Classic double-speak meaning: "We don't have a clue what we're talking about, but it sounds good so that's all that matters"

Why would you not want to say there are differences? Like it is some secret that must not be said. Stupid!

It is obvious that there are differences between the genders. If you don't think so than you are a moron and in denial.

Looks like they are trying to make men crybabies(crywomen). Somebody has to use logic instead of worrying about everything.

Women are guilty of feeling guilty?

Isn't that just like Martin Luther King Jr. f$cking that whore and saying that he was f$cking for Jesus?

I believe what she meant was, as a culture it is taboo to say that men and women are different, but the facts are that we are different. Modern Feminism states that men and women are EQUAL IN ALL WAYS. Saying there are differences can be confusing that issue. In other words... people like to remain ignorant because they want to believe all the crap they spew on a daily basis. The truth? Men and women ARE different. THANK GOD FOR THAT! People are afraid of being different because they are treated different. The problem isn't that we ARE different, its that we treat people whom are different with disdain and as inferiors. Women are different than men, but not inferior from men. Inferiority between the sexes is a concept based on a male opinion that physical strength and pure systematic logic are the only factors that determine a person's worth.

Again, this is going by the bell curve of average brain function. Some women are much less empathetic and much more logical than some men. It just would be a rather small percentile that fall within those standard deviations from the mean.

JGL-1583541 wrote "Modern Feminism states that men and women are EQUAL IN ALL WAYS"

This is the new Gender Feminism that launched itself after the Equity Feminism succeeded. Social equality was well under way before the radical feminist lesbians decided that their views and hostility towards everything male, past and present, should be adopted by all women. 75% of American women won't even identify themselves as feminist for this reason.

Feminism states that men and women are EQUAL IN ALL WAYS.

Jgl1583541 I have had several discussions about that point with feminists here on this vine and out side also. it seems that feminists believe that men are completely equal in every way there is no difference simply because their bodies are different. They have strongly told me so.

They also believe however, that because men and women have different bodies than men that women should have more reproductive rights than men. In particular they believe that women who become pregnant with unwanted children should have the sole choice as to whether to allow it to be born or not. They also believe that if for some some reason she should decide not to have a child then the man should have no say in her, terminating the pregnancy. Even if he were willing to take total custody and responsibility for it . He has no say or (legal standing) in determining the out come. Conversely if the woman decides that she would keep the unplaned child and the man would not want it. Then guess what? She is granted the right to keep the child and force the man to accept and be responsible for a child he does not want.

The reasoning is that women carry the child (because they have different bodies) so they should have the right to decide whether or not to carry the child. The men who find themselves in this situation have no rights at all ,only responsibility. The women have all the rights and the option to renege on the responsibility. Simply because they have different bodies than men.

So as you can see men and women are not equal at all. If they were there would be no difference between women and men ,with regard to reproduction. which there is. Feminism is a sexist ideology that wants to have it both ways. They want total equality regardless of physical differences. Yet they also want exclusive rights concerning reproduction, because of the physical differences.

I am in agreement with your point. Since it is the same point as I am making. However I just had to point the fact that feminists really do not want equality at all they only want to be equal enough to give women a political and social advantage.

Agreed. It is assumed that only women need special legal protections to operate "freely" in society. Why does reponsibility for a child only start at birth? Because ... feminist legal activists have decided that children are not humans until they are born. Until then, they may be killed without legal consequence. Intent mothers and the medical community supporting the pregnancy disagree with the the notion that the child is a merely pound of flesh or an "organism" as some of my rabid feminist friends has uttered.

Seeing the very inequality insectlogig speaks of, the interest is growing in the "male abortion" in which a man can abdicate all responsibility for a child before birth (let's say, 1st trimester) with a legal document. Likewise, an interested father should be able to take full responsibility of the child with a female "legal abortion" which would require the woman to carry the child to term yet abdicate all responsibility in a manner similar to mothers that give up their child for adoption. No doubt, such talk will stir the wrath of women seeking to maintain a monopoly on reproductive rights while forcing male responsibility.

