Men who act like women, Women, who act like men.

[Ora et Labora]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Sep 5 2005, 11:34 AM'].......... Therefore the most basic biological constitution of man is essential in grasping the meaning of masculinity and femininity.

[right][snapback]711913[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Could you detail a little more on that particular point, to help me with this...

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Ora et Labora' date='Sep 5 2005, 11:42 AM']Could you detail a little more on that particular point, to help me with this...
[right][snapback]711926[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The most obvious thing would be to simply look at the distinct features of the male body in contrast to the female. Besides the characteristics of musculature and things, the masculine sexual organ is directed outward whereas the female sexual organ is inward and interior. Women also have breasts which, despite the modern distortions, are primarily nurturing and self-donative in meaning.
After the noticeable exterior aspects one might begin to look at physiology and there are many differences which indicate distinctly masculine and feminine characteristics. Men and women have different hormonal configurations and the organizational and activational effects of these hormones have a completely different form and meaning.
These differences are also a part of the differences in the physiology of the brain from the neonatal development of sexual differentiation through the complete maturation of the adult.
Some of these gender-specific neurophysiological traits have been connected with patters of behaviour. Observation of human children has confirmed that young males tend to be more aggressive than young females. Preschool-aged boys are generally more willing to explore than preschool-aged girls, while girls tend to return to their mothers from exploration more frequently than boys.
Similar studies have found that little girls often take more time to say good-bye to their mothers before school, that boys are usually more active when they play, and that boys generally prefer to play with building blocks and vehicles. Actually sex differences are recognized in children’s free drawings with respect to motifs, colors, figure compositions, and expression. Boys tend to draw mobile objects and mechanical objects with dark or cold colors and often use bird’s-eye-view composition when they draw pictures, whereas girls like to draw human motifs (especially girls and women), flowers, and butterflies with light and warm colors and tend to arrange motifs in a row on the ground.
The initial stage in which a developing child begins to experience symbol, their depictions are generally dominated by themes that symbolize the character of their sexuality.
Boys tend to represent phallic symbolism and more aggressive and assertive motifs: trains, aircraft, rockets, vehicles, snakes, guns, knives, hammer, arrows, mountain, volcano, boat. Also flying in general and representations are most often seen from a bird’s eye view.
Also male children tend to build towers and other phallic arrangements when playing with blocks whereas females tend to construct enclosed regions and houses.
Female children tend to depict interior and relational symbols which relate to the female genitalia: flowers, butterfly, houses, hearts, rainbow, persons-- in particular females, depictions typically in a linear ground view. Hearts and homes symbolize the interior, the mind, heart, etc as well as nurturing and related things. Flowers symbolize female genitalia. In many languages the female genitals are called "flower". Flowers often symbolize purity, virginity, gentleness, receptivity, delight, etc..
The point is, the body is often over looked as conditioning and really setting the foundation of development, by those successors of the radical feminists and sexual liberators who spread an ideology of androgyny. It seems clear to me that male and female persons develop according to a pattern that is stamped into their bodies as male and female. This does not mean that there is not great diversity among people, everyone is an individual, but there are physical and psychological differences that mean something. It doesn't mean one is better than the other or that men and women are more different than they are the same. It just means that we have some clues or indications stamped into our nature that speak of the fulfillment of our nature as male and female.

I'll go into 100 times the detail and bring up tons of other things when I finish my... whatever it is.

[Laudate_Dominum]

And no one knows what I'm actually getting at so I imagine people will post rebuttals of things I haven't even said.

No, I don't think men and women are locked into some kind of rigid "agressive/outward vs. nurturing/interior" dichotomy. That's ridiculous. I'll get into details and conclusions later..

I wish I wouldn't have posted anything now.

[philothea]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Sep 5 2005, 12:24 PM']And no one knows what I'm actually getting at so I imagine people will post rebuttals of things I haven't even said.

No, I don't think men and women are locked into some kind of rigid "agressive/outward vs. nurturing/interior" dichotomy. That's ridiculous. I'll get into details and conclusions later..

I wish I wouldn't have posted anything now.
[right][snapback]711961[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I think your post was excellent. And yeah, you'll probably get some nitpicky flak, but it was good anyway!

