We've all been there. We're looking at a site and keep refreshing to see if what we're looking for has been updated. But, often times our browsers will cache items on the page (especially images and Flash™ documents.) This enables faster page loads, and less data transfer, which is actually nice. However, if you're a web developer, or someone who checks the tips site a lot for comments, you want to know that the information you're viewing is perfectly accurate. And, you don't want to empty your cache every time you look at a site. So, here's what you do. To get a page to refresh, and not draw from a cache, simply put a good old-fashioned question mark (?) at the end of your URL, and hit "Enter."
that last one isnt so bad...
I suggest two possible reasons for why we are having trouble compiling a list of words not to call men.
a) Men are not nearly as sensitive as women, and therefore offend much less frequently, if at all.
2) Women are so VERY sensitive (in a different way) that we always know the correct, non-offensive words to use with men... unless, of course, we are flat-out trying to insult them.
There - run with that one, kids.
All of the things we've decided are bad to call women either describe her as (1) physically unattractive/overweight or (2) strong. Both of these are still based on male perception. Really, what's bad about being ugly and strong? What can an ugly/strong woman not accomplish? Nothing. She's just at a disadvantage when competing with other women for the attention of men. So....it's not sensitivity so much as competition. I'd call it basic survival instinct.
Look at how guys interact with each other - name-calling just comes naturally. It's not malicious, it's just funny. It's a sign that we are familiar with each other to the point where we can comfortably insult each other. We rarely take it seriously. And when guys have arguments, it's over in 2 minutes they usually forget about it and are back to normal a half hour later.
Granted, my observation is somewhat limited, but as far as I can tell, girls rarely if ever use insults in a familiarity/friendly manner. And when girls get angry at each other, it's rarely forgotten a half hour later...
As Julie said, girls are more sensitive when it comes to interpersonal interactions. Especially when its comments on their image or character.
I think guys are probably most sensitive when it comes to issues regarding their competance. ("You suck at this sport." "You have no sense of direction." "You're not very good at such-and-such." "You let me down." "You don't have what it takes.") Everything else tends to roll off our backs.
Um, Andy, have we met?
Comparable stereotypes about men - that they're arrogant, won't ask for directions, blah blah blah - are not ingrained either. They're taught, and they can (and ought to be) un-taught.
To illustrate: Are women generally more nurturing because society wanted them to be good mothers for thousands of years? Or are they good mothers because they are more nurturing? Are men generally more aggressive because society arbitrarily chose them to be the go-to soldiers through history, or are they the go-to soldiers because they are inherently more aggressive?
This is not to say that there aren't exceptions. Far from it. I just dont think there is anything wrong in acknowledging gender differences. I think it keeps the world interesting. Trying to un-teach men and women into all behaving the same comes to chillingly close to a world of artificial equality. How would this be implemented? Thought Police?
On topic, and to take this convo in a happier direction, consider this fun picture.
As far as America I would say gender differences are becoming more obsolete around here due largely to feminism allowing women to be more independent and pursue careers of their own. Before you know it men could be stay at home dads and we could have a female president. It's remarkable how much independence women have gained through the years
I believe Christians have a great responsibility to act beyond the perceived weaknesses of their genders, for two reasons. (1) "In Christ there is neither male nor female" and (2) we are to "be cunning as serpents and gentle as doves". I think that calls for wisdom outside average gender blinders.
In the same manner, men tend to exhibit good leadership qualities, but that doesn't mean ALL men are strong leaders (I'm not), only that the prevalence is there. Neither does it mean that women are excluded across the board. There have been plenty of matriarchal societies throughout history. Deborah was one of the Judges, and I'd vote for Condi Rice in a heartbeat. Being a leader doesnt even mean you are better than the people who are following, it is simply a different gift.
These observations just recognize the trend. Is it wrong to point out that women are more nurturing, more discerning, more empathetic, more - dare I say it - sensitive? Heck, none of these things are even bad! They are compliments! Should we squelch these observations in the nebulous pursuit of social conformity? To quote Ray Bradbury, "There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches."
God made us male & female (Gen 1:27) for specific reasons, yet this does not mean we are unequal, any more than one puzzle piece is better than another. He wants us to be relational beings - not autonomous, so He made us with individual strengths & weaknesses. God designed men & women to complement each other, to be helpers for each other. (Gen. 2:18, Eph 5:31-32) I dont think He messed up. Men & women are equal ("created in His own image") yet they have different roles. The Trinity is a very apt analogy - three "persons" with very different roles, yet still equal.
God created us with different strengths (1 Cor. 12:4-6) with the encouragement to use them, not to try to suppress them because we like other people's gifts better. And we also have different weaknesses, but those should not be denied either, because God also has a purpose for them (John 9:1-3; 2 Cor. 12:9-10). Again, I don't think God made a mistake here.
We are created with an equality in value, yet a distinction in role. We are unique and yet equal (Gal. 3:28). We are a painting using all the colors in the spectrum, not a monotone canvas. We are a Chinese buffet, not a bowl of white rice. We are Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven," not Tenacious D's "One Note Song."
hahaha, okay, I'm quickly descending into absurdity, so I'm gonna head out. In the meantime, here's another fun link! (Not really on topic.)
P.S. I'm enjoying this little discussion. Let me know if I should just shut up. Thx :)
What purpose does it serve to make the assessment that some women are sensitive or some men are leaders? Usually, these generalizations are manipulated as tools to entitle one gender and belittle the other (as in "I don't have to pay attention to other people's emotions because I'm a man" or "It's my social responsibility to complain about the state of the world, but not to fix it, because I'm a woman").
I bet a major part of the conflict over this is in definition of terms, which are probably very different for each gender and even more altered by individual personalities. So...scientific study! Without looking in a dictionary or thesaurus, define two terms, "sensitive" and "nurturing", not by what they ought to mean to one gender, but what they look like to you. I shall do the same, then we can compare. (No cheating and reading mine first. I'll put mine in the next post.) Ready....GO.
sensitive: (1) one who is unable to accept constructive criticism (2) weak, childish (3) whiny
nurturing: (1) one who recognizes and makes effort to alleviate suffering (2) one who instructs (3) one who protects the helpless and puts a high value on the well-being of others
OK, now I'm going to go see what my buddy Webster says....
nuturing: caregiver, one who puts others before themselves