I’m sorry for any awkwardness you had to go through. I’ve been on both sides of that conversation, and (so far) they both suck. I don’t know that I’d draw any conclusions from it, though. The weirdness may have just come from the guys acting out of hurt, frustration,
or some rationalization to protect themselves.
The “nice guys are men who act nice to attract women” line is a complaint I hear from women towards men, not a self description. What I hear from men is “women prefer men who abuse them, not nice guys”.
There actually is for some things…but exactly what they are varies by culture. There’s a pattern of the genders being consistently different in something even across cultures, but the “masculine” and “feminine” behavior or style will be different. For example in our culture there’s a speech pattern of “men are direct, women are indirect”…but in other cultures it’s “women are direct, men are indirect”. Or hairstyle; cultures consistently have “feminine” hairstyles that men don’t use, but exactly what they are varies by culture.
The difference in behavior is consistently there, but which gender is on which “side” varies. Humans just seem to have a built-in desire to differentiate themselves according to gender, but culture fills in the blanks as to how.
That seems to be how human instincts work in general. Like how we have instincts for learning language as children, but it’s not like we all just know English or whatever by default; we need culture to fill in the blanks that instinct doesn’t handle.
Paul Newman as Hud was the embodiment of everything that the manosphere clowns espouse half a century before most of them were born.
“You don’t care about people Hud. You don’t give a damn about ‘em. Oh, you got all that charm goin’ for ya. And it makes the youngsters want to be like ya. That’s the shame of it because you don’t valued anything. You don’t respect nothing. You keep no check on your appetites at all. You live just for yourself. And that makes you not fit to live with.”
It would be nice if young people (and contemporary culture in general) valued emotional intimacy. Even in the best of times that’s a bit too much to expect of young people. Nowadays the prospects are quite dismal.
Pity, since, besides how I personally feel about it, it may well be that the ability to cultivate emotional intimacy, relationship skills, maturity, makes us better people. I wouldn’t even have to go against prevailing views; of MGTOW or “I want a man, I don’t need a man” animosity between the sexes. Emotional intimacy is founded on emotional autonomy, so just get over yourself and be someone to someone besides yourself.
What kind of Mad Max world do you think people in the past lived in?
More of a world where traveling at all was slow, difficult and unpleasant and state power low; “travel” derives from the same root word as “travail” for a reason. And bandits & pirates raiding villages was common, because the government had so little control over its own territory. And of course communication technology basically didn’t exist except for the tiny fraction of people who were literate.
People were a lot more isolated back then; heck, some villages developed meaningfully distinct genetic lineages because they had so little outside contact.
Most people didn’t live in that world. They lived in a world where people traveled for trade, governance and religious reasons, in empires and kingdoms that were relatively stable for long periods.
Illiteracy rates in the past have been greatly exaggerated. 5-10% is not “tiny”. But I don’t see the relevance for humans traveling around.
That is quite true. But it’s an unjustified step from that to “and so all the strangers they knew were dangerous bandits or conquering armies” when we know that traders and travelers were a thing.
Such empires and kingdoms didn’t exist for most of human history.
I think you’re confusing prehistory with history. History - the written word - starts with kingdoms, city-states and empires.
Anyway, doesn’t matter. They were where the majority of humans historically and prehistorically have lived. Because empires and kingdoms had much higher population densities.
Fair enough.
Aww, that’s cute.
I’ve done some sewing with my mum; we made a dress for my dancing together. I made a pattern from a dress I already own, then we modified it to be the way I wanted, and she did the actual sewing. It was nice to work together on something, we made a good team: I enjoy the designing but dislike the actual sewing, she finds sewing relaxing but doesn’t like the design and planning part.
That’s pretty much what I meant. For some people, not caring what strangers think of you would mean feeling free to be an asshole to them, so it’s probably a good thing most people do care.
This is all quite dated now, but I used to see men complaining about this kind of thing, and they would usually get a lecture about what horrible entitled people they were, and no useful advice.
From their point of view, they were told not to approach or ask out women they didn’t know, because that was harassing them, but also not to befriend women before asking them, because that was expecting women to reward them for friendship. IMO useful advice would be to explain there is a sex difference here: as far as I can tell, the average man is somewhat attracted to most women above a certain level of good looks. So with various caveats that she is above that level, an appropriate age etc, if he likes a woman enough to be friends with her, he’d probably at least consider dating her if they were both single. Whereas for women, a guy can be objectively handsome, tick all the boxes in theory, and have enough in common with you to be a good friend, and the attraction just isn’t there.
