Feminization of Men

Off Topic
21

[quote]L. Chambers wrote:
jedidiah wrote:
BlakeAE wrote:
I vote Vin Diesel. Yeah he’s got a lot of cheese but he’s got a decent build, more than most Hollywood guys, and he’s a hardass in every movie. I didn’t and wont see the Pacifier so that doesn’t count.

I actually met Vin Diesel this summer just chilling on down off Canal street below china town. I have no idea what the hell he was doing but I shook his hand and was extremely impressed.

He is short, as I’m sure you’re all aware. However, he is every inch a badass and an intimidating figure to be sure.

I called him “Mr. Diesel.” My friends thought it was hilarious.

So, yeah, I was a sheepish fanboy who ran up and shook hands with a celebrity just to say I could. I admit it.

Hell, it was Vin Diesel.

I heard Vin Diesel is gay.
[/quote]

I heard Vin Diesel can beat up chuck norris and Mr T at the same time.

22

Not all American men are becoming pussies. That’s fucking nonsense. The reality is that manly men aren’t auditioning for movies. How does that not follow?

Think back to your highschool drama club. Yea. It’s those guys that are auditioning for movies.

23

[quote]vulcan500rider wrote:
I’m sure I’m going to get flamed for this, but some of it has to be said.

I’m an English major, and I specialize in gender theory (no, I’m straight as an arrow) The whole idea surrounding gender theory is to examine the roles we’re forced into so that we can CHOOSE to do things, not be unconsciously FORCED into things by the roles society puts on us.

Typically, in a patriarchal society, men and molded to become a direct opposition to femininity, because that helps in the oppression of women. Men are modeled to be strong, to imply women become weak. Men are raised assertive, to make women submissive, and so on. Conforming to these roles unconsciously only perpetuates the stupidity.

I’m not saying that men shouldn’t be strong, or assertive. What I’m saying is that men are still men regardless of how physically dominant or mentally assertive they are. PEOPLE should be strong and mentally assertive. The only thing that makes you “manly” dangles between your legs–everything else is a result of your personal choice to conform to what others tell you to be.

As for the comments about men waxing and getting manicures, yes I think it’s BS, but I think it’s BS because it’s unnecessarily vain, not because it makes them “feminine,” anymore than watching the superbowl makes them “masculine.”

I also think basic training would be good for men (and women) because it would instill a necessary focus on physical fitness and cooperation in a society that has become self-centered, lazy, and superficial.

If you’re threatened by the image of a more “feminine” man, perhaps you need to take a long look at what you think a man is, and why. Are the traits that you associate with manliness entirely due to the biological differences between men and women, or is there a LOT more social issues behind them?

Flame, if you will, but THINK.

Cheers.[/quote]

Excellent post.

24

[quote]vulcan500rider wrote:
I’m sure I’m going to get flamed for this, but some of it has to be said.

I’m an English major, and I specialize in gender theory (no, I’m straight as an arrow) The whole idea surrounding gender theory is to examine the roles we’re forced into so that we can CHOOSE to do things, not be unconsciously FORCED into things by the roles society puts on us.

Typically, in a patriarchal society, men and molded to become a direct opposition to femininity, because that helps in the oppression of women. Men are modeled to be strong, to imply women become weak. Men are raised assertive, to make women submissive, and so on. Conforming to these roles unconsciously only perpetuates the stupidity.

I’m not saying that men shouldn’t be strong, or assertive. What I’m saying is that men are still men regardless of how physically dominant or mentally assertive they are. PEOPLE should be strong and mentally assertive. The only thing that makes you “manly” dangles between your legs–everything else is a result of your personal choice to conform to what others tell you to be.

As for the comments about men waxing and getting manicures, yes I think it’s BS, but I think it’s BS because it’s unnecessarily vain, not because it makes them “feminine,” anymore than watching the superbowl makes them “masculine.”

