Support NeoGAF

[leadbelly]

And again, what relevance does that have to a discussion about how this socially constructed concept of masculinity is overly rigid? Take your example of men having more testosterone and are therefore more aggressive. So then what? What point are you trying to make by bringing that up/ Or take your post about weak and dominant apes. Everyone is aware that there are weak and dominant apes. So how are you relating that to this topic? So some boys are likely to be stronger and more aggressive than other boys, and it is competitive and dominant behavior between male mammals in general and primates is a common event. So what? We're all aware of this. Unless you're advocating that, say, teachers shouldn't intervene or that we should just shrug our shoulders - as you appear to - and say "Well it's natural; some males are just going to be more dominant..

I explain it to you quite bluntly. I am just responding to posts, just like your post. What topic exactly am I supposed to be debating? I'm confused now. I told you wasn't talking about rape, homophobia or whatever else you seem to think I am debating.

The point I was trying to make, as it seems to completely escape you. Basic drives have an influence on more complex behaviour. For instance you may think you love a girl because she likes the same interests as you, you love her personality, etc, but in terms of basic drives the only real reason is to mate and produce offspring.

Males being more aggressive influences certain behaviour. For instance men may solve a dispute by fighting. If there is somethig that threatens the group, the men, in the past, would take up arms and fight. In other words typical masculine traits we formed (for instance men are protective) you can see as stemming from a basic drive for aggression when trouble occurs. Men don't cry. I can see how can be seen as a weakness. An overly emotional man, depending on the context, can be seen as vulnerable and logically easier to attack. The idea of showing yourself as strong, making yourself strong is good deterrent from potential attack. The purpose of comparing humans to apes is because they are closest relatives. And yes, not toatlly comparable to humans, but at the same time share very similar behaviours.

 

[Mumei]

The point I was trying to make, as it seems to completely escape you. Basic drives have an influence on more complex behaviour. For instance you may think you love a girl because she likes the same interests as you, you love her personality, etc, but in terms of basic drives the only real reason is to mate and produce offspring.

I'm actually fairly certain that sharing similar interests and loving her personality is the only reason I would love a girl.

Males being more aggressive influences certain behaviour. For instance men may solve a dispute by fighting. If there is somethig that threatens the group, the men, in the past, would take up arms and fight. In other words typical masculine traits we formed (for instance men are protective) you can see as stemming from a basic drive for aggression when trouble occurs. Men don't cry. I can see how can be seen as a weakness. An overly emotional man, depending on the context, can be seen as vulnerable and logically easier to attack. The idea of showing yourself as strong, making yourself strong is good deterrent from potential attack. The purpose of comparing humans to apes is because they are closest relatives. And yes, not toatlly comparable to humans, but at the same time share very similar behaviours.

And can you explain how this isn't just a post-hoc rationalization for current constructions of masculinity in light of the fact that it has been true at other times and at other places that effusive displays of emotion from men were not just accepted, but expected?

 

[Reuenthal]

All valid points but not relevant to the discussion. If anything in the past 5 years the backlash to women's rights has grown exponentially among young men on the internet. MRA has become some crazy and hateful thing that has nothing to do with MRA. But this is irrelevant as well and we should make this about how women's rights has affected men.

Acceptance of homosexuals has come leaps and bounds, but for whatever reason feminine traits in men are insulted as homosexual today just as much as they were decades ago.

The OP is specifically about high school and college men because these are the future of our generation of men. These men are going to join society with built in biases that are harmful.

You made a post about how male identity has remained the same as in the fifties, my reply against that is relevant, I don't see how it isn't.

Women rights are also relevant to the discussion. Women rights are related among other things to how the behavior of men towards women has changed. And that change also affects how men view themselves and their role in society. I am not sure why you think they are not related?

The view of being the sole bread winner has become less popular since the fifties, and some other views about the roles of men and women in a relationship have not remained stagnant from the fifties. Even views about what people's daughters, younger sisters should be allowed to do and what an older brother or father should do. Note that I am talking worldwide here, obviously, as we are talking about men in general, although even if one would focus only in certain countries you would see changes from the fifties.

A man increasingly viewing himself more equal to women than in the past is a change that deserves to be mentioned. I don't see how this is not a part of a shifting male identity when you see yourself more equal to others than in the past and don't see the masculine as clearly superior to the feminine and that as a male you don't have to be the sole bread winner.

There is a bigger acceptance of non traditional masculine roles today than in the fifties and a shift in male identity and behavior.

Acceptance of homosexuals has come leaps and bounds, but for whatever reason feminine traits in men are insulted as homosexual today just as much as they were decades ago.

Are you sure that things are not better even in that regard? Even if it was true, it wouldn't negate the other changes that happened since the fifties.

The OP is specifically about high school and college men because these are the future of our generation of men. These men are going to join society with built in biases that are harmful.

Well, my point is that we can't fully judge men in general by focusing on only a fraction of men. It can be useful and lead us to some conclusions but we should just keep in perspective that we are focusing on just one group of men. People who are in a high school environment are not going to have the same values, priorities than people who are different.

But it is useful to learn what they think and inevitably parts of that comes from their parents. (But I doubt that you will find sexual conquests as the basis of identity/pride to the same extend between different ages and men who have different responsibilities. Age, environment you live in, which can change as you get older, all these play a role in one's views and behavior)

 

[leadbelly]

I'm actually fairly certain that sharing similar interests and loving her personality is the only reason I would love a girl.

You being gay right? Sort of different form a relationship. Loving a girl as a partner has a very different purpose and reason.

And can you explain how this isn't just a post-hoc rationalization for current constructions of masculinity in light of the fact that it has been true at other times and at other places that effusive displays of emotion from men were not just accepted, but expected?

Well, I suppose you could link me to this exact instance you are referring me to rather than keep mentioning it.

Sort of irrelevant to me however, as who's to say that issn't cultural phenomenon as opposed to a earlier behavourial tendency? And even that doesn't really matter. The point was more how some men will exploit weakness. It is not whether or not crying in itself is a natural masculine trait. We do cry of course. Men will in general muirder more than women. You can't really say murder is a natural masculine trait, and neither does anyone claim that, but there is an instinctual drive behind it. Men only think about sex. There is element of truth to that. We don't only think about sex, but the male sex drive is pretty aggressive in itself that we are more forcefully seeking sex. Why prostitution is one of the oldest professions in the world. Why we sexually objectify.

 

[Mumei]

Are you sure that things are not better even in that regard? Even if it was true, it wouldn't counteract the other changes that happened since the fifties.

It's better among some circles, yes. I have straight friends who aren't like this and even had friends like that in middle school and high school (when I wasn't out, but I presented the same way as I do now) who weren't obsessed with masculinity / dominance. But they were the exceptions to the rule.

