Is Being a “Manly Man” a Bad Thing?

by minimus 194 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  em1913

  There are certainly some things in behavior that are the result of chemical interactions in the brain. One of the most fascinating things I ever heard was a radio interview with a female-to-male transsexual, who described the impact testosterone therapy had on his brain: he'd be sitting on the subway and he'd see some random guy and be consumed with thoughts of wanting to beat him up. He hadn't had a lifetime of learning to control those impulses, so it was an unexpected and difficult situation for him to have to handle, and hearing him describe the "rush" in his mind was fascinating.
  

  But sociologically we're a lot more complex than our brain chemistry, I change my own oil, set my own points (I have an old car), grease my own tie rods, and fix my own differential. I also sew my own clothes, cook my own food, and nurture my own kids. There is nothing "gendered" about any of this behavior other than the gendering that society gives it. The idea of a strict line between "masculine" and "feminine" is one of the myths that caused me to get wise to the WTS.
  
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  But sociologically we're a lot more complex than our brain chemistry - but social issues and society are closely linked to human behaviour ... and our behaviour is coded for by our genes.

  Evolution explains how we behave and why we organise ourselves into social hierarchies.
  

  There is nothing "gendered" about any of this behavior other than the gendering that society gives it - you're ignoring the biological aspect (see above).

  As far as I can tell, the only social construct I can see is feminists and their allies engineering with society, all-women shortlists and the like.

  Men's tennis is much more popular than the women's and is played over 5 sets in gland slam tournaments. Nevertheless, feminists have managed to socially construct it so that grand slam prize money is equal. That's another example of an artificial social construct.

  BTW, when I give the biological aspect of why we are the way we are and why society is the way it is, I'm not condoning or excusing cases of sexism. Evolution is descriptive not prescriptive.

  There are certainly wrinkles that we should iron out to make life fairer and better for everyone. But if feminists think they can 'smash The Patriarchy' and usher in a new world order, they're deluded. We, men and women, have evolved a certain way. Nothing can change that.
  
• 

  em1913

  If the current definition of masculinity is so delicate that it depends on men making more money off a tennis tournament than women then, ooooooweeeeee. Vai vind iz meine yoren!
  
• 

  Tobyjones262

  The world really is all over the place crazy today. Gillette just did an add where they did the whole manly thing. Toxic masculinity. Its very convoluted in my opinion. The old days of a boss slapping the ass of a secretary is now seen as assault. And it should be. But its gone from treating women or blacks or minority's with respect to now its OK to attack men and especially white men as vial pigs who are no better than dogs. This will and is back firing on the radical left wing who pushes it. You can not make a rape or murder right by doing another rape or murder.

  The idea of white privilege does not exist. Privilege does exist but do you think that Will Smiths or Micheal Jordan's kids don't have privilege? I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. Every thing I have was made by working long nights and week ends, saving and investing every dime. I would be working week ends when I could hear the boats and motor cycles of people enjoying their time off. It has paid off but it was hard. I had no privilege.
  
• 

  cofty

  em1913 - You are distorting LUHE's point.

  Boys and girls are not the same above the neck. Even when they are too young to be socialised they demonstrate different interests and aptitudes. This becomes increasingly obvious with maturity.

  'Gender feminism' tries to pretend that this is not so. Therefore any differences must be a result of male privilege. This is at variance from 'equity feminism' that acknowledges the differences and rightly demands equality of opportunity.

  Your thinking is very black-and-white.
• 

  OrphanCrow

  Whoa...

  Sounds like there are some males with offended feelings on this thread.

  So sensitive... fragile masculinity
• 

  Simon

  Boys and girls are not the same above the neck. Even when they are too young to be socialised they demonstrate different interests and aptitudes. This becomes increasingly obvious with maturity.

  It's even demonstrated with species closest to ours where "socialization and culture" cannot possibly have played a part. Female chimps will tend to pick dolls to play with, male chimps are more fascinated with mechanical toys and rough-play.

  The left are science deniers.
  
  
• 

  unsure

  When I first heard about the controversial ad, I thought "oh no". I then checked it out and it wasn't as bad as I thought. Certainly had some good messages. I wasn't angry.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  If the current definition of masculinity is so delicate that it depends on men making more money off a tennis tournament than women then, ooooooweeeeee. Vai vind iz meine yoren! - no that wasn't my point. You're referring to an example I gave that shows how the current tennis pay structure in grand slam tournaments is an artificial social construct, created by feminists and their allies.

  If pay were determined by the free market, men would be paid more.

  But my broader point still remains. Professor Simon Baron Cohen produced a scientific paper on a recent study.

  The study measured pre-natal testosterone in male and female foetuses. Then the baby boys and girls were presented with two objects - a person's face and a toy. Baron Cohen found a correlation between prenatal testosterone levels and what the baby chose to look at.

  Baby girls stared at the face, baby boys stared at the toy.

  There was no social conditioning or oppression going on.

  Males are genetically hardwired to be interested in things; females are genetically hardwired to be interested in faces. Our social construct is based on biological fact, it's not artificial at all.
• 

  Tobyjones262

  The Gillette add has a lot wrong with it. Some good messages but one point is a corporation that has no relation to a political issue should never ever get in on that issue. You have one job as a corp. To make money and when you jump in like Levis did with guns and Nike did with BLM you push away some of your customers for absolutely no reason. No one was wondering where Nike was on BLM or Levis on guns.

  Next is no one wants to be told what to do or how to live by a company you spend your money on to shave. Gillette ran with politically charged phrases like Toxic Masculinity will alienate some. When you don't have to tick off a customer base don't do it. There were points of men over BBQs like this is some kind of misogynistic activity.

  Next is the add seems to be disingenuous. Since there is no reason for a company who sells shaving cream and blades to get involved in political issues or that men should not treat women badly then why do it? To get any kind of attention. The old adage even bad press is good seems to fit here.

  Next is its biased. You don't see Lady Schick with adds saying don't be a bitch be better do you? Or Afro sheen saying in an add don't be a hood rat drug dealer you can be better. Or Taco Bell saying don't cross the boarder illegally you can be better. Or showing rappers call women whores and sluts and skanks and say don't be disrespectful to women.