Full Version: Threatened Masculinity Makes Men Macho
The American Sociological Association heard, at their recent meeting in Philadelphia, about a study at Cornell University.
This study found that, when men's masculinity is threatened, they tend to overcompensate by behaving in a more "macho" way than they otherwise would. It's not a new idea - Freud said much the same thing - but it's never really been demonstrated until now.
Link
Professor Willer asked students to rate themselves on their levels of some stererotypically masculine traits (e.g. assertivness, dominance) and some stereotypically feminine ones (e.g. yeilding, compromise, nurturing).
He gave the students feedback on their results, which he told them was related to their test scores, but was in fact completely random, so some women were told they were very "masculine", and some men were told they were very "feminine".
He then asked all the test subjects questions on their attitudes to certain masculine concepts, which included their attitudes to SUVs, the Iraq War, and homosexuality.
The women's attitudes didn't change before and after they got the feedback - women who were told they were atypically masculine didn't change their attitudes afterwards. But most of the men who were told they were a big girl's blouse reacted by being more "macho" - keener on war and SUVs and more likely to be express homophobic ideas.
Interesting stuff.
What does this mean?
Why are men so undermined personally by questions about their masculinity?
Assuming this theory is correct and accurate, are ideas of masculinity nature (mostly biology) or nurture (mostly cultural)?
What, if anything, should we do about this?
What does this mean?
It means men are easily influenced, and controlled by any one who knows how to push their buttons. In the military, any one who is not gung ho enough is berated as being soft, female, gay, what ever. In society politicians can do the same, and can galvanize entire nations into acts of war by subtle indication of a national weakness.
In life, in general, women use weakness all the time to get what they want. Women have developed means by which to control their surroundings to fit their needs. For the most part, womens needs are what shape society.
Why are men so undermined personally by questions about their masculinity?
Because women expect us to be something we can never be. Many women might deny it, but what the majority of women expect is a strong male who will protect them and their children. Thus, in order to live up to this, many men develop a self identity that conforms to the expectations put upon them. No matter how 'macho' a man is however, once he is 'broken', he will revert to being the small boy he once was and deep inside still is. Many a strong man has been brought low by pain, illness, fear or the contempt of others. Many collapse into self destructive behaviour, drink, violence, or what ever as they fail to come to terms with the obstacles their machismo cannot over come.
Males who live in society's away from female influence, such as monks, are seldom troubled by macho notions.
Assuming this theory is correct and accurate, are ideas of masculinity nature (mostly biology) or nurture (mostly cultural)?
They are the same thing, nurture comes from nature. To attempt to divide them is to ignore the animal nature of humanity.
What, if anything, should we do about this?
Who is 'we'?
Men? As men we should take the time to consider who we are and what we really want from life. Don't be so easily pushed around by emotions without contemplating what emotions mean.
Society? Society can't do anything about it. Women could relax on the whole 'control thing', but thats not going to happen any time soon.
Edited for formatting
It means men are easily influenced, and controlled by any one who knows how to push their buttons. In the military, any one who is not gung ho enough is berated as being soft, female, gay, what ever. In society politicians can do the same, and can galvanize entire nations into acts of war by subtle indication of a national weakness.
In life, in general, women use weakness all the time to get what they want. Women have developed means by which to control their surroundings to fit their needs. For the most part, womens needs are what shape society.
Why are men so undermined personally by questions about their masculinity?
Because women expect us to be something we can never be. Many women might deny it, but what the majority of women expect is a strong male who will protect them and their children. Thus, in order to live up to this, many men develop a self identity that conforms to the expectations put upon them. No matter how 'macho' a man is however, once he is 'broken', he will revert to being the small boy he once was and deep inside still is. Many a strong man has been brought low by pain, illness, fear or the contempt of others. Many collapse into self destructive behaviour, drink, violence, or what ever as they fail to come to terms with the obstacles their machismo cannot over come.
Males who live in society's away from female influence, such as monks, are seldom troubled by macho notions.
Assuming this theory is correct and accurate, are ideas of masculinity nature (mostly biology) or nurture (mostly cultural)?
They are the same thing, nurture comes from nature. To attempt to divide them is to ignore the animal nature of humanity.
What, if anything, should we do about this?
Who is 'we'?
Men? As men we should take the time to consider who we are and what we really want from life. Don't be so easily pushed around by emotions without contemplating what emotions mean.
Society? Society can't do anything about it. Women could relax on the whole 'control thing', but thats not going to happen any time soon.
Edited for formatting
QUOTE(moif @ Oct 3 2005, 06:49 AM)
Males who live in society's away from female influence, such as monks, are seldom troubled by macho notions.
Really? How about in prison? No concepts of macho going on in there? "Macho" notions come into effect very very early on. Far earlier than interest in females or competition to impress them. Ask most anyone with boys at home.
What does this mean? It means women and men are different.
Why are men so undermined personally by questions about their masculinity? Maybe it has to do with some primal subliminal survival propagation instinct. The strongest, most masculine buck wins the herd, for example. Competition among the men to be on top metaphorically.
Assuming this theory is correct and accurate, are ideas of masculinity nature (mostly biology) or nurture (mostly cultural)? I've always thought masculine nature is more biology based than cultural. The culture shapes it, but men are inherently competitive and rough. Look at this forum with 80 percent men. True, I am the second most prolific poster but I've never been normal.
What, if anything, should we do about this? Nothing. I think it's an interesting exercise to be aware of. Maybe this self-awareness could protect men from scams in advertisement geared towards alternatively threatening their masculinity and then selling them something. Silly species.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen)
Really? How about in prison? No concepts of macho going on in there? "Macho" notions come into effect very very early on. Far earlier than interest in females or competition to impress them. Ask most anyone with boys at home.
Hmmmm... yeah, good point, except that men in prison do not enter it voluntarily.Prisoners are men from normal society upon whom a set of artificial conditions has been imposed against their will.
Monks on the other hand volunteer to live as they do. Given choice I think makes a difference. Especially since the bulk of men in prison are there because of 'macho behaviour' in the first place.
I'm just DYING to know the gender breakdown of the voters here.... 
To answer my own questions,
What does this mean?
It just underlines something I've long thought obvious. A study into the religious affiliations of Popes past and present, or the toilet habits of bears might have held more surprises for me.
Why are men so undermined personally by questions about their masculinity?
I think most men's ideas of what masculinity actually is, especially in a wider social context, is pretty much built on the idea that we can never really live up to it, at least not all the time. Being publicly reminded about a failing we secretly suspect in ourselves is not particularly edifying.
You get much the same defensive effects when you point out a weakness in someone's parenting skills; every parent, even the most loving and conscientious, knows that they could do that little bit better - there was that one time we snapped at Junior when he asked for candy the nine hundred and fiftieth time that one day (or there was the time we left him on his own and went on vacation for a month - the way we beat up on ourselves is all relative to what we think we should be doing, whether or not we're right about that).
These days, we're all saturated with images and information about what we're "supposed" to be like in almost every aspect of our lives, and it's next to impossible to live up to all of them.
Assuming this theory is correct and accurate, are ideas of masculinity nature (mostly biology) or nurture (mostly cultural)?
I think it's both. Clearly some cultures are more "macho" than others; a flippant example would be the realtive popularity of wearing moustaches. Serious ones would be the kind of machismo "family honour" that leads to murdering family members who flash their ankles at the wrong person, or the acceptability of "she was asking for it" as a rape defence. (I don't intend to imply that only countries with lots of moustaches think this way, though the attitudes do unfortunately seem to be a little bit linked sometimes)
What, if anything, should we do about this?
ALL of us. Think rationally about our behaviour more than we do. Too often, we decide things in our gut and then rationalise them afterwards, if ever.
We are animals, certainly, and it's perfectly natural for us to behave in accordance with our animal natures. But the only thing that makes us unique is our mental capacity. I think the highest form of human development is not to never behave like an animal, but in knowing when to do so, and to do it sparingly.
To answer my own questions,
What does this mean?
It just underlines something I've long thought obvious. A study into the religious affiliations of Popes past and present, or the toilet habits of bears might have held more surprises for me.
Why are men so undermined personally by questions about their masculinity?
I think most men's ideas of what masculinity actually is, especially in a wider social context, is pretty much built on the idea that we can never really live up to it, at least not all the time. Being publicly reminded about a failing we secretly suspect in ourselves is not particularly edifying.
You get much the same defensive effects when you point out a weakness in someone's parenting skills; every parent, even the most loving and conscientious, knows that they could do that little bit better - there was that one time we snapped at Junior when he asked for candy the nine hundred and fiftieth time that one day (or there was the time we left him on his own and went on vacation for a month - the way we beat up on ourselves is all relative to what we think we should be doing, whether or not we're right about that).
These days, we're all saturated with images and information about what we're "supposed" to be like in almost every aspect of our lives, and it's next to impossible to live up to all of them.
Assuming this theory is correct and accurate, are ideas of masculinity nature (mostly biology) or nurture (mostly cultural)?
I think it's both. Clearly some cultures are more "macho" than others; a flippant example would be the realtive popularity of wearing moustaches. Serious ones would be the kind of machismo "family honour" that leads to murdering family members who flash their ankles at the wrong person, or the acceptability of "she was asking for it" as a rape defence. (I don't intend to imply that only countries with lots of moustaches think this way, though the attitudes do unfortunately seem to be a little bit linked sometimes)
What, if anything, should we do about this?
ALL of us. Think rationally about our behaviour more than we do. Too often, we decide things in our gut and then rationalise them afterwards, if ever.
We are animals, certainly, and it's perfectly natural for us to behave in accordance with our animal natures. But the only thing that makes us unique is our mental capacity. I think the highest form of human development is not to never behave like an animal, but in knowing when to do so, and to do it sparingly.
I voted "mumbo jumbo" (the last poll option).
I agree with Mrs. P: this indicates that men and women are different. I don't see some grand conspiracy involved.
Now, marketers certainly try to capitalize on this pattern of behavior, but that does not mean that they shape the behavior.
Why are men so undermined personally by questions about their masculinity?
No idea... why do male lions have manes?
