Male and female privileges acknowledgement thread

[Jolly_Penguin]

What uniquely male issues do you believe women intrude upon unfairly? Be specific.

I'd appreciate it if you could take the time to answer this question. It strikes me as pertinent.

I ignored the question because it presumes that I find that there are uniquely male issues that women intrude upon unfairly. I never wrote that and I don't believe that. I believe that everyone can comment on everything.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think you may have misunderstood whatever point the woman on the television, because I can just about guarantee you that no woman of intelligence has ever said that men need to interrupt women and talk over them in a business meeting in order to be seen as strong.

Its only when it comes to high status powerful women. These women have no tolerance or patience for what they perceive as weak men. They usually demand plenty of resistance or they'll have me removed. It's happened.

It's of course important that the interruptions are relevant and add value. Just interrupting for the hell of it is even more frowned upon.

I'll contrast this to a high status powerful man. When around these people it's possible to get away with saying that all his ideas are great and agree with everything. If you'd treat a powerful woman like this... you'd be out and off the team in no time.

Female bosses keep their team on their toes, and their team need to prove their pro-active and awake. So a man not interrupting her will signal weakness.

If you're on a mans team you just need to show you're part of the team. And only speak when asked.

I'll say it again... we typically aren't aware of this. These are two distinct types of leadership, that are quite different, and we don't notice. We notice lots of other things. But not this.

Add to that personality. So these differences can express themselves in a variety of ways.

There's so much more I can say about this. Voices. If women speak in high voices all they say sound like questions. So not taken seriously. In low voices, they sound like they're trying to be seductive. Also not serious. In a neutral tone firm, and possibly angry. These are the only choices for women. A man can speak in whatever tone of voice he likes. People try to work out from context what he means. We also tipically don't notice that we're making these judgements either.

In normal conversation in groups it's normal to cut into what the other is saying. We rarely sit and wait... pause... and then do our thing. If we do... we will usually never get to speak. The art is in knowing when to cut in. Men are just more blunt at it. I think women are just better at understanding when the main point has been completed. Next time you're on a subway next to a group of people talking, just pay attention to the dynamics of the group. I guarantee that you won't notice if you're in the group. You need to be outside of it, to see it. It's like that video with the basket players and the gorilla. if you're in the group, you won't notice.

What makes you assume that I do not understand group dynamics, and that I need you to tell me how to go about understanding it?

The things you've said to me have given me the impression that you don't.

How I behave in meetings depends on the composition of the group. When I'm leading meetings, I try to talk as little as possible. That's my primary goal. I only open my mouth if the discussion is veering off course. If it's a group consisting of mostly men and few women, my job is to shut the men up. Or the women won't get a word in edgewise. If it's mixed, I can usually relax. If it's mostly women it matters if they are high or low status. High status women will expect me to interrupt them if I have something to say. If not, they will see me weak.

Again, I seriously doubt this is true. They may tolerate it because you are the boss, just like Thumpalumpacus tolerated it when his female boss did it to him, but no one with confidence and intelligence views interrupting and talking over others as "strong".

I'm not always the boss in meetings. In many meetings I'm not. I notice the same dynamic in other people's meetings.

I also have worked a lot in Sweden where female bosses are very common, all over the place. Plenty of experience.

I always validate women when they speak, and again if I think they say something great. I only validate men if they've said something extraordinarily clever.

This sounds quite sexist and condescending.

Why do you think so?

So I make a point of being much more critical to extroverts.

Why?

Because I'm an extrovert. I'm naturally inclined to be less critical to extroverts than I should. So I make an effort to compensate for it. My goal is to be as critical to everybody in my team.

I've been to loads of management courses and group dynamic courses. For some reason, gender is always left out of them. I suspect it's because I took all these in Sweden, and that's a taboo subject when it comes to this. So that's stuff I've had to figure out on my own.

Perhaps it is left out because you should not be treating your fellow workers differently based on their gender.

I think this is just a current trend. I think treating men and women differently is hard-wired and hard to even notice when we do. It requires education and effort not to. Which means it'll be another of these middle-class phenomena, giving us (in the middle-class) an excuse to look down on the working class (who have other things to worry about) and the upper class ( who don't have to give a shit, so they don't). I'm convinced it'll go away eventually because it'll be a dysfunctional belief. It'll continue to cause more friction than solving problems.

Also, the idea that men and women are psychologically the same is something that started in the 70'ies. It's a Soviet-Marxist idea, in turn, based on Lamarckianism. Which the USSR heavily promoted in the 50'ies and 60'ies and got picked up by the radical feminists of the age.

Because the third wave feminists won the battle, this idea has stuck around. But the idea that men and women are psychologically the same is an idea unique for a tiny window from 1970 to today. And not backed up by psychological studies. I find the idea that men and women in the rest of history managed to be wrong about this everywhere is hard to accept for me. I think it's more likely that the source of patriarchal oppression comes from genuine psychological differences between the genders.

Yes, they did win it. In the west all the laws designed to keep women back are gone. And laws came in place to compensate women for maternity leave and such. Today gender inequality is quite subtle.

 

[DrZoidberg]

In organisations, like companies, men have this thing of adoring those above in the hierarchy. Teasing those on the same level and being patternal to those below.

Women are left completely outside this pattern. Female interaction in organisations is much more intricate. It has rules as well. But different. We have completely different schemas on how we interact and we tend to have zero problems shifting between male and female schemas. Even within the same meeting.

If we would start to treat men and women the same I'm convinced we'd all react immediately and be confused. My control group is aspies. They rarely manage to follow group dynamics anyway. And they often make the mistake of treating men and women the same which causes a lot of friction.

I forget who first pointed it out to me. Think it was Lacan. But something I've kept in my mind a long time and have seen in action many times

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Wow, the rampant generalizations are breathtaking.

What uniquely male issues do you believe women intrude upon unfairly? Be specific.

I'd appreciate it if you could take the time to answer this question. It strikes me as pertinent.

I ignored the question because it presumes that I find that there are uniquely male issues that women intrude upon unfairly. I never wrote that and I don't believe that. I believe that everyone can comment on everything.

You don't think there are any uniquely male issues? Interesting data point.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Wow, the rampant generalizations are breathtaking.

I ignored the question because it presumes that I find that there are uniquely male issues that women intrude upon unfairly. I never wrote that and I don't believe that. I believe that everyone can comment on everything.

You don't think there are any uniquely male issues? Interesting data point.

That women intrude on unfairly? No, I don't.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'd also like to add to this thread, that I don't like the terms men and women when it comes to talking about gender. I don't think genders are binary. I prefer masculine and feminine. Life has also taught me that people who look physically feminine, will behave feminine. And people who look masculine, will probaby behave masculine. Who knows if it's innate, or simply because of them responding to social expectations. But I think it's more likely to be mostly innate, because this stuff is too hard to fake. We've all met the meek man trying way too hard to behave like a "real man". They never fool anybody.

But this thread isn't about that.. it's about what benefits we get from our gender. But I still think it's fits, since it'll influence how we use the benefits. I think it's always an easier life if you're a feminine woman or a masculine man. It's the feminine men and masculine women who keep getting slapped down by social expectations the hardest. And who are never quite good enough no matter how hard the try.

 

[WAB]

I'd also like to add to this thread, that I don't like the terms men and women when it comes to talking about gender. I don't think genders are binary. I prefer masculine and feminine. Life has also taught me that people who look physically feminine, will behave feminine. And people who look masculine, will probaby behave masculine. Who knows if it's innate, or simply because of them responding to social expectations. But I think it's more likely to be mostly innate, because this stuff is too hard to fake. We've all met the meek man trying way too hard to behave like a "real man". They never fool anybody.

Perhaps true in general, but there are exceptions, myself being one. Due to my appearance, I've been able to bluff my way out of many potential ass-whoopings. I don't look or act feminine in the least, and actually look rather like a hard-ass, and behave like one when it's necessary. Having a shaved head works wonders, I've found. I've been told by female co-workers that I "always look angry", and I've been intimidating to both men and women when I had no intention of being so. In fact, at work I had to try hard to appear harmless - which I am.

Maybe it all hinges on what "meek" is. While I am certainly not a tough guy and can't fight at all ( a chipmunk could beat me up), I will stand my ground when I have to, and luckily, it's always been a good bluff (except for my big brother who knows me). At 54, having been a frequenter of cowboy bars here in Arizona, and in tougher bars in New York in my youth, I've never had to fight, and I've never backed down from one. But like I said, I've been lucky.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'd also like to add to this thread, that I don't like the terms men and women when it comes to talking about gender. I don't think genders are binary. I prefer masculine and feminine. Life has also taught me that people who look physically feminine, will behave feminine. And people who look masculine, will probaby behave masculine. Who knows if it's innate, or simply because of them responding to social expectations. But I think it's more likely to be mostly innate, because this stuff is too hard to fake. We've all met the meek man trying way too hard to behave like a "real man". They never fool anybody.

Perhaps true in general, but there are exceptions, myself being one. Due to my appearance, I've been able to bluff my way out of many potential ass-whoopings. I don't look or act feminine in the least, and actually look rather like a hard-ass, and behave like one when it's necessary. Having a shaved head works wonders, I've found. I've been told by female co-workers that I "always look angry", and I've been intimidating to both men and women when I had no intention of being so. In fact, at work I had to try hard to appear harmless - which I am.

Maybe it all hinges on what "meek" is. While I am certainly not a tough guy and can't fight at all ( a chipmunk could beat me up), I will stand my ground when I have to, and luckily, it's always been a good bluff (except for my big brother who knows me). At 54, having been a frequenter of cowboy bars here in Arizona, and in tougher bars in New York in my youth, I've never had to fight, and I've never backed down from one. But like I said, I've been lucky.

I don't think it's neither feminine nor masculine to be meek. We all strive for power. What sets us apart us strategies for gaining power. Since men are physically stronger women tend to go for psychological manipulation to get their way. Aka... being more agreeable. Being manipulative isn't being meek.

A meek person is bad at both masculine and feminine power structures.

But we are social creatures. We like when people around us show weakness and vulnerability because that strengthens our position in the group. And groups is all what social species' are about.

Everybody who can will avoid fist fights. Because there's loads of risks involved in a physical fight