Kaleb Blake wades through “essentialist crap” on masculinity in The New York Times’ new roundtable discussion.
I stumbled upon a series of articles on the New York Times today titled, “Room for Debate: Are Modern Men Manly Enough?,” which included eight debaters—multiple genders—who weighed in on the debate. Upon reading this title I took a deep sigh to prepare myself for the same “You don’t know what it means to be a real man” essentialist crap.
To spark this debate, the author of the article poses the question: “But is all this exfoliated, chiseled perfection what women really want? And should men really be making it a priority?”
Needless to say, the problem arose before the debate took place. As many of us would presume, male-grooming and “metrosexuality” would of course play a part in this debate—but for women? Are we really going to start this debate under the assumption that masculinity is defined by what “women really want”? A huge heteronormative step backwards if you ask me.
Being the staunch Mad Men fan that I am, I was immediately pulled to the Joel Stein’s two-cents, titled “Rediscover the Don Draper Within.” “Your dad was manlier than you,” he proclaims, “His dad was manlier than him. And so on, for all of history back to the Stone Age.” Sure, Mr. Stein, as the species lives longer, its men become less manly.
Stein believes that feminism and the Enlightenment are to blame for our loss of “self-reliance” and “ability to protect”—which apparently is at the very core of our “manliness.” He believes his feminist mother messed him up in teaching him that “gender was a construct.” He believes that all in these quests for higher knowledge, we’ve become nerds, and we all know “being a nerd will never get you any action.”
We must look back in time at men like Don Draper who “ripped off his shirt like Superman” to fix a busted pipe in order to rediscover our masculinity. Men like me, who would inclined to call for service instead of feigning plumbing savvy for the sake of my penis, are in dire crisis that can only be solved by “fixing our own toilets, exercising outside at 6 a.m., and hunting the meat that we cowardly eat from far crueler factory farms.”
I do not subscribe.
Thank Adam for Mark Simpson’s answer, titled “We Need Nuance, Not Lumberjacks,” in which he asks: “If women won’t be women for men anymore, why on earth should men be men for women?” Amen, brotha, for is this not what sites like The Good Men Project are about—men establishing a deeper understanding of masculinity through our own subjectivity—our stories?
Simpson argues that while men have progressively treaded towards metrosexuality, cooking, child-minding, sensitivity and sensuality—so what? What is the alternative, a dated “manliness” that was “largely about repression. And homophobia”? I think not.
And then there are those like Natasha Scripture, who are asking “Where are the Meat and Potato Men?” Of course Scripture does not represent all women, but when the issue of men and masculinity arises, she clearly represents a collective that paints men as “rugged,” “strong,” and “potent” … “The kind of guy who can build you a log cabin on a whim with his own bare, callused hands.” I mean honestly, who are these people—Alcide from True Blood? Don’t we wish.
In sum, it is completely ridiculous to assume that masculinity was at its prime in the Stone Age and that any intellectual curiosity we might have will seal our daunting fate known as the “man-crisis”. Sorry Joel Stein. As for Natasha Scripture and other women-debaters on the topic, like Loni Love who suggests that each man “take [their] shower, slap on some Old Spice and get on with [their] day,” it is 100% okay for the ladies to look for their very own Paul Bunyan; to each her own. But don’t be surprised when you find yourself lost in the big city wondering where all the “good men” are.
I’m going to have to stand with Simpson on this one: “Men aren’t the new women. Men are the new everything. Just as women have been for some time. Stop worrying and get over it.” It appears that, despite popular belief, we seem to be quite manly enough for the modern world—what are others thinking?
Read more on The End of Gender.
—Photo credit: Plutor/Flickr
About Kaleb Blake
Men are manly according to (fill in the blank). It appears that our so called evolution onto manliness 2012 is being dictated by others except men themselves. We are “all the above.” The cool part is that we are evolving on our own. No one has the right to dictate that the lumberjack be more sensitive then the right to tell the poet he has to bulk up and stop shaving. Actually, I think “evolving” is a wrong word because we aren’t evolving, we’re just becoming more comfortable with who we are. We’re also no longer okay with being stereotyped.
