Why are men more independent than women?

[Coriolis]

It is mostly cultural but that culture has some foundations in biology. Since only 100 or 200 years ago men had much easier time surviving on their own than women, due to more strength, somewhat better eye/hand coordination as well as emotional independance. On the other hand women are almost immobile when pregnant and before modern medicine and supermarkets they had to be often pregnant in order to make enough children, since good portion of them wouldn't survive to adulthood. What in the end gave birth to traditional cultures as we know them, since back then that was basically the only model that provided meaningful results. However with technological development all this is becoming obsolete.

Men had an easier time surviving on their own because women were denied access to the means of supporting themselves, particularly trades, occupations, and property ownership. If you think pregnancy automatically equals incapacitation, you know nothing of the lives of poor women who have always had to work through pregnancies. The fragile pregnant lady spared all exertion is a creation of the upper class, especially in Victorian times. The inactivity, combined with interventions by male doctors, often led to complications not experienced by poorer women who stayed active and were attended by midwives. High rates of infant mortality among the poor were due more to infection, which was not well understood, and poor nutrition.

If you want to look at biology, in nature many animal mothers raise their young without the presence or protection of males. Sometimes the males even pose a threat to offspring. Similarly, the greatest threat to women surviving on their own throughout history may very well be predatory males. (So, the best way for men to protect women may be to leave them alone.) Some animal species band together in groups, where "aunties" look out for each others' offspring. This works for humans as well, and is not unrelated to Hillary Clinton's notion expressed some years ago that "it takes a village".

Yes, technology would render such models obsolete, to the extent that they were ever valid and truly needed. But even if you look at biology just to help explain what might be hard-wired human motivations, it still doesn't play out as you describe.

That's actually very similar to how I view aesthetics in men and women...appreciating the form but not usually as a potential object of my sexual desire. I think even if I'm looking at a beautiful woman in a revealing outfit, it's difficult to imagine doing something with her without some conscious effort on my part, but I certainly can appreciate the form and understand why she might be sexually appealing.

I'm an oddball in that way; there needs to be an intellectual connection to spark the sexual interest. I doubt my experience is true for most men, but I don't know what most men think.

This is more of less how I view things as well. For me, connections start on an intellectual level, then move to an emotional level, and only then to physical/sexual. I need the level of trust developed in the earlier levels.

From what I'd been listening to, this is a recent phenomenon. Generations ago, it was completely natural for men to step up and follow through out of duty when the going got hard - that's what being a man meant. To run was/is weak and dishonorable. It's only the last couple of "feminized" generations of men that have lost touch with the independent spirit, so some claim.

Likewise, and the thing I keep wondering, is why no one will criticize women for these same failures?

I do. I find shirking one's responsibilities and going back on one's promises bad, regardless of who is doing it. Following through on commitments, persevering through difficulties, supporting oneself and helping those in need should be expected of every able person, male or female.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

When we were hunter gatherers women were less likely to survive in the wild and needed to rear kids. The genetic underpinnings of that don't just go away because we invented the computer.

 

[á´…eparted]

I don't really think men are more independent than women. I think there are circumstances that unfairly force women to be dependent when in a more favorable environment they wouldn't be. It's also cultural. Women are taught it's ok or better to be dependent. Where as men are taught it's not ok to be dependent.

Fun fact, it's also very possible to be too independent #1w2problems (am I right [MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION]? haha). I have also very likely subconsciously taken on cultural influence (and partly due to upbringing from my ESTJ 1w2 father who fought hard to instill prototypical "manliness" in me) that being independent is a must, and due to who I am, have taken it too far. I have to be talked into being dependent on people, and even things. I'm not sure it would be so easy for me to change this though as on many levels I like and need to be fiercely independent.

 

[entropie]

As a 38 year old male I'm afraid I'm going to disagree, even your avatar's got companionship as a theme, it was the whole purpose of Dogmeat existing in the Fallout universe.

romantic is definitively a mans strengfth !

 

[EJCC]

Everyone has already said what I think: 1. women aren't less independent, and 2. if they are, it's cultural.

I don't really think men are more independent than women. I think there are circumstances that unfairly force women to be dependent when in a more favorable environment they wouldn't be. It's also cultural. Women are taught it's ok or better to be dependent. Where as men are taught it's not ok to be dependent.

