What is your "dual" like?

[iAnnAu]

(Quick Pre-rant note: look.to.the.sky, what you wrote sounds a LOT like what SlackerMom has said about her marriage - especially the phone thing!)

The thing about "wearing the pants" for me is that YES, our culture reinforces gender roles, but when two people want to grow closer and have a relationship that allows them to just be themselves, the two of you have to bypass at least some of that shit.

I'm not "trying" to be the female - I AM female, by virtue of having been born that way without any deep-seated gender dysphoria (and the significance of me mentioning this is because I have a very dear friend who is transsexual). But I don't buy into what our culture calls feminine and masculine, and through the years a lot of people have assumed I'm a dyke or otherwise un-feminine.

Well, I don't see why we have to go around calling every little thing a person does masculine or feminine anyway, but since we do, I've decided that this is my attitude: EVERYTHING I do is feminine because I am a woman. If I change the oil in a car, I'm not trying to be a man. If my boyfriend spends more time fixing his hair than I do before we go out, that's not him trying to be womanly. And similarly, if I do the dishes, I'm not kowtowing to the cliche of female domesticity. I do what I want or need to do, and I do it in the way that makes sense to me - not in the way I think society expects me to do it just because I'm a girl.

One of the best examples of an egalitarian relationship is the couple who adopted my daughter. Both guys split the chores evenly, but because they obviously have different strengths and preferences, they will very often "trade" - such as dishes for catboxes (they have 4 cats). It's not an idyllic relationship; they have their testy moments with one another. But there's no power struggle over why some role is being attributed to one partner and not the other.

When I said that I don't want to wear the pants in a relationship, I did NOT mean that I want my partner to wear the pants for me. I meant that I want a partner whom I can meet on equal footing, who's willing to pull his/her own weight and reasonably expects me to do the same. Every pairing of individuals is going to strike that balance differently, and furthermore that balance is going to keep changing throughout the relationship: AND THAT IS AS IT SHOULD BE. When we fall back on roles, we're adding in that layer of accepting expectations imposed from without, instead of being true to ourselves and to each other. I think that's disrespectful.

[implied]

(Quick Pre-rant note: look.to.the.sky, what you wrote sounds a LOT like what SlackerMom has said about her marriage - especially the phone thing!)

The thing about "wearing the pants" for me is that YES, our culture reinforces gender roles, but when two people want to grow closer and have a relationship that allows them to just be themselves, the two of you have to bypass at least some of that shit.

I'm not "trying" to be the female - I AM female, by virtue of having been born that way without any deep-seated gender dysphoria (and the significance of me mentioning this is because I have a very dear friend who is transsexual). But I don't buy into what our culture calls feminine and masculine, and through the years a lot of people have assumed I'm a dyke or otherwise un-feminine.

Well, I don't see why we have to go around calling every little thing a person does masculine or feminine anyway, but since we do, I've decided that this is my attitude: EVERYTHING I do is feminine because I am a woman. If I change the oil in a car, I'm not trying to be a man. If my boyfriend spends more time fixing his hair than I do before we go out, that's not him trying to be womanly. And similarly, if I do the dishes, I'm not kowtowing to the cliche of female domesticity. I do what I want or need to do, and I do it in the way that makes sense to me - not in the way I think society expects me to do it just because I'm a girl.

One of the best examples of an egalitarian relationship is the couple who adopted my daughter. Both guys split the chores evenly, but because they obviously have different strengths and preferences, they will very often "trade" - such as dishes for catboxes (they have 4 cats). It's not an idyllic relationship; they have their testy moments with one another. But there's no power struggle over why some role is being attributed to one partner and not the other.

When I said that I don't want to wear the pants in a relationship, I did NOT mean that I want my partner to wear the pants for me. I meant that I want a partner whom I can meet on equal footing, who's willing to pull his/her own weight and reasonably expects me to do the same. Every pairing of individuals is going to strike that balance differently, and furthermore that balance is going to keep changing throughout the relationship: AND THAT IS AS IT SHOULD BE. When we fall back on roles, we're adding in that layer of accepting expectations imposed from without, instead of being true to ourselves and to each other. I think that's disrespectful.

i love you, anna. that's pretty much entirely perfect.

[Creepy-]

i love you, anna. that's pretty much entirely perfect.

+1

[implied]

+1

*makes it rain on anna*

[Creepy-]

[mu4]

You sound bitter. I don't really think many women mind taking care of the money issue if the guy pulls his weight in other areas, especially not in American culture - which values and prides itself on its corporate & business feminism.

