The Modern Man 2.0

average hero

Hi everyone,

I am interested to have everyone's input in a friendly debate about the modern man. As a heavy believer in evolution and the fact that we came from the ape family, I believe that we are all essentially animals, albeit highly evolved animals.

With this being said, hundreds of years ago, men were hunters in the tribes and only about 100 years ago, men were working hard graft jobs in factories or out on farms.

Today, most people have jobs that do not have as much physical labour in them, fast food is available everywhere, physicality is not a trait that is valued (thankfully in some ways) and the attitudes of men today are vastly different to men say even of 60/70 years ago.

Some media outlets (The Sopranos for one) have tried to define what is 'masculine' nowadays and how the modern man is wildly different to his forefathers. The main character in the Sopranos frequently struggled to merge his version of masculinity with what was acceptable in current society.

So, what do you think is masculine nowadays? Has society changed masculinity for the better or the worse? Are we moving towards a completely changed man?

EdenHazard

Yeah defo, there is a move towards people like One Direction but still females are still hard wired to find big knuckleheads 'attractive' but hopefully in time that will change. But then I guess you could argue this has been the case since back to the Beatles(but in their case it was more jus tthe cult of celebrity as unlike 1D they were ugly)

You don't half talk some ****e.

py2006

I think with the likes of ID and the Beatles it was more the fame and money that was/is attractive. None of these guys had screaming girls follow them down the street for their looks prior to being rich and famous.

With regards to modern men, I guess men have evolved. Well most of them anyway. We are no longer the hunter gatherer as that role is shared. I think some of the older generation find it hard to adjust but most men born in the last 30-40 years have a different outlook. I think women have evolved too as to me the more feminine man (for the want of a better word) seems to be attractive to a lot of women nowadays. 1D would be a perfect example of this.

I often wonder has the modern male role (or lack thereof?) somehow contributed to a lot of the mental illness among men today. Some men feel a loss of identity or are uncertain of their role in society as their traditional role is effectively gone. It may have nothing to do with it of course but it is interesting all the same.

Sleepy

There's definitely a sense that our post-feminist matriarchal society has lead to the female version of the madonna/whore complex whereby they want to marry the "nice guy" who's a great father and supportive of their desire to "have it all" (be both a great mother and a busy professional that never has a hair out of place and still makes time for cocktails with "the girls") yet it's the "bastard" who doesn't give a **** about this that she finds sexually attractive.

Time and again we see women bemoan the fact that society (and their husbands) see their role as that of the home-maker. They never seem to realise that this is a consequence of their own actions however. If you want a house-husband don't emasculate him for being happy to take that role. If you don't want to be the primary care-giver / domestic goddess, don't marry someone who expects that of you.

Our society is still getting use to women having attained equality (or arguably even superiority, at least in terms of legal rights) and, as such, some young men are somewhat over-compensating: emasculating themselves to fit into a feminist perpetuated myth of the "modern man" and are, understandably then, quite confused as to why they struggle to find a romantic partner. As with all things, it's a matter of balance. There's nothing feminine about being a stay-at-home parent unless you decide to make it so by mincing around with hair straighteners, wearing jeans so tight they damage your reproductive abilities etc.

Wibbs

py2006 wrote: »

None of these guys had screaming girls follow them down the street for their looks prior to being rich and famous.

Paul McCartney was by all accounts a right ladies man before the fame. Though yea playing in a band ups the ante in a big way.

I think women have evolved too as to me the more feminine man (for the want of a better word) seems to be attractive to a lot of women nowadays. 1D would be a perfect example of this.

There's been a few theories around this idea. One has it that the contraceptive pill may have had some influence. Women on the pill tend to favour more feminine faced men and the theory goes that its widespread use since the 60's has influenced what women may be attracted to. I read another interesting one where they apparently found women who meet guys on the pill are much more likely to leave the relationship when they come off same. Another notion holds that the gay ideal of men* has through the media influenced the look of the ideal man and because we're much more openly accepting of gay culture in the media and in life that this may have had an effect.

I'd reckon there may be something to the above, but only as part of a larger multifactoral thang. The changing roles of women playing another part in their choices.

The other problem with say the one direction "look" is that its based at a very young demographic of women, so it's not within a sniff of being universal. Women in their 20's and 30's and 40's would have very different looks they might favour. An example of this would be Take That. The one direction of their day. Compare how they look then to how they look now. Then they were camp "girly boys", now they're besuited, oft stubbled men. That's a lot down to their audience and their changing tastes. I strongly suspect if they had remained somehow pickled in their original look they'd not be selling tickets anymore.

I often wonder has the modern male role (or lack thereof?) somehow contributed to a lot of the mental illness among men today. Some men feel a loss of identity or are uncertain of their role in society as their traditional role is effectively gone. It may have nothing to do with it of course but it is interesting all the same.

Oh I'm quite sure it has a part to play alright. I'd add in the lack of uncertainty in general. Your "1940's bloke(tm)" could expect to grow up, get a job for life, find a woman, get married, have kids, retire and peg it. It was much more a time of certainty.

Today all bets are off, or seem to be. Jobs for life are rare enough. Finding a woman is harder for many and if they do, there's not nearly the guarantee of "til death do us part" as it was in the past. Men going through divorce are 3 times more likely to die by their own hands than married men(divorce doesn't affect women's suicide stats at all).

Plus many jobs in the past involved a period of apprenticeship(inc some professions). A period where they learned the ropes of their job and more importantly IMHO "how to be men" from men who weren't their fathers. You see this kinda thing in many many cultures going back to stoneage ones. That is missing from many if not most young men's life trajectories today.

I think women in general are more socially and emotionally adaptable to the times and remain so for longer through life. I'd also say they're better at raising themselves and need less input from their gender on how to be a woman. Again IMH a lack of a good male role model(doesn't have to be a father) in a mans life causes more problems down the line than a lack of a good female role model in a woman's life does.




*though that's based on the idea there is a gay "ideal" in the first place which is a bit dubious as gay folks vary in what they dig as much as straight folks do.

Guyanachronism

Do you even need a concept of masculinity anymore?

It's just a form of societal control, used to make sure you behave in a certain way, buy certain things and keep in line. It can be used to prey on peoples insecurity.

Definitely masculinity as an influence is receeding, but does anyone really need to live their lives by a term that people only seem to be able to define by rose tinted references to the past?

py2006

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I'm quite sure it has a part to play alright. I'd add in the lack of uncertainty in general. Your "1940's bloke(tm)" could expect to grow up, get a job for life, find a woman, get married, have kids, retire and peg it. It was much more a time of certainty.

Today all bets are off, or seem to be. Jobs for life are rare enough. Finding a woman is harder for many and if they do, there's not nearly the guarantee of "til death do us part" as it was in the past. Men going through divorce are 3 times more likely to die by their own hands than married men(divorce doesn't affect women's suicide stats at all).

Plus many jobs in the past involved a period of apprenticeship(inc some professions). A period where they learned the ropes of their job and more importantly IMHO "how to be men" from men who weren't their fathers. You see this kinda thing in many many cultures going back to stoneage ones. That is missing from many if not most young men's life trajectories today.

I think women in general are more socially and emotionally adaptable to the times and remain so for longer through life. I'd also say they're better at raising themselves and need less input from their gender on how to be a woman. Again IMH a lack of a good male role model(doesn't have to be a father) in a mans life causes more problems down the line than a lack of a good female role model in a woman's life does.

Interesting.

But if the female role has evolved from a traditional female role to a female and male role (I am sure there is a better way of phrasing that?) should there be a lot more stress and perhaps mental illness among women? They now have the pressures to get THE job, get THE house, get THE qualifications etc. I know women have done these things in the past but in the olden days these were the things men MUST achieve whereas a lot of woman merely had to find a man that had these or was in the process of getting them.

Yet if we are to believe the statistics, mental illness seems to be far more prevalent among you males. I must research these statistics further.

Wibbs

Guyanachronism wrote: »

Do you even need a concept of masculinity anymore?

Actually I think we do, more than ever indeed. "Masculinity" doesn't mean head butting sabre tooth tigers for sport either. But I think we need to navigate a "new" masculinity alright. For both genders sakes I'd say.

py2006 wrote: »

Yet if we are to believe the statistics, mental illness seems to be far more prevalent among you males.

I dunno what stats they might be. Mental illness(reported anyway) is about equally split between men and women, however there are notable gender differences. Women are far more susceptible to anxiety disorders. Their rate of unipolar depression is double that of men(bipolar about the same, as is schizophrenia), and tends to be more chronic. Suicide among men is higher though. Notably so. Across all ages after adolescence male suicide rates are clearly higher than in women. All sorts of reasons are given; men more likely to choose violent methods so more likely to be successful, though more likely men are less inclined to seek help which is a gender specific issue. Men are also much more likely to be substance abusers, drink and drugs(though more women get addicted to "mothers little helper" prescription drugs), more likely to exhibit anti social behaviour in response to emotional stress etc. The old saw of women internalise their pain and turn inwards and men externalise their pain and lash out seems to have some legs.

cantdecide

Gender roles are changing. With the access to the outer world that we have today, our horizons have never been broader. The ideal family unit is changing. The thing is that the average homogeneous Joe Soap is simply becoming more redundant. IMO, there will be more and more childless relationships and single parent families going forward and this is not to the advantage of the average guy on the street.

Wibbs wrote: »

Today all bets are off, or seem to be. Jobs for life are rare enough. Finding a woman is harder for many and if they do, there's not nearly the guarantee of "til death do us part" as it was in the past. Men going through divorce are 3 times more likely to die by their own hands than married men(divorce doesn't affect women's suicide stats at all).

The Modern Man had better learn to become emotionally able for solitude and also learn how to develop meaningful support. Women don't need us like they used to yet we still have to learn to cope with this.

Women have been taking massive strides toward equality and independence for years and men haven't reacted to this, IMO. We don't have the support networks. We are still largely dependent too much on the women folk for emotional support. It's too easy for men to become isolated still and I think there is a taboo associated with being an older bachelor that needs to be overhauled.

average hero

average hero wrote: »

So, what do you think is masculine nowadays? Has society changed masculinity for the better or the worse? Are we moving towards a completely changed man?

I find the notion of "being masculine" or "male role models" or "male roles" as being out dated and archaic nonsense. A "Modern Man" or "Modern Woman" for me would be one who has divested themselves of any such notions that what is in your pants dictates how one should act or not act in life or any social situation.

Vinz Mesrine

If i ever looked like something out of one direction, id want someone to sit me down and have a serious talk with me.

Luckily, i couldnt look any less like one of them if i tried. The fascination with, lets be honest, little boys like them is very worrying. I can understand 13-14 year old girls having a thing for them but grown women? There is something seriously wrong in finding them attractive in my opinion.

py2006

Deleted User wrote: »

I find the notion of "being masculine" or "male role models" or "male roles" as being out dated and archaic nonsense. A "Modern Man" or "Modern Woman" for me would be one who has divested themselves of any such notions that what is in your pants dictates how one should act or not act in life or any social situation.

Hmmm I dunno. I think all girls need a positive female role model and boys need a positive male role model. Of course they can have both but I think by trying to dissolve gender role models it almost suggests there is something wrong with them.

py2006

py2006 wrote: »

I think all girls need a positive female role model and boys need a positive male role model. Of course they can have both but I think by trying to dissolve gender role models it almost suggests there is something wrong with them.

To a certain degree - I DO think there is something "wrong with them" in that they are archaic notions that seem not to reflect modern society. What "role" do women plan exactly? Cooking and cleaning - I hope not. Being emotional? Home keeping? Pleasing their man? I remember aghast the old house wives hand books that used to go around telling a woman what her "role" was in the home - from ensuring she remains attractive no matter how hard her day was - to being prepared to satiate his sexual advances whenever he may express them.

I am aware of no "role" for them except the single obvious biological one.

If someone wants to hold on to the idea of "role models" then I guess the first thing to do is identify exactly what the "roles" are they imagine men or women have to play - and I notice people getting very hard to pin down when you ask that one.

Vinz Mesrine

py2006 wrote: »

Hmmm I dunno. I think all girls need a positive female role model and boys need a positive male role model. Of course they can have both but I think by trying to dissolve gender role models it almost suggests there is something wrong with them.

I would have no problem with boys having role models but if anyone was looking up to the likes of one direction and justin bieber etc then they need to have a long hard look at themselves.

py2006

Deleted User wrote: »

To a certain degree - I DO think there is something "wrong with them" in that they are archaic notions that seem not to reflect modern society. What "role" do women plan exactly? Cooking and cleaning - I hope not. Being emotional? Home keeping? Pleasing their man? I remember aghast the old house wives hand books that used to go around telling a woman what her "role" was in the home - from ensuring she remains attractive no matter how hard her day was - to being prepared to satiate his sexual advances whenever he may express them.

Well I think you are confusing role models today with role models from 60 years ago. I believe role models are just a positive influence on people.

py2006

py2006 wrote: »

I believe role models are just a positive influence on people.

I think you misunderstand me and we are talking past each other.

I have nothing against "role models". What I am talking about is solely gender role models because I do not think there are gender roles __to__ model.

Role models are great and we need more good ones.

py2006

Deleted User wrote: »

I think you misunderstand me and we are talking past each other.

I have nothing against "role models". What I am talking about is solely gender role models because I do not think there are gender roles __to__ model.

Role models are great and we need more good ones.

Well I suppose in a politically correct world yes. But depending on personal circumstances a young girl might feel more comfortable surrounding herself with female role models and same with young boys for example.

I work with young people who have difficulties in life and the common denominator is the lack of a father figure. While that is not the sole contributing factor it is interesting all the same. I believe people need a balance of role models.

py2006

Vinz Mesrine wrote: »

If i ever looked like something out of one direction, id want someone to sit me down and have a serious talk with me.

Luckily, i couldnt look any less like one of them if i tried. The fascination with, lets be honest, little boys like them is very worrying. I can understand 13-14 year old girls having a thing for them but grown women? There is something seriously wrong in finding them attractive in my opinion.

I think I remember something along these lines being discussed on here before. There was footage of a 1D (or somebody similar) concert a couple years ago where the camera panned to a group of women clearly in the 30's and 40's screaming and waving at these young boys.

py2006

py2006 wrote: »

Well I suppose in a politically correct world yes. But depending on personal circumstances a young girl might feel more comfortable surrounding herself with female role models and same with young boys for example.

I think we are still talking past each other. I am talking about role models OF a gender role. Not role models that ARE a gender.

I am talking about "Female role models" not "Role models thare are female". I have no problem with the latter - and if that what a young girls wants - then have at it!

What I am getting at is the idea of having role models of what it is to actually _be_ female or male which is what I understood the thread to essentially be about. As if there was some role that people have to play solely based on what sex they are. A "modern man" for me would be one that realises that simply being male does not dictate how someone should act or what their "role" is in life - except - as I said already - one obvious biological function which is difficult to avoid.

py2006 wrote: »

I work with young people who have difficulties in life and the common denominator is the lack of a father figure.

I would have my doubts about how true that is - especially given correlation and causation confusion. For example people with single parents undergo a lot of issues. So it might not be the lack of a "father figure" so much as the lack of a second parent that is the contributing factor there.

Certainly social issues - especially social problems - are never reducible to one single factor of this type.

Vinz Mesrine

py2006 wrote: »

I think I remember something along these lines being discussed on here before. There was footage of a 1D (or somebody similar) concert a couple years ago where the camera panned to a group of women clearly in the 30's and 40's screaming and waving at these young boys.

Its very strange, and a bit sick tbh.

Imagine a group of 30-40yr old men at a concert put on by a band of 18yr old girls and shouting and screaming. We'd be on the sex offenders list by morning.

I think there seem to be a divide opening up about what is attractive in a man. I am middle aged and would not think a man who waxed or shaved his body hair, dyed their hair, got hair implant, uses skin product's ( except a bit of moisturiser ) attractive at all in fact it would be a major turn off. I like a men who looks a man, however a lot of younger women would not care about the above and there does seem to a fashion for somewhat feminine looking men at the moment which women do seem to find attractive, but I would find a complete turn off.

The Corinthian

Guyanachronism wrote: »

Do you even need a concept of masculinity anymore?

People are always going to seek role models though - we've been doing it for centuries - so, given this is unlikely to change, what are you going to replace it with?

For a start, one can equally argue that we no longer need a concept of femininity either. Both gender role concepts no longer apply where the roles no longer are, or at least should not be, assigned to genders.

For example, the showing or repression of emotion; on one side men should be more free to show our emotion than in the past when, in times of crisis, we would be expected to take control and deal with said crisis. Yet the freedom that women have to show theirs is now an indulgence in modern society as they too have to be able to suppress much of their own emotion to take control and deal with said crisis.

Ultimately if men are to become more 'feminine', then women will have to become more 'masculine', as the two are designed to be complimentary - society cannot function realistically if we all become one or the other.

cantdecide

It's not like a child won't seek their own role models. Should a single father of a young daughter dismiss an opportunity for a positive female role model to be part of his daughter's life? I'm sure if a girl identifies an individual as someone worthy of admiration, it's not this woman will have a duty to behave in any other way than normal. In other words, the juvenile mind might see a WOMAN to aspire to being but any responsible adult should always be just that- a decent individual first and foremost.

The 1D thing is irrelevant, IMO. When I was younger, d'wimmin wanted nothing to do with me- I never had boyish looks even when I was a boy. Going bald quite young didn't help at all. My sister once remarked about other women that some ladies like boys and others like men and I kind of sniffed at it but I must say that as I get older, I'm definitely getting more and more second glances. Girls will look at boys all day long and the boys will try do please the girls. It's all very shallow and immature so the idea that boys are looking at 1D as a role model doesn't bear any real importance in the grand scheme of things, IMO.

Guyanachronism

The Corinthian wrote: »

People are always going to seek role models though - we've been doing it for centuries - so, given this is unlikely to change, what are you going to replace it with?

For a start, one can equally argue that we no longer need a concept of femininity either. Both gender role concepts no longer apply where the roles no longer are, or at least should not be, assigned to genders.

For example, the showing or repression of emotion; on one side men should be more free to show our emotion than in the past when, in times of crisis, we would be expected to take control and deal with said crisis. Yet the freedom that women have to show theirs is now an indulgence in modern society as they too have to be able to suppress much of their own emotion to take control and deal with said crisis.

Ultimately if men are to become more 'feminine', then women will have to become more 'masculine', as the two are designed to be complimentary - society cannot function realistically if we all become one or the other.

If men become less masculine it doesn't mean they're automatically more feminine. I am also fine with an end to women being expected to conform to feminine expectations. The expression of emotion one has been discussed in another thread.

Role models don't have to be traditionally masculine, in fact expecting role models for boys to be mascluline is a problem because it only glorifies certain roles and ways of behaving. Or if the child idolises someone who isn't traditionally masculine should they be corrected? If a father doesn't exmplify a traditionally masculine role, is he a bad role model?

It is not a matter of becoming like each other, but being who you want to be. Some people will still behave in a masculine or feminine way, but it should because they want to, not because thy're conforming to a societal expectation, most people would pick and choose based on their personal desire rather than societal expectation.

Is there a benefit to gender roles? How would society not function? Who designed them to be complimentary?

If you wanted to define masculinity as a code of values to live by fine, but it shouldn't be a way to define what is acceptable behaviour for men.

The Corinthian

Guyanachronism wrote: »

If men become less masculine it doesn't mean they're automatically more feminine.

Can you give an example where it wouldn't, out of curiosity?

The expression of emotion one has been discussed in another thread.

Doesn't make it a bad example though.

Role models don't have to be traditionally masculine

No they don't, but does that mean that if we eliminate gender-based role models for both genders, we don't replace them with anything. How would that play out, do you think?

Is there a benefit to gender roles? How would society not function? Who designed them to be complimentary?

In modern society, there ideally shouldn't be. We really should have a single role model type for both genders that allows everyone to adopt both traditionally male and female roles.

Without such role models, would society function? I'm sure it would, but many of the moral and ethical lessons that we're imprinted with would be lost, and with them our ability to adopt roles with greater ease or to conform to societal norms - and before you attack societal norms, these do include things as simple as right and wrong; people are not magically born with the understanding that stealing, for example, is bad.

As for who 'designed' them; call it social evolution, patriarchy or whatever ideology you follow might call them. Whatever they're called, they developed over time to better equip and specialize (or pigeon-hole) people into roles that were divided on gender lines.

So if you want to redefine those roles as gender neutral, you are going to have to essentially combine them.

strobe

One direction et el are designed to appeal to 10–13 year old girls as potential boyfriends, that will be their bestie just like their girlfriend but they're boys they can kiss and will call them pretty. They're deliberately selected, produced and displayed in this manner. To appeal to female children. I think it's a pretty bizarre stretch to say the they represent what women find sexually attractive or want in a 'modern man' or that it's symbolic of any kind of feminisation or imasculation of men.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

I would have my doubts about how true that is - especially given correlation and causation confusion. For example people with single parents undergo a lot of issues. So it might not be the lack of a "father figure" so much as the lack of a second parent that is the contributing factor there.

Certainly social issues - especially social problems - are never reducible to one single factor of this type.

Certainly there will be many factors, however study after study shows that fathers/male role models that are involved mean fewer problems in children. Indeed one or two have even suggested that going on the stats single fathers have fewer problems with their children than single mothers.

As for traits of masculinity? I'd say self respect, respect for and supporting others when they need it, keeping your head when the shít hits the fan, being emotionally open when required, knowing when you may need help and asking for it, emotional and social maturity, adding more to life than you subtract. That sort of thing. That said they would be traits I'd expect in women that I would respect too.



*for me too many mistake sentiment for emotion. That's just me mind you.

Sauve

Wibbs wrote: »

As for traits of masculinity? I'd say self respect, respect for and supporting others when they need it, keeping your head when the shít hits the fan, being emotionally open when required, knowing when you may need help and asking for it, emotional and social maturity, adding more to life than you subtract. That sort of thing. That said they would be traits I'd expect in women that I would respect too.

I know you clarified this, but I have to disagree that they're necessarily masculine traits. They are the basis of the upbringing that myself and my brother got.

I've been racking my brains over this, and physical strength and an innate superior athletic ability is honestly the only truly 'masculine trait' that I can see that applies today.

py2006

Sauve wrote: »

I've been racking my brains over this, and physical strength and an innate superior athletic ability is honestly the only truly 'masculine trait' that I can see that applies today.

It is difficult to define masculine traits nowadays as there is often a suggestion that it is some what of a bad thing. The whole 'boys are bad, girls are good' thing. Do you find it easier to define feminine traits? Or do you just leave gender out of it?

I guess if you were to define 'modern man', it is a man who doesn't fall under the category of traditional male in how societal roles are viewed and is comfortable sharing (so called) traditional roles with women and vice versa.

Galwayguy35

mariaalice wrote: »

I think there seem to be a divide opening up about what is attractive in a man. I am middle aged and would not think a man who waxed or shaved his body hair, dyed their hair, got hair implant, uses skin product's ( except a bit of moisturiser ) attractive at all in fact it would be a major turn off. I like a men who looks a man, however a lot of younger women would not care about the above and there does seem to a fashion for somewhat feminine looking men at the moment which women do seem to find attractive, but I would find a complete turn off.

Maybe teenage girls would find the likes of 1 Direction or Jedward attractive but I would imagine that any woman in her early 20s would be more interested in a well built man that can grow more than 3 cat hairs on his chin.

Wibbs

Sauve wrote: »

I know you clarified this, but I have to disagree that they're necessarily masculine traits. They are the basis of the upbringing that myself and my brother got.

Oh sure I agree S.

I've been racking my brains over this, and physical strength and an innate superior athletic ability is honestly the only truly 'masculine trait' that I can see that applies today.

There's more a continuum of traits, at one end "feminine" at the other "masculine". Take as an example spatial mental dexterity. Men score notably higher than women on average. Word association and the like women score notably higher than men again on average. I know quite the number of women who muddle through forging a simple enough sentence and men with two left hands mentally speaking. Physical strength again men on average score higher than women, but there are women who are stronger than average. I certainly have known women stronger than me. Like I say a continuum.

This continuum is present emotionally too. On average women are more engaged in and talk about personal relationships(familial/social/romantic) than men do. An interesting one was a bloke in Germany IIRC who was in hospital with locked in syndrome, but the docs reckoned he was unconscious. He reported this major diffs between men and women(medical staff, friends and family) in his room. Women talked a lot about such relationships, whereas men rarely if ever did.

Men are generally less emotionally open. THough TBH I dislike the term open as it suggests closed as the opposite and closed suggests something bad, something to be changed. Personally I'd be on the extreme "masculine" end of this. I'm emotionally open, but in context as I see it*. I would get no comfort from "opening up". Indeed it would put me off TBH. I like the option to talk about things and express them, but I would rarely use such an option unless in extremis, or where I felt talking about something was of practical value. I would be far more solution based. I am intouch with my emotions, actually I know myself pretty well, but I feel better and chose to work through that stuff myself. However there is a feeling about that this is closed, unhealthy. BTW I have no problem with other men getting comfort from such, but just because I don't(and I would not be alone in this), it doesn't mean I'm somehow broken.

Too often again IMH, the choice men are presented with is either some hammerheaded masculinized to the point of parady jock type, or some feminised man in touch with his gentle side and the latter is considered the better and this is reflected in media in a big way. There is defo a lot more to being a man than either of those extremes.





*I'll have no issue with crying at actual emotional upset, but I'm not gonna start blubbing after a frustrating day at work or when I get a puncture or somesuch. I'm not denying such feelings, I just quite simply don't have them in the first place.

The Corinthian

Sauve wrote: »

I've been racking my brains over this, and physical strength and an innate superior athletic ability is honestly the only truly 'masculine trait' that I can see that applies today.

Physical trait, but we're not really talking about that. What we are talking about is role models; ideals that we use to imprint on children from an early age. While it is arguable that these ideals stick in their entirety, it would be wrong to believe that such imprinting has no effect either.

Lets look at a few traditional 'ideals' gender attributes: For men we have aggressiveness and ability to act and think clearly under pressure. For women we have empathy and conscientiousness.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that there's a correlation between the above traits and the traditional gender roles of provider and carer.

Conversely, where one gender has an emphasis on an attribute, the other will often be noted for either lacking it or having the opposite: Men are often considered less empathic and more likely to cut corners than carry out tasks conscientiously. Women are often considered more passive and more emotional, thus less able to keep their cool under pressure.

But are these attributes valid anymore? That this discussion is taking place in the first place probably underlines that, at the very least, not as much as was once the case. As gender roles have begun to break down, then naturally those traditional attributes have begun to become liabilities if you want to adopt the opposite role. Women have had to become more aggressive as they take on the provider role, while men have had to become more empathic as they take on the carer role.

Yet they still persist, because we haven't developed a new role model that we want to apply equally; when faced with an infant and informed of their gender, we still tend to describe baby boys as 'strong' and baby girls as 'beautiful'.

So, role models have become weaker and more confused for both genders, we want to use new ones, but just haven't really developed them yet, leading to the current situation.

I think feminism has made some attempts to redefine role models for girls and women, but in the case of men, there's been no such move. Ironically, this has resulted in debate whereby women feel increasingly under pressure to take on both roles and men feel that the only role assigned to them has become redundant.

Sauve

py2006 wrote: »

Do you find it easier to define feminine traits? Or do you just leave gender out of it?

Not at all, it's more difficult if anything. Maybe being a woman, and trying to compare my own personality to that of the definition of 'feminine traits', whatever that is, is clouding my thinking on it though.

Wibbs wrote: »

I like the option to talk about things and express them, but I would rarely use such an option unless in extremis, or where I felt talking about something was of practical value. I would be far more solution based. I am intouch with my emotions, actually I know myself pretty well, but I feel better and chose to work through that stuff myself.

This is me too, and true of a lot of women I know. Nowadays, I'd see it as more a practical way to be than a 'masculine' trait. I don't know if that's a gender thing as much as a reflection on modern society, where everybody is becoming more emotionally shut off, and the attitude of 'buck up and get on with it' is much more prevalent.

Guyanachronism

The Corinthian wrote: »

Can you give an example where it wouldn't, out of curiosity?

Doesn't make it a bad example though.

Well no one has defined masculinity, the attempts at so far have been a series of values or ethnics, but nothing that is exclusive to men.

If a man works as a nurse or another caring role, are they now more effeminiate? Not traditionally a masculine job. What about an interest in cooking or baking? Traditionally feminine but would you describe a man who takes an interest in cooking as effemininate. If yes I would like to see you say it to Gordon Ramsays face

Isn't everything being gendered an problem that has been raised in other threads.

I pointed to the other thread as I have expressed my opinion on public displays of emotion there. There is no justification for threating emotional reactions differently, that said I am not in favour of everyone blubbering at every oppurtunity.

The Corinthian wrote: »

No they don't, but does that mean that if we eliminate gender-based role models for both genders, we don't replace them with anything. How would that play out, do you think?

In modern society, there ideally shouldn't be. We really should have a single role model type for both genders that allows everyone to adopt both traditionally male and female roles.

You kind of answer your own question there, kids should have numerous role models, across genders and the gender of the role model shouldn't matter.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Without such role models, would society function? I'm sure it would, but many of the moral and ethical lessons that we're imprinted with would be lost, and with them our ability to adopt roles with greater ease or to conform to societal norms - and before you attack societal norms, these do include things as simple as right and wrong; people are not magically born with the understanding that stealing, for example, is bad.

So we can't teach kids right and wrong without teaching them gender roles? Are women not raised with the same basic values, ethics and morals as men? What ethics apply to men that don't apply to women?

I think without being conditioned into gender roles, people would adapt to roles easier. This article in the Irish Times shows how men are struggling to adjust to raising kids because of the societal expectation of them as bread winners. Or the typical example of boy wanting to pursue a career in a traditional feminine career, they can be deterred by societal expectations of what a man should be doing.

