BlueMax wrote:
All one has to do is read the "what if you see your man cry" thread to see that lots of women (but not all) have no respect for the man who's an overly-emotional "wet noodle" . These gals only respect strength, power, authority, etc...
Sometimes the Man Box exists because if we want to appeal to women in the least, we need to adhere to the expectations they have for us.
Those women have been conditioned to believe the same as men have - for a start.
That is what I was talking about when I said people don't usually recongise the differences in power - unless they are at a fairly advanced level themselves, they fail to see the difference.
To me, bullying behaviour comes accross as something one would only do if they had not mastered their own personal power - so their solution is to take away others power to compensate for that and make themselves seem to be more powerful in comparison. They rely on the contrast.
Someone who has it intrinsically does not need to rely on comparison or contrast. They have it, they know they have it, and they do not need to flaunt it becase it is just is. Therefore they do not need to take away from others. They also do not need to be the loudest, or the most dominant in a group - you only see those behaviours in wannabes.
Sadly, people who have not even reached that stage see these two things as the same - realistically they are practically opposites.
mds_02 wrote:
I don't disagree with any of the points he makes. Everything he says about what boys are taught about girls is true. The whole part about how, if being called a girl is such an insult, what must we be teaching them about females?
Still, it's not the whole truth. The things boys are taught about the opposite gender are far more complex than just "don't act like them."
Yes, there are ways in which boys are taught that women are less than they are, less intelligent, emotionally weak, less capable. I don't think anyone would dispute that. It's old news. But there are also many ways in which boys are taught that, despite all that, women still have more value than men.
As an example (hardly the only example, but one of the clearest), take the classic "brave prince rescues the beautiful princess" story most children are told a thousand times while they're growing up, usually by Disney or the like.
What are children taught about gender roles by it? Well, they're taught that women are weak and passive, and that it's the womans job to sit back and look pretty while the man gets to do all kinds of interesting stuff and be the hero. Which, on the surface, is entirely anti-female and entirely pro-male.
At the same time though, they're taught (and this is the part that many people seem to miss) that a man has no purpose but to serve and care for a woman. That is, they are taught that the weak passive woman has inherent value, and that the man's value is determined by how hard he works for the woman. They are taught that all a woman has to do to be a worthwhile person is look pretty and maybe be nice to people. While simultaneously being taught that if a man doesn't act like a goddamn hero, he's nothing.
Stories like this aren't the only way boys are taught this stuff. But I think they're a good reflection of the stuff boys are taught out in the world.
How many guys have heard the equivalent of "let the girl win" when they were growing up? Most of them, I suspect. On the one hand, it teaches them that women are less capable. On the other hand, it teaches them that womens happiness and contentment are more important than their own.
How many guys were taught that "boys don't cry?" Again, probably most. On the one hand, it teaches them that those who cry (i.e. women) are inherently weak. On the other hand, it teaches them that men's emotions just don't matter.
And then things get even more complicated when the changing social role of women is taken into account.
See, while boys are being taught the traditional roles by some sources, they're also being taught by others that women are just as capable as men, just as able to take care of themselves. They're taught that women no longer need men to take care of them. Which, obviously, is true and is a good thing for them to be taught. But, at the same time, no new roles are offered them. They're shown that the only the only thing a man has to offer, his ability to take care of a woman, no longer has any worth.
I think it seems to tie into the whole concept of "taking care of your property / object" at some weird level. At least that is how it comes accross to me - women are only considered by virtue of being female to be valuable because they are treated like an object or property. Otherwise like you - it would depend other factors.
And I think the bolded part is exactly the point. We had major problems before feminism. Throwing feminism into the picture has changed many things, some for the better, some for the worse, but everyone, of both genders, are now more confused about what is and is not socially appropriate. There are not set and clear guidelines (not as much as there used to be) for either gender now. While in some ways that is freeing, it others it has completely cast what little of the system that was left into disarray.
Perhaps this means moving into a new point, at which we do need to redefine those roles - on both sides of the equation.
Last edited by Kjas on 20 Nov 2012, 8:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
18 Nov 2012, 5:30 pm
