Pathologizing Masculinity

[Yekcidmij]

.....but is that solely a "masculine trait"? Can't women ALSO defend themselves (or others), if the need arises?

Of course. Anyone can and should. But the article was about teaching boys how to behave and was written in such a way as to make it sound like boys should not be taught to act violently. I say in some cases it's warranted and boys should be taught as much.

But....that's another aspect of all this: it's NOT frowned upon for women to exhibit these supposed "masculine traits" - it's only in the reverse, when men express themselves in a way that's been stereotyped as "feminine" that there's an uproar (or criticism).

I dunno...this sounds like a stereotype in itself.

 

[bekkilyn]

It's really all going to boil down to the fact that "masculine" vs. "feminine" traits are all imaginary. The character traits that we should be most interested in and be promoting for all people as Christians are those of Christ.

 

[dzheremi]

I love this idea that there's some 'uproar' whenever a man allows himself to show any feelings. I don't recall anyone making fun of me a few years ago when we lost the family dog and my friend's two year old daughter put a bow in my hair to help me feel better. That was very "girly", but such a nice and sincere gesture. It seems that the ad and some of this thread have all men confused with a subset of men in their late teens and twenties who don't know how to behave, who aren't disciplined properly at the time, and so become men in their forties and fifties and beyond who don't know how to behave because they never faced any consequences for abhorrent behavior that they couldn't weasel their way out of in some way. It's a sad reality, but again, a multinational razor corporation isn't going to fix it with some ad pandering to the current political zeitgeist.

 

[redleghunter]

I only just saw the ad (I'm always late on these internet outrages), and I haven't read any other posts in this thread other than this page, but I have to ask: It's a razor company, right? Where are the razors in the ad for this razor company?

I don't need a razor company or any other corporation to tell me how to be a decent person. Geez Louise. What kind of ridiculous world are we living in?

Don't worry the Babylon Bee satire site has the Gillette deal all figured out:

Gillette Now Including Free Manly Side Bag With Every Purchase

 

[Yekcidmij]

I love this idea that there's some 'uproar' whenever a man allows himself to show any feelings.

I shed a tear at least at the end of Rudy, Shindler's List, and the actual Miracle on Ice replay. (quite a list, I know)

Achievement, strength, adventure, risk and violence....and emotions:

 

[redleghunter]

Can't women ALSO defend themselves (or others), if the need arises?

Indeed. My friend runs a concealed carry certification course in Texas. He says roughly 2/3rds are women in the class.

I guess with all the feminizing of men in the Western culture, women have to now go out and buy guns and protect themselves.

 

[redleghunter]

I shed a tear at least at the end of Rudy, Shindler's List, and the actual Miracle on Ice replay. (quite a list, I know)

Achievement, strength, adventure, risk and violence....and emotions:

Don't forget "Old Yeller." Yeah the book "Me and Marley" got me too.

 

[dzheremi]

How dare you both!

 

[redleghunter]

How dare you both!

Is that from Wednesday adult Bible study class?

 

[redleghunter]

I would hate for boys to want achievement, adventure and risk. I want my children to want to better themselves and be willing to make calculated risks.

That's why back in the day they sent young men to Airborne school in their late teens and early 20s. High adventure pumping in those years. I never thought twice jumping out of a perfectly good airplane with knees in the breeze at age 19.

 

[Paidiske]

Indeed. My friend runs a concealed carry certification course in Texas. He says roughly 2/3rds are women in the class.

I guess with all the feminizing of men in the Western culture, women have to now go out and buy guns and protect themselves.

No, that's got nothing to do with the feminising of men, and everything to do with the separate (but also deeply problematic) issue of America's gun culture.

Which is why in Australia we don't have (or need, or want) such a thing as concealed carry at all.

The question of emotions is interesting. I've lost count of the number of times just on CF I've run into people posting the "men are rational, women are emotional" trope (which I don't believe for a second, but it seems to be deeply ingrained). So it does seem to me that if that's your underlying belief about gender differences, you might look down on a man who seems to have abandoned rationality for the (implicitly inferior) mode of emotionality?

 

[mkgal1]

I love this idea that there's some 'uproar' whenever a man allows himself to show any feelings. I don't recall anyone making fun of me a few years ago when we lost the family dog and my friend's two year old daughter put a bow in my hair to help me feel better. That was very "girly", but such a nice and sincere gesture.

It sounds as if you're in good company (and have a healthy outlook on emotions). That's not always the case (and I'd even say it's a bit rare, culturally-speaking).

This is a difficult conversation to have, because it IS about general cultural trends (and, as you've pointed out, it doesn't apply to ALL men).

I have three brothers (and am an only daughter), so I'm well aware that it's fallacy that "men aren't emotional" (or....as Paidiske mentioned, the whole "men are rational/women are emotional"). Emotions - and their expression - are HUMAN (and men and women alike can either be removed from them or led by them too often). By introducing untruths (such as "women are so emotional and can't be trusted to ____" ) it's even more difficult for us to heal our cultural ailments.

 

[dzheremi]

My point was not even "NOT ALL MEN" or whatever, but that the ad in question is such a caricature of men that it's really unrelatable, and so it fails at what it was presumably intending to do: encourage men to be better people.

Think about it: if there were an ad that aimed at making women think about how to be better people, but it relied on sexist stereotypes of women being catty, gossipy strumpets, showing them by the dozens mindlessly repeating some shallow phrase about how women are like "diamonds are a girl's best friend" or whatever, only to end with a tagline along the lines of "Women: Is this really the best that you can do?", do you think it would be praised for encouraging women? Or do you think women would be right to respond with "Thanks for the moral lesson, multinational corporation, but I don't your reminder to not be a horrible person"?

It just seems very obviously calculated to appeal to a certain stream of modern politics, and very poorly done. There were ads only a few years ago that targeted much more specific male-centered problems than this, and hence didn't come off like stereotype-filled grandstanding from an advertising agency wanting to make its corporation appear virtuous (gee, I wonder why...), and yet today we get trash like this shoved down our throats and the only coherent message is "Men: is this really the best you can do?"
That's not effective, and the backlash had to be foreseen. (I'd be willing to bet they went ahead with it just to raise the profile of their brand.)

Here's an example of an anti-rape PSA from 1992 that is directly aimed at men -- very straight forward and effective, and avoiding the shameless nannying of the Gillette ad:

It says "Hey men: If you do this, it's rape. And that's bad. You shouldn't rape people. And if you do, you belong in jail."

Granted that might be a little too direct for today's consumer, who if the Gillette ad is correct prefers an amorphous "bad thing over here because kids too rough/dad too busy doing manly man stuff to care (and also caring is dangerously close to an emotion, ewwww gross)" almost parody sort of approach to talking about problems. And so the corresponding reaction is befittingly general because it comes off as finding a problem with men (the whole 'culture of being a man', if you will), rather than with their actions.

And speaking as one man, that is stupid, and this ad campaign ought to be given the Old Yeller treatment.

 

[mkgal1]

My point was not even "NOT ALL MEN" or whatever, but that the ad in question is such a caricature of men that it's really unrelatable, and so it fails at what it was presumably intending to do: encourage men to be better people.

My point was that it sounds as if, because you ARE in the company of healthy people with a good concept of emotional health and expression, you seem to be missing that - culturally - that ad is NOT that much of a caricature. Just read through this one thread, for example. If you fail to see it here - take a look around at a few other threads (specifically ones with topics about women's equality).

 

[mkgal1]

Think about it: if there were an ad that aimed at making women think about how to be better people, but it relied on sexist stereotypes of women being catty, gossipy strumpets, showing them by the dozens mindlessly repeating some shallow phrase about how women are like "diamonds are a girl's best friend" or whatever, only to end with a tagline along the lines of "Women: Is this really the best that you can do?", do you think it would be praised for encouraging women?

I don't see that as being the equivalent, because this ad by Gillette is trying to break out of the stereotypes...not play into them.

 

[dzheremi]

My point was that it sounds as if, because you ARE in the company of healthy people with a good concept of emotional health and expression, you seem to be missing that - culturally - that ad is NOT that much of a caricature. Just read through this one thread, for example. If you fail to see it here - take a look around at a few other threads (specifically ones with topics about women's equality).

I hate to play into an atheist's stereotype about Christians, but do you not think that the reaction to ideas of "women's equality" on this messageboard might be at least a little bit skewed from that of the general population because of the religious nature of this website? There are of course some very progressive churches and traditions in that area, but I would bet that the average Christian (or at least the average Protestant evangelical in the USA, where I am posting from and where such people make up the majority of Christians) is at least slightly more conservative in this area than the political bent that this type of advertising is catering to. And of course there are other traditions that for various reasons are more conservative than that.

I don't think you can take this place as any kind of representative sample of anything other than what people who post on Christianforums.com think.

 

[dzheremi]

I don't see that as being the equivalent, because this ad by Gillette is trying to break out of the stereotypes...not play into them.

I didn't say that they would be equivalent. I asked if you would think of such an ad as being encouraging of women to be better people.

And maybe the fact that something that was apparently trying to break out of stereotypes came across as so stereotypical in its treatment of men is a good indication of its failure to reach its goal.

 

[Paidiske]

I had to play into an atheist's stereotype about Christians, but do you not think that the reaction to ideas of "women's equality" on this messageboard might be at least a little bit skewed from that of the general population because of the religious nature of this website? There are of course some very progressive churches and traditions in that area, but I would bet that the average Christian (or at least the average Protestant evangelical in the USA, where I am posting from and where such people make up the majority of Christians) is at least slightly more conservative in this area than the political bent that this type of advertising is catering to. And of course there are other traditions that for various reasons are more conservative than that.

I don't think you can take this place as any kind of representative sample of anything other than what people who post on Christianforums.com think.

It's certainly skewed, here, compared to my everyday life. I have trouble working out if that's because the majority here are a different kind of Christian, or because they're American, or how those realities intersect (not having anywhere else where I regularly interact with Americans).

It is true that in real life, people don't say to my face the things they say to me on CF. But when it comes to actual decisions which impact me, (to do with education or employment or roles in church or the like), I encounter plenty of real problems in real life. And people might express that slightly more politely, but the outcome is just as damaging.

 

[Gigimo]

Don't worry the Babylon Bee satire site has the Gillette deal all figured out:

Gillette Now Including Free Manly Side Bag With Every Purchase

I thought murses were smaller than that??

 

[Gigimo]

Indeed. My friend runs a concealed carry certification course in Texas. He says roughly 2/3rds are women in the class.

Let me guess it's southern Texas?