We aren't in a post-patriarchal world, so probably not. I think it's important to distinguish between masculinity as the portion of the human potential we traditionally associate with males, and toxic masculinity which is the result of a pathological mindset, that is, the need to look down on someone else, or fear of women. The first is a fount of creativity. The second is something all need to be aware of.
When one decides that there is no difference between the two, that's misanthropy. — frank
Nope. That's why I've been careful to say men and women can have the same characteristics, and a difference cannot be found in differentiating characteristics.
So far I've been of the mind that it's a manner of expression, rather than a set of characteristics, that makes a gender-identity. But, then, some gender-identities get tied to characteristics in their particular way, so while in general it's better to say gender-identity is a manner of expression, a particular gender-identity may very well fixate on particular characteristics and act to put those on display more often, or improve them, or some such. — Moliere
The fact that she takes fatherhood and equates it to "sop offered as compensation for not having real power". — Tzeentch
Countless anti-violence campaigners say that violence against women is not about anger, it is about male abuse of power and control, in addition to men’s sense of entitlement.
In her eye-opening book Unspeakable Things, writer and activist Laurie Penny points the finger at traditional masculinity, which, like “traditional femininity, is about control.”
She writes that in reality, “most men have never been powerful. Throughout history, the vast majority of men have had almost no structural power, expect over women and children.”
“In fact, power over women and children — technical and physical dominance within the sphere of one’s own home — has been the sop offered to men who had almost no power outside of it.”
A manner of expression? I mean, masculinity as a kind of archetype has been around for thousands of years in multiple cultures. It's fairly easy to discover what aspects of the human potential are usually identified as masculine and which ones aren't. So maybe we're talking at cross purposes, or maybe just about entirely different subjects. This is not fundamentally about politics. It's about the heavy hitters in the human psyche as that psyche has developed over the millennia. Current politics is a sniff in a hurricane compared to that. — frank
This is the quote from the article. Note well the comment is made by Laurie Penny, NOT Mirren. — Amity
This mental move is exactly what Kate Millet describes as the patriarchal move -- the mental is the explanatory intermediary between biological sign and social role in her description of the patriarchal relationship.
Also, I'm not so sure about a psyche developing over millennia. Masculine-Feminine distinctions are common across cultures, for certain, but their mode of expression isn't rigid. Even what counts as something worth evaluating under Masculine-Feminine changes. — Moliere
What are your thoughts regarding the suggestion that 'pragmatists and feminists are necessary partners'? — Amity
There's the aspect of reducing masculinity to psychology, which I'd say is similar to the response to feminist criticism which puts their critique of gender in the personal, rather than the political or public, realm. Rather than concrete material conditions you're saying the psyche is an ancient power which re-manifests itself throughout all culture, something which is much greater than any material analysis or political project could hope to put a dent into. — Moliere
Which may be true, but then the feminist critique is always bringing the psyche back to the material -- if it's truly a psychological power, rather than a material one, then we could very easily upend how families own and pass on property. It would be of no consequence. — Moliere
If it were easy to determine the masculine and the feminine then what's all the fuss about? Is gender-identity a numerology or astrology in your view? — Moliere
I don't see what you're not getting, it's quite simple.
Some men oppress some women, but not all men, and nothing about their being men has anything necessarily to do with it, and some of the people doing the oppressing are women, and some of the oppressed are men, and some of the men doing the oppressing it turns out are really women, and some of the women who were oppressed it turns are really men depending on how they're feeling that day.
But the important thing to remember is that it's the patriarchy.
Beware of the trap a lesser mind might fall into of just thinking that humans ought not oppress other humans and the best way of identifying victims is by their actually being, you know, victims, rather than by using chromosomes or skin colour which are obviously much better metrics.
Hope that helps. — Isaac
Beware of the trap a lesser mind might fall into of just thinking that humans ought not oppress other humans and the best way of identifying victims is by their actually being, you know, victims, rather than by using chromosomes or skin colour which are obviously much better metrics. — Isaac
We did upend how families own and pass on property around the time women got the vote. Prior to the early 20th Century, an American woman couldn't own a business unless she was married. Women would get married for no other reason than to allow them to participate in business ventures. That's all changed. In fact, all the things that Mary Stanton lamented have now changed, and the new way is taken for granted. There is no conflict between recognizing masculinity as a component of the psyche and recognizing how those images play out in dollars and cents. — frank
It's fairly easy to discover what aspects of the human potential are usually identified as masculine and which ones aren't. So maybe we're talking at cross purposes, or maybe just about entirely different subjects. This is not fundamentally about politics. — frank
But the important thing to remember is that it's the patriarchy.
Beware of the trap a lesser mind might fall into of just thinking that humans ought not oppress other humans and the best way of identifying victims is by their actually being, you know, victims, rather than by using chromosomes or skin colour which are obviously much better metrics. — Isaac
I've been careful not to denigrate people who disagree with me or to intimate that they are of a lesser mind just because I happen to have some words in my head that others don't. At least, I've attempted to be careful to not insult anyone. It would definitely go against my purposes in exploring masculinity. — Moliere
My post wasn't aimed at you specifically, my apologies if you took it that way. — Isaac
Talk of masculinity in any sense, but particularly with regard to patriarchal oppression, is a fraught topic. Simply acknowledging the existence of these tropes carries with it commitments that entail offense to some you may not have any intention of offending. — Isaac
But whether you actually are oppressed is still something to be determined, I don't think it's necessitated simply by possessing a characteristic typically used in one of the many forms of oppression. — Isaac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.