Why are men more independent than women?

[RedAmazoneFriendZone]

Men being more independant ???? Where are they ?!!! Men SEEM more independant. Centuries of domination over women make them seem more independant and strong.

But under those behaviours are fears of women empowerment and of the very powerful nurturing nature of women.

Look who choses to divorce first in probably 80 per cent of general cases. You'll get the answer of who has an independant nature. A bit like cats and dogs...

 

[Virtual ghost]

We cannot say that a society more egalitarian in authority did not prevail until modern times. From what I have read, they have and quite possibly were quite commonplace in certain eras. As for education, I would rather emphasize scientific subjects over all of what you list here, but that is tangential to the topic. Finally, don't confuse logic with forcing the issue. It is sadly common for people to act against their own best interests, defying all logic.

Science is good but to be honest I think education is more and more lacking in creation of social intelligence. Hard science does not mean much if it isn't channeled properly and if people are unable to cooperate to finnish more and more complex projects. World has much bigger problems in the terms of social dynamic than science and therefore this field requires extra effort from what we are currently doing.

You are underestimating the effects of being raised to associate shame and fear with sexually aggressive encounters. As I said, girls are still raised this way, especially in some parts of the world. Even in the west/US, we are not free from it.

I never said that this isn't a factor, it is just that I think that women and people in general are more defensive about this than they were tought. I am pretty sure that many women regardless of their upbringing didn't play along in this.

Well, you are right that technology has helped to restore a greater degree of independence to women, but if you want to look at a completely natural state, you will see that females of species have quite often been independent. The fact that human women have been kept dependent for so long is thus not natural. There may be certain aspects of human nature that facilitate it, but one must then consider the broader question of how closely one expects human nature to parallel that of other species. Since women are the ones with uteruses, they then control the future. One of the main tasks of men who wish to control women has been to keep them from realizing this.

This is perhaps clumsy use of English on my part and perhaps I should have said "traditionally" instead of "naturally". However I am pretty sure that sexual abuse is old as human nature, especially since such abuse can be observed in other species as well. However humans have one difference regarding other forms of life a that is that for few years thet are compretely dependant on their parents, what is good foundation for starting the described dynamic.

 

[Virtual ghost]

My non-scientific observations based on experiences? Men are bigger risk takers than women. They go big or go home. Win-lose.

Women excel at finding solutions while minimizing "unnecessary" risk. Win-win.

An example in the warehouse I work. I'm the only female. We needed to put a cover to one of the chain hoist warehouse doors and I walk out to see one guy on the forklift balancing on the forks about 15 feet high. The other guy operating the forklift.

Guy on the forks is unsteady. He's got to balance the unwieldy cover and drill one side, then move the forklift to the other and do the other side. All the while he is complaining how difficult it is.

I see two ladders in the warehouse + two guys = fast quick installation. Use ladders, each person has one end of cover, lifts it in succession and drill. Done. Give drill to other guy. Drill. Done.

Instead they took twice as long and their move was twice as dangerous. Was it more challenging? Yeah. It had an element of fun to it. No doubt.

When I asked why they didn't use the ladders they were like Oh. They didn't think of it. Just dive in without thinking. We laughed. They said it was a good idea. I told them I would be in the office and to holler if they needed me to call 911.

Did their idea work? Yup. Would mine? Yup. Both using our brains. Just in different ways and if things work then it's not such a bad idea.

That's why I don't like saying "superior" but at the same time, just because tested and tried methods work doesn't mean other ones don't have viability.

This is basically just being smarter than the rest/most of environment. I have situations like this all the time, especially when it comes to usage of time.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

This is basically just being smarter than the rest/most of environment. I have situations like this all the time, especilly when it comes to usage of time.

Agreed. Yet a lot of women's suggestions on how to problem solve get pushed aside because the very nature of how they make those decisions is foreign to men. Mainly because women have been outnumbered in a lot of careers. This is dwindling but it is being met with fight/fright/defensiveness from a lot of men who see this as encroaching on a system that has worked well as it is. If it ain't broke, why fix it?

Meaning, if the majority of the workforce in certain jobs is male, then it would only be natural that problem solving takes on their preference in making decisions. This isn't a bad thing. It makes complete sense. The bad thing comes when women come in and have different ways of problem solving, or reaching consensus on how to solve the problem (process-oriented vs action-oriented) and men go, wtf...what is she even talking about? *dismisses all that*. Not realizing that there is more than one way to skin a cat and if he would just listen and be patient, he may hear something he has not naturally considered and it may be an even better solution to the problem at hand.

