What I found interesting in that article is not so much the evolutionary psychology behind it, (but in this case it is nice it supports the point as many in this forum do seem to embrace it) what I found interesting is the correlation between perceived attractiveness as a dating partner and delinquency. I think the answer for it lies more in the concept I explained as 'subterranean values', social values that are presented but seldom 'officially' articulated, then in some evolutionary psychology — Tobias

I would like to hear more about how you understand the relation between the social construct of masculinity you are associating with the right, and conservative populist thinking in its wider scope. Do you think the former explains the latter, the reverse, or is there some more complex relation between the two? And if you agree that ‘masculinity’ is an outdated social construct that is lingering among men, why are you labeling the construction that’s taking its place as ‘feminine’? Don’t masculine and feminine go together as the two poles of an outdated binary social conception? Aren’t they in the process of being replaced by a new binary, in which both what had been understood as masculine and what was seen as feminine are redefined? Or perhaps the binary itself is on the way to being replaced by a spectrum or non-linear plurality or fluidity?

Why does this need explanation? It fits the theory rather well no? In a more feminine society, these are the roles ascribed to men. — Tobias

Yeah I think it fits your theory somewhat well. I don't think it fits the narrative you're criticising very well. It seems a vestige of a more gender-stratified economy and society. Whereas there's no reason women shouldn't be on the front lines, wearing hard hats, or heaving metal on a rig.

The point which I tried to make though and which you also picked up on (thanks for that) is that a lot of these values actually stay the same and that overt formal condemnation and demand for change is countered by informal 'subterranean' reinforcement. I feel stereotypical male values are formally opposed and informally reinforced. — Tobias

This is my impression. People's heads are relatively enlightened, peoples' guts are not.

While feminine values are becoming our mainstream values, masculine values remain revered in situations that are out of the ordinary, 'in love and war' so to speak, quite literarily in this case. When one reads young adult male forums one gets a sense that you have to be a bad boy to get girls. That can be quickly dismissed as the whining of losers, but there is some scientific support for this hypothesis. From a study on delinquency and dating behaviour: "Of particular importance, results suggest that delinquency does not appear to increase dating by increasing the delinquent's desire for dates. Instead, they suggest that delinquency increases dating outcomes by making the delinquent more attractive to prospective mates. This finding supports evolutionary psychology's implicit prediction that adolescents may, knowingly or unknowingly (see Berry & Broadbent, 1984; Claxton, 1999; Lewicki et al., 1992; Massey, 2002), perceive delinquency as one type of risk-taking behavior that reflects such qualities as nerve, daring, and bravado. 5 From an evolutionary perspective, such qualities may be highly beneficial to a prospective mate's social status, physical well-being, and/or genetic lineage"(Rebellon & Manasse 200 — Tobias

Internet Dating by Beasley and Holmes (2021) talks about the general theme you're touching on above from a more constructionist and sociological perspective. It talks about modern dating as {my words} a horrible cauldron of {their words} "heteronormative scripts", the expectations which make contemporary relationships safe and pleasurable at a baseline are to a large part still conservative and traditional. They define the expectations from which conduct is judged.

It talks about "nutter narratives", which are old examples from dating blogs, just dating horror stories. It looks at those as case studies of surprise and transgression in dating in order to get a vantage on the norms which are violated. Divining the sacred from its defilement.

The narratives people tell about their internet dating experiences can reveal how shifting yet stubborn heterosexual gender relations shape those experiences. We have argued that the nutter narrative is a commonly told story that exposes many of the gendered assumptions and ways of interacting that can reinforce inequalities between women and men. It is a narrative that helps us understand where the limits to gender heterodoxy sit and how they are guarded. The nutter narratives suggest that the gender innovations enabled by internet dating may travel out from the heteronormative centre, but not too far. What we offer in the rest of the book is an analysis of what kind of innovations are possible, but here we get to grips with the outer fences, the lines in the sand, beyond which it is dangerous to go. Technology has affordances, but the internet is not outside of regulatory power. The nutter narrative is one mechanism via which that power is exercised and gendered selves and interactions produced — Internet Dating, Beasley and Holmes (2021), p31

Yes and if I am write the pendulum will swing in women's favour. They will be seen as more capable of verbal jobs that require both rational and emotional intelligence, such as judge, university professor, upper management. It will take time, but if my theory is right it will happen. — Tobias

I suppose we shall see.

I think discussions like these are largely a waste of time, and I explained why I believe that. I don't intend on expanding my participation much beyond that.

But who are these 'insidious women' you were talking about earlier?

You did not explain anything you just thought they were a waste of time because they are used to 'slap the most ridiculous generalizations on people'. Serious scientists have written libraries full on the subject but well we have our very own Tzeentch, who explains things with one sentence.

I never spoke about insidious women I wrote: "more insidious feminine forms of control". I should have put 'feminine' between quotation marks though. That would have been better. What I alluded to is a form of control or discipline not by force but by negotiation, in line with the Hofstede's view on conflict resolution through negotiation. You are right it needed unpacking. As you are ending your participation in the thread I will not elaborate much more about it though. It is not the primary concern of the thread and from what I have seen so far, you do not bring much to the table beyond dismissive one liners.

There seems to be a muddle of terminology that is creating or at least facilitating disagreement and rancour.

values Masculine Feminine — Tobias

It starts here. Values have no sex. So we are talking about values and perhaps virtues and vices that have been traditionally ascribed to and associated with masculine and feminine identities.

Then, the thesis is that these associations have been changing. The world has changed, for example, with the introduction of "the Equaliser". This charmingly lethal apparatus negates the physical advantage of strength in combat. No one can out-run a bullet, and even a delicate feminine finger can pull a trigger - hence the name. The facts of industry and technology have devalued masculine muscle.

And this presents a problem to traditionally minded men and women, who Identify with and admire, physical power. The Russia-Ukraine war provides another example; courage means nothing when an infantryman confronts a drone. The drone is the Unequaliser — the drone operator risks nothing in relation to the infantryman.

The problem is that traditional male virtues have lost their value. And the solution is either a luddite reversion to primitive preindustrial society or a change of identification, of what it is to be a man, and particularly a good man. And of course women are involved with this re-evaluation of all values, because 'man' and 'woman' are identities in relation to each other.

It seems increasingly difficult for men to be providers, and there is a lot of self-worth to be gained by being an effective provider. Men can be skilled in all kinds of other ways, but nothing quite does it like the ability to provide a secure and comfortable space.

Yeah I think it fits your theory somewhat well. I don't think it fits the narrative you're criticising very well. It seems a vestige of a more gender-stratified economy and society. Whereas there's no reason women shouldn't be on the front lines, wearing hard hats, or heaving metal on a rig. — fdrake

I think this is a very perplexing situation actually. I can imagine why women would not want to do this stuff. It is very risky and does not pay particularly well, especially in relation to the physical risk involved. It seems also that men do not like women to go to the front lines which is even more perplexing. The only reason I can think of is the control over the use of violence is key in any conflict.

Internet Dating, Beasley and Holmes (2021), p31 — fdrake

I will read that article when I have time. It sounds really interesting and on topic! Thank you.

I suppose we shall see. — fdrake

Yes, I take it by no means as a given. History may be rolled back.

It starts here. Values have no sex. So we are talking about values and perhaps virtues and vices that have been traditionally ascribed to and associated with masculine and feminine identities. — unenlightened

Thank you. I like that definition and with referencing you as a source incorporated it in my original post.

Then, the thesis is that these associations have been changing. The world has changed, for example, with the introduction of "the Equaliser". This charmingly lethal apparatus negates the physical advantage of strength in combat. No one can out-run a bullet, and even a delicate feminine finger can pull a trigger - hence the name. The facts of industry and technology have devalued masculine muscle. — unenlightened

Yes, I tend to agree with you. I am a social constructivist, but social construction is not 'immaterial' in the sense that some constructions are easier than others. Physical strength enables physical dominance and the threat of violence means that some groups have more opportunity to impose their social order on others. Such symbolic or discursive orders are tenacious though, even with a change in material conditions they are not upset easily. I did not bring up the issue of physical strength exactly because it tempts one to a certain essentialism.

The problem is that traditional male virtues have lost their value. And the solution is either a luddite reversion to primitive preindustrial society or a change of identification, of what it is to be a man, and particularly a good man. And of course women are involved with this re-evaluation of all values, because 'man' and 'woman' are identities in relation to each other. — unenlightened

Also very much in agreement, yet what I miss in many discussions on this subject is exactly this two way street. We are right now in a time in which is not self evident how and with what man should identify. The general consensus on the left seems to be that man should change and that since they are the problem they should figure it out while the general consensus on the right should be that men should reassert their classical role as the 'head of the table' so to speak. On the one hand, masculinity is being unreasonably problematized, on the other hand it is being reinforced by certain political groups and social media.

I would like to hear more about how you understand the relation between the social construct of masculinity you are associating with the right, and conservative populist thinking in its wider scope. Do you think the former explains the latter, the reverse, or is there some more complex relation between the two? — Joshs

Well, I do not like monocausal explanations. I think conservative thought offers the social construct of masculinity traditionally conceived as one of its proposals. A proposal that is attractive to some men and women. It is not the only one though. Another is the idea that every country should put its own citizens ahead of the rest, so there is a lot of nationalism involved. There will be many other ideas that explain its attraction. How I understand the relationship is as follows:
Conservative thought offers a vision of masculinity that is attractive to many young men. It is attractive because they feel that their position as man has become insecure and precarious. They were granted a certain set of burdens and privileges, social roles that they could follow, from times immemorial. Now it seems that following this traditional mold is frowned upon by some women, coupled with socio-economic trends that actually favour women. The result is a backlash that is formally condemned, but sanctioned to some extent in pop-culture. What this actually causes is debatable, but I think this is a pathological strain in modern society that facilitates in any case quaint reactions like the 'manosphere', but also more virulent fantasies of violence.

In the US a gender gap among voters exist as well. See here: [url=http://]https://cawp.rutgers.edu/gender-gap-voting-choices-presidential-elections.[/url]

So no, you cannot predict what someone thinks but you can predict that when you see a woman it is more likely that she voted for Harris and when you see a man it is more likely he voted for Trump. — Tobias

You're saying that cultural "archetypes" are being represented in different party platforms, and masculine parties are on the rise. You discern from this that feminine values are losing ground and wonder if it's related to a backlash against the successes of the more feminine Left.

Is that about right?

I think this is a very perplexing situation actually. I can imagine why women would not want to do this stuff. It is very risky and does not pay particularly well, especially in relation to the physical risk involved. It seems also that men do not like women to go to the front lines which is even more perplexing. The only reason I can think of is the control over the use of violence is key in any conflict. — Tobias

The Unwomanly Face of War, Svetlana Alexievich goes into these norms in quite some detail. Even though it's about women in WWII, some of which were partisans, our subterranean norms are the same still. The women that went to the front lines and fought were de-feminised through the dirt, pain, violence and humiliation. It was more typical for women to become specialists - engineers, gunners, medics, logisticians - than infantry. Femininity is seen as too sacred to be free, to risk or sully itself. I think that expectation is still there today, in the bizarre corpuscle of norms that demands women be a demure and caring Madonna. Though, of course, that confinement comes with a statistical advantage of dying less in battle.

On the one hand, masculinity is being unreasonably problematized, on the other hand it is being reinforced by certain political groups and social media. — Tobias

Masculinity is problematised in a very different way in mainstream discourse than femininity is problematised. Masculinity's associated with violent crimes, sexual crimes, domestic abuse, posturing, financial risk, overwork, selfishness, lack of community spirit, emotional inflexibility and poor communication skills, and thus is a problem. Femininity's problematised as part of an oppressive system of norms that confines women's conduct and renders them less powerful and less capable of self expression, it is thus seen as posing problems to women.

Even the "crisis of masculinity" news doesn't talk about the issue, the advice it gives these days is to go out and get a job and join a community project.

