:100:

Yeah, not completely, and a complex issue. And everything in between

:smile: Very cool.

And hey, since as of late I've been on a role with links from this one webpage, for what it's worth, here's a quick reference to the effect that authoritarian domination is in fact not biologically hardwired into our human nature (the second paragraph in the subsection):

The egalitarianism typical of human hunters and gatherers is never total but is striking when viewed in an evolutionary context. One of humanity's two closest primate relatives, chimpanzees, are anything but egalitarian, forming themselves into hierarchies that are often dominated by an alpha male. So great is the contrast with human hunter-gatherers that it is widely argued by paleoanthropologists that resistance to being dominated was a key factor driving the evolutionary emergence of human consciousness, language, kinship and social organization.[33][34][35][36] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#Social_and_economic_structure

--------

To be clear: If so, then authoritarian domination of others is a byproduct of culture and not of (genetically inherited) biology. With sexual selection doing it's thing all the same. (As Homo sapiens, we are the same genetically-hardwired species we've always been.)

I'm of the opinion that virtues aren't gendered, just expectations are. Some virtues are expected of men and some of women, but it's good for everyone to have every virtue. — fdrake

Normally I'd agree, but in this thread it seems 'masculinity' in used synonymously to 'manliness' or 'things that men do', so the way in which it is used here seems inherently gendered.

I tried to point this out earlier in the thread, but that basically just put me outside the conversation while people continued saying highly disagreeable things that I felt needed a reply.

People do use them as role models, [...] — fdrake

You can see a lot of masculine virtues in Trump, Musk, Bezos. — fdrake

Some people see Andrew Tate as a role model.

And if you heavily squint your eyes I'm sure you can find a few masculine virtues here or there, but calling them role models is a stretch.

It's also rather telling that young men flocked to Tate. It implies to me that society was unable to produce something better - which is pretty sad.

Musk or Bezos as a role model? Okay, that's a little more realistic, but are they masculine role models?

The palace economies in Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and the Levant were waning in the late Bronze Age, being replaced by primitive market economies led by private merchants or officials who owned private businesses on the side.[citation needed] The last holdout and epitome of the palace system was Mycenaean Greece which was completely destroyed during the Bronze Age collapse and the following Greek Dark Ages. — wikipedia

If you really want to read about any of this, anything by Moses Finley is good stuff.

And if you heavily squint your eyes I'm sure you can find a few masculine virtues here or there, but calling them role models is a stretch. — Tzeentch

For whom? Some people absolutely love Musk - see him as Tesla or Tony Stark. People love Trump - see him as a paladin. Some people even still love Tate - see him as a charismatic masculine guru.

I tried to point this out earlier in the thread, but that basically just put me outside the conversation while people continued saying highly disagreeable things that I felt needed a reply. — Tzeentch

You pointed it out in a different way. You were speaking with people who generally see gender through a social lens - like as a social construction or a performance. I used virtues in a moral sense, and expectations in that social sense. So it's likely that what you were pointing out is quite a lot different from what I was saying, just based on presuppositions. Like I got the impression that you see an essential equivalence between the masculinity of Beowulf and that of Henry Ford based on what they are {men}. But please correct me if I'm wrong, and that you do see gender as principally socially constructed.

For whom? Some people absolutely love Musk - see him as Tesla or Tony Stark. People love Trump - see him as a paladin. Some people even still love Tate - see him as a charismatic masculine guru. — fdrake

Loving someone is different from them embodying a masculine ideal, which is what a societal masculine role model would have to do.

And I have no qualms with saying that I believe people are simply often wrong.

You pointed it out in a different way. You were speaking with people who generally see gender through a social lens - like as a social construction or a performance. I used virtues in a moral sense, and expectations in that social sense. So it's likely that what you were pointing out is quite a lot different from what I was saying, just based on presuppositions. Like I got the impression that you see an essential equivalence between the masculinity of Beowulf and that of Henry Ford based on what they are {men}. But please correct me if I'm wrong, and that you do see gender as principally socially constructed. — fdrake

The way 'masculinity' is used here is not the way I would normally use it. My conception is closer to that of Yin and Yang, and I don't think they're social constructions.

But for the sake of the discussion, I can accept we are talking in highly generalizing ways.