Fun fact, it's also very possible to be too independent #1w2problems (am I right [MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION]? haha). I have also very likely subconsciously taken on cultural influence (and partly due to upbringing from my ESTJ 1w2 father who fought hard to instill prototypical "manliness" in me) that being independent is a must, and due to who I am, have taken it too far. I have to be talked into being dependent on people, and even things. I'm not sure it would be so easy for me to change this though as on many levels I like and need to be fiercely independent.

It's an interesting contradiction. Yes you're right to an extent re: what men are taught. But men are also taught to believe that, in many ways, they are helpless without having women around to "take care of them".

Personally I think it's horrifying how both men and women are taught to be dependent on one another. Everyone should learn to be self-sufficient. Just a few examples: Men should be able to mend holes in their clothing, and sew buttons back on, without paying someone to do it or asking a female relative to -- and women should be able to kill (or trap) spiders and cockroaches without running around like chickens with their heads cut off.

Don't let weird, gendered pride (or fear) get in the way of getting shit done. Just do it. For the love of God, just do it.

 

[á´…eparted]

Everyone has already said what I think: 1. women aren't less independent, and 2. if they are, it's cultural.


It's an interesting contradiction. Yes you're right to an extent re: what men are taught. But men are also taught to believe that, in many ways, they are helpless without having women around to "take care of them".

Personally I think it's horrifying how both men and women are taught to be dependent on one another. Everyone should learn to be self-sufficient. Just a few examples: Men should be able to mend holes in their clothing, and sew buttons back on, without paying someone to do it or asking a female relative to -- and women should be able to kill (or trap) spiders and cockroaches without running around like chickens with their heads cut off.

Don't let weird, gendered pride (or fear) get in the way of getting shit done. Just do it. For the love of God, just do it.

I've never actually thought about that before, but that's probably because I am a gay man and am thus insulated from that. Now that you say it though, it does ring true. There even seems to be an excessive push and premium on co-dependent relationships, and overall divvying up of who can do what. I mean, it's even pushed on a government level; tax breaks for being in a relationship. People look at you strangely (not everyone, but does happen) if they learn you're older and aren't in a relationship. It's more or less culturally expected.

I wonder if getting away from pushing for relationships as a cultural expectation would lead to softening of gender roles?

 

[EJCC]

I've never actually thought about that before, but that's probably because I am a gay man and am thus insulated from that. Now that you say it though, it does ring true. There even seems to be an excessive push and premium on co-dependent relationships, and overall divvying up of who can do what. I mean, it's even pushed on a government level; tax breaks for being in a relationship. People look at you strangely (not everyone, but does happen) if they learn you're older and aren't in a relationship. It's more or less culturally expected.

I wonder if getting away from pushing for relationships as a cultural expectation would lead to softening of gender roles?

People are going to be drawn to relationships no matter what. An easier fix might be to emphasize that everyone has individual strengths and weaknesses and couples can balance each other out that way. But in the meantime, until they find The One, they need to be able to function as a grown-ass adult on their own.

There's plenty more that both men and women could do to soften gender expectations but that is way too big a topic for this thread.

 

[Luv Deluxe]

I wonder if getting away from pushing for relationships as a cultural expectation would lead to softening of gender roles?

I think so. Or, at least, the acceptance of more non-traditional paths would certainly make a difference. Once you're in a relationship, people still expect you to follow the map, so to speak - get married, have kids, etc. There's some call to conform to the traditional family unit that possibly perpetuates it more than anything else.

Except for my physicality, I don't feel very female. It's hard to know whether that has to do with social conditioning, or just how many of my same-sex peers really do idealize things like being married off to and claimed by a man. It seems like a natural desire for many if not most of them, and I often wonder why.

I don't mean to offend anyone who finds marriage romantic, but it's not for me and I think it (traditionally) encourages dependent roles. That's all fine, insofar as healthy teamwork goes, but I feel like there are some unnecessary things, things that subtly push the woman into a lesser position. (Sorry, but change my last name? You're out of your mind, my last name is way cooler than yours, guys.) And then, of course, there are all the institutional incentives for tying the knot and giving birth.