However, I am still curious about the original supposition. Assuming the most common male/female characteristics are biological in origin, (I agree with that, BTW) is there something innately "wrong" with someone who has one physical gender, but some or many behaviors of the other gender?

(I keep thinking of the poor boy in high school who was dismayed to find me in the science fiction section of the library. "But... girls don't like this stuff," he said. I just shrugged. I couldn't think of what to say!)

[Ora et Labora]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Sep 5 2005, 12:21 PM']The most obvious thing would be to simply look at the distinct features of the male body in contrast to the female. Besides the characteristics of musculature and things, the masculine sexual organ is directed outward whereas the female sexual organ is inward and interior. Women also have breasts which, despite the modern distortions, are primarily nurturing and self-donative in meaning.
After the noticeable exterior aspects one might begin to look at physiology and there are many differences which indicate distinctly masculine and feminine characteristics. Men and women have different hormonal configurations and the organizational and activational effects of these hormones have a completely different form and meaning.
These differences are also a part of the differences in the physiology of the brain from the neonatal development of sexual differentiation through the complete maturation of the adult. 
Some of these gender-specific neurophysiological traits have been connected with patters of behaviour. Observation of human children has confirmed that young males tend to be more aggressive than young females.  Preschool-aged boys are generally more willing to explore than preschool-aged girls, while girls tend to return to their mothers from exploration more frequently than boys.
Similar studies have found that little girls often take more time to say good-bye to their mothers before school, that boys are usually more active when they play, and that boys generally prefer to play with building blocks and vehicles. Actually sex differences are recognized in children’s free drawings with respect to motifs, colors, figure compositions, and expression. Boys tend to draw mobile objects and mechanical objects with dark or cold colors and often use bird’s-eye-view composition when they draw pictures, whereas girls like to draw human motifs (especially girls and women), flowers, and butterflies with light and warm colors and tend to arrange motifs in a row on the ground.
The initial stage in which a developing child begins to experience symbol, their depictions are generally dominated by themes that symbolize the character of their sexuality.
Boys tend to represent phallic symbolism and more aggressive and assertive motifs: trains, aircraft, rockets, vehicles, snakes, guns, knives, hammer, arrows, mountain, volcano, boat. Also flying in general and representations are most often seen from a bird’s eye view.
Also male children tend to build towers and other phallic arrangements when playing with blocks whereas females tend to construct enclosed regions and houses.
Female children tend to depict interior and relational symbols which relate to the female genitalia: flowers, butterfly, houses, hearts, rainbow, persons-- in particular females, depictions typically in a linear ground view. Hearts and homes symbolize the interior, the mind, heart, etc as well as nurturing and related things. Flowers symbolize female genitalia. In many languages the female genitals are called "flower". Flowers often symbolize purity, virginity, gentleness, receptivity, delight, etc..
The point is, the body is often over looked as conditioning and really setting the foundation of development, by those successors of the radical feminists and sexual liberators who spread an ideology of androgyny. It seems clear to me that male and female persons develop according to a pattern that is stamped into their bodies as male and female. This does not mean that there is not great diversity among people, everyone is an individual, but there are physical and psychological differences that mean something. It doesn't mean one is better than the other or that men and women are more different than they are the same. It just means that we have some clues or indications stamped into our nature that speak of the fulfillment of our nature as male and female.

I'll go into 100 times the detail and bring up tons of other things when I finish my... whatever it is. 
[right][snapback]711960[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Well........you certainly did what I asked...thanx! It helps and I do understand a portion of it. Not all of us are as smart as some.

Kristina

[MichaelFilo]

Man-Jesus
Woman -Mary

Take a few examples from those two. It's really not too difficult. Neither of them sinned, so, it must mean they got the gender thing right.

The problem with assigning specific qualities to men and women, especially the way Micah put it, comes up when some of those who we consider to be the hieight of Christian conduct broke out of those very constraints. Charity has been both a female and male occupation and has been carried out by both (from the young Irish saint, whose name I cannot remember, but had a rich father and constantly gave his stuff to the poor without his willing it (altbough she owned his things since she is his daughter)). There are plenty of saints who were female who were highly charitable, and in todays time we can look at Mother Theresa as being one of the most charitable women of her time, giving her time and effort from such a young age to aid so many. The sacrafice portion is also untrue, many (and I'd say more) women died martyrs for the Faith. Also true is that men are called to the greatest humility, for if a woman is to subordinate herself to her husband, then even more so must he be humble and be a servant to her. The pope, the greatest of all Bishops, addresses himself as the "Servant of servants", one of the most humble names, reserved for a man.

Therefore, when using all the references Micah made, it isn't just a few exceptions that don't apply, but indeed the majority that don't apply. All those traits are both representitive of men and women and both are called to have all those traits. The only difference is that women are built to bear children, which reserves her to a more nurturing role (breastfeeding) that a man may never be able to carry out. Even in the Apalachian Indian culture where women used to control the family's income and worked in the fields while men took care of the home, they had to remain indoors for 6 years after a birth to take care of their children. Therefore, women are always called to be nurturing in a way men cannot, because of the biological limitations. Likewise, men are called to be the "warriors" of the household, as their physique is always more capable of carrying out strenous physical labor. These traits, however, are purely physical, and reflect nothing on the spiritual aspects of mena nd women. All virtue is open to all men and women equally, and all are called to the same Christ-like imitation be they women or men.

I return to my original statement
Man-Jesus
Woman-Mary
If you look at those two extraordinary figures, you will find their actions to be quite similar. Both are sacraficial, and both loving, and both leaders. It is just that each did it in their own way. I would say that women are more attuned to being subservient and men to leadership roles, but I believe that is just culture speaking. I am not sure yet, and more research into the subject of natural male and female roles is being done every day and should help clarify the subject in a couple of years.

God bless,
Mikey

[Norseman82]

There are some exceptions we must be aware of that do not detract from men acting like men and women acting like women.

1) Survival sometimes require that people know skills normally associated with the opposite gender. I'm male, but unmarried with no close immediate family, so I have to know how to cook, clean, and do my own laundry. Similarly, there are many women who can change the oil in their cars/bikes and can handle weapons because either they live in rural areas or are in military/law enforcement.

2) There are many widowed parents who have to pull double-duty of being both mother and father to their children.

[MichaelFilo]

That is my point, men and women are not different outside of the very obvous biological implications.

And whoever said cooking was a female thing? Some of the top chef's in the world are men (may I dare to say most are men?).

God bless,
Mikey.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Sep 5 2005, 02:27 PM']
And whoever said cooking was a female thing? Some of the top chef's in the world are men (may I dare to say most are men?).

God bless,
Mikey.
[right][snapback]712151[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Hey, I cooked in a restaurant to pay bills during college, so no argument from me there! But society has traditionally assigned the role of cooking and food preparation [i]in the home[/i] to women (except for scaling fish and outdoor grilling type stuff). That is what I was referring to.

[photosynthesis]

I agree that there are innate, natural differences between men and women. For example, men have more upper body strength, more lung capacity, and more easily build muscle. This makes them good at doing heavy manual labor, and fighting in combat. Also, men are more right-brained, which makes them good at math and science. Women's bodies are built for child-bearing, and they put on fat more easily, which makes women better at keeping house and raising children, because they are more relational. Women also are more likely to excel in subjects like literature, social sciences and psychology.

But let us remember that men and women are indeed equal before the eyes of God. God gave men one set of characteristics, and women another. It is wrong whenever society favors only one of those sets of characteristics, and devalues another.

Many have said that men are supposed to emulate Jesus, and women are supposed to emulate Mary, and they're both without sin so it's all good.

Yes, and no. They were both without sin, however, Jesus is inherently superior to Mary because Jesus is our God, the King of Heaven and Earth, whereas Mary will always be submissive to Christ. When we say that men are to be like Jesus, and women are to be like Mary, we are saying men are always better than women, because Jesus is better than Mary.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Sep 5 2005, 02:33 PM'] and they put on fat more easily[right][snapback]712157[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I think that difference goes away once you reach 40!!!!

[track2004]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Sep 5 2005, 02:33 PM']I agree that there are innate, natural differences between men and women.  For example, men have more upper body strength, more lung capacity, and more easily build muscle.  This makes them good at doing heavy manual labor, and fighting in combat.  Also, men are more right-brained, which makes them good at math and science.  Women's bodies are built for child-bearing, and they put on fat more easily, which makes women better at keeping house and raising children, because they are more relational.  Women also are more likely to excel in subjects like literature, social sciences and psychology.
[right][snapback]712157[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Okay, I get that men are just stronger than girls. They have more muscle mass (on average) and a stronger body build. The thing I don't get is the "women's bodies are built for child-breadin, and they put on fat more easily, which makes women better at keeping house and raising children because they are more relational." So you're saying because I have hips, I'm good at vaccuuming? In this day and age, espically in 1st world countries, women don't need to be strong to have a job. Most people make a living sitting behind a desk and working on a computer, all day, that's what they do. So, considering that, wouldn't you're arguement say it's better for men to be at home because they are stronger and could do more household work?

I agree that men and women are different, but this conversation has really been about masculinity and femininity. So what is masculine and what is feminine? Is Jesus the epitome of masculine? He walked around the country for three years, without a job, talking to people and staing with friends. He learned how to do carpentry, we assume, but never actually kept the job. And is Mary the epitome of feminine? She was a leader of the Apostles, she only had one kid, she stood strong as she watched her only Son die (or that's my memory of it).

I still stand that masculine and feminine are social constructions, taught to children in the home and at school. The idea that girls need to be pretty and submissive to be loved is false, and we all know that. The idea that guys need to be strong and commanding and have a trophey wife is also incorrect. I don't want a husband to rule over me, I want a partner to raise children with. Men and women don't have to subscribe to these ideas of masculine and feminine to succeed in life, they have to be true to themselves and thier own habits, and one day they will find a partner who compliments them.

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Sep 4 2005, 01:51 AM']Women who act too Masculine and Men who act too Feminine is this a shycological problem or a Spiritual problem? or can it be both?
Because when this tends to happen your usually dealing with alternate sexual prefered folk, those who are bisexual or homosexual.
How can one reconigize which problem it is, and how can you change it? for the better?

Conclusive Result: [b]Men sould act like Men, Women sould act like Women it sould not be the other way around.[/b]

Honestly this is God's way. Women sould not try to be Men, and Men sould NOT be like Women.
Thanks and God Bless.
[right][snapback]710431[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
so you're saying i'm in the wrong here because i'm metrosexual??

and i'm the princess of open mic

[Ora et Labora]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Sep 5 2005, 02:33 PM']I agree that there are innate, natural differences between men and women.  For example, men have more upper body strength, more lung capacity, and more easily build muscle.  This makes them good at doing heavy manual labor, and fighting in combat.  Also, men are more right-brained, which makes them good at math and science.  Women's bodies are built for child-bearing, and they put on fat more easily, which makes women better at keeping house and raising children, because they are more relational.  Women also are more likely to excel in subjects like literature, social sciences and psychology.

But let us remember that men and women are indeed equal before the eyes of God.  God gave men one set of characteristics, and women another.  It is wrong whenever society favors only one of those sets of characteristics, and devalues another.

Many have said that men are supposed to emulate Jesus, and women are supposed to emulate Mary, and they're both without sin so it's all good.

Yes, and no.  They were both without sin, however, Jesus is inherently superior to Mary because Jesus is our God, the King of Heaven and Earth, whereas Mary will always be submissive to Christ.  When we say that men are to be like Jesus, and women are to be like Mary, we are saying men are always better than women, because Jesus is better than Mary.
[right][snapback]712157[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I agree with you on your points.

[Ora et Labora]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Sep 5 2005, 02:33 PM']
.........Yes, and no.  They were both without sin, however, Jesus is inherently superior to Mary because Jesus is our God, the King of Heaven and Earth, whereas Mary will always be submissive to Christ.  When we say that men are to be like Jesus, and women are to be like Mary, we are saying men are always better than women, because Jesus is better than Mary.
[right][snapback]712157[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Except this part. Are you saying men are better then women?

And no man is like Jesus....