h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The assumption here is that there are just two sexes, definable by their body appearance. That may be apparently so, with a few 'freaks' in the middle, but I would contend that there is actually an enromous range of PEOPLE, each different from the other. If you put, for example, the neanderthal hooligan at one end of the spectrum and, for example, the weak and feeble fluffball at the other, most humans actually come somewhere in between the two, and there are many 'females' with neanderthal characteristics and many male fluffballs. What we are talking about is one infinitely variable species, each individual with his/her own characteristics and difficulties which may or may not affect their ability to communicate with each other. Whats sex got to do with it?

Well said! I, for one, firmly believe that the whole "men are from mars, women are from venus" movement is a myth designed to sell more self-help books. Men and women CAN communicate, at least as well as any two individuals can. We have, however, been taught that men and women have drastically different communication styles/abilities, and therefore we look no further when trying to understand any breakdowns that may occur. When we have trouble relating to our same-sex friends, we are more likely to attribute the problem to another cause (he/she has: family/relationship/religious differences/etc.)

When you think about it, none of us really communicates perfectly with anyone, as we all perceive the world slightly differently based on our own upbringing/values/interests/etc.

(note: sorry for all the babble, but this is an issue that really irks me. can anyone pick the psych major out from the crowd here? )

Well, I think the truth's somewhere in between: Lots of studies show that men and women (re)act differently in a broad variety of circumstances; and they seem to communicate differently, too. But then: We don't know where these differences come from. Women might be brought up differently. I think we won't ever know, whether women are in fact different from men or not, simply because our education is based on the existence of gender related differences. Girls are treated in a different way than boys are. That doesn't necessarily mean that all differences between the sexes that we encounter every day stem from the way people are brought up. It means that there is no way to know for sure.
In the end I guess it just doesn't matter that much. Communication has always been pretty difficult, what with people having different cultural and socioeconomical backgrounds and the like. Sometimes I wonder, how we communicate at all. I mean, communication is so difficult! Even if we knew for sure about differences betwen the sexes, we'd still have to struggle with the fact, that people - men and women alike - mostly don't mean the same when they say the same.

Two v gd things you say here, that all humans should take onboard (remember small package, that some of us are mere observers here, and not of the species at all) (1) "we have been taught" Haven't we just? And what of those who taught us, and their agendas, bias etc and that of previous generations. (2)"we all perceive the world differently", we most certainly do.

It should not be so, but I suspect the presumption of difference is right, but weak. There is no doubt that I (as a male) address you (whom I suspect to be female) differently - in my case more politely - than I would if I were replying to a known male. Maybe thats training, maybe instinct, and maybe somehow wrong, but I also adapt my manner in other ways. If addressing an archbishop, a car thief, a teacher or a drunk, I communicate in a different way to each, in the hope of getting through to them, and the differences are much greater than when I try and address you rather a similar male.

If, however, my presumption (of sex) is wrong, it proves I was right in the first place!

I agree that the differences between genders are nothing compared to the differences between individuals. This discussion asks me to categorize myself and others on the basis of cultural stereotypes, and I refuse to do so.

In the past, my experience has been that this sort of discussion only causes people to generalize -- often tempting them to put their foot in their mouth. This in turn exacerbates relations between genders, thus providing a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. This leads me to believe that gender differences exist primarily because we want them to.

If you study cultures worldwide, you will find that most of them have gender stereotypes. After all, it makes sense that the mating impulse would give rise to a desire to differentiate between members of one gender and members of the other. However, the differences exhibited between genders in different cultures vary widely, and many differences accepted as truth contradict other supposedly truthful differences from another culture and vice versa.

We would never have a condoned discussion about 'Understanding People Of The Opposite Sexual Orienation' or 'Understanding People of the Opposite Skin Color.' Such would be seen as blatant stereotyping at best. and prejudice and discrimination at worst. It would fairly be argued that we should understand people as individuals, regardless of the traits they are born with or the cultural groups they hail from. Why is gender any different?

hmm.

Generalisation is good. Without generalisation we wouldn't be able to say "Cheetahs are faster than Sloaths" because some smart alec would start jabbering about sloaths on speed and cheetahs that are dead...

And we do have discussions about understanding people of ethnic and sexual minorities. Discussing gay culture - finding out where the heck that pink triangle came from... learning swahili and welsh to speak to ethnic minorities. It's all been done.

What I am as an individual includes my traits, gender, and "cultural groups".

