Are modern men 'too feminine'?

JackTaylorFan

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, it might. But we have no reason to think that it does. There are a whole variety of other factors that might be at work here that you'd need to exclude.

And it would be very surprising if it turned out that the differences were accounted for by biological differences. After all, we know that social class is hugely influential in shaping careers, and class is an entirely social construct with no bioligical component at all. If social constructions of class do that, would it not be startling to discover that social constructions of gender do not?

There has been many studies carried out to ascertain which, if any, biological factors influence variance.

For instance: prenatal hormones on gendered behaviour. Most finding suggest a link - though there is still no consensus, as far as I know. The most recent study I've read about involves sets of identical twins; one of each pairing being homosexual and the other hetero. With genes being identical, they are looking to hormonal factors to try and understand. The theory is, although they share the same genetic make-up, androgen exposure from the mother will not be equal for both and that the difference will account for the divergence in sexuality.

Edit: Specifically, we are talking about the role prenatal hormones have on the foetal brain

nozzferrahhtoo

silverharp wrote: »

But what is wrong with re-enforcement? to have the best chance of raising well adjusted and ambitious kids generally revolves around being materially successful and having a stable 2 parent family unit ,any other arrangement will just make the goals more difficult to attain.

ANY other arrangement sounds a little too general for me.

For example there is a user posting a lot around boards.ie who is the male in a M/F/F three way relationship. They have two children by the older of the two women. They are currently trying for the next two children with the younger of the two women.

They seem very stable, in love, supporting and caring of their children, and do moderately well financially but nothing amazing. What around their arrangement in your mind makes it more difficult to attain the goals of raising well adjusted kids?

It seems a dangerous general point. A lot of people used to say similar about not just 2 parent families, but specifically opposite sex 2 parent families. You did not specify sex or gender so I assume you think all 2 parent families are included, including homosexual parenting?

But people once said THAT would not result in well adjusted children either. Yet not only do reports and studies suggest such children are every bit as well adjusted as the traditional heterosexual parenting model..... some studies ever have them faring better.

So the assumption that any other arrangements of parenting models would automatically be at a disadvantage seems A) unfounded and a bit of a repetition of the homosexuality feux pa.

silverharp

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

ANY other arrangement sounds a little too general for me.

For example there is a user posting a lot around boards.ie who is the male in a M/F/F three way relationship. They have two children by the older of the two women. They are currently trying for the next two children with the younger of the two women.

They seem very stable, in love, supporting and caring of their children, and do moderately well financially but nothing amazing. What around their arrangement in your mind makes it more difficult to attain the goals of raising well adjusted kids?

It seems a dangerous general point. A lot of people used to say similar about not just 2 parent families, but specifically opposite sex 2 parent families. You did not specify sex or gender so I assume you think all 2 parent families are included, including homosexual parenting?

But people once said THAT would not result in well adjusted children either. Yet not only do reports and studies suggest such children are every bit as well adjusted as the traditional heterosexual parenting model..... some studies ever have them faring better.

So the assumption that any other arrangements of parenting models would automatically be at a disadvantage seems A) unfounded and a bit of a repetition of the homosexuality feux pa.

across the board norms either work or they don't, it says nothing about an individual arrangement. I could possibly argue that polygamy might have certain advantages but its kind of irrelevant as there is no reason or way that this would become the default model and trying to make it work in a society where it is not common might cause its own problems.
I did say 2 parents to avoid going down the gay rabbit hole as it is not relevant to the majority else you might end up with the silly proposition that straight people should live homosexual lives if they want the best chances for their kids :pac:
However I would say that it is clearly easier to raise kids with 2 parents than 1, which numerically are the first and second most common way children are raised. I would dismiss any Utopian "commie" solution to parenting involving the state raising them or kids being raised by random parents which pop up as suggestions from time to time. Also as we are accepting anecdotes here I would never feel invested in a kid that wasn't "mine" as I would my own so I'd wager that across society fathers commit more where kids are genetically theirs.

nozzferrahhtoo

silverharp wrote: »

across the board norms either work or they don't, it says nothing about an individual arrangement.

