Hyper-masculinity & Hyper-femininity

[Ocean of Notions]

You can't be serious. Comparing the level of Gould's malicious slander, ideological motivation, and scientific incompetence that he displays in Mismeasure to what Dawkins and Diamond write about evolution?

Dawkins and Diamond nowhere near describe fringe positions of the sciences they represent. Gould has written a "masterpiece of deception", "a paleontologist's distorted view of what psychologists think, untutored in even the most elementary facts of the science."

Hahahaha, I was wondering when you were going to show up. :) HE, I think we both know better than to get into this with each other. You love biological determinism and I'm an anthropologist. We can never be. Never. It breaks my heart, but it's true.

As for Dawkins and Diamond, they wrote plenty outside of their own discipline. Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel? I haven't met many anthropologists that take that seriously. Then again, I haven't met many biologists or psychologists that really understood social theory, not to say that there aren't any, it's just that it's not something emphasised in their studies. I find that ethics and theory within "harder" sciences take a back seat, esp. compared to social sciences where ethnics and theory is of paramount importance.

[Happy Ent]

You love biological determinism [...]

No I don’t. Just as little as I love cultural determinism. Both positions are inane re homo sapiens, and I don’t like that you associate me with either.

[Ocean of Notions]

No I don’t. Just as little as I love cultural determinism. Both positions are inane re homo sapiens, and I don’t like that you associate me with either.

Baby, I'm sorry, but we can still never be. :)

[Ran]

This thread has gone rather far from the topic of what's perceived as hypermasculine and hyperfeminine. May be an idea to move back in that direction?

To clarify, I'd enjoy seeing a separate thread looking at all this anthropological material and this claim that women are "more" sexually selected than men (I am dubious), but for the purpose of this thread it seems to me that it ends up becoming pretty speculative as to what it can or can't say about modern Western normative of masculinity and femininity. Beyond, maybe, saying that history shows a diversity of viewpoints. ;)

[MinDonner]

*holds nose, jumps back in* (sorry Ran, but I only just got to catch up)

But femininity is defined by physiology.

Clearly not; how can you dismiss the social cues so cavalierly (if that's a word)?

Would ancient men really have made statues of women with huge breasts and exaggerated vulvae if men possessed the same characteristics?

Er. How do you know men made these statues? How do you know they were made for sexual purposes? You don't go looking at Chinese Buddha statues and saying "Obviously women in ancient China were really into jolly fat men, or they wouldn't have made these statues" - out of context these speculations are useless.

Ok, thats great...but you can't have that info retroactive to 20,000 years ago, so you just have to make educated observations. You can't simply dismiss it.

"Educated observations" is a nice euphemism for circular reasoning, but it doesn't change the fact of what it is. If your train of thought goes "I think women like muscly men... so therefore prehistoric women did too... so therefore they passed that preference on to their daughters... so therefore women are programmed to like muscly men!" - there might be a few problems.

But as to whether nutrition = larger breasts, that's just absurd.

:huh: I put on 3 stone and went up 2 cup sizes. True story. I bet you'd get some lovely moobs too if you ate too much; does that make them sexually-selected as well?

Oh, and back the topic of men exerting sexually selective pressure on women:

I just remembered about this massacre type thing I learned in Anth last semester. There's a site in Germany or something, Paleolithic, where they found an entire hunter-gatherer band dead - except for teenage women. Every other age group was present. But not the young women. I'm gonna googles it.

Maybe the young women committed the massacre? Case closed, yer honour.

[Guest Raidne]

Why does everyone end up talking biology in a discussion of categories that are explicitly culturally constructed, anyway? Who knows if there even was any idea of masculine/feminine in hunter/gatherer societies?

ETA: Also, for me, Tyler Durden IS hypermasculine - attitude, bearing, and the drive and ability to form one's private army certainly play more of a role in that perception than his weight, which was necessary for the subsistence-level of existence that the character promoted. Movie wouldn't have been the same if he sat around waxing his chest and drinking weight gaining shakes. Not now Chief, I'm in the fucking zone. *shudders* For me, those guys are almost downright feminine in their total preoccupation with appearance. I mean, they get on a stage and pose. That's not fighting off tigers, that's a fucking beauty pageant.

[ErikConrad]

I put on 3 stone and went up 2 cup sizes. True story.

I think what Jurble means is that there is a reason why the extra weight gets stored in breasts, and not around your elbows, say. And humans differ from other apes in that perfectly fed specimens in zoo's don't develop human-like breasts/bums.

