Boy minds and Girl minds, inside fandoms

[pandascepter]

...ad hominem?

¿menimoh da...

 

[mylovenovels]

I didn't even see Pokuto's posts. Having now read them, I disagree with his version of explaining.

It isn't the same thing being described, since you aren't trying to be Batman. You're doing things that you've seen Batman do. Is that a better way to phrase it?

And I never said "girls don't view Ariel as her own character", but I did say that the traits that Ariel has (like her curiosity, her good singing voice, and her pretty red hair) are all desirable traits for a little girl to want.

In the same way, you can apply this in reverse. Men can like the ways that characters are portrayed and desire to self-insert as that character as well. See literally any of the memes about Bladerunner 2049's "are you lonely? I can fix that" scene and realize that people can self insert even into characters with horrible situations. It isn't necessarily even the traits at that point, it's the perceived relatability. This is a male mirror.

A female role model example is also very easy to find. Literally anyone from My Little Pony. My godsister loves this show. The characters are portrayed as intensified versions of specific personality traits, but there are positives to be taken away without emulating the extremes.

In terms of relative perception between these two very different characters, they are both written in ways to stoke connections with their intended audience. The way this is manifested is the question which was asked at the beginning of the thread.

I'm not talking out of my ass here. I do have an associates in Child Development and have spent time as a substitute teacher for kids around 4-7. This is an observable phenomenon, especially when the kids engage in self-propelled play.

I think it's a decent topic to discuss but people viewed it controversially because of how the initial question phrased it. It isn't meant to be a sexist question, because neither is a wrong way to read media.


Mirroring is basically: You can see yourself in the movie. You see this character differently because of how much you see yourself (Patrick Bateman is literally me!) in the character.

Like how a little girl, who is inquisitive and curious, can relate to Ariel.

Role modeling is basically: You think the character is cool. You adopt traits of the character, but put your own spin on them, because the character is decidedly not relatable.

You don't own Bat cars and Batmobiles, but you can definitely try to be more like Batman in your character.

This is basically an elaborate way to ask "would you rather be your existing self or your ideal self

I think this is exactly why this conversation keeps going in circles. What you’re describing here is no longer meaningfully different from what I’ve been saying for several posts, but you’re still treating it as if it’s a rebuttal.


You’re now explicitly acknowledging that mirroring and role modeling both occur across genders, that men can self-insert and relate just as much as women do, and that characters are written to invite multiple kinds of identification. Once that’s granted, the original framing of this as a clean sex-based distinction (“boy mind vs girl mind,” or equivalent) no longer does any real explanatory work.


At that point, the discussion stops being about disagreement and turns into repeated rephrasing of the same idea with slightly different labels. Whether you describe it as “doing what Batman does” versus “being Batman,” or “existing self vs ideal self,” the underlying point remains: people engage with fiction in multiple overlapping ways, and those ways are not reliably divided by sex or driven by fundamentally different motivations.


My issue was never that mirroring or role modeling don’t exist. My issue was with treating them as sex-linked psychological categories or implying different values or intentions behind them. You’ve now backed away from that implication, which is why there isn’t actually anything left for me to argue against.


So at this stage, continuing to restate definitions or bring in new examples doesn’t clarify anything further. We’re functionally in agreement on the substance, even if we arrived there from different starting points. I’m going to leave it there rather than keep stretching a discussion that’s already resolved.

 

[MinecraftStoryModeLover]

...ad hominem?

nah just a meme

I think this is exactly why this conversation keeps going in circles. What you’re describing here is no longer meaningfully different from what I’ve been saying for several posts, but you’re still treating it as if it’s a rebuttal.


You’re now explicitly acknowledging that mirroring and role modeling both occur across genders, that men can self-insert and relate just as much as women do, and that characters are written to invite multiple kinds of identification. Once that’s granted, the original framing of this as a clean sex-based distinction (“boy mind vs girl mind,” or equivalent) no longer does any real explanatory work.


At that point, the discussion stops being about disagreement and turns into repeated rephrasing of the same idea with slightly different labels. Whether you describe it as “doing what Batman does” versus “being Batman,” or “existing self vs ideal self,” the underlying point remains: people engage with fiction in multiple overlapping ways, and those ways are not reliably divided by sex or driven by fundamentally different motivations.


