How masculine/feminine do you rate yourself?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Why should anyone feel good about who they are?

[RFayette]

    I'd say a 1. The recent campaign against masculinity is quite unfortunate, in that we have taught a generation of men to feel bad about who they are.

No, patriarchy has taught countless generations of men and women to feel bad about who they are, and current generations are starting to do something to fix that. Because, newsflash, no real man or woman fits the ridiculous (and, in men's case, genuinely evil) gender archetypes that are assigned to them.

It sounds like youre just making up bs to justify your own insecurities about your masculinity.  And you don't know a lot of guys it seems.  I know many, many, guys who are perfectly comfortable being masculine and have no desire to be feminine, and they're not evil (lol) for being that way.  Stop shaming them.  You sound ridiculous.

Learn to read. I'm not calling any man evil per se (of course some men are evil - as are some, though probably fewer, women - but that's not my point). I'm saying that the norms and values that men are called on to follow are evil. I hope you understand the difference.

Which norms of masculinity do you consider evil?  Only possible one I can think of is maybe aggressiveness or aggression, but that's usualy in the context of strong leadership or drive rather than violence, except in criminal cohorts.

[Antonio the Sixth]

     I'd say a 1. The recent campaign against masculinity is quite unfortunate, in that we have taught a generation of men to feel bad about who they are.

No, patriarchy has taught countless generations of men and women to feel bad about who they are, and current generations are starting to do something to fix that. Because, newsflash, no real man or woman fits the ridiculous (and, in men's case, genuinely evil) gender archetypes that are assigned to them.

It sounds like youre just making up bs to justify your own insecurities about your masculinity.  And you don't know a lot of guys it seems.  I know many, many, guys who are perfectly comfortable being masculine and have no desire to be feminine, and they're not evil (lol) for being that way.  Stop shaming them.  You sound ridiculous.

Learn to read. I'm not calling any man evil per se (of course some men are evil - as are some, though probably fewer, women - but that's not my point). I'm saying that the norms and values that men are called on to follow are evil. I hope you understand the difference.

Which norms of masculinity do you consider evil?  Only possible one I can think of is maybe aggressiveness or aggression, but that's usualy in the context of strong leadership or drive rather than violence, except in criminal cohorts.

Actually, male violence and aggression pervades society. Criminal behavior is the tip of the iceberg, but there are a lot of lesser forms of violence that are perfectly commonplace and socially acceptable. I've come across an article on them just this morning. Drumpf's rhetoric is also the quintessential expression of male violence and desire for domination, with its emphasis on winner/loser dichotomies and its constant effort to humiliate opponents. It's a horribly archaic mentality that may or may not have had its uses in pre-human and early human evolution, but that modern civilized societies have the means to overcome.

Very closely connected to that, you have the fact that patriarchal norms of masculinity have a catastrophic impact on men's psychological well-being. Lessons like "boys don't cry" have bred generations of emotionally repressed/atrophied men who, as a result, only know to express their resentment through violence and aggression. They've stifled a vital part of men's identities. That's why men can and should be feminists too. Of course feminism must be first and foremost about women and their struggle to free themselves of oppression, but men have a lot to gain from destroying patriarchy too.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...
I was with you until this. This is totally the other side of the scale.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...
I was with you until this. This is totally the other side of the scale.

You mean Drumpf's rhetoric is quintessentially feminine?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...
I was with you until this. This is totally the other side of the scale.

You mean Drumpf's rhetoric is quintessentially feminine?

Not quintessentially (phrases like "dummy" not so much), but he is very clearly the second most effeminate candidate (as at least 1, and I think 2 separate studies showed), which is why he's done so well. You seem to be forgetting that females often engage in these very same behaviors and what he has done to his rivals is rather feminine, yes.

I despise masculinity too, but I'd caution you to not turn it into a devilish/angelic dichotomy. It's a trap I've fallen into many times

E: the link is very good though. Strong agreement despite the abysmal eye-rolling intro.

[Wells]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...
I was with you until this. This is totally the other side of the scale.

You mean Drumpf's rhetoric is quintessentially feminine?

It is reminiscent of Mean Girls, if that's what he means.

