"Femininity is admired but not respected like masculinity" Do you agree?

nigel_wilson

I was on this niche forum where I got to know a few people that I've met up with here in Ireland. There's a lad who always wanted to dress more feminine so some people were helping him. He's fairly tall though has a very 'pretty boy face' for a 20yr old guy and not muscular at all so I would think that he could pass as a girl.

He's gone through a transformation since the start of this year and pretty much looks like a 'posh' effeminate guy (not in a derogatory way). A few of his male and female friends have complimented him on the new look but he overheard a few people saying "Though he looks good, I think I would take him more seriously if he was masculine, just my honest opinion".

He says he ignores any haters as most people are accepting but I do wonder if that's an isolated opinion? Would a fair amount of people think that about femininity in general? I have seen the exact statement online being made on Reddit's 'theredpill' and 'FeMRA Debates' where someone explained that there are two types of unaccepting reactions towards non-gender conforming men. 1.) People who react with strong/silent disapproval or people who are 'okay with it' but respect the person less. They gave an example of 'liking someone but not respecting them' e.g. the class clown who you like hanging around but wouldn't take him seriously with consulting him for any academic work.

So is that really the case with effeminate men or more importantly femininity in general? Perhaps a man may look very posh and 'cute' with androgynous clothing but do most people really respect him less compared to if he had a more masculine persona?

Mr.H

I'd find it difficult to take a man seriously if he had pig tails hot pants and a belly top. But then again that's just me.

Seriously though I really don't understand that whole metro rubbish. Why the hell do you wanna girl yourself up? I know a guy who wears makeup FFS. Makeup. No way will he ever be taken seriously. Way too self obsessed.

Wibbs

I'd kinda agree. A woman dressing "more like a man" is going to get much less hassle than a man dressing "more like a woman". As it is much women's fashion would have been seen as masculine a century ago. Which suggests in fashion at least femininity on men is less respected.

Outside that I'm less sure. For example women often report that if they are assertive in business the way men are they're more likely to be seen as a "bitch" and men who are effeminate are looked down upon or seen as "gay". And as you said there are the obvious negative reactions and the hidden, but still negative reactions.

Personally speaking I actually prefer assertive women, the coquettish "girly" thing doesn't appeal. Effeminate men? Depends on the man. I know a gay lad who can be a bit "flamboyant" but not in that drama diva way. He's actually one of the most together people I know. I can't abide that drama queen guff in either sex and yes would mark them down in my estimation. Ditto for vain narcissists of either gender, though will admit I would tend to give women more leeway in that.

farmchoice

i watched a documentary about a woman in America who wanted to know what it was like to be a man, she was a lesbian and a feminist activist and came at it from that angle.


anyway she lived as a man for about a year and in general her opinion of men and their struggles etc ect changed.
during the doc she went on numerous dates as a man and one of the biggest shocks she got was that by and large woman were looking for manly men as opposed to more feminine men, she was taken aback by this.

seamus

farmchoice wrote: »

one of the biggest shocks she got was that by and large woman were looking for manly men as opposed to more feminine men, she was taken aback by this.

I do think women's sexual preferences are something that is largely overlooked.

Maybe it's because we've spent so long convincing ourselves that women are precious flowers who reluctantly give up sex to men. Or maybe women have felt it's "wrong" to admit that they admire masculine features.

But I think a lot of value would be added to society if we were to acknowledge and celebrate female sexuality in the same way that we do for male sexuality.

Instead we're moving down the road of suppressing male sexuality; calling "offence" at sexy ads, trying to teach people that admiring a woman physically is wrong. And that's good for nobody.

There is a happy medium; acknowledging that both sexes have a visual/physical aspect to sexuality, without allowing it to become a commodity, and without making it the defining aspect of either gender's value.

Women do have a point in that in times gone by they've been taught that if they're not sexy or not a mother, then they have no social value. And "taught" by society as opposed to someone standing at a blackboard saying those words to them.
Yes, we need to value women as people (which one could argue we are most of the way there), but not lose sight of the fact that we are animals, and the physical and visual is also important and shouldn't be shamed into suppression.

Wibbs

True Farmchoice, but there can be cultural angles to this too. America is not an exact fit with Ireland for example. Even though we've imported some of their dating culture in recent times. EG in countries with fewer social supports "manly men with money are more attractive and sought out. In countries with more social supports this is still there to some degree, but less in play. It's not so long ago(the 80's) in the US where maternity leave wasn't in law and paid maternity leave is still more up to the employers. Plus medical bills can go stratospheric. So it makes sense that American women would preselect men on their earning potential and assertiveness. This would also tend to encourage more traditionally masculine ways of acting.

One eyed Jack

nigel_wilson wrote: »

So is that really the case with effeminate men or more importantly femininity in general? Perhaps a man may look very posh and 'cute' with androgynous clothing but do most people really respect him less compared to if he had a more masculine persona?

It depends upon context, not gender. I wouldn't be able to take a man seriously if they turned up to a business meeting looking effeminate in their appearance. I also can't take men in slim fit suits seriously, though the same look seems to make some of my female colleagues a bit weak-kneed. If the same man had the same effeminate appearance and for example they were a theatrical performer, in that context I would be judging them by a different standard, and the one that stands out for me was a Kylie impersonator who was far more qualified to call themselves a gender discombobulator than Panti Bliss, for whom there is no doubt that they're a man presenting themselves poorly as a woman. That's why I can't take PB seriously - I can respect him as a human being, while also having no respect for the way in which he chooses to present himself.

