Masculinity

[all swedes are racist]

2 hours ago, peterbound said:

I picked it up after reading the author's thoughts on TRT (something I'm a fan of).  Can't say i was super impressed with it. 

What, the "check your pockets for keys, phone and wallet before you leave the house" doesn't strike you as genius revelation? 

[Arkhangel]

2 hours ago, litechick said:

I agree that words fail at defining masculine and feminine.  It's more of a 'show me don't tell me' situation.

As far as imagery, I would cite pairs figure skaters.  Both are strong, both are graceful but there is a difference.  What is the difference?  Just watch.

Very pretty imagery, but I will fight you on that when it comes to accuracy Social constructions of gender play a massive role in figure-skating. You're right that there is a very clear difference, but there's nothing more innate or natural about the gendered differences in figure-skating than in any other sport, and it's no less detrimental to athletes who either can't or don't want to fit into that mould.

[Datepalm]

3 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Sure, that factors in to some degree. I'd say the more important factor was the economics surrounding this job. Back in the early 2000's, NUHW negotiated a favorable contract with most of the large HMOs, which essentially put the pay on par (or perhaps even a bit better) than say construction. That along with both better than average Health Care coverage and the recession proof nature of the job itself made it fairly desirable.

Theres a whole world out there on the nexus of incomes, gender and prestige, or, possibly, 'how much of a dude job is this' out there.

I was struck by the list of jobs someone defined as appropriately masculine someplace, and that they were all blue collar and to a large extenst, seemed kind of dull and certainly in the middle/bottom of the income curve, bar the firefighter/cop/soldiers (the 'hero' jobs, lets say), maybe. Does anyone actually aspire for that ideal factory job, or construction work, or any other primarily physical job (without the hero part) for their son?

The glory days of American manufacturing as being tied to some kind of effective model of masculinity seems to have everything to do with pay, benefits, stabililty and unionization, and a lot less on the job itself - ie, you could have reasonable quality of life for a family on a single (male) paycheck. Maybe to a lesser extent that it was a relatively contained job that doesn't 'follow you home' or demanded extremely long hours, hence time to throw the old baseball around with the kid or whatever it is people did, rather than spending the evening answering client emails from China or whatever. I don't actually hear anyone daydreaming about the good old days of working the production line itself...or are they? I'm really not sure here.

[litechick]

1 hour ago, Arkhangel said:

Very pretty imagery, but I will fight you on that when it comes to accuracy Social constructions of gender play a massive role in figure-skating. You're right that there is a very clear difference, but there's nothing more innate or natural about the gendered differences in figure-skating than in any other sport, and it's no less detrimental to athletes who either can't or don't want to fit into that mould.

'Accuracy'?  I'm not sure that has anything to do with my point.  I never meant to imply that pairs figure skating is gender neutral or a model for male/female equanimity.  My point was that we have these images of men and women working as a team where both exhibit the same admirable qualities in different ways.

Likewise we could say masculinity = Jon Hamm or femininity  = Audrey Hepburn.  They both exhibit beauty, grace and charm in different ways.  

My point was that we can better express masculinity/femininity with images rather than words.  Pick your own examples rather than cutting down mine.

 

Also:  thanks for leading me to the video of Johnny Weir.  A man in a corset and makeup exhibiting power and grace just reinforces my point.  (and I'm totally jealous of whomever got to do the lighting for that.)

[Jo498]

10 hours ago, Savannah said:

What happened after? Were the assignments readjusted? 

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

[Arkhangel]

1 hour ago, litechick said:

'Accuracy'?  I'm not sure that has anything to do with my point.  I never meant to imply that pairs figure skating is gender neutral or a model for male/female equanimity.  My point was that we have these images of men and women working as a team where both exhibit the same admirable qualities in different ways.

Likewise we could say masculinity = Jon Hamm or femininity  = Audrey Hepburn.  They both exhibit beauty, grace and charm in different ways.  

My point was that we can better express masculinity/femininity with images rather than words.  Pick your own examples rather than cutting down mine.

Also:  thanks for leading me to the video of Johnny Weir.  A man in a corset and makeup exhibiting power and grace just reinforces my point.  (and I'm totally jealous of whomever got to do the lighting for that.)

They demonstrate the same admirable qualities in restrictive, highly constructed ways, and it's as damaging as in any other sport, is the point I'm making. Johnny Weir is a great example of that:

Quote

Two-time Olympian Johnny Weir did not come out until after he competed in the 2010 Olympics.  His national federation’s acts of pettiness and sabotage toward him for his femme manner are well chronicled in his autobiography and his television series, "Be Good Johnny Weir."   - Institutionalized homophobia in men's figure skating

Quote

Johnny Weir held a press conference Wednesday in Vancouver to address remarks made by two veteran sports commentators during the Olympics suggesting that his fabulousness (our word) is a bad example of, and for, male figure skaters and joking that he should undergo a gender test... There’s a reason he’s calling attention to the situation: “Even my gender has been questioned. I want that to be public because I don’t want 50 years from now more young boys and girls to have to go through this sort of thing and to have their whole life basically questioned for no reason other than to make a joke and to make people watch their television program,” he said. He summed up his message —  “I hope more kids can grow up the same way that I did and more kids can feel the freedom that I feel to be themselves and to express themselves” — and his belief that the concepts of masculinity and femininity are old-fashioned. - Johnny Weir responds to commentators who questioned his gender, example he sets

The fact that an athlete as talented as Johnny Weir had to hold a press conference after competing in the Olympics to talk, not about his achievements as a skater but about whether or not he was 'masculine' enough kind of just goes to prove how pervasive and pernicious these ideas are.

What I'm saying in response to your point is that images are just as constructed as words. I'm not cutting you down, I'm disagreeing with you, which is not the same thing.

(Also, John Hamm is not a good role model for anyone, regardless of their gender. Seriously, someone forgot to call him 'MC Hammer' and he set them on fire. Although I guess for this discussion that does open a conversation about fraternities and toxic masculinity...)

[Lily Valley]

13 hours ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Funny you should mention this. We were having a discussion at a family event over the holidays, and my mother made the comment that it's much easier to raise boys than girls. I have three brothers and one sister. My mother said she could throw the boys out into the yard and let them fight it out--which they did, and in 10 minutes were best friends again. She couldn't do that with my sister and me because we couldn't bring ourselves to do that to each other...so we were always made to go to our rooms away from each other, and days later we were still mad. The ironic thing is that we were the athletes and took out our aggression on the court or the field. 

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.  

11 hours ago, Weeping Sore said:

You see, there's He-Man, and then there's Barbie. He-Man wears boots, furry underwear and a harness but he gets a magic sword. Barbie gets anorexia but she gets to change her clothes.

Maybe it comes down to whether you want to ride on Battlecat or in a red convertible?

I just love you.  We can put Battlecat in the convertible.  I ordered a four door.  You're driving.

4 hours ago, r'hllor's dirtbag lobster said:

What, the "check your pockets for keys, phone and wallet before you leave the house" doesn't strike you as genius revelation? 

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

Breaking Bad:

I've only seen the first few episodes of Breaking Bad,  I found it extremely upsetting.  I think all of the stuff being discussed here about the show is very good.  Heavy handed?  Of course.  Have you seen Jessica Jones?  I think Breaking Bad deserves some real attention from me after seeing this thread.  All of the young men in my "kids" circle absolutely love that show.  I thought it was about the drug-hero thing.  This group is early twenties and under-employed, so their fascination should be pointed elsewhere if the show weren't really talking to them.

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.

 

 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

7 hours ago, karaddin said:

Don't you see how this can be true for you, and you can live this way, without it needing to be a societal expectation that ALL men are this way, even those for whom its extremely harmful? That's the issue - the expectation and pressure to be a certain way that is so pervasive and deep seated that people can't even recognise its their problem and that its harming them. I really don't see how awareness of your own feelings can ever be framed as a 'feminine' or 'negative' thing though, even as I accept that it currently is. Understanding what you're feeling and knowing how to deal with that so you don't act them out on others should be a core component of being a functional and responsible adult. If you don't want to dwell in them, that's fine, but you should be capable of identifying and understanding them.

