Womens values differ from men's. Agree or not ?.

[Sally]

In the main, men basically become much more involved than women in intellectually figuring out what is fair and what are individual rights, such as in making rules (in religion and the family) and laws (in politics). For men, differences of opinion ought to be worked out via logical arguments and courts of law; for women, differences should be worked out by talking to each other, considering each other's viewpoints, and understanding each other's needs. Men are more concerned with becoming independent, "being their own man," being free to do their own thing, and being as successful as they can be. Women tend to be more concerned with fulfilling their responsibilities to others than with assuring their own rights, more involved with building caring relationships than "breaking away" to make their own way, more into helping others than getting ahead themselves. Thus, one can see why women could become concerned that men's vigilant defence of individual rights and "freedom" might undermine our sense of responsibility for others and lead to indifference to others in need.

It's generally accepted that boys must gain their masculine identification by separating from their mother, whilst girls attach and take on the characteristics of mother. This being so, for this reason and others, males may tend to see danger in connecting with others--in getting too close or too dependent on someone or in confronting someone. Doing battle in court is more a man's style. Females may see danger in disconnecting with others--in loneliness or successful advancement or rejection. Intimacy is scary to males but a source of security to females. Autonomy is scary to females but a source of pride to males. To males, human relationships are seen as a hierarchy based on power and status; they want to climb to the top and feel afraid if others get too close to them (the sociobiologists point out the similarity of this view to the male struggle for sexual dominance in many species). Most men do not have an intimate relationship with a male nor an intimate non-sexual relationship with a female; achievement takes priority over intimacy until mid-life when suddenly males realize what they have been missing. Males identify themselves and their success by their accomplishments; females identify themselves by their relationships. To females, relationships are (or can be) more like a network of safety and care among equals; they want to be in the center of the network and fear getting too far out on the edge (like being caught outside the camp in hostile territory). Women recognize more openly their interdependence on others and see the powerful person as being able and willing to help and nurture others. Men see power as the ability to control others. To males "being responsible" in a relationship, means not doing what you want to do out of consideration of others. To females "being responsible" means doing what others are counting on you to do, regardless of what you want to do. There is a difference.

Sure, the male concern with individual rights and the female concern with caring for others are both important. Each sex has important contributions to make to moral reasoning, certainly neither sex has a monopoly on morals. The concept of rights is based on the notion of fairness and equal opportunities. This kind of justice is vital. The concept of responsibility for helping others is based on a compassionate understanding of human needs. Loving one another is also vital. Perhaps a combination of respecting everyone's rights (including one's own), personal integrity (being true to one's beliefs), and assuming responsibility for helping others may define moral maturity for all of us--men and women. Justice tells us that everyone should be treated the same; personal caring tells us to do more than just not hurt anyone--we must help everyone who needs it. Women, giving us a different moral perspective from males, can help all of us be more caring, more responsible, and less aggressive. Thus, we all need to "learn to think like a woman" as well as like a man. Think of the changes that might occur if world leaders were committed to justice and to responsible caring, rather than just to defending our rights and possessions with weapons.

If all of our values are to be met, then it's essential that half of our decision and law makers must be women, it's essential to have included a caring attitude, or is that being too pragmatic?

In whole or part, agree or not?

Kind Regards to all.

Sally.

[CJ]

Hi all,

Sally,

I AGREE! Wholeheartedly. (Except maybe for that little bit about helping everyone who needs it. Not sure if that's possible. Aside from that, an awesome post. Thanks. )

Love,
CJ

[Lydia]

Hi Sally,

This is a great post - an essay, in fact. A fascinating topic, and I wish one of our GG members would contribute to the thread.

We must always remember that no matter how we try to emulate a woman, from underdressing to full dressing to transitioning, there are still fundamental differences between us. The genetic differences are basic. They have two X chromosomes, while we have one X and a Y - my SO calls it a "defective X-chromosome." The total effect on the genome is enormous. In fact the quantitative differences in genetic structure between Homo sapiens and the chimpanzee are no greater than the genetic differences between the human male and human female.

The genes, i.e., DNA structures, account in part for anatomical differences, while the behavioral differences arise from an intricate interweaving of genetic and environmental factors. The genetic structure of an individual does not exist in a vacuum, but in ever-changing dynamic conditions. The development of the organism is a process guided simultaneously by heredity and environment. The dichotomy of "Nature vs. Nurture" is a total myth.

A study and an understanding of behavioral and psychological differences is of essential importance in most of our social relationships. To delve further into the antecedents, the causes, of these differences is probably even more difficult than describing them and dealing with them. Consequently, a forum and a thread like this should be maintained, and I hope we continue to contribute. In the end, it must lead to a better understanding of ourselves.

Hugs to all,

Willy

[Violet]

I agree with most of your points Sally, however I would argue that a lot of this comes from social conditioning. The weight of opinion from our parents, teachers, authority figures, religion, experts, the media, toy manufacturers, our peers, and society in general (and I include the current vogue for evolutionary psychology and the notion of 'hunter' vs 'gatherer' in human history creating psychobiological 'tendencies' toward F-type or T-type thinking in the sexes) is that male and female are different, that certain roles are associated with each, and that males and females are 'naturally' posessed of certain traits that suit them for these roles. Of course, boys will intellectualize and crave independance; every example of masculinity around them, every role model of how a man should act, from their father to politicians to heroes in TV shows, acts that way, and any man around them who makes decisions for emotional reasons or seeks security by building relationships is labeled as weak, womanish, or gay. And the same goes for girls, although we see more role models in life and the media of independant and intellectual T-type women, a common lesson is that one cannot be a 'career woman' or other not-traditionally-female female without sacrificing family and relationships and suppressing the emotions (things girls are taught by their female role models to value from day one) and basically 'becoming a man'. We are taught that this is simply the way things are, that all girls are emotionally driven and have a 'biological clock' forcing them towards building a secure family/relationship network, that 'boys will be boys', that men think with their testicles and would rather fight than forgive, that it's a matter of biology and genetics and hormones rather than a matter of memes and will.

I'll not state absolutely that biological makeup has nothing to do with this matter, only that it has (IMHO) far less to do with it than commonly accepted wisdom would dictate. Men don't need women to help them be caring and fulfill their responsibilities. Women don't need men to help them think independantly and work outside ther safety nets. We have these capacities within each of our own personalities, and it's up to us as individuals and as a society to do away with the outmoded belief systems that prevent us from realizing and developing them.

[Jamie Ann]

     Deborah Tannen, a professor of linguistics at Georgetown University, wrote a book entitled, You Just Don’t understand: Women and Men in Conversation, in which she made some of the same points you do. Whether the differences between men and women should be called differences in basic values is debatable. I think men and women differ in styles of communication, priorities to some extent, and strategies for realizing goals. If a man were aggressive in seeking to achieve some end, he would be praised; a woman might have to find some other strategy, given our gender stereotypes and the negative reactions some might have towards violators of those stereotypes. Values are more basic, in my opinion. You have made many interesting and astute observations about “feminine” and “masculine” adaptations to achieving the things our culture encourages people like us to try to achieve!

[TamaraSegunda]

Dear Sally,

Thanks for your very well-written and provocative post. You certainly got my thoughts churning.

It seems to me that you've described some values and ways that individuals conduct themselves that could certainly be applied to a lot of people. A lot of men *are* more concerned with defining general principles (rules of the game), and a lot of women *do* put more effort into personal relationships and intimacy. On the whole, though, this all strikes me as conventional wisdom that can be stretched too far without running into the infinite diversity of people. Just as there are female judges and lawyers and lawmakers, there are also males whose empathy and capacity for intimacy have made them excellent counselors and therapists.

In real life, though, most of us know that the general statements we make about the virtues or shortcomings of men or women fall far short of applying to all -- or even most -- members of the sex. At bottom, all of us are human, we all have needs, and we're all as eager to have them met as anyone else, regardless of our genes or our reproductive plumbing. For example, women can be just as competitive as men, although the ways they compete may be adapted to their customary ways of behaving.

Someone once told me that you can discover an individual's weaknesses just by recognizing his/her strengths; they're almost always one and the same.. You say you're detail oriented? Your enemies will say you're compulsive. You're caring and want to help people with their personal problems? Others will call you a nosy busybody. Fastidious or fussy? Beauty conscious or just shallow? You're assertive, and have leadership qualities? If someone doesn't care to follow, they may just see you as a demanding b*tch. I'm sure you get the idea.

In my experience, biological males with gender issues do tend to have problems with halo effect in the way that we view women, and to tend in the other direction when we describe males, or behaviors that society considers to be "male." I've certainly succumbed to this, and from time to time, I still do. The truth is that, while some women may indeed be Mother Theresas, others are more like "Mommy Dearest," and while some men may be Gandhi, others are more like Stalin.

