I must have missed this while I was on the blog fast.

This is some great stuff, my people. The post, the comments, all of it.

Particularly the The Myth of Male Power. But they were both eye openers for me.

Aly, I remember lots of women ministers when I was growing up, and they were in prominent positions in the church, leading conventions, workshops, the whole nine yards. The Church of God (Anderson IN) was also very consciously integrated at the national level… there were many “black churches” and “white churches” because of demographics, but they all met together, made national decisions together regarding the direction of the organization, traded pulpits, etc. My parents, being ministers, made sure I understood as a very small child that black people were “just like me”… not that common a sentiment in many quarters in the 1950s.

Having said that: for a group that claimed not to be a denomination, it acted awfully denominationally…. which is probably inevitable for any social group.

Are any of you aware of the trend in higher ed this days in male/female enrollment ratios? More and more women are going to college, and fewer and fewer men. Many campuses (campii?) have a 60/40 split. This has huge implications for the filling of leadership roles in society over next decades….

….as well as the possible relationship between women’s struggles for gender equality and the opposing force of men’s struggles. While it feels a little like tectonic plates rubbing together, maybe this is the balance afterall.

So what’s the solution to this? Or at least what are the steps to take? What I fear is that, in trying to equalize the efforts of men and women, we’ll create an androgynous society. I think it’s the offenses and offenders of inequality that must be addressed. Is there a way to surgically make the repairs without the collateral damage? In my opinion, this is where feminine movements take on a negative image. To strive for equality and to bring to light the offenders of inequality is fine and good. At the same time, to create some sort of reverse inequality is unacceptable. Why the bitterness towards Godmen? And to, in the course of trying to move women up the power scale, attempt to move them past men discredits both the Cause and the platform.

Additionally, you may be staring at one side of a coin. In the book I’m reading right now, I found this a few weeks ago:

” As men have no meaningful rites of passage available to them, no wise elders to transmit what lies on the other side, they have necessarily had to take their clues from societal role expectations and essentially hollow role models. All the while, the pain and confusion to the soul is pushed inward, or acted out violently, or distanced from consciousness. Accordingly, the gap between wisdom and experince has been filled in by outer images, images which, as has been true for women as well, seldom feed the soul.
Hence the first of the great secrets to be openly acknowledged is that men’s lives are as much governed by role expectations as are the lives of women. And the corollary is that those roles do not support, confirm or resonate to the needs of men’s souls.
It is the growing awareness of this terrible discrepancy between role expectations and the needs of the soul that has given rise to what is called the men’s movement. While no representative institution or body has emerged (such as the National Organization for Women), nor has there evolved a clear socio-political egenda, the scattered men’s groups and growing body of literature attest to the stirring of awareness that something is terribly wrong. The need for such a movement is succinctly summarized by John Lee:
It’s an emotional movement, a releasing of the pain and poison men have been holding in their collective stomachs for centuries. It is not power oriented in any way, but powerful in that it frees men and their spirits from the tyranny of the old paradigm of ‘Don’t feel. Die younger than women. Don’t talk. Don’t Grieve. Don’t get angry. Don’t rock the boat. Don’t trust other men. Don’t put passion before bill paying. Follow the crowd, not your bliss.’
I concur entirely with these sentiments. However the shadow of power inevitably creeps into any group, any movement. When overly socialized and domesticated, men have rightly felt a longing for something wild and very deep; still, the average man will never join a group, would feel ridiculous meeting out in the forest to beat a drum, and will seldom risk being vulnerable with other men. I do not criticize those who have gone into the forest and wept and raged and beat the drum, for they have frequently found soemthing needed for their souls. At the same time, such an activity may have as much long-term relevance as bra burning now occupies in the long march of women toward dignity and equal opportunity. Bra burning was an important emotional release, for a few at least, but to my mind such energies are more effectively spent in discussion, in court and in working towards cultural change.”

I think he touches on the purpose of a GodMen gathering, as well as the possible

I’m no longer COG, which is more about me being no longer a church member of any kind. But I do remember having some rousing arguments about 10 years ago with my parents about how if “unity” was the driving force behind the COG reformation movement, the choice to start their own church was pretty ironic.

As you probably know, women have always been ordained in the COG, but apparently the number has been steadily shrinking since the 1950s. (I believe for the first 60-70 years, something like 35% of all COG pastors were women.) Part of the impetus for my mom’s research was to find out the reasons for the decline.

BTW…. The Church of God Anderson IN is where my family came from. My dad was a minister in that “denomination” (they reject the term) till his retirement. I saw lots of stuff that didn’t endear the group to me.

