Greetings all, especially Kate and Sociopathic Revelation.
Kate, you wanted to discuss "healthy masculinity" so here we go. Re. the topic , I'll take a very brief stab at it and let others chime in as they see fit.
I think another person (MAUS?) stated what it is not, that being "female with a penis," and he was spot-on with that remark. I don't care what Hugo says about biological determination, etc., (because frankly, he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about on the topic) there are fundamental biologically-based behavioral differences between male and female humans. We even see this in in structural aspects like brain physiology and anatomy, etc., which provide measurable clues for hypothesizing sources of behavioral differences. However, I'm not very good at defining "healthy masculinity" - I'm like the U.S. Supreme Court justice who said about pornography: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." I'll offer my armchair definition just the same.
Male humans are more prone to be visually oriented (vs. verbally oriented), risk-taking "doers" (vs. cautious "talkers"), and competitive (vs. cooperative). Feminists have strong aversions to typical, healthy male behavior such as competition and action (this is manifest in many sports), instead preferring the feminine traits of cooperation and communication (i.e., talking); cooperation manifests itself in girls' tendency to do as they are told by, e.g., teachers, sit quietly, do what they're told, etc. Males are also more prone to be "risk-takers" while females are more prone to "play it safe;" both of these behaviors are grounded in evolution and other general biological principles.
Therefore, I would say that healthy masculinity contains a majority of the above-stated elements, i.e., action, competition, risk-taking, and stoicism (vs. talkativeness) while at the same time balancing those with lesser amounts of feminine traits, all while practicing the general principle of "do no harm." The trouble we have now is that our society has 'gone feminine' and thus values all things feminine, and at the same time not only does not value masculinity, but has lowered itself to the level whereby masculine traits are seen as "toxic." (As an aside, at Hugo's he attributed the term "toxic masculinity" to MRAs when in fact it was feminists who coined the phrase. This is just one of many examples of Hugo's and other feminist's propensity for transference and projection.)
That's a start - others join the discussion as you wish.
(edited twice to close a parenthetical, fix various spelling and syntactical blunders, and to clarify)
I think another person (MAUS?) stated what it is not, that being "female with a penis," and he was spot-on with that remark. I don't care what Hugo says about biological determination, etc., (because frankly, he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about on the topic) there are fundamental biologically-based behavioral differences between male and female humans. We even see this in in structural aspects like brain physiology and anatomy, etc., which provide measurable clues for hypothesizing sources of behavioral differences.
And you have hit a hot point with me.
"Gender as a Construct" is not a fact. It is not a theory. It doesn't even rise to the dignity of a hypothesis. It is so contradicted by reams upon reams of hard, scientific data obtained through predictive and falsifiable, empiric observation that to even call it an "Article of Faith" is to lend it too much repute.
Last time this came up at Hugo's, I was challenged to "Leaven my assertion with a little proof." So I did. Several posts worth of proofs, links to studies, bibliographies, et. al. So what was the reaction? Counterproofs? Critical analysis of the studies?
No.
It was basically a hysterical "You're dissing soft sciences!" and "Now you're just being a typical male and playing dominance games."
IOW - they didn't have jack or shit.
So if someone wants to argue the "Gender as a Construct" fairy tale, it should be noted that arguing from a very unproven premise isn't going to get one very far.
So if someone wants to argue the "Gender as a Construct" fairy tale, it should be noted that arguing from a very unproven premise isn't going to get one very far.
Without a doubt Gonz. As a biomedical scientist, when people pull that BS on me, just before my eyes glaze-over I think to myself "This poor sucker's been drinking too much purple Koolaid."
Well, the radfems have to stick to the gender construction model in spite of scientific proof, otherwise their other arguments won't work
This is an extremely important topic.
There has been some excellent writing on the idea of the "Mature Masculine" and what that looks like. My favorite is Robert Moore and his five book series on the four masculine archetypes. The intro book is titled "King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine." Moore shows how a mature man needs all four of these qualities working optimally and also shows how all four have been shamed by our culture.
King - gets bad grades for misuse of power
Warrior - Oh all that violence
Lover - oh those evil men pushing sex on people who don't want it
Magician - Those men who don't do anything....
This is the feminist trick. They shame the immature masculine and assume that is the core of masculinity. Moore rightly points out that the mature masculine is what has gotten us to where we are today and is in jeopardy now due to cultural attacks and on a lack of initiations for our young boys. It's a fascinating read.
I think another person (MAUS?) stated what it is not, that being "female with a penis," and he was spot-on with that remark. I don't care what Hugo says about biological determination, etc., (because frankly, he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about on the topic) there are fundamental biologically-based behavioral differences between male and female humans. We even see this in in structural aspects like brain physiology and anatomy, etc., which provide measurable clues for hypothesizing sources of behavioral differences.
And you have hit a hot point with me.
"Gender as a Construct" is not a fact. It is not a theory. It doesn't even rise to the dignity of a hypothesis. It is so contradicted by reams upon reams of hard, scientific data obtained through predictive and falsifiable, empiric observation that to even call it an "Article of Faith" is to lend it too much repute.
Last time this came up at Hugo's, I was challenged to "Leaven my assertion with a little proof." So I did. Several posts worth of proofs, links to studies, bibliographies, et. al. So what was the reaction? Counterproofs? Critical analysis of the studies?
No.
It was basically a hysterical "You're dissing soft sciences!" and "Now you're just being a typical male and playing dominance games."
IOW - they didn't have jack or shit.
So if someone wants to argue the "Gender as a Construct" fairy tale, it should be noted that arguing from a very unproven premise isn't going to get one very far.
The odd thing about gender construct is the people who are supporting it are actually favoring a patriarchy. Here's my reasoning.
1. The claim is gender is a construct and is based on three elements, genitals, hormones and how people react to you. The theory is remove or reverse hormones and genitals and change the way people react to you and you can turn a boy into a girl (the David Reamer(sp?) case with Dr. Money that was a failure).
2. Since gender is a construct and feminists believe the world would be a better place if run by women, its possible to raise boys to be like girls to make the world a better place.
3. The term girl is a social construct.
4. Society is a patriarchy with no amount of matriarchy influence (again according to feminism)
5. So since the definition of "girl" is a patriarchy definition, raising boys to be like girls is raising them to be the patriarchy definition of "girl".
6. Therefore feminism favors a patriarchy since they want boys to be raised like the patriarchy definition of girl.
Nobody would dream of making the assertion that gender is a construct when refering to other species.
In one of the more angry rants I sent to the CBC in protest of their feminist bias in news editorial and interview shows I said:
"You cannot turn a rooster into a chicken by politically indoctrinating it, and don't let any three-tited butch strutting bull hen, or gender confused capon tell you any different. When those cucoos and looney birds find kinder things to say about us roosters, I will consider speaking more kindly of them."
(Biscuit Queen...have you noticed how often the threads come back to chickens? I really don't know what to make of this...the year of the rooster was back in 2005)
"You cannot turn a rooster into a chicken by politically indoctrinating it, and don't let any three-tited butch strutting bull hen, or gender confused capon tell you any different. When those cucoos and looney birds find kinder things to say about us roosters, I will consider speaking more kindly of them."
Great stuff Maus!
And then over at feministing, you have this: http://feministing.com/archives/006977.html (http://feministing.com/archives/006977.html)
I am very excited about the new growth of masculinity studies, the potentials it holds for feminism, and to help us in thinking about all the diverse sides of sexuality and gender studies, as we think about gender equity.
Some of the comments are predictable, yet priceless.
Once again, women wanting to define masculinity for us.
When I get some spare time, remind me to work on redefining femininity for women...
(Biscuit Queen...have you noticed how often the threads come back to chickens? I really don't know what to make of this...the year of the rooster was back in 2005)
Because chickens are the meaning of the universe.
Where is that chicken smiley?
On the topic of gender, it appear scientists are now leaning towards the theory that a small, mostly undocumented part of the brain is responsible for personal gender. (Personal as in not what gender the doctors declared you, but what you yourself feel you are). This part of the brain determines whether the brain itself develops into a "structurally male or female brain", with no regards to chromosomal gender. There's been some fascinating results, but it's still mostly a theory. I'll have to try find a link if anyone's interested. Far more plausible than many theories I've heard on the subject, but still a developing area.
But yeah, that's off topic.
I think 'healthy masculinity' would involve all the traits characteristic to the individual in question. This of course would be dependent on those traits being acceptable by human standards, i.e he's not a murderer. Societal standards are at best misguided and to be ignored. (As much as possible without breaking the law or suffering undue hardship). Aggressiveness is a character trait that gets many people far in life, it merely needs to be put to bear in the right directions. It's a drive, in most cases, rather closely linked to instinct itself IMO.
Therefore, I would say that healthy masculinity contains a majority of the above-stated elements, i.e., action, competition, risk-taking, and stoicism (vs. talkativeness) while at the same time balancing those with lesser amounts of feminine traits, all while practicing the general principle of "do no harm."
Yeah, that pretty much summed it up. I think all those elements are the province of the individual not the gender, although the quantities will vary from city to city etc. In my experience (which is continents removed from almost all of you) both genders have a predominance of the so-called 'masculine' traits, as opposed to the so-called 'feminine' traits. I think it has a lot to do with society. However stoicism and talkativeness are individual traits too, and it's damaging for a talkative person to try remain silent in order to fit a stereotype; certainly whinging isn't a positive attribute but some people tend to bottle it up with eventually detrimental results. And some of the greatest movers and shakers have been big, loud, long talkers. Communication is a powerful tool, perhaps one of the most powerful each human possesses, considering how vastly it has changed the face of humanity and the planet.
Almost everyone should be aggressive in some way. A being (animal or human) that is too placid and apathetic about its own existence will rarely live for long, save for a protective mechanism in place (i.e a herd to protect it when it chooses the more passive stance). I don't mean the stereotypical portrayal of aggression that causes pain to others, just the type of aggression that drives people to achieve. Not many people achieve great things by being passive to every opposing force they encounter.
from feministing:
I think this is a big chunk of why misogynistic men (MRAs and the like) find feminism and women who don't adhere to traditional "feminine" gender roles so threatening--because as we broaden the definition of what is considered acceptably "feminine", the definition of what is "masculine" becomes correspondingly narrower. Naturally, they view this as an attack on their very identity, resent that the fine line they walk is getting even finer, and blame us for making it happen.
The stupid thing is most of you guys are not in favor of the traditional role of women in large part,
because it means them being soley dependant on you. You want women to take care of themselves for real, instead of saying they want to take care of themselves with your money. You have more faith intheir ability to take care of themselves than they do.
They completely have no idea what MRAs stand for. The odd thing is, I see very few MRAs who are mysogenistic, and so far, everything MRAs stand for is truly about equality-50/50 parenting, making DV shelters = gender makeup of victims, equal punishments for equal crimes, equal pay for actual work done, equal reproductive rights, etc. I cannot think of a single MRA issue which is not directly about equality. Not one based on taking away women's rights or income.
MRA men do not think feminism is attacking masculinity because of their own choices for themselves, it is because they expect men to finance those choices. If they all wanted to go out and work, then MRAs would not care. It is when they expect to work an easier job for less hours and still get paid the same is when you get angry. It is when They expect to work 10 years less before being promoted to CEO that you get angry. Geez, why would you get angry because a woman wanted to take care of herself for real? :rolle:
BTW, it is really hard to post when your pet rats keep running over the keyboard!!
I think people here give feminists way way WAY too much credit.
I don't think they are that complicated. They want all the benefits of "equality" with all the benefits of "chivalry" at the same time.
Take the most hard core feminist out there. Then have Denzel Washington or Leo DiCaprio or Russell Crowe or George Clooney rub on them and it's game over. They'll pull their panties off just as fast as any other groupie starstruck by the money, the fame, the good looks and the power.
A feminist at her core is just another chick, and frankly, I think chicks aren't all that complicated.
They want
1) Money
2) Good looks
3) Fame/Power
4) Their friends jealous that they can get 1-3
But everyone knows when a woman crosses the age of 35-40, the odds of her ever getting any of the above decline drastically. I mean we are talking falling through the basement here.
The typical chick trick is to get everyone talking and mulling and in deep thought to blow a smokescreen over the fact that what they really want isn't all that hard. They want your cash so they don't have to work. They want your good looks because they want the best genetics for those kids you are going to pay for. They want you to have fame/power because socially, a woman is held in esteem by the male she secures and subsequently the success of his career. And finally, since chicks can't really stand other chicks that much, they want to rub shit in each others faces about what they got that their "friends" can't get.
I don't want to be rude, but the feminist definition of "masculinity" means they get 1-4 or some combo of it without having to look like a whore about it all.
Here's my definition -
Get as much sex as you can from them as safe as you can, don't let them get their claws into your wallet or your gonads and just wait them out, because after 40, they have lost most of their social power in getting any of the things that they want.
Chicks talk about all kinds of things but those words are hollow to me. What do they do? They ask you what you do for a living about half a second after you meet them. That's all they care about. That's why they love to get MRAs into this quagmire of debate, because they don't want to look like whores who only care about how much money men have ( no newsflash, deep down, it just comes back to how much money you have)
Chicks want you to argue with them, because it validates them. Because chicks love attention. They love it almost as much as they love your money. ( I said almost...) They don't actually listen to a word you say, they just bask in the glow of said attention.
Feminists don't care about "masculinity", its just some smoke grenades they throw while they figure out how to get at your wallet without having to feel guilty about it.
I don't even bother arguing with chicks anymore. There's no point. I don't feel the need to validate them or give them the attention they crave. Trust me, anyone who walks on this board looking for an "open dialogue with MRAs" and calls themselves a feminist just wants attention. She won't actually listen to a word you say.
You don't need to argue with them, wait for them to cross 40 years of age and that will say all that really needs to be said in the end.