I also think basic training would be good for men (and women) because it would instill a necessary focus on physical fitness and cooperation in a society that has become self-centered, lazy, and superficial.

If you’re threatened by the image of a more “feminine” man, perhaps you need to take a long look at what you think a man is, and why. Are the traits that you associate with manliness entirely due to the biological differences between men and women, or is there a LOT more social issues behind them?

Flame, if you will, but THINK.

Cheers.[/quote]

Great post, well said.

I agree wholeheartedly.

25

[quote]vulcan500rider wrote:
I’m an English major, and I specialize in gender theory (no, I’m straight as an arrow) [/quote]

I was going to say something smartassed and mean spirited, but I’ll just say: what does an English department know about biology?

Translation: “The beauty of academia is that we can start from a conclusion and work backward. It is MUCH easier than honestly confronting issues.”

[quote]
Typically, in a patriarchal society, men and molded to become a direct opposition to femininity, because that helps in the oppression of women. [/quote]

So is this a conscious conspiracy, reinvented in society after society throughout history, or is it something natural to men that they want to subjugate women? That’ll get feminist panties in a twist; either give up a chance to attack men, or admit that there is some essential difference in the sexes.

So there are biological determinants of behavior?

At any rate, more “feminine” men are more slaves to “societal roles” than anyone else you’ve described.

If we were by some sudden stroke reduced to the state of nature, the vast majority of Americans, finding themselves without guide or direction in an inconvenient, uncomfortable, and unforgiving world, would perish from the fact of poverty before hunger.

26

[quote]nephorm wrote:
vulcan500rider wrote:
I’m an English major, and I specialize in gender theory (no, I’m straight as an arrow)

I was going to say something smartassed and mean spirited, but I’ll just say: what does an English department know about biology?

The whole idea surrounding gender theory is to examine the roles we’re forced into

Translation: “The beauty of academia is that we can start from a conclusion and work backward. It is MUCH easier than honestly confronting issues.”

Typically, in a patriarchal society, men and molded to become a direct opposition to femininity, because that helps in the oppression of women.

So is this a conscious conspiracy, reinvented in society after society throughout history, or is it something natural to men that they want to subjugate women? That’ll get feminist panties in a twist; either give up a chance to attack men, or admit that there is some essential difference in the sexes.

If you’re threatened by the image of a more “feminine” man, perhaps you need to take a long look at what you think a man is, and why. Are the traits that you associate with manliness entirely due to the biological differences between men and women, or is there a LOT more social issues behind them?

So there are biological determinants of behavior?

At any rate, more “feminine” men are more slaves to “societal roles” than anyone else you’ve described.

If we were by some sudden stroke reduced to the state of nature, the vast majority of Americans, finding themselves without guide or direction in an inconvenient, uncomfortable, and unforgiving world, would perish from the fact of poverty before hunger.

[/quote]

Smoked that punk like cheap crack. Well done, neph.

28

[quote]nephorm wrote:
vulcan500rider wrote:
I’m an English major, and I specialize in gender theory (no, I’m straight as an arrow)

I was going to say something smartassed and mean spirited, but I’ll just say: what does an English department know about biology?

The whole idea surrounding gender theory is to examine the roles we’re forced into

Translation: “The beauty of academia is that we can start from a conclusion and work backward. It is MUCH easier than honestly confronting issues.”

Typically, in a patriarchal society, men and molded to become a direct opposition to femininity, because that helps in the oppression of women.

So is this a conscious conspiracy, reinvented in society after society throughout history, or is it something natural to men that they want to subjugate women? That’ll get feminist panties in a twist; either give up a chance to attack men, or admit that there is some essential difference in the sexes.

If you’re threatened by the image of a more “feminine” man, perhaps you need to take a long look at what you think a man is, and why. Are the traits that you associate with manliness entirely due to the biological differences between men and women, or is there a LOT more social issues behind them?

So there are biological determinants of behavior?

At any rate, more “feminine” men are more slaves to “societal roles” than anyone else you’ve described.

