Pathologizing Masculinity

[SolomonVII]

Well, like I said. I'm Neo-Aristotelian. I don't disagree with you on anything here.

What I'd like to know is how we get from objective biological differences to normative social behavior that is somehow objectively binding across cultures. I keep on asking what people mean by "traditional masculinity," because that could really mean anything from the Greco-Roman civic virtues to "boys will be boys" and "if your son likes to dance, he's a sissy and/or gay." Both of these things are problematic, though for different reasons.

Now, I also agree with you that women do seem to hold more power than men do in terms of choosing partners, which I think makes the question of "traditional masculinity" even more interesting, because what is considered masculine will to a certain extent match whatever recent generations of women have decided that they find attractive in men, and if there has been a genuine change in what women are willing to accept over the past few generations, then the notion of traditional masculinity will have to keep up.

Given that creativity is a part of human nature, there is virtually no limit to the types of variance that a culture may have when it comes to expressions of gender roles. Change is the only constant.
The “intelligence” of female selection often finds expression at the level of phenerome and ‘vibe’ rather than actual conscious decision. The result is that the woman fuming over the man-splainer typically ends up choosing that man for a sexually partner rather than the more feminized male that fits better into her ideology. That is one of life’s wryer ironies.
What any culture finds to be feminine and masculine varies. What has not varied is that all cultures develop parameters for what is considered to be feminine and masculine and these parameters are objectively true to the extent that they are based in the inherent difference between the sexes, as determined by eons of evolution. No culture starts from a blank slate in this regard.
Like eating and elimination and breathing, reproduction is a natural process, and the objective truth of any cultural expression of reproductive-type behaviour is measured in successfully fulfilling the needs of the organic need of what the process was designed to fulfill.
What is true is what is effective.
A woman whose sexual choices precludes most expressions of male masculine behaviour in society is not only forfeiting the continuance of the males genetic lineage into the future, but also her own. If what is stressed is the power dynamic and the conflict model of male vs female, everybody loses.
There is a often cognitive dissonance in what women often say they want in a man and what they select. My own guess is that crying and feminine behaviour on behalf of males is not sending out the kind of pheromones that the typical female will ever find all that attractive.
Going strictly by what the nature of the evolution of our physiology suggests, the natural state of a woman’s sexual choice may well be domesticating with the feminized male in order to raise the children of the alpha male who impregnates her. Nature alone therefore is not the formula for a peaceful society.
This is what Christian morality and traditional gender roles have been developed to deliver us from. Society evolves away from those kinds of traditional systems at their own risk. Culture is not like a wardrobe that we select from each morning, but it is an essential part of who we are. nothing is just a social construct. We are no longer merely animals who can survive by our instincts alone.

 

[Paidiske]

Why? Can God not effect change (transformation) to bring about his original intention in those who he has redeemed for their sexuality - ie hetero-sexuality? Why could God not do this if he so wishes?

God can; we can't make it happen, though. We can - and do - do enormous damage trying.

 

[LightLoveHope]

A new report on boys and men from the American Psychological Association reminded me, again, why worldview is so important. The report is the first of its kind from the APA, which has previously issued guidelines for girls and women, as well as for so-called “sexual minorities.”

For years now, the APA has been at the forefront of legitimizing progressive gender and sexual ideologies, and this report is in that same vein. To put it mildly, their conclusions are less clinical recommendations than they are naked worldview assertions.

Of course, the report isn’t all false ideologies. It opens, in fact, by recognizing a true and painful reality: Men and boys in America are not doing well. They’re diagnosed with ADHD at twice the rate of girls, they perform worse on standardized tests, they’re suspended and expelled from school at a disproportionate rate. As they get older, men use drugs and alcohol more often. They don’t seek help for mental health issues like depression as frequently as women do. They commit 90 percent of homicides, and make up 77 percent of homicide victims. They account for 93 percent of federal prison inmates and are 3.5 times more likely than women to commit suicide. In fact, male suicides are up more than fifty percent in the U. S. since 1980. We’ve talked of these so-called “deaths by despair” a few times on BreakPoint.

Faced with all of these troubling realities, the APA identifies the problem with men as being “traditional masculinity,” which they define as “anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence.”

That’s not how I define traditional masculinity. Anti-femininity? Violence? That sounds like being a jerk. Reading between the APA’s straw-men and caricatures, it becomes clear what assumptions are really behind the report.

Traditional masculinity, the authors go on to argue, is socially constructed. Real gender is “non-binary,” the report says. In fact, even identifying male sex with masculine gender betrays “heteronormative assumptions.” In other words, masculinity does not objectively exist. It is whatever we make it. The report actually says, “Psychologists should help boys and men create their own concepts of what it means to be male.”

LGBT ideology is taken by the authors of the report as gospel. “It’s no longer just (a) male-female binary,” says one. The report criticizes “individuals with religious affiliations and conservative social and political views, who may equate masculinity with heterosexuality.” These folks, hints the APA, need to be cured of their errant views.

The game here is painfully obvious. This isn’t science, it’s a worldview that sees masculinity as anyone would have defined it just a generation ago as a problem needing to be solved. But as David French writes at the National Review, the APA has it all backward. The real plight of boys and men today coincides with our culture’s rejection of traditional masculinity, not the embrace of it! To say that the answer is to further deconstruct what it means to be a man is ludicrous.

Our society has no fixed categories of what it means to be a man, much less any resources for catechizing the next generation of men.

Rest of the story at link: BreakPoint: Pathologizing Masculinity - Break Point

Jordan Peterson is at the centre of a debate about this very issue.
The social justice warriors (sjw) and marxist followers have created a philosophy of life that says everything is power heirarchies, fighting for control through history.

One heirarchy they argue that is guilty of all the worlds evils is men and masculinity.
The problem is it actually falls apart very quickly.

Men are physical fighters, they go to war, they do the labour in society, and they sacrifice on behalf of their families, often supported and sent out by their mothers and fathers. To survive such turmoil, which every generation had to go through, you had to be blunt, goal centred and heroic. The societies that created men like this won and survived.

On the idea society created there roles, look at scandinavia where equality of the sexes exists and people can choose how to express themselves. Men choose to be masculine and women feminine, because it is in their makeup, and something they find fulfilling.

Unfortunately with the spread of pornograph, the loss of respect for roles and individuals, sexual attraction has become just desire, and increasing this desire above anything else has corrupted peoples view of one another. Families are a mixture of people, as a by product of these temporary sexual relations, and love and loyality has been lost. There are no real heros, or even fights worth fighting, except for make believe enemies.

Jesus asks us to be honest about our hearts, and walk in love with one another.
Jesus is our hero and the walk is a walk of love, that conquers all and walks into eternity.

It all starts with us and God. It is no surprise that these random ideas of blame are coming out, claiming that nothing is settled, because the speakers have no faith, and cannot accept any moral limits or boundaries of behaviour. The term lawlessness, and doing what is right in their own eyes, becomes very apparent. But the end of this is death.

In our natures we are born with love of our parents, and a desire to love and be loved. The further we move away from these realities the more disfunctional our ideas and life styles become.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

God never identifies as male, maleness refers to biological sex, masculinity and femininity are qualities.

What are those qualities? And do they suggest roles?

 

[Silmarien]

Given that creativity is a part of human nature, there is virtually no limit to the types of variance that a culture may have when it comes to expressions of gender roles. Change is the only constant.
The “intelligence” of female selection often finds expression at the level of phenerome and ‘vibe’ rather than actual conscious decision. The result is that the woman fuming over the man-splainer typically ends up choosing that man for a sexually partner rather than the more feminized male that fits better into her ideology. That is one of life’s wryer ironies.

You're painting a false dichotomy here. There's a whole spectrum of possibilities between being a "mansplainer" and being effeminate. A man can respect a woman's opinion without being feminized, and feminist ideology doesn't require that men be feminized at all. (Granted, I still don't know what that even means, since nobody seems to be providing useful definitions of masculinity and femininity at all.)

I think 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. Because they are attractive traits, not because they're inherently masculine ones. I don't think there are too many serious issues with the traditional image of the gentleman, though.

A woman whose sexual choices precludes most expressions of male masculine behaviour in society is not only forfeiting the continuance of the males genetic lineage into the future, but also her own. If what is stressed is the power dynamic and the conflict model of male vs female, everybody loses.
There is a often cognitive dissonance in what women often say they want in a man and what they select. My own guess is that crying and feminine behaviour on behalf of males is not sending out the kind of pheromones that the typical female will ever find all that attractive.

I would be careful with this. It's pure biological reductionism, so passing it off as somehow scientific is sending off the same warning bells for me that the materialistic atheists do on a regular basis. I don't think gender and sexuality can be reduced to the deterministic release of pheromones.

 

[StrivingFollower]

It's good for men to be tough and it's good for women to be tough. But it's not good for men to avoid toughness thinking it's somehow bad, and it's not good for women to avoid being sensitive, nurturers thinking it's something bad. The problem with modern philosophies is that that's what it's teaching people. Men are taking the easy way out in a falsely meek way, and women are too, but in a falsely tough, arrogant way. Many people are trying to be a caricature.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Jesus is male in his humanity. But God as God has no sex or gender.



I don't believe in those "obvious" differences arising from the human spirit (I don't believe in gendered spirits, nor do I see a Biblical basis for such a claim). I do believe men and women are socialised differently and may sometimes behave differently because of that.

The bible (and therefore God) makes a distinction between men and women from Genesis to Revelation. That's good enough for me.

Also I don't believe men or women can escape their human gender (with some abnormal exceptions of course) during our time on earth. If men, we think and act like men. Women as well.

Generally speaking you can differentiate between men and women by their physical appearance ( and their attendant abilities), which is profoundly different in most cases.

 

[The Barbarian]

Our culture is falling apart. No amount of 'self-criticism' will change it. It's the last days, we're circling the drain...doomed!

Socrates said so, after all...

Having become a crabby old white guy myself, I often have the same feelings. It comes with the territory. And every generation does it.

And it sometimes comes true, but mostly it doesn't.

 

[The Barbarian]

t's good for men to be tough and it's good for women to be tough. But it's not good for men to avoid toughness thinking it's somehow bad, and it's not good for women to avoid being sensitive, nurturers thinking it's something bad. The problem with modern philosophies is that that's what it's teaching people. Men are taking the easy way out in a falsely meek way, and women are too, but in a falsely tough, arrogant way. Many people are trying to be a caricature.

Most people I know don't play into that kind of thing. I do notice a lot of guys spending more time with their kids, in ways that would have embarrassed guys of my father's generation. That's a really good thing. Boys who spend more time with their fathers learn what masculinity is about, and girls who spend more time with their fathers become more understanding of men. Those are really good things.

If there's a noise outside the house at night, I go investigate. Not because it's a role, but because I'm bigger and (physically) more formidable than Mrs. Barbarian. I open doors for her, pull out her chair, and help her with her coat, not because she isn't perfectly capable of doing it, but because it's a social norm that says "this is my girl, and I want everyone to know I care for her."

On the other hand, if we have a disagreement with some company involving finances, she's the default bad guy. She has the mind of an auditor, and (trust me) she is not someone you would want to have to deal with in a dispute.

The first hint I got of Trump's loutish character was when he announced his campaign for president. Notice he followed his wife down the escalator.

A man always follows a woman up stairs and escalators, and always proceeds ahead of her going down. In the days when women wore heels, it made sense. He was there to stop her from falling if she tripped. It's now just a mark of respect, but it still matters.

None of that really defines masculinity or femininity. People worry too much about roles, I think.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Socrates said so, after all...

Having become a crabby old white guy myself, I often have the same feelings. It comes with the territory. And every generation does it.

And it sometimes comes true, but mostly it doesn't.

"Crabby old white guy"...I like it.

Perhaps I shouldn't be so concerned. After all it takes a very wealthy country to maintain the problems that we have.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A man always follows a woman up stairs and escalators, and always proceeds ahead of her going down. In the days when women wore heels, it made sense. He was there to stop her from falling if she tripped. It's now just a mark of respect, but it still matters.

When shopping (in a store with an escalator) I always followed my wife, as it was her shopping trip, in her element. I just followed along like a puppy dog with credit card in hand, and to carry stuff.

 

[Sparagmos]

If God is not Masculine or if its not an attribute of God, where does masculinity come from then?

"The very fact that through the entire history of human thought, from Greek to contemporary philosophy, the theme of 'existence' versus 'essence' has occupied the minds of men, means simply that there is no empirical observation which does not give us the sense of the wider implication. Every empirical fact contains its 'beyond'. The body of science, like those corpses in ancient legends, is always in search of a supplement d'ame. " ( Karl Stern. The Flight from Woman)

Is femininity an attribute of God?

 

[Sparagmos]

The Bible never said birds were made in God's Image. However it does say human beings are. Lewis's point is that gender has its origins in God. God is not made in our image, we are made in His, that were I get it the idea from, that and christian scholars like Lewis, Leanne Payne, Karl Stern.

Therefore god must have the qualities of both genders, and cannot be “masculine.”

 

[Sparagmos]

You're painting a false dichotomy here. There's a whole spectrum of possibilities between being a "mansplainer" and being effeminate. A man can respect a woman's opinion without being feminized, and feminist ideology doesn't require that men be feminized at all. (Granted, I still don't know what that even means, since nobody seems to be providing useful definitions of masculinity and femininity at all.)

I think 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. Because they are attractive traits, not because they're inherently masculine ones. I don't think there are too many serious issues with the traditional image of the gentleman, though.



I would be careful with this. It's pure biological reductionism, so passing it off as somehow scientific is sending off the same warning bells for me that the materialistic atheists do on a regular basis. I don't think gender and sexuality can be reduced to the deterministic release of pheromones.

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.

 

[SolomonVII]

You're painting a false dichotomy here. There's a whole spectrum of possibilities between being a "mansplainer" and being effeminate.

That wasn’t really the dichotomy I was trying to paint. It is the APA that is saying that men need to embrace their femininity. I was just taking note of who women often find themselves embracing.

A man can respect a woman's opinion without being feminized, and feminist ideology doesn't require that men be feminized at all. (Granted, I still don't know what that even means, since nobody seems to be providing useful definitions of masculinity and femininity at all.)

Women normally chose upward when it comes to men, someone who is 'more' on all of these attributes than they themselves as women are. That 'more' defines for them what masculine is. It is not really even a conscious choice. We do not chose who we are attracted to. Our bodies make that choice for us. Women chose more powerful, more connected, more successful, more completely assertive to the point of being aggressive. A man ingratiating himself to their own womanly opinions is not something that is normally regarded as virile masculine behaviour by the women herself.

Certainly woman can use their intelligence to supplant the choices that her body makes for her. Society itself often arranges sexual encounters and marriages on a whole variety of more rational reasons than simple attraction. But when it comes to recognizing masculinity and femininity, this is based in sexual choices and for those choices, we listen to our own bodies.


People have invited you to look at the biological differences, and how they become expressed in culture. Nobody is providing you with simple things like 'togas are effeminate and pants are manly'. Cultures vary widely in how masculinity and femininity are superficially expressed by symbols that are easily recognized by people raised in that culture. Those systems vary over cultures and over time. The fact that all cultures have developed these symbols is the constant. People that express themselves through the symbols that are associated with masculinity in that culture are perceived as manly. Those who express themselves by the symbols that are deemed feminine are perceived as more effeminate.
And that is how mansplaining is often regarded as manly by women who have learned to interpret masculinity that way. Their pheromones react accordingly.

I think 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. Because they are attractive traits, not because they're inherently masculine ones. I don't think there are too many serious issues with the traditional image of the gentleman, though.

Well there you go. You have a fairly well developed understanding of the masculinity that you find attractive in a man, and assuredly it is very similar to what everybody else would define as manly in our culture. As I mentioned in my agreement with fhansen on the topic above, it is not rocket science that you are asking to be explained. You are asking for an explanation to something that you already intuitively know, and have known since you were two or three.

I would be careful with this. It's pure biological reductionism, so passing it off as somehow scientific is sending off the same warning bells for me that the materialistic atheists do on a regular basis. I don't think gender and sexuality can be reduced to the deterministic release of pheromones.

What make it something other than reductionism is the insistence that it is respect for culture and religion that keeps us from being reduced to mere animal instincts. The symbols that any successful culture uses to express its masculinity and femininity are based in that biology. To the extent that they contradict that biology, they are untrue, ineffective.
Life is the body. Resurrection of the body is a belief system that acknowledges the body eternally. It is the opposite of reductionism when the body itself is life eternal.
The body itself is intelligent. It is well worth listening to. Listening to the body to discover what masculinity and femininity is also listening to two billion years of sexual evolution, listening to eons of archaic and archetypal myth that have been carved into the very archetypal structures of our psyches through that evolution and survival of what works.
That is much more intelligent than listening to any fleeting idea or philosophy to arrive at all of life's mysteries.

Your philosophy may not be able to discern the masculine from the feminine but your body certainly makes these discernments effortlessly.

The bottom line for life is survival. The kind of man that the psychologists are complaining about are the kind of men who have been socially engineered by the sexual revolution. If feminists find such men wanting, it is not just that version of masculinity that is being rejected. There is a bottom line. a feminism that reduces the ability to breed and raise competent men that their daughters are unwilling to breed with, and raise strong families around, is ultimately rejecting itself as well.

Doubling down is the strategy that the APA adopts. Personally, I don't think it is a good one.

 

[The Barbarian]

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.

That's a point a lot of people miss. If one is masculine and comfortable in being so, he has no fears of feminism. Indeed, a masculine person should be very happy about women being feminine. Maybe that's the real problem for some guys.

 

[Silmarien]

Women normally chose upward when it comes to men. They chose more powerful, more more connected, more successful. Succumbing to their womanly opinion is not something that is normally regarded as virile masculine behaviour.

"Womanly opinion"? What does that even mean? Do we care about facts and truth or about where ideas come from? If a woman is correct, why does it matter that she's a woman?

If a man can't admit when he is wrong and a woman is right, or when his own experiences cloud an objective picture of the world, how is that masculine behavior? I'd say it's a sign of fragility. I think you've got a picture of masculinity here that focuses on arrogance, egotism, and materialism, and I don't think it's a good thing to promote to young men.

People have invited you to look at the biological differences, and how they become expressed in culture. Nobody is providing you with simple things like togas are effeminate and pants are manly. Cultures vary widely in how masculinity and femininity are superficially expressed by symbols that are easily recognized by people raised in that culture. The fact that all cultures have developed these symbols is the constant.People that express themselves through the symbols that are associated with masculinity in that culture are perceived as manly. Those who express themselves by the symbols that are deemed feminine are perceived as more effiminate.
That is how mansplaining is often regarded as manly by women who have learned to interpret masculinity that way. Their pheromones react accordingly.

This is literally pseudo-science. Even if it's true, it doesn't really tell us anything. If a woman thinks the hallmark of masculinity is not respecting women's opinions, then that woman will interpret mansplaining as masculine behavior. If a woman realizes that the inability to accept a woman's opinion is a sign of insecurity, then she won't find mansplaining to be very masculine at all.

The biological differences, such as they exist, can be expressed culturally in many different ways. I'm still waiting for a clear explanation of what people mean by "traditional masculinity"--as far as I can tell, you associate it with the disregard for women's opinions. That's really not what I was expecting, and not something I see a biological link for at all.

Well there you go. You have a fairly well developed understanding of masculinity that you find attractive in a man, and assuredly it is very similar to what everybody else would define as manly.

Apparently not, if you think mansplaining is masculine. I think it's perfectly masculine for a man to treat a woman like an intellectual equal.

 

[SolomonVII]

" 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.

It passes from the sardonically wry to the farce of black humor to consider that so many women want to 'bring down the patriarchy'. Is it really in a woman's best interest to be on the side that rallies against the patriarchy as their placard?

The main point I have made here though is not against the absurdities of feminism that cannot be taken seriously, but to criticize conservatives such as David French and Alexandria.. of National Post and their shared podcast. Likewise it is to criticize the 'heroin hillbilly' social activist. 'Men as victims of society' in need of special programs and special treatment is the history of identity politics returning as full farce.

Men without a vision of patriarchy in their future know how to maximize the fun of this life, in a myriad of extreme or relaxing ways. In a world where lack of success translates into divorce for the male, with women rationally opting out, with or without marriage men are doing fine. They do not die of oppression of being rejected by women. The opoid addiction is not men escaping from an oppressive society.

If marriage is still the goal of men and women, and more and more it is not, the moral argument against men will be ineffective. Men by and large cannot be shamed into buying into a system that does not serve their wants and needs any more than not being married already does.
Men can rationally project themselves into a future marriage and rightly assess that there faults will lead to being walked out on. But, even without a woman committed to pushing the man to being all that he can be through her own vision of the partriarchy, life on the outside of marriage for men is still pretty good. Cheap drugs exponentially better than heroin is a thrill for the thrill seekers, freely chosen.

Selling men on the idea of marriage while at the same time railing against the patriarchy does not seem like the best marketing plan that intelligent people could come up with.

 

[SolomonVII]

"Womanly opinion"? What does that even mean?

It means that you are very touchy on the subject, which is normal and to be expected.

I like to watch Netflix series to see what artists have to say from the venue of popular culture. The visions of artists are important, I think.
How to Get Away with Murder is an excellent example of how 'mansplaining' is used in a social context. The one preppie kid was going on with his opinion, and the girl cuts him off with sarcasm remark about his mansplaining.
To me this was a sure sign that they were going to soon end up in passionate embrace.
And they did, of course. Art reflects life, after all. Otherwise it is just propaganda, and there is plenty of that in that series too.

A woman who sees something as toxic masculinity, also sees it as masculinity. Toxic just adds to the excitement for many.

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.

And vice versa of course. The same holds true of men and femininity.

 

[Silmarien]

It means that you are very touchy on the subject, which is normal and to be expected.

No, I'm asking you for clarification on what you mean by the term "womanly opinion." In the world of rational discourse, we back up opinions with evidence and argumentation, not with vague adjectives like "womanly" or "manly." I would like to know what you mean by these words and what types of opinions are being described thereby.

I am not being touchy about anything, except for your unwillingness to explain clearly and concisely what you mean here. Even then, I'm mostly disappointed, since I expected more.

I like to watch Netflix series to see what artists have to say from the venue of popular culture. The visions of artists are important, I think.
How to Get Away with Murder is an excellent example of how 'mansplaining' is used in a social context. The one preppie kid was going on with his opinion, and the girl cuts him off with sarcasm remark about his mansplaining.
To me this was a sure sign that they were going to soon end up in passionate embrace.
And they did, of course. Art reflects life, after all. Otherwise it is just propaganda, and there is plenty of that in that series too.

Art doesn't necessarily reflect life. Statistics and evidence reflect life, so if your argument is that it happens in romantic comedies, forgive me for not being impressed.

I admittedly dislike the term "mansplaining," because I think it can easily be used to shut people down because of who they are instead of actually addressing what they are saying. It's an easy way of avoiding a conversation, though no easier than accusing someone of being "touchy" for challenging your statements instead of actually engaging with them.

A woman who sees something as toxic masculinity, also sees it as masculinity. Toxic just adds to the excitement for many.

I hope the moral of this story isn't that we should encourage young men to be abusive and not try to correct young women who find the stalking and abuse in a book like Twilight titillating and romantic. Maybe we can encourage alcoholism and every other sort of vice while we're in the mood for really indulging the darker side of human nature.