viva la difference!

Vive la différence, oui.

The French were initially baffled by #metoo because we invested quite a lot culturally onto the idea of romantic heterosexual love. Not that every single French national is romantic of course (or heterosexual for that matter) but it's a strong trope in the culture, which I think made us less able to see the harm done by men onto women in the name of "love".

Things are changing, I believe for the better, but still I doubt my nation will ever fully embrace the idea that men should wear lingerie, for instance. A less extreme perhaps example is that of the skirt for men and boys: there are men (and couture dons) who tried wearing the skirt but it's not gelling in the culture.

I actually wore a sort of skirt for a few weeks, and enjoyed it quite a lot. But I was in Somalia then, where men do wear sorts of skirts (a scarf wrapped around the waist) so I was just conforming to the local gender roles. It's great for hot weather... The breeze keeping your thing ventilated, that's priceless! So we're missing something. I guess the downside is a bone is harder to hide.

What about toxic femininity... — Hanover

That need to be discussed heavily. Women having suffrage has not only influenced society in positive ways. Spoiling of kids have become institutional and has lead to the development of hailing of low effort and results. The typical academic woman will go to extreme measures to perform well herself (at work, at home, with friends) but will spoil her own kids severely, making them "snowflakes" if the husband do not put some sense in the kids. She will further push for "weaker people", not requiring any personal responsibility from poorer people, refugees, people in minorities or whatever.

Being from a background way more disprivileged than any group in current scandinavia, the poorer people still held a high sense of responsibility and industry. As did scandinavian people that emigrated to the USA.

A male view, like that of Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King is that Opportunity indeed should be equal, but people should also, regardless of situation do their best.

I do also doubt that, If female had suffrage from say 1750, that the mean lifetime and comfort would have been the same as the one we have now. Scientific discovery and industry are heroic activities, apart from also being team efforts.

As always, I do not say that all men are all masculine, and that all females are feminine. I love romance novels. But femininity as such is nothing that is all good.

If you want to play the definition game, as this thread sets out to do, you really need to have regard to the distinctions the people who start talking about the thing are making.

Masculinity, as a manifestation of testosterone, has an inherent drive. Male H. Sapiens are naturally primed by the four f’s of evolutionary biology - you know, feeding, fighting, fleeing or (again, never mind). That Darwinian heritage — Wayfarer

What is inherent, what is evolved, what is natural, is called 'maleness', and 'masculinity' refers to social roles. The manifestations of testosterone include all things female: men have relatively elevated testosterone levels, and that is part of maleness.

Masculinity becomes toxic when men begin worrying about their masculinity. — Ciceronianus the White

There is much to recommend this. Except that it applies to every male from the age they become aware of their sex and learn to insist on a blue toothbrush not a pink one. Some of us are quite happy to say that gender roles and identities arealways toxic from the beginning, along with racial, and other socially imposed identities.

Thus I am a man, and therefore whatever I am is part of maleness and whatever I do is part of maleness, and there is nothing to conform to and nothing to perform. On this view, there is no achievement, no winning of the woman, or finding a place in the dominance hierarchy - I haven't had a fight for 58 years, but ain't I a man? A gay man is a complete man and a straight man is also a complete man, and a transvestite is a complete man. A celibate monk and a gigolo are both complete men.

But masculinity confines, restricts, imposes, on all men a single image to which one must conform or face penalties - sometimes the death penalty.

But one must remember the source of this language is the political talk of women. And in practice, the emphasis will be exactly what is being presented by some here as the essence of masculinity - domination, aggression and violence, domestic abuse, and at the extreme, rape.

The sound parts of masculinity and femininity could well be something that both male and female should conform to.

Most people don't think any longer that men should be the breadwinners and women as housewives. However, there are some who think that way, mainly those from a generation who were taught this value. — Jack Cummins

So if any woman chooses to be a housewife, then that can only be because she was brought up in a such a way to be ignorant if anything else? The same could be said of any person. We are all products of our genes and upbringing. A woman that works away from home and chooses to never marry or have kids is as much a product of her genes and upbringing as a housewife. Who gets to tell either of these women what is best for them?