In my more rational moments, though, I know that what I am is a human being, and that I have loads of traits in common with my sisters, and just as many in common with my brothers, and none of those traits is the exclusive property of either sex. In the poem, "I Sing the Body Electric," Walt Whitman focused on the physical sides of our nature, but I think he had the right idea. May I quote a few lines?

The love of the body of man or woman balks account ...
That of the male is perfect, and that of the female is perfect.

The expression of the face balks account,
But the expression of a well-made man appears not only in his face,
It is in his limbs and joints also, it is curiously in the joints of his hips and wrists,
It is in his walk, the carriage of his neck, the flex of his waist and knees,
dress does not hide him,
The strong sweet quality he has strikes through the cotton and broadcloth,
To see him pass conveys as much as the best poem, perhaps more,
You linger to see his back, and the back of his neck and shoulder-side.

The sprawl and fulness of babes, the bosoms and heads of women, the folds of their dress, their style as we pass in the street, the contour of their shape downwards,
The swimmer naked in the swimming-bath, seen as he swims through
the transparent green-shine, or lies with his face up and rolls silently to and from the heave of the water,
The bending forward and backward of rowers in row-boats, the
horse-man in his saddle,
Girls, mothers, house-keepers, in all their performances,
The group of laborers seated at noon-time with their open
dinner-kettles, and their wives waiting,
The female soothing a child, the farmer's daughter in the garden or
cow-yard ....

Each, in its own way...perfect.
Love and hugs to all,
Tamara Segunda

[Terri(SO)]

Gosh! I've been trying to formulate a contribution to this thread and every time I come back to start someone else has posted and I have to go away and think some more.

This one is certainly stimulating the synapses. I'll be back!

[Sally]

Terri, I hoped I haven't jumped the gun again on you. LOL....

Well, I was sure this subject would draw some high quality response and I wasn't let down. It's a subject I've made an intricate study of over the years, mainly due to the fact that it was stressed to me in the very early stages by my peers and professionals that if I were to complete my transition then there was much, much more to living as a woman than just clothes and an external appearance and the more I delved into it all, the more fascinating it became.

Violet, you'll get no argument from me that social conditiong plays a major role in how boys and girls develop their varying personalities.
But I would make this point, having experienced living a part of my adult life with my testosterone level much higher than my estrogen levels and for the last four years living my life with a high estrogen level and a negligible testosterone level, hormones do in fact play a large part in how we operate. They not only effect our physical self they have a big effect on our emotional self and indeed how our brain operates and thinks. I can say this with some authority having been on both sides of the fence, plus I might add, that having experienced this I can well appreciate how it would have been for me if I'd also had the social conditiong which my sisters had from infancy, but them's the breaks.

Of course, I'm not suggesting in the slightest that what I said applies to every man or woman, but I think generally males are conditioned from a very early age to strive for superiority, not to show weakness, they are expected to be strong, demanding and tough. Most fathers visualise their sons as captain of the football team, to be powerful and not be a sissy etc, whereas the same expectations are generally not made of daughters. Maybe this originally stemmed from the fact that males are biologically stronger and more muscled than females, even though both sexes produce testosterone, usually a male produces a much greater amount of the hormone than does the female, but I would make the suggestion that maybe it was natures' intention that a balance be maintained between the sexes, for varying reasons, not the least being that if we were all identically as physically strong as each other it would not just be a physical contest between males but each and every person, which could well result in mayhem.

I don't know about anyone else, but in the main I've found that women generally live by the Golden Rule much more than men do. Men are more likely to seek retribution or to 'even the score'. The Golden Rule is included in so many different cultures and religions, even though it may be worded slightly different, the message is identical.

The general wording of the Golden Rule is " Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount put it this way: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them."

Judaism: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." (Leviticus 19:18)
(Matthew 7:12)

Islam: "No one of you is a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself."

Confucianism: "What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others." (Analects 15:23)

Buddhism: "Hurt not others with that which pains yourself."
(Udanavarga 5:18)

Hinduism: "Good people proceed while considering that what is best for others is best for themselves." (Hitopadesa)

Communist motto: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Indian saying: "Don't judge others until you have walked in their moccasins."

It's a fascinating subject and dear to my heart.

Kind Regards,

Sally.

[Jamie Ann]

Of course, I'm not suggesting in the slightest that what I said applies to every man or woman, but I think generally males are conditioned from a very early age to strive for superiority, not to show weakness, they are expected to be strong, demanding and tough. Most fathers visualise their sons as captain of the football team, to be powerful and not be a sissy etc, whereas the same expectations are generally not made of daughters. Maybe this originally stemmed from the fact that males are biologically stronger and more muscled than females, even though both sexes produce testosterone, usually a male produces a much greater amount of the hormone than does the female, but I would make the suggestion that maybe it was natures' intention that a balance be maintained between the sexes, for varying reasons, not the least being that if we were all identically as physically strong as each other it would not just be a physical contest between males but each and every person, which could well result in mayhem.

