But I was corrected on one point, it wasn’t just benevolent sexism and the claimed fragility, it was also to protect property from being stolen…which is better how?
Either way, OK it was due to hostile sexism AND benevolent sexism.
Thanks for correcting my error.
What are some examples?
Broader standards of beauty comes to mind; “dad bod,” frinstance. An increased valuation of empathic skills and “sensitivity” over emotional rigidity. A change in how we determine “success” from physical prowess or wealth to more nebulous metrics like how happy someone is, how emotionally aware, how socially engaged.
It’s not hyperbole, it’s fact.
That is true, it is a fact that you introduced irreverent data as a red herring.
Maybe due to cognitive dissonance?
Okay, I’m much of the way through it. It gets off to a problematic start by pointing out that most previous researchers have been lazy and just poll white students with no external verification:
Then it fails to consider those with a Stoic education but conflates it with everyday stoicism.
It makes the below comment:
But we do that for female athletes too.
More later.
I don’t see anything but a semantic difference. “Men’s and women’s brains respond differently”; “the brains of people with XX chromosomes respond differently from the brains of people with XY chromosomes”.
I’ve made no such claim.
Regards,
Shodan
Neither problematic nor judgmental. It is a typical and necessary part of academic research to review the previous research.
…wut.
I mean, seriously?
Tell you what, when Modern Stoicism is a meaningful force in the social discourse, and is then egregiously ignored by academia, I’ll join you in umbrage. Until then, this jiust looks like silly nitpickery…
…as does this. Context is a thing that matters, and the point to which you object is an example in service of a point.
It really looks like you’re trying to find reasons to not address or acknowledge the research. I hope that’s not the case.
Here are two of the primary takeaways, from the paper’s conclusion:
Do you disagree with these claims? If so, on what basis?
Of course, the “persistence” of gendered stereotypes of “resource access” in this situation is due entirely to your own deliberate perpetuation of them, by taking it for granted that your daughter’s hypothetical husband would be expected to “support” her.
In fact, most married American women work outside the home for pay, and over one-third of them earn more than their husbands. Toxic-masculinity stereotypes pressure both men and women to treat these career/economic realities as somehow shameful or abnormal because “a wife should be supported by her husband”.
And before the inevitable “My wife makes more than I do and I love it!!” chimes in:
Awesome! Fantastic! You are part of the solution, and I’m grateful for it. But your case does not define the norm, so please do not argue that it does.
If I understood her point, it is that it would be the norm if society didn’t reinforce the traditional pattern of men going off to hunt/earn more/be the primary breadwinner/fight wars/etc. and women staying home to care for young children/gathering/working part time or at less time-consuming and remunerative professions/etc.
Regards,
Shodan
Nope. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
No, my point was simply that what your daughter actually said wasn’t per se an indication of any “persistence” of this “traditional pattern”. What you chose to say about her husband being expected to support her was an indication of the persistence of this traditional pattern, but that’s not the same thing.
As for the real-life “norm” in social gender roles, it’s obvious that it’s much more complex than simplistic ideas about biologically determined “traditional patterns”. That is, human beings nowadays have essentially the same biology and brain structure as in prehistoric times, but the relationships of gender, work and income have become far more diverse than the cultural stereotype of “man go out to hunt, woman stay home to gather and care for children”. So obviously it’s not biology that determines those relationships.
We have no way of knowing, yet, how far and in what ways biology alone would influence those relationships in the absence of cultural stereotypes and socially constructed gender expectations. At present there’s no way to reliably separate biological and cultural factors in the determination of traditional gender roles. But the fact that human conformity to those gender roles has changed drastically while human biology has stayed the same indicates that cultural factors are at the very least significantly influential.
For those who doubt that toxic masculinity is a thing, all you gotta do is read the ideas promulgated on incel message boards and you’ll see how belief in these notions can damage suggestible men. When I’m bored, against my better judgement I will go to one board in particular just to remind myself of the insanity out there. Here are common recurring themes that scream toxic masculinity to me:
“Soy boy”. A pejorative term that refers to men who, as evident by their open-mouthed smiles and other happy expressions, are deficient in masculinity and thus, deserving of mockery, pity, and contempt. Ironically, photo evidence of “soy boys” usually shows these men to be posing next to significant others and/or children, suggesting that they’re actually well-adjusted, successful family men. Incels seem to take this as additional evidence of their low T beta-ness, however. Apparently, real men (ie “Chads”) don’t smile exuberantly and they are too busy fucking hordes of women to take pictures with loved ones.
speaking of which…”Chad”. The archetypal male that incels both hate and adore (homoerotically, I might add). Chad gets to do everything that an untamed alpha male in the wild is entitled to do. He is hated by incels only because he can do what they can’t; his promiscuity, selfishness, and opportunism are viewed as unassailable facts of nature rather than character defects…as they are with women (i.e. “femoids”).
“Femoids”. It is the term incels give to women to dehumanize them, relegating them to a inferior “humanoid” status. Femoids collectively exhibit every vicious anti-woman stereotype out there. Irrational stupid manipulative gold-digging sluts, in a nutshell. They are not really people, so they can be raped without moral consequence. Their value is limited to their sexual and reproductive currency. Only virginal women are worth marrying; all others are trash. Male virginity on the other hand…
Male virginity is so bad that being one marks you as deeply flawed; it is incompatible with being a normal guy. If you make it past your teens and you haven’t scored, it’s time to worry. If you’re a virgin and anything except a classically attractive hunk with broad shoulders, thick wrists, and strong jaw, then it’s over, get a rope.
Now, the skeptics are probably ready to hand wave all this. Incels are a fringe group of nobodies; why act as if their opinions have any relevance to what society instills and promotes? And to that I say incels are getting their ideas from somewhere; where, if not from the people around them as well as the media? Perhaps these ideas are extra sticky in psychologically unhealthy incel minds, but that doesnt mean they aren’t influencing other, less pathological people.
That is why it is such a hard problem,
The effects aren’t good for almost anyone, even for those in a position of power if they are at the bottom of that pyramid scheme. It can be challenging to see that when for the most part one group isn’t “granted” something better but is presented with a “hope” that they can obtain it. As women were thrown under the bus, but for men like the incels it doesn’t seem like an advantage it is challenging for us men to see that working towards equity is the best course.
We have to focus on those most effected to get anyplace close to equality first. Ironically if those incels though of women as real people they would have probably developed real friendships and relationships with women and wouldn’t be involuntarily celibate.
The typical men’s rights advocacy goal to level the playing field for men by eliminating protections and supports for women is a self fulfilling proficiency. But the incel koolaid is pervasive and free.
I’ve now read Andros’s paper and it’s actually not a lot of use. First off, it points out that the source papers largely concentrate on the student population - i.e. not the real world. Second, there are no hard figures. Third, there are lots of seems and supposes and no hard conclusions. Fourth, perhaps related to the first, it ignores the financial cost of seeking help. Taking time off work costs money, money that’s needed to pay your rent / mortgage and feed your children. Admitting your illness can cost you not only your job but your career. Remember that German pilot who suicided, taking a planeload of people with him? It can seem far better to try and work through things on your own.
Toxic masculinity has nothing to do with whether a man can or can’t cry in public; toxic masculinity is more like when a guy lashes out at targets over his insecurities rather than dealing with them maturely. Toxic masculinity is when a twice divorced middle age white male starts referring to women as ‘bitches’ and demeans female victims of sexual assault, not because he truly believes at his core that women should be assaulted, but rather because that’s his warped way of dealing with his own frustrations and failures as a person.
Two things.
Firstly, a point of order: it is in no sense “my paper.” I provided a second, free-to-view link after it had already been cited in support of an argument, and subsequently attempted to provide a bit of clarification around it.
Secondly…yeah, looks like you’ve drawn a conclusion and have chosen any number of reasons to dismiss something that does not fit with that conclusion. Shame, really. Because if you were actually interested in exploring the issue, you’d recognize that this single paper was presented as, well, a single paper. It’s representative, in its small way, of a body of work, but it is not the totality of that work. You’ve chosen to take issue with a tree–this bark is insufficient, these roots are oddly shaped, it doesn’t have the right kind of fruit–in order to avoid considering that you might be in a forest.
Which, interestingly, could be seen as evidence of a certain sort of masculine fragility.
Note that neither the drive to attain higher rank always leads to “bad behavior”, nor to dominant behavior. One of the ways to attain higher rank is to hitch yourself to a chariot with bigger horses; others use different types of smarts.
Quite right. I was using shorthand. I apologise.
I’m sorry you think that. I’ll just note that one of us is attacking the argument and one is attacking the poster.
Well yes, but it was the paper that was cited.
One of the criticisms within the paper itself is that the forest (to continue the analogy) is largely monoculture.
Ya I screwed up in editing and reversed my point there…sorry and thank you for catching that.
I intended to write: