Gender Universals

[Nadine Spirit]

I began to type this as a response to a different thread currently open, but I did not want to hijack it so I decided to just start a new thread.


....since I do not posses an innate confidence and lack of fear of the general public walking the streets late at night, does that mean I am actually a woman?

...and further.... since my wife does not possess instincts to protect herself from a lifetime of being harassed and objectified, does that mean she is actually a man?


Really.... this is my annoyance at some who lump everyone from the same gender together and say things like "women ________" or "men ________." Especially the part about women developing instincts to keep themselves safe "from a lifetime of being harassed and objectified," and men not possessing these instincts. It is almost as if men are portrayed as being able to fearlessly walk the streets, go wherever they want, whenever they want, without fear. Let's just ignore that men are more often the victims of violent crime. And women are endlessly harassed no matter where they go or what they do and thus they live their public lives in endless fear of being attacked.

How about something more gender neutral as in..... some of us humans are more cautious than others because of our own life experiences or personal decisions, and not because of what gender we are.

If you are a man and think that you will never be attacked, that is just plain stupid. And if you are a woman and think that you will always be attacked, that is just as stupid.

There are no gender based universals.

[Tracii G]

Love to see what happens when the over thinkers see this thread.We all know who they are BTW.
Seems like a common sense way to look at it Nadine.
I see all the fancy terms like gender binary and TG spectrum used mixed in with a bunch of double speak.

[reb.femme]

Hi Nadine,

Sort of agree, but many a statement starts with a generalisation. The trouble is, we then end up trying to self-analyse every statement we make before posting, causing many Trans people (deliberate generalisation ) to hold back from posting for fear of upsetting someone and/or being pulled apart.

Unfortunately, we make a statement without having the time (or inclination) to qualify the exactness of what we are attempting to convey. We'll all end up having to submit a dissertation for peer review, just for having a point of view, that really only required a simple reply to a question or scenario presented by other members.

A bit rambling I know, but I've just got in from work. That's my excuse, but I'm sure many here will agree with me (another completely unsubstantiated generalisation, couldn't help myself ).

My wife walks home from a tram stop in the dark and it's me that is worrying until she gets to the door. Plus, she's anything but normal, says me. I think I'm more situationally aware than my wife, so a 180 from the alleged norm there too. So, yeah, generalisations aren't always appropriate, but they are a good starting point for debate. Hence your post...job done I'd say .

Love to see what happens when the over thinkers see this thread.We all know who they are BTW...

I hope to god I'm not in there . When a subject requires too much thought, I read and drift on by.


Becky

[Lauri K]

In general it is perception that men are typically thought of as being immune from attacks when walking by themselves ? WTH Not true

In fact statistically many attacks involving men often go unreported as they do not want others to know they got their man card wrinkled by another man.

But by far more men are more frequently attacked than simply being harassed.

Regardless of gender you have to be aware of your surroundings at all times.

Personally on a serious note, I am always more nervous when leaving a business or establishment to make sure I am not being followed.

Otherwise I usually carry a cinder block in my purse that could be used to fend off any would be attackers.

[Katey888]

Nadine - you're absolutely right and balanced in what you express.

Unfortunately, we probably have as many under thinkers as over thinkers here, who are all too willing and probably find it too easy, to cling to the stereotypes that apply to specific cultures, countries, environments and people, but don't apply everywhere. Of course, some of the stereotypes do apply sometimes... and they do make it easy for those not prepared to think too hard to either derive some comfort from or confirm their worst nightmares with...

On the subject of that other thread (safety at night and in bad places) I'm not a huge guy, know nothing of self-defence but have had to travel to some fairly bleak and scary places around the world - caution, preparedness and awareness is everything for me, but as we know from some of the unprovoked attacks that have actually happened to members, neither that nor a lifetime of military training will necessarily prevent bad things happening.

We see the other universals that come up on a regular basis here and still will - because some are very deeply rooted stereotypes for many people, either culturally or because they're just not prepared to think out of their box. We just have to be prepared to point out the potentially 'dangerous' ones ("you're perfectly safe anywhere" or "every wife will be accepting if they love you") and not worry too much about the innocuous ones ("all women like housework" or "only hookers wear high heels")

Balance and tolerance of others' perspectives, circumstances and ideas is everything...

Katey x

[ReineD]

Great post Nadine, thank you!

Especially the part about women developing instincts to keep themselves safe "from a lifetime of being harassed and objectified,"

Right. I've lived in many different places, have traveled many different circles, and I have NOT lived "a lifetime" of being harassed and objectified. The people who say these things have a bent for drama. lol. (... although to be accurate, women living in non-western parts of the world for example under the Taliban are at greater risk for harm than western women).

But it is true that I, like most other men and women, subconsciously assess safety factors when I am in unfamiliar surroundings (we're all hard wired to do this ... it's in our brain stem) and I've developed a sense for the type of places I should avoid, for example rough parts of town late at night especially when I am alone. The men I know do the same thing, it is stupid to do otherwise.

[Jenniferathome]

I think the other post was not really about "experiences" but simply what is in our heads. I have never had a bad experience walking any street in any city of the world as a man, OR as a cross dresser. I don't even think about it and yet I am not stupid putting myself in "bad" places, whereas, my wife does think about the current location (she is also not stupid). Not that she is fearful, just thinking and aware. I'll bet Jules thinks about that which you do not. This does not change anyone's ability to go anywhere.

While I agree that there is no "universal" for convenience and sheer percentages (and I firmly believe the numbers would substantiate this) I see no harm in bucketing into the male/female. If we have to start accounting for every slice of every variation our discourse breaks down. If we have to generalize to highly, the meaning is lost. So to your question above: "...and further.... since my wife does not possess instincts to protect herself from a lifetime of being harassed and objectified, does that mean she is actually a man?" No, she's just unique.

[Nadine Spirit]

Honestly, I think your last sentence proves my point.

There are so many times that I turn to my wife and read her something that someone on this board wrote about what it is to experience life as a male or female, that she, who has identified as female for her entire life throws her hands into the air and say "well I guess I am just not a real female." It is just kind of shocking how often folks on this board, who mostly experience some form of gender variance themselves, describe the genders in such stereotypical fashion that just do not fit either my wife or I.

I think the harm in "bucketing into the male/female" is that people often do not use it to casually describe, they use it to exclude. For example, I read an article claiming that Caitlyn Jenner cannot be a woman because she never went through the "awkward young teenage girl" phase. That was the entire supposition of the article, with many female commentators agreeing. Thus then one can extrapolate that if you have self identified as a female for your entire life, according to this one author, but you never went through that awkward phase, then you are not a female.

I also disagree that discourse will break down if we can simply just describe people as humans and stop saying this is what women do, and this is what men do.

But then we have already disagreed on this point haven't we Jen?

[JocelynJames]

I will go with this- we're all people. We're the same in many ways , different in some ways , trying to survive in a world that seems to want to eat you alive. I'm not going to worry about it

[Teresa]

Nadine,
It's a good point, in some circumstances neither gender are totally safe, you just have to use your common sense.

It brings to mind something that happened to me many years ago . It was after an evening college session and I was waiting for a bus a little kid came up to me and said trick or treat mister, I said get lost, the kid then produced a knife nearly as big as itself ! I told it to take it home so they wouldn't miss it when they needed to cut some bread, it dropped it shoulders and skulked off ! If that had been a woman would it have made any difference but panicking might not have had the same result !

[flatlander_48]

N S:

I've seen threads similar in content to what you offered. It's confusing to me because I can't understand where such logic (if you can call it that) comes from. It starts out bad and continues to get worse.

REALLY weird...

DeeAnn

[AngelaYVR]

Oh good, so it wasn't just me who found that thread exasperating.

[Pat]

Frequently universals are used as a rhetorical device. The person writing it understands there are exceptions and the people reading it know there are exceptions but rather than try to stake out all the possibilities both sides agree to take the statistical norm. "Men are more violent than women" is an example. We all know where the fallacies lie in that statement but if it's used to make a good-enough point (e.g. "so women should take extra caution around strange men.") then by social contract we give it a pass. Successful use of universals requires that the speaker and the audience agree in outlook to a large extent. There can be big problems when a speaker does not align to their audience and vice versa. Due to the diversity of this forum I think we see that a lot. (A LOT.) I usually just move on to the next thread.

Sorry if I'm over-thinking this.

[Eryn]

As others have pointed out, men are more likely to be subject to violence and also more likely to be incarcerated. These aren't slight differences, either. About 1 out of 800 women are incarcerated in the US as compared to 1 out of 75 men. Males are four times more likely to be murdered than females.

So, why is this? Are men, by their nature, more likely to be aggressive, take risks, and go places that are not safe? Are women simply more careful to avoid situations where they have to kill or be killed?

There's a great line in the old movie Red Garters:

Undertaker: "I'm a coward, that's what I am, and that's let me live long enough to tap many a brave man on the face with a shovel!"

[Robin414]

Great post Nadine! I do admit that when a 'guy' I did have an 'invincible' attitude and now as a chic I have a 'vulnerable' attitude. The former was based on experience but the latter is based on...I'm not sure? I seriuosly need to get over the latter 😐

[sometimes_miss]

Really.... this is my annoyance at some who lump everyone from the same gender together and say things like "women ________" or "men ________."

There are no gender based universals.

This occurs because you 'read into' other people's writings, things that aren't there. Me, I get tired of writing 'sometimes', 'almost always', 'mostly', etc.. So I generalize. Most people figure it out. But it appears where some use generalities, you always use universals. The reason stereotypes exist is because generally, they are true. You can find an exception to almost anything; that doesn't mean that it doesn't almost always apply.

Note: Please do not edit my post. I am not referring to the entire first post, so I quoted what I am responding to only, to avoid confusion. Thank you.

[Nadine Spirit]

No, you are wanting me to read into people's posts and assume what people mean. I actually read exactly what people write. Simply because you insert words where you think they should be, does not mean that I am doing something wrong by not doing that. When people say things like "women develop instincts..." I don't read what I want to read "SOME women develop instincts." Besides people are saying this to make a distinction that exists between men and women that I do not think truly exists.

[flatlander_48]

The reason stereotypes exist is because generally, they are true.

Be careful with that one. For example:

• Lesbians hate men. That's why they are lesbians.
  
  • Sure, some do, but I believe most do not.
  
  
• Crossdressers are gay.
  
  • No, most are not.
  
  
• Crossdressers all want to be women (assuming M2F)
  
  • A small percentage do, but most do not.

Above are stereotypes that are shared by many in the general populace. While there is a bit of truth to all of them, none of these statements are generally true. However, that doesn't stop people from believing them.

DeeAnn

[Karen RHT]

As much as stereotyping annoys me to no end, I won't rant about it. I'll simply say it's very common for people to do so when they shouldn't.


Karen

[Jenniferathome]

No, you are wanting me to read into people's posts and assume what people mean. I actually read exactly what people write. ...

So Nadine, allow me to offer a somewhat absurd example. "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse." Now, you don't actually think I will eat a horse, right? And yet that is exactly what I wrote. The suggested "kernel of truth" that you and every other human reads into this sentence is: that dude is hungry. Generalizations should have some kernel of truth. If they do not, that's another issue. If you do not believe in that kernel or the implied kernel then present the version as you believe it to be. But I just don't understand the surprise at such generalizations.

So, if I write, "Women are more cautious than men," or "Women tend to be more cautious than men." While I have offered some more detail in the latter statement, the meaning is really the same. The detail is more clear but based on how the english language works, the core is still the same, no? I would not read the former sentence as "all women" but as "women generally." This implies that some women are NOT like this. I'd bet, if you asked 1,000 people to "explain" what is meant by the former sentence, 99.999% would answer as I have meant the sentence. The only black and white language we have is math.

[Nadine Spirit]

Jennifer - It is so funny that we debate things so much! I like it!

Anywho.... "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse," is an idiom. There is no suggested kernel of truth unless you are familiar with that particular idiom. Have you ever heard idioms in other languages? They make no sense unless someone has previously explained it to you. In working with people who are English learners, when you say, "I am so hungry I could eat a horse," they literally think that you intend to actually eat a horse. Idioms are idioms, and if you are not familiar with them they need explanations to gain true understanding.

And really in your examples, when people write "women______" vs "women tend to_______" No the meaning is not the same. Some of you may think the meaning is the same, but the meaning is not the same. Once upon a time, I thought "women have a _________," nowadays though, I think in terms of "women tend to have a _________." These sorts of distinctions are important simply for the fact that some people use these things to include or exclude.

Notice that use of the word some in that last sentence? What if I had just said "people use these things to include or exclude?" Ii could be implying that you, Jennifer, as a person, use these things to include or exclude.

The English language is pretty darn vague as it. A little work at being more specific doesn't hurt, and it doesn't take that long, especially when it helps to clarify meaning.


Edit - addition

Furthermore, what if I give an example of saying "apples are red?" Is that a true statement? Are you going to read into it that I meant "some apple are red," or "many apples are red?" I doubt it. Probably what most people will say is that I cannot state that "apples are red." By doing so, I am stating a defining characteristic of apples and trying to define apples by saying "apples are red," is a false statement. Why? Because not all apples are red. I can only accurately state "some apples are red."

[Jenniferathome]

That's a great example Nadine. Because if you did say "apples are red" I would interpret that to mean "some or maybe most apples are red." The reason is, I know you are not an idiot. Therefore you know that not all apples are red. If I thought you were an idiot I'd likely read that as an absolute statement and then call you an idiot.

So, I think the nature of the reader, not the writer, is more important. I don't seek the exactness that you do. Because of that, I can see you being more frustrated than I in reading opinions. Do know, that I prefer clarity but I can live with asking a question. I wonder if your profession causes you to lean more to the exacts than I? But you know, teachers are all the same ;-)

[Pat]

So now we have to re-write the verse to say

Some roses are red,
But violets are violet... ?

Really? We can have no abstraction? Pesky nit-pickers (most of them don't actually pick nits) have ruined it for everyone?

So sad.

[AllieSF]

Actually, Jennie it is not sad at all. One thing is to have a face to face conversation where asking for clarification or presenting a puzzled look keeps a conversation on track and away from the argumentative stage. However, take that to a forum where everybody, or almost everybody has an opinion, and then you see how fast a good thread can get sidetracked, derailed or closed because of how people interpret words. I do not like absolutes in face to face conversations and even less in forums like this because there are very few true absolutes except for death and a few other things.

That is why I prefer those limiting and more exact words to keep good threads going and to avoid losing the OP's original intent. I am as guilty as anyone when someone makes a statement that pushes one of my conversational hot buttons. I used to work in contracts, claims against and for, and using correct wording and phrasing is so very important. The same goes for corporate meetings and informal forums like this one. Clarity of intent of words is very important.

Abstraction can have its place and many times can be understood at face value, but when it is not understood or is misinterpreted, what then? Unnecessary back and forth trying to figure out what was said and more importantly, what was meant. Nit picking? Maybe for you, but for me it is an attempt for clarity in writing by others, from the OP, if I correctly understand her point, to refrain from over generalized stereotyping when there are enough differences to justify additional specificity to those all encompassing statements that are not all encompassing.

[Nadine Spirit]

Love that last sentence Allie!