Edit: Meant to drop a prefix, just to say that I've NEVER read any gender theory so I apologise if my brilliant ideas are basically exactly the same as the lifetime work of theorist X.
I feel like post-modernism has done a bit of a disservice to the idea of being a man.
Used to be there was a very clear defined concept of a man. White, straight, strong, brash, bold, good with women, drinker, smoker, good lover, straight talker. A post modern view of things challenges this discourse. To be a man isn't any of those things. It's a construct like any other- and as ficticious as any structure you care to name. Hetrosexuality and success with women doesn't define a man. Nor does clothing, nor an appitite for violence, nor the car you drive. Even the idea of definition through physicallity or chromosomes doesn't define one as a man, at least so far as gender is considered as a construct, epecially as we look at genderqueer types of identities.
I don't have a problem with the disintegration of the fixed and specific view of a man. I wonder though at how it seems to leave us with with the question; if we don't have this as a clear, concise idea of what a man IS or should be, what IS a man? What should a man endevour to be?
Nietzche rejected the idea of God and of meaning in life, but importantly HE ALSO REJECTED NIHILISM. What I worry about is that as a gender concept we have rejected the idea of the existing concept of masculinity, but failed to endevour to replace it. We have a nihilistic view of gender, as far as the post modern view is concerned.
False constructs of gender, while conventionally still challenged, still find power in their circulation through media and advertising. We draw the net a bit wider; there's a whole indistry for you if you're gay now, but there's still a very narrowly defined view of what a man should be, should want, should need. My problem is that if we choose to reject this corporate fantasy land, we end up with a choice between returning to it, or gender nihilism.
I don't like the idea of gender nihilism because gender IS important. Returning to the genderqueer idea, the whole concept of identifying as a gender other than that which one is biologically does not to me lessen, but heighten the importance of gender. People choosing; against all social stigma, choose to identify with a particualr gender. For some reason, more than social acceptence or convention, gender MATTERS.
I don't feel like we need a single alternative to the popular media views of what a man is. Counter-culture is a great tale of where that road goes; generally nowhere, and sometimes somewhere, for just long enough to get co-opted, repackaged and sold as part of the system is was made to oppose. Rather I feel what we need is a sense that corporate gender stories need not only be destroyed (leaving a gaping void of nothingness), but replaced with new gender narratives, a personal sense of mission to develop as a man in a way that upholds a set of shifting values. For us to individually not just decide that gender is meaningless and stop there, but in rejecting the corporate narrative dedicate some part of ourselves to determaining a new narrative that tells us,
WHAT is a man, and
WHAT does this tell me about who I am, and who I ought to be.
Why can't i walk down a street
free of suggestion?
Is my body the only trait in the eye's of men?
I've got some skin
You want to look in
There lays no reward in what you discover
You spent yourself watching me suffer
Suffer you words, suffer your eyes, suffer your hands
Suffer your interpretation
of what it is (what it is)
what it is (what it is)
what it is (what it is)
TO BE A MAN!
I've got some skin
You want to look in
She does nothing to deserve it
He only wants to observe it
We sit back
like they taught us
We keep quiet
like they taught us
He just wants to prove it
She does nothing to remove it
We don't want anyone to mind us
So we play the roles that they assigned us
She does nothing to conceal it
He touches her 'cause he wants to feel it
We blame her for being there
But we are all
guilty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCSM9QNZzLg
So to summarize your post (want to make sure I'm reading you right) - - - - -
The substance of "manliness" is getting shaken up by the idea that gender is a social construct. Modern examples and representations of men have confused the existing idea of masculinity. Your question, essentially, is "What is a man in a world where Girls Who Are Boys Like Boys To Be Girls Who Do Boys Like They're Girls Who Do Girls Like They're Boys?"
--that about right?
My questions for you:
Who determines whether or not you are manly - you or your environment?
Your post points at a growing rift between "corporate gender stories" and the real masculinity, and suggest that the corporate stories need to be destroyed/replaced. Why?
Your post suggests that we need new gender narratives, something that gives us "a personal sense of mission to develop as a man in a way that upholds a set of shifting values" -- is that versatility absent from the existing masculine construct?
And finally, the big one - why do you feel that gender is important?
A man must be swift as a coursing river, with all the force of a great typhoon, with all the strength of a raging fire, and mysterious as the dark side of the moon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiXaT_1I-vw
what makes a man, is it the power in his hands?
is it his quest for glory?