I'm not bitter, I'm dark chocolate. Anyways since we want to discuss motivations, it's easy to say this sort of stuff when you're waiting for your knight in shining armor to take you away from your castle. Men don't usually get a cushy spot at the castle tower, we usually get the bottom bunk in the dungeon.

Anyways, trying to be the knight is more fun, you get to go out and smell the horseshit. I paint my armor black and club a few knaves along the way, it's just what I do, you know.

The problem is, guys hear that girls don't want a Nice Guy - not knowing what they're really saying. So they go and approach girls like a total dick and try to pick on the most low self-esteem, girl-with-issues they can find, and try to fuck with her- thinking that's what she wants and that's the role he's supposed to play. But then they just get bored, whether or not the girl gets a spine- and then hopefully all people involved grow up and grow a spine. or not.

A lot of girls don't even know what they're really saying, they're just in unison because mimicry is a natural learning mechanism.

Being Pygmalion is always fun, turning girls into my fair ladies is interesting work. But if you give them wings and they fly away. I'll just give them a list of errands on their way out, maybe she'll get them done by the time she gets back.

I've never seen a relationship work out where a guy was a total fake dolt about his emotions and I've never seen a relationship work out where a guy was a pure alpha dickhead about things. I suppose that still exists in very subtle ways due to the way our natural mammal species are, but when human beings create something, it's usually out of ideals and standards, not 'Nature.' Brawny men maybe erotcized more than smart, nerdy guys- but girls will choose smart, nerdy to start a family with anyday. And I've never seen a relationship work out either where a girl just excepted to be 150% passive and let the guy make ALL the decisions cause 'he's the man' or whatever.

Man, there's certainly a lot of words here on this thread about relationships. But except for you, nobody's used the word Love more then 5 times.

Unfortunately real love is not that interesting, because people can be little bitches sometimes. True love is a bit more fun, you get to treat each other like little bitches but that's OK, because you love them even if they're a bit of a ass. It's not something you need to prove everyday, because the day after you might break it, it's something that's proven when you die and person beside you holding your hand isn't the one that's emptying your catheter.

Love Love Love Love Love Love Love. I tried to use the word at least 10 times in this post, but I only got done with 3, so I guess this last sentence is a cop-out.

[Wynch]

(Quick Pre-rant note: look.to.the.sky, what you wrote sounds a LOT like what SlackerMom has said about her marriage - especially the phone thing!)

The thing about "wearing the pants" for me is that YES, our culture reinforces gender roles, but when two people want to grow closer and have a relationship that allows them to just be themselves, the two of you have to bypass at least some of that shit.

I'm not "trying" to be the female - I AM female, by virtue of having been born that way without any deep-seated gender dysphoria (and the significance of me mentioning this is because I have a very dear friend who is transsexual). But I don't buy into what our culture calls feminine and masculine, and through the years a lot of people have assumed I'm a dyke or otherwise un-feminine.

Well, I don't see why we have to go around calling every little thing a person does masculine or feminine anyway, but since we do, I've decided that this is my attitude: EVERYTHING I do is feminine because I am a woman. If I change the oil in a car, I'm not trying to be a man. If my boyfriend spends more time fixing his hair than I do before we go out, that's not him trying to be womanly. And similarly, if I do the dishes, I'm not kowtowing to the cliche of female domesticity. I do what I want or need to do, and I do it in the way that makes sense to me - not in the way I think society expects me to do it just because I'm a girl.

One of the best examples of an egalitarian relationship is the couple who adopted my daughter. Both guys split the chores evenly, but because they obviously have different strengths and preferences, they will very often "trade" - such as dishes for catboxes (they have 4 cats). It's not an idyllic relationship; they have their testy moments with one another. But there's no power struggle over why some role is being attributed to one partner and not the other.

When I said that I don't want to wear the pants in a relationship, I did NOT mean that I want my partner to wear the pants for me. I meant that I want a partner whom I can meet on equal footing, who's willing to pull his/her own weight and reasonably expects me to do the same. Every pairing of individuals is going to strike that balance differently, and furthermore that balance is going to keep changing throughout the relationship: AND THAT IS AS IT SHOULD BE. When we fall back on roles, we're adding in that layer of accepting expectations imposed from without, instead of being true to ourselves and to each other. I think that's disrespectful.

Love this post. Co-dependecy ftw. Breaking down gender barriers and binaries also ftw. Being societally feminine does not make you woman > man and vice versa. Just because I'm logical and confident and less "emotional" doesn't make me a dyke or a dominatrix :/

If I can be a feminazi for a moment: I don't need to be a man to be a strong woman. I also don't need to be a barbie to be a woman or strongly female. I'm a woman no matter what I do (putting on make-up or gutting a fish). If I do something that someone perceives as masculine, it's not because I'm a man or want to be a man, but because it's what I want to do. I'll own it.