@Tom B.
I really like you saying “It appears that our so called evolution onto manliness 2012 is being dictated by others except men themselves” because it is exactly why I was uneasy about the opening question in the NYT article (“But is all this exfoliated, chiseled perfection what women really want?”)–since when is masculinity determined by what *women* really want (romantically, sexually at least)? That’s bizarre to me. In fact, I agree with everything you said in your comment except for the “except men themselves” part–only because men are also adding to this when they push other men into some male-archetype by calling them anything slanderous term associated, unfortunately, with femininity when men venture out of those boxes.
Yeah, I get a real kick out of this, Modern Feminism seeks the domination of men through total subugation. The paradox of this is when sucessful, women turn and say with dismay “Where have all the real men gone?”
Remember that SOME women say this, not all. It’s an important distinction to make. For every woman saying where have all the real men gone? there is probably a woman thankful for the male gender role becoming less rigid, allowing men to diversify and be themselves. These days I dislike the whole manly, womanly talk, what is it men can do that women can’t? n vice versa? People are individuals, there might be a large portion of men and women who are similar to others in their gender but that doesn’t make the non-conformers less of a man/woman. The only difference between the genders is pregnancy, childbirth, some plumbing but that is physical and there are those who have one genders plumbing but the other genders identity. ~ is that the word? don’t hate me if it’s wrong ;(
I’m at the point in life where I can’t define what a real man or woman is. I know what the average man or woman may be but that doesn’t make others less of a man or woman to me. But I dislike the restrictions put on gender, there’s no need for them. Let people be who they are without saying men have to be x and women have to be y.
Ah, the individualist argument. Works every time a Leftist is in the corner and needs an excuse.
We are all individuals, therefore men an women are the same!
Don’t ya know?!
You can’t define what a real man and woman is, because you lost touch of reality. If the two groups exhibit the similar behaviors that makes the same in your eyes. Two groups that are easily identifiable with anyone who has a beating heart. This has been so across Time itself. But, somehow you can’t define what is a man or a woman. Or maybe you can anytime you argue for the “beauty of diversity.”
Society is supposed to, as you put it, “put restrictions.” That why we have culture and society. For example, we have boy and girl names. Very distinct segregation. Even those names that are used for both sex usually are traditional names of one sex (as you can look up historically). That is why at formal occasions certain types of dress is appropriate (often again both sexes are separated). You can look it as oppression. I look at it as reinforcement and positive development. That is why we have laws or social mores of what is appropriate to do at the dinner table.
You want an all permissive society based upon your whims. If you can’t live up to the standards society sets, you make your own, so you can meet them. It is easier for you and so you find no beauty is the traditional masculine virtues.
Where there is no man or woman.
Where there is no mountain and valley.
Where both are the lowest common denominator.
Or maybe I just see men who act like men n women, and women who act like men n women, and I don’t think either are wrong. Must really suck living a life where you HAVE to follow a gender role huh?
Beauty is often found from the burdens that we carry.
The proposed free individual isn’t really all that free at all but rather enslaved to what is easy and convenient.
It may suck to have to follow gender roles; but, I can tell you this, it sucks more to have no standards at all.
Life has burdens enough, bub. No need to go picking up any extra bricks.
@Sun
“Beauty is often found from the burdens that we carry.” –this is a beautiful quote, and it holds so much truth. However, I don’t think that the “it sucks more to have no standards at all” statement holds true to everyone. When you use the word “standards” what is it that you mean–gender role expectations? If so, I would TOTALLY argue against this statement.
Yes, it sucks to have gender roles, and there is so much beauty in the narratives and poetry and art that people have created to express these burdens–but isn’t the goal to have standards that aren’t determined by the genitals we have in between our legs?
Males are born with these genitals so they must adhere to gender roles that “match” their genitalia. Same with females and women. We’ve been making such progress to free ourselves from these assigned gender roles and we should continue to do so. We should be adhering to standards that have more to do with adulthood and responsibility more than what’s in between our legs.
@ Kaleb
You are a strong proponenent of the “Tabla Rasa” theory. A theory that has been debunked but is still preached as gospel by left wing professors and students alike. I don’t believe the only difference between men and women is genitilia.