I went to undergrad at (then) Anderson College.

I do recall seeing quite a few women ministers when I was a kid.

Actually, Mom and I were discussing that very finding this week on the phone, which is why it’s so fresh in my memory. Over the course of her career and ministry, she has very often felt pressure not necessarily only to succeed, but pressure NOT TO FAIL, and she was telling me that her research gave her a vocabulary for that dynamic. Her drive to achieve has often not been about finding success for herself, but avoiding failure that might reflect poorly on her sisters in ministry.

Here’s a book. I read it 17 or so years ago. At the time I resisted it… I felt like it demeaned men, by over-simplifying us.

I’ve come to believe most of it is “spot on”:

Why Men Are The Way They Are, by Warren Farrell

And another by the same author:

The Myth of Male Power, by Warren Farrell

BTW…. he’s basically a shrink, if you’re interested in his background. He is a former board member of NOW.

If you haven’t read these, or something like them by a MAN… i.e., if most of your reading on gender issues is from a feminist perspective by WOMEN…. well, I can probably guess there will be some surprises here for you.

I can practically guarantee that most men who read these will have a powerful sense of recognition, even if they resist some of it…. and women are going to have some eyes opened.

Corey, lots of what you said rang true to me…..

One thing that made me squirm just a little, Corey, is the sideways allusion to good ol’ Freud’s theory about women and penis envy. Speaking for myself, I can say without equivocation that my angst about gender is not envy about the nice penis grass growing in the next yard over. I’m quite happy with the nice vagina grass growing…wait, am I taking the analogy too far? I think you get what I’m saying. I don’t wish I were a guy, at least not on most days. My angst is not often about the gender inequity I personally experience (though I’ve had a good helping now and again). It’s a response to the culturally entrenched ideas that I just don’t believe are true: not because I’m a feminist anarchist who wants to rule the world, but because I genuinely believe they are wrong and damaging to people and relationships. (Example: One of my mom’s conclusions from her dissertation research went something like this: “Men succeed for all men, and fail only for themselves. Women fail for all women, and succeed only for themselves.” That’s just not okay.)

I agree that gender equality is not the solution to all the world’s ills, and it certainly is not the solution to all MY ills. But it IS the solution to gender INequality, which I truly believe exists.

More later on Jungian archetypes (one of my favoritest of all topics)…thanks for yarking out your thoughts, Corey.

• I guess I see the value in a Godmen rally, not because I think it’s holistically a great idea, but because I think it pushes men to an extreme place that may give them perspective to be of benefit to those around them once they correct the leaning and right the boat. I find it hard to believe that they’re being trained in the fine art of misogyny there. It may not be your style, but to read an article online and assume that it’s going to do more harm than good just doesn’t register with me. And besides, there are women rallies as well. If there were no outlet for women then I think y’all may have a case against it (can you say Latin Grammys or Ebony Awards?), but there are opportunities for many to get together and celebrate the things that make them unique. Today is a day that extremes don’t seem to bother me. So long as their extreme manliness doesn’t infringe on me (or you) then it’s none of our concern. And the notion that it somehow exacerbates a problem of an already patriarchal gospel presentation is a stretch, in my opinion. I’d say that the presentation of the gospel is either quite feminized (turn the other cheek and blow a kiss to your detractors) or militarized (let’s storm the gates of hell with water guns like God’s Special Forces!!! Yo Joe!!!). But I’m not sure that I’d say it’s overly masculine, in my experience. The fact that women are still unfortunately disallowed from participating in many churches and/or denominations is a topic that I won’t get into because I think it pulls us off topic of the gender issues. It’s a big can of worms that doesn’t necessarily have to be popped open for me to make my point here.

• On the topic of Gender-Angst (Morphea, Grammy, Aly, et al): Please trust me when say I know what it’s like to feel excluded, left out, unfairly judged, misunderstood, and lumped into a group based on stereotype. I’m really sorry that you feel this in relation to gender. It seems like it does some real damage to you and your worldview. Unfortunately, I think it’s an issue that cannot be solved externally. I’ve found in my own situation that finding a corner of the world and learning to exist in that intimate space is the best thing for me. It becomes my reality and it becomes the world where I exercise my worldview. And if I’m surrounded by people who support that worldview, then I can coexist with little (or at least less) strife and personal turmoil about the big bad unfair External. If anything, that turmoil helps me look more forward to a time when I see God face to face and he appreciates me by name, not by any other factors.

