[HPforGrownups] Nel Question #9: Gender - Perfect Sense

[Laura Ingalls Huntley]

No: HPFGUIDX 127515

Me:
> Laura (who is left stunned at the apparent eagerness some men --
> including many of her college professors -- to declare themselves
> stupid and hopeless.)

Geoff:
> Who said that I am declaring myself stupid and hopeless? I didn't. I
> also object to being called a stereotype.

I'm really sorry.  I was trying not to offend you, and I see that I 
pretty much failed.  I'm not always incredibly good at phrasing things 
sensitively, and I have this horrible habit of using stronger language 
than I really mean without properly explaining myself.

I'll try to be more clear on the "stupid and hopeless" comment, which 
was not so much about you (as I do not know you very well) and more 
about a large number of men I know personally (college professors, 
friends, employers, etc.).  These are people who would usually bristle 
at the implication that there is something that they are incapable of 
understanding by virtue of their sex, but for some reason are perfectly 
eager to write-off so many traits and ideas (some real, some imagined) 
of women as completely foreign and incomprehensible to them.

> I said that "from time to time" I can't see my wife's point of view -
>  /not/ every time we look at a thing differently.

I didn't mean to imply that you could *never* see things from your 
wife's POV, I was just questioning why her sex would ever be a factor 
in whether or not you could understand her.  I also realize that your 
comment was made very casually, but "the female mind just doesn't touch 
base with mine," implies that you think there is, in some way, an 
undeniable breach between male thought and female thought.  I'm 
certainly not going to say that you aren't entitled to think that, it's 
just that I disagree.

> I was trying to pont out that your comment about guys being clueless 
> is something
> that surfaces all through life but not every hour of every day.

All I was asking is *why* does this 'cluelessness' need to be gendered?

>  I didn't discuss whether I may find myself at a loss with other folk -
> male or female.

No, I was trying to draw an analogy.  To me, saying you can't 
understand something someone thinks because of their sex is pretty much 
the same as saying that you can't understand their 
belief/opinion/idea/whatever because of their race.  IMHO, both of 
these arguments are fallacious.

> The fact is that men and women often process facts and events in a
> different way, practically, emotionally and intellectually.  It
> doesn't imply any difference in status or intelligence, it is because
> males and females /do/ see things in a different light.

 From this comment, I'd say we disagree on a very fundamental level.  I 
also think the possibility of one of us changing the other's mind is 
very slim, if we disagree on such a basic thing, but I would still like 
to hear your thoughts on the matter.

> If you're going to say "men don't understand women", then you must 
> accept the
> reverse as well.

Well, part of the stereotype that I was talking about was the notion 
that women have got men all figured out (which I also disagree with).  
I appreciate that you're at least  consistent with your POV.

> To take a (possibly) fatuous example, I can't see
> why my other half wants to watch "Neighbours" every day and she can't
> understand why I want to spend time fine-tuning my website and having
> long email discussions with my two sons on technicalities about the
> Net.

But are these personal preferences of yours specific to your *gender*?  
If so, why?  And how do you explain all the women who hate "Neighbours" 
and all the men who would rather die than discuss computers?

> Have you read "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" which looks
> at some of the differences in approach to matters by men and women?

I have, and I'll be perfectly frank here, so be warned: I thought it 
was the biggest load of pseudo-science pop psychology I have ever laid 
eyes on, and that's going up against a lot of stiff competition 
(including the claim that PMSing women crave chocolate because of the 
serotonin it contains -- nevermind the blood-brain barrier and the fact 
that there *is* no serotonin in milk chocolate and very, very little in 
dark chocolate).  Er . . . nevermind that last bit.  My point is that I 
*don't* trust the "research" done in that book, I don't think its 
conclusions are particularly valid, and I think the ideas it espouses 
do more to *hurt* male-female communication than to help it.

> The sexes are different. It would be boring if we all thought
> precisely the same, bearing in mind that in my earlier reply, I also
> pointed up the fact that boys do not all think the same way.

Well, I guess it just seems to me like saying that girls have a certain 
way of thinking and boys have a different way is more of a 
*restriction* on individuality.  The idealist in me just wants people 
to able to be themselves, even if being themselves goes against the 
cultural definitions of feminine and masculine.  I know that people 
*can* still "go against the grain", as it were, but I just think our 
culture makes it discouragingly difficult and even painful and shameful 
at times.

> <exits stage left trying to put back the bits which Laura unpicked>

Eee . . . sorry again.  *ducks*

Laura