Masculinity

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

19 minutes ago, Arkhangel said:

There's a lot of other factors at play there, though. For one, and not to be too blunt, but football players and athletes generally tend to be more physically attractive than the median, because they're physically fit and let's be real, fitness is hot. For another, there is a large sub-section of self described 'nice guys' who are anything but. Of course those guys don't get laid, because there's nothing less appealing than a seething pit of passive aggression and a tendency blame women for not automatically dispensing love and sex in return for being treated like a human being.

Being cocky or aggressive or macho is not a good strategy for impressing women, is what I'm saying. Being confident, being considerate and treating women with the same genuine respect that you'd treat anyone else is a) more likely to impress them and b ) also just the thing to do in order to not be a dick.

Well football players are physically attractive because they have more obvious masculine characteristics.. physically. So they are taller, stronger, more masculine in appearance. That generally is a bit of a plus. 
 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 was more pointing out that almost all of your comments were highlighting the negative impact of men, or that when men are performing positive actions they may be doing it for negative reasons. What you said isn't untrue, its that your post ONLY highlighted the negative aspects and then also didn't mention how big or small a percentage of men you believe have these behaviours. Therefore you could easily be saying its a large majority of men. 

Why I'm bringing this up is not because you control the media ( I don't believe you do anyway) its more that it very much fits into the general way in which men are portrayed currently in discussions on gender. 

Don't want to turn this into a BB discussion, but I do think BB is an example of what I'm talking about. WW initially thought his actions were all about protecting his family and giving them something after he is gone, but then later on he comes to realise he was doing it all because he had a massive ego and was trying to change who he was. Now whether his initial intention to protect was driven by his ego, I don't remember well enough, but again it fits nicely into the theme of mens traditional values being driven by negative factors. 

 

Fair enough. I was highlighting negative aspects because I was talking about toxic masculinity, which was referenced and talked about earlier in the thread. I'm sorry that I wasn't clearer about that and it could have been confusing. I don't actually know what percentage of men are involved. I do know toxic masculinity exists though and have personal experience with it. (Although I didn't actually know the term until I read it on this board. I'm not the most well read on feminist topics) 

Well the media leans socially progressive and I happen to be a progressive. So perhaps there might be similar viewpoints and opinions. However, I'm not part of the media and I don't always agree with them either. I don't wish to be blamed for all their statements.

Not to derail into a Breaking Bad discussion either, but I do love talking about the show. One thing about the show though, they portrayed Skylar as a very competent and skilled woman. She was definitely not someone that need protected, which is pretty relevant to this discussion.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

7 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

 

Fair enough. I was highlighting negative aspects because I was talking about toxic masculinity, which was referenced and talked about earlier in the thread. I'm sorry that I wasn't clearer about that and it could have been confusing. I don't actually know what percentage of men are involved. I do know toxic masculinity exists though and have personal experience with it. (Although I didn't actually know the term until I read it on this board. I'm not the most well read on feminist topics) 

Well the media leans socially progressive and I happen to be a progressive. So perhaps there might be similar viewpoints and opinions. However, I'm not part of the media and I don't always agree with them either. I don't wish to be blamed for all their statements.

Not to derail into a Breaking Bad discussion either, but I do love talking about the show. One thing about the show though, they portrayed Skylar as a very competent and skilled woman. She was definitely not someone that need protected, which is pretty relevant to this discussion.

Fair enough. But yes I think the left leaning media does tend to go overboard when it comes to gender issues and has no problem labelling male behaviour as dangerous or damaging,

Well Skylar in the show is interesting because she basically came across as a screaming annoying shrew for most of the show. She was the one holding Walt back and almost helped create his own prison of his domestic life, which she seemed very happy with. She was the embodiment of everything Walt was irritated with in his life.  Its no wonder she was disliked by so many.

[Xray the Enforcer]

[mod] Please take the Breaking Bad discussion to the Entertainment forum. Thank you. [/mod]

[Jo498]

20 hours 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.")

Let me unpack it: I think the outrage about the accidents had several conflicting reasons. Some people think that girls have no place at all on such a ship and neither have men who do not meet the fitness/strength/height etc. requirements (call me whatever you want, but I tend to agree - there were 4 or 5 similar accidents with men in 60 years and 2 with women in less then 10 years with obviously far fewer women serving on the ship even in the short period they have been allowed to). The girl in question apparently did not meet the minimum height of 1,60m but had received a special permission, originally for a different ship, as I said several people seem to have messed up in that case. Some people think the accidents were due to unfair treatment or general mismanagement. But I suspect that subliminally we all  "know" (it does not matter of "biologically" or culturally) "women and children first", so we tend to be more outraged.

The obvious reasons are biologically obvious because only women can bear children. That's risky enough but very important so we tend to risk men elsewhere. One man with a harem can secure a tribe's continual existence even when all the other men have died but it obviously does not work well vice versa. I am looking forward to the historical examples of women rather than men being expended in wars, dangerous jobs etc. If such examples existed these people have probably died out. Our ancestors were smarter than that.

I refuse any discussion about male-female physical/strength differences because I consider this case closed until we abolish separate athletic events/weights/heights etc. for women. It is simply not worth discussing with people who want to deny or "deconstruct" the most obvious facts, sorry. Fairness or equal opportunities are not the point. If a firefighter has to drag an unconscious person out of a building any extra strength above the average is a bonus. So the world champions in women's discus throw (and notice that their discus weighs half as much as the men's...) or heavyweight wrestling may be welcome. But not a 110 pound sylph just because equal opportunity.

This has not much to do with the thread, though. Still, the different biologies and physiques of males/females are relevant. So is the societal problem of expendable men. In former times, men who were good for hardly anything could still be used in menial labor requiring not a lot of skill or sometimes in the army. Because women are important as childbearers and, again, despite all feminist and neoliberal (larger workforce -> more exploitation) propaganda, subliminally we know that it is o.k. for a woman to "only" have and care for her children because it is not "only" but far more important than almost any other job. That's what the basement dwelling misogynists on youtube also seem to miss, just because it comes "naturally" and does not require special skills or college does not mean it is any less important. And the most toxic thing some feminists have done is to stress the "only" or talk of "brood mares" (this is really one of the most misogynist expressions ever)  when this is one of the deepest biological reasons for male chivalry and veneration of women. So nowadays she can have a career, or children, or both.

But a man has to have a career, otherwise he is deemed worthless. Which is unfair but understandable.

[Tempra]

2 hours ago, Savannah said:

Why would we though? 

Because women would be less reliant on confident men to ask them out.  We don't see confident men asking out only confident women as they desire other traits, particularly in short term relationships.  Why would we expect women to act differently than men in this regard? Of course, I think we have to assume in this hypothetical that our mating habits are entirely or mostly a social construct, which I am not sure is actually the case.

[Savannah]

14 minutes ago, Tempra said:

Because women would be less reliant on confident men to ask them out.  We don't see confident men asking out only confident women as they desire other traits, particularly in short term relationships.  Why would we expect women to act differently than men in this regard? Of course, I think we have to assume in this hypothetical that our mating habits are entirely or mostly a social construct, which I am not sure is actually the case.

 

You assume insecure men aren't getting laid because confident women searching  short term relationships are not hitting on them, because social constructs? 

[Tempra]

13 minutes ago, Savannah said:

 

You assume insecure men aren't getting laid because confident women searching  short term relationships are not hitting on them, because social constructs? 

 

I think lack of confidence/forwardness hinders men more (likely far more so) than women in "getting laid" because men disproportionately initiate sexual relationships in heterosexual couples.  If the roles were reversed, why would less confidant/forward men continue to be hindered more than similar women?

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

12 minutes ago, Tempra said:

 

I think lack of confidence/forwardness hinders men more (likely far more so) than women in "getting laid" because men disproportionately initiate sexual relationships in heterosexual couples.  If the roles were reversed, why would less confidant/forward men continue to be hindered more than similar women?

Mainly because women tend to select men on confidence as well , where as men are a little bit more shallow 

[Tempra]

9 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Mainly because women tend to select men on confidence as well , where as men are a little bit more shallow 

In the current regime, yes.  Does that remain true if the roles are reversed?

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

4 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Ok this actually is a very unpleasant view of men.. this time it actually is. 

Well it's certainly an unpleasant view of men who get into fights. And mostly true, if worded a bit uncharitably.

i know that all the fights I got in when I was young were unequivocally about pride rather than 'protecting' somebody. Given the human brains ability to rationalize things, it wouldn't surprise me if that were true for a majority of cases where men claimed to be protecting their SO.

imagine the typical scene where a drunk obnoxiously and aggressively hits on woman, and her boyfriend fights that drunk. He may have been protecting her in his mind, but there could also have been dozens of ways to nonviolently resolve that situation. It's certainly far more common than the one where a would be rapist approaches her in an abandoned alley, and her heroic boyfriend has to fend him off because there's no help within shouting distance.

also, I think it's important to be clear in terminology. A lot of cocky, aggressive guys are actually really nice, and a lot of shy, awkward guys are not at all.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

6 minutes ago, Tempra said:

In the current regime, yes.  Does that remain true if the roles are reversed?