If we were by some sudden stroke reduced to the state of nature, the vast majority of Americans, finding themselves without guide or direction in an inconvenient, uncomfortable, and unforgiving world, would perish from the fact of poverty before hunger.

[/quote]

I’m going to have to read your previous posts, Neph. I like what you have to say!

29

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
I’ve just had a minor revelation - I don’t think about this kind of thing very much, lol. I think that a lot of those devastatingly beautiful, shallow, ‘social butterfly’ type women who go out with metro / emo guys do it not because they necessarily find them attractive (although since they probably get most of their ideas from fashion magazines and have little original opinion, they probably think that they find them attractive), but simply because it is fashionable to do so. Sorry if this is obvious, lol. As I say, I don’t spend much time thinking of such things…[/quote]

Exactly. They think of their boyfriends as accessories, like a purse or a pair of shoes, only with less utility.

30

[quote]nephorm wrote:
vulcan500rider wrote:
I’m an English major, and I specialize in gender theory (no, I’m straight as an arrow)

I was going to say something smartassed and mean spirited, but I’ll just say: what does an English department know about biology? [/quote]

I think you missed the point that it’s NOT about biology. Men and women have a few different chromosomes, but that is an issue of sex, NOT gender. Gender is a social construction created through interaction with others (read anything from Freud through to R.W. Connell…it all builds on the same principles).

Even better…it actually WORKS. Think technology for example, how much of it is reverse engineering (taking a finished product and deconstructing it in order to find out how it works) It’s impossible to start from the beginning with gender, because it has been existing and mutating for so long…

If you need proof that the ideal man was not always a he-man figure, look at the 17th century, when it was ideal for men to be closed up in their houses and wear as much makeup as the girls. Odd? Certainly by our standards, but I imagine they would be confused by ours as well. Misunderstandings about masculinity arise for the same reasons with other cultures. For the longest time, anyone Asian was considered effeminate…try that out on Bolo Young.

No. The whole point is that it is an UNCONSCIOUS conspiracy. That is, men are shepherded into roles that back it up without even realizing what is happening. Think of it this way: How did your father treat women, and how do you treat women? Chances are there are some noticeable similarities, unless you recognized something you thought was horrific in his ways and turned out in spite of him.

As for feminists, they already realize that there are differences between men and women. It’s hard not to notice that men have penises and girls have vaginas (honest–you can check for yourself if you need to)

Absolutely. However, they tend to be fairly minimal. Men tend to be naturally more aggressive (yay testosterone) and to seek multiple mates (organic survival) However, many men go out of their way to exaggerate these differences and base their existence around them, rather than forming their own identities.

I would agree that truly effeminate (read here: flaming) men tend to be products of new societal roles. Frankly, I disagree with predispositioning men toward BS “metrosexuality” too. I think we’d all be better off without the vanity and ridiculousness that goes along with 90% of consumer goods. The ideal is not to make men more effeminate, but to have them make their own UNBIASED (I know it’s impossible, but it’s worth working toward) identities, based off their personal dispositions, rather than society’s expectations of their gender.

And although I agree that the majority of Americans (and Canadians, to be fair) would die in the even of a societal collapse. However, I somehow don’t believe that it would be due to a lack of manicures. The issue of a disposable society is much more in the forefront of that argument. We have been trained to use and dispose, not to create, harvest, and reuse everything possible. Frankly, though, I imagine that clean water would be among the top problems…If the sanitation wasn’t working, we’d all be dead of plague before hunger.

31

[quote]vulcan500rider wrote:
As for feminists, they already realize that there are differences between men and women. It’s hard not to notice that men have penises and girls have vaginas [/quote]

… and different androgen levels, different brain sizes, greater body mass, etc.

Gender roles were never constructed. (You sound like a ID’er/evolution denialist.) They evolved through eons. Men typically took on roles more fitting their superior size and testosterone levels, i.e., hunting, home defense, and war fighting. Women took on other - less physically-intensive - roles.

