Pathologizing Masculinity

[SolomonVII]

What I meant by womanly is deferring to her opinion because she is a woman.
Maybe that is what I meant. Who knows exactly what they mean by every word in every post?
We write things down here not so much as treatise or scientific dissertation, poring over every word, but an effort to come to terms and work through things that we find interesting.
Without analyzing and editing a post down to the word, it is sometimes hard to say why a particular term is chosen. Free association of ideas allows for all sorts of motives that we are not really conscious of in such an exercise.
Maybe the terms is a vice versa for the inherent hostility of the term mansplaining.
Who knows. I don’t and I wrote it.
Looking back though, the best meaning in terms of the concept being put forth at the time, the best fit is to describe the “yes dear” response that men so often give to women when their own opinions are rejected by the woman as being oppressively yappy.

It is deferral to a woman’s opinion because she is a woman, and making an argument against the furies is not worth the effort.

 

[SolomonVII]

The moral of the story is that having a why justifies any how.
If we want to sell young men on the idea of marriage, great. What vision of marriage is going to make it worth their while?
Oh and my vote on that is some form of patriarchy, where fathers are recognized as being central figures in any family, and not just options.

 

[The Barbarian]

Looking back though, the best meaning in terms of the concept being put forth at the time, the best fit is to describe the “yes dear” response that men so often give to women when their own opinions are rejected by the woman as being oppressively yappy.

It is deferral to a woman’s opinion because she is a woman, and making an argument against the furies is not worth the effort.

That is one of the saddest things I've read in a long time.

 

[Paidiske]

" there are attractive traits associated with traditional masculinity (integrity, strength of conviction, etc.), and to the extent that a man exhibits them, he's going to be more successful."

This I think describes well the core values of Western patriarchal religions based in the Fatherhood of God. This is what the patriarchy stands for.

This is the vision that God has for men.

Integrity and strength of conviction etc are part of God's vision for people. It's not as if God doesn't call women to integrity and strength of conviction; or courage, or temperance, or any other virtue.

The full definition of masculinity includes those attributes of any male that a female will be attracted to. It is a measure of a male's attractiveness to potential sexual partners. It is inherently sexual.

Hmm. I tend to be very attracted to intelligence, but I don't see that as something particularly masculine, either.

If we want to sell young men on the idea of marriage, great. What vision of marriage is going to make it worth their while?
Oh and my vote on that is some form of patriarchy, where fathers are recognized as being central figures in any family, and not just options.

The vision of marriage which governs my approach to it all is one of equal and mutual partnership through life. Any man who demanded to have the entire family revolve around him as a sort of patriarchal demi-god wouldn't be worth marrying.

That doesn't mean the husband and father is an "option." It means he's no more important than his wife, and that together, as one, they are the central figure of the nuclear family.

 

[Silmarien]

What I meant by womanly is deferring to her opinion because she is a woman.
Maybe that is what I meant. Who knows exactly what they mean by every word in every post?
We write things down here not so much as treatise or scientific dissertation, poring over every word, but an effort to come to terms and work through things that we find interesting.
Without analyzing and editing a post down to the word, it is sometimes hard to say why a particular term is chosen. Free association of ideas allows for all sorts of motives that we are not really conscious of in such an exercise.
Maybe the terms is a vice versa for the inherent hostility of the term mansplaining.
Who knows. I don’t and I wrote it.
Looking back though, the best meaning in terms of the concept being put forth at the time, the best fit is to describe the “yes dear” response that men so often give to women when their own opinions are rejected by the woman as being oppressively yappy.

It is deferral to a woman’s opinion because she is a woman, and making an argument against the furies is not worth the effort.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Who are the furies you are referring to? Are you saying that women are harpies so the only alternatives are to refuse to argue by either always insisting that your own opinion is the correct one, or by always deferring to their opinion?

And then you say that the feminists are the ones pushing the narrative of a conflict between the sexes? What sort of fantasy world is this?

The opposite of "mansplaining" isn't always deferring to a woman in every possible situation. It's refraining from being a condescending, patronizing idiot and recognizing that a woman might actually know as much as you do about a subject. Most men are capable of it, I believe.

The moral of the story is that having a why justifies any how.

Having a "why" doesn't justify any "how," unless you're going to turn around and defend every horror that's ever been committed throughout history.

