A Feminist Defense of Masculine Virtues

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
^ That dude makes an excellent feminist.

On the article though, it isn’t clear to me whether or not she sees manhood or manliness as necessary or virtuous. Even the elitists she’s criticizing will sometimes admit that it is necessary, but not virtuous. So is she simply honestly stating the way it is viewed by her peers, or trying to amend the status of manhood from necessary to virtuous?

[/quote]
I think her main point is recognizing that it exists; that there are inherent differences between the sexes and we need to accept that and act accordingly. Whether or not it is virtuous or necessary is irrelevant. The radical feminists, who dominate the movement, avoid arguing about necessity and virtue by claiming that masculinity does not exist except as something man created. [/quote]

Interesting. I got the part about suppressing masculinity being a bad thing, and was aware of the view that gender was a man made construct designed to yadda yadda yadda, but when I read something like this I always question “to what end is this the means?(the particular article, not the concept)”.

Sometimes it is more clear than others, other times I miss the intention all together.

FWIW, I agree with her. I’ve seen a lot of kids come out of high school and into that industrial base she speaks of. There isn’t anything good about a bitchy little man child with the mannerisms of a woman trying to imitate what he thinks a man should be.

22

Question: If a man wrote this article, would it be taken anywhere as seriously?

23

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Question: If a man wrote this article, would it be taken anywhere as seriously?[/quote]

No, I don’t think so. I also can’t imagine her opinions getting much attention if she were a conservative woman. That’s one of the things that makes her so intriguing.

If I told you I was going to show you an article by a lesbian feminist academic who wears androgynous pantsuits and voted for Obama, you’d have a pretty good idea what she’s going to say, right? And then BAM! She’s completely surprising and different than what you expected.

It’s like hearing my liberal gay vegetarian Latino friend rip on affirmative action. When he says it, it has a lot more street cred.

24

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
…Interesting. I got the part about suppressing masculinity being a bad thing, and was aware of the view that gender was a man made construct designed to yadda yadda yadda, but when I read something like this I always question “to what end is this the means?(the particular article, not the concept)”.

Sometimes it is more clear than others, other times I miss the intention all together.

FWIW, I agree with her. I’ve seen a lot of kids come out of high school and into that industrial base she speaks of. There isn’t anything good about a bitchy little man child with the mannerisms of a woman trying to imitate what he thinks a man should be.

[/quote]

Skyzyks, I’ve been thinking about some of your questions, and I’m not sure what she means either. I just put a couple of her books on hold at the library, so I intend to get a little better idea.

As someone mentioned, she’s got this very energetic way of writing and speaking, and she tends to tie things together in some unconventional ways. That excerpt where she starts off talking about what is going on with education, then PC gender politics in universities, and then ties it in with sex and pornography has me a bit befuddled. Like, I’m following, following, and now I have no idea what exactly she means.

25

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
…Interesting. I got the part about suppressing masculinity being a bad thing, and was aware of the view that gender was a man made construct designed to yadda yadda yadda, but when I read something like this I always question “to what end is this the means?(the particular article, not the concept)”.

Sometimes it is more clear than others, other times I miss the intention all together.

FWIW, I agree with her. I’ve seen a lot of kids come out of high school and into that industrial base she speaks of. There isn’t anything good about a bitchy little man child with the mannerisms of a woman trying to imitate what he thinks a man should be.

[/quote]

Skyzyks, I’ve been thinking about some of your questions, and I’m not sure what she means either. I just put a couple of her books on hold at the library, so I intend to get a little better idea.

As someone mentioned, she’s got this very energetic way of writing and speaking, and she tends to tie things together in some unconventional ways. That excerpt where she starts off talking about what is going on with education, then PC gender politics in universities, and then ties it in with sex and pornography has me a bit befuddled. Like, I’m following, following, and now I have no idea what exactly she means.
[/quote]

I get the tie ins of the suppression of sexuality (on both sides) leading to frustration and non real interactions as one of the only outlets people have for that type of energy, and agree whole heartedly with her ideas on the modern social dynamics and their results.

After giving it a second read I see that there is some homage paid to the virtuous aspects of masculinity, then a call for the revision of feminism.

Seems that she wants to dial it back from the extremes and focus more on women than trashing men. It just took a couple of reads for me to get that.