Ian

I see it you see it. I'm sure we are not the only ones. The problem is that as men we are at a disadvantage, because women have convinced the courts that men are not privy to parental rights.For no reason other than,because they have different bodies. Feminists demand equality to men in the workplace, in the political system in the marketplace, and in every other situation. Total equality in every part of every social situation. The basis for their demand is the proposition that, everyone is equal no matter what bodies they inhabit.

The reality is that they also want to exclude men from having any reproductive rights Because they have different bodies. The fact that this is as discriminatory to men as many of the precieved injustices that they claim to have been subject to themselves. Women now claim the right to have sexual relations with whomever they choose,when ever they choose. They also claim rights to have total control over the out come any resulting pregnancy. They have been given the right to renege on taking responsibility for their actions, while men have had that right denied to them.

If people are in fact totally equal regardless of the difference in their bodies. They should be totally equal in every respect without regard to the difference in their bodies. Including the right to decide whether or not to reproduce. Since they have as little choice as to what bodies they are born in,as women have.

I'd have to agree with that sentiment. If a woman chooses to have sex with a man, they should have equal rights and responsibility to the outcome. If the man doesn't want a child, he tells her so, and if she refuses to give up the child at birth or to abort the fetus, then she can take sole responsibility for the care and support of it. That would be her choice. The crux of that lies in the fact that if the woman doesn't want it, but the man does, then for the man to be able to take responsibility the woman first has to carry the thing for 9 months. I can obviously see that side of the argument because I would give a big "hell no" if someone asked me to do the same thing. The only way to overcome this impasse is to use technology capable of gestating a fetus outside of the mother's womb. While this technology is more than likely viable today, you run into a host of problems with the "pro-life" crowd when trying to logically solve reproduction based problems. They don't use logic , and therefore I'm sure they'd take some offense with a "test tube" baby.

The only way to otherwise solve this would be to say that a woman has veto rights over a man due to the unfortunately constraints of having to utilize her personal body for 9 months. On the flip side, a man would only be able to abdicate responsibility, as again you cannot force a woman to get an abortion. She has the option of abortion or adoption if she cannot care for the child by herself, but the man should be able to say "no thank you, I do not want a child", same as a woman. In the long run this would likely foster statistically more loving families since people wouldn't be forced into parenthood... and therefore resenting their offspring as mistakes or burdens.

You are both right, there is a double standard, but you can easily see why. You have a large number of factors that enexorably favor the woman since it is her body that is used for gestation. The glaring facts of the matter is without FORCING a woman to do something, you cannot just say "men should have equal say in what to do with it". Truthfully the best you can do is say that men should have equal say in whether or not they raise a child (or pay for it). If a man is not father material, you should have thought of that before you had sex with them, or when you were choosing birth control. It is no more his fault that she is pregnant than hers. "Taking responsibility" is really just a biased concept that religion uses to keep people from getting rid of pregnancies. Men can take just as much responsibility paying for half of the abortion precedure, or for funding 50% of whatever is necessary to complete an adoption. After all, if he doesn't want it, it is his responsibility to help pay to get rid of it.

Feminism doesn't help women at all. In actuality it probably hurts them now since they are all perceived by the general population (male and female) as radicals. They spread ideas in the form of hate and anger, like any other radical. "Terrorists" come in many forms and for many reasons. Pro-life, Religion, Feminism... all of these spawn radicals that are willing to commit violence to "further" their goals. It is hard to counter this because not all people who are religious, believe in equal rights for women, and are against abortion are radicals, but everyone that is pro-choice, of another religion, or a man (=P) is subject to the ire and violence of a radical. This makes their position easy to attack from, but hard to pinpoint and attack.