Nowadays gender roles can certainly be questioned. Is being a lawyer or doctor “manly.” Of course not.

But we still must recognize that men and women are biologically different. Gender roles evolved over eons and exist because a rational division of labor was most beneficial to the survival of our species.

Men still largely dominate some professions - war fighting, firefighting, etc. This doesn’t mean that cooking is feminine or lawyering is masculine.

32

[quote]vulcan500rider wrote:
Even better…it actually WORKS. Think technology for example, how much of it is reverse engineering (taking a finished product and deconstructing it in order to find out how it works) It’s impossible to start from the beginning with gender, because it has been existing and mutating for so long…
[/quote]

Google “Just So Stories” for a feel of what nephorm was talking about.

Unlike scientist, the “work” you crits do is not subject to rational inquiry or other means of validation. You are right because you say you’re right. That’s not science, that’s not argument, it’s dogma.

33

[quote]vulcan500rider wrote:
nephorm wrote:
vulcan500rider wrote:
I’m an English major, and I specialize in gender theory (no, I’m straight as an arrow)

I was going to say something smartassed and mean spirited, but I’ll just say: what does an English department know about biology?

I think you missed the point that it’s NOT about biology. Men and women have a few different chromosomes, but that is an issue of sex, NOT gender. Gender is a social construction created through interaction with others (read anything from Freud through to R.W. Connell…it all builds on the same principles).

Translation: “The beauty of academia is that we can start from a conclusion and work backward. It is MUCH easier than honestly confronting issues.”

Even better…it actually WORKS. Think technology for example, how much of it is reverse engineering (taking a finished product and deconstructing it in order to find out how it works) It’s impossible to start from the beginning with gender, because it has been existing and mutating for so long…

If you need proof that the ideal man was not always a he-man figure, look at the 17th century, when it was ideal for men to be closed up in their houses and wear as much makeup as the girls. Odd? Certainly by our standards, but I imagine they would be confused by ours as well. Misunderstandings about masculinity arise for the same reasons with other cultures. For the longest time, anyone Asian was considered effeminate…try that out on Bolo Young.

Typically, in a patriarchal society, men and molded to become a direct opposition to femininity, because that helps in the oppression of women.

So is this a conscious conspiracy, reinvented in society after society throughout history, or is it something natural to men that they want to subjugate women? That’ll get feminist panties in a twist; either give up a chance to attack men, or admit that there is some essential difference in the sexes.

No. The whole point is that it is an UNCONSCIOUS conspiracy. That is, men are shepherded into roles that back it up without even realizing what is happening. Think of it this way: How did your father treat women, and how do you treat women? Chances are there are some noticeable similarities, unless you recognized something you thought was horrific in his ways and turned out in spite of him.

As for feminists, they already realize that there are differences between men and women. It’s hard not to notice that men have penises and girls have vaginas (honest–you can check for yourself if you need to)

If you’re threatened by the image of a more “feminine” man, perhaps you need to take a long look at what you think a man is, and why. Are the traits that you associate with manliness entirely due to the biological differences between men and women, or is there a LOT more social issues behind them?

So there are biological determinants of behavior?

Absolutely. However, they tend to be fairly minimal. Men tend to be naturally more aggressive (yay testosterone) and to seek multiple mates (organic survival) However, many men go out of their way to exaggerate these differences and base their existence around them, rather than forming their own identities.

At any rate, more “feminine” men are more slaves to “societal roles” than anyone else you’ve described.

If we were by some sudden stroke reduced to the state of nature, the vast majority of Americans, finding themselves without guide or direction in an inconvenient, uncomfortable, and unforgiving world, would perish from the fact of poverty before hunger.