JBPH
from feministing:
I think this is a big chunk of why misogynistic men (MRAs and the like) find feminism and women who don't adhere to traditional "feminine" gender roles so threatening--because as we broaden the definition of what is considered acceptably "feminine", the definition of what is "masculine" becomes correspondingly narrower. Naturally, they view this as an attack on their very identity, resent that the fine line they walk is getting even finer, and blame us for making it happen.
The stupid thing is most of you guys are not in favor of the traditional role of women in large part, because it means them being soley dependant on you. You want women to take care of themselves for real, instead of saying they want to take care of themselves with your money. You have more faith intheir ability to take care of themselves than they do.
They completely have no idea what MRAs stand for. The odd thing is, I see very few MRAs who are mysogenistic, and so far, everything MRAs stand for is truly about equality-50/50 parenting, making DV shelters = gender makeup of victims, equal punishments for equal crimes, equal pay for actual work done, equal reproductive rights, etc. I cannot think of a single MRA issue which is not directly about equality. Not one based on taking away women's rights or income.
MRA men do not think feminism is attacking masculinity because of their own choices for themselves, it is because they expect men to finance those choices. If they all wanted to go out and work, then MRAs would not care. It is when they expect to work an easier job for less hours and still get paid the same is when you get angry. It is when They expect to work 10 years less before being promoted to CEO that you get angry. Geez, why would you get angry because a woman wanted to take care of herself for real? :rolle:
BTW, it is really hard to post when your pet rats keep running over the keyboard!!
I have no problems with feminists defining the feminine and defining it as broadly as they wish. However they take it upon themselves to be the sole arbiters of what constitutes the masculine. They have no right to do this.
I have no problems with feminists defining the feminine and defining it as broadly as they wish. However they take it upon themselves to be the sole arbiters of what constitutes the masculine. They have no right to do this.
Exactly. Not only that, they seem to think they have the right to re-engineer society to meet
their ideal. Who cares what men think? Men have never been in a position to do this. In the past society evolved on its own over milliennia, influenced by both genders.
"On the topic of gender, it appear scientists are now leaning towards the theory that a small, mostly undocumented part of the brain is responsible for personal gender. (Personal as in not what gender the doctors declared you, but what you yourself feel you are). This part of the brain determines whether the brain itself develops into a "structurally male or female brain", with no regards to chromosomal gender. There's been some fascinating results, but it's still mostly a theory. I'll have to try find a link if anyone's interested. Far more plausible than many theories I've heard on the subject, but still a developing area."
Yes, please find the link.
"However stoicism and talkativeness are individual traits too, and it's damaging for a talkative person to try remain silent in order to fit a stereotype; certainly whinging isn't a positive attribute but some people tend to bottle it up with eventually detrimental results."
You know what, though... "remaining silent" may not make sense to you, but it doesn't mean the people that "remain silent" are wrong. I've heard many people use the female trait of "talking through their problems" & hurl it at men to make men feel "broken" for not speaking about their feelings. What works for women doesn't always work for men & vice versa. Men try to solve their problems. If "talking" about them isn't part of the solution, men don't want any part of it. This is yet another example of how men & women are different & it's not "society" making this happen. In fact, society keeps trying to stomp this trait out of men, but it hasn't worked yet. It's a perfect example of how we're just "wired" differently.
I think people here give feminists way way WAY too much credit.
I don't think they are that complicated. They want all the benefits of "equality" with all the benefits of "chivalry" at the same time.
Take the most hard core feminist out there. Then have Denzel Washington or Leo DiCaprio or Russell Crowe or George Clooney rub on them and it's game over. They'll pull their panties off just as fast as any other groupie starstruck by the money, the fame, the good looks and the power.
A feminist at her core is just another chick, and frankly, I think chicks aren't all that complicated.
They want
1) Money
2) Good looks
3) Fame/Power
4) Their friends jealous that they can get 1-3
But everyone knows when a woman crosses the age of 35-40, the odds of her ever getting any of the above decline drastically. I mean we are talking falling through the basement here.
The typical chick trick is to get everyone talking and mulling and in deep thought to blow a smokescreen over the fact that what they really want isn't all that hard. They want your cash so they don't have to work. They want your good looks because they want the best genetics for those kids you are going to pay for. They want you to have fame/power because socially, a woman is held in esteem by the male she secures and subsequently the success of his career. And finally, since chicks can't really stand other chicks that much, they want to rub shit in each others faces about what they got that their "friends" can't get.
I don't want to be rude, but the feminist definition of "masculinity" means they get 1-4 or some combo of it without having to look like a whore about it all.
Here's my definition -
Get as much sex as you can from them as safe as you can, don't let them get their claws into your wallet or your gonads and just wait them out, because after 40, they have lost most of their social power in getting any of the things that they want.
Chicks talk about all kinds of things but those words are hollow to me. What do they do? They ask you what you do for a living about half a second after you meet them. That's all they care about. That's why they love to get MRAs into this quagmire of debate, because they don't want to look like whores who only care about how much money men have ( no newsflash, deep down, it just comes back to how much money you have)
Chicks want you to argue with them, because it validates them. Because chicks love attention. They love it almost as much as they love your money. ( I said almost...) They don't actually listen to a word you say, they just bask in the glow of said attention.
Feminists don't care about "masculinity", its just some smoke grenades they throw while they figure out how to get at your wallet without having to feel guilty about it.
I don't even bother arguing with chicks anymore. There's no point. I don't feel the need to validate them or give them the attention they crave. Trust me, anyone who walks on this board looking for an "open dialogue with MRAs" and calls themselves a feminist just wants attention. She won't actually listen to a word you say.
You don't need to argue with them, wait for them to cross 40 years of age and that will say all that really needs to be said in the end.
JBPH
Jack - Generalizing in a negative manner about men or women is against the rules here. You might want to preface these sorts of judgments with a qualifier like "The women I have known" or "From my experience" etc.
Not everyone is bottling it up when they do not say anything. I of course would explode if I had to stop talking, but my husband Dave would rather not talk about some things. He just works through them and puts them behind him.
And yes, I know it worked for him, and no he is not a seething pool of repressed unspoken trauma. He just really does not need to verbalize to work things out.
Here is my theory, and I am sticking to it. Men can think without talking. Women cannot think unless it comes out their mouths. Only once it is spoken can they start to think about it, usually out loud.
That is why when Dave is gone I talk to myself all the time. :greener:
And yes I am aware somewhere out there is a woman who can think silently, so it is most women, not all :angel4:.
What pisses me off about feminists is that they expect to act like a bunch of male-bashing, man-hating cunts and still expect men to want them.
Fuck that shit.
What pisses me off about feminists is that they expect to act like a bunch of male-bashing, man-hating cunts and still expect men to want them.
Fuck that shit.
Gonzo, I now know that you are a man after my own heart. When academic scholarship has gone to such lengths to pervert the truth and commit the travesty of cloaking biggotry inthe cap and gown of scholarship and speak there sexist "political lesbianism"(go ahead...GOOGLE that term and be enlightened)...in academic high speach...the only appropriate response is to flatly tell them off in ordinary sailor talk and refuse thereafter to take them as seriously as they take themselves.
In you PM you will find an invitation to join the Stepford Men's Club....tell themthat MAUS sent you....I do not need to welcome you to Men Going Their Own Way....you have already done that...freely and of your own will. :sunny:
@ bluedye:
Yes, please find the link.
I couldn't find the original article. Sorry, my bad for referring to it without backup. It was old though, and while searching for it I found more recent information. If you search for "male female dichotomy" or with similar keywords you're practically guaranteed to find some interesting scientific articles. I got sidetracked. :greener:
You know what, though... "remaining silent" may not make sense to you, but it doesn't mean the people that "remain silent" are wrong.
It does make sense to me. I've always hated talking about my personal problems, and people think that means I'm fucked up. I didn't say people who remain silent are wrong at all, you've misread me there. But the theory that healthy masculinity includes stoicism is flawed.
One of my closest male friends is very talkative, and I respect that it's a trait of his as an individual. He has every right to voice his thoughts without being condemned as sissy or unmasculine, and that's the type of man I had in mind when saying that if the individual prefers to talk then remaining silent isn't necessarily a healthy ingredient of his personal masculinity. Verbal males may not be the majority but as always, things should be taken on an individual by individual basis.
"But the theory that healthy masculinity includes stoicism is flawed."
No, it's really not. Men are told to share their feelings more. That is an attempt to get men to act more like women. If men don't want to share their feelings, it should be done right there. Part of healthy masculinity includes letting men remain silent if they choose to.
If there were theories that told women to stop talking as much as they do & keep more feelings inside, I doubt many people would consider that practice "healthy" femininity.
It's social engineering & it doesn't work.
"One of my closest male friends is very talkative, and I respect that it's a trait of his as an individual. He has every right to voice his thoughts without being condemned as sissy or unmasculine, and that's the type of man I had in mind when saying that if the individual prefers to talk then remaining silent isn't necessarily a healthy ingredient of his personal masculinity. Verbal males may not be the majority but as always, things should be taken on an individual by individual basis."
More anecdotal evidence. The thing is... What you are describing is more of a healthy personal tendency than what falls under the healthy masculinity blanket.
Here's the definition of masculine:
"masculine: 1 a : MALE b : having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man."
Talking a lot & sharing feelings are not usually associated with men, so calling it part of "healthy masculinity" is a stretch.
Hello Bluedye
I think people should just be allowed to live out their genetic predispositions. A lot of men are shortening their lives because they are bottling up their emotions. On the other hand it's bad when you see men over emoting to impress feminists or partners. Lets all just be ourselves...
I think men tend to talk only to those who they are very close to. I would guess that is usually a spouse or a life long best friend. I would also guess most men only have one or two friends with whom they are that close. Where women will tend to talk with relatively new friends about deeply personal things, I do not think most men do.
Now this does have disadvantages, such as here when we are trying to get these men's stories out. I have seen men in the father's rights movement with the need to tell that story, and they will tell it to other fathers who have been through the same thing. Some of the stories I have heard from fathers when I was protesting are absolutely heartbreaking. The sad thing was how appreciative those men were that I was willing to listen to them. They had lost not only their children, but the woman who was their confidant-they effectively lost their support network in the process.
Women respond to personal stories, and in order for women to comprehend what men are going through, we will need some men who are willing to speak up and talk about painful things. This wil be hard for many, who are just not made to spill their pain to strangers.
I have seen many men here who do just that, men who I think other wise would not be talking about it. I think having male safe spaces like this is vital to many men who simply cannot find male safe spaces in the real world.
Places they will not be told to stop whining and take it like a real man, or it is probably his fault to begin with.
The point I was trying to make was that sharing feelings is not something men tend to do. If they do it, that's fine. ...If they don't, that's also fine.
Speaking about feelings is not something that men tend to do. ...So placing that in the "masculine" category is not right.
I think it's perfectly fine for women to wear their hair short, but it's not something they tend to do. Long hair is usually associated with femininity. ...You'd never hear: "Sally wanted to look more feminine, so she chopped off her long hair."
If there are no activities that can be classified as "masculine" or "feminine" the words completely lose their meanings.
That's all I'm saying.
@ bluedye:
Part of healthy masculinity includes letting men remain silent if they choose to.
Yes, I'm not saying that people should be forced to talk about their feelings. But having stoicism as a prerequisite, a must-have ingredient of 'healthy masculinity' is flawed, since everyone is different.
"But the theory that healthy masculinity includes stoicism is flawed."
No, it's really not.
I should have put 'must' before 'include'. I generalized a bit too much there and didn't get my meaning across. I meant that stoicism or talkativeness are personal traits. Saying that all men should remain silent in order to fit someone else's definition of 'healthy masculinity' is wrong. Saying that all men should discuss their deepest emotions in order to fit someone else's definition of 'healthy masculinity' is also wrong.
Here's the definition of masculine:
"masculine: 1 a : MALE b : having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man."
And who decides what is or is not 'appropriate' there? I'm talking about more of an individual interpretation of healthy masculinity, which every man should define for himself. As everyone is an individual, they should find what's best for them and stick with it. It's not correct for anyone else to dictate to a man or a woman what constitutes 'healthy masculinity' or 'healthy femininity' especially when they're generalizing and promoting stereotypes. The majority and the minority are all individuals, despite whatever common ground they share. One man's healthy masculinity could be unhealthy for another man.
My friend is a man, and I consider his verbal predilection a healthy part of his masculinity (not a feminine/feminized trait at all) because he is free to talk about his feelings, without being pressured to communicate or being pressured to keep a stiff upper lip. If he doesn't want to talk about anything, then he simply doesn't. He's talkative because that's a trait of the character he is. It works for him, and that's the important thing; if he subscribed to all the stereotypes of 'what a man should be', that would ultimately be a waste of the unique human being he is.
Speaking about feelings is not something that men tend to do. ...So placing that in the "masculine" category is not right.
I don't see his talking about feelings as being a feminized trait either, and unhealthy to his masculinity, just because not all other men like to share that kind of information.
Just as a woman who doesn't like to share her feelings isn't necessarily exhibiting a masculine trait, or suffering with an unhealthy femininity, just because not all other women like to keep it to themselves.
Basically being able to talk freely when he wants to is a positive thing for him, and as a man (and an individual) communication is a healthy quality of
his masculinity. It benefits him. As opposed to someone spilling their guts on topics they would much rather remained theirs alone, which would not be a beneficial situation. People's experiences or views of healthy masculinity will differ, and it's healthiest for each to decide what it is, not adopt another person's blueprint.
What about non-verbal communication? In my experience women are not so good at this, they need everything 'spelled-out'
Some of the best male bonding and support are done in side-by-side activities, where your buddy's tone of voice says it all - and what's wrong with silent companionship, it has it's place too?
"Yes, I'm not saying that people should be forced to talk about their feelings. But having stoicism as a prerequisite, a must-have ingredient of 'healthy masculinity' is flawed, since everyone is different."
It's still a masculine trait, though... & if a man doesn't speak about his feelings, he can still be considered to be exercising healthy "masculinity."
"I meant that stoicism or talkativeness are personal traits. Saying that all men should remain silent in order to fit someone else's definition of 'healthy masculinity' is wrong. Saying that all men should discuss their deepest emotions in order to fit someone else's definition of 'healthy masculinity' is also wrong."
Then the word "masculine" according to you has no meaning because the all men are individuals & share no common traits that can be classified.
I disagree. While it's true everyone has individual characteristics, there are also things that can fall under the "masculine" definition that most men as a group embody.
"And who decides what is or is not 'appropriate' there? I'm talking about more of an individual interpretation of healthy masculinity, which every man should define for himself. As everyone is an individual, they should find what's best for them and stick with it. It's not correct for anyone else to dictate to a man or a woman what constitutes 'healthy masculinity' or 'healthy femininity' especially when they're generalizing and promoting stereotypes. The majority and the minority are all individuals, despite whatever common ground they share. One man's healthy masculinity could be unhealthy for another man."
Whatever works for them personally might be quite different from what can be classified as a masculine trait. This is the reason you cannot understand this issue. The word "masculine" has a meaning. You are confusing it with things that make a person happy.
If it made me happy or complete to dress up in an evening gown, paint my nails, & dance around my house with exaggerated ballet moves, it cannot be considered "masculine" now can it?
"My friend is a man, and I consider his verbal predilection a healthy part of his masculinity (not a feminine/feminized trait at all) because he is free to talk about his feelings, without being pressured to communicate or being pressured to keep a stiff upper lip. If he doesn't want to talk about anything, then he simply doesn't. He's talkative because that's a trait of the character he is. It works for him, and that's the important thing; if he subscribed to all the stereotypes of 'what a man should be', that would ultimately be a waste of the unique human being he is."
Again, that is not a masculine trait. Stop confusing what works for him personally with what is technically considered "masculine."
"Just as a woman who doesn't like to share her feelings isn't necessarily exhibiting a masculine trait, or suffering with an unhealthy femininity, just because not all other women like to keep it to themselves."
It's more of a masculine trait than a feminine trait, so you can't call it "feminine" to hold feelings inside. It's just not something usually associated with women, so it doesn't qualify.
You keep missing that point.
Words have meanings. If you'd like the word to mean something else, just use a different word.
"One of my closest male friends is very talkative, and I respect that it's a trait of his as an individual. He has every right to voice his thoughts without being condemned as sissy or unmasculine, and that's the type of man I had in mind when saying that if the individual prefers to talk then remaining silent isn't necessarily a healthy ingredient of his personal masculinity. Verbal males may not be the majority but as always, things should be taken on an individual by individual basis."
To repeat:
Words have meanings. If you'd like the word to mean something else, just use a different word.
A man that shares his feelings all the time is not exhibiting masculine traits when he's doing that. He could be very masculine in other respects & be "all man", but that particular thing is not usually associated with males, so... well, you know.
man that shares his feelings all the time is not exhibiting masculine traits when he's doing that. He could be very masculine in other respects & be "all man", but that particular thing is not usually associated with males, so... well, you know.
It is my experience that aN OVERLY verbal man is a manipulative man. They are usually someone that has learned that if they relentlessly lobby for what they want from someone, they will usually get it. I tend to drive people like this nuts, as I usually will only say "no" to someone a couple of times, then just turn my back on them or just walk away, denying them an audience.
IMHO the best work on healthy masculinity has been compiled by Waller Newell at Carleton University (Canada):
What is a Man? 3,000 Years of Wisdom on the Art of Manly Virtue (http://www.wrnewell.com/man.html)
and
The Code of Man: Love - Courage - Pride - Family - Country (http://www.wrnewell.com/press.html)
You know, the more I think about it, the more I think it's our stoicism that's got us in the dire position we are in right now. If we don't talk more, women will continue to walk all over us.
You know, the more I think about it, the more I think it's our stoicism that's got us in the dire position we are in right now. If we don't talk more, women will continue to walk all over us.
It's the double edge sword. If men speak out and complain about their situations they are shamed and ignored. If they don't speak out they are fooked by a misandrist system that favors girls and women. I figure it is better to go down swinging and to speak out.
I would consider a woman who did not like to talk about any feelings to have a more masculine personality. Men can have feminine traits, and women can have masculine traits. It does not make them bad, but it does not also make those traits normal for their gender either.
I think, Shiva, that you believe that there is no masculine or feminine innate traits other than plumbing, am I correct? If not, can you tell me what traits you find that are masculine or feminine?
@ bluedye:
I disagree.
That's cool.
@ TBQ:
I think, Shiva, that you believe that there is no masculine or feminine innate traits other than plumbing, am I correct?
No. I don't think many things are truly 'innate' at all.
If not, can you tell me what traits you find that are masculine or feminine?
I think of all traits as human traits. What I'm arguing against is the stereotyped assignment of certain traits as male or female. There are always majorities that make the study look sound, but when these studies pretend that the humans I know are complete aberrations or fallacies... Well, I disregard those studies. Marking traits as generalized qualities of a gender doesn't make much sense when you consider how vast the differences between people. Kinda like drawing up a scale of 'white' traits and 'black' traits to demonstrate what personal, individual qualities are stereotypically attributed to which race. Both races possess these traits, as 'innately' as is possible, but someone wants to draw a divider. And then draw a list of what's an appropriate, healthy attitude for a 'black' or a 'white', based on the generalized rhetoric.
I would consider a woman who did not like to talk about any feelings to have a more masculine personality.
Depends what part of the world you live in. In many countries women aren't actually encouraged to endlessly talk about their feelings, and they don't by choice. It has a lot to do with the personality, the societal attitude, etc. I think women are stereotypically big talkers about their feelings, but then again it's not any women I personally know or have known. It doesn't make them masculine in my eyes. I never viewed 'stoicism' as a male or female trait, having grown up with people of both genders who possessed this individual trait, and people of both genders who like to talk.
Stoicism isn't a healthy part of a man's masculinity if it grates against who he is as a person. If he prefers to be silent, then it's a healthy part of his masculinity. At what point do we separate the man (with all his own particular traits) from the masculinity (with all the socially accepted traits)? If he is a talkative person must he remain silent in order to be perceived as having a healthy masculinity? I know people do enforce and coerce this, and it's wrong. To me, it sounds too much like a box to put men in. A standard to hold them to, a generalization, a stereotype, so on and so forth. That's the bit I disagree with. Everyone should be free to be an individual.
Well, that's just typical gender-feminist crock-o-bull.
Statistics are extremely valid predictors of behavior in groups, and men do tend on the more stoic side of it, and this becomes markedly more true with the larger sampling of the population you examine.
It's also a false dilemma, which recognizes no degrees, and unreasonably turns "stoic" into a synonym for "emotionally stunted and damaged." This betrays a gross lack of understanding as to what the philosophy of stoicism entails.
It's one of the most basic gaps between the sexes, which you see time and again with women wanting their men to act like girlfriends, and "just listen." Get over it ladies. You bring a problem to the vast and overwhelming majority of men, expect us to try to fix it. It's what we do. Complaining to merely complain - and make no effort to correct your situation - is what we call whining.
And if you have no solution - "accept what you cannot change" as the Serenity Prayer goes - you play the cards you are dealt and either live with it, or think more outside the box.
That's stoicism. Also called "Not being a whiney bitch."
I'm with you Gonz. It's the difference between consolation and consultation.
Shiva the idea that all traits are socially constructed has pretty much been thrown out. Just look at the boys like trucks and girls like dolls idea that the fembots thought was purely socially constructed. That one got the ax when they did research and found the little boys prefer trucks and girls prefer dolls before they realize there is such a thing as gender!
Shiva, stereotypes do not just fall out of the sky. They are based on actual empirical observations of the collective kharma (meaning habitual pattern) of a like group of people.
Political correctness is a dogmatic, doctrinaire, ideologically driven, and unfortunately self imposed obligation to be obteuse and stupid.
Here is an extremely politically incorrect joke to illustrate the point:
"Picard to Enterprise...beam me up....what do you mean the Heisenberg coils are down?!!!! Nigger something up Jordi!!! Why do you think I didn't get a Scottish stereotype to serve as chief engineer?!!!"
Or for that matter did you happen to notice the schnoz on that guy from the "Commerce Guild" who was in cahoots with the dark side in Star Wars?......SPACE JEWS!!!!
Even the Farenghi are based on a stereotype that South East Asians have of Americans who they refer to as "farangs".
"Stereotype" was originally a term coined by critics of theatre productions to indicate a two dimentional under developed character....the academic plitical correctness of casually dismissing collective cultural traits that are broadly recognized in the common vernacular is simply academic conceit that should have been frankly challanged long ago....it is shallow rhetorical crap.
@ dr e:
Shiva the idea that all traits are socially constructed has pretty much been thrown out.
When I referred to social influences or anything social, I'm not talking about that stuff. I mean the standards of what's acceptable most people in this society hold in common... For example, women talking nonstop about feelings.
@ MAUS:
Shiva, stereotypes do not just fall out of the sky.
Never said they did.
What I basically said, on the topic that healthy masculinity involved being stoic, was: there's nothing wrong with that, but over-generalization is bad, because I know men who like to talk, and it doesn't make them unhealthy as men. Confining an individual into one stereotype or mode of behavior is just plain wrong.
Shiva... We're not talking about "human traits" here. We're specifically talking about masculine & feminine traits.
Have you ever read any articles about the brain structure of men/women? Have you read articles describing the different chemicals & hormones that surge through the brains of men/women.
I'll bet you have. You seem to like topics relating to gender.
The brains of men & women are structurally different & have different chemical signatures & yet people like you refuse to believe that this can generate different behavioral tendencies.
Society can shape the way we behave as men & women according to some, but I guess the biology of our brains cannot.
Different brain structure + different brain chemicals + different hormones = same behavioral tendencies.
I just scored an "A" in feminist logic.
I can now discount the 30+ years of anecdotal evidence showing me that men & women behave differently & respond differently to various stimuli coupled with scientific research backing that up because I'd prefer to use the exceptions to disprove the rules.
Some people are so uncomfortable with being "different", that they develop defense mechanisms to pretend EVERYONE is like them. "It's not that I'm not normal... there's just no such thing as normal."
It's one of the reasons the lesbians adhered so feverishly to the gender socialization theories where everyone is the same & they are just like everybody else.
Now it's perfectly fine to be different... as long as you don't try to deny the fact that you are different.
Trying to pretend there is no such thing as masculine or feminine traits makes you feel comfortable for some reason. Hopefully as new studies emerge & we find even more ways the male/female brains differ, you will become more comfortable admitting that there are indeed ways in which we differ behaviorally. Until that day, I wish you well debating on the side of things that science has disproven & continues to disprove.
Shiva - The talk/non talk stuff got axed a while back too. It's related to brain structure and hormones. ( oxytocin and estrogen/testosterone). Google "tend and befriend" for much more detail. You are about 30 years behind. Read "Raising Boys" by Biddulph or "Gender Matters" by Sax or "The Tending Instinct" by Taylor.
I think, Shiva, that you believe that there is no masculine or feminine innate traits other than plumbing, am I correct?
No. I don't think many things are truly 'innate' at all.
So do you mean "yes, and I don't believe many other things are innate as well" Or do you mean "no-even plumbing is not innate?"
I think of all traits as human traits. What I'm arguing against is the stereotyped assignment of certain traits as male or female. There are always majorities that make the study look sound, but when these studies pretend that the humans I know are complete aberrations or fallacies... Well, I disregard those studies.
Men have penises.
My friend is genetically a man but was born without a penis.
Therefore, the idea that men have penises is false.
All things have exceptions. It is the greatest known in science. By your logic, we cannot make any statments of fact because all things have exceptions.
Rocks are hard (lava)
flowers smell pretty (skunk cabbage)
birds fly (emus)
dogs are quadrupeds (3 legged dogs, there are even 2 legged dogs)
You are saying that even if the idea is sound, if it emotionally excludes your personal friends or makes them feel bad you choose to not think it is valid. This is not a scientifically valid reason to discount a study.
Yes, much of gender is social, but much of it is biological. And while all humans live on a spectrum, there are basic divides between the genders where most people fall. That can be very useful information to have, especially when looking at things like education, counciling services, etc.
I think that your idea that gender is a social construct has been very damaging in schools, where it is assumed that all students can conform to one teaching method. This has hurt mainly boys, and also girls who fall in the more masculine end of the spectrum.
These are not absolutes. No one is saying your friend is not a man because he likes to talk. We are saying that his behavior does fall towards the more feminine range of behaviors. As a feminist, why is this insulting to you? Is there something wrong with being towards the feminine side of the spectrum?
I think a lot of people get hung up on discussions of masculinity and femininity for no good reason other than vocabulary. Masculinity and femininity are virtues.
A virtue is not just some random good thing, it is a defining characteristic of something. The virtue of a knife is that it is sharp. A knife can be elegantly styled, carefully polished or jewel encrusted but unless it can cut something, it's not a good knife. I can take a knife and hammer it until it makes a reasonably good screwdriver and then there is some question as to what it is and what its virtues are.
If it can still cut a piece of string, it is a knife and if it can drive a screw, it is a screwdriver. But a reasonable person can be forgiven for not being able to tell why I have this object in my toolbox (because I am a cheapskate and a packrat.)
A man who watches soap operas and cries at movies and likes to gossip on the phone is still a man and a brother and a friend and all the fine things that a person can be. But to say that he is masculine is an attempt to control thinking by perverting language. He is welcome to call himself masculine just as he is welcome to call himself the Empress of Siam but the rest of us are welcome to disagree.
For those unfortunate people who were born with indeterminate genitalia, it is unrealistic to expect the rest of humanity to abandone the notion of gender to avoid hurting their feelings. A child born without arms or legs must learn to function in a world of people with healthy limbs. Also, those blessed with a whole and healthy body are bound to show compassion and understanding to those less fortunate.
Words are tools to express meaning. If each of us has our own private language, we will never accomplish anything.