I am a firm believer that there are distinct behavioral and chemical differences between boys and girls. I think these obviously carry over into distinct differences between man and woman. It frustrates me when one sees the other and says, “hey, I can do that“. Why can’t I be known for that? It reminds me of my obsession with guitar gear. I have chased a ghost around for years that says “If you have X, gigs will come”. And so I filled in the “X” constantly with random crap that inevitably left me wanting. And so what I assumed was that I had filled in the variable incorrectly and I then proceeded on my quest to fill in the correct piece of gear. I’ve been through thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars in gear and magic beans over the last 5 years and my level of gigs are still pretty much the same. And when the good gigs came along, it almost never had anything to do with the “X” for that week. And all the while, the one thing that NEVER changed was my acoustic guitar. I never even looked at acoustic guitars. I’ve played $10k and $15k one of a kind acoustics and didn’t bat an eye at putting them down or giving them back to the person who put them in my hands. What made my acoustic different? Beth got it for me as an anniversary gift after a few years of marriage. It wasn’t particularly expensive (out of 60 different models, it was one of the bottom 10 from Taylor Guitars- so not cheap, but certainly not what I’d call a trophy guitar by any means). And then I realized that what made that piece of gear special to me (and what made it enough to cure my longing for searching for its replacement) was that it had a little story attached to it. Beth gave it its very own “mojo” and that was enough. No matter how it compared in a side-by-side comparison to other guitars, for better or worse, it was mine and it started to transcend competition. It just wasn’t even in the running. Other people could scurry around, comparing acoustics all day long and mine lived 10 feet above that fray- in peace and out of competition. :: So I applied this line of thinking to all of my gear. I asked the gear (yes, out loud, like a crazy person), “what’s your story?” And then I looked in the mirror and said, “what’s your story, dipshit?” And I started to find meaning and purpose in the gear that I had and in the person that I was. First of all, gear makes very little difference. If it works and it doesn’t become an impediment (sonically or visually) to the purpose of those who’ve hired me, then it’s fine. I realized that I get gigs because I’m a part player who plays “feel good” parts that make live shows sound like recordings. My parts are notoriously non-glamorous but if I stopped playing, you’d feel like something was missing. And I also realized that I’m not an L.A. Fusion Guitar Shredder. I was raised in Spring, Texas. Beth and I had a talk the other day about how I had to fess up and admit to myself that George Strait is probably my favorite artist of all time. These color who I am, but at the same time, they account for the best gigs I’ve ever had. These things become my back story and they help me find comfort in the gear I have, the gigs I have, and they help me sleep when I have to eat for dinner the gigs I didn’t get. :: So how does this relate to my views on gender? Well, I think that my search for fullness was being somehow attached to this one little slice of my life. And it was an exercise in futility trying to solve all of the problems of my world with this one little tool called a guitar. And I feel like some people get hung up in that cycle. I think there are things boys can and should do because they’re boys. I think there are things girls can and should do because they’re girls. I think there are many things that both boys and girls can do and they should learn to share the duties. I think there are things that both can do, but one wants to do it more, so he or she should do that and let the other watch and learn. I think, however, this angst comes from looking over fences into someone else’s backyard and neglecting the one beneath your feet. It’s like you’ve filled in the “X” with gender equality. And trying to solve all of the problems of the world with the one little tool of gender equality seems like futility to me as well. It’s a very very large machine, and something tells me it’s gonna take a lot more than a penis or a vagina to make it run like it’s on rails.

I’ve been reading lots of books on Gender these past couple of years as a result of therapy. My studies are almost all Jungian in theory and place a great deal of emphasis on the role of the mother in man’s development. What an odd cycle man lives, in being physically separated from nurturing perfection at birth and then spending the whole of his life trying to find it again (constructively or otherwise). But what this tells me is that both man and woman are players in that game. I’m assuming there are issues and theories about woman’s struggle to reconnect with the Personal Mother (or surrogates later in life- maybe one of the reasons Grammy is so popular ‘roun these parts). But everything I read is about how profoundly large is this issue between man and woman. Woman as the actual mother and surrogate mother to man- searching for that same nurturing, warm heartbeat where all the ills of the world are outside of the embrace. And THAT to me, is the whole of gender studies. Man as the Fragile Searcher and woman as the Elusive Nurturer. And what is born out of the aberration of this relationship is man as the Compensating Wounded and woman as the Scorned Provider. Now obviously, I’ve dumbed all of mankind down into 4 categories, and the fact of the matter is that there are actually 6 Billion-plus different shades of these 4 archetypes, and those shades change like mood rings with heartbeats. But to focus on this helps me see man and woman as something more than one car with two different options packages, one Sport and one Luxury. I see man and woman as distinctly different and I see nothing wrong with celebrating what it is that makes me man, as a unique creation of God. And I see nothing wrong with woman celebrating the fact that she is woman, a unique creation of God. I really don’t see the necessity in trying to bridge the gap between the two to create a perfectly well-rounded, androgynous creation with different trappings.