But masculinity perpetually is in crisis, because the norms that afford men self respect put men on pedestals that serve as precipices. That news rarely pauses to think that masculinity's also a straitjacket. There has been no widespread social movement to problematise masculinity for men, to highlight the problems it poses for us as a social construct.

You'll occasionally find some group of fuckwits treating this oppositionally, blaming women in the abstract or feminism for the problems of men. They'll get angry at partners for taking sole custody of children, but not so angry about incredibly restrictive paternity leave laws.

There is an absolute dearth of anti-patriarchy discussion which, for want of a better term, is man friendly. Even though that absolutely exists as a thread in contemporary academic feminism.

Apologies for skipping much of the conversation. A real life tragedy in motion over my way. That aside, I believe Hannah Arendt's The Human Condition does an amazing job at filling in the vital details here from the ancient Grecian values of koinonia and idios, shifting over time, due to figures like Aquinas improperly substituting the Roman word Social (which has no meaning in Grecian thought, because all animals are social, and thus it is a limitation of necessity on all biological life) for the concept Koinonia was the beginning of the betrayal in shifting away from the ancient way of thought... so I'll leave this from Arendt's book for others to mull over, before this she goes over the betrayal of Vita Activa in favor of Vita Contemplativa...

The profound misunderstanding expressed in the Latin transla- tion of "political" as "social" is perhaps nowhere clearer than in a discussion in which Thomas Aquinas compares the nature of household rule with political rule: the head of the household, he finds, has some similarity to the head of the kingdom, but, he adds, his power is not so "perfect" as that of the king. 11 Not only in Greece and the polls but throughout the whole of occidental an- tiquity, it would indeed have been self-evident that even the power of the tyrant was less great, less "perfect" than the power with which the paterfamilias, the dominus, ruled over his household of slaves and family... Although misunderstanding and equating the political and social realms is as old as the translatio n of Greek terms into Latin and their adaption to Roman-Christian thought, it has become even more confusing in modern usage and modem understanding of society.

The distinction between a private and a public sphere of life corresponds to the household and the political realms, which have existed as distinct, separate entities at least since the rise of the ancient city-state; but the emergence of the social realm, which is neither private nor public, strictly speaking, is a rela- tively new phenomenon whose or igin coincided with the emer- gence of the modern age and which found its political form in the nation-state. What concerns us in this context is the extraordinary difficulty with which we, because of this development, understand the deci- sive division between the public and private realms, between the sphere of the polls and the sphere of household and family, and, finally, between activities related to a common world and those related to the maintenance of life, a division upon which all ancient political thought rested as self-evident and axiomatic.

In our understanding, the dividing line is entirely blurred, because we see the body of peoples and political communities in the image of a family whose everyday affairs have to be taken care of by a gigantic, nation-wide administration of housekeeping. The scien- tific thought that corresponds to this development is no longer political science but " national economy" or "social economy" or Volkswirtschaft, all of which indicate a kind of "collective house-keeping"; 13 the collective of families economically organized into the facsimile of one super-human family is what we call "society," and its political form of organization is called "nation." 14

We therefore find it difficult to realize that according to ancient thought on these matters, the very term "political economy" would have been a contradiction in terms: whatever was " eco- nomic," related to the life of the individual and the survival of the species, was a non-political, household affair by definition. 16 Historically, it is very likely that the rise of the city-state and the public realm occurred at the expense of the private realm of family and household. 16 Yet the old sanctity of the hearth, though much less pronounced in classical Greece than in ancient Rome, was never entirely lost. What prevented the polis from violating the private lives of its citizens and made it hold sacred the bound- aries surrounding each property was not respect for private property as we understand it, but the fact that without owning a house a man could not participate in the affairs of the world because he had no location in it which was properly his own. 17

Even Plato, whose political plans foresaw the abolition of private property and an extension of the public sphere to the point of annihilating private life altogether, still speaks with great reverence of Zeus Herkeios, the protector of border lines, and calls the horoi, the boundaries between one estate and another, divine, without seeing any contradiction. 18 The distinctive trait of the household sphere was that in it men lived together because they were driven by their wants and needs. The driving force was life itself—the penates, the household gods, were, according to Plutarch, "the gods who make us live and nourish our body" 19—which, for its individual maintenance and its survival as the life of the species needs the company of others. That individual maintenance should be the task of the man and species survival the task of the woman was obvious, and both of these natural functions, the labor of man to provide nourishment and the labor of the woman in giving birth, were subject to the same urgency of life. Natural community in the household there- fore was born of necessity, and necessity ruled over all activities performed in it.

The realm of the polls, on the contrary, was the sphere of free- dom, and if there was a relationship between these two spheres, it was a matter of course that the mastering of the necessities of life in the household was the condition for freedom of the polls. Under no circumstances could politics be only a means to protect society —a society of the faithful, as in the Middle Ages, or a society of property-owners, as in Locke, or a society relentlessly engaged in a process of acquisition, as in Hobbes, or a society of producers, as in Marx, or a society of jobholders, as in our own society, or a society of laborers, as in socialist and communist countries. In all these cases, it is the freedom (and in some instances so-called freedom) of society which requires and justifies the restraint of political authority. Freedom is located in the realm of the social, and force or violence becomes the monopoly of government.

What all Greek philosophers, no matter how opposed to polls life, took for granted is that freedom is exclusively located in the political realm, that necessity is primarily a prepolitical phenome- non, characteristic of the private household organization, and that force and violence are justified in this sphere because they are the only means to master necessity—for instance, by ruling over slaves—and to become free. Because all human beings are subject to necessity, they are entitled to violence toward others; violence is the prepolitical act of liberating oneself from the necessity of life for the freedom of world.

This freedom is the essential condition of what the Greeks called felicity, eudaimmla, which was an objective status depending first of all upon wealth and health. To be poor or to be in ill health meant to be subject to physical neces- sity, and to be a slave meant to be subject, in addition, to man- made violence. This twofold and doubled "unhappiness" of slavery is quite independent of the actual subjective well-being of the slave. Thus, a poor free man preferred the insecurity of a daily-changing labor market to regular assured wo rk, which, because it restricted his freedom to do as he pleased every day, was already felt to be servitude (douleia) , and even harsh, painful labor was preferred to the easy life of many household slaves. — Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition pg 27-31

Real life pulling me away. Hope that helps moving forward in the discussion.