Yes, “society” hold expectations. Societies reinforce values and ideals and mold a people. You should ask yourself why would such gender roles were put in the first place.
But since you’re a fan of deconstructing “gender roles (and illusionary sex differences),” maybe we can start with your name (Kaleb is a male name)? After all “society” oppresses its citizens by enforcing this socially constructed idea of naming children, as you put it, “based upon genitilia.” The weight must be destroying you (you identify as female) as a person. Names are social constructs that can be changed. It causes people to not be called whatever they want. Society is limiting people. It is a mystery how we go about our daily lives.
Now, you probably never considered your name oppression after what I just proposed–nor do most people. It becomes “oppression” after rhetoric. In the current era it is just how things are done and is accepted without cry. Massive amount of people havn’t committed suicide nor did the world end. I still sleep safe at night. People cherish and value the uniqueness of male and female names, overall (except for the few on the fringe).
My sarcasm must have not been detected when alluding to gender roles sucking. However, I will say that saying totally rigid is not always wise. Despite saying that, we are strengthened by delving into our already evolutionary behavoirs molded over thousands of years. We, as men, are more then our genitalia. Our masclunity is what makes us males. Our roles enriches us.
What progress? The last time I checked Western Civilization has been failing. I see no “progress”–maybe individual permissiveness and decandence but not progress. You freed yourselves from standards and expectations of what it means to be men. A society that doesn’t value the masculine, is a society that will fall.
P.S. I have no problem discussing with you these topics, however if you want to continue, can we make a new thread? That would be great because it is getting confusing after a while of trying who one is trying to address.
I’m curious- who all, I am, in this thread is a parent?
Who has watched their little boy make a gun out of a stick the first chance he got?
Who has watched their daughter make a dolly of the same stick?
And no I’m not eating the idea that it’s because I gave them different vibes…..
If parents meant anything we’d talk with our grandparents accents.
J.A. – I’m a father and bingo. The whole concept of these “constructs” ignores where thesee purported constructs came from.
@Sun
I certainly am a proponent of the TabUla Rasa theory–which, even though I’ve studied it under a different name, is still prevalant in the way people today study gender. I think that gender is something learned through the institutions in which we exist. Obviously there are more differences in men and women than genitelia, but I was talking more about sex v. gender (nature v. nurture–if we’re using Tabula Rasa).
I’m not quite sure I understand your argument on my name. Yes, Kaleb is typically a male name. You said to me, “The weight must be destroying you (you identify as female) as a person,” however, the weight of my name is far from destroying me because I don’t see my name oppressive, nor does your argument compel me to do so. I’m also not sure where you got the idea that I identify as female. I am a cisgender man and have always identified as such.
You said:
“You freed yourselves from standards and expectations of what it means to be men. A society that doesn’t value the masculine, is a society that will fall.”
Sure, SOME of us have freed ourselves of these standards to some degree, but I find that most people still struggle with their masculinities and femininities–especially in comparison to traditional notions of the terms. As for the second sentence–I don’t see how you would know that, and I think that if masculinity is the cornerstone in which a society is built upon, then that society might be doomed from the beginning. Surely societies should be built on other things as well: femininity, intellect, culture, arts, entreprenearship, philanthropy, etc.
We are continually making progress in society when it comes to gender and sexuality (see the ongoing support from the hip hop and rap community after Frank Ocean revealed a same-sex affair–just one example of how masculinity is being less and less tied to heterosexuality).
@Archy … you said “Must really suck living a life where you HAVE to follow a gender role huh?” Actually in my case, it doesn’t suck at all. It’s who I am and it happens to fit a typical gender role which society has recognized. Doesn’t make me more or less manly then anyone but it’s clearly one of many gender roles. I like being the head of my household and the protector. I like opening the car door for my wife. I hate carrying the countless bags of groceries but my being 6’1” and her being 4’11” … I guess my gender role fits the bill?
PS … I cried at my daughters wedding, my siblings and parents funerals. I cried when I had to put my golden down. Yup, gender roles that we choose to follow.
@Tom B
This may totally be a matter of interpretation, but I think Archy was more alluding to those people who feel constrained by gender roles imposed on him. Personally, I like to make clear that while I don’t think people should be subjected to gender roles *just because* they are a member of a certain gender group, I 100% see beauty in people who accept their traditional gender roles.
I’m 6’1″ too so I’m constantly the go-to-guy in the house when it comes to doing the things that require height–hardly a role imposed on me by my gender, but it does feel nice to do that tpyical “man” stuff sometimes. I also cry during movies and know plenty men who do.
I think we all know what gender roles have traditionally been imposed on both men and women solely because of their gender, and I think we all know that we’re in a state where we can dabble in other roles–and it’s totally ok (for the most part, as it should be). And it’s also perfectly fine to love traditional gender roles. Whatever makes people happy, honestly.
I fit a few gender roles, but what I was talking about was pretty much being forced to be that gender role, you have some choice over your actions where you can break free of the gender role am I right? Such as not crying in public, etc, you can choose to follow the gender roles which is the important part to remember. People having the choice to be who they want to be.
@Archy, you’ve got the right concept re “The only difference between the genders is pregnancy, childbirth, some plumbing but that is physical and there are those who have one genders plumbing but the other genders identity”–now you’re getting into gender vs. sex. Sex is the parts you were born with, gender (arguably) is how you perform (“man” “woman” “queer”). While I’m on the vocab tip, someone who is “cisgender” is a person who’s sex and gender “match”–I was born male and identify as a man. Opposite of “transgender”–I was born male and identify as female.
You’re certainly right–many people do feel pressure to follow their assigned gender role (delegated by their sex), it sucks.
“Only difference between the sexes” is that better?
Right on, Archy.
@bobbt
I don’t want to make this thread about feminism, but I quickly want to respond to your sentence: “Modern Feminism seeks the domination of men through total subugation.” A lot of feminist, myself included, actually hold modern feminist ideologies that seek to liberate ALL genders and sexuality–i.e. for me, to free men especially with dominating institutions that tell us men that we HAVE to behave in certain ways that are harmful to our psyches and the people we encounter on a daily basis.
You know what I like to do in cases like these? People will say “A manly man is strong, not feminine, he’s a stud if he gets laid all the time, etc. Wusses have thin arms, focus on stupid things like physics and math, and do stupid wussy stuff like practice good grooming.”
My response? I just start naming off a few names:
Michelangelo, Nikola Tesla, Siddhartha Gautama, Carl Sagan, Isaac Newton, DaVinci, etc.
Heck, Newton and Tesla both died virgins because they found their work in physics to be more important. The apparently rejected several offers.
There was also a Pharoah, who was adored by his ruling population, who had weakening muscles and his stomach had no connective tissue and was sitting in front of his small intestine. I wouldn’t call that “studly” by any means.
And better yet, how many men, with names as big and influential as these, were brutes? Very few. In fact, having large muscles basically delegated you as lower working-class in most cases.
Also, socrates and plato were short and skinny. Specialized athletes were hired to give them a more ideal muscular image for the sculptor to work with.
The fact is, there used to be MORE definitions of men. MORE. There were all kinds of ways you could be considered a manly man.
Society was so used to drawing a line of exclusivity between genders, that when women started discovering their options, men started losing theirs. Go up to the 80′s, where you weren’t a man unless you were Rambo. Everyone else were boys. They seemed to focus on one way to be a man and said “This is manly. Therefore, if you aren’t this, you aren’t manly.”
Girls started asking “why are men getting so thin and wimpy.” There have always been thin men around, believe it or not. We weren’t built to look like gorillas, we were built for precision, dexterity, and long-distance travel. We, as a species, are very thin compared to our cousins.
Oh, here’s another: Thomas Jefferson mentioned how nervous he was about telling his crush his feelings. One of the nation’s freaking founding fathers got tongue-tied around women. You dare claim Jefferson was a wuss?
Furthermore, in Shakespearean culture, men basically wouldn’t have made a move. Such signs of interest were strictly forbidden. They literally had a code to indicate interest, and if the girl wasn’t interested, she would simply act like she didn’t pick up on it. That’s just messed up.
