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.
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.