Thursday, July 7, 2011

On Male Reactions to Feminism

I have never understood the hostility men have for feminism, though to be fair, there is a great deal about most people of both genders which I don’t understand, like… I don’t understand the female obsession with fictional dramas where every little thing that could possibly go wrong does, nor do I understand the male obsession with violent action films where guns seem to solve every problem imaginable.

I don’t understand why women would go to a club or a bar to be hit on by men who play ridiculous games, and I don’t understand men who think that being mean to women is somehow a trick that will make them to like you (when really they just haven’t refined their technique since 3rd grade, when they used to throw mud at the girl they had a crush on).

I’m not particularly manly or girly. I feel as comfortable using a lawn mower or a power drill as I do vacuuming or doing laundry. I just don’t see gender as particularly important beyond the biological ramifications of reproduction. And I don’t think this is a particularly rare stance.

I feel I am rather qualified to speak on the male reaction to feminism, since I feel like I have no bias on the matter (I don’t see either gender as superior, nor do I prefer to be in the presence of people who identify with one gender over another). Plus, I am biologically a man, so I have access to the views of men that they wouldn’t share with women.

Sexism is alive and well, that much is very clear. And I’m not talking about superficial and harmless sexism, like calling the office secretary “toots.” That may be irritating, but I assure you that she wouldn’t mind so much if she was being paid the same salary that a man in her position was being paid, or if she had the same opportunities for advancement and mentorship as her male co-workers.

Sexism today is sort of like racism today: a fair amount of people (all of whom are the ones unaffected) think it’s gone because they don’t see it or practice it themselves. These forms of prejudice have largely gone underground. This isn’t worse than before, by any means, since there are far more opportunities now for women and ethnic minorities, not to mention regulations on overt bigotry that prevent some of the larger offenses. However, this last bit of prejudice will probably be tougher to wipe out than the large-scale and systemic discrimination practices that have been eradicated so far.

It’s kind of like eradicating pests from a house. It’s easy to get everything you can see in the open, it’s another to get the last of them that are hiding in the walls.

I haven’t done a poll on this among men I know or men in general, but I suspect that the majority of men don’t like feminism (especially if asked in a room full of guys). While I’ve never heard this argument made expressly, I wonder if the fact that the name “feminism” is part of the problem. I myself find it slightly biased (why not “gender equality” or “egalitarianism?”). But I know that most men see it as a movement that only benefits women, and I imagine the name can’t be helping.

Now, I’ve thought about it for a long time, and I’ve listened to a lot of men talk about how they hate feminism. I’ve taken the time to read many opinions on the matter, and it comes down to this: I can find only two reasons for men not liking feminism.

The first one is that certain men, who tend to be traditionalist, conservative, religious, role-oriented, and/or just plain misogynistic, see feminism as a legitimate threat to their perception of male supremacy. I suspect this is a scant minority.

The second type of men who feel threatened by feminists are those who are, for lack of a better term, whiney pussies. [No offense, ladies, but that sentence was for their benefit, not yours, and you have to speak the language of your listener if you want to be heard.] These men tend to take great offense at what they perceive to be a shame campaign by feminists to make white, primarily middle- and upper-class males feel guilty for who they are.

Basically, a bunch of pouty, whinging, overgrown cry-babies can’t get over the fact that someone, somewhere, might not like them. Boo hoo, white males, here’s a straw so you can suck it up.

Get over yourselves, you self-pitying, wanna-be victims. Feminists don’t make me feel bad about being a white male. No, assclowns like you fuckheads do. You are exactly who they’re talking about, the ones who refuse to acknowledge any degree of privilege or undeserved advantage and still have the audacity to turn around and act oppressed by people seeking to level the playing field.

To be quite frank, feminism would disappear the day assholes who complain about feminism disappear. Feminism is not a spontaneous movement, it is reactionary, and if the thing causing them to react disappears, their rhetoric falls to pieces and they become irrelevant. Instead, I see these indignant embarrassments who call themselves men providing all the ammunition the feminist movement needs in order to confidently continue their claims.

At some point, if you’re a well-off white guy like me, you have to be able to look at yourself and say, “I had it easier than other people, and that’s okay, because I want to live in a world where opportunity is available to everyone, not just a privileged few. When someone talks about rich white men making the world a worse place, I don’t get defensive, because I know they aren’t talking about me.”

