Men, women, sociocultural memes, and the realms of abstract/concrete

[WilyWestbrook0]

Admit it - this title probably hooked you in b/c you were all like, "Huh? Plz explain, kthx." If you are unsure, but still have enough courage to at least _want_ to proceed (SCF chit chat topics tend to not be this intense), be warned that this takes a lot of thinking, yet it deals with a popular topic: the differences between men and women, an issue fraught with potentially argumentative and controversial subtexts! Woohoo?

Anyway, my weekend for once has been fairly light with a break in the intensity of obligations for practicum, and when my weekend is light, that means I am free to conceptualize with others about any weird little thing I've been wondering about for awhile. For this weekend, I am curious about the stereotype of men being more prone to the abstract, less sociable world of impersonal reflection, and removal from present circumstances ("the absent-minded professor"), and the stereotype of women being more prone to the concrete, sociable world of personal interaction, and immersion in the world of simple everyday obligations.

Why am I curious about this? Because, as some of you longtime SCF vets know, I'm a weird, sorta androgynous chick who fits only about 4% of stereotypical female behavior, and I'm wondering how this possibly could have come about if it's not the norm, or why it came about anyway even if it is the norm (I have some ideas as to why it came about this way, actually, but it's fun to see other people's reasoning for it, anyway, so onto the rest of this stuff).

It occurred to me that some of you may not be totally aware of this male/female dichotomy, at least in terms of how it was specifically expressed in my second paragraph. This site may help a bit:

http://www.cts.org.au/1998/abstractandconcrete.htm

If you don't want to wade through all of that, let's go ahead and begin with the following paragraph that starts as such:

"Those of more speculative bent are inclined more to think abstractly, and those generally of more practical mind are inclined more to think concretely. [...]"

This part sets up the topic I want to discuss. Going further:

"The former habitually abstract more completely from present circumstances, the latter habitually think of things taken in their concrete circumstances. The more abstract thinkers generally speaking can more easily ascend to more universal things and so are more apt for the act of science: the more concrete thinkers are generally speaking more apt to think of the particular circumstances in which a thing is, and so are more apt for action here and now."

We know that most women suck at science and abstract thought, right? At least according to general views. Keep this in mind while continuing with the rest of the paragraph:

"Since part of concrete circumstances are the circumstances of the one who thinks, then the more abstract thinkers can more easily dissociate their emotional life, which tends to attach one to the here and now, from their intellective life, which is about what is necessary: the more concrete thinkers tend more to integrate their emotional life with their intellective life."

Ah! And now we have the emotional disconnect found allegedly more often in "abstract" men, contrasted with the integrative emotional life of "here and now" women. This is building wonderfully. The next paragraph gets even better:

"There is a tendency for these two inclinations to be found differently in the sexes. Speaking very generally, men tend to be more ‘abstract’, women more ‘concrete’, although indeed there is a spectrum in this respect, with degrees and exceptions. It would seem that nature has fitted us thus for biological reasons, since the rearing and upbringing of a family requires sometimes action here and now, sometimes action for the future without distraction by the here and now. Evidently one parent is more fitted for the one, one more fitted for the other."

The author here makes sure to contend that there are exceptions, but that the general rule is what it is. Then the author states the following hilarious sentence:

"Is there not a patent falsity to those men who would act after the fashion of women, and to women who would act like men?"

Gotta laugh at the phrase "patent falsity." If there are exceptions, they need not be "patently false," for goodness' sake. Are you guys kinda irritated at this statement, too, if for different some reasons? Can't blame ya if you are. I don't think men are less of men if they attend to the "here and now" more habitually than future considerations. For me, if I have a "patent falsity" for being more fascinated by these kind of conversations than I am with whether or not my clothes match (and goodness knows I do), then so what? I'm gonna continue to be this way whether or not ol' Mr. Ziegler finds it “patently false,” because I am far more comfortable with considering the implications of this stuff than paying attention to my wardrobe, and I don't see anything necessarily egregious about that.

Later on, we find this Schopenhaueristic laugher, too:

"Again, when reason indicates its futility, men will relinquish support of something: but women will hang on in spite of what reason indicates."

All right, I know he is stating this in general, and in that sense, I’ll agree to its truth. But what I am most curious about now is just _how common_ this supposedly is. When I totally sucked at being a receptionist (a traditionally "female" profession males almost never do) and ended up sending the wrong people to the wrong counselors because I couldn't wade through all the tedious concrete paperwork the job entailed, I jumped ship quickly - like, after two weeks. I didn’t hang on to that shipwreck; I relinquished support and swam on to something else because conceptual reason dictated its application.

So what do you think? How many women do you think fit far more neatly into the concrete, emotional, here-and-now, sorta clerical sort of life compared to those who relish higher education (the higher in education one gets, the smaller the percentage of female teacher dominance one sees compared to the lower grades) and impersonal, epistemological compartmentalizations?

(If your response is something along the lines, “DD35, plz get a life,” or “DD35, I hardly understood a thing you or Mr. Ziegler said, and don’t really much care either way, but I do know that chicks normally aren’t sports fans who discuss crazy stuff like this,” I can handle it. It won’t offend my cold and indelicate sensibilities, and it may actually prove my current assertion that most people - men or women - have a short attention span and prefer to direct their attention elsewhere, whether or not it is more abstract or concrete or whatever. But don’t tell me to go and shop for shoes or watch Kate Gosselin because I’m prob. gonna bring out a basketball instead. )

[spuds1961]

Khendra I always need my dictionary handy when reading a thread you started,which is a good thing actually as I learn meanings of words I've never seen used before.I think it is all about a changing society and a sign of the times,in the 50's a women's place was in the home and raising children.As time went by the economy made it impossible for a one salary family to survive,thus putting more women in the workplace,whether they wanted to be there or not.I think Women are actually more abstract and constantly changing as that is what society dictates,whereas Men although stereotyped haven't had to change all that much,as they have always had an easier road than there women counterparts.I've got a Koner pop-omatic headache from trying to decipher this thread,but at least I tried to respond accordingly,have a great day Khendra.

[theonedru]

Amazing thread, I often wonder about maybe not exactly this but this often as weird and deep. I love a good philosophical debate. after I too decipher the main points of your article I would enjoy discussing this to a deeper level.

[WilyWestbrook0]

Khendra I always need my dictionary handy when reading a thread you started,which is a good thing actually as I learn meanings of words I've never seen used before.I think it is all about a changing society and a sign of the times,in the 50's a women's place was in the home and raising children.As time went by the economy made it impossible for a one salary family to survive,thus putting more women in the workplace,whether they wanted to be there or not.I think Women are actually more abstract and constantly changing as that is what society dictates,whereas Men although stereotyped haven't had to change all that much,as they have always had an easier road than there women counterparts.I've got a Koner pop-omatic headache from trying to dyscypher this thread,but at least I tried to respond accordingly,have a great day Khendra.

Always glad to encourage dictionary use! So many of the things I end up reading make me run to the dictionary also, so it's all good.


The effects of a changing society are a good point. I can accept there may be some differences on an overall scale, but trying to force all people into a certain mold simply because it might be more common for a particular group can be quite disastrous. So, in other words, though a lot of women may, for whatever reason, be more prone to doing well in jobs like nursing, office work, and the like, there are nonetheless others who are just not well-suited for that sort of thing, and there are some men who may actually be better at it (I've noticed there are more and more male nurses, incidentally - a lot of guys like working with the medical tech involved in the job, and don't feel any sort of stigma for being a nurse now like some may have felt in the past).

Of course, it's not just gender that has had this problem - for centuries, many people believed there were "innate" differences among the races - but thankfully that view has dropped off considerably since the civil rights era. The "woman secretary/in the kitchen" view has dropped off, too, but not nearly as much, it seems.

[WilyWestbrook0]

Amazing thread, I often wonder about maybe not exactly this but this often as weird and deep. I love a good philosophical debate. after I too decipher the main points of your article I would enjoy discussing this to a deeper level.

Thanks! I like all sorts of things like this, so if you have another topic in mind for another thread, that would be cool to start, too. A temporary geek take-over of the forum, if you will.