If we want to sell young men on the idea of marriage, great. What vision of marriage is going to make it worth their while?
Oh and my vote on that is some form of patriarchy, where fathers are recognized as being central figures in any family, and not just options.

The expectation that fathers take responsibility and play an active role in their families is not how most people define "patriarchy." If you think people are advocating that men abandon their families instead, I have no idea where you're getting that.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yeah... I think there's no reason to accept his claim about a "more fundamental reality." God is neither male nor masculine (though Scripture can and does use masculine, feminine and non-biological metaphors for God). That we conceive of God as such is a limitation of our thinking and language.



Changing social roles for mothers doesn't entail that it's "everyone for themselves." Why can't it be, "everyone in this together"?

In our household we talk a lot about how we're a team. People might take different roles in a team - or even swap sometimes - but we're still a team.

There are roles and there are goals. My ex-wife was very materialistic but impatient. I am somewhat materialistic but patient. Years later I am well-off, she is broke (re: tortoise and hare). She would 'acquiesce' to swapping roles with me by doing 'man' tasks while I was at work, but she never got on board with my goals. She wouldn't stand in the breach with me.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I can attest to the fact that there are plenty of men who are neither “mansplainers” nor “effeminate.” I am part of an orginazation that prioritizes gender equality and the men in my organization allow plenty of room for women to speak and lead while still being leaders themselves.

I invented a great saying: "The job is the boss". What is the job, or the goal, of married couples?

 

[SolomonVII]

The time of the patriarchy has been defined here as being the prominent feature of the time of our grandmothers. How far it stretches back before there is moot, and hardly any more relevant as our own grandma.
The nature of the patriarchy is defined in mainly Marxist terms as oppression of women by society run by males.
The APA criticizes the traditional ideals of masculinity as belonging to grandma's era, obsolete rhetorically speaking.

A definition of what masculinity entails has been asked here with answer provided.
This excellent description of what traditional ideals about masculinity are has been agreed to here, as being described thus;
" there are attractive traits associated with traditional masculinity (integrity, strength of conviction, etc.), and to the extent that a man exhibits them, he's going to be more successful."

The many serious scholars of the Bible here would be able to provide the etc. of what has traditionally associated with masculinity with many, many quotes, doubtlessly so.

Terms 'patriarchy' and 'traditional masculinity' have now been defined to minimal requirements of utility.

The patriarchy rewarded and rewards successful achievement of these goals by males especially. Integrity, strength of character, will to success, these are all values of the patriarchy, of the land in the time of grandma.
Will the matriarchy of the nanny state now reward what the APA suggests, things like crying and vulnerability and getting in touch with the feminine side of us, in that primal nurturing sort of way associated with the eternal feminine? (One can conjecture what anyone means by feminine simply by studying what feminine has always meant).

The patriarchy provided men with a vision of who they ought to be, who they were required to become to be fully accepted as full men in the society. There was a hardness in being seen to be a failure. In meritocracy of patriarchy, nurturance of those who fail is for another realm of social being. In the violent struggle between man and nature and man and man, competence was the only value. There are no silver medals in battle.

A man who has a 'why' can withstand any 'how'. Where in post-patriarchal society, is that vision that gives the man the 'why' being broadcast?

Marriage to a woman has just become one option, among many in a world where everyone has their own narrative. Where, for example, is the vision funneling marriage out of that scenario?

It is not a problem that successful people need to worry much about though. Successful men all have their whys.

 

[Sparagmos]

I invented a great saying: "The job is the boss". What is the job, or the goal, of married couples?

That is s big question. From an evolutionary perspective, sicioligically, spiritually? And is it a job?

What is your point in relation to my comment?

 

[Paidiske]

There are roles and there are goals. My ex-wife was very materialistic but impatient. I am somewhat materialistic but patient. Years later I am well-off, she is broke (re: tortoise and hare). She would 'acquiesce' to swapping roles with me by doing 'man' tasks while I was at work, but she never got on board with my goals. She wouldn't stand in the breach with me.

I completely agree with you that married couples need to build - and work towards - shared goals. That's what I'm arguing for (over against, for example, the idea that married couples need to prioritise only his goals).

Solomon, each of us needs to find our why in our own vocation. It's not something society can create for us in a healthy way.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That is s big question. From an evolutionary perspective, sicioligically, spiritually? And is it a job?

What is your point in relation to my comment?

My point is that the goal is the 'leader' in any organization, including marriage, regardless of who is holding the reigns at the moment. We pursue goals, not leaders. Football and hockey players don't run or skate behind the team captain; they head for the goal. The one who has the ball or the puck is the 'leader' at that moment. So in that respect you have a good point.

When my (ex) wife rototilled the garden she wasn't 'taking over leadership of the family by doing man's work', she was advancing a family goal to have fresh vegetables to eat.

That said, it is (was) generally the man who presents his vision to the woman, inviting her into his life to help him achieve those goals. "I will make a suitable helper for him." -God.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I completely agree with you that married couples need to build - and work towards - shared goals. That's what I'm arguing for (over against, for example, the idea that married couples need to prioritise only his goals).

That's fine, if there is time and resources for two different goals under the same roof.

Goals should be part of the marriage agreement, and determined before marriage. Each should be committed, and, fully understand what and how those goals will be achieved. Sadly marriage 'promises' are often filled with deception, and outright lies. Worse yet there are many "Winchester Cathedral" marriages that have no goal except to save the participants from embarrassment and are likely doomed to failure.

 

[SolomonVII]

I invented a great saying: "The job is the boss". What is the job, or the goal, of married couples?

There will be individual variations of course, and cultural variations too, but unlike other primary functions of the organism such as eating and elimination, the organism when it comes to sexuallly dimorphism creatures is not the individual but the couple.
Populations that are capable of both optimally procreating the next generation and instilling values that allow for the survival of that population at higher rates than other competing populations are fulfilling the goal of marriage.
The fact that we are biological beings existing as bodies makes the biological function of marriage the ground zero.

The goal of modern marriage since the sexual revolution has shifted to self fulfillment. The goals of marriage thereby become completely individualistic, and as often as not involve two people working at cross purposes with one another.
As marriage becomes redefined to include anything and everything, the goals of a marriage constantly shift as the individuals entering into the marriage constantly shift as people seek out what is more self fulfilling for them individually.
The basic familial unit is mother and child. Tying the unique abilities of the father to the welfare of that unit has been a social evolution that has allowed the basic family unit of mother and child to thrive more advantageously than mother and child alone. Ideals of masculinity that traditions have developed in societies have the goal of guiding and forming men who will be the most useful to that basic family unit, and guiding women too in finding men with such attributes as desirable and attractive.
When the goal shifts from procreating and raising vibrant families to personal fulfillment, the bigger question is not what is the goal of any particular marriage, but whether marriage is even an effective means to that goal of self fulfillment for any given individual. There are as many answers to that question as there are individuals working out the means to their own self fulfillment.

Everybody brings their own expectations of how marriage is going to fulfill them. There is not any longer any overarching vision to what marriage even means, and so therefore no overarching goals to marriage, especially as the conditions for self fulfillment change with changing conditions.
That carefeee and fun loving boy with the great sense of humour that the equally fun loving and carefree girl falls in love with probably may not going to be as fulfilling a choice when it comes to changing the diaper.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There will be individual variations of course, and cultural variations too, but unlike other primary functions of the organism such as eating and elimination, the organism when it comes to sexuallly dimorphism creatures is not the individual but the couple.
Populations that are capable of both optimally procreating the next generation and instilling values that allow for the survival of that population at higher rates than other competing populations are fulfilling the goal of marriage.
The fact that we are biological beings existing as bodies makes the biological function of marriage the ground zero.

The goal of modern marriage since the sexual revolution has shifted to self fulfillment. The goals of marriage thereby become completely individualistic, and as often as not involve two people working at cross purposes with one another.
As marriage becomes redefined to include anything and everything, the goals of a marriage constantly shift as the individuals entering into the marriage constantly shift as people seek out what is more self fulfilling for them individually.
The basic familial unit is mother and child. Tying the unique abilities of the father to the welfare of that unit has been a social evolution that has allowed the basic family unit of mother and child to thrive more advantageously than mother and child alone. Ideals of masculinity that traditions have developed in societies have the goal of guiding and forming men who will be the most useful to that basic family unit, and guiding women too in finding men with such attributes as desirable and attractive.
When the goal shifts from procreating and raising vibrant families to personal fulfillment, the bigger question is not what is the goal of any particular marriage, but whether marriage is even an effective means to that goal of self fulfillment for any given individual. There are as many answers to that question as there are individuals working out the means to their own self fulfillment.