I don't want to get too into the BS gender stuff, but the flip side of this is "mansplaining". When women complain about it? It's really women shutting men down and their natural problem solving processes. Which is why men flip their sh*t when they hear it because it's like, "hey, that isn't FAIR". Yup. It isn't.

It's what women have been up against for a while now in the workforce and it's no fun being on that end of disrespect. Yet, it's not the correct way to solve that problem by playing tit-for-tat. It just keeps the cycle of stupidity and disrespect going.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Agreed. Yet a lot of women's suggestions on how to problem solve get pushed aside because the very nature of how they make those decisions is foreign to men. Mainly because women have been outnumbered in a lot of careers. This is dwindling but it is being met with fight/fright/defensiveness from a lot of men who see this as encroaching on a system that has worked well as it is. If it ain't broke, why fix it?

Meaning, if the majority of the workforce in certain jobs is male, then it would only be natural that problem solving takes on their preference in making decisions. This isn't a bad thing. It makes complete sense. The bad thing comes when women come in and have different ways of problem solving, or reaching consensus on how to solve the problem (process-oriented vs action-oriented) and men go, wtf...what is she even talking about? *dismisses all that*. Not realizing that there is more than one way to skin a cat and if he would just listen and be patient, he may hear something he has not naturally considered and it may be an even better solution to the problem at hand.

I don't want to get too into the BS gender stuff, but the flip side of this is "mansplaining". When women complain about it? It's really women shutting men down and their natural problem solving processes. Which is why men flip their sh*t when they hear it because it's like, "hey, that isn't FAIR". Yup. It isn't.

It's what women have been up against for a while now in the workforce and it's no fun being on that end of disrespect. Yet, it's not the correct way to solve that problem by playing tit-for-tat. It just keeps the cycle of stupidity and disrespect going.

To tell you the truth or at least my experiences: this usually isn't about how women do stuff, but their values. However every goal has value based judgement and this is where problems show up.
Therefore to many men what women believe is "unnatural", unrelatable, or undesirable. I don't know how many times women called me out to be heartless since I ignore their life rules and social games. (so this goes both ways actually)

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

To tell you the truth or at least my experiences: this usually isn't about how women do stuff, but their values. However every goal has value based judgement and this is where problems show up.

I don't understand anything about the bolded as those statements are self-cancelling.

----

I don't know how many times women called me out to be heartless since I ignore their life rules and social games.

Well, if you choose to ignore those things you are showing disrespect/dismissiveness because those things make up a lot of what makes women, women.

Being disrespectful/dismissive is not meeting in the middle. It's the opposite of that.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I don't understand anything about the bolded as those statements are self-cancelling.

I am not sure why you say that. What I was trying to say is that I see their logic but I disagree with them because of some reason which I find rational.

Well, if you choose to ignore those things you are showing disrespect/dismissiveness because those things make up a lot of what makes women, women.

Being disrespectful/dismissive is not meeting in the middle. It's the opposite of that.

I know that it is not meeting in the middle ... it just that I claim that I know better in some situations. (but I can do that to men as well since this is who I am, it is just that it happens less often. Since there are greater chances that we share interpretation of the situation). My relationship with women is long story but my deficit of Fe and Sx instict often makes them uncomfortable, what I find silly.


However when I said "my experiences" I included observations of what other people do. Sometimes female logic is just unrelatable. (regardless of typology)

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

I am not sure why you say that. What I was trying to say is that I see their logic but I disagree with them because of some reason which I find rational.

How often do you concede or compromise in these circumstances?

I know that it is not meeting in the middle ... it just that I claim that I know better in some situations. (but I can do that to men as well since this is who I am, it is just that it happens less often. Since there are greater chances that we share interpretation of the situation). My relationship with women is long story but my deficit of Fe and Sx instict often makes them uncomfortable, what I find silly.

Sometimes you do. I'm sure. As long as you don't cut them off at the pass or assume you know where their logic is going and shut them down without hearing them out, or refuse to have a discussion about what to do, then fine.

There's a difference in thinking you're right and making a unilateral decision and hearing and weighing another perspective, then making a unilateral decision. The decisions can be the same in the end, you may find yourself where you wanted to be initially, but sometimes you may surprised yourself and utilize someone else's ideas. This is the difference between process-action that I was talking about and if you want to hold fast to your decision you have to be able to explain why you think that is the best decision. You may even convince them your way is the best way for the circumstances. Instead of bulldozing into the decision without consensus. Sometimes that is called for in emergency situations but often things of men and women are not emergency situations and can be hashed out. It doesn't have to be a long drawn out thing all the time.

It shouldn't be with someone you're compatible with, anyway. Give and take should be even.

 

[Virtual ghost]

How often do you concede or compromise in these circumstances?

Depends on the impact, the larger the impact it is more likely that I will have my own strong opinion. If it is something minor or something I don't care about I will let them have their fun. Over the years I have developed the strategy that can be described as So+3 fix, that allows me to pick my fights. Power play does not concern me that much but if I see that results will not good enough for me I will be harsh/blunt. However if I compromise too much I don't feel happy about myself ... since this is basically sleeping on the job.

Sometimes you do. I'm sure. As long as you don't cut them off at the pass or assume you know where their logic is going and shut them down without hearing them out, or refuse to have a discussion about what to do, then fine.

There's a difference in thinking you're right and making a unilateral decision and hearing and weighing another perspective, then making a unilateral decision. The decisions can be the same in the end, you may find yourself where you wanted to be initially, but sometimes you may surprised yourself and utilize someone else's ideas. This is the difference between process-action that I was talking about and if you want to hold fast to your decision you have to be able to explain why you think that is the best decision. You may even convince them your way is the best way for the circumstances. Instead of bulldozing into the decision without consensus. Sometimes that is called for in emergency situations but often things of men and women are not emergency situations and can be hashed out. It doesn't have to be a long drawn out thing all the time.

It shouldn't be with someone you're compatible with, anyway. Give and take should be even.

Every time I am uncooperative there is probably some concrete reason for it. Neither I am likely to dismiss poeple before I know what is on their mind (unless time remaining is in critical condition). Often I directly explain why I am against something and then people think that I am rude. It often happened that I start a whole story why they are incorrect and people are like "here we go again" and they kill the converation. Since most people have much thinner skin/nerves than me and therefore they are careful around me, on the other hand I may like a good verbal duel. Actually I have developed pseudo introversion at one point partially exactly because people don't want to play with me and they sotonized me for all kind of stupid reasons.


So I went independant while a woman would probably change its bahavior/goals much more in such scenario. Since there is fundmantal difference in approach to detachnemt.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I don't think women are less independent. Generally speaking, I think they are realistic about all humans being interdependent in order to meet common needs, and maybe this stems from the biological reality that many women will literally have another human dependent on them for life at some point (pregnancy). Women are more often taking care of others than being taken care of, something their upbringing usually encourages from a young age, right down to the toys made for them. This all makes women depended upon, however, not dependent.

I think when women are in favor of systems which help others, it is not about a desire for dependency, but a desire to use their own independence and power to help others who are perhaps disadvantaged. It's helping people to become independent, but also with the acknowledgment that "no man is an island". Again, I think this stems from how women are nurtured to become nurturers, to use their strengths to support and contribute, not to dominate.

Honestly, I think if men were really so independent, then many wouldn't be so scared of women's independence. :X

 

[Coriolis]

Therefore to many men what women believe is "unnatural", unrelatable, or undesirable. I don't know how many times women called me out to be heartless since I ignore their life rules and social games. (so this goes both ways actually)

I ignore most of this as well, and I am a woman. So what does that say? IME, it is much more dependent on type and other factors than gender. A big one is that women have long been raised to operate this way, or at least to hide it when they operate otherwise.

Well, if you choose to ignore those things you are showing disrespect/dismissiveness because those things make up a lot of what makes women, women.

Really? Here we go again. It "makes women, women" except of course for the women who aren't that way.

However when I said "my experiences" I included observations of what other people do. Sometimes female logic is just unrelatable. (regardless of typology)

You cannot separate the thought processes of someone - male or female - from typology, or more broadly, from their inherent personality traits.

There's a difference in thinking you're right and making a unilateral decision and hearing and weighing another perspective, then making a unilateral decision. The decisions can be the same in the end, you may find yourself where you wanted to be initially, but sometimes you may surprised yourself and utilize someone else's ideas.

And sometimes this is just an obvious waste of time and effort. It's like those meetings in which someone brings up a stupid idea, but it isn't PC to call it stupid, even if one can provide very good reasons. People feel they have to say all sorts of nice things about the idea and the person who mentioned it to avoid hurting their feelings, knowing they will reject it in the end. That is fundamentally dishonest, and even patronizing.

So I went independant while a woman would probably change its bahavior/goals much more in such scenario. Since there is fundmantal difference in approach to detachnemt.

Again, this is related much more to type than gender, with some allowances for gender biased upbringing.

 

[Ursa]

Every time I am uncooperative there is probably some concrete reason for it. Neither I am likely to dismiss poeple before I know what is on their mind (unless time remaining is in critical condition). Often I directly explain why I am against something and then people think that I am rude. It often happened that I start a whole story why they are incorrect and people are like "here we go again" and they kill the converation. Since most people have much thinner skin/nerves than me and therefore they are careful around me, on the other hand I may like a good verbal duel. Actually I have developed pseudo introversion at one point partially exactly because people don't want to play with me and they sotonized me for all kind of stupid reasons.


So I went independant while a woman would probably change its bahavior/goals much more in such scenario. Since there is fundmantal difference in approach to detachnemt.

This is more likely type-related. There are people in my social circle, men and women, who dislike impersonal conversations. They would rather discuss the weather, sports and entertainment. There are also people in my social circle, men and women, who crave blunt conversation and would rather discuss science and politics as impersonally as possible.

As an ESTJ, I deeply dislike verbal duels. Not because I'm thin-skinned, but because I see it as non-constructive word play. I often think that discussing some aspects of philosophy and science is essentially the nerd's way of goofing off, or a luxury that someone with deep pockets can afford because they believe they don't have anything else better to do. "Here we go again," pretty much describes the look on my face when someone tries to talk to me about some of these things. I much prefer conversations that have as their objective something that can be accomplished: dispelling superstitions and bigotry, establishing a budget, negotiating a deal, helping me understand something (important) better, engineering a technology that is actually useful, etc. There are lot of frustrated NT types out there because their conversational needs are not the same as ST types' conversational needs.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

Really? Here we go again. It "makes women, women" except of course for the women who aren't that way.

#noteverywoman you can insert it into my posts whenever you get the itch. I am speaking in broad terms and how women and men have been shown to communicate via study. T/F divide being what it is.

And sometimes this is just an obvious waste of time and effort. It's like those meetings in which someone brings up a stupid idea, but it isn't PC to call it stupid, even if one can provide very good reasons. People feel they have to say all sorts of nice things about the idea and the person who mentioned it to avoid hurting their feelings, knowing they will reject it in the end. That is fundamentally dishonest, and even patronizing.

I'm not talking about a business meeting. Speak up then. I'm talking about active listening, in VG post, it was more obvious to me he was speaking about the personal realm, since he often does. I could be wrong on that.

Also, VG all but said he ignores anything that he can't relate to and inferred most women's preferences fall into that category.

Well, good luck. Either he is not seeing them as individuals, is meeting the same individuals, hasn't met someone who thinks like him, or he isn't communicating optimally.

It could be a mix of a lot of elements, more than gender differences causing that. Sure.

Again, this is related much more to type than gender, with some allowances for gender biased upbringing.

I believe gender exists. Differences exist. I know you don't think so, therefore, you will always have some issue with my perspective.

Now, I'm not saying those differences validate discrimination AT ALL. In fact, the complete opposite.

It is in these collective differences that is strengthening and inclusion be looked upon favorably. It's not just about T women, but F women. All women. The ones who "aren't like that" and the ones "that are".

Could it be that T men/women and F men/women are just butting heads with their F and T counterparts? Probably but these studies aren't divided via MBTI and even then, I still see differences.

 

[Cellmold]

All I can say is an independent woman is kinda hot.

As in someone who knows what they want, understands themselves to a decent degree and realises how to get it.

 

[chubber]

It's in their upbringing. Girls are almost always supported by other young and older females, while boys are left to their own devices, which forces them to be "learn"/cope being independent.

 

[chubber]

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.