My guy and I have been together for just about three years. Though we've always taken trips, it seems like now anytime we head to a new location, I've got relatives eagerly awaiting some kind of proposal on the beach situation. It's not gonna happen. Why should it happen? I find it bizarre that we're not quite taken seriously as a couple, since we're just "together" and he hasn't made me his wife. The more time elapses, people seem to think he loves me less because he hasn't put a ring on it (I don't want him to).

So, it's an interesting subject overall - I know plenty of women who are head over heels attached to becoming someone's Mrs., but we also aggressively encourage that as a cultural norm, so it becomes kind of a chicken v. egg question.

 

[Coriolis]

Fun fact, it's also very possible to be too independent #1w2problems (am I right [MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION]? haha). I have also very likely subconsciously taken on cultural influence (and partly due to upbringing from my ESTJ 1w2 father who fought hard to instill prototypical "manliness" in me) that being independent is a must, and due to who I am, have taken it too far. I have to be talked into being dependent on people, and even things. I'm not sure it would be so easy for me to change this though as on many levels I like and need to be fiercely independent.

I am the same way, and always felt the need to be able to rely on myself, and support myself as an adult. I have wondered how I did not absorb those conventions about women relying on a a man for support, etc. I think being an only child helped, as I was never compared with siblings, even though my parents were older and never really questioned the usual traditions. Some people speak of certain tendencies being "hard-wired" in us. I don't disagree, but would add that that wiring includes much more than gender. To the extent that type is inborn, or at least reflects innate traits, I suspect some of us are simply hard-wired for independence in a way that overrides gender.

Personally I think it's horrifying how both men and women are taught to be dependent on one another. Everyone should learn to be self-sufficient. Just a few examples: Men should be able to mend holes in their clothing, and sew buttons back on, without paying someone to do it or asking a female relative to -- and women should be able to kill (or trap) spiders and cockroaches without running around like chickens with their heads cut off.

Don't let weird, gendered pride (or fear) get in the way of getting shit done. Just do it. For the love of God, just do it.

Exactly. It is one thing to come up with a reasonable division of labor in your household based on people's abilities and interests. It is a different matter entirely to be completely unable to do basic life tasks without help.

When I was at field training, the guys kept asking me to do simple mending jobs like this for them. I was prepared to scold the next one who did so. Turns out he was quite willing to do the job himself, just wanted some thread from me, since he didn't have the right color in his travel sewing kit.

I've never actually thought about that before, but that's probably because I am a gay man and am thus insulated from that. Now that you say it though, it does ring true. There even seems to be an excessive push and premium on co-dependent relationships, and overall divvying up of who can do what. I mean, it's even pushed on a government level; tax breaks for being in a relationship. People look at you strangely (not everyone, but does happen) if they learn you're older and aren't in a relationship. It's more or less culturally expected.

I wonder if getting away from pushing for relationships as a cultural expectation would lead to softening of gender roles?

I don't think we need to use the tax code to encourage or discourage relationships, but I do think they should be encouraged in general, and not simply the traditional one-man-one-woman marriage. Same-sex marriage contributes to relaxing gender roles as it is. Society is much more mobile than it used to be, with more people living far from family and friends they grew up with. This makes having a support network even more important, which can include a SO, extended family, or simply good friends.

 

[nonsequitur]

From what I'd been listening to, this is a recent phenomenon. Generations ago, it was completely natural for men to step up and follow through out of duty when the going got hard - that's what being a man meant. To run was/is weak and dishonorable. It's only the last couple of "feminized" generations of men that have lost touch with the independent spirit, so some claim.

Likewise, and the thing I keep wondering, is why no one will criticize women for these same failures?

Those expectations are damaging - that men have to perform at a higher level, otherwise they're "women". In itself, this pejorative usage of "feminized" is sexist. This has been going on for eons and in every generation, the next generation is accused of not being "manly enough" or being a "sissy". Football was invented in the US as a means of males "proving" their masculinity to the previous generation that went to war, and saw them as weak! This is not new.

