In your own words and eyes....

What is a real man?

and likewise

What is a real woman?

And a few questions:

1/ Are these ideas outdated or are they timeless but dismissed as outdated?

2/ Do you believe genders are interchangeable or complementary?

3/ Why is it that the fact that males and females are different is often presented as something negative?

Please no Stay in the Kitchen jokes. It's the first time I find a forum with apparently intelligent responses so I'd like this thread to keep this line.

And no this is no Flame Bait. I'm just asking opinions and thoughts of other tropers, thanks.

No such thing for either. It's all a matter of perspective, and many gender roles are very outdated nowadays.

"Delenda est." "Furthermore, Carthage must be destroyed." -Common Roman saying at the end of speeches.

Answer to both "real man" and "real woman": a term resulting from people's obsessive fixation with the connotations of words.

1:I can't call them outdated, because that would imply that they were valid at some point.

2:In terms of reproduction, they're complementary. In almost all other areas, interchangeable.

3:People love the "us vs. them" mentality.

edited 10th Sep '11 4:51:13 PM by INUH

Infinite Tree: an experimental story

I think any way to define this other than in relation to genitals would exclude me from being a real anything*

. I don't feel particularly incomplete, so I'm not sure it really matters whether you're a real man or woman.

(I do think it's stupid to just ignore studies on how the different sexes do differently on certain aptitude tests, but it's important to keep a clear mind. I've done as well or better than the average man on some tests men do better at, but I've also done as well or better than the average woman on some tests women do better at*

. That doesn't make me a hermaphrodite.)

edited 10th Sep '11 6:26:30 PM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Real man and real woman: my definition is them being human and not a synthetic being or robot.

I don't really think that there is such a thing. Biologically, we can define someone as male or female based on chromosomal makeup, genitals, brain structure, or perhaps more definitions. At the same time, we can look at sexuality, sexual attraction / orientation, gender identity, and so forth for another perspective. Then we can look at gender in terms of social roles - that is, the things that men and women are expected to do, or in terms of traits - how men and women are supposed to think / feel / behave / etc. In all, sexuality and notions of gender are far more complex than I think even specialists in the area are aware of. Thus, I can't really say that there's such as thing as a 'real man' or a 'real woman'. The variation among all those different parameters makes it impossible to even clearly demarcate the two on the boundary, let alone to try to form idealized notions.

Thus, I'd say the following: Notions of real men/real women are outdated. Gender roles are subject to interpretation and fluidity, in all areas except for those strictly related to reproduction. As for why this notion of males and females being different is a bad thing, I think it relates to childish instincts that some segment of the population never really moves away from. And yes, the 'us v. them' mentality is difficult to overcome.

edited 10th Sep '11 6:30:44 PM by DarkConfidant

My definition of Real Man and Real Woman, if I were to come up with one, would be pretty much exactly the same. As long as you're brave and stand up for what you believe in, and just generally live your life in a good way, it doesn't matter what sex or gender you are.

Be not afraid...

This one would prefer a Real Person, thank you. Whether they happen to have male or female genitalia is irrelevant to the standard this one applies to them.

Which would be, more or less - a free-thinking person with a decent moral compass who stands for what they believe in.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

...there isn't such a thing?

You are whatever you are, and that's fine so long as you're not hurting anybody doing it.

I am now known as Flyboy.

I don't want to type this up, really.

I feel restrained by forums, sometimes.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

1/ Are these ideas outdated or are they timeless but dismissed as outdated?

This one thinks that they are mostly outdated, or at least can become so. Gender, as opposed to sex, is but a social construct.

2/ Do you believe genders are interchangeable or complementary?

Interchangeable.

3/ Why is it that the fact that males and females are different is often presented as something negative?

They are different biologically,very few would deny this fact. But trying to prescribe inherent psychological differences is trying to force people into the roles that might not fit them. Basically crippling them from birth.

Another reason is because there is a difference between saying: "Among women, there is a higher percentage of X than among males", and another "Women are, inherently, X". The first is simply a notion without expectation that every woman should conform to it, while the second has a prescriptive component.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

God, these topics always invite the same "no gender evar" thinking.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

Well... I wouldn't say that the ideas are outdated. A woman can be a housewife and a man a... well, I dunno what a typical male stereotype is, since we were historically the ones who could do whatever.

