Yes these are normally encouraged.
This is normally discouraged.
These are normally discouraged.
These are normally encouraged
Yes, most negative traits are discouraged to some extent, of course. But recklessness, violence, and coldness are not discouraged
as masculinity or
because they are masculine. If a woman is reckless, she is not accused of being like a man. If a man is over-sensitive, he may well be accused of being like a woman.
But you miss my central point, which is that the positive "masculine" qualities are at the heart of our cultural perception of "masculinity", while the negative "feminine" qualities are at the heart of our cultural conception of "femininity". If you watch an action film in which gender roles are vigorously enforced (without irony), for example, you are likely to see a brave, strong, laughs-in-the-face-of-danger male hero, and an over-talkative, needs-to-be-rescued, cries-when-she-breaks-a-fingernail female. It is clear to see that the "feminine" is held in contempt. We are ultimately supposed to admire the female when she takes on "masculine" characteristics - when she overcomes her fear, or makes a rational decision in a dangerous situation. You see "woman in peril" characters even in films that clearly think themselves quite progressive.
Just a quick question, if the discouragement of "emotionality! weakness! gossip!" is misogyny, then is the discouragement of "recklessness, violence, coldness" misandry? Or does it only work one way?
Personally, I wouldn't jump to either conclusion too quickly here, but just interested in your thoughts.
Neither is misogyny/misandry in itself. Discouraging negative traits is not discrimination or hatred. But as I said above, the problem is not in the discouraging of the negative traits. It's in the way that "masculinity" and "femininity" are viewed.
Women are encouraged to take on masculine characteristics, but the "new man" is an unpopular beast, arousing all kinds of suspicions about his sexual orientation.
I could certainly find some examples of misogyny in the world today, but maybe not quite in this way.
I think this is all a rather messy business, I'm not sure how much difference in male/female behaviour is learnt, how much is biological and what is the weight between what is encouraged/discouraged to individual sexes.
I might add that I'm not talking about anyone sitting their kids down and telling them they must be this or they can't be that. This stuff is really subtle. It's in our language (as BlackSabb rightly noted a few posts earlier), it's in our differing treatment of the same behaviours in men and women, &c.
And as feminists are always at pains to point out, broad, statistical gender differences, where they exist, are not enough to justify making assumptions about individuals.
It's clear from reading through this thread, there isn't even much agreement on what masculinity is, and what men are portrayed as or what is encouraged/discouraged. It's all rather vague and subjective.
All these variables are making my head hurt
That's fair enough, but I would point out that just because "the masculine" constitutes a complex set of expectations does not mean that it doesn't exist as an ideal. After all, what did you expect?
It has to cover many aspects of human life.
Testosterone is probably the main player here (at an uneducated guess!
). I think biological differences probably play a huge role.
I do not think we're in much of a position to say that.
Most studies are conducted in a wholly Western demographic and do not account for cultural differences. It's possible that while, say, testosterone has
x effect in
ABC cultural conditions, it would have a completely different effect in
PQR cultural conditions. Not enough cross-cultural studies have been conducted to show otherwise. And in any case, even if we did do a cross-cultural study, we don't get to choose from every
possible culture, because patriarchy is the
global norm. Maybe in a matriarchal society, testosterone would have a very different effect. I'm just speculating, and I'm not saying that it
would have a different effect - but as I said, I don't think we're in a position to say for certain that there are biological gender differences which would exist in any cultural environment.
I agree. For example, if you want to look for why men are more aggressive, many will naturally look at the violent stuff on TV for an answer. They'll overlook all the non-violent stuff. It is easy to forget that violence is, by the norm, normally discouraged. There is plenty of TV and movie output where male characters aren't violent and show a more sensitive side. I think the media and films tend to more reflect how humans are, rather than shape how humans are (that's not to say the media doesn't have some sort of role in shaping us though). I'm not sure if this is what you were getting at, but just my thoughts.
As you know, I am one of the most reluctant people to point to the media as the reason for any effects, positive or negative, on gender differences or anything else. I actually think that, more often than not, the effects run in the opposite direction: the media provides the content that reflects the people who watch it.
But I don't think that either PassionFruit or I was talking about the media having effects on people, but about what the media portrayal of "masculinity", or the "masculine ideal" (rather than necessarily
men)
indicates about our views of masculinity and our expectations of men.