I think the message a lot of guys took from this kind of rejection was either that they were very unattractive/basically undateable, or else that women find niceness and friendship unattractive and only want ‘bad boys’.
They needed to understand that a woman being friends with them does not mean they have a better chance of dating her, and advice to get to know a woman just a little and then let her know their interest was romantic, rather than becoming friends first, or asking out a total stranger.
Unfortunately, nowadays boys and young men go online and encounter all the toxic messaging from incels/red pill etc before they’ve even tried dating themselves, so giving better advice is not going to cut it.
This is fine. It was telling people to get verbal consent, and at every stage, that would be so awkward and offputting.
I’m glad to hear it. Both traditional and social media tend to highlight the extreme stories, because that’s what’s newsworthy, but it can give a misleading impression.
I can’t honestly remember what we were told when starting uni, I think we were handed a bunch of leaflets, but there was definitely no consent training or any classes on non-academic stuff.
Because of this:
I definitely see it in kids once they reach a certain age: girls are keen to avoid ‘boy things’, and boys are even more keen to avoid ‘girl things’. For adults it’s somewhat more relaxed, but the desire to differentiate themselves, and to classify things and people according to gender is still there.
This is where I think conservatism has a better answer: instead of trying to override or ‘fix’ human nature, work with it. Capitalism doesn’t produce ideal outcomes, but it works with people’s natural desire to benefit themselves and their families, rather than trying to instil a willingness to work for society as a whole - and it creates an outcome for that society that is better than any alternative we know of. Similarly, if people have an instinct to differentiate themselves by gender, trying to persuade or train them out of it will be very hard. Giving them achievable, positive models to follow is much easier, and solves the problem of women and especially men adopting negative, harmful ideas of masculinity and femininity to embody.
There’s that. Also phrases like “toxic masculinity” and “smash the patriarchy” seem to have entered common use. It seems fine to make a distinction between the genders to talk about bad things men do, but try to talk about male strengths and people push back.
Since the cause of many divorces is economics, I call that good sense. Let’s say I meet a guy at some kind of group gathering. Let’s call him “Frank” because, in my example, he is frank enough to be honest. I find out he’s 30 years old, still living in his parents’ home, and working at McDonald’s. I’m a post-graduate level educated professional. In my mind, never the twain can meet in terms of a long term relationship. Having said that, I think men need to be selective as well in terms of what is long term relationship material and what is not.
It wasn’t advice, it was required by policy:
In 1991–92 the college employed a part-time advocate, as the start of the Sexual Offenses Prevention and Survivors’ Advocacy Program (SOP/SAP), who developed with the aid of the community the Antioch Sexual Offense Prevention Policy. Thus Antioch College became the first in America to mandate ongoing verbal affirmation during sexual encounters.[58] Under this policy, consent for sexual behavior must be “(a) verbal, (b) mutual, and (c) reiterated for every new level of sexual behavior.”[59]
This policy was the subject of media satire, such as a parody sketch in 1993 on Saturday Night Live titled “Is It Date Rape?” Some media outlets voiced support for the policy. For example, syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman asserted that most “sexual policy makers write like lawyers in love,” and that, likewise, “at Antioch the authors could use some poetry, and passion.” But she was ultimately sympathetic to their goals of leveling the sexual playing field and making students think about what consent means, saying that the Antioch campus “has the plot line just about right.”[60]
By 2015, similar affirmative consent standards were adopted by colleges across the nation, including every Ivy League university except Harvard, as well as by state legislatures including California, Michigan, and New York.[58]
In late 2022, some students were demanding changes to the SOPP following a sexual encounter between a professor and a student which the student characterized as “sexual assault and … sexual harassment.”[61]
When and where was this? I never received that advice from anybody.
If we lived in an entrenched discriminatory matriarchy, I would want that smashed too. We don’t. So it rarely comes up.
Nah. That is the reason to conclude the opposite. The specifics of what is actually gender related differentiations vary by the specific culture and time we are in, they evolve. My dad did not consciously decide that he was going to “act like a man”: he behaved in response to his time and his inherent temperament. I was raised by him but in a slightly different time. Compared to his behaviors I cooked and cleaned more, was a much more hand on dad, watched less boxing and war documentaries. And my behaviors were/are still differentiated from the average woman’s and no one questions if I am a real man.
We do not follow the norms; what we are defines the norms.