Assuming this theory is correct and accurate, are ideas of masculinity nature (mostly biology) or nurture (mostly cultural)?
Nature. Men are the same everywhere. There are exceptions, but by and large, men of all societies have similar instincts and similar behavior patterns. In some, the culture modifies it, making certain behaviors illegal, for example. I know of no culture where men are passive and women are the dominant leaders (for example).
What, if anything, should we do about this?
Nothing.... why does the dog bark at the moon?
I agree with Mrs. P: this indicates that men and women are different. I don't see some grand conspiracy involved.
Now, marketers certainly try to capitalize on this pattern of behavior, but that does not mean that they shape the behavior.
Why are men so undermined personally by questions about their masculinity?
No idea... why do male lions have manes?
Assuming this theory is correct and accurate, are ideas of masculinity nature (mostly biology) or nurture (mostly cultural)?
Nature. Men are the same everywhere. There are exceptions, but by and large, men of all societies have similar instincts and similar behavior patterns. In some, the culture modifies it, making certain behaviors illegal, for example. I know of no culture where men are passive and women are the dominant leaders (for example).
What, if anything, should we do about this?
Nothing.... why does the dog bark at the moon?
We are all human... but before that we are animals first.(Mammals to be exact). Driven by primal and feral urges. Men, by nature, are aggressive. Women on the other handing, as a whole are nurturing. As I look at myself I realize that I am strongly controlled by my primal nature to protect and provide for my family, nothing is stronger. Am I macho, maybe some would say so, but I can goto the flip side and say that men who are calling me macho, I can call them weak. It would be hyprocritical to say otherwise.
What does this mean?
Sociology is the study of group psychology and psychology is an individuals psychology- in my own way of defining it- and I think using sociology to describe individual behaviors outside the marketing of products is kinda misleading IMHO- because it is too complex to really make a "meaning"- considering that nobody is raised in a vacuum and there can be no "control" part of the experiment.
Why are men so undermined personally by questions about their masculinity?
For the same reason that asking a woman her wieght or age can get you into trouble- it is an ingrained part of our self worth. Men are defined by thier success, women by thier looks, and masculinity and success are intertwined- so, trying to make a man focus his self worth on something un-masculine, such as him "looking like a big girls blouse" kinda thing- can diminish his ability to be successful, so he must overcompensate.
Assuming this theory is correct and accurate, are ideas of masculinity nature (mostly biology) or nurture (mostly cultural)?
Nature vs nurture- we still fighting that one? LOL
- it is both, equally, and it is impossible to seperate the two. For instance- you may have a genetic pre-disposition to cigarette smoking- but if cigarettes are never offered in your society, how will you ever realize your genetic "potential" - same here, moif somewhat touched on it- those monks have all the same genetic material as any other male- but, put into an enviroment were that genetic programming is moot, then you don't see the behavior. Prison you see it because of all the survival issues determined by certain behaviors- for instance, a weaker male, knowing that he can not possibly beat a large "yard monster" may actually be more deadly than that "yard monster" in order to compensate for his physical inability to win- go "beserk" without any care for personal safety, or even living through the situation- this is why so many men leave prison ready to go into a self destructive rage- because it was good survival skills in prison, the ability to "go off" on a stronger opponent, despite obvious disadvantage, to force that stronger opponent to re-do a "cost benefit analysis" of attacking the weaker opponent- sure, you will win, but at what cost?
What makes humans nearly unique in the animal kingdom is our ability to overcome or change, our instincts. And we can do this with internal control, rather than external control, say, teaching your dog not to eat your chickens, is external, but a person deciding to quit smoking, is internal- difficult for humans, but we do have the ability.
What, if anything, should we do about this?
How about nothing? Use it for marketing research? Why is it wrong for men to be "macho" any more than it is wrong for women to make themselves look desirable to other humans every day? Some things in human nature we should just leave alone, unless an INDIVIDUAL's instincts are somehow distructive to another INDIVIDUAL- I don't think any societal change is neccesary.
Sociology is the study of group psychology and psychology is an individuals psychology- in my own way of defining it- and I think using sociology to describe individual behaviors outside the marketing of products is kinda misleading IMHO- because it is too complex to really make a "meaning"- considering that nobody is raised in a vacuum and there can be no "control" part of the experiment.
Why are men so undermined personally by questions about their masculinity?
For the same reason that asking a woman her wieght or age can get you into trouble- it is an ingrained part of our self worth. Men are defined by thier success, women by thier looks, and masculinity and success are intertwined- so, trying to make a man focus his self worth on something un-masculine, such as him "looking like a big girls blouse" kinda thing- can diminish his ability to be successful, so he must overcompensate.
Assuming this theory is correct and accurate, are ideas of masculinity nature (mostly biology) or nurture (mostly cultural)?
