Gender - the great divide. Sex is the physical difference between male and female, while gender is the set of social and psychological differences. The important thing to note is that although sex is an either-or case: either male or female, gender is a spectrum, gradienting between two extremes, or archetypes. All descriptions of males and females henceforth are only of archetypes, since it is impossible to take into account all the minute gradients. I'm not saying that all men or all women are alike, just possessing the same trait in varying degree.

Now on to the archetypes themselves. The male archtype: rational, logical, abstract. The doer, the authoritarian, the aggressive. The female archetype: emotional, intimate, nurturing. The protector, the maker of relationships, the maternal. Man is an island, while Woman is a network. Linear hierarchy of status based on performance versus a complex tapestry of relationships with subtle distinctions. The external, outer world, versus the internal, domestic landscape.

Even in sex, the differences follow the prevalent trend. The penis, active; the vagina, passive. The sword and the sheath. The giving of the semen versus the receiving of the womb. The sharp spike of male orgasm versus the rolling waves of the female. Even the breaking of the hymen implies the act of conquering. Yet in the act of sex itself, the balance of power is uncertain: the vagina envelopes the penis, in a subtle demonstration of power and control over the male. If the physical traits were switched, would females behave more like males and vice versa? Or would the labels move along with the genitalia?

The balance of power lies at the root of the gender battles: who sits at the helm? The struggle for power is understood by both parties: males in the overt struggle for control, competition for competition's sake, and females in terms of relationships, a subtle interplay of who is dependent on whom.

But the question is moot: males need females just as much as females need males, two stars orbiting each other. The current battle of women in the workplace is a misplaced measure of women using the male gauge of success and performance in terms of tangible milestones. How much salary, how high the post, how many credit cards. Ideally, the world of both should be a strange attractor of dynamic order and emergent behaviour, throwing up new roles that complement and interact with each other.

Gender is more than just a perspective. Males can no more imagine how a female thinks and processes information than those blind from birth imagine the colour blue. Males can try to place greater emphasis on emotions and relationships, and females place greater emphasis on... whatever it is that males think important, but it's like translating Arabic into English: you get the basic meaning, but all the nuances are gone.

Males hence click better with males, females with females. In a random sampling of strangers of different genders, all else equal, you'll mainly find groups splitting up according to gender. And the conversations between them will be different: both genders will probably start off with hobbies (assuming that there are no common acquaintances that people share), but males will focus more on knowledge, while females are a lot less limited. Males will try to plumb the other's depth of knowledge: how much can you tell me about the subject, keeping it strictly impersonal on a first conversation. Females may slip in opinions, but only those that don't really matter. The point is, the linguistic faculty of females enables them to talk perfectly comfortably on nothing in particular, while male conversations mostly must "have a point".

To demonstrate the male relationship with language, note that females have their Prince Charmings, while males have no such analogue... okay, maybe their Playboy cover girls, but the point's made. Females have a deeper and more intimate relationship with language and literature than males, hence the common allusion to a fairy-tale prince. While males are more visual, fact-based. Males treat language like all other things: mechanically, abstractly, theoretically, probing its intricacies and playing around with its parts.

The point is, the divide is not as simplistic as different subjects or concerns for each. Both males and females can become successful businesspeople, cooks, novelists, actors, social workers, etc. But the method of approach is different. Males go by logical, rational thought: they go by facts and figures, theories, concepts. Females go by intuition and emotion, in a way that is not inferior to logical reasoning. Which is not to say that females don't think logically: it's just that they are more aware of the role of intuition and gut-instinct in decision-making. Hence females commonly perform much better than males in jobs that require "reading" emotions and relationships.

Which brings us to the idea of sensory awareness between genders. My personal theory is that females are more aware of their bodies than males, having a locus for their self throughout their whole bodies rather than in compartments. This explains the greater emphasis that females commonly place on intuition and emotions, and also the general squeamishness attributed to females: if a cockroach dropped on a hand, it's equivalent to contact with their personal self, which is particularly abhorrent, whereas males just see it as being on a body part. Animals like slugs and rats are also avoided because thinking about them is linked to disgusting tactile sensations, while males generally have the ability to think of them as abstract objects.

This would also explain the reactions of women to rape, as it is not just a physical rape but a mental and spiritual one, since the body is inexorably tied up to self and soul. The "unclean" aspect of raped women is not created purely by men concerned with the sexual purity of their women, but, I believe, actually reflects the emotional state of the women themselves.

Society too defines who we are, and our gender is no exception. Males are defined only when people acknowledge their maleness, and similarly with females. That's why males strive so hard in the workplace, why females buy high-heeled shoes and slimming pills. Our personal identities have to be reinforced and confirmed by others before it can be validated.

We split character traits into male and female traits. Abilities into male and female abilities. The aggressive versus the sensitive. The ability to read maps versus the ability to bake. What is the one without being counterpointed by the other? Could there be males without females? Females without males?

