A little more about gender and why I retain these romantic notions about some balance:
I feel like I thrive in both large and small lateral groups. I find that I do not do very well in hierarchical groups at all (I'm the star you're the fan, you're the boss I'm the worker, I'm the boss you're the worker, etc.) But in peer groups, whether large or small, I feel like I really thrive.
However, when I am in large peer groups and for whatever reason I find myself with a significant gender imbalance, people seem to take leave of their senses and act like idiots (sometimes, not an act). In a large peer group that is predominately male there is generally one monocultural type of idiocy, perhaps best labeled as "typical made idiocy". And likewise, when I find myself among a predominately female group things generally devolve into "any one of a million subtly nuanced forms of complex idiocy".
Whether the differences from male to female are more biological or more socialization is irrelevant. The fact is they're there. And I find that groups that tend toward gender balance are more likely to have the mix of skills and personalities to meet problem solving head on and enjoy the benefits of diversity.
I do recognize that both gender balance and fidelity are my own personal preferences. And believe-you-me I am well aware, sometimes we fall in love with people and the love becomes way more important than our personal preferences. But the actual homework assignment was imagine your ideal relationship. And if I won the relationship lotto and found myself in a situation similar to what I initially described I would be a happy camper.
Last edited by greenearthal; 10-26-2009 at 12:03 AM.