Nature vs nurture- we still fighting that one? LOL
- it is both, equally, and it is impossible to seperate the two. For instance- you may have a genetic pre-disposition to cigarette smoking- but if cigarettes are never offered in your society, how will you ever realize your genetic "potential" - same here, moif somewhat touched on it- those monks have all the same genetic material as any other male- but, put into an enviroment were that genetic programming is moot, then you don't see the behavior. Prison you see it because of all the survival issues determined by certain behaviors- for instance, a weaker male, knowing that he can not possibly beat a large "yard monster" may actually be more deadly than that "yard monster" in order to compensate for his physical inability to win- go "beserk" without any care for personal safety, or even living through the situation- this is why so many men leave prison ready to go into a self destructive rage- because it was good survival skills in prison, the ability to "go off" on a stronger opponent, despite obvious disadvantage, to force that stronger opponent to re-do a "cost benefit analysis" of attacking the weaker opponent- sure, you will win, but at what cost? What makes humans nearly unique in the animal kingdom is our ability to overcome or change, our instincts. And we can do this with internal control, rather than external control, say, teaching your dog not to eat your chickens, is external, but a person deciding to quit smoking, is internal- difficult for humans, but we do have the ability.
What, if anything, should we do about this?
How about nothing? Use it for marketing research? Why is it wrong for men to be "macho" any more than it is wrong for women to make themselves look desirable to other humans every day? Some things in human nature we should just leave alone, unless an INDIVIDUAL's instincts are somehow distructive to another INDIVIDUAL- I don't think any societal change is neccesary.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Oct 3 2005, 11:46 AM)
Why are men so undermined personally by questions about their masculinity?
For the same reason that asking a woman her wieght or age can get you into trouble- it is an ingrained part of our self worth. Men are defined by thier success, women by thier looks, and masculinity and success are intertwined- so, trying to make a man focus his self worth on something un-masculine, such as him "looking like a big girls blouse" kinda thing- can diminish his ability to be successful, so he must overcompensate.
Assuming this theory is correct and accurate, are ideas of masculinity nature (mostly biology) or nurture (mostly cultural)?
Nature vs nurture- we still fighting that one? LOL - it is both, equally, and it is impossible to seperate the two. For instance- you may have a genetic pre-disposition to cigarette smoking- but if cigarettes are never offered in your society, how will you ever realize your genetic "potential" - same here, moif somewhat touched on it- those monks have all the same genetic material as any other male- but, put into an enviroment were that genetic programming is moot, then you don't see the behavior. Prison you see it because of all the survival issues determined by certain behaviors- for instance, a weaker male, knowing that he can not possibly beat a large "yard monster" may actually be more deadly than that "yard monster" in order to compensate for his physical inability to win- go "beserk" without any care for personal safety, or even living through the situation- this is why so many men leave prison ready to go into a self destructive rage- because it was good survival skills in prison, the ability to "go off" on a stronger opponent, despite obvious disadvantage, to force that stronger opponent to re-do a "cost benefit analysis" of attacking the weaker opponent- sure, you will win, but at what cost?
What makes humans nearly unique in the animal kingdom is our ability to overcome or change, our instincts. And we can do this with internal control, rather than external control, say, teaching your dog not to eat your chickens, is external, but a person deciding to quit smoking, is internal- difficult for humans, but we do have the ability.
For the same reason that asking a woman her wieght or age can get you into trouble- it is an ingrained part of our self worth. Men are defined by thier success, women by thier looks, and masculinity and success are intertwined- so, trying to make a man focus his self worth on something un-masculine, such as him "looking like a big girls blouse" kinda thing- can diminish his ability to be successful, so he must overcompensate.
Assuming this theory is correct and accurate, are ideas of masculinity nature (mostly biology) or nurture (mostly cultural)?
Nature vs nurture- we still fighting that one? LOL
- it is both, equally, and it is impossible to seperate the two. For instance- you may have a genetic pre-disposition to cigarette smoking- but if cigarettes are never offered in your society, how will you ever realize your genetic "potential" - same here, moif somewhat touched on it- those monks have all the same genetic material as any other male- but, put into an enviroment were that genetic programming is moot, then you don't see the behavior. Prison you see it because of all the survival issues determined by certain behaviors- for instance, a weaker male, knowing that he can not possibly beat a large "yard monster" may actually be more deadly than that "yard monster" in order to compensate for his physical inability to win- go "beserk" without any care for personal safety, or even living through the situation- this is why so many men leave prison ready to go into a self destructive rage- because it was good survival skills in prison, the ability to "go off" on a stronger opponent, despite obvious disadvantage, to force that stronger opponent to re-do a "cost benefit analysis" of attacking the weaker opponent- sure, you will win, but at what cost? What makes humans nearly unique in the animal kingdom is our ability to overcome or change, our instincts. And we can do this with internal control, rather than external control, say, teaching your dog not to eat your chickens, is external, but a person deciding to quit smoking, is internal- difficult for humans, but we do have the ability.
I don't think "machoism" has much to do with success (at least not in first world countries). Machoism isn't very cerebral. It has more to do with base survival. That's why machoism between boys is more direct and obvious on the schoolyard playground than in polite adult society. Why else would that be the case? If anything, society has a civilizing influence on men. For that matter, women have a civilizing influence, too. Do men act the same around women they wish to impress as they do around only men? Not usually.
You are certainly right people can choose not to be reactive with their environments. They could choose to live in a hippy commune and share everything, but the fact that some are able to live in a hippy commune doesn't undermine the reality of the premise of economic rationality (that individuals inherently act to increase reward over cost). That's an analogous example, IMO, to the monks.