I would agree that truly effeminate (read here: flaming) men tend to be products of new societal roles. Frankly, I disagree with predispositioning men toward BS “metrosexuality” too. I think we’d all be better off without the vanity and ridiculousness that goes along with 90% of consumer goods. The ideal is not to make men more effeminate, but to have them make their own UNBIASED (I know it’s impossible, but it’s worth working toward) identities, based off their personal dispositions, rather than society’s expectations of their gender.

And although I agree that the majority of Americans (and Canadians, to be fair) would die in the even of a societal collapse. However, I somehow don’t believe that it would be due to a lack of manicures. The issue of a disposable society is much more in the forefront of that argument. We have been trained to use and dispose, not to create, harvest, and reuse everything possible. Frankly, though, I imagine that clean water would be among the top problems…If the sanitation wasn’t working, we’d all be dead of plague before hunger.

[/quote]

Bullshit. Men are men. Women are women.

They act, react, smell, look, touch, feel, and taste differently. They always have. They always will To assume you can deconstruct thousands of years of this fact to justify the metrosexual fad is utter stupidity, or at the very least extremely conceited.

As for the survival thing - you are basing your assumptions upon heavily populated areas. That’s the problem with assuming.

We never bought our son a toy gun. Yet, he made his own guns with sticks.

You will have to prove that the basic differences in the sexes is not genetic before I will by your junk science hypothesis.

34

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Bullshit. Men are men. Women are women.

They act, react, smell, look, touch, feel, and taste differently. They always have. They always will To assume you can deconstruct thousands of years of this fact to justify the metrosexual fad is utter stupidity, or at the very least extremely conceited.

As for the survival thing - you are basing your assumptions upon heavily populated areas. That’s the problem with assuming.

We never bought our son a toy gun. Yet, he made his own guns with sticks.

You will have to prove that the basic differences in the sexes is not genetic before I will by your junk science hypothesis. [/quote]

Exactly.

Some just can’t fucking admit this.

35

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
vulcan500rider wrote:
As for feminists, they already realize that there are differences between men and women. It’s hard not to notice that men have penises and girls have vaginas

… and different androgen levels, different brain sizes, greater body mass, etc.

Gender roles were never constructed. (You sound like a ID’er/evolution denialist.) They evolved through eons. Men typically took on roles more fitting their superior size and testosterone levels, i.e., hunting, home defense, and war fighting. Women took on other - less physically-intensive - roles.

Nowadays gender roles can certainly be questioned. Is being a lawyer or doctor “manly.” Of course not.

But we still must recognize that men and women are biologically different. Gender roles evolved over eons and exist because a rational division of labor was most beneficial to the survival of our species.

Men still largely dominate some professions - war fighting, firefighting, etc. This doesn’t mean that cooking is feminine or lawyering is masculine.[/quote]

Interesting idea, but why is it then that men don’t pop out of the womb larger, with better muscular development, and a knowledge of hunting and fighting? BECAUSE IT ALL HAS TO BE TRAINED. I’m not arguing against evolution–certainly the roles that men have taken on have affected the way we turned out. I’m arguing that gender is constructed on an INDIVIDUAL basis for every person born in the world.

I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m trying to get at…I agree that the division of labour was (and is, to some extent) mediated by gender. Typically, women are less able to lift heavy things. However, my problem resides in the assumptions that stem from that–namely that all men should be work toward aggressiveness and strength, while women work toward their own goals, because that’s what nature intended.

I imagine that some of the T-Vixens would have major issues with being told that they couldn’t be soldiers or firefighters, for instance, and I believe that if any PERSON, regardless of sex can meet the physical, mental, and emotional demands of a job, they should be encouraged to go for it.

I do, however, have an issue with people stating that sexual difference equates to natural requirements–that is that men need to be the strong protectors, and women need to be the submissive homebodies.

As for your comments, Rainjack, I have no intention of claiming that women are the same as men, nor to argue in favour of metrosexuality. I think it’s lame, too. I just don’t agree that it makes men stop being men.

