Masculinity

[Mlle. Zabzie]

5 hours ago, Jo498 said:

I don't know. Both cases were somewhat mysterious and almost scandalous. People got considerably more excited than about similar accidents with male cadets. For me this hints again at the biological bottom line which is not mainly that men are strong or from Mars, women caring and from Venus or whatever, but that men are more expendable than women for obvious reasons. 

https://www.thelocal.de/20101108/31037

I don't follow this logic at all.  If both men and women are having the same accidents, then why does that hint at the biological bottom line rather than a social construct?  (Your next sentence described men as more "expendable" for "obvious" reasons that aren't that "obvious" to me unless you are referring to the uterus, which I don't think necessarily follows from your first point, and in fact isn't supported historically or even currently where women (of all ages, including in utero) are often viewed as more "expendable.")

5 hours ago, Lily Valley said:

 

See, women's clothes have no pockets.  This is just crap.

 

 

I just want to share that I have a couple of amazing dresses with pockets.  They are my favorite things.  I want more.  MOAR POCKETS!!!!!  VIVA LA POCKET REVOLUTION!!!

3 hours ago, Buckwheat said:

But how many women are, in fact, selecting for those values? People are attracted to different people with different charaters and behaviour. I cannot speak for all women, but I am sure there are plenty who are not attracted to boldness, loudness, sports enthusiasm etc., and instead drawn to "feminine" characteristics (honesty, quietness etc.) in men.

Why is honesty a feminine quality?  That's not something that I code as female (and actually somewhat the opposite, I think).

What is seen as "masculine" v. "feminine" has changed significantly over time.  Qualities and actions that we now code as feminine were once neutral or masculine (taking stupid examples, which are more skills than character traits, dancing and good handwriting).  But there is a difference between men and women, and that's ok and fine and you know, I like men.  I'm kind of with LiteChick  and Potter Stewart - I know it when i see it.  However, Peterbound's question is the right one if boiled down, how do you raise a boy to be a good man when there are so many conflicting representations of what that means.  Doesn't it come down on some level to a good moral compass and the golden rule?

[Weeping Sore]

I think very little is lost in aspiring to be the best person you can be without referring to gender expectations. Be the best spouse, the best parent, a diligent and honorable worker that colleagues can rely upon, etc. The "opposite" gender should not be foreign territory, and should be just as fertile ground for finding role models.

[Ice Queen]

24 minutes ago, Darzin said:

I would say though that depending on where you live this board is really not so far out of the mainstream in large parts of the US. I mean going to college now there is quite a spectrum and while their are more traditional people gender roles are certainly muted. My own group of friends is pretty mixed between girls and guys as we mainly, play board games, go hiking and drink. Things are pretty gender neutral overall, I think the key is letting people find their own path, there is nothing wrong with liking traditionally masculine things the problem is having the freedom to choose or not. 

Wait until you get married and start having children. Watch how the division of labor aligns into more traditional roles, although I'm hoping that more and more young men are turning that on its head by pitching in and helping in ways previous generations of men would never do. 

[Ice Queen]

5 hours ago, Lily Valley said:

If I had ever been permitted to hit my sister, EVER, we would have been much better friends.  Instead, we were forced to "go to our rooms" and it took days or years for us to get over our spats.

On evo-psych, there is a whole lot of stuff just debunking it.  I can argue with you all day about how women are more promiscuous because of our history of group mating which is expressed currently through female sexual vocalization.  "Dawn of Sex".  Most of it is Flying Spaghetti Monster Garbage.  

On parenting

There is NOTHING easy to find on raising young men in this climate until you're dealing with an adolescent.  Lots of stuff for girls, nothing for boys.  This is crap.  It's true that women buy most of the parenting books, but women are raising both boys and girls.  There is a real lack of information and understanding about helping boys navigate the world and also grow up.

 

 

Can you be more specific on the evolutionary biology and why it's just crap? I'd like to read links "debunking" it. I think what you really mean is dissenting papers and research, not debunking. It's a perfectly valid scientific hypothesis and will remain so until conclusively proved otherwise, so no debunking required as if it's a grand conspiracy theory to be exposed and ridiculed. 