JGL

I am in agreement with much of what you said here (post1.10) with the exception of the technological production of offspring.Basically because of my love of the natural production process,the way it is.

I have been thoroughly berated by many women over the very thing that you have just printed in this last post. I have posted the same thoughts on the matter almost word for word. The fact is I have only ever found a single woman who would agree with me. I personally would never disregard one of my children. not because of any religeous reason but because I feel a personal sense of duty to them.

I am no lawyer,but if I were thirty five or so younger,I would find a woman who was in disagreement about it ,impregnate her and test the equality theory in court right about now though, I don't have the inclination to bother.I will leave it for some youngster to fight out some day. I really do not have the patience to deal with the preposterous nature of the current school of thought with regard to equality of the sexes.

It is good to find at least someone else thinks the same way that I do.

Yes, it does indeed sound like pure BS from people who do not have enough real work to do.
Besides, more often than not it is the woman's fault so shouldn't they feel guilty?

JGL, you need help.

The church makes you feel guilty from birth. Telling us we are all "sinners" and that Jesus (God ) had to die for our sins because we were all so bad. Being anything less than celibate and a virgin is bad. Not obeying God, society, parents, husbands..are bad. Women in judaism, christianity and islam are the lesser humans..."helpmates"...servants if you will. It is no wonder in a Judeo Christian culture that woman feel guilty...about being inadequate...do servants who like sex and want to limit the size of their families have any hope of escaping guilt? Not in a world dominated by religions that are patriarchal and 2,000 years old.

Sounds like a bunch of women got together and figured out that they lack the ability to say "oh well so what?" and move on. Then, instead of fixing their problems, decided to blame men.

a little bitter about some bad relationship there?

Women talk when they feel safe. As long as they know that you will take what they have to say seriously and not make them feel stupid and they know you won't criticize them (not the same as disagree), or fly off the handle, or betray their confidence, then they will talk to you about anything.

Trying to say all women are anything ruins your opinion from the very start and only goes to show your bias to the issue. There are no 100% true stereotypes for any type of person on Earth. Belief that all <insert noun here> are <insert adjective here> is just being ignorant. Free will randomizes all things, and furthermore nature does a good job at randomizing us as well. After all, diversity is the key to survival. Without a diverse population something that destroys one will destroy all.

Gregorovich is right though. Building a bond of trust is vital to getting anyone to open up to you, man or woman. If someone cannot trust you to accept them for everything they are, then they won't share with you everything they are. If they do, they will. It would be wise for you to take a look at your own issues with trust based on your opinions towards females.

Yes, people will hurt you. Not everyone will hurt you.

Yes, women will be passive aggressive to you. Not all women will be passive aggressive to you.

Yes, women will be resistant to talking through and solving problems. Not all women will be resistant to talking through and solving problems.

The trick is finding the right person for you. Good luck.

There are stereotypes that apply to 100% of all humans for all of history. Infants do not reproduce. Infants do not walk. Infants do not drive cars. Infants may work in advertising, but do not complete the employment paperwork. Given that, a practical understanding of stereotypes is deviation from the norm.

Stereotypes are important for functioning in life. Without them, life would be impossible. Cars on the road usually continue to drive in a straight line, but very rarely, they don't. Stereotypes for people also exist to describe common behavior, and these stereotypes exist for a reason: they are supported by repetitive observation. Some stereotypes are over-simplified, and these give the other stereotypes a bad name.