[Blair]

Probably a 2/3; even at the age of 19 I can grow a minimal amount of facial hair and the whole liking guys thing as well

[White Trash]

Why should anyone feel good about who they are?

[RFayette]

    I'd say a 1. The recent campaign against masculinity is quite unfortunate, in that we have taught a generation of men to feel bad about who they are.

No, patriarchy has taught countless generations of men and women to feel bad about who they are, and current generations are starting to do something to fix that. Because, newsflash, no real man or woman fits the ridiculous (and, in men's case, genuinely evil) gender archetypes that are assigned to them.

It sounds like youre just making up bs to justify your own insecurities about your masculinity.  And you don't know a lot of guys it seems.  I know many, many, guys who are perfectly comfortable being masculine and have no desire to be feminine, and they're not evil (lol) for being that way.  Stop shaming them.  You sound ridiculous.

Learn to read. I'm not calling any man evil per se (of course some men are evil - as are some, though probably fewer, women - but that's not my point). I'm saying that the norms and values that men are called on to follow are evil. I hope you understand the difference.

Which norms of masculinity do you consider evil?  Only possible one I can think of is maybe aggressiveness or aggression, but that's usualy in the context of strong leadership or drive rather than violence, except in criminal cohorts.

Actually, male violence and aggression pervades society. Criminal behavior is the tip of the iceberg, but there are a lot of lesser forms of violence that are perfectly commonplace and socially acceptable. I've come across an article on them just this morning. Drumpf's rhetoric is also the quintessential expression of male violence and desire for domination, with its emphasis on winner/loser dichotomies and its constant effort to humiliate opponents. It's a horribly archaic mentality that may or may not have had its uses in pre-human and early human evolution, but that modern civilized societies have the means to overcome.

Very closely connected to that, you have the fact that patriarchal norms of masculinity have a catastrophic impact on men's psychological well-being. Lessons like "boys don't cry" have bred generations of emotionally repressed/atrophied men who, as a result, only know to express their resentment through violence and aggression. They've stifled a vital part of men's identities. That's why men can and should be feminists too. Of course feminism must be first and foremost about women and their struggle to free themselves of oppression, but men have a lot to gain from destroying patriarchy too.

Perhaps the vernacular is different in other settings, but when the word violence is used I almost exclusively associate it with physical violence, so the article was interesting in that it seemed to refer to behaviors/dispositions as violent despite not relating to physical violence.  Never had seen that before.

Personally, I always tended to think of masculinity as being driven, passionate, and strong, both mentally and physically, being able to take charge when the going gets tough with tenacity and rather than whining or complaining about the situation, taking initiative to better it on your own.  I always thought those were rather positive traits, though I do agree that the behaviors talked about in the article you referenced may constitute perversions of that ideal.  

Also this:

Why should anyone feel good about who they are?

Self-esteem culture is cancer and should die ASAP.

[Goldwater]

Why should anyone feel good about who they are?

Self-esteem culture is cancer and should die ASAP.

I thought self loathing was for SJWs

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I'd say a 1. The recent campaign against masculinity is quite unfortunate, in that we have taught a generation of men to feel bad about who they are.

No, patriarchy has taught countless generations of men and women to feel bad about who they are, and current generations are starting to do something to fix that. Because, newsflash, no real man or woman fits the ridiculous (and, in men's case, genuinely evil) gender archetypes that are assigned to them.

It sounds like youre just making up bs to justify your own insecurities about your masculinity.  And you don't know a lot of guys it seems.  I know many, many, guys who are perfectly comfortable being masculine and have no desire to be feminine, and they're not evil (lol) for being that way.  Stop shaming them.  You sound ridiculous.

Learn to read. I'm not calling any man evil per se (of course some men are evil - as are some, though probably fewer, women - but that's not my point). I'm saying that the norms and values that men are called on to follow are evil. I hope you understand the difference.

Which norms of masculinity do you consider evil?  Only possible one I can think of is maybe aggressiveness or aggression, but that's usualy in the context of strong leadership or drive rather than violence, except in criminal cohorts.