Thank You,
The Management

It was a big city.

Sigh.

I also liked classical music and performing arts (to an extent). When I went to boarding school, and had to “live” with other boys my age, these were hard things to cling on to. I struggled with the whole popularity thing, especially being a sports guy. On one hand, were I to reveal my nerdy tendencies, including the fact that I was supposed to wear glasses all the time, I felt I would probably be just a little marginalized with teammates, but on the other hand, were I to associate fully with the jocks, then it was a pretty safe bet that the more studious types would probably “dumb-ify” me. A catch-22. I chose sports.

It wasn’t until late in my high-school experience that I realized I did not really give people enough credit. By my senior year I had all my mates in the dorm reading and listening to classical music, and at the same time had some great experiences and conversation with some of the intellectuals as well (yes, that’s including you Morph-y).

Now of course that is not always the case, as it can be incredibly hard to merge two worlds, or two diverse influences, real or imagined.
The same kind of thing happened in coming to the US after spending a good part of my childhood overseas in Africa.

The world-view that many people in the US had (a gross stereotype, I realize that now!) was so very sheltered and quite ignorant that it was incredibly shallow to me, it was another catch 22, as to what sort of life and expectation do I live up to? I certainly tried to assimilate as much as I could, and am pretty good at it now (ha ha), but ultimately I think it takes real initiative to be willing to step out and understand where people are coming from.
At the risk of offending, let me offer this:
It is relatively easy to come down on those things or people that do not stimulate us intellectually or otherwise.
It is always fascinating to me to try and understand where people come from. Most often, there are things from childhood that directly affect where people are today, some of them are conscious things dealt with in a persons life, and some are not even yet on the radar yet deeply affect a persons emotional make-up.
There are reason’s that jocks are jocks, but why? What expectation are they trying to live up to? Whose approvals are they so desperately trying gain? What insecurity are they trying to hide? There is always something behind the obvious that makes people tick.

For some people of course, getting there and getting through all of the superficial stuff is an impossible task it seems.
There is definite value that everyone can bring to the table, no matter how dumb or stuck-up a person really is. If you can get into the sincere stuff, you will find human existence at its bare minimum.
So why not step out for a bit? Why not go to the sports bar to enjoy a game with a bunch of wanna-be jocks, instead of the center for performing arts? (again, more gross stereotypes!) There is value in that experience, and there is value that everyone can bring to the world. Who knows how much you will expand someone’s world-view simply by allowing yourself to be accessible..?

So while there will probably always be stigma and stereotypes of which some are not accurate, and do not fully show who a person is, these are often symptoms of something else, and it is definitely easier to understand peoples ignorance (yours and mine included) in light of that fact that it is probably based on a very real experience or expectation in their life, instead of reversing the effort to stereotype them.

Let me go one-step further and say instead of turning away from shallow conversation, why not turn it into something better? Why not take control of it, instead of worrying about our own sensibilities and understand that this person has reasons for being like this, probably emotional ones, and what can I do? Its ok to meet someone else’s needs from time to time, instead of worrying about our own.
People who may seem shallow or dumb in the world are still people who live, breath, bleed, hurt, laugh, cry and experience emotions as sincere as the ones you and I experience. It just may be that their passions are different than yours or mine, and instead of dismissing them as offering any value to us, maybe we can offer value to them…and in turn, maybe learn something new or grow in some way within ourselves…
What this has to do with Soft Men, I have no idea, except that if stereotypes are to change, why not be the one’s to help facilitate that change? Of course I have my own ideals about being a man, things I strive to live up to, but why not allow what someone else views to come in and perhaps enrich my own experience.

Anyways, enough out of me, I’ve raided this posting for too long and can’t shut up!

- a blind fool of a former dumb-ass jock reformed to a wanna-be dumb ass nerd guy who wants to build a bridge across the troubled waters of a devisive existance, one sport at a time…;)

Aly, you struck a chord with me when you were describing not having a “slam-dunk” identification with either boys or girls while growing up. To this day, I don’t feel like “most women.” I feel guilty admitting that I’d rather work with men rather than women because of the kind of atmosphere that is generated in an all-female office. And one of my biggest pet peeves: going out with another couple and the other wife starting a separate conversation with me at the table because she assumes I couldn’t possibly be interested in what those menfolk are talking about. I’m ALWAYS more interested in what the “menfolk” are saying, because I never could stand the mindless drivel that most women vomit out in social situations. (Present company completely excepted, I hope it goes without saying…)

Okay, gotta stop now.

I think many of us have a sense of being the “odd one” in some way or other, which is part of what makes this so hard to write about/think about without putting yourself on other people.

When I was a kid, I loved to read. No kidding, at age 9 I’d check out about a dozen books from the library, read them all in a week, return them and start over. Biographies, novels, histories, short stories, science fiction, futurism (not same thing), even a smidge of philosophy. Shoot, I’d read math books recreationally, just ’cause it was interesting. You should see my Marvel comics collection from the 60s.

I felt so completely unlike the other kids, male or female… unable to make “small talk”, didn’t care about the latest band or singer, thought the Beatles were bugs from England, you name it.

Of course….. some things never change.

My point: if you are “off the norm” in some way (and I hesitate to use a value-loaded word like “norm” here… but “mean” or “median” doesn’t quite say it, either) you really can’t tell on your own just why.

People who participate (even READ) conversations like this one are probably “off the norm”….

Anyway, on the topic of gender, some of the things I liked as a kid would be seen as “less masculine” than other boys’ preferences. Even now, I’m a really snappy dresser, and obsessively neat about my immediate environment. (Well… that last sentence was just tossed in there to see if Mike is reading this on the QT.) Chad, stop choking. Take a breath.

And Aly… when you’re smarter than the average bear, other people are GOING to seem dumb to you sometimes. Or so I’ve heard from smart people. But, as the great sage said, “Just because they’re dumb doesn’t make them wrong.”

I can relate to that. I know some really brilliant stupid people. And vice versa.

It wasn’t until pre-adolescence that I began to feel alienated from other girls. Suddenly they just seemed dumb. Actually, the boys seemed dumb too, but their brand of dumb was easier to understand. I think my personal experience is the reason I’ve latched onto socialization as a key (not necessarily THE key) for extreme gender identification …it just wasn’t there until we started becoming adults. I didn’t see it among my peers until age 11 or 12.

One thing I DO wholeheartedly agree with: bigotry is stupid. The need to categorize and taxonomize is inherently human, and our urge to stereotype is understandable. But stereotypes just don’t account for the breadth of human diversity, and making judgments based on them is idiocy.

I’m just interested in what different folks think, from there own experiences or study, what the “real differences” between genders may be.

For people like you, female with some (give me liberty here) “male” traits, or vice versa, the really interesting thing to me is to try to relate that to the notion that most “gender based traits” are socialized, not “original”. For the latter to be true, there would have to be a socialized explanation for the divergence of some people from the “blank slate but socialized” norm for a given society.

I’m not sure that analysis will hold up under the facts… and I’m always especially interested in knowing what influences, if any, people will adduce in presenting their own self-perceived divergence from the societal “norm”. It seems to me that many say it was there almost form the beginning, as far as they can recall, and use this observation to defend the notion they were different from the beginning, e.g., not socialized in the “normal” way.

So they’re defending their differentness as organic in some way, and use that as an argument against there being a gender organic norm, since they feel they’re just naturally the way they are, and those other people must have been socialized to be different from them. I think this feeling may describe a large number of gender theorists… who are often drawn to the field by their own sense of difference from the “norm”.

I don’t think I’m say this very well… but I suspect that the people who most talk about this are those who happen to organically differ from the “mean”, and who can’t quite shake the notion that those who are different from them most have been socialized to be that way.

I dunno.. is this coming through at all clearly? If not, ask me a question or something, if you want… or just ignore me, as it probably deserves. Being Daddy of three, with both genders represented, I have come to think we’re all very different the very day of birth… but that there are some gender norms, though of course that won’t be determinative for every person.

Which is, of course, one more reason why bigotry is just so STUPID… because the bigots assume they know something about a person based only on a particular thing, gender, race, whatever, and may fail to notice the differences in populations which may nevertheless frequently have certain characteristics.