With regards to femininity in general, well again of course it depends upon context. How does one define femininity? That's a rhetorical question by the way but for myself, I know it when I see it :pac: Basically the demure woman stuff is how some women express their femininity, and it's how some males choose to impersonate that persona because that's what they perceive femininity to be from their perspective. I prefer women with balls (metaphorically speaking :pac:), and for a long time I admired Hillary Clinton as a woman who I took seriously. But during her presidential election campaign when she wheeled out America Ferrera, Lena Dunham and Sarah Silverman (they remind me of the three witches in Macbeth, they offered warning signs of what was to come if Hillary was elected President ), and I lost all respect I had for her capabilities as a leader. I didn't lose any respect for her as a woman, but from that point on I couldn't take her seriously as a potential leader.

silverharp

It seems like a masculine woman can get respect and feminine women can get respect but feminine men will tend to be seen as weak and ineffectual unless they have a skill that comes to the fore over their personality or demeanour.

iptba

farmchoice wrote: »

i watched a documentary about a woman in America who wanted to know what it was like to be a man, she was a lesbian and a feminist activist and came at it from that angle.


anyway she lived as a man for about a year and in general her opinion of men and their struggles etc ect changed.
during the doc she went on numerous dates as a man and one of the biggest shocks she got was that by and large woman were looking for manly men as opposed to more feminine men, she was taken aback by this.

Sounds like it could be this you are thinking of:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip7kP_dd6LU

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Made_Man_(book)

---

https://abcnews.go.com/2020/Entertainment/story?id=1526982

Vincent even dabbled in the art of picking up women and agreed to wear a hidden camera for "20/20" during her exploits.


She was quickly reminded that in this arena, it's women who have the power, she said.


"In fact, we sit there and we just with one word, 'no,' will crush someone," she said. "We don't have to do the part where you cross the room and you go up to a stranger that you've never met in the middle of a room full of people and say the first words. And those first words are so hard to say without sounding like a cheeseball or sounding like a jerk."


Vincent encountered some pretty cold shoulders in her attempts at the bar, but she did manage to go on about 30 dates with women as "Ned," mostly arranging them on the Internet.


Vincent said the dates were rarely fun and that the pressure of "Ned" having to prove himself was grueling. She was surprised that many women had no interest in a soft, vulnerable man.



"My prejudice was that the ideal man is a woman in a man's body. And I learned, no, that's really not. There are a lot of women out there who really want a manly man, and they want his stoicism," she said.

Vincent thought the perfect end to her 18-month saga would be to join a men-only therapy group, a place where guys tried to bond and show their emotions instead of hiding them.

Again, Vincent saw the men struggle with vulnerability. "They don't get to show the weakness, they don't get to show the affection, especially with each other. And so often all their emotions are shown in rage," she said.

---

"Men are suffering. They have different problems than women have, but they don't have it better," she said. "They need our sympathy. They need our love, and maybe they need each other more than anything else. They need to be together."

Ironically, Vincent said, it took experiencing life as a man for her to appreciate being a woman. "I really like being a woman. ... I like it more now because I think it's more of a privilege."

johnnyskeleton

nigel_wilson wrote: »

He says he ignores any haters as most people are accepting but I do wonder if that's an isolated opinion? Would a fair amount of people think that about femininity in general? I have seen the exact statement online being made on Reddit's 'theredpill' and 'FeMRA Debates' where someone explained that there are two types of unaccepting reactions towards non-gender conforming men. 1.) People who react with strong/silent disapproval or people who are 'okay with it' but respect the person less. They gave an example of 'liking someone but not respecting them' e.g. the class clown who you like hanging around but wouldn't take him seriously with consulting him for any academic work.

I'm not sure I'd class those two reactions as unaccepting necessarily. People are entitled to basic courtesy and not to be abused as a basic level. But no one is automatically entitled to respect or to be liked. The fact that someone dresses in a way that, in popular culture, has become part of a protected group of sexual identity, even though he is still a straight man, is not in itself a reason to respect someone any more or less.

I will respect a professor of astrophysics who happily imparts their expertise regardless of how he/she dresses. If the only thing that is noteworthy about someone is that they dress in a "nonconforming" manner and thats all they talk about, well I wont be rude to them but I wont automatically respect or like them.

Overall I guess the scenario is that some people try to gain status by achieving things - whether its that you wrote a book or ran a 5km or whatever. Others do it by playing the oppression olympics where they identify a reason to be oppressed and who is the oppressor, usually straight white men, then if they are not as well respected as the most successful of the oppressor group, then it is the proof of oppression.

El_Duderino 09

I suppose it depends on how you define masculinity and femininity. I think it’s amazing that we could try to discuss this topic without even trying to narrow down a definition of those terms.

I have my own rule of thumb but I’d be interested in your take. What elements make up masculinity and femininity?

Can a gay man be masculine? Can a camp hetero man be masculine? I’d say the answer to both those questions is yes. I think it’s a fascinating question which lots of people assume they’re talking about the same thing, but they’re probably not.

So what makes up masculinity and femininity?

DEFTLEFTHAND

They're designed to compliant one another.

Men in general are not attracted to women who exude masculine traits.

Likewise women in general are not attracted to men sexually who exude feminine traits.

El_Duderino 09

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

They're designed to compliant one another.

Men in general are not attracted to women who exude masculine traits.

Likewise women in general are not attracted to men sexually who exude feminine traits.

So could you gauge masculinity and femininity based on attractiveness to the opposite sex?

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So could you gauge masculinity and femininity based on attractiveness to the opposite sex?

interesting way of putting it but its probably more complicated , you have what people think of as masculine "traits" then there are "traits" that tend to be male on a numbers basis but not considered so masculine, just behaviour etc more typical of males. then you have traits or abilities which are more independent of sex but which might be more desirable in one sex than the other.
A male doctor versus a female doctor for instance would throw up gender differences but trying to apply the logic of your question would break down some

seamus

iptba wrote: »

Sounds like it could be this you are thinking of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Made_Man_(book)

---

https://abcnews.go.com/2020/Entertainment/story?id=1526982

It's probably worth watching through the whole thing.

I did skip through it myself, but noted that people in this thread had pulled a comment that "women like manly men" out of this documentary.

When in reality it was more nuanced than that. She said that she had revealed the truth to almost all women that she dated. Most were shocked and a little angry at first. Many walked away, but a surprising number wanted to continue. Said they'd felt "a connection" and wanted to explore the relationship further, even though they identified as heterosexual.

How many hetero men would do the same?

The discussion needs to not just focus on "many women like manly men". That's as unhelpful as pretending that women don't like sex because it puts pressure on men to be "manly" men.

It also needs to be acknowledged that physical attractiveness is one tiny aspect of attraction overall - for both men and women. Saying that women "in general" like manly men implies that if you're not a manly man you're going to struggle to find a partner. Which is simply not true. It only becomes true if you believe it.

Even the inverse isn't true; a woman being "feminine" doesn't guarantee that she's batting them away, and a woman who's more masculine can be a complete magnet for every man in the room.

Attraction is way more subtle than just physical appearance for both sexes, and while the physical is certainly a strong initial push, it burns away very quickly.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So could you gauge masculinity and femininity based on attractiveness to the opposite sex?

interesting way of putting it but its probably more complicated , you have what people think of as masculine "traits" then there are "traits" that tend to be male on a numbers basis but not considered so masculine, just behaviour etc more typical of males. then you have traits or abilities which are more independent of sex but which might be more desirable in one sex than the other.
A male doctor versus a female doctor for instance would throw up gender differences but trying to apply the logic of your question would break down some

I imagine it is much more complicated than attractiveness.

What's an example of "what people think of as masculine "traits" then there are "traits" that tend to be male on a numbers basis but not considered so masculine, just behaviour etc more typical of males".

What would be a masculine trait and what would be a trait that tends to be male but isn't considered masculine?

silverharp

seamus wrote: »

The discussion needs to not just focus on "many women like manly men". That's as unhelpful as pretending that women don't like sex because it puts pressure on men to be "manly" men.
....

It also needs to be acknowledged that physical attractiveness is one tiny aspect of attraction overall - for both men and women. Saying that women "in general" like manly men implies that if you're not a manly man you're going to struggle to find a partner. Which is simply not true. It only becomes true if you believe it.

it could also be motivational, if you take manliness to mean things like being assertive, taking risks (the good kind) etc. then incorporating these things into your thinking would make a "better person" and more attractive to women to boot.

Calhoun

On one level I don't think I have ever ever worked with the manliest of men and thought I'd follow them into battle or over a cliff.

One on level looks to an extent can turn us off people but I don't think looks are all it's at. If you know and work with someone traits like assertiveness and comfortable in their own skin shines through.

I am not discounting small minded people who will see someone dressed a certain way and instantly dismiss them they do exist but got the most part I would hope people especially friends would look deeper than that.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

it could also be motivational, if you take manliness to mean things like being assertive, taking risks (the good kind) etc. then incorporating these things into your thinking would make a "better person" and more attractive to women to boot.

This is kind of the point of the question I asked above. Is masculinity only comprised of good things?

Is that also to say that assertiveness in a woman would add to her masculinity and make her less feminine and less appealing to men on average?

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I imagine it is much more complicated than attractiveness.

What's an example of "what people think of as masculine "traits" then there are "traits" that tend to be male on a numbers basis but not considered so masculine, just behaviour etc more typical of males".

What would be a masculine trait and what would be a trait that tends to be male but isn't considered masculine?

For example the stereotypical introverted computer nerd, this kind of person would be associated with being male but masculine isn't a word that would come to mind, whereas think of the traits of someone who does a very physical job that requires certain skills say a steeplejack, this kind of person would display more masculine traits like the physical abilities and desire to actually do the job.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

For example the stereotypical introverted computer nerd, this kind of person would be associated with being male but masculine isn't a word that would come to mind, whereas think of the traits of someone who does a very physical job that requires certain skills say a steeplejack, this kind of person would display more masculine traits like the physical abilities and desire to actually do the job.

So does a trait need to be good in order to be masculine?

I would have thought a trait that is mostly associated with men would be masculine regardless of whether it's good or not.

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So does a trait need to be good in order to be masculine?

I would have thought a trait that is mostly associated with men would be masculine regardless of whether it's good or not.

Why do you need to assign a trait as good or bad though? Take for example risk taking, a trait that’s in most studies found to be a more ‘male’ characteristic. Risk taking isn’t actually good or bad, it’s just a solution to someone’s utility curve. When risks go bad it’s easy to apply hindsight however not taking risk, the more classically feminine trait, also has a negative possible outcome.

Any trait can have examples of its negative and positive application, however it’s flawed to describe a trait as good or bad. It’s one of the reasons why the hang up in some academics areas on being masculine bothers me quite a bit- it’s narrowing a much broader debate about how both genders display their ‘nature’ for want of a better word, typically with the aim of finding something ‘wrong’

farmchoice

tritium wrote: »

Why do you need to assign a trait as good or bad though? Take for example risk taking, a trait that’s in most studies found to be a more ‘male’ characteristic. Risk taking isn’t actually good or bad, it’s just a solution to someone’s utility curve. When risks go bad it’s easy to apply hindsight however not taking risk, the more classically feminine trait, also has a negative possible outcome.

Any trait can have examples of its negative and positive application, however it’s flawed to describe a trait as good or bad. It’s one of the reasons why the hang up in some academics areas on being masculine bothers me quite a bit- it’s narrowing a much broader debate about how both genders display their ‘nature’ for want of a better word, typically with the aim of finding something ‘wrong’

that's a very well put and insightful post.

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So does a trait need to be good in order to be masculine?

I would have thought a trait that is mostly associated with men would be masculine regardless of whether it's good or not.

Why do you need to assign a trait as good or bad though? Take for example risk taking, a trait that’s in most studies found to be a more ‘male’ characteristic. Risk taking isn’t actually good or bad, it’s just a solution to someone’s utility curve. When risks go bad it’s easy to apply hindsight however not taking risk, the more classically feminine trait, also has a negative possible outcome.

Any trait can have examples of its negative and positive application, however it’s flawed to describe a trait as good or bad. It’s one of the reasons why the hang up in some academics areas on being masculine bothers me quite a bit- it’s narrowing a much broader debate about how both genders display their ‘nature’ for want of a better word, typically with the aim of finding something ‘wrong’

I don't need to assign a trait as good or bad. I as hoping the other poster would come around to that conclusion of their own accord. I said as much h in the post above that masculine traits would be masculine regardless of good or bad.

Were still no closer to narrowing down a usable definition of masculine and feminine.

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't need to assign a trait as good or bad. I as hoping the other poster would come around to that conclusion of their own accord. I said as much h in the post above that masculine traits would be masculine regardless of good or bad.

Were still no closer to narrowing down a usable definition of masculine and feminine.

You, and only you, brought in the concept of good and bad. Telling me you know it’s irrelevant after the fact is a bit pointless tbh

At any rate my answer gives you one, probably imperfect, way to define masculine and feminine for a given trait, assuming you can assign a distribution for each gender across the spectrum for that trait

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So does a trait need to be good in order to be masculine?

I would have thought a trait that is mostly associated with men would be masculine regardless of whether it's good or not.

but then it would just be interchangeable with male?

here is the google definition of the term masculine

possession of the qualities traditionally associated with men.
"handsome, muscled, and driven, he's a prime example of masculinity"


synonyms: virility, manliness, maleness, vigour, strength, muscularity, ruggedness, toughness, robustness

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't need to assign a trait as good or bad. I as hoping the other poster would come around to that conclusion of their own accord. I said as much h in the post above that masculine traits would be masculine regardless of good or bad.

Were still no closer to narrowing down a usable definition of masculine and feminine.

You, and only you, brought in the concept of good and bad. Telling me you know it’s irrelevant after the fact is a bit pointless tbh

At any rate my answer gives you one, probably imperfect, way to define masculine and feminine for a given trait, assuming you can assign a distribution for each gender across the spectrum for that trait

I asked whether it was the case. I didn't say I think more the case and to clarify, I don't think it's the case. I think good and bad are irrelevant to determining masculine or feminine traits.

So just to clarify, are you in agreement with my earlier statement that masculinity and femininity are more to do with traits that are more prevalent in men or women respectively and not to do with good or badness?

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So does a trait need to be good in order to be masculine?

I would have thought a trait that is mostly associated with men would be masculine regardless of whether it's good or not.

but then it would just be interchangeable with male?

here is the google definition of the term masculine

possession of the qualities traditionally associated with men.
"handsome, muscled, and driven, he's a prime example of masculinity"


synonyms: virility, manliness, maleness, vigour, strength, muscularity, ruggedness, toughness, robustness

Do you agree with that definition? Would you consider it complete? It only really deals with physical characteristics so it is pretty interchangeable with male.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Do you agree with that definition? Would you consider it complete? It only really deals with physical characteristics so it is pretty interchangeable with male.

I have a sense in how the term is used, as far as a forum like this I'd generally stick to male and female and go with the distribution graph idea mentioned above by another poster to compare or contrast the genders in the round. but for example I have heard women saying they have more masculine traits or some men saying they have a more feminine side or I can get if a women says they like a "manly man" , which at a base level is just a mixture of genetics features and particular testosterone levels perhaps which influence behaviour.

You mentioned traits that the opposite sex admire but it also might be traits that the same sex admire hence the reason we like hero movies or admire someone like Bill Clinton for his ability to command a room with his personality.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Do you agree with that definition? Would you consider it complete? It only really deals with physical characteristics so it is pretty interchangeable with male.

I have a sense in how the term is used, as far as a forum like this I'd generally stick to male and female and go with the distribution graph idea mentioned above by another poster to compare or contrast the genders in the round. but for example I have heard women saying they have more masculine traits or some men saying they have a more feminine side or I can get if a women says they like a "manly man" , which at a base level is just a mixture of genetics features and particular testosterone levels perhaps which influence behaviour.

You mentioned traits that the opposite sex admire but it also might be traits that the same sex admire hence the reason we like hero movies or admire someone like Bill Clinton for his ability to command a room with his personality.

No someone else mentioned that in general women are attracted to masculine men and men are attracted to feminine women. I was asking further questions about that statement.

I think it is the case that most people use the terms on the basis that you know it when you see it. An 'ah shur you know yourself' definition. I'd imagine that if it can't be described in a way that people agree on, then how can we have a discussion about masculinity and femininit?

I think it should be clear that when people throw around terms like masculine and feminine, they're thinking of different things if they know what they're thinking of at all. Nobody has a problem using the terms but it's proving quite difficult to pin down what is meant by those terms

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

No someone else mentioned that in general women are attracted to masculine men and men are attracted to feminine women. I was asking further questions about that statement.

I think it is the case that most people use the terms on the basis that you know it when you see it. An 'ah shur you know yourself' definition. I'd imagine that if it can't be described in a way that people agree on, then how can we have a discussion about masculinity and femininit?

I think it should be clear that when people throw around terms like masculine and feminine, they're thinking of different things if they know what they're thinking of at all. Nobody has a problem using the terms but it's proving quite difficult to pin down what is meant by those terms

we are dealing with people, just because you cant break it down to x number of chemical reactions doesn't mean it lacks any meaning. If I asked you who would you judge to be more feminine, the actress Emily Clarke or the pundit Julie Bindel, are you saying you wouldn't have a clue how to go about answering the question? or more likely it would be an easy enough question to answer

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

we are dealing with people, just because you cant break it down to x number of chemical reactions doesn't mean it lacks any meaning. If I asked you who would you judge to be more feminine, the actress Emily Clarke or the pundit Julie Bindel, are you saying you wouldn't have a clue how to go about answering the question? or more likely it would be an easy enough question to answer

I don't know who those people are but the point holds. Having googled them I can say I'm more attracted to one over the other but I don't know much about either of them.

I've seen one in game of thrones act in a sexy role, and I've never seen the other one before. So we might agree but if we're agreeing for differed reasons. For example you might feel that being a dreadful feminists takes from her femininity. You might be using attractiveness as a basis for femininity.

It doesn't bring us much closer to defining femininity. Maybe it can't be defined beyond 'ah shur you know yourself ,like'

Tombo2001

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

They're designed to compliant one another.

Men in general are not attracted to women who exude masculine traits.

Likewise women in general are not attracted to men sexually who exude feminine traits.

Well what are Masculine traits and what are Feminine traits, and who decides these things?

The common perception of these things is informed by a hangover from a bygone era when men and women had vastly different roles and positions in society.

Those days are gone.

tritium

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Well what are Masculine traits and what are Feminine traits, and who decides these things?

The common perception of these things is informed by a hangover from a bygone era when men and women had vastly different roles and positions in society.

Those days are gone.

See my previous answer. There are traits and there is the distribution of a gender against the spectrum of that trait.

The common perception is largely based on how people perceive those distributions. While those perceptions may shift over time the speed of that shift wouldn’t generally be swift enough to describe it as a hangover from a bygone era imho

Tombo2001

tritium wrote: »

See my previous answer. There are traits and there is the distribution of a gender against the spectrum of that trait.

The common perception is largely based on how people perceive those distributions. While those perceptions may shift over time the speed of that shift wouldn’t generally be swift enough to describe it as a hangover from a bygone era imho

I've looked at your posts, I dont see one where you identify a set of traits that define masculinity or femininity; though you do refer to examples.... if I am missing something then apologies.

Anyway, as with most people here, i googled it.

To give one example, the word 'deference' is used as a trait of femininity.

I wouldnt expect that to be a specific quality for women, as opposed to men, to display in this day and age.

Aggression is identified as a trait of masculinity. Ditto.

These are things we ultimately learn from our parents. And the family unit has changed enormously in the past five decades, compared to the previous 500 years. In terms of the power dynamics within the family. All the perceived qualities of masculinity are linked with a person in a position of power and control..

johnnyskeleton

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So does a trait need to be good in order to be masculine?

I would have thought a trait that is mostly associated with men would be masculine regardless of whether it's good or not.

Inability to let others influence your views, argumentativeness and trying to dictate the terms of a conversation would all be examples of the bad masculine traits.

El_Duderino 09

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So does a trait need to be good in order to be masculine?

I would have thought a trait that is mostly associated with men would be masculine regardless of whether it's good or not.

Inability to let others influence your views, argumentativeness and trying to dictate the terms of a conversation would all be examples of the bad masculine traits.

Are those traits more prevalent in men than women?

Wibbs

Tombo2001 wrote: »

To give one example, the word 'deference' is used as a trait of femininity.

I wouldnt expect that to be a specific quality for women, as opposed to men, to display in this day and age.

Aggression is identified as a trait of masculinity. Ditto.

These are things we ultimately learn from our parents. And the family unit has changed enormously in the past five decades, compared to the previous 500 years.

We're back to the Nature V Nurture debate. A debate that goes back and forth depending on initial viewpoint. Seems to be a political angle to it to. EG the "right wing" types tend to see it as hard "Nature", the "left" types hard "Nurture". As ever with positional extremes the reality is it's demonstrably a little from Column A and a little from Column B. That one informs the other in a back and forth dialogue over time. You appear to be on the Nurture end of the scale. That is; society and culture are what writes our genders and gender perceptions. It most certainly has an effect, but viewing it as the be all and end all and that we're "blank slates" is as skewed as those who filter everything through evolutionary biology/psychology.

Let's examine your last point, that unprecedented cultural shifts have happened over the last half century and much has changed. Yep, I'd agree there, but the corollary of that of course is that for the vast percentage of human history this wasn't in play. How do you think this might have created different selection pressures on the sexes?

Let's go down the evolutionary route for a second and look at our physiology. Men are on average 50% physically stronger than women, on average they're taller, with bigger hearts and lung volume. Women have better more reactive immune systems and are generally healthier throughout life, even though reproductively their viability switches off decades before death, unlike in men where they remain reproductively viable throughout life. That last alone is a difference and the menopause itself is an oddity in the animal kingdom. So there's been strong selection pressures there. Brin wise there are some gender differences there too. EG women have more connections between their hemispheres than men. That's before we get to the different hormonal profiles. These measurable physical differences hardly stop at the physical level and they don't.

In the Big Five personality traits there are gender differences. EG women are consistently more "neurotic" than men. That is they are more likely to display anxiety, fear etc. Men are more likely to be physically aggressive and assertive in general. The majority of those in prison for physical violence including murder are men. The vast majority of killers, warriors, empire builders, business tycoons, even psychopaths etc have been and are men. Women are more likely to be Agreeable than men. There's a long list of observable statistically significant general gender differences. Even in something like "aggression" we see these general differences. EG men are far more likely to be physically aggressive and press that home, women are more likely to back off from that, but are more likely to be socially aggressive and use words more than fists.

Now of course it's a continuum of traits within the sexes. That's also not up for decent debate and one good thing about western society of recent decades is that it more and more allows for those men and women who are more in the middle, but one can still make the case for general "masculine" and general "feminine" traits.

"Masculine" traits? Self sufficient, self realised, brave, risk taking, less driven by the consensus, competitive, assertive, even aggressive when required, emotionally stable and aware, something that is made not born.

We can observe the latter trait in the history of narrative structure; the Hero's Journey. There's no real female version of that as such. The female narrative journey tends to be the born Disney Princess that has all her admirable traits from the get go only it awaits discovery. Along the way she suffers setbacks, but the end point is never really in doubt. The male version has potential admirable traits, but he has to find his personal quest, he has grow the traits, gain a mentor(s), fail repeatedly, even "die" in some metaphorical or actual manner and finally emerge as the "hero". QV Neo in The Matrix as a very good example. One that the Ancient Greeks would recognise and why it stuck such a deep chord in audiences(and why the sequels didn't).

To geek out a little, we can observe this in the Star Wars flics. In the first Luke Skywalker is a gormless farm boy with great potential. He needs constant saving(inc by "his" princess) and it takes three flics before he becomes the hero of that potential. In the almost page for page recent reboot the Rey character is sitting in the same backwater location awaiting her potential and within the first half of the flic becomes the heroine. No constant saving, no growth, few setbacks, no mentor(s), just the rapid self realisation she's the heroine with innate abilities to match. Those rabid fans that were all a twitter that she was a "Mary Sue" IMHO missed the point(for a start there are enough male "Mary Sue's" out there), she was never the female example of the Hero's Journey, she was the Disney Princess*.

Jaysus, it's been a while since I polished my keyboard rambling of an evening with a glass or three of Burgundy at hand.


*though there is a cultural aspect to this too. EG of late the superhero that just is is more in play. The instant gratification, which applies to most such big screen heroes, regardless of gender. Audiences have less patience for the older style hero's journey again regardless of gender. If the Christ tale(which is another example of the Hero's journey, as is the Buddha, as is Mohammed) was told today one might expect it to curtain up with him being placed in the tomb and resurrecting in the very next scene. I can hear the 60 cigs a day voiceover now: He's Jewish, he's angry, he's come back from the dead. To kick pagan aasss! See the Galilean fight back! In theatres soon.

Wibbs

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Inability to let others influence your views, argumentativeness and trying to dictate the terms of a conversation would all be examples of the bad masculine traits.

I;d see them as neutral traits myself. Depends on context. Seeking consensus is grand, but sometimes someone has to ignore that and take charge of the narrative.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Are those traits more prevalent in men than women?

Yes. And the literature is pretty solid on that. Women are more likely to seek consensus, go with the group, be more complaint with the group and more empathic to same.

tritium

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I've looked at your posts, I dont see one where you identify a set of traits that define masculinity or femininity; though you do refer to examples.... if I am missing something then apologies.

Anyway, as with most people here, i googled it.

To give one example, the word 'deference' is used as a trait of femininity.

I wouldnt expect that to be a specific quality for women, as opposed to men, to display in this day and age.

Aggression is identified as a trait of masculinity. Ditto.

These are things we ultimately learn from our parents. And the family unit has changed enormously in the past five decades, compared to the previous 500 years. In terms of the power dynamics within the family. All the perceived qualities of masculinity are linked with a person in a position of power and control..

This is the one I’m referring to

tritium wrote: »

Why do you need to assign a trait as good or bad though? Take for example risk taking, a trait that’s in most studies found to be a more ‘male’ characteristic. Risk taking isn’t actually good or bad, it’s just a solution to someone’s utility curve. When risks go bad it’s easy to apply hindsight however not taking risk, the more classically feminine trait, also has a negative possible outcome.