So, ultimately, I think the only reason to get upset at feminists is if you identify as part of the problem [see reason one, above].

39 comments:

  1. I think there's also a third category of men who don't like feminism: men who feel like feminism isn't doing enough for them. They look around and see ways that men get screwed and wonder why feminists aren't concerned with those inequalities. They mistakenly take these inequalities to mean some men are oppressed by women (which is ridiculous) and therefore see feminism as part of the problem. Whether it's because they see feminism's failure to act as a willing erasure of their problems or it simply being inconsistent with the idea of gender equality who knows. This debate goes round and round.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I suppose.

    So the third category, then, are men who don't want to stand up for themselves and fight their own battles, but want feminists to take care of all the problems men face, too.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wait, doesn't that require... some sort of pro-man movement? How is that going to be received?

    Maybe that group doesn't hate feminists, they're just male feminists who want other feminists to broaden their scope? It just seems to me that an appeal to a group to act more, rather than less, is almost tacit support for the movement itself.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm not sure about your opinion on the categories of men, but I do know that generalizations, name-calling, ad-hominem attacks, condescension, elitism, and generally being a total shithead towards people who probably otherwise 100% agree with you on the vast majority of issues you care about is a GREAT way to make enemies, alienate allies, and crash the nascent atheist movement straight into the ground! Good job! Keep up the attacks!

    ReplyDelete
  5. It'll be okay. Just have a good cry, clean yourself up, and reapply your make-up.

    The sooner you realize you're acting like a little girl, the sooner you'll see why you should be a feminist.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think "feminism" is one of those words that has so many connotations that it's hard to know which direction people are coming from when they use the word.

    You're absolutely right that the birth of feminism was reactionary. In my opinion, the definition of "feminism" has changed in a reactionary way as well, but its a tree with many branches.

    I do not understand why some men have their panties in a bunch over the word, but I do know that reading this post relieved me in that it's not just women who see this.

    People are people ... at the end of the day, those who are racist, sexist, or any other "ist" are just showing their own insecurities with their need to be on top of the pig pile.

    Sad, really ...

    ReplyDelete
  7. any other "ist"

    Though surely you don't mean feminist or atheist...

    ReplyDelete
  8. [Oh and kudos on the "panties in a bunch" remark. I laughed.]

    ReplyDelete
  9. There is a pro-man movement. Unfortunately they tend to claim things like feminism puts women above men or attempts to create "female supremacy and male apartheid." You can find all kinds of craziness on youtube about it. I do think something like masculism, which would focus primary on the experiences of men, could be other side of feminism though. I mean, I don't see anything wrong with wanting to focus on a particular group's struggles. And I actually think these two groups have to work together to solve most problems. Some people argue there should be a more inclusionary term to represent both genders. The term "humanist" is often used as a substitute or even "humanitarian." I have a few problems with this though.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think the reason many men really don't like feminism is not the politic-feminism of old days, but about the social feminism of what it became. Whether you agree with it or not, many men feel that modern day feminism while having been generally successful in the past, have now shifted to reducing any male/female differences and thus attempting to demasculanize him or basically say he is not needed at all.

    No man wants hear the phrase:

    "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle"

    ReplyDelete
  11. I question if one can really be a man if he requires a woman to define his masculinity.

    ReplyDelete
  12. >I question if one can really be a man if he requires a woman to define his masculinity.

    I don't think its so much as a woman defining a man, as much as it is masculine traits require there to be feminine traits and for the feminine to be aware of the mans traits. But if you [the man] feel there is an active crusade to demasculinze, in an attempt remove any vestige of "patriarchy" than that is where the man will feel resentful.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well, that basically sounds like the first group I discussed in my post.

    If a man resents the ending of patriarchy... I understand why he feels threatened by feminism. What's more, if he defines certain behaviors which are socially unacceptable as "masculine," he should also subscribe to the belief that men shouldn't bitch and moan. He should just grin and bear it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I like that you presume to be well-qualified. Have you studied social psychology or something else or shall we just accept your authority w/out question?

    There are fundamental problems w/ feminism and feminists:


    1) Many/most assume that all social contexts can be broken down on gender without having to demonstrate that other status-related factors are at play.