And most of us men are not dysfunctional in our masculinity. We just are. We are loyal husbands. We admire bravery. We would die defending our children. We treat others with respect. We expect respect in return. And by our actions what is “masculine” gets defined. More than by a few bad actors, be they toxic players or incels.
It has been discussed in some of the earlier threads that were mentioned, to a great extent we expect people to sort of pick up interpersonal skills “off the air” as if by osmosis and develop them by repetition of observed example, and that this should “come naturally”. That creates the opening for offers of an “instruction manual” that will let the reader/viewer skip the work of figuring out what is signal and what is noise in your environment (and what signals are the right ones).
Indeed. And people need to put effort at understanding how this is a spectrum, not an all-or-nothing thing, and that none of us “owes” the other on account of it.
Of course, a societal acceptance of straightforward communication early in the interaction, as opposed to waiting for someone to “read the signals” could potentially go a long way to save aggravation – but as has been mentioned in those prior threads, that carries its own sometimes serious risks.
Some months ago I had a conversation with a friend from college who has a son headed to college himself (he was a later-age parent) who was worried about the “toxic masculinity” message but from the angle that he was saying, “but JR, that terrible behavior is toxic but should not then be called ‘masculinity’; it should not be the only time we ever hear the word is associated like that” – I got that from his point of view “masculinity” should per se describe a set of virtues so only the “good” form of it should be given that name, no modifier, and it bothers him that he only hears about it when it goes wrong(*). I myself being raised in a culture that is heavy on machismo would say “eh, back home we know you can be a man AND an ass, if it’s a matter of words being used you’ll get on the euphemism treadmill and be trapped there.” (And really, ISTM American English already burned through “machismo”, maybe out of awkwardness about borrowing our word? /jk, most likely out of a need for something that sounds properly clinical and not culturally tied to one group).
( * Then again, we never hear about it the ten thousand times a day the airplane takes off and lands without incident, do we? Of course we hear of men behaving badly when they do behave badly. As Chris Rock said in an old skit, you don’t get credit for what you are already supposed to do.)
It is less an expectation than an observation. We don’t get taught how to walk. It develops. We are not consciously taught our primary household language. These are things we learn without formal instruction.
Formal instruction of gender roles is sometimes tried, from early ages. No toy guns in this household. My daughter gets no Disney princess toys. And these kids still pick up on gender cues from the bigger culture anyway.
Gender is an overlapping, intertwined spectrum of attitudes and beliefs; why do you insist on drawing a hard-and-fast line?
The structure of global society commonly including built in advantages for men (like me) is not an artificial dichotomy. It isn’t part of defining masculine behavior. It is just reality. As the father of a daughter damn straight smash the patriarchy. Dang my saying that is a masculine thing to do!
This is a problem not only for sexual relationships. It’s a huge problem for any sort of relationship for those of us who don’t pick up social conventions about interpersonal skills by osmosis.
It’s probably exaggerated for sexual relationships, both because of (in most people) physical urges and because society exerts huge pressure for everybody to be paired off, and this society expects us to manage this on our own (which is not to say that societies which arrange it for individuals don’t have their own problems.) But it’s an underlying overall relationship problem, not only a sexual one.
– thinking about that: it occurs to me that advice to young men to be friends with women and the sex will come along is probably not much help to those young men who have trouble also making healthy friendships with other men. I think there’s a tendency to assume that the problem is that they don’t know how to treat women as people. This is certainly part of it – but some of them may not really know how to treat men as people, either.
One of the risks is that sometimes the degree of sexual interest changes over time – as people get to know each other better, interest may appear that wasn’t there at the beginning, or may disappear if it was.
– another thing that needs understanding is that even if interest is there, there may be all sorts of reasons why the person doesn’t want to act on it, or doesn’t want to act on it at that given time. Because I like spending time with you doesn’t mean I necessarily want to go hiking with you, for instance, even if I do like going for walks on my own, or even with somebody else: maybe I only like to walk on my own, maybe I only want to walk slowly and look at things and you like to cover ground fast, maybe I haven’t time to go for hikes this year, maybe all my hiking time is accounted for with other people. Add in that humans are a lot more complicated about sex than about hiking.
I was fine with those. Social signals was a whole nother thing.
And the assumption (which I think there’s something less of now than in the 1950’s and 60’s) that I should have somehow learned those while I was learning to walk and talk and in the same manner was a huge part of the problem. I understand that a lot of people do this. But not everybody does.
I am not drawing any such line. Race is not a scientifcally valid or meaningful category. Yet for quite a long time, people who were said to be one race could buy people of another race and treat them as property.