Personally, I worry for my son in a modern education environment. If he’s anything like I was he will be very intelligent and high energy, therefore a prime candidate for medication to suppress any drive he has. I was of the pre-adhd generation and had enough problems with boredom due to lack of challenge and a very bad home life, and by todays standards would probably be institutionalized. Unfortunately, I’m not currently in the economic strata that makes private or home school an option, but I still have a few years to cross that bridge.

The Bodyguard had some great opinions and (bad) experiences that he shared when he was regular on here, and his thoughts are very similar to mine. Ya Gotta let boys be boys.

26

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I really doubt women will make special forces but most war is not hand to hand and the closer you can get women to men in war is a good thing IMO[/quote]

Why?

27

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I really doubt women will make special forces but most war is not hand to hand and the closer you can get women to men in war is a good thing IMO[/quote]

Why?[/quote]
I’d like to know why as well. I wasn’t infantry but I am familiar with what they do and I know and have known infantrymen and marines and I am pretty set in my belief that (American) women are not capable of doing that job. There may be exceptions out there but as a group they just can’t cut it. Now, there may be women in some 3rd world nation who can handle it but there is a difference between being a guerrilla, freedom fighter, insurgent, partisan, whatever, and being a combat soldier or marine.

28

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I really doubt women will make special forces but most war is not hand to hand and the closer you can get women to men in war is a good thing IMO[/quote]

Why?[/quote]
I’d like to know why as well. I wasn’t infantry but I am familiar with what they do and I know and have known infantrymen and marines and I am pretty set in my belief that (American) women are not capable of doing that job. There may be exceptions out there but as a group they just can’t cut it. Now, there may be women in some 3rd world nation who can handle it but there is a difference between being a guerrilla, freedom fighter, insurgent, partisan, whatever, and being a combat soldier or marine. [/quote]

Especially in light of this:

29

and this:

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

30

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
^ That dude makes an excellent feminist.

On the article though, it isn’t clear to me whether or not she sees manhood or manliness as necessary or virtuous. Even the elitists she’s criticizing will sometimes admit that it is necessary, but not virtuous. So is she simply honestly stating the way it is viewed by her peers, or trying to amend the status of manhood from necessary to virtuous?

[/quote]
I think her main point is recognizing that it exists; that there are inherent differences between the sexes and we need to accept that and act accordingly. Whether or not it is virtuous or necessary is irrelevant. The radical feminists, who dominate the movement, avoid arguing about necessity and virtue by claiming that masculinity does not exist except as something man created. [/quote]

If anybody ever doubted that there was such a thing as “masculinity” that existed naturally–and I have never doubted that–all they need do is listen to an airing of an episode of NPR’s “This American Life” where they talk to a post-op/post-hormone female to male transgender. She talks extensively about what started happening to her when she was put on Testosterone for the first time and about how much different it is, how much the drive imparts. Fascinating, actually.

The stuff is in our marrow, not just the culture. Literally, in our cells. Whether it is expressed or not has nothing to do with it being there, in our DNA.

31

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
^ That dude makes an excellent feminist.

On the article though, it isn’t clear to me whether or not she sees manhood or manliness as necessary or virtuous. Even the elitists she’s criticizing will sometimes admit that it is necessary, but not virtuous. So is she simply honestly stating the way it is viewed by her peers, or trying to amend the status of manhood from necessary to virtuous?

[/quote]
I think her main point is recognizing that it exists; that there are inherent differences between the sexes and we need to accept that and act accordingly. Whether or not it is virtuous or necessary is irrelevant. The radical feminists, who dominate the movement, avoid arguing about necessity and virtue by claiming that masculinity does not exist except as something man created. [/quote]

If anybody ever doubted that there was such a thing as “masculinity” that existed naturally–and I have never doubted that–all they need do is listen to an airing of an episode of NPR’s “This American Life” where they talk to a post-op/post-hormone female to male transgender. She talks extensively about what started happening to her when she was put on Testosterone for the first time and about how much different it is, how much the drive imparts. Fascinating, actually.

The stuff is in our marrow, not just the culture. Literally, in our cells. Whether it is expressed or not has nothing to do with it being there, in our DNA.[/quote]

Thanks, I will try to find the NPR episode on the web. Maybe there’s a podcast. That sounds really, really interesting.

