What is masculinity to you and what is it's role in modern society?

Status
Not open for further replies.
When I got into high-school, on the other hand, this didn't quite work. It was two guys two grades above me and the hunchback that was my bag. They would continue to bully me, eventually getting physical. I reciprocated the aggression. At the time I felt it was like the first time of speaking a language they understood, because as a direct consequence, those two have avoided me ever since.

While of course it should never be the first response or a desirable outcome, especially now that we're adults instead of teenagers, do you feel there are situations in which aggression does have a purpose?
This could be seen as a result of the way we push dominance as a desirable and absolute trait. Bullies generally tend to be insecure themselves, and they alleviate it by taking it out on others. They exert dominance by putting other people down.

This is just he way I see it, mind you.

As for aggression. Yes. It has a place. Having to protect yourself is a sad but very real situation. ideally, Agression should never be the way to start a situation. Agression kills dialogue, breeds violent confrontation when not kept in check. But when the time for aggression comes, it is best not to ignore it.
 
The reason I'm asking is, because as I've come to understand it, aggressive and assertive are two different manners of action. Aggression is acting with hardly if any regard for others. Being passive is vice versa, acting in a way not to disappoint others, but often at the cost of personal ambition or sacrifice . Whereas assertive is commonly described as acting with your own interests in mind but also with regard for the feelings of others.
I always thought assertive was between passive and aggressive... But it's never been really explained like this. I guess aggressive, then.

Do you feel there's a difference between masculinity and toxic masculinity? Or do you feel masculine traits are toxic in general?
Again, there's a thin line, but in a way it's bad for everybody, so...

I might be too young or inexperienced to talk about this. My comfort comes from not caring whether I'm like this or that as long as I like how I look/act, but when asked questions like this I DO know a bit, it's just that I still have a lot to learn or experience I guess.
 
This could be seen as a result of the way we push dominance as a desirable and absolute trait. Bullies generally tend to be insecure themselves, and they alleviate it by taking it out on others. They exert dominance by putting other people down.

This is just he way I see it, mind you.
This is generally true, if majoring psychology taught me anything. People are unhappy with their selves and project this unhappiness onto others. Preferably targets that they think not to fight back.

What I want to ask, though, do you believe the exertion of dominance is a gendered trait? What about physical exertion of dominance versus other forms, like verbal abuse or gossip and shaming?

EDIT:
I always thought assertive was between passive and aggressive... But it's never been really explained like this. I guess aggressive, then.
That makes more sense. Cheers.

I might be too young or inexperienced to talk about this. My comfort comes from not caring whether I'm like this or that as long as I like how I look/act, but when asked questions like this I DO know a bit, it's just that I still have a lot to learn or experience I guess.
That's fine. It's more important to be comfortable with yourself and figuring out who you are before ascribing names to it.
 
Last edited:
What I want to ask, though, do you believe the exertion of dominance is a gendered trait? What about physical exertion of dominance versus other forms, like verbal abuse or gossip and shaming?
Dominance is a shared trait to be sure. It is just pushed and often directly associated with physicality when it comes to men.


edit; Loving what you are doing with the thread so far. The tone is almost self moderating.
 
@Kestrel It's tricky for me to put into words, but essentially I think masculinity is largely up to the individual, but what I was getting at with women is that there's "traditionally" masculine things that they've long been stigmatized from being a part of (e.g. the sciences, military service, policing, construction, enjoying things like straight whiskey, being a recreational shooter, body building, you get the idea) that I think it's kind of on us as a society to start knocking down some of those walls and let people do what they like without feeling like the odd person out or a social pariah.

I think largely masculinity for a man comes from how comfortable he is in his own skin and how willing he is to stand up for himself and others. A guy who likes working on motorcycles isn't necessarily more masculine than one who likes building model airplanes or playing DnD, and if some dude orders a fruity cocktail at a restaurant, who gives a crap? Women are under a lot of pressure by the media and society to fit a certain mold, be a certain body type, and it can be harmful. Guys go through something similar as well; how often have you heard something along the lines of a man needs to have a suit, or grow a beard, or drive standard? How many guys are at the gym right now trying to become as muscle bound as possible because people made them feel like they were inadequate as a man because they were physically weak?

All that kind of stuff is something that we kind of need to step away from and not hold it up as a standard. People may very well love doing all those things I mentioned, and if they're happy with what they are, then I'd say that's a lot more masculine than say the guy who's only into cars and bikini models because all of his friends are.

