An interesting SF Gate article.





Soooooo, we need to be more touchy-feely? We need to be Woody Allen?



Men are ending the planet as we know it?

If the guy is talking about being open, then I think he has a point. beyond that, he's on a weird social engineering tangent of a fringe movement.


Questions for debate:

1.)Is it time to abandon the idea that men have certain psychological or social traits that inherenlty come with being biologically male? Please explain using specific examples.

2.)What is the "next step" evolution wise for men psychologically and/or physically?

1.)Is it time to abandon the idea that men have certain psychological or social traits that inherenlty come with being biologically male? Please explain using specific examples.

No....because there simply ARE psychological and social traits that are inherently male. How many of the 300 Spartans were women? I think it's a mistake to pretend that women and men are the same, and an even worse mistake to try and make them so.

And women don't generally like it. I'm reminded of an episode of 'Sex in the City'. The one where Charlotte started dating a pastry chef. He was seemingly perfect...sensitive to her needs, ect...until the morning he jumped up on a chair and squealed at a mouse, begging her to kill it for him. She decided that she wasn't quite as in touch with her masculine side as he was with his feminine side.

2.)What is the "next step" evolution wise for men psychologically and/or physically?

Um, evolution actually HAS made men the way they are. Look at the animal kingdom for further "proof". If women thought that weakness was appealing there would likely be more men with this character trait...just as, if men found aggressive behavior appealing in women more women would likely demonstrate that trait. I think we should concentrate on the good points and not the bad. Men are more violent, but they are also capable of great protective heroism. I say bring back the concept of "manners" and nurture the strengths. It would do wonders for both sexes, rather than trying to "equalize" the sexes by pushing the women to be aggressive and men to be weak.

Joke which aptly illustrates a truth. Frankly, I don't want a mate who steals my Cucumber and Lamfrey shampoo, or five types of body lotion, or loofah...

Edited to add: I must confess, I just read the article after posting (I was in a time-crunch before). The author makes some good points, but he reads far too much into this. Example:

Well, that is simply rot. There is no conclusion that women are not strong or courageous. No one discards one gender by pointing out the strengths or good points of another. Just as no one, by pointing out the "nurturing" or "protective" aspects of mothers, demeans the nurturing and protective aspects of fathers. It is, however, generally a different relationship dynamic. Society can't "make it the same" by neutering men.

This article makes me wonder if the author has ever met a man, OR a woman for that matter.

1.)Is it time to abandon the idea that men have certain psychological or social traits that inherently come with being biologically male? Please explain using specific examples.

No. It is time to acknowledge than men and women are different. Scientifically, you can identify a man from a woman by blood chemistry, hormone levels, and all sorts of scientific means. Why is it so difficult for some to acknowledge than men are not the same as women. We are complementary.

2.)What is the "next step" evolution wise for men psychologically and/or physically?

For society to jettison the worthless hangers-on like the author who provide nothing but criticism towards society? The types who can't see the advantages of men and women being different.

Men are more competitive (as illustrated by sports, politics, and the military as the author says). It leads to a drive to be better, a drive to improve. Do we really want a less competitive society where being better isn't rewarded with a more attractive mate, a better job, more money or other "rewards"?

What societies have driven civilization forward: the Romans and Greeks--innovative competitive societies or the native American tribes of North America? Certainly these latter societies have made some contributions, but not in the same magnitude as the Greeks and Romans.

Isn't evolution "survival of the fittest"? Isn't it the strongest survive and the weaker members perish in times of hardship? Where does evolution fit into rewarding non-competitiveness? It doesn't.

1.)Is it time to abandon the idea that men have certain psychological or social traits that inherenlty come with being biologically male? Please explain using specific examples.

It's difficult for me to not believe this topic is a setup. I mean posting a San Francisco article on the question of male masculinity. No doubt there are many in SF that think masculinity is real. So why not pose this question on an SF board? Wouldn't that get you a more accurate answer? If there are two sexes, then why wouldn't it be logical to believe that there are psychological differences? There are certainly obvious physical differences, so I think logic would support the definite proposition that there are mental differences. So the answer is there is no control over the idea that men have certain psychological traits. If you don't like who you are, then a lobotomy might be for you.

2.)What is the "next step" evolution wise for men psychologically and/or physically?

There is no next step.

Well, here I am again on the fringe.
I believe men Do need to evolve and they are going about it much slower than women.

