Men, Masculinity, and Humanity

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Tiassa, Jul 6, 2014.

  1. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,503
    That's a nice thought, but it's not the way the word is defined in dictionaries or used in common speech and writing.

    The best spin that can be put on it is that it "is associated with a man's responsibility to provide for, protect and defend his family." (From Wikipedia) The kindest thing I can say about this is that it's a couple of centuries out of date.

    In the Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking nations, where the word arose, machismo implies male supremacy.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wellwisher

    Messages:
    4,951
    This contemporary liberal POV is based on a deception. This magic trick requires large social mops to create an illusion. For example, if we took away welfare and quotas (hypothetically remove these two variables to see what happens) women (and children) would be hurt much more than men. Why is that, if men and woman are the same? The reason is, they are not the same in terms of self reliance.

    The liberal unisex magic trick is analogous to saying all humans are the same height because this would be fair and would not hurt the feelings of people who are too tall or too short. This is not natural, so we need a magic trick. We can create this illusion if we have different size boxes, for the shorter people to stand on. In the case of the males, since they have historically been taller and violated this artificial PC standard, for centuries, they need to stand in holes, so they appear shorter than their natural height. Like magic they all are now the same height. Most Liberals lack critical thinking skills and depend too much on emotional appeal. They get faked out easily by fantasy and don't see the trick.

    Machismo was about a male having to compete with other males in a setting, without many formal rules and without any social props; in the streets. It was about self reliance within a world of change due to other self reliant who creates unknowns, as they compete. It was not about a welfare/regulation state, where the end result is choreographed, by magicians, before the competition begins, to get the fictional result; movie script.

    I am not saying women are inferior, but rather men and women are different, but in a complementary way. Natural selection merges form with function. If you believe in evolution and natural selection, physical differences are not there for decoration, but has a natural selective function. Let us celebrate sexual diversity that includes natural males, not excludes natural males. That is the hypocrisy of liberalism.
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Le Repteux Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    105
    Rules and laws are maid to counterbalance our differences, they are maid to apply equally to everybody, they are maid to help the greatest number to survive more easily. It is not fair that men can actually assault women and get away with a mental disease verdict, its not fair that wars made by men still prevail. I'm for diversity too, but men have to realize that their natural instincts are actually a nuisance to society and they have to find ways to regulate them.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2014
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,503
    The only real handicap women have is their uterus. It is they who experience pregnancy, childbirth and nursing. From our earliest bipedal ancestral species (Ardipithecus, 7MYA) up through the dawn of the Neolithic Era (11KYA in Mesopotamia, a bit later elsewhere), that was indeed a serious problem. No matter how skilled a woman was with a spear, sling or other weapon, they could not go on hunting expeditions with the men because they couldn't take their children along. So the women became the gatherers, exploring the woods close to home, walking slowly, looking for ripe fruit and useful herbs, with the children on their back, walking with them, or a short walk back to the cave where Grandma has them.

    But agriculture, the defining technology of the Neolithic, kept everyone close to home, tending their flocks and crops. It became practical for women to do more work, since the children were close by, tended by the elders.

    Technology continued to free women from Kinder, Kirche, Kuche (German: children, church, kitchen). Today's industrial technology makes most jobs in the developed word perfectly suited for women, as well as creating an entire new industry for people to take care of other people's children. School does that for older children during 3/4 of the year, and day care centers take care of them during summer break, and of the pre-school children year-round.

    Today, the anatomical difference between women and men is only a handicap for women during the late stages of pregnancy and the first few months of nursing. Corporations (most of which are still in the 19th century with their phallocratic organization) use this as an excuse to discriminate against women, but the barriers are slowly falling.

    Today there is a steady shift of work from corporate offices to entrepreneurial activities in the home. This makes childrearing much easier to combine with work, not to mention eliminating the Stone Age managers (like Wellwisher

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ) who simply don't like having women on their team.

    We've transcended biology in so many ways over the past couple of centuries, that any talk about "natural" limitations on the abilities of women (or men for that matter--there are lots of jobs that we're simply lousy at, such as identifying subtle differences in colors--I'm still convinced that "Navy Blue" is just a fancy word for "Black") is just Bronze Age hogwash.
     
    Le Repteux likes this.
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,789
    It's Not Gay If ....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    "In other words: It's not gay if the guy you're having sex with doesn't seem gay at all."


    Nor is it nearly as funny as it might seem at first. That is to say, this is how important it is:

    This idea of homosexual sex cementing heterosexuality and traditional, rural masculinity certainly feels counterintuitive, but it clicks a little once you read some of the specific findings from Silva's interviews. The most important thing to keep in mind here is that rural masculinity is "[c]entral to the men's self-understanding." Quoting another researcher, Silva notes that it guides their "thoughts, tastes, and practices. It provides them with their fundamental sense of self; it structures how they understand the world around them; and it influences how they codify sameness and difference." As with just about all straight MSM, there's a tension at work: How can these men do what they're doing without it threatening parts of their identity that feel vital to who they are?

    In some of the subcultures Ward studied, straight MSM were able to reinterpret homosexual identity as actually strengthening their heterosexual identities. So it was with Silva's subjects as well―they found ways to cast their homosexual liaisons as reaffirming their rural masculinity. One way they did so was by seeking out partners who were similar to them. "This is a key element of bud-sex," writes Silva. "Partnering with other men similarly privileged on several intersecting axes—gender, race, and sexual identity—allowed the participants to normalize and authenticate their sexual experiences as normatively masculine." In other words: If you, a straight guy from the country, once in a while have sex with other straight guys from the country, it doesn't threaten your straight, rural identity as much as it would if instead you, for example, traveled to the nearest major metro area and tried to pick up dudes at a gay bar. You're not the sort of man who would go to a gay bar―you're not gay!

    It's difficult here not to slip into the old middle-school joke of "It's not gay if …"―"It's not gay" if your eyes are closed, or the lights are off, or you're best friends―but that's actually what the men in Silva's study did, in a sense ....


    (Singal↱)

    The thing is that it gets really complicated. These men aren't screwing around about their screwing around. We ought not be surprised to find them discussing these trysts in a manner "similar to the way many straight men talk about women―it's nice to have them around and it's (of course) great to have sex with them, but they're so clingy".

    And, well ... I mean―

    After Jane Ward's book came out last year, Rich Juzwiak laid out a critique in Gawker that I also saw in many of the responses to my Q&A with her: While Ward sidestepped the question of her subjects' "actual" sexual orientations―"I am not concerned with whether the men I describe in this book are 'really' straight or gay," she wrote―it should matter. As Juzwiak put it: "Given the cultural incentives that remain for a straight-seeming gay, given the long-road to self-acceptance that makes many feel incapable or fearful of honestly answering questions about identity—which would undoubtedly alter the often vague data that provide the basis for Ward's arguments—it seems that one should care about the wide canyon between what men claim they are and what they actually are." In other words, Ward sidestepped an important political and rights minefield by taking her subjects' claims about their sexuality more or less at face value.

    There are certainly some good reasons for sociologists and others to not examine individuals' claims about their identities too critically. But still: Juzwiak's critique is important, and it looms large in the background of one particular segment of Silva's paper. Actually, it turned out, some of Silva's subjects really weren't all that opposed to a certain level of deeper engagement with their bud-sex buds, at least when it came to their "regulars," or the men they hooked up with habitually ....

    .... Whatever else is going on here, clearly these men are getting some companionship out of these relationships. It isn't just about sex if you make a point of getting coffee, and especially if you spend nights together, go shopping or out to dinner, and so on. But there are sturdy incentives in place for them to not take that step of identifying, or identifying fully, as gay or bi. Instead, they frame their bud-sex, even when it's accompanied by other forms of intimacy, in a way that reinforces their rural, straight masculinity.

    ―you know, just don't call it a neat or tidy package.

    There is one part of the ego that disputes: No, seriously, what the hell?