Ultimately, it should be your self-determination and ability to own who and what you are that counts. Women tend to appreciate and acknowledge a guy who's sure of himself and makes no apologies and is comfortable letting them into his world. I can guarantee you that for every guy who has an obscenely huge Pokemon card collection, there's a woman who is totally into that as well. I think the trick is to be willing to try new things and try out the things your partner/ date likes as well. I myself am pretty secure in my masculinity and I have a girlfriend who shares a lot of the same interests as me, and we mutually respect what we both enjoy on our own times. We're both very happy.

Ultimately, if you're capable of making a woman (or man, if you're gay) happy and feel like they're a part of your life while retaining who you've always been, there's nothing more masculine than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hellis
@Fauna Identified and explained it better than I could. To expound though, for male rape, we also tend to make it a farce. Women can and do rape men! But, as we've seen lampooned on South Park, we see people take it lightly (if at all!) and say things like, "Well, you liked it, right?"
Not to mention false rape accusations that can completely ruin people's lives, forever labeling them as a rapist despite the fact that they were cleared of the crime; as well as the "guilty until proven innocent" mentality most people seem to have when concerning rape, but only when the suspect is male (which is why so many people's lives get ruin by false accusations in the first place). Because apparently all men are sex-craving pigs who only ever think with the head between their legs instead of the one that's on their shoulders.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Gwazi Magnum
tl;dr I too believe that we as a culture tend to mix up what is perceived to be as "traditional" masculine and feminine traits and aggression and passivity.

I still stand by my statement earlier that there are no masculine traits, nor are there more feminine ones. It's simply what we perceive them to be, largely dependent upon the culture we're brought up in. Again, the proto-typical "aggression" in, historically, being hunter/gatherers, but now seen as going after women, self-determination in getting a job, all that other stuff; that's largely seen as masculine. Being demure, shy, soft-spoken? Being nurturing? We call that being feminine. We even go so far as to say that real men don't act that way if they're true, honest-to-goodness men. And, as mentioned in the description of toxic masculinity, "real men don't cry."

If anything, masculine/feminine should be reworded as aggressive/passive. Then we'll have something I can roll with.
 
@Fauna
If I understand correctly, you are saying it's an (unreasonable) expectation of men that drives them to be destructive to either their selves or their environment. Is that right? If so, where do you believe these expectations are rooted in?

You also stated it hurts the male identity. Could you tell me how you perceive the male identity in general and what you believe should be considered a healthy male identity?
Yes, that's essentially what I am saying. I can't say for sure where these expectations for hypermasculinity began - I haven't done much research on it - but it's very prevalent in our western society and is taught to boys from many sources, from their parents themselves to the media. I mentioned "boys will be boys" before -- that starts very young. A boy teases a girl relentlessly: "boys will be boys." Boys fight with each other: "boys will be boys." I believe many boys are taught, often by their own fathers (and/or mothers), that stoicism is expected of them at a young age, and that feminine traits are bad or negative. It's all passed down from generation to generation. I'm glad to see that this is starting to change as the years go by.

I mean, just look at advertisements, and how different they are depending on whether or not they're targeted towards men or women. So many ads just ooze hypermasculinity. I'm sure there are some people that are adamant about the fact that personal development isn't affected much by the media, and those who do happen to be affected by it are just weak willed, but the fact of the matter is that the media has a huge impact on individual growth and how we perceive ourselves, weak willed or not. Our society pushes its expectations on us. We develop accordingly. Thankfully, we have the ability to reject and grow outside of those expectations.

Something I've also always thought was fairly interesting is how so many men seem to have this gutterally negative reaction to something as small as boys/men sitting down to pee. My mom started teaching my brother that it was fine, and she told me that my dad flipped out about this and how it wasn't "appropriate." I mean... it's just a bathroom habit. But apparently it's not manly at all and the behaviour is undesirable and must be killed off early. Idk if this even means anything in the long term, I've just always thought it was weird haha.

As for how I perceive the male identity: I'm not male, so I honestly don't feel like it's my place to say. I'm sorry. I may have used the term 'male identity' inappropriately.

I apologize if this isn't clear or if I haven't elaborated well on my thoughts; I have a killer headache and my mind is a bit scrambled.
 
