This is exactly the mindset I was talking about. There's nothing wrong with any of the traits that you mentioned. At some point in any person's life, they will have to comply to someone else, to submit to someone else, to not necessarily be the most necessary person in the room, to not exactly know what they want, to be able to be emotional. Whether or not you feel they're compatible with your vision of adulthood, they're certainly part of being a whole and fully functioning human.
All the traits that you've described as "childish" and "undesirable" are just facets of the ability to be connected, open and emotionally honest. The whole point of this thread is that men are consistently denied the freedom to be those things and it's literally killing them. This view of femininity as something to be eschewed is the exact type of internalized self-loathing I've seen in a lot of Feminist thought, and I don't agree with it.
Everything requires balance. People should be encouraged to embrace not just the more positive versions of the feminine traits you mentioned, but also the more masculine ones you admire as well. A healthier version of "fully functional adulthood" should have room for both.
The highlighted is exactly my point. There are some positive "feminine" traits which should be embraced by everyone, but the ones I listed are not them. I chose my words carefully. You can accept help without being dependent; can accommodate others without being inherently compliant; defer to someone without being submissive; enjoy your physical appearance without being purely ornamental; and be emotionally expressive and spontaneous without being flighty/hysterical. Part of the difference is whether such traits are your default, reflexive, inherent nature, or whether you act in a way that looks like that because it makes sense in a specific situation.
But regardless of the cause of differences between sexes, I believe the following assessment is true: The difference between the average of all men and the average of all women is smaller than the average degree of difference between any two individuals. This means the relative impact of sex is small. When it comes to making a bet on another individual's behavior (or thoughts), it would be unwise to base a significant portion of the wager on that individual's sex. If you were going to analyze an individual, you'd extract much more value for your time out of analyzing many aspects other than their sex/gender.
Exactly. What is so hard about avoiding making assumptions and seeing each person as an individual?
I think that, while gender was always part of the equation, the greater issue for early, and arguably later, women's rights activists, was gender equality in the upper class. Many early suffragists and suufragettes were fighting for women in the privileged classes to have the same access to voting and work as their husbands, brothers and fathers. A noble cause indeed, but the dark side of it is that many of these women were still against any voting or equality for women and non-whites in the lower, working classes. They may have been fighting for an end to patriarchal government, but I don't think many of them really cared about any form of equality in the classes that may have needed it the most.
This was a significant bifurcation in the early women's rights movement. Some activists focused on the rights of working women, who formed the majority and were materially significantly more disadvantaged by their status than the wealthy. Of course these women spent most every waking moment just trying to keep themselves and their families going, and had little time for activism. Others focused on wealthy women, not always out of class prejudice, but sometimes out of a calculated decision to focus on the elements of society more able to exert influence on the political process, both the women themselves, and sympathetic men.
I think a male ESTP and a female ESTP are probably more similar to one another than, say, a female INTJ is similar to a female ESTP
That has been my experience, and the ways in which I am even more like female INTJs is largely irrelevant.
I's not about forcing anyone to fit a particular mold, it's about ending this backwards "men are supposed to become more like women to balance things out" because that doesn't benefit anyone, male or female, only the misguided feminists who don't really understand men or human sexuality. (And nor do they care to after thinking that way long enough, it's more about cherry-picking facts to suit their biases.)
Exactly which women are men not supposed to be like? You cannot generalize about women here any more than elsewhere, and any more about men.
Would you say that a female chipmunk is more like a female squirrel? Or a male chipmunk?
Until you review the definition of species, any answer will not make sense.
Interesting that you know what I don't really know.
If you do in fact have conclusive evidence for the position you are advocating, you have quite the
Nature paper in your future. The most one can say on this count is that the jury is still out. There is evidence on both sides, very few conclusions that can be supported, and even fewer with significant impact on daily life and decisions.
I agree that subconscious thoughts can be the product of socialization. They can also be the product of training. They can also be the the product of evolution. They can also be the product of one's sex. And yes, it's complicated, and there are very few one-to-one correspondences to be found. I wasn't arguing that it's that simple. Rather, all I was saying that even women who consciously believe that they want a man who is brave enough to cry, their unconscious side is going to put a check on that and say, "Yes, but only up to a point ..."
A correct observation, but then it is much easier to observe and to agree on actual human behavior than on its causes. I catch myself acting this way, too, and question it and rethink my response. Except when I don't catch myself. But every time I do, I become more sensitive to it, more aware of these reflexes, so I can bring them into the open and assess them on their merits.
Are you saying that some women like to have a guy that she can protect and provide safety and security, a guy that she pays for their dinner on the first date, a guy that get pregnant with her children, maybe a guy that wears a skirt and red lipstick who knows?! I didn't know that! That would be exceptional am I wrong?
Well, men aren't going to start getting pregnant any time soon, but I know plenty of women who will pay for a date, and look out for their man in a myriad of ways. My INTP far surpasses me in size and brute force strength, but in the modern information age, I am the one who keeps us safe from identity theft, protects our online accounts, sets up our home network and firewall, etc. Which is the more probable and realistic threat nowadays? And I happen to really like men in kilts . . .
See I might not be a woman that necessarily fit into stereotypes of vulnerable and meek or who spend the whole day doing traditional wife duties, I hate house chores, I hate when people set boundaries on my behavior, I'm viewed as stubborn by those who know me, so I don't typically fit into gender expectations, and I think most people aren't typically fit, but expectations are formed by knowing the nature of each gender
If you really want to go back to nature, it is females (mothers) who fight to protect, while males fight to possess (usually females), or simply to demonstrate superiority/skill. Also, it is usually the male of the species who has a flashier, more flamboyant appearance. Obviously humans lost that memo many generations ago.
Example of equality: when you and a baby have the same rights; I give you a chicken burger and give him a chicken burger (I apologize to all vegetarians for this example)
Example of justice: you and a baby have the same rights; I give you a chicken burger and give him cereals..
Trying to make women play roles of men and vice versa lacks a big deal of justice IMO
I do hope you are not equating women to babies here. That has been a huge part of the problem for ages.
You know the trope about how women start talking about their problems to men, and then the men, instead of just listening and being supportive, offer advice on how to solve the problem? Same thing. It's partly an aversion to dealing with emotions, but it's primarily (in my opinion) a tendency to deal with problems in a direct and analytical way that simply doesn't WORK on emotions.
IME this is much more related to type than to sex.
