Masculinity is Killing Men

Locksley wrote:

Goken wrote:
Why is it that the behaviour of one side should dictate what "should be normal" for the other? Especially when the "more human" side is actually the outnumbered side thus making it's behaviour statistically less "human."

Well there aren't actually two sides in play here. Masculine and Feminine aren't weird distinct animals vying for control over a host body - they're just two sides of a single coin. The issue I think that was being brought into question was that men are being taught to disconnect from their emotions - and emotions are fundamentally human. Also sex ratio worldwide is nearly identical - there's really not a huge difference, but again this isn't actually a discussion relating to placement of sexual organs. It's about the innate aspects of the human psyche opposed to the conditioned norms provided by society.

That's why I put feminine and masculine in quotes. I meant to imply their lack of actual distinction. If I didn't do a good enough job of that I'm sorry.

Goken wrote: I loved it, but I took issue with one thing: the idea of using "female" behaviour as the baseline for "normal human" behaviour.

I think most of this is that any show of emotion is typically considered "feminine", and so they're describing as basic human emotions what many "men" would say is "feminine," not actually implying that as a baseline for normality.

My favorite example is Turk and J.D. from Scrubs. I even use "Guy Love," the song they sing in the musical episode, as the ringtone for my best friend.

But even that's a problem. Just look at the word "bromance," with all its implications. The idea that friendships that close are anything other than totally reasonable or understandable is an issue men are going to have to deal with if we want to grow as a group. We can't do it all by ourselves and still be healthy, and we need to learn that and redraw our lines of "guy friendships" around both our levels of comfort and our mental and emotional health.

[hr]

Locksley wrote: I think it needs to be pointed out that respecting women isn't about holding the door open for them, or defending their honor - simply because they're women. Respect would be relating to them as if they were fully capable human beings - fancy that.

I partially disagree in that I would say much of respect is also bound in courtesy. As my grandfather used to say,

Steam's Grandpappy wrote: Son, we don't open doors or pull out chairs or pay for dinner because women can't. We do it because they shouldn't have to.

Obviously, another key component in respect is allowing an individual to do what they want on their own, but should they desire not to deal with it alone, one should step up. Don't you agree?

Now I don't think that we can draw the line along the point of competition either, for competition isn't something only men possess

No, but it is a quality that is inherent and readily apparent in men because of the nature of our physiology . Competition has always (and probably always will) be seen as a masculine trait, simply because there is a very real need for it in men's lives. We have not outgrown our ancestors, and there's not enough technology to make our evolution catch up with our society.

In my time talking to people - or rather listening to people talk - about this subject, I've come to notice a strange knee-jerk reaction on the part of men when gender issues in society are raised, almost as if men feel that someone is trying to take something away from them - when in reality the broader discussion is about opening up the possibilities of experience for men - of giving them more, not less.

That greatly depends on who you're listening to. For starters, there's a linguistic argument to be made against the idea that "feminism is for everybody." There's also the idea that many feminists and their allies frame these issues incorrectly (if not inherently falsely). Yes, it's true that men are responsible for the corruption of the masculine ideal. But it's not because of gender (though, we do typically do it in a vaguely, arguably misogynist way). It's because of stratification of power. It isn't because some men are more "girly" than others, but because some have less social power than others, and are removing threats from their sphere of influence. Ask me about corporate grooming policies sometime for a better understanding of my point here.

Personally I feel this is just dependent on the household that teaches said "Man"........Heck. Even Women. Men are not the only one's who get "Gender Roles" pushed on them as kids.

Growing up I was taught all manners of "Being a Women" My grandmother would tell me that, to be a proper women and proper wife It was my job to make sure the kids got up every morning. That they made it to school and had proper education. To keep the house clean and always have dinner ready on the table when husband got home from work.

A proper Women graciously accepts the respect of a man when he opens the door or compliments you

A proper Women dressed with similar dignity and respect. I was taught that dressing otherwise was disrespectful to the man as it played on their natural temptations.

A Proper Women going on her first date always let their father or brother answer the door, make the date wait so that men could talk men things before showing oneself.

Men are not the only one's that get the "Proper" talk hehe. I got it all my childhood. We even had classes that taught us how to be proper laides and gentlemen.

The thing is....At least in my family....not one were we taught these expectations....but we were taught "Why" they were important. Everything that I was taught on how to be a proper women has served me well and continues to do so.

"Be a Man."

"Be a Women"

"Be an Adult"

These are not bad advice in my opinion. I know many men who are down right soft, shallow, and weak as men. Utterly Shameful.

However, one must know why and when appropriate.

But also the expectations of what a "Man" should be better defined and taught.

Steamboat says:

I knit in a kilt. I cross-stitch. I like flower arranging and ballroom dancing and ice cream and chick flicks and cartoons.

And absolutely he should! It dosn't and shouldn't mean he is less of a man for it. My grandma who is way old school in beliefs and mentality would tell me. Every man should know how to sew, because it is just stupid not to know how. Every man should love flowers so that he can share their joy with his wife. Just as every women should know how to stand up for themselves with conflict occures...Being a Women does not mean being weak...it means the opposite in fact!

:laugh: *Sigh* Talking about this makes me miss my grandma....I love her dearly and she was the first to say "Be a Man." (she had 7 boys)

Locksley wrote: Well there aren't actually two sides in play here. Masculine and Feminine aren't weird distinct animals vying for control over a host body - they're just two sides of a single coin.

