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.
Yes, but you're focusing on one aspect and overlooking so much.
Masculinity is often held in contempt as well. Who normally plays the 'bad' or the 'evil' characters, are they normally male or female (or maybe more to the point, do they exhibit male or female qualities?). I'd say mainly male. Who are normally the victims, I'd say the weak, but that doesn't necessarily mean the weak characters are portrayed more by female than male characters. Just as many, if not more male characters are killed in movies. So weakness isn't just portrayed as a female quality.
Also, take a different genre, a romantic comedy, like Bridget Jones' Diary for example, which of the male characters is viewed more positively, the more typically stereotyped male character (Hugh Grants' character), or the more sensitive (or feminine if you like) character, Darcy? Clearly Darcy, the more sensitive chap. Even the main character, Bridget Jones, was viewed positively, and I'd say her main qualities were typically feminine.
I could go on, but my main point is, there are just so many factors at work that you can twist your argument any which way you like, depending on what you choose to focus on.
I'm not saying that what you've said is wrong, just there is far much more here to consider to draw any firm conclusions on whether masculinity or femininity are viewed more or less positively or negatively.
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 dunno, I like to think of myself as a caring, sensitive new age man (you may not agree!), I don't think I've ever had my sexuality questioned though.
I take your point though, that maybe the overly feminine man might have his sexuality questioned, but then the overly masculine female will probably get her sexuality questioned too.
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.
Yes, I read what BlackSabb wrote, but then again, if a female is described as butch, that is not normally meant as a compliment either. Although, yeah, being called a girl for instance, seems to be a more common intended put down, so I can agree that there is some misogyny at work in this specific example. The flipside is that getting in touch with your feminine side is seen as a positive thing too.
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.
Which is exactly why I brought up my example of the 100 girls/100 boys on a desert island. I know we can't say for certain what would happen, but out of interest do you think my (very brief) conclusions are probably accurate?
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.
Yes, I agree.
Hopefully, you don't think I'm making an argument just for arguments sake here, I'm just trying to show a flipside here, or more of a balance if you like.
If you pushed me, would I say your arguments are strong, or more, are typically masculine qualities viewed more positively in general? Maybe, but I just wanted to show it is maybe not as clear cut as your post was making out.