My observation is that many of our couple-acquaintances have more “the norm” dynamics that do we. This was actually a problem until recently, as it’s pretty difficult to make friends with couples who don’t get you. Ash is more flexible and adaptable than I am (as a rule), and he was fine hanging with the manly-men, talking tech and sports, even tho that’s not his daily M.O. But I had problems vibing with the chicas. I don’t read People, I don’t have TV, I don’t listen to much pop music, I’m not a big shopper, I don’t have kids, and I prefer action/adventure movies over romantic comedy. (For the record, I HATE that I’m generalizing right now about what girls like. But these are my experiences and my observations.) I like theology and social sciences, and not a lot of other girls have read Moltmann or Hauerwas. (Not a lot of guys have either, but the odds are better.)

But every once in a great while, I meet someone like Cerise or Gretchen or Erica or Teri or Sharolyn, and we recognize each other from across the room. “Aha!” we say to ourselves. “She will get me. She might read People or have kids or listen to Christina Aguilera, but deep in my gut I know she also likes to exercise the muscle between her ears, and she can set the clock on my DVD player.”

I’m rambling. Where is this headed?

And absolutely… we’re talking here about “norms in a population” or even just “central tendencies” in a population. Whatever differences there are between men and women must be largely based in biology (including the very subtle ones), but those biological facts also relfect a spectrum. That’s what makes this a difficult conversation to have, and one requiring us to avoid using generalizations as determiners for a particular person.

Give us more! This is really interesting.

And Aly, given that a particular person may not fall squarely into one simply category of personality, can you make any generalizations based on your own experience of OTHER women and men, as opposed to just self-observation?

My sex is female and I identify with the female gender, but I have a hard time explaining why that is. I’m pretty rational and not terribly emotional, but I find it easy to empathize emotionally even with irrational people. I have a tendency toward taking charge and bossing people around, and I hate running around in a group without a plan. I have a terrible memory, even of emotional and important events. (Any close friend can confirm this.) I’m a multi-tasker by nature and I think “collective intelligence” is about the smartest thing since sliced bread. I’m really good at figuring out how things mechanical or electronic work, and I can take them apart and put them back together again without reading the manual. I believe relationships are more important than tasks, but I also tend to be a bit pragmatic in “using” relationships to get things done. I have an excellent sense of direction and love maps. When I’m in a mixed group, I usually like talking with the guys more than the girls…I’m frequently more interested in the guys’ topics of conversation. (Not always, but mostly.) I like card games, and I can be pretty competitive. Scratch that. I’m a sore loser. I love babies and kittens and puppies and flowers, but I would never use them as a decor theme.

So that’s me. I can’t tell you what the fundamental differences are between men and women, because there’s just me: somewhere in the middle, identifying female, but not really sure why.

I can confirm that the women I know tend to recall names more easily than men, tend to recall many more details in almost a visceral way of events in their lives.

Sadly, I tend not to be able to recall the thing itself after awhile, but only what I told myself about it at the time. Mere words, and a few images, in other words. I’m jealous.

The business with the maze was fascinating too. Sounds kind of right to me, just off the cuff.

I like Dr Michael Conner’s (Clinical and Medical Physchologist) take on this:
There can be no absolutes, only tendencies.
That being said, take a look at some interesting “tendencies” he found in some of his research:
On placing groups of boys and groups of girls in a maze (at different times) and asking them to find their way out it was found that:

“A group of boys generally establish a hierarchy or chain of command with a leader who emerges on his own or through demonstrations of ability and power. Boys explore the maze using scouts while remaining in distant proximity to each other.

Groups of girls tend to explore the maze together as a group without establishing a clear or dominant leader. Relationships tends to be co-equal. Girls tend to elicit discussion and employ “collective intelligence” to the task of discovering a way out. Girls tend to work their way through the maze as a group. Boys tend to search and explore using structured links and a chain of command.”

Regarding the use of brain power for problem solving, the tendencies were:
“Women can focus on more than one problem at one time and frequently prefer to solve problems through multiple activities at a time.”
While:
“men rely easily and more heavily on their left brain to solve one problem one step at a time.”

On memory:
“Women have an enhanced ability to recall memories that have strong emotional components. They can also recall events or experiences that have similar emotions in common. Women are very adept at recalling information, events or experiences in which there is a common emotional theme.

Men tend to recall events using strategies that rely on reconstructing the experience in terms of elements, tasks or activities that took place. Profound experiences that are associated with competition or physical activities are more easily recalled.

There appears to be a structural and chemical basis for observed memory differences. For instance, the hypocampus, the area in the brain primarily responsible for memory, reacts differently to testosterone in men and it reacts differently to changing levels of estrogen and progesterone in women.”

These are just a few of his observations on general tendencies in behavior and such.
That being said, trying to remove the nature vs nuture or socializing affect on the formation of today’s genders, is almost impossible.

The story here in florida of a kid being attacked by an alligator in front of his parents, and his father looking for a tool to confront the gator with, while the mother simply runs out to the kid to grab him, kind of sums it up.

As for the “why do this” question, equality does not equal sameness, nor should it, and I can’t stand our damn PC culture, which only serves to make liars of us all when deep down inside we know some people are full of shit and some stereotypes are born out of true tendencies, like it or not.
Women ARE more emotional, less rational.
Men ARE often singleminded, and thick-headed.
Women CAN’T do everything men can as well as they can, and men CAN’T do everything women can as well as they can.

I’m actually not looking right now for BIG generalizations about gender differences. I’m more looking to try to establish a baseline of differences we can maybe agree on, as a starting point for discussion. It may be a small baseline… but it’ll be a start.

Does anyone have ANYTHING to say in the way of observations about real differences, however small? Based on science, based on your own experience/observations (or other people’s!), or whatever?

I just find it hard to believe that most people really think there is no difference but plumbing, yet enormous amounts of rhetoric seem to have that as the background.

So take a chance, say what you think, stick your face out there, engage in risky public behavior [in other words, act male... :-) ] and say what you really think. It’s OK, you don’t have to prove it… like anybody could… but I’ll bet down deep in there, we all have some opinions on this.

I am not equipped to outline what I think the differences between the genders are, besides plumbing. No, NOT besides plumbing, because I believe transsexuals have their place at the table of “who are we, woman and man?” discussions as well. Just to throw one more grenade in the fire, you know. I am not equipped. I just got into this maybe 10 years ago, you see, and have actually been reading up on it only for maybe two years. I’m still dwelling, obviously, on millenia of oppression and am trying to discern which qualities truly are gender-specific, worthy of note and celebration, and yes, which are traits handed to men and women based on years of cultural conditioning that will eventually, I hope, be unlearned. Traits that served to keep women in the kitchen and men in the woods with chainsaws. [Side note: I wasn't raised talking about gender-equity with my parents, but my dad did teach me the use of a full-size chainsaw when I was 10. Never mind that I could only operate it for 10-minute intervals. With him hovering nearby and nibbling on his fingernails.] Here’s the thing - I can’t tell the difference, if it exists at all. You and me having a conversation about it - and I’m game - would be very, very hard, just because I don’t have a clue and don’t want to concede anything just yet. It’s stupid, yes, but kind of where I’m at. You and Teri and Aly do this, and I’ll listen. I wish I could promise that I’ll listen with a shut mouth, but hey - this is ME we’re talking about here.

Another side note: the first gender-studies book I ever read was “The Frailty Myth” by Colette Downing. It’s a good bokk, but you want to get your new young feminist mad really fast? This’ll do ya.

Corey? [He hasn't forgiven us, Precious, and we deserves it.] I’d really like to hear your thoughts. You seem to be in a really interesting place in researching gender roles and I’m curious what you think. Have I already apologized for being a butthead?

You too, Chad. Come on. You’re both men - good ones, I’ll say - and people I trust with good thinking. (And not to your exclusion, Phil, but you’re already in, so begging and flattery are unnecessary.) Please? Angry feminist going through a quarter-life-crisis needs a hand.

Here’s my other question: Why? Why DO we need to outline the differences between men and women? They’ll all be wild generalizations and won’t go for everyone, so why do it? What purpose will it serve, really?

Cerise

Aly, I hear what you’re saying about everyone being different, requiring different balances in every relationship. I agree, actually, being the pragmatic sort. But: are you saying there is no “tendency to a norm” that is based on the typical differences in nature between men and women?

In a culture where women were sometimes viewed almost as chattel, Paul’s writings were purely revolutionary. Those who view men and women as basically “the same” will disregard him now, except as historical footnote, even while lauding him for moving things in a better direction. Those who see men and women as having real differences will try to understand what Paul was really getting at.

My point: as usual, the presuppositions we bring to this will form our interpretive lenses (how pomo of me). So instead of trying to read Paul’s mind, it might be good to get our presuppostions on the table, so to speak, so that we can all see them, and assess their influence on how we see Paul… and maybe even consider how good those presuppositions really are.

The other reason I hold an egalitarian view is that I genuinely believe there is no cookie-cutter way to do relationships, marriage or otherwise. We can make generalities all day long about the differences and similarities between men and women, but the truth is that everybody’s weird and different and unique, and consequently relationships are weird and different and unique. There’s no one “right” way to do marriage (except with the obvious respect and healthy self-sacrifice)… there’s only the way that works, and that way is never the same for any two people. I believe the Way of Marriage Teri has described above is the BEST way, but even that will look different for every red-headed stepchild and her man.

