times borders on coldly robotic. Of course sexist men feel more comfortable being irrational and emotive with ne, there by using words like that more often.

I create a space for people to free their monsters. Like a therapeutic performance artist of the internet.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Yes I saw what I did there. I typed ne instead of me.
 

Bamboo

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
2,689
MBTI Type
XXFP
I don't have any giant insights but I do notice I prefer talking to women over men, especially for socializing. This isn't entirely sexual, as it seems like I get along better with women even if I don't find them attractive, they're lesbian, etc.

Might be as simple as social conditioning, but hey, it works - I think women are better at socializing, in general. Or maybe I'm just more comfortable socializing with them. Hard to say.



re: class, language, and culture:

I think lower classes can have much different concepts of gender roles. They can be both more patriarchal and misogynistic in some ways (and yes I've heard men call women bitch or simply 'woman' in a tone that very much suggests hierarchy), but I'd also note the presence of great matriarchs who hold a lot of power, and they don't do so in a way that just seems to ape being masculine, but they do so simply as an expression of who they are/social position as a woman. You'll see them getting "yes Ma'am"-ed with great deference and respect, and they can be as territorial as men are about their social position and relationships.

This isn't necessarily the province of just the lower class, but it does seem more pronounced in those realms as far as I can tell.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I don't have any giant insights but I do notice I prefer talking to women over men, especially for socializing. This isn't entirely sexual, as it seems like I get along better with women even if I don't find them attractive, they're lesbian, etc.

Might be as simple as social conditioning, but hey, it works - I think women are better at socializing, in general. Or maybe I'm just more comfortable socializing with them. Hard to say.
Probably the latter. Or, at least women are better at socializing a certain way. If you like this style, you will enjoy their company. I do not. I dislike socializing with most women, but also the large number of men who focus on sports, cars, etc. Yes, this means I don't like most socializing, but I find men are more likely to want to discuss the topics I enjoy, in a way I find comfortable.

re: class, language, and culture:

I think lower classes can have much different concepts of gender roles. They can be both more patriarchal and misogynistic in some ways (and yes I've heard men call women bitch or simply 'woman' in a tone that very much suggests hierarchy), but I'd also note the presence of great matriarchs who hold a lot of power, and they don't do so in a way that just seems to ape being masculine, but they do so simply as an expression of who they are/social position as a woman. You'll see them getting "yes Ma'am"-ed with great deference and respect, and they can be as territorial as men are about their social position and relationships.
One thing about the lower class is that they are forced to experience the economic value of women. In poor families, the women have to work, and work hard. Notions of women as weaker, less capable, needing to be put on a pedestal, etc. are debunked regularly. Women lead and hold together many poor familes where the father is absent. None of this is really an advantage, but it gives women roles and responsibilities that they can more easily avoid in middle class or even wealthy families.
 
Top