It hurts the male identity because it focuses a lot on how you are perceived, not in who or what you are. You do things to put up a veneer of masculinity or even machismo, and act against yourself at times even if you feel it goes against what you want to do. You're not allowed to show sensitivity, and you're forced into "being hard." You're considered a failure in spite of your successes if, by 30, you don't have a wife, car, 2.5 kids, etc.. Not just by peers, either. I heard in a conversation awhile back, about a good friend of mine on the subject of him living at home. Even without knowing his circumstances, their first response was, "Haha, what are you doing with your life?" It's that expectation.
 
HEY WOW, A THREAD ABOUT A SERIOUS TOPIC IN WHICH THE PARTICIPANTS MANAGE TO COMMUNICATE AND DISCUSS THE ISSUE WITHOUT GETTING MAD WITH EACH OTHER.

No but seriously, good job chums.

Keep it up or I'll lock your shit.
 
tl;dr I too believe that we as a culture tend to mix up what is perceived to be as "traditional" masculine and feminine traits and aggression and passivity.

I still stand by my statement earlier that there are no masculine traits, nor are there more feminine ones. It's simply what we perceive them to be, largely dependent upon the culture we're brought up in. Again, the proto-typical "aggression" in, historically, being hunter/gatherers, but now seen as going after women, self-determination in getting a job, all that other stuff; that's largely seen as masculine. Being demure, shy, soft-spoken? Being nurturing? We call that being feminine. We even go so far as to say that real men don't act that way if they're true, honest-to-goodness men. And, as mentioned in the description of toxic masculinity, "real men don't cry."

If anything, masculine/feminine should be reworded as aggressive/passive. Then we'll have something I can roll with.
This is definitely an interesting notion, and one that I can agree with.

I often wonder what society would be like if our species evolved without the need for two different sexes (like, if humans had something that was still akin to sexual reproduction but between any two individuals as opposed to only duos with opposite sets of parts). Imagine an alt-universe human race in which the male and female sexes don't exist (or, if it's easier, just imagine some hypothetical civilized alien race without differing sexes). The traits that we associate with femininity and masculinity could still exist -- they just wouldn't be categorized into such groups. Any human could doll themselves up with what we would consider to be traditionally masculine/feminine clothing, develop traditionally masculine/feminine interests, or display traditionally masculine/feminine personality traits, but, to a human race without differing sexes, they would just be... clothing, interests, and personality traits. Vastly different clothing, interests, and personality traits, yes, but still just clothing, interests, and personality traits nonetheless. A sexless human race would have no reason to place these types of things into binary categories, and, more importantly, no reason to expect children to take after these traits on the basis of their physical characteristics -- therefore meaning that any individual can display any combination of what we would consider to be masculine/feminine traits and there would be nothing odd about it. Because that's just what makes them... them. It would be a world without the problems of "toxic masculinity", or the social stigmas that teach women that they're supposed to be meek, or that chastises men/women for having feminine/masculine interests. Theoretically, it would be a world free of all the gender-based social inequalities that exist in our world, because gender would be a foreign concept to these alt-humans. (And it would also theoretically be a world without any sexuality-based prejudices, as a human race in which all individuals are sexually compatible with each other would mean there would be no concept of heterosexuality or homosexuality, etc.)

And, yes, I do know that there is a difference between sex and gender. I'm not trying to argue that they're one and the same -- merely that a human race that developed without their species being divided into two different sexes would've never had any reason to assign certain societal roles or expectations to these differing sexes and, therefore, would've never developed the concept of gender.

But the thing is, these traits that we associate with genders would still exist in this hypothetical world, they just wouldn't be thought of as gendered traits. Preferring to wear dresses over suits would just mean... preferring to wear dresses over suits. And it wouldn't mean anything more than that. Same goes for having a more aggressive personality as opposed to a more passive personality. Which makes sense as, really, what do suits have to do with aggression and what to dresses have to do with being passive? There isn't much of a reason to categorize these two completely different things into the same gender binary, nor much of a reason to expect people of differing sexes (or even differing gender identities) to match traits that society assigns to these genders -- given the fact that most of these traits have nothing to do with each other (in the sense of comparing suits to aggression, I mean).

So, yeah, I agree that it would be totally plausible to start thinking masculine/feminine personality traits not as being masculine/feminine as much as simply being aggressive/passive (or whatever other choice of words most accurately summarizes traditional masculine and feminine traits, as it could still be up for debate whether or not this sums them up the best).

