Late night thoughts: Hasty Generalizations #2

** Disclaimer: I shouldn't be writing at this hour, and I make a lot of half thought-out statements. If any of them offend you, throw something at me. Nicely.

A number of things are on my mind, at the moment: "bossy", turtles, dystopia, friends, books, writing, drawing, poetry, love, prayer, worry, impatience, sleep.

I usually go to bed at 10 and try to get to sleep by a little after eleven. I'm not a night person. I'm actually not sure why I'm still awake, the night brushing up against 1am and I'm still not ready for sleep as yet. I wanted to write, but I couldn't get my fingers to move. I wanted to read, but after eighty pages, I couldn't seem to focus on the story enough to continue. 

http://i.imgur.com/UQtTn.jpg

I feel like this turtle. I'm on my back, helpless and stuck, but I believe that I'm flying.  Or maybe like someone has taken the kaleidoscope of my thoughts, and is twisting them around faster and faster, until the colors mesh into a mesmerizing soup of jumbled thoughts instead of an elegant fractal of glittering images. 

Also, I really like turtles.

I started The Giver by Lois Lowry tonight, just because it was convenient and I knew it would be a short read. Hence the contemplation of dystopia. I really enjoy it so far, even as simplistic as it is. I think I liked farenheit 451 better, but that is an unfair comparison, I suppose. 

The whole anti-"bossy" campaign is something I've been digesting today, and contemplating the positives and negatives of. The argument itself is a bit fallacious, as something of a hasty generalization and a bit of a red herring, but there is importance in what is being said, nonetheless. 

Sometimes, I wonder why there aren't more women leaders and women competitors. Why aren't there more women CEO's? Part of this is media, cultural, and sexist subjection, and it is these which I disagree with wholeheartedly. I would abolish gender inequality on the spot if I could. (can I?)  But there is a part of it that is, in my experience, relational. I'm about to make some foolish, possibly hasty generalizations of my own. Forgive me of I offend, but I'm not thinking at my brightest: it is late. 

Men tend to incline towards the mold of alpha, gruff, competitive roles more frequently, because it's a means of proving oneself, and the male hormone testosterone acts as a natural competition enhancer. And it isn't that women aren't competitive, or don't vie for leadership roles, but men produce 20x as much testosterone daily as women, and during spikes of the hormone, men are more selfish, competitive, and willing to take risks. 

I say this, even though it is a bit sexist: I have never in my life met a woman who is as over-archingly competitive as I was during my teen years. This sounds like a challenge, doesn't it? But whenever I was challenged, I had to win (if I cared. If I was challenged to a bacon-cooking contest, I think I would have ignored it). Grades at school; sports; computer games; card games; board games; proficiency at some skill. I didn't always have to be the best at everything, I just had to know that I could easily surpass anyone I wanted given enough effort. I was willing to do anything to win regarding things I cared about, if that's what it took. Usually, I didn't have to go very far. 

(And I by no means am suggesting this is a good thing)

What I'm saying is, I've met countless men who are within similar levels of competitive angst as I often was (or even am, still occasionally). But women generally have smaller, more directed instances of such competitive drive. They are often more focused in their competitive natures, and definitely as skilled when it comes to it, if not more so. 

Anyway, the "bossy" campaign is interesting, because it is saying that this male subjugation of women is what prevents women from being capable leaders. I think this is partially true, and partially I just think more men crave leadership for leadership's sake, whereas this is less common for women. Women tend (hasty generalization #150) towards desiring leadership for relational reasons, though this is not always true. Men just want dominance (not always true, either. When it comes down to it, humanity has just as many exceptions as rules. Maybe there are no rules, only exceptions. Kinda like English)
Men are willing to take selfish risks, because they deem the reward of dominance worthy enough a pay-off. Women who tend more to the relational path of competition and self-improvement won't take the selfish sacrifices, because that overrides the relational component of their drive. It's partially a competition thing. If I want to win, how many heads to I have to step on?
I remember in high school actually having this run through my head: how many people do I have to crush before I exhibit my complete dominance? Because it wasn't about winning, only, it was about proving a superiority complex - like an alpha wolf complex. Ok, I'll stop digging my ditch now.

I think it is time to sleep before I make a fool of myself with all these hasty generalizations. These are just thoughts, and I may very well regret these come morning. I think there are differences between males and females, differences in our sex that does distinguish us. Gender is a cultural construct, sex is biological. However, I do not believe this differences necessitate a hierarchical factor: men and women should be equal, not subject to subjugation. I don't think my existence as a man necessarily dictates that I'm better at competing or anything - in fact, I can't tell you how many times I've been beaten by women superior at activities.(though I used to go into the zone and practice for days and days straight without rest until I was the best) Countless times. 

Sometimes I wonder if we shouldn't be focusing on a "don't do this" approach, but a "do this" approach. Instead of a "ban bossy", maybe a "nurture leadership and important qualities" approach, or a "value differences and ensure equality" approach, but perhaps that is a bit too vague for a campaign, and certainly less flashy.