I find that rather pat. I know plenty of unaggressive men, for one, and for another, if there are these two types of women (and I don't think it breaks down into two types; liking computers doesn't mean you don't want to spawn offspring), I don't attribute it to biology (because I don't see a preponderance of evidence for doing so), but rather to social messages that women are the special case and so if you're a woman who likes computers and competition and so on, that that's something strange and worth remarking on.
If it looks like there isn't more than one type of men, it's because we don't divide up men into categories according to how much of a man they really are, because more or less anything is compatible with being a man (if man is the default and woman is a special case), whereas when we see an autonomous woman somehow that makes her less womanly in our minds (regardless of her own gender identity). So if there are these two categories, they exist in our minds and in our discourse; I'm pretty skeptical of any claims unbacked by proof that they result from biology, given how eager most people are to accept biological explanations when they don't have the training to evaluate them as being good or bad science.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 01:59 pm (UTC)If it looks like there isn't more than one type of men, it's because we don't divide up men into categories according to how much of a man they really are, because more or less anything is compatible with being a man (if man is the default and woman is a special case), whereas when we see an autonomous woman somehow that makes her less womanly in our minds (regardless of her own gender identity). So if there are these two categories, they exist in our minds and in our discourse; I'm pretty skeptical of any claims unbacked by proof that they result from biology, given how eager most people are to accept biological explanations when they don't have the training to evaluate them as being good or bad science.