Males and females. Females and males. Gender is never meant to be a label, although to a certain extent all names serve as labels. One should not be summed up as either male or female. And gender is never meant to be an instrument of oppression and stagnation. Roles were never meant to be set to gender, and people's destinies decided because of the shape of their genitalia.

Gender roles and gender stereotypes. It is only in recent years that scientists have discovered that people's brains can have different sexual orientations from their bodies. That gays and lesbians may not be "contrary" or "rebellious" but actually can't help acting the way they do.

Technically, there are those whose brains are completely of one gender while their bodies are of another, and those whose gender orientation and sexual orientation are different. Hence, there are also guys who like guys but behave like guys, guys who like girls but behave like girls, girls who like guys but behave like guys, and girls who like girls but behave like girls.

It's a strange old world, but there we have it. Life is complicated enough as it is without people having to wonder whether they're male or female even though their bodies tells them emphatically one thing. Or another.

Am I male or female? Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

Relationships. What are they? A bond between people so deep as to transcend rationality and logic. All true relationships are built on emotion, in which rationality and reason is not only irrelevant, but its presence effectively contaminates the relationship.

Love is a mystery. If one subscribes to the view that there is only one true love, then we're all doomed, for you have to find your other half among the 6 billion people of the world. And who says that the two of you must be born in the same era? Many potential relationships are spoilt due to the unavoidable fact that the two are a few hundred years apart. Kinda puts a strain to the relationship, that.

So there is no true love, or most people don't find it, and are forced to settle for second-best. "More realistic expectations", people say. And what if you find someone better only after you get married? Somehow, being faithful to your spouse is taken to be a matter of course, even though it means giving up the perfect relationship that you could have had for a less-than-perfect one.

Love is a bitch.

There are many gradients of love, like a rainbow. And like a rainbow, the spectrum of love means that we can effectively split it up any way we want, but conditioning renders the spectrum into specific types. Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet. Attraction, crush, infatuation, passion, love, obsession. With friendship somewhere in the middle.

Is it biological? That semi-queasy feeling you feel in the depths of your stomach when you see someone you like. That proverbial "heart beats faster" syndrome when you're close to that special someone. Scientists have isolated phenylethylamine, which is supposed to simulate the feeling of being in love. If that's the cause of "love at first sight", then we're all the dupes of our bodies.

Why? Why does love not fall under the domain of rationality? It's apparently pure emotion, but isn't it risky to trust the rest of your life to a chance whim or fancy? What if we're not in love, but only think we are? Peer pressure, envy, or just plain boredom can make the mind do strange things.

Theoretically, you're supposed to love someone regardless of what he does or who he is, and support him in whatever he does. Sounds like becoming a mindless robot, to me. If love isn't based on actions, then what is it based on? If you can love someone even though he's a jerk and is nasty to old ladies, then why? Because you really really believe that deep down there lies a heart of gold (you've got to drill down like an oil rig), or just because he looks cute? And if personality is all that matters, then why don't you marry your best friend?

Sex. It all boils down to sex. Sex and love, love and sex. The thing is, there are two kinds of love: love with sex, and love without sex. Parents, siblings, friends: you are disgusted with the physical connection. Sex is only reserved to romantic love: the love bites, the kisses and caresses. Why?

Sex is interaction. It is an emotional give-and-take that displays your deepest vulnerabilities. It's a form of physio-emotional interaction that is somehow contaminated by the near-universal taboo that sex is dirty. Animalistic desires, people call it. Well, so's eating. Again, why?

Partially, at least, it's the threat of pregnancy, of sexual disease. The consequences of sex are too great to lighten the tone and connotations. But with contraceptives and better healthcare, we have divorced recreation from procreation (tasteless, I know), the act from its consequences, and consequently the Sexual Liberation of the Sixties. To be "liberal" means to a lot of people "to be sexually immoral", instead of the more logical meaning "to be unfettered by social conventions". Apparently, the two mean the same.

There is sex without love, but can there be love without sex? Without the kissing, caressing, hugging, etcetera etcetera etcetera. Humans desire physical warmth and closeness. Like I said, it's a primal instinct. But primal doesn't have to mean base. It also means fundamental, built into our very genes and brain patterns. A natural instinct.

But enough with sex. Sex and love are two great knots by themselves. Knotted together, they're hell to untangle. And anyway sex deserves a chapter in its own right. Back to love and emotional interaction, then.

Love is like being pulled on a leash. There is an emotional bond that, by being emotional, is completely outside the jurisdiction of normal rationality.You don't know whyyou're being pulled, and you can't stop it. It's a direct, visceral reaction that leaves nothing to personal will and volition.

When does a crush become something deeper? Or are they two separate emotions in their own right? Maybe it's just the length of the chain. In a crush, you agonise whether the other party notices you, but it's still fun, amusing in an abstract sort of way. You're still pretty much your own person, even if it's fun to pretend that you're utterly devoted to whoever it is. Crushes are love without the suffering, sugar-and-spice puppy-dog love that are a way of passing the time.

Then what's love? Love is supposedly deeper: you appreciate the other person's character and personality; you feel a sort of tenderness, and is complete only with him or her. Tom Brangwen's musing that a couple becomes an angel is not far from the truth, for you go beyond yourself to have a shot at transcendence.

But how much of love is natural, and how much is human delusion? There are pressures to get married, pressure from a suitor who isn't all that bad, pressure from oneself to get someone else to spend the rest of your life with. And the ambivalent phrase that "love can be cultivated". Does that mean that love is not as absolute as it professes itself to be?

Why why why why why? It's like describing the colour blue to the blind, a Mozart symphony to the deaf. Rationality can only skirt around the emotion that is love without explaining it. And maybe that's a good thing, for part of the attraction of love is its mystery and self-definition. Love is what it is.

Nihilism and the meaninglessness of life. But not just meaninglessness; the revelling in the meaninglessness of life is what nihilism is about. Not caring about the utter pointlessness about it all, and living life from hand to mouth.

For it is, to a certain extent, all pointless. Death makes life meaningless, and the presence of an afterlife makes it only more meaningless. Brilliant topic for a HSSMP project, but not by me.

Anyway, people bounce from day to day like a ball in a pinball machine, ricocheting from task to task without any individuality or willpower. Each day is defined by the tedious and pointless things that people do: go to school, go to work, do whatever it is you need to do at that point in time, go home, sleep. Nothing of lasting consequences, and the next day with the same cycle. Do people actually live? No, they merely exist from day to day.

The suppression of consciousness is nihilism. Going with the flow even though you know that the things you do is meaningless, that's nihilism. Life is pointless, but it doesn't have to be. Despite myself, this is an optimistic piece, rebelling against the nihilism that is swamping all our lives. One doesn't have to live for other people, doing things just because "someone else said so". Whole portions of the world can be wiped out and replaced by automated machines without the rest of the world noticing, but why? And how small is the portion of the world that we can't do without? In the long run, does humanity even have any meaning? "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings. Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair."

In the long run, we're all dead.

Friendship. A meeting of two strangers, who share enough common interests to talk comfortably between each other, and finally trust each other enough to share all their secrets. Each friendship is a miracle in itself, for there are so many ways in which it can go wrong - they may not share the same interests, despite similar personalities; they may not have the spark needed to ignite their friendship into something more than mere acquaintance; they may not even meet in the first place. Friendships are dicey things.

Why friendship? Humans are social animals, and crave company. They need to see themselves in terms of others, and gain approval, hence validating all that they are. Friendships cannot be built between identical people, for they might as well be talking to themselves. The sense of the Other is important, for it puts oneself in a different perspective, and hence makes him more real. Two points make a line.

Humans also need attention, and hence popularity becomes so important. They need other people to know about them, to view them as important, to care.

And there is always a voyeuristic tendency: a chance to look into someone's life not your own. Hence people who lead interesting lives acquire more friends, or at least acquaintances, than those whose lives are dull as dishwater. Sad fact, but true.

How are friendships made? By which is meant the true form of close friendships: the sharing of secrets and intimate thoughts. The general pattern is that two acquaintances talk about common interests, until one is comfortable enough to share secrets or something personal. If the other is also comfortable, there will now be an added element of trust, which brings the friendship into something more than acquaintances, and the conversation will now centre more on intimate personal matters rather than impersonal interests or hobbies.

But wherein lies that sparkpoint? Maybe one gets bored enough to let slip some personal thoughts or secrets, or that he just wants someone to confide in. The content of the previous conversations don't matter: it only keeps the phatic (communications) channels open for the time something really important is said.

All close friendships lie on secrets and vulnerabilities. Vulnerabilities implicitly means that the person needs help, needs other human beings. Hence more people are willing to lend a hand and get close to him. That is why brooding people are so interesting and attractive. By exciting their sympathy and curiosity, the desire to make friends is hence created.

Well-adjusted people hence have more acquaintances than true friends, for how do you confide in someone who appears perfect? It will not be a give-and-take, but an unequal relationship with you having problems and him solving them. Well-adjusted people are self-contained, and in effect broadcast the message that they don't need people. Hence, people are not attracted as friends unless a chink appears in their normally flawless armour.

Hence the fact that most close friendships, especially at JC level, start when one professes a crush on someone else. This emotional vulnerability elicits the desire for closer communication; the voyeuristic tendency is aroused, and the trust implied in such a confession gratifies the other and seals the friendship.

And hence too the fact that more close friendships are made between girls. Males are conditioned never to reveal their emotional vulnerabilities, especially to other males, and since they are not as comfortable with intimate conversation as females, the relationship is likely to continue indefinitely on common interests. Which is not to say that there are no true friendships between males: it's just so much harder.

Friendships are a way of reaching beyond oneself, a way of belonging to a group that is larger than the individual. Life is made more meaningful when you move beyond your own petty affairs and actually involve yourself in someone else's life. It's an emotional give-and-take, where both feel that they actually matter to someone else, that they are not just expendable individuals in this world. For while one log drifts aimlessly in the ocean, two logs can become a raft.