The Difference Between Cats and Dogs
What I want to address in this article is one (and only one!) of the many ways in which Men differ from Women.
This particular difference relates to how men and women define themselves.
I believe that women tend to define themselves in relation to other people, and the qualities associated with those relationships — level or rapport, comfort, trust, confidence, strength of association, etc etc.
Men, on the other hand, tend to define themselves in relation to their accomplishments — external, objective, factual and concrete.
For women, relationships — social rapport — is lifeblood. Their mental evaluation of how others perceive them (public face), how close they are with their female friends, the extent to which friends confide in them, how many secrets they know, how many friends and lovers of either gender they have and to what extent they have control over them, how much love and adoration (attention) they are given by A) their social circles and B) the average person on the street.
All these factors (and many more related to relationships) are taken into consideration when making the internal assessment of “Just how valuable / worthwhile / effective / happy am I as a person?”
Now, this paints a pretty cold picture of women. Reading the above, an alien from outer space might conclude that all females of this species are cold-blooded, calculating, conniving, deceitful, manipulative, self-interested, shortsighted, and stupid.
Just wait; we haven’t looked at blokes yet.
For men, achievements are paramount — and not just generalized, woozy achievements like “I made a kitten smile” or “I brightened her day” but quantifiable, realizable, demonstrable, verifiable achievements.
If you can put a number on it or to it, it’s a pretty safe bet that some man, somewhere, has made it his life’s goal to realize the best / smallest / biggest number for whatever it is you put a number on. Examples would be: “I saved my department $2M a year with this innovative new construction technique” or “I closed a $500,000 deal” or “I rushed 200 yards for the goal” or “I approved 43 grant applications” or “I graded 250 papers” or even “I wrote 12 tickets.”
Now, this paints a pretty cold picture of men. Reading the above, an alien from outer space might conclude that all men are cold-blooded, ruthless, competitive, predatory, calculating, obsessive, pitiless automatons.
Now obviously all people are not cold-blooded, calculating, competitive, etc etc — but we can certainly agree that, in many cases, both men and women exhibit some or all of the characteristics described above.
(Thank God they do not *only* exhibit those characteristics, or I daresay the world as we know it would not even exist - but my point here is that there are definitely central tendencies, and those central tendencies split along gender lines).
Crossing the Gender Rubicon
Now what happens when cats try to act canine, when women define themselves more by their accomplishments? They become decidedly less “feminine” and more “masculine”.
Think of the stereotype of the career woman who has no time for a family and outsources her childcare; who competes with her husband for the bigger paycheck and status as “pants” in the relationship (itself an extremely sexist phrase); who goes on long business trips away from home and sleeps with her male subordinates as an expression of (male?) power. This may be a stereotype, but all stereotypes have some basis in reality, and the result is a woman trading away some of her femininity for a “masculine” place in the world (by adopting a male’s reference frame and orienting around a masculine set of self-definitions).
The reverse is true of dogs hitting the catnip (men defining themselves in relation to relationships). A guy who is always concerned about whether or not his friends are mad at him, or who stood him up, or is always mentally calculating who is outing whom or breaking rapport with who else, has become centered around relationships in a way that detracts from the “get up and go”, results-oriented masculinity that previously defined him. Now, can you think of any males that fit the above description? If you are like me, the example that springs to mind is gay men — the ultimate in de-masculinized men (and yes, there are “butch” gay men, but arguing that point is a matter of degree, not kind).
So what is the point of all this?
Don’t get me wrong; my point is not to reinforce gender stereotypes and assert a rigid, oppressive patriarchy (although plenty of knee-jerk feminists will believe thusly after reading this); my aim is simply to highlight what seem to be *natural* differences between the sexes, and thus lead to greater cross-gender awareness, and understanding.
If anyone knows of any research that directly contradicts any or all of the above, I would be more than happy to look at it. The most obvious that springs to my mind immediately is the work of Carol Gilligan — it was she, in fact, who first suggested a relationship-based morality in opposition to Kohlberg’s concrete, linear Moral Development scale (and my impression is that Gilligan’s work is generally considered a blow struck for feminism in most academic circles).
A Balancing Act
Obviously (to my mind, at least), men should have *some* concern for relationships as well as external accomplishments, else they’d find themselves without support or important relational linkages in their work — and women should have *some* concern for external accomplishments, or they’d never get anything done.
But too much of the opposite gender’s definitional orientation and you will either be masculinized or feminized — and we wouldn’t want that, would we?
Related Articles:
December 26th, 2006 at 4:28 am
Hello. I can see these tendencies. But I think that talking about them like they are “natural” is a big assumption, and yes, I do think it to be one that could quite well be harmful to the possibility of achieving gender equality.
I think it may be destructive to use terms such as “masuline” and “feminine” without acknowledgement that they may very lkely be social constructs resulting from a powerfully emphasised gender divide in our culture.
People diverging from their (perhaps socially prescribed, it’s not really the point) gender role face massive discrimination. It is a tough position to argue that gender is not socially prescriptive, even if you think that masculinity and femininity are more natural than social. Anyway, people who diverge from the stereotype of their gender have a tough time.
Ideas of typical masculinity and femininity reinforce the ability to marginalise people who do not fit with them. I think the world would be a freer place if we stopped thinking of people in terms of traits that are typical of their gender. One would never get away with making such assertions about people based on their ethnicity.
Also, does not the masculine group in this account have a better chance of getting jobs, based on their motivations? Would that not mean that you’d better choose a man as an employee? Eek. Maybe you can choose a woman who’s a bit like a man. I just think that because a woman likes to acheive, it makes her an acheiving woman, not a manly woman. Because a man values closeness to others it makes him an empathetic man, not girly. Labelling characteristics thus makes people scared to be other than what is prescribed for them. Even if these categories contain truth, it could be completely created by socialisation, and not to do with gender at all beyond a social construct, which it would be useful to break free of.
Women acheive less in this society in terms of earnings, innovations. You don’t wanna say this is because of their natural tendency to have a chat with friends rather than acheive. That would be sexist. What about the fact that they are expected to want to talk to their friends rather than procure a soldering iron?
This socialisation happens from a young age. To assert it as an absolute truth is detrimental to the cause of equality and freedom of expression through one’s own personal development. I am not any less of a woman if I am proud of acheiving a goal, and that makes me think well of myself. A man is no less of a man if he finds comfort in the fact that his relationship works well.
Gender is about body type. It is unnecessary to heap upon it a load of other assumptions. I find it to be loaded with pressure also.
Maybe you would like to research gender abolishionist theory, or revisioninst feminist theory? I don’t know, you might find it interesting.
December 26th, 2006 at 9:15 am
I’m a man and I think of myself as more of a cat. I think men actually have a lot of cat like things going on - like a desire for indepedence. dogs are much more dependent on people and other dogs. cats independence I find to be very impressive and cool. I think they are thinkers… more so than dogs who are followers. I like to think men are more like cats - atleast cool men. I think the type of men who think of themselves more like dogs are usually… well, the dumb men, the boneheaded men, that give us all a bad name. not that i don’t like dogs actually - i like some dogs. but i love cats. …
December 26th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
That’s a very cool observation man. I didn’t even think about the fact that cats are “independent” (i.e. not needy) and dogs are typically dependent (i.e. man’s best friend). Come to think of it, both domesticated dogs and cats are dependent on humans to a large extent, but cats simply *act* aloof - in the wild, both wild dogs and wild cats run in packs.
Food for thought anyway. Thanks for your comment.
December 26th, 2006 at 11:31 pm
euny, do you have any evidence to counter my “big assumption” that these differences are natural?
And I have to question your assumption that it would be good to break free of a social construct - assuming for a moment that these gender differences are wholly socially constructed (which I am only allowing for the sake of the argument - I think they are quite natural and perhaps even genetic) - is it possible that there is a good reason for the social construct to exist the way it is?
Gender abolishionism theory? Revisionist feminist theory? Not to be pendantic, but in the diary above I asked for someone to point me towards research, not more theories. I have plenty of theories of my own.