I think Promise Keepers (and maybe even GodMen, though they frighten me a bit, as I said) are addressing some real concerns: marriages falling apart, kids out of control, lack of genuine community (especially among men) that leads to isolation. But what bothers me is the solution they offer to these problems is one-size-fits-all. And one size DOES NOT fit all. A big part of growing up and growing a marriage is figuring out what size DOES fit… together. (And not “just the two of us” together, either. But I’ll save the “marriage is a communal commitment” rabbit trail for another day.)

As a card-carrying, bra-burning, acid-dropping member of NOW in 1969, the church’s arcane views on the role of women in the home and in the church were deeply offensive to me on so many levels that I threw out the proverbial baby with the bath water for some time. One of the important paths that brought me back into organized Christendom was realizing that there were not just others, but many ORGANIZED, INTELLIGENT, PUBLISHED “others” who openly voiced my guiltily held secret beliefs. (Ex: the day I read that some of the earliest manuscripts refer to the Holy Spirit in the female gender, I literally cried from feeling vindicated. For years, whenever I had tried to have a non-argumentative, mind-expanding dialogue about the possibility that since God said “Let us create man and woman in our image” that just MAYBE the holy spirit represented the feminine character of the Trinity. HOLY REACTIONS, BATMAN!!! If we’d been further from the big city, I might been burned at the stake!)

I think Paul’s writings on the role of husbands and wives were targeted at pathological, dysfunctional marriages where the relationship was so bad that rules had to be imposed to give some kind of working structure to the family. Let’s call that “Plan B.” I like “Plan A” better. That’s the Egalitarian marriage where we are both equally worthy and responsible for our little civilization before God. Since we are co-presidents, all issues/problems are talked through and fully listened to, with every effort given to developing a gameplan that is enough of a compromise for each person to be satisfied sufficiently to sign off on. Can’t come to that shangrila of perfectly balanced compromise? Don’t make a decision yet. If each person feels utterly and respectfully heard, at some point one will eventually conclude, “Okay, since I can’t win them all, I’m okay bending more toward him/her on this one. In fact it’s much less important to me to “win” this one because I feel like I’ve already “won” by having my feelings and opinions heard on such a deep level. It’ll be my turn next time.”

So I had all this figured out and neatly packaged years ago and then ran across the passage that talks about the man being the head of the wife. After retreiving all the daggers I like to throw at my St. Paul poster during moments like these, I decided to be fair and do a word search. “Head” obviously does not mean “better than” or “boss” in the original language, it means “the source of the water…where the head waters spring from.” Now THAT is an interesting thing to ponder, isn’t it? There IS some kind of significance attached to the man that we always get hostile about because we assume it means Paul is trying to tell us to run for our birkas. But obviously, there was an honoring and respect for “things that came first” in that culture.

You know what? My Halcion has kicked in and I stopped being coherent many sentences ago, I think. But count me in on this issue. I feel rather passionately about it…

TeriGrammy

But, maybe we can approach it this way:

What do YOU think are the typical, “normal”, differences between men and women, other than morphology? (See.. I KNEW you’d like that word….)

If you are commited to the idea that there are no differences other than “primary and secondary sexual characteristics” (i.e., that all other apparent differences are merely cultural norms, not based in any actually facts of gender difference beyond that), then I think our conversation is done, because we’ll never agree about much.

If you’re willing to explore some actual differences between men and women… maybe we can talk. But if so, I’d like to start with where YOU think the differences lie, instead of saying what I think…. mainly because I’m not exactly sure what I think they are (ask me tomorrow, and I may think something different), but I’m sure there are some.

Just to stimulate the conversation: it seems that a man’s first impulse is to throw himself in front of the bus to save her. If he has time to think about it, he may chicken out… but it’s the reflex position. Women’s first reflex is to do this for children… but not for “the man”. Oh, she’ll feel bad when he croaks… but she won’t do something stupid trying to stop it.

Cerise, I don’t mean this rudely… but I’m not trying to earn “gender equity cred” with you or anyone else. I have nothing to prove to you. But I am interested in having this conversation, if you want to.

And calling your wife ‘the boss’ doesn’t earn you gender-equity cred with me. I never said I suspected you were a sexist. I’m pretty sure you’re not.

Cerise

But if feels right to me and mine.