Well, my point is that we can't fully judge men in general by focusing on only a fraction of men. It can be useful and lead us to some conclusions but we should just keep in perspective that we are focusing on just one group of men.

The author was careful to make the point that while the ideas behind it are hegemonic, they certainly aren't universal and not all men in the cohort he's talking about actively subscribe to them (though a great deal grant tacit approval by not openly opposing some of the more unsavory / illegal practices).

 

[shanshan310]

Thanks for making the thread Devo, I think its been a long time coming on a topic that I think really needs to be addressed.

Hahahaha oh lord. A 'feminist' trying to be 'empathetic' to the modern male plight? It's only because of manipulative feminist power grabbing that we're in this situation

Not that you can really blame them - life's a war. And this is a shitty attempt at propaganda

 

[marrec]

You made a post about how male identity has remained the same as in the fifties, my reply against that is relevant, I don't see how it isn't.

Women rights are also relevant to the discussion. Women rights are related among other things to how the behavior of men towards women has changed. And that change also affects how men view themselves and their role in society. I am not sure why you think they are not related?

The view of being the sole bread winner has become less popular since the fifties, and some other views about the roles of men and women in a relationship have not remained stagnant from the fifties. Even views about what people's daughters, younger sisters should be allowed to do and what an older brother or father should do. Note that I am talking worldwide here, obviously, as we are talking about men in general, although even if one would focus only in certain countries you would see changes from the fifties.

A man increasingly viewing himself more equal to women than in the past is a change that deserves to be mentioned. I don't see how this is not a part of a shifting male identity when you see yourself more equal to others than in the past and don't see the masculine as clearly superior to the feminine and that as a male you don't have to be the sole bread winner.

There is a bigger acceptance of non traditional masculine roles today than in the fifties and a shift in male identity and behavior.

We can't talk worldwide because there are still large pockets of completely moronic behavior around the world.

And this thread shouldn't be about how women's rights have affected men, that's an entirely different issue that can have it's own thread and HAS had its own thread. I would say that there are nothing but positives in the equality movement, others would disagree, but we can leave that out of this discussion simply by agreeing that the woman's equality movement is happening and moving forward. I don't WANT to fight about whether it's for good or ill because that's going to distract from why this thread was specifically started.

Also, it would be nice to have a discussion about men and masculinity without dragging feminism kicking and screaming into it.

Are you sure that things are not better even in that regard? Even if it was true, it wouldn't counteract the other changes that happened since the fifties.

No things are defiantly not better in that regard and this is evident in any men's locker room in high school or college. The fact that fag or gay is used as an insult against straight males in almost every aspect of male society should show you that we haven't come very far in this regard.

Well, my point is that we can't fully judge men in general by focusing on only a fraction of men. It can be useful and lead us to some conclusions but we should just keep in perspective that we are focusing on just one group of men.

I agree, but what is interesting about the high school and college students interviewed is that if we were progressing as a gender it should show in our youngest men but instead the same old stereotypes are present there.

 

[Mumei]

You being gay right? Sort of different form a relationship. Loving a girl as a partner has a very different purpose and reason.

I think that the modern construction of a relationship that seeks an egalitarian relationship of friend and lover into one model is obviously going to have some overlap as far as friendship / similar interests / personality goes, but anyway. Since that doesn't apply to me, how does evolutionary psychology explain my interest in a man?

Well, I suppose you could link me to his exact instance you are referring me to rather than keep mentioning it.

I was actually thinking of the emotional response that readers of Rousseau's Emile had. The book The Great Cat Massacre: And Other Episodes in French Cultural History had a chapter on it called "Readers Respond to Rousseau: The Fabrication of Romantic Sensitivity."

Sort of irrelevant to me however, as who's to say that issn't cultural phenomenon as opposed to a earlier behavourial tendency? And even that doesn't really matter. The point was more how some men will exploit weakness. It is not whether or not crying in itself is a natural masculine trait. We do cry of course. Men will in general muirder more than women. You can't really say murder is a natural masculine trait, and neither does anyone claim that, but there is an instinctual drive behind it. Men only think about sex. There is element of truth to that. We don't only think about sex, but the male sex drive is pretty aggressive in itself that we are more forcefully seeking sex. Why prostitution is one of the oldest professions in the world. Why we sexually objectify.

We know that some men will exploit weakness or that men are more physically violent than women. The question is whether we encourage it as a masculine ideal to exploit weakness or be physically violent, or whether we discourage those things as ethically and morally repugnant.

 

[PK Gaming]

I had to take a good long like at the OP and read it several times before, as to not appear foolish. Even after reading 2-3 pages of responses, I still couldn't come up with something conclusive. feh...

the only thing I want to impart is that its ok for Men to cry sometimes, and that decision to cry when its appropriate (and not cry otherwise) is important. Rather than bottling it up or crying at any given time.

 

[leadbelly]

We know that some men will exploit weakness or that men are more physically violent than women. The question is whether we encourage it as a masculine ideal to exploit weakness or be physically violent, or whether we discourage those things as ethically and morally repugnant.

Okay. First of all I am actually kind of spiritual in my outlook. I wouldn't say I am overly religious, and I am certainly no saint, but deep down I only really want the best for humanity. Of course life gets in the way of all that.

I did actually address this though. I personally don't think you can change society in that way because I think it is a part of our nature. Not to say we all act like that, as I said I try to live my life as best as I can, but I don't have any faith in society as a whole unfortunately.

 

[leadbelly]

I think that the modern construction of a relationship that seeks an egalitarian relationship of friend and lover into one model is obviously going to have some overlap as far as friendship / similar interests / personality goes, but anyway. Since that doesn't apply to me, how does evolutionary psychology explain my interest in a man?.

Well. I wouldn't really look at it in terms of evolution, although I am sure there are theories, but more in terms of the nature of reality. We live in a world of imperfection, (not saying homosexuality is imperfect) a world where there are no absolutes. I would say you are homosexual because that is the nature of finite reality.

 

[Devolution]

Okay. First of all I am actually kind of spiritual in my outlook. I wouldn't say I am overly religious, and I am certainly no saint, but deep down I only really want the best for humanity. Of course life gets in the way of all that.

I did actually address this though. I personally don't think you can change society in that way because I think it is a part of our nature. Not to say we all act like that, as I said I try to live my life as best as I can, but I don't have any faith in society as a whole unfortunately.

If all of this is too innate to change how did we get to this point?

 

[leadbelly]

If all of this is too innate to change how did we get to this point?