I have too much respect for men for me to believe that they are slaves to biology. Whatever biological differences may exist within the human brain (and this is an area of science in which ignorance is profound), it cannot be denied that individuals are capable of altering their behavior. The question remains, what sorts of change in behavior should society encourage?
Over the last century or so, the American feminist movement has had a profound effect on the expected behavior of women. This drastic change in society has been one of the most important, and most benign, events of the Twentieth Century. Very few people still deny that women can be soldiers, scientists, politicians, and captains of industry. It's time to turn some of our attention to an equally important problem.
American men continue to be the victims of sexist stereotyping.
In these modern times, we usually admire a woman with a certain number of "masculine" traits. Many women are proud to be "tomboys." There is no parallel admiring term for men who exhibit a certain number of "feminine" traits. Instead, we heap them with scorn for being "sissies" and "girly-men." I mourn for the gentle, kind, loving men who suffer this abuse on a daily basis.
Like many, I have undergone psychological testing. Among many other findings,I was told that my score on the "feminine/masculine" scale was almost exactly in the middle. I was very pleased with this. It certainly did not threaten my identity.
To answer the questions for debate:
1 and 2: Because there is one overwhelming message which we tell to every boy who is born over and over again. You must fight, every second, against the terrible possibility that you are a woman. What is one of the worse insults that can be directed against a boy? "You're acting like a girl!"
In this study, some of the men were told "You do not fit 100% of the traditional masculine stereotypes." They should have reacted by saying "Thank goodness!" Instead, the propaganda which has been fed to every American male since birth translated this message into the hated words "You're acting like a girl!" No wonder they felt the desperate need to prove themselves to be absolutely, utterly male in every way.
3. Both play an important role, as they do in every aspect of human behavior. The wonderful good news is that your own personal will can overcome the chains of Nature and Society, although the struggle is a long and hard one.
4. I offer a parable.
A woman stands outside a cave, in the warmth of the sun. Behind her, a man sits huddled in the cave. The woman loves the man for many reasons; not the least of these is the fact that he had often aided her in her struggle to leave the cave. Now, in gratitude, she offers her hand to the man, and encourages him to step out into the light. Should he not accept?
Over the last century or so, the American feminist movement has had a profound effect on the expected behavior of women. This drastic change in society has been one of the most important, and most benign, events of the Twentieth Century. Very few people still deny that women can be soldiers, scientists, politicians, and captains of industry. It's time to turn some of our attention to an equally important problem.
American men continue to be the victims of sexist stereotyping.
In these modern times, we usually admire a woman with a certain number of "masculine" traits. Many women are proud to be "tomboys." There is no parallel admiring term for men who exhibit a certain number of "feminine" traits. Instead, we heap them with scorn for being "sissies" and "girly-men." I mourn for the gentle, kind, loving men who suffer this abuse on a daily basis.
Like many, I have undergone psychological testing. Among many other findings,I was told that my score on the "feminine/masculine" scale was almost exactly in the middle. I was very pleased with this. It certainly did not threaten my identity.
To answer the questions for debate:
1 and 2: Because there is one overwhelming message which we tell to every boy who is born over and over again. You must fight, every second, against the terrible possibility that you are a woman. What is one of the worse insults that can be directed against a boy? "You're acting like a girl!"
In this study, some of the men were told "You do not fit 100% of the traditional masculine stereotypes." They should have reacted by saying "Thank goodness!" Instead, the propaganda which has been fed to every American male since birth translated this message into the hated words "You're acting like a girl!" No wonder they felt the desperate need to prove themselves to be absolutely, utterly male in every way.
3. Both play an important role, as they do in every aspect of human behavior. The wonderful good news is that your own personal will can overcome the chains of Nature and Society, although the struggle is a long and hard one.
4. I offer a parable.
A woman stands outside a cave, in the warmth of the sun. Behind her, a man sits huddled in the cave. The woman loves the man for many reasons; not the least of these is the fact that he had often aided her in her struggle to leave the cave. Now, in gratitude, she offers her hand to the man, and encourages him to step out into the light. Should he not accept?
Please note: I am not taking this seriously in any manner.
What does this mean?
That psychological inquiry has proven that yes, indeed, grass is green and the sky is blue. I am totally astounded.
Why are men so undermined personally by questions about their masculinity?
It's higher primate behavior. Excuse me, I need to beat my chest and toss stuff around for a while.
Assuming this theory is correct and accurate, are ideas of masculinity nature (mostly biology) or nurture (mostly cultural)?
Hey, trick question! Okay, I give. Which is it?
What, if anything, should we do about this?
Legalize drugs.
Seriously though, what do you suppose the Hulk character is based upon? The Hulk is male anger brought to an extreme expression. Back in my youth, what prompted me to slug a refrigerator hard enough to leave knuckle indents? Anger, born of frustration, and an absolute fatigue of depression (unexpressed anger).
What has in my old age caused me to mellow out and not give a flying fluke? Good question, and I don't care to take up the entire capacity of this site trying to explain it.
But here's a hint: Think about universal insults that men give to each other. They have to do with sexuality and maternal lineage. Now ask yourself, who made those buttons? Thinking ... thinking ... thinking ...