Not sure about sides of the same coin. There is a condition called androgen insensitivity syndrome where (seemingly) if a male is born, their cells do not recognize the testosterone... so genetically they are a male but without the influence of testosterone - and they end up looking and acting like a female. It seem's to infer that the female might be the baseline human form, and the male a derivation based around the impact of the high androgen levels. The idea puts an interesting spin on spirituality and potentials
:lol:

Yes, it's true that men are responsible for the corruption of the masculine ideal.

I have yet to hear a single man share what his masculine ideal is. Seriously.

Competition has always (and probably always will) be seen as a masculine trait

Really? I see it as the opposite. Blokes are quite happy to settle and have a pint. Women are vicious until the end. They even compete against their friends!

We have not outgrown our ancestors, and there's not enough technology to make our evolution catch up with our society.

Synthetic organs (not, not that thing that looks like a piano) are a reality today.
The synthetic baby is not far away. Can you imagine? You won't have to adopt or even be gay to have a kid. No sexual involvement whatsoever.
But we have that ridiculous notion that there will continue to be gender relations, or even sexual reproduction for our genus in the future, even though absolutely everything points in the opposite direction.

the idea that thereis no such thing as masculinity is much worse for men overall than the pressures and perils of having to live up to it

a certain level of masculinity IS something we have to live up to; its ok to be proud to be a man
its GOOD FOR YOU (if youre a man i meanlol)

we (humans) are the lastest version of a process that started with the big bang and the beginning of time itself

we probably shouldnt try to argue or deny that there are biological realities in our differences which gk beyond the obvious "innies and outies"

this is not to say that men should not be allowed to have feelings or whatever

nor that every man should play football and build cars and every woman needs to bake brownies and scrub toilets

we would all do well to be able to change a tire and to cook a meatloaf

and its easy to see that we should all cultivate self sufficiency, personal courage and some sort of physical prowess however we can

women can like krav maga and tanks and blowing stuff up, and guys can enjoy bubble baths and skin cream and aromatic oils (i guess)

im curious, to anyone who wants to answer
if you could be really pretty, at the cost of being kind of frail, or you could be really tough, at the cost of being kind of ugly, what would you be?

genuinely tough men will be generally desired by women and respected by other men, even if they are ugly

and thats pretty universally true across the cultural spectrum

whats more damaging in our times is imo EMASCULATION

fear and lack of identity

somehow the idea is quitely accepted that failure is permanent and that losing in public is not simply an experience but a personality trait

and there are many who are afraid to even try

sometimes the idea of the "participation award" makes perfect sense to me

sometimes just participating with other people under challenging or unfamiliar circumstances has become so fraught with neurotic stress for so many people that i have no doubt that anti anxiety medications outsell vitamins at the average drug store
and i dont think this is a result of the pressures of the masculine stereotype - i acknowledge that there ARE sterotypes and unhealthy pressures - but imo its much better for us to tell our boys "be a man" than it is to NOT tell them

now more than ever, in my culture anyway, men need healthy masculine role models to look up to much more than the silly notion that masculinity is some kind of myth of social convention

i say BE A MAN and define masculinity for yourself if you have to

but dont let the idea of masculinity itself be taken away from you, because it is literally your manhood that you will lose if that happens

ren wrote:

Yes, it's true that men are responsible for the corruption of the masculine ideal.

I have yet to hear a single man share what his masculine ideal is. Seriously.

Competition has always (and probably always will) be seen as a masculine trait

Really? I see it as the opposite. Blokes are quite happy to settle and have a pint. Women are vicious until the end. They even compete against their friends!

We have not outgrown our ancestors, and there's not enough technology to make our evolution catch up with our society.

Synthetic organs (not, not that thing that looks like a piano) are a reality today.
The synthetic baby is not far away. Can you imagine? You won't have to adopt or even be gay to have a kid. No sexual involvement whatsoever.
But we have that ridiculous notion that there will continue to be gender relations, or even sexual reproduction for our genus in the future, even though absolutely everything points in the opposite direction.

It would be well to remember that the use of sweeping generalizations of traits of either gender are inherently harmful to both, and in my personal opinion, are rather unbecoming of Jedi.

ren wrote: I'm not sure looking at dangerous jobs or a low consumption of medical resources is a good way of supporting the argument that "masculinity kills". I think in the end that's what will make men the dominant specie when sexual reproduction becomes redundant.

Men and women as different species? Your vocabulary betrays you my friend.

Goken wrote:

Locksley wrote:

Goken wrote:
Why is it that the behaviour of one side should dictate what "should be normal" for the other? Especially when the "more human" side is actually the outnumbered side thus making it's behaviour statistically less "human."

Well there aren't actually two sides in play here. Masculine and Feminine aren't weird distinct animals vying for control over a host body - they're just two sides of a single coin. The issue I think that was being brought into question was that men are being taught to disconnect from their emotions - and emotions are fundamentally human. Also sex ratio worldwide is nearly identical - there's really not a huge difference, but again this isn't actually a discussion relating to placement of sexual organs. It's about the innate aspects of the human psyche opposed to the conditioned norms provided by society.

That's why I put feminine and masculine in quotes. I meant to imply their lack of actual distinction. If I didn't do a good enough job of that I'm sorry.

Oh! cool, didn't catch that. It's been a weird day - I havn't been on my game when it comes to thinking about things lol.

I still think this topic is only operating a certain level of the discussion (for the most part anyway). it's not about sex (as in reproductive organs) it's about the social and cognitive aspects of "femininity" and "masculinity" under the broad historical and present political contexts.

I feel like we're missing something here. :huh: