Pathologizing Masculinity

[Gigimo]

most men where we live do hold doors open

You must have real/polite women there.

 

[Paidiske]

Honestly, hold the door, don't hold the door; it doesn't matter to me.

Just don't hold it shut in my face (metaphorically).

 

[redleghunter]

Let me guess it's southern Texas?

Central Texas

 

[SolomonVII]

The further south you go in the Americas, the more that there is gun violence.
With the speed of guns, the guy protecting even a room away is too slow. It is not a bad idea for women in Brazil etc to be armed, for sure.

Everyone's running just to keep up. It is a good sign of leadership and independence that providing for your families protection, gun ownership is becoming ungendered more and more. Gun culture is not easy for most countries to police. Corrupt countries are as if the police did not exist.

It is a mistake of many bad marriages, I think, to mistake leadership for power. There can never be too much leadership when the goal leads us. The vision is to find ways of being effective, working around each others faults even towards that common goal.

Ultimately it is a genetic business deal oriented to the future. The passion can run as cold as it sometimes is hot. The common goal of marriage is always going to be bringing your 'procreatlings' from that state of dependence to independence in such a way that they are well accepted by the people around them.
It is a matter of personality if that goal is reached independently or through team work.
Trust is in understanding that there is one other person in the world that is as dedicated to that goal as oneself is.

It takes such belief to have children, belief in the future, belief in society being vibrant, belief in the potential for goodness of this world. There is a streak of nihilism running through our centuries that doubts all of that. It plays itself out in the extremes more in males, but otherwise genderless.
Jesus had a certain joie de vivre to be certain, wine of weddings and the freedom of a nomad walking from here to there on the road. It is passion of another kind that wants children. Jesus leaves the fulfilling of the Isaiah prophesy "everlasting father" to us.

 

[dzheremi]

The further south you go in the Americas, the more that there is gun violence.

Stay out of Patagonia

 

[SolomonVII]

The two women asked Jordan Peterson how where he came from affected who he still was. A tale of oppression from grandma's day may give a clue.

Her own home was on the south side of a boreal forest separating Fairview from that last continuous stretch of the North American Plain stretching across the west of the continent. What her and her friends found oppressive back in that day was a Russian man and his Russian wife breaking the land in that region for farming. The man was behind the plow and the wife was pulling it. She would have a baby in the morning and be back pulling the plow after lunch.

By way of comparison, life in the urbane cities of the world is a lot more genteel. Like in a Andrew Klavan audio novel, elfin oriental wisps of femininity flutter past as if air creatures, and it is a very easy resolve for most men to put their lives on the line to protect something so feminine, and delightful.

On the other hand, from what is oppressing that Russian wife, terror is the proper response, I think. I imagine the men of any age will do well to run ahead of her away from anything that she finds oppressive.
Peterson would have been one generation removed from a people who experienced the harshest of prairie condition as the exhilarating thrill of freedom from serfdom and servitude. They would do whatever it takes to make it work. Even pulling the plow until they got the horse, and the tractor soon enough too.
And they did make it work, overwhelmingly.

You can see that spirit in Peterson's work, if you know where to look.

 

[RDKirk]

Oh awesome. Domestic servitude coupled with being a baby making machine, or singleness.

Nope, we can do better than that.

The MGTOW movement says marriage is no better for men and also choose singleness.

 

[Paidiske]

The MGTOW movement says marriage is no better for men and also choose singleness.

I don't have a problem with marriage. I have a problem with a model of marriage which ties either person to specific oppressive roles.

As far as I can tell, the MGTOW movement seems to hold at its core a sense that marriage is a way of buying sex and domestic servitude, the cheaper the better; and that if they can't have that, they're better off single. Frankly, folks with that attitude don't seem like marriage material to me anyway...

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Stay out of Patagonia

Well that's why you dont let Bender lead the penguins!

 

[mkgal1]

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.

This is what the article said:

Psychologists strive to reduce the high rates of problems boys and men face and act out in their lives such as aggression, violence, substance abuse, and suicide. Rationale Although the vast majority of males are not violent, boys and men commit nearly 90% of violent crimes in the United States (United States Department of Justice, 2011). Many boys and men have been socialized to use aggression and violence as a means to resolve interpersonal conflict (Moore & Stuart, 2005). Family, peers, and media often reinforce the connection between aggressive behavior and masculinity (Kilmartin & McDermott, 2015; Kilmartin & Smiler, 2015). Childhood physical and/or sexual abuse victimization has been found to be a significant precursor to aggressive behavior in boys and men (Jennings, Piquero, & Reingle, 2012; Tyler, Johnson, & Brownridge, 2008). Other risk factors for aggressive behavior include poor parental and teacher supervision, low academic achievement, frequent viewing of violent media, and living in high crime neighborhoods (Reese et al., 2008). For some men, perpetrating violence, including violence against gender-diverse people, serves to protect and enhance the perpetrator’s own masculinity (Reigeluth & Addis, 2016). Therefore, aggression may serve as public behavior wherein men can prove their masculinity, either against a worthy rival or against those considered unworthy of the label man (K. Franklin, 2004; Whitehead, 2005), in order to bolster confidence in their masculine identity. Men are at high risk of being the victims of violent crime (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2015). For African American males ages 10 to 24, homicide is the leading cause of death; it is the second leading cause of death for Hispanic youth of the same ages (United States Department of Justice, 2011). Men who have experienced violence and abuse in childhood are more likely to have higher rates of mental illness (Cashmore & Shackel, 2013). Men who are violent toward their partners are more likely to have been physically abused and/ or witnessed domestic violence as children

Self defense is not a "problem" men and boys face. This article isn't about violence as a means for self defense.​

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

Can you think of any equivalent saying that's aimed at women - that's calling out their 'masculine' behavior - to "stop crying like a girl"?

 

[Yekcidmij]

Self defense is not a "problem" men and boys face. This article isn't about violence as a means for self defense.​

Can you define interpersonal conflict? If I'm a young boy and someone shoves me saying, "give me that toy," am I not allowed to shove back and tell them to get lost as a means of resolving this interpersonal conflict?

Can you think of any equivalent saying that's aimed at women - that's calling out their 'masculine' behavior - to "stop crying like a girl"?

Nope...only men stereotype behavior. I've never seen men's behavior negatively stereotyped in my life. Especially not just now....

 

[mkgal1]

Can you define interpersonal conflict? If I'm a young boy and someone shoves me saying, "give me that toy," am I not allowed to shove back and tell them to get lost as a means of resolving this interpersonal conflict?

I'd define interpersonal conflict as merely being conflict between two people.

As to your scenario - the problem began with the first boy using violence instead of words in order to resolve his issue of wanting a toy. For one thing.....what makes him believe he's even entitled to that toy?

By shoving back, what does that solve? That only escalates the problem. That's not a matter of self defense.

Nope...only men stereotype behavior. I've never seen men's behavior negatively stereotyped in my life. Especially not just now....

That was just my point.

"Men's traits" aren't negatively stereotyped - there aren't sayings that demean stereotypical "male characteristics". The ways to demean a person are to use what's considered stereotypical "feminine behavior". IOW...."don't cry like a girl"...."throw like a girl"...."stop being such a girl about it". We don't use insults like that using stereotypical male characteristics.

About "driving like a girl": my husband follows NHRA (National Hot Rod Assoc), and I do appreciate the gender equality in that sport. In that context....this is "driving like a girl":

Men and women race side by side and compete with one another. There isn't a "female class" and "male class". Typically - in NHRA - the distinction isn't pointed out, this was a one-time award.

 

[Yekcidmij]

I'd define interpersonal conflict as merely being conflict between two people.

As to your scenario - the problem began with the first boy using violence instead of words in order to resolve his issue of wanting a toy. For one thing.....what makes him believe he's even entitled to that toy?

By shoving back, what does that solve? That only escalates the problem. That's not a matter of self defense.

Shoving back would be reciprocation, not escalation.

Men's behavior isn't negatively stereotyped

Of course it is. You're doing it now by attributing some phrases you've heard as coming from men in general as if there's a class of "men" who behave uniformly.

 

[mkgal1]

Shoving back would be reciprocation, not escalation.

....and you think that would end everything? A shove.....a shove back....and both just consider it all "even and done with" and walk away?

I disagree. I believe a shove back would only escalate things.

Of course it is. You're doing it now by attributing some phrases you've heard as coming from men in general as if there's a class of "men" who behave uniformly.

You snipped my poorly-worded comment, making it even more misunderstood.

My point was - we have all these sayings that demean/put down what we've [wrongly] classified as female traits - but there's nothing on the other side that puts down/demeans the typically considered [also wrongly] traits (I should have used that word - not "behavior") assigned to men (which are stereotypically traits like: powerful; tough; stoic; courageous; protective). If a woman shows courageous protectiveness - she's not (usually) metaphorically chastised or put down for it - she's typically praised for it (which there's nothing wrong with). It's because the traits are poorly distinguished - they aren't male/female traits after all - they are HUMAN traits that both genders possess.

Those phrases I mentioned come from men AND women (and recently I'm noticing that it's typically women that are the hardest on other women). They are cultural phrases. We're talking about (or *I* am, anyway) cultural issues - not individual issues (which is what makes it so complicated, it seems). I'm on the side of believing in individuality and not stereotypes (see my signature?). I can't stand stereotyping........but we can't ignore cultural concerns.

 

[Yekcidmij]

....and you think that would end everything? A shove.....a shove back....and both just consider it all "even and done with" and walk away?

I've seen plenty of interpersonal conflicts among children end that way. And even if it doesn't, it still doen't change the fact that the nature of the 2nd action (shoving back) is reciprocal in nature. If the first boy responds again by taking it further, then it's HIS action that escalates just as it's HIS action that escalated things in the first place

I disagree. I believe a shove back would only escalate things.

I think shoving back is by definition a reciprocal act. If the boy gets a baseball bat and clubs him over the head then clubs his friends just to be safe, that would be an example of [extreme] escalation.

Is there any room for reciprocity in behavior on your view?

 

[mkgal1]

I've seen plenty of interpersonal conflicts among children end that way. And even if it doesn't, it still doen't change the fact that the nature of the 2nd action (shoving back) is reciprocal in nature. If the first boy responds again by taking it further, then it's HIS action that escalates just as it's HIS action that escalated things in the first place



I think shoving back is by definition a reciprocal act. If the boy gets a baseball bat and clubs him over the head then clubs his friends just to be safe, that would be an example of [extreme] escalation.

Is there any room for reciprocity in behavior on your view?

Okay, but the whole point of the article (that I understand) is that shoving shouldn't be the "go-to" means to resolve the conflict of wanting to obtain what another person possesses. There are other ways - and children should learn that putting their hands on another isn't the way to resolve conflicts (what we learn as children - we carry on into life).

I'm more concerned about the original action (and not so much the response). This is relevant to the Gillette ad - where the boys are tumbling on the ground and fighting. One group of men make the statement, "boys will be boys", but later on in the ad, a man goes over and breaks up the fight and says, "Hey. We don't treat each other like that." (paraphrasing). ISTM that you'd be in the first group (saying, "boys will be boys"). Like the ad says, "we can do better than that", because the boys of today are the men of tomorrow (also from the ad).

 

[Yekcidmij]

Okay, but the whole point of the article (that I understand) is that shoving shouldn't be the "go-to" means to resolve the conflict of wanting to obtain what another person possesses.

Of course. I'm pretty libertarian. I wouldn't think that shoving someone else to take their stuff should ever be conducted. However, shoving back to protect their stuff might be a different story. I personally would teach physical self defense as a last resort, but a potential resort none-the-less. So I disagree that "violence" would never be a mean of resolving "interpersonal conflict." It would be an unfortunate means and potentially costly means of "resolution," but sometimes boys (and girls, btw) have to do what's necessary.

(In my years of doing MMA/Muay Thai/boxing, plenty of girls can hang in a tussle with boys, so I'm not excluding them here. It's really a matter of training and smarts. The ad was just about men and boys.)

I'm more concerned about the original action (and not so much the response). This is relevant to the Gillette ad - where the boys are tumbling on the ground and fighting. One group of men make the statement, "boys will be boys", but later on in the ad, a man goes over and breaks up the fight and says, "Hey. We don't treat each other like that." (paraphrasing). ISTM that you'd be in the first group (saying, "boys will be boys"). Like the ad says, "we can do better than that", because the boys of today are the men of tomorrow (also from the ad).

I'm not even sure what the caricatures in the ad are tussling over among other crucial elements. How can I make a judgment when I lack essential contexts? I thought we weren't supposed to be stereotyping....? Yet here you are...

 

[dzheremi]

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).

I'm a bit confused concerning this part of your response, Paidiske. Are you saying that it seems that Americans are more sexist than Australians, South Africans, or other people you interact with more regularly and/or in real life? If so, do you have any idea as to why that might be? Just curious, as I don't have much of a chance to interact with Australians anymore (used to as a kid/teenager, as my mother worked for an Australian pediatrician for about twelve years before she passed; quite a nice man).

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.

Hmm. I don't know about Australia or elsewhere, but in the United States men are the minority on college campuses. It's actually starting to be recognized as being something of a problem by some institutions, which are now working specifically to recruit men.

Employment statistics are of course harder to make sense of due to what is seen as the traditional division of labor in the United States that in some sense encouraged women to stay at home (except during the WWII years, for obvious reasons) while men went out to work, which only began being challenged on a society-wide level in the 1960s or so. From the latest US Bureau of Labor Statistics data I could find (from 2017), it seems that women make up some 47% of the U.S. labor force, and nearly 40% of people in management positions, with some fields being significantly higher than that:

If you go to the link you can see the median weekly earnings of each position for which data was available, which range from $764 to $1,283. This is significantly lower than the average weekly wage for men (women on average earn 81.8% of their male counterparts in the same industries), though I couldn't find the averages for men in these specific professions, only overall (and only for 2018; I don't know how things compared in 2016). One thing that is not clear from the statistics that I have been able to find is how many of the weekly hours beyond the "full-time worker" threshhold of 35 hours (which is five less than the US 'standard' full-time week to begin with) is taken up by male vs. female workers, e.g., if men work 40+ to women working 35-40, which obviously might account for some of the disparity (or not, because again, that's not in the available write up at the link, as far as I could see), since in most cases it is probably illegal to pay different hourly wages based purely on sex (the Equal Pay Act of 2010 and other legislation providing the means for any such irregularities to be addressed by law, via the EEOC).

I would assume that Australia, being a modern and progressive country up to the standards of most Western countries in matters such as these would have similar laws and government bodies to address disparities in pay between the sexes, but again I don't really know. I'd be interested to know how these statistics compare to those of your country. I have only known a few Australian women in my life, and we never discussed these matters.

And people might express that slightly more politely, but the outcome is just as damaging.

That is truly shameful. I would hope that men and indeed all people would pay more respect to a person who has dedicated their life to Christian ministry as you have, despite any disagreements on the particulars of social, political, and religious issues. I already expressed my confusion earlier concerning what exactly you think about their/our being American might have to do with responses you get here on CAF (I know that there is the general stereotype of Americans as being loud and boorish, but this is a stereotype that some hold of Australians , or at least those of the bogan variety, which I'm not sure that the average American can separate from Australians more generally, given that we Americans are also stereotyped as not knowing much about other countries), but being of a different Christian Church is more obvious to me, since we in the Coptic Orthodox Church do not have female priests or bishops as the Anglicans or others might. That shouldn't be an excuse to be purposely rude to anyone, though. Lord have mercy.

 

[Paidiske]

I'm a bit confused concerning this part of your response, Paidiske. Are you saying that it seems that Americans are more sexist than Australians, South Africans, or other people you interact with more regularly and/or in real life? If so, do you have any idea as to why that might be? Just curious, as I don't have much of a chance to interact with Australians anymore (used to as a kid/teenager, as my mother worked for an Australian pediatrician for about twelve years before she passed; quite a nice man).

I'm saying there's more blatant sexism on CF than I encounter in real life, but I don't know whether that's because of the religious or cultural background (ie. is it because they're mostly conservative Protestants, or is it because they're mostly American, or is it some weird amalgam of both?)

Briefly to the rest of your points, because I'm in a hurry just now, in theory Australia has good anti-discrimination laws, but I have found that most organisations are able to work around them. I have faced significant discrimination in the (secular) workplace and in higher education.

 

[bekkilyn]

I'm saying there's more blatant sexism on CF than I encounter in real life, but I don't know whether that's because of the religious or cultural background (ie. is it because they're mostly conservative Protestants, or is it because they're mostly American, or is it some weird amalgam of both?)

Briefly to the rest of your points, because I'm in a hurry just now, in theory Australia has good anti-discrimination laws, but I have found that most organisations are able to work around them. I have faced significant discrimination in the (secular) workplace and in higher education.

I think part of it is also because it's the internet and people seem to believe that they can be more obnoxious to others who appear to just be words on the screen and not "real" people. Also, people post more "anonymously" under user names so feel more bravado about making bigoted statements against other people. What concerns me is that the internet is a fairly good testing ground for what many people seem to have hidden in their hearts, even if they behave differently in the outside world where there may be more accountability to others.