Actually, male violence and aggression pervades society. Criminal behavior is the tip of the iceberg, but there are a lot of lesser forms of violence that are perfectly commonplace and socially acceptable. I've come across an article on them just this morning. Drumpf's rhetoric is also the quintessential expression of male violence and desire for domination, with its emphasis on winner/loser dichotomies and its constant effort to humiliate opponents. It's a horribly archaic mentality that may or may not have had its uses in pre-human and early human evolution, but that modern civilized societies have the means to overcome.

Very closely connected to that, you have the fact that patriarchal norms of masculinity have a catastrophic impact on men's psychological well-being. Lessons like "boys don't cry" have bred generations of emotionally repressed/atrophied men who, as a result, only know to express their resentment through violence and aggression. They've stifled a vital part of men's identities. That's why men can and should be feminists too. Of course feminism must be first and foremost about women and their struggle to free themselves of oppression, but men have a lot to gain from destroying patriarchy too.

     Yeah, sorry. Male aggression has good qualities (which Rfayette has enumerated) along with the bad. Male aggression has led to invention, innovation, problem-solving, and entrepreneurship. There are certainly bad expressions that need to be dealt with and controlled, but I'll embrace my masculinity. I enjoy some of the things that masculinity has brought us. Besides, I feel better with myself as a consequence of shaking off this odd notion that men are bad.

     Also, men tend to feel emotions differently from women (might be related to, oh I don't know, testosterone). I express myself just fine. If I want to talk about what bothers me then I will. More often I feel better if I punch a wall. What stifles men's identities far more is the bizarre notion that we should sit down and talk about our feelings, when so many of us don't want to. If you want to cry then fine. Go ahead. I don't care. But I don't want to cry and you don't get to speak for me on this matter.

Why should anyone feel good about who they are?

Self-esteem culture is cancer and should die ASAP.

I thought self loathing was for SJWs

     Self-loathing is a very different thing from the unlimited, unfounded self-esteem that is encouraged today. There is a happy medium to be found.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The goal is to recognize that we are fundamentally selfish, loathsome little imps, and seek to mitigate that within the realm of the Real. This can be done by refusing to trust one's instincts or believe that one is in any way "special".

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...
I was with you until this. This is totally the other side of the scale.

You mean Drumpf's rhetoric is quintessentially feminine?

Not quintessentially (phrases like "dummy" not so much), but he is very clearly the second most effeminate candidate (as at least 1, and I think 2 separate studies showed), which is why he's done so well. You seem to be forgetting that females often engage in these very same behaviors and what he has done to his rivals is rather feminine, yes.

I despise masculinity too, but I'd caution you to not turn it into a devilish/angelic dichotomy. It's a trap I've fallen into many times

E: the link is very good though. Strong agreement despite the abysmal eye-rolling intro.

The previous version of your post had a link too, and I read it. That's... really intriguing, actually. Color me surprised. I'd be interested in understanding this linguistic phenomenon better.

That being said, I think the fact that all polls suggest a massive gender gap (not only in horserace polls but also in approval ratings), far higher than in any previous election, is pretty indicative too.

The goal is to recognize that we are fundamentally selfish, loathsome little imps, and seek to mitigate that within the realm of the Real. This can be done by refusing to trust one's instincts or believe that one is in any way "special".

I don't see how this contradicts my point about masculinity. Of course there are other things, apart from masculinity, that makes people awful, but I think masculinity is a strong part of it.


Pit, no one is trying to tell you how you should express your emotions. Feminism is about liberating people from harmful norms and expectations, not enforcing different ones. The point is that you shouldn't force your kids to deal with emotions differently (and, in boys' case, damagingly) based on their gender.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The human invention of the ego is likely more fundamental to this problem.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The goal is to recognize that we are fundamentally selfish, loathsome little imps, and seek to mitigate that within the realm of the Real. This can be done by refusing to trust one's instincts or believe that one is in any way "special".

     I agree with this. We are the best judges of our own lives. We can learn to be decent judges of things outside of our own lives.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Pit, no one is trying to tell you how you should express your emotions. Feminism is about liberating people from harmful norms and expectations, not enforcing different ones. The point is that you shouldn't force your kids to deal with emotions differently (and, in boys' case, damagingly) based on their gender.

     But you see, how I express my emotions lines up neatly with how masculinity says I should. I don't break the law and hurt other people, but in general I am certainly pleased by these "harmful norms". An ideology that tells me that you can behave however you like is fine. I'm going to react differently to an ideology that tells me how these "harmful norms" are evil.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The goal is to recognize that we are fundamentally selfish, loathsome little imps, and seek to mitigate that within the realm of the Real. This can be done by refusing to trust one's instincts or believe that one is in any way "special".

     I agree with this. We are the best judges of our own lives. We can learn to be decent judges of things outside of our own lives.

I would say 'we aren't the best judges of our own lives but we can learn to be decent judges of things outside of our own lives'. I could be biased because I'm currently reading Thérèse of Lisieux's autobiography, where she doesn't seem to view herself as a sufficient primary source on her own life and constantly quotes letters that her deceased mother wrote about her and alludes to her sister's (the person to whom the autobiography is addressed) ability to confirm her assertions.

Also, my father was at least peripherally involved in the mythopoetic men's movement back in the nineties, and based on what I've learned from him over the course of my life, '[w]hat stifles men's identities far more is the bizarre notion that we should sit down and talk about our feelings, when so many of us don't want to' strikes me as a deeply disconcerting statement.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Perhaps the vernacular is different in other settings, but when the word violence is used I almost exclusively associate it with physical violence, so the article was interesting in that it seemed to refer to behaviors/dispositions as violent despite not relating to physical violence.  Never had seen that before.

It's pretty common in feminist and anti-racist theory, AFAIK. Of course, I can forgive you for not being perfectly up to speed with this type of discourse.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, "passionate" is an attribute that can be associated with both patriarchal masculinity and femininity. The difference, at least in my experience with both constructs, is that "masculine" passion is aggressive and oppressive (which might indeed be the flip sides of what you call tenacity and leadership), while "feminine" passion is caring and empathetic. Feminine norms also emphasize compromise, mediation, and selflessness, while men are encouraged to aggressively pursue success. I don't deny that my preference for feminine values is in great part subjective, but the fact remains that masculinity as it exists now in a patriarchal society is encouraging attitudes that hurt both women and men.

In a society without patriarchy, there is no harm in a person displaying some traits currently associated to the construct of masculinity (as long as those traits are within reasonable bounds). We're all unique and different, and those traits are part of the spectrum of the human psyche. In a patriarchal society, however, those traits become norms that end up shaping society as a whole. In this circumstances, the worst aspects of masculinity (which are, I believe, the worst aspects of humanity) will flourish.

Pit, no one is trying to tell you how you should express your emotions. Feminism is about liberating people from harmful norms and expectations, not enforcing different ones. The point is that you shouldn't force your kids to deal with emotions differently (and, in boys' case, damagingly) based on their gender.

     But you see, how I express my emotions lines up neatly with how masculinity says I should. I don't break the law and hurt other people, but in general I am certainly pleased by these "harmful norms". An ideology that tells me that you can behave however you like is fine. I'm going to react differently to an ideology that tells me how these "harmful norms" are evil.

Obviously I don't know you enough to affirm that, but I think you should at least consider the possibility that "how you express your emotions lines up neatly with how masculinity says you should" because you've been socialized as a man in a patriarchal society. Again, if this attitude toward emotions is what suits you best psychologically, fair enough - feminism holds nothing against that. But  this is a separate issue from the question of which norms we should socialize our children with. There's widespread evidence that the patriarchal masculine socialization of boys is psychologically damaging. How about instead of telling boys to "man up" we start telling them to be whoever they feel more comfortable being? What's wrong with that?

[Antonio the Sixth]

The human invention of the ego is likely more fundamental to this problem.

You know, I've learned over the past year to start thinking of myself as a bad person, and that has in some way been psychologically helpful, so I couldn't agree more.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I wish I could say 0, but I'm going 1 because I am not very muscular. Man points for being tall, making lots of money, having a good looking wife, etc. But I also spend too much time at work and need more hobbies...

I'm conventionally masculine in the way I express my emotions, but I'm also introverted to a fault, so it could have something to do with that.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Pit, no one is trying to tell you how you should express your emotions. Feminism is about liberating people from harmful norms and expectations, not enforcing different ones. The point is that you shouldn't force your kids to deal with emotions differently (and, in boys' case, damagingly) based on their gender.

     But you see, how I express my emotions lines up neatly with how masculinity says I should. I don't break the law and hurt other people, but in general I am certainly pleased by these "harmful norms". An ideology that tells me that you can behave however you like is fine. I'm going to react differently to an ideology that tells me how these "harmful norms" are evil.

Obviously I don't know you enough to affirm that, but I think you should at least consider the possibility that "how you express your emotions lines up neatly with how masculinity says you should" because you've been socialized as a man in a patriarchal society. Again, if this attitude toward emotions is what suits you best psychologically, fair enough - feminism holds nothing against that. But  this is a separate issue from the question of which norms we should socialize our children with. There's widespread evidence that the patriarchal masculine socialization of boys is psychologically damaging. How about instead of telling boys to "man up" we start telling them to be whoever they feel more comfortable being? What's wrong with that?

     I admit, it is possible. Separating out nature and nurture in human development is difficult work. I am sure both play a role in the phenomena that we are speaking of. I doubt trying to resocialize me would help at my age though.

     Anyway, as I said before, it is fine to let people be who they are and not seek to change them. If you do not conform to gender roles then I don't mind and I do not want you to be mistreated for it. Overall, I suspect that men would tend to still be more "masculine" than women, but that is neither here nor there. I am reacting to the idea you posited earlier in the thread that masculinity is evil and should be destroyed. As long as there are people who normally feel this way, telling them that this is wrong isn't really any better than the social engineering that you criticize.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The goal is to recognize that we are fundamentally selfish, loathsome little imps, and seek to mitigate that within the realm of the Real. This can be done by refusing to trust one's instincts or believe that one is in any way "special".

     I agree with this. We are the best judges of our own lives. We can learn to be decent judges of things outside of our own lives.

I would say 'we aren't the best judges of our own lives but we can learn to be decent judges of things outside of our own lives'. I could be biased because I'm currently reading Thérèse of Lisieux's autobiography, where she doesn't seem to view herself as a sufficient primary source on her own life and constantly quotes letters that her deceased mother wrote about her and alludes to her sister's (the person to whom the autobiography is addressed) ability to confirm her assertions.

Also, my father was at least peripherally involved in the mythopoetic men's movement back in the nineties, and based on what I've learned from him over the course of my life, '[w]hat stifles men's identities far more is the bizarre notion that we should sit down and talk about our feelings, when so many of us don't want to' strikes me as a deeply disconcerting statement.

     That sounds to me like an issue with her confidence, more than anything. I'll admit that there are caveats to the personal ability to judge, e.g. the Dunning-Kruger effect.

     I never heard of the Mythopoetic Men's Movement, so I read a little about it on Wikipedia. I do agree with many of the basic ideas of the movement. As far as the notion of inexpressivity goes, I do think that there is a very underrated "masculine mode" of emotional expression, which fundamentally differs from the typical approach that people are most familiar with. Men are not really educated in this difference, which may be one issue here. The article is nonspecific, but it doesn't sound to me like they were busy in therapy circles.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I am reacting to the idea you posited earlier in the thread that masculinity is evil and should be destroyed. As long as there are people who normally feel this way, telling them that this is wrong isn't really any better than the social engineering that you criticize.

I was talking about the construct of masculinity, not of all individual traits that are associated with it. In a feminist society, some individuals may still end up having these traits, but there will be no social force bringing those traits together and giving them a normative content. As such, it will become a lot easier to distinguish their socially acceptable manifestations from their pathological ones.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

As far as the notion of inexpressivity goes, I do think that there is a very underrated "masculine mode" of emotional expression, which fundamentally differs from the typical approach that people are most familiar with. Men are not really educated in this difference, which may be one issue here.

I'm actually very willing to consider this idea. (Women should be educated in such a difference too, if men are.)