But yeah, I like the non-gendered personality traits thing. Makes it a lot more normalized for females to be more assertive and males to be more passive, which I think is great. That kind of social stigma just isn't needed in today's world -- just let people be who they wanna be. There's no real reason to think of it in terms of gender, imo.
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind, part of the reason the male/masculine female/feminine dichotomy exists is because males and females within the homo sapiens species have differing chemical makeups that have a tendency to produce different feelings at different levels. For example: Estrogen increases the number of serotonin receptors in the brain. Women can and do get higher highs and lower lows concerning sorrow and mania as a result. This among other biological factors altered the psychological state of ancient and medieval humans in ways they did not understand, but which produced different overall behavioural curves. This is why masculinity and feminity exist at all: Because primitive humans at least comprehended that there were some, strange differences between them based on gender.

Ever wonder why a lot of masculinity has to do with aggression and control, and proving your own worth? Testosterone increases aggression and competitive tendencies, males have between 40-60% more upper body strength and 20-40% more lower body strength. Males service a lesser function in breeding than females, so they have chemicals in them evolved over four billion years telling them to show off. We are not a unique species I'm this regard: Just look up animal mating rituals. It's also why men tend to be drawn to labour that produces more currency while females tend to be drawn to labour that allows them benefits/time off for family concerns, or which directly deals with children.

We are not entirely independent of four billion years of evolution, and to believe otherwise is a great hubris our brains entertain.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Hatsune Candy
If anything, masculine/feminine should be reworded as aggressive/passive. Then we'll have something I can roll with.
As wonderful of an idea as this is, I'm actually not sure if it would solve much. I don't think how these traits are worded really matters, no matter what people will always view them as gender-specific. Humans just looove to separate people with differing traits (i.e. male and female) into specific groups and then make generalizations about them based on what group they happen to be in; that's just how our brains tend to work. The problem lies in the way we stigmatize those who don't fall in line with these generalizations. In a species as big as ours, exceptions are bound to occur on a regular basis, and not everyone knows how to deal with them properly. If we could just treat everything on a case by case basis, that would make life soo much better for everyone; but, unfortunately, our brains just don't really work that way and that's why we have problems like "toxic masculinity" in the first place.
 
Keep in mind, part of the reason the male/masculine female/feminine dichotomy exists is because males and females within the homo sapiens species have differing chemical makeups that have a tendency to produce different feelings at different levels. For example: Estrogen increases the number of serotonin receptors in the brain. Women can and do get higher highs and lower lows concerning sorrow and mania as a result. This among other biological factors altered the psychological state of ancient and medieval humans in ways they did not understand, but which produced different overall behavioural curves. This is why masculinity and feminity exist at all: Because primitive humans at least comprehended that there were some, strange differences between them based on gender.

Ever wonder why a lot of masculinity has to do with aggression and control, and proving your own worth? Testosterone increases aggression and competitive tendencies, males have between 40-60% more upper body strength and 20-40% more lower body strength. Males service a lesser function in breeding than females, so they have chemicals in them evolved over four billion years telling them to show off. We are not a unique species I'm this regard: Just look up animal mating rituals. It's also why men tend to be drawn to labour that produces more currency while females tend to be drawn to labour that allows them benefits/time off for family concerns, or which directly deals with children.

We are not entirely independent of four billion years of evolution, and to believe otherwise is a great hubris our brains entertain.
I understand that. The example I provided was purely hypothetical -- I wasn't trying to argue that actual humans could so easily completely disregard every aspect of gender. I understand that the actual human race is much more complicated than that, and, yes, does have physical sex differences, which the humans in my hypothetical scenario did not.

I wasn't trying to suggest that our society could be just like the hypothetical one -- I just thought we could learn a few things from that little thought experiment. Those things being: there's no real reason to expect males/females to act certain ways or like certain things just because of their biology. Whether or not there's an actual correlation between sex and such personality traits wasn't my point. My point was that I don't like the way that having traits or interests that deviate from these norms is seen as something so bizarre and stigmatized -- especially when some gendered things in our society (clothing being a good example) don't really have any connection to biology, and really don't need to be gendered.

I just like the idea that kids (and adults) should have more freedom to figure things out on their own, without society reinforcing gender norms as heavily as it does. You have personality traits that members of your sex tend to have? Great. You don't? Also great. You enjoy a mishmash of masculine/feminine things? Again, great. I understand that there are biological reasons why the sexes tend to have certain characteristics, but, I just wish those tendencies didn't create these pigeonholes that we try to put people (especially kids) into, acting as if they need to have the Full PackageTM​ of whatever their sex entails (or at least a clear majority of said gendered traits), instead of just acknowledging that people are different and letting kids figure out who they without needing to attach gender to it.