Absolute male power has corrupted absolutely. 50% of the worlds population , the women and children of the planet are at present routinely and consistantly abused, impoverished, on moral grounds hidden (burquas), raped, beaten, sold as sex-slaves, exploited, objectified, sent to their deaths (India), used in war as penalty, disguised as 'religion' or 'society'- kept as an underclass.
THIS IS NOT GENDER 'COMPLIMENTARY'. It is abuse. Male, testosterone abuse. Women are prey in most societies and the first to suffer under hierarchy and (all patriarchal, the only thing available) religious dogma.
As the author states, we face new challenges as a world, and the 'male definition' of how things should be run hasnt really done anyone much good in the last several hundred years. We just may need a more cooperative paradigm that isnt so testosterone based.
The 300 Spartans were at a time when everyone was trying to take everyone elses 'stuff', women, countries, treasures, power. The same with the Romans, Ottomans, British, Hitler, and our own history is violent, genocidal, racist and sexist.
This is male power, domination and competition is all its glory. Yes, greatness was accomplished, but that greatness has a really ugly side.
The perpetual state of brutal wars has exhausted our personal resources everywhere, robbing us of the ability to take care of ourselves and our families- and the male state of competition, dominance and violence is destroying the environment we all depend upon, whether corporate or militarily.
I believe the authors call for men to become more 'human' instead of 'male' has been taken here in exactly the way he was referring to-" are we supposed to become pussified?" In other words, being at all like women -ie-touchy-feely is just stupid. (It wasnt personal, he didnt want you to wear skirts or stop watching football.)

Traditional roles of 'male' HAVE robbed men of clear deep relationships with their mates, their children, the environment and the world at large. Some cultures are better but none are acceptable at present because gender-equity does not exist anywhere, except in certain private homes. Certainely not in societies, politics and the business world, and the US is a very male based culture-kill anything that stands in your way.

So, YES, at this time in our lives there is farther to go, much farther. Sustainable living, cooperation, reducing war, building infrastructures and community, and understanding that women and children are not just an expendable 'commodity' worldwide. All 'pussified' ideals?
I agree with the author that we cant keep up what I see as a 'rape and pillage' mentality, take all and leave the bill to somebody else. In that men will have to become more human or humane, and think harder about the consequences of their base actions and reactions, biological or not.

P.S. Amlord-The native cultures may not have in the past given to greatness because they were slaughtered in droves, but now they certainely have much to teach about sustainable living and cooperation. Also, our own Constitution was based on democratic agreements between the tribes of the Iroqouis Confederation.

Women have been largely discriminated in the past and there will always be people that discriminate against the other sex. Historically women have been considered a lesser sex, just look at christianities hierarchy. Women can't be priestesses or hold any position of power within the church. The bible also isn't to kind to women either, that they are the sex that brought original sin to the world and be submissive to men etc... Also Islam is undoubtedly sexist.

This wasn't always the case, if you look back to paganism women had there own positions within the religion... there were different power bases, women on one side of power and men on the other complementing each other.

This ideal that men and women should be equal is with good intentions but I believe many women and men have the wrong way of going about it. Men and women are different and should be complimentary not attempt to make each other equal in all aspects but rather embrace differences and compliment each other. It's no wonder that there are three times as many women than men that claim to be pagan.



I believe that the type of ideal that the article describes tends to attempt to achieve some sort of Nirvana much like communism in which everyone is equally represented, get's payed the same and therefore no one will have any qualms and live at peace with each other.

The problem with this ideal is that humans are different. There will always be that lazy guy, the wife beater, the one who digs ditches and the one who becomes a doctor. Our differences are what define humanity otherwise we would all be drones, it wouldn't be utopia it would be self defeated anarchy.

Women will continue to be the ones known for there care and nurturing and men the protectors. Once you create an environment that allows for the question of this role you allow another ideal to subvert it. Who's going to defend you if you've taught all your men to lose their masculinity? Do you seriously believe that a bunch of non-masculine men would be better protectors than an army with alot of masculinity? Dog eat dog is not an exclusively male trait its ingrained in nature, and female's abide by it as well.

Is it time to abandon the idea that men have certain psychological or social traits that inherenlty come with being biologically male? Please explain using specific examples.

You can attempt to abandon the idea but that will not make it any less of a truth. There are some ideals that are truths no matter what who may believe otherwise.

What is the "next step" evolution wise for men psychologically and/or physically?

Given the context of the question, I would say the change or eroding of Christianity and Islam's influence.

1.)Is it time to abandon the idea that men have certain psychological or social traits that inherenlty come with being biologically male? Please explain using specific examples.

The studies of psychology and sociology already abandon the inherent traits idea without solid evidence of such. Are males inherently more aggressive than females? Are males more hard-headed than females? Are males more prone to war than females? Are males . . . and onward the questioning goes.

