Healthy Masculinity

[brian44]

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.

[dr e]

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.

[The Biscuit Queen]

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?

[shiva]

@ 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. 

[The Gonzman]

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."

[dr e]

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! 

[MAUS]

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.

[shiva]

@ 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.

[bluedye]

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. 

[dr e]

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.

[The Biscuit Queen]

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?

[stands2p]

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.

[stands2p]

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.

[Mr. Bad]

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.   

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)

[The Biscuit Queen]

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. 

Notice how they run as soon as the logic appears.