Well, because I never said it was too innate to change. I guess I don't explain myself well enough. Although I have mentioned a few times in this thread that I never said we couldn't change. My view isn't about whether or not we can change our behaviour, it is simly that there are instinctual drives that influence our behaviour. We can choose not to act a certain way because we are self-aware of our own nature. You can choose not to get angry for instance. Anger could certainly influence our behaviour though as it is a part of our nature.

 

[FairyD]

I think it boils down to a persons perceived identity and how that projects outwards.

 

[Mumei]

Well, because I never said it was too innate to change. I guess I don't explain myself well enough. Although I have mentioned a few times in this thread that I never said we couldn't change. My view isn't about whether or not we can change our behaviour, it is simly that there are instinctual drives that influence our behaviour. We can choose not to act a certain away because we are self-aware of our own nature. You can choose not to get angry for instance. Anger could certainly influence our behaviour though as it is a part of our nature.

... That's it? I don't think anyone disputes this, and since you don't dispute that being self-aware of our own nature enables us to choose not to act a certain way (even if it might be our first impulse), I don't even see what the point of this conversation was.

 

[leadbelly]

... That's it? I don't think anyone disputes this, and since you don't dispute that being self-aware of our own nature enables us to choose not to act a certain way (even if it might be our first impulse), I don't even see what the point of this conversation was.

Well maybe you should go back to a previous post of mine.

Yeah. here's the thing marrec. My point of view was never about how we should live our lives, it is merely looking objectively at what makes us male. What happens though is people jump on to your post and misunderstand your point. You then spend most the time trying explain your point. I had no real intention of taking this topic down this route,

 

[shanshan310]

There are very real problems men face in this world, but on of the more recent problems is caused by the fact that the behavior of young men is now considered inappropriate in almost all settings. Boys don't behave like boys, boys misbehave. Education, which used to center around them, now considers them problem students, all the while focusing on making sure girls aren't alienated in classrooms.

I don't see this as being the case at all. If anything, this "considering boys problem students" is only there because of the increase in ADD and Autism diagnoses, and the majority of those cases are boys.

 

[leadbelly]

My posts are probably really confusing actually. Easy to misunderstand. I do think about things really deeply, perhaps too deeply. Not sure I articulate my thoughts very well.

Here's one of my posts from a previous thread. It's not necessarily how I personally believe we should live, but just how in my mind we can create social constructs out of emotions and instinctual drives.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=36402206&postcount=133

How concepts like good and evil, moral and immoral may occur out of observing our own nature. Self-analysis.

 

[Mumei]

My posts are probably really confusing actually. Easy to misunderstand. I do think about things really deeply, perhaps too deeply. Not sure I articulate my thoughts very well.

It must be an issue of communication, because my problem with what you've been saying was that it seemed too shallow.

And you weren't looking objectively at what makes us male. You were looking at part of what makes us male, and that's really all. Thinking about biology or evolutionary history alone when explaining masculinity or what makes us male is inherently flawed because it is incomplete.

 

[leadbelly]

It must be an issue of communication, because my problem with what you've been saying was that it seemed too shallow.

And you weren't looking objectively at what makes us male. You were looking at part of what makes us male, and that's really all. Thinking about biology or evolutionary history alone when explaining masculinity or what makes us male is inherently flawed because it is incomplete.

No, objectively in the sense that I am not trying to look at it subjectively. In other words allowing my own view on how we should live our lives effect my reasoning.

And it is only an aspect, yes, but I was only intentionally speaking of a certain aspect. It wasn't intentionally being shallow only exploring the more biological side to it. I did try to make that clear.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Leadbelly, the problem is you're being contradictory as to what your overall point or purpose is. Your argument was that human behavior has some instinctual/genetic component (I don't think anyone disagrees), but you've already conceded it's secondary to self-awareness and free choice. So what was the point of bringing up this largely irrelevant point to a discussion of cultural and individual perceptions unless you're a biological determinist or something?

You retreated to the argument that you're just a passive outside observer to this whole debate and that you're just "objectively" measuring what is masculine/male. This is the exact idea that feminism actively rejects! It's that idea that science and scientists are somehow removed from our culture and society and able to observe it as if it were some kind of specimen inside a cage. We can't look down on society from a god-perspective, we're looking around at our world from very particular vantage points, complete with all the various kinds of bias and subjectivity they entail. You can't just say, oh I made sure not to be biased or subjective this time.

Plus your method for observing what is masculine is anything but well-defined. Does it mean behavior men do exclusively? Or is it just behavior men do more than females? Is it exclusive to the behavior of non-self aware proto-humans or humans with conscious free will? What about individuals whose biology doesn't allow for a binary assignment of male or female? You seem to be just saying things without any clear methodology.

It seems like your bigger argument is that in the past men did certain actions more than women, so those actions are masculine and it is normal for those to be codified in today's cultural/social constructs. But this means ignoring the fact past actions were just as heavily influenced by cultural and societal constructs as they were today. Past societies were extraordinarily patriarchal, so I fail to see why we should use "data" from them to determine what it is "objectively" masculine/feminine.

Of course you're going to affirm outmoded conceptions of gender roles if you base your evidence on past societies which enforced outmoded conceptions of gender roles.

 

[Sanky Panky]

And you weren't looking objectively at what makes us male. You were looking at part of what makes us male, and that's really all. Thinking about biology or evolutionary history alone when explaining masculinity or what makes us male is inherently flawed because it is incomplete.

The only other part to what makes us male is simply the patriarchal ideals of the role of men, which are nothing but fictitious social constructs. Since those roles are being undone, we are left with our more innate biological male traits.

As far as the pressures to be "masculine" on teenagers, I think it is misrepresented. There is nothing exclusively masculine about being confident in yourself ( which will lead to getting girls), nothing exclusively masculine about being courageous (standing up for yourself), nothing exclusively masculine about not letting emotions get in the way (keeping your cool under stress), nothing exclusively masculine about working hard (when someone expects you to take care of business) etc etc.

Of course, when someone is pressuring you or expects you to be these things, they may use the cultural portrayal of a masculine man to say that you should become one, but this is not a call for you to be more "masculine" in reality. It's a call to be a more well-rounded individual. A confident, courageous, stoic, hard working individual can also be a sensitive man that doesn't find the need fit the mold of an idiot frat boy jock.

 

[leadbelly]

Leadbelly, the problem is you're being contradictory as to what your overall point or purpose is. Your argument was that human behavior has some instinctual/genetic component (I don't think anyone disagrees), but you've already conceded it's secondary to self-awareness and free choice. So what was the point of bringing up this largely irrelevant point to a discussion of cultural and individual perceptions unless you're a biological determinist or something?

Well, because stating for instance self-awareness and free choice was the only side that matters would be totally incomplete also. It is a topic about masculine traits. Not to go on about any spefic trait, but even though we are self-aware we are also biological animals. You can't really escape it even though to a degree we can choose to live a certain way. That is not easy though. It's very hard. When we're talking about society as a whole, I can't see how you can totally eradicate various ideas on masculinity because perhaps the social construct in that instance spans from a primitive instinctual impulse to begin with. It seems to me that side of it gets completely ignored.

My original post wasn't only about the biological side to it, but a mixture of the two.

For eaxmple:

I think there is an element of truth in those traditional views of masculinity. Tribes since time Immemorable have been waring with neighbouring tribes. It is aboout protecting the group, making sure we have the food and resources; the land in which we are able to flourish and multiply. If you observe other animals, other primates, we see elements of their nature comparable to ours. We only have other animals to compare ourselves by, and nature is actually quite cruel in a lot of ways. That's the thing you see. We question that behaviour because we have gone beyond mere impulses and look outside of it. We judge certain behaviours as unacceptable or morally wrong.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Leadbelly you're talking more in empty philosophical terms than you are in stating something of substance. Just cut the existentialism and give straight answers. I feel like there's a reason you chose to respond to the least central part of my post and ignore the other 3/4ths.

I think there is an element of truth in those traditional views of masculinity. Tribes since time Immemorable have been waring with neighbouring tribes. It is aboout protecting the group, making sure we have the food and resources; the land in which we are able to flourish and multiply. If you observe other animals, other primates, we see elements of their nature comparable to ours. We only have other animals to compare ourselves by, and nature is actually quite cruel in a lot of ways. That's the thing you see. We question that behaviour because we have gone beyond mere impulses and look outside of it. We judge certain behaviours as unacceptable or morally wrong.

Everything you said here is subjective and your argument is assuming the conclusion that masculinity is biological. I have just as much evidence to claim that the imaginary tribal society you envisioned was ruled by a patriarchal culture which idolized the ideal of men as warriors. As for the whole animal thing, this was partially addressed in my previous post, but who's to say scientists are observing objective truths about masculine traits in chimp and not simply projecting cultural and societal conceptions they have about male behavior onto them?

 

[Mumei]

The only other part to what makes us male is simply the patriarchal ideals of the role of men, which are nothing but fictitious social constructs. Since those roles are being undone, we are left with our more innate biological male traits.

Yes, my point was that cultural conceptions of what make us male were the missing piece of his analysis. And while those are socially constructed, that doesn't make them not real. I don't mean they are real in terms of representing eternal truths about our nature or anything, just that because we do have to contend them in so fashion (however we do that, whether it involves accepting them as accurate or rejecting them or something in-between), they have a real effect.

I don't think that you are right that because those roles are being undone, we are left with our more innate biological male traits. I have never subscribed to what I view as the negative parts of the social construction of masculinity or viewed it as intrinsic to masculinity. That doesn't mean that I am then left with my more innate biological traits (which is impossible outside of raised-by-dogs stories, in any case); it means that I've constructed my own notion of acceptable masculinity in opposition to the norm.

And while there have been changes (and even eliminations) of gender roles, I think that other men experiencing the sort of rewriting of masculine ideals aren't responding by just tossing the whole thing, either.

As far as the pressures to be "masculine" on teenagers, I think it is misrepresented. There is nothing exclusively masculine about being confident in yourself ( which will lead to getting girls), nothing exclusively masculine about being courageous (standing up for yourself), nothing exclusively masculine about not letting emotions get in the way (keeping your cool under stress), nothing exclusively masculine about working hard (when someone expects you to take care of business) etc etc.

Of course, when someone is pressuring you or expects you to be these things, they may use the cultural portrayal of a masculine man to say that you should become one, but this is not a call for you to be more "masculine" in reality. It's a call to be a more well-rounded individual. A confident, courageous, stoic, hard working individual can also be a sensitive man that doesn't find the need fit the mold of an idiot frat boy jock.

The pressures you are talking about are not what this topic is about, though, so that's sort of a non sequitur. The pressures that the book was about - and hence what this topic is about - are not the positive way in which adult men (many (hopefully most!) of whom do grow past the immature phase described in this book) might be positive influences in the way that you're describing (though just as often a lot of those more negative traits are inculcated father-to-son), but about the way that men (and boys, see the other books I linked to in my first post) are pressured and policed by other boys to behave in stereotypically masculine ways.

 

[leadbelly]

Leadbelly you're talking more in empty philosophical terms than you are in stating something of substance. Just cut the existentialism and give straight answers. I feel like there's a reason you chose to respond to the least central part of my post and ignore the other 3/4ths.

Well, maybe that is because it was 4am in the morning. And people somehow thinking I am claiming biology is the main reason for masculine traits.I'm not staying up all night trying to explain myself. I have tried to explain this whole thread that I wasn't saying that, I was merely stating that biology is part of what makes us male, and thus certain behaviours are inevitable. Not that all men will act a certain way, only that those behaviours will manifest within society as a whole.

Plus your method for observing what is masculine is anything but well-defined. Does it mean behavior men do exclusively? Or is it just behavior men do more than females? Is it exclusive to the behavior of non-self aware proto-humans or humans with conscious free will? What about individuals whose biology doesn't allow for a binary assignment of male or female? You seem to be just saying things without any clear methodology.

Well for a start -- and the reason I quoted part of my original post -- I believe a big reason why it is so hard to determine definitively is because we're incredibly intelligent and self-aware beings. You can't really look at things as entirely fixed. However, from a biological point of view there are hormonal differences and also genetic differences between male and female brain. You can't determine very complex behaviour in a human and say definitively that is a biological trait, other humans may completely contradict that. What I can do is simplify certain things. We all form social groups for instance. Would you say forming social groups is a social construct? A bit of a mindfuck. Surely you determine, well... there must be something within our nature to form these groups. All primates form social groups. Within that social group we form hierarchies. We create gender roles (Not talking about specific gender roles, just the mere act of creating them in itself). primates do this too. Males tend take on the role of protector of the group. Primates do this too.

Males are physically stronger than women. It goes without saying that there is probably an evolutionary reason for this, and that this probably has some connection with behaviour. Of course it is male hormones that trigger the body into producing greater muscle mass. Of course those male hormones also may trigger aggressive behaviour in males. We are more equipped than women are for fighting. We naturally become the protector. It is a reasonable assumption to say men may use his physicality as a way of exerting his dominance over other humans. In other words creating his status and place within the group. Not the only way we humans form hierarchies and status, just that you can see how, based on physicality and hormonal influence, a male may do this outside of any social context.

Okay, this is a list of tradtional masculine traits based on a study.

Men are more obsessed with sex.
Men are overwhelmed by women's expressions of emotion.
Men express more anger.
Men are stoic.
Men show emotion to communicate dominance.

Men produce more testosterone than women. There is a greater physicality in men's behaviour. It doesn't really take a genius to understand why these traits may have some biological basis to them.

Everything you said here is subjective and your argument is assuming the conclusion that masculinity is biological. I have just as much evidence to claim that the imaginary tribal society you envisioned was ruled by a patriarchal culture which idolized the ideal of men as warriors. As for the whole animal thing, this was partially addressed in my previous post, but who's to say scientists are observing objective truths about masculine traits in chimp and not simply projecting cultural and societal conceptions they have about male behavior onto them?

Not really no. My view personally is that basic drives influence complex behaviours. Objectively speaking we are programmed for survival. Men evolutionary speaking are stronger physically. Hormone differences effects behaviour and brain function. There are genetic differences between the male and female brain. Seeing as male in pretty much every primate group takes on the role of protector, it is fair to say objectively that because men are stronger, and because male hormones may trigger aggressive behaviour in certain instances, we also fall under the role of protector too? that we protect our territory and it is part of our nature?

I must stress that it doesn't mean we necessarily live in those ways. People keep believing for some reason I believe we do.

 

[Josh7289]

why we still got gender roles?

 

[leadbelly]

why we still got gender roles?

lol

I am just responding to posts. I have stated enough times that didn't really want to move this topic down this route. People keep misunderstanding and twisting my original point.

 

[marrec]

As far as the pressures to be "masculine" on teenagers, I think it is misrepresented. There is nothing exclusively masculine about being confident in yourself ( which will lead to getting girls), nothing exclusively masculine about being courageous (standing up for yourself), nothing exclusively masculine about not letting emotions get in the way (keeping your cool under stress), nothing exclusively masculine about working hard (when someone expects you to take care of business) etc etc.

Of course, when someone is pressuring you or expects you to be these things, they may use the cultural portrayal of a masculine man to say that you should become one, but this is not a call for you to be more "masculine" in reality. It's a call to be a more well-rounded individual. A confident, courageous, stoic, hard working individual can also be a sensitive man that doesn't find the need fit the mold of an idiot frat boy jock.

The ideals you lay out are all net positives when taken at face value. Everyone should be confident and courageous and strive to find an emotional balance. Your second paragraph details the exact problem that Teenaged males face though.

The ideals are wrapped around a package of masculinity. Confidence becomes brashness or impudence. Confidence for the sake of getting girls is the worst reason to have confidence. This is how it's presented to young men though. 'If you're confidence and bold, you will have an easier time getting women.' While that may be true, it should not be a driving factor behind confidence. Courageousness can be twisted as well to be stupidity. And from a very young age Men are expected to be less emotional than women. This pressure is put on and kept on in most casual circumstances until we die.

In intimate settings men can share deep emotions true, but there is no way to present those emotions in a casual setting among multiple men. The group won't allow a man to be emotionally vulnerable for long without calling him to task for being 'Gay' or 'A Pussy'. You can deny that your friends do this all you want, but if that is the case then you have exceptional friends.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Honestly, I don't feel traditional definitions of masculinity keep me down at all.

Gender roles are culturally construct, so the degree to which they impact your self-image is at least partially determined in the culture you live in. The hotbed of writing and research in gender studies is the United States and this thread's angle is in the US as well. You might find that some of the aspects of machismo discussed in the OP aren't as wired, culturally, in the Netherlands.

 

[Kabouter]

Gender roles are culturally construct, so the degree to which they impact your self-image is at least partially determined in the culture you live in. The hotbed of writing and research in gender studies is the United States and this thread's angle is in the US as well. You might find that some of the aspects of machismo discussed in the OP aren't as wired, culturally, in the Netherlands.

I do recognize most of them, but yes, the Netherlands isn't quite as obsessed with masculinity/machismo as the United States can be. Though I really have no insight to offer into why that might be the case.

Most alien to me is what devolution mentioned from elsewhere in the book, the culture of college sports in the United States. College athletes being worshipped and having some sort of special status. That has no direct equivalent here, given that sports teams are not closely tied to educational institutions.

 

[Emitan]

Thanks for making the thread Devo, I think its been a long time coming on a topic that I think really needs to be addressed.

Best post in the thread

 

[TxdoHawk]

The best part about the ridiculous concept of machismo is that we are told that "real" men are cool, confident, take risks, and don't give a damn about anything. Many men then spend the rest of their waking lives tiptoeing around, being absolutely terrified of doing or saying anything that might single them out as weak or feminine. Truly, as a gender, we have a long way to go.

I do recognize most of them, but yes, the Netherlands isn't quite as obsessed with masculinity/machismo as the United States can be. Though I really have no insight to offer into why that might be the case.

My theory is that the US is obsessed with the concepts of freedom and individuality. "The land of the free, the home of the brave" and all that. We tie the two concepts very close together. Ask people who they think of when they think of stand-out individuals, and a lot of "strong" male idols show up. James Dean as the Rebel without a Cause. The American soldier, the "Army of One". Tons more.

So, in the collective conciousness, being overly masculine -> Being an individual -> Being "free" -> Being an "icon" of America, and I think that is a very powerful lure for our country's people.

 

[Mumei]

No, objectively in the sense that I am not trying to look at it subjectively. In other words allowing my own view on how we should live our lives effect my reasoning.

And it is only an aspect, yes, but I was only intentionally speaking of a certain aspect. It wasn't intentionally being shallow only exploring the more biological side to it. I did try to make that clear.

The reason I thought it seemed shallow wasn't just because you were only focusing on the biological, but because you were acting like a biological determinist while doing so. And there's nothing particularly deep or complex about biological determinism. The entire message of biological determinism is that our biology is determinative and that our cultural constructs are either nonexistent or simply extensions of those basic biological drives. And you have said yourself that you believe that we "create social constructs out of emotions and instinctual drives" and "I personally don't think you can change society in that way because I think it is a part of our nature"

So you certainly sound like a dyed in the wool biological determinist. All of your arguments have focused on biology to the exclusion of culture, and your commentary when asked about it has been expressing skepticism of the idea that within whatever biological realities there are, there's an large range of possible expressions and that we can construct masculine identities that are healthier and happier (which was the point of my post about the question being whether we encourage the worst aspects of typically masculine behavior or discourage them).

Yet you keep insisting that you're not "allowing my own view on how we should live our lives effect my reasoning." But unless your view isn't that biology is determinative, I don't see how you can say this, since so far it seems like your personal views about what our limits are in terms of defining what it is to be male and your views about biology match up one to one.

And this conversation would be a lot less frustrating if you actually said what your position was on this so we could argue about that. You're not being objective by not saying what you think; it makes this more like arguing with a moving target as you sometimes say that you yourself don't have these problems (in which case, you recognize that biology isn't determinative) and other times you say that it isn't really possible to create a society in which men are less aggressive and more compassionate (and argued in terms of biological determinism). So which is it? Is this one of those "Well I know I can, but I worry about the rest of society" things? Right now it seems like you keep flitting about.

 

[overcast]

I'm not sure that the stereotypical "man" is as much a majority as seems to be stated in the book. I appreciate the stand point, but most of the guys I know aren't exactly like that. My group of friends are perfectly okay with talking about emotional things with each other. Girl problems, problems at home, etc. We are also willing to admit when a guy is a good looking dude. I'm almost 19, and my friends are all college freshmen.

I am perfectly okay with opening up to my GF too. I've been emotional in front of her, but I'm also there to comfort her if she is having trouble. It seems to me like I'm far from the only one who does this.

 

[Mumei]

I'm not sure that the stereotypical "man" is as much a majority as seems to be stated in the book. I appreciate the stand point, but most of the guys I know aren't exactly like that. My group of friends are perfectly okay with talking about emotional things with each other. Girl problems, problems at home, etc. We are also willing to admit when a guy is a good looking dude. I'm almost 19, and my friends are all college freshmen.

I am perfectly okay with opening up to my GF too. I've been emotional in front of her, but I'm also there to comfort her if she is having trouble. It seems to me like I'm far from the only one who does this.

That's actually pretty consistent with what this book (and another one about high school boys and expressions of masculinity) have said:

Guyland revolves almost exclusively around other guys. It is a social space as wel as a time zone - a pure homosocial Eden, uncorrupted by the sober responsibilities of adulthood. The motto of Guyland si smiple: "Bros Before Hos." (Long "o" in both Bro and Ho. [Does his audience really need that instruction?]) Just about every guy knows this - knows that his "brothers" are his real soul mates, his real life-partners. To them he swears allegiance and will take their secrets to his grave. And guys do not live in Guyland all the time. They take temporary vacations - when they are alone with their girlfriends or even a female friend, or when they are with their parents, teachers, or coaches.​

and this

When not in groups - when in one-on-one interactions with boys or girls - boys were much less likely to engage in gendered and sexed dominance practices. In this sense boys become masculine in groups (Connell 1996; Woody 2002). With the exception of the boys spoke with me the way they spoke with other boys about girls, girls' bodies, and their own sexual adventures. When with other boys, they postured and bragged. In one-on-one situations with me (and possibly with each other) they often spoke touchingly about their feelings about and insecurities with girls. While the boys I interviewed, for the most part, asserted the centrality of sexual competence to a masculine self, several of them rejected this definitionor at least talked differently about girls and sexuality in their interviews.

When alone some boys were more likely to talk about romance and emotions, as opposed to girls' bodies and sexual availability. Darnell, for instance, the boy who had announced, "Mixed girls are for me!" and who had "wrestled" Christina, talked to me in private and with great emotion about a girl with whom he had recently broken up:

"I never wanted a girlfriend, but I got a girlfriend and I never wanted to lose her. Now I don't go out with that girl any more, but I still see her. We actually live in the same apartment complex. She goes to Chicago High School. She's not supposed to go to Chicago and I'm not supposed to go to River, so we kind of stay aprt. It's a little hard. It's kind of easy if you were that kind of guy you could just have a girlfriend over othere and a girlfriend over here."

When in groups with other boys Darnell behaved much like the "kind of guy who could just have a girlfriend over there and a girlfriend over here," claiming things like "Mixed girls are for me!" But in the interview with me he spoke tenderly about his former girlfriend. When I asked him why he thought he was different, he said, "I had a whole bunch of girls when I was little. I know how certain things can hurt their feelings. I don't like hurting people's feelings." Darnell's discussion of girls and his ability to hurt their feelings provided a very different picture of his approach to women than did his proclamations about which women belonged to him.

In interviews boys often posited themselves as "different from other guys," while in public they acted just like the guys they derided. Heath, for instance, told me he was "probably less" like an average guy because "I don't try and get with every girl I see." Like others, Heath became a "guy" in public, not in private interactions. Heath was the boy who had dressed like an elf for Halloween and accosted the passing girls in order to procure a kiss. Outside this sort of group setting, Heath dismissed lecherous behavior as something "other guys" did, but when in public he acted just like these "other guys." As Jace told me, when talking about a generic teenage boy, "By himself he'd probably be cool. He wouldn't do stupid stuff. But in a group he'd do stupid stuff." When I asked him for an example of stpuid stuff, he said, "Well, guys check out girls anyway, yell at 'em, 'Oh, yeah, you look good today, what's up?'" Indeed, looking at the differences between Darnell's and Heath's behavior in groups and indvidually indicates that Jace highlights an important component of adolescent masculinity - that it happens in groups.​

Now granted you and your friends might not devolve into that sort of immature behavior when in groups (and my friends don't, so I don't think that's unrealistic), but it wouldn't be inconsistent for the same guys the author of Guyland is talking about to behave one way when with a group of guys and another way when talking about his feelings with his girlfriend.

 

[leadbelly]

The reason I thought it seemed shallow wasn't just because you were only focusing on the biological, but because you were acting like a biological determinist while doing so. And there's nothing particularly deep or complex about biological determinism. The entire message of biological determinism is that our biology is determinative and that our cultural constructs are either nonexistent or simply extensions of those basic biological drives. And you have said yourself that you believe that we "create social constructs out of emotions and instinctual drives" and "I personally don't think you can change society in that way because I think it is a part of our nature"

So you certainly sound like a dyed in the wool biological determinist. All of your arguments have focused on biology to the exclusion of culture, and your commentary when asked about it has been expressing skepticism of the idea that within whatever biological realities there are, there's an large range of possible expressions and that we can construct masculine identities that are healthier and happier (which was the point of my post about the question being whether we encourage the worst aspects of typically masculine behavior or discourage them).

Yet you keep insisting that you're not "allowing my own view on how we should live our lives effect my reasoning." But unless your view isn't that biology is determinative, I don't see how you can say this, since so far it seems like your personal views about what our limits are in terms of defining what it is to be male and your views about biology match up one to one.

And this conversation would be a lot less frustrating if you actually said what your position was on this so we could argue about that. You're not being objective by not saying what you think; it makes this more like arguing with a moving target as you sometimes say that you yourself don't have these problems (in which case, you recognize that biology isn't determinative) and other times you say that it isn't really possible to create a society in which men are less aggressive and more compassionate (and argued in terms of biological determinism). So which is it? Is this one of those "Well I know I can, but I worry about the rest of society" things? Right now it seems like you keep flitting about.

Well, the thing is it isn't. My personal view is that we've reached a level of evolution where instinctual drives, biological traits no longer fully determine our behaviour. One of the major factors for this is the ability to self-analyse, to be completely self-aware of our own nature and the world around us. Metaphorically speaking, we have climbed out of darkness and entered the light. We can observe what we may see as negative traits and try to adhere to a greater ideal and concept of what it is to be human.

I explored the biological side of things for the simple reason that we generally don't even consider this in these conversations, yet it is still a part of us. In some respects our behaviour is completely contradictory, living by reason yet still influenced to a degree by the irrational. Why we sometimes do things that we regret in the heat of moment, i.e. get angry, lash out. Yet we know the reason we do these things is because it is simply a part of our nature. Self-awareness means we no longer have a sort of harmony that other animals enjoy as we see outside of our nature.

It is not so much me believing our behaviour is determined by instinctive processes, but rather looking at human nature as dualistic and contradictory. The rational mind being at odds with primal urges. Perhaps now those impulses are unrequired and somewhat dormant; a product of an earlier period of our existence. Perhaps we express those urges now in different ways.

There are certain things I notice though. The reality we perceive is relative or connected to the functions of the physical and chemical body in which we exist. It is perhaps not always a matter of our primitive self and our enlightened self being separate, but rather interwoven. If the lust for sex didn't exist for instance, we wouldn't seek intimate partners to begin with. All the complexity of the situation is irrelevant. In the same way if we did not love or feel deep attachment to others, we would not understand the consequence of their separation. To kill another person, to hurt someone's feelings would not necessarily lead to deep regret. A fight may break out between two people. Even though there might be a very good reason for why it occurred, I boil it down to a tendency to get angry; an impulse to strike out. Basic drives influence and effects our behaviour no matter how complex. Without them being there, the ideas and views we shape would be very different.

Of course what complicates things further is that nature is imperfect. We all have our own strengths and weaknesses. There are many different variables and factors that determine the subtleties of our behaviour. For that reason we can't speak in absolute terms, but rather in general terms. The complexity of any given situation isn't always easy to predict.

We are capable of living our lives in very different ways, but at the same time, we can't truly escape the fact that we're also biological beings. Some have greater success than others, but I would wager that certain behaviour types will never be fully eradicated and will surface within society as a whole. I'm really not sure it all boils down to a simple case of nurture. I do remember reading a blog once from a woman who had twins; one boy and one girl. She believed that biology had no effect at all on gender. That it was completely determined by nurture. She claimed that she made sure to treat each child equally and give them the same opportunities. She was shocked however to discover that as they grew, their behaviour began to change. How they both gravitated to different things entirely of their own choice. A lot fo the comments agreed, some claiming it is all true until you have kids. Of course it is anecdotal maybe, but still interesting none-the-less.

In truth, I do wonder if by changing our own behaviours we would then adapt and evolve in a way that better suits us to those behaviours. On the other hand, I wonder if changing our behaviour also has an unforeseen effect. I guess it does do. It was what I was hinting at in my original post, but never really articulated myself well enough.

I do not really concern myself with the way society changes though. I have an opinion sometimes, but deep down I don't really care. I don't see the point really if I am only here temporary. We have the gift of self-awareness in which we climbed out of the primordial pit to a higher level of reality. Perhaps this is the journey we were always supposed to take. In that sense perhaps we should just sit back and see where it takes us.

 

[leadbelly]

I am perfectly okay with opening up to my GF too. I've been emotional in front of her, but I'm also there to comfort her if she is having trouble. It seems to me like I'm far from the only one who does this.

That's another thing I have wondered about. You see, we talk about men not being able to show their emotions around other men, but I notice that some women find that very much an unattractive quality too. Not so much showing emotion, but being too emotional. Sometimes women want someone who is more emotionally stable, who has a cool head and strong enough in bad situations that they are able to turn to them. I think there is a song by Amy Winehouse along those lines.

 

[Mumei]

I explored the biological side of things for the simple reason that we generally don't even consider this in these conversations, yet it is still a part of us. In some respects our behaviour is completely contradictory, living by reason yet still influenced to a degree by the irrational. Why we sometimes do things that we regret in the heat of moment, i.e. get angry, lash out. Yet we know the reason we do these things is because it is simply a part of our nature. Self-awareness means we no longer have a sort of harmony that other animals enjoy as we see outside of our nature.

... Do you not follow these conversations often?

The biological side is very well represented (but not represented well) in these conversations. There are many people who come into conversations about male behavior towards women - the issue of sexual harassment is a good one - and insist that because of basic sexual drives, that men just can't help themselves. Of course, they claim that they don't do it, but they still believe that it's just an ingrained part of who we are. So when you come into this topic, talking exclusively about the biological perspective, claiming that you are enlightened and recognize our ability to, within certain confines, examine ourselves and change our behavior, but still believe that society at large just isn't capable of this feat? It doesn't look like you're bringing in something that isn't usually considered in these topics; it looks like the same old song and dance that I see over and over and over.

We are capable of living our lives in very different ways, but at the same time, we can't truly escape the fact that we're also biological beings. Some have greater success than others, but I would wager that certain behaviour types will never be fully eradicated and will surface within society as a whole. I'm really not sure it all boils down to a simple case of nurture. I do remember reading a blog once from a woman who had twins; one boy and one girl. She believed that biology had no effect at all on gender. That it was completely determined by nurture. She claimed that she made sure to treat each child equally and give them the same opportunities. She was shocked however to discover that as they grew, their behaviour began to change. How they both gravitated to different things entirely of their own choice. A lot fo the comments agreed, some claiming it is all true until you have kids. Of course it is anecdotal maybe, but still interesting none-the-less.

It does not boil down to a simple case of nurture, no. I don't think that is a position that is being advocated in this topic, anyway. And I don't know how I can make this clearer: We recognize that there are biological constraints. We recognize that, yeah, even in a hypothetical egalitarian society that had a much healthier and expansive and less cruel conception of masculinity that there would still be men and boys who behave imperfectly or are cruel to one another or whatever. No one thinks that we would eliminate those things; we just think that if you live in a society that celebrates male aggressiveness and male sexual violence that you will, in fact, have more of those things. I want to eliminate those things, but I think that that is ultimately quixotic and the best we can do is reduce it.

And while this topic is not about toy choice in infants and children, I don't believe that gender preferences in, say, toys absolutely don't exist (I think that there might be broad trends that are ultimately inseparable from other influences that at most exist in terms of percentages), only that they shouldn't be proscribed simply because of gender.

I do not really concern myself with the way society changes though. I have an opinion sometimes, but deep down I don't really care. I don't see the point really if I am only here temporary. We have the gift of self-awareness in which we climbed out of the primordial pit to a higher level of reality. Perhaps this is the journey we were always supposed to take. In that sense perhaps we should just sit back and see where it takes us.