That is an extremely liberal interpretation of the definition of "stereotype" heh. That is like saying that people not being able to fly (without any machines of course =P) is a stereotype. Or that breathing is a stereotype for humans. Also stereotyping inanimate objects like cars isn't possible. Stereotype in this form is a sociology term, and applies strictly to human social behavior, not biological or physical traits or inanimate objects. For example saying "All Mexicans have black hair." would not be a stereotype, just a false statement =P. One might say you are stereotyping Mexicans by saying they all have black hair, but really that is not the correct usage of the word. In actuality you are just making an ignorant observation because you may have never seen a Mexican with any other color hair than black. Also I never said some stereotypes weren't important or never apply. I just said they don't apply in all cases. There is too much social diversity to ever run into a 100% stereotype in our general population. I shouldn't say never, because if you have an extremely simple stereotype for an extremely small social population it may be possible to apply that stereotype indescriminantly to them. That being said though, doing so forever would be remiss, because eventually even that small sampling will produce an anomaly that goes against the norm for their social group. In any realistic samplings among the population it would be ignorant, irresponsible, and potentially unproductive to hold firm to assumptions on any stereotypes when dealing with individuals.

Stereotyping is the process of standardizing an image that carries with it a specific meaning when talking about a person or group. In my post I defined the scope of what I was applying the word to, and you took it beyond its original context. Obviously Infants don't speak, but that isn't a stereotype. All two year olds are destructive and out of control is a stereotype. All two year olds breathe is not, it is a fact of biology. Stereotypes are based off opinions about facts, not the facts themselves. While it is true that in some cases people do fit stereotypes (since a lot of times stereotypes are derived from fact) the point remains that not ALL fit a stereotype. Hippies being peaceful, intellectuals being logical, and Muslims being terrorists are all stereotypes. Hippies constantly rallied for peace, and therefore people associate anyone who calls themselves a "hippy" would be associated with peace. Intellectuals have the ability to use their logic to solve problems and formulate opinions, and generally utilize it over emotion, and so people see them as cold and calculating. Most of the terrorist groups that attack the US are Muslim, and so therefore people see all Muslims as terrorists. Those are all generalizing a population to fit an image that carries with it a specific meaning.

landon, you sound like Alan Alda.

Women are working fewer hours in the office and not doing as well at jobs that require technical or executive ability. Instead of feminizing boys, why not instead drug the girls to be more assertive and aggressive, define them by their income/occupation and teach them to be less touchy-feely?

Oprah can teach women to take the cowgirl instead of missionary position all of the time and bring themselves to orgasm as well as their male partner. If it doesn't work or takes too long, he can just say that they're not doing it right and are unable to fulfill their partner's needs.

There are now nutjob mothers (parents) out there who are raising their kids to be "gender neutral." I can hardly wait for them to grow up and become the new generation of serial killers and mental defectives.
Males and females are different. That's a good thing not a bad thing.

Think of all the years women were blamed and made to feel guilty because Eve ate the apple first and then offered it to Adam. I agree that school texts today are very slanted as to be "politically correct" and I do believe it is an injustice, however, it was also an injustice when I was growing up when the only woman in the history book was Betsy Ross. The afro americans today are dead set on blaming ALL of the whites, when in reality only a very, very few owned slaves. Political correctness will be the cause of a terrible revolution in this country if it and reverse discrimination is not brought under control.

60% of college enrollment is women. Fantastic. The educational slant towards women has worked well. Now, it's time to reduce that emphasis on girls and instead the emphasis on boys until the ratio is back to 50/50.

"it was also an injustice when I was growing up when the only woman in the history book was Betsy Ross."

The Transformational Feminists are at work. Quilting will soon be on par with Michelangelo. Our children will know the intimate details of Harriet Tubman and never know that Soviet Russian dictator Joseph Stalin starved 7 million Ukranians to death in one winter *before* WWII.

Ian, you sound like a drama queen. "quilting will soon be on par with michelangelo'? gimme a break.

joe paraceratherium, I cannot say this enough, but Bravo...Bravo...

As a mid-aged white male, I cannot tell you enough how sick and tired I personally am for paying for the sins of every single white man for the last 10,000 years.

I have never hit a woman, I have always been good to my children, I have never owned slaves, I have never smacked a secretary on the butt, and I have never groped a woman on an elevator. But the way society treats men like me, you would think we were responsible for all of the above and the holocaust. And, I have never allowed another man, joked about, or condoned another man for doing any of those either...

I am sick and tired of it. Are their 'bad men' out there?... Heck yes, but for every 'bad man', there is unfortunately at least one woman who has/will put up with him.

There are over 15 local programs for battered/abused women, there are programs for women that feel their husbands "Don't appreciate them enough", there are programs for women of size that say that it's society to blame, but never the fact that they eat to much...

Women, if you man hits/ abuses you... Call the cops, don't forgive him, don't go back to him, and most importantly... don't accuse me of doing 'it' because he did!!!!!

I'm a mid-fifties, white, anglo-saxon, protestant male. I've been bashed for so long I don't even feel it anymore.

Oops - Does that mean I'm not sensitive enough?

Time-

I can only comment on what I see. A new school was opened in my town, a school with a very mixed racial make-up. During the walkthrough, we went by three bookcases in which historical biographies were displayed. Of the sixty or so books, there was ONE book about a non-African American, and that was about Abraham Lincoln. This was not during Black History month, it was September. Eight books about Obama, biographies about Jesse Jackson, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jackie Robinson, Shaquille ONeal, Florence Griffith Joyner and George Washington Carver. Not a single book about George Washington, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Edison or Thomas Jefferson.

Furthermore, I lived in Flint, MI for 5 years. My job took me to the schools on numerous occasions, and while there, I noted numerous exhibits along the same lines. Admittedly, my hometown and Flint both have large African-American populations, but that is not acceptable. My parents raised me to recognize racism, and made it clear to me that that was not acceptable. As an extension of this awareness, I clearly see a rising tide of pro-African American sentiment in the public school system. That can be good - MLK, Carver, Robinson, Obama and others have done wonderful things for this country. But to recognize and herald only their accomplishments is to slight us all. Just as it was a slight when African American history was essentially ignored in years past.

All I am looking for is a non-biased environment.

Feminism has gone awry. In the late 1980's, the hard push for equality was hijacked by the radical lesbians. I'd like to know how a handful of relatively young radical feminist "philosophers" are able to "rebalance" all of the sciences and classics in such a short period of time without even having studied them. If you read any of their output, they believe that their efforts to enforce the use of gender neutral pronouns (congresspersons, etc.) and equate quilting to classical artistry. This movement is called Transformation Feminism and is the output of Gender, not Equity Feminism.

Ladies, do you now want to define your own major of philosophy and be graded on how you feel about it instead of studying math, physics, biology, chemistry, classical philosophy, etc. alongside the men?

"Ladies, do you now want to define your own major of philosophy and be graded on how you feel about it instead of studying math, physics, biology, chemistry, classical philosophy, etc. alongside the men?"

In 2007-2008, women accounted for 49% of medical school applicants and 48.3% of those accepted. Maybe you think those women dont have the ability to understand math, physics, biology, chemistry...etc?

So much for your lame theories about some "alternative world philosophy" running rampant among females. They are just doing what they want without anyMORE interference from the likes of you.

You misinterpret. I am asking if women want to redefine education through activism. I suspect not. Equity feminism has done its job. Now, radical lesbians are representing women. Do you think they are able to represent the other 99% of women accurately?

I have a son and a daughter, so it's important to bem that both are educated properly. I will be completely upset if Mary Daly is substituted for Plato and Descartes as was the case of my younger sister in a top 10 East Coast liberal arts college.

Why are decent professional men with Ivy League educational backgrounds taking notice? The PSATs, in response to ciriticism that men earned the top scores and thus snagged the bulk of National Merit Scholarships, were gender-normed in the 90's by doubling the value of the verbal section. Last decade, higher math was excised. Why? To produce test results that favored women. What's the formula? Reduce the emphasis on math, increase the emphasis on reading comprehension and vocabulary.

I would be interested to read more of the source of female applications and enrollment to medical school. Why present entrance rates instead of graduation rates?

Ian Blokesworth, "I would be interested to read more of the source of female applications and enrollment to medical school. Why present entrance rates instead of graduation rates?"

I could not find the answer to your question in regard to just specifically in medical school graduation rates, but this little piece of general information may help you find out more about graduation rates.....

" Nearly half of all freshman students do not complete college and a majority of those drop out before their second year, according to the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES)."

" For every 100 women that receive a bachelor's degree, only 73 men will do likewise. Females are also more inclined to take meticulous notes in class, build stronger study habits, feel personal satisfaction when reading, and to be generally more motivated than men to finish college, according to the report."

http://www.nasfaa.org/publications/2007/examinationoffirst-yearcollegestudents.html

As for Reddles, "In 2007-2008, women accounted for 49% of medical school applicants and 48.3% of those accepted. Maybe you think those women don’t have the ability to understand math, physics, biology, chemistry...etc?" .... That makes a lot of sense especially because of the shortage of nurses for the last few years has gotten everyone to swarm to the field to the point where there are actually waiting lists for a lot of nursing schools now, and while it is more socially acceptable now to be a male nurse, its still a field that is predominantly female, and over the years the field of nursing itself has required more emphasis on these fields of math, physics, biology, chemistry, and in a lot of medical fields these courses must be in combination with strong communicative fields ( for lack of better words, fields that focus more on English and communication, such as sociology)

So, Ian Blokesworth, if its true that in the "Last decade, higher math was excised. Why? To produce test results that favored women. What's the formula? Reduce the emphasis on math, increase the emphasis on reading comprehension and vocabulary."

then I don't think those test results in Psats would in the long run favor females especially if it masks the their true academic ability... and I also don't understand how the increase of emphasis on reading and comprehension would truly inhibit males, its not like males are incapable of learning reading and comprehension in fact I think both sexes are capable of learning all these categories on equal levels.... females can be just as efficient in learning the hard sciences and math intensive fields as well as fields that focus on reading and writing, and i believe males can be just as efficient as learning fields that focus on reading and writing as well as the hard sciences and math intensive fields... if there are genetic differences in our biological wiring that makes it more difficult for one sex to study one type field of field over the other it just means that that sex needs to put more effort into studying that field so that it will equal out, we are all capable of establishing efficiency in learning math, hard sciences (ex: physics) soft sciences ( ex: sociology) reading comprehension and writing. A woman can make just as good a surgeon or doctor as any male can be, and a male can make just as good a chef, or teacher as any woman can be.... I do believe most of the discrepancy in between the types of fields and the sexes that are most efficient in them is more of a social consequence than a biological one, however that doesn't mean biology isn't at play here, i just think we've put too much emphasis on biology, it is not purely a biological situation and it is not purely a sociological situation, its a grey area. BUT i do believe any sex can be successful in any field as long as they really put a lot of effort into it, and success in a field is more than a Psat score, and just because those scores give a better chance at getting into college if your truly not prepared for it then you will flunk and those test scores didn’t mean a thing. If you ask me I think the education could do a better job at teaching both sexes.

As for women feeling guiltier then men do on a regular basis, I think biology plays a role, but defiantly society does also…again its not all black and white. We need to learn to accept our biological differences, but we need to accept responibilty for the social attitudes about those differences....

Agreed! I wasn't obsessed with dolls, playing house, etc. as a toddler - parents in subtle or not-so-subtle ways enforce codified gender-appropriate behavior in their children.

For example: I was constantly told as a young girl to "be a lady" "don't rough-house" "don't yell/run/be loud in the house, it's not lady-like" "don't get dirty" by relatives, but not my my parents (fortunately!)

The boys in the family? They were let loose like a pack of wolves, nobody told them what to do except if they picked up a babydoll or wanted to play house...*eye roll*

I don't believe one gender is "hard wired" for emotion, the other for "action/planning." Just more BS and sexist crap about women being "emotional weaklings" and men being the "logical" ones. If that was the case, we'd not have so many male politicians and other stars blubbing all over themselves over their "Soulmates" and making all kinds of decisions that are completely irrational/not in their best interests. Puhleeze.