Related, I recently read a little book written for teens called For Young Women Only: What You Need to Know About How Guys Think, by Feldhahan and Rice. I was looking at it as a parenting resource, and I had my husband and teenage son read it for feedback and they both said “Yep, that’s pretty much the way it is.” :slight_smile:

The authors collected a lot of data from surveys, interviews, and focus groups, polling 404 guys from age 15 to 20, and so there’s some stats about the way young men think. I’d recommend it for any woman, but especially people raising kids. They also have a book called For Women Only: What You Need to Know about the Inner Lives of Men, which is on my list. That one polls men from 21-75, so there’s data about how some attitudes change, or remain stable, over the lifespan. Some of it is not stuff women will think is “fair”, but the point is that it’s the reality, so you might as well understand it.

For example, they asked men:

Think about what these two negative experiences would be like: to feel alone and unloved in the world OR to feel inadequate and disrespected by everyone. If you were forced to choose one, which would you prefer? Would you rather feel alone and unloved, or inadequate and disrespected? For adult men, 74% would choose be alone and unloved, rather than inadequate and disrespected. Women are much more likely to be choose love.

In the middle of a conflict with a girl, I am more likely to be feeling…That she doesn’t love (cherish, have affection for)me right now OR That she doesn’t respect (trust, believe in) me right now…81% of guys shoes the second option - felt that she didn’t trust or respect.

There’s a lot of good advice about showing faith/trust, avoiding criticism, and gossip, etc… in the book.

Anyway, I believe in many ways we ARE our hormones. The masculine and feminine are not the same, but are ideally two parts of a whole.

32

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
^ That dude makes an excellent feminist.

On the article though, it isn’t clear to me whether or not she sees manhood or manliness as necessary or virtuous. Even the elitists she’s criticizing will sometimes admit that it is necessary, but not virtuous. So is she simply honestly stating the way it is viewed by her peers, or trying to amend the status of manhood from necessary to virtuous?

[/quote]
I think her main point is recognizing that it exists; that there are inherent differences between the sexes and we need to accept that and act accordingly. Whether or not it is virtuous or necessary is irrelevant. The radical feminists, who dominate the movement, avoid arguing about necessity and virtue by claiming that masculinity does not exist except as something man created. [/quote]

If anybody ever doubted that there was such a thing as “masculinity” that existed naturally–and I have never doubted that–all they need do is listen to an airing of an episode of NPR’s “This American Life” where they talk to a post-op/post-hormone female to male transgender. She talks extensively about what started happening to her when she was put on Testosterone for the first time and about how much different it is, how much the drive imparts. Fascinating, actually.

The stuff is in our marrow, not just the culture. Literally, in our cells. Whether it is expressed or not has nothing to do with it being there, in our DNA.[/quote]

Thanks, I will try to find the NPR episode on the web. Maybe there’s a podcast. That sounds really, really interesting.

Related, I recently read a little book written for teens called For Young Women Only: What You Need to Know About How Guys Think, by Feldhahan and Rice. I was looking at it as a parenting resource, and I had my husband and teenage son read it for feedback and they both said “Yep, that’s pretty much the way it is.” :slight_smile:

The authors collected a lot of data from surveys, interviews, and focus groups, polling 404 guys from age 15 to 20, and so there’s some stats about the way young men think. I’d recommend it for any woman, but especially people raising kids. They also have a book called For Women Only: What You Need to Know about the Inner Lives of Men, which is on my list. That one polls men from 21-75, so there’s data about how some attitudes change, or remain stable, over the lifespan. Some of it is not stuff women will think is “fair”, but the point is that it’s the reality, so you might as well understand it.

For example, they asked men:

Think about what these two negative experiences would be like: to feel alone and unloved in the world OR to feel inadequate and disrespected by everyone. If you were forced to choose one, which would you prefer? Would you rather feel alone and unloved, or inadequate and disrespected? For adult men, 74% would choose be alone and unloved, rather than inadequate and disrespected. Women are much more likely to be choose love.

In the middle of a conflict with a girl, I am more likely to be feeling…That she doesn’t love (cherish, have affection for)me right now OR That she doesn’t respect (trust, believe in) me right now…81% of guys shoes the second option - felt that she didn’t trust or respect.