BUT, I realize I'm being completely idealistic here. Once again, while I do think that the hypothetical sexless humans have slightly fewer social ills to deal with than our own society, I know that we are not the hypothetical sexless humans. And I wasn't suggesting we completely ignore biological fact in an attempt to be like one. It was just... food for thought, that's all.
 
Actually I was just pointing that out in general. It was seeming to get overlooked. Sorry if it seems like I was targeting you, not really the intention there.

Albeit, the clothes thing actually makes sense to be gendered when accounting for human desire to flourish physically. Whether that is to look casual, business, sexual, or otherwise. Compare and contrast to species like birds, many of whom spend hours merely grooming themselves to look ideal for a mate, or other social reasons. Clothes are just an extension of whatever social act we wish to personify. A lot of that is sexual. Manifestation of psychological desire to physically display internal desires. :ferret:

Albeit, expression of said desire through clothing varies through societies and time periods. It has, however, always been present for a reason...
 
Actually I was just pointing that out in general. It was seeming to get overlooked. Sorry if it seems like I was targeting you, not really the intention there.

Albeit, the clothes thing actually makes sense to be gendered when accounting for human desire to flourish physically. Whether that is to look casual, business, sexual, or otherwise. Compare and contrast to species like birds, many of whom spend hours merely grooming themselves to look ideal for a mate, or other social reasons. Clothes are just an extension of whatever social act we wish to personify. A lot of that is sexual. Manifestation of psychological desire to physically display internal desires. :ferret:

Albeit, expression of said desire through clothing varies through societies and time periods. It has, however, always been present for a reason...
Mmmm. I still don't see how that means that dresses have to be for women and suits have to be for men. Yes, people express themselves through clothing -- that's a given -- but, unlike the biological factors leading to certain personality traits in men or women, there's really nothing about these specific examples of clothing that's really linked to either sex. Yes, humans do tend to get themselves dolled up for their potential mates, but what's stopping men from wearing skirts? Nothing except the femininity that we associate with skirts.

Like you said, expression through clothing varies by culture and time period. It only has the meanings we associate with it. Hence my point that it really doesn't need to be gendered. Not only, that, but, even all the meanings that you associated with clothing in this post: the desire to attract a mate, or to look casual/business/sexual -- none of that is inherently linked to any gender.
 
It means, to me at least, taking care of your family and having the ability to make tough choices (and see them through regardless of intended or nonintended consequences).
 
Like you said, expression through clothing varies by culture and time period. It only has the meanings we associate with it. Hence my point that it really doesn't need to be gendered. Not only, that, but, even all the meanings that you associated with clothing in this post: the desire to attract a mate, or to look casual/business/sexual -- none of that is inherently linked to any gender.
No, but what's valued sexually between a male and a female differs, and generally always will, because we have different body parts, and we're wired differently at a sexual level*. People like to embrace things that reflect part of their identity. Gendered clothing exists because your gender is part of your identity. Not all clothing needs to be gendered, true, and there's actually plenty that isn't. The uniforms at my workplace are the same for both genders. As for why women's jeans and men's jeans exist as separate entities, it's because our ratios for legs, hips, and waists are actually different quite often because of biology... However, the fact that women's jeans sometimes have fake pockets is infuriatingly stupid. Why the fuck would anyone design that? Our fashion could certainly be improved. :ferret:

Basically: We have gendered clothing because we idolize different parts of each other (literal, physical parts I mean) and fashion accentuates that. It's also part of our personal identities: Because being a female or being a male means a lot to some people. That's why feminists even exist, really.

*Does not account for individual fetishes and sexuality and so on. Speaking strictly of the literal "female sex organs and chemicals differ wildly from male and thus produce different statistical averages" point. There are individuals who totally buck trends, but as a rule of thumb, female sexual fantasies tend to be more emotional, and male sexual fantasies tend to be more physical. Has to do with how our sex organs are wired. Relevant to fashion because it helps to explain why a lot of "attractive" female clothing in the West is revealing, whereas for males it's generally good looking, pristine suits and the like. SCIENCE!