Anyhow, point is, they're not outdated, so much as the idea that they are the only options is outdated. If a woman wants to be a housewife, for example, she can be. But only if she wants to be...

Gender is interchangeable? Well, if gender is "identity as related to sex," I would say that both terms are counterproductive, because there isn't really a "default" gender. Only what society has created. Therefore, you are simply what you decide to be.

Well, I would say that males and females do, in fact, have a certain amount of psychological differences, on average. That doesn't mean that we're going to conform to some social construct because society says so. Well... ignoring meta-ethics, anyhow.

I can't say it's bad. It merely is. For good or ill.

I am now known as Flyboy.

And how is it a bad thing?

Well, if people insist that female cannot, ever, be a housewife even if that is what she wants, then it would be nothing but changing one gender prescription to another, just as confining.

All options being available to all without endless nagging from society about which option one is ought to choose is exactly what makes an idea of gender roles outdated.

edited 10th Sep '11 10:28:15 PM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

It's not that I think that gender is a bad thing and we should all be genderless. It's just that 1) I don't think everyone should have to abide by the rules on pain of not being a 'real X' and 2) most of the things I associate with femininity/masculinity are largely irrelevant to whether or not you're a good person.

Be not afraid...

Well, that doesn't invalidate gender roles, so much as it widens their scope so that they are essentially definition-less.

What is your gender role? Whatever you want it to be. It shifts the definer of role from society to individuals...

I am now known as Flyboy.

There are differences between the genders, mostly in sexual dynamics than anywhere else. Heterosexual men are not attracted to all the same things that heterosexual women are, for example.

With that said, a real man, in my eyes, is a man of character. A man who creates his own values and lives by them whenever possible, lives with his mistakes without needing to blame anyone else, learns from these mistakes, does not run from his own identity, and shoulders responsibility rather than fleeing from it, is a real man.

As for a real woman, I'll leave that for a woman to decide; however, I respect women who do the same as the above. A woman who does traditionally male things because she wants to is a real woman. A woman who does traditionally male things because everyone tells her that she should as a part of some pseudo-feminism, is not.

For both men and women, a very important part is to be in touch and comfortable with your sexual side. Women are attracted to sexual (though not desperate) men, and men are attracted to sexual women. It is also part of not running from one's own identity; if you are afraid of your sexuality, you are fleeing from that part of your personality. The more comfortable you are with yourself, the better.

edited 10th Sep '11 10:35:23 PM by tropetown

@Beholderess: It's part of the tropesphere of thinking that bugs me.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

But isn't being so broad that it is definition-less invalidates the thing?

If my role is whatever I want it to be, how is it tied to gender to begin with.

That's, by definition, what gender roles are - constraints. Remove them, and you have no gender role.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

@OP

• 1)No
• 2)No
• 3) It's not negative, some people just want something to bitch about.

And that's all I'm going to say about this.

edited 10th Sep '11 10:40:45 PM by Kino

@Erock

I see.To each their own, I guess.

Personally, I honestly cannot see why one is ought to be defined by what set of genitalia they happened to be born with any more than what colour of eyes they happened to be born with.

Birth defect: has a vagina. Crippled for life. Thank you, dear society, very much.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

I think the fact that you define a gender role as a constraint is the problem.

Gender role, to me, is merely what identity you associate with your sex, if any. Is it a constraint? Only if you make it to be so.

And no, widening the scope so that it is definition-less doesn't make it invalid. It merely makes it relative.

I am now known as Flyboy.

I would prefer not to associate my identity with sex all. Unfortunately, I can't. Again, thanks dear society.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Well, you don't have to. People might give you funny looks, but unless the law says you can't do whatever it is you want to do, nobody is stopping you.

It's hard to change opinions. The best we can hope for is to remove legal restrictions and hope that the opinions change on their own.

Do you associate stereotypically "masculine" traits with yourself? I ask because you called "having a vagina" a "birth defect," so...

I am now known as Flyboy.

Beholdress, don't let your experience change your views of gender.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.