Stop.
Feel any better? No? Okay, carry on.
What does this mean?
That psychological inquiry has proven that yes, indeed, grass is green and the sky is blue. I am totally astounded.
Why are men so undermined personally by questions about their masculinity?
It's higher primate behavior. Excuse me, I need to beat my chest and toss stuff around for a while.
Assuming this theory is correct and accurate, are ideas of masculinity nature (mostly biology) or nurture (mostly cultural)?
Hey, trick question! Okay, I give. Which is it?
What, if anything, should we do about this?
Legalize drugs.
Seriously though, what do you suppose the Hulk character is based upon? The Hulk is male anger brought to an extreme expression. Back in my youth, what prompted me to slug a refrigerator hard enough to leave knuckle indents? Anger, born of frustration, and an absolute fatigue of depression (unexpressed anger).
What has in my old age caused me to mellow out and not give a flying fluke? Good question, and I don't care to take up the entire capacity of this site trying to explain it.
But here's a hint: Think about universal insults that men give to each other. They have to do with sexuality and maternal lineage. Now ask yourself, who made those buttons? Thinking ... thinking ... thinking ...
Stop.
Feel any better? No? Okay, carry on.
QUOTE(Julian @ Oct 3 2005, 08:24 AM)
What does this mean?
Assuming this theory is correct and accurate, are ideas of masculinity nature (mostly biology) or nurture (mostly cultural)?
What, if anything, should we do about this?
Assuming this theory is correct and accurate, are ideas of masculinity nature (mostly biology) or nurture (mostly cultural)?
What, if anything, should we do about this?
1.) That men need valium.
2.) Nurture. Given the right circumstances, anyone can become anything. Instincts have little to do with this behavior and it is all what men see around them that morphs them into macho baboons.
3.) I say we just go ahead and let men be men without outside influence. We should, put a man on Mars and then if he grows up normal, good. If he does not, we'll know that something made him macho and it ruined his life. I don't think there is much that can be done, both nature and nurture are highly acute to the male brain and it would be hard to block or rechannel one. Life will go on I'm sure.
QUOTE
But here's a hint: Think about universal insults that men give to each other. They have to do with sexuality and maternal lineage. Now ask yourself, who made those buttons? Thinking ... thinking ... thinking ...
Ok, my man does not have great macho man tendancies which makes him perfect for me, but his work companions always have something to say about his masculinity. He likes staying at home with family and would rather be with me than them and doesnt do football. He doesnt care that I have an opinion, but they certainely do.
A work companion of his has a great relationship with his woman, and the co-workers always have something to say about him being ' whipped'.
All women in relationships know their men at their weak points, on levels of intimacy, and being loving and well, just humans.
Im not sure its women that hold men to macho, in most cases I think we dont really appreciate it much. Yes, we want a 'can do' man as much as we are 'can do' women, but all this macho stuff doesnt really get us what we desire.
I think some men are definately more macho than others, likely reflects on their upbringing in one way or another. I reflect on our fathers who were much more macho than men are today. Prison camps have shown how brutal men can become to each other without the civilizing influence of women, and how the men change when nurses/women come back into the picture.
My s/o said something to me recently that struck me about prevailing attitudes: "Men think enough wierd stuff in their heads without other men trying to screw up their lives for them ".
And interestingly (Victoria), Ive caught mine saying to the boys, " youre whining/crying/acting like a little girl" or some such blather, its just ingrained in us from childhood! I always correct this right away, to stop the ongoing misconception.
I agree with much of the comments here regarding how men are socialized into masculine ways. I think most, but not all, of gender is socially constructed (I think there still is a genetic/biological component). The French philosopher, Michael Foucault, wrote a book in 1977 titled discipline and punishment. The thesis is quite simply, you either discipline yourself to societal norms, or you get punished in the process. And societal punishment, such as humiliation, embarrassment, being heard via credibility, can be over-bearable. And very painful.
I am a married university professor with four children. I am also a former national level athlete who was competing to making it into the Olympics (was on a national sport team). When I was involved in sports, as an adolescent and young adult, I sure acted more “macho” – especially when traditional masculine themes were involved (e.g., competition, sexual attributes, strength, societal success). I’ve unlearned many of those masculine themes of masculine credibility, however even now – as a university professor who teaches in body image and have underscored in teaching and research that some and many masculine themes can be unlearned (and also I teach these to my children) – even now and then I catch myself being “macho” when threaned in some way.