Still. I accept your view point as different from mine. Thank you for the discussion. 'Twas quite civil.

giphy.gif
 
To clarify, because it seems some people are getting this impression (yeah for flaws in the English language), I've never been trying to argue that biological differences don't exist. Neither have I been arguing that we can simply ditch our evolutionary history that easily, it's something that's going to stick around for quite some time.

It's strictly the practice of looking at someone and going "Oh, I see you're male/female. I guess that means you must like ______, behave like ______ and buy ______!" that bugs me.
I think it'd be far more beneficial to society if you just looked at demographics in regards to personality traits, or biological features. Instead of Gender Identities and Biological Sex.

For example:
-> Instead of selling Male or Female Jeans to account for different types, divide it jeans by the body types instead.
I don't know any specific terminology, here but it'd be something like "Big waist Jeans" and "Curvy leg Jeans".

-> Instead of selling Suits for men and dresses for women, just sell then to get across the traits they are associated with.
So instead of going "Get a Suit, every man should have one" go "Get a suit, every Assertive person should have one".

Biology is still going to be there, so on average the trends we see now with customer bases will still persist.
But in this way you're advertising directly to the type of people who'd be interested, instead of advertising to a group who on average would be interested.
Therefore some people you are advertising to are wasted effort, and some people who you aren't advertising to would never get said product when they might have otherwise.
 
inB4; I'm trying to remain neutral in this post. Because my replies a re a little more in-depth, this is admittedly more difficult. Still I only mean to learn about others their perspectives. If you feel something I say is loaded or agenda-driven, let me know. That is not my intention.

Yes, humans do tend to get themselves dolled up for their potential mates, but what's stopping men from wearing skirts? Nothing except the femininity that we associate with skirts.
kinloch_anderson_kilt.jpg


I couldn't not reference it.

As I understand fashion, a lot of it is based on showing off desirable traits. I've spent more time on fashion and make-up sites than most guys would ever care to admit (roleplaying, yo) and what I've seen is that a lot of those are bringing out or drawing focus to desirable features of one's body. So if you have X body-shape, you want to show off Y part of your body and you accent it by wearing Z piece of garment. Similarly stories exist with make-up and skin-tone. On the male spectrum, a tuxedo often has shoulder fillings for example, to make a guy look broader as broad shoulders are interpret as a symbol of strength (AKA masculinity) which is generally considered desirable in a partner. Thighs, meanwhile, something many short skirts show off, tend to remain covered up with guys, even with shorts, because thighs on their own on men are not widely considered a guy's most desirable trait. Versus a woman, because thighs are common fat storages and if you know anything about evolutionary psychology, you know where that is going.

That's not to say guys can't wear skirts, but hopefully this gives some insight as to why it's not that popular beyond that it's considered feminine.

If anything, masculine/feminine should be reworded as aggressive/passive. Then we'll have something I can roll with.
I'm going to admit I do not follow your logic at all. Care to explain why this should be reworded? For example, I don't think nurturing, a trait you mentioned as typically considered feminine, could be considered exclusively passive. On the flipside, managing one's aggression is also a popular form of masculinity. The image of the gentleman actively discourages aggression, especially needless or abundant aggression.

It hurts the male identity because it focuses a lot on how you are perceived, not in who or what you are.
So you are referring to the individual as male? I'm not sure I understand, as I interpret the definition of toxic masculinity given to me, it was described as something that affects men as a collective. As such I wanted to ask, how do you perceive the male identity as a collective?

I heard in a conversation awhile back, about a good friend of mine on the subject of him living at home. Even without knowing his circumstances, their first response was, "Haha, what are you doing with your life?" It's that expectation.
Is this expectation typically directed towards males or is it an expectation of independence that comes with age? I might be missing some context as to what you're trying to say. Could you expand?

@Dervish
A profound sentiment, but what I was referring to was your mention of being confident in your choices and able to provide and protect yourself and your loved once as traits you consider masculine. As such, I wanted to ask you if you feel those traits are also desirable of a female identity?

I mentioned "boys will be boys" before -- that starts very young. A boy teases a girl relentlessly: "boys will be boys." Boys fight with each other: "boys will be boys."
This might be somewhat of an odd comparison, but hear me out. My parents had a very big dog, who was also quite dominant. This dog had absolutely no intention of hurting others, but would commonly fight with other dogs to determine who had dominance. Now this dog was strong, a breed that traditionally fought off wolves, so you can imagine the outcome of such fights. The thing I want to note is, though, these kinds of fights for dominance never meant wounding the other party. These fights were always fought with restraint and would end if the other dog yielded. After that, they'd be buddies or go their own ways. On the flip side, in our family, this dog was trained to be below my parents, me and my brother. While younger he challenged that status quo sometimes, but ultimately he was content and happy in that role, while still very strong and confident in himself.

