Healthy Masculinity

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

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

BRIAN

This was an interesting thread.
You may sleep soundly at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence upon those who seek to harm you.

Sociopathic Revelation

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. 

Sociopathic Revelation


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. 

Kate

"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.'
Have you learned the lessons only of those who admired you, and were tender with you, and stood aside for you? Have you not learned great lessons from those who braced themselves against you, and disputed passage with you?
-Walt Whitman

The Biscuit Queen

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.

he Biscuit Queen
www.thebiscuitqueen.blogspot.com

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

Kate

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.
Have you learned the lessons only of those who admired you, and were tender with you, and stood aside for you? Have you not learned great lessons from those who braced themselves against you, and disputed passage with you?
-Walt Whitman

Kate

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!
Have you learned the lessons only of those who admired you, and were tender with you, and stood aside for you? Have you not learned great lessons from those who braced themselves against you, and disputed passage with you?
-Walt Whitman

stands2p

Kate:
Quote
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.

Quote
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.")

Quote
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.)

The Lord works in strange ways; and with strange people.

shiva

@ TBQ:

Quote
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.

Quote
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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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. 

Quote
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.

Quote
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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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.)     

Quote
"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:

Quote
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:






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.

dr e


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

bachelor tom


This was an interesting thread.


Agreed - stands2p your patience and clarity are a great example of constructive debate imho
political correctness = patriarchal chivalry + matriarchal victimology

Mr. Bad



@ Mr. Bad:

Quote
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.

Quote
"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.
"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 Biscuit Queen

#57
May 09, 2007, 01:22 PM Last Edit: May 09, 2007, 01:29 PM by The Biscuit Queen
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.
he Biscuit Queen
www.thebiscuitqueen.blogspot.com

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

Mr. Bad


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.
"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

MAUS

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.

Go Up