I never read Dawn of Sex so I can't comment on that, but our mating habits evolved the way they did for a reason (because they work, otherwise we wouldn't have them), and no religion or social construct is going to overrule that. That's why telling 17 year olds not to have unprotected sex doesn't work, nor does preaching abstinence. When religion goes up against biology, it loses every time. 

One thing is consistently overlooked in all of our social constructions regarding dating and marriage: humans are not by nature monogamous. Serially monogamous, maybe, but most of us simply cannot be with one person for our entire lives. Women aren't more promiscuous--but we are just as promiscuous as men. We're just better at hiding it. 

[Savannah]

6 hours ago, Jo498 said:

I don't know. Both cases were somewhat mysterious and almost scandalous. People got considerably more excited than about similar accidents with male cadets. For me this hints again at the biological bottom line which is not mainly that men are strong or from Mars, women caring and from Venus or whatever, but that men are more expendable than women for obvious reasons. So even if one thinks women should or could serve, e.g as medical officers on a warship (the ship in question is the training ship Gorch Fock) I think one can make a case that one should be reluctant to have them climbing in the rigging at night. Or in any case one has to really think about the physical fitness thresholds. (Apparently cadets can refuse to enter the rigging if they do not feel up to it. I am of the old-fashioned persuasion that it should be made clear BEFORE someone enlists on a tall ship whether s/he can (in normal health and circumstances) do that or not. Not everyone has the right to get onto such a ship. But there were also accusations of mistreatments and negligence by the core crew and commanding officers. I don't know. Everybody know that this is a rough environment and it is obvious that it will never be like an office workplace...

https://www.thelocal.de/20101108/31037

If they are not strong enough then of course not. 

Obviously if the military can't find enough strong people to do it it's a bit of a problem. That doesn't appear to be the case? 

Women do voluntarily serve in most militias.

The question is if they should be conscripted. (I don't mean a voluntary conscription like in Norway, that's not a very good example at all.) 

[Ice Queen]

25 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I don't follow this logic at all.  If both men and women are having the same accidents, then why does that hint at the biological bottom line rather than a social construct?  (Your next sentence described men as more "expendable" for "obvious" reasons that aren't that "obvious" to me unless you are referring to the uterus, which I don't think necessarily follows from your first point, and in fact isn't supported historically or even currently where women (of all ages, including in utero) are often viewed as more "expendable.")

I could be wrong, but I think it refers to men not really being needed to create children. There was something a few years back about how the Y chromosome is disappearing or something. I don't remember the details. But when you get right down to it, a uterus isn't even required to have children any more. 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

I don't think there is anything gender specific about being a good person. Morality isn't about gender. 

Having said that if I were raising boys I would certainly emphasise the quality of protecting others and self sacrifice. These are traditional males values that I think were a positive aspect of being a man. We shouldn't lose that.

i would also definitely make sure they were rasied to be active and played sports. The advantage of being good at sports in your youth is huge , it gives you confidence,  teaches you the process of improvement as well as helping you socialise with other males a lot easier. Its something i missed out on and I definitely regret it. 

[Ice Queen]

4 minutes ago, Savannah said:

If they are not strong enough then of course not. 

Obviously if the military can't find enough strong people to do it it's a bit of a problem. That doesn't appear to be the case? 

Women do voluntarily serve in most militias.

The question is if they should be conscripted. (I don't mean a voluntary conscription like in Norway, that's not a very good example at all.) 

In the US they're having a hard time finding recruits--both men and women--who are physically fit enough to make it through boot camp. And these are 18 year old kids in their peak fit years. 

Who remembers the movie GI Jane with Demi Moore and Viggo Mortensen? 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

18 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I don't think there is anything gender specific about being a good person. Morality isn't about gender. 

Having said that if I were raising boys I would certainly emphasise the quality of protecting others and self sacrifice. These are traditional males values that I think were a positive aspect of being a man. We shouldn't lose that.

i would also definitely make sure they were rasied to be active and played sports. The advantage of being good at sports in your youth is huge , it gives you confidence,  teaches you the process of improvement as well as helping you socialise with other males a lot easier. Its something i missed out on and I definitely regret it. 

Query, what qualities would you emphasize for girls?  Because those seem like good things for both genders (and consistent, if you want to be historical about it, with both gender roles).  Also, would you encourage girls to play sports?  Why or why not?