By all means do a better job. I tried to provide definitions actually used in sociology. Two lines are a bit disappointing, but I am happy hearing where the argument goes wrong. — Tobias

Alright. First, I generally frown on one sided political topics in philosophy. Politics and religion are two ideologies that make people extremely defensive and shut their brains off. We don't argue for Christianity or Islam here, just like we shouldn't argue for Republican or Democrat here. Good topics are "What is God? What would prove God?" A good political discussion would be, "What is masculinity? What would prove masculinity?"

Plenty of people will disagree with your definitions of masculine and feminine. Citing an author from 24 years ago doesn't lend credence. What is the justification for these definitions? How do we know his ideas aren't crack pot? You're coming in with something very sociological and often considered pseudoscience.

How would I fix this? Talk about men. If men are having problems, what are their problems? Is this all men? Because plenty of men do not fit in with this definition of 'masculinity'. Define what the manosphere is. Explain what is wrong with it. Are all men in the manosphere? Is it some men? What men get drawn to the manosphere? Why does the manosphere encourage misogyny?

After you get past all of that, why are these particular men voting for the right? What is on the right that attracts these men? What about the men who voted for the right who aren't in the manosphere?
Are these men the only reason the right won last election? Why is it oppressive misogyny and not economic perception or people feeling like government wasn't serving them?

My overall point is your approach if very 'reddit'. A pop psychology opinion that states terms as if they were simply agreed upon facts and asks us to think deeply about them. Instead you should be questioning your terms as much as we are. Present to us why these terms are useful and concrete. That would be a philosophical topic worth discussing.

"If you were alone in the woods, would you rather encounter a bear or a woman?”

No one picks the bear.

"If you were alone in the woods, would you rather encounter a bear or a man?”

A lot of people pick the bear. And the reasons are obvious. I've never crossed a street when a strange group of women is approaching. I've done it countless times when a strange group of men are approaching. Men are simply way too violent. It's still a huge problem.

Also very much in agreement, yet what I miss in many discussions on this subject is exactly this two way street. We are right now in a time in which is not self evident how and with what man should identify. The general consensus on the left seems to be that man should change and that since they are the problem they should figure it out while the general consensus on the right should be that men should reassert their classical role as the 'head of the table' so to speak. On the one hand, masculinity is being unreasonably problematized, on the other hand it is being reinforced by certain political groups and social media. — Tobias

Masculinity is problematised in a very different way in mainstream discourse than femininity is problematised. Masculinity's associated with violent crimes, sexual crimes, domestic abuse, posturing, financial risk, overwork, selfishness, lack of community spirit, emotional inflexibility and poor communication skills, and thus is a problem. Femininity's problematised as part of an oppressive system of norms that confines women's conduct and renders them less powerful and less capable of self expression, it is thus seen as posing problems to women. — fdrake

"... that man should change ..." is a value. It is, in its total vagueness, the value of the left, having abandoned the class war because of the loss of the mass workplace. Although 'left and right' are terms of the ancien regime, and what predominates now is the second dimension of political leaning, between 'authoritarian and liberal' as here, for example. Left and right has become up and down, because the economy is becoming emancipated from human and political control.

The myth of the very stable genius has replaced the myth of the lonesome cowboy. Not so much 'should', the facts are that man has changed because he must change. His masculinity is now cosmetic drug induced muscle that hides a complete lack of moral integrity. There is nothing behind the performance. He has indeed become the bicycle that every fish no longer needs or wants. Politics is insane because it no longer governs. It's the economy, stupid, follow the money; but the money out-runs us.

Men are simply way too violent. It's still a huge problem. — RogueAI

The solution to the violence of men has always been the hero as protector, one's very own violent man. More defence spending, more guns. It used to be that there was nothing more dangerous than a man with nothing left to lose; but now, or very soon, that man will be replaced by an AI drone, that cares naught if it loses everything and can hit you from the other side of the street.

Alright. First, I generally frown on one sided political topics in philosophy. Politics and religion are two ideologies that make people extremely defensive and shut their brains off. We don't argue for Christianity or Islam here, just like we shouldn't argue for Republican or Democrat here. Good topics are "What is God? What would prove God?" A good political discussion would be, "What is masculinity? What would prove masculinity? — Philosophim

I disagree with you but there is no surprise there. I wonder though why you see my post as on sided. I tried looking at the problem from multiple angles. I am not arguing for republican or democrat standpoints. What I would like to know is what explains the popularity of an ideology that was considered fringe only 20 years ago. If the nation suddenly turned Islamic in the space of 20 years I would try to find an explanation for that too. Mind you I would also like an explanation for the sudden embracing of identity politics among both the left and the right. I do feel one cannot ask too many questions at once though. I think the topic is indeed so politicized that it is apparently unimaginable that someone can pose questions about it without some normative appeal.

I find questions like 'what is masculinity' to be rather silly, especially on a forum such as this. You will just get people pulling some idea out of their ass. I also think the question cannot be answered because in my view what x is depends on the interaction of people with x. The question "What is masculinity?" presupposes some essentialist answer to the question. I feel it is better to ask what values are associated with masculinity. Now that is a fine question in its own right but then I would not get to the topic I think warrants discussion, namely why a certain political view that would be considered far out of the ballpark 20 years ago is very popular nowadays. Therefore I adopted an ideal typical set of values proposed by an authority figure, very commonly done in science. That he is old is correct, there may be better more up to date sociologists, If you know more convincing authors let me know.

