What do you think of the term "feminized men"?

[Taverner]

Often this comes up when talking about men who have become either (1) so 'politically correct' that they eschew the masculine or (2) the metrosexual.

For me, both of these instances are canards. Most 'metrosexuals' I knew are just playing the same game I did in college: straddle the line and some women will be attracted to that. It kinda works.

As for the PC bit, I have not known anyone to eschew the masculine. I have known folks to decry sexism at the drop of the hat, and I have noticed the faux outrage comes more from men than women.

But When I see these terms, a light goes off in my head and I suddenly think "This guy really doesn't like women" or something along those lines. Sometimes even my favorite comedian (Bill Maher) uses this term.

[DJ13]

1. I hate it!

Oh crap, I got so upset I broke a nail, be right back......

[Ghost in the Machine]

45. Does this reply make my ass look fat?

:shrug:

[omega minimo]

49. ?

did you say something, I wasn't listening......................

[Cleita]

2. You know what? We are all human with human traits. Sexist societies

assign certain attributes as either feminine or masculine, like crying. Hell, everybody cries and it doesn't make a woman more feminine or a man less masculine if they cry. Also, wearing makeup, fashionable clothes and jewelry is looked down upon for men, yet throughout history men did wear fancy clothes, jewelry and makeup. Many men wear dresses, euphemistically called robes, and skirts, which we call kilts, in some societies even today.

[Taverner]

4. Yes x 5

[Captain Hilts]

10. We really need to start ignoring the stereotypes of the sexes 'popular' culture give us.

I don't know men who are coach potatoes that eat pizza, drink beer and watch sports all day.

The navy veterans I hang out with say "I love you" to each other and hug each other when they great one another. They're not all wound up about the false aspects our society associates with 'masculinity'.

[Lost in CT]

34. Well thats no surprise they were in the navy.,..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InBXu-iY7cw

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. That is all true enough, but generally when someone talks about

the feminization of men, they are ignorant assholes either bashing gays or feminists.

[LostinVA]

It's misogynistic

[Zhade]

270. AND homophobic, too!

NT!

[Captain Hilts]

3. Not fair to associate 'weak' with things relating to women.

If you want to insult a man you call him a 'girly man', a 'pussy', a 'bitch', a 'douchebag' - all things relating to women.

If you want to 'compliment' a woman, you say she's got 'balls'.

It's all terrible.

[Echo In Light]

5. It's amazing to watch doc films/interviews/archive footage of the 60s/70s, and compare....

...the views and attitudes of that new, uprising society questioning and challenging the old Puritanical one ... and then, sadly, compare those views of thirty to forty yrs ago (!) with the bass-akwardness of today's prevailing views and corporate culture induced ideologies.

[omega minimo]

43. you may notice it's also impossible to find young actor/esses playing characters from that era

with the right expression, look in the face and eyes....

[Echo In Light]

64. Man that's fuckin spooky. BTW, good sig line: Jello! "Burn, baby, burn!"

[omega minimo]

115. The name of one of his spoken word albums. They're all great

:thumbsup:

[PassingFair]

306. Fun to watch these and replace the word "coffee" with "vagina".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5idyptK15w

It DOES bother me when pundits claim that
a politician was "emasculated" or that
someone had "no balls" to describe weak people.

As a woman I truly resent it, and it seems to
be picking up quite a bit lately.

I also dislike the use of terms such as
"muscular diplomacy" or "take it like a man".

The women I know are certainly every bit
as brave as the men that I know.

[Vanje]

6. It assumes "feminization " is a bad thing.

So the word, "liberal" no longer has a sting.
I guess that's a good thing.

So now they hope to bring a negative association by suggesting that liberal men are female-like. , or "sissified".

In the playgrounds of every middle school that ever was, the worse thing you could call someone is "Faggot", or "Sissy".
Are we still in Middle school?

[omega minimo]

44. you may be

[Vanje]

54. ?

[seabeyond]

60. exactly. that is exactly what repugs did with girlie man. their way of

calling men "Faggot", or "Sissy".

[Iris]

177. I agree. It's something that should be challenged. What is a "feminized" man anyway?

Does that mean men who can take care of kids, relate to their wives, daughters, and other women? Why is this a bad thing?

[Vanje]

208. Men who

put the toilet seat back down

[seabeyond]

209. 15 yrs married

my hubby didnt put toilet seat down one night last week. think he is telling me something?????

wink. teasing. lol

[Vanje]

215. When I go to the beautful home of a couple of my guy pals ,....

.....do I leave the seat UP?

Hmmmmmm. Quandery!

[JerseygirlCT]

229. Every man in my house does

Or else!

[anonymous171]

7. I dislike it. Very sexist.

The real problem is "manchildren." IMO.

[AB_Positive]

8. I used to be 'metrosexual'

... so I decided to become a woman. True story. :D

[Taverner]

13. Interesting - I guess people go metro for different reasons

Of course being 'Metrosexual' in Oregon during the 90's meant drinking bottled water. See "Heathers" for reference.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[musette_sf]

11. personally i think it's self-serving dookie

usually spouted by someone who has a vested interest in the gender status quo. from Dr. Laura to Glenn Sacks, it's all about regressive people who long for a return to the "manliness" of the 50s:



(by the way, i have this book and it's a great read)

[Echo In Light]

16. Indeed. Sexism is rampant in fascist societies

[omega minimo]

129. Isn't the chief dispenser of this meme Limbaugh the Hut? Who always uses an "effeminate" voice"

whenever -- no matter who it is -- he's pretending to mock and imitate someone? The high voice and the lisp just make him seem like he's got issues about his gender.

[ogneopasno]

12. Using opposite-gender terms as insults or compliments simply denigrates both sides. It's crap.

[Captain Hilts]

14. Exactly! nt

[Iris]

179. nicely put. n/t

[Captain Hilts]

15. Bill Mahler and Jon Stewart, actually, both use a lot of sexist terminology. nt

[Taverner]

17. Maher I know, but I've never known Stewart to...

[Captain Hilts]

21. He uses 'pussy' a lot in reference to men.

Thanks for your thoughtful thread.

[ogneopasno]

18. They do indeed. I find them hilarious 90% of the time.

When they're throwing around "pussy," "bitch" and "retarded," though, I'm reminded, once again, that nothing's perfect.

[Captain Hilts]

20. Stewart uses 'pussy' a lot. nt

[ogneopasno]

23. Yup. Reading the "America (The Book)" really gives a person an idea of how sexist a lot of TDS's

comedy is. When I watch it, it can go by so fast I can just let it go. For some reason, when I read the book, it hits me over and over again and by the time I put it down it's really starting to piss me off.

[EOTE]

90. I think Stewart anyway uses "pussy" very tongue in cheek.

Not so much trying to mock the recipient of the insult, but more mock the person who would use that term.q

[seabeyond]

91. i think so too. have listened to too many times he does it, and that is the feel i get with him

and i am sensitive on that too.... surprise

and bigger surprise EOTE
we agree... lol

[EOTE]

301. Mark that one down in the books :)

Hopefully it won't be the last time.

[Quantess]

42. True. I enjoy watching them, they are funny and incisive (Jon Stewart is my favorite of the two)

but I don't appreciate every single thing they do, such as the sexist terminology.

Bill Maher may have a sincerely worse attitude about women than Jon Stewart. Just a hunch.

[omega minimo]

46. that may be b/c Maher is not as smart as he thinks he is

[Quantess]

53. That may have 2 meanings

Bill Maher may not be as smart as he thinks he is, so he doesn't understand that his sexist attitudes are not transparent, or,
Bill Maher may not be as smart as he thinks he is, because he thinks the sexism gives him dumbass points in his crowd.

Either way, :hi:
You seem cool. :)

[omega minimo]

116. 3

Bill Maher may not be as smart as he thinks he is, so he's a sexist


oh wait, 4: Bill Maher may not be as smart as he thinks he is, so he's an arrogant bore/boor

:hi: :evilgrin:

(i just like to SAY Quantess) :pals:

[MineralMan]

22. Whenever I hear that term, I think of guys who live

in their mom's basement. The 101st Keyboard Warriors. They're the types who put people into all sorts of categories, it seems to me.

[mitchum]

24. See: the character Tom in "Taxi Driver"...

Brooks, Schrader, and Scorsese nail the archetype

[lumberjack_jeff]

25. The problem isn't "feminization", it's fakery, superficiality and self-loathing.

Don't expect me to be impressed by "just playing the same game I did in college: straddle the line and some women will be attracted to that. It kinda works."

The reverse is also true. I'm as equally unimpressed by the ultra-masculine poseurs such as "outlaw biker" Jesse James.

Both are predicated on the idea that there's something wrong with being a man, and that to attract women one either must embrace it in a cartoonish way (to establish bad-boy creds) or reject it altogether by wearing eye makeup and painting one's fingernails black.

So, yeah. I dislike the culture that has socialized us to the idea that being a man is a bad.

[Taverner]

26. I wasn't seeking your approval - it was girls

Like Carly Simon said "THIS SONG ISN'T ABOUT YOU"

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. What does that mean?

"It was girls".

You mean your post was aimed at getting responses from women? There was nothing in the post that indicated that.

Lumberjack was merely saying (if I got it right) that while there was a feminist movement that took issue with the assumptions about what it means to be a woman, there has been no such equivalent movement that has challenged assumptions of what it is to be a man. Men are men, women are women; there are distinct differences and not so distinct differences and sometimes surprising similarities.

So, what're you talking about?

[Taverner]

31. Sorry - I thought he was attacking me...

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. That wasn't my intent.

I'm merely saying that when I hear "feminization" I think in terms of disingenuousness. Further, I find distressing that the need for that kind of fakery is both valid and rewarded.

So, yeah. I'm at best bemused by the metrosexual in the coffee shop hoping to bone the barista by impressing her with his knowledge of Maya Angelou poetry.

[omega minimo]

47. "bone the barista"

1 step forward, 5 steps back

[Gwendolyn]

55. Oh brother!

:eyes:

[lumberjack_jeff]

59. I used that phrase to illustrate the hypocrisy I perceive. n/t

[seabeyond]

62. showing the two extremes of conditioning? n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

82. Not really.

Sex drive is inherent in most men's nature. The rest is tactics and ethics. The lower the ethical bar, the more tactical options are available.

For me, I was never ethically okay with artifice; pretending that I thought being a guy was a bad thing.

Married for 25 years so I guess it worked out okay.

[seabeyond]

87. sex drive is inherent in both genders.

being an ass is inherent in both genders too.

so???

love you dude, and appreciate a lot. not this. or i simply disagree on this part.

[omega minimo]

118. it sounds like he's saying

"The lower the ethical bar, the more tactical options are available."

That men are all default potential rapists who can barely control themselves. ""Ethics" vs. "tactics"? We know there are human beings in there.

[lumberjack_jeff]

182. Perhaps it's better to ask him.

Men seek sex within the constraints of their ethical frame.

[omega minimo]

188. That is well put

The previous comment was it sounded like without the ethics, the tactics were practically automatic.

[lumberjack_jeff]

192. Every individual has a different ethical frame.

Some people are perfectly willing to put on whatever costume and play whatever role is required. Those are effective tactics.

Personally, I think that a sense of "self" is a prerequisite of self-respect, a quality that men increasingly lack.

[seabeyond]

194. i gotcha

on you last two posts. i agree.

but then i think there are a lot of females lacking a sense of self... prerequisite of self respect (i love this).

maybe it is a human thing. maybe there is more today than yesterday, cause of... well many societal factors i can think of.

[omega minimo]

199. maybe some of this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5273657&mesg_id=5282936

[omega minimo]

198. Interesting. More about this idea of "sense of self" changing?

[lumberjack_jeff]

221. I see it in my kids.

Until they've settled on who they are, they refuse to do things that self-respect would dictate.

I'm ambivalent about military service, but 80% of the time, parents are amazed at how their child has "matured" from the experience. In my view, it's because of the sense of self that develops. "I know who I am, and although I can improve, I respect that person"

Most of the poseurs I've known don't know who they are, and next week they won't like this week's version. Why have any self-respect when you'll just reinvent yourself (in a different costume) tomorrow?

Internalizing the negative stereotypes of your gender does great harm.

[omega minimo]

117. you used that phrase

"___" quotes would help readers get your intent :thumbsup:

[Vektor]

70. Maybe he does know Maya Angelou poetry.

And maybe he'll succeed with the barista.

There's nothing at all wrong with a man with an artsy streak. It hardly makes a man less masculine to be well read, well groomed, and artistic, but it certainly does make him more attractive to many women, which I suspect a lot of other men resent.

Hence all this "metrosexual" nonsense. It's no different than an unattractive woman calling a pretty one a "slut" just because she's jealous.

[seabeyond]

73. this is exactly y feel. i have always enjoyed the more mellow male too.

that means i can appreciate all types of males without suggesting they must come in only one form.

[Vektor]

81. True...

I have to admit, the testosterone oozing, beer swilling, skirt chasing, "macho man" is by far the most physically and emotionally repulsive creature I have ever witnessed, though. Especially if he has the boorish, brawling, misogynistic personality to go with it.

Those are the only guys who use the term "metro-sexual" on a regular basis, and it's because they are jealous that most women find a man who is just a little bit refined rather attractive.

[seabeyond]

85. but this is the point. that isnt "male". that is behavior, character and there are personalities

of both genders i do not like. but be it the more aggressive male, the more gentle male, the more talkive, insightful male, the more quiet male..... with good character, personality i can appreciate all....

it is a male pretending, playing the conditioned role i dont appreciate, value, like. i tend to become pretty aggressive myself.

and i agree, the reason they are redefining, and insulting, is they are losing the battle of dominence regardless of the huge step forward they got with bushco

[lumberjack_jeff]

79. Did Hemingway have "an artsy streak"? Picasso? Woody Guthrie? Johnny Cash?

In men, what qualifies as an artsy streak these days is a perception that you have very little affinity for your gender.

[seabeyond]

80. you are talking a decade of bushco macho male, fundamentalist dodson

show your son your penis in shower to intimidate, male warriors ect.... rah john wayne

so what you say defines today, is pretty sad and i am really not going to buy into it. they are redefining females all over the place and i say a huge ass no thank you

[lumberjack_jeff]

86. That's the flipside of metrosexuality. It's polarization.

It's as if society has taken "male" and split it into two caricatures, one hyper-masculine and one ashamed of their gender leaving very little in between.

[seabeyond]

88. and i think you gave us a perfect example with your post above, lol

i agree

[Vektor]

84. Huh?

Are you serious? You are saying that in order to have artistic ability you have to lack affinity for your gender?

I'm really not following you.

I see no connection between "artistic men of today" lacking affinity for their gender, so I might need further elaboration.

[seabeyond]

89. the most manlyest of men can be intellectual

that is silly to suggest otherwise

[Vektor]

94. I agree. Put it this way:

This:



is FAR MORE likely to make my clothes fall off than

THIS:



Just saying. :evilgrin:

[seabeyond]

100. bah hahah. oh yes... yes... yes. i loved that movie

and depp, so you picked a good one. love him in secret window. a tad different of a twist

[omega minimo]

132. LOL

Nuff said :bounce:

[lumberjack_jeff]

92. You said that some women prefer men with an artsy streak.

This was the adjective you used to describe the barista-phile in my example.

My reaction is that if this is what "artsy" has become in the collective consciousness, it is illustrative of my fundamental point. It shows a drift in what is perceived to be normal/acceptable/desirable for men.

[Vektor]

95. I don't know the man you are talking about.

So I cannot say how he relates to other men of today. But I will say that being poetic, artistic and well read is incredibly masculine and sexy - and preferable, IMHO.

If you are implying that him being well versed in poetry is unattractive, or unmanly then yeah, I'd say that's insane.

Maybe this guy is also a total asshole, and that's where you are coming from. If his only crime is that he's poetic, then I'd say that's no crime at all.

[lumberjack_jeff]

180. If disingenuous = asshole, then yes that is where I am coming from.

Let me use a real world example. My dad was a bricklayer, carpenter and a decorated veteran who survived being shot in the head in Belgium in 1944. He was 6' tall, weighed 145# and after the war, regularly climbed ladders carrying 100# sacks of cement on each shoulder.

He was an FDR liberal who hated war and guns. When Iran took the hostages in 1979, he told me he'd drive me to Canada if they had a draft.

What few casual acquaintances knew was that he was also a painter, sculptor and a poet. The most dog-eared book on my shelf is his copy of the poetry of Robert Frost.

He didn't feel the need to wear his "artsyness" on his sleeve nor he did he feel the need to do the pseudo-macho shit, and it never would have occurred to him to be self-conscious of being a man.

I think that both fake machismo and metrosexuality are both unhealthy manifestations of the same problem.

[omega minimo]

197. And that real world no longer exists (although real people do)

Part of the discussion in these times will be colored by how little fashion has changed since the days you almost got a ride to Canada... kids have grown up in a world of demographics and styles that are mostly based on the past... so a lot of "rad" stuff and "emo" is rather poseurish to begin with...

God knows maybe the best example of someone who blurred the line we're talking about was James Dean. As many copycats as there have been since then, his cool was not in the jacket or the hair or the car....... It was him..

One thing the thread hasn't talked about is this "cut" and "6 pack" thing which is a marketing aberration of something natural, pushed to an extreme, used in competitive "beauty" standards and become a cliche. A pose. An objectificaiton.

And a lot of women don't find the Strongman mold or artificially "cut" look intriguing at all.

"I think that both fake machismo and metrosexuality are both unhealthy manifestations of the same problem"

Zackly.

[Vektor]

255. The problem is...

"Fake machismo" is a mental disorder manifested by deeply troubled men with crippling insecurity, and "metrosexuality" is a childish insult created by deeply troubled men with crippling insecurity and hurled at men who they feel threatened by in the attractiveness department.

Wearing artsiness on one's sleeve is fine, if the person is really truly artsy. What else should they be wearing on their sleeve, if artsy is who they are?

I can't argue with you over the "genuineness" of some guy at Starbucks whom you have seen, but I never have, but your insistence on vilifying him based on what you perceive as "artsiness" and an attraction to the barista is somewhat baffling.

Why do you even concern yourself with this guy?

[lumberjack_jeff]

269. "The guy" is an amalgam of the type of guy who creates a persona on the fly

based both on the audience and their stereotypes in the absence of any resilient sense of self.

But your contention that there are only two kinds of guys; macho assholes and the hairless artsy/sensitive types with highly developed senses of style that the assholes make fun of, is a sizeable part of the problem.

I don't feel a psychological need for that kind of validation, so I guess I have to pick, a) asshole.

But, that said, I'm not going to internalize anyone else's world view. I know what I'm about.

[Vektor]

297. I made no contention.

We are talking about extreme stereotypes here, hence the mention of the macho asshole. Also, most of the artsy guys referenced have great hair - it's just on their heads where it belongs.

My world view is hardly made up of one silly conversation on DU. I'm sure you do know what you're about, but you might not know enough about the guy at Starbucks to really assess him fully, or know what he's about - and neither do I - so he's a bit of a moot point.

I'm merely curious as to why you are so affected by his behavior, and why you trouble yourself to spend a lot of time devaluing him and what you perceive him to stand for. Maybe he IS being genuine, he's just not being like you.

Also, you mentioned being married 25 years. Are the young poet and the barista at the coffee shop young kids in their teens or 20's? If so, that age group is very image conscious, and prone to put on airs to impress their peers. That said, his behavior may be less of an indication of his "masculinity" and more an indication of his age. :shrug:

[lumberjack_jeff]

303. The extreme stereotypes are enforced.

As boys grow up, they are bombarded with messages that being a normal man is either ridiculous (Homer Simpson) or inherently bad (your asshole deadbeat father). Those boys either embrace the negative stereotype and reject any affinity for their gender, or reject the stereotype in a backlash of ignorant manly-man-itude.

(FWIW, I'm glad that no one has tried to redirect this conversation into a straw-man discussion of orientation, because I think that is largely irrelevant. Gay men are still men first and foremost.)

I'm not "affected by his behavior". Except to the extent that he's a product of his societal norms in the same way my sons are, I'm a disinterested observer. I simply note that compared to the young adults I grew up with, boys these days seem to remain in a state of arrested development for much longer, and I attribute this to the social stereotypes associated with being a man. Best to postpone it as long as possible, and if forced to choose, adopt a caricature.

re: hair "on the head where it belongs", if some guys want to use their hormones growing hair, that's their business. :)

[Vektor]

309. I think it's just a matter of having different perceptions, you and I.

And we could talk in circles all day, but will likely leave the ring with the same opinions we walked in with.

I don't see anything wrong with the young men you see as "rejecting an affinity for their gender" which I do not even think they are doing, btw, as I do not equate the "type" you are describing as "less male", nor do I think the young men of today are in any more of a state of arrested development than they have always been. (But I guess it depends on what your perception of "social maturity is, and how soon you feel kids should be expected to reach it.) I'm not even going to go there.

I certainly don't see being artsy, "emo", etc, as being a "caricature". It's a direct result of the inherent personality/intelligence type of the individual. Most who are artistically inclined, musically inclined, intuitive, sensitive, creative etc, will likely be drawn to have a less "commonplace" appearance. Conformity is just not the norm with those who transcend the ordinary in terms of creativity, artistic ability, etc. You can spot a musician in an emo band just as easily as you can spot a construction worker in a crowd, and easily guess what they do for a living based on whether or not they are carrying a hard-hat or a guitar case. I wouldn't be inclined to think either one of them is "trying to adopt a caricature" - they are just being who they are, and doing what they do best based on their abilities, interests, and skill set. They are just different people with different talents and interests, and I don't see why one or the other needs to be singled out as being a phony, or treated with contempt by others who are not inclined to be like them or don't understand them. FWIW, the emo guy might be very handy with a skill saw, and the hard-hat guy might be known to strum an acoustic guitar and belt out a folk tune between sips of herbal tea, but you'd never guess it at first glance.

That said, I'd rather just live and let live than worry about being the "masculinity police" and expect every guy I see to be sure to avoid any behaviors, looks, or attitudes that might not conform to a perfectly acceptable image of "normal maleness". It takes all kinds to make the world go 'round and if all men looked and acted the same, my reckless, experimental youth would have been a lot less fun. ;-)

[Gwendolyn]

96. He's talking about the stereo-typical rep of artsy men as emo-haired...

eyeliner wearing, very thin and pale, smokes a lot. Or the alternative, tibetan-sweater/hat with pompoms wearing, bearded dude, also pale and skinny, probably vegan, but drinks lots of red wine.

[Vektor]

98. Can I mix the two and modify?

Emo-haired, healthy without being emaciated, pale optional but certainly not required, non smoking except social/occasional, cable knit sweater (and glasses) wearing, goateed, red-wine swilling, and any kind of diet ok?

He doesn't have to be pale, or vegan, and I don't want to have to watch him battle cancer, so if he can quit smoking that would be awesome. Turn the beard into a goatee, and pierce the ears, and I'm all about it. Red wine please. I like that. Eyeliner ok if he can apply it correctly and pull it off. Egyptian men looked great in it...so does Johnny Depp.

:-)

[Gwendolyn]

102. Yes, I very much like your modifications!

:)

(And the quitting smoking altogether would be awesome!)

[Vektor]

253. Hahaha...cool.

Yeah. The ailments that accompany it are just not glamorous.

[omega minimo]

133. and not a POSEUR and not so emo he's all about him

[Vektor]

252. Hahaha. Good point.

Authenticity is great :-)

[omega minimo]

267. Authenticity while wearing eyeliner. That's something!

:rofl:

Weird too cuz I never see much authenticity in baseball caps unless they're in the field.

[Vektor]

298. Authenticity comes in all flavors.

If it's who you want to be, and you're being it, that's authenticity.

[omega minimo]

305. And if you saw it on American Idol..........

:yoiks:

[Vektor]

307. I've never seen the show. I don't watch TV.

So I don't have any idea what that's all about. :shrug:

[omega minimo]

308. good for you!

:toast: it might scare you to see ............

[Vektor]

310. So I hear.

People talk about the show at work all the time, and mostly about how the judges are crazy or appear drunk, and the contestants are either psychotic, shrill, or end up crying and humiliated by Simon WhatsHisName.

I think to myself, "Do I really want to see that?" :-)

[omega minimo]

311. I you want to see pop music "manufactured" before your very eyes, ya do.

[Vektor]

312. Yikes.

Sounds messy. :rofl:

[lumberjack_jeff]

185. You're not looking for a guy, you're looking for a colorforms set.

[omega minimo]

191. Hey WISEGUY eh?????!!!!!!

WhyIoughtta.........................

COLORFORMS ARE COOL!! :bounce:

[lumberjack_jeff]

193. I think colorforms are cool too. I used to have GI Joe ones.

Joe could be anything I wanted him to be.

[omega minimo]

201. awesome. My brother and I have some vintage GI Joes

buried in our parent's back yard.

[lumberjack_jeff]

207. Blasphemy!

Joe deserves a place of honor! Not to be buried in the sandbox of the unknown soldier!

[omega minimo]

210. No

They're in the shoebox of the unknown soldier. :patriot:

We had a lot of AF planes flying over our house.

[Vektor]

251. I'm not looking for anything. I'm happily taken.

And I'm also joking, to a degree. Just saying that there are a lot of interesting traits that a person can possess, and there are all sorts of combinations of characteristics that can make someone appealing.

[omega minimo]

127. "Its no different than a unattractive woman calling a pretty one a "slut" just because shes jealous"

[paulsby]

35. the first wave feminists were wrong, and that contributed to the problem

were wrong in their anti-scientific assumptions that behavioral difference between men and women were solely culturally based.

many quotes to this effect. it was simply wrong.

we know, for example, especially from transgenders who take exogenous hormones, that hormones significantly affect personality, drives, behavior, etc.

female bodybuilders who take lots of exogenous hormones, especially ones that are more androgenic (vs. those that are more anabolic) report the same thing.

and hormonal milieu is a big part, but not the sole component of the biological differentiation.

brain studies have also confirmed different hemispherization between men and women, for example.

so part of the problem is a backlash against the false notion that ALL gender differences are culturally driven.

of course SOME of them are, and some are biological.

heck, even infant studies show differences in behavior, problem solving tactics etc. in boys vs. girls.

there is no aspect of human behavior, and that includes gender roles and differentiation that are 100% genetic or 100% cultural.

period.

iow, the tabula rasa theory was dead wrong.

however, this does not excuse the "men being men" excuse for misogynistic behavior etc.

we still have free will and responsibility for our actions, men and women alike

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. That is true, but in being wrong they opened the discussion which

has led to a truer understanding of gender vs gender roles. We owe them a great debt.

[Taverner]

39. Hell, the first guys who worked on planes got it wrong

Eventually, though, we ended up with the 747 jet

[paulsby]

41. yes, but their ideology blinded them to science

which we see, for example - in creationists and many other ideologues.

that was the problem.

now, we have a much more balanced view, but even to this day, ideologues on all sides will always tend to ignore science when it offends their beliefs.

[seabeyond]

65. but i totally disagree we have much more balance. i am seeing today

with the "little" knowledge we have of science/evolution/biology we are using it for all kinds of excuses and validation for behavior that is misogynous. it seems to me we have gone to extreme in embracing it to justify extreme behavior, for both genders and common sense alone refutes it and is ignored. we cant help it/control it cause it is biological

[paulsby]

134. and that's wrong

morality is different from biology.

men have a biological drive to schtup anything with a pulse.

that doesn't excuse rape.

but IGNORING science is ALWAYS wrong.

nobody likes science when it conflicts with their prejudices.

my point is that ideologues do this frequently, regardless of the ideology

the tabula rasa theory of gender differentiation was insanely dismissive of science.

[omega minimo]

136. by your logic, the pulse is not required

:evilfrown:

I hope some men find your assertions as insulting to men as women do.

[seabeyond]

140. I hope some men find your assertions as insulting to men as women do

exactly

[omega minimo]

142. !

:thumbsup:

[paulsby]

148. god forbid scientific reality is acknowledged

it apparently upsets some people. it's "insulting"

[omega minimo]

158. "men have a biological drive to schtup anything with a pulse."

Are you changing the subject on purpose to deflect your reply as if that was the assertion that is insulting?

[paulsby]

165. not at all

i am saying the truth sometimes is insulting.

i'd rather be insulted with a truism than made to feel good by a lie.

[omega minimo]

171. sometimes deflection is bullshit

:puke:

[paulsby]

173. sometimes you are wrong. like for example... here

[omega minimo]

175. like I said son, Homey don't play dat

:kick:

[omega minimo]

189. god forbid logic is used in replying and proof is provided when claimed to exist

:wow:

[seabeyond]

190. lol lol.... ya. lol.

just hit me funny

god forbid

[omega minimo]

200. .

:shrug:

We're supposed to "acknowledge it" without it being presented

[Gwendolyn]

160. I don't find it insulting. What he says is quite true to my mind.

The proof of this is all around us. When have you ever read a story about some woman having her way with a goat, or a sheep, or someone's pet? 1000 times less often, and the female will usually do it for monetary gain, while men...just...do...it. For fun. That would qualify as anything with a pulse, I think. So would be going home with a woman you find intensely unattractive. Men do this far more often than women. And women don't spend even a fraction of what men do on porn, prostitutes, etc.

There is a biological impetus for this as well, since males can impregnate many women at once, while a woman can only give birth once a year or so.

Ask any female athlete who's augmented with testosterone, and she'll tell you that throughout her regimen, she would have had sex with a lamp post.

Why should men be ashamed of their sex drives? Or not talk about them? Why shouldn't women with high sex drives talk about it, or indulge their drives? For some reason that seems to be "okay" but the former isn't. Earlier on in the thread some woman said she would fuck Bill Maher if she was drunk enough, and I think that's great. But a man who talks about boning a barista is a POS. What's up with that? A penis is a boner. Hence boning is what you do with a boner. As always, the goal is to understand and find common ground. Some women are just too much.

[paulsby]

168. excellent

"There is a biological impetus for this as well, since males can impregnate many women at once, while a woman can only give birth once a year or so."

yes. biologically speaking, for me the optimal strategy is to impregnate as many women as possible, since he has (essentially) unlimited sperm.

even if he can only directly raise SOME of those kids, his DNA/Genetics will live on.

and there are few biological drives stronger than the continuation of YOUR dna.

contrarily, a woman can only give birth at most every 9 months, so she cannot "spread her seed". an optimal strategy for her is thus quite different than a man's.

"Ask any female athlete who's augmented with testosterone, and she'll tell you that throughout her regimen, she would have had sex with a lamp post.
"

correct. men have, on average , 10X the endogenous T levels that women do. women, who supplement begin to exhibit more classic "man like" behaviors and drives.

which is yet another irrefutable example of how men and women are biologically determined to be different.

i train with some of the strongest women in the country, fwiw (i am a strength athlete). many of these women naturally have testosterone levels much higher than the average man.

[Gwendolyn]

181. Aha. I have a number of female bodybuilder friends.

I guess spending time around them, and in the gym in general, maybe attunes one more to certain biological differences.

[lukasahero]

183. Do you or do you not believe in evolution? eom

[paulsby]

203. of course. why? nt

[lukasahero]

254. This biological imperative you speak of makes one wonder. eom

[omega minimo]

186. Let's try again

"....men have a biological drive to schtup anything with a pulse."

That's fine if you don't find that insulting. Like I said, I hope there's "some" and it the context of this discussion, it IS insulting to lump all men together in that regard. As if they're wind up toys with a permanent Pinocchio.

*

"I'm merely saying that when I hear "feminization" I think in terms of disingenuousness. Further, I find distressing that the need for that kind of fakery is both valid and rewarded.

"So, yeah. I'm at best bemused by the metrosexual in the coffee shop hoping to bone the barista by impressing her with his knowledge of Maya Angelou poetry."

If -- as he replied -- the poster was "using the phrase" to point out hypocrisy, he might have used "__" or :sarcasm: to make that clear. As it is, it appeared hypocritical in the context of post. It seemed to be his vocabulary, not something he was commenting on.

*

"Why shouldn't women with high sex drives talk about it, or indulge their drives? For some reason that seems to be "okay" but the former isn't."

Indeed. Some women would have "sex with a lampost" too. The "schtup" guys assertions miss your point, don't they, that both genders have sex drives? And people of both genders have different levels of T no matter what?

"But a man who talks about boning a barista is a POS."

No one said anyone was a "POS." (see above)


"A penis is a boner."

I thought he was a Senator :shrug: :evilgrin:


"As always, the goal is to understand and find common ground."

I certainly hope so. :pals:

[paulsby]

206. we are talking aggregate here

and population groups.

"That's fine if you don't find that insulting. Like I said, I hope there's "some" and it the context of this discussion, it IS insulting to lump all men together in that regard. As if they're wind up toys with a permanent Pinocchio."


these are general tendencies. ALL statements about behavior with genetic origins when applied to any GROUP have to be taken in that context.

surely, there is individual variation. that's a GIVEN.

a eugonadal man would have NO desire to schtup ANYTHING, for instance.


"Indeed. Some women would have "sex with a lampost" too. The "schtup" guys assertions miss your point, don't they, that both genders have sex drives? And people of both genders have different levels of T no matter what?"

that there is individual variation (think bell curves and population groups) does not deny the underlying point.

the existence of sheryl swoops does not negate the fact that men are on average taller than women.

[omega minimo]

213. and what WAS the point?

"that there is individual variation (think bell curves and population groups) does not deny the underlying point."

[paulsby]

218. simple

1) there are robust biologically determined differences between the sexes in all sorts of areas
2) that no amount of culturalization will negate these differences
3) that many first wave feminists and tabula rasa equality of condition ideologues ignore(d) (many do to this day) science when it conflicts with their prejudices about how they think men and women are and should be
4) that ideologues of all political persuasions are remarkably similar in how they will ignore evidence/science when it conflicts with their prejudice

[omega minimo]

222. OIC. And are you now more prepared to present your evidence to prove assertion # 3?

Thank you

[omega minimo]

241. Where'd he go?

:yoiks:

[Gwendolyn]

235. Ahhh... I'm losing track of this snaking thread!

:D

"That's fine if you don't find that insulting. Like I said, I hope there's "some" and it the context of this discussion, it IS insulting to lump all men together in that regard. As if they're wind up toys with a permanent Pinocchio."

Oh of course it's stereotyping. Very few men would have their way with an animal, but they are more likely to do so than a woman. Relatively few men rape, but they are more likely to do so than a woman. Both men and women sleep around, but more men will go to great lengths, and even debase themselves for it, than women, generally speaking. That's why I wouldn't find it insulting in the context of this kind of discussion, where space is limited, to make generalizations.

"If -- as he replied -- the poster was "using the phrase" to point out hypocrisy, he might have used "__" or to make that clear. As it is, it appeared hypocritical in the context of post. It seemed to be his vocabulary, not something he was commenting on."

Or maybe we're making too much of certain phrases. Boning doesn't inherently imply abusing someone. It's a term for having sex... and is similar to the word "fuck." That's why I don't find it sexist, even if lumberjack_jeff wasn't being sarcastic. Perhaps some people find it slang and crass, but again, as I said, women often make slang/crass comments, but no one would think anything of it. I realize that when people have been stuck in the subjugated role, it's much more sensitive... but I'd rather worry about equal pay and feeling safe on the street at night over whether somebody has a boner versus an erection. :D If a woman had said something about hitting a boy barista, wouldn't bat an eye at that either.

"Indeed. Some women would have "sex with a lampost" too. The "schtup" guys assertions miss your point, don't they, that both genders have sex drives? And people of both genders have different levels of T no matter what?"

"But a man who talks about boning a barista is a POS."

Some women naturally have really high sex drives, but again, the numbers seem to point more in the direction of males having greater needs in that area. There seems to be a perception that makes men "pigs" or incapable of being civilized, and I've certainly seen that thrown around here a few times. It's just a function of biology in most cases. Why is having a lower sex drive, or being more inhibited, somehow seen as more "normal" or civilized? I was exaggerating about the POS comment. :)

"I thought he was a Senator"

I thought that Boehner was more of a pri... never mind. :P

"I certainly hope so."

Me too! :hug:

[omega minimo]

237. That's fine

It seems we don't have to argue each other out of our POV's :thumbsup:

[paulsby]

146. science is often insulting

truth is truth.

we are not just our biology.

there is this thing called morals.

[seabeyond]

151. or... without any common sense we like to hold onto a fabricated theory cause meets agenda??? n/t

[omega minimo]

159. deflecting is often bullshit

and since you're back, do you have any of those "many quotes" we were interested in? :popcorn:

[Zhade]

271. Morals come from our biology. There's no other source.

NT!

[omega minimo]

279. Aha. There's a sticky wicket

:popcorn:

[seabeyond]

284. share

the :popcorn:

you have made me giggle tonight. i like your sense of humor.

[omega minimo]

290. okay, slide over

:popcorn: :pals:

[seabeyond]

304. you still havent address the issues you cant easily slide by. women get preg by alpha, drop

male and hook up with beta.

since all you men feel it, know it, that it is biological and there is no question at all, pure fact, then tell me....

why arent all us women equally feeling the need to screw the alpha, get preg, ditch him for a beta.

instead

we took the step to independence and have more and more decided to take care of self. totally flies in the face of your gotta be, caveman time

[seabeyond]

138. no

females want preg from alpha male dump him for beta male to be taken care of.

another of the gotta be's that isnt a gotta be.

[omega minimo]

144. The grass is always beta on the other side...........

[seabeyond]

145. lol lol... that was clever. hm. n/t

[paulsby]

156. that's my point

biology is only to some extent destiny

just because i have the drive to do X, doesn't mean i should do X, nor that i will be held blameless if i do X.

that's the reason societies evolve laws, taboos, religious prohibitions, etc.

unlike eric cartman, we don't do "whatever we want" in society

[omega minimo]

162. "that's the reason societies evolve laws, taboos, religious prohibitions, etc."

And many of those are used to subjugate women and alienate the feminine, which is what all waves of feminism challenge.

[paulsby]

164. who denies that? nt

[omega minimo]

170. Homey don't play dat

:evilfrown:

[paulsby]

174. 2 points for cryptic. zero for useful nt

[omega minimo]

176. that's yer joystick talkin

[paulsby]

178. i got yer joystick right here mr!

later, we can talk about "input, stephanie"

[omega minimo]

187. Surely you must be joking

And stop calling me stephanie :spray:

[paulsby]

202. i'm not

but have you ever been in a turkish prison?

ever seen a grown man naked?

[omega minimo]

204. growin what?

:wow:

[seabeyond]

184. you hang onto it, and then applaud the post reinforcing it then say we evolve

which i think is the calling the bullshit on this shit. yes, the point is, we evolve. for a male or for a female to be pinned on what they decided in cavemen day is not today. and it is a ridiculous argument to use. no common sense, not reality and very little factual information with the cavemen day. much of it is guess that we throw out as fact, ergo why males like young girls or why females go for old men. what was old women in cavemen day? 20, 25. was there such a thing as old them. but listen to the evolutionary scientist tell us why 50 yr olds dump their wives and go for a 20 yr old, cause biology tells them to. it is stupid.

we have evolved. we are not the caveman anymore and havent been forever. conditioning is a lot more reasonable why roles behave as they do than beginning of time

[paulsby]

211. get some science

CULTURALLY and intellectually we have evolved a lot in that time frame.

biologically, little to none at all.

take a 21st century baby and put him in a state of nature or primitive stone age society, and he will be little different from his ancestors a few thousand years ago.

you fail to understand the difference between culture/environment and biological urge.

much of what culture DOES is teach us how NOT to just do what our urges tell us to, and that there will be consequences if we do.

studies clearly show that men IN GENERAL prefer women (waist/hip ratios, etc.) that evidence fecundity and youth. why? because , in a primitive society, youth and some hips were a sign that the woman could give birth to a healthy child AND live to nurture it through it's youth.

with the advent of caesarians and modern medicine, stuff has changed. but biological drives HAVEN'T.

biology evolves MUCH more slowly than culture. you seem not to understand that. and to ignore the metric assloads of science that tries to show you that the truth is we are what we are.

your factless "debunking" lol of evolutionary biological science as "stupid" is no different than a creationist who poo poos the fossil record because it goes against the way they WANT the world to be/have been vs. the evidence of how it actually is.

typical

[seabeyond]

226. some hips were the sign the girl had reached

puberty ergo could get preg.

that is about the only biological conclusion in that whole mess of yours.

[Gwendolyn]

224. When we lose our pinkie toes and fingers, grow 2 new eyes, that will be evolution...

in action. The behavior modification changes between 1800 and 2009 are not the slightest blip, mean absolutely nothing in the grand scheme.

I won't repeat the other replies to you, as I'd just be repeating them.

But I also would ask why, if conditioning is all there is to it, transgendered people feel such an internal need, such an impetus to change their physical selves. Surely it must be a lot easier to just live with the body you got. What is it that makes a man so sure that inside, he's really a woman, and vice versa?

[omega minimo]

266. How bout a Third Eye?

:evilgrin:

"What is it that makes a man so sure that inside, he's really a woman, and vice versa?"

Past lives?

[omega minimo]

265. maybe at 25

men revert and start over, so 50 is like 25 again in caveman years?
:yoiks:

[omega minimo]

137. the "ideology" of "the first guys who worked on planes" "blinded them to science"

:wow:


Great song but you CANNOT be serious :spray:

[omega minimo]

139. A woman without a man is like a dolphin without an airplane

:rofl:

[omega minimo]

135. No one has shown that's true or provided those "many quotes" Would you like to try?

Appreciate your comment, but this false idea cannot go unchallenged.

"...were wrong in their anti-scientific assumptions that behavioral difference between men and women were solely culturally based."

Anyone who thinks that way is SOLELY mistaken.

[omega minimo]

48. "the first wave feminists were wrong" "that ALL gender differences are culturally driven."

Where do you get that notion? Will you be able to provide sources or some of the "many quotes to this effect"?

[Gwendolyn]

56. For starters, there was the pathetic drivel spouted by this mentally ill woman -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin

[Lilith Velkor]

99. Dworkin (may she rot in hell) was a second-wave feminist, not first

And if you had bothered to read her pathetic drivel, you would know that she ascribed innate differences to the sexes, such as the notion that only males are heterosexual.

Most gender differences are cultural, IMFO. If one makes a big deal about innate differences, it's usually because of a desire to uphold a double standard.

[Gwendolyn]

104. I've only read some of her drivel...

to me it's much like attempting to read "Mein Kampf." It's a rambling diatribe.

The one thing I do remember about her work was the attempt to foment hate between the sexes, as in "all sex with men is rape" etc... Not very healthy IMO. I realize she was late in the game, but did think she was a first-waver. I'll have to dig around to find out who the first-wavers really were.

Some gender differences are cultural, some are not. I say this based on my experiences, as well as some of the info related to me by professional female athletes who have experimented on themselves and came away with interesting conclusions.

And if one wants to use the example of global culture, surely most people would agree that in order to understand each other, people must have an understanding of the differences to find some common ground. A Western European won't have the same sensibilities as another from Pakistan or Japan. I don't think that poster Paulsby was insinuating that ALL differences are biological, but they shouldn't be ignored altogether. Who wants to be one big homogenous society anyway.

[Lilith Velkor]

126. First wave = 1910s

One can hardly be blamed for wanting to minimize "biological differences" when those differences were used to rationalize disenfranchisement.

And I disagree about ignoring those differences. You don't see white folks going around being all "white people this, black people that" without being called on their racism, do you?

[Gwendolyn]

238. I was momentarily dazed over the First Wave/Second Wave thing.

I agree with you about wanting to minimize biological differences in the past, when women were patronized, subjugated, reviled and laughed at for being the "weaker sex." But we've grown some since then. There may be still a road ahead, but it seems less and less necessary to butt heads with the kind of condescension which implies women are biologically inferior (fanatical religious propaganda notwithstanding). Who wants to go back to the 80s when women wore enormo shoulder pads to appear "strong" and capable. There seems less to prove, thankfully, and more and more people are just living as humans, rather than within strict gender roles. So as we gain a better equilibrium it seems okay to start acknowledging some basic differences. If only to live better with each other.

[Taverner]

110. She tried to create her own wave, alongside Catherine McKinnon. Real second wave is bell hooks

Whom I wish every High Schooler would be forced to read - I swear she's a genius

[omega minimo]

119. paulsby didn't reply and so far no one has substantiated the "all" claim

the same couple authors are always pointed to in this kind of overstatement. It sounds like Dittohead crap that has filtered into some Dem's miseducation somewhere along the line.

If I wanted to point to an insane "feminist" i'd pick Camille Paglia.

[Taverner]

122. Paglia is right on sex though

I know I ruffle a lot of feathers, but the sex industry, whether porn or prostitution, can be empowering. She's right on that. Sexual freedom IS empowerment.

But her Libertarian attitude bugs me...

[seabeyond]

130. i dont think it is so black and white even with her.

But at the same time, to acknowledge the excesses of the '60s--the way there was a total breakdown of law and order, a self-destruction by drugs. (And I support legalization of drugs even while I can see the damage that was wrought to my generation through drugs.) How the sexual revolution ended in AIDS. Again, I uphold all pagan expressions of sex. And at the same time I say that this is the way nature reacts toward unrestrained promiscuous sex, that the evidence was there in the history of syphilis. It's not true that AIDS came out of nowhere.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29737.html

[Taverner]

I don't think AIDS was nature reacting at all

It was an opportunistic infection that hitched a ride in mucous membranes. All it does is reinforce the truism that germs exist, and we need to take precautions. Hence, condoms.

I used to have a bumper sticker that said "Be the Gods you once worshiped" - the message is clear, if a road is bumpy, make fatter tires.

[seabeyond]

143. then you only agree with Camille Paglia on very limited stuff.

claiing only a very small selection of what she thinks as right.

the point being is i wonder if your interpretation of what she is saying is actually what she is saying

[Taverner]

147. Where I agree with her is her opinion of the sex industry itself

Like I said, a lot of her libertarian leanings are just batshit

[seabeyond]

153. on edit: never mind. dont care, wink. n/t

[Taverner]

230. Perhaps, perhaps not - but she did define a feminism that wasn't anti-sexual

As was very popular previously

[seabeyond]

244. the only thing i got from feminism in the 70's and 80's is i wasnt suppose to want sex

i dismissed feminism because of that.

but it was also how feminism was represented too, by the media, by those intimidated and afraid of it.

now that i am older, i see that there was much more in that than just the line you and i are fed.

[omega minimo]

295. Paglia's a Wave all on her own

Waving at the bats in her belfry

How does anyone know what she is saying is actually what she is saying? :yoiks: :freak:

[omega minimo]

150. AIDS also was allowed to spread when it still was stoppable, used by the RW to poison attitudes

toward previous "excesses" and successes of progress.

[paulsby]

154. AIDS was allowed to spread by people on both sides of the political aisle

read the band played on by shilts.

the rightwingers ignored it, but so did many on the left, albeit for different reasons.

for example, shutting down the bathhouses would have helped stop the spread at the beginning

that was viewed as political suicide.

lots of blame to go around, sadly

reagan was pretty egregious in ignoring it for a long time

[omega minimo]

157. That was the beginning of Reaganism and you're right a lot of people went along for the ride.

[omega minimo]

141. Her nonsensical rabid insane ramblings and janglings bug me. Unreadable ravings

[seabeyond]

149. oh and her pro macho manly men *slurp* and those horrible women with pretty hair

sticking out their boobs.... (was talking about wolfe). i actually had to google her to see what she was really saying cause we like to pick and chose what we want to believe.....

[Gwendolyn]

120. Thanks!

:)

I got confoosed, and it's indefensible. Paulsby talked about first-wave feminism and certainly didn't think he was talking about the Suffragettes, since it seems they were more interested in practical changes, whereas it was the second wave that really started to approach gender differences/feminism from other angles. It's been a few years since I've picked up any material but I'll look into Bell Hooks. I've read about her, but nothing by her. So thanks again!

[Lilith Velkor]

124. I loves me some bell hooks

Bill Maher should be chained to her kitchen table for a long afternoon with her and a pot of coffee. I guarantee that would straighten his ass up.

eta: I like Bill Maher, I'd even fuck him if I were drunk enough, but he needs educating on some things.

[Taverner]

128. Yes, his view of monagamy is one sided

I love Bill Maher too - but you're right, hooks would set him straight

I saw her speak once, and she has 'it', whatever 'it' is - but she's got 'it'

[Lilith Velkor]

205. What exactly is his view of monogamy?

Is it the same old boring double standard?

I'm not monogamous myself, and I let people know up front. Last time I was involved in a "progressive" group, I got a lot of shit for it, and the one person who took my side was - wait for it - a "metrosexual" guy!

[Taverner]

227. Its that whole Frat Boy line that getting married means handing your testicles to your wife

I still have mine attached

[omega minimo]

240. aka "the old ball and chain"

[Lilith Velkor]

245. Well, monogamy is not for everyone

Now I remember the routine, in which he expressed resentment about how the wives of his married buddies wouldn't let their husbands hang out with him.

I sympathize, having been in a similar position myself. But that had nothing to do with testicles - my former friends were just chickenshit assholes, so I had to get new ones. It happens.

[Taverner]

246. No - it is not at all

In fact I think men have to learn it biologically. We have to do things to trick the body into thinking they aren't.

[Lilith Velkor]

247. The expectation of monogamy is cultural.

With men, it is socially acceptable to admit they don't want to be monogamous - in fact, a man is considered deviant if he does.

With women, it's the other way around. Given that cultural arrangement, what could possibly go wrong? :crazy:

[Taverner]

259. LOL - Never looked at it that way

But you're spot on

[paulsby]

152. here we go

with the motivation canard.

"if one makes a big deal about innate differences, it's usually because of a DESIRE..."

no, one should discuss, study and understand the differences.

discounting those who "make a big deal" of them by imputing their motives is dismissive of scientific study and empiricism

science often leads us to uncomfortable and inconvenient truths.

[Lilith Velkor]

212. My, aren't we defensive?

Tell me, Mr. Man, what is the uncomfortable and inconvenient truth that science has delivered unto us regarding the difference between the sexes?

Does it involve enforcing moldy old stereotypes? I bet it does.

[paulsby]

214. no, it's typical of anti-science luddites like you

that you discount science when it disagrees with your prejudices.

there are many truths about the differences between men and women.

the hormonal milieu (consider the effects of oxytocin, estradiol, testosterone on behavior), and the biology are different.

you are making the exact same error that anti-science creationists (and many first wave feminists and other ideologues did) by dismissing scientific realities that you see as inconsistent with your prejudices.

some examples of how men and women differ are in how they deal with risk (risk aversion, measurement of risk), brain hemisphere differentiation, statistical deviation from the mean (men deviate more than women, which is why there are going to be more males with +140 iq's and more males with sub 60 iq's), tendencies towards aggression, sexuality, etc.

[Lilith Velkor]

220. Personal attacks, check. No links, check.

I am duly impressed with your display of anger.

But not inclined to take you at all seriously. Methinks I have struck a nerve. :rofl:

[paulsby]

223. if you want links

ask. although maybe u should have studied this topic BEFORE forming an opinion.

that's how science based people operate.

try it some time

[Lilith Velkor]

242. Look up "rhetorical question" sometime.

I suspected you had nothing but bluster. Thanks loads for confirming it! :x

"science based" :rofl:

[GinaMaria]

74. This is being put on the shoulders of the suffergettes?

that seems a bit odd.

[omega minimo]

131. Wrong: The feminist movement did that

"there has been no such equivalent movement that has challenged assumptions of what it is to be a man."

[Gwendolyn]

27. If feminized means pruning unruly back hair... I'm all for it.

But for the rest, I agree with you. Testosterone is a good thing. It's the mirror to estrogen and embrace the differences whole-heartedly.

[Quantess]

50. Males and females manipulate their personas to seem sexy. Sometimes they try too hard, granted.

Sometimes in young people it is an obviously transparent act, like he/she has watched too many movies. And, some people persist in trying to act and/or look a certain way because it makes them feel attractive and sexy. They grow into their persona with time, or they "tone it down", or they stop caring about their perceived attractiveness altogether.

But, for every man or woman who seems a caricature, there is someone who is attracted to caricatures. Every man who takes pride in being the "cute guy next door" and every woman who personifies "the cute girl nextdoor" have a large pool of admirers.

There are also men and women who pretty much let themselves go, and they also find love.

Am I missing something here?

[lumberjack_jeff]

58. A woman doesn't feel the need to choose between two extremes to do so.

There is a feminine mean which is not seen as inherently bad; to be avoided at all cost.

Granted, not every man feels the need to reject that mainstream masculine archetype.

[Lilith Velkor]

101. If that's what it takes to get them to FUCKING BATHE, then so be it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

196. Tourette's acting up? n/t

[LeftyMom]

28. I think demanding slavish adherence to gender roles is damaging to both sexes.

Happy, secure people don't think about whether they're upholding a masculine or feminine stereotype because they're too busy just being themselves.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

30. i think bdsm.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

37. Some of us grow beyond that male/female bullshit imposed on us early in life.

"We're trained to see only male or female and to plot people into those categories when they actually don't fit neatly at all. But if we pause, watch and listen closely we'll see the multiplicity of ways in which people are sexed and gendered. There exists a range of personal identifications around woman, man, in-between--we don't even have names or pronouns that reflect that in between place but people certainly live in it."
--Minnie Bruce Pratt

Pratt nailed it perfectly for me.

[Taverner]

38. I agree with that....to a point

While it is true that one's sexuality and gender differs from person to person, and there is no "correct" gender identification and/or sexuality - I have always had a problem with the whole pipe dream of living beyond labels. As a visually focused species, we need labels. Labels are essential for our survival. Without them, we might as well give up language.

I apologize if I misunderstood the quote.

[seabeyond]

57. oh, ew. and to actually go beyond and not live by labels is bliss, once done

i think a lot of us feel a comfort and security in it. i dont believe it is a must and that there really is that security one thinks, once beyond.

[retread]

40. "...eschew the masculine." Geshundheit! n/t

[Withywindle]

51. I think that term hits the trifecta!

It's misogynistic, homophobic, and transphobic.


For me, as a woman, I find the stereotype offensive. What does "feminized" mean? cares about Fashion? Children? Long conversations about emotions? I'm a woman with less than zero interest in any of the above. I'm not a random outlier, I'm one of many.

For thousands of years, all sorts of stereotypically "feminine" trappings have been used to insult gay men, with the idea that to be gay meant to take the "role" of the "woman," (bottoms only, right, as if the majority of gay men, if they do intercourse at all, aren't switches)--which is the most degrading thing a man could possibly do, right, to be like a woman in any way? Oh, what an INSULT. How AWFUL and OFFENSIVE. :puke:

Transphobic? Guess what? There are people whose biological physical sex does not match the gender of their *self.* This goes both ways. "Feminized man." "Masculinized woman." Well, if the two most common genders didn't have such hate for each other and if society didn't cling with such pathological superstitious neediness to the "pink blanket or blue" dichotomy, maybe we'd eventually come around to understanding that gender and sexuality are so, SO much more than either/or, innie/outie, etcetera.

[Urban Prairie]

52. 1972-4 is what comes to my mind

The brief glam era during my HS years

Capes, makeup, glitter, costumes

Some examples:

David Bowie
Kinks
Mott The Hoople
T-Rex
The New York Dolls
Slade
KISS
Todd Rundgren
Iggy Pop
Alice Cooper
Yes
Queen
The Sweet
Roxy Music
The Pretty Things
Badfinger

[Enrique]

61. it's part of the reaction to feminism

and to the 60's in general.

I've heard the "concern" mostly from neocons. They aren't just interested in foreign policy, they also created the Culture Wars.

[Vektor]

63. A term coined by hairy, smelly, unattractive men who are jealous of more attractive men?

The only guys I have ever witnessed using those terms are redneck apes with poor personal hygiene, talking trash about better looking, better dressed, more educated men.

And it says more about the idiot doing the name-calling than it does about the subject of their envy.

Political correctness has nothing to do with gender. It simply means being respectful of others instead of being an asshole bigot.

Another poster on DU (I wish I could remember who, I'd give proper credit) summed up political correctness better than anyone I have ever heard:


"That whole "politically correct" meme, however it started, is now nothing more than a rhetorical battering ram the RW uses to try and silence all progressives, and also to falsely present bigoted statements as acts of heroic political courage."

[omega minimo]

169. I wish I had

"That whole "politically correct" meme, however it started, is now nothing more than a rhetorical battering ram the RW uses to try and silence all progressives, and also to falsely present bigoted statements as acts of heroic political courage."

[JI7]

233. yes, remember when Sean Penn referred to Obama as elegant ?

and fugly ass freeper types were going on about how Penn and Obama are not real men.

these are people who think Bush is a "manly man".

truth is that Obama is what a large majority of women would find attractive. even freeper woman admit they don't find BUsh attractive.

[guitar man]

66. I hate it!

I prefer the classics:

Candy Ass
Panty Waist
Sissy Boy
Namby Pamby

:silly:



:sarcasm: (for the impaired)

[seabeyond]

68. i prefer candy ass, not either male/female and i can use it on girls too. lol, wink

on thought... unless it came from soemthing i dont know about and really in reference to female being weak. whenever going after male for being weak, we tend to refer to him as a female. kinda offensive, being female

[guitar man]

71. I think you're right

I think candy ass actually is gender neutral. Now that I think back to high school, I can remember the girl's basketball coach shouting it at her players during players as well as hearing it from my baseball coach. ;)

[seabeyond]

76. lol lol. a word we can all use, without offending, well except the one being called it

but then again, they should get the ass going, lol.

yes

it was a word my father used and i did hear often in the day, without offense, by coaches, now you mention

[guitar man]

77. yes, I hollered ut at the tv news many times

every time the congress came up with a reason not to impeach W*, I called them a bunch of candy-asses :D

[BlooInBloo]

67. It's exactly analogous to "reverse racism"....

"Reverse racism" = white folks whining about not being allowed to be racist.
"Feminized men" = men whining about not being allowed to be sexist.

[seabeyond]

69. i think so. i like how you posted it in clarity. n/t

[GinaMaria]

72. I think it's used to promote 'entitlement' to a certain set of behaviors

the way I've heard it used is in mass forwarded emails that describe what a man is 'entitled' to and will include things like blow jobs, cooked meals, clean laundry and basically being waited on like a lord simply because of a y chromosome.

It suggests that women who insist on equality are feminizing or castrating men and men need to 'assert' their 'right' to be abusive, selfish, or what ever disrespectful behavior they want to engage in and have it deemed as natural and right.

It reminds me of growing up and hearing frequently that men were smarter than women and other nonsense from the adult males in my family and community. It's a bunch of myth wrapped up to look like logic and science.

[Gwendolyn]

97. Oral sex is now demeaning? First I hear of that.

[seabeyond]

103. which, gwendolyn, she clearly did not say. n/t

[GinaMaria]

106. I didn't say that

but it's not something anyone is 'entitled' to.

[Gwendolyn]

114. Sorry if I misunderstood. But what does this mean:

"I've heard it used is in mass forwarded emails that describe what a man is 'entitled' to and will include things like blow jobs, cooked meals, clean laundry and basically being waited on like a lord simply because of a y chromosome."

It seemed as though you meant oral sex is demeaning to a woman from that first sentence. As a woman don't you feel just as EQUALLY entitled to receive pleasure from your partner? Maybe it's just my sensitivity to it, but the longer women look at sex as a chore, something to barter, or a gift, the longer the stereotype will exist that women don't care, or don't really need to be satisfied. Who knows, maybe it really is just me, cause I do think people in a relationship are both entitled to satisfaction.

And btw... don't female-oriented, mass-forwarded emails have their own sets of complaints and demands, which often also reference skills in that area?

[Taverner]

125. One shard of critical thought...sex is a weapon, bargaining chip and currency

On both ends

I always get upset when hearing x "objectifies" women. Well of course it does! This is capitalism! Everything is an object. When you work for a company, you are not John Smith, human. You are a resource - hence the Department of Human Resources. You can be bought, sold, insured (look up Dead Peasant's Insurance for an extreme example) and your product is not your own, your labor is not your own. It is owned by the company. So when a person takes it in a sexual context, why is that suddenly bad?

[omega minimo]

166. Are you serious?

[Lilith Velkor]

217. I agree w/Taverner, and yes, I am.

A lot of the arguments against sex work can also be applied to wage slavery in general.

[omega minimo]

225. Well thank you, it can be read both ways, depending on POV

"One shard of critical thought...sex is a weapon, bargaining chip and currency

"On both ends

"I always get upset when hearing x "objectifies" women. Well of course it does! This is capitalism! Everything is an object. When you work for a company, you are not John Smith, human. You are a resource - hence the Department of Human Resources. You can be bought, sold, insured (look up Dead Peasant's Insurance for an extreme example) and your product is not your own, your labor is not your own. It is owned by the company. So when a person takes it in a sexual context, why is that suddenly bad?"


To those who came before objectification was justified by capitalism; before that was considered a "no brainer" by some folks or a generation or two; before everyone had a "everyone works for a company mentality" and pushed back against corporatism as a defining brand of our society; before people assumed we're all "owned by the company," that post could be a parody.

And if that mentality is used to justify the objectification and subjugation of women and understand it less, that's really bizarre.

"Well of course it does! This is capitalism! Everything is an object."

Accepting that means we do it to ourselves, willingly complying with the overlords.

Orwell was right. Again.

[Lilith Velkor]

243. Your post makes no sense.

I oppose wage slavery whether the work is sexual or not.

BTW, you do know that there is such a thing as male prostitutes, right?

[omega minimo]

256. Maybe we're filtering it differently. I'm talking about people in general, not limited to sex work

and objectification in general.

It seemed the previous post reflected commodification of us all as a "given." If we accept that, we tyrannize ourselves.

Sorry if we're talking past each other, I'm doing my best to clarify.

[Lilith Velkor]

263. S' OK

I understand now. We seem to agree.

[omega minimo]

264. coolness

[Taverner]

231. I am, and honestly - what does the CEO of your company think of you?

Are you a statistic, or a "valued compatriot"?

Its just hypocritical to be for objectification in every sense except sex, that's all I'm saying

[omega minimo]

236. That makes sense

"Its just hypocritical to be for objectification in every sense except sex"

I am not for "objectification in every sense"

:hi:

[omega minimo]

155. You misread it

Gina Maria wrote:

"I think it's used to promote 'entitlement' to a certain set of behaviors" to describe "what a man is 'entitled' to and will include things like blow jobs, cooked meals, clean laundry and basically being waited on like a lord simply because of a y chromosome."


It's the entitlement that's the issue.


"It suggests that women who insist on equality are feminizing or castrating men and men need to 'assert' their 'right' to be abusive, selfish, or what ever disrespectful behavior they want to engage in and have it deemed as natural and right."

Well put, too.

It sounds like you are the one who views blow jobs as punishment.

[Gwendolyn]

167. Thanks for your response. n/t

[omega minimo]

172. You're welcome

:hi:

[GinaMaria]

219. Ummm.... did you read the OP?

don't female-oriented, mass-forwarded emails have their own sets of complaints and demands, which often also reference skills in that area?

I answered the OP's question as best I could. There's an email that goes around that talks about the feminizing of men and lists a bunch of things that the author(s)think men are entitled to like home cooked meals, blow jobs etc. This sexist crap about being owed something for being male or entitled to certain things because of a y chromosome is the context this term 'feminized male' is used in.

I never used the word demeaning, you did and it seems an odd choice of words. Let's leave it at that.

[omega minimo]

239. yeah

its seems the poster was headed for the tips:

"...don't female-oriented, mass-forwarded emails have their own sets of complaints and demands, which often also reference skills in that area?" (blow jobs)

[GinaMaria]

249. we all go off our nut sometimes.... eom

[omega minimo]

262. (Jim Ward Michael Jackson voice): "Okey, zackly what arerarrerea" are we talkin about?"

:spray: :evilgrin:

Now I'M confus-ed! :crazy:

This thread has wound around and twisted and been interesting and still unflamed and "we all go off our nut sometimes"

Let me get this straight (pun intended):


post: "I've heard it used is in mass forwarded emails that describe what a man is 'entitled' to and will include things like blow jobs, cooked meals, clean laundry and basically being waited on like a lord simply because of a y chromosome."

reply: "It seemed as though you meant oral sex is demeaning to a woman from that first sentence. As a woman don't you feel just as EQUALLY entitled to receive pleasure from your partner? Maybe it's just my sensitivity to it, but the longer women look at sex as a chore, something to barter, or a gift, the longer the stereotype will exist that women don't care, or don't really need to be satisfied. Who knows, maybe it really is just me, cause I do think people in a relationship are both entitled to satisfaction."

"And btw... don't female-oriented, mass-forwarded emails have their own sets of complaints and demands, which often also reference skills in that area?"

It seems our correspondent:
--applied your comment about self entitled and demeaning demands of various kinds in only one "arerarrerea" (it ain't the kitchen sink).
--applied "demeaning" and "chore" to that "arerarrerea"
--assumed (straight) women don't like applying themselves to that "arerarrerea"
--assumed (straight) women need "complaints and demands" to get attention in their own "arerarrerea" (maybe I don't watch Oprah enough)


:wow:

Here's a clue for that misperception: If anyone is forcing anyone to do anything without consent, that's demeaning.

Maybe that's why the assumptions (including from some women -- I see Oprah sometimes) about what they like or not is from being FORCED or coerced or literally PUSHED to do it................

:think: :hi:

[GinaMaria]

291. I might have misunderstood your post

I thought you were using innuendo with the words 'headed' and 'tips' ::blush: Guess I'm a perv. So I used an old expression about being off her nut (crazy) to give my 2 cents about the correspondent who doesn't seem to understand my posts. And of course nut had that bit of double meaning too. Really bad, but the best I could do. It pales in comparison.

The notion that anyone feels entitled to something they like, is a disturbing one. A sense of entitlement can hinder respect and boundaries, imho. I prefer gratitude as my approach to life. I try to appreciate what ever comes my way, but don't waste energy demanding it. I know you get this, but apparently, I have not been clear or someone has comprehension problems.

To be fair, my husband read my post and I had to clarify for him that I do not think Blow Jobs are disrespectful. He seemed quite panicked for a moment there, poor guy. But as someone with the most to lose, if that were my attitude, he was able to comprehend my meaning with just a couple sentences.

I read down thread our correspondent still either isn't willing or able to grasp what I had to say. The best part of this thread are your posts. Really enjoy your humor. Thanks for being there.

I don't really watch Oprah. She's on at 9AM in Chicago and I'm at work. Oprah is a luxury, I can't afford and maybe if I've read your post correctly, not so much of a luxury.

Take care of yourself and stay sane. Talk to you soon

:hi:

[omega minimo]

292. lol

I may have missed "headed" :rofl: :spray:

m just glad I didn't misunderrepresent myself so you thought I was challenging your post. :thumbsup: Thanks for the reply and :rofl:

"...I had to clarify for him that I do not think Blow Jobs are disrespectful." :spray: Looks like we're back where we started -- "disrepectful to WHOM?"

Thankfully you and I comprehend the difference b/w coercion (boot or hand on the back of the neck) vs. cooperation (and hubby did too, once he calmed down).

"But as someone with the most to lose, if that were my attitude, he was able to comprehend my meaning with just a couple sentences."

:rofl:

I guess the cats out o the bag. Women enjoy blowjobs too. :thumbsup: :wow:

As far as "pales in comparison," there's an even worse bad pun/freudian slip/unedited typo in thread but no ones called me on it yet.

So very nice to meet you. :toast: GinaMaria

[GinaMaria]

299. Oh I saw it

I thought it was deliberate. I laughed out loud when I read it.

All this tit for tat and someone thinking inside the box, well.... I think I'm out of innuendo

Have a good day.

[Gwendolyn]

250. No, actually I was referring to males having skills in the area of pleasing women.

[omega minimo]

257. Oh

I thought you were talking about an area where women also enjoy pleasing men.

But it ain't a "privilege"

:wow:

[Gwendolyn]

268. Lol, not sure what you mean but nah, it's not a privilege for anyone.

But going back to differences, just look at this little exchange. If some guy had posted negatively, saying he was getting emails saying something to the effect that women expected this and that, and ALSO to be serviced orally, do you think it would have gone the same way?

Probably (maybe not here but elsewhere for sure) the other guys would pipe in with replies like "hahaha, you need to get all over that man, you gotta give some to get some." Or something like that. If any male had responded with "well, women aren't entitled to anything," or "no one is entitled to anything," most females reading it would think "yech, what a crap, selfish lover he must be." Other males reading it would be thinking "hope you're good friends with the hand dude."