December 27th, 2006 at 8:05 am
Hello.
I think that it cannot be known for sure whether these tendencies are natural or purely a social construct. It needs to be allowed for that they could be. There is no doubt that there is a social structure surrounding expectations of genders to live up to their roles. (Um, evidence, well, life I guess, but Rom Coms, magazines aimed at either gender, blue and pink baby clothes… Just a stong cultural gender divide).
My evidence that it would be beneficial to get out of this social construct, is just that I see people not being happy that they are expected to be a certain way when they do not identify with that role that society has carved out for them. Myself included. I’m a bit more like the men I know in some respects. I like some things that men are supposed to like. I feel pressure and constraints on me to be other than I am because of that. I am not comfortable being typiically feminine. I am certain that I am not alone. Both men and women often feel alienated from the way they feel most natural because of social pressure to conform to a gender role. That is needless. A lot of people who disagree with me on this are people who do happen to identify with their social gender role. But to ignore the struggles of those who do not feel good conforming because you don’t experience such a struggle yourself is like reinforcing racism because you’re white, or homophobia because you’re straight.
Also, all this stereotyping that women are needy means that when I’m in a relationship a man interprets everything I say with a pinch of needy salt, gets convinced I am more in need than I am, and feels pressured to pander to my great, and largely fictional need. this is social labels in action. making people assume things of me. What’s so dificult about getting to know a person without prejudgement, before starting to psychoanalyse someone. I’m definitely not just one lonely soul experiencing this. Happens all the time. Hmf.
December 27th, 2006 at 10:24 pm
Euny,
I was reading your blog for a bit last night, and the more I read about you, the more I like you….minus some of the feminist bits, let’s leave those aside for now.
Given what I’ve written, would you be surprised to learn that I work a job very similar to yours?
You are right that some people do not feel comfortable in gender stereotypes. I was one of them when I was younger - I didn’t like football (still don’t), didn’t play many sports, wasn’t loud and boorish and obnoxious like most boys my age.
I accept the variety of the human experience and understand that many people feel uncomfortable or pressured to be “just like” other members of their gender, and I do support their need to be able to be themselves. In fact that is one of the primary goals of any human being, to be able to accept themselves just the way they are. However I do feel, and see, that a lot of people “take advantage” of the acceptance offered by people like you and I in order to leverage themselves into a better position in life, behave badly, or take advantage of others.
It’s complicated. Maybe I will write a separate post about that.
In any event, I do think you are a critical thinker and obviously a good reader, and have a good heart. Which is important. Thanks for reading and commenting.
December 30th, 2006 at 7:57 am
Okay, okay, okay.
Thanks for saying nice things, obviously people like to hear compliments, I am a person, yes.
“minus some of the feminist bits”? I am so very keen to know which bits, and why you disagree with them. I like debate as a way to exchange ideas, so I will argue my beliefs rather than just restating them over and over again, and change my mind if you win me over. Please, elaborate…
Glad you’re behind the old freedom of identity thing. I really do think gender stereotypes are being reinforced left, right n centre and that’s no good. Pressure for all of us and constructs a-flyin’.
Umm, so in what way exactly is my social gender construct abolishing going to let people take advantage of my kindness? How is gender stereotyping going to keep ‘em being fair? Are they gong to get too much of the gender identity cake? I don’t get it. (I hope this doesn’t come across as aggressive, by the way, I’m in a rush and just interested.)
Even if being all lovely and equal and free did let some sly bastards slip through the selfish net, is it really a reason to resort to being not lovely, unequal and restrained? Should the selfishness, and those that use/have(?) it be the ones targetted, not the lovely ideas themselves?
God, this is garbled, sorry, I’m late for work, gotta rush, shoulda left this for later, still wasting time….. aaaaaahhh.
It doesn’t surprise me, your work. I hadn’t really thought about anything like that. Except I thought you were a woman at first, no idea why. Stupid really, what with the dog avatar and all. oh yeah, it doesn’t appear at first.
Gotta go.
Byeee