The main ways we differ are to do with our physiology, not our behaviour.
That's cool. I think physiology affects behavior. I think its fine if we disagree on that. The science on that issue itself is not settled.
But we are dealing here with stereotypes; the idea of masculine and feminine is a stereotypical binary.
I don't think there is anything wrong with taking a set of traits and labeling them as "A" and another set of traits and labeling them as "B" and then saying that group A tends to exhibit A more than group B, and group B tends to exhibit B more than group A, if you note that both members of group A and group B exhibit A and B. If you were running a scientific experiment with a group of rats, or anything else you could speak and analyze tendencies in that manner.
If you replace A and B with "masculine" and "feminine" you have the same thing. I think your issue with the terms is that you believe that they suggest that certain traits are exclusive to men and that others are exclusive to women, or that the traits have an extremely high correlation with the respective genders (e.g. "men are rational, women are emotional").
If you wanted to change the terms from "masculine" and "feminine" to something else ("A" and "B" for example), to lessen the danger of the stereotyping effect of the terms themselves, I would be fine with with that, but I would still take the position that men are still more likely to exhibit "A" and women are more likely to exhibit "B".
But the point is, if you look at the bell curve, most of us inhabit the overlap on almost all traits. Very few of us operate outside a range that is common to both men and women.
Well to be clear I never put much stock in the particular picture that you posted. I don't think it is based on any real, hard data, but was presented as more of a conceptual schematic to illustrate an idea. To get an actual idea for what the actual distributions are I think we would need much more than that, if that task is even possible at all. It's not exactly easy to measure "aggressiveness," "emotional expressiveness," or numerous other behavioral characteristics in a truly quantitative matter. Even defining the terms themselves and the methodology used to test for them would be subject to considerable debate.
1. To observe cognitive or hormonal differences does not mean we can say that particular behaviours are biologically determined; mostly they're not.
True, but nor does it follow that behavioral differences result from or are attributable to environmental or cultural factors.
I think this is essentially the "nature" versus "nuture" debate that has been going on for the past 100 years. My view on that is that behavior is attributable to both genetic and environmental factors. I think that to ignore the significance of either factor would be incorrect.
2. To use these on-average differences at a population level to define narrow and restrictive gender roles harms all those who don't fit within those narrow restrictions; which at some point will be most of us.
I agree, but I don't advocate for that.
I am not arguing for sameness. I am actually arguing that each person is a unique individual, created, gifted and called according to God's purpose. You can't stick each of us into a box labelled "man" or "woman" and think that defines our potential. You have to take each person for who they are, and sometimes that will highly conform with our gender stereotypes, and sometimes it won't, and either way, that person is still God's good creation.
Well, those terms define our potential to give birth to children.
But not to be difficult, I agree with you. I share the same view. We want to consider each person as an individual, not put him or her into a box, restrict him or her based on preconceived notions.
I'll say this though, I think that concept is incongruent with using terms like "toxic masculinity", "male privilege", and "the patriarchy". Terms like that, in my view, tend to lump all of together as exhibiting certain behaviors or having certain benefits resulting from an unjust society. The use of the terms denies each of our own unique experiences as men on the Earth, in my opinion.
I really appreciate your openness to the discussion.
Thanks. I hate being wrong but its better to be in the truth rather than to remain in error to preserve one's ego.
Whenever we get into the language of what is "natural" we get into the territory of biological determinism. I don't think it's got anything to do with men being more "naturally" inclined to work; I'd argue, in fact, that the industrial revolution and the rise of the "nuclear family" has severed work from home life and caring responsibilities in a way which our pre-modern ancestors would have found quite unnatural, and that that is what created this binary of "men work and women care."
Probably there I could use better terminology than "natural". I meant it in the sense that depending on the particular environment in which one finds oneself, it may be generally more efficient for men to work. Like, if you are cavemen living in a cave, and one person has to go out hunting, it may be better for the men to go out, because well, we run faster than ya'll.
I didn't mean that in an absolute sense, without considering the environment. Obviously we are no longer living in caves, its more efficient to have a different balance when it comes to work roles.
In times before that, most people worked in forms of subsistence agriculture, most people lived in households of more extended family, everyone worked, and everyone contributed to care, according to their abilities and the needs of the group, because that was necessarily for survival. So you might, for example, see a grandmother caring for a clutch of small children while their mothers - who were younger and physically fitter - were out in the fields. And you still see that sort of pattern in subsistence-agriculture communities today.
Sure. I am sure that there have been huge variations throughout place in time. The main point I was attempting to make with that discussion was that norms with respect to work can develop based on the physical differences between genders. I honestly don't know what goes on in subsistence agriculture communities, but I don't think you would be surprised if there are divisions based on gender even there (like, men generally mow the lawn because the lawnmower is heavy and we are usually more capable of generating physical force to push it, to give a cliched example.). It's not necessarily some wayward cultural programming from domineering men that causes the norms.
Now granted, if I demonstrate that biological differences have had an affect on some of the work norms that have developed, that is not proof that other factors, such as wayward cultural norms meant to benefit men, are not also at play. That is still a provable hypothesis.
No, I'm not just talking about what's attributable to a break from work. I'm talking about all the other impacts - the not being offered promotions or opportunities because mothers are seen as unreliable or not good prospects for the employer - the unequal pay for equal work (which routinely still happens), and so on.
I'm talking about the phenomenon where employers give mothers work which is less valued, and sidetrack them from opportunities, and so on.
I had a very stark illustration of that at one point. One of the bishops in my diocese gathered together all the ordained women here who had children of pre-school age to talk to us about the particular issues and struggles we face. This was a group of intelligent, gifted, capable women with a great range of skill, experience and wisdom between us.
Not one of us was working full time. Every one of us would have liked more work than we were being offered. Every one of us found that the opportunities we would have liked were offered to young fathers, but not to us, because people made negative assumptions about our ability and willingness to take those roles on and do them capably (seeing our having children as a deficit). Where they saw the young guys having a family as a bonus! And so on.
That's the "mummy track." The place women who are gifted and capable and want to do more get sidelined because people assume that as mothers, we "naturally" are not inclined to work.
Thanks. I understand what you mean now. Yes, that form of discrimination is unfortunate. It does exist although we have laws that prohibit it. They are often difficult to enforce.
I'm actually somewhat surprised to hear about your personal experience because my impression is that Anglicans are one of the most progressive denominations when it comes to women pastors. I suppose that impression is unfounded in some areas of the church.
I think it's pretty gross to suggest that dad is less invested. And it denies the emotional complexity of being a new mother.
I'm not sure why it is gross. I did not say that the mother loves the child more than the father. What I meant was that, all other things considered equal, the woman is the one who has to physically carry the child for nine months. That is not an investment that the man makes. Whatever support he offers, I think it would be difficult for him to invest something that matches that.
I think women all time echo the same sentiment when they say "my body my choice" (not that I am pro-choice). The idea there I think is that the person who carries the child should have the choice, because she is the one who has to make the who will have make the physical sacrifice.
I've known some people who've moved here from America to suggest that we are some decades behind, socially. I'm not sure if it's "behind" or just "developing slightly differently."
Your mum did really well. But the thing is, even if most women who do actually leave an abuser do well, the fear of homelessness - the fear of being on welfare and that not being sufficient to support your child, and so forth - all of those fears are often enough to keep a dependent woman stuck in an abusive situation.
Thanks. That is a fair point. Yes, I think those fears could be a factor that causes a woman to stay with an abuser. In that case I would say that we should offer more social support structures, so that that fear can be eliminated.
That's horrible when it happens to anyone. Of course, lots of wives find that they get dumped for a younger, hotter model.
True. I think that is kind of the image that persists, but its interesting to me that the vast majority of divorces in the USA are now initiated by women. I think that most divorces are initiated by women here is some evidence that they lack dependence on men, and have a good ability to thrive on their own. But it could be the case that most women who divorce are the ones who have more successful careers, as opposed to one who are the more "stay-at-home" type. Would be interesting to see some data on it.
No, that wasn't really what I was saying. I was saying that each of us tends to develop patterns of toxic behaviour congruent with our social situation.
OK. That's fair.
"Toxic masculinity" refers to more than a grouping of individual bad actions. It's about how those actions exist within narrow and repressive ideas of what it is to be a man, that define masculinity in terms of hyper-masculinity, and often in terms of violence, lack of emotion, sexual aggression, and so on. It's about the ideals our society holds and the narratives which shape it.
There might possibly be a female counterpart - narratives which provide very narrow and repressive gender roles for women, that define us in terms of hyper-femininity, in terms of passivity, excessive emotion, asexuality, and so on; but that is the flip side of toxic masculinity and again, an expression of the patriarchal norms which we inhabit; dismantling one will help dismantle both.
Well then, since the media has talked "toxic masculinity" to death over the past few years, I propose that we should talk exclusively about "toxic femininity" for the next few years, since dismantling one will dismantle both, and a goal is equality.
I highly doubt that women would agree to that. Many, if not most, women who talk about "toxic masculinity" will not even admit that the term "Toxic femininity" is valid in any context.
Given that the underlying concept can be framed and dismantled as "toxic masculinity" or "toxic femininity" as you note above, why is the issue only framed and discussed in terms of "toxic masculinity"? I'll offer my opinion on this all-too-important question. Because the concept that you described above is merely a guise. The intent behind the use of the term is simply to denigrate men and behavior such as aggressiveness, stoicism, etc., which are more commonly exhibited by men. It is a thinly veiled attack on men themselves, and one could easily have found another way of discussing the concepts above without using a term that implies by its very words that masculinity is toxic.
Now that could or could not be the case or the true intention. Perhaps the intention differs among the different people who use it. But in any case I think that is how the phrase is perceived and understood by most men who hear it.
As a second proposal, stop using both phrases.
Well, sure. Reality is complicated and messy.
But threads like this, narratives like this, and so much more, are part of that complicated and messy reality. It would help if, when men who don't share these controlling views encounter this kind of discussion, they could see the problem with the attack on women, rather than jumping straight to "don't talk about abuse as a gendered reality!" In the context of this thread, it's very much a gendered discussion.
OK I will admit that I did jump into the thread not intending to participate in the general discussion on the initial topic of the thread (although I did give a few thoughts on the general topic at some point). I was just skimming through it and saw something that peaked my interest and commented on it. I am guilty of hijacking the thread. We'll call it a venial sin.