Knowing your place and purpose in a group can be a cornerstone for a man his identity. Hierarchy can play a place in this. As such, younger boys who are still very strongly developing their emotional strength and identity (and similarly immature older guys) often express this physically. They're simply not ready to compete on a different level than that. While I don't think we should let kindergarteners poke each other's eyes out with sharp sticks, generally when younger boys fight; look at the aftermath. More often than not, a week or so after those two boys got into a fight, they're suddenly buddies. Bruises and all completely forgotten.

Now of course this tends to get a little more tricky when you get older, as confidence and external expectations start playing a bigger role in a person's life, but during earlier development physical outings are ways of expressing that simply have few or no little other known outlets. Men and boys tend to have a different outlook on physical violence. If you, back to dogs, try to break up every display or fight for dominance between dogs, these dogs will actually become more aggressive because they do not know well where they belong in their hierarchy. They won't have the opportunity to come to terms with their identity. Now, people aren't dogs. We can't say they're exactly the same. Yet, regardless of how much we've evolved past animal skins and cave paintings, some desire for order in the community remains. Because men were traditionally hunters, decisions had to be made fast, so hierarchies had to be made and leaders had to be strong and confident. The most primal ways to decide these hierarchies are rooted in our DNA. While I think everyone can agree on not wanting a world of barbarians and cavemen, if 'boys can't be boys' many lose an important venue of expression and stilt their development as a person until they are ready to learn how to... Frankly, be a man. Being a man, or adult in general, is at least some form of balance between traditionally masculine and traditionally feminine traits.

Wherein lies the conflict, as I see it, is that traditional feminine values have a very strong representation in today's community. Feelings are more important in society than ever before. However, a lot of people feel like these masculine of traits are just as natural as the feminine traits, whereas others see them as outdated. It's basically a nature versus nurture debate, in a way. The more nature-inclined folks will say 'boys will be boys' because they see it as telling boys not to be their selves if they extensively punish boys for getting rough from time to time.

Similarly, teasing and hairpulling is often a way a boy expresses his affection for a girl. They develop outlets in different orders, so in this case 'boys will be boys' is essentially a way of saying that they will learn as they grow. Conversely, because traditional feminine values have such a strong presence today, many of us value safety and comfort over expression. Not in absolutes, mind you, only crazy people think in absolutes, but rather than be treated as equal venues of expression because it's what comes naturally, we prioritise the safety and feelings of traditional femininity over a more instinctive and perhaps aggressive, boyish form of expression.

All that said, this wall of text is a huge generalisation and there are enough outliers out there that have both boys and girls, women and men, develop and act differently from the norm. That is a-okay. Fuck, the world would be pretty boring otherwise. I don't claim to know what a perfect balance is, especially because I'm not a parent. I just wanted to know if you've ever had these points thrown at you and how you feel about it?


Something I've also always thought was fairly interesting is how so many men seem to have this gutterally negative reaction to something as small as boys/men sitting down to pee. My mom started teaching my brother that it was fine, and she told me that my dad flipped out about this and how it wasn't "appropriate." I mean... it's just a bathroom habit. But apparently it's not manly at all and the behaviour is undesirable and must be killed off early. Idk if this even means anything in the long term, I've just always thought it was weird haha.
As referenced to above, as traditionally feminine traits become more prevalent in our society, whereas traditionally masculine traits develop early in boys, there's a lot of men who feel their identity being challenged. An identity they their selves are actually quite comfortable with and perceive as good. In some instinctive way, as a certain degree of masculinity is perceived by many to be necessary by fathers to see their sons to succeed in life, they encourage traits they ascribe to masculinity.

Still, the moment your brother gets his hands on a smartphone, he will be sitting regardless ;p

As for how I perceive the male identity: I'm not male, so I honestly don't feel like it's my place to say. I'm sorry. I may have used the term 'male identity' inappropriately.
There's no right or wrong answer to this question, I'm just asking how you personally perceive it. An opinion, more than a dictionary definition, if you will.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Brovo
Status
Not open for further replies.