[ POLL ] Traditional Masculinity.

Post Reply New Topic

I will say I find it curious that you use Leni Reifenstahl as an example. Her cinematographic talent was exceptional, but she used it in service of an awful regime.

Regardless, I still don't see the point of gender roles if androgyny is already there. I don't think most people precisely fit a mold in terms of masculinity or femininity. I'm not really that traditionally masculine in most senses, so I'd rather not deal with more social pressure to be more masculine by virtue of my biological sex. I guess I'm androgynous... but so are most of the people I've met if we're going by strict gender roles.

Even as guidelines... why? Just teach virtue as virtue, and cultivate that virtue in those who display it. Maybe more men that women fit the traditional masculine characteristics, and that's fine, but why define it as masculine when there are still a fair number of women who fit (ditto vice versa)? It still strikes me as needlessly procrustean.

You really shouldn't find it curious that a nazi propaganda filmmaker was used as an example of an admirable woman. It fits well with the ideology being expressed, looking at his comment history.

That has nothing to do with masculinity.

Women are just as likely to exhibit these traits. Especially greed and bullying are traits I've witnessed in women at least as much as in men.

Men are just as likely to not exhibit these traits.

None of these traits were considered admirable traits in traditional notions of masculinity.

This is why the concept of "toxic masculinity" is blatant sexism. You're associating negative traits with masculinity that have nothing whatsoever to do with either biological concepts of masculinity nor traditional cultural notions of masculinity.



Leni Riefenstahl's example demonstrates that even Fascist dictatorships allow for exceptional women to stray from the path of traditional gender norms, while still promoting traditional gender norms for the rest of us.

So why is it so impossible for us to apply the same principle? Why does it always have to be "abolish gender roles" or "gender roles for all"?



Among Aspies, androgyny may be common. Among the general population, it's still anything buy the norm.

The average boy is still boyish in every way. The average girl is still girlish in every way. And for such individuals, it's beneficial to learn skills traditionally associated with their gender, so they're best equipped to do jobs traditionally associated with their gender.

In fact, I believe we should get much better results in education and job assignment if we looked not just as gender but also at personality / neurotype. If we include personality / neurotype into the equation as well, the number of exceptions to the rule should significantly reduce.

It is impossible to give every individual an education and a job that is completely suited to them as individuals. There's simply not infrastructure for that, it would cost too much, etc. But giving everyone the same education and job conditions is not working either. Gender & personality / neurotype are two important criteria that cause people to feel differently, think differently, behave differently, etc. But they are still sufficiently generic to allow our education system & jobs to be adapted to those criteria.

If we take both gender and eg. MBTI personality types into consideration, we'd have 32 different methods of education and types of jobs to consider... which is a lot but still manageable. And we probably don't need fully separate paths for every single of those 32 profiles, as there are great overlaps.

Alternatively to the MBTI, we could look at traits of ADHD, Bi-Polar disorder, Schizotypal disorder or ASD to further divide people into categories. I don't think "diagnoses" are a suitable way to categorize people in this context, for many reasons... from prejudice towards people with a "diagnosis", to the ASD spectrum being much too large to be meaningful in this context.

Either way, there may be still better alternatives to categorize people than gender roles, neurotype or the MBTI. Of gender roles we know they do happen to work, as they have a proven track record going back thousands of years. And 2 categories will always be easier to manage than 32.



Most Aspies? Probably not. Female Aspies tend to lean towards masculinity / androgyny. And among male Aspies, you tend to see both über-geeks & über-queers.

Aspies are not the norms, though. We're a small sub-group of society, at the outliers of what qualifies as "normal" behavior.

Most Neurotypical people exhibit far less traits of androgyny than what we see in especially female Aspies.



Define "traditionally male".

When most people think of "traditionally male", they think of jocks... of soldiers... of testosterone-fueled, broad-shouldered individuals who get a kick out of ending up in a bar fight.

This is the modern, subverted variation of the "warrior" archetype... which is but one type of traditional masculinity. And yes, such men often do engage in toxic behavior (like bar fights), but not due to their masculinity being toxic... but rather due to the lack of healthy outlets for what is normal behavior to them. Warriors need to fight, just like geeks need to learn.

Geeks are also a modern variant of traditional masculinity. They just represent a different archetype : the priest / intellectual.

The same applies to artistic types. The poet or artist is a third archetype.

You'll find that the traditional masculine ideal in many cultures is a man who combines traits of all three archetypes in one person, in a balanced way... the so-called warrior-priest-poet. Shaolin monks & knights orders like the Templars are examples of orders that try / tried that cultivated this ideal for all of its members.

To quote Baudelaire :


And to quote George Carlin :



Combine the ideas expressed in both quotes, and you know why traditional masculinity is under attack.



Strict gender roles as defined by whom?