Any trait can have examples of its negative and positive application, however it’s flawed to describe a trait as good or bad. It’s one of the reasons why the hang up in some academics areas on being masculine bothers me quite a bit- it’s narrowing a much broader debate about how both genders display their ‘nature’ for want of a better word, typically with the aim of finding something ‘wrong’

You’re asking the wrong question if you’re trying to “define” masculinity or femininity. There is simply a trait- men and women will both display it to some extent. All you can say is the perhaps one grouping scores higher on average. It’s also not fixed, varying at different times in our lives and situations. Take aggression/ deference- you denote these as classically male/ female. Yet if you put a female of any mammal species in a protecting their young scenario, on average their level of aggressiveness will greatly exceed average (normal?) male aggression. Similarly deference can actually be a very male trait in many situations, in particular in class or hierarchical based social settings. To extend the example to human specific interaction, statistically one of the highest levels of domestic violence occurs in lesbian relationships, and women have displayed a similar propensity to commit domestic abuse as men. How then are aggression or violence masculine traits.

Interestingly, you mention how perception has changed over the last 50 or so years, yet there’s some evidence that the traits haven’t modified greatly. Erin pizzey reported the levels of female violence many decades ago for example. Perhaps then we need to ask if it’s not the traits themselves that have changed but rather our social view on them. Whereas in the past there may have been acceptance of a male/ female stereotype it’s more difficult to ignore the degree of overlaps in the traits when we frame it in a equal opportunities way

tritium

Wibbs wrote: »

I;d see them as neutral traits myself. Depends on context. Seeking consensus is grand, but sometimes someone has to ignore that and take charge of the narrative.

Yes. And the literature is pretty solid on that. Women are more likely to seek consensus, go with the group, be more complaint with the group and more empathic to same.

There are also of course very solid evolutionary reasons why certain traits are “more” male or female, and indeed many of these traits don’t exclusively apply to humans. It also indicates why the concept of a trait being good or bad is flawed- nature and evolution dont actually care about moral perception, it’s entirely about survival.

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes. And the literature is pretty solid on that. Women are more likely to seek consensus, go with the group, be more complaint with the group and more empathic to same.

So could we start compiling a list of masculine and feminine traits?

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So could we start compiling a list of masculine and feminine traits?

After lots of questions from yourself, what do you actually think?

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So could we start compiling a list of masculine and feminine traits?

After lots of questions from yourself, what do you actually think?

I think most people use the words masculine and feminine to mean different things. It makes discussions between people about topics around masculinity and femininity, much less useful. 

I think having a broadly agreed upon usage for the terms would make those discussions much more useful. 

I think outlining masculinity and femininity is much more difficult than people think as evidenced by the fact that the question hasn't been fully answered yet.

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think most people use the words masculine and feminine to mean different things. It makes discussions between people about topics around masculinity and femininity, much less useful. 

I think having a broadly agreed upon usage for the terms would make those discussions much more useful. 

I think outlining masculinity and femininity is much more difficult than people think as evidenced by the fact that the question hasn't been fully answered yet.

I’m pretty sure I’ve fully answered the question from my perspective

I’m also pretty sure that a scientifically axiomatic answer wouldn’t be particularly useful, accurate or indeed necessary unless it aimed to promote a very segregated view of people.

You do realize that posters here aren’t a hive mind right? At this stage you have what would readily be considered “broadly agreed usage”, so what more are you actually hoping for?

Wibbs

Me. Yesterday. wrote: »

"Masculine" traits? Self sufficient, self realised, brave, risk taking, less driven by the consensus, competitive, assertive, even aggressive when required, emotionally stable and aware, something that is made not born.

Though I suspect no "answer" would satisfy you.

tritium wrote: »

I’m also pretty sure that a scientifically axiomatic answer wouldn’t be particularly useful, accurate or indeed necessary unless it aimed to promote a very segregated view of people.

True, though even there research shows broad differences.

so what more are you actually hoping for?

An "Aha!!" moment and opportunity to label you sexist or misogynistic.

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

I’m pretty sure I’ve fully answered the question from my perspective

I’m also pretty sure that a scientifically axiomatic answer wouldn’t be particularly useful, accurate or indeed necessary unless it aimed to promote a very segregated view of people.

You do realize that posters here aren’t a hive mind right? At this stage you have what would readily be considered “broadly agreed usage”, so what more are you actually hoping for?

Yeah you have and I’d agree with your view. Masculinity to me, refers to traits that are more prevalent in men.

The other thing to do would be compiling a list of those traits. I think it would actually be a very difficult task. L As mentioned above aggression is a masculine trait but a mother protecting her young is also likely to be highly aggressive. So is the protective mother showing a masculine trait while doing one of the most maternal things you could imagine?

Wibbs

Aggression is a trait. A trait more likely to be seen in men and more often, therefore it is associated more with men. A woman displaying aggression is simply displaying that trait. However a more constantly aggressive woman will be perceived as being more "male" because of that strong association. Often negatively as people broadly expect certain traits to be stronger in one sex or the other. This would apply to all the traits that show a general gender association.

Tombo2001

tritium wrote: »

This is the one I’m referring to



You’re asking the wrong question if you’re trying to “define” masculinity or femininity. There is simply a trait- men and women will both display it to some extent. All you can say is the perhaps one grouping scores higher on average. It’s also not fixed, varying at different times in our lives and situations. Take aggression/ deference- you denote these as classically male/ female. Yet if you put a female of any mammal species in a protecting their young scenario, on average their level of aggressiveness will greatly exceed average (normal?) male aggression. Similarly deference can actually be a very male trait in many situations, in particular in class or hierarchical based social settings. To extend the example to human specific interaction, statistically one of the highest levels of domestic violence occurs in lesbian relationships, and women have displayed a similar propensity to commit domestic abuse as men. How then are aggression or violence masculine traits.

Interestingly, you mention how perception has changed over the last 50 or so years, yet there’s some evidence that the traits haven’t modified greatly. Erin pizzey reported the levels of female violence many decades ago for example. Perhaps then we need to ask if it’s not the traits themselves that have changed but rather our social view on them. Whereas in the past there may have been acceptance of a male/ female stereotype it’s more difficult to ignore the degree of overlaps in the traits when we frame it in a equal opportunities way

Thats fair, but nonetheless its difficult to discuss something if we cant say what it is.

Going back to the OP - I dont really care that much about that question.

But I am interested in the question with regard to how we raise our kids.

For example - a son and daughter both playing GAA. The son is much more likely to be encouraged to 'get stuck in', take the knocks, in other words show aggression; whereas I am guessing most Dads wont be asking that of their daughters to the same extent.

For example - a son and daughter are being hassled at school. A son is more likely to be told to stand up to the bully, fight back, fight back physically.

For example - there's a doll in the house. Parents are delighted to see the daughter pushing the doll around in the pram, looking after it, pretending to feed it. ie showing empathy. Parents are less happy when son does so. Son says "I want a dolls house for Christmas"; chances are he'll be getting a Liverpool jersey and thats that.

You are absolutely right that there are traits, and where we lie on those traits defines to some extent masculinity and femininity. However, for me.....and I know other people are concerned about other things.....what i find interesting is how parents pass these traits on to their kids; and more particularly.....is this basically something parents should avoid. Should they not be passing the same values to both sons and daughters.

silverharp

Take something like politics, given the "combative" nature of it, it would be seen as requiring more masculine traits and probably why more men are interested in entering politics than women, there are simply more masculine men then there are masculine women.

tritium

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Thats fair, but nonetheless its difficult to discuss something if we cant say what it is.

Going back to the OP - I dont really care that much about that question.

But I am interested in the question with regard to how we raise our kids.

For example - a son and daughter both playing GAA. The son is much more likely to be encouraged to 'get stuck in', take the knocks, in other words show aggression; whereas I am guessing most Dads wont be asking that of their daughters to the same extent.

For example - a son and daughter are being hassled at school. A son is more likely to be told to stand up to the bully, fight back, fight back physically.

For example - there's a doll in the house. Parents are delighted to see the daughter pushing the doll around in the pram, looking after it, pretending to feed it. ie showing empathy. Parents are less happy when son does so. Son says "I want a dolls house for Christmas"; chances are he'll be getting a Liverpool jersey and thats that.

You are absolutely right that there are traits, and where we lie on those traits defines to some extent masculinity and femininity. However, for me.....and I know other people are concerned about other things.....what i find interesting is how parents pass these traits on to their kids; and more particularly.....is this basically something parents should avoid. Should they not be passing the same values to both sons and daughters.

Why is it more difficult to discuss though. All of the following concepts have differing interpretations both across borders and through even recent periods of time yet we manage to discuss them relatively easily:

Childhood, god, criminality, sexuality,

You can make that list pretty much as long as you like btw. Most of these concepts actually benefit from discussion in a broader context rather than being considered in an isolated frame.

To take some of your examples: GAA/ sport- this largely depends on why you see your children doing sport. Is it health and fitness, is it competitive? At the top level of sport (and by that I mean the best players ina group rather than just elite sport I’ve homestly seen just as much competitiveness and parental push for both boys and girls. I know a number of coaches who, looking back, regret how much they actually pushed their girls to “get stuck in“ , in some cases to the extent of driving them away from the sport

On the bullying, the standard advise kids are given today with bullying is to report it. While there are undoubtedly households where the advice is to just throw a few digs, I’d actually question if gender is a big factor in that advice. It’s also worth noting that the way bullying manifests is very different for boys and girls. Not better or worse or more or less harmful, just different. A very experienced headmistress once pointed out to me how mentally cruel and often sneaky bullying could be among girls. That doesn’t translate as not aggressive or damaging, it’s just a different way of doing it. We also see it in later life in how the two genders manifest domestic violence.

On the dolls house, I dunno what the norm is. My kids generally play with what they like. That said it’s not unusual to see Barbie karate kicking a power ranger to save a dinosaur so I generally trust their creativity. Long run, as a bit of a geek myself, I long ago realized that “action figures” is just a fancy word for dolls to make it acceptable to boys parents

On your last point, it’s interesting. Are traits the same as values at the end of the day? Are our positions on the spectrums of these traits given by our parents/ family ? Or is it through our friends? Or is their a genetic component? Or all of these? If it’s just the former then surely it’s the family we need to take to task when bad behaviour manifests and not expect men to be moral guardians of other men as some quarters have posited in their he recent past? For example are women as mothers heavily reaponsible for any objectionable displays of “masculinity”