Everybody brings their own expectations of how marriage is going to fulfill them. There is not any longer any overarching vision to what marriage even means, and so therefore no overarching goals to marriage, especially as the conditions for self fulfillment change with changing conditions.
That carefeee and fun loving boy with the great sense of humour that the equally fun loving and carefree girl falls in love with probably may not going to be as fulfilling a choice when it comes to changing the diaper.

Having kids is the greatest goal of marriage, and the greatest joy as well. Changing diapers is a small price to pay.

 

[SolomonVII]

It would be interesting for scientists to develop something like a Columbine scale of social desirability. Columbine shows the high school genesis of what is being measured.
The scale would go something like if for every 25 people that you find sexually desirable one of them felt the same, your score would be 25. Everybody that you find attractive finding you attractive back is a perfect score. That is jock territory in high school terms.
The score, for men, is driven by what the women find attractive-masculine- in a male. 'Potential for success' tops that list.

Maybe a score of 25 is about average for males.

I am a mean poster. But I believe in miracles. It is a miracle, for example, that I am still posting here.
So it understandably very humiliating what I am asking of women here. Any man from the patriarchy who is at a score of 25 or higher on the Columbine scale would know this intimately. It is not easy recognizing that most women find you undesirable.
Vice versa exponentially.


In a nanny state without risks, and infinite fun and pleasure available to the North American and European male, how does a woman sell the idea that a marriage to her would be a good idea.

The patriarchy never demands such a answer from a woman. Society in a patriarchy allows woman to make the choice, rather than make the sales pitch. Patriachy is intimately aware with the greater self-consciousness that trends toward women. This is a mercy from the patriarchy.

We live in a world of unlimited choice nevertheless. Men dying from too much fentanyl are dying from infinite fun, in a land without much consequence for rejecting the values of the patriarchy-the value of hard work and success, getting ahead, being a provider, integrity, etc.
The sales pitch being asked for is not for whether successful men are not desirable enough to make the pitch to. But those are all already married or gay.

The sales pitch is how are you going to make the case for marriage to you being better than the alternatives, for men that have eschewed the masculine values of the patriarchy?

 

[SolomonVII]

Having kids is the greatest goal of marriage, and the greatest joy as well. Changing diapers is a small price to pay.

I am married, once.
I am already sold on the idea.

The alternative to doing something useful with your life is hell.

Children of divorce, the destruction of the marriage of their parents is the hell already.

 

[SolomonVII]

The APA makes the case that the masculine values of the patriarchy are archaic.
What kind of Neanderthal misfit of a dinosaur would even make the case for the patriarchy, after all?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The APA makes the case that the masculine values of the patriarchy are archaic.
What kind of Neanderthal misfit of a dinosaur would even make the case for the patriarchy, after all?

Raises hand.

 

[Sparagmos]

My point is that the goal is the 'leader' in any organization, including marriage, regardless of who is holding the reigns at the moment. We pursue goals, not leaders. Football and hockey players don't run or skate behind the team captain; they head for the goal. The one who has the ball or the puck is the 'leader' at that moment. So in that respect you have a good point.

When my (ex) wife rototilled the garden she wasn't 'taking over leadership of the family by doing man's work', she was advancing a family goal to have fresh vegetables to eat.

That said, it is (was) generally the man who presents his vision to the woman, inviting her into his life to help him achieve those goals. "I will make a suitable helper for him." -God.

You seem to be saying two different t things here. Taking turns leading or male leadership?

The days of men controlling tbe finances and setting the course are behind us, thankfully. It’s clear that women are just as likely to be good leaders and visionaries as men are, when they are given the same opportunities.

 

[Paidiske]

That's fine, if there is time and resources for two different goals under the same roof.

Goals should be part of the marriage agreement, and determined before marriage. Each should be committed, and, fully understand what and how those goals will be achieved. Sadly marriage 'promises' are often filled with deception, and outright lies. Worse yet there are many "Winchester Cathedral" marriages that have no goal except to save the participants from embarrassment and are likely doomed to failure.

I don't think this is very realistic.

For example: I married when I was twenty-six. At that point in time, the two biggest goals in our household (one for each of us) were to have a child and for me to pursue ministry. Okay; it's twelve years later; we have a child and I'm a priest. What's next? We both have some ideas, but to have asked us to know, before marriage, what would look like appealing goals at this point in our lives, is not really reasonable.

Also, taking into account the needs and wants of both spouses isn't about time and resources. It's about how you prioritise what time and resources you have.