Now I disagree with Jurble in that the reason is directly to do with sexual attractiveness. Surely females didn't grow bewbs cuz guys thought that was hawt. I'd rather say the reason human females have large breasts is biological. I'm no expert, but perhaps it's better for breastfeeding, or maybe its the least inconvenient way to store vital fats (bulging elbows, ehhh...?)

This is all female coding so far. Now male coding probably recognizes signs of fertility, that would seem logical to get the most healthy offspring. Just like females are coded to recognize fertile males. (don't underestimate smell in all this btw)

Anyway, like I said earlier - it's all too convoluted. Yes females have more obvious secondary sexual characteristics, but Jurble, you cannot conclude that thus males exert (more?) sexual selective pressure on females.

Why does everyone end up talking biology in a discussion of categories that are explicitly culturally constructed, anyway?

Culturally constructed, maybe, but on a biological foundation - so not 'explicitly'.

Ran: back on track... what track, though??

Stego: I don't think I would trade with a bodybuilder for a million dollars

[Ran]

Durden certainly represents a certain kind of unrestrained, hyper-masculine id (and, in a certain sense, is a critique of this, though many fans of the film don't actually get this, I think; readers of the book may have picked it up more readily). And Ser Not Appearing Yet has shown a male sex symbol (is he a boxer?) in the Phillipines who's certainly not musclebound. I'm not sure being sexually appealing = hyper-masculinity as I define it, because for me the hyper- part connotes an excess or exaggeration of traits... but obviously, just what is hyper-masculine or hyper-feminine varies from person to person.

I see in fashion, certainly, hyper-feminine is used for an aesthetic that exaggerates explicitly cultural traits: airy, demure, frilly, girly... Funny, the example I was going to link is from Kara Janx, who I was reading about not an hour ago in relation to Project Runway. In any case, that certainly fits Linda's view point, and that of others expressed her.

Is the exaggeration of physical traits, the sort of hyper-femininity I'm thinking about, very much a male construction? Are physical exaggerations to the point of what many call excess -- the McGrath's and the Coco's of the world -- more like hyper-sexualization?

I think so, probably, now that I think about it... In fact, is "feminine" an asexual word? "Masculine" certainly implies (in my mind) a certain sexuality, whereas "feminine" is, perhaps, much more passive and objectified. Again, Linda (who's too busy to take part in the thread *sniffs and tugs braid*) feels that someone like ... Marilyn Monroe, and other "sexpots", aren't feminine so much as "womanly". Do others have that experience?

[Guest Raidne]

I think so, probably, now that I think about it... In fact, is "feminine" an asexual word? "Masculine" certainly implies (in my mind) a certain sexuality, whereas "feminine" is, perhaps, much more passive and objectified. Again, Linda (who's too busy to take part in the thread *sniffs and tugs braid*) feels that someone like ... Marilyn Monroe, and other "sexpots", aren't feminine so much as "womanly". Do others have that experience?

I think that's just the Victorian idea of femininity conflicting with the more modern and/or Renaissance idea of femininity. It would be interesting to see what, if anything, is a common part of femininity in all cultures. I would guess that masculinity is more stable, but their are certainly places and periods where adornment was consistent with being manly.

[Stego]

You would give your left nut, and your right... They'd both be shrivelled raisins from the juicing. ;-p

Oh, how cute! Ignorant old wives tales!

[Datepalm]

I think so, probably, now that I think about it... In fact, is "feminine" an asexual word? "Masculine" certainly implies (in my mind) a certain sexuality, whereas "feminine" is, perhaps, much more passive and objectified. Again, Linda (who's too busy to take part in the thread *sniffs and tugs braid*) feels that someone like ... Marilyn Monroe, and other "sexpots", aren't feminine so much as "womanly". Do others have that experience?

"womanly" has a certain homey, sex-less, matronly quality to me, but thats just pure semantics. "Manly" cracks me up, as its used only in trashy romances or by Tom Clancy, and has something of the connotations of 'trying too hard', that Raidne mentioned with bobybuilders. Its too much of an act, primped, powedered and presented - which is not very stereotypically masculine. (I brought up tyler Durden as hypermasculine early in the other thread, and then was seriously doubting my taste in men as everyone else brought him percisely as the prime example of unmasculine, so i'm glad to not completely be on my own)

OTOH, Coco dosen't seem 'hyper femenine' to me in that wider somewhat intangible cultural sense either - theres an agressiveness and blatancy there that again is not culturally femenine - as opposed to Marilyn Monroe: coquetishness, flirtation, sensuality, etc as opposed to agressiveness, violence, rawness, etc for masculinity.

Basically, to me body-shape here is only relevant in as far as it goes with propping up the cultural norms. Hyper-anything to me is that really shameless, un-nuanced embodiement of a stereotypical gendered persona. It probably really only works for fictional, thematic characters and media-created personas. Actual people are generally more complex.

[Stego]

This thread has gone rather far from the topic of what's perceived as hypermasculine and hyperfeminine. May be an idea to move back in that direction?

After all these years, Ran, you have to know that threads evolve into tapestries. We can't always direct them, nor should we try. The best threads are always one that are allowed to meander.

[Guest Raidne]

Culturally constructed, maybe, but on a biological foundation - so not 'explicitly'.

I don't know what you mean here. Pretending it's all rooted in biology is part of the current cultural construct. But, in fact, one huge part of biologically being a woman is menstruation, and I don't see anyone but radical feminists talking about that as part of womanliness.

Also, is it not telling to anyone else that feminity is always described in terms of what men find attractive, but masculinity is also about what other men think?

[Balefont]

Late to the party and unfortunately didn't have time to read it all.

Bottom line for me: Health. Outside of a pretty face if a person appears healthy to me, they are more attractive than some one who does not appear healthy. If a dude works out so much that his muscle mass appears disproportionate to his frame, I find him less attractive than a guy who is built to fit his frame.

Likewise for women. If a woman is slim yet adds on huge fake tits, she is less attractive in my eyes.

[Happy Ent]

Also, is it not telling to anyone else that feminity is always described in terms of what men find attractive, but masculinity is also about what other men think?

Above, I identified “gossip” as my best attempt to identify a feminine trait, and made it explicit how unattractive it is. (But then, I always aspire to be the exception that confirms all your rules, Raidne.)

[Ran]

Raidne,

Also, is it not telling to anyone else that feminity is always described in terms of what men find attractive, but masculinity is also about what other men think?

I certainly seemed to come across this as I pondered it further.

It'd be interesting to get people to list words and images that express masculinity and femininity to them, and see how they match up across gender lines.

[MinDonner]

Above, I identified “gossip” as my best attempt to identify a feminine trait, and made it explicit how unattractive it is. (But then, I always aspire to be the exception that confirms all your rules, Raidne.)

You mentioned "gossip" as a female trait, as opposed to "hierarchy" as a male trait... but honestly, I'm having trouble seeing how the two differ. A lot of male hierarchical thinking tends to concentrate on how their own status is affected by the foibles or successes of others ("his wife cheated on him with me so I win!"); a lot of female gossip seeks to reinforce their own status by the same method ("What DID she think she was wearing? (so I win)")... is "gossip" merely defined as "unimportant wimminz chatter" as opposed to "TOTALLY IMPORTANT MAN STUFF"?

[Eurytus]

ETA: Also, for me, Tyler Durden IS hypermasculine - attitude, bearing, and the drive and ability to form one's private army certainly play more of a role in that perception than his weight, which was necessary for the subsistence-level of existence that the character promoted. Movie wouldn't have been the same if he sat around waxing his chest and drinking weight gaining shakes. Not now Chief, I'm in the fucking zone. *shudders* For me, those guys are almost downright feminine in their total preoccupation with appearance. I mean, they get on a stage and pose. That's not fighting off tigers, that's a fucking beauty pageant.

Exactly right. How someone who obsesses over his appearance and devotes a large portion of his life to looking good for the approval of other men is supposed to be the epitome of masculinity is beyond me. People like Dorian Yates and Co are just as freakish in appearance, if not more so, than someone like that Coco. Whether they achieved it through surgery, chemical enhancement or obsessive working out matters little if the end result is to look abnormal.

[Happy Ent]

is "gossip" merely defined as "unimportant wimminz chatter" as opposed to "TOTALLY IMPORTANT MAN STUFF"?

No. What made you get that idea? But I’m currently unsure about the parameters under which this thread is supposed to be operating, so I won’t pursue this angle further.

[Balefont]

Masculinity

- Domineering

- "Silent type"

- Hyper-athletic: needing (as oppposed to just enjoying) the thrill of competition more than just for the sake of competing

- Appearance of strength (and not just physical)

- Unsympathetic/"tough love"

- Buck (US of Tara peeps would get this)

Feminity

- Grace/poise

- Curvy

- Make up/looks centered

- Polite/etiquette rules followed

- Delicate

- Empathetic/nurturing

- Alice (US of Tara peeps would get this)

This is harder than I thought...