Also, men need a gender revolution I think a lot of men would benefit from learning some gender theory.

That said, the entire issue is ridiculously complex. There are no 100% answers.

[Wynch]

Another thing, I think a lot of guys see this issue of "nice guy" in polarities. Either you're nice to the extreme or a dick. Either you're the master or the slave. I feel like a lot of guys have trouble finding the middle ground. I'm a fan of balances.

[buckland]

Another thing, I think a lot of guys see this issue of "nice guy" in polarities. Either you're nice to the extreme or a dick. Either you're the master or the slave. I feel like a lot of guys have trouble finding the middle ground. I'm a fan of balances.

Thing is, to be that guy comes with a lot of crap. For example, I would likely fall into the nice guy camp as I don't drink, smoke or do any drugs and have major problems with casual sex. By maintaining this position on these areas, I immediately exclude myself from a lot if not most social groups. This is not a complaint as I have a group of very good friends, most of whom actually indulge in at least one of the above, but the key is that they don't get judgemental or feel criticized by my choices. I think that is the main problem with this polarity thing. Guys are meant to be sex-driven maniacs who like sports and are fascinated by bodily functions. Finding your "balance" means shunning some societal expectations, and that is not that easy especially (I am assuming) if you're a people-person.

[Wynch]

Thing is, to be that guy comes with a lot of crap. For example, I would likely fall into the nice guy camp as I don't drink, smoke or do any drugs and have major problems with casual sex. By maintaining this position on these areas, I immediately exclude myself from a lot if not most social groups. This is not a complaint as I have a group of very good friends, most of whom actually indulge in at least one of the above, but the key is that they don't get judgemental or feel criticized by my choices. I think that is the main problem with this polarity thing. Guys are meant to be sex-driven maniacs who like sports and are fascinated by bodily functions. Finding your "balance" means shunning some societal expectations, and that is not that easy especially (I am assuming) if you're a people-person.

I had a bunch of different things I was going to say to this, but I'll just say again that I think guys need a gender revolution. As much as we women love to bitch and moan about gender confines, we at least have feminism to fall back on and tell people to go fuck themselves. Guys are stuck in a self-made prison, and to be fair, a lot of women continue to guard the gates.

[buckland]

I had a bunch of different things I was going to say to this, but I'll just say again that I think guys need a gender revolution. As much as we women love to bitch and moan about gender confines, we at least have feminism to fall back on and tell people to go fuck themselves. Guys are stuck in a self-made prison, and to be fair, a lot of women continue to guard the gates.

True. I guess age is probably the main thing that corrects this. I still find it incredible how many guys "like" football (the non-american version). I find it incredibly tedious trying to watch it and am pretty certain that a lot of people had to force their way through into liking it. I actually had a friend trying to explain to me how he managed to get into one of our superior's good books by asking what team he supports and from there... Social norms will always screw me

[buckland]

I had a bunch of different things I was going to say to this, but I'll just say again that I think guys need a gender revolution. As much as we women love to bitch and moan about gender confines, we at least have feminism to fall back on and tell people to go fuck themselves. Guys are stuck in a self-made prison, and to be fair, a lot of women continue to guard the gates.

True. I guess age is probably the main thing that corrects this. I still find it incredible how many guys "like" football (the non-american version). I find it incredibly tedious trying to watch it and am pretty certain that a lot of people had to force their way through into liking it. I actually had a friend trying to explain to me how he managed to get into one of our superior's good books by asking what team he supports and from there... Social norms will always screw me

ps: On the feminism front, my dad actually once told me that he was not allowed to hold the door open for any woman at his office to avoid any misunderstandings

[FDG]

True. I guess age is probably the main thing that corrects this. I still find it incredible how many guys "like" football (the non-american version). I find it incredibly tedious trying to watch it and am pretty certain that a lot of people had to force their way through into liking it. I actually had a friend trying to explain to me how he managed to get into one of our superior's good books by asking what team he supports and from there... Social norms will always screw me

Well, this is stupidly elitist. I love soccer, especially playing it, because it's a sport that requires both lots of skills, thinking on your feet, and athelticism. I don't know anybody that had to force himself to do it. Watching it is quite boring though, I concede on that.

[Wynch]

ps: On the feminism front, my dad actually once told me that he was not allowed to hold the door open for any woman at his office to avoid any misunderstandings

lol! I had an entire conversation with a friend about this. Here's my take. If I get to a door first and I hold it open for a guy, then he should go through because I'm trying to be courteous. If a guy gets to the door first and holds the door open for me, then by all means, I will step through with a thank-you. If I get to a door at the same time as a guy, I often let him open the door (unless he makes no move to do it). I'm not going to fight about it, it's just a courtesy.

But.

If I'm at the door, holding it open, and a guy refuses to go through before me when I'm holding the door for him, it annoys me. For a man, that person would give their thanks and walk through the door way, but because I'm a woman he absolutely refuses to let me hold the door for him. That just pisses me off. I find it rude.

[munenori2]

Man, this conversation's gotten me thinking . It does kind of seem like most people take it to one extreme or the other, and tbh, I know I used to fall pretty hard on the NGS end of the line. I like to think I've gotten better about this, but I definitely notice that I do this more with people I don't know well than my established group of friends and family. Maybe that's why I hang out with them /shrug.

[mu4]

I had a bunch of different things I was going to say to this, but I'll just say again that I think guys need a gender revolution. As much as we women love to bitch and moan about gender confines, we at least have feminism to fall back on and tell people to go fuck themselves. Guys are stuck in a self-made prison, and to be fair, a lot of women continue to guard the gates.

Guys did go thru the gender revolution, just like girls we're not all of one mind on how to deal with the opposite sex.

Guys can fall back on gender equality too, seriously, it's not just a female thing. The problem is some women have cloistered themselves in a ideology which they call "feminism" which is merely a security blanket for their personal prejudices.

[Wynch]

Guys did go thru the gender revolution, just like girls we're not all of one mind on how to deal with the opposite sex.

Guys can fall back on gender equality too, seriously, it's not just a female thing. The problem is some women have cloistered themselves in a ideology which they call "feminism" which is merely a security blanket for their personal prejudices.

Gender revolution is not referring to how you see yourself in relation to the opposite sex. It's about how you construct gender image. For women it's a hell of a lot easier to find flexibility in gender now. We can cut our hair and dress how we want and get involved in activities outside of the "female" social category and while some will make noise or mock you, for the most part it's socially acceptable. Men are still way more confined where that's concerned. Doing "feminine" still reflects largely on your ability to be a man in society's eyes. It's better than it was, but there's still a lot of harsh criticism for men who don't fall into classical "male" images.

[mu4]

Gender revolution is not referring to how you see yourself in relation to the opposite sex. It's about how you construct gender image. For women it's a hell of a lot easier to find flexibility in gender now. We can cut our hair and dress how we want and get involved in activities outside of the "female" social category and while some will make noise or mock you, for the most part it's socially acceptable. Men are still way more confined where that's concerned. Doing "feminine" still reflects largely on your ability to be a man in society's eyes. It's better than it was, but there's still a lot of harsh criticism for men who don't fall into classical "male" images.

Gender identity is not just a hair cut and putting on pants. It's more often about what's between your legs.

Gender revolution is still going on, but don't say the men haven't gone thru it. It has been a collaborative effort, on both sides. To say that men haven't made a lot of compromises and revaluation of our roles in life is totally insensitive and also untrue.

As far as masculinity and femininity. Many traditional male practices in some parts of the world would be interpreted as feminine in others. To me much of this is more local etiquette and bonding rituals then any sort of gender politics.

Men will seek to both mimic and differentiate themselves from men and from women in order to fill their social role. I never saw gender equality as being gender uniformity.

Many men don't want to be like women, many women don't want to be men. This is just the nature of gender differentiation, the fact that a lot of men choose to act like other men is because this is the group they want to be identified with, whether or not their "true self" is against this or not, does not change the fact they want their outward self to reflect this image.

People that reject the outward image as shallow are also themselves shallow.

[Wynch]

Gender revolution is still going on, but don't say the men haven't gone thru it. It has been a collaborative effort, on both sides. To say that men haven't made a lot of compromises and revaluation of our roles in life is totally insensitive and also untrue.

I'm not saying that men haven't made any progress, or even that restrictions on male freedom of identity and experience are entirely male-constructed. I'm simply saying that men are still a lot more confined in gender roles than women where general social acceptance is concerned.