Part II
The feminist objection to the terms "masculine" and "feminine" are rooted in conspiracy and subterfuge. A woman who got an education, earned her own honest living and took an active role as citizen in her own right was once considered "unfeminine." To lose the virtue of one's gender is a great stigma. Hence, women rarely did those things. Women now have more opportunities for socio-economic participation and advancement than at any time in history, due in large part to political advances driven my men. But socio-economic participation by men has always been predicated on the demonstration of such virtues as honesty, integrity, responsibility, generosity, courage, loyalty etc. Feminists demand that women be allowed to participate with all the rights men have historically enjoyed but without having to display the "masculine" virtues. Women must be allowed to lie to protect themselves from embarrassment, women are allowed to operate on different rules depending on circumstances, women must be forgiven errors of judgment and otherwise allowed to "slide" where a man would not be.
It is by disallowing the words "masculine" and "feminine" that feminists hope to create their utopia.
Interesting conversation one and all - thanks for covering for me while I was away. I just want to note a couple of things:
First, when discussing "gender" our resident feminist insists on seeing everyone as individuals instead of members of well-defined groups; I believe that this is a common feature of most feminists. If such a POV floats your boat then fine, but it doesn't wash when having a scientifically-valid discussion re. trends, general characteristics, etc., that are applied to populations. The BQ and bluedye have summed up nicely what I would say about general traits vs. individual variation, so I'll defer to them. The whole idea of population dynamics is to identify general trends, understanding that individual variation is a fact of life. However, boy-oh-boy, when it's time to discuss issues associated with identity politics like affirmative action, etc., watch as the feminists leap to the other side of the fence and insist on ignoring the individual and obsessing over group identity. :BangHead:
shiva, I think the fundamental problem is you're not understanding what population dynamics are all about.
Lastly, where the heck is Kate? Looks like another hit-and-run. But thanks to shiva for hanging in there - it's good to know that there's at least one feminist who doesn't turn tail and run when they debate with a group that doesn't simply nod in agreement to the feminist dogma.
(edited once to correct for trigger finger)
Kate never said anything. She came in here telling how she would not be able to tell us anything. Yeah, like that wasn't a little obvious. :rolle:
Notice how they run as soon as the logic appears.
This was an interesting thread.
I was actually looking forward to Kate being here---she seemed more civil than some of the other posters I encountered when I was more active on Hugo's blog.
What pisses me off about feminists is that they expect to act like a bunch of male-bashing, man-hating cunts and still expect men to want them.
Fuck that shit.
The classic saying of that you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar often escapes certain people, until they realize at an older stage they made that mistake when demanding respect rather than intrinsically commanding respect.
I had an experience with an (openly) feminist co-worker who refused to see other sides to complex political issues outside of her own self-interest, and alienated others with her attitude and demeanor. One night she gets almost teary eyed to another because she runs a tirade about how "no one understands her" after exhibiting bullying and passive-aggressive behavior to other employees in the work front. After all the negative energy and egotism she gave off, do you think anyone should have offered her sympathy at that point? Suddenly, she's supposed to be consoled. Whatever . . .
"You get what you give" comes to mind in situations like that.
"Lastly, where the heck is Kate? Looks like another hit-and-run."
"Notice how they run as soon as the logic appears."
-Woah, hold your horses, Mr Bad and Biscuit Queen! I said I'd be back for debate and I am! (Sorry to be tardy, but I had to wait until the hubby was in bed - he's a dyed in the wool political lesbian and he'd kill me if he knew I was conversing with the dark side ...
Just kidding.)
Now, to the boards. I'm going to post on my beliefs on feminism in my introduction thread. As I've mentioned, I'm coming from a pretty different political standpoint than most of the peeps here. So, it's fair enough that I explain to the best of my ability what that it. As to debate, it looks like I am possibly the sole feminist here (not sure who else is?). So, is it going to be fair to assume that the debate ratio is me:everyone else? Actually, I don't mind commenting at variance with lots of people - but it's unfair to expect me to reply to every rebuttal within a short time period!
I'll be honest, I don't know and can't guarantee how often I can post here/reply to everyone. My work pattern's pretty irregular - sometimes I'll have ample time to read and post, sometimes none. Having said that, I am interested in the issues you raise here. Personally, I think the questions MRAs (and other men's groups) are asking about, for example, boys in education, circumcision and domestic violence are valid questions. My standpoint is kinda: just because I don't agree with your premises, it doesn't mean I necessarily disagree with your findings.
Also, it seems a bit too easy to assume that all MRAs are misogynists or whatever, and that's why they're anti-feminist. I don't think its all that fair to discount the personal experiences of why people subscribe to MRA ideology. For instance, some of the stories men have shared here and elsewhere about DV are pretty powerful. I would like to find out more about that. (From my own experience, I certainly don't think it's a simple case of 'men = violent, women = victims').
Ok. This comments getting a bit thread-drifty, so I'll post the next one on 'healthy masculinity.'
Sorry, I jumped the gun. We get a lot of hit and runs. Many feminists come in here and make a grand show of being willing to either be open minded or debate, and as soon as the logic appears they disappear. I was wrong to assume you were doing that.
We have only banned maybe two or three feminists, and that is because they repeatedly attacked members. You can disagree until the chickens come home, and you are welcome here, but attacks are not tolerated. (Not saying you did this, just trying to explain why you are really the only feminist here. )
Another option if you want to debate one on one instead of getting flooded is to go to the ring. It is never used, but any one of us would be willing to jump in for a go. We will keep it civil, promise.
We will try not to overrun you...or at least I will.
That's OK, I'm not offended - someone had mentioned the 'hit-and-run' thing in a previous comment, and I get why that might be annoying. Maybe the 'one-on-one' thing might be good. However, I do like to hear from lots of posters, and its a bit frustrating for others who can't reply I would think...we'll see how it goes! Just saying, it might take a while for replies, my brain can only go so fast!
Here's my reply to 'healthy masculinity' (apologies for the length! the system even logged me out whilst typing it...)
I'm not sure how one defines "Healthy Masculinity" - but surely, it's a socially defined value. Let's take "healthy". It's one thing to define this as applied to statistical averages. But the word 'healthy' also exists in our language as implying a value judgement. Healthy = positive/good. So it becomes an issue, not only of scientific conclusions, but also of ideology.
A note on the scientific method: Gonzo, and a few others here, seem to be making the argument that 'hard science' has proven the 'gender construct' argument false. (I'm not sure what you mean by 'hard science' and 'soft science' - the terms have different meanings depending on the context of the argument. I'll assume you mean the physical sciences, unless you correct me.) In order to accept the scientific method as the only or best authority, one must understand science as progressing - that is, progressively increasing the sum of human knowledge. This seems to me to be what you're saying: "social constructionists are wrong about gender, and science will prove it."
Historically, science has been wrong before about the differences between the sexes (see, for example, formerly respectable branches of science now re-classified as pseudoscience: phrenology etc). This should be enough to at least give you pause lest you become hubristic. To accept the current consensus (although I'm not sure there IS a consensus, I suppose you could argue this is due to PC suppression) one has to have faith that today's scientists *have* learnt from the past, that their methods are the least fallible, that they are, on balance, objective etc.
Let's assume we can do all that.
My main issue is not with the FINDINGS of science. It should be allowed to investigate such things. There is IMO the possiblility of such a thing as 'the truth of human existence' and we should try to investigate this without political interference as far as possible. This is an ideal. As we've seen with the creationism vs science debacle, there are forces at work in this society that seek to paint science as just another faith. Whilst I DON'T accept this (because science works on evidence) even Richard Dawkins points out that science's strength is that scientists don't tend to say that they have "proved the truth about something." Instead they tend to say that, looking at all the possible evidence, they present the *likeliest explanation.* That's why, if contradictory evidence becomes available and overwhelms the previous evidence, refutes the previous conclusions, the discipline is well able to withstand it - science is always aware that today's conclusions can become tomorrow's hypotheses. In short, the scientific method may well be the best method - but we must remember, it is not infallible.
Gender as construction: the consensus here seems to be that scientific findings have been rejected by feminists and/or gender constructionists. I think it is not so much the scientific studies or results they reject, but rather the interpretation of those results. Firstly, I don't know any theorists that argue biological sex is entirely a social construction! (Can you give me a HT if you do, because I sure think *that* would be an interesting read!) The one I can name as coming closest to this is Judith Butler - from what I remember, she wasn't arguing that there are no biological differences between men and women, but rather that we cannot escape the fact that how we interpret, talk about, even think about those differences is shaped by social conditioning. Whether one thinks this is fair or not, accurate or not, it is a fact that our society 'polices' the genders - if gender roles were natural, then why would we need to do this? The focus of such theorists' work tends to be on analysing how and why gender/sexuality is constructed within the culture, therefore. I think it's perfectly reasonable and valid to investigate this.
Secondly, the issues of whether and why gender roles are constructed relates to politics insofar as politics legislates on groups.
I think, as human beings, we have more in common than we do separating us. But I don't seek to deny difference. I quite like gender, I'm not at all sure I'd want to be rid of it: variety is the spice of life, hey? The question for democratic politics, though, is whether everyone gets listened to. Who does not have a voice?
One of the things that progressive anti-racist work has taught us is that its dangerous to deny difference. 'Colour-blindness' may in fact have the effect of eliding and silencing voices which DO speak of difference. I am not advocating 'gender-blindness' for precisely this reason.
It IS my experience, and considered opinion at this time, that differences in gender roles are largely due to socialisation, not biology. However, I do recognise that others feel differently. At this time, I don't think we can answer the question how far biology is destiny.
I think legislation which sees no difference in gender, therefore, can elide the voices and experiences of those who do. But I also think legislation which recognises differences can be inherently problematic when it comes to deciding how that difference is applied to groups. I think you, Mr Bad, and most others here might be in agreement with that point at least. That's why the argument over masculinity, or femininity, is so damned important!
To take an example: stands2p, on this thread, names 'courage' as one of the masculine virtues. I'm not disagreeing with you that it has played out historically as a 'masculine trait' - but I really wonder how this can be proved, scientifically, to be innate to men. (I'm not assuming that you think that, stands2p, BTW - I can't tell from your post.) Mr Bad, Dr E, anyone, care to speculate?
Some quick points responding to specific comments here:
Dr Bad - you said "our society has gone feminine and thus values all things feminine"
Really? What's the basis of this belief?
Dr E - the points you raised about 'the mature masculine' - this is interesting. I'm not too familiar with this sort of literature - is it related to the mythopoetical men's movement (Robert Bly et al)?
Mr X - you mentioned the case with Dr Money, a truly tragic case. I saw the BBC Horizon doc on this, and the most shocking thing, IMO, was that they decided to remove the
boy's testicles thus denying him the basic human right of reproduction. You may already be aware of this, but the reason his penis was damaged was due to a botched circumcision.
Bluedye/Shiva - re:stoicism vs talkativeness. Yes, stoicism is a pretty much undervalued and misunderstood philosophy. The word has come to mean something slightly different in common currency today. Intriguingly, there's often arguments about how far talkativeness/emotional restraint relates to national character - I seem to recall the British newspapers regularly discussing it viz. whether Americans are more 'open' vs the British "stiff upper lip" and so on, particularly around the death of Princess Di.
TBQ - the post where you discussed men and the need for safe spaces. I agreed with everything you said in this comment. Have you ever read "Self-made man" by Norah Vincent? The other comment, where you differentiated between gender traits and values (sorry, I'm not sure how to get the blockquotes) - well, here we have it. If everyone thought that way, i.e., didn't ascribe value judgements to traits, and *really meant it* I doubt there'd be half the problems we've got today in the world.
OK - well, I'm off for now (cup of tea). I'll try and get the post up about my take on feminism later tonight or tomorrow, in my intro thread.
Hey, Dr E! I just saw your message on the other thread - I will try and reply to the points raised there asap. I just wanted to say that I do appreciate everyone who took the time to reply in detail - no doubt, to many of you, it's an issue that you've been over countless times!
Kate:
It IS my experience, and considered opinion at this time, that differences in gender roles are largely due to socialisation, not biology.
Gender
roles, as with any kind of roles, are 100% due to socialization. But gender itself is not a social construct. That's the distinction some people stumble over.
To take an example: stands2p, on this thread, names 'courage' as one of the masculine virtues. I'm not disagreeing with you that it has played out historically as a 'masculine trait' - but I really wonder how this can be proved, scientifically, to be innate to men. (I'm not assuming that you think that, stands2p, BTW - I can't tell from your post.)
In the interest of clarity, courage is a virtue without regard to gender. Anyone, male, female or indeterminate who is able to take the proper action in the face of fear and danger is showing courage. It is the expectation that someone will show courage that is gendered (and needs to change.) A woman will be forgiven for running from danger and leaving others behind; a man will certainly not. A woman might be scoffed at for showing courage ("I guess she wasn't pretty enough to get a man to do that for her.")
I think legislation which sees no difference in gender, therefore, can elide the voices and experiences of those who do. But I also think legislation which recognises differences can be inherently problematic when it comes to deciding how that difference is applied to groups.
Here is a point which may be more political than truly gender related but I think the idea of an over-arching and perfect law to meet all circumstances is a feminine notion. I have great respect for The Law as a human construct but it is ever fallible. The Law should certainly treat all people fairly and equitably just as bridges should never collapse and airplanes should never crash. People should work things out for themselves a much as possible. When people turn to government for solutions, all they get is more government. (So it's great that you are here.)
@ TBQ:
I think that your idea that gender is a social construct has been very damaging in schools
It's now proven even MORE conclusively than it was before: you don't read what I type. I didn't say that, did I? No. Blame 'my idea' for bad schools... Nice. It'll be funny watching you try to prove that one.
As a feminist, why is this insulting to you? Is there something wrong with being towards the feminine side of the spectrum?
Wow, you don't pick up on much do you? All those biscuits can't be good for you, I'm thinking. Well, I'm about to rock your world: I'm not a feminist.