    2) Related to #2- misuse of statistics is common; the assumption that macro level stats should be used to make legislation or other

    3) Men and women are more alike than different. This is confirmed by both social- and neuro- psych. To emphasize the differences can be quite sexist and ignores the overwhelming similarities.

    4) As in other religions, moderates provide cover radicals (who hire only women, hate men, etc). Yes, feminists exhibit enough of the characteristics of other religionists to be called such.

    ReplyDelete
  15. if you're really interested in someone's take on feminism who has researched tribalism & gender (no that doesnt mean he is the ultimate authority, just has an educated opinion):

    http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

    ReplyDelete
  16. Have you studied social psychology or something else or shall we just accept your authority w/out question?

    Yes. And my wife has a Ph.D in Sociology and Demography, so I'm familiar with feminists (I married a professional one).

    Regarding your claims:

    1) False. Not just most, but every feminist I have ever met or whose work I've read are concerned with many other factors, including poverty, race, disability, age, etc.

    2) I'm not even sure what you're blathering about on this one, but if you have a problem with some sort of legislation that you feel feminists have forced on us, please point it out explicitly.

    3) Feminists recognize the fundamental difference between sex and gender. Sex is based upon genetics, while gender is a social construct. The entire point of feminism is to say that women aren't different/inferior. If you think that feminists are in favor of sharp gender differences, you missed the point.

    4) Other religions? Feminism is a religion, in your mind? You can't make such a ridiculous and baseless claim without presenting even one iota of support. If you wish to make such a bold statement, bring some bold evidence.

    I don't need to read all of this pathetic link you posted in order to confidently say it's a bunch of whining over something that isn't an issue. Feminism is not a war on men, and we all acknowledge that not every man is horrible or oppressing others.

    So much insecurity among men...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fine. If feminism is NOT a religion then how are you defining 'religion'? I define religion as 'unexamined assumptions defended b/c of an emotional attachment'. Show me where feminist tenets are 'proven' (inasmuch as science 'proves' things), say, the way evolution is 'proven'. Feminism is a way of looking at things. NOT a 'proven' thing. It's 'insecurity' to not accept feminism as a given? How is that not ad hominem? Is it 'insecurity' when feminists say there's a 'patriarchy' holding them down? Or is the existence of patriarchal oppression something we should just accept without evidence?

      Delete
  17. >4) Other religions? Feminism is a religion, in your mind? You can't make such a ridiculous and baseless claim without presenting even one iota of support. If you wish to make such a bold statement, bring some bold evidence.

    I don't think he means religion in a sense of rituals. But a religion in a sense of very core values being sort of shoved down peoples throats, and lets face, a good deal of brainwashing required, as young as possible to remove any differences between the sexes.


    Also, I put patriarchy in quotes for a reason. I don't think everything feminism deems as patriarchy IS patriarchy nor do I think if it is a vestige of patriarchy it means it's bad. Things like the "double standard" of how perhaps a father treats his daughter than his son. A father that is more defensive of his daughter, more protective of her decisions and wanting to protect her honor is classified as sexist. Someone that holds to radical feminism would hold that to be unfair, unjust and patriarchal. A average father would say "tough, it's my daughter" Feminism (in this example) would go counter to the natural protection of a father to his daughter. This is why your average man would not like feminism.

    Another good example (though fiction) is a reoccurring theme on the show "Desperate Housewives" where the husband Tom always feels being immasculinzed by his wife. And in many times, the wife Linette realizes what she is doing...which is that a man (in general) needs to feel like the "man of the house" the provider and protector and that you can't take that away. Feminism, on the other hand, does not look to highly at this because it smacks of reminding them of gender roles and therefore attempts to re-educate a society (now, younger than ever) that, that is wrong. I don't think they can be successful at all. That is another reason why men generally do not approve of feminism.

    You said:

    'What's more, if he defines certain behaviors which are socially unacceptable as "masculine,"

    Well that is the problem. Many men (and I am sure women too) see feminist over reaching in what they deem unacceptable. Feminist have a certain vision in their heads and agenda of how people should behave. That is their goal, that is their values, hence the religion comparison

    ReplyDelete
  18. Feminism is a religion like chess is a full-contact sport. One is free to think anything, because it is not a crime to be stupid. When someone says "X is a religion," when X is clearly not a religion, they are generally attempting a cheap ploy of appealing to my atheism, a tactic I find cheap and downright laughable. Feminism is an ideology, a school of thought, a political movement, a collection of social theories... it's many things, just not a religion.