[HexMachina]

26 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I don't think there is anything gender specific about being a good person. Morality isn't about gender. 

Having said that if I were raising boys I would certainly emphasise the quality of protecting others and self sacrifice. These are traditional males values that I think were a positive aspect of being a man. We shouldn't lose that.

i would also definitely make sure they were rasied to be active and played sports. The advantage of being good at sports in your youth is huge , it gives you confidence,  teaches you the process of improvement as well as helping you socialise with other males a lot easier. Its something i missed out on and I definitely regret it.

Why only if you were raising boys? If these are values and practices that are inherently good, I don't see any good reason that they should only be emphasised to male children. 

 

For me, and I think others already said this more eloquently than me, the problem with masculinity, or femininity, is that attempts to define these concepts are restrictive and might do more harm than good. There is nothing inherently wrong with the traits people have traditionally called masculine, and I think it's a misconception that people who talk about toxic masculinity are saying they are wrong. If a man displays these traits, good on him, but they shouldn't be definitive of what makes someone masculine/a man. The problem is rather that saying "to be a man you MUST be/demonstrate xyz. If instead you are abc then you are womanly." That is the problem to me. We should be able to embrace who we are without thinking "oh, I'm a man but I'm not aggressive, something is wrong with me."

[Iskaral Pust]

I'm glad sexual competition was mentioned.  It's very much a factor in teens and twenties, and then mellows after that as the reward for machoism declines (possibly because most people are in long term relationships of some form and/or women now prefer more stable men).  Just like women face the madonna-whore complex, men face the stable-danger complex.

Closely related is the unfortunate effect on many marriages from reversing gender norms.  There have been many articles about divorce rates increasing in line with wives' earning superiority.  Not all men will be bothered by this but social science articles report many men acting out (often having affairs or withdrawing into a shell) and many women feeling less attracted to the husband even if he is a full participant and takes over all the housework and childcare.  This creates a lot of cognitive dissonance because the people involved know it shouldn't bother them.  Perhaps these are just legacy residues of social conditioning but they are causing real people real problems. 

 

And because someone mentioned it, I would agree that primary education in the US has been heavily feminized.  The required behavior at young ages of sitting neatly and quietly and focusing constantly on the teacher's face pretty much guarantees that a large number of young boys will be branded disruptive.  Similarly a curriculum focus on feelings and expressing those in writing (reading comprehension and essay writing used to be about information or a specific topic, now it's about a characteristic like "kindness" or an emotionally fraught situation like a new kid with no friends), plus incredibly dumbed down math, very fluffy science and no work on logic, are all very tilted toward traditionally feminine thought patterns. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

3 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

 

 

And because someone mentioned it, I would agree that primary education in the US has been heavily feminized.  The required behavior at young ages of sitting neatly and quietly and focusing constantly on the teacher's face pretty much guarantees that a large number of young boys will be branded disruptive.  Similarly a curriculum focus on feelings and expressing those in writing (reading comprehension and essay writing used to be about information or a specific topic, now it's about a characteristic like "kindness" or an emotionally fraught situation like a new kid with no friends), plus incredibly dumbed down math, very fluffy science and no work on logic, are all very tilted toward traditionally feminine thought patterns. 

My girls go to an all-girls school.  I love it.  TBC, nothing in it is dumbed down, including the math and science.  I'm strongly inclined to send my son to an all-boys school for similar reasons.  Boys mature at different times and in different ways.  We'll see how I feel at high school, but for now, I'm in favor, if it is done right.

[peterbound]

1 hour ago, Darzin said:

I would say though that depending on where you live this board is really not so far out of the mainstream in large parts of the US. I mean going to college now there is quite a spectrum and while their are more traditional people gender roles are certainly muted. My own group of friends is pretty mixed between girls and guys as we mainly, play board games, go hiking and drink. Things are pretty gender neutral overall, I think the key is letting people find their own path, there is nothing wrong with liking traditionally masculine things the problem is having the freedom to choose or not. 

College in america is hardly representative of reality.  You've got to know that by now. 

[peterbound]

27 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Query, what qualities would you emphasize for girls?  Because those seem like good things for both genders (and consistent, if you want to be historical about it, with both gender roles).  Also, would you encourage girls to play sports?  Why or why not?

