As I previously said, studies also included personality tests showing women scoring higher for typically feminine traits in more gender-equal countries. (The following references Big 5, but Ive read articles with more specific findings like women cry more).
As Ixaerus observed, women are allowed to cry more. As I have observed, self-reported data contain significant bias.
Why is it so abhorrent to believe that women tend to be feminine, men masculine? And ergo more women are caring, while more men dominant? From this premise does it necessarily follow that we disrespect and devalue each other? Even just within the confines of this forum. Bearing in mind that this is a) An intellectual safe space with no ramifications for the outside world... b) We are already engaged in the categorising of personality by generalities. If you think that most ENTPs have a quick wit, is it incoherent to believe that most women like to wear a dress and feel pretty from time to time? And if you're willing to believe the former is someone's nature, why not the latter?
I realise Im heading up a dead end with this as you have very much hunkered down in your position. I just wanted to express my feelings on it.
You are welcome to your feelings and beliefs, but you are reaching a dead end because the evidence does not support your position. Yes indeed, "women tend to be feminine, men masculine", but credible data support at most a weak link to physiology for this, and point instead to social and cultural conditioning as the primary (though perhaps not exclusive) influence. Traditionally, women were not allowed to be dominant, nor men caring unless in a "defend the weak" sort of way.
Categorizing people is best done using categories that actually mean something. Male and female are relevant in many situations, chiefly related to physiological differences, as in human reproduction, medical exams or even fitting clothing to body type. In terms of traits, preferences, and behavior, I find personality types to say much more about a person than gender, as I have mentioned before. The desire to look attractive or express oneself through appearance is human, not feminine. Women and men will do this in different ways based on what they have been raised with. Iconoclasts of either sex are more likely to push those envelopes. (And no, when I wear a dress, it isn't to feel pretty. That desire has never been on my radar.)
Do they actually cry more, or are they just allowed to cry more?
Tons of women are though-ass and don't cry because of the demands of today's society as more women enter professional fields. Crying, inherent? I think not.
Exactly. Plus, the "emotional woman" is a stereotype that isn't supported by reality. In many contexts and cultures women have been expected to be compliant and uncomplaining, enduring all manner of hardship, even physical abuse, without a peep or even a frown. That rivals the stoicism usually associated with men, and shows that emotionality - or control over one's emotions - is not the domain of either sex, it just looks different due to context.
Women can slay in hot pink heels. She is doing a 'masculine' activity in 'feminine' attire. Big deal.
Another example.
Also, if you want to go masc/fem aesthetics, it is somewhat the limitations of human biology- heels look so much better on the generally slender legs of a woman. Both men and women can want to appear attractive, women use heels, men use whatever else. Both styles become attributed into masculinity or feminity- when it is only natural consequence in the face of biology. The basic reasoning is the same, and not gender-constrained (and thus it is ridiculous to attribute physical makeup or appearance as masculine or feminine, it is just an end result of a gender-neutral behavioural motivation). On a cognitive level, we are much less gender-constrained.
Yes, aesthetics are related to body type, which is an aspect of physiology. Different styles will look better on different body types, and hence on the average woman vs. the average man, though even then, there is considerable variation. But style is constrained beyond that. There is nothing about male physiology that prevents wearing skirts and dresses, and indeed, in some times and cultures men have worn garments that are much more dress-like than the shirts and trousers customary today (e.g. kilts). There is nothing in male physiology to prevent the use of makeup, jewelry, or nail polish either. Indeed, if humans were to follow the rest of nature, the male of the species would be more flamboyant in appearance than the female.