Hi Sally,

     This is going to seem picky, but one quibble is about using the term “values” (Do men’s and women’s values differ?) when you really are talking about sex-role differences. In fields such as religion, some areas of psychology, some areas of philosophy, and kindred disciplines, speaking of men’s and women’s differing values would be a contradiction in terms.  Values, by definition, are generalized beliefs about worth, excellence, importance, or the like, which transcend categories of humanity. We could talk about the predominant values of a culture. We could properly speak about family values, spiritual values, what ought to be true of the human condition, etc. For example, if the men and women in a community value “justice” (a generalized end-state of existence), and if men’s behavior and women’s behavior show somewhat different patterns pertaining to this idealized end-state “justice,” that does not mean men and women have different values.  It means there exist sex-role differences in that community.  Think about the recent election season in the United States, when we heard a lot about “family values.”  Those who stressed such generalized ideas about the importance of the family also would tend to think that men and women should specialize in different areas of family life.  Does that mean they have different values?  If we use the term in a standard sense, the answer is no.  Values are transcendent; social roles pertain to specifiable categories of persons.

     In short, I think your discussion is interesting and provocative, and I find myself nodding in agreement as I read most of it, but it is about observable male-female differences, not about basic cultural values.

[Sally]

Hi Jamie Ann,

You might possibly be being a bit pedantic on the meaning of the word 'values', as to how it was meant in the original article. It can mean various things I know, but was used in this instance only as a heading to what was contained in the body of the original article, not as a meaning for a lot of what you said, but a good thing is that amongst us, a thread can move into other areas of the original topic of any article which can then be educational as the thread continues to evolve.

At the least it's a topic of conversation and I think that's what it's all about, to get us all thinking about things we may not give much attention to in our day to day lives. I've never learned anything from anyone who totally agreed with me anyway and the exchange of ideas and information only goes to broaden our knowledge and outlook., but I still go with my original thoughts that mens' and womens' values differ in the main, but I am referring to gender differences in values of self esteem, purpose and orientation.

When women hear a new or different idea, they set their doubts and disbelief aside and tune in carefully to what the person is saying; they try to see it from the other person's view point. Women try to understand the other person's opinion as completely and deeply as possible; they cognitively "go with them," wanting to hear the person's views and understand why they think this way. Women seek to make sense of the new idea, to grasp how it can be seen as accurate and useful. This is certainly a "way of knowing" and could be called the "believing approach ." It involves empathizing with the speaker to cooperatively assimilate the truth together, i.e. co-operating.

Contrast this with a common male approach: When someone expresses a new idea or one a male doesn't agree with, he immediately starts arguing in his head. He tries to stay unbiased and coolly impersonal if he can, but he questions the validity of everything--"How do you know that?" "Is that logical?" "Is that the correct phraseology?" "How reliably was that measured?" "Aren't some other experimental approaches or control conditions needed?" "Aren't there exceptions or other explanations or conclusions possible?" "What are this person's motives and biases?" This is critical thinking; it's the essence of the scientific method; we may well call it an adversarial or "doubting approach ." We all know this approach; researchers attack each other's conclusions; it's about all you get in school. In academia it's the only respected way of knowing. Men like the intellectual game. It's like arguing--trying to find out who is superior. Women frequently dislike this kind of discourse, believing arguments don't influence anyone's thinking and reduce intimacy. Some consideration may well suggest to us us that every person needs to use both "ways of knowing." Both are valuable skills.

What are the thoughts on this as to mens' and womens' thinking? I know some men and women will say, "Well I'm not like that" but I'm just generalising not individualising, one size doen't fit all I know.


Kind Regards.

Sally.

[Jamie Ann]

Dear Sally,

I agree with 99% of what you have said, but I don’t think it is being pedantic to insist that values not be understood in some vague sense as including all kinds of different things. Values, by definition, are generalized beliefs about worth, excellence, importance, or the like, which transcend categories of humanity. That is the way values are understood in academic discourse. Moreover, when a Supreme Court Justice says that the United States is in a “culture war” (as Scalia has said), he is not talking about differences between males and females. Rather, he is talking about views of what ought to be. Valuing the traditional (nuclear) family, with an implied antogonism to gay or lesbian families, is not something that separates males and females. As I said, I agree with 99% of what you have said, but I think we are taking the easy way out if we redefine “values” so as to include all kinds of sex-role differences.