    I found these statements rather troubling:

    a religion in a sense of very core values being sort of shoved down peoples throats, and lets face, a good deal of brainwashing required, as young as possible

    Not only is that an inaccurate representation of feminism, but it's also a rather insulting and dismissive view of religion that I don't share.

    I read what you said carefully and I was equally careful to not say "you." I know many of the comments here are not people telling me they disagree with me, but people trying to provide for others an explanation/excuse (I favor the latter, but I'm sure the intent is the former).

    Regarding your discussion of patriarchy: unless you are using euphemisms, this is not what the overwhelming bulk of feminists are concerned with regarding sexism in a family. If by "protect," they really mean limit, restrict, shame, and generally treat as inferior to any male siblings... then yes, it is sexist to "protect" a daughter from pursuing the life she wants. The family is not sacred, and no parent has the right to just raise their child however they want; we allow an enormous degree of freedom, but we place limits on things like sexual and physical abuse, and for good reason. I could elaborate on this, if you would like.

    With this second example, I also see euphemisms, like "provider and protector." The former implies that the man should make more money than the woman (which is sexist, regardless of how you cut it) and the second implies weakness in women, and a dependence on men. Again, I am not concerned with the poor, delicate feelings of individuals who cherish the remnants of an era that is quickly slipping away.

    I see a lot of vague hypotheticals duct-taped together with numerous appeals to tradition in order to continue unnecessarily stroking the ego of men, peppered with ad hominem attacks against feminism in general. I encourage more evidence from people, because a lot of this is so emotional and meaningless, a bunch of feelings and camp-fire talk-therapy bullshit. If feminists supposedly over reach and have some horrible agenda, point to concrete examples.

    ReplyDelete
  19. part 1

    >Feminism is an ideology, a school of thought, a political movement, a collection of social theories... it's many things, just not a religion.

    Religion is also an ideology, school of thought, political movements and collection of social theories. Thats the point. Like religion, it believes its ways are the true and only moral ways. In both you will find bullies that try to delegitimize others that go against their utopian visions. Feminism is just one ism in replacement of another ism. This isn't a criticism of feminism actually and has NOTHING to do with your atheism.


    I think you see men out there that are troubled with feminism and asking why? You are not really asking why, but more like telling men to stop whining. Meaning, you are putting the onus only on men. But perhaps the feminist movement is also part of the problem and they are not so innocent. I don't think every group or movement is lacking benefit—feminism has done some good as well— but I also don't believe every group that is more or less narrowly focused on a particular vision is not without fault either. When a husband and wife go to see a marriage counselor, the counselor will typically talk to both and see what each have a problem with the other. And then both sides need to do some work. I think you get the analogy.

    >Not only is that an inaccurate representation of feminism, but it's also a rather insulting and dismissive view of religion that I don't share.

    No, it is actually quite an accurate representation. There is no need to get offended. The feminist notion of equality (i.e. sameness) is a value they have and they are not exactly sitting on their rears with it. It is something they actively want the population exposed to...or else. Religion and feminism do require a good deal of brainwashing in order to steer one away from natural tendencies. In feminists, its the steering away from the natural differences between men and women. That is why the term "sexist" is so over used. Feminist don't ask whether something is true or not, but rather if its sexist. Yes, it may be sexist according to their dictionary...but it can also be true and if its true, feminists are in trouble.

    Regarding family, I meant what I meant. A father naturally treats his father different. He is more protective of her and will ultimately restrict certain things because she is more susceptible to being taken advantage of. I am a huge proponent of normal female modesty and the positive things it has for society and something I teach my daughters. No such thing as free love and that free love hurts women more than it does men etc. That does not mean I condone a burqa. There are extremes in everything.

    ReplyDelete
  20. part 2

    You said:

    "The former implies that the man should make more money than the woman (which is sexist, regardless of how you cut it)......

