If it’s good enough for its popularizer, Oprah, it’s good enough for her.
OTOH, maybe your point still stands…
Thanks - got it.
I note that it is common the world over to imply that women are weak and that men must avoid that to be manly. This no doubt has origins in the fact that in any sort of primitive battle, women are weak, and prowess in battle is considered manly. I see nothing that makes western society unique in this.
It was not an example but the reason. You misread it. I never said that western culture is less restrictive of women in matters of behavior at all, in fact, in sexual behavior it is far more restrictive. Let me lay out my points more clearly.
-
Western society is sexist towards women.
-
Femininity is seen as weak, passive, negative for male-bodied individuals. Some of the biggest insults that males use against each other involve references to their friends/enemies being females or female genitalia.
-
Because of this, a woman who acts or dresses in a more masculine fashion than most other woman is not really looked down upon or criticized (overly masculine is a different matter) while a man who acts or dresses in a more feminine manner is often ridiculed.
-
Thus, males have a greater incentive to be hypermasculine and constantly reaffirm their masculinity.
This is completely untrue. Where is your cite?
True, but not. The epithets part is right. And your generalization of “male-bodied individuals” is… dishonest (and wrong as a blanket statement).
A few politically incorrect points. Both genders have flaws. Masculinity is fraught with self abuse - as is traditional femininity, imo. Even so a WOMAN need not be weak or passive. Women do TEND to be more nurturing, but this is a broad generalization and is often untrue. Why this is seen as weak, I don’t know, but it does leave some doting over the weak people - male or female.
Women do, however, tend to need more upkeep than men. I don’t say that to say women are “weak”. Only to say that it takes more to keep women running.
This is where I step “off in it.” People, too often, act as if the pill and contraceptives were there throughout history and forget the perils of childbirth, pregnancy, sanitation, etc that women, for thousands of years, represented.
Is there a new truth? Hell yes. Do people need to adapt and get over it? You betcha. Is it gonna happen in a generation? Apparently not. Should that stop the effort? Once more, no.
How is it dishonest?
I don’t understand what your point about childbirth, pregnancy, etc is supposed to represent. Men and women lived for a long time in hunter-gatherer societies and who do you think provides most of the food? Females, generally. Hunting brings some much needed extra calories and I do not say this to denigrate the role of the male, but I think the term “upkeep” is a bit, as you say, dishonest. Males and females have historically interacted together to help each other and equally need each other.
No cite handy. I’ve read of this in connection with American indian tribes, eskimos, arabs, the mongols, polynesians and others.
Do you genuinely feel that most societies in human history have tended to view women as equally strong with men, or that strength and prowess among their warriors is unimportant? Is it not common that battle is overwhelmingly done by men?
First of all, the category of “warrior” is a relatively modern invention. Secondly, I question how often battle was important through most of our evolutionary history. Thirdly, although males and females have differing levels of strength and most cultures gave roles accordingly, there are some in which women do most of the heavy lifting and carrying over long distances. Finally, there are species of primates in which females do battles rather than males. Of course humans aren’t one, but again, this goes back to the whole issue why male-male competition exists in the first place.
You stated:
which says that western culture is less restrictive of women in matters of behavior - specifically, behavior typical of the other sex.
Yes, but in that specific behavior. “At all” was the wrong word choice there, I mean “over all.” It’s not correct to say over all that western culture is less restrictive. You said “that western culture is less restrictive of women in matters of clothing and behavior.”
Anyway, I think we’ve gotten off track. Some cultures are very sexist towards females but allow males to engage in behaviors that are considered feminine while punishing females who engage in masculine behaviors. Others have set roles or positions for feminine males.
male-bodied individuals… ummm… men??
You didn’t qualify your statement at all. So, in effect, you have said all men do this. I find that a bit offensive. I’m a man. I tend to make fun of traditional gender roles, but I see the genders as being in an oft misunderstood symbiotic relationship.
To the rest of your post, I know. I watch the same TV shows and read the same internet sites. This is really a bit of a layered conversation, and it’s getting late. Lemme see what I can do…
Evolutionarily… women would stay close to the home, do the gathering, raise the kids, provide the stability. Men would be off hunting. Each a necessary role. If everyone were a female we might’ve fallen prey to more species. If everyone were a male we might have starved away. Let’s skip the obvious reproductive repercussions to each scenario.
Men weren’t at home. Women were. Typically. This left the men in “power” to right the laws, create more culture, and their physical advantages helped.