For me the biggest qualities that girls/females have is that they are more risk adverse.  Now that might be taken as a slight, but it's not meant to be.  Men are more likely to jump into dangerous situations at the risk of their own survival.  Women are also better forward thinks with regards to risk/benefit.  This is a boon to our species, as it balances us out and is needed for survival. 

[peterbound]

1 hour ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

In the US they're having a hard time finding recruits--both men and women--who are physically fit enough to make it through boot camp. And these are 18 year old kids in their peak fit years. 

Who remembers the movie GI Jane with Demi Moore and Viggo Mortensen? 

They are talking about relaxing the standards.  That's our fault as parents though, for letting our kids become fat bodies.  

 

They'll get in shape during basic though.  

[Mlle. Zabzie]

2 minutes ago, peterbound said:

For me the biggest qualities that girls/females have is that they are more risk adverse.  Now that might be taken as a slight, but it's not meant to be.  Men are more likely to jump into dangerous situations at the risk of their own survival.  Women are also better forward thinks with regards to risk/benefit.  This is a boon to our species, as it balances us out and is needed for survival. 

don't disagree with that and think it is borne out in studies of long term success of companies with a certain quantum of women in leadership positions.  that said, do we think that is innate or learned?  i don't have answers, obviously.

[peterbound]

Just now, Mlle. Zabzie said:

don't disagree with that and think it is borne out in studies of long term success of companies with a certain quantum of women in leadership positions.  that said, do we think that is innate or learned?  i don't have answers, obviously.

I think it's innate.  Jumping onto train tracks to save someone can't be taught.  

 

I also like the idea also described in tribe (Junger, whom i'm stealing the risk adverse thing from) of how there is peace time leadership and crisis leadership and the need for both to stand aside when the other takes over.  Typical feminine traits are shown in one, and male in the other.  There is a need for both to be successful in this thing called life/civilization.  I think we need to recognize the differences, and exploit them to our benefit, not beat them down and claim they don't exist.  Striving for gender neutrality does us, and our biology, a disservice. 

[Weeping Sore]

2 minutes ago, peterbound said:

 

I also like the idea also described in tribe (Junger, whom i'm stealing the risk adverse thing from) of how there is peace time leadership and crisis leadership and the need for both to stand aside when the other takes over.  Typical feminine traits are shown in one, and male in the other.  There is a need for both to be successful in this thing called life/civilization.  I think we need to recognize the differences, and exploit them to our benefit, not beat them down and claim they don't exist.  Striving for gender neutrality does us, and our biology, a disservice. 

Would you say that a Margaret Thatcher or an Angela Merkel would be incapable of crisis leadership due to their gender, or simply that they must partake of masculinity to be capable?

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Just now, peterbound said:

I think it's innate.  Jumping onto train tracks to save someone can't be taught.  

 

I also like the idea also described in tribe (Junger, whom i'm stealing the risk adverse thing from) of how there is peace time leadership and crisis leadership and the need for both to stand aside when the other takes over.  Typical feminine traits are shown in one, and male in the other.  There is a need for both to be successful in this thing called life/civilization.  I think we need to recognize the differences, and exploit them to our benefit, not beat them down and claim they don't exist.  Striving for gender neutrality does us, and our biology, a disservice. 

But what about the women who do that?  I can come up with plenty of anecdotes - not sure that piece of it is fundamentally male or female.  I think when it's a woman it gets coded into "maternal instinct" or something.

Also, there was a recent article (driven by an HBS study) about women being put in power precisely in times of crisis, rather than the opposite (a sort of "well, we've tried everything else, why not this, and if she fails, eh, not my problem").

[Weeping Sore]

15 minutes ago, peterbound said:

For me the biggest qualities that girls/females have is that they are more risk adverse.  Now that might be taken as a slight, but it's not meant to be.  Men are more likely to jump into dangerous situations at the risk of their own survival.  Women are also better forward thinks with regards to risk/benefit.  This is a boon to our species, as it balances us out and is needed for survival. 

This sounds more like the Kirk/Spock dichotomy.

I'm sure this is somewhat shaped by your profession, women firefighters surely being outliers with regard to their risk appetite. I'm inclined to agree with you that men on average have higher risk appetites (or possibly more powerful death wishes).