    The second implies no such thing on the woman. Not at all. It doesn't imply that she HAS to depend on the man. It implies a man WANTS his wife to depend on him. He wants to be her knight in shinning armor. And dare I say, it is not an era slipping away at all. Just look at what men and women in general seek in a partner. A man can care less if his wife is a provider. But a woman would never go for a man that could not provide. And if she did, she would eventually find some sort of contempt for him. Because a woman naturally wants a "man" A man that IS going to somehow protect her and provide. There are obviously exceptions to everything. But feminism tries to undo this. I think it ends up backfiring, because you can't change the normal wiring of males and females. The worst thing a woman can do to a her man is demasculinize him. Not because they are evil, but because their core issue is the dismantling of differences. That is something feminism ultimately needs to do. You want concrete evidence of feminism over reaching? Just read the latest attempt at "genderless" kindergarden in sweden. There is a direct connection to feminism there in basically demasculinzing of the male, at a very young age. Good luck to them. I can assure you it will explode in their face.

    You don't need harvard PHP studies for this other than a little common sense and living with human beings. A little wisdom sometimes goes much farther than any study.

    Your blog, you get the final word. Have a good day.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Religion is also an ideology, school of thought, political movements and collection of social theories.

    Both me and a bird breathe air, eat, sleep, and reproduce, but we are not both mammals. You cannot focus on similarities between two things when saying something is something; the best you can get from simile is that feminism is "like" a religion, in the same way that a bird raising its young is like that of a mammal, but it does not make a bird a mammal.

    [This is already sizing up to be little more than counter-productive prattling on semantics...]

    Rather than address anything more, I'll let what you wrote stand for itself and go off to write more on the topic as a new post.

    ReplyDelete
  22. >the best you can get from simile is that feminism is "like" a religion

    fair enough

    ReplyDelete
  23. Reposted w/ corrections:

    Anonymous said...
    Have you studied social psychology or something else or shall we just accept your authority w/out question?

    You said...
    Yes. And my wife has a Ph.D in Sociology and Demography, so I'm familiar with feminists (I married a professional one).
    ---------------

    Then evidence-based research (as in the Baumeister link I gave you) would be nice in any discussion on gender rather than 'just another's opinion'

    You said...
    Regarding your claims:

    1) Not just most, but every feminist I have ever met or whose work I've read are concerned with many other factors, including poverty, race, disability, age, etc.
    ---------------

    How many is neither here or nor there, right? anecdotal stuff is the meat of fallacies & fail.

    Feminists are called such becuase they are concerned with addressing gender-based issues & making claims therein. The mushy "the title doesnt matter" is ridiculous because language is important- eg "oh, I'm a skeptical creationist".

    If you are concerned with those other factors, call yourself a sociologist OR social scientist of some other variety. "Sceintist" implies of assuming women/gender need attention across all contexts.

    At least take a skeptical look at the feminist community and you'll see the assumption made everywhere (start w/ most any article on HuffPost's women's section.

    To many skeptics, feminism turns out to be an acceptable way making a whole shitload of assumptions & starting points in describing & prescribing reality.


    You said...
    2) I'm not even sure what you're blathering about on this one, but if you have a problem with some sort of legislation that you feel feminists have forced on us, please point it out explicitly.

    ---------------

    ABSOLUTELY. Two items:

    1) The Lilly Ledbetter Act. Government stepped into private enterprise to regulate pay based on gender. It assumed that dividing by gender is an acceptable starting point, while every other 'type of human' competes and gets what he can negotiate in business.

    2) Woman-owned business. Special status supported by those seeking equality?

    Separately, the two are tragic because the situation in the workforce may change as it did recentlty, but besides that, stats are misused and may not reflect whats going on in each situation.

    But together they offer contradictory messages and show clear gender favor in legislation


    You said...
    3) The entire point of feminism is to say that women aren't different/inferior.
    ---------------

    That is indeed one interpretation of the doctrine/dogma that needs better language and representation than fools like you.


    You said...
    4) Other religions? Feminism is a religion, in your mind? You can't make such a ridiculous and baseless claim without presenting even one iota of support. If you wish to make such a bold statement, bring some bold evidence.

    ---------------

    See: oprah

    Well, you, my brainwashed buddy, dont address extremists (who get it way wrong): evidence, so STFU

    lulz.. i can agree to a degree: it is different-ish and I should have used the term religious-ish.