This occurs so much more when I interact with men and I think the societal norms are so strong that I would rather discipline myself that deal with the punishing discourse. Here is one simple example of the punishing discourse when someone tried to go against the grain. A few months ago I was have a depthful discussion with two very good male friends about heterosexual dating. Both of these are good people, well educated and are in white-collar jobs. One is married and the other is not. The conversations turned to do you look at other women’s sexual areas (breasts, legs, buttocks, etc.) when in a relationship (married or dating). I provided a resounding NO! They then both questioned me and asked questions like “In your 15 years of marriage are you telling me you have never looked at another women’s breasts?” My honest answer was than although I notice breast size in a general way, just like I notice someone’s hair color in a general way, I do not look at breast in a sexual way, other than my good wife’s. Although there was male teasing, they were OK with my thoughts. However, they really put hegemonic male pressure on me when I added that I also look away if a woman purposively or non-purposely exposes parts of her breasts while in social interaction (e.g., bending over to try on shoes). They realled grilled me and how “real” men will look and there is nothing wrong with looking, as long as you do not touch. I supported my position and argued about how heterosexual relationships must first be based on a emotional level of trust and how men need to unlearn male societal behaviors (e.g., desiring bigger breasts) to gain a deeper emotional relationship with women. However, I did find myself arguing against male credibility and feeling a very small degree of embarrassment. However, I thought about this for sometime and realized how powerful societal gender discourse/norms really are – I felt a small degree of embarrassment from two solid, trusted, and good friends that I’ve know for over 20 years. Wow. Societal norms are powerful and the punishing discourse of male credibility is always on the line when a male moves outside – even in a small way – of societal male credibility. However, men need to focus so much more time and energy developing their ego and inner strengths, instead of acting in macho ways when male credibility is threatened. It is easier said than done, but in my mind, it is needed.
I am a married university professor with four children. I am also a former national level athlete who was competing to making it into the Olympics (was on a national sport team). When I was involved in sports, as an adolescent and young adult, I sure acted more “macho” – especially when traditional masculine themes were involved (e.g., competition, sexual attributes, strength, societal success). I’ve unlearned many of those masculine themes of masculine credibility, however even now – as a university professor who teaches in body image and have underscored in teaching and research that some and many masculine themes can be unlearned (and also I teach these to my children) – even now and then I catch myself being “macho” when threaned in some way.
This occurs so much more when I interact with men and I think the societal norms are so strong that I would rather discipline myself that deal with the punishing discourse. Here is one simple example of the punishing discourse when someone tried to go against the grain. A few months ago I was have a depthful discussion with two very good male friends about heterosexual dating. Both of these are good people, well educated and are in white-collar jobs. One is married and the other is not. The conversations turned to do you look at other women’s sexual areas (breasts, legs, buttocks, etc.) when in a relationship (married or dating). I provided a resounding NO! They then both questioned me and asked questions like “In your 15 years of marriage are you telling me you have never looked at another women’s breasts?” My honest answer was than although I notice breast size in a general way, just like I notice someone’s hair color in a general way, I do not look at breast in a sexual way, other than my good wife’s. Although there was male teasing, they were OK with my thoughts. However, they really put hegemonic male pressure on me when I added that I also look away if a woman purposively or non-purposely exposes parts of her breasts while in social interaction (e.g., bending over to try on shoes). They realled grilled me and how “real” men will look and there is nothing wrong with looking, as long as you do not touch. I supported my position and argued about how heterosexual relationships must first be based on a emotional level of trust and how men need to unlearn male societal behaviors (e.g., desiring bigger breasts) to gain a deeper emotional relationship with women. However, I did find myself arguing against male credibility and feeling a very small degree of embarrassment. However, I thought about this for sometime and realized how powerful societal gender discourse/norms really are – I felt a small degree of embarrassment from two solid, trusted, and good friends that I’ve know for over 20 years. Wow. Societal norms are powerful and the punishing discourse of male credibility is always on the line when a male moves outside – even in a small way – of societal male credibility. However, men need to focus so much more time and energy developing their ego and inner strengths, instead of acting in macho ways when male credibility is threatened. It is easier said than done, but in my mind, it is needed.
QUOTE(rbb @ Jan 20 2006, 07:02 PM)
I agree with much of the comments here regarding how men are socialized into masculine ways. I think most, but not all, of gender is socially constructed (I think there still is a genetic/biological component). The French philosopher, Michael Foucault, wrote a book in 1977 titled discipline and punishment. The thesis is quite simply, you either discipline yourself to societal norms, or you get punished in the process. And societal punishment, such as humiliation, embarrassment, being heard via credibility, can be over-bearable. And very painful.
I am a married university professor with four children. I am also a former national level athlete who was competing to making it into the Olympics (was on a national sport team). When I was involved in sports, as an adolescent and young adult, I sure acted more “macho” – especially when traditional masculine themes were involved (e.g., competition, sexual attributes, strength, societal success). I’ve unlearned many of those masculine themes of masculine credibility, however even now – as a university professor who teaches in body image and have underscored in teaching and research that some and many masculine themes can be unlearned (and also I teach these to my children) – even now and then I catch myself being “macho” when threaned in some way.