Plenty of people will disagree with your definitions of masculine and feminine. Citing an author from 24 years ago doesn't lend credence. What is the justification for these definitions? How do we know his ideas aren't crack pot? You're coming in with something very sociological and often considered pseudoscience. — Philosophim

I could go into that of course and it would be good, but it would also extend the length of the post and not make it very suitable for a forum like this. Were I to write an academic article, sure. What I did I feel is more than most posters here do. Let me ask you, where do you disagree with Hofstede, where do you find him not convincing? Do you think these values are not commonly associated with male or female identities? Sure, if these ideal types are unconvincing then we need different ones. I am not convinced yet though.

How would I fix this? Talk about men. If men are having problems, what are their problems? Is this all men? Because plenty of men do not fit in with this definition of 'masculinity'. Define what the manosphere is. Explain what is wrong with it. Are all men in the manosphere? Is it some men? What men get drawn to the manosphere? Why does the manosphere encourage misogyny? — Philosophim

Of course plenty of men do not fit the definition. I bet not one man or woman actually embraces all these values to the furthest extent. There will be a lot of women that embrace values associated with masculinity and vice versa. That is also not the point of an ideal type. It is a way to make certain phenomena visible by simplifying and exaggerating certain traits. If it is totally out of touch with reality, then it should be dropped of course. I do not think it is. Consider this quote from the CAWP website: "Women tend to be more supportive of gun control, reproductive rights, welfare, and equal rights policies than men. They tend to be less supportive of the death penalty, defense spending, and military intervention". https://cawp.rutgers.edu/gender-gap-public-opinion . The figures stated also paint a nice picture. Women are also more supportive of same sex marriage for instance and more supportive of aiding the poor. An ideal type is derived from observable reality but does not correspond fully to it, it is an analytical construct. Of course, values tend to exhibit more traits of a continuum than this dichotomy. What you can do with it is make visible certain trends by explicitly focusing on them. Not as the only explanation for something, but as a possible contributing explanation. Of course you may call sociology pseudoscience, but the very subject of this forum has been called pseudoscience so I do not find that criticism at all convincing.

As for your questions on the manosphere, all interesting questions, but not the focus of my question. It is more of a side note. If you like to provide us with answers to them it would certainly be helpful to explore the topic further. The point that it is underdefined in my post is well taken. I took it to mean the set of forums and communities that consider the male identity and actively promote traditional masculine values. I might be off base there, but the concept does not do that much for my analysis, so it can be scrapped altogether.

Are these men the only reason the right won last election? Why is it oppressive misogyny and not economic perception or people feeling like government wasn't serving them? — Philosophim

Not the only reason at all, but those questions are red herrings no? Nowhere have I said that this would be the only explanation. My question and hypothesis is far less sweeping. I wonder if appeals to a more traditional form of masculinity are one explanation and what makes these appeals attractive right now to a certain category of men. Data indicates that economic concerns were the most dominant reason for voters to vote Republican, but those do not explain for instance why there is a huge gender gap in the US among young voters. As many observers expected before the election, there was a significant gender gap among young voters. Young women preferred Harris to Trump by a 17-point margin: 58% to 41%. But young men preferred Trump by a 14-point margin: 56% to 42%. In Dutch inquiries on voter behavior we see similar patterns https://dub.uu.nl/nl/achtergrond/stemgedrag-jonge-mannen-verschuift-naar-rechts . 33% of young males voted right wing nationalist as opposed to 22% of women. We see similar trends in dissimilar economic situations.

Present to us why these terms are useful and concrete. That would be a philosophical topic worth discussing. — Philosophim

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. For me the terms are useful because they enable me to make an analysis and present it to you If the analysis goes wrong I like to know where. If the tool used is wrong (the idea type presented by Hofstede) is wrong I would also like to know it. Your point that terms like the manosphere are undefined is well taken. What is also lacking to my knowledge at least is a discursive analysis of images of masculinity and femininity among right wing populist parties. I wanted to undertake such an analysis, but alas, I want a lot of things...

Masculinity has become a problem for itself, it is unclear what it is precisely, how it should be constructed. It is clear that it is a problem, but unclear what the solution is because it is caught in a contradiction. It has to reform and not reform at the same time. — Tobias

I suppose that hasn’t been my experience. In my work, I encounter criminals, former prisoners, and men from gangs, yet I see no evidence that their behavior is worsening or that attitudes are becoming more patriarchal. If anything, the men I meet today - even those who are uneducated and tough as nails - are more inclusive and open to new ideas than they were 35 years ago. That’s not to say they aren’t sometimes violent or dangerous, but I see the same tendencies in many women as well.

Isn't the "toxic masculinity" discourse often just a social media trope? There have always been toxic men, of course. And while we may be witnessing a modest, localized backlash against change, that seems like a natural part of any social transformation. In this vein, some religious groups are pushing “traditional” museum-piece lifestyles for men and women, with performative masculinity on display. But you have to expect that from those kinds of nostalgia projects.

Don’t masculine and feminine go together as the two poles of an outdated binary social conception? Aren’t they in the process of being replaced by a new binary, in which both what had been understood as masculine and what was seen as feminine are redefined? Or perhaps the binary itself is on the way to being replaced by a spectrum or non-linear plurality or fluidity? — Joshs

I suspect this is the case. But small steps, right? Certainly in my part of the world fluidity is becoming more prevalent. I suspect there are gender fundamentalists who are perhaps like the religious fundamentalists, reacting against uncomfortable ideas and a loss of certainty. My father once told me an amusing story about wearing light blue sweater in 1959 and how many men in his circle stared at him incredulously and called him a "sissy". And yet just a few years later men were wearing pink Kaftans.

Yall just neglecting Hannah Arendt huh? Probably why yall ain't even ready to have this conversation. Too focused on masculine feminine to see the whole change. Just a bunch of floppy penis presenting themselves to others, rather than understanding the entire shift of thoughts from the old constellations of thought to now that make up the new constellations of contemporary thought. It'll be like me trying to teach you all about Sisyphus from the Grecian perspective vs from the Christian perspective and yall just bitching about how I'm wrong because you only know the contemporary story vs its original from the Greek perspective.

The myth of the very stable genius has replaced the myth of the lonesome cowboy. — unenlightened

Seems about right.

Not so much 'should', the facts are that man has changed because he must change.

Also seems about right. I'm willing to bet how I used "should" is how you used "must". I'm sure we're both aware that what must happen often does not.

His masculinity is now cosmetic drug induced muscle that hides a complete lack of moral integrity.

Maybe? I was under the impression that being a buff benevolent overlord was one of the competing "new ideal"s, you can lose that status by losing your moral fibre in public.

There is nothing behind the performance.

I don't agree with that wholly, given the last two sentences I wrote. I think that what you're saying is largely true - who you are "as a man" is largely divorced from what masculine signifiers you adopt {or can adopt}. IE, looking like A Beefcake {TM} does nothing to give you the Conviction of A Warrior {TM} or to be/own The Ultimate Caring Provider {TM}, even though those things are gaffa taped together in the imaginary.

He has indeed become the bicycle that every fish no longer needs or wants.

I also don't agree with that. I think there are public rejections of violence and aggression, which are seen as stereotypically masculine traits, but you do receive social sanctions if you don't behave enough like a man. If no one no longer needed or wanted, ie no longer enforced, the straitjacket of masculinity the expectation to behave that way would dissolve.

Whereas it seems that people reject stereotypical and commonly construed aspects of masculinity in public - aggression, competition, status seeking - but men still get socialised in a system of norms that sees those values as necessary for men - assertion, drive to work, competitive spirit.

I find questions like 'what is masculinity' to be rather silly, especially on a forum such as this. You will just get people pulling some idea out of their ass. I also think the question cannot be answered because in my view what x is depends on the interaction of people with x. The question "What is masculinity?" presupposes some essentialist answer to the question. — Tobias

That was my point. If you use terminology that has a high variance of answers and disagreement, its not good terminology to use. These words are usually emotionally biased which doesn't lead to good discussion.

Now that is a fine question in its own right but then I would not get to the topic I think warrants discussion, namely why a certain political view that would be considered far out of the ballpark 20 years ago is very popular nowadays. — Tobias

Is it though? Trump was also elected 8 years ago. We had George W. Bush 8 years prior to Obama. If you want to cover that case, that's not bad, but you'll need to present why you think that.

I could go into that of course and it would be good, but it would also extend the length of the post and not make it very suitable for a forum like this. — Tobias

Ha ha! I struggle with post length myself so I understand. But if you want to make a clear argument and a post worth discussing you have to either increase the length or focus the topic down to more digestible points. The problem is you through a lot of assumed terminology and concepts out there then expect a serious discussion on your end points. You have to build to that. Assuming, "We all agree on this and its obvious" isn't going to get you anywhere. I would try to get to your end points without the terminology of masculinity and see if you can do better. Political science is a very messy and complex subject, and I doubt that if you really closely examine it you'll find that the 'manosphere' is a major part of it. Pundits and pop culture analysis are often done for clicks and attention, not careful philosophical diagnosis.

Let me ask you, where do you disagree with Hofstede, where do you find him not convincing? Do you think these values are not commonly associated with male or female identities? — Tobias

Sure, here's a start:

ego oriented / relationship oriented
money and things are important / quality of life and people are important

Utter bullshit. I know tons of women who are money grubbing evil shits who are all about their ego. I know tons of men who are humble men who sacrifice daily for their family and friends. And vice versa. There is nothing about being a man or woman that innately indicates you're going to be focused more on one or the other. You need statistics and evidence for this. Otherwise this is punditry and pop science, not a real analysis. Honestly, this is a topic all on its own to discuss.

Of course plenty of men do not fit the definition. I bet not one man or woman actually embraces all these values to the furthest extent. There will be a lot of women that embrace values associated with masculinity and vice versa. That is also not the point of an ideal type. It is a way to make certain phenomena visible by simplifying and exaggerating certain traits. If it is totally out of touch with reality, then it should be dropped of course. — Tobias

You can debate whether it should be dropped. We're here to dive in carefully and dissect lazy premises, emotional bias, and assumed conjecture. My point is that you've brought in a very debatable set of premises that you need to analyze more carefully before getting to your end argument.

Consider this quote from the CAWP website: "Women tend to be more supportive of gun control, reproductive rights, welfare, and equal rights policies than men. They tend to be less supportive of the death penalty, defense spending, and military intervention". — Tobias

Now this is good analysis. But is this evidence that means they're more concerned with relationships than ego? No. A lot of these ideologies are supported out of selfishness and fear, not communal interest. Just as many who don't support these policies will say its because they think the community is better off even if it might put themselves more at risk.

As for your questions on the manosphere, all interesting questions, but not the focus of my question. — Tobias

Then don't include it in your topic. If you don't want questions about it or it to be a possible focus, don't bring it up.

Data indicates that economic concerns were the most dominant reason for voters to vote Republican, but those do not explain for instance why there is a huge gender gap in the US among young voters. As many observers expected before the election, there was a significant gender gap among young voters. Young women preferred Harris to Trump by a 17-point margin: 58% to 41%. But young men preferred Trump by a 14-point margin: 56% to 42%. — Tobias

Again, these are good statistics. But have you given ample reason to explain this? What are men concerned with more than women? Start with that instead of masculinity and femininity.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. For me the terms are useful because they enable me to make an analysis and present it to you If the analysis goes wrong I like to know where. — Tobias

Right. My feedback is telling you that you're using controversial terms without adequate argument as to why we should use them. You're going A -> B -> C and you haven't proved A or B because you want to get to C. A common desire, but I'm letting you know that you can't just gloss over A and B if you want to have C seriously discussed. This isn't Reddit. You have to build your case carefully here.

What is also lacking to my knowledge at least is a discursive analysis of images of masculinity and femininity among right wing populist parties. I wanted to undertake such an analysis, but alas, I want a lot of things... — Tobias

I get it. And I hope you don't take my criticism the wrong way. You've made a good attempt to discuss something you wanted. The attempt is made with intelligence, it just mistakenly glosses over too many controversial points and needs better focus on what you're trying to discuss. To your point sociology and philosophy can be pseudoscience if done improperly. I'm attempting to point out a more proper methodology that lets your post be less opinion and pop-conjecture, and more logical and reasoned points.

I think there are public rejections of violence and aggression, which are seen as stereotypically masculine traits, but you do receive social sanctions if you don't behave enough like a man. If no one no longer needed or wanted, ie no longer enforced, the straitjacket of masculinity the expectation to behave that way would dissolve. — fdrake

I think it's society that is the straight-jacket here.

Men are going to be masculine no matter how hard society tries to mould them into something else. The degree to which this is a 'social construct' is very limited, though the ability of societies to beat people into behaving in ways that it finds desirable are nearly boundless.

But pointless violence and aggression haven't been seen as desirable traits for decades if not centuries - not by men, not by women, not by society at large. It has nothing to do with societal views of masculinity.

The only place I can think of where these ideas are openly promoted is pop culture / gangster culture / the rap scene, and impressionable and often disadvantaged youth is certainly susceptible to that messaging.

Speaking for my own country here, the link between the rap scene and youth violence is undeniable and obvious to anyone with eyes to see. As is the link between misogyny and mass immigration from Muslim countries.

Yet, no one speaks about that. It's easier to just blame 'Men', I suppose. They seem to take it in stride, while the various sacred cows can be left unquestioned.

You'll have a hard time convincing me that we're not just looking at some spiteful reversal of Christianity's tendency to blame everything on women.

I also don't agree with that. I think there are public rejections of violence and aggression, which are seen as stereotypically masculine traits, but you do receive social sanctions if you don't behave enough like a man. If no one no longer needed or wanted, ie no longer enforced, the straitjacket of masculinity the expectation to behave that way would dissolve. — fdrake

The new man of power and the new man of violence is a drone flying nerd; the hard drinking hard fighting Russian type real man cannot compete. When I say 'must change' I mean change or die. It is an evolutionary pressure if you like.

Of course, 'after the collapse', that pressure may reverse.

Men are going to be masculine no matter how hard society tries to mould them into something else. — Tzeentch

Hard to disagree with that, barring mass castration. But also very easy to disagree with as soon as one considers the (surely purely social) division of gay men into 'butch' and 'fem'. Or even just the cliche of the hen-pecked husband.

If we are talking about the spectrum of men, on almost every measure, there is a good deal of overlap with the spectrum of women, even to the extent that men can lactate and breastfeed. But we are not really talking about the reality of human diversity, but about the ideas and ideals that are prevalent and the identifications that are made and the social pressures to conform to this or that image of what a man versus a woman is or ought to be.

There is a spectrum, of course. But that spectrum also includes very masculine men and very feminine women. Aspects of this are currently being problematized for no reason. Just like we cannot bully feminine men into becoming masculine, we cannot bully masculine men into becoming feminine - not without denying them their fundamental humanity, that is.

There's nothing wrong with being masculine or even very masculine. Masculinity is not some dirty word, despite what some in this thread seem to suggest.

The promotion of senseless violence is a problem very particular to certain scenes - gangster culture and football hooliganism, for example. Both have been glorified by pop culture, even though the vast majority of society recognizes these scenes as degenerate.

But instead of asking some critical questions about how pop culture uploads all kinds of degeneracy into the brains of impressionable youth, we seemingly have taken to simply blaming 'Men' - no doubt some outgrowth of radical political theories.

The promotion of senseless violence is a problem very particular to certain scenes - gangster culture and football hooliganism, for example. Both have been glorified by pop culture, even though the vast majority of society recognizes these scenes as degenerate. — Tzeentch

When I was young, the youth culture was all about flower power, giving peace a chance, peaceful protest against the Vietnam war, and nuclear weapons. And that was generally considered degenerate.
Youth culture is always inclined to be rebellious and the old guard is always inclined to find it degenerate.

I'm sure you agree that 15 year olds stabbing each other with machetes is degenerate? That's a normalcy in the Netherlands, by the way. And if you want to know where they get these ideas: it's straight from an ultra-violent fringe of the rap scene, 'drill rap'.



It's degenerate. It's societal cancer, and I don't use the term lightly. There's nothing redeeming about this. It's not some healthy, youthful rebelliousness.

The same goes for various other parts of pop culture, though this one is probably some of the worst.

I'm sure you agree that 15 year olds stabbing each other with machetes is degenerate? — Tzeentch

Of course I do; I'm an old hippie, but sometimes it's the other way about, and the orthodoxy is violent and the rebellion is peaceful. My point is that my attitude, which aligns with yours in this matter, was considered degenerate by the previous generation. These things are values by which we judge others. As far as I can see, you are defending your values, which is fine, but then you accuse those who attempt to make a balanced analysis of such values of, in effect also being degenerate. That's not so ok.

It's like you know, as none of us other contributors do, what 'masculine' human nature is beyond social and cultural influence, and everyone who disagrees is wrong and degenerate. No doubt you also then know, as I certainly don't, those circumstances if any, when violence is justified and virtuous.

The ancient Greek would see our current society as Barbaric because the social has absorbed the old concept of privacy...there is no more private realm of necessity, inequality and necessary inequality... society and the social now deprives us of natural states of world and parts of our animal nature.... misogyny is so damn ripe because there's a constant society wide distribution that man and masculinity is shit through a deleveling of masculine values. A society wide deprivation of masculinity due to the fact that femininity is having a spasmodic explosion from being held captive, from being viewed as something to be exercised, viewed as shit for so long under the Semitic way of life...

The emergence of society—the rise of housekeeping, its activities, problems, and organizational devices—from the shadowy interior of the household into the light of the public sphere, has not only blurred the old borderline between private and political, it has also changed almost beyond recognition the meaning of the two terms and their significance for the life of the individual and the citizen.

This is not merely a matter of shifted emphasis. In ancient feeling the privative trait of privacy, indicated in the word itself, was all-important; it meant literally a state of being deprived of something, and even of the highest and most human of man's capacities. A man who lived only a private life, who like the slave was not permitted to enter the public realm, or like the barbarian who had chosen not to establish such a realm, was not fully human. We no longer think primarily of deprivation when we use the word "privacy," and this is partly due to the enormous enrichment of the private sphere through modern individualism. However, it seems even more important that modern privacy is at least as sharply opposed to the social realm—unknown to the ancients who considered its content a private matter-—as it is to the political, properly speaking.

