Healthy Masculinity

Started by Mr. Bad, May 04, 2007, 08:12 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

Mr. Bad

May 04, 2007, 08:12 AM Last Edit: May 04, 2007, 09:12 AM by Mr. Bad
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)
"Men in teams... got the human species from caves to palaces. When we watch men's teams at work, we pay homage to 10,000 years of male achievements; a record of vision, ingenuity and Herculean labor that feminism has been too mean-spirited to acknowledge."  Camille Paglia

The Gonzman


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.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the Shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for I am the MEANEST son-of-a-bitch in the valley.

Mr. Bad


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."
"Men in teams... got the human species from caves to palaces. When we watch men's teams at work, we pay homage to 10,000 years of male achievements; a record of vision, ingenuity and Herculean labor that feminism has been too mean-spirited to acknowledge."  Camille Paglia

bachelor tom

Well, the radfems have to stick to the gender construction model in spite of scientific proof, otherwise their other arguments won't work
political correctness = patriarchal chivalry + matriarchal victimology

dr e

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.
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

Mr. X



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.
Feminists - "Verbally beating men like dumb animals or ignoring them is all we know and its not working."

MAUS

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)

dr e

Quote
"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!
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

scarbo

And then over at feministing, you have this: http://feministing.com/archives/006977.html

Quote
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...

The Biscuit Queen

Quote
(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?

he Biscuit Queen
www.thebiscuitqueen.blogspot.com

There are always two extremes....the truth lies in the middle.

shiva

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.

Quote
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. 
The above is the individual opinion of shiva. Unless stated otherwise, it's just an opinion; please do not confuse with a certified expert's individual opinion.

The Biscuit Queen

from feministing:
Quote
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!!
he Biscuit Queen
www.thebiscuitqueen.blogspot.com

There are always two extremes....the truth lies in the middle.

JackBauersPowerHour

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

gwallan


from feministing:
Quote
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.
In 95% of things 100% of people are alike. It's the other 5%, the bits that are different, that make us interesting. It's also the key to our existence, and future, as a species.

brian44


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.
It is time we began to ask who are these women who continually rubbish men. The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests.

Men seem to be so cowed that they can't fight back, and it is time they did." Doris Lessing

Go Up