Yet no one thinks anything of it when women react that way. Those are differences. And yes I know that it wasn't long ago women were coerced into acts, which is terrible of course, but today is today.

[omega minimo]

281. "Today is today" and you think much has changed?

One reason there might be different reaction as you suggest is that our society is set up such that male privilege still exists, is not recognized because it doesn't serve males to recognize it and is flamed b/c some don't understand that that hierarchy affects both/all genders and to comment on it is NOT to poiint a finger at individuals males.......




So........................




"Probably (maybe not here but elsewhere for sure) the other guys would pipe in with replies like "hahaha, you need to get all over that man, you gotta give some to get some." Or something like that."







So no. The prevailing culture and cultural attitudes do not reflect an attitude of "you gotta give come to get some."






Today is today and women are still coereced into various "acts" because of their status in the pecking order.

[Name removed]

282. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seabeyond]

285. .

i havent seen a post like this. that is just funny.... lol. wow. every day. damn.

[GinaMaria]

300. FYI, I asked the mods to delete my post

since I could no longer do it myself. After sleeping on it, I didn't feel right responding that way. It was a bit funny, but I felt really mean.

[seabeyond]

302. yes, it was

mean. i dont do mean. and generally offended with others mean too. but that was funny, lol.

ahhh

you repent. wink

[omega minimo]

293. btw

I could have made it "aka the old balls and chain"

:yoiks:

[Brooklyns_Finest]

248. Oh hell no!

[Taverner]

113. She didn't say that - she said (IMOW) forced blowjobs

Or expecting them...

Guys need to know you earn blowjobs ;) (please laugh at my joke...pretty please?)

[Gwendolyn]

123. Hehehe!

:D Well, even the earning part can be fun for both!

[GinaMaria]

216. I'm laughing

very funny....

[Proud Liberal Dem]

75. What is a "feminized man" and what do they look like?

Speaking as somebody who "straddles the line" (as the OP put it) and has never really fit in with my same-sex peers (by accident or design), I tend to personally eschew any kind of "social constructs" such as gender. Simply put, I think that such artificial constructs (and the expectations thereof) are counterproductive and harmful in terms of forcing people to look, act, feel, etc. in ways that simply might not not work for them- and then subsequently causing them distress when they can't "measure up" to other people's standards and definitions and setting them up to be ridiculed for being "different". Also, people, whether male or female, are, realistically speaking, all over the map in terms of personality, mood, temperaments, interests, sexual preferences, etc. so to try and nail everybody down and put them in a box is ultimately a pointless exercise that ultimately causes a huge waste of time better spent on dealing with other things, as well as provoking a lot of unnecessary conflict.

[Zhade]

272. Hot, IMHO.

: )

[mitchum]

273. They look pear-shaped

[seabeyond]

274. maybe hot, maybe pear shaped, .... BUT

i do like and agree with what you say.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

288. LOL

Thanks!:hi:

[cherokeeprogressive]

78. I think it doesn't apply to me.

[deaniac21]

83. and Maher is as metrosexual as they come!

[Taverner]

108. Yes but in his case he uses it to describe married men

As in, you get married and suddenly you're your wive's slave

[deaniac21]

195. Any man getting some is somebody's slave.

[Starry Messenger]

93. I have only seen the term used by conservatives.

Usually as a code for "liberal".

[PVnRT]

105. Bullshit right-wing whine term

Being a slob who eats nothing but red meat and Bud Light does not make you any more of a man.

I think the real thrust behind the term is gay-bashing - the evil queers are making men more like women so that they can fuck them in the ass.

(I realize that's crude, and apologize, but that is the way many of them think)

[Taverner]

107. "Bullshit right-wing whine term" I like that!

[librechik]

109. intended as an insult to women and men alike

Newt Must DIE!

[Taverner]

111. Did Newt the Gingrich come up with that term

Wouldn't surprise me....

[librechik]

112. yes, more or less.

It was his idea to suggest Dems were feminine men with language, so yes.

[devilgrrl]

121. I think it is much ado about nothing. Just a term to keep people at each others throats.

eom

[EmilyAnne]

161. Its pretty meaningless. There have been so many periods in history where "feminized men" were the

norm. Powdery wigs, lavender ascots, high heels with satin knee breaches, writing flowery love poems. What some people consider feminized will change in a few years. Its all relative and it shouldn't matter. Men who dress as women are perhaps feminizing themselves in some way, but why would that make any difference to men unless they are jealous or uncomfortable with their own displays of gender.

[Lorien]

163. 'feminized" men as opposed to rude violent knuckle draggers?

"politically correct" translates to "thoughtful and well mannered" to me. "Feminized" is much the same. Women are sure as hell not "weak", so I consider it a complement!

[lumberjack_jeff]

234. The problem is that society recognizes nothing in between. n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

228. I think it's silly

And it reflects a backwards looking idea and ideal of what it is to be "masculine". And yes, I agree with your last sentiment - it's always said with a sneer, and meant to both demean the subject and imply that to be more like women is a bad thing.

As if.

[Runcible Spoon]

232. Social Darwinism and its evil cousin Biological Determinsm alive and well on DU as usual

Wow, a lot of people really need to take a 100 level anthropology, sociology, or gender studies class.

Sad.

[Taverner]

258. Are you saying that you believe in the "Tabla Rasa" theory?

[Runcible Spoon]

276. Where did I say that?

:shrug:

I merely don't agree that the gender dichotomy that was honed over a few thousand years of Abrahamic religion and cultural influence, and was "naturalized" to be accepted reflexively as it is conveniently used as a tool of patriarchy during the 18th C evolutionist movement, is concrete evidence that social behavior termed "male/female" is deeply ingrained in our brains. Brains are dynamic organs, and recurring patterns of thought etch deep synaptic pathways. What your brain looks like when you are born is markedly different than what it looks like when you die. I don't buy the argument that people who are culturally entrenched in stereotypical gender behavior, as most of us are (especially as evidenced by this thread), can have their brains inspected and judged to be reflecting any sort of universal "maleness/femaleness".

Am I dismissing the possibility of innate differences in physical brain structure between males and females? No, but I recognize that it's impossible to draw any actual conclusions about behavior from these physical differences and I'm certainly not going to jump on any bandwagons of PREDICTIVE BEHAVIOR/DETERMINISM.

There is no binary war between nature and nurture; one is born with a genetic blueprint and environmental factors influence the degree in which these genetic predispositions are expressed or repressed. Anything related to gender is certainly relevant as well; it is also well worth mentioning that there are chromosomal configurations besides XX and XY and some of these may not manifest phenotypically; XYY syndrome for example. Any male on this thread might be XYY and would never even know it.

Most people on both sides of the argument on this thread are woefully misinformed about these issues, including the history of feminist movements. They have just enough information to form static opinions and defend them without reflection.

I've had this argument many times on DU so I hope you will forgive me if I don't respond on this thread beyond this statement.

[Taverner]

278. I'm not saying that - just asking

As for me, I think determinism (if that is what you want to call it) is something that manifests itself differently in different people and species...

Take for example an heroin addict who loves to shoot up to the Velvet Underground and someone who has heard or done neither. Hearing "Venus in Furs" will trigger quite a different response in both individuals. Take two heroin addicts who like to shoot up to that song - both of them will react differently to hearing that song.

For example, a male dog smells the hormones of a female dog and suddenly he's in tunnel vision mode to breed with her.

We are not the same way, but to say there are not vestigal triggers would be nonsense.

As for a universal maleness/femaleness, I think we both agree that is BS. But to say men are exactly the same as women would also be of the same nonsense.

I think we agree more than disagree here...

[seabeyond]

286. damn... you are one of the smart ones, lol

hey... what you said.

[omega minimo]

296. But humans don't evolve

" Brains are dynamic organs, and recurring patterns of thought etch deep synaptic pathways. What your brain looks like when you are born is markedly different than what it looks like when you die. "

:eyes:


That word is reserved for special people to use and decide how, when, where and if it is used by others.


Thank you for deigning to drop in to this thread. :we'renotworthy:

[Dr Fate]

260. Sounds like something Jeff Christie- er- I mean Rush Limbaugh might say.

The poker playing, football watching, womanizing , whiskey drinking, conservative John Wayne vs. the bookish, hen-pecked, white wine sipping, weak-wristed, Liberal male.

This is all very 1980's.

Do either extrmes even exist anymore, at least on a measurable level?

This is just like calling Obama a "socialist"- it's not meant to be accurate or educational, but meant to obscure reality.

[MrSlayer]

261. I don't think about it at all really.

It's meaningless to me.

[Brooklyns_Finest]

275. Feminzed men

I see a lot of that now a days. You can't get in to a fight now a days without some wuss trying to file assualt charges. Makes me miss my Marine Corps days.

But that's just me.

[bridgit]

277. heh-heh...

old school :)

[Brooklyns_Finest]

280. Yeah

I abhor violence against women, but I grew up beating up smart mouth dudes. I mean as long as it was a fair fight and no one has substantial injuries, there is no need to involve the "authorities". Why can't we just "Take it to the treelines"?

[Ex Lurker]

283. I'll say this much

while I "feminized" is a bit much, I think it is problematic that what used to be considered typical "boy" behavior-boisterousness, roughhousing, etc, is often identified as a "disorder" that needs "medicating."

[seabeyond]

287. changed my mind

dont want to get into it, wink

[alfredo]

289. What do I think of the term "feminized men"? Kiss me and I'll tell you.

[Maru Kitteh]

294. "This guy really doesn't like women" - Yeah, I'd say your instincts are pretty much dead on

And it's probably three of the top five reasons I just can't stand Maher anymore.

[create.peace]

313. i don't think of a feminized male at all like this thread is saying

i was thinking of all the guys with manboobs from too much estrogen or something- soy products or some imbalance.

and as an artist i have no stereotypes about the artsy man.

[eridani]

314. It's a term commonly used by people with testosterone poisoning

If you won't shit in the reservoir, you just aren't a real he-man.