Regardless of my non-girly upbringing, I'm stylish, can cook like a champ, keep a nice house, can build a computer, fix a car, fly a plane, and a myriad other things. So balance is key - be it encouraging boys to be more emphathetic or girls to be more assertive...neither will cancel out the other attributes.

Biology is just fact. Nothing is "hardcoded" that you HAVE to be anything. The truth is we all have natural tendencies towards certain personality traits. Your family was just raising you in a manner to befit our culture. That is the way of all societies. Our culture is evolving now, and so you can sit from the sidelines and see what is going on. You have the internet to enlighten the shroud of ignorance and bring about more self-awareness than was ever previously possible. Knowledge is everything.

Also it is of note that this study wasn't showing what hobbies a woman or man lean towards... like building computers, fixing cards, flying planes (which incidentally women do better than men on average). It is a study on natural tendencies for women to be empathetic and feel guilt more strongly, and men to be more systematic and not feel guilt. These are evolutionary traits of our genetics. You aren't going to dispel reality by saying "hey look at me! I'm not girly!" Yeah, and ~2% of all females are going to fall so far outside the mean that they are going to be practically MEN in their mannerisms and thought processes. How can you sit there and say where you fall on that curve? It has to do with your brain chemistry.

That being said, free will makes anything possible. Once you are self-actualized it really doesn't matter what your body tells you to do. Your consciousness runs the show. Unfortunately most humans don't have the intellect required to ever make this transition, and are subject to the whims of their emotions and bodily impulses for the entirety of their existence. Just maybe you do, and therein would lie the difference between you and some pretty Polly that will spend her entire lifetime worrying about what people think of her butt and her hair, and how many puppies are suffering in the world at any given time.

I do 100% agree with you in some ways though, balance IS the key to enlightenment. What needs to be incouraged is critical thinking, deep self-investigation, and open ended deliberation (open mindedness). All things should come into question at all times. Only through constant self-reflection can we achieve self-improvement. In the end we are sentients, not humans, not males, not females. As we evolve to channel our consciousness more effectively we will no longer be subject to the annoying realities of our baser instincts.

How someone is raised would be a huge factor in helping them to progress from their "shells" and become self-actualized. In the case of breaking through gender barriers, your type of upbringing could very well have influenced that. If you were brainwashed into "girly-ness" you may not have had a chance to break from that social norm , or it could have taken longer, based on any number of psychological factors.

Genetics, Intelligence, Upbringing, access to knowledge, cultural influence, and personal experience all play a role in who we are and who we end up being. None of these hold the starring role, but some may be more prevalent in your ongoing evolution. I personally feel intelligence is a key factor these days due to the invention of the internet and the free exchanging of ideas. The more you are exposed to differing ideas and the more you are able to understand about them, the more likely you are to start formulating your own opinions beyond what was previously instilled in you.

Better to ask for forgiveness than for permission?

KJ, Well said! Also, thanks for your years of teaching our future generations. Not an easy job, I'm sure. I have a teenage son and two daughters and I agree with your observations.

hahahaha. funny!

US women are not accepting men for what they are. The metrosexual and other male-type beings that express their feelings are in. The surprising effect is that after the average six year marriage, these touchy-feely modern men are actually spending less time with their children because they are not allowed to live with them. The stoic family nurturing fathers of the past, the very men that are trendy for modern women to hate so much, stuck around to provide for them. The new touch-feely guys are used for a while to pay off pre-marriage debts, fund a wedding, buy a ring, provide payment for a house from which they shortly booted out and court-ordered to pay only about 10% of their income in child support. Even that stretches a wallet thin because the financial efficiencies of a shared household are lost when ex-parents are paying for two residences.