Using your logic, I'll now prove you're a nazi. See, I just decided you are; no proof needed. Using your own system, that makes you one. You're a feminist, you're a nazi, and you're a racist. Who cares about facts, we're using your logic (or lack thereof) here. It's encouraged by your mates on this forum, but luckily I don't need a whole gaggle of friends hyping me onwards in order to have an opinion. And IMO, yes, there are many things wrong with the stereotypically feminine side of the spectrum. Sure, they are human traits too. But I'm talking about stereotypical behaviors that aren't necessarily natural, but rather adopted. Like your accusations of 'feminist!' with no proof. Several male members here are doing it too, and it's a bad feminine cry-wolf stereotypical behavior. LOL, I like your sense of logic, it's fun. In a five-year-old kinda way.
@ dr e:
Shiva - The talk/non talk stuff got axed a while back too.
I'm defending the notion that my friend has an unhealthy masculinity because he is a talkative person. You're talking about a different subject altogether.
@ bluedye:
Shiva... We're not talking about "human traits" here. We're specifically talking about masculine & feminine traits.
And I'm specifically talking about human traits. My verbal friend is not feminine or masculine because he likes to talk, that's my opinion. You can argue against it nonstop but its not going to change, it's still my opinion.
Trying to pretend there is no such thing as masculine or feminine traits makes you feel comfortable for some reason.
My view on it is that both genders are human, therefore it's a human trait. There are stereotypical male and female traits, and you're welcome to continue categorizing your fellow human beings accordingly. That's your opinion, this is mine. And that's okay.
Hopefully as new studies emerge & we find even more ways the male/female brains differ, you will become more comfortable admitting that there are indeed ways in which we differ behaviorally. Until that day, I wish you well debating on the side of things that science has disproven & continues to disprove.
The 'new' studies aren't really headed in the direction of proving universal differences, from what I've seen. And as for things that science has 'disproven and continues to disprove'... Well, for every fact they prove or disprove, another study will prove them wrong, and the next one will prove that study wrong, and so on ad infinitum. It's amusing, kinda like the merry-go-round we have here. :greener:
@ stands2p:
It is by disallowing the words "masculine" and "feminine" that feminists hope to create their utopia.
Firstly, I have no faith in the world ever becoming a 'utopia'. Secondly, I'm not a feminist. And thirdly, I'm not trying to disallow the words masculine and feminine. My only argument on that score is that human beings in general like to talk, therefore its a human trait. It's how the world moves forwards, how new inventions are made. Takes communication in almost all cases.
@ Mr. Bad:
But thanks to shiva for hanging in there - it's good to know that there's at least one feminist who doesn't turn tail and run when they debate with a group that doesn't simply nod in agreement to the feminist dogma.
I'm not a feminist. You people cannot seem to grasp that simple concept. Re-read it as many times as you need to, eventually it should sink in. Methinks people here are too attached to their labels and generalizations. (And imaginations.)
"Lastly, where the heck is Kate? Looks like another hit-and-run."
"Notice how they run as soon as the logic appears."
Yeah, they cry 'runaway!' before it actually happens. Like overeager children. I bet they clap their hands while they do it. Doesn't work, didn't you notice? Call it when it does. Or, using your logic, just keep calling it and eventually, one day, you might get lucky.
Kate said:
As to debate, it looks like I am possibly the sole feminist here (not sure who else is?).
I lol'd. The feminist is the only one who can tell a feminist when she sees it. The others have been shrieking 'feminist!' at me and I'm still not. Kindly defer your rabid, morbid fascination onto Kate. She's a REAL feminist. Calling me one didn't turn me into one, now you have the real thing. Enjoy. Theses people have a severe craving for a feminist, from the looks of it. They're hallucinating and seeing feminists where there are none. :rolle:
Hey, Dr E! I just saw your message on the other thread - I will try and reply to the points raised there asap. I just wanted to say that I do appreciate everyone who took the time to reply in detail - no doubt, to many of you, it's an issue that you've been over countless times!
Aha! Kate, good to see you. Glad you have reappeared and look forward to discussions. I h ope you noticed that I stickied the thread about feminism hurting boys and men and it is at the top of the board.
E
This was an interesting thread.
Agreed - stands2p your patience and clarity are a great example of constructive debate imho
@ Mr. Bad:
But thanks to shiva for hanging in there - it's good to know that there's at least one feminist who doesn't turn tail and run when they debate with a group that doesn't simply nod in agreement to the feminist dogma.
I'm not a feminist. You people cannot seem to grasp that simple concept. Re-read it as many times as you need to, eventually it should sink in. Methinks people here are too attached to their labels and generalizations. (And imaginations.)
So you say, so I'll take your word for it, at least for now. We'll see how it plays out as you develop a history here.
I apologize for rushing to label you as something that you claim not to be.
"Lastly, where the heck is Kate? Looks like another hit-and-run."
I said it
looks like another hit and run because Kate hadn't been around. Again, my bad.
"Notice how they run as soon as the logic appears."
I call a flagrant foul here: Attributing to one person the comments of another is a cheap shot. You owe me shiva.
Yeah, I said that.
Then...I apologized for saying it....to KATE . Mind your own business, Shiva.
I tell you what, when I start ACTING like a Nazi every other post, you can start CALLING me a Nazi and I will agree with you.
Gender as construction: the consensus here seems to be that scientific findings have been rejected by feminists and/or gender constructionists. I think it is not so much the scientific studies or results they reject, but rather the interpretation of those results. Firstly, I don't know any theorists that argue biological sex is entirely a social construction! (Can you give me a HT if you do, because I sure think *that* would be an interesting read!) The one I can name as coming closest to this is Judith Butler - from what I remember, she wasn't arguing that there are no biological differences between men and women, but rather that we cannot escape the fact that how we interpret, talk about, even think about those differences is shaped by social conditioning. Whether one thinks this is fair or not, accurate or not, it is a fact that our society 'polices' the genders - if gender roles were natural, then why would we need to do this? The focus of such theorists' work tends to be on analysing how and why gender/sexuality is constructed within the culture, therefore. I think it's perfectly reasonable and valid to investigate this.
I would tend to agree that there are a lot of societal/political aspects to how society addresses "gender" - the more modern customs associated with "chivalry" as it pertains to male/female interactions (vs. its original manifestation of behavior between Knights) is an example of such. However, one cannot escape biology when examining
why those customs were put into place, e.g., the sexual dimorphism between men and women leading to men deferring to women and accepting duties and sacrifices when confronted with physical challenges.
Secondly, the issues of whether and why gender roles are constructed relates to politics insofar as politics legislates on groups.
I think, as human beings, we have more in common than we do separating us. But I don't seek to deny difference. I quite like gender, I'm not at all sure I'd want to be rid of it: variety is the spice of life, hey? The question for democratic politics, though, is whether everyone gets listened to. Who does not have a voice?
One of the things that progressive anti-racist work has taught us is that its dangerous to deny difference. 'Colour-blindness' may in fact have the effect of eliding and silencing voices which DO speak of difference. I am not advocating 'gender-blindness' for precisely this reason.
It IS my experience, and considered opinion at this time, that differences in gender roles are largely due to socialisation, not biology. However, I do recognise that others feel differently. At this time, I don't think we can answer the question how far biology is destiny.
I think legislation which sees no difference in gender, therefore, can elide the voices and experiences of those who do. But I also think legislation which recognises differences can be inherently problematic when it comes to deciding how that difference is applied to groups. I think you, Mr Bad, and most others here might be in agreement with that point at least. That's why the argument over masculinity, or femininity, is so damned important!
I disagree that gender roles are traditionally due to socialisation rather than biology; that reasoning puts the cart before the horse so-to-speak. The social roles of 'masculine' and 'feminine' have evolved over many millenia, IMO primarily due to the biological differences between men and women. It's only recently that social engineers decided to abandon the maxim of "if it ain't broke don't fix it," declare that indeed it is broke, and only they know how to fix it for us. All we have to have to is go along quietly - the truth shall set us free.
Uh huh.
Personally, I think I trust the wisdom of the experiences of my ancestors over many millenia more than I do social engineers with a feminist agenda. But hey, that's just me. YMMV.
The principle reason why I have not chimed in on this discussion even though I would seem to be the most obvious candidate to take up the gauntlet of defending masculinity is this....I think the premise is smoke to hide the edge of the mirror of the actual issue.
Men being deemed unacceptable to feminists has nothing directly to do with their "masculinity".
I am aquainted with a couple where I work that are are perfect example of this. The guy is a masculine as men get. His face is scared and marred from many a brawl. He looks like a Neanderthal. He bears his injuries and injustices with unflinching stoicism. He frequently enters the Itinerod, which is not the sort of thing that Hugo or his chinchillas would do and his dogs look like pigmy bears.
His wife is not even five feet tall....she is remarkably overbearing...she is a full blown feminist...short of being a lesbian....her salary level is easily 30% higher than his and he defers to her like a pre-teen child.
The REAL issue of this discussion and all like and similar discussions is not about "masculinity" or any of it's attributes at all. Ultimately...and this is true of all human beings regardless of gender...whatever is deemed by the world as being the trait that gives you strength of character will invariably be the thing that will be perceived by those most intimate with you as the neurosis or annoying habit that drives THEM nuts. This is just life.
What realy irritates feminists about men is not "masculinity".....it is refusal to be a "masochist".
That term is widely misunderstood because the Roman Catholic Church actually bought Count Leopold Sacher-Masoch von Lemberg's original manuscript in order to censor it.
To make a long story short Leopold was a brat raised by a platoon of nannys in a Teutonic household and his best source of attention was to get caught and punished for masturbating. He formed a philosophy of what a man's relationship with women aught to be based on this background. Don't bother looking for an English translation of his writings, none was ever done......just read Hugo's website and you will get the idea.
JOKE: How do you charm the pants off a feminist?
First...place your chin on your chest and sniff and whimper audibly. Then...rock your head back and forth while blinking your eyes too rapidly to be accused of making eye contact. Pout your lower lip visibly. In a whiney near tears voice say "as a new sensitive androgynous male ..I just feel so ASHAMED...and GUILTY...would you like to pee on me?...I'm sure we would both feel much better"
Garanteed much more effective "panty remover"than gin laced with date rape drug.
Maus - While I agree with you that feminists will try to frame masculinity in terms of evil at any opportunity I also think that the most important thing is for men and boys to see a male positive view of the meanings of masculinity. At this point our schools and other cultural institutions are spouting the male is bad mantra which leaves our boys in a terrible state. I have been wondering about developing a stencil and use spray paint on sidewalks the message "Men are Good." Just to point the idea out there and get people thinking. I have been surprised and saddened to see how many people roll their eyes in disbelief at that phrase. We have a serious pr problem. Boys need to hear the accomplishments and the goodness of their sex. It has been verbotten for years.
I'm defending the notion that my friend has an unhealthy masculinity because he is a talkative person.
No one has said that men who like to talk are unhealthy. Show me where anyone said that? Women as a group talk more than men. That's not an opinion that is a fact. We now know that hormones and brain structure have a good deal to do with this. Men and women have a wide variation in their hormones just as they have a wide variation in their height or weight. There are many women who are over 6 feet tall. They are simply outliers. Not pathological or unhealthy just different.
In other words, there are exceptions to every generality. Except this one... >_>
"I'm not sure how one defines "Healthy Masculinity" - but surely, it's a socially defined value. Let's take "healthy". It's one thing to define this as applied to statistical averages. But the word 'healthy' also exists in our language as implying a value judgement. Healthy = positive/good. So it becomes an issue, not only of scientific conclusions, but also of ideology."
It's a very common practice to use the word "healthy" to mean positive/good, so I'm sure the vast majority of people know exactly what is meant by the phrase "healthy masculinity."
"Historically, science has been wrong before about the differences between the sexes (see, for example, formerly respectable branches of science now re-classified as pseudoscience: phrenology etc). This should be enough to at least give you pause lest you become hubristic."
We're not talking about the science of old. Using your logic I shouldn't trust modern day surgeons because the medieval "surgeons" would make holes in people's heads to let the "bad spirits" out.
What scientists are finding now is irrefutable differences in the biology & chemistry of the male/female brain. We already know what hormones do to behavior & the fluxion of chemicals do to behavior.
To conclude there is NO behavioral difference based on proven biological difference is lofty at best. There is obviously some, but the degree is still absent from the findings. As time passes, we will learn more.
If you look back in history at the feminists, you will find a fair share of misandric hateful women preaching about the destruction of marriage & the evil nature of men. Historically there has been a lot of hypocritical views in feminism about a number of issues. (women are tough enough for the military, but too weak to hear swears at work or see a naked lady... You should never discriminate against women for any reason, but here is our list of reasons to discriminate against men, & one of my favorites which is someone's signature here, but I forget who... "I am woman, hear me roar, I am invincible, I am pregnant, brother, can you spare a dime?") So, historically feminists have given people like myself MANY reasons to think their views come from nothing more than self interest & anti-male bias.
...So I'm going to go with the scientists on this one.
"science is always aware that today's conclusions can become tomorrow's hypotheses. In short, the scientific method may well be the best method - but we must remember, it is not infallible."
When you look at what science proposes vs. what the feminists propose you see a very clear bias on the side of the feminists. It's much easier to preach equality when the people in question are in fact "equal" beings. If men are a different animal than women, the "equal" angle flies out the window. Feminists cling to the theories that support their vision of absolute equality. Equality under the law? Sure, everyone can agree on that. Equal as humans? Nope, men & women are different. Apples do not "equal" oranges.
Feminists stand to lose a HUGE part of their ideology if conclusive evidence arises that men & women are not "equal" beings. Feminists like Nancy Hopkins may have to admit that men may indeed have innate ability to handle spatial tasks that women do not have.
Some other feminists like to prattle on about all of the ways women are innately more nurturing & innately better at multitasking, but would have a Hopkins-esque episode of nausea if you suggested anything innately positive about males.