The Corinthian wrote: »

for who 'designed' them; call it social evolution, patriarchy or whatever ideology you follow might call them. Whatever they're called, they developed over time to better equip and specialize (or pigeon-hole) people into roles that were divided on gender lines.

So if you want to redefine those roles as gender neutral, you are going to have to essentially combine them.

I am fine with combining them, or in principle not assigning gender identity to things that don't need it, particularly situations where it is an arbitrary definition (pink feminine/blue masculine for example).

I think the modern man, needs more self awareness about the foces that condition their thinking and behviour, discard the negative, useless and things that allow others manipulate him.

The Corinthian

Sauve wrote: »

Nowadays, I'd see it as more a practical way to be than a 'masculine' trait.

I agree, but feel they were always practical traits; it's just that when roles were more strictly defined by gender you could assign such practical traits by gender also.

So I don't see them as masculine or feminine traits or attributes, but provider or carer traits or attributes.

The Corinthian

Guyanachronism wrote: »

Well no one has defined masculinity, the attempts at so far have been a series of values or ethnics, but nothing that is exclusive to men.

Then stop thinking of them in terms of masculine or feminine.

If a man works as a nurse or another caring role, are they now more effeminiate? Not traditionally a masculine job.

In the sense that conscientiousness and empathy might be advantages to such a job, yes - but only if you keep to the same paradigm that these traits are to do with gender and not with role. They're about roles; gender only came into it because these roles were assigned largely by gender.

What about an interest in cooking or baking? Traditionally feminine but would you describe a man who takes an interest in cooking as effemininate. If yes I would like to see you say it to Gordon Ramsays face

Culturally that's more complex as cooking has been seen both as art or as a household task. It's one of those roles that spans both genders traditionally.

I pointed to the other thread as I have expressed my opinion on public displays of emotion there. There is no justification for threating emotional reactions differently, that said I am not in favour of everyone blubbering at every oppurtunity.

I agree, and so do others here. What you're describing is a compromise position on the the provider-carer scale, which is probably the solution.

You kind of answer your own question there, kids should have numerous role models, across genders and the gender of the role model shouldn't matter.

That's not how imprinting works though. It doesn't work if you use one influence one minute and then the opposite the next - neither will stick. Unfortunately, the first seven years of a child's life are the most important where it comes to instilling such attributes, so you're going to have to use a single model to imprint and stick to it unless you want ineffective results.

Using a gender neutral approach will result in greater flexibility later in life, where it comes to adopting roles, but it also means that those attributes, designed to be an advantage, will not have been developed as much as they could have. That's the dilemma.

So we can't teach kids right and wrong without teaching them gender roles? Are women not raised with the same basic values, ethics and morals as men? What ethics apply to men that don't apply to women?

I was simply giving you an example of imprinting in children, not confusing the two. Children are taught, essentially brainwashed, into thinking, feeling and believing using different ways, and even between cultures these vary.

I think without being conditioned into gender roles, people would adapt to roles easier.

Absolutely, but as I suggested would then have a disadvantage compared to someone who was conditioned in a gender role. They'd find it easier to slip into either role, but they'd also be effectively Jack-of-Trades.

I am fine with combining them, or in principle not assigning gender identity to things that don't need it, particularlysituations where it is an arbitrary definition (pink feminine/blue masculine for example).

Cosmetic point, tbh.

I think the modern man, needs more self awareness about the foces that condition their thinking and behviour, discard the negative, useless and things that allow others manipulate him.

Problem is that what is positive for one role may be positive and for the other negative. For example, for a provider, aggression and risk-taking is ultimately a positive. Yet, for a carer the same trait is a negative. Which is it?

clairefontaine

The whole masculine suck it up take it on the chin starts as early as infancy with mothers responding far less to their sons negative feelings than to their daughters. It's so subliminal appararntly, the women are all conditioned to not want to raise their boys into being pussies.

Some studies have pointed to this as the starting points for male depression because boys are conditioned early that the only feelings they are allows to express are powerful ones, like anger.

Then the culture used shame to manipulate them from school age onwards leading to some argue in the US the high rates of male violence.

Then of course the double bind. Yeah yeah the modern woman says she wants a sensitive guy in touch with his feelings. I call cobblers on that one. She wants a hero. So the men and the boys are all over the place with the mixed messages.

Given the amount of white male psychopaths on TV these days in heroic roles, I do wonder where all this is going.

Sauve

clairefontaine wrote: »

The whole masculine suck it up take it on the chin starts as early as infancy with mothers responding far less to their sons negative feelings than to their daughters. It's so subliminal appararntly, the women are all conditioned to not want to raise their boys into being pussies.

In infancy?! Nah, I have to disagree with that. I don't know, or have never come across a mother not to placate an upset child just because he's a boy. An infant is an infant.

clairefontaine

Sauve wrote: »

In infancy?! Nah, I have to disagree with that. I don't know, or have never come across a mother not to placate an upset child just because he's a boy. An infant is an infant.

Studies have been done. See William Pollack. The science is there.

EdenHazard

people here are making it out like 1d are little girls, they are good looking lads, I'd imagine most girls of any age would find liam and zayn very attractive. Niall I think is the only one that really fits into the 'aimed at 13 year olds' type.
Harry is like a good looking Mick Jagger.

Sauve

clairefontaine wrote: »

Studies have been done. See William Pollack. The science is there.

Maybe so, but those are all American studies. I was referring to my personal experiences here in Ireland where I don't believe the situation to be nearly as extreme. If studies from here prove otherwise then I'll stand corrected I guess.

clairefontaine

Sauve wrote: »

Maybe so, but those are all American studies. I was referring to my personal experiences here in Ireland where I don't believe the situation to be nearly as extreme. If studies from here prove otherwise then I'll stand corrected I guess.

Ok. It's hard to compare extremes though. Ireland has a high male suicide rate does it not?

Because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I don't know if Ireland has any studies on things like this.

Sauve

clairefontaine wrote: »

Ok. It's hard to compare extremes though. Ireland has a high male suicide rate does it not?

Because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I don't know if Ireland has any studies on things like this.

Absolutely, but it'd be unfair to pin that solely to the masculine attributes instilled in infancy.

I agree with you on the
"Because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't happen" bit btw, I was just saying that I hadn't seen it personally.

clairefontaine

Sauve wrote: »

Absolutely, but it'd be unfair to pin that solely to the masculine attributes instilled in infancy.

I agree with you on the
"Because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't happen" bit btw, I was just saying that I hadn't seen it personally.

I haven't seen it personally either, but I'm not a leading Harvard sociologist/psychologist who conducted a study.

He's not pointing to it as a leading cause btw, just as another cultural symptom of what we expect from boys, and that is starts very early on.

He writes some very interesting stuff, you should check it out if the subject matter interests you.

Sauve

clairefontaine wrote: »

He writes some very interesting stuff, you should check it out if the subject matter interests you.

Had a quick look at his website alright, it does look worth a read
I'll read more of it when it's not about three hours past my bedtime. Stoopid internet stealing my sleep :P

clairefontaine

Sauve wrote: »

Had a quick look at his website alright, it does look worth a read
I'll read more of it when it's not about three hours past my bedtime. Stoopid internet stealing my sleep :P

The books are better if you can get your hands on one. Internet is a time theif alright. Goodnight.:)

Galwayguy35

EdenHazard wrote: »

people here are making it out like 1d are little girls, they are good looking lads, I'd imagine most girls of any age would find liam and zayn very attractive. Niall I think is the only one that really fits into the 'aimed at 13 year olds' type.
Harry is like a good looking Mick Jagger.

Young wans would find them attractive, but women of any age I don't think so.

They look about 12

Liam McPoyle

EdenHazard wrote: »

people here are making it out like 1d are little girls, they are good looking lads, I'd imagine most girls of any age would find liam and zayn very attractive. Niall I think is the only one that really fits into the 'aimed at 13 year olds' type.
Harry is like a good looking Mick Jagger.

You obviously don't know many women out of their teens.

1 Erection are clearly marketed at the pre-pubescent/young teen market.

They are the safe, "boy next door" archetype.

People saying some one is not ugly is miles away from thinking someone very attractive.

1E look young enough to not have had their balls drop yet.

Vinz Mesrine

EdenHazard wrote: »

people here are making it out like 1d are little girls, they are good looking lads, I'd imagine most girls of any age would find liam and zayn very attractive. Niall I think is the only one that really fits into the 'aimed at 13 year olds' type.
Harry is like a good looking Mick Jagger.

They are good looking little boys, aimed at little girls. Anyone who aspires to be like them is obviously lacking something upstairs.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Certainly there will be many factors, however study after study shows that fathers/male role models that are involved mean fewer problems in children. Indeed one or two have even suggested that going on the stats single fathers have fewer problems with their children than single mothers.

"Suggested" sounds a bit too tentative to me. However as before I would be interested in the causal factors of that and not simply the correlation ones. Even if it were 100% true that single fathers have less "problems" than single mothers I would not immedietly surmise this has anything to do with "Male role models".

It could be any other number of factors related to the divide in society between men and women for example. We do push towards an ideal society between the sexes but the reality is that men and women suffer from issues that the other does not and these too can reflect on the results of parenting.

For me it is just too complex to reduce to something as simplistic as saying "Having a male role model made things better".

Wibbs wrote: »

As for traits of masculinity? I'd say self respect, respect for and supporting others when they need it, keeping your head when the shít hits the fan, being emotionally open when required, knowing when you may need help and asking for it, emotional and social maturity, adding more to life than you subtract. That sort of thing. That said they would be traits I'd expect in women that I would respect too.

Your last sentence is exactly the point I am making in the thread. The things you list are simply good traits. They have - to my mind - exactly zero to do with "masculinity".

So you have hit exactly on what I am getting at when I am talking about "male roles", "female roles" and "models" for those roles. I do not see there being a "role" for each sex and when you pin someone down and get them to list what they think those roles actually are - they quickly realise that the things they list are roles for everyone. Not for any one sex.