I am not really focusing my question on their individual arrangement though, I was just using them as an example of another GENERAL kind of arrangement to ask you about your GENERAL statement about "ANY other arrangement".

So using them as an example of another TYPE of arrangement, what is it about that deviation from the norm makes you think it "will just make the goals more difficult to attain."

If anything so far that type of arrangements seems to make all their goals EASIER to obtain than average examples of the traditional heterosexual nuclear arrangement.

silverharp

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not really focusing my question on their individual arrangement though, I was just using them as an example of another GENERAL kind of arrangement to ask you about your GENERAL statement about "ANY other arrangement".

So using them as an example of another TYPE of arrangement, what is it about that deviation from the norm makes you think it "will just make the goals more difficult to attain."

If anything so far that type of arrangements seems to make all their goals EASIER to obtain than average examples of the traditional heterosexual nuclear arrangement.

I'd assume most women wouldn't accept being in a MFF arrangement. Polygamy works generally where either the women don't have many options or there is a shortage of suitable men.

nozzferrahhtoo

silverharp wrote: »

I'd assume most women wouldn't accept being in a MFF arrangement. Polygamy works generally where either the women don't have many options or there is a shortage of suitable men.

I am not talking about people who would not enter or accept such a relationship. I am talking about people already in one. I am asking what it is about that arrangement makes you think their "goals more difficult to attain" in terms of their child rearing, but in answer you are talking to me about people who do not want to be in such an arrangement in the first place.

Which feels a little bit like me asking "What about being a midfielder makes it harder to score goals than being a striker" and you answering with "Well not everyone wants to play midfield". It is an answer to a question I did not actually ask.

Presuppose that the people in the arrangement WANT to be in the arrangement. THEN tell me what about that arrangement makes those specific goals "more difficult to attain."

silverharp

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not talking about people who would not enter or accept such a relationship. I am talking about people already in one. I am asking what it is about that arrangement makes you think their "goals more difficult to attain" in terms of their child rearing, but in answer you are talking to me about people who do not want to be in such an arrangement in the first place.

Which feels a little bit like me asking "What about being a midfielder makes it harder to score goals than being a striker" and you answering with "Well not everyone wants to play midfield". It is an answer to a question I did not actually ask.

Presuppose that the people in the arrangement WANT to be in the arrangement. THEN tell me what about that arrangement makes those specific goals "more difficult to attain."

One probably might be increased divorce? if there is more divorce then by definition the arrangement is less stable and on average its better if kids grow up with the same biological parents

nozzferrahhtoo

silverharp wrote: »

One probably might be increased divorce? if there is more divorce then by definition the arrangement is less stable and on average its better if kids grow up with the same biological parents

That is a big "might" though and a bit like you are grasping at straws to validate the original statement.

Divorce, when it happens, is likely to be equally destabalizing in both arrangements though. I trust being divorced does indeed make it harder to attain ones goals of child rearing. Or at least break ups given divorce is not an option for people who can not actually marry.

But I am not talking about relationships with divorce. I am talking about functional relationships of the standard type compared to functional relationships like the one I exampled above.

Your first answer was about people who do not want to be in such relationships, and your second answer is about people who are leaving those relationships. Seems you really want to answer this question about people in such relationships in terms of people NOT in those relationships

But I am talking about people IN those relationships. Not outside them or breaking up from them. Is there any actual reason to think that people IN a healthy and functional three (or more) way relationship will find it harder to attain those goals than a heterosexual couple?

Or can we just agree that perhaps the original statement was a bit of a generalization and that really the only people who have a MARKEDLY harder time of parenting is in fact single parents for obvious reasons of time, resources and money. And in fact not only does a three way relationship not seem to have it harder, in many ways they appear to have it easier.

silverharp

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is a big "might" though and a bit like you are grasping at straws to validate the original statement.

Divorce, when it happens, is likely to be equally destabalizing in both arrangements though. I trust being divorced does indeed make it harder to attain ones goals of child rearing. Or at least break ups given divorce is not an option for people who can not actually marry.

But I am not talking about relationships with divorce. I am talking about functional relationships of the standard type compared to functional relationships like the one I exampled above.

Your first answer was about people who do not want to be in such relationships, and your second answer is about people who are leaving those relationships. Seems you really want to answer this question about people in such relationships in terms of people NOT in those relationships

But I am talking about people IN those relationships. Not outside them or breaking up from them. Is there any actual reason to think that people IN a healthy and functional three (or more) way relationship will find it harder to attain those goals than a heterosexual couple?

Or can we just agree that perhaps the original statement was a bit of a generalization and that really the only people who have a MARKEDLY harder time of parenting is in fact single parents for obvious reasons of time, resources and money. And in fact not only does a three way relationship not seem to have it harder, in many ways they appear to have it easier.

you are trying to sell me on a quirky family arrangement , im sceptical because there are unknowns. As a man divorce is not a welcome thing, you are offering a model where I have 2 chances of it happening ...eh no!

nozzferrahhtoo

silverharp wrote: »

you are trying to sell me on a quirky family arrangement

Not trying to sell anyone on anything. I am testing the veracity of your original sweeping statement by holding up a set of arrangements against it and seeing if your statement holds.

So far, it seems to me, it does not. I am seeing no reason why a functional family arrangement of 3 or 4 parents should have a harder time achieving the child rearing goals you mentioned.

Saying X does not seem better or worse than Y is not the same as trying to sell you X or Y.

I just think it pays to be cautious about making such statements. As I said people made EXACTLY the same statements when homosexual parenting came into the public consciousness. And it seems the the statements were not only unfounded, but in fact some studies show them faring BETTER than the "standard" model. So in the light of that history, I think it just pays to be cautious when making similar declarations about OTHER arrangements that deviate from the "norm".

silverharp

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not trying to sell anyone on anything. I am testing the veracity of your original sweeping statement by holding up a set of arrangements against it and seeing if your statement holds.

So far, it seems to me, it does not. I am seeing no reason why a functional family arrangement of 3 or 4 parents should have a harder time achieving the child rearing goals you mentioned.

Saying X does not seem better or worse than Y is not the same as trying to sell you X or Y.

I just think it pays to be cautious about making such statements. As I said people made EXACTLY the same statements when homosexual parenting came into the public consciousness. And it seems the the statements were not only unfounded, but in fact some studies show them faring BETTER than the "standard" model. So in the light of that history, I think it just pays to be cautious when making similar declarations about OTHER arrangements that deviate from the "norm".

you are introducing hostility against a completely different argument (gay parenting) to suggest any arrangement is fine. That doesn't work either. It's completely different, the choice for gay people is being gay parents or not at all. Here we are talking about options and you seem to be saying any arrangement is fine. That's not good enough for me as an individual or suggesting that whatever floats your boat should be encouraged across society.

JackTaylorFan

Both you guys have strayed way off topic, to be honest. You're now arguing about the best parental arrangement in which to raise a child in terms unrelated to the original question. And even then you are overlooking a whole host of factors including social mobility and the inheritance of poverty. But that's not what this thread is about.... So... yeah...

nozzferrahhtoo

silverharp wrote: »

you are introducing hostility against a completely different argument (gay parenting) to suggest any arrangement is fine.

Nope. Read it again. I did not introduce it to show ANY arrangement is fine.

I introduced it as a cautionary tale that we have in the past merely ASSUMED other arrangements would be less than the "ideal" and were bitten in the bottom upon discovering that not only was it no worse, in some studies they actually fare better.

silverharp wrote: »

you seem to be saying any arrangement is fine.

Where did I suggest any such thing please? In fact in posts only yesterday I discussed how single parents appear to have it the hardest of all. So how could I be suggesting "any arrangement is fine" when I myself listed one problematic one?

No, I do not think ANY arrangement is fine. What I do think however is that general statements that "any other arrangement will just make the goals more difficult to attain" have not been substantiated in any way on this thread.

silverharp

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Both you guys have strayed way off topic, to be honest. You're now arguing about the best parental arrangement in which to raise a child in terms unrelated to the original question. And even then you are overlooking a whole host of factors including social mobility and the inheritance of poverty. But that's not what this thread is about.... So... yeah...

I agree, someone is welcome to start a diferent thread