This occurs so much more when I interact with men and I think the societal norms are so strong that I would rather discipline myself that deal with the punishing discourse. Here is one simple example of the punishing discourse when someone tried to go against the grain. A few months ago I was have a depthful discussion with two very good male friends about heterosexual dating. Both of these are good people, well educated and are in white-collar jobs. One is married and the other is not. The conversations turned to do you look at other women’s sexual areas (breasts, legs, buttocks, etc.) when in a relationship (married or dating). I provided a resounding NO! They then both questioned me and asked questions like “In your 15 years of marriage are you telling me you have never looked at another women’s breasts?” My honest answer was than although I notice breast size in a general way, just like I notice someone’s hair color in a general way, I do not look at breast in a sexual way, other than my good wife’s. Although there was male teasing, they were OK with my thoughts. However, they really put hegemonic male pressure on me when I added that I also look away if a woman purposively or non-purposely exposes parts of her breasts while in social interaction (e.g., bending over to try on shoes). They realled grilled me and how “real” men will look and there is nothing wrong with looking, as long as you do not touch. I supported my position and argued about how heterosexual relationships must first be based on a emotional level of trust and how men need to unlearn male societal behaviors (e.g., desiring bigger breasts) to gain a deeper emotional relationship with women. However, I did find myself arguing against male credibility and feeling a very small degree of embarrassment. However, I thought about this for sometime and realized how powerful societal gender discourse/norms really are – I felt a small degree of embarrassment from two solid, trusted, and good friends that I’ve know for over 20 years. Wow. Societal norms are powerful and the punishing discourse of male credibility is always on the line when a male moves outside – even in a small way – of societal male credibility. However, men need to focus so much more time and energy developing their ego and inner strengths, instead of acting in macho ways when male credibility is threatened. It is easier said than done, but in my mind, it is needed.
I like the way the good professor thinks; Moreover, I like the way his action speaks louder then words. As a female, I get confused with male credibility. I find myself wondering if male friends are nice to me because I am a good person, or are they nice because I have big breast. I lost trust in men. I have overheard too many young men conversations. To them the ladies are all about sex, and they are competitive on how good they are in bed. Let us wake up and make changes. Start by teaching our young to respect eachother. I find that this extreme "macho" nonsense is primarily in America and third world countries. Maybe we could learn something from countries with happier men. All the macho men I know are unhappy.
I agree fas. It is sad that so many men are socialized into competition, bigness, and matieral goods as a sign of social status (bigness). Whether that is a bigger house, a woman with bigger breasts, bigger golf clubs, bigger penises, bigger arms, bigger cars, etc., etc., they are always competing. Perhaps this is why Jane Addams (first American woman to win a Nobel Peace Price) wrote an article in the 1930's in the Ladies Home Journal that men should not be allowed to vote because all men do is fight. Her point was, if politicians were women, most wars would stop. Men do not grow up because they just want top fight and compete more and more. Although I agree with voting equality, Jane Addams point about men always proving their masculinity is a good one. Like you, I wish more men (and women) would look inside people more and see inner attributes, such as honesty, humor, ethics, intelligence, strong work ethic, and so forth. It would be a much better world, instead of capitalistic competition when men are constantly measuring up against other men.
With this said, let me add that I know women who compete over these things also, but it seems to me it is more frequent and intesne with men. Further, there are good men out there that do not follow hegemonic masculine ways and I think those are the men that create the yin-yang expereince with women.
With this said, let me add that I know women who compete over these things also, but it seems to me it is more frequent and intesne with men. Further, there are good men out there that do not follow hegemonic masculine ways and I think those are the men that create the yin-yang expereince with women.
What does this mean?
These men were intimidated when told they were more feminine then they believed they were.
Why are men so undermined personally by questions about their masculinity?
Not sure and I would like to see more tests on men of different ages to perhaps uncover different responses.
Assuming this theory is correct and accurate, are ideas of masculinity nature (mostly biology) or nurture (mostly cultural)?
IMO mostly nature. Anyone who has kids (I have 3) will tell you that from day 1 boys and girls are very different.
What, if anything, should we do about this?
Why do anything?
These men were intimidated when told they were more feminine then they believed they were.
Why are men so undermined personally by questions about their masculinity?
Not sure and I would like to see more tests on men of different ages to perhaps uncover different responses.
Assuming this theory is correct and accurate, are ideas of masculinity nature (mostly biology) or nurture (mostly cultural)?
IMO mostly nature. Anyone who has kids (I have 3) will tell you that from day 1 boys and girls are very different.
What, if anything, should we do about this?
Why do anything?
What does this mean?
It means that there are a lot more closeted homosexuals than we think.
Why are men so undermined personally by questions about their masculinity?
For the most part, homophobes and super-masculine men are sensitive being homosexual themselves. The real man is masculine and needs no questioning, like me for instance.
Assuming this theory is correct and accurate, are ideas of masculinity nature (mostly biology) or nurture (mostly cultural)?
I would say that nature is most of it, though in reality a man may be effeminate but pressured by culture into acting super-masculine.
What, if anything, should we do about this?
I can't seem to think of anything, though I have a theory that such things are a curable pshycological problem.
[/quote]
It means that there are a lot more closeted homosexuals than we think.
Why are men so undermined personally by questions about their masculinity?
For the most part, homophobes and super-masculine men are sensitive being homosexual themselves. The real man is masculine and needs no questioning, like me for instance.
Assuming this theory is correct and accurate, are ideas of masculinity nature (mostly biology) or nurture (mostly cultural)?
I would say that nature is most of it, though in reality a man may be effeminate but pressured by culture into acting super-masculine.
What, if anything, should we do about this?
I can't seem to think of anything, though I have a theory that such things are a curable pshycological problem.
[/quote]
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.