For the record, I also impose similar expectations on women. Everyone has to step up. But I'd like to ask you - how does society treat a woman who is outspoken, who stays in the fight and who follows through out of a sense of duty? What do men (and other women) call her? Just because she doesn't fit these gendered "norms"? There's loads of these women through history, from the suffragists to Margaret Thatcher to Julia Gillard. What was said about them? What threats were made against them? Do men in similar positions of power/advocacy get the same treatment?

 

[Virtual ghost]

Men had an easier time surviving on their own because women were denied access to the means of supporting themselves, particularly trades, occupations, and property ownership. If you think pregnancy automatically equals incapacitation, you know nothing of the lives of poor women who have always had to work through pregnancies. The fragile pregnant lady spared all exertion is a creation of the upper class, especially in Victorian times. The inactivity, combined with interventions by male doctors, often led to complications not experienced by poorer women who stayed active and were attended by midwives. High rates of infant mortality among the poor were due more to infection, which was not well understood, and poor nutrition.

If you want to look at biology, in nature many animal mothers raise their young without the presence or protection of males. Sometimes the males even pose a threat to offspring. Similarly, the greatest threat to women surviving on their own throughout history may very well be predatory males. (So, the best way for men to protect women may be to leave them alone.) Some animal species band together in groups, where "aunties" look out for each others' offspring. This works for humans as well, and is not unrelated to Hillary Clinton's notion expressed some years ago that "it takes a village".

Yes, technology would render such models obsolete, to the extent that they were ever valid and truly needed. But even if you look at biology just to help explain what might be hard-wired human motivations, it still doesn't play out as you describe.

Yes, women were denied all kind of things I never denied that. However I trully think that before pregnancy was bigger problem than it was over the last 100 years. Since deficit of roads, access to food and good room temperatures were much bigger issues. If you go thorugh my words I never said that pregnant woman are incapable of doing anything but this objectively is extra burden and for that few months woman should/needs to recieve more than it provides. (at least that is the ideal scenario). Also I know what was killing the children but I am looking at the effect and that was that more pregnancies were needed to compensate for that. What naturally places women at disadvantage, it is survivable but it is still disadvantage when compared with men. (since they don't go through anything similar)



Also I think you are overlooking the wider social context. If you go just a few centuries back you have just about nothing in the terms of human rights and various conventions. Therefore despite deseases and everything women had to give birth constantly in order to make bigger collectives that will be safer. Because the collective that wasn't like that was dissadvantaged in the terms of "firepower" and regenerating numbers. Therefore once defences fell women ended up as sex slaves somewhere in the woods and because of this any sociaty that was too friendly towards women was disadvantaged from strategic point of view and probably didn't survive. Don't get me wrong I am not a fan of such social dynamics but the past was quite messed up and I am not sure that there were real alternatives at the time, since it was impossble to put everyone at the table and talk over this. I can agree that women got a pretty lousy deal in all of this but their biology was the part of why it happned, that is all what I am really saying.

 

[EcK]

'cause women are on average more dependant than men

 

[FemMecha]

My mother has lived her life as one of the most independent people I know. She is an ISFP, and while she enjoyed and valued the process of having children, she never felt a need to be dependent on anyone. She never remarried, and never had that longing for a romantic companion. She used to tell me that it's harder for men to be alone because they tend to need a woman.

I personally have a stronger need for companionship than she does. I mostly don't know if the premise of the thread is true or not in the big picture. Men are culturally offered more independent roles professionally, but other than that, I think plenty of men have the inner longing for companionship.

 

[ThaumaturgicTheorist]

I don't really think men are more independent than women. I think there are circumstances that unfairly force women to be dependent when in a more favorable environment they wouldn't be. It's also cultural. Women are taught it's ok or better to be dependent. Where as men are taught it's not ok to be dependent.

Fun fact, it's also very possible to be too independent #1w2problems (am I right [MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION]? haha). I have also very likely subconsciously taken on cultural influence (and partly due to upbringing from my ESTJ 1w2 father who fought hard to instill prototypical "manliness" in me) that being independent is a must, and due to who I am, have taken it too far. I have to be talked into being dependent on people, and even things. I'm not sure it would be so easy for me to change this though as on many levels I like and need to be fiercely independent.

How on earth is it possible to be too independent? It sounds like incredible strength of character.

