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

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”

professore

It's rare now to see a truly feminine woman in ireland. Irish women are quite masculine. When I met a non Irish one recently it was so refreshing. Femininity is very powerful in a woman. Masculinity in a woman comes across very weak and insecure and totally unattractive sexually.

Lots of feminine boys and young men. There seems to be some sort of gender reversal going on. It's very strange.

Above is not true in deprived areas.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Aggression is a trait.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by it being a trait. Do you mean that it's a genetic characteristic of the gender/person?

While I would agree that some people are more prone to aggression, I'd be inclined to point to education, and life experience as to the main influence on the development of that characteristic.

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.

The problem here is that these traits can be taught and encouraged in people. (the indoctrination/education of the Hitler Youth or Child soldiers in Africa comes to mind). Or simply Confucius thought in China, with thousands of years of indoctrination which has shaped the way many women behave/think.

We have seen a massive shift in the social dynamics of women, and their place in society has projected them into an equal footing with men. As a result of this, we can see the changes in advertising/education which encourages women to be more confident, and often more aggressive in how they achieve their aims. There are heaps of advertising campaigns talking about female power, and how women should stand up for their rights. Seems a bit strange that people don't connect those campaigns with women becoming more (publicly) aggressive. This is especially true when we are are told we should have certain rights/benefits but without giving a guide in how to achieve them, and so, people (both men and women) assume that being aggressive is the best way to do it, especially when they've met failure previously using more subtle/gentle approaches. I've done it myself.

The difference is that up until the 60s/70s there was the social conditioning to "rein in" the behavior of women. What was considered socially acceptable prevented most women from pushing their aims in a more aggressive manner.

Take fashion trends, for example. The changes in fashion styles over the last 50 years have been massive with a shift in social acceptance of what women can commonly wear in a public environment. The difference in what was "allowed" for my mother (70 yrs old) when she was in her 20s and what is allowed for my niece (21 yrs old) is huge. A woman can walk down the street basically naked except for the "bits" covered if she wishes. That gives an enormous scope for choosing what can be worn. And society has deemed that a womans appearance doesn't factor into cause for assault (any kind), so that adds an extra sense of freedom to the behavior. The point is though, that, that freedom to wear whatever they wish (without direct consequence), is naturally going to change their behavior, and mindset. It's going to make women more confident, but also more aware of how their appearance affects those around them. It allows them to "act out" and to behave in a more aggressive manner... and that will translate into other aspects of their lives (regardless of what they're wearing at that time).

At the same time, an incident that was posted to boards a while back of a group of very drunk women being pushed to the ground by some bouncers when they were verbally abusive and tried to enter a premises. Society reinforces the belief that women should be protected and that men should not hit women... and that gives license for women to believe that they're immune to it. As a result they're going to behave more aggressively with men, in the belief that they're not going to be physically harmed. Society reinforces that belief. And typically, aggressive behavior comes from people who believe they're in a secure position to behave that way. Men typically behave aggressively in the belief that they're physically stronger than the other person. Women are likely to behave aggressively because they're stronger due to social/legal considerations that protect them from retaliation.

We have seen so many changes to our society... and so few connections to how those changes will affect womens behavior, in areas unrelated to those initial changes.

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.

If you look at female managers in a female dominated workplace, they tend to take on what they perceive to be "male characteristics" in terms of leadership. i.e. being more aggressive, and less willing to dilute their authority. It's been said that this is both due to the lack of confidence by the female, but also because of the social work dynamic of working with women and being judged by them. I've seen articles where women have said they prefer working in male dominated areas as a female manager, because there's less pressure on them (beyond their actual duties) with a hefty dislike of gender peer pressure, and stereotypical behaviors being pushed on them by other women.

This would apply to all the traits that show a general gender association.

Which is purely culture, and social conditioning. The linking of aggression to the male gender, and excusing female aggression. Think of the "Time of the month" joke. It's a joke, but it's often repeated in our minds when we meet a female that is aggressive or offensive, and the incident is often dismissed as a rarity, because society tells us that women are more gentle than men. The media and advertising (movies especially) reinforce the idea that a woman acting aggressively is different to a male doing so.

The physical aspect is important, but is, in a way, a manner of ignoring the changes in our society. Women tend to use more emotional techniques in any relationship/communication, with men focusing on the physical. As our society, brings in more laws, educational initiatives, etc to reduce the dangers of physical violence, emotional violence becomes more powerful. And women tend to be far more clued into emotional constructs than men.

Often what we consider to be aggression is pushed to the physical because society can easily ascribe that to men, because most men are obviously physically stronger than women. However, emotional aggression is just as powerful and dangerous considering the world we live in today.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what you mean by it being a trait. Do you mean that it's a genetic characteristic of the gender/person?

An underlying biological trait along broad gender lines promoted or repressed culturally.

If you look at female managers in a female dominated workplace, they tend to take on what they perceive to be "male characteristics" in terms of leadership. i.e. being more aggressive, and less willing to dilute their authority.

And often have more testosterone than average for women.

Which is purely culture, and social conditioning.

This is the old nature/nurture debate and in this case you're taking the more popular in some circles today hard nurture position. As ever neither position is particularly informative and tends more to be a cultural, subjective and political position rather than an objective scientific one. For example in one sphere the "left" tend to be hard nurture, the "right" hard nature.

Take aggression. The hormone most associated with it (and risk taking and confidence, even foolhardiness) is testosterone. Men on average have ten times more of that hormone in their bodies than women. Now of course how those traits are promoted or repressed by societies has an effect. It can even seemingly have an effect on the hormone levels themselves and there are other factors in the mix like serotonin and cortisol levels which act as brakes on it, but on balance men are more likely to be aggressive, confident risk takers than women are out of the box.

El_Duderino 09

professore wrote: »

It's rare now to see a truly feminine woman in ireland. Irish women are quite masculine. When I met a non Irish one recently it was so refreshing. Femininity is very powerful in a woman. Masculinity in a woman comes across very weak and insecure and totally unattractive sexually.

Lots of feminine boys and young men. There seems to be some sort of gender reversal going on. It's very strange.

Above is not true in deprived areas.

That’s a very negative set of beliefs about masculine women. As other posters often comment, the traits needed to excel in business and politics are often masculine traits. That doesn’t bode well for an aspiring woman. Less likely to succeed without the masculine traits and they’d make a fairly negative first impression with you if they have the traits needed to succeed. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

As for feminine boys, I always think it’s young people’s job to go the other way from the generation before them. If you’re fairly representative of your demographic and you consider there’s something wrong with what d’youths are doing, then they’re probably doing it correctly.

As for these things not being true I’m deprived areas, that might be your experience but it’s probably culturally bound. The Geordy Shore look with waxed chests and plunge line t-shirts, and shaped eyebrows, grew out of the deprived areas in Byker and Walker. Likewise the Valley Boys look in Wales grew out of the old mining areas.

Sid Lowe is an English football reporter living and working in Spain. He wrote a book about football culture and an interesting thing stood out to me. He contrasted the British long ball approach with the more skilful ticky -tacke approach used in Spain.

He aid there’s a phenomenon of admiring the big strong man in the uk. He would have been the best man down the mines or on the farm or in the steel mill etc. Think Boxer the workhorse in Animal Farm. And English football reflects that with the reverence for strength. But Spain doesn’t really have the same admiration of the big fella and their football reflects that in the more skilful approach.

Id say you need to think about what you consider masculine and then consider if the young lads you’re meeting would call the same set of things masculine. Culture changes. In some circles a man isn’t a ‘real man’ unless he has a six pack, fake tan, eyeliner, gelled hair, toned biceps, shaped eyebrows, skinny jeans showing off his leg muscles and a plunge line tshirt showing off his waxed chest and peck muscle definition.

You might or might not stand up well to that understanding of the masculine look.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

An underlying biological trait along broad gender lines promoted or repressed culturally.

And often have more testosterone than average for women.

This is the old nature/nurture debate and in this case you're taking the more popular in some circles today hard nurture position. As ever neither position is particularly informative and tends more to be a cultural, subjective and political position rather than an objective scientific one.

:D:D

The weakness of science is that researchers are just as prone to make biased assumptions on what they observe, and can select samples subconsciously to better influence their findings. Any investigation of behavior is prone to be "wonky", and hard science isn't really the a definite guide on the area.

Especially since Science has proven, and then later, made those same facts invalid... I'm skeptical of "proven" science except in the most obvious of cases, where such conclusions can be clearly proven step by step, and reinforced by other studies. Even then, I'm just waiting for it to be made invalid or flawed later. When it comes to psychology, or why people behave a certain way, I'm very wary of hard and definite statements.

For example in one sphere the "left" tend to be hard nurture, the "right" hard nature.

Take aggression. The hormone most associated with it (and risk taking and confidence, even foolhardiness) is testosterone. Men on average have ten times more of that hormone in their bodies than women. Now of course how those traits are promoted or repressed by societies has an effect. It can even seemingly have an effect on the hormone levels themselves and there are other factors in the mix like serotonin and cortisol levels which act as brakes on it, but on balance men are more likely to be aggressive, confident risk takers than women are out of the box.

Out of the box? Hardly. These studies and articles tend to talk about adults or perhaps teens when discussing the behavior of men/women. I've taught Kindergarten classes, and you'll find female children to be just as aggressive as male children. Often, more so. The difference comes when society and parenting encourages the genders down different paths, and more importantly, the perception of how that behavior entails/means. This conditioning can be seen as kids leave their early childhood and enter formal schooling, where the gender differences are far more obvious... In bullying in young ages or teens, we tend to see males using physical behavior whereas females tend to use more emotional attacks. Life experience, and social conditioning are more likely to be the cause of that, than testosterone, unless it's simply that aggression has not been linked to the female hormones.

Having more testosterone can encourage aggressiveness. I have a normal level of testosterone in my body (tested previously multiple times), and later I got testosterone injections to help me increase muscle density (gym workouts). I could feel myself becoming more "antsy" after the injections, and frankly, it reminded me of various drugs I'd taken in my 20s. However, prior to the injections, I wouldn't have an aggressive mentality, and I had to stop myself from acting out when taking the injections. There was a shift in my personality due to the increase, but I still had the conditioning/education to control my behavior...

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

When it comes to psychology, or why people behave a certain way, I'm very wary of hard and definite statements.

As am I, hence my belief that both nature and nurture are in play. You said that you believe purely culture, and social conditioning, IE nurture is all, which is itself a hard and definite statement.

Out of the box? Hardly. These studies and articles tend to talk about adults or perhaps teens when discussing the behavior of men/women. I've taught Kindergarten classes, and you'll find female children to be just as aggressive as male children. Often, more so. The difference comes when society and parenting encourages the genders down different paths, and more importantly, the perception of how that behavior entails/means.

Or when puberty happens. Behavioural differences in boys and girls are far less marked before puberty, after puberty there is more divergence.

Having more testosterone can encourage aggressiveness. I have a normal level of testosterone in my body (tested previously multiple times), and later I got testosterone injections to help me increase muscle density (gym workouts). I could feel myself becoming more "antsy" after the injections, and frankly, it reminded me of various drugs I'd taken in my 20s. However, prior to the injections, I wouldn't have an aggressive mentality, and I had to stop myself from acting out when taking the injections. There was a shift in my personality due to the increase, but I still had the conditioning/education to control my behavior...

Well naturally. Social conditioning in social animals applies or releases the brakes on certain behaviours depending on the environment, cultural and otherwise. We see this in other animals. A lack of socialisation can have very negative effects. QV unsocialised domestic dogs are far more likely to be reactive and aggressive than properly socialised dogs. We can see similar in humans where kids from underprivileged and unsupervised homes are more likely to be reactive and aggressive.

Testosterone on its own is not particularly indicative as other processes are in play. Cortisol(lower) and serotonin(higher) for example mitigates its aggressive risk taking effect, as of course does cultural pressures. Men who have levels of those out of whack are more likely to be aggressive. Artificially adding test into the mix isn't a great judge either. Depends on the man(or woman). It's likely to increase aggression more because those other compounds aren't in a "natural" balance anymore. Indeed one side effect of taking test artificially, particularly in higher doses, is that the body tries to seek that old balance back, by shrinking the testes, even increasing oestrogens as checks against it.

For example my tested levels of testosterone are higher than average, yet I'm no muscle man and am not particularly aggressive or physically risk taking. Average, if not below average on those traits. Likely because my other levels are in balance with it naturally. However I have noticed when I am particulary stressed(higher cortisol levels) I do become more aggressive, more suspicious and much more reactive and have to watch that(I didn't notice it, others had to point it out to me). If I remain stressed mentally or physically that phase passes likely because stress hormones are antagonistic to testosterone production. It's all a bit of a ballet.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That’s a very negative set of beliefs about masculine women. As other posters often comment, the traits needed to excel in business and politics are often masculine traits. That doesn’t bode well for an aspiring woman. Less likely to succeed without the masculine traits and they’d make a fairly negative first impression with you if they have the traits needed to succeed. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

As for feminine boys, I always think it’s young people’s job to go the other way from the generation before them. If you’re fairly representative of your demographic and you consider there’s something wrong with what d’youths are doing, then they’re probably doing it correctly.

As for these things not being true I’m deprived areas, that might be your experience but it’s probably culturally bound. The Geordy Shore look with waxed chests and plunge line t-shirts, and shaped eyebrows, grew out of the deprived areas in Byker and Walker. Likewise the Valley Boys look in Wales grew out of the old mining areas.

Sid Lowe is an English football reporter living and working in Spain. He wrote a book about football culture and an interesting thing stood out to me. He contrasted the British long ball approach with the more skilful ticky -tacke approach used in Spain.

He aid there’s a phenomenon of admiring the big strong man in the uk. He would have been the best man down the mines or on the farm or in the steel mill etc. Think Boxer the workhorse in Animal Farm. And English football reflects that with the reverence for strength. But Spain doesn’t really have the same admiration of the big fella and their football reflects that in the more skilful approach.

Id say you need to think about what you consider masculine and then consider if the young lads you’re meeting would call the same set of things masculine. Culture changes. In some circles a man isn’t a ‘real man’ unless he has a six pack, fake tan, eyeliner, gelled hair, toned biceps, shaped eyebrows, skinny jeans showing off his leg muscles and a plunge line tshirt showing off his waxed chest and peck muscle definition.

You might or might not stand up well to that understanding of the masculine look.

its complicated when class comes into it, "gerodie shore" "masculinity" from my position would signal too much time on their hands, possibly unemployed , going nowhere fast financially. A man who is lawyering it 12 hours a day doesn't have time to be a pretty boy to boot or likewise a farmer or fisherman or any other number of jobs don't have much free time

As for upending the previous generation's work my guess is that young kids and teenagers now will rebel against the offense culture that millennials embraced who will then be the "squares" and the no sense of humor fuddy duddies.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

its complicated when class comes into it, "gerodie shore" "masculinity" from my position would signal too much time on their hands, possibly unemployed , going nowhere fast financially. A man who is lawyering it 12 hours a day doesn't have time to be a pretty boy to boot or likewise a farmer or fisherman or any other number of jobs don't have much free time

As for upending the previous generation's work my guess is that young kids and teenagers now will rebel against the offense culture that millennials embraced who will then be the "squares" and the no sense of humor fuddy duddies.

There’s no need to put Geordi Sheore masculinity in commas. It’s perfectly valid within its context. But you’re right about the fact that the look signals time on their hands though. And being preened including having manicured hands shows that you don’t work with your hands. Which shows s rejection of the industry of the area. He sane goes for the Valley Boy look in Wales.?

I watched a few episodes of Geordie shore and it’s actually fascinating to see. Not the guff storylines, but the culture. In the intro one of the lads says ‘the hardest graft I’ve ever done is doing my hair’. The same fella is from Consett, a mining village which was devastated by the heavy industry collapse.

His look makes sure to signal loud and clear that he doesn’t work in heavy industry. Nobody who does physical labour would have the time to work out and preen themselves, as you said. But combine that look with a Land Rover and brand name clothes and you create the impression of someone who’s above work.

It might not impress me and you but as long as it impresses the people within his own culture, it works fine. They wouldn’t consider you manly unless you have all those attributes I mentioned above. Oh and tattoos. I forgot to mention the arm and leg tattoos.

Their way of going on might not be impressive to you and having seen the show, I can tell you it’s not for me, but that’s not really the point. What makes you the arbiter of masculinity? All you have is a preference and so do they.

You could be as masculine as you like in your own culture and it might be perfectly successful for you. But good luck trying to impress young people with those same qualities.

As for predicting how culture will change in the future. You might like to see them reject the offense culture as you call it, but that’s wishful thinking more than anything. It’s much more likely that they’ll find a way to upset both their parents and grandparents at the same time. How often do you see old people disagreeing about amongst themselves about d’youth? With parents saying young people are wrong and older people saying young people are right?

You could be right but if they do what you wish for then they’re probably not doing it right.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

There’s no need to put Geordi Sheore masculinity in commas. It’s perfectly valid within its context. But you’re right about the fact that the look signals time on their hands though. And being preened including having manicured hands shows that you don’t work with your hands. Which shows s rejection of the industry of the area. He sane goes for the Valley Boy look in Wales.?

I watched a few episodes of Geordie shore and it’s actually fascinating to see. Not the guff storylines, but the culture. In the intro one of the lads says ‘the hardest graft I’ve ever done is doing my hair’. The same fella is from Consett, a mining village which was devastated by the heavy industry collapse.

His look makes sure to signal loud and clear that he doesn’t work in heavy industry. Nobody who does physical labour would have the time to work out and preen themselves, as you said. But combine that look with a Land Rover and brand name clothes and you create the impression of someone who’s above work.

It might not impress me and you but as long as it impresses the people within his own culture, it works fine. They wouldn’t consider you manly unless you have all those attributes I mentioned above. Oh and tattoos. I forgot to mention the arm and leg tattoos.

Their way of going on might not be impressive to you and having seen the show, I can tell you it’s not for me, but that’s not really the point. What makes you the arbiter of masculinity? All you have is a preference and so do they.

You could be as masculine as you like in your own culture and it might be perfectly successful for you. But good luck trying to impress young people with those same qualities.

As for predicting how culture will change in the future. You might like to see them reject the offense culture as you call it, but that’s wishful thinking more than anything. It’s much more likely that they’ll find a way to upset both their parents and grandparents at the same time. How often do you see old people disagreeing about amongst themselves about d’youth? With parents saying young people are wrong and older people saying young people are right?

You could be right but if they do what you wish for then they’re probably not doing it right.

I hadn't heard of the Valley Boy term before. To put them on a scale the most negative would be the ghetto/gang culture as it implies having easy money from criminal activities, celebrating violence etc. As for the others, while they are signalling not working in industry which is fine it also suggests they are lazy and not engaged with their futures and are just stuck in a teenager failure to launch situation.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

I hadn't heard of the Valley Boy term before. To put them on a scale the most negative would be the ghetto/gang culture as it implies having easy money from criminal activities, celebrating violence etc. As for the others, while they are signalling not working in industry which is fine it also suggests they are lazy and not engaged with their futures and are just stuck in a teenager failure to launch situation.

Yeah valley boy and valley girl refers to the same type of thing in Wales as Geordie Shore in Newcastle. Wales rugby player Gavin Henson was a well known example of a valley boy. Naturally it’s evolved since then.

You might not be impressed by the gang culture idea of masculinity, but they probably wouldn’t be impressed by you either. Your disregard of their ideal of masculinity is as valid as their disregard of your ideal of masculinity.