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

Rory28

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

No its not. Their disregard is for society and societies rules. His disregard is for their inability to grow up and act like a man. One is a lot more valid than the other.

El_Duderino 09

Rory28 wrote: »

No its not. Their disregard is for society and societies rules. His disregard is for their inability to grow up and act like a man. One is a lot more valid than the other.

His perception that they haven’t grown up and behaved like a man as he understands it.

If their behaviour earns them the respect of their peers and admiration of women on the social group, along with other forms of capital like job opportunities and the other cultural clout that’s important within their culture, then it seems that they’re successfully being masculine within their own context.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

the idea of gang or ghetto culture and behaviour is objectively a bad thing, it doesn't really matter what they think of me, one could measure the negative effects of their behaviour to themselves and the people around them.

I'd need more data on the Geordi or Valley boys , if they are likely to be gainfully employed I wouldn't have an issue, its just young people being young people doing the latest in peacocking which they would largely grow out of by their late twenties. If however they are living at home or on social welfare and don't have anything approaching a steady income then it represents a failure that they are trying to paper over. Again not good for them or the people around them

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

the idea of gang or ghetto culture and behaviour is objectively a bad thing, it doesn't really matter what they think of me, one could measure the negative effects of their behaviour to themselves and the people around them.

I'd need more data on the Geordi or Valley boys , if they are likely to be gainfully employed I wouldn't have an issue, its just young people being young people doing the latest in peacocking which they would largely grow out of by their late twenties. If however they are living at home or on social welfare and don't have anything approaching a steady income then it represents a failure that they are trying to paper over. Again not good for them or the people around them

Gainfully employed is a value you attribute to masculinity, and see as a good thing in general I imagine. But that's as relevant to them as fake tan is to you. You might be a bus driver doing a decent job, but the clothes you wear was made in a sweat shop in Bangladesh. So are you good or bad for society?

They don't weigh your opinion of them in the same way you don't weigh their opinion of you.

Were back to only counting positive aspects of masculinity. If a gang member has to be ultra aggressive to survive, then isn't he showing more masculinity than you, placidly driving your bus, being polite to the old biddies on their way to bingo? Its culture dependant. Whether it's masculine or not had nothing to do with whether it's good for society.

I don't admire Geordie Shore or gang cutlure. I work with some Geordie Shore type lads and a couple of girls and they work normal office jobs. I know them through work so I don't know the unemployed ones. I don't have much direct experience of gang culture tbh so I'll defer to you on that if you have more experience.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Gainfully employed is a value you attribute to masculinity, and see as a good thing in general I imagine. But that's as relevant to them as fake tan is to you. You might be a bus driver doing a decent job, but the clothes you wear was made in a sweat shop in Bangladesh. So are you good or bad for society?

They don't weigh your opinion of them in the same way you don't weigh their opinion of you.

Were back to only counting positive aspects of masculinity. If a gang member has to be ultra aggressive to survive, then isn't he showing more masculinity than you, placidly driving your bus, being polite to the old biddies on their way to bingo? Its culture dependant. Whether it's masculine or not had nothing to do with whether it's good for society.

I don't admire Geordie Shore or gang cutlure. I work with some Geordie Shore type lads and a couple of girls and they work normal office jobs. I know them through work so I don't know the unemployed ones. I don't have much direct experience of gang culture tbh so I'll defer to you on that if you have more experience.

its not all relative , someone phrased the male collective as being either creators or destroyers and the job of society is to rope as many as possible in so they don't end up in the destroyer category. A little binary I guess its possible to fall between both and just be useless or in a state of potential wasted. So "levels" of masculinity is secondary to where its pointed to and guided

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

its not all relative , someone phrased the male collective as being either creators or destroyers and the job of society is to rope as many as possible in so they don't end up in the destroyer category. A little binary I guess its possible to fall between both and just be useless or in a state of potential wasted. So "levels" of masculinity is secondary to where its pointed to and guided

I’m sure that binary description of men applies to your understanding. But I don’t think it’s any more valid for you to apply your understanding of masculinity to others than it is for them to apply their understanding to you.

Do you think you could come up with a universal set of values for masculinity that would actually work across cultures? In some cultures it’s a sign of masculinity to have killed someone, that’s when you become a man. In western military they count kills and celebrate those with most kills. I’m sure you’ll see that as different for lots of reasons. But they’re the same reasons gangs celebrate violence and murder. The culture and context.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’m sure that binary description of men applies to your understanding. But I don’t think it’s any more valid for you to apply your understanding of masculinity to others than it is for them to apply their understanding to you.

Do you think you build come up with a universal set of values for masculinity that would actually work across cultures? In some cultures it’s s sign of masculinity to have killed someone, that’s when you become a man. In western military they count kills and celebrate those with most kills. I’m sure you’ll see that as different for lots of reasons. But they’re the same reasons gangs celebrate violence and murder. The culture and context.

so what? gang culture is clearly destructive to everyone, any kids born into it might as well either have a grave bought for them or have their records to the prison system sent to be activated at a later point
I don't know why you have to set the bar so high that I'd have to justify a set of values across time and across every culture on the planet the converse being that everything is relative, there are no truths and the local water authority might as well add Uranium waste to the water as Chlorine because its all relative man, there is no good or bad, who can say?

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

so what? gang culture is clearly destructive to everyone, any kids born into it might as well either have a grave bought for them or have their records to the prison system sent to be activated at a later point
I don't know why you have to set the bar so high that I'd have to justify a set of values across time and across every culture on the planet the converse being that everything is relative, there are no truths and the local water authority might as well add Uranium waste to the water as Chlorine because its all relative man, there is no good or bad, who can say?

If they reap the same benefits in cultural capital through their masculine behaviour as you go through your masculine behaviour, then why does good or bad come into it?

I agree that it’s harmful, but so is the textile industry. Wearing clothes from a sweat shop doesn’t take from your status amongst your peers in the same way harming society doesn’t take from their status among their peers.

You can talk about what’s good for society or what’s masculinity. But you can’t really say masculinity is what’s good for society. That’s just superimposing masculinity on top of what you consider to be good.

It’s easily done because we tend to admire people when they exhibit traits we see as positive.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If they reap the same benefits in cultural capital through their masculine behaviour as you go through your masculine behaviour, then why does good or bad come into it?

I'm assume you are still talking about gangs, short term maybe but if expressing their masculinity results in prison or being killed over dysfunctional behaviour then its hardly a win

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I agree that it’s harmful, but so is the textile industry. Wearing clothes from a sweat shop doesn’t take from your status amongst your peers in the same way harming society doesn’t take from their status among their peers.

You can talk about what’s good for society or what’s masculinity. But you can’t really say masculinity is what’s good for society. That’s just superimposing masculinity on top of what you consider to be good.

It’s easily done because we tend to admire people when they exhibit traits we see as positive.

Ill leave textiles for another discussion. I believe I said that masculinity/males can be creative or destructive however its why society makes efforts to channel boys even in simple things like the scouts and what not. A male with a lot of masculine traits but lacking opportunities might rise through the dominance hierarchy to become a drug king pin or in other circumstances might have made a positive contribution to society. Its in society's interest to encourage more of the latter and less of the former.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If they reap the same benefits in cultural capital through their masculine behaviour as you go through your masculine behaviour, then why does good or bad come into it?

I'm assume you are still talking about gangs, short term maybe but if expressing their masculinity results in prison or being killed over dysfunctional behaviour then its hardly a win

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I agree that it’s harmful, but so is the textile industry. Wearing clothes from a sweat shop doesn’t take from your status amongst your peers in the same way harming society doesn’t take from their status among their peers.

You can talk about what’s good for society or what’s masculinity. But you can’t really say masculinity is what’s good for society. That’s just superimposing masculinity on top of what you consider to be good.

It’s easily done because we tend to admire people when they exhibit traits we see as positive.

Ill leave textiles for another discussion. I believe I said that masculinity/males can be creative or destructive however its why society makes efforts to channel boys even in simple things like the scouts and what not. A male with a lot of masculine traits but lacking opportunities might rise through the dominance hierarchy to become a drug king pin or in other circumstances might have made a positive contribution to society. Its in society's interest to encourage more of the latter and less of the former.

The creator/destroyer dichotomy is a bit simplistic to be very useful.
I think you’ve stopped talking about masculinity and are just focusing on what’s good. I’ve no argument with that.

Masculine traits might help you excel in the scouts or a drug selling gang.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The creator/destroyer dichotomy is a bit simplistic to be very useful.
I think you’ve stopped talking about masculinity and are just focusing on what’s good. I’ve no argument with that.

Masculine traits might help you excel in the scouts or a drug selling gang.

Why say I have stopped when I specifically say it can be destructive (bad) or creative (good). if we both agree that Masculinity is the set of traits that lead to dominance then at least a conclusion has been reached and one can move on to values and benefits or harm for the individual/s and society

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

Why say I have stopped when I specifically say it can be destructive (bad) or creative (good). if we both agree that Masculinity is the set of traits that lead to dominance then at least a conclusion has been reached and one can move on to values and benefits or harm for the individual/s and society

I’m not sure I’d say masculinity is the set of traits that lead to dominance. But you can certainly use masculine traits to achieve dominance.

It’s better to train all people and all traits to benefit society. That’s in an ideal world. Capitalism favours behaviours that accumulate capital in one form or another not necessarily behaviours that are good or bad for society.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’m not sure I’d say masculinity is the set of traits that lead to dominance. But you can certainly use masculine traits to achieve dominance.

It’s better to train all people and all traits to benefit society. That’s in an ideal world. Capitalism favours behaviours that accumulate capital in one form or another not necessarily behaviours that are good or bad for society.

A bit like democracy its the worst except for all the rest. As for training people that's fine, but people have a different range of abilities and masculinity is one of the factors that guide male interests and performance.
Ill assume you aren't a total blank slater in this regard unlike most feminists who seem to be?

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

A bit like democracy its the worst except for all the rest. As for training people that's fine, but people have a different range of abilities and masculinity is one of the factors that guide male interests and performance.
Ill assume you aren't a total blank slater in this regard unlike most feminists who seem to be?

Sure. Nature and nurture guide interests. And people should be guided to do good. I’m not sure what your point is

professore

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.

There are two main styles of management. The aggressive "I'm right you're wrong - I know everything and you're a worm" style and the "I know what I'm doing and you can see this and therefore willingly do it" style. The former is fear and insecurity based and the latter is respect and competence based. I'm talking about the former, which in my experience, many women think is the only style. I've had this conversation with my daughter and she says that generally men are better to work for as more of them use the latter style.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

I get that - but being more feminine is not something you DO. Being a pain in the ass to your parents and acting out is something you do. Being more feminine is something you ARE. It's hard to fake spindly legs and floppy wrists if you are a fit testosterone filled young fella.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

I doubt that's it. The English are very very regimented and conservative in their approach to football (and life in general). You need to follow a program and not show any individual brilliance. Whereas the Spanish are much freer to express themselves. Young Spanish men I know are generally more masculine. As Spanish women are more feminine. English lads dress and act as metro as anyone, kissing each other after scoring goals etc. David Beckham is as metro as it gets. Yet he still was a big proponent of the long ball and many of his greatest moments came from set pieces.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'd 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.

Very few of the young lads I've seen in Ireland meet that definition. I'd probably assume they were gay.