Do you agree that it's still pretty common place for men to have their identity as males criticized for typically unmasculine pursuits? Men are constantly harrassed for doing things that are considered not-manly. Men are told they're pussies or they lack balls or have small dicks for any number of traditionally unmasculine pursuits or attitudes. Hell, I'm not a master of sensitivity and I do it myself. I even did it in this thread, lol. It's such an ingrained part of social conditioning that you sometimes don't realize the message you're reinforcing again and again: If you want to be a man, you need these social qualifications; if you do something unmasculine it's a reflection on your sexuality and worth as a man. Can you honestly tell me this isn't a regular part of the male existence (at least in North America, I can't speak for all corners of the world)?

FTR, it seems like you're assuming I'm pointing fingers and shaming men when that's not my intention at all. I'm not trying to turn this into a patriarchy hate match, I just want guys to have the same freedom of expression and experience that I feel that I have as a woman. That's why I prefer gender studies to women's studies. Women and men deserve the same freedoms, and both groups (and groups inbetween the binary) have their own issues that need resolution.

[mu4]

I'm not saying that men haven't made any progress, or even that restrictions on male freedom of identity and experience are entirely male-constructed. I'm simply saying that men are still a lot more confined in gender roles than women where general social acceptance is concerned.

If you have resources, you can be any gender role you want to be. Male female, whatever. Many traditional "female gender roles" are simply impossible for a male because the availability of resources in those roles is dependent on others and there is a very small market for those sort of men. And I don't see that changing very much in my life time, nor do most other men.

Do you agree that it's still pretty common place for men to have their identity as males criticized for typically unmasculine pursuits? Men are constantly harrassed for doing things that are considered not-manly. Men are told they're pussies or they lack balls or have small dicks for any number of traditionally unmasculine pursuits or attitudes. Hell, I'm not a master of sensitivity and I do it myself. I even did it in this thread, lol. It's such an ingrained part of social conditioning that you sometimes don't realize the message you're reinforcing again and again: If you want to be a man, you need these social qualifications; if you do something unmasculine it's a reflection on your sexuality and worth as a man. Can you honestly tell me this isn't a regular part of the male existence (at least in North America, I can't speak for all corners of the world)?

Criticism is everywhere.

What's a unmasculine pursuit? Art? Poetry? Philosophy? Cooking? Doctor?

Due to the unequal opportunities based on multiple factors, women have been unable to pursue many pursuits in various societies, and have been forced to adopt more subservient roles even when their practice is no-less then that of males. So unequal education, unequal representation, unequal status, unequal wages combined with physical and sexual abuse.

This is the portion of feminism that I've signed on for, not naval gazing at some sort of gender enlightenment.

FTR, it seems like you're assuming I'm pointing fingers and shaming men when that's not my intention at all. I'm not trying to turn this into a patriarchy hate match, I just want guys to have the same freedom of expression and experience that I feel that I have as a woman. That's why I prefer gender studies to women's studies. Women and men deserve the same freedoms, and both groups (and groups inbetween the binary) have their own issues that need resolution.

Preaching is exactly what you're doing. You don't even realize the meaning of what you say. Stop portraying men as weak and maybe you'll start seeing their pants and strength.

I'll just say again that I think guys need a gender revolution.

Why?
As if men have not had one? As if our existence were somehow incomplete?
Men have rarely been confined because of our gender. We aren't the ones wearing burqas or getting killed by our families after being raped. These are some of the injustices women have undergone in patriarchal societies. But men, we struggle against each other in those societies, and rarely against women. As gender equality has arrived, men face competition in a more diverse and changing enviroment.

Most men as a whole don't want what you call "freedom of expression" and if you were able to comprehend what we wanted there wouldn't even be this gender divide. Men also have less understanding about what women want and cannot make a authoritative comment on that either. You're really advocating a very personal point of view and trying to market it as universal. Men want a lot of different things, but as a whole, very few of them been restricted from these avenues given adequate resources while women have had to deal with vastly more obstacles due to traditional culture's prejudices towards women.

[Shazaam]

I've been thinking (uh-oh),

And well if a guy understands and acknowledges his own lack of male qualities, then he's really not discriminated against, as he was never really a part of the 'male pack' to begin with. (How can you feel victimized from a group of people that never included you in the first place?)

This is true for me. Maybe it's a gay male thing. But I was always naturally excluded from kind of the tree-house, rough-housing male bonding stuff growing up. So that leads a lot of gay men to eroticize that sort of behavior (when actually it's not erotic imo it's more of a psychological development thing), because we didn't really experience it ourselves. Exotic is erotic, that sort of thing, has a lot of truth to it. I mean it's kind of both ironic and funny that, cops were the #1 enemy of gay men for so long, cause cops were strong and typical manly and gay men as a self-defined group wasn't. In the Stonewall Riots a cop mocked a gay man and said that "You don't know whether to kiss me or punch me!" and that actually had a lot of sad truth in it. But our own psychological issues aside, we were the people that advocated a man showing gender atypical traits was normal, because for us it was. I remember just instinctively playing doll/house when I was a kid.