Give it all you've got, to fight to the top.
so we can know your story.
now you're a man, a man, man, man.
now you're a man, a manly, manly man.
a man, man, man.
you are now a man, you're a man.
now you're a man.
what makes a man, is it the woman in his arms?
just cause she has big titties?
or is it the way, he fights every day?
No, it's probably the titties.
now you're a man, a man, man, man.
now you're a ma-man, a ma-ma-ma-ma-man
now you're a man, M-A-N man, man.
man, man, maan.
now you're a man.
:lulz:
I like the OP and think it raises some interesting questions.
Still, LMNO wins the thread in a landslide.
:ECH:
QuoteSo to summarize your post (want to make sure I'm reading you right) - - - - -
The substance of "manliness" is getting shaken up by the idea that gender is a social construct. Modern examples and representations of men have confused the existing idea of masculinity. Your question, essentially, is "What is a man in a world where Girls Who Are Boys Like Boys To Be Girls Who Do Boys Like They're Girls Who Do Girls Like They're Boys?"
--that about right?
Almost. More I feel like manliness has BEEN shaken up by the idea of gender as a construct; and this is good, but it's not complete. Your question is right on.
"What is a man in a world where Girls Who Are Boys Like Boys To Be Girls Who Do Boys Like They're Girls Who Do Girls Like They're Boys?" I guess I feel like it's good to be asking that question, but it's not good enough to hang it up like a decoration; it's actually a question worth answering.
Generally at least in this article, I've associated the representations of masculinity with the corporate narrative, if only in the sense that, irregardless of best intentions, these are prepackaged gender narratives, usually wrapping somebody else's ideology or (gulp) product.
QuoteWho determines whether or not you are manly - you or your environment?
Good question. I don't have a good answer. I guess what I'd like to say is, I'm looking at the value of the idea that individuals should construct individual gender narratives, which in turn guide them through their environment. So the self, the environment and gender have a relationship but not necessarily one as simple as identifying one or the other as the constructive force. But I'm aware I'm verging on speaking in riddles there.
QuoteYour post points at a growing rift between "corporate gender stories" and the real masculinity, and suggest that the corporate stories need to be destroyed/replaced. Why?
This I can do. Because I'm short and skinny.
There's more to it, but I've been thinking about gender roles, views etc a lot, and recently watched Captain America, which for at the first 15 min or so, had a bit of a crack at subverting traditional notions of masculinity (if you wanted to get all analytical you'd be forced to admit it ultimately re-enforces the dominant paradigm, but meh). So I guess what I was looking at is that the majority of media portrayals of masculinity, messages about weight, sexuality, body type, personality type etc aren't giving a very useful concept of who I am as a man. What they are doing is re-enforcing insecurites, about how I dress, about how successful I am with women, if I'm attractive, if I'm doing the 'right' thing, if I'm a success. They're not useful, they're misleading and confusing, and I feel to some extent, damaging.
QuoteYour post suggests that we need new gender narratives, something that gives us "a personal sense of mission to develop as a man in a way that upholds a set of shifting values" -- is that versatility absent from the existing masculine construct?
I feel it is. I think there's really two directions at present.
One is the pre-packaged masculinity, which doesn't have a lot of ability to shift and personalise because it is, in its essence, pre-packaged to sell a product, a hero, a plotline, an ideology etc.
We can reject this narrative, but I feel like the other side of the coin is hazy. That it represents a lot of loose statements like 'gender is complex', 'gender is a construct', 'who gets to decide what's right or wrong anyway?' etc. Which isn't wrong, but neither is it particularly HELPFUL. I feel like rejecting the existing popular narratives leaves you in a (excuse the term) no-man's-land of ambiguity. So rather than offering the importunity of developing new value sets, I feel it offers either a complete rejection of values, or an aggressive maintainance of ambiguity.
QuoteAnd finally, the big one - why do you feel that gender is important?
I almost quoted the Bhagavad Gita in the article, but retrained myself for brevity. In the Gita, Arjuna is told to do what is right for his cast, his clan, his gender, his family etc. I don't think we're so different in the modern world in the west; we look to who we are, our jobs, our family, our class, our gender, our age, our nationality, our physical appearance, our religion, our political affiliation for cues on who we are, what we do, and how we interact with our environment. I feel, while accepting the constructed nature of gender, that gender offers some assistance in this aim of understanding and constructing self and purpose, but existing notions are insufficient to help us utilise it effectively.
