The feminization of the American male? (history, liberals, house, school)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is what my favorite writer had to say on the subject of what makes boys masculine:
"[O]ld Osborne was highly delighted, when Georgy “whopped” her third boy (a young gentleman a year older than Georgy, and by chance home for the holidays from Dr. Tickleus’s at Ealing School) in Russell Square. George’s grandfather gave the boy a couple of sovereigns for that feat, and promised to reward him further for every boy above his own size and age whom he whopped in a similar manner. It is difficult to say what good the old man saw in these combats; he had a vague notion that quarrelling made boys hardy, and that tyranny was a useful accomplishment for them to learn. English youth have been so educated time out of mind, and we have hundreds of thousands of apologists and admirers of injustice, misery, and brutality, as perpetrated among children." -- William M. Thackeray, Vanity Fair (the novel, not the magazine)
So there you have it -- from the pen of a 19th-century male writer. Then again, Thackeray made his living by writing and had a penchant for expressing himself eloquently and gracefully -- so in the eyes of those posters who have suggested that "normal" boys amuse themselves by hurting other children and killing insects, this probably makes Thackeray a total feminized pansy. Wow, he thought it was wrong to teach boys to be brutal and to inflict misery on others? How effete! Because, as we all know, REAL men are non-verbal, grunting neanderthals, who express their "logic" and superior mental togetherness by being violent. [/end sarcasm]
A note on the subject of "emotion" vs. "logic". This is such baloney. Men in general are every bit as emotional as women, and just as likely to be controlled by their emotions as women. In a traditional society, the acceptable ways for the different genders to express their emotions are different, but it doesn't mean one sex is more "logical" than the other. Standard "male" entertainment is designed to appeal to raw emotion just like entertainment intended for women; and many of the activities that more conservative posters here characterized as quintessentially "masculine" are also based on emotion.
Redisca, thank you so much for that post. How men define themselves at higher levels is a far cry from the entitled violence plaguing american statistics. When I say higher levels, I've met FARMERS who had more a sense of self respect and dignity than most citified men I've known. There are many educations going on, but a fundamental one has gone horribly by the wayside.
Even listening to shizzles believing the reward for brutish behavior is sexual favoritism... the other rewards having no value? It's not my in my control to tell anyone what they value, but I would hope they'd listen inside more and cultivate depth and character. That doesn't take wealth, ivy league achievement, or muscle mass.
I tend to believe its more along the lines of what suluk was saying, that it's more about men realizing their own humanity. Testosterone and estrogen are both neccessary in the human animal for a reason, even if I never get to fully know why.
Abuse of women is a tactic of war in africa. Western culture used religious word and law. Eastern culture did as well. Sexuality, Obscenity, Community: Women, Muslims and the Hindu Public in Colonial India (http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=Jd4QRpFWrG0NC8B6JJRvs thYr3NpMMDQMhBW6JFym1dGMPCn6PVb!877445902!20049129 27?docId=5006474241 - broken link) Sexuality, Obscenity, Community : Women, Muslims, and the Hindu Public in Colonial India/Charu Gupta
What quarrel would muslims and hindu's have in a region where they share mutual lineage if not for the artificial war promulgated over the body of women via revisionist publications? It's for her own protection???
I tend to believe its more along the lines of what suluk was saying, that it's more about men realizing their own humanity. Testosterone and estrogen are both neccessary in the human animal for a reason, even if I never get to fully know why.
Abuse of women is a tactic of war in africa. Western culture used religious word and law. Eastern culture did as well. Sexuality, Obscenity, Community: Women, Muslims and the Hindu Public in Colonial India (http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=Jd4QRpFWrG0NC8B6JJRvs thYr3NpMMDQMhBW6JFym1dGMPCn6PVb!877445902!20049129 27?docId=5006474241 - broken link) Sexuality, Obscenity, Community : Women, Muslims, and the Hindu Public in Colonial India/Charu Gupta
What quarrel would muslims and hindu's have in a region where they share mutual lineage if not for the artificial war promulgated over the body of women via revisionist publications? It's for her own protection???
Freeing humans from rigid gender roles benefits men and women. A lot of man appreciate being allowed to show some emotion, spend more time caring for their children, and be more in life than just a money provider. Women appreciate having the choice to pursue work outside of being the family caregiver, show anger and pursue aggressive sports. Men and women can share all of life's responsibilities, everything still gets done, and both genders are rewarded with fuller lives. We all have varying degrees of the masculine and feminine, being allowed to express who we truly are rather than fit a role is a gift that makes for a more complete life. I'm not sure why this scares some people so much.
Detshen I agree. I happen to be a quick hand at oil changes without jacking up the car, prefer mowing the lawn to doing dishes. Ultimately all the chores need doing, and whomever has the better aptitude and preference= teamwork. The rest of this stuff is just horsesh*t value judgements extolling the superiority of strawberry ice cream over pistachio. What has this to do with the price of tea in china if the children are well cared for by two parents?
The best relationships I've had in my life I was free to be my best, and so was he. Why that would be threatening to the fabric of our civilization, and the very identity of men, is beyond me. IMO it raised the bar for us both and made us better people as individuals, and as a couple. This whole argument is false.
I'm just surprised it originated from a poster who, by his own standards of logic and self discipline (consumately avoids personal attacks), would backslide into this defensive posture implying male victimization. He'd be among the examples of men I admire. Now he's concerned his own standards have emasculated him, and that's the fault of feminine??? Illogical. Not to pry, but I wish he'd talk more about why he feels so threatened, and elaborate more on the definition of manhood. That's the true heart of the matter, not politicizing women even more than they've been.
Pro-feminist men see the current model of manhood as oppressive to all: women, children, and men. They feel that men as a class do not take responsibility for their behaviors and assert that men need to take responsibility for their own behaviours and attitudes and work to change those of other men. They often work with feminists and women's services, and may be involved in issues such as men's health policy, the development of gender equality curricula in schools, and the counselling of male perpetrators of violence, including domestic violence.
They see society and personal relationships as characterised by injustice and inequality, by men towards women and children, while acknowledging the interpersonal relationship problems that arise to victimise men from negative influences by the patriarchal social structure.
They believe that homophobia and hetero-centrism are key issues for all men. Whether this leads to attitudes which benefit males, while negatively affecting females, is a long-standing matter of debate.
How a person turns out , whether they are "feminine", "masculine" (these are loose general terms) is a result of the environment they grow up in. A spoiled rich kid , growing up with servants to do the dirty work, is not going to have the same personality as a ranch kid who roles out of the rack before dawn to help with the chores. It matters not their gender. Their attitude is a product of their upbringing and the necessities of their life. This is not a gender specific thing. I don't believe that males and females are being taught to cross "roles" per se. In the end , who a person is, is determined by what type of life they live. Not their gender. This is pretty brief but I gotta run and time is short
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.