The problem is, a lot of guys who advocate like 'Traditional Male Issues' have issues with their own feminine sides and they are their own worst enemies, because technically speaking, according to the Rules of Maledom, a real strong man wouldn't actually care if another man was being more girly and passive, cause that would just re-define his role as the male. (which is part of the reason why straight guys can be so appealing to gay men) A lot of the books written about 'How to be a real man' are done by self-loathing closet cases or guys with fucked up, religiously abusive households. Only men that are confused about their own gender identity and/or sexuality tend to get upset when junior can't throw well. Because what we don't like in others are things we don't like in ourselves. I mean look at the bullies who bother the weak, effeminate kids on the playground. They usually are nowhere near good athletes themselves, and are just a little better than the weak nerds, but they are doing it primarily because they are afraid they're just like them.

That's the downfall of all like feminist principals and stuff. We tend to hate and not really support each other. Gay men sexualize the whole alpha male 'frat boy' thing, when in all reality what does that have to do with whether or not we can have a good relationship with somebody? Not a lot. It's really those 'fag qualities' that will make them have good relational skills. Everybody has a problem with supposed 'male pig-headed qualities' yet we all still support it more than we do our own caring, intuitive natures. What if there was enough cheering and 'You can do it!' messages to guys who liked to play with Barbies or were good with fashion and cooking? What if they got all that when they were little kids instead of on the Bravo network? Just some food for thought.

[Shazaam]

Also I LOL at gay men who think they are better than everybody else just cause they have more 'straight guy' qualities than me.

Those men are still gay. They usually still have a lot of other 'faggy' qualities on the side that their straight male athletes don't have. They like to cook, go to fancier restaurants, and they like to write about gay activism. All very female qualities to me IMO. Writing is pretty pansy-ish, wouldn't you agree? I love to write but I'm the first to admit that writing is not masculine at all. I mean you're not out there being all hard ass, you are just writing in your safe little spot. It's a very 'Female' energy.

Look at the homoeroticism of Pitbull, but he also has a very soft female energy glow to him, despite working out- I mean and Ezra too. I think most of us have felt 'weird' as far as the gender thing goes- guy or girl. That's why we're on message boards instead of out hunting, fishing and camping. Yeah. I might like to do those things occasionally but it's not my 'default' self. =/

I too am proud of the macho qualities that I have. (All 3 of them) But realistically speaking? I am much more girl than I am boy, just like I think everybody here is- even the straight guys. I mean come on. We like listening to music on stickam. How manly is that? I also found out I love to garden btw, and I have a knack for it. (surprise surprise)

But it's usually us that truly improves society for the better, and is the good guys, as we are self-aware enough of our own natures and stuff, to help people- it has a very spiritual calling to it. It's just all a self-hatred thing that we have to transcend. A real man isn't going to deal with any psychological issues usually, cause who they were was never questioned. By themselves or anybody. They'll think they are good enough for any sort of advice or things like that. And we will continue to sexualize and idolize them from afar, and bicker with each other like little schoolgirls. Without ever really facing the 'demons' of what it is we're supposedly afraid of from raw aggressive manly-isms. Until individually, we are courageous enough for that.

"Some girls are bold and strong, and some boys are quiet and kind."

[Banana Pancakes]

I like how a thread about duals became a thread about gender roles...good times.

[buckland]

Well, this is stupidly elitist. I love soccer, especially playing it, because it's a sport that requires both lots of skills, thinking on your feet, and athelticism. I don't know anybody that had to force himself to do it. Watching it is quite boring though, I concede on that.

I think you misunderstood me. I agree that some people enjoy football, I don't mind playing it once in a while either. It's just a bit strange that such a large proportion of guys like it. I definitely agree that there is a lot of skill involved, but the level of fanaticism present in fans seems to be a social creation.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Random observation: has anyone described dual friends? Skimming through it seems everyone is referring to what their dual is like in terms of a relationship with a partner.

[buckland]

If you have resources, you can be any gender role you want to be. Male female, whatever. Many traditional "female gender roles" are simply impossible for a male because the availability of resources in those roles is dependent on others and there is a very small market for those sort of men. And I don't see that changing very much in my life time, nor do most other men.

Criticism is everywhere.

What's a unmasculine pursuit? Art? Poetry? Philosophy? Cooking? Doctor?