    I don't need to read all of this pathetic link you posted in order to confidently say it's a bunch of whining over something that isn't an issue.

    Oh but you did/will.

    You said...
    Feminism is not a war on men, and we all acknowledge that not every man is horrible or oppressing others.

    So much insecurity among men...
    ---------------

    onward feminist soldier

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous: I'm sorry your comment disappeared for a bit (damn spam filter). If the version up now is not the one you want, let me know, I have the others saved.

    ReplyDelete
  25. close enough

    This was pretty provocative stuff ;0

    ReplyDelete
  26. "a good deal of brainwashing required, as young as possible to remove any differences between the sexes."

    But in actuality this is the exact opposite of what happens in our society- it is the gender differences themselves that are what our children are being brainwashed with. Even before they are born the first thing most parents want to know is the gender. They immediately start referring to the baby by different pronouns, they name the baby different names, they paint their rooms different colors, they are given different toys and different types of clothes from a very young age, in some subcultures they are sent to separate schools and taught different topics- all this that emphasizes gender difference. Is that not brainwashing them into believing that boys and girls are different? Which came first,the differences by gender, or the brainwashing of our children to believe there are much more extreme differences in gender than actually exists in nature?

    "It implies a man WANTS his wife to depend on him. He wants to be her knight in shinning armor."

    Oh and women don't want their husbands to depend on them? I'm the main breadwinner in my household, and I am very proud of my accomplishments and my ability to support my household and my husband through those accomplishments. I am proud to be a provider and proud to be kicking so much ass that I can be. You think a woman can't feel those feelings? We are not so different, not nearly so different as you seem to believe. And for me I'm angry because I know in academia certain woman-heavy fields are paid much less than men-heavy fields for no good reason, and I feel the female version of "emasculated" by the fact that I know I am in one of those fields, and that I could provide even better for my family if only our society was more equitable.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "But a woman would never go for a man that could not provide. "
    Hmm. I have a master's make about 50k/yr, own a home and just married a guy with a HS diploma and works at Chipotle's. Why? We have shared values and he *respects* me. He doesn't plan on working at Chipotle's forever, but if he did, I wouldn't resent it due to him not providing for me, but I would be disappointed in his lack of desire to do something more enriching and satisfying. That would have more to do with my not respecting people who are apathetic and have no goals, not anything to do with needing to be provided for.

    I'm 36 and have been providing for myself for almost 15 years. Why would I suddenly want someone to do it for me now (and give up all my power and security in the process)? Yes, I know some people, women and men, are lazy and want someone with cash to take care of and "pamper" them. That makes me sick, but hell, look over the personal ads and you'll see plenty of men who seem to be looking for a woman like that. (they both literally use the word, "pamper", too.) When I online dated, men constantly had to tell me how loaded and successful they were, and in exchange they wanted more sexy pictures of me. *puke* If some men and women like that dynamic, they can have it, but hopefully they aren't among those bitching about it.

    ReplyDelete
  28. AE,

    I think I (not to mention reality) will just have to disagree with you. To think there are no innate differences between male/female requires a good deal of programming from progressive universities. It is mind boggling to think that because I give them some toys, that means that is how they act. It is simply mind boggling. I suggest going to a playground and seeing how very young girls and boys play. There is a huge difference. Its not because of the clothes or toys. It's because we are different. Get over it. I mean, all this is just clarifying everything I have been mentioning about feminism requiring to destroy the differences between the two genders. That is what this 'ism' is all about. You are a byproduct of it. I suggest you read the link someone mentioned above:

    http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

    He doesn't sound like some conservative guy that you will most likely rejects. It's a good essay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreeing with you here. If brainwashing worked this way then there'd be practically no gay children. You give your son a toy car and a toy baseball bat and he goes and plays with some Barbie dolls. Obviously there's a mental predisposition in place before society does it's thing.

      Delete
  29. did I say there are no innate differences between boys and girls? I believe there are some, but that many differences are social (and socialized or "brainwashed" as you put it) rather than biological. That's not to say there aren't biological differences at all.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hyrax: There's really no need for hostility. You're free to be hostile, but I just thought I would tell you what a cornered animal it makes you sound like, lashing out blindly with personal attacks and little substance. Insulting someone for getting an education by writing off higher learning as progressive programming makes you look like a fool with little option but to revel in his own stupidity. This is just how you sound, I'm sure you could do a better job of conveying yourself if you took a second to calm down and not let your emotions get the best of you.