My issue was never that mirroring or role modeling don’t exist. My issue was with treating them as sex-linked psychological categories or implying different values or intentions behind them. You’ve now backed away from that implication, which is why there isn’t actually anything left for me to argue against.


So at this stage, continuing to restate definitions or bring in new examples doesn’t clarify anything further. We’re functionally in agreement on the substance, even if we arrived there from different starting points. I’m going to leave it there rather than keep stretching a discussion that’s already resolved.

I never disavowed what I said before, which is that one kind of these character interpretations are more likely to come about depending on your sex.
I don't like pretending that there aren't differences between the sexes, because it isn't actually equal then. It's just erasure of factually correct information in the desire to eliminate meaningful distinctions between people. I tried to expand what exactly I meant, because the previous poster was confused on the difference between mirroring and rolemodels.

You won't agree that there are differences in occurrence of each type between sex, and I can't really do much more than I have. I've given you the pieces, so to say, with the original comment. It is up to you to do the research yourself, lest you accuse me of falsely summarizing a source.

This isn't a "gotcha", this is a separate response to another user who replied.

 

[mylovenovels]

This seems like a shift from “boy/girl mind” to “models vs mirrors.” The latter can be useful, but without the gendered framing it’s no longer supporting the original claim. lmao and making a whole photo here was so unnecessary

p.s. neither is exclusive since every person does both in some form.

 

[mylovenovels]

nah just a meme

I never disavowed what I said before, which is that one kind of these character interpretations are more likely to come about depending on your sex.
I don't like pretending that there aren't differences between the sexes, because it isn't actually equal then. It's just erasure of factually correct information in the desire to eliminate meaningful distinctions between people. I tried to expand what exactly I meant, because the previous poster was confused on the difference between mirroring and rolemodels.

You won't agree that there are differences in occurrence of each type between sex, and I can't really do much more than I have. I've given you the pieces, so to say, with the original comment. It is up to you to do the research yourself, lest you accuse me of falsely summarizing a source.

This isn't a "gotcha", this is a separate response to another user who replied.

I’m not denying that average differences between sexes can exist. What I’m pushing back on is treating those averages as explanatory rules for motivation or interpretation, especially without citing evidence that actually links sex to these specific engagement modes.

Saying the difference is “more likely depending on sex” is still a claim that needs support beyond observation and intuition. Expanding the terminology doesn’t resolve that gap; it just reframes it.

At this point we’re disagreeing about how strong and explanatory those differences are, not about whether any differences exist at all. I don’t think there’s much more to add beyond that.

I swear if this gets dragged any longer i will give up

 

[MinecraftStoryModeLover]

This seems like a shift from “boy/girl mind” to “models vs mirrors.” The latter can be useful, but without the gendered framing it’s no longer supporting the original claim. lmao and making a whole photo here was so unnecessary

I was making a reference to the one user who said the whole question was sexist and didn't want to even engage.
Even though there is meaningful discussion to be had.

The generalizations of boy mind girl mind are not entirely accurate (because both can feel the other), but they are reflective of the more often interpretations of either sex in this topic.

I rephrased the question as I believed that the one person took issue to the fact that the topic was phrased in that way.

I’m not denying that average differences between sexes can exist. What I’m pushing back on is treating those averages as explanatory rules for motivation or interpretation, especially without citing evidence that actually links sex to these specific engagement modes.

Saying the difference is “more likely depending on sex” is still a claim that needs support beyond observation and intuition. Expanding the terminology doesn’t resolve that gap; it just reframes it.

At this point we’re disagreeing about how strong and explanatory those differences are, not about whether any differences exist at all. I don’t think there’s much more to add beyond that.

I don't think that the original poster intended to start a flame war when he posted the original question.

I gave you reasoning before, things that positively correlate to empathy in women that are not present in men. We know for a fact women have a higher emotional intelligence, perception of empathy. This comes from the distribution of verbal centers in the brain. Men have one, typically. Women have two. This could scientifically explain why women are more likely to empathize (and therefore self-insert) as a character.