Due to the unequal opportunities based on multiple factors, women have been unable to pursue many pursuits in various societies, and have been forced to adopt more subservient roles even when their practice is no-less then that of males. So unequal education, unequal representation, unequal status, unequal wages combined with physical and sexual abuse.

This is the portion of feminism that I've signed on for, not naval gazing at some sort of gender enlightenment.


Preaching is exactly what you're doing. You don't even realize the meaning of what you say. Stop portraying men as weak and maybe you'll start seeing their pants and strength.


Why?
As if men have not had one? As if our existence were somehow incomplete?
Men have rarely been confined because of our gender. We aren't the ones wearing burqas or getting killed by our families after being raped. These are some of the injustices women have undergone in patriarchal societies. But men, we struggle against each other in those societies, and rarely against women. As gender equality has arrived, men face competition in a more diverse and changing enviroment.

Most men as a whole don't want what you call "freedom of expression" and if you were able to comprehend what we wanted there wouldn't even be this gender divide. Men also have less understanding about what women want and cannot make a authoritative comment on that either. You're really advocating a very personal point of view and trying to market it as universal. Men want a lot of different things, but as a whole, very few of them been restricted from these avenues given adequate resources while women have had to deal with vastly more obstacles due to traditional culture's prejudices towards women.

What you are pointing to is the obvious inequalities that were present in the past and in those cases there was a glaring inequality between men and women. The difference now is that women are allowed and maybe even encouraged to go into traditionally male fields, whereas the reverse is not necessarily true. How many house husbands do you know of? Just remembering "meet the parents" and the whole male nurse thing was a big joke. The restrictions on men are a lot more subtle, but because of that they are more difficult to deal with.

[mu4]

What you are pointing to is the obvious inequalities that were present in the past and in those cases there was a glaring inequality between men and women. The difference now is that women are allowed and maybe even encouraged to go into traditionally male fields, whereas the reverse is not necessarily true. How many house husbands do you know of?

A house husband would be dependent on their partner for resources, women's dependence in the past was also accompanied by no opportunities. Men have not had the opportunity to be supported entirely by someone else in the past and most of us aren't looking for it to happen in the future either.

Lack of independence is viewed may be made fun of via a gender comment, but the core issue is that total dependence is not valued, and only marginally accepted of females. As far as I'm concerned, I think poorly of housewives who remain housewives long after their children have matured to a more independent state.

What I'm point out is total dependence is not co-dependence, but rather one sided.

Just remembering "meet the parents" and the whole male nurse thing was a big joke. The restrictions on men are a lot more subtle, but because of that they are more difficult to deal with.

Plenty of male nurses, and plenty of qualified women who don't become doctors and instead become practitioner's assistants. Men as a whole have not had a safety net of servitude that women have traditionally been forced into. There is a security in a modest insulated service existence, but it creates dependence and force women to remain in otherwise horrible relationships because they are unable to acquire resources for themselves. The laws may have changed, but the psychology is still working it self out biologically and socially.

[JuJu]

lol i get the feeling you're trying to warn me. (; thanks but it's not needed. balding? hahaha.

anyhow, it's not something that i find to be particularly appealing myself because sex is basically a medium of bonding to me, and obvs i don't want to bond on THAT level with every good looking warm body i see. i was trying to point out that i don't give a shit what other people do and it isn't a HUGE moral thing for me or something. i have a guy friend since highschool who has had a ton of sex with a ton of women. i don't really chastise him for this although i did get a little concerned about the behavior kicking his ass, psychologically/physically. anyhow, as long as they aren't harming themselves physically or psychologically (or OTHER people,) they can have sex w/ whoever they want to under whatever circumstances they wish.

you sure you're not my dual??

jessica, you too??

i'm not writing this bc i'm hard

[bluesballsbobs]

I am an ESFP / SEE
except that I believe I'm smarter than a lot of the other "idiot whore" ESFPs I know.

I don't recall (after typing everyone I know/have ever known)
ever meeting/interacting with my Dual (who is a female).


I wonder what it'd be like.

any INTP/ILIs out there?


come and get me! I'm your dual and waiting!


hahaha, justkidding I'm taken. sorry.

but I would love to chat with one of y'all as a social experiment of sorts

and obviously I'd like to get to know y'all

lookin for




see y'all

[implied]

you sure you're not my dual??

jessica, you too??

i'm not writing this bc i'm hard

wait what lol

[strrrng]

wait what lol

ahahaha

I was wondering how you would reply to that.


Anyway, I feel like I focused too much on the traits my "dual" was supposed to have, and not the ways they would react. The former seems much simpler and relevant to dual descriptions, but the latter seems more substantial. So, briefly:

-Aware of my intended emotional effect on them: sometimes I can say something that seems a certain way and mean something completely different; it's these subtleties I expect them to be able to pick up on, because it will determine the versatility of emotional interaction between us.

-Realizes that mood swings aren't directed at them, even if I tell them to fuck off and die simply because they can see the more basic pattern behind it (it's more experiential), and while not going for my bait, do know how to engage me without losing themselves or the feeling of emotional harmony.

-Respect my need to pervade them. lol, this may sound weird, but I don't care: with an intimate, I want in and throughout them, emotionally/spiritually/whatever speaking; so like, if they find me invasive or too concerned with certain emotional things, they can fuck off. You could say, it's someone who's willing to have their emotional core pressed up against, that I respect (and not fear 'breaking').

'tis all

[Gilly]

Nick, our descriptions have some shocking parallels

[strrrng]

Nick, our descriptions have some shocking parallels

Yeah, they do


I actually did find myself nodding at some of the things you mentioned (emotional outbursts, "partner in crime"...lol).

[crazedrat]

join a chess club or something and you might find a nerd INTp female. Or go to the business section of some college and sit around and eat lunch. All the INTp females will probably want to have sex with you.

[Wynch]

-Respect my need to pervade them. lol, this may sound weird, but I don't care: with an intimate, I want in and throughout them, emotionally/spiritually/whatever speaking; so like, if they find me invasive or too concerned with certain emotional things, they can fuck off. You could say, it's someone who's willing to have their emotional core pressed up against, that I respect (and not fear 'breaking').

LOL!

I was talking to an ESTp via PM this week (names will stay out to respect their privacy unless they choose to indentify themself) and they were saying something exactly like this, but in the reverse! They were saying they basically want someone to be all up in their grill (my words) all the time because it assures them that they are loved and respected. We were comparing the fact that I get claustrophobic if someone wants to "pervade me", but they find that essential to their relationship.

Though you might like to know that your pervasion is well-accepted, lol.

[strrrng]

LOL!

I was talking to an ESTp via PM this week (names will stay out to respect their privacy unless they choose to indentify themself) and they were saying something exactly like this, but in the reverse! They were saying they basically want someone to be all up in their grill (my words) all the time because it assures them that they are loved and respected. We were comparing the fact that I get claustrophobic if someone wants to "pervade me", but they find that essential to their relationship.

Though you might like to know that your pervasion is well-accepted, lol.

haha I actually thought of you when writing that portion, because I distinctly remembered you commenting on that feeling of invasiveness (in reference to sx 4s lol). But yeah, as emotionally needy as it may sound (it really isn't!), I do appreciate people like that the most -- because if I'm intimate with you, I'm going to be up in your fucking "grill" whether it's to get a reaction, mess with your head, or whatever.

But this is an aspect of ESTps that seems common, and refers to what they seek in INFps. Not necessarily being pervaded, but being given some sense of emotional continuity that reassures them of 'where things stand' and such.

[Wynch]

But this is an aspect of ESTps that seems common, and refers to what they seek in INFps. Not necessarily being pervaded, but being given some sense of emotional continuity that reassures them of 'where things stand' and such.

Yes, this ESTp and I were talking about it because we both have issues with emotional continuity. For them it was a concern with long-term trust issues and so they needed to know where things stood as you said. In contrast I'm both confused with how the other person feels and even more confused about how I feel. I'm concerned about hurting the other person because I'm a fickle lady and if someone tries to barnacle me my kneejerk reaction is to shake them off.

[implied]

haha I actually thought of you when writing that portion, because I distinctly remembered you commenting on that feeling of invasiveness (in reference to sx 4s lol). But yeah, as emotionally needy as it may sound (it really isn't!), I do appreciate people like that the most -- because if I'm intimate with you, I'm going to be up in your fucking "grill" whether it's to get a reaction, mess with your head, or whatever.

But this is an aspect of ESTps that seems common, and refers to what they seek in INFps. Not necessarily being pervaded, but being given some sense of emotional continuity that reassures them of 'where things stand' and such.

you're making me think i'm Fi polr.

[Waddlesworth]

Alpha infantile.
Just mentionning.

Or not.
Just mentioning.

I say this not merely to doubt you, but also because of the emergence of conclusions of a spiritual nature related to this behavior.
I would hope that 'alpha' types would not be the only ones that would be capable of such conclusions.

[strrrng]

you're making me think i'm Fi polr.

why