Women, on average, take more things personally. Require more discussion before action. Need to discuss feelings more. Think, more often than men, imo, that how they feel matters when it kinda doesn’t (nor does ours, often). Women bleed. Need to stay home to nurse the kids. Are more delicate during pregnancy - even if they did a TON of work during most pregnancies.
Now… to lead off. I really DO think strength is weakness and weakness is strength. We tend to just get it all wrong with an unnecessary us vs. them dynamic.
Men NEED women (typically, or a softer touch at least). We tend to neglect the inner housekeeping and a good woman reminds us to do so, and leaves us comfortable to do as much. They guide us to balance.
In the same way, I think many women need men (or a firmer touch) to remind them that not everything is about how we feel or is a personal matter.
I think both genders, as they age and mature, realize as much, but in the 20’s? Maybe the 30’s too… both genders are just kinda messed up - in general. There are exceptions, but maturity is not oft a strong suit.
In short… women are seen as weak because: a few physical limitations (negated my current technology), men wrote the rules and developed the culture, women DID defer - or lacked the ability to resist, women - even now - trend to need more emotional support. These are generalizations and I have had the extreme fortune to meet many men and women who defy these stereotypes… but they exist for a reason.
That’s an explanation, not an excuse. I think both genders would be MUCH better off if we just learned how to [expletive deleted] listen. Neither side tends to do it well - until maturity hits. Listening is radically undervalued. Being able to speak the truth in humility or love helps too…
but I digress…
Crap! Told you it’s late! 
Obviously I meant “write.”
Again, I’m not saying that what happened is right or fair. I’m just saying that neither side can go back in time and change it. And carrying a moralistic judgment of either gender’s role in the past is categorically unfair.
Any history I am reciting I do without a moral judgment, only in an attempt to explain why I think it is what it is.
If it helps, I think guys can tend to be insensitive - not recognizing when feelings DO matter. I’m not pro- or anti- either gender. Both get stuff right, both get stuff wrong. Together, when we listen, we get a lot more right.
Well, depending on exactly what sort of inadequacy we have, either a pump or a bottle of pills, usually.
Also something heavy, for crushing the skulls of people who use the “word” va-jay-jay.
You’ve made a keen observation. In anthropology this is known as the manhood puzzle. “The question of why in almost all cultures masculinity is viewed not as a natural state but as a problematic status to be won through overcoming obstacles.”
It’s about how we define maculinity within our particular culture and when I say we I’m including both males and females. Some anthropologist think the manhood puzzle might be a way for groups to determine which male will fulfill their role as providers, procreators, and protectors. The man who proves he is the manliness will be the one you want. That’s just one idea.
Marc
No, I did not. First of all, not all male-bodied individuals are men. In some cultures female-bodied can be considered men and male-bodied individuals can be considered women. Secondly, our society in general views femininity in male-bodied individuals as a sign of weakness, passivity, and basically negatively in general. That is what I said. In no way did I say that all males or men view it this way. It is the way our society views it.
This is complete and utter bullshit. Who is primarily responsible for the develop of new technology in non-human primates? Females. Who passes on the specific tool use or languages of culture in most non-human primates? Females. Who primarily maintains and develops culture in general in non-human primates? Females. And they do this BECAUSE they “stay at home” as you so misleadingly put it. How do you think gathering works??
The reason why males are sexist and controlling of women (as much as they can be) is an attempt by males to control female reproduction. It’s the same reason they became bigger than females. Why do you think the human species has progressed more and more towards sexual non-dimorphism? It is because the cost of males to be bigger and stronger than females has increased steadily over the years while the benefits have declined dramatically.
The rest of your post is similarly based on more misinformation and gross stereotyping.
Oh, and I want to add that the reason why males became hunters is because they wanted to get sex. Although female chimps can and do hunt, primarily they let the males do the hunting and then trade sex for some of the meat once the males return. Why do all the work when you can reap the rewards rather easily?
So it’s not just me.
I think you’ve provided the best answer
And because their mothers had a tendency to chose a mate who was a good hunter and was interested in sex.
True, of course. If females complain that males bug them for sex, it’s their foremothers’ fault for breeding out the men who would just do it now and then when necessary but weren’t hung up on it, in favour of those who would be prepared to hand over half an antelope in the interests of being graciously allowed to give the female the shagging she wanted all along. 
…especially during puberty.