The problem with this statement is: you need support to learn how to be self sufficient, which makes you dependent in the first place

But, I guess what your post is trying to say is, it should be OK to be self sufficient when the occasion arises and also OK to ask for help.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Also, VG all but said he ignores anything that he can't relate to and inferred most women's preferences fall into that category.

Well, good luck. Either he is not seeing them as individuals, is meeting the same individuals, hasn't met someone who thinks like him, or he isn't communicating optimally.

It could be a mix of a lot of elements, more than gender differences causing that. Sure.

Eh, no. I would place my money on "VG despises his own culture". Since I am tired of people who can't take care of anything and they just hang out, complain and drink. (epecially since unemployment of young people is around 50%) Therefore I have to turn almost everything into a "business metting" and I constanty have to babysit people, so I am just apathetic about most people. It took me some time to understand this but this is the case. I find most people around me pretty uninteresting and I have to search very thoroughtly to find someone that resonates with me.


Individiualism? Don't forget that I am basically born in what was European equivalent of N. Korea at the time.
Also just last year we for the first time had something that looks like democratic elections ... and Individualism as you know it doesn't really exist here.
Where I live I know for a number of case where people came back into the land of their grandfathers and they all run away out the country within 6 months, due to social dynamics. I hang out here exactly to remove myself from my local environment/culture.


But this is totally offtopic.
I haven't slept for over 24 hours and I am going to bed.

 

[EJCC]

The problem with this statement is: you need support to learn how to be self sufficient, which makes you dependent in the first place

This is what books and articles are for.

But yes, asking someone to teach you how to do something so you can do it from then on is totally ok.

 

[Coriolis]

It's in their upbringing. Girls are almost always supported by other young and older females, while boys are left to their own devices, which forces them to be "learn"/cope being independent.

Careful . . . you are making me feel like the proverbial special snowflake again.

I believe gender exists. Differences exist. I know you don't think so, therefore, you will always have some issue with my perspective.

You cannot know the highlighted, as I have never claimed it. What I have done is to ask what exactly is the nature of that difference, other than learned behaviors based on social customs, and observable physiology. So far, no one has been able to tell me. I should be allowed, therefore, at least some reasonable doubt.

Could it be that T men/women and F men/women are just butting heads with their F and T counterparts? Probably but these studies aren't divided via MBTI and even then, I still see differences.

This seems very likely, and has been suggested by others more well-versed in both typology and gender studies than I. Physiology aside, what looks like male/female differences is mostly T/F differences, which can seem like the same thing given the relatively small gender disparity on that scale.

The problem with this statement is: you need support to learn how to be self sufficient, which makes you dependent in the first place

But, I guess what your post is trying to say is, it should be OK to be self sufficient when the occasion arises and also OK to ask for help.

That support is called childhood, and both male and females of the species go through it. A certain level of independence and self-sufficiency is part of becoming an adult, and both sexes should (be expected to) attain it. Of course we are all interdependent in many ways, but that interdependence is not gender based, but more a product of how life and especially economics are ordered in the modern age.

 

[ThaumaturgicTheorist]

It's in their upbringing. Girls are almost always supported by other young and older females, while boys are left to their own devices, which forces them to be "learn"/cope being independent.

I seriously don't know what argument has caused this thread to grow to 14 pages, but this is more or less what I was getting at. Women generally have a support system from the beginning, while men don't. Perhaps it's because they simply don't need/want it, while women are mentally and emotionally weaker, and therefore do.

To tell you the truth or at least my experiences: this usually isn't about how women do stuff, but their values. However every goal has value based judgement and this is where problems show up.
Therefore to many men what women believe is "unnatural", unrelatable, or undesirable. I don't know how many times women called me out to be heartless since I ignore their life rules and social games. (so this goes both ways actually)

This too. This is the point: men have superior values to women. Of course there are exceptions in both sexes, but men generally are more moral, more rational, more virtuous, more intelligent than women, and the two ways of being are largely incomprehensible to the other (unless of course, you're one of the exceptions). Why do you think there's so much pushback about how modern society is "pussifying" boys, or even turning them into girls, what with trying to encourage them to cooperate and let (make?) them have emotions!

Okay, sarcasm off. Still the idea goes that, in general, men operate with logic, reason, and firm, sober-minded decision making; while women are typically more whimsical, emotive, nurturing, and exuberantly prosocial. Sure there are exceptions (some of them in this thread - congratulations), but those are the more natural and observable gender roles. Now the important question: which is better?