I'm not sure what masculine virtues Beowulf or Henry Ford embody - they seem quite different characters to me. Henry Ford was an entrepreneur - not something I would necessarily associate with manliness. Beowulf seems to embody the physical aspect of it - a protector against external threats.

Beowulf seems to embody the physical aspect of it - a protector against external threats. — Tzeentch

Musings: Brings to mind the etymology to "lord" and "lady". Their current connotations and denotations aside, etymologically:

lord = "bread-guardian" (rather self-explanatory, I think)
lady = "bread-kneader" (which could be construed as bread-maker)

With bread often enough symbolizing material existence, this as per the likely "pan / pane" symbolic connection. But here with material existence being deemed the feminine aspect of existence at large. This as per the notion of Gaia. ... mater as mother or else womb (matrix). Same general motif can be found in the triangle pointing up, the masculine (akin to yang in some ways), and the triangle pointing down, the feminine (akin to yin in some ways), converged into a symbol of existence at large.

Tentatively here granting this, both then will be - though in different ways - of roughly equal importance to existence, and living, at large.

Henry Ford was an entrepreneur - not something I would necessarily associate with manliness. — Tzeentch

I'm no fan of Ford. Nor am I overly familiar with his career. Yet he surely took financial risk and effectively led men below him. He also compensated his workers well, but that to me seems a mix of altruism and self-interest, perhaps more of the latter as he desired his employees to be able to buy his vehicles.

If effectively & successfully leading men below you isn't "masculine" then I'm not totally sure what we're counting as masculine.

I hadn't really thought of Ford as a 'leader of men', but if that's what you want to classify him as, then why not?

Though different in some ways to my previous post, I’m very curious to see if there’ll be any disagreements on this perspective (forewarning: it likely won't be intuitively valid upon first reading to many):

-- The masculine is interpreted, be it psychologically or physically, as being “that which penetrates (alternatively expressed, as that which inseminates via information)”.

-- Whereas the feminine is interpreted, again either psychologically or physically, as “that which is penetrated (alternatively, as that which is inseminated by information)”.

On a strictly physical level of being (here ignoring all variations in-between the two sexes, this both in humans and other species of life), men will always penetrate women so as to bring about reproduction. Being physically masculine by the definition just offered.

We all, men and women, are however psychological beings in addition to being physical. Here, when a woman advises a man in what to do, for example, she will be psychologically masculine in so doing. And when a man so complies, he will in turn be psychologically feminine by the definitions just offered.

Yet again, in a typical (harmonious) conversation between a man and a women, since both will penetrate the other with information and be penetrated by the other will information, psychologically both will be of roughly equal standing in the masculinity/femininity dichotomy - being psychologically hermaphroditic - this despite yet remaining completely divided in their masculinity or else femininity on a purely physical level of being.

Even more abstractly, irrespective of our physiological makeup as humans, all humans cannot help but be perpetually penetrated psychologically by reality at large via its information. With perception of all types as one self-evident example of this. And, on this plane of contemplation then, all humans, irrespective of type, will necessarily be then psychologically feminine in respect to reality at large as the masculine – the latter, again, perpetually penetrating all lifeforms with information.

This overall take on masculinity / femininity to me easily enough converges with the yin-yang or else the star of David motifs - which can get rather in-depth philosophically - with both systems symbolically holding the masculine and the feminine in equal importance to existence at large.

All the same, I’m curious to find out what considerations to the contrary of this just expressed outlook regarding the masculine / feminine dichotomy could be offered?

Since this thread is about issues and concerns regarding masculinity, I’m thinking that a discussion regarding what masculinity ought to be understood to be in the first place is rather pertinent the thread's theme.

On the general topic of prehistory, mythology, language development, and such, I commend to you all The White Goddess by Robert Graves, who also wrote I, Claudius, Claudius the god, and other fancy stuff, including a work of science fiction , Seven Days in New Crete.

It will not suit those who like all their I's dotted and T's crossed, but the psychology is interesting. The White Goddess gives an account through mythology of the transition from matrilineal to patriarchal society.

And I have no qualms with saying that I believe people are simply often wrong. — Tzeentch

The way 'masculinity' is used here is not the way I would normally use it. My conception is closer to that of Yin and Yang, and I don't think they're social constructions. — Tzeentch

Interesting. I would like to hear what you think the correctness conditions for a trait being masculine or feminine are then? Like if I throw you the trait "likes sushi", can you put that through some algorithm to tell me whether it's masculine, feminine, both or neither?