Due to the disappearance of tradition in so many areas, most people are clueless with respect to what traditional gender roles really encompassed & why they're important.



You might want to ask that to people who traits like call "greed" or "bullying" examples of "toxic masculinity"... because those really have nothing to do with gender whatsoever.

An interest in things over people is a male trait, though... just like an interesting in people over things is a female trait... and one of the main reasons why women will always remain underrepresented in some professions and men in others.

Just because we see a similar preference of things over people among female Aspies, that doesn't make this any less a male trait. It only means that female Aspies have more androgynous brains.

Not to most men, perhaps, but to the swaggering, arrogant, in-your-face men who believe that "might makes right" and "only the strong shall rule" these are EXACTLY the traits that any Real Man™ should follow.

Furthermore, Real Men™ ...

... are big, brave, and strong.

... are cold, unemotional and utterly lacking in feelings.

... are the complete opposites of women in every way.

... are impressed by a woman's appearance only.

... are intimidated only by successful women.

... are obsessed with sex, status, and violence.

... are obsessed with the size of their penises.

... are obsessed with the size of women's breasts.

... define themselves by their occupations and how much they earn.

... do not care about other people's feelings, opinions, or thoughts.

... do not express affection or grief.

... do not like the arts (unless there are naked women involved).

... do not like to clean, communicate, read or shop.

... fear commitment to a relationship.

... pay no attention to constructive criticism.

I don't know who you are referring to, but it sure has nothing to do with traditional notions of masculinity.



This only applies to warriors.



Not really, no.

Traditionally, men merely are expected to have emotions, but also to be able to control them.

Traditionally, not being able to control your emotions is considered indicative of immaturity and/or poor intelligence.

I don't see how expecting people to grow up is a bad thing.



Nonsense.



Nonsense.



More nonsense.



Ditto.

Where do you get all these ridiculous notions of masculinity from?



Nonsense.



Ditto.



Ditto.



Men and women tend to have a different way of comforting people.

Women tend to provide emotional support. Men tend to provide practical help.

There is nothing unmanly about trying to help at all. Nor is it unmanly to offer emotional support.



As I said, men merely are expected to have emotions, but also to be able to control them.

And that's a good thing.



Traditional history is full of masculine artists and masculine benefactor of the arts.

And, in fact, as I mentioned before... the artist is one of the three traditional male archetypes.

Being a artist is not just very masculine, but one of the three masculine virtues.

So you could not be more wrong here.



Many men don't in fact like to clean and only like to shop for items that involves their hobbies. It's not like it is somehow unmanly if you do happen to like cleaning or shopping for other things, though. It's just something most men don't like.

But read?

Or communicate?

Seriously?!



Actually, traditional manhood involved marriage with one wife only, and singular dedication to that wife for life.



Nonsense again...

Basically, the only thing you're sorta kinda partially right about, is men being expected to control their emotions... to act like responsible adults, rather than like spoiled crybabies... and it boggles my mind that anyone can think of that as a bad thing.

Pretty much every other thing you mention is utter and complete hogwash and has nothing whatsoever to do with traditional notions of masculinity.

It seems like your notion of traditional masculinity is based on nothing but sexist stereotypes that have no basis in reality.

"Nonsense" == "Something that a toxic male will not admit to"

Apparently you can promote nazi-style eugenics and still hang around this forum. Amazing.

I would say that fascism's preference for traditional gender roles is another strike against the idea of promoting strict gender roles.



I'm neurotypical to the best of my knowledge (I've never been tested). I came onto WP to ask some questions, and have lurked on and off since my arrival. IRL, I have a few friends on the spectrum, though most are neurotypical. They generally do not perfectly fit into preconceived gender roles.

I wouldn't trust any system to say I'm a particular personality based on my performance in a test (and I am suspicious of the MBTI). People are too complex to be so easily reduced, and I'm suspicious of those that try to fit others into molds.



This just sounds like more categories. I'd presumably be the "intellectual", but what about folks who don't fit into any of those three? Where do businesspeople fit in? They're important. Baudelaire's sneering at "serfs" just comes off self-serving pseudo-intellectualism. Where would he be without those serfs doing dreary, boring work growing food? Baudelaire was a good poet (I like some of the Decadents), but I don't consider him a particularly deep thinker.

It sounds like you're suggesting some kind of caste system with strikes me as needlessly rigid.

I don't even disagree with you about men and women being different. Hormones do influence brain shape. But the actual expression is highly variable (variable to the point that I wouldn't consider biological sex to be all that good a predictor of behavior, and act accordingly). So just let people do what comes naturally to them.

There was only two Muslim countries where women not allowed to drive.
And one of them is the wealthiest and rarely any immigrants come from them.

For the record, Muslim countries have the highest %s of Female STEM graduates and Engineers. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

I think he just likes to disagree with me — having no opinions of his own, he sees what I post, and then posts the opposite ... with a little eugenics/master-race blather thrown in.

The guys who promote those ideas really do believe them. They have to, psychologically speaking. It's what they prop themselves up with, otherwise they would collapse into depression and self-loathing which is where they were when whoever taught them these things found them. Organized white racists/neo-Nazis behave much like ISIS does in the way they recruit and who they target for recruitment. They know that young men who for whatever reason (bad home life, poverty, lack of education, etc.) feel powerless and like they have no value are the perfect receptacles for their propaganda, the recruiters know those vulnerable men are the most likely to grab on to an ideology like white supremacy because it resolves those feelings of powerlessness and worthlessness and gives them superiority in their place. They can replace depression with rage, and the rage makes them feel powerful and invincible. That feeling is addictive.

So yeah, unless they're a psychopathic recruiter themselves, those who spout these white-supremacist ideologies probably do really believe those things deep down, because they have to or their rage will collapse back into self-loathing and they fear and dread those feelings more than anything else.

EDIT: Remember the movie American History X? It did a pretty good job of illustrating how that process of recruitment works, and who is vulnerable to it and why.

Your notion of traditional masculinity seems to be based on the behavior of Al Bundy or 20-year-old frat boys... that of very unintelligent, very uncultivated and/or very immature men.

That's simply wrong. Such behavior is, in fact, the very opposite of behavior that is considered virtuous in traditional notions of masculinity.



Everything you don't like seems to be "nazi-style" in your opinion...



Hitler was a vegetarian. I guess that means vegetarianism is evil?

Hitler was a painter. I guess that means painting is evil?

The Nazis were the first to start an anti-smoking campaign. I guess that means we should all start smoking?



What preconceived gender roles are you talking about?



I suppose not everyone fits perfectly into one particular MBTI profile.

In my case, the fit is perfect, though. When I'm reading about INTPs, it's like I'm reading about myself. Even when reading about ASD, the fit is not nearly as perfect.



Those three categories are basically the three masculine ideals of the aristocracy... people who historically didn't need to work and had lots of time to improve themselves towards on or more of these ideals.

I suppose all men have at least something of a warrior, an intellectual or an artist / builder in them... including business people... albeit to a lesser degree. They just don't have nearly as much time to cultivate those traits because... you know... they have mouths to feed and money to make to achieve that.



My ideal system would be a scientific, meritocratic caste system based on talent, personality and/or other proven individual characteristics, rather than ancestry.

IMO, such a system would provide the best balance between freedom & efficiency.

It would also be the fairest approach for social inequality.



Gender, race, personality / neurotype & other characteristics all play essential roles in determining what makes us individuals, along with life experience. Each of these tell us but a part of the story... but when you combine them all, you get a pretty complete picture.



I do believe you.

Interestingly, there is an inverse relationship between gender equality and women choosing a career in traditionally male stem fields. The less gender equality there is, the more likely a woman is to choose a field like engineering... possibly to compensate for the lack of gender equality.

Look it up if you don’t believe me.





Ever single opinion I express on this forum is an opinion I've developed on my own based on two decades of research into multiple disciplines since I was a teenager

You may think I'm just trolling, but I'm not. That's merely your own prejudice speaking.



Your prejudice clearly shows here. Where do you get all this nonsense from?

Is it so hard to believe that I came to my current position using the scientific method only?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_0 ... -02-01.htm
https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sci ... sm-history
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/rac ... 5305251917

Yes--so science, much method.

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm very impressed with your sciencing. You are obviously the best sciencer around. Good show!

It's common knowledge that the humanities have been taken over by neo-Marxist propagandists.

It's commonly known that many "studies" published since WW2 on matters like race are barely more than Marxist demagoguery and have as much to do with science as Creationism or Flat-Earthism.

Either way, this doesn't change the fact that 90% of experts still acknowledge a genetic component to international IQ gaps. Also from Wikipedia :



For some actual science on racial differences in cognitive ability, see eg. this 60 page 2005 article by Rushton & Jenson, which summarizes 30 years of actual scientific research into this matter.

But I bet you don't care about the actual science. You'll just call it "racist" and ignore it... because that's what you've done with every argument that contradicts your prejudices to far.

You still think IQ is a valid measure of intelligence. That's so adorable!

You are an endless font of entertainment, it's really wonderful. Go ahead, tell me more about "international IQ gaps", please do. I'm really enjoying this. You guys make me giggle with your earnestness.

Tell me more about "neo-Marxist propagandists/cultural Marxism"--I love the dogwhistle buzzwords you guys always fall back on. You're like impressionable teenagers with your slang that makes you feel like you're part of the in group, it's so cute!



I think I get almost as much entertainment value out of you guys as Harris does.