In asserting that someone that shares some quality with you, like skin color or sex parts, must then act like you and approve of the things that you approve of, is the essence of bigotry. A woman choosing to be a housewife isnt a threat to some other woman's liberty, just as a man choosing to wear a dress isnt a threat to every man's masculinity.

I think that people are entitled to be whoever they choose to be. I think women shouldn't have to be housewives because of a social norm, but if they wish to be that should not be a problem either Also, I think that men should be entitled to wear dresses too. I am not in favour of restrictions based on ideas of gender norms at all.

The sound parts of masculinity and femininity could well be something that both male and female should conform to. — Ansiktsburk

It would be weird if that wasn't true, since it's one species. What would you say stands out as particularly masculine (regardless of where your aesthetic comes from, culture, family history, movies, religion, etc.)?

There is much to recommend this. Except that it applies to every male from the age they become aware of their sex and learn to insist on a blue toothbrush not a pink one. — unenlightened

Well, one can be aware of something without worrying about it. Men worry about their masculinity when they're anxious or concerned about it, e.g. when they are concerned they're lacking in it or anxious because others may be insufficiently impressed by it.

Men worry about their masculinity when they're anxious or concerned about it, e.g. when they are concerned they're lacking in it or anxious because others may be insufficiently impressed by it. — Ciceronianus the White

Would it be fair to say that masculinity becomes toxic when men are insecure about their masculinity? Insecurity implies that it is precisely when their masculinity is altering their perception of themselves and their place in the world and in relation to others. Worry indicates self-consciousness or self-awareness, which perhaps is not always toxic. One could worry about their masculinity in that they worry they are behaving negatively (not helping around the house, for example) and that worry would cause a behavior that is not toxic but pro-social.

anxious or concerned — Ciceronianus the White

Do you think there is a man who isn't concerned about his masculinity?

I think that people are entitled to be whoever they choose to be. I think women shouldn't have to be housewives because of a social norm, but if they wish to be that should not be a problem either Also, I think that men should be entitled to wear dresses too. I am not in favour of restrictions based on ideas of gender norms at all. — Jack Cummins

Right. So how do you determine whether or not some behavior is the result of a social norm or the individuals own choice? If a large group of women decide to be house-wives how do you know that is the result of social norm and not just an inclination many women have? In other words, how can you determine if some way of behaving is the result of genes or upbringing?

I would say that it is not possible to determine whether someone's behaviour is derived from norms or not, but the best we can hope for is to give every person the best opportunities and free choice.

I don’t know Jack, I think we can say that since houses are social constructed, marriage is socially constructed, and economics are socially constructed, it’s hardly logical to suppose our maneuvering of those things is genetic.

how do you do that if you cant determine whether or not some way of behaving is the result of genes or upbringing?

I don’t know Jack, I think we can say that since houses are social constructed, marriage is socially constructed, and economics are socially constructed, it’s hardly logical to suppose our maneuvering of those things in genetic. — Uglydelicious

Are birds nests and bird mating rituals the result of the birds genes or upbringing?

Are birds nests and bird mating rituals the result of the birds genes or upbringing? — Harry Hindu

Strangely enough, a bird has to learn from other birds how to be a bird.

If it doesn't do that in a narrow window in childhood, it will never learn.

Mammals are different. They can learn throughout their lives.

You're not supposed to answer Harry's questions, you're supposed to be impressed and devastated by them. Is your wife-beating the result of your genes, or your upbringing?

If you have followed any of my posts on this forum, you know that I assume the position others are making and then integrate it with the rest of what we know. When it doesn't fit with the rest of what we know, I ask a question to try and reconcile the discrepancy. If you find it difficult to answer the question then maybe we should re-think what was said. Some people simply assert things without integrating the assertion with the rest of what they know.