 

[mylovenovels]

@MinecraftStoryModeLover it wont let me reply but from what you said above

response;
My issue is with the explanation being offered The empathy claim you’re making isn’t settled science in the way you’re presenting it. Differences in verbal lateralization and average empathy scores exist, but they have large overlap and do not support a clean causal chain from brain (pretend the lines are arrows) structure - empathy - self-insertion - fandom behavior. Researchers are very explicit about not drawing that kind of inference Even if women score slightly higher on some measures of empathy on average, that still doesn’t justify treating mirroring as a sex-linked interpretive mode rather than a broadly human one shaped by context and reinforcement. At most, it would suggest a loose tendency, not an explanatory rule That gap between “statistical difference” and “this explains how people read characters” is where I remain unconvinced.

 

[mylovenovels]

 

[MinecraftStoryModeLover]

@MinecraftStoryModeLover it wont let me reply but from what you said above

response;
My issue is with the explanation being offered The empathy claim you’re making isn’t settled science in the way you’re presenting it. Differences in verbal lateralization and average empathy scores exist, but they have large overlap and do not support a clean causal chain from brain (pretend the lines are arrows) structure - empathy - self-insertion - fandom behavior. Researchers are very explicit about not drawing that kind of inference Even if women score slightly higher on some measures of empathy on average, that still doesn’t justify treating mirroring as a sex-linked interpretive mode rather than a broadly human one shaped by context and reinforcement. At most, it would suggest a loose tendency, not an explanatory rule That gap between “statistical difference” and “this explains how people read characters” is where I remain unconvinced.

There will always be nuance in data, especially in observing the structure of the human brain. This argument of society (nurture) vs sex (nature) is not settled in academic circles, either. There are arguments for both sides. I believe that there is a statistically meaningful difference in the male and female brains when considering the application of empathy. While the inference is not direct, I have yet to see any study that directly counters the claim that women are more effective emotionally than men.

Drawing lines out from the original point aside, why would it be a problem for women to be more likely to relate to characters in this way as opposed to men?
Is it just the batman v princess examples?
I don't understand why people take offense to the idea and brand it as sexist, even though this mode of relating to a character is not any less valid than the more common mode for men.

 

[mylovenovels]

There will always be nuance in data, especially in observing the structure of the human brain. This argument of society (nurture) vs sex (nature) is not settled in academic circles, either. There are arguments for both sides. I believe that there is a statistically meaningful difference in the male and female brains when considering the application of empathy. While the inference is not direct, I have yet to see any study that directly counters the claim that women are more effective emotionally than men.

Ahh i saw this message coming from a mile away

I agree that nature vs nurture isn’t fully settled, and that nuance exists in the data. Where I disagree is in how confidently you’re extending those findings.


Claims like “women are more emotionally effective” depend heavily on how empathy or emotional skill is defined and measured, and many studies show context effects, socialization effects, and large overlap between sexes. The absence of a single study that “directly counters” a broad claim isn’t evidence that the claim is established especially when researchers themselves are cautious about causal interpretation.

Even if average differences exist, that still doesn’t justify using them to explain specific behaviors like self-insertion, mirroring, or fandom engagement as sex-linked patterns. That inference remains much stronger than the evidence supports, which is where my objection has consistently been.

 

[MinecraftStoryModeLover]

Ahh i saw this message coming from a mile away

I agree that nature vs nurture isn’t fully settled, and that nuance exists in the data. Where I disagree is in how confidently you’re extending those findings.


Claims like “women are more emotionally effective” depend heavily on how empathy or emotional skill is defined and measured, and many studies show context effects, socialization effects, and large overlap between sexes. The absence of a single study that “directly counters” a broad claim isn’t evidence that the claim is established especially when researchers themselves are cautious about causal interpretation.

Even if average differences exist, that still doesn’t justify using them to explain specific behaviors like self-insertion, mirroring, or fandom engagement as sex-linked patterns. That inference remains much stronger than the evidence supports, which is where my objection has consistently been.

The confidence in extending these labels was not mine, however I am going to defend them because I don't believe that the labels are harmful or sexist.
Where you disagree about my certainty on these conclusions, I disagree entirely with the severity which this is being treated, rather than it being seen as what it is, a generalization used to make an interesting question.

I believe a certain thing, of which I am certain, as I have not perceived any reasonable alternative explanation. I do not subscribe to the idea that it is societal, as it tries to diminish the uniqueness of both sides to being the exact same, or at the very least diminishing their differences to the point of seeming irrelevance.

 

[mylovenovels]

The confidence in extending these labels was not mine, however I am going to defend them because I don't believe that the labels are harmful or sexist.
Where you disagree about my certainty on these conclusions, I disagree entirely with the severity which this is being treated, rather than it being seen as what it is, a generalization used to make an interesting question.

I believe a certain thing, of which I am certain, as I have not perceived any reasonable alternative explanation. I do not subscribe to the idea that it is societal, as it tries to diminish the uniqueness of both sides to being the exact same, or at the very least diminishing their differences to the point of seeming irrelevance.

What I’m pushing back on isn’t the existence of differences, or the use of generalizations to start discussion. It’s the move from “this is a loose pattern” to “this explains the phenomenon,” and then dismissing alternative explanations on the basis of personal certainty rather than evidence.

Saying you don’t find a societal explanation compelling isn’t the same as having ruled it out, especially when the behaviors being discussed are deeply entangled with teaching, reinforcement, and expectation in every human culture. That doesn’t erase difference it explains how difference is shaped.

At this point, we’re not really debating data or models anymore. You’re comfortable treating these labels as sufficient explanations because they align with your intuition, and I’m not comfortable with that leap. That’s a methodological disagreement, not a moral one.


So I’m fine leaving it there. I don’t think the labels are neutral or especially useful, and you do. Nothing further is going to resolve that.

 

[MinecraftStoryModeLover]

What I’m pushing back on isn’t the existence of differences, or the use of generalizations to start discussion. It’s the move from “this is a loose pattern” to “this explains the phenomenon,” and then dismissing alternative explanations on the basis of personal certainty rather than evidence.

Saying you don’t find a societal explanation compelling isn’t the same as having ruled it out, especially when the behaviors being discussed are deeply entangled with teaching, reinforcement, and expectation in every human culture. That doesn’t erase difference it explains how difference is shaped.

At this point, we’re not really debating data or models anymore. You’re comfortable treating these labels as sufficient explanations because they align with your intuition, and I’m not comfortable with that leap. That’s a methodological disagreement, not a moral one.


So I’m fine leaving it there. I don’t think the labels are neutral or especially useful, and you do. Nothing further is going to resolve that.

You phrase my actions as though they are malicious just because I disagree with you. I dislike that.

Everyone say BUUURP!

 

[mylovenovels]

You phrase my actions as though they are malicious just because I disagree with you. I dislike that.

That’s not what I intended, and I’m sorry if it came across that way. I don’t think you’re being malicious. I think we just have a fundamental disagreement about how much explanatory weight these generalizations should carry.

My critique has been about the framework, not your motives. At this point, we’ve both explained our positions clearly, and continuing is just going to loop without adding anything new.

Lmao this thread shouldn't have been posted to begin with because they knew that their would be flaws for threads like this

I'm just proving a point lol don't go and say that I'm making you feel malicious.

 

[MinecraftStoryModeLover]

That’s not what I intended, and I’m sorry if it came across that way. I don’t think you’re being malicious. I think we just have a fundamental disagreement about how much explanatory weight these generalizations should carry.

My critique has been about the framework, not your motives. At this point, we’ve both explained our positions clearly, and continuing is just going to loop without adding anything new.

Lmao this thread shouldn't have been posted to begin with because they knew that their would be flaws for threads like this

this thread is now dedicated to lamenting about my lost love yuri_lover on mangadex so everyone must post accordingly from now on, thank you.

 

[mylovenovels]

Noted. I’m done with the discussion. ciao

 

[mylovenovels]

@MinecraftStoryModeLover Is something wrong now??

 

[MinecraftStoryModeLover]

@MinecraftStoryModeLover Is something wrong now??

You broke the rule! This thread is dedicated to my lost love, @Yuri_lover0-0 ! I reacted on your post because it wasn't about how much I love her.

 

[panzerkampfwagyu]

Yes, fujoshi are the sole reason Haikyuu!! official merch are always sold out.

I mean, Fujoshi's are the obvious target audience of that show.

 

[pandascepter]

I mean, Fujoshi's are the obvious target audience of that show.

Sports? I think the main audience is pretty much teenager that into sports. Plus the story are actually decent too and will make you sad. Just like kuroku no basketo