    Masculinity is an advertising campaign for macho male supremacy. If gender roles are genetic, then treating little girls and little boys the same shouldn't be so threatening, because they'll still turn out to be men and women naturally, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  31. AE,

    I am aware you believe that. That's what you were taught.

    Bret,

    I certainly don't mean to insult AE, but I certainly do believe some higher education is a form of programming. It's no different than other programming. There is a value, an agenda and you wish to pass it on to the next generation.

    >f gender roles are genetic, then treating little girls and little boys the same shouldn't be so threatening, because they'll still turn out to be men and women naturally, anyway.

    I think you do see that, but you will also see popular culture (and even progressive culture) attempt to steer it back in the direction away from it. So for example, girls (especially I have seen in colleges) are told they act JUST like boys in their sex lives. Problem is, they act like it, but it ends up backfiring. Ultimately, in general boys and girls look for different things in sex.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I think you do see that, but you will also see popular culture (and even progressive culture) attempt to steer it back in the direction away from it.

    I don't see that, in fact, I see the reverse. I see people who are able to overcome the very real brainwashing that occurs through socialization from birth in a relatively short time. Then, this minority of individuals who do come to the realization that gender is largely an artificial social construct are chided by people in society who want to steer them back towards traditional gender norms.

    The scenario you're presenting is a fantasy, one where people are born hardwired with surprisingly modern gender roles. Just consider what you're saying, that somehow GI Joe and Barbie preference have become part of our genetics in such a short time. Is modern plastic crap part of our genetics, or is it just possible that kids understand the not-so-subtle cues from things like television, parents, and other influences?

    I think the final nail in the coffin when it comes to the argument that masculinity is somehow genetic is the fact that masculinity is defined differently in different cultures, as is femininity. If these roles and behaviors we attribute to our genetic sex are in fact genetic, then why are people in various places and at various times defining masculinity in such a variety of ways?

    ReplyDelete
  33. >I see people who are able to overcome the very real brainwashing that occurs through socialization from birth in a relatively short time.

    Of course you can see it. We wouldn't be having this conversation if that weren't true. But that is my point. People can largely be taught to do any number of things. It doesn't make the claim true. My college girl example was just that, an example of a sub-culture (ie, college life) where you can an environment that champions girls to "be like boys" and of course, they do it. But it ends up being to their detriment because, largely, girls are simply not wired like the boys. And of course, the boys don't care. They are all too happy to get a girl acting like them. In the end, the needs are different. The relationships are different.

    >The scenario you're presenting is a fantasy

    I don't know which scenerio you are talking about, but take your plastic doll example: You don't have to give the child a GI Joe or barbie. Just give it a basic doll and see what each does with it.

    >I think the final nail in the coffin ...

    I think you are misunderstanding me. Let's take a stereotypical example of masculinity: The cuban macho. There is nothing genetic about him acting like a douche, or oiling his hair, or wearing chains. That is culture. But he still shares a commonality of acquiring a mate with an african tribesman proving his manhood in order to be, first a "man", and second acquiring a female. I am talking about the latter. You are talking about the former. The former is culture.

    What I am ultimately talking about, is the differences not in what masculinity is in popular culture, but the actual differences in male/females that have always existed and will exist. (Sex, relationships, raising children, etc). Feminism simply turns around, and says "its because of male oppression and patriarchy" and then everything builds up from that.

    ReplyDelete
  34. But it ends up being to their detriment because, largely, girls are simply not wired like the boys.

    That's quite an extraordinary claim...

    I'm surprised I have to mention this, but your view of what is universal among men is fundamentally disturbing. Assuming that one becomes a man before attaining female companionship is a first assumption (some cultures don't consider someone a man until they are married, others until they are fathers). But I'm taken aback by the idea that "acquiring a [mate]" is a male activity.

    I can't believe I even have to mention it, but there are example even within traditional Western civilization of this role reversed (such as Cinderella's ambitious pursuit of the prince or the various dealings of ruthless queens in Europe) or where each feels equal desire (like Romeo and Juliet or most modern American marriages, I hope).