Strangely enough, a bird has to learn from other birds how to be a bird.

If it doesn't do that in a narrow window in childhood, it will never learn.

Mammals are different. They can learn throughout their lives. — frank

Yes, that is very strange to consider. You seem to be forgeting about instincts.

So if a woodpecker was raised by a penguin, then the woodpecker would waddle around and dive into the water and swim like penguins? :chin:

I wonder what this means for trans men, who I know worry a great deal about their masculinity. Is trans masculinity different from “masculinity”?

It’s becoming obvious that we are dealing with a false dichotomy.

In any case, the OP has asked a question and hasn’t engaged with a single person answering it. Now Harry is responding to every person and showing his bum a bit.

It’s becoming obvious that we are dealing with a false dichotomy. — Uglydelicious

What false dichotomy is that? Nature/nurture? I certainly agree that that is a false dichotomy, which can be demonstrated by simply removing either one and seeing that there is nothing left.

You seem to be forgeting about instincts. — Harry Hindu

Instinct is why my female dog enjoys humping my leg.

I was thinking masculine/feminine.

I think that the whole idea of nature and nurture is a topic which can be explored by sociology but It is not simple when we try to look at individuals, but of course we can ask them. We can think about our own socialisation. I certainly hated gender stereotypes.

I remember giving a birthday card to a girl at her party and getting told off because her mother said it was a boys' one. I just said I chose it because I thought it was the best picture. I am surprised why so many girls are going for pink these days.

In these days of identity confusion and dysphoria, we could ask has the idea of androgyny been thrown aside into the scrapheap?

I wouldn't call that a false dichotomy. Constructed, artificial, often arbitrary, by all means, but not false. Gays of both genders have an equivalent dichotomy of 'butch' and 'fem'. Even a novice can distinguish a butch gay from a fem just by their dress and demeanour with fairly reliable consistency. Constructed social dichotomies are realised - (literally 'made real') by behaviour. Nor are they necessarily voluntary. If the S.S. decides you are 'a jew', it doesn't matter what you think you are, off to the extermination camp you go.

I wonder what this means for trans men, who I know worry a great deal about their masculinity. Is trans masculinity different from “masculinity”? — Uglydelicious

Yeah, probably, but I'd also figure masculinity looks different everywhere you look. Disabled people also need to square masculinity with their condition; very few men fit the traditional norm. Thankfully there various models of masculinity in the culture or the media that can be emulated, but we could always use more who have their own take on it.

authority — Edy

I picked that word because you seem to identify masculinty with it but, in my experience, women too covet authority; I'm sure the female section of the multitude of prisons that dot the landscape of many countries can vouch for me.

I suppose we can dispense with the assumption masculine = authority then and ask the question that lies at the heart of all our problems, "when is it too much and when is it too little?" The question of course presumes that a compromise between two sides, a golden mean between two extremes is the right way to think, speak, act, and live. Is it? It reminds me of the story of the two monkeys who were bickering over how they should share a watermelon. A third monkey came along and volunteered to help...by eating the part of the watermelon that was causing the disagreement. The story ends with the third monkey's belly full and the quarreling duo with nothing to eat. Is there a moral to this story? Maybe, maybe not.

Do you think there is a man who isn't concerned about his masculinity? — unenlightened

Yep. Never given a crap. Which apparently is quite masculine, so...

There's a point where masculinity becomes toxic, but where is that point? — Edy

Well, Thoreau speaks of the father tongue (active/writing) and the mother tongue (speech/passive). For there to be form to the world, in order to have speech at all, there must be the active violence of making a difference between this and that, but the passive allows attention for the criteria of what is essential to come forward; that the will is something to be followed, powerless. But without the mother, the father imagines it creates what is essential out of itself; the ego narssasistically creating the criteria of the world for certainty, universality, predictability, with only one solution and without any view of what draws us--in trying to save the world, it kills it.

:rofl: That is sooo gay!