 

I think the societal pressure is now going both ways, and in fact the media in particular are happy to paint this more traditional form of masculinity as a sort of backwards, harmful set of behaviours. Conversely if I'm not conforming to this 'new masculinity' then there is seen to be something wrong with me. I am expected to be more empathetic, more open about my emotions. 

I think both sexes are at a point in time where the pressures to be one way or another are incredibly conflicting. There is equal pressure for me to not only be a provider, to be strong and stoic, but at the same time I am expected to stay at home and be a house husband, to be tender and in touch with my feelings. Women complain about this 'not being able to have it all', but the same pressure is on men as well. 

So in the same way that we shouldn't judge a guy if he wants to stay at home, cry when hes upset, we shouldn't judge him if he keeps it all in, and conforms to more traditional depictions of masculinity. We should be free to be whoever we want to be. 


On a related note, I can say as a man that much of the pressure to be more masculine comes, not through the media, but as a result of the sexual marketplace, of the supply and demand of what women (especially in our 20s) are looking for. In general being the more masculine, dominant, strong male is going to get you laid a lot easier than if your not.. and this skews behaviour. If women are selecting for these values then its going to mean there is a greater incentive to be this way. Its hard to say whether this is something that is going to change any time soon. 

 

[Jo498]

I often have the impression of strawmanning. If I look at the "Art of Manliness" website their ideal is certainly not He-Man or Tarzan but rather your 1950s TV show dad (or maybe Teddy Roosevelt). This may often seem quaint and amusing but there is far more "toxic masculinity" to be found in large parts of contemporary popular culture (basically almost all rap music) than in those guys pining for suburban providers (who were usually in white collar jobs, not in a foundry). The qualities they value are often rather boring (reliability, thoroughness, thrift, etc.) and not even very gender-specific. The AoM crowd seems to share with some of the so-called SJW the disregard of even mildly marxian/materialist analysis, namely that all one's personal improvement and striving (be it in the direction of Leave it to Beaver Daddy or away from any traditional stereotype towards gender 4.0 flexibility) cannot guarantee success for everybody (or even most people) if the economy has changed in disfavor of the "average bloke".

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

7 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

I often have the impression of strawmanning. If I look at the "Art of Manliness" website their ideal is certainly not He-Man or Tarzan but rather your 1950s TV show dad (or maybe Teddy Roosevelt). This may often seem quaint and amusing but there is far more "toxic masculinity" to be found in large parts of contemporary popular culture (basically almost all rap music) than in those guys pining for suburban providers (who were usually in white collar jobs, not in a foundry). The qualities they value are often rather boring (reliability, thoroughness, thrift, etc.) and not even very gender-specific. The AoM crowd seems to share with some of the so-called SJW the disregard of even mildly marxian/materialist analysis, namely that all one's personal improvement and striving (be it in the direction of Leave it to Beaver Daddy or away from any traditional stereotype towards gender 4.0 flexibility) cannot guarantee success for everybody (or even most people) if the economy has changed in disfavor of the "average bloke".

I think the Art of Manliness is really a reaction to this loss of identity men feel. We are confused as to how we meant to behave, and made to feel slightly ashamed of being traditionally masculine. There was certainly a gap in the market for what AoM has done. Men don't have that sort of media support structure in the way women do, there was very little instruction on 'how to be a man', partly because it became seen as wrong to instruct men to do 'manly' things. Add this to the lack of traditional male roles and role models and you see a whole generation of men who don't have any idea of what their purpose is and how they are supposed to act. 

 

[Jo498]

I think it is a myth that "feminine" qualities are viewed as negative nowadays. Some are (like being hysterical), but so are "masculine" ones, like physical aggressivity. If anything, the opposite seems true. Obviously, one usually faces far more (legal and social) repercussions today if one (as an adult and probably as a child as well) behaves physically aggressive than with supposedly "feminine" behavior (like learned/pretended helplessness, being overtly emotional etc.). In many cases this is simply because we have become more "civilized" in many respects. True, (physical) violence is usually bad, but to completely restrain it e.g. to sports would have seemed odd even in my childhood in the 1970s (and if one reads children's books from the early-mid 20th century they seem often incredibly violent with physical punishment from teachers and parents and considerable fighting "for fun" among young boys).

I have never been in a street fight and not in a schoolyard fight after I was about 14 or so but between say 8 and 12 or so, such little fights between boys, either in some kind of rough play or even somewhat seriously but still with unspoken rules were not uncommon and tolerated to some extent. So was sometimes dangerous and unsupervised outdoor playing. We would play in the forest and "fence" with wooden sticks, it sometimes seems miraculous that nobody was ever really injured.

I am not a parent, so I get this mostly from the press or from friends with children but problems with boys at school (or actually at most levels of education) have been recognized in the last decade or two. One reason might be the "feminization" of primary education with boys having mostly or only women educating them from daycare through primary or even middle school. Girls outperform boys on all levels, including college attendance. This was not so until fairly recently; to the contrary in my primary/secondary school time in the 1980s it was usually complained that girls needed special days, special encouragement in certain subjects (STEM) not to be discriminated against etc. (Although in my anecdotal recollection, secondary/prep school performance was not so different between male/female teenagers and there were more boys in physics but more girls in biology or German literature but overall the differences were not large.)

I am not sure about the reasons, some male activists claim that the rules and teaching methods were changed with less focus on competitive tests and more on homework and being well behaved (I have my doubts about that and no firsthand data or experience) It also seems that boys are more strongly affected by the explosion of attention disorders etc. but this is also contested.

[butterbumps!]

7 hours ago, peterbound said:

I picked it up after reading the author's thoughts on TRT (something I'm a fan of).  Can't say i was super impressed with it. 

apologies for being possibly thick, but what's TRT? (my google search turned up something I'm almost positive you aren't referring to).   Are you familiar with the author in general?   What about the book didn't impress you, if you don't mind my asking.   

7 hours ago, peterbound said:

And i'm not sure i'm troubled... just really, really interested it in.  I belong to a culture that still celebrates the ideas of it (and I don't see that going away), and I still think there are large swaths of the country that still see it as something that needs to be part of their lives.  I just want to make sure that I'm staying ahead of upcoming changes.  Folks on here are so progressive they might as well be futurists, so I figure anything getting posted on here gives me about a 10-20 time frame to prep for it. 

Has the fact that this is something important to people ever led to harm in your view or experience?   Is there a negative side to celebrating it that you've seen?

Earlier in the thread you suggested that fighting against what you believe are natural gender inclinations is what leads to toxicity, but I'm curious if you think the opposite could be the case-- that applying/ imposing ideas of masculinity/ femininity regardless of one's personal inclinations and life situation might breed the toxicity.

[Buckwheat]

1 hour ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

On a related note, I can say as a man that much of the pressure to be more masculine comes, not through the media, but as a result of the sexual marketplace, of the supply and demand of what women (especially in our 20s) are looking for. In general being the more masculine, dominant, strong male is going to get you laid a lot easier than if your not.. and this skews behaviour. If women are selecting for these values then its going to mean there is a greater incentive to be this way. Its hard to say whether this is something that is going to change any time soon.

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.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

3 minutes 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.

People are attracted to different things, especially at different points in their lives. Having said that, the time where it really counts, ie teens and 20's, I'd say women are selecting quite heavily for those values, as well as those values (being bolder, louder etc) being far more likely to get you laid due to simply being more proactive. 

[Jo498]

sexual selection in a nutshell means that in evolution one sex shapes the other according to their respective desires. It is probably moot now whatever happened in this regard in our evolutionary history because we cannot change this. And it is not the only factor anyway.

Far more interesting is if such mechanisms are to a considerable extent at work in "real time" and in dependence of social structures, not only in some distant past and over many generations. Most men and women will go quite a bit out of their way to get laid. Emphatically including behavior that is irrational and bad for everyone in the long run. The so-called "masculists", "players" etc. certainly have a skewed perspective and they might often be wrong. But some of these ideas are far from absurd. A major point is that the prevalence of contraceptives since the 1960s have brought about a situation that is different than any before in world history. Women have a greatly reduced risk of pregnancy and face little consequence for sexually libertine behavior that would have been unthinkable until fairly recently. Of course men don't hesitate to come along for the ride.