    Then you have cultures that go into taboo territory for us as a cultural norm, like Greek pederasty, where young boys are expected to be pursued by older men, and that these boys ought to act coy and not give in... too willingly. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the warriors of Sparta... not real men?

    But let's suppose, just for argument's sake, that men are programmed to be the way we are, and women are programmed to be the way they are. What we're seeing is women who have improved their lot in life over the last century, while men have not. Saying "this is how we are naturally" is a cop-out, a reluctance to alter our baser urges. If women have gone against their nature to succeed while men have clung to their error, does this not make women superior to men?

    Or, at least, men like you...

    Luckily, if you actually decide you don't want to be a total douchebag, you'll find that most of that jackassery you thought made you a man was just cultural baggage you can set down at any time.

    Here's to stepping lightly.

    ReplyDelete
  35. >That's quite an extraordinary claim...

    It's actually not that extraordinary at all. Who gets more hurt in relationships, especially the sexual ones that go on campus? The men or women? Who brings in expectations that are non-exitant. If a girl is going to be told to be "like a boy" in the sexual arena, (meaning, the leave the emotions at the door), you will always have more girls getting shafted here. This was one of the main things my wife had to deal with when she worked at the peer help line.


    >such as Cinderella's ambitious pursuit of the prince

    Cripes man, I am not saying that women don't desire men here. Having atraction to the opposite sex mean you are acting like a boy. When i said 'acting like a boy" it meant specifically in the sex arena.

    (actually, the Cinderalla example hurts your cause if you think about it)

    >But I'm taken aback by the idea that "acquiring a [mate]" is a male activity.

    I never said such a thing. Not at all. Why would you say that? I was responding to your claim of masculinity in different cultures and though defined in a different man, they share the common cause of finding a mate through those odd manners of masculinity. I wasn't even talking about women in that paragraph

    >If women have gone against their nature to succeed while men have clung to their error, does this not make women superior to men?

    Depends in what realms they have succeeded. If you are talking about mutual respect, I can't assume its any better. One might say its gone down. Whether women are superior to men? Depends on what. Some things they are superior, somethings men are superior.

    >Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the warriors of Sparta... not real men?

    Not sure what the question is here, given these are times where everyone recognized the differences in nature between men and female (which is what we are talking about) irrelevant what they did with others on the side.

    ReplyDelete
  36. So let me get this straight... your argument is that women get hurt in college relationships? And your evidence for this claim is that your wife worked a help line? You don't even consider the fact that men are socialized to not seek help, or that men get dumped, cheated on, and heart broken every day.

    I think you are very naive to see women as delicate and easily broken. It leads me to believe you have surrounded yourself with weak women, possibly in an effort to make yourself feel better. Am I far off?

    I never said such a thing. Not at all. Why would you say that? I was responding to your claim of masculinity in different cultures and though defined in a different man, they share the common cause of finding a mate through those odd manners of masculinity. I wasn't even talking about women in that paragraph

    But do you not see, then, if each gender is seeking a mate... they have essentially no differentiation as far as gender goals? Why even bring up, "Being a man is about finding a woman," when really you could just simplify it and say, "Being a person is about finding a mate." In this context, you can sort of see how ridiculous and limited the concept is, but the idea converts to gender neutrality with no loss of truth.

    somethings men are superior.

    Sure, like at committing violent murder suicides, or being incarcerated in general, or whining about the idea of equality or loss of privilege... I'm just lucky I have actual traits about myself to be proud of, because being a man has become associated with a great many archaic and outdated attitudes.

    Not sure what the question is here, given these are times where everyone recognized the differences in nature between men and female (which is what we are talking about) irrelevant what they did with others on the side.

    The question is simple: you speak of nature, much like the ancients did. You seem to imagine some sort of virtue in being like a beast, ruled by a genetic pattern you believe to dictate factors in our lives. And yet, the pattern varies from people to people, as if the genetic map doesn't really exist, and it is merely a set of random paths traced by wandering fools.

    Because a man today would not qualify as a man in many other cultures, and vice versa, what does that say about manhood?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Well I think both of us have said what needs to be said without going around in circles too much(even though you have been taking some stuff of mine out of context). I enjoyed it non-the-less. Good day.

    ReplyDelete

If your comment is too long, break it into multiple comments and post them all.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...