At the most basic level, Yang ('masculine') represents action, and Yin ('feminine') represents rest.

Even in the most masculine man or most feminine woman the Yin and Yang principles must be in balance. There is always Yin in the Yang, and Yang in the Yin (as represented by the dots in the famous Yinyang symbol). Unbalanced Yang exhausts itself, while unbalanced Yin grows stagnant.

The reason I dislike the masculine/feminine dichotomy is because people are often unable to divorce it from biological sex, and interpret it too easily as "what men are good at" and "what women are good at", and those are the types of inflammatory and pointless generalizations that I tend to steer away from.

With that said, I quite like Carl Jung's theory of Anima and Animus, which is very reminiscent of the Yin-in-Yang and Yang-in-Yin principles.

Lastly, since we were talking about role models before, I don't think a masculine role model would necessarily have to be a man (though usually it will be). Or that masculine role models should only serve as inspiration for men.

I wasn't expecting something so unapologetically mystical, thanks.

At the most basic level, Yang ('masculine') represents action, and Yin ('feminine') represents rest.

Even in the most masculine man or most feminine woman the Yin and Yang principles must be in balance. There is always Yin in the Yang, and Yang in the Yin (as represented by the dots in the famous Yinyang symbol). Unbalanced Yang exhausts itself, while unbalanced Yin grows stagnant. — Tzeentch

I wasn't expecting something so unapologetically mystical, thanks. — fdrake

While it might come as no surprise, ‘s account makes sense to me. Our agency, often enough symbolized via our tongue or speech, is in all cases an aspect of yang, action, the masculine; whereas our listening is in all cases an aspect of yin, the passive, the feminine. Etc.

But your reply does make me curious: What would a so-called “non-mystical” account of masculinity then be? This question asked with examples previously addressed within this thread in mind - such as the example of female masculinity (Margret Thatcher as one previously given example of this ... and to better balance off the conservative-progressive spectrum, with US judge RBG and US representative AOC as additional examples of the same).

For my part, I cannot think of 'masculine' and 'feminine' as actually telling us anything at all unless there is some tie to the sexes. Otherwise, we're just random calling two sides of a spectrum, which we can't even adequately describe the axis/axes of, 'masculine' and 'feminine'. This makes me think underlying assumptions about, perhaps, "good" and "bad" (or some similarly up-in-the-air notion) are informing much of people's discussion on them - but what are you actually talking about? I want to know what is a 'masculine' (or feminine) trait, and why. Don't think I've ever heard an answer that doesn't conform to the general idea below:
Personally, I see them as plainly tied to sex, and average capacity/behaviour. But I would probably be considered regressive for saying that our total history informs us that across time and place there are tendencies within the sexes - despite that being pretty obvious. No need to be restrictive. The bulk of people, in any ground, tend to fall in a range, and a few fall outside of it. Nothing weird going on.

If one wanted to bring up intersex/trans, I'd be happy to involve them but I doubt this is a reasonable thread to do so. For one, neither intersex or trans violates the sex binary and that's not a discussion for this thread.

But your reply does make me curious: What would a so-called “non-mystical” account of masculinity then be? — javra

I'd call the account non-mystical if it tried to come up with an answer to why the things which count as masculine or feminine count as such. eg, skirts, where in the cosmic principle of yin and yang do skirts live? Why do they become masculine, feminine or neither depending on the context?

I'd call the account non-mystical if it tried to come up with an answer — fdrake

You weren't expecting an answer to "Where does sushi fit into all of this?", were you?

No. But I think it makes sense to be able to provide one, if you've got an account of masculinity or femininity. Like why do the gals go for sushi and the guys go for burgers bro. I find it difficult to believe the sheer degree of affectation that goes into gender derives from any cosmic principle.

My earlier reply was meant to give you an idea of which direction I think in: Taoism, Jungian philosophy, etc. - two well-established schools of thought which provide exhaustive concepts of 'masculine' and 'feminine'.

If you're genuinely interested, you can find most if not all of it freely available on the internet.

No. But I think it makes sense to be able to provide one, if you've got an account of masculinity or femininity. Like why do the gals go for sushi and the guys go for burgers bro. I find it difficult to believe the sheer degree of affectation that goes into gender derives from any cosmic principle. — fdrake

People put great affectation into many things. Some people think they are defined by the type of sunglasses they wear, the perfume they use, the shape of their couch or the color of the rims on their car.