The decisive historical fact is that modern privacy in its most relevant function, to shelter the intimate, was discovered as the opposite not of the political sphere but of the social, to which it is therefore more closely and authentically related. The striking coincidence of the rise of society with the decline of the family indicates clearly that what actually took place was the absorption of the family unit into corresponding social groups.

It is decisive that society, on all its levels, excludes the possibility of action, which formerly was excluded from the household. Instead, society expects from each of its members a certain kind of behavior, imposing innumerable and various rules, all of which tend to "normalize" its members, to make them behave, to exclude spontaneous action or outstanding achievement.

We find these demands in the salons of high society, whose conventions always equate the individual with his rank within the social framework. What matters is this equation with social status, and it is immateri al whether the framework happens to be actual rank in the half-feud al society of the eighteenth century, title in the class society of the nineteenth, or mere function in the mass society of today. The rise of mass society, on the contrary, only indicates that the various social groups have suffered the same absorption into one society that the family units had suffered earlier; with the emergence of mass society, the realm of the social has finally, after several centuries of development, reached the point where it embraces and controls all members of a given community equally and with equal strength. But society equalizes under all circumstances, and the victory of equality in the modern world is only the political and legal recognition of the fact that society has conquered the public realm, and that distinction and difference have become private matters of the individual. — Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition.

Resentment from the masses, people project their powerlessness outwards, just as Nietzsche describes of the powerless in Gay Science (359 & 379) and Genealogy (First Essay 10, and practically all of the Second Essay) ... So the world has a bunch of weak resentful types from the masses feeling their manhood is threatened through this explosion and favoritism of femininity. And it's not just men, even some women are on board oddly enough.

However, I think the analyses so far provided are usually too one sided, not only in the threads here, but also in general. The tacit assumption that is usually made, is that it is a reaction of a powerful group, men, that would like to solidify its privileges and uses the same means of oppression that it usually uses to oppress women and other minorities. — Tobias

The reason that I have an objection to masculinity being under attack (to the extent it is) is because I have masculine traits. It's not that I decided to be masculine or that I found it a good way to assert power. It's just the way I am. I don't buy into the notion that had society given me dolls, then I'd have been maternal. Maybe it would have changed me some, but probably I'd have used them as flying objects and subjects of war games and what not.

My son when little liked fire trucks, dump trucks, and videos about great big machines. Had he wanted to play tea, I'd have played tea with the kid. Did I subconsciously push him toward trucks? I never really wanted him to be a heavy equipment operator, so I can't see why I'd have done that. But maybe I'm so in love with manliness I don't even know it and I pushed that on to my kid. I guess that's the argument.

To the notion that society is evolving toward the feminine, that is a political movement, not a fundamental change in behavior. Men and women are different (thankfully), and so you can try to forge men into women and women into men, but they will never fit in that square. And the same holds true for men that favor femininity and women who favor masculinity. Try as you might, they will remain who they are. The push-back is not because I loved the good old days when men were men and women were women. It's just I don't fully take seriously the suggestion they still aren't but with only the uncommon exception.

I generaly don't agree either that the day of the masculine man has come and gone. I have found myself quite in demand, not that others less masculine or that women are not also in demand, but I don't walk about as if a dinasaur in a changed world. We all have our roles, but not all is choice and not all is societal manipulation.

The thing is, you don't suffer from an insecurity there though... so why would you feel attacked? I'll assume you're wiser than the average person, I'd wager that studying philosophy has brought you many insights into who you are, such that your identity ia drawn from within rather than reifying with external concepts which passively form a reactionary identity, because the external values come with strings attached...

More or less, you're not an impoverished mentality. Thus you don't feel attacked. That doesn't mean, that masculinity isn't reprimanded currently. Just because it's not on your radar doesn't mean it's not occurring.

It's like you know, as none of us other contributors do, what 'masculine' human nature is beyond social and cultural influence, and everyone who disagrees is wrong and degenerate. No doubt you also then know, as I certainly don't, those circumstances if any, when violence is justified and virtuous. — unenlightened

No idea where you're getting this from. I haven't called you or anyone here degenerate. It was in relation to an example I myself gave of a trend which is overtly destructive. I've also no clue where you get the idea I'm about to espouse support for some kind of violence. You seem to be assuming all of this out of some personal dislike, is the sense I am getting.

Kids stabbing each other in the street over an argument is as black and white as it gets. If we cannot even agree on that much then I'm not sure what deep, dark hole of moral relativity you've wandered down into. Or maybe it's you who has trouble listening to opinions they disagree with?

If I had some problem with disagreeable opinions, I wouldn't be on this forum. I've also no problem with calling a spade a spade, nor with unapologetically criticizing bad ideas.

Tying it back to the matter at hand: such destructive fringe cultures, and not some kind of masculine original sin, is at the heart of violent trends in youths.

More or less, you're not an impoverished mentality. Thus you don't feel attacked. That doesn't mean, that masculinity isn't reprimanded currently. Just because it's not on your radar doesn't mean it's not occurring. — DifferentiatingEgg

I'm generally opposed to victim searching, where folks go out and try to convince others they are oppressed or downtrodden. That's not to say some don't need a reality check, but generally it's hard to buy into the idea that I am attacked, but just don't know it.

Anyway, I don't question that there are those fully engaged in an attack against all that is manliness. My point was that it will fail by ontological force. Masculinity isn't an idea that emerged in the 1950s and now it's at the end of its run. Masculinity, feminitity, heterosexuality, homosexuality, etc are states of being and there will be manly men regardless of how condemned it is. And it's not like it's a small percentage of folks who fall into traditional male roles. It's probably around 40%+ of the billions on the planet.

I feel like not only am I going to be alright, but I'm on the winning end of whatever political battle is being waged.

-