There’s a lot of good advice about showing faith/trust, avoiding criticism, and gossip, etc… in the book.

Anyway, I believe in many ways we ARE our hormones. The masculine and feminine are not the same, but are ideally two parts of a whole.
[/quote]

Well said.

33

Contraception. Go to college. Contraception. Get “established” in career. Contraception. Next thing you know, long in the tooth, barren, and still single. Or, perhaps single, but pregnant by consumerist design. What do they need “masculine” for? Donated sperm, perhaps. But masculinity?

Women are increasingly their own bread winners now. They can set aside biology and reproduction. And, have increasingly chosen to do so. And, again, IF they choose to get pregnant they don’t necessarily even need you present. They don’t need your masculinity. If they ever choose to get married (which they increasingly won’t) it’s to split the chores and bills. Not for your ‘masculinity.’

She herself doesn’t need a man’s masculinity in her life, apparently. In fact, she’s seems mostly concerned that there’s not enough ‘masculinity’ to send off to die for her in some foreign hell-hole. While she cuddles up safe at home with her life partner.

Not nostalgic for bygone social roles? Then she’s just flapping her gums aimlessly. If you 'aint the provider for her–as in a traditional household–she aint going to tolerate your ‘masculinity.’ Can’t have your cake and eat it too. Or, something like that.

34

Hell, look what we’ve done to state recognized marriage! Men and women will have sex. This specific arrangement comes with the inherent power of reproduction. It was only common sense to impart status on this specific arrangement in order to direct this power in an an orderly fashion. Reproduction was going to happen. Planned, unplanned. Orderly, disorderly. Hence, the rise of a model institution which simply acknowledged the man, the woman, and the reproductive power (for better or worse). Yet, we’ve decoupled marriage from the brute facts of nature/biology, turning it into another institution from which to show off your individualism.

35

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

It’s like hearing my liberal gay vegetarian Latino friend rip on affirmative action. When he says it, it has a lot more street cred. [/quote]

This sounds like someone who would be great to have conversation/debate with.

36

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Contraception. Go to college. Contraception. Get “established” in career. Contraception. Next thing you know, long in the tooth, barren, and still single. Or, perhaps single, but pregnant by consumerist design. What do they need “masculine” for? Donated sperm, perhaps. But masculinity?

Women are increasingly their own bread winners now. They can set aside biology and reproduction. And, have increasingly chosen to do so. And, again, IF they choose to get pregnant they don’t necessarily even need you present. They don’t need your masculinity. If they ever choose to get married (which they increasingly won’t) it’s to split the chores and bills. Not for your ‘masculinity.’

She herself doesn’t need a man’s masculinity in her life, apparently. In fact, she’s seems mostly concerned that there’s not enough ‘masculinity’ to send off to die for her in some foreign hell-hole. While she cuddles up safe at home with her life partner.

Not nostalgic for bygone social roles? Then she’s just flapping her gums aimlessly. If you 'aint the provider for her–as in a traditional household–she aint going to tolerate your ‘masculinity.’ Can’t have your cake and eat it too. Or, something like that.
[/quote]

You know it is funny. I go to all the major check-ups for my daughter and bring her to the DR when she is sick some of the time, and her doctor is very happy that I, the man, is involved. But at the first appointment he made it VERY clear that I was to act “like a man with her. Don’t be too gentle, that is the mother’s department. You need her to know masculinity, know the different touches. She needs to experience both worlds. She isn’t going to break, so don’t not be a man about it.”

I was very taken aback by the stern way he insisted I not baby her, and not be overly soft with her. (Obviously within reason, I mean she was a newborn, you don’t slam her around, but intelligent people will get the point.) It was very refreshing, and has really shaped the way I interact with her.

So, in short, there are people out there to understand what I think you are getting at here. It is unfortunate that this small town doctor isn’t influencing more people though. I’m very grateful he is in my town, but at teh same time, sort of feel selfish for not sharing him with the rest of the world. He is a great doctor.

37

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
^ That dude makes an excellent feminist.

On the article though, it isn’t clear to me whether or not she sees manhood or manliness as necessary or virtuous. Even the elitists she’s criticizing will sometimes admit that it is necessary, but not virtuous. So is she simply honestly stating the way it is viewed by her peers, or trying to amend the status of manhood from necessary to virtuous?