(http://www.damnlol.com/i/dbf028a19925c630f6638e453d7fa7d8.jpg)
Quote from: Placid Dingo on October 26, 2011, 03:45:33 PM
QuoteSo to summarize your post (want to make sure I'm reading you right) - - - - -
The substance of "manliness" is getting shaken up by the idea that gender is a social construct. Modern examples and representations of men have confused the existing idea of masculinity. Your question, essentially, is "What is a man in a world where Girls Who Are Boys Like Boys To Be Girls Who Do Boys Like They're Girls Who Do Girls Like They're Boys?"
--that about right?
Almost. More I feel like manliness has BEEN shaken up by the idea of gender as a construct; and this is good, but it's not complete. Your question is right on. "What is a man in a world where Girls Who Are Boys Like Boys To Be Girls Who Do Boys Like They're Girls Who Do Girls Like They're Boys?" I guess I feel like it's good to be asking that question, but it's not good enough to hang it up like a decoration; it's actually a question worth answering.
Generally at least in this article, I've associated the representations of masculinity with the corporate narrative, if only in the sense that, irregardless of best intentions, these are prepackaged gender narratives, usually wrapping somebody else's ideology or (gulp) product.
I'm glad that we dudes don't have as many gender norms/imperatives blasted at us as women.
For my part - while I am sometimes [rarely] jealous of the washboard abs and ripped pecs that appear on masculine characters in TV and movies, that's just body image, it has no bearing on my personal sense of masculinity.
To me, masculinity has to do with strength, responsibility, and resilience. I don't think advertising imagery impacts this personal view, but it is certainly influenced by narratives from movies and TV shows.
Back in High School, the first time I told my girlfriend I loved her, I realized my basis for action was an episode of Full House. My parents never taught me how to fall in love, (or rather, the social protocols surrounding it) popular media did.
Does that media contrast with the "real" essence of manliness? I really don't know. I don't know
how I would know, because it's so much in flux. Did you know that a hundred years ago, blue was a girls color and pink was a boys color? If we go back really far, to Athens, their concept of masculinity was tethered to mentorship. A
real man finds a pretty young boy to tutor up. That's
real love, the wife is just an earthly distraction useful for procreation. funny how things change.
QuoteQuoteYour post points at a growing rift between "corporate gender stories" and the real masculinity, and suggest that the corporate stories need to be destroyed/replaced. Why?
This I can do. Because I'm short and skinny.
There's more to it, but I've been thinking about gender roles, views etc a lot, and recently watched Captain America, which for at the first 15 min or so, had a bit of a crack at subverting traditional notions of masculinity (if you wanted to get all analytical you'd be forced to admit it ultimately re-enforces the dominant paradigm, but meh). So I guess what I was looking at is that the majority of media portrayals of masculinity, messages about weight, sexuality, body type, personality type etc aren't giving a very useful concept of who I am as a man. What they are doing is re-enforcing insecurites, about how I dress, about how successful I am with women, if I'm attractive, if I'm doing the 'right' thing, if I'm a success. They're not useful, they're misleading and confusing, and I feel to some extent, damaging.
When you're writing a character like Captain America, you and the other writers come up with a list of adjectives that you want the audience to associate with him. How does a heroic character act? What does he look like? How does he talk? Their intent is to create an image which resonates with your sense of heroism. You see discordance between this image and your self-image... In order for that to affect you, you have to decide that the image depicts the
ideal version of manliness, and then you have to identify the parts of you which are outside that version.
To me, this does not suggest that Cap should be shorter and skinnier, but that you (we) should insulate yourself against the empire of signs and signals.
QuoteQuoteYour post suggests that we need new gender narratives, something that gives us "a personal sense of mission to develop as a man in a way that upholds a set of shifting values" -- is that versatility absent from the existing masculine construct?
I feel it is. I think there's really two directions at present.
One is the pre-packaged masculinity, which doesn't have a lot of ability to shift and personalise because it is, in its essence, pre-packaged to sell a product, a hero, a plotline, an ideology etc.
We can reject this narrative, but I feel like the other side of the coin is hazy. That it represents a lot of loose statements like 'gender is complex', 'gender is a construct', 'who gets to decide what's right or wrong anyway?' etc. Which isn't wrong, but neither is it particularly HELPFUL. I feel like rejecting the existing popular narratives leaves you in a (excuse the term) no-man's-land of ambiguity. So rather than offering the importunity of developing new value sets, I feel it offers either a complete rejection of values, or an aggressive maintainance of ambiguity.
I think that ambiguity is a very useful thing to keep in mind. If you can see that the meaning of these images is self-generated, rather than imposed from outside, it's harder for those images to get inside your head and start pushing your self-worth buttons. Captain America's ripped pecs are just some shit on a screen. And this whole idea of masculinity -- it's basically just a type of fashion. An enduring fashion embedded in our social culture, but a fashion nonetheless. It's only as "real" as we make it.
If you find yourself constantly asking yourself "What would a REAL MAN do in this situation", then yeah, gender norms are going to have a big impact on how you act.
I ask myself "What would a total bad ass rock star do in this situation?" --- speaking for myself, I don't really think about my masculine identity too much, at least not explicitly.
Quote from: dingusQuote from: cramAnd finally, the big one - why do you feel that gender is important?
I feel, while accepting the constructed nature of gender, that gender offers some assistance in this aim of understanding and constructing self and purpose, but existing notions are insufficient to help us utilise it effectively.
thought experiment: replace gender with any other cultural construct - class or race, for example.
Does this conversation also apply to things like race? Is there an essential "blackness" that we've lost through postmodernism, and is it important to protect that? People identify with race, they use it to tell their stories about who they are and where they're going. And certainly the media has a large bearing on how we think about race. I'm not going anywhere with that, just food for thought.
Which of the men posting ITT does NOT wield fabulous facial hair?
I actually got to thinking about this a couple days ago. I was watching Supernatural, and one of the main characters has lost his soul. He was talking about how he was different (didn't care about anyone, couldn't really feel emotion, and similar), and then he said "And I remember other things, and well, let's just say that I want to get it back."
It kind of sparkked a narrative in my head, like "Why doesn't he just say that he misses having the ability to care for people, to love and be sad and laugh and fear and everything else?" I might be barking up the wrong tree here, but I kind of feel like it's a strong undercurrent where guys aren't supposed to show feelings and emotions, that it's pretty unmanly to do so, and if you do you're a big pussy.
Gender roles needed to change once people became aware that while men and women are different that difference is not a good reason not to treat them as equals.
It should no longer be about a person being manly or womanly but weather or not they are a good person.
The biggest problem I have with that whole post is in the first line:
QuoteI've NEVER read any gender theory
Now, I'm not saying that your opinion/thoughts are invalid simply because you haven't done any research or study into what's already being said; it's just that, right there, I can see that you have a desire to postulate on an existing dialogue without so much as finding out where that dialogue is at. It has a bit of similarity to Trix wanting to discuss first-year ethics without having just taken a damn ethics class or reading a book on ethics. Ever had a little kid come up to you and tell you about politics? You can tell that they feel really sophisticated, but the ideas they're dropping are extremely naive and simplistic, because they just don't know better yet. They're at a beginning point, and you can't have a serious conversation with them about politics because they just aren't educated in what they're talking about.
I don't want to go all TCC on you and tell you to read a book, but if this subject genuinely interests you, you should probably educate yourself on it in order to be able to have a really cogent conversation about it because no one will be able to take you seriously until your thoughts are a little more in-depth and well-formulated.
Here, read this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/04/opinion/bennett-men-in-trouble/index.html?iref=obinsite
There are probably things in there that you agree with, and things that you disagree with.
You might also be interested in Sam Keen's "Fire in the belly", Robert Bly's "Iron John", and Robert Moore's "King, Warrior, Magician, Lover", none of which I have read, but all of which are pretty well-regarded as being thought-provoking if nothing more. Oh, and "As Nature Made Him" by John Colapinto. I just started it and it's good so far.
this thread is totally unmanly.
ehh I thought his post was fine. He gets the difference between sex and gender, and talks about gender as a social construct, so he's clearly not talking out of his ass even if he hasn't explicitly read the literature.
I don't mind if people discuss topics they haven't studied -- as long as they have something interesting to say. I thought this was an interesting question.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 26, 2011, 06:44:29 PM
ehh I thought his post was fine. He gets the difference between sex and gender, and talks about gender as a social construct, so he's clearly not talking out of his ass even if he hasn't explicitly read the literature.
I don't mind if people discuss topics they haven't studied -- as long as they have something interesting to say. I thought this was an interesting question.
Yeah, but read my post. I'm not saying that his thoughts/opinions don't have validity, just that it's difficult to have a very deep conversation about it until he knows a little about what's already being talked about on the subject. Then I recommended some materials for him if he's genuinely interested in taking the conversation beyond waiting-room chitchat.
He has good questions.
Quote from: CramTo me, this does not suggest that Cap should be shorter and skinnier, but that you (we) should insulate yourself against the empire of signs and signals.
I brought up CA because he IS short and skinny at the start; I was surprised to find a masculine ideal I actually intimately identified with. That's what got me thinking about this whole subject area. And agree on the insulation idea.
Quote from: CramI think that ambiguity is a very useful thing to keep in mind. If you can see that the meaning of these images is self-generated, rather than imposed from outside, it's harder for those images to get inside your head and start pushing your self-worth buttons.
I'm not opposed to a sense of ambiguity. I think it's a good start. But I don't think that it's the end point for comprehending your personal sense of self. I'm exploring the idea that unless you have some personalised concept of gender you're willing to accept, there's not a lot to do with all those existing narratives except the old 'yeah well, that's just, like, your opinion man.'
Best example of what I'm trying to say came as a reply where I cross-posted this.
Quote from: Person on other siteMen are people who say they're men.
I don't see why you'd want anything else. What's so great about pointless restrictions and harmful goals? Fuck the whole idea of masculinity, whether new or old.
So masculinity is nothing and doesn't matter? I don't like that any more that the idea that masculinity is clearly and specifically defined. I think that a definition does matter, but it doesn't have to be the same for everyone.
Quote from: CramDoes this conversation also apply to things like race? Is there an essential "blackness" that we've lost through postmodernism, and is it important to protect that? People identify with race, they use it to tell their stories about who they are and where they're going. And certainly the media has a large bearing on how we think about race. I'm not going anywhere with that, just food for thought.
That did occur to me. I guess for whatever reason I just found the gender narrative more interesting at time of writing, but I'm love to explore ideas of race narrative. I am a very white Aussie teaching Japanese, and often seem to be more culturally asian than my GF who is Australian born Chinese (she calls me a boiled egg; white on the outside, yellow on the inside). So the ideas of race narratives interest and excite me in a few ways.
As to the bolded, I don't think masculinity needs to be protected but I do feel there needs to be a better way of defining it than either taking the prepackaged version or just saying 'fuck it, it's all crap'.
Quote from: TripWhich of the men posting ITT does NOT wield fabulous facial hair?
:sad:
Quote from: Nigel on October 26, 2011, 06:29:04 PM
The biggest problem I have with that whole post is in the first line:
QuoteI've NEVER read any gender theory
Now, I'm not saying that your opinion/thoughts are invalid simply because you haven't done any research or study into what's already being said; it's just that, right there, I can see that you have a desire to postulate on an existing dialogue without so much as finding out where that dialogue is at. It has a bit of similarity to Trix wanting to discuss first-year ethics without having just taken a damn ethics class or reading a book on ethics. Ever had a little kid come up to you and tell you about politics? You can tell that they feel really sophisticated, but the ideas they're dropping are extremely naive and simplistic, because they just don't know better yet. They're at a beginning point, and you can't have a serious conversation with them about politics because they just aren't educated in what they're talking about.
Yeah. I'm happy to agree with that. The main point of writing was to get the ideas in my head out of my head, and initiate some kind of feedback cycle by getting responses. But I appreciate that, especially for people who have actually studied this stuff, the whole thing must be frustrating, and I apologise.
I really liked the article you linked me, and am interested that there's possibly more happening than a confused perception of masculinity, that in real measurable terms we can see men developing a sense of uncertainty about their role in life and the world.
I have a fucker of a reading list, but the works you suggested are going pretty high up on it. Thank you.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 26, 2011, 03:25:11 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiXaT_1I-vw
what makes a man, is it the power in his hands?
is it his quest for glory?
Give it all you've got, to fight to the top.
so we can know your story.
now you're a man, a man, man, man.
now you're a man, a manly, manly man.
a man, man, man.
you are now a man, you're a man.
now you're a man.
what makes a man, is it the woman in his arms?
just cause she has big titties?
or is it the way, he fights every day?
No, it's probably the titties.
now you're a man, a man, man, man.
now you're a ma-man, a ma-ma-ma-ma-man
now you're a man, M-A-N man, man.
man, man, maan.
now you're a man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HSj-2shbqY
To answer the OP:
Like most things, I take an absurdist view of gender. There are biological roots for gender, to some extent. Humans, like most metazoan species have two sexes, one of those sexes having a larger gamete (anisogamy), and the sex with the larger gamete carries the developing young to birth, and provides nutrition to the infant until they can eat other foods. From this, there's an obvious biological division of labor that proceeds. The social nature of humans means both sexes have roles in post natal care. The sex which must bear and care for the young directly for several years is more vulnerable to predation and has less time for food gathering, so the sex with the smaller gametes has more time for food gathering and defending from predation. In outward appearance and abilities the sexes fall into two slightly separate distrobutions: those with the larger gametes have a higher BMI and tend to be shorter and less muscular than those with the smaller gametes. Since the parental care is higher for one sex, the sex with the larger gametes is generally more mate selective, and the smaller more mate promiscuous, but in social animals the post natal care is generally significant for both sexes and therefore this difference is less pronounced. There are other secondary sexual characters that aid in distinguishing between these two as well, and primary sexual characters related to gamete transfer, embryonic development and post natal care, but these are as I said above.
And it's an imperfect system, just like all biology. There are humans who's gametes are incompatible but neurologically they seek out those sexual characters anyway (gays, lesbians and bisexuals). There are people who seem to have a fundamental incompatibility between sexual characters and their neurology (transgenders) or neurologies that are incompatible with sexual characters in some way or all together (asexuals, neutrois, etc). There are many people who are infertile, or have a mixture of sexual characters rendering them biologically infertile (intersex). None of these are really a big deal in social animals since psychological or biological infertility doesn't necessarily cause a loss in productivity (e.g. sterile workers in social insects).
While theres a tendency for sexes to follow particular roles in social mammals related to anisogamy, theres no standard beyond what I've said above. The roles are based primarily along the extent of the inequality of parental imputs, both social and biological. Any gender narrative beyond this is largely a cultural and social construct. Since I am an absurdist, I assert that the fundamental nature of gender is absurd, it may have meaning, but the meaning is unclear, and that we should individually construct our own narrative on what it means, or if it even necessitates further exposition than anisogamy. Personally, I see gender as archetypes. Archetypes don't really exist of course, they're just ideals. There's no reason why there can't be a bunch of gender ideals.
tl;dr: Biological sex confers some basic trends, but they should not be used as rules for behavior. If you don't like the gender narrative you are assigned, or feel lost without one, construct your own along absurdist rules. I'm sure you know people with qualities you admire. So construct your narrative around those qualities. Figuring out what 'being a man' means to you is really no different than figuring out what sort of person you want to be.
Disclaimer: While the biological stuff in this is true afaik, the other shit may be, well, bullshit.
For most of human existence, biological sex has played the major determining role in identity. If you were female, it was basically biologically preordained that you would bear young and spend most of your life tending to them. If you were male, you would spend most of your life doing some variation of looking for food for your family/community. With technology, both biological and social, we have changed that. For those of us in first-world countries, we get to determine our identities according to choices we make. In a sense, the Catholics do have it very right; we are playing God by having the temerity to shape and control our own identities. At one point, not even all that long ago, I would have had two choices of identity; mother, or nun. Now, I can choose to be a mother or not to be a mother, and even greater, I can choose from an infinite spectrum of other identity-defining aspects of life.
Gender roles can be useful in some ways, but they are becoming decreasingly meaningful as people define and express themselves in ways that have nothing to do with genitalia or reproduction. It does, for some, create an increased internal pressure as there is decreased social guidance on what constitutes being a "good man" or "good woman". However, are there any attributes of a good man which are not also applicable to being a good woman, or vise versa? Or do all such attributes constitute the nature of a good human being? I think the focus would be more useful if it was shifted to framing it as "what makes a good adult".
Quote from: Nigel on October 27, 2011, 08:50:53 PM
For most of human existence, biological sex has played the major determining role in identity. If you were female, it was basically biologically preordained that you would bear young and spend most of your life tending to them. If you were male, you would spend most of your life doing some variation of looking for food for your family/community. With technology, both biological and social, we have changed that. For those of us in first-world countries, we get to determine our identities according to choices we make. In a sense, the Catholics do have it very right; we are playing God by having the temerity to shape and control our own identities. At one point, not even all that long ago, I would have had two choices of identity; mother, or nun. Now, I can choose to be a mother or not to be a mother, and even greater, I can choose from an infinite spectrum of other identity-defining aspects of life.
Gender roles can be useful in some ways, but they are becoming decreasingly meaningful as people define and express themselves in ways that have nothing to do with genitalia or reproduction. It does, for some, create an increased internal pressure as there is decreased social guidance on what constitutes being a "good man" or "good woman". However, are there any attributes of a good man which are not also applicable to being a good woman, or vise versa? Or do all such attributes constitute the nature of a good human being? I think the focus would be more useful if it was shifted to framing it as "what makes a good adult".
THIS
Quote from: Nigel on October 27, 2011, 08:50:53 PM
I think the focus would be more useful if it was shifted to framing it as "what makes a good adult".
Nailed it.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on October 29, 2011, 02:34:46 AM
Quote from: Nigel on October 27, 2011, 08:50:53 PM
I think the focus would be more useful if it was shifted to framing it as "what makes a good adult".
Nailed it.
That's what
he said! ;-)
Quote from: Nigel on October 27, 2011, 08:50:53 PM
For most of human existence, biological sex has played the major determining role in identity. If you were female, it was basically biologically preordained that you would bear young and spend most of your life tending to them. If you were male, you would spend most of your life doing some variation of looking for food for your family/community. With technology, both biological and social, we have changed that. For those of us in first-world countries, we get to determine our identities according to choices we make. In a sense, the Catholics do have it very right; we are playing God by having the temerity to shape and control our own identities. At one point, not even all that long ago, I would have had two choices of identity; mother, or nun. Now, I can choose to be a mother or not to be a mother, and even greater, I can choose from an infinite spectrum of other identity-defining aspects of life.
Gender roles can be useful in some ways, but they are becoming decreasingly meaningful as people define and express themselves in ways that have nothing to do with genitalia or reproduction. It does, for some, create an increased internal pressure as there is decreased social guidance on what constitutes being a "good man" or "good woman". However, are there any attributes of a good man which are not also applicable to being a good woman, or vise versa? Or do all such attributes constitute the nature of a good human being? I think the focus would be more useful if it was shifted to framing it as "what makes a good adult".
:golfclap:
What i can add to this, is that there's post-feminists that critique earlier waves of feminists, not because of their deconstruction of gender, but because of their take on the
reconstruction of "what a woman is" because it was a universalization from a skewed perspective of upper class white women speaking for
all women.
So unless the reconstruction of gender identity/role doesnt come from an individual's perspective, it turns into an imposition.
Quote feature failing, but thanks all for your responses, especially Nigel's which were great.
Jon'nyx's second paragraph and Kai's tldr were pretty much what I was trying to express in the op, but possibly a bit better articulated.
Nigel and Kai have said everything that I would say on this subject, so I'll just laugh at LMNO and Kai's links. :lulz:
On the same line as this thread, I'm looking for an article from a few years back about changing gender roles in Japan. The article was particularly about these men who had home making crafts as secret hobbies. I can't figure out where I saw this or who pointed it out to me, but I think Nigel also saw it. Do any of you remember?
I usually keep these things in Zotero so I can find them again, but I didn't for this.
ETA: I just remembered part of it. The article talked about "herbivorous males".
ETA: Found it! http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120696816
QuoteMultiple recent surveys suggest that about 60 percent of young Japanese men — in their 20s and early 30s — identify themselves as herbivores. Their Sex and the City is a television show called Otomen, or Girly Guys. The lead character is a martial arts expert, the manliest guy in the whole school. But his secret passions include sewing, baking and crocheting clothes for his stuffed animals.
"I will hide my true nature," he vows in the first episode, as he sews secretly, shut away in his living room. "At all times, I will be a man — a real Japanese man," he says.
But what does that mean?
"It's not so much that men are becoming more like women. It's that the concept of masculinity is changing," says Katsuhiko Kokobun.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on October 30, 2011, 08:29:40 PM
On the same line as this thread, I'm looking for an article from a few years back about changing gender roles in Japan. The article was particularly about these men who had home making crafts as secret hobbies. I can't figure out where I saw this or who pointed it out to me, but I think Nigel also saw it. Do any of you remember?
I usually keep these things in Zotero so I can find them again, but I didn't for this.
ETA: I just remembered part of it. The article talked about "herbivorous males".
Hmm, I have no recollection of this... sounds interesting though.
Quote from: Nigel on October 30, 2011, 08:36:34 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on October 30, 2011, 08:29:40 PM
On the same line as this thread, I'm looking for an article from a few years back about changing gender roles in Japan. The article was particularly about these men who had home making crafts as secret hobbies. I can't figure out where I saw this or who pointed it out to me, but I think Nigel also saw it. Do any of you remember?
I usually keep these things in Zotero so I can find them again, but I didn't for this.
ETA: I just remembered part of it. The article talked about "herbivorous males".
Hmm, I have no recollection of this... sounds interesting though.
Edited after you posted: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120696816
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on October 30, 2011, 08:48:43 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 30, 2011, 08:36:34 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on October 30, 2011, 08:29:40 PM
On the same line as this thread, I'm looking for an article from a few years back about changing gender roles in Japan. The article was particularly about these men who had home making crafts as secret hobbies. I can't figure out where I saw this or who pointed it out to me, but I think Nigel also saw it. Do any of you remember?
I usually keep these things in Zotero so I can find them again, but I didn't for this.
ETA: I just remembered part of it. The article talked about "herbivorous males".
Hmm, I have no recollection of this... sounds interesting though.
Edited after you posted: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120696816
Oh cool, thanks!
QuoteThey include men such as Yukihiro Yoshida, a 20-something economics student, who is a self-confessed herbivore. "I don't take initiative with women, I don't talk to them," he says, blushing. "I'd welcome it if a girl talked to me, but I never take the first step myself."
OH GOD Japan is turning into Portland! :lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on October 30, 2011, 09:44:16 PM
QuoteThey include men such as Yukihiro Yoshida, a 20-something economics student, who is a self-confessed herbivore. "I don't take initiative with women, I don't talk to them," he says, blushing. "I'd welcome it if a girl talked to me, but I never take the first step myself."
OH GOD Japan is turning into Portland! :lulz:
:lulz:
I've been watching the Otomen show that article mentions. That a male would hide his cooking and sewing ability seems like such a silly reaction to such an inconsequential, normal set of hobbies, but to the Japanese this is a total subversion of gender roles in their culture. On the flip side, the brony phenomenon probably seems normal to the Japanese, since Japan is where otaku culture started.
Seems to be a pretty long trend.
This is a Beat Takashi article from early 90s decrying the changing face of Japanese masculinity.
http://flashfictionjapan.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/a-classic-rant-by-beat-takeshi-taken-from-his-book-dakara-watashi-wa-kirawareru/
The Japanese 'pick up artists' (nanpa/ナンパ) are known for basically hanging out until girls come along and asking if they have time to chat. As far as Japanese culture goes, this is super direct.
Hm, that's odd. My first encounter with the whole "pick up artist" scene was a site called pickupguide.com (went offline many years ago, probably something else now) made by a Tokyo guy who called himself "maniac_high". He described pretty much the same methods as in the book The Game and that reality/talent show "Pickup Artist".
OT, one odd thing I always wondered about The Game is that it mentions the newsgroups around that era, and several nicknames I recognize, but never "maniac_high" who was quite a proliferent and respected poster. Since he even mentioned (and denounced) a troll on that news group, I bet his omission is the result of yet another bit of testosteron-powered alpha-vs-alpha infighting in the PUA-community, as quite deliciously described in some of the final chapters of The Game :lulz: (their "playboy mansion" pretty much implodes from backstabbing bitchfights)
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 31, 2011, 08:44:09 PM
Hm, that's odd. My first encounter with the whole "pick up artist" scene was a site called pickupguide.com (went offline many years ago, probably something else now) made by a Tokyo guy who called himself "maniac_high". He described pretty much the same methods as in the book The Game and that reality/talent show "Pickup Artist".
OT, one odd thing I always wondered about The Game is that it mentions the newsgroups around that era, and several nicknames I recognize, but never "maniac_high" who was quite a proliferent and respected poster. Since he even mentioned (and denounced) a troll on that news group, I bet his omission is the result of yet another bit of testosteron-powered alpha-vs-alpha infighting in the PUA-community, as quite deliciously described in some of the final chapters of The Game :lulz: (their "playboy mansion" pretty much implodes from backstabbing bitchfights)
Yeah, I explained things badly there...
There's 'proper' Pick Up Artists in Japan, but the subculture of Nanpa, generally is guys who behave in ways that are generally pretty standard in the western world, but kinda assertive for a Japanese male. But I'm not an expert, so, that's just as I understand it.