Wait, if you don't even care then why are you discussing this?

 

[ElectricBlue187]

About feminism:



The misandry is so thick.





So why do you suppose being a househusband isn't an option many men would dare choose or encourage?

I think being a "house spouse", as in subjugating your career potential to spend a few years raising kids is bad for anyone that isnt wealthy, man or woman. Divorce rates are such that you can never be sure you aren't going to need that post secondary education and 10 years experience. It also creates an unhealthy situation where a spouse feels entitled to alimony due to decisions they made themselves regarding their career. And it's also probably not so good for the kid who needs to be socialized and used to being around other children prior to pre-K, but that's another topic.

 

[Devolution]

I think being a "house spouse", as in subjugating your career potential to spend a few years raising kids is bad for anyone that isnt wealthy, man or woman. Divorce rates are such that you can never be sure you aren't going to need that post secondary education and 10 years experience. It also creates an unhealthy situation where a spouse feels entitled to alimony due to decisions they made themselves regarding their career. And it's also probably not so good for the kid who needs to be socialized and used to being around other children prior to pre-K, but that's another topic.

So you just want everyone to hand their kids off to daycare?

 

[ElectricBlue187]

So you just want everyone to hand their kids off to daycare?

People can do whatever they want with their children. I just think its a bad idea that often ends with a lot of regret if you don't have the means to support yourself or expect someone will always be there to do it for you. The job market is not very forgiving of resumes with long periods without a job, regardless of the reason.

 

[Devolution]

People can do whatever they want with their children. I just think its a bad idea that often ends with a lot of regret if you don't have the means to support yourself or expect someone will always be there to do it for you. The job market is not very forgiving of resumes with long periods without a job, regardless of the reason.

Can do whatever they want. Let's talk about what you're saying here. If someone doesn't stay at home with their kids they have to look for other options. Unless they're lucky enough like my parents, and their own parents can do so, what is the other option? The other option is daycare, which takes money and not necessarily a guarantee of anything other than sitting the kids down in front of a TV. If it's something more, you pay even more money. Pre-school is also not always up to snuff either and you might be better off teaching kids stuff yourself. For me socializing with other kids meant coming home with bruises and my mom pulling me out of there and placing me somewhere else. As much as retaining financial independence is important, plenty of people will put their kids first if and when they can do so. If my own mother could have been supported by my father I'm sure she would have gladly stopped working her night shifts to take me to school, read me stories and babysit me like my grandmother did.

 

[Mumei]

I was reading a book by well-known feminist author bell hooks recently called Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics that mentioned this subject::

"The path to greater economic self-sufficiency will necessarily lead to alternative lifestyles which will run counter to the image of the good life presented to us by white supremacist capitalist patriarchal mass media. To live fully and well, to do work which enhances self-esteem and self-respect while being paid a living wage, we will need programs of job sharing. Teachers and service workers in all areas will need to be paid more. Women and men who want to stay home and raise children should have wages subsidized by the state as well as home-schooling programs that will enable them to finish high school and work on graduate degrees at home. With advanced technology individuals who remain home should be ale to study by watching college courses on videos augmenting this with some period of time spent in classroom settings. If welfare not warfare (military spending) was sanctioned by our government and all citizens legally had access to a year or two of their lives during which they received state aid if they were unable to find a job, then the negative stigma attached to welfare programs would no longer exist. If men had equal access to welfare then it would no longer carry the stigma of gender."

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Can do whatever they want. Let's talk about what you're saying here. If someone doesn't stay at home with their kids they have to look for other options. Unless they're lucky enough like my parents, and their own parents can do so, what is the other option? The other option is daycare, which takes money and not necessarily a guarantee of anything other than sitting the kids down in front of a TV. If it's something more, you pay even more money. Pre-school is also not always up to snuff either and you might be better off teaching kids stuff yourself. For me socializing with other kids meant coming home with bruises and my mom pulling me out of there and placing me somewhere else. As much as retaining financial independence is important, plenty of people will put their kids first if and when they can do so. If my own mother could have been supported by my father I'm sure she would have gladly stopped working her night shifts to take me to school, read me stories and babysit me like my grandmother did.

I had an entirely different experience with daycare and pre-k with my son. Mine has been overwhelmingly positive especially with pre-k so I think if you find the right place, yes is godawful expensive (but then again so is joblessness) but it's worth every penny to have my son be able to read and write before kindergarten. I feel he has had very valuable experience both positive and negative with dealing with kids his age. There are programs that help people who can't afford daycare in the form of cost reductions and tax breaks and FSAs.

But on topic: the cost of daycare is really insignificant when you compare it to the cost of lifetime decreased wages due to extended periods of joblessness.

 

[leadbelly]

... Do you not follow these conversations often?

The biological side is very well represented (but not represented well) in these conversations. There are many people who come into conversations about male behavior towards women - the issue of sexual harassment is a good one - and insist that because of basic sexual drives, that men just can't help themselves. Of course, they claim that they don't do it, but they still believe that it's just an ingrained part of who we are. So when you come into this topic, talking exclusively about the biological perspective, claiming that you are enlightened and recognize our ability to, within certain confines, examine ourselves and change our behavior, but still believe that society at large just isn't capable of this feat? It doesn't look like you're bringing in something that isn't usually considered in these topics; it looks like the same old song and dance that I see over and over and over.

Well, I'll also point out that my comment was about me believing there is an element of truth in those traditional masculine traits. As I said, I wasn't intending to turn it into a big debate, it's just that every comment I made people had to respond. It appeared like I was taking a purely biological side because I was responding to posts asking me to explain the reasons behind my views. Only they were not entirely my views. I pointed this out to you, remember?

Anyway, you are probably right with the specific examples you stated, but I'm sort of looking at it from a much wider perspective, much broader terms in general. It is a very sensitive subject actually - I think. That is why you can't really explore those areas without people questioning what you're really getting at.

Of course in reality it is probably a mixture of nurture and nature. It isn't correct to say biology determines everything.

When I was a kid though, I remember watching a nature programme about chimps. One of the researchers said something I found really quite surprising, and in a way, a little shocking. It was about how we humans believe we are so different to other animals. We create sophisticated societies with laws and codes of conduct; form hierarchies, social classes, aristocracy; have great leaders, presidents, kings, CEOs. In fact we're no different to other social animals. The difference is the complexity. Looking at society in general in a more simplified manner, we function in a very similar way to other primates.

As a kid that blew my mind. To think that these great civilisations that seem so artificial in the way they function, actually, really, have some huge natural basis to them. Of course I am confusing the issue. You'll probably call me a 'biological determinist' again. They're just observations though, there doesn't have to be a deeper point.