[/quote]
I think her main point is recognizing that it exists; that there are inherent differences between the sexes and we need to accept that and act accordingly. Whether or not it is virtuous or necessary is irrelevant. The radical feminists, who dominate the movement, avoid arguing about necessity and virtue by claiming that masculinity does not exist except as something man created. [/quote]

If anybody ever doubted that there was such a thing as “masculinity” that existed naturally–and I have never doubted that–all they need do is listen to an airing of an episode of NPR’s “This American Life” where they talk to a post-op/post-hormone female to male transgender. She talks extensively about what started happening to her when she was put on Testosterone for the first time and about how much different it is, how much the drive imparts. Fascinating, actually.

The stuff is in our marrow, not just the culture. Literally, in our cells. Whether it is expressed or not has nothing to do with it being there, in our DNA.[/quote]

It’s funny the way you put that. My son (whom I know I blather on about enough already) since he was 10 mos. old loves to engage in feats of strength, especially during growth spurts/hormone surges. He tips his walker and other toys up and over strongman tire flip style and cheers himself when he topples them and grabs on to doorjambs and table legs and pulls with all of his might while letting out a wicked little baby “Whooaaaa” exertion grunt.

Its absolutely hilarious and at the same time interesting to me because he seems to have an innate urge to do those things. I haven’t taken him to lift with me yet, so I know that it isn’t a learned behavior or imitation.

38

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
^ That dude makes an excellent feminist.

On the article though, it isn’t clear to me whether or not she sees manhood or manliness as necessary or virtuous. Even the elitists she’s criticizing will sometimes admit that it is necessary, but not virtuous. So is she simply honestly stating the way it is viewed by her peers, or trying to amend the status of manhood from necessary to virtuous?

[/quote]
I think her main point is recognizing that it exists; that there are inherent differences between the sexes and we need to accept that and act accordingly. Whether or not it is virtuous or necessary is irrelevant. The radical feminists, who dominate the movement, avoid arguing about necessity and virtue by claiming that masculinity does not exist except as something man created. [/quote]

If anybody ever doubted that there was such a thing as “masculinity” that existed naturally–and I have never doubted that–all they need do is listen to an airing of an episode of NPR’s “This American Life” where they talk to a post-op/post-hormone female to male transgender. She talks extensively about what started happening to her when she was put on Testosterone for the first time and about how much different it is, how much the drive imparts. Fascinating, actually.

The stuff is in our marrow, not just the culture. Literally, in our cells. Whether it is expressed or not has nothing to do with it being there, in our DNA.[/quote]

It’s funny the way you put that. My son (whom I know I blather on about enough already) since he was 10 mos. old loves to engage in feats of strength, especially during growth spurts/hormone surges. He tips his walker and other toys up and over strongman tire flip style and cheers himself when he topples them and grabs on to doorjambs and table legs and pulls with all of his might while letting out a wicked little baby “Whooaaaa” exertion grunt.

Its absolutely hilarious and at the same time interesting to me because he seems to have an innate urge to do those things. I haven’t taken him to lift with me yet, so I know that it isn’t a learned behavior or imitation.
[/quote]

It is. I think it is absolutely one of the greatest crimes we can perpetrate as a society to attempt to train that out of a boy (or if not totally, then squelch it). TC had some words on this subject once in one of his famous Dog articles.

39

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

Thanks, I will try to find the NPR episode on the web. Maybe there’s a podcast. That sounds really, really interesting.
[/quote]

I got it from the podcast. I didn’t bring my personal computer to work though so I can’t tell you which it is. It was from 2006 or 2007 I think. I’ll try to look it up at home.

40

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Hell, look what we’ve done to state recognized marriage! Men and women will have sex. This specific arrangement comes with the inherent power of reproduction. It was only common sense to impart status on this specific arrangement in order to direct this power in an an orderly fashion. Reproduction was going to happen. Planned, unplanned. Orderly, disorderly. Hence, the rise of a model institution which simply acknowledged the man, the woman, and the reproductive power (for better or worse). Yet, we’ve decoupled marriage from the brute facts of nature/biology, turning it into another institution from which to show off your individualism. [/quote]

Marriage has to be made an attractive alternative for men, not women. Women will always want to get married.

We’ve done the latter in recent years.