The Modern Man 2.0

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.

Guyanachronism

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.

Most disucssions on masculinity turn into bashing certain guys as effeminate, it can be called femmephobia but One Direction aren't effemininate, except in the mind of those who think anything not traditionally masculine is automaticaly effemininate.

It seems to be difficult for most people to escape the dichotomy of masculine/feminine. Prime problem with these masculinity discussion most people can only define it by vague values that are universal or by what it's not.

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Just because you do not see there being a "role" for each sex does not mean that we don't persist in applying them to each generation. Thing is, does a neutral role model exist? One which can be applied and will encourage either the provider or carer roles without bias? And if it does exist, does this role instil the same level of advantage in either role as the two traditionally specialized ones?

Guyanachronism wrote: »

It seems to be difficult for most people to escape the dichotomy of masculine/feminine. Prime problem with these masculinity discussion most people can only define it by vague values that are universal or by what it's not.

You seem to be returning to the dichotomy of masculine/feminine more than most though.

I already responded to you that you should stop looking at such 'role models' in terms of gender and instead look on them in terms of role (that has traditionally been applied by gender) - you're the one who keeps on returning to seeing them in terms of gender.

clairefontaine

Deleted User wrote: »

"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".



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.

You know I have no doubt that having a male and female role model is the ideal, but on another threads someone pointed out the vast majority of single fathers are widows.

It simply might be the case thAt the children in those contexts are dealing with less conflict than in a situation where they are torn between two houses, both alike in dignity, yadda yadda, and stuck in between a a lot of conflict.
Whereas if you're raised by a single mother chances are the other parent is not dead, and your parents fight a lot. Not always.

I don't kow what "less problems" for single fathers means other than that they are widows, and therefore yes, have less "problems".

Vinz Mesrine

Guyanachronism wrote: »

Most disucssions on masculinity turn into bashing certain guys as effeminate, it can be called femmephobia but One Direction aren't effemininate, except in the mind of those who think anything not traditionally masculine is automaticaly effemininate.

It seems to be difficult for most people to escape the dichotomy of masculine/feminine. Prime problem with these masculinity discussion most people can only define it by vague values that are universal or by what it's not.

Rolling Stones, Oasis, Nirvana et al I would say are masculine.

One direction, most certainly are not.

If a race of aliens landed on earth and asked to see the manliest of men we can offer, would you point them towards one direction ?

py2006

Vinz Mesrine wrote: »

If a race of aliens landed on earth and asked to see the manliest of men we can offer, would you point them towards one direction ?

They would want to see me obviously.

I thought manly men were not a good thing nowadays? I get confused.

Guyanachronism

Vinz Mesrine wrote: »

Rolling Stones, Oasis, Nirvana et al I would say are masculine.

One direction, most certainly are not.

If a race of aliens landed on earth and asked to see the manliest of men we can offer, would you point them towards one direction ?

Isn't that reducing masculinity to a good/bad mentality. What makes Oasis or Rolling stones masculine?

Nirvana, doesn't fit in there at all. The grunge movement was quite androgenous and rejected c*ck rock swagger and the occasional sexism of the rock scene, Axl Rose being a prime example of what Cobain was critical of. Cobain often identified himself with women, racial and gender minorities because he felt alienated from the cultural expectation of masculinity.

If aliens landed and asked me that I would have to ask them to define masculine, as what is generally accepted as masculine is vague, differs across cultures, trends and socio-economic groups.

The Corinthian

Am I missing something, but since when have we taken our standards of concepts such as masculinity or femininity from 13-year olds? From what I have read, because I've no idea who this boy-band are, their popularity is pretty much limited to prepubescents and young teens, and last time I checked our standards, they're are generally set by adults. Seems like a non-issue, TBH.

If one wanted to suggest a move away from more masculine role models, maybe look at popular culture aimed at adults: the character Jess from breaking bad who seemingly starts blubbering whenever he's had a bad day or actor-comedians such as Eddie Izzard (who is a transvestite).

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

The Corinthian wrote: »

: the character Jess from breaking bad who seemingly starts blubbering whenever he's had a bad day .

aaaaaaaahh......

he was emotionally strongarmed into murdering a man. his girlfiend choked to death beside him, he ended up chained to an underground meth lab with threats hanging over the heads of his latest girlfriend and her son. Then she got murdered right in front of him, because he wouldnt play ball with his captors.

man's earned the right to a few tears

The Corinthian

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

aaaaaaaahh......

he was emotionally strongarmed into murdering a man. his girlfiend choked to death beside him, he ended up chained to an underground meth lab with threats hanging over the heads of his latest girlfriend and her son. Then she got murdered right in front of him, because he wouldnt play ball with his captors.

Exactly; what a pussy...

But seriously, his behaviour contrasts with previous portrayals of male protagonists. For example, Charles Bronson's character in Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West suffers at least one simelar and extreme experience, however he is portrayed as rock solid, never shedding a tear or losing control (something else which Jess frequently does) - the classic 'strong silent type'.

Such deceptions of masculinity have certainly changed in the last thirty years and there's no shortage of examples, without having to look at boy-bands, which was my principle point.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Exactly; what a pussy...

But seriously, his behaviour contrasts with previous portrayals of male protagonists. For example, Charles Bronson's character in Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West suffers at least one simelar and extreme experience, however he is portrayed as rock solid, never shedding a tear or losing control (something else which Jess frequently does) - the classic 'strong silent type'.

Such deceptions of masculinity have certainly changed in the last thirty years and there's no shortage of examples, without having to look at boy-bands, which was my principle point.

I think the point of Jesse blubbering is to show he entered a world in which he doesn't really belong. He's way out of his depth and always has been. He comes for a white middle class background and turns into a wigger, and then a gangster with WW?

So Jesse seen as a pussy would be more defined by the various classes and races he has ended up doing business with.

But as you know, this is an Irish website as you pointed out to me before, so I don't know maybe you should tick to one direction, BB and Charles Bronson are American.