Those expectations are damaging - that men have to perform at a higher level, otherwise they're "women". In itself, this pejorative usage of "feminized" is sexist. This has been going on for eons and in every generation, the next generation is accused of not being "manly enough" or being a "sissy". Football was invented in the US as a means of males "proving" their masculinity to the previous generation that went to war, and saw them as weak! This is not new.

See, I've had this impression that men just naturally perform at higher levels, due to innate personality tendencies, greater intellect, greater drive, etc.

For the record, I also impose similar expectations on women. Everyone has to step up. But I'd like to ask you - how does society treat a woman who is outspoken, who stays in the fight and who follows through out of a sense of duty? What do men (and other women) call her? Just because she doesn't fit these gendered "norms"? There's loads of these women through history, from the suffragists to Margaret Thatcher to Julia Gillard. What was said about them? What threats were made against them? Do men in similar positions of power/advocacy get the same treatment?

The trope goes that she gets called a bitch, crazy, or whatever for being strong and powerful. I'm not so sure that's always true. Are they actually being "bitches" for the same reasons you might call a man doing and saying the same things an asshole, an idiot, a narcissist, etc? Or just because they're female and in power?

 

[nonsequitur]

See, I've had this impression that men just naturally perform at higher levels, due to innate personality tendencies, greater intellect, greater drive, etc.

Your impression is wrong or you have had a very limited range of experiences in life.

The trope goes that she gets called a bitch, crazy, or whatever for being strong and powerful. I'm not so sure that's always true. Are they actually being "bitches" for the same reasons you might call a man doing and saying the same things an asshole, an idiot, a narcissist, etc? Or just because they're female and in power?

That is true in any competitive industry. And a man who does and says the same things is called "assertive" or "a leader". There's a lot of work that has been published on this.

 

[Forever]

They're not. Talk only, lots of posturing and macho nonsense but they seldom get stuff done. When shit gets hard, detailed policy needs to be formed and sacrifices need to be made, they run. Especially if they get no open recognition and there's no chance of being called a hero.

There is an expectation that both sexes portray these images. When they betray these expectations, they get punished for it and called names.

It starts at a young age.

8-Year-Old Girl's Rant About Sexist Clothes At Tesco Is Your Pint-Sized Feminist Hero Of The Week

I'm not offended by this statement because I don't allow myself to be overly macho. I'm pretty honest with people that I am capable or incapable of certain tasks. Lol

Actions speak louder than words for sure because the results in most cases tell if you were bragging or not

 

[Thursday]

Independence is often an illusion and a trap. In economics alone, one mistake in California can be reflected in China's market.

Women's brains are like Ne, expansive and explosive, whereas men's brains are like Ni, leaning more towards mastery and the seclusion that allow for said skills. Few women can master something, that's why throughout history, now and then, all of the GREAT people in any field were predominantly men. I'll let Nikola Tesla and sum it up.

An Engineer's Aspect: Nikola Tesla - "Mr. Tesla Explains Why He Will Never Marry"

 

[Edgar]

If you want to look at biology, in nature many animal mothers raise their young without the presence or protection of males. Sometimes the males even pose a threat to offspring. Similarly, the greatest threat to women surviving on their own throughout history may very well be predatory males. (So, the best way for men to protect women may be to leave them alone.)

When modern humans developed bipedal locomotion, or the ability to walk upright, it decreased the size of the bony birth-canal, increasing the difficulty of childbirth and requiring assistance from other members of species during childbirth. Complications in human childbirth are more frequent compared to non-human primates, who manage to give birth alone with relatively little difficulty. Also, considering humans generally birth only one offspring at a time means the child requires additional protection.

Tl;dr Human evolution made it so humans need other humans to survive and thrive.

Back to the topic at hand. I'd say women are less independent than men in general due to the fact that they are more likely to get free shit than men. That feeds complacency. I'm sure none of this applies to any of you hard & tuff smack-talking INTJ bitches, but that's because you're very special and not representative of the general population.

 

[erg]

Because men tend to use more their frontal lobes.

 

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

It must be the penis. Like a jutting cliff thrusting into the sea the penis is a symbol of thrusting yourself into life.... or I am just full of shit