Because I have a concept of masculinity and femininity, I now have to provide explanations for all of the silly things people believe or do?

Because I have a concept of masculinity and femininity, I now have to provide explanations for all of the silly things people believe or do? — Tzeentch

That is not quite what I meant. How do you tell which properties go into the essence of masculinity and femininity and which don't?

I think it's more a matter of which properties one thinks it's worthwhile to pay attention to, and which aren't.

If you think it is worthwhile to analyze sushi through the lens of any of these philosophies, go for it.

Funnily enough, traditional chinese medicine does categorize food preferences in terms of, among other things, Yin and Yang.

I think it's more a matter of which properties one thinks it's worthwhile to pay attention to, and which aren't. — Tzeentch

That's extremely vibes based for the distillation of cosmic archetypes.

Well, based on extensive bodies of thought that have remained consistent throughout the ages. If you want to call that 'vibes-based', sure. I'm not pretending to have some sort of definitive answer set in stone.

A definitive answer set in stone is precisely what an essence, a cosmic archetype, is.

I never pretended to provide such a thing, nor do any of the schools of thought I named. So I'm not sure what you're getting at. You're the one who started coining terms such as 'mysticism' and 'cosmic principles'.

I don't know how to interpret what you're saying at all then. Archetypes are universal patterns that behave as the essence of what they're archetypes for - like masculinity and femininity. Some things will be part of the archetype and some won't. It's a universal pattern, it's there forever, you know how it works, but there's no way of telling why skirts are feminine in some places and times and not in others in accordance with the cosmic duality you're proposing?

Which properties go in the archetype, the essence, and which don't? And how can you tell?

No. But I think it makes sense to be able to provide one, if you've got an account of masculinity or femininity. Like why do the gals go for sushi and the guys go for burgers bro. I find it difficult to believe the sheer degree of affectation that goes into gender derives from any cosmic principle. — fdrake

I have an account of such, in the process of identification. I am told that I am a boy, and that big boys don't cry; therefore I must learn not to cry. Having grown up and learned not to cry, I become a model of masculinity to the next generation, and anyone who questions the mantra that big boys don't cry is impugning my masculinity and is liable to be thumped, hard.

Thus 'pink' has become the colour of femininity and blue, by simple contrast, that of masculinity. Who even knew that one was expected to have a favourite colour, let alone that it was sexually determined? Personally I like my sausages brown and my cabbage green, but if you want to go for pink or blue ...

Which properties go in the archetype, the essence, and which don't? And how can you tell? — fdrake

I don't think you can always tell, because the culture becomes embedded so as to be indistinguishable from nature. But cross-cultural and historical comparisons can sometimes make things clear. It's a difficult maybe impossible question to answer definitively, but that doesn't' make the distinction meaningless.

Long and short hair are not part of the archetypes, but beards perhaps are.

You're just going to double down on your cosmic strawman and ignore what I said then?

Fine, be that way.

Alright. How do you tell which properties go in the archetype and which don't? @unenlightened's stepped up.

Long and short hair are not part of the archetypes, but beards perhaps are. — unenlightened

Yeah. You kinda just have to eyeball it for almost everything. Though some things correlate so strongly with sex, and sex correlates so strongly with gender, that it's hard to say the connection is arbitrary. Like beards. Or boobs.

I have an account of such, in the process of identification. — unenlightened

Absolutely! I think the distinction between your, and probably my, position and @Tzeentch's is that these identifications principally create/generate gender rather than simply track it.

Thus 'pink' has become the colour of femininity and blue, by simple contrast, that of masculinity. Who even knew that one was expected to have a favourite colour, let alone that it was sexually determined? Personally I like my sausages brown and my cabbage green, but if you want to go for pink or blue ... — unenlightened

Yes. Thinking of how things become gendered as a socially mediated process of identification lets you explain why something as arbitrary as pink/blue becomes so strongly gendered. Musk vs floral scents too.

The challenge of accidental crap counting as masculine or feminine poses to thinking of what counts as masculine or feminine as manifestations of a Jung-flavour archetype is rather great. The archetype either needs to explain too much, or obviates itself of the need to explain some of its manifestations - ie its capacity to explain anything. Like what @Tzeentch just did, to my sights. You pick universality or exceptions, not both.