about the sexes question

[cacian]

what do women learn from men and viceversa?

I think
for men: Colour coordination
for women: Focusing on the one thing at any given time/concentration span
And
for those who feel fortunate enough to be a man and woman together in one body I guess they have it all.:D

Again this pure speculations and so I might well be wrong.

[SleepyWitch]

It depends on the individual. Some men/women are more 'logical' and some are more 'feely', so you could have any combination of logical and feely people.

[cacian]

It depends on the individual. Some men/women are more 'logical' and some are more 'feely', so you could have any combination of logical and feely people.

Hi Sleepy Witch 'feely' as instinctive?

[stlukesguild]

Well... considering that I am an artist... a painter to be exact... I will go out on a limb and suggest that I may actually have a greater sensitivity to color than most women... or men. Ah... but from whom did I learn this sensitivity to color? Michelangelo, Rubens, Vermeer, Ingres, Veronese, Degas, Monet, Bonnard, Matisse, Beckmann, Balthus... and my art school professors in painting and color theory: all men.:brow:

[cacian]

Well... considering that I am an artist... a painter to be exact... I will go out on a limb and suggest that I may actually have a greater sensitivity to color than most women... or men. Ah... but from whom did I learn this sensitivity to color? Michelangelo, Rubens, Vermeer, Ingres, Veronese, Degas, Monet, Bonnard, Matisse, Beckmann, Balthus... and my art school professors in painting and color theory: all men.:brow:

Hmm indeed which brings me to think who thought all of these famous artists colour artistry/sensitivity? Do you think it was instinctive and already within them?

[SleepyWitch]

Hi Sleepy Witch 'feely' as instinctive?

No, feely as in: guided by emotions, emotionally expressive, more interested in people and their feelings than things/ systems etc.

[cacian]

No, feely as in: guided by emotions, emotionally expressive, more interested in people and their feelings than things/ systems etc.

Oh I see. Well that could only be a good thing. I find a lot of people uninspiring because they can appear nice but when it comes to the crunch they are as cold as ice. That is a worrying factor that a lot people have no real feelings towards their own surroundings let alone other people.
In my experience men are more in touch with their feelings and are more emotional them women and I am not so sure why that is. It baffles me to say the least.

[SleepyWitch]

Oh I see. Well that could only be a good thing. I find a lot of people uninspiring because they can appear nice but when it comes to the crunch they are as cold as ice. That is a worrying factor that a lot people have no real feelings towards their own surroundings let alone other people.
In my experience men are more in touch with their feelings and are more emotional them women and I am not so sure why that is. It baffles me to say the least.
Hum, I'm not sure either. I'm reading the book "The Narcissism Epidemic" right now and it says that women are more affected by this phenomenon. Narcissism as in only caring about your status in the world and how great you are but not interested in deep connections.
Also, women are more encouraged to play social roles and act nice. So they might suppress their real feelings and just act nice whereas when a man shows feelings, you can be sure they are real, because men aren't expected to play roles to the same extent? (Of course, these are generalizations).

edit to add: In addition, many women compete with each other and many men compete with each other (another generalization).
Women will compete with each other about: looks (weight, hair, skin, fashion), possessions (handbags, furniture, possibly house), boy friends
Men will compete with each other about: career, looks (physical fitness etc), money, general "manliness" (i.e. toughness), possessions (car, gadgets, house), girl friends

So when men make friends with women, they can drop the competitive element because a woman isn't a "threat" to them and they'll open up to you emotionally in a way that they might not with another man.
But some women will keep competing with you even if you are friends.

[SleepyWitch]

If you're really interested in this topic, I'd recommend these books:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Were-Just-Good-Friends-Relationships/dp/1572301872/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1358075838&sr=8-2

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mens-Friendships-SAGE-Men-Masculinity/dp/0803937741/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358075931&sr=1-1

[cacian]

These are interesting links SleepyWitch.

This caught my eyes I quote:

''In American culture adult men and women are expected to form romantic bonds rather then platonic bonds with one another. In addition when persons are married becoming friends with an opposite sex is considered somewhat taboo.''

Surely this cannot be true for everybody.
Further in the other link homosexuality is linked to men not having close friendship with other men. I am astonished that this is the case.
Very interesting stuff to read.

[SleepyWitch]

These are interesting links SleepyWitch.

This caught my eyes I quote:

''In American culture adult men and women are expected to form romantic bonds rather then platonic bonds with one another. In addition when persons are married becoming friends with an opposite sex is considered somewhat taboo.''

Surely this cannot be true for everybody.
Further in the other link homosexuality is linked to men not having close friendship with other men. I am astonished that this is the case.Very interesting stuff to read.
The argument goes like this: before the Victorian age, "homosexuality" wasn't known as a concept like we know it today. It wasn't seen as a permanent (possibly genetically inherent) orientation. Instances of homoerotic or even homosexual behaviour were just seen as isolated behaviours and thus nobody was really interested in it. So if two men touched each other, nobody was bothered. Even if they slept with each other nobody thought they were perverts or it was morally wrong (like some people think today), they just thought it's something they sometimes do. So it was easier for men to be friends with each other. Of course, most of them did not behave in a way that would be considered homoerotic today. But if they did hug or express their feelings for each other, nobody batted an eyelid. So they were able to have closer friendships, whereas today men being affectionate with each other is often seen as "gay". Basically, male friendships back then where what we call "bromance" now, only that it was considered normal back then and was just called friendship.