Masculinity

[Norsemaiden]

If only more men have the courage to soften up their image.

Women evolved to look like that so that men would feel like taking care of them but if men look like that then women feel they would offer little protection!

 

[Söy]

growing up my parents (even the mom) stressed to me that i was the least advanteged person in the USA because

A im white
B im male
C im not poor

thus since im not a minority, not a female, nor on welfare (but not rich either mind you) society has deemed me to not be worthy of notice or support and thus have to have a harder existence because i dont hold promise of fulfilling some diversity gap in the system.

not that this has much to do with the rise of femioism/decline of masculinity. for that i think you can blame this PC society we live in, where traditional methods of male behavior have been lessened to the point to include everyone and everybody, which all started with the Civil Rights Act of 1963 (not that im saying that wasnt necessary) and proceeded on through the failed attempt at the Equal Rights Amendment in the 70's, which made everyone realize that if they didnt want to destroy the system outright overnight, gradual changes had to be made. So one change led to another and vice versa; now we have these single-parent homes, which can lead to either overly masculine or overly feminine influences on children.

Does this mean that all of society caters to women's tastes? No. men still on average get paid 25% more than women thereabouts, women still aren't able to serve in every military unit, and no women's professional sports league is as popular or more so than the male equivalent.

Gender competition had never been a major issue until the rise of industrialization; in aristocratic societies, a woman's role had always been defined as the homemaker because the male was out bringing home the bacon, which was one of the only things aristocrats had with the common man. Once jobs and trades started to become industrialized, there was more leisure time to be devoted to "hey! no fair!" arguements, and the competition was born... and voila! here we are!

 

[Norsemaiden]

Richard Dawkins on homosexuality:

"Consider human male homosexuality as a more serious example. On the face
of it the existence of a substantial minority of men who prefer sexual relations
with their own sex rather than with the opposite sex constitutes a problem for
any simple Darwinian theory. The rather discursive title of a privately circulated
homosexualist pamphlet, which the author was kind enough to send me,
summarizes the problem: 'Why are there `gays' at all? Why hasn't evolution
eliminated `gayness' millions of years ago?' The author incidentally thinks the
problem so important that it seriously undermines the whole Darwinian view of
life. Trivers (1974), Wilson (1975, 1978) and especially Weinrich (1976) have
considered various versions of the possibility that homosexuals may, at some
time in history, have been functionally equivalent to sterile workers, foregoing
personal reproduction the better to care for other relatives. I do not find this
idea particularly plausible (Ridley & Dawkins, 1981), certainly no more so than
a 'sneaky males hypothesis According to this latter idea, homosexuality
represents an `alternative male tactic' for obtaining matings with females. In a
society with harem defence by dominant males, a male who is known to be
homosexual is more likely to be tolerated by a dominant male than a known
heterosexual male and an otherwise subordinate male may be able, by virtue of
this, to obtain clandestine copulations with females. But I raise the 'sneaky male'
hypothesis not as a plausible possibility so much as a stay of dramatizing how
easy and inconclusive it is to dream up explanations of this kind ...
Homosexuality is, of course, a problem for Darwinians only if there is a genetic
component to the difference between homosexual and heterosexual individuals.
While the evidence is controversial (Weinrich 1976) assume for the sake of
argument that this is the case. Now the question arises, what does it mean to
say there is a genetic component to the difference, in common parlance that
there is a gene (or genes) 'for' homosexuality? It is a fundamental truism, of logic
more than of genetics, that the phenotypic `effect' of a gene is a concept that has
meaning only if the context of environmental influences is specified, environment
being understood to include all the other genes in the genome. A gene 'for' A in
environment X may well turn out to be a gene for B in environment Y. It is
simply meaningless to speak of an absolute, context-free, phenotypic effect of a
given gene. Even if there are genes which, in today's environment produce a
homosexual phenotype, this does not mean that in another environment, say that
of our Pleistocene ancestors, they would have had the same phenotypic effect.
A gene for homosexuality in our modern environment might have been a gene
for something utterly different in the Pleistocene. So, we have the possibility of a
special kind of 'time-lag effect' here. It may be that the phenotype which we are
trying to explain did not even exist in some earlier environment, even though the
gene did then exist." (Dawkins R., "The Extended Phenotype: The Long Reach
of the Gene," [1982], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 1983, pp.37-38)

 

[speed]

Richard Dawkins on homosexuality:

"Consider human male homosexuality as a more serious example. On the face
of it the existence of a substantial minority of men who prefer sexual relations
with their own sex rather than with the opposite sex constitutes a problem for
any simple Darwinian theory. The rather discursive title of a privately circulated
homosexualist pamphlet, which the author was kind enough to send me,
summarizes the problem: 'Why are there `gays' at all? Why hasn't evolution
eliminated `gayness' millions of years ago?' The author incidentally thinks the
problem so important that it seriously undermines the whole Darwinian view of
life. Trivers (1974), Wilson (1975, 1978) and especially Weinrich (1976) have
considered various versions of the possibility that homosexuals may, at some
time in history, have been functionally equivalent to sterile workers, foregoing
personal reproduction the better to care for other relatives. I do not find this
idea particularly plausible (Ridley & Dawkins, 1981), certainly no more so than
a 'sneaky males hypothesis According to this latter idea, homosexuality
represents an `alternative male tactic' for obtaining matings with females. In a
society with harem defence by dominant males, a male who is known to be
homosexual is more likely to be tolerated by a dominant male than a known
heterosexual male and an otherwise subordinate male may be able, by virtue of
this, to obtain clandestine copulations with females. But I raise the 'sneaky male'
hypothesis not as a plausible possibility so much as a stay of dramatizing how
easy and inconclusive it is to dream up explanations of this kind ...
Homosexuality is, of course, a problem for Darwinians only if there is a genetic
component to the difference between homosexual and heterosexual individuals.
While the evidence is controversial (Weinrich 1976) assume for the sake of
argument that this is the case. Now the question arises, what does it mean to
say there is a genetic component to the difference, in common parlance that
there is a gene (or genes) 'for' homosexuality? It is a fundamental truism, of logic
more than of genetics, that the phenotypic `effect' of a gene is a concept that has
meaning only if the context of environmental influences is specified, environment
being understood to include all the other genes in the genome. A gene 'for' A in
environment X may well turn out to be a gene for B in environment Y. It is
simply meaningless to speak of an absolute, context-free, phenotypic effect of a
given gene. Even if there are genes which, in today's environment produce a
homosexual phenotype, this does not mean that in another environment, say that
of our Pleistocene ancestors, they would have had the same phenotypic effect.
A gene for homosexuality in our modern environment might have been a gene
for something utterly different in the Pleistocene. So, we have the possibility of a
special kind of 'time-lag effect' here. It may be that the phenotype which we are
trying to explain did not even exist in some earlier environment, even though the
gene did then exist." (Dawkins R., "The Extended Phenotype: The Long Reach
of the Gene," [1982], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 1983, pp.37-38)

So basically, there is no reason. So neither science or religion has a real reason? Because Christianity has but the writings of Paul, not even the Gospels of Jesus, as its only condemnation, and--well most Christian theology is not this evolved--if God did not wish for man to be homosexual, why would he have created man and given him the genetic predisposition towards homosexuality? (free will has no effect here--if it did, it would make no sense; well it never really has made any logical sense)

How about the psychologists ( I cant believe I am saying this) starting from Freud? They take an almost classical approach that we're born bi-sexual or even omni-sexual, and decide at pubescence, whether we will be straight, gay, bi, or well the other weird things.

 

[Norsemaiden]

There is a gene for homosexuality - only that gene may have manifested itself differently in the past - not resulting in actual homosexual behaviour. That's what Dawkins proposes. Genes do different things depending on how they are switched on.

There's no way our sexuality is a choice we make at adolescence except in the case of people who are naturally bisexual and choose which way to hang. A few people are naturally gay (I am not so sure if women are, but certainly some men) and some are on the fence (more so because civilisation/domestication breeds out wild instincts) and still a majority have the instinct to prefer the opposite sex, as required for reproductive purposes.

 

[speed]

There is a gene for homosexuality - only that gene may have manifested itself differently in the past - not resulting in actual homosexual behaviour. That's what Dawkins proposes. Genes do different things depending on how they are switched on.

There's no way our sexuality is a choice we make at adolescence except in the case of people who are naturally bisexual and choose which way to hang. A few people are naturally gay (I am not so sure if women are, but certainly some men) and some are on the fence (more so because civilisation/domestication breeds out wild instincts) and still a majority have the instinct to prefer the opposite sex, as required for reproductive purposes.

But even if the gene did manifest itself differently in the past, why does the rest of the animal kingdom share this gene? And why would one suppose the past is any different? Darwin's merely the best theory you know; his ideas arent bulletproof.

 

[Norsemaiden]

But even if the gene did manifest itself differently in the past, why does the rest of the animal kingdom share this gene? And why would one suppose the past is any different? Darwin's merely the best theory you know; his ideas arent bulletproof.

Some species of animals are prone to eat their own offspring but this is not very widespread because, like homosexuality, it is bad from a point of view of reproduction. Homosexuality in animals results in all kinds of bizarre situations. Dogs often mount eachother to show dominance - which gays like to attribute purely to lust.

The ten-spined stickleback was used in experiments by Desmond Morris, famous author of The Naked Ape. I will try to cut a long story short.
If a female swims through a territory, the male propriator will attack her as being an intruder. But if she is ready to be fertilised, she will not flee and he does a courtship dance to entice her into his nest. If overwhelmed with desire, she will enter tunnel of nest and leave her tail protruding. Now he shivers his nose against her tale blush: ) causing her to lay her eggs in the nest and move on. He then fertilises the eggs and raises the young in her absence. That is how it normally is.

Morris created abnormal situation by having a crowded tank with subordinated surplus males who had no terrritory/nest. When he saw one such male sneaking through the weeds into the heart of the alpha male's territory while the alpha was off charming a female, Morris assumed that the fish must be intending to steal the nest. But no! When the female fled without going back to the nest, the subordinated male was waiting for the boss. Somehow blinded by the lust he had for the female, the nest-owner did not recognise the subordinate male for what he was. He did his courtship dance, and the pretender followed to the nest, just like a female would. The homosexual quickly entered the tunnel, leaving the proper amount of tale protruding. The proprietor shivered his nose against it. The homosexual stayed for the same time that a female would have taken to lay her eggs, then fled. Now the potential father was frustrated, entering the nest and finding no eggs. The same result happened again and again. "On one occasion, all three of the surplus, dominated males tried simultaneously to receive the sexual attentions of the thoroughly addled proprietor" .
Summarised from an account in "The Social Contract" by Robert Ardrey
This looks like some form of displacement behaviour.

 

[Nile577]

About homosexuality: In general, I think it is amusing how much outrage and disgust arise from the contact of genitals! But we should remember that, as Christopher Hitchens says, homosexuality is not just a form of sex but a form of love.

As well as to religious morality, I think homosexuality is seen an affront to masculine social identity, which equates manhood to fucking women. Views of homosexuality vary in accordance to epistemic (collective societal way of thinking) shift: in Attic times, homosexuality was advocated; in Christian, it is reviled.

In my view, negative views of homosexuality based on the above are unwarranted and transparently dishonest, holding subjective 'disgust' or false, moral absolutism as a reason to arbitrarily prevent a form of love.

This leaves negative views of homosexuality from an evolutionary perspective. Two points spring to mind:

i - Homosexual traits might be beneficial to heterosexual couples, or homosexuals might help ensure survival of nephews and nieces.

ii - Bergson's theory of creative evolution implies that evolutionary 'progress' can occur in aesthetic as well as biological realms. That is, through an aesthetic recording of experience, the artist furthers the bounds of human knowledge. I find this an interesting theory. Owing to the high incidence of homosexuality amongst those displaying artistic genius, it is my belief that it may well be genetically linked to creativity and, as such, amongst the most important and worthwhile of all genetic 'abnormalities.'

 

[MURAI]

Women evolved to look like that so that men would feel like taking care of them but if men look like that then women feel they would offer little protection!

Yes, but over there in Japan, it's popular to have a more feminine look. I guess they think its more cute than the traditional idea of men having to behave more rough. Kind of like being "metrosexual" in North America.

 

[judas69]

Owing to the high incidence of homosexuality amongst those displaying artistic genius, it is my belief that it may well be genetically linked to creativity and, as such, amongst the most important and worthwhile of all genetic 'abnormalities.'

I disagree, if anything I believe creativity is environmentally encouraged in homosexuals because of their condition, societies reluctance to accept them and so, you get the classic tormented artist.

 

[speed]

I disagree, if anything I believe creativity is environmentally encouraged in homosexuals because of their condition, societies reluctance to accept them and so, you get the classic tormented artist.

Or maybe, its both? Modern socio-biology estimates 60% genetics, 40% environment for everything regardless of just homosexuality; and genetics have been gaining on this estimate for the last 30 years. So neither Rousseau or your local national socialist, are truly correct.

And frankly, society is reluctant to accept or understand creative individuals, not just gays.

 

[judas69]

Of course it's both, that goes with out saying.

My point is that if you accept that homosexuals are on average more creative (not really sure I accept that), then I believe it to be more environmentally based, and not linked at all to differing genetics.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I wouldn't necessarily say homosexuals are more creative. Certainly there are some extremely heterosexual men who are painters, poets, authors, etc. (But I know that only proves that not all artists are homo). Homosexuals may gravitate toward expressing themselves artistically for the reasons Judas says - because of their alienation. Perhaps because they don't want to do manly things - they end up having to prove themselves special in other ways. Also there is a prima donna tendency in their personalities that makes them want to do showy things to impress people or make them look. That doesn't equate with talent as such, but does make them more determined to take up such forms of expression. Actors seem to be more prone to be homosesxal than other kinds of artists. (Except dancers of course!).

There is a lot more to people's distaste at homosexuality than the idea of the contact of genitals. There is real fear of pederasty and also of male rape. Perhaps these fears are largely unfounded - but they are somewhat different from a mere prudishness.

The above fears are mainly caused by: stories of male rape in prisons and because men rather than women perpetrate rape, and if they don't want to do it to a woman - then they probably want to do it to a man or boy. So there is less dislike/fear of lesbians than of male homosexuals consequently.
Also the behaviour of priests has reinforced negative feelings towards homosexuals.

If the above is inaccurate - please explain why.

Male sexuality generally can be frightening. The reason heterosexual men are not normally a threat to the women they lust after is that they want to build a long-term relationship and rear children. When these two motives are not relevant - ie in most homosexual urges then there is more potential for nastiness.
That seems logical. It only wouldn't be true if a homosexual man really wanted a long term partner to care for, protect and love. But that is rare, isn't it?

 

[My Man Mahmoud]

My previous point about the Celtic women illustrated that women have been much stronger in the past than they are today, but the thing is that the men were very strong and masculine as well.

You can't accept that kind of evidence at face value - it is ultimately a reflection of Greco-Roman contempt for Celtic culture, which is treated in the ancient sources as being both 'brutal' and 'uncivilized' and at the same time 'effeminate' (because, unlike Mediterranean peoples, the Celts and Germans didn't treat their women like chattel).

 

[Justin S.]

I disagree with almost all that has been said here.

I object to the conceptions of "masculinity/femininity" presented here, as well as our relation to, or standing with, them at the present time.

More likely, our time exhibits a total lack of understanding of relationally and ontological significance, thus gets turned around and confused in an infinite amount of ways. The present gender issues are such permutations, which have little to do with actual gender issues, and everything to do with idealized states deduced from bad metaphysics.

Concerning homosexuality: I am not quite certain there is truly such a categorical thing, in the same way there is heterosexuality.

Briefly: One is not "heterosexual" because of any one factor of their being (such as "choice", or "genes"). It is a general term for a whole state of relations and beings: physiology, endocrine response, neurology, sociology, activity, human lineage, etc.

"Homosexuality" cannot be define in such ways, in fact, I havent ever seen it defined robustly. Engaging in sex acts with the same gender does not make one "homosexual", they have engaged in a homosexual activity (the relation is homo, not the categorical state of the person). Nor does ones cavorting with fruit or blow up doll entail they are in a categorical state of fruit/mannequin sexuality. Nor does "preference" alone decide. I am not "heterosexual" simply because I find women attractive, or exclusively interact with them sexually ("sex" being another umbrella term that is ambiguously used). Single factors in the complex standing of sexuality cannot be singled out to justify the concept of homosexuality.

Instead I argue, that heterosexuality is the only actualized sexual state relative to humanity, and that all others are deviations from this in various ways, none of which can lay claim to the scope of heterosexuality or a categorical tag.

 

[judas69]

Homosexuality is the sexual attraction to ones own gender. Thus, if you are attracted to your own gender on a sexual level (excluding bi-sexuality) you would be a homosexual, Justin.

It sounds to me like you just want to make homosexuals heterosexuals or just lump everything under the umbrella of sexuality, which is kind of pointless.

 

[My Man Mahmoud]

His point is both and obvious one and a necessary one: 'homosexuality,' like any paraphilia, has no real, independent existence, and is ultimately defined only by its deviance from the only functional mode of sexual being.

 

[judas69]

If the majority of our species were homosexual, you would have instead defined heterosexuality as a deviance from homosexuality and so, your definition appears entirely grounded on what happens to be the sexual norm for our species. Granted, they both involve a sexual disposition, but that's not to say one specific tendency (hetero / homo sexuality) is a necessary offshoot of the norm of the other.

In my eyes it's black and white, there's no gray area with respect to homosexuality and heterosexuality ..it's like being at a traffic stop, you either go right, or you go left.

 

[My Man Mahmoud]

Not to circumvent three pages of discussion, but here's my take on the original question:

'Masculinity' and 'feminity' are in a sense cultural constructions (albeit constructed in part from biological norms). They are not wholly arbitrary, though they are exaggerated and artificial. They serve an important biocultural function - to ritualize socially and individually beneficial behavior patterns.

The obvious corollary to this is that the relative value of 'masculine' and 'feminine' behaviors fluctuates according to the organization of a given society and the particular challenges it faces. The nature of our current society places a premium on relational skills and being able to navigate life with a minimum of conflict - so it should come as no surprise that 'feminine' values are currently in ascendence.

 

[Justin S.]

Homosexuality is the sexual attraction to ones own gender. Thus, if you are attracted to your own gender on a sexual level (excluding bi-sexuality) you would be a homosexual, Justin.

It sounds to me like you just want to make homosexuals heterosexuals or just lump everything under the umbrella of sexuality, which is kind of pointless.

A very unhelpful and unengaged response. You didnt even attempt to address what I wrote.

I was questioning the "umbrella" of sexuality (not endorsing it), and how its domain is negotiated strategically for justification purposes.

The statement "making homos straight" is nonsense to me because I already stated that the category of homosexuality is problematic.