Science may not be infallible, but placed next to feminism... there's NO contest as to who deserves my trust.
I've been studying feminists for years now & I know this animal pretty well. Kate's mention of the "creationism vs science" struggle is actually very appropriate here. There are similarities between the staunch feminists & the devout Christians due to the fact that they both seem to reject science & any findings that conflict their world view.
I can understand their frustration. They base a large portion of their identity on beliefs that are in direct conflict with scientific findings. With each new scientific study comes another chisel chipping away at their "safe place."
It's very easy to see where the feminists would want to reject science. The problem is that they have to live in a state of denial to accomplish this.
I've heard feminists try to deny that men are generally better than women at sports. They have stories about the "girl they knew in high school that once hit a baseball further than a boy" & "their female friend that could run faster than the boys in her kindergarten class" & similar stories of girls beating boys in sports. Now do they show me professional women boxers winning the Heavyweight Champion of the World title? Do they show me marathon records of all of the female winners besting the male participants? Do they show me any examples of professional women athletes outperforming men? No, they don't ...because they can't.
They are in complete denial.
Kate, feminists have shown themselves to be pretty far off the beam when it comes to issues of logic & common sense. The refusal to take stock in scientific findings by feminists is "more of the same" as far as I'm concerned.
Maus - While I agree with you that feminists will try to frame masculinity in terms of evil at any opportunity I also think that the most important thing is for men and boys to see a male positive view of the meanings of masculinity. At this point our schools and other cultural institutions are spouting the male is bad mantra which leaves our boys in a terrible state. I have been wondering about developing a stencil and use spray paint on sidewalks the message "Men are Good." Just to point the idea out there and get people thinking. I have been surprised and saddened to see how many people roll their eyes in disbelief at that phrase. We have a serious pr problem. Boys need to hear the accomplishments and the goodness of their sex. It has been verbotten for years.
This is not exactly new and it really predates feminism.
I will use as an example the depiction of the characters in the movie "Rob Roy". In the seventeen hundreds ther was a flourishing of what we would call "metrosexual" males. At the time, more masculine men who scorned this sub-culture refered to it's adherents as "fops". This was, in fact,the origin of the term "gentle"man.
So here we have these two archetypes, the extremely masculine Rob Roy with his fixed notions of honour and the foppish Archibald Cunningham who hadn't buggered a boy in years and in his defence, the last time he did up to the moment of entry, he thought it was a girl.
Rob Roy was willing to serve as father to a child of dubious sireing whereas Archie drove his lover to suicide by refusing to take responsibility.
Rob Roy honoured women and his relationship to them whereas Archie was as cynical as a pimp.
Most importantly, it was effeminate foppish Archie who was the womanizer and the rapist not burly surly masculine Rob Roy.
This archetype is one of the best examples I can point to that demonstrates the dysfunction of male female relationships is NOT the result of MASCULINITY or PATRIARCHY......it is the result of the abdication of it.
Men have been deemed expendable for eons and long before the advent of feminism. You are right about that. Where feminism has pissed in the drinking water is in their attempts (all too often successful) at framing men and masculinity in terms of violence, greed, and arrogant self-centeredness. They blame all men, not just some men and have been sadly effective in promoting propaganda that claims men are evil, unpredictable and not to be trusted. The implication is that they need to grow up and be more like women. All the while the vast majority of men are living productive lives loving their families and not being even close to the feminists dream of men and the masculine. They have encouraged people to judge men and the masculine by lumping all men into the tabloid descriptions of violent abusers. It could be likened to our claiming that all women are defective and need to be more like men since they are the predominant child abusers and rape so many young boys etc etc.
Mr Bad:
"I would tend to agree that there are a lot of societal/political aspects to how society addresses "gender" - the more modern customs associated with "chivalry" as it pertains to male/female interactions (vs. its original manifestation of behavior between Knights) is an example of such. However, one cannot escape biology when examining why those customs were put into place, e.g., the sexual dimorphism between men and women leading to men deferring to women and accepting duties and sacrifices when confronted with physical challenges. "
-Interesting. I am not arguing one needs to 'escape biology.' However, your assertion that sexual dimorphism leads to men deferring to women appears to be a sociological observation. In what way does biology lead to male deferral?
"I disagree that gender roles are traditionally due to socialisation rather than biology; that reasoning puts the cart before the horse so-to-speak. The social roles of 'masculine' and 'feminine' have evolved over many millenia, IMO primarily due to the biological differences between men and women."
-You seem to be arguing that biology is destiny here. Fair enough: but how do you square that with the MRA arguments against domestic violence: i.e. that feminists who observe men are more violent are 'man-haters' and promoting false assumptions about men?
MAUS:
"To make a long story short Leopold was a brat raised by a platoon of nannys in a Teutonic household and his best source of attention was to get caught and punished for masturbating. He formed a philosophy of what a man's relationship with women aught to be based on this background. Don't bother looking for an English translation of his writings, none was ever done....."
-I believe you are referring to the guy who gave his name to 'masochism.' Didn't he write Venus-in-Furs, which has been widely translated, including into English?
"JOKE: How do you charm the pants off a feminist?
First...place your chin on your chest and sniff and whimper audibly. Then...rock your head back and forth while blinking your eyes too rapidly to be accused of making eye contact. Pout your lower lip visibly. In a whiney near tears voice say "as a new sensitive androgynous male ..I just feel so ASHAMED...and GUILTY...would you like to pee on me?...I'm sure we would both feel much better"
Garanteed much more effective "panty remover"than gin laced with date rape drug."
-The odd thing is, I got a little turned on reading this. No, seriously. Yes, the secret to feminists is we JUST WANT TO PEE ON MEN!
Bluedye:
"It's a very common practice to use the word "healthy" to mean positive/good, so I'm sure the vast majority of people know exactly what is meant by the phrase "healthy masculinity."
-Yes, exactly. Glad you agree. Which is why "healthy masculinity" is not a neutral phrase, any more than "healthy femininity."
"We're not talking about the science of old. Using your logic I shouldn't trust modern day surgeons because the medieval "surgeons" would make holes in people's heads to let the "bad spirits" out."
-Today's new science will be tomorrow's 'science of old'. You cannot justify your faith in science based ONLY on an appeal to the 'new'. Plus, you are taking my argument to an extreme. I am not arguing that people shouldn't trust science at all. I am arguing for critical thinking.
To use your analogy: one shouldn't trust modern day surgeons UNCRITICALLY. Would you accept a person perfoming surgery on you, even if you suspected you didn't need it, simply because they have the job title "surgeon"? (Or told you they did). To go further: what if they assured you that the medical consensus was that this particular surgery was beneficial, that it had proven health benefits etc? I think you can probably guess where this is leading: look at the history of circumcision.
"What scientists are finding now is irrefutable differences in the biology & chemistry of the male/female brain."
-Kindly point me towards any respectable scientist who declares their findings to be "irrefutable." Do you even know the meaning of the word hubris?
"To conclude there is NO behavioral difference based on proven biological difference is lofty at best. There is obviously some, but the degree is still absent from the findings. As time passes, we will learn more."
-Again, who is concluding that there is NO behavioral difference based on biology? As you say, the degree is still absent from the findings - which is why interpreting and pronouncing WHAT those differences lead to is not hard science, but theory.
Bluedye, the rest of your post appears to be an unsupported rant against "feminists". Support your assertions with evidence, please, or I will assume they are nothing more than personal, misinformed opinion. As for feminism vs science: I say to you, and to everyone else here, are you under the impression that there is no such thing as a scientist who is also a feminist?
Dr E - I actually agree with you that it's important for men and boys to have a positive view of masculinity. I really, really, wonder how it has happened that feminism's message - that girls and women are more than male chauvinism would paint them - has been interpreted as 'boys and men are less.' Here's the thing: the media is not friendly to feminism. In fact, what you read about feminists and feminism in the mainstream media misinterprets and distorts what feminists actually say. The media is interested in making money, and one way to do that is to exaggerate and emphasise the "gender wars" - always a good one to get people riled up. Thus you get stupid adverts where men are portrayed as 'always in the wrong' and their wives are portrayed as smart and clued-in. Ad agencies presumably think this sort of thing will sell their products to women: I find it pretty patronising and offensive. It certainly isn't a feminist message. You will not find me arguing that masculinity is portrayed in a balanced, healthy way in mainstream culture.
"Men have been deemed expendable for eons and long before the advent of feminism."
-Who deemed them expendable? Feminists would probably argue this was patriarchy, but I suspect you have a different answer.
"They blame all men, not just some men and have been sadly effective in promoting propaganda that claims men are evil, unpredictable and not to be trusted. "
-Please explain and support this assertion - it appears you think that ALL feminists blame ALL men. Also, how have 'they' promoted propaganda?
"It could be likened to our claiming that all women are defective and need to be more like men since they are the predominant child abusers and rape so many young boys etc etc."
I don't follow your reasoning here. What are you saying? Who claims this?
Plus, can anyone tell me how to use the blockquote function in this forum? Cheers.
Dr E
"It could be likened to our claiming that all women are defective and need to be more like men since they are the predominant child abusers and rape so many young boys etc etc."
I don't follow your reasoning here. What are you saying? Who claims this?
I wish you could be a man for a decade or two, you'd follow the reasoning then. Unless they don't read, go to the cinema, interact socially with women or watch/listen to any media at all, men feel like they are inferior, the source of most evil and are of less value than women. It is drummed into us implicitly and explicitly every day of our lives.
Brian, that is exactly what I'm asking. I *don't* think men are inherently evil or of less value than women, and I want to know why you do - and, why you think feminism is the cause of this, or a large contributing factor. NOBODY should feel a priori inferior on the basis of their sex!
Brian, that is exactly what I'm asking. I *don't* think men are inherently evil or of less value than women, and I want to know why you do - and, why you think feminism is the cause of this, or a large contributing factor. NOBODY should feel a priori inferior on the basis of their sex!
I wish I could give you a full reply but I will soon be away from my computer and for the next few days. There are so many things that have caused this situation. As far as the media is concerned, women are protected by political correctness, men (especially white men) are not. The advertising and film industries use men as objects of derision or hate objects to sell things or appeal to women. Modern films make women look strong/clever and men cowardly, weak and stupid. Next time you watch a modern film try reversing the male and female roles and see how you would feel about that. But there's so much more that feminism has done. For example, it has invaded education and politics with terrible results for men and boys. Even research concerning men and women is usually slanted in favour of women.
That's all I have time for now. I will be back at my computer on Sunday or Monday.
Hi Kate,
Block quotes can be used when producing your reply to another by copying and pasting the text you want and using the symbol that looks like a rectangular speech bubble in the 'add BBS tags' toolbar.
"Men have been deemed expendable for eons and long before the advent of feminism."
-Who deemed them expendable? Feminists would probably argue this was patriarchy, but I suspect you have a different answer.
But we don't see this as a issue that feminists (i.e. the Fawcett Society or NOW) are attempting to tackle. We see lots of stuff about the 'glass ceiling' on their websites or their literature, but they don't mention the 'glass basement', which is the phenomenom where men make up 90% of the workplace deaths. Were the deaths those of women, obviously it'd be part of the feminist manifesto, but as it's not it's ignored. Surely it should at least be taken into account that men do more dangerous jobs when calculating '76 pence to the pound'?
"They blame all men, not just some men and have been sadly effective in promoting propaganda that claims men are evil, unpredictable and not to be trusted. "
-Please explain and support this assertion - it appears you think that ALL feminists blame ALL men. Also, how have 'they' promoted propaganda?
Clearly not all feminists hate all men, anymore than all of Al-Qaeda hate all Americans, but if I were to meet somebody from Al-Qaeda I would make the assumption that they did. That's a generalisation, sure but there's probably a greater chance of my assumption being right than wrong. Obviously it's not quite as extreme as that with feminists, but I've yet to be convinced that feminists all love all men, especially when I read this:
"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.
"I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero- sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary- vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the shitwork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do." -- Robin Morgan
"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire." -- Robin Morgan
Now those are the quotes from the former editor of Ms Magazine, which is the premier feminist magazine worldwide. That's pretty bad PR, whichever way you paint it, but unlike Mel Gibson saying sorry, or Boris Johnson appologising to Liverpool to try and save face, I can't find any details of Robin or Ms doing the same thing. Had the editor of FHM or Loaded said the same thing of women, they would have been fired.
So why do you think the same wasn't true of Robin Morgan? Is that because to fire her for basing her political agenda on hating men, would have been seen as pandering to men? Regardless of the reason the message it sends is that the spokesmagazine for feminists is okay with what she said. This isn't something some blogger has said, or a reporter in a local paper, but the editor of a magazine distributed world wide, which sends a pretty powerful message.
The only time men appear on the NOW or Fawcett Society websites is in the form of oppressors, a control to show how bad women have it or as problems that need to be fixed. It's not a bunch of hate filled nonsense pointing the finger, but it's only half the story. I'm not saying MRA's give the whole picture in our protests or (far more limited) media, but we're mainly here to counter feminism and what we believe is the feminist agenda.
If feminism were about true equality then 'us' as a movement wouldn't exist.
Dr E - I actually agree with you that it's important for men and boys to have a positive view of masculinity. I really, really, wonder how it has happened that feminism's message - that girls and women are more than male chauvinism would paint them - has been interpreted as 'boys and men are less.' Here's the thing: the media is not friendly to feminism.
Okay, hold it right there. Media not friendly to feminism? LMFAO!!! You have got to be kidding. Maybe you are saying that they don't get it exactly as it was portrayed by the original source. That is true with media everywhere...but please notice the lack of any coverage of men's issues and the millions of gallons of ink and bandwidth that go to women's issues.
In fact, what you read about feminists and feminism in the mainstream media misinterprets and distorts what feminists actually say. The media is interested in making money, and one way to do that is to exaggerate and emphasise the "gender wars" - always a good one to get people riled up. Thus you get stupid adverts where men are portrayed as 'always in the wrong' and their wives are portrayed as smart and clued-in. Ad agencies presumably think this sort of thing will sell their products to women: I find it pretty patronising and offensive. It certainly isn't a feminist message. You will not find me arguing that masculinity is portrayed in a balanced, healthy way in mainstream culture.
Blaming the media for gender wars is laughable. Without the feminist hate we wouldn't have gender wars.
"Men have been deemed expendable for eons and long before the advent of feminism."
-Who deemed them expendable? Feminists would probably argue this was patriarchy, but I suspect you have a different answer.
Patriarchy? I don't know what that is. If you want to use such a term please define it. What I see is that men have been deemed expendable over the eons due to rigid sex roles. Not oppression.
"They blame all men, not just some men and have been sadly effective in promoting propaganda that claims men are evil, unpredictable and not to be trusted. "
-Please explain and support this assertion - it appears you think that ALL feminists blame ALL men. Also, how have 'they' promoted propaganda?
Look at the Robin Morgan quotes offered by Neon. That is hatred and it is accepted by mainstream feminism. There are plenty more quotes out there if you want me to paste in a few I would be happy to. Then of course we have the Valerie Solanas hatred but that is more of an outlier.
"It could be likened to our claiming that all women are defective and need to be more like men since they are the predominant child abusers and rape so many young boys etc etc."
I don't follow your reasoning here. What are you saying? Who claims this?
Men have been generalized by feminists by pointing out the male outliers and making the claim that they represent men as a group. But okay, if you are going to play dumb here is a start to who is making this sort of claim:
"The nuclear family must be destroyed... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process." -- Linda Gordon
"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.
"I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero- sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary- vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the shitwork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do." -- Robin Morgan
"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -- Robin Morgan
"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire."
-- Robin Morgan
To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo."
-- Valerie Solanas, Authoress of the SCUM Manifesto
"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex."
-- Valerie Solana, SCUM founder (Society for Cutting Up Men.)
"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things."
-- Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men, started by Valerie Solanas)
"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW
"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig." -- Andrea Dworkin
"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice." -- Andrea Dworkin
"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin
"In my own life, I don't have intercourse. That is my choice." -- Andrea Dworkin
Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman." -- Andrea Dworkin
"To be rapeable, a position that is social, not biological, defines what a woman is." -- Andrea Dworkin
"Q: People think you are very hostile to men.
A: I am." -- Andrea Dworkin
"Men use the night to erase us." -- Andrea Dworkin
"The annihilation of a woman's personality, individuality, will, character, is prerequisite to male sexuality." -- Andrea Dworkin
"Men love death. In everything they make, they hollow out a central place for death, let its rancid smell contaminate every dimension of whatever still survives. Men especially love murder. In art they celebrate it, and in life they commit it. They embrace murder as if life without it would be devoid of passion, meaning, and action, as if murder were solace, stilling their sobs as they mourn the emptiness and alienation of their lives."
-- Andrea Dworkin
"Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it 'Her'. Men ruin Her. Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination."
-- Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women
"On the Left, on the Right, in the Middle; Authors, statesmen, thieves; so-called humanists and self-declared fascists; the adventurous and the contemplative, in every realm of male expression and action, violence is experienced and articulated as love and freedom."
-- Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women.
"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" -- Ti-Grace Atkinson
"Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice." -- Ti-Grace Atkinson
"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression." -- Sheila Jeffrys
"Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated." -- Catherine MacKinnon
"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." -- Catherine MacKinnon
"You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs."
-- Catherine MacKinnon (Prominent legal feminist scholar; University of Michigan, & Yale.)
"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent."
-- Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies.
"The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men." -- Sharon Stone; Actress
"Ninety-five percent of women's experiences are about being a victim. Or about being an underdog, or having to survive... women didn't go to Vietnam and blow things up. They are not Rambo."
-- Jodie Foster; Actress - as quoted in The New York Times Magazine.
"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future - If There Is One - Is Female.
"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference."
-- Susan Griffin, Rape: The All-American Crime.
"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males." --Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001.
"If anyone is prosecuted for filing a false report, then victims of real attacks will be less likely to report them." - David Angier
"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." - Catherine Comins
"As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women...he can sexually molest his daughters... THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE."
-- Marilyn French (her emphasis)
"All men are rapists and that's all they are"
-- Marilyn French, Authoress; (later, advisoress to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.)
"Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release."
-- Germaine Greer.
"All men are good for is f**king, and running over with a truck".
Statement made by A University of Maine Feminist Administrator, quoted by Richard Dinsmore, who brought a successful civil suit against the University in the amount of $600,000. Richard had protested the quote; was dismissed thereafter on the grounds of harassment; and responded by bringing suit against the University. 1995 settlement.
"Women have their faults / men have only two: / everything they say / everything they do."
-- Popular Feminist Graffiti
"We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men." -- Elizabeth Cady Stanton
From 'A feminist Dictionary; ed. Kramarae and Triechler, Pandora Press, 1985:
Here's a link for you Kate. It describes how feminism is a hate movement.
David Byron has done some excellent work on this idea and has mapped out the characteristics of a hate group:
1. Advocates lesser rights in law for the target group
2. Propagates discrimination against the target group
3. Teaches that the target group is inherently inferior and immoral
4. Teaches that the target group is a threat
5. Uses lies including historical revisionism to spread these views
6. Tolerates violence towards the target group
A good case could be make that feminism fits in nicely.
For more info you can check out his page at
http://members.tripod.com/feministhate/id35.htm
"-Yes, exactly. Glad you agree. Which is why "healthy masculinity" is not a neutral phrase, any more than "healthy femininity."
By stating it is not a "neutral" phrase, are you trying to discount it? ...Because some phrases have a very direct message. It's my understanding of phrasing that neutrality is reserved for specific instances where it is applicable & not a mandate for all phrases.
"Today's new science will be tomorrow's 'science of old'. You cannot justify your faith in science based ONLY on an appeal to the 'new'. Plus, you are taking my argument to an extreme. I am not arguing that people shouldn't trust science at all. I am arguing for critical thinking."
But you also cannot ignore the differences between the science of old with modern day science. Your comparison between the two to discredit modern science was unfair.
"To use your analogy: one shouldn't trust modern day surgeons UNCRITICALLY. Would you accept a person perfoming surgery on you, even if you suspected you didn't need it, simply because they have the job title "surgeon"?""
That is a very specific instance where I would have to know the nature of the surgery & the nature of the reasons why I suspected I didn't "need" it.
"To go further: what if they assured you that the medical consensus was that this particular surgery was beneficial, that it had proven health benefits etc? I think you can probably guess where this is leading: look at the history of circumcision.""
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If you're trying to discount scientific findings based on the "hot button" topic of male mutilation, then I will tell you to find another handle to pull.
What happens to male babies doesn't make scientific research into gender irrelevant. I hope you're not trying a "slight of hand" tactic here.
"Kindly point me towards any respectable scientist who declares their findings to be "irrefutable." Do you even know the meaning of the word hubris?""
Wow, that statement alone reeks of "hubris." When biologists find structural differences in the brains of men & women. ...Do you think they are "theories?" When biologists found that humans have a heart that pumps blood through out system, is it still "theoretical?" ...Would you agree that structural variances in our brains are factual? Is there anything involving the known biological structure of the human form that can be considered "irrefutable?" ...Or perhaps we should we assume that biology is as "soft" as you'd like it to be?
"Again, who is concluding that there is NO behavioral difference based on biology?""
Radical feminists.
"As you say, the degree is still absent from the findings - which is why interpreting and pronouncing WHAT those differences lead to is not hard science, but theory.""
Well, when you have scientists telling us that the differences we've all witnessed between the sexes is a result of "hard-wiring" & you have man-hating, self centered feminists telling us that the differences are from societal programing, there is a "who do you trust" question that emerges. ...As I've already stated.
"Bluedye, the rest of your post appears to be an unsupported rant against "feminists"."
"Support your assertions with evidence, please, or I will assume they are nothing more than personal, misinformed opinion.""
Please spare me the "Oh, I don't know what those other feminists do" line of BS. All you have to do is look at the broadening of the definition of "sexual harassment" to see just how fragile feminists think women are... but in a 180º turn, they will INSIST women are the exact same thing as men & need to lead platoons of soldiers in Iraq or become firefighters because they're just as tough as a man.
If you cannot bring yourself to understand the blatant hypocrisy there, you will have shown yourself to be someone too blinded by ideology to be trusted/believed.
"As for feminism vs science: I say to you, and to everyone else here, are you under the impression that there is no such thing as a scientist who is also a feminist?""
Well, nowadays some of the women entering the sciences are there because the feminists have told them that they need to do that lest be "undervalued" as a woman. It's the same reason many women work instead of stay home with their families.
...Not necessarily because they want to, but because they've been guilted into it by narrow minded feminists.
Any scientist that is also a feminist would get the same reaction from me as any other scientist that was a member of a narrow minded hate group...
That reaction being... If you associate yourself with that sexist bullshit, you've proven to me that you needn't be listened to.
Brian, that is exactly what I'm asking. I *don't* think men are inherently evil or of less value than women, and I want to know why you do - and, why you think feminism is the cause of this, or a large contributing factor. NOBODY should feel a priori inferior on the basis of their sex!
Kate, this is really rather simple.
Feminism is, per definition, woman-centric. The unspoken ideal is thus woman. Men can then only hope to become honorary women.
If society is centered around women's needs than men are valued not in their own right, but only to the extent that they further women's welfare.
Feminism has been very succesfull in making society more women-centered.
I loved the quotes Dr Evil. Nothing like damning the FEMS with their own words. I am waiting with baited breath for Kates response.
Kate says:
-The odd thing is, I got a little turned on reading this. No, seriously. Yes, the secret to feminists is we JUST WANT TO PEE ON MEN!
A sense of humor?! Alright lady, out of the car, let's see some ID.
But seriously Kate, we don't allow that kind of thing here. Or if we do no one has ever invited me, bastards.
"As for feminism vs science: I say to you, and to everyone else here, are you under the impression that there is no such thing as a scientist who is also a feminist?""
I should hope that any scientist worth his or her salt will consider themselves a scientist first and a _______ (fill in the blank ideology) second. We can see the huge chaos and misery that is produced from a "feminist" professional by looking at the work of Tara Levicy the SANE nurse who first saw Crystal Gail Mangum. Her take on things was that a rape had to have occured since mangum claimed that she was raped. The nurse's feminist ideology had taught her that
no woman lies about rape. This is not conjecture or hearsay this is what she literally told the police. Women don't lie about rape. This of course is a feminist spawned lie and when mixed with a professional who is responsilbe to make decisions that impact people's lives in a big way it becomes the equivalent of plastic explosives. Just look at what happened in the Duke case. Largely on this nurses word the case went to grand jury and the boys were indicted. Anyone who allows this sort of hateful ideology to impact their decision making at their job as did Levicy or their scientific research, well, they ought to be spanked and deprogrammed from the propaganda that is hurting people. Thus far Levicy is getting off scott free but frankly I think she was at the beginning of a long line of feminist/chivalrist crap.
"-The odd thing is, I got a little turned on reading this. No, seriously. Yes, the secret to feminists is we JUST WANT TO PEE ON MEN!
-I believe you are referring to the guy who gave his name to 'masochism.' Didn't he write Venus-in-Furs, which has been widely translated, including into English""
I must give you credit, most feminists are as delicate as the dust on a butterfly's wing. You are feisty and not easily intimidated...the warrior called MAUS salutes you.
I studied and taught martial arts for 25 years...you get to know how to make opponents who have a stylized approach make knee jerk reponses by using sacrificial probes.
This is not a feminist or mangina forum. Everyone who read what I posted knew exactly what I was on about without me havingto expand on it.... your response might have gotten you a giggle in a feminist forum...nobody is giggling here.
I am on a roll.....after a nearly five year struggle, just this week....high level mandarins of Status of Women Canada admitted in court under oath that feminists do not speak for women collectively....now you freely and of your own will admit that you were interested enough in the writings of Masoch to be famiiar with them and are conversant enough in what I am on about to have it's humour in your vernacular.
The feminists who are not full blown lesbians may not wish to literally "pee on men" in some cases that may be overstating it somewhat...but no feminist I have ever met enjoys sex nearly as much as she enjoys the POWER it affords her to broker....and again I say...masculinity might in some cases be a symptom....but I have examined the scope of it from drag queen to gladiator....and it is not the issue.
@ Mr. Bad
"Notice how they run as soon as the logic appears."
I call a flagrant foul here: Attributing to one person the comments of another is a cheap shot. You owe me shiva.
That wasn't meant to be attributed as your quote, I put three quotes together there and replied to all three in a non-specific manner. Your quote (I think) someone else's and someone else's. Generalized response, but yeah it wasn't very clear, so my bad. Sorry. Things been hectic lately.
@ dr e:
That wall of feminazi/misandrist quotes was sickening. I didn't get halfway through. (lol).
OK folks. I am not going to be able to post here until next week, weds or thurs. Just to let anyone with bated breath know! I'll try and address everyone's points then :)
OK folks. I am not going to be able to post here until next week, weds or thurs. Just to let anyone with bated breath know! I'll try and address everyone's points then :)
Kate - When you come back please post to the "Up Here Kate - Has Feminism hurt boys and men" (http://standyourground.com/forums/index.php?topic=13107.0) thread at the top of the board.
In your first post and introduction you wrote:
With that said, Mr Bad, let's have at it. I can repost my original questions or you can suggest another way to debate. I guess what I'm having trouble with is the idea that feminism's focus 'not harming girls and women' is somehow actively causing harms to boys and men.* I'm interested, too, in your definition of healthy/unhealthy masculinity.
The healthy masculinity discussion is interesting but the "Has feminism hurt boys and men thread" (http://standyourground.com/forums/index.php?topic=13107.0) is much more connected to the anger and disdain you see here for feminism. Many have taken time to offer you reasons for their concerns. I know we would all be interested in hearing your response.
Dr E. I have answered on the other thread. But there are still unanswered questions on this one, too...
Apologies, though, as I still haven't figured out the blockquote function. I've enabled Javascript but can't get it to preview.
gwallan - re: NOW/Fawcett - I've addressed these on the 'has feminism hurt men and boys' thread.
As for the "wall of feminist hate quotes"....
Dr E, do you really want to go down this road? I could make a very good case, should I choose to, that MRAs are misogynists or whatever, if the evidence required is simply a wall of quotes taken out of context. If you really do believe that these statements represent feminism or have had a causal effect on society's treatment of men, then how about you argue it honestly? i.e. you take a quote from that selection, place it in context of the original source (one which we can both access, and ideally, one which anyone reading may access) and then we can debate the text, it's influences, and harms arising or not arising, fair and square.
As regards David Byron's definition of a hate group - again, a case could be made that MRAs are a hate group against feminism!
Hansside -
"Feminism is, per definition, woman-centric." -Right. "The unspoken ideal is thus woman." - doesn't follow. Ideal for who? Feminists? Everyone? "Men can then only hope to become honorary women." - yes, if feminists were as you say they were and also if they ruled a totalitarian state....come on. I think we need to investigate what you mean by "woman" - what's wrong with being a woman or a honorary woman anyway?
"If society is centered around women's needs than men are valued not in their own right, but only to the extent that they further women's welfare." - yes, maybe, but that is a hell of a big IF.
"Feminism has been very succesfull in making society more women-centered." -yes, and that is an excellent thing, because society needs to be more equal in its representation. We're still not there yet, with women, or people of colour, or disabled people, or....and no, I don't have a problem with acknowledging that men need more representation in many areas, either!
Dr E - I am not familiar with the nurse/witness? or indeed, the case (Duke rape case)? We can discuss it if you want but I would need to research it.
MAUS - you make interesting, if extremely odd, points. I wonder what you can mean with your references to Sacher-Masoch and your dark hints about political lesbianism. I am not averse to discussing such things, but I wouldn't want to corrupt you, MAUS.
Kate
Hansside -
"Feminism is, per definition, woman-centric." -Right.
-- So we agree on this. Then consider that there is limited resources available to spend on groups and limited attention to pay to groups' problems.
It thus follows logically that if everyone is a feminist more will be spent on women and less on men. This, of course, already happens to a very great extent in my own (former) country, Denmark:
Women's lower average net contribution and longer life span means that an average female can expect to receive 2.4 mill. dkr ( ~400.000 $ ) more from the public than she pays. On the other hand the average male can expect to pay 0.8 mill. dkr ( ~133.333 $ ) more than he receives from the public.
In the femicentric state men and boys pay - women and girls enjoy. Feminism and chivalry are similar in that they put women at the center of men's effort. But at least chivalry gave men some credit for their contributions.
The feminist state camouflages the efforts of men because feminists are to mean spirited to acknowledge that men contribute more than women. Also the femistate wants to keep up the appearance that women do not need men in any way.
"The unspoken ideal is thus woman." - doesn't follow.
--Yes, it follows. Who is the ideal in a humanistic society? God? Dogs? No, the human is.
Who is the ideal in a communist state? The capitalist? Mice? No, the worker is.
In a feminist society woman is the ideal.
Ideal for who? Feminists? Everyone? "Men can then only hope to become honorary women." - yes, if feminists were as you say they were and also if they ruled a totalitarian state....come on.
-- Come on? OK, I will. Yes the feminist state is totalitarian because it wishes to suprees natural talents, needs and inclinations to achieve some higky abstract political ideals; namely 50 / 50 distributions among men and women in all areas. Since men are not thus distributed naturally, the state will have to enforce a lot of regulation to make sure the ideals are achieved.
In Denmark this is called "gender mainstreaming." What words, what words. Really, it is just newspeak for totalitarian measures.
-I think we need to investigate what you mean by "woman" - what's wrong with being a woman or a honorary woman anyway?
-- Wrong? I never said there is anything wrong with being a woman. Are you deliberately trying to derail the discussion by painting med - undeservedly - as a misogynist?
Being a woman is right for a woman, but expecting of a man to adapt to the woman template is not only wrong, it is futile.
"If society is centered around women's needs than men are valued not in their own right, but only to the extent that they further women's welfare." - yes, maybe, but that is a hell of a big IF.
-- No, this is already happening with many times over more spend on female-specific diseases than male-specific diseases.
"Feminism has been very successful in making society more women-centered." -yes, and that is an excellent thing, because society needs to be more equal in its representation. We're still not there yet, with women, or people of colour, or disabled people, or....and no, I don't have a problem with acknowledging that men need more representation in many areas, either!
--I would rather not be represented, but instead allowed to rule my own life as long as I do not hurt other people. Also the idea that special groups will represent as broadly as have thus far been the case for men is dubious. Instead of taking into considerations the needs of society and taking measures for it to work while respecting individual rights society is now fractioned in identity politics. To have all kinds of sexualities, genders, colours, disabilities does not really mean diversity in the political system because the diversity that counts in the political system is political diversity, not color or sex.
I everyone agrees with the slave-morality of feminists and socialists that it is okay to rip one group by state intervention to benefit another group regardless of individual rights all this color and sex diversity does no good anyway.
As for the "wall of feminist hate quotes"....
Dr E, do you really want to go down this road? I could make a very good case, should I choose to, that MRAs are misogynists or whatever, if the evidence required is simply a wall of quotes taken out of context
.
If you could make a good case please go ahead and make it. Show us editors of popular national magaizines that are offering up qyotes that are hateful to women. Show us authors of popular masculinist books that are dishing out hateful quotes about women and girls. Show us quotes from male college professors that are hateful towards women. I really look forward to this. What you can find are a few misogynous overzealous men who are spouting this sort of crap but you will notice they are nowhere near the status of the sources of the quotes I listed. They are banned from this board while Oh please do make the case. I would love to see itany feminist board would never dream of banning one of those feminists who were quoted. They would be glorified. I simply can't believe you can't see the difference here. Any rational person can see that the leaders of the feminist movement have been hateful towards men for some time.
As regards David Byron's definition of a hate group - again, a case could be made that MRAs are a hate group against feminism!
Feminism fits like a glove into his schema. Do you admit this or deny it?
I think you would have a pretty hard time fitting men's issues folks into that.
If you could make a good case please go ahead and make it. Show us editors of popular national magaizines that are offering up qyotes that are hateful to women. Show us authors of popular masculinist books that are dishing out hateful quotes about women and girls. Show us quotes from male college professors that are hateful towards women.
I've got to agree with the Doc on this one Kate. Every political movement will attract extremists in its ranks and we've had our fair share here and I've been on the recieving end of some pretty venomous rants on some of the feminist boards. But those people are normally ignored and sidelined.
However, the quotes that the Doc posted had a sizeable chunk of accademics, writers and editors, hardly your common or garden whacko.
As regards David Byron's definition of a hate group - again, a case could be made that MRAs are a hate group against feminism
Then surely that would follow that the Jews are a hate group toward Nazis? I'm not sure that hating a political ideal can be considered a hate crime?
hansside said:
Women's lower average net contribution and longer life span means that an average female can expect to receive 2.4 mill. dkr ( ~400.000 $ ) more from the public than she pays. On the other hand the average male can expect to pay 0.8 mill. dkr ( ~133.333 $ ) more than he receives from the public.
That is a very important stat. Do you know if there has been anyone tabulating the number for the US? This is the sort of thing that we need to get out there. BS exposed as chivalry from the government who does all of this "giving" by taxing the men.
Men have been deemed expendable for eons and long before the advent of feminism. You are right about that. Where feminism has pissed in the drinking water is in their attempts (all too often successful) at framing men and masculinity in terms of violence, greed, and arrogant self-centeredness. They blame all men, not just some men and have been sadly effective in promoting propaganda that claims men are evil, unpredictable and not to be trusted. The implication is that they need to grow up and be more like women. (etc.)
E., this is very interesting because one of the recurring themes I've noticed among feminists is their strong propensity for
transference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transference)and
projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection). I believe that in most cases it is indeed the feminist that is need of, e.g., growing up, not to be more like men but to more like an adult in general. I'm sure we can all identify cases where we've debated with feminists who do this sort of thing.
Mr Bad:
"I would tend to agree that there are a lot of societal/political aspects to how society addresses "gender" - the more modern customs associated with "chivalry" as it pertains to male/female interactions (vs. its original manifestation of behavior between Knights) is an example of such. However, one cannot escape biology when examining why those customs were put into place, e.g., the sexual dimorphism between men and women leading to men deferring to women and accepting duties and sacrifices when confronted with physical challenges. "
-Interesting. I am not arguing one needs to 'escape biology.' However, your assertion that sexual dimorphism leads to men deferring to women appears to be a sociological observation. In what way does biology lead to male deferral?
One example: Women are generally not as strong as men are, so men defer to this weakness and take-on the physically-demanding, dangerous and difficult work that women either cannot or will not do. There are many, many more examples of this phenomenon.
"I disagree that gender roles are traditionally due to socialisation rather than biology; that reasoning puts the cart before the horse so-to-speak. The social roles of 'masculine' and 'feminine' have evolved over many millenia, IMO primarily due to the biological differences between men and women."
-You seem to be arguing that biology is destiny here. Fair enough: but how do you square that with the MRA arguments against domestic violence: i.e. that feminists who observe men are more violent are 'man-haters' and promoting false assumptions about men?
The observation you cite is due to one simple fact: Investigator bias. The fact that feminists are the ones doing the "observing" makes it a foregone conclusion that their 'results' will show that men are more violent. In fact,
the valid, legitimate scientific evidence (http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm) clearly demonstrate that re. interpartner violence (what feminists usually call "domestic violence") men and women are approximately equal vis-a-vis being perps and victims. However, when it comes to
all family violence, i.e., domestic violence against partners, children and the elderly, women are by far the more predominate perps.
Men are
not more violent than women - that's a feminist lie used to propagate a myth and scare people into fearing men. Men are stronger than women and thus they do more damage when they are violent. The distinction is important.
hansside said: Women's lower average net contribution and longer life span means that an average female can expect to receive 2.4 mill. dkr ( ~400.000 $ ) more from the public than she pays. On the other hand the average male can expect to pay 0.8 mill. dkr ( ~133.333 $ ) more than he receives from the public.
That is a very important stat. Do you know if there has been anyone tabulating the number for the US? This is the sort of thing that we need to get out there. BS exposed as chivalry from the government who does all of this "giving" by taxing the men.
I know of no such numbers for other countries than Denmark.
These particular numbers are from a special report on the future of the Danish Welfare State called Velfærdsrapporten. It is an official government report so the numbers themselves are pretty much beyond dispute.
These particular numbers are from a special report on the future of the Danish Welfare State called Velfærdsrapporten. It is an official government report so the numbers themselves are pretty much beyond dispute.
Government numbers are always trustworthy? :rolle:
Hmm, you know that there are people on this BB that live in the U.S., right? :evil6:
Well, they would make things look worse than they are. If anything the disparity would be even bigger. Thats why I said it was from the goverment and not some individual think tank with a chip on the shoulder.
Yeah. I know governemt cannot always be trusted. Damnit, I am a liberatrian!
Come on? OK, I will. Yes the feminist state is totalitarian because it wishes to suprees natural talents, needs and inclinations to achieve some higky abstract political ideals; namely 50 / 50 distributions among men and women in all areas. Since men are not thus distributed naturally, the state will have to enforce a lot of regulation to make sure the ideals are achieved.
No, feminists want 50/50 distributions in male dominated careers only -in female dominated careers they are perfectly happy having 80/20, or 95/5. I have not seen a call for more male nurses or teachers or stay at home fathers coming from feminists. I also have not seen a call to even out the workplace death rates of 93/7.
Come on? OK, I will. Yes the feminist state is totalitarian because it wishes to suprees natural talents, needs and inclinations to achieve some higky abstract political ideals; namely 50 / 50 distributions among men and women in all areas. Since men are not thus distributed naturally, the state will have to enforce a lot of regulation to make sure the ideals are achieved.
No, feminists want 50/50 distributions in male dominated careers only -in female dominated careers they are perfectly happy having 80/20, or 95/5. I have not seen a call for more male nurses or teachers or stay at home fathers coming from feminists. I also have not seen a call to even out the workplace death rates of 93/7.
Exactly. I did temp office work a few years back and everything is biased towards women. I earnt less than a woman with fewer qualifications and she was even a slower typist! Her software knowledge was abysmal and had to ask me to solve her IT problems. But it ended up that I was only getting office jobs that involved at least some heavy lifting!!
It's blatantly obvious that women don't want to lose any advantages at all, but nobody kicks up a fuss about it. It's funny how not many women seem to want to be refuse collectors isn't it? They take the good stuff from us, and keep their own good stuff for themselves. Men should complain about their low representation in the secretarial and nursing worlds. But of course to a feminist, fairness is something that only involves taking something from men.
Come on? OK, I will. Yes the feminist state is totalitarian because it wishes to suprees natural talents, needs and inclinations to achieve some higky abstract political ideals; namely 50 / 50 distributions among men and women in all areas. Since men are not thus distributed naturally, the state will have to enforce a lot of regulation to make sure the ideals are achieved.
No, feminists want 50/50 distributions in male dominated careers only -in female dominated careers they are perfectly happy having 80/20, or 95/5. I have not seen a call for more male nurses or teachers or stay at home fathers coming from feminists. I also have not seen a call to even out the workplace death rates of 93/7.
Sure, but I was making a point about putting abstract political ideals over common sense. Feminist of course only want half of the good prestigious jobs - no doubt about that.
I know, I just thought it was a good place to put that idea. It came out sounding like I was disagreeing with you, but I did not think you were that blind!
I guess sitting in this freezing bar was freezing my brains too!I should have worded that differently.
50/50 distributions for binmen NOW! You go girl - picking up the trash, that is. :laughing6: