These discussions about gender - and gender-related behaviour - made by people who seems not to have any clue about anyone but themselves (and this, surely, on the very shallow level of self knowledge most people have) are a very good way to lose the very last hopes about human beings as individuals.
Dammit!! Reading an argument between 15 years old machista thinking patterns against 15 years unsophisticated-pseudo-feminist thinking patterns is a very bad exercise on self-inflicted psychological torture.
Why don't you boys and girls of all ages and chromosomes just go around meeting people, treating them like people, knowing them deeply (once you really connect to someone, he/she will always open up their soul to you; try it kids, it's not that hard, you just must demonstrate you're not wanting to use them or take something from them - just be sincere and amicable) and, doing so, start to perceive how contradictory the individuals of our species are?
How prone to be douchebags and, and the same time, to be selfless we all are?
How males and females of any body configuration are different one of each other as groups? And how oddly we are the same and we're doing the same stupid things all the time, again and again?
Let me tell you somethings, for you seemingly inexperienced in life folks to start:
- men are all douchebags;
- women too, but a bit less conspicuously;
- but if you like one of those groups (or both, if that's your thing) It's marvellous to hang out and to live together;
- and it's also like hell;
- and coexisting with your own kind is much more easy;
- and men are plainer than women and easier to deal, in any kind of relationship (love, friendship, whatever);
- but this doesn't make us any less complicated - we are very complicated too;
- but once you understand the other group (and you'll just not understand if you spend energy on not paying attention to them) it's like learning another language without formal study - that immersion technique, you know?
- and people behave differently, and many of them go way out the stereotypes;
- and there's absolutely nothing remarkable in what I wrote here: it's cliché, over cliché, over cliché, just because it's obvious - but such a few people stops to pay attention to those clichés.
So, please, stop this stupid discussion and go meet the world. It's not far at all; I bet that in your extended Family and neighbourhood you can find all the material you need.
Porra!! Cambada de cabaços!
(sorry for the bad expeletives in Portuguese, but I just needed to relax a little).
I have a fun game - let's spot the inconsistencies! Here's what just happened:
- You replied to the thread
- You made broad generalisations of everyone involved in this discussion
- You then tell us not to make broad generalisations about individuals
- You make some sweeping statements about men and women
- You tell us that men and women are more than these cliches
- You told everyone to stop replying to the thread
I understand that this is a frustrating discussion, but the point we're making is rather similar to yours (at least half of the time). We need to get to know an individual before judging them and base behaviour as such. But, even when we get to know them, we will still compartmentalize them in some ways in our heads because it's easier on the brain to find and sort with patterns. The way Team Memphis has organised people mentally because of their genitals is destructive and can be very hurtful, but of course not for everyone in all circumstances. The point: look beyond gender and see the individual, being sensitive to how your actions can be perceived. Is that not fair? Is that the ideal of someone with no life experience?
Tik,
Your answer is precisely what I'm talking about. But once I believe that the communicator is always to blame when the messenge isn't understood, I'll try to put it in a more sinthetical way:
First rule: there are not universal generalizations to make. Nothing is universal in dynamic systems, and human behaviour is a dynamic system.
There are general rules, on the other hand. And every rule has exceptions. This is not Newtonian physics.
Also, the general rules must be observed only to help us foreseing how will we deal with things, because the second rule of the real world is that nothing is immutable, except mutability itself.
Living is inconsistent sometimes, but It's mainly contradictory. And contradiction is almost never inconsistent.
Sorry for the poor philosophy. If you want a higher type, just go to a philosophy forum. But to expect the type of 'consistence' you're expecting from the world will only depress you. Observe the contradictions, and work over them.
This is not a advice, or self-declared truth. It's just a perception of someone who had tried since his early ages to observe the world just to enjoy it, instead of controling it.
Memphis throw interesting arguments, a minority of the time, but everyone is more interested in pointing the finger of misoginy in his face, not in hearing what type of cultural perception someone who is perceived as a misogynist is showing.
All the time, also, the arguments in defense of feminism, here (I'm not talking about real feminist debates, which had passed this kind of problem since the early 90's, or some time around), just goes beyond common real situations and try to find a rule (as this was a possibility) in the most extreme and awful situations.
Gustaf, this last one is for you...
If this a real situation, your friend had only two options:
- tell the imbecil He is being a douchebag, harasser and abuser (i didn't understand if she already tried It), most of the time, sexual hawks aren't that aware they're behaving monstruously, and a good kick is sufficient to put them on their corner (sexual freaks are most of the time cowards, who aren't wishing - or have competence - to do things in a more respectful way;
- call the police. The only way to stop abusers is scarying them to prepare their attack.
The problem I've found in this whole debate, and that I complained, is that is pretty obvious (for someone who met and hanged with people on the most diverse behaviors) that most of you are trying to argue about an issue about which you seem to have absolute no experience beyond your own poorly understood feelings.
To be prepared for attack is the primary male behaviour on mammals. To hold off this instinct is, thus, the first duty of the civilized man. On the other hand, if you just scrap this instinct off, you stop to appealing as a male.
Again, real life is contradictory, and I know some women (please, kids, pay attention to the word: SOME) who would believe to be very strange if the douchebag in Gustaf's report didn't act that awful way.
And, again, this happens because there are exceptions to every behavioral 'rule'. Worse - in some groups or communities exceptions are the rule.
Now, I'll give the same advice (this was the advice and I sustain it): you should all stop this improductive discussion and know real people. They are unique individuals AND behave according to stereotypes.And opposition to them. And according to 'unespected stereotypes' (this only looks like an oxymoron - it's not); and against it (specially those of us who hate stereotypes and tend to purpotedly do the opposition of what is expected) - and doing this is also a kind of stereotype.
People act in sui generis ways and according to general rules (that actually doesn't exist) at the same time. World is contradictory and complicated. And this is its beauty. Stop being consistency Stalins, please.
Poll