Well I think that men certainly will always be more visually focussed and be judging women on their physical appearance, this I think is partly biological and to do with the short term mating strategies that men desire. As for women, hard to say, women are already more open about their liking for a good looking gentleman, and this is due to the more open sexual environment we live in these days. But at the same time we basically live in a world where pay is pretty much equal (it is) and women don't need men to survive, and yet men are still being selected based on confidence, power and wealth. 

 

 

16 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

Well it's certainly an unpleasant view of men who get into fights. And mostly true, if worded a bit uncharitably.

i know that all the fights I got in when I was young were unequivocally about pride rather than 'protecting' somebody. Given the human brains ability to rationalize things, it wouldn't surprise me if that were true for a majority of cases where men claimed to be protecting their SO.

imagine the typical scene where a drunk obnoxiously and aggressively hits on woman, and her boyfriend fights that drunk. He may have been protecting her in his mind, but there could also have been dozens of ways to nonviolently resolve that situation. It's certainly far more common than the one where a would be rapist approaches her in an abandoned alley, and her heroic boyfriend has to fend him off because there's no help within shouting distance.

also, I think it's important to be clear in terminology. A lot of cocky, aggressive guys are actually really nice, and a lot of shy, awkward guys are not at all.

Jealousy isn't the same thing as protectiveness, and that applies to both sexes. I've seen plenty of women scratch the eyes out of of each other over a man. 

Again, cockiness isn't the same thing as confidence, in many cases its like you are pretending to confident to cover your own insecurity. Thats why its easy to sniff out. 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

13 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

 

 

Jealousy isn't the same thing as protectiveness, and that applies to both sexes. I've seen plenty of women scratch the eyes out of of each other over a man. 

Again, cockiness isn't the same thing as confidence, in many cases its like you are pretending to confident to cover your own insecurity. Thats why its easy to sniff out. 

But the two are definitely intertwined. 

But let's look at this sitiuation. The guy had no rational reason to feel jealous. The two guys were obnoxious rude idiots. There was also no real danger of physical violence, in fact they were walking away.

But buy I'm sure, in his mind, he was 'protecting' his girlfriend.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iuKhXV_QLko

 

[Savannah]

1 hour ago, Tempra said:

 

I think lack of confidence/forwardness hinders men more (likely far more so) than women in "getting laid" because men disproportionately initiate sexual relationships in heterosexual couples.  If the roles were reversed, why would less confidant/forward men continue to be hindered more than similar women?

A wise man once did not say "let me sit on my ass and get laid be the change I wish to see in the world". 

[Tempra]

14 minutes ago, Savannah said:

A wise man once did not say "let me sit on my ass and get laid be the change I wish to see in the world". 

I think most men learn some variation of "he who hesitates, masturbates."

Still, I think you missed the point.  Being proactive is disproportionately thrust upon men in the current system. So, to say that less forward/confident men need to stop "sitting on their ass" if they want to get laid simply reinforces the current system where less confident/forward men are disproportionately hindererd compared to similar women.

[Balefont]

23 hours ago, 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. 

Yeah, yeah had me that there does seem to be a supportable correlation between men and women and risk aversion, in general.  But the jumping onto a train track to save someone is a shite example.  Jumping to someone's aid without thought is a very different behavior than running a risk assessment on a situation such as jumping off a cliff for fun or driving recklessly.

[Balefont]

2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Mainly because women tend to select men on confidence as well , where as men are a little bit more shallow 

not all men

Thank the gods.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

21 minutes ago, Balefont said:

not all men

Thank the gods.

well we are all pretty shallow. Anyone saying they aren't is basically lying.

[Martell Spy]

 

Quote

A wise man once did not say "let me sit on my ass and get laid be the change I wish to see in the world". 

 

Hahah. I think this is how cult leaders get started.

[Savannah]

1 hour ago, Tempra said:

I think most men learn some variation of "he who hesitates, masturbates."

Still, I think you missed the point.  Being proactive is disproportionately thrust upon men in the current system. So, to say that less forward/confident men need to stop "sitting on their ass" if they want to get laid simply reinforces the current system where less confident/forward men are disproportionately hindererd compared to similar women.

I don't agree with that at all. 

Even if it was the case then the solution would hardly be thrusting it disproportionately upon women either.