Again, I agree with 99% of what you have said.

[Loretta Ann]

When women hear a new or different idea, they set their doubts and disbelief aside and tune in carefully to what the person is saying; they try to see it from the other person's view point. Women try to understand the other person's opinion as completely and deeply as possible; they cognitively "go with them," wanting to hear the person's views and understand why they think this way. Women seek to make sense of the new idea, to grasp how it can be seen as accurate and useful. This is certainly a "way of knowing" and could be called the "believing approach ." It involves empathizing with the speaker to cooperatively assimilate the truth together, i.e. co-operating.

Hi Sally,

While I acknowledge your statement that; you know some men and women will say, "Well I'm not like that" that you are just generalizing not individualizing, one size doesn't fit all. That has not been my experience, though I wish it were.

I used to think it was that way though.

Love Darlene.

[Curly(SO)]

From my own personal experience, I would have to disagree with the title of this thread. I agree more with Violet, in believing the differences are more down to social conditioning.

It's generally accepted that boys must gain their masculine identification by separating from their mother, whilst girls attach and take on the characteristics of mother.

I cannot identify anyone I know with this statement above, if anything, I would say that females try harder to separate from their mothers than males.

Hey, I would love to post more, but I have to go to work now...I will catch up with this thread later!

Love,
Curly(SO)

[CJ]

Hi all,

Again, a fascinating thread.

I understand what both Sally and Jamie Ann are referring to when they speak of values. They both speak of human values, although Sally focuses on the extent to which one sex or the other adheres to such values whereas Jamie Ann focuses on what such values are, rather than on who clings to them. It's a bit of a moot point, I think, to explore sex-typed differences in the adherence to such values if we cannot first reach a consensus on what those values may be. Maybe we can do this first and then see if men and women "value" these values any differently?

What are some of these human values (values that transcend both time and place in the human community)? I dare suggest a few, perhaps debatable ones...

Respect and care for other human beings, out of a sense of our all being interconnected and interdependent;

Respect and care for our environment (including life other than human), for pretty much the same reasons;

The safeguarding of our future, as a species, by providing children with a suitable mental and physical environment in which to grow and develop;

The acknowledgment of our being part of a continuum that is both a historical (or "historicized") and physical process (whether we choose to express that acknowledgment through religion, art, myth, spirituality, scientific wonder and awe, or any number of other cultural practices);

These are four human values that I can think of. They're not specific to any given culture; they're fairly universal. No doubt, there are others.

My own belief (and a belief it is--controversial or not) is that women--for reasons I stated in the thread on "natural superiority"--generally espouse these values more solidly than do men. I'm not saying men don't or cannot do so (they can and they do... I know; I'm one of them). I'm just saying that, on the whole, these life-affirming ways are more often the province of women than they are that of men. Even a cursory glance at the history of mankind--not humankind, mankind--will reveal that, in a "story" (for such is what history is, after all) where women were largely eclipsed, the human values I mentioned above were also largely eclipsed. Ours is a tale of aggression, invasion, dominance, violation, rape, pillage, destruction, and mayhem--all very life-denying ways. Again, too much of Yang, and not enough of Yin.

When I say that women are now our best hope, I don't mean ever and always. I mean now. Right now, right here. Women are the best hope we have of redressing the balance, of finding our equilibrium (an equilibrium, incidentally, that comes naturally to every other species on Earth). We're sorely in need of complementarity, not opposition.

Violet--with whom I agree on so many points--also wrote something I completely disagree with: Men don't need women to help them be caring and fulfill their responsibilities. Women don't need men to help them think independently and work outside their safety nets. I think we do, in fact, need each other. More so now than ever before.

Well, I know I do, at any rate.

Love,
CJ

[Curly(SO)]

I hear what you are saying CJ. Do you know what...I normally agree with everything you say but here, I'm going to have to beg to differ! I am a firm believer in Yin and Yang but I don't feel that the human values you mention above, are more strongly held by Womankind. I do agree that a lot of our differences are caused by our different hormones, that this affects the way we behave and react to situations. I do not believe they affect our core values.

I don't want to be controversial here, I am a peace loving non argumentative female after all but do you think that being a CDer influences the way you feel about men in a negative way and may cause you to put women on a pedestal?

I hope I have worded this in an inoffensive way, I mean no harm, just interested in this discussion!

Love,
Curly(SO)