But the side effect is that when women needed a provider in a stable marriage because pregnancy was quite likely and one would often stay with the father as a long time or live spouse they would often prefer "dads" to "cads". (Dating/mating was also far more ritualized, less free in many senses but while this might have reduced opportunities it also created some, particularly for less outgoing males and shy women.) Now this incentive is greatly reduced and women can more easily follow what has been called a hypergamous tendency (get the "best" man possible for sex, regardless of long term prospects). This seems to lead to (some) women chasing the most attractive (alpha) males, rewarding their caddish behavior and not realizing that they will often be used and discarded (dumped for another, hotter girl). Conversely, less attractive and/or less sexually aggressive men have it considerably harder to find any girlfriend at all. So this is bad for most men: they have it very hard to find partners. And for most women: they are lured into short term relationships with the most attractive men and are later doubly disappointed because they are dumped by the "alphas" but still pining for them and sometimes even shunned by the "betas" who resent that the women went for the alphas earlier. Even worse, it seems that "player" behavior works to some extent (to get laid, maybe not to find a long term partner), so ever more guys are going to try it. The question is how to change these incentives because it is hardly feasible to go back to traditionalist morality (except maybe in smaller (typically religious) groups).

As I understand the "art of manliness" crowd is that they do not want to go the cynic "player" route but become and remain attractive to women by developing more traditionally masculine traits: fitness, self-confidence, reliability, chivalry, cultivate interests and hobbies beyond sport and video games etc. It seems quaint, sometimes a little silly but probably everything is better than empowering the cynical Don Juans of the "player" subculture.

[Martell Spy]

I think it's somewhat generational. Gen X males often got handed down a lot of toxic masculinity baggage. I'm not sure it's quite the same now. I'm pretty sure I was handed down some of it and it happened quite early. I know because I remember having deep beliefs in certain behaviors, such as never crying where others could see it, when I started school at 5 years old.

Being masculine is fine. Toxic masculinity is something different. It's forced behaviors (or aversion to behaviors) implanted by society/and or parents. It has to have some toxic effect to be truly toxic masculinity, however. As an example, many boys from 5 onward are obsessed with fictional violence. Some may have a problem with this, but not me. In fact I still greatly enjoy forms of fictional warfare and would be quite angry if someone tried to stop me. I don't think this is toxic masculinity.

Pressure to fight and not back down from violent conflicts is completely different, however. This is toxic masculinity at it's most explicit, short of going full Walter White. If you find yourself engaging in violence, and don't actually want to do this, but do it anyway, that's toxic masculinity at work. 

As for what I meant by forced behaviors, I don't mean actual mind control. However, it's very powerful. It's fear based and can cause you to get in fights, refuse to take jobs that might earn you more money, or to take dangerous jobs in order to be more masculine. It can make you refuse to reveal you are in pain even under intense amounts. (And that's just the extreme example, you might say refuse to work less hours so as to avoid the appearance of weakness)

And on the Walter White subject. He wasn't ripped off by Schwartz, really. Walter was dating the future Mrs. Shwartz. He met her rich parents and his ego couldn't handle it. So he dumped her and sold his shares in the company for a relatively small amount. It was all on him. Although he felt ripped off. 

 

[Ice Queen]

13 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

I don't think contemporary feminism strives for gender neutrality.  Rather, it advocates for gender equality, and often does so by tackling the stigma of "femininity" as something negative and unimportant.  Which also strives to de-stigmatize what's understood as "feminine" traits (or roles) in men, too.   That's generally the approach to this "toxic masculinity" idea-- that traditional gender designations, and especially the glorification of certain "masculine" traits (stoicism, sexual aggression, violence) and stigmatization of "feminine" traits (emotion, superficial, trivial) harm men (as well as women) in significant ways. 

I agree, it's equality, not neutrality. We shouldn't have to strive for neutral in order to be seen as good as men. That's subverting our whole nature as women--the divine feminine, if you will. What does that say about us as a society? That being proud of your femininity and female traits is a bad thing, and the best you can do is to at least not be overtly masculine? 