    And there is, of course, that other part of the ego sitting back and very nearly gloating―(What, am I supposed to be surprised?)―except for a stiff dose―(Holy shit, they're serious! They really believe this! That's how important it is?)―of confusion that it really would be so simple and (cough!) straightforward. After all this time and effort? And we kind of knew, too, and not just a matter of simple belief; there were plenty of examples coinciding with that sneaking suspicion according to Ockham that the simplest explanation is that these men just cannot bear to acknowledge the truth.

    But more to the point, this would seem to be how important identity customs are to some people. "Bud-sex" might seem a little cringeworthy, and men have always had a small bag of excuses for heteronormative crossover, but those who disdain the so-called liberal PC of social sciences ought to bear the word "heteroflexible" in mind, because even that, apparently, is insufficient. Singal quotes Silva:

    Ward (2015) examines dudesex, a type of male–male sex that white, masculine, straight men in urban or military contexts frame as a way to bond and build masculinity with other, similar "bros." Carrillo and Hoffman (2016) refer to their primarily urban participants as heteroflexible, given that they were exclusively or primarily attracted to women. While the participants in this study share overlap with those groups, they also frame their same-sex sex in subtly different ways: not as an opportunity to bond with urban "bros," and only sometimes—but not always—as a novel sexual pursuit, given that they had sexual attractions all across the spectrum. Instead, as Silva (forthcoming) explores, the participants reinforced their straightness through unconventional interpretations of same-sex sex: as "helpin' a buddy out," relieving "urges," acting on sexual desires for men without sexual attractions to them, relieving general sexual needs, and/or a way to act on sexual attractions. "Bud-sex" captures these interpretations, as well as how the participants had sex and with whom they partnered. The specific type of sex the participants had with other men—bud-sex—cemented their rural masculinity and heterosexuality, and distinguishes them from other MSM.

    And it is, indeed, this compartmentalization that seems so fascinating. Because here is a fun but fleeting and useless joke: The question of masculinity as a superficial presentation can be important to a gay male like myself, whose personal presentation invokes specific traditional "feminine" typing cues. How does the man who would appreciate these gender aspects relate to them? Are we engaging dimensions of masculinity? Does he require feminization in order to engage these acts with another man? Does it not matter in any specific and relevant context? Because what happens if the answer is that what I really need is a straight man?

    Getting past that joke is probably more important, but how do we frame the question to properly regard the association of or relationship 'twixt sexual behavior and masculinity? And in a time in which masculinity countenances occasional and affecting propositions of its disposability in both conceptual and living contexts, how do we regard the merits of masculine disposability?

    This, of course, is similar to the way many straight men talk about women―it's nice to have them around and it's (of course) great to have sex with them, but they're so clingy. Overall, it's just more fun to hang out around masculine guys who share your straight-guy preferences and vocabulary, and who are less emotionally demanding.

    If we attend masculinity according to the proposition of delivering seed generally, versus the heteronormative narrative of delivering seed unto a female, it makes a little more sense: It's not gay if he's disposable. Which is, of course, a rough way of putting it, but it's not gay if it's merely getting off.

    And this is the heart of objectivization: It's gay if you're having sex with another man. It's not gay if you're using a sex toy to get off. And if that seems a problematic summary for treating men as if they are disposable, the problem isn't necessarily the summary itself.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Singal, Jesse. "The Phenomenon of ‘Bud Sex’ Between Straight Rural Men". Science of Us. 18 December 2016. NYMag.com. 18 December 2016. http://sciof.us/2hn6Zo9
     
  9. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,757
    How did I miss this one? My understanding is that some men are starting to demand equality with women. As I have heard, women often have resources and privileges that men don't. I don't really have a dog in the fight, but I think it's worth listening to their arguments and looking at their statistics before passing judgement.
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,878
    No one is claiming that men and women are the same. Only a right wing idiot would claim that that's the issue.

    The issue is that men and women should have the same OPPORTUNITIES. They should be the same before the law.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2017
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,878
    Great! By working the problem from both ends, we'll make faster progress. And once men start to realize that there are indeed inequalities, they may be more receptive to fixing them on both sides.
     
  12. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,757
    If true equality is what women want, then yes, it just might work out.
     
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,789
    How are you still missing this one?

    (1) Yes, some men think it's men whose equality needs to be specifically advanced in the face of sex discrimination.

    (2) Generally speaking, women have fought hard to win certain outcomes while men sat back and laughed at them for trying; that's how the women ended up with, say, a lot of attention on breast cancer, to the point that men started complaining that women weren't advocating for men enough. Because, you know, apparently men can't advocate for themselves. Or shouldn't have to. Or something; I don't know, the complaint is never clear on that point. Some men call this privilege because they feel cheated for not being able to tell women what they're worth, or sometimes it's because those uppity women went and made some noise and got something, and, damn it, everybody knows it's not fair to achieve stuff by merit when women should be doing other men's work for them.

    (3) What dog you might have in which fight is always its own question, but neither do you have a clue in this one.

    (4) Sure, it's worth listening to what someone has to say, but what does the straw man mean on this occasion?​

    It's a really clumsy, stupid, and unethical attempt to change the subject with make-believe, Bowser, and it isn't appreciated.
     
  14. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,503
    Where in the known universe did you ever pick up such an utterly stupid remark??? It sounds like a quote from a guy with a two-digit IQ who was expelled from high school for being unable to curb his violent tendencies, then hit the streets and survived by selling hard drugs until he ended up in prison, and now, after being released at age 45, he has no idea how computers work and thinks the "internet" is a new kind of underwear. He sees women driving cars that look expensive, although they're only Chevrolets built better and snazzier-looking than the ones he remembers, and then watches them carrying briefcases (an accessory that he only ever used to carry heroin to his customers) into an office building that requires an electronic badge to enter. Naturally he assumes that women have "privileges that men don't," because although men are generally paid more than women, their highest-paying jobs are not always in offices but rather outdoors running construction equipment (which is also largely computer-controlled).

    If you check the statistics, you'll see that the average wages for women in almost every occupation are considerably lower than men's. As for "resources and privileges," I have no idea what you're talking about. Men tend to treat each other as colleagues and help each other find good opportunities. They don't as often treat women that way, and since there aren't nearly as many women in high positions as there are men, there are very few women who can do the same for other women. Add to this the fact that biology requires women to deal with pregnancy, and often with weaning a baby (although more and more men are beginning to help with this work), which interrupts their careers, slows down their advances, and greatly reduces their lifelong income potential.

    I'm sure that you're not married, or you would already know this.
     
  15. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,757
  16. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,757
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,001
    From the tone of your post, you seem to think you have posted evidence that women enjoy resources and privileges that men don't. Is that the case - is that what you think you "know" based on those links?
     
  18. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,757
    Iceaura, what do you need? Honestly, if there is inequality it's because of the choices people make. Women make choices that don't equate to those of men. Yes, some do shoot for non-traditional roles, but they are few in the larger picture. I don't believe you're willing to accept that, or that women are different creatures than men; but those are, in truth, the facts.

    Yes, women do have advantages in society that men don't have. We are, as a whole, more protective of women. Your posts on this thread (white knight) are evidence of that tendency.
     
  19. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,757
  20. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,757
    More stuff on this topic...
     
  21. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,116
    Men and Women need to understand ; their place in Humanties survival .

    Which means both are needed .
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2017
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,878
    Definitely true. There was a lot of inequality in the 1800's in the US because white slaveowners chose to keep blacks as slaves. Men chose to deny women the vote. Fortunately, we passed laws that fixed both those problems.
    Of course. And MEN make choices that don't equate to those of other men. They are all free to do that - as long as they have the same opportunity to make those choices.
    Men are different from women. Blacks are different from whites. Gays are different than straight people. The differences are not the issue; the differences in opportunities are.
    And men have advantages in society that women don't have - and those are much more numerous.
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,001
    Women, like men, make choices based on the consequences they face. Some are inherent in physical reality. Others are culturally and societally imposed. That second category of consequences is disproportionately controlled and imposed by men, to their advantage, in US society.
     

Share This Page