The equation of role to sex is bullshit. My older sister used to play guns all the time, and never looked twice at the barbies relatives bought her. If you don’t train women to be all about superficial things, they won’t be. If you don’t train boys to all about killing and violence, they won’t be. You think not buying your son a gun removed all societal sense of manly violence from him? Did he get to watch cartoons? Did he ever watch you interact with ANYBODY? Then he has been interpellated into a role.

As for the survival thing, that was really more a foil for the quoted argument. I agree that those in less urban areas would probably do a lot better, and not die by plague…That being said, they probably know more about growing their own food and self-sufficiency as well, which would play an even larger role.

The entirety of gender roles is based firmly in the nature vs nurture argument. While there are sexual differences, it is how you are raised that determines what type of person you become. More directly, if you have an open, accepting model of masculinity, you are more likely to become accepting an open, rather than seeing questioning of social roles as an attack on your “manliness.” If you need scientific proof of nature vs nuture, look at any number of psychological studies involving children, even twins, removed from natural families. Though genetically identical, they grow up completely different. Gender roles are just an extension of that.

36

[quote]vulcan500rider wrote:
I’m sure I’m going to get flamed for this, but some of it has to be said.

I’m an English major, and I specialize in gender theory (no, I’m straight as an arrow) The whole idea surrounding gender theory is to examine the roles we’re forced into so that we can CHOOSE to do things, not be unconsciously FORCED into things by the roles society puts on us.

Flame, if you will, but THINK.

Cheers.[/quote]

My only flame to you is that you proclaim to be an English major, but feel it’s acceptable to use the word “unconsciously”, instead of “sub-consciously”.

37

[quote]MaloVerde wrote:
vulcan500rider wrote:
I’m sure I’m going to get flamed for this, but some of it has to be said.

I’m an English major, and I specialize in gender theory (no, I’m straight as an arrow) The whole idea surrounding gender theory is to examine the roles we’re forced into so that we can CHOOSE to do things, not be unconsciously FORCED into things by the roles society puts on us.

Flame, if you will, but THINK.

Cheers.

My only flame to you is that you proclaim to be an English major, but feel it’s acceptable to use the word “unconsciously”, instead of “sub-consciously”.

[/quote]

LOL. Go easy. I’m in the middle of writing a term paper that should have been handed in on Monday. You’re right, though. In that context, subconsciously would have fit better, though both are valid words.

Unconsciously means that you’re unaware of it on any level, while subconsciously would mean that you DO realize something is wrong, but it’s not in the conscious part of the brain…Hmm…Maybe it differs from person to person…lol

38

vulcan500rider, please come down out of your ivory tower and join the real world. I’m sure you’ll enjoy it.

39

[quote]vulcan500rider wrote:
Interesting idea, but why is it then that men don’t pop out of the womb larger, with better muscular development, and a knowledge of hunting and fighting? BECAUSE IT ALL HAS TO BE TRAINED.[/quote]

So, as a gender, women could (on average) be as massive and strong as men? What support do you have for this proposition?

40

[quote]vulcan500rider wrote:
MaloVerde wrote:
vulcan500rider wrote:
I’m sure I’m going to get flamed for this, but some of it has to be said.

I’m an English major, and I specialize in gender theory (no, I’m straight as an arrow) The whole idea surrounding gender theory is to examine the roles we’re forced into so that we can CHOOSE to do things, not be unconsciously FORCED into things by the roles society puts on us.

Flame, if you will, but THINK.

Cheers.

My only flame to you is that you proclaim to be an English major, but feel it’s acceptable to use the word “unconsciously”, instead of “sub-consciously”.

LOL. Go easy. I’m in the middle of writing a term paper that should have been handed in on Monday. You’re right, though. In that context, subconsciously would have fit better, though both are valid words.

Unconsciously means that you’re unaware of it on any level, while subconsciously would mean that you DO realize something is wrong, but it’s not in the conscious part of the brain…Hmm…Maybe it differs from person to person…lol[/quote]

I’m just busting your chops, brother. Good luck on your term paper.