On the other hand, those men suffering from toxic masculinity are, in my opinion, refusing to acknowledge their feminine traits. I think it's out of fear that they might be homosexual or something. As if we women acknowledging that we have some masculine traits makes us lesbians! 

I'm really sorry to say it, but it's not all nurture and upbringing. Biology and evolution does play a role in how and we can't ignore that. Those who disregard or try to minimize it are missing a big part of the equation. 

[Ice Queen]

15 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Great post. I do think it will never be possible to be truly gender neutral, well possibly until technology or genetic meddling means that we don't really have genders.

Until then I think that on the whole men will tend towards certain behaviours and women will tend towards others..and I don't think there should be any demonisation of that either. There shouldn't be anything wrong with a man crying or wearing a dress, but at the same time we shouldn't get to the point where a man showing more traditionally male characteristics should be demonised for that either. If a man doesn't feel the need to share his feelings, or remains stoic and quiet.. these are all acceptable behaviours too. I feel we are starting to dictate that men should now be in touch with their feelings, and share and show empathy, and if they don't then they are clearly backwards or some sort of caveman. But that isn't the case either, in the same way there is nothing wrong with crying or sharing your emotions. 

Toxic masculinity is often used as a term to define certain male behaviours as damaging, and yes for some people it is damaging. Yet there are many aspects of masculinity that are actually quite helpful and not damaging. The idea that I must remain strong and brave and not cry and not share my feelings.. well as a man I am absolutely fine with this. In fact I feel little value in discussing my emotions over and over to people, it simply doesn't help any more than thinking it over in my own mind. And I don't really cry.. because I don't feel the need very often. 

Part of that is surely cultural, but part of that is possibly just how my brain works. I feel a bit like there is a certain pressure now to have more feminine qualities, to be more in touch with my feelings, and that to not do that is seem as something incredibly negative. As a man I also have a support system that are my buddies. We might not open up to each other in the same way that women might do , but its still comradery, and serves a function even if it doesn't work in the same way a bunch of women might discuss their problems with each other. There is nothing toxic about any of it.
 

Thank you!

Men's brains are different than women's in certain ways although much of our brains are the same. That's just a fact. How much of a difference there is has been a subject of contentious debate and will be for a long time to come.  The idea of gender as opposed to sex just clouds the issue even more. Again, at the risk of going off topic, the default sex of mammalian embryos is female. Left alone without the influence of the SRY gene on the Y chromosome to differentiate an ovary into testes, an embryo will continue to develop as a female. In rare cases when the gene doesn't activate, an embryo can be genetically male (XY) yet develop as female. How the brain develops in utero (eg, exposure to androgens) or as a result of influences after birth into gender identity is something that's just now being studied but with very interesting results. 

Anyway...

I don't think a man who doesn't like to talk about things as a caveman or negative at all, even though it might be maddening at times. I just shrug my shoulders and think "well, he's a guy and that's what guys do." It's unfortunate, though, that many women do think that. I just had a discussion about this last night with my 20 year old daughter who doesn't understand why her boyfriend doesn't like to talk very much, or doesn't respond in the lengthy way she would like him to. I'm trying to get her to understand that he's not doing it to hurt her and to not take it personally. And yet, I can see the utter confusion on my son's face when his girlfriend says or does something just can't wrap his head around. 

My rule to both of them is: don't make it more complicated than it has to be. If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. Enjoy and accept each other's differences and you'll be much happier for it. 

[Darzin]

11 hours ago, peterbound said:

And i'm not sure i'm troubled... just really, really interested it in.  I belong to a culture that still celebrates the ideas of it (and I don't see that going away), and I still think there are large swaths of the country that still see it as something that needs to be part of their lives.  I just want to make sure that I'm staying ahead of upcoming changes.  Folks on here are so progressive they might as well be futurists, so I figure anything getting posted on here gives me about a 10-20 time frame to prep for it. 

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. 

[Ice Queen]

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.

Now that I'm on the gray side of 45, I'm going to say that it's partly a function of age. Back when we're in our teens and 20's, we're attracted to the loudmouth fools because they're aggressive and will most likely pass on good genes to our children--that cockiness and flamboyance is a human male's version of peacock feathers. And it works.