Hey Shelley. I know, Elaine already balled me out, so I took it to Blog Sisters. Maybe I shouldn't have thrown in the psycho bin that I worked for those four years, but I tell you, these women were nuts. And maybe they were nuts because they were all women together, or maybe they were nuts because they happened to be nuts before they all got together. I've worked for two women owned, almost women-only businesses before Ketchum, and big corporate feels easier to me than those days. Hormonal? I felt it. We all talked about it. We all felt it. So, not totally my experience. Maybe two isolated incidents.

But as for the raising a girl child without the father present, I stick to my guns of this initial difficulty when two very similar personality types, two very intense woman spirits (my daughter and I) are left to our own devices. Yep, Definitely need some maleness and can't wait til it arrives back home.

P.S., hop on over to blog sisters--i took the discussion over there so others can tell me I'm nuts. :-)

I think she has something there. The balance of things in relation to sexes. But it hinges on a couple of important points:

1. A pre-established history of male/female co-habitation/co-working.
2. and i forget the second point, but it was a doosie!

I think the point here is; a person born with one leg never misses the leg. A person losing the leg later in life finds it hard to get by.

Both views are valid without being "legist" (my word, dont touch :P) and without threatening the fiber of how the handicapped and the non handicapped interact.

To say that a blog like this enforces stereotypes seems short sighted and slightly over dramatic. But then, I'm a guy, and I dont get too emotional about this sort of stuff :P

heh.

Hokay, I'll rise to this bait, mainly 'cos gender-issues - and this area especially - is a bit of a red-rag for me.

I'll _mainly_ agree with BB, in the sense that her comments apply in reasonably well-adjusted groups, especially those with a clear and valid 'that which is greater than self' theme unifying the group.

Elaine's comments accurately describe dysfunctional female-dominated environments (not uncommon in e.g. public service, nursing, etc.). Sometimes the dysunctionality is concealed/denied by blaming it entirely on any males present (or, equally, not present).

Dysfunctional behaviours in so-called 'male-dominated' environments have been much-studied, and have been the source of much finger-pointing by blame-oriented (nominal) 'feminists' and others. Dysfunctional behaviours in 'female-dominated' environments have rather noticeably not been studied - or rather, when they have, the results have often been either passively or actively suppressed, because they're not pretty, and don't _at all_ conform to those merry stereotypes about "sugar and spice and all things nice"... (cf. the US National Family Violence Survey, which for thirty years has consistently shown women as _more_ violent than men, in physical violence - let alone non-physical, at which women have always 'excelled').

As for testosterone vs. estrogen, it's notable that as women age, their testosterone levels increase, often crossing over that of ageing men. Exactly what effect this might have on women's dysfunctional behaviour remains to be seen, though it's a moot point to ponder, perhaps?

Hey guys, thanks. Tom, I pulled part of the above from your comment to further the discussion on blogsisters (blogsisters.blogspot.com). We'll see if others have any insight. On your point about testosterone v estrogen internally, the point at which estrogen falls off is after menopause, and the point at which estrogen is its at its peak in is just before menopause--you know, that much written about tumultuous "change of life" time. Well, except for pregnancy, as my Doctor described this way--"By late pregnancy, you have the estrogen of 1,000 woman running through your veins." Believe me. It felt that way too.

If I sounded like I was "balling out" Jeneane, I apologize. Interestingly enough, I always have argued against same-sex schools, and, personally, I prefer working in a diverse environment. Over the years, I worked in several environments in the same large agency, and only one was almost all(racially diverse) females. And that was an exceptional situation; it just turned out that we had very similar personalities and work styles. Imagine the best of BlogSisters in the real world. We were incredibly innovative and productive, despite the fact that we were part of a large conservative-male dominated public agency. In general, I agree that both men and women are capable of the same dysfunctional behaviors. And also, in general -- in both home and workplace -- it often seems to me that it's true that most "functional" relationships are so because the partners or players have "compatible neuroses" (since we're all neurotic to some extent). Hormones, I'm sure, are a factor; but so are the wide range of personality traits. The balance between autonomy and interdependence is a hard one to manage. Men often seem to slide more toward the autonomy side of the continuum and women toward the interdependence end. Women seem to prefer a collaborative work environment and men a more hierarchical one (at least men from my generation). Nevertheless, an excess of either estrogen or testosterone can wreak havoc in any environment. However, Tom, I remember seeing a program on public TV years ago that reported that as men age and lose testosterone, they become more gentle with their wives and families, more caring, less interested in taming the wild world. And, I am finding that, as we women age, we develop the capacity to a little more independent, self-involved, and "uppity." Since women tend to live longer than men, maybe that's nature's way of enablng us to survive when the men in our lives are gone. Gender, hormones, interdependence. Fascinating stuff.

One more thing: Last week I stumbled across this article: http://web.mit.edu/womens-studies/www/fisher.html on Feminist Cybermaterialism: Gender and the Body in Cyberspace, which relates in great part to this conversation. It's a dense article, and I'm wading through it, as well as one that it links to on Feminism for the Incurably Informed. I would love to have someone more in tune with the cyberworld read the former as well and offer some opinions, especially since it relates to the way -- it claims -- women seem to find ways to actually physcially contact people with whom they click online, unlike the tendency of men. I think here of Jeneane's phone conversations with Locke, Suitt and me, Halley Suitt's plans to meet up with AKMA here on the east coast, and my plans to call Halley when I get to Boston tomorrow. Any takers?

wow no one slammed me to hell for being facetious. Color me impressed. Some very interesting points being brought up. Of particular interest to me is the relationship of testosterone on men/women in the later years. One thing I'm curious about is how much of men becoming tamer is a result of our major life battles being behind us & feeling we have a place in the world where we are comfortable and safe? and how much is the hormones? Conversely, an interesting thought about women becoming more independent with age is tied to the concept that men die younger often leaving a wife behind. I can't imagine we've lived like this long enough to affect our very body chemistry, but it's fun to think over, either way.