Perhaps this thing should be retitled - "Understanding people who act in a stereotypical male (respectively, female) way when you are a stereotypical female (respectively, male)." But that doesn't quite trip of the tongue, now does it?

No, it doesn't.

Ihave found that as long as I tell my side of things, as best I can I will be understood. It also helps to pay attention to the person you are talking to and learning their body language. And sometinmes generlisation helps, in that I look for certain things in the women I date, on a subconcious level. If a previous girlfriend says nothing's wrong but blow out a huge sigh,I know that she wants me to make her feel comfortable before she tells me. Granted it may take a few girlfriend/ex-wives to figure this out. But that will be the first thing I do before delving into the situation (try to comfort her, and let her know I'll try not to judge her). It is a long process, but I must admit to being as litle thick-headed at times.

Oh and in answer to the question about the pink triangle representing homosexuals, it comes from the Holocaust when the Nazi's slapped symbols on people they didn't approve of. The yellow Star of David for Jewish people and the pink triangle for homosexuals. Now Gays and Lesbians use it to empower themselves in the same way some black people are taking and using the "n" word. Where the Nazi's got it from I don't know.

Isn't gender and sexuality a socially and politically constructed thing? Move outside the 'official' stereotyped classifications, fail to conform with the stereotypes and you are marginalised, 'other', different, feared, shunned, mocked, reviled, discriminated against. Yet we are none of us just 'a' man or 'a' woman or 'a' anything else. Differences are infinite, likewise similarities, yet that is what we all have in common. Understanding one another, woman or man, is great; the pitfall is to avoid presumption and condescension. What is really necessary is tolerance and acceptance - if we get those right understanding will surely follow.

Walter.

No, no, no MyRedDice, generalisation is bad, always bad. At least when taken as an expression of opinion. The reason we do it, use generalisations that is, is to communicate something of ourselves. If I were in the Saloon Bar (a place where generalisation is the common currency) and I said, for example "People who can't spell sloth are lazy idle creatures" that doesnt tell you anything about bad animal name spellers, but it does tell you that I, the speaker, am a judgemental pedant. It may help you understand me, but says nothing about the subject of the generalisation.

Generalisation is the curse of the education system.(Now theres a sweeping generalisation). Generalisation is simply a shorthand, a way of categorising, that enables us to understand some of the dynamics of Human Society. It is not a truth. You cannot and must not think of people as women, men, gay, French, blonde, short etc. People are people are people, in their infinite variety. We should surely learn to communicate with them as individuals.

Gooday Pheroneous,

Too right: I wish I could have put it that way. Take care,

Walter

Well, I don't agree completely. The problem, I think, is the use of terms like 'generalization' or - worse - 'stereotype'. First of all generalization is a useful means of dealing with a pretty complex world. We simply cannot react specifically at any given time. Reality is far too complex to always perceive it thoroughly and give it the attention it might deserve. So we generalize. We form attitudes. These are based on our experience and usually give us pretty good and reasonable rules of the thumb of how to deal with a given situation. For example, as a German my past experiences with guys dressed up like skinheads let me behave very, very careful when encountering them. In a given situation though this may not be fair, because even a skinhead might not be racist or dangerous or whatever. He might even write poems. But this is not very probable and anyway, my past experiences lead me to believe that the prize I might pay for not generalizing and thus not behaving carefully would be very very high indeed.
As for stereotypes: Everybody seems to know what a stereotype is, but nobody seems to be able to define it thoroughly. What exactly is a stereotype? And what exactly is the difference between a stereotype and an attitude? Attitudes are usually defined in the same way as I defined generalization (in fact generalization is the mechanism of attitude formation). But then: Stereotypes seem to be exactly the same thing with one important difference: Stereotypes are 'bad' whereas attitudes are basically 'good'. People often say that stereotypes are something like attitudes based on only few facts and even less experience. But how many facts do I need, how much experience is required to qualify the result of generalization as an attitude rather than a stereotype? The term stereotype doesn't seem to be too helpful. I think generalization is a common and useful means of dealing with reality. We simply canot do without it. It depends on the situation whether acting according to generalizations (skinheads are usually racist and dangerous, so I'd rather be careful) or thorough perception and analysis of the situation (this specific skinhead might be nice guy, let's be nice to him) is the proper thing to do.

Here one point, that came to my mind during reading this discussion: There is a difference between the difference between male and female and all the other differences, belonging to cutural, social ... background. Two important things beneath food, drink, conversation and other things, that are important in our - or at least my - life are sex and tenderness. While I can get all the other ones in an easy way, which has nothing to do with cultural or religious or sexual differences between men, these two I cannot get only by asking for them or buy them. I only can get it as a gift. It is much more complicated, and many problems in this area are caused by different behaviour, talking and thinking of men and women. From one point of view it makes things more interesting, but sometimes one wishes, that it would be easier. Many people, especially in the rich countries, are hungry for a little bit of tenderness. But you cannot TAKE it. You have to play the old game 'A loves B' with the old rules, and that causes a lot of misunderstandings, hiding of feelings, all this. Tolerance and open minds and all this may be a good way. But gender and the difference male-female is NOT only something artificially constructed thing, it is much more real.

Please excuse my horrible english.

Interesting, but not sure that I totally agree. I think I am trying to say that yes, the world is far too complex for one human brain to begin to comprehend (come to that I am not sure that the combined resources of the species as a whole has even understood the complexity of the brain!) and of course we use stereotypes and generalisations to attempt to understand. So long as we are aware that that is what we are doing, then I have no problem. My rant is against the blithe acceptance of a generalisation or stereoype as a truth, and subsequent root of our attitude to others.

I definitely agree with you (so maybe I got you wrong at first): there's no truth neither in attitudes nor in stereotypes. Rules of thumb are a practical thing, but by no means do they express the truth. But then: What is the truth? Given the complexity of reality plus the complexity - and individuality - of our reality-perceiving device (our brain, formed by genetic inheritance, experiences, ...) there's not much of a chance that two people agree on any 'truth' (although most of the time, we think that we agree with others). In the end, I guess, there is no such thing as 'reality'. That's what makes communication so difficult. Anything I perceive, I perceive in my very special, very individual way, because there's no one in the world with exactly the same brain. We use the same words, but they hold different meanings for us. Maybe we should stop talking about 'truths' entirely and rather stick to perceptions of reality.
... hm, well, on the other hand, we're human beings, aren't we? Why make things so complicated? In the end, the most important thing is, to try to understand each other, really; and to not take for granted that our perceptions hold any truth for fellow human beings.

IMO, the difference between generalizations and stereotypes is that:

* Generalizations are formed by the person who has them. They form part of our personal world view.

* Stereotypes are transmitted by the culture we belong to. We are told to accept them as being part of the world we live in without any real evidence.

Sorry Pheroneous, but we're going to have to differ here.

The whole point is I *don't* want to be understood as an individual. In fact, I can't be. For example - I do craft things, despite being totally and utterly incompetent at them. If you tried to understand me as an individual, you would fail. If you noticed that I was a scientist, then you could (correctly?) guess that I'm proud of those craft things because scientists are, in general, bad at them.

Similarly, I wear nail polish, which is a totally irrelevant piece of information, unless you observe that I'm a guy.

I'm also increasingly annoyed at the restrictions political correctness trys to place upon people - here's a perfectly decent talk about how men and women differ, ruined because .

Nobody is gender-blind. Nobody could be.

I hear that you can buy sex for ten pounds an hour nowadays, Coxeter... and tenderness is cheaper still.

Here's a difference between men and women - men tend to want to win pointless arguments like these - women seem to have better things to do. I'm guessing it's a machismo thing.

Umm - let me rephrase that, given the audience....

generally men generally tend generally to generally want generally to generally win generally pointless generally arguments generally like generally these generally - generally women generally seem generally to generally have generally better generally things generally to generally do generally. I'm generally guessing generally it's generally a generally machismo generally thing generally.

*sigh*

Hey, MyRedDice, be loud, be proud, and lighten up. Nothing wrong with pointless argument. And who said anything about being gender blind, I'm just wanting its importance reduced. But, bad mistake, tenderness is not cheap. Its very precious, and very high maintenance. If you get it, treasure it, and if you give it, give generously.

And if winning means getting the last word, you were, and now I am!

I don't want to get into the argument between MyRedDice and Pheroneous.

I do want to respond to the argument that "discussion has been ruined" because of "politically correct" mumbo jumbo. While I don't like political correctness either, I feel there is a time and place for the discussion we are engaging in. If an open call for opinions on gender differences isn't it, I'm not sure what is.

If you want to discuss what you feel the differences are, fine. Go discuss them in any of the several threads dedicated to that. Or go start your own. Nobody here is preventing you. Some of us are explaining why we choose not to engage in those conversations. Don't we have as much right to free speech as you do?