And of course, Shakespeare is another name for that list. The original chick flicks were written by a dude!
So all of these different kinds of guys? Yeah, that’s definitely NOT new. What’s new are the rigid standards placed on men before they can be given much of any respect. Some of the most important figures in history don’t meet todays standards for “real man”.
Amen, brotha.
Who says the things you mention in the first paragraph? I’ve never heard things like that outside of dialog from stereotypical movie jocks and I grew up in the south in the ’80s/’90s. Moreover, I’ve never known anyone, manly men included, who was as one dimensional as the modern sufferers you posit.
But I rather liked the Draper article. Men historically have been more decisive and prone to action. What’s missing in many modern men, and which the historical examples you mention had, is not physical force but those attributes. It’s good that they did. Societies are not built on dithering.
when women started discovering their options, men started losing theirs
Yes, the zero sum game that feminism has forced on us.
Instead of saying “men and women are victims of domestic violence” for example the feminist position was to try and hyper exaggerate women as victims which meant that men’s visibility as victims (already tiny) had to be further reduced. Similarly encouraging women to work for a living without making it OK for a man to earn less without being seen as a loser, stuffed men further into the tiny box they were already stuck in. Some people say that men have to earn the status of being a man whereas women are just born with their status. On that basis men have to prove their worth beyond whatever women do to society so increasing women’s options necessarily means screwing over men in the absence of a campaign to let men underachieve and just “be” the way women have always been appreciated for just being human.
MOD EDIT: Please avoid generalising feminist positions as if they are uniform.
“when women started discovering their options, men started losing theirs” not sure who said this but I would like to say that men never lost anything. Perhaps they’ve simply given up because they were never allowed to nurture their options. The past 30 years, their options didn’t disappear, society just didn’t care about them. It was all about women and nothing about men. Men floundered aimlessly waiting for someone to give them affirmation, direction. All the time they were being given a false sense of security that because they were men (the old feminist thinking), they had it made in the shade. But as the truth comes around, men didn’t have it all and that the dawning of the feminist movement painted a grossly inaccurate depiction of men.
But now that I read this through, “when women started discovering their options, men started losing theirs” maybe men didn’t even have the options they thought they had in the first place? Maybe back in the 60’s the men should have started their own movement and burn their jock straps, liberating them from the gender roles they were forced to have.
“Maybe back in the 60’s the men should have started their own movement and burn their jock straps, liberating them from the gender roles they were forced to have.” Those jock-strap-burning masculinist!!! I can see it now. I already love it.
This is just my own take on the “when women started discovering their options, men started losing theirs” quote, but I strongly believe that we shouldn’t look at this like a game of tug-o-war. I don’t know what options men have lost simply because women have advanced (especially in the work force). I don’t want to spend too much time on the feminist movement painting a gross picture of men because that’s such an overbroad statement–sure, there were probably *some* feminist who painted men grossly, but there were also men who behaved in very gross behavior. It’s not one-sided.
Tom, I really enjoy your reflective comments.
“MOD EDIT: Please avoid generalising feminist positions as if they are uniform.”
I hope to see this when people Discuss MRA’s as well, I’ve noticed way too many generalizations about MRA’s slipping through. But I do agree, calm down on the generalizations folks.
Good luck with that.
Feminism is a meaningless word on this site, because if they acknowledge that feminism does actually have core beliefs, that would open feminism up to criticism.
And we can’t have that, now can we?
Men are people. People have always been varied, it’s called “society.”
And here’s a fact not many people want to admit: ultra-masculine men are the men most likely to cross-dress. It gets tiresome always living an extreme lifestyle.
I love that, @Kitti (even though i’d like to see statistics or writing on the matter)
It all boils down to this: Masculinity, femininity…it’s all just drag.
Or should the question be Are, what?, Elite men manly enough?
Are men who put on a $ 600 blazer to try to get in the pants of some women in $600 shoes manly enough?
Are men who don’t roll their eyes when you piss about the clerk at Barney’s manly enough?
Are men whose bathrooms you can’t move into because they have more than iodine, band aids, Lotrimin & a nose hair clipper in the medicine chest manly enough?
Are men who hydrate before turning over the garden, at the weekend place, because it is a contribution to the slow food movement and are dying to discuss buying a shovel, a real shovel! at dinner manly enough?
@ J.A.
I’m not sure I follow–why wouldn’t any of the above examlpes be “manly enough” (if I’m understanding your comment)?
@ Kaleb
Precisely, what does the NYTIMES have to say on the subject?
In my book I’m manly…. standup2p.wordpress.com
I know a lot of manly guys, the most manly story I’ve heard lately is of a guy who took his 17 month old son to college with him.
And I’m an utter failure to at least one of my sons because I don’t have an Escalade, big watch & fancy wife……
And in my book I’m half a wimp because I’m not wealthy enough to own a place to run a dozen dogs….
@Kaleb
Oh & I’m PO’d at you because you beat me to the punch- between chores, exercise & Fathering yesterday I was writing this article
@J.A.
Haha, well sorry to have beat you to the punch. Gutter life of the early 20s Millennials affords me the time to hawk over my Google Reader feeds.
You asked, “Precisely, what does the NYTIMES have to say on the subject?”–I am still asking myself that question! To be honest NYT didn’t contribute anything to the subject aside from setting masculinity as something that is measured by a woman’s desire. Ugh.
I’m loving the example of the guy who took his 17-month-old child to class with him. I have a mentor who went through single fatherhood and law school at the same time–more power to him.
Not to Class- Crib in the Dorm, Arranged Baby Sitters, played D2 Football…..
in re NYT- it’s sort of akin to my question about Woody Allen Movies, what happened if they sent one to Walsenburg, CO in 1978? The times has gotten better- but last weekend’s article about some walker who killed his beard????? really who cares?????
in re 20s- scratch my ass, I have boots older than you- & more useful.
Oh and real men don’t wear the hobbycrafter goggles the guys with the sawsall are using…
Safety glasses are for pussies & one eyed mechanics.
@J.A.
I’ll have to respectfully disagree with you on the your boots being more useful than me comment. There’s nothing wrong with hobbycraft googles either. My stepfather, one of my biggest male role-models, wears those for his job to protect himself from chemicals. I would hardly call him a pussy and he has both eyes.
In fact, calling a guy a pussy for whatever reason is the kind of comment that confines men into these gender roles–you’re like the gender patrol with that comment. Men wear whatever they want or need to. Surely there’s nothing wrong with protecting one’s eyes, it seems stupid not to.
Stop worrying and get over it.
Too damn right.
@ Jonathan — My sentiments exactly.
The Times be trollin’.
Still not gonna save their sorry butts from oblivion, though.
@ Kaleb
I was using the names as an example of something that is not deemed as oppressive by society. After I posted, I became aware that I forgot the “u” in Tabula Rasa. Unfortunately you can’t edit. But thanks for reminding me.
I’ll try explain it again. Sorry if I didn’t make it clear:
Part of gender roles and gender identity, surely, includes names. Names are separated into “male” and “female,” which in your eyes is socially constructed because the only real difference between men and women is genitalia. We do not have a society where people are free to choose their own names or at least have gender neutral names.
Gender specific names limit people because it doesn’t allow someone to freely express who they are, as society already given them a gender with that name (i.e. Bob or Lacy). They tie the name to what your genitalia is. It is done at a young age, perhaps even before the person is actually born. Anyone hearing a masculine name may assume specific traits surrounding that individual, thus prejudice is born. If we had gender neutral names people are more likely not to put people into gender roles and treat the person as an individual.
I thought I read somewhere you identified with the feminine (perhaps not female), I apologize. But even if that isn’t the case, you have been constrained to an identity from the day you were born with a name like “Kaleb.” Further more, society at large enforces this and we thus have institutionalized sexism (perpetuated throughout history). Based upon your theory, you should be feeling oppressed due to the name that was given to you because it limits how you identify yourself, how others perceive and treat you. If had a feminine name, like Lucy, people will look at you odd, furthermore prejudge you. Making names more gender neutral allows an individual have more ability to be whatever they want, without the conception of grouping people based upon sex.
Having a gender neutral name (remember sex is different then gender) would free you even more personally, because gender specific names have a subconscious role in how we perceive ourselves and the roles we take up. Any thoughts of not wanting to change your name is just subconscious sexism produced by society designed to oppress you. You need to challenge all preconceive notions of gender, including masculine and feminine names by eliminating them in the name of progress. Any backlash by society is to be expected as people still cling to past notions like naming people based upon genitalia. Be strong, comrade!
Society has been oppressing your parents by entailing them that they have to name you based upon the genitalia at birth. They didn’t call you “Lucy,” because you had a penis. Your genitalia was a major factor to why they named you. So even your parents were being oppressed by society, ruling out names, feminine related, limiting their freedom to call you whatever they want. If they called you “Lucy,” society at large would mock you and outcast you. They could call you whatever they want in a gender neutral world. Imagine!
Progressive Sweden (Feminist Mecca of the world) is outdoing the progressives in the States. They banned gender pronouns in elementary schools (han and hon into hen) arguing it limit children from expressing their whatever they want to identify as. They have a more egalitarian society. So skip gender pronouns and go straight to nouns. Why take an inch when you can get a mile? http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/04/hen_sweden_s_new_gender_neutral_pronoun_causes_controversy_.html
This whole binary-gender-thing of calling someone with a feminine or masculine name is so archaic. Only sexist people would name people based upon genitalia. This is the 21st century. I think we should call everyone The Borg. We are all human. Just a personal opinion.
Now I’m going to listen to Game of Thrones.
Listen to game of throne’s music that is. Maybe watch the bloody episodes again.
Winter is Coming!
@ Kaleb
In terms for other stuff you post, I think it is fair to state what I actually believe. I won’t go into great length to bore you.
I believe in Evolution (including social Darwinism and Evolutionary psychology).
I believe men and women evolved over thousands of years. I believe the brain and hormones are subjected to evolution like the rest of the body. I also believe sexual dimorphism plays a role in the difference between men and women. I do not believe that genitalia is the only difference between, as you put, the sexes (the same goes for gender). I don’t not believe in the “nature vs nurture” paradigm (or in Feminist theory sex vs gender). I don’t believe biology stops with physical ascetic differences. Nurture is a part of nature; and, this changes everything. Society reinforces or attempts to diminish what is already there. There is some minor plasticity. I believe as what you would call “gender and sex” are interconnected.
I don’t not believe in Feminist theory which is just a hybrid of Tabula Rasa theory, behaviorism, Marxism, egalitarianism, liberalism, etc (more or less depending on which Wave we are talking about here). I don’t believe men and women’s minds are blank slates and any difference is due to social constructionism (i.e. dolls or trucks being the driving factor of differences between the sexes).
You may want to look up David Rheimer, Lucy the chimp, etc, 1960′s Social constructionist experiments that were supposed to be the poster boys of such a school of thought and yet failed miserably. Yet the rallying cry is still there in most soft science at the college I go to.
Yes, it is how most people view it, especially in current academia circles (with the exception of the hard sciences). Which, by the way, really leads credence that society doesn’t enforce any gender roles in the modern era when many people view it the way you do. This society really enforces very little.
Except when some Feminist starts railing against the company Lego, believing that changing the marketing of boy and girl lego sets will bring about a more egalitarian utopia.
However perception and reality don’t always add up. Which is why this egalitarian modern society is crashing all around. Biology triumphs ideology.
Just because you stick feathers up your butt, it doesn’t make you a chicken.
@Sun
“I don’t believe men and women’s minds are blank slates and any difference is due to social constructionism “–I think there are just fundamental differences in our ideologies. That’s perfectly fair. I respect that.
And another thing you should learn from Sun, Kaleb: Biology and evolution are off limits to interpretation in these debates. Their message is clear, binding, and (excepting “minor plasticity”), universal.
Most importantly of all, the speaker is always right. Anyone trifling with him is clearly some kind of marxist liberal egalitarian shitbird who wants to lead society right down the sewer.