Certainly in the real world, women are generally getting the short end of sticks within many, if not most, cultures. Most, if not all, of this is due to the cultures themselves putting down women. How will this change? Can it change? Who has the authority to make women legally equal to men?

Governments can do this.

2.)What is the "next step" evolution wise for men psychologically and/or physically

The world should stop backsliding into barbarianism. Make it so, Number One.

An Open Letter To Feminine Men:

The way in which some have responded to this very moderate, very reasonable article has no doubt caused you pain. As if it were not enough that you have been tormented since childhood because you did not fit into the stereotypes we force upon boys -- as if it were not enough that you have been called a "sissy" and a "girly-man" and other insulting words I cannot repeat here -- now you are treated with contempt because one writer dares to suggest that it might be a good idea to give men a little bit of freedom from the prison of enforced and distorted masculinity.

I ask you to be brave, and to withstand this unwarrented onslaught. I know that you are capable of great courage, despite the grotesque way in which you have been branded a coward. Nothing, in this society where cut-throat competition is worshipped as the only acceptable way of life for men, takes more courage than to reject this ideal of masculinity.

You have paid a very heavy price for this act of heroism. Many of your fellow males despise you. Some of them have attacked you with violence, out of a paranoid fear of homosexuality. Most bitter of all, some women have rejected your friendship and have turned instead to those males whom you do not wish to emulate.

I ask you not to despair. There are many women who know that you have been the strongest possible ally during the struggles and triumphs of feminism. There are many women and men who cherish your gentleness, your kindness, and your compassion.

You are the best hope of humanity.

Love,

Vicki

I don’t understand fully the premise of this debate. I am sure overall that the level of testosterone in individuals varies person to person, heck maybe hour to hour, and this in turn varies in how it comes to express under the same. Personally I think people have such "instincts" if you will for some reason, or reasons, exactly what may have nothing to do with more then simply being organic and of course the complexity of such in its entirety.

Now if its a topic more in terms of cultural based behavior, I don’t know if you really can condition that out, and making such a social taboo in some regards I think will fail, taking most anything from its nature or denying such really never works, I still don’t think people can really get a platypus to breed in captivity, I would try to be more artistic in point but I feel it would be more of a rant. I mean to me, organic evolution being what it is, it almost sounds like breeding or something lol, and probably just as dangerous at this point as playing with genetics.

Me, how I deal with it is like this, instead of just acting on the impulse, or feeling, first I typically try to understand in the first part why it came about, being its my brain I try to put it to work. simply being to feel fear usually requires something to stimulate that, or for much anything like that, life really is not a sensory deprivation chamber, for many though I think the mistake they make is to act on the impulse and ask questions later, example bush getting us stuck in Iraq.

So to me, I don’t think the issue is masculinity being a problem, as much as simple ignorance of our nature may be to blame. Culture always does seem to evolve in some direction, I mean today if you want you could have a chromed out toilet with neon lighting, is it good or bad, or heck even masculine, I have no idea, and I am sure simply because we live in such plights of ignorance, that most people on the box talking about what is our nature for the most part simply end up in the end finding out its not, simple example being religion in general.

Some person may feel masculine being a fire fighter and saving children, another may derive such from less positive means, but how do you really judge it overall. Now of course our reality coming from what we are, testosterone I am sure has made its place in society, I mean we do have Monday night football after all, but to tackle the issue with anything less then pure fact is futile and basically insulting to everyone involved, but of course humanity in total seems to like fact, but never really ever care to do what it means to get to that x and understand it factually. Most the time I don’t even try anymore, lol, waste of time.

In relations of I guess the sexes, I think the best point you can try to drill home is just basic respect for people, more then hating on ones self or creating hate for that matter, cooperation rather the competition, I mean we are capable of such.

Thoughts from a (thankfully) social pariah:

Its amusing to see debaters take masculinity, unabashedly, as a combination of "inherently" male qualities and then turn around and tie it into natural, animalistic and evolutionary qualities. The two seem to contradict each other in some cases, particulary the idea of an unemotional man. Animals are, afterall, creatures of emotion. When consumed with fear they run (very unmasculine, or perhaps, masculine through fight or flight?). If we have an expressed interest in the natural, we should encourage the wide range of emotions all men feel, crying when sad, excited when happy, etc.

But animals as "breadwinners" and "protectors?!" Highly amusing because of the the extreme degree of irony. A woman that seeks her evolutionary made man is more likely to get raped than protected. Thats because survival favors self-interest, even when self-interest motivates animals to cooperate.

Once again, this description is highly amusing, because it implies that, in the "animal kingdom," there is some choice women have to choose the most man of men, perhaps maybe for their own protection.

Bwhaha. The most aggressive animal man just takes the women he wants, with or without their consent. For an animal, rape is all the sex without any of the responsibility! I lust for such willing women.

Women want men to be aggressive when it comes to the business world, initiating relationships, protecting the household. Women don't want men to be aggressive when it comes to dating as many women as possible, getting in trouble with the law, or taking the sex that they want. Perhaps this attraction to a "breadwinner", a "protector", a "go-getter", is less an attraction to masculinity, and more of an attraction to lethargy. God knows I wouldn't mind doing nothing all day, not having to worry about surviving while someone else does all the work for me and pays for all my dinners. Man or woman, thats a good life.

Of course, men are the ones who perpetuate the "masculinity" stereotype, not women. More on that later.

I don't think you've thought this out...at least not nearly far enough. You've skipped the whole concept of mutual benefit and in reality it often supercedes pure self-interest (one of those way humans, and even animals, have overcome incentive traps over the centuries...conflicts of interest when what is beneficial to one is bad for the group, and eventually bad for even that individual longterm).

Human beings are social animals, not lone predators, and even most lone predators don't generally act in the way you have described. A man (let's call him Cro-Magnon) who operates this way will be punished quickly enough by the rest of society, cavepeople, the pride, the pack, whatever. Furthermore, even in the animal kingdom, males tend to prefer a steady supply of consentual sex rather than the difficult task of running around for miles trying to kick "lesser" males off of random unsuspecting and unwilling females. Certainly women of all species can fight back too. And, incidentally, I did mention manners...which you seem to have ignored...Unless you believe that rape is proper date etiquette.

I must say, I don't know anyone who has said here that it isn't masculine to show any emotion or have any good qualities (like kindness), which seems to be a sort of foregone conclusion in your post.

1. That's an interesting question. Can men abandon the fact that they have 2 arms and 2 legs? How about their genitalia? Should they abandon their facial hair and muscular characteristics as well? How about abandon their genetic and hormonal makeup? It's an interesting question but I don't understand it. How can men abandon what they are?

2. What's the next step in men's evolution? I also don't understand this question. Evolution has never taken place in a "conscious" way. Darwin's entire theory is based on "natural" selection and the premise is that the species rewards those creatures that behave in ways that perpetuate their survival. Since evolution, if it's true, is not an "intellectual" phenomena one might hypothesize that men who are more aggressive, hostile, and ruthless will lead the evolutionary process.

We all live, after all, in a jungle. We may think that our superior intellect changes basic human nature and jungle laws..... but, alas, they do not.

1.)Is it time to abandon the idea that men have certain psychological or social traits that inherently come with being biologically male? Please explain using specific examples.
No! It’s way past time to abandon the use of gender as a “separating issue". It’s time to do the research and find out what all the differences, complementing and contending, are before we say/do anything. “I know” there are differences. Women make fine/better fighter pilots but bad/worse infantrymen; women are probably the best surgeons, etc, etc.; and there are similar lists for men, etc., etc. But we are really just beginning to study these things, though we have long been "asserting much"!

2.)What is the "next step" evolution wise for men psychologically and/or physically?
It’s the same for all genders, races, and species: Learn to do science "of gender", etc., right, use the science right, and don’t guess or be dishonest or a “spin doctor here”, with an orderly, open and understood transition to the “resulting” technologies, engineering, job descriptions, education curricula, etc., etc.

1.)Is it time to abandon the idea that men have certain psychological or social traits that inherenlty come with being biologically male? Please explain using specific examples.

No, absolutely not- those traits are not positive or negative, the fact that some societies either view them as positve, or reinforce some kinds of oppressive behaviors. Being a man is more than aggression, and a mature male will tell you just that. You can be caring and sensitive to your family, without being a wimp. I am a single parent of two small children, daughter and son. I feel like I have a pretty good handle on the differences between my children, and there is certainly a difference in thier developement, though I love them equally. For true I do!- and, I try to develope, the best a father can, those positive traits I see, and the negative traits, well, I try to redirect them into positive traits. My boy is agressive, no doubt about it. He likes to punch and get into fights. At three years old! and getting punched back does not deter him either. but he also craves his "huggies and loves" from Papa. So, I try to channel that agression into forms of play, that doesn't harm others, and encourage his huggies and loves LOL.

I think it is very simplistic and narrow viewed to think that men are any more or less ruled by biology than females. I think it is extremely sexist and bigoted to suggest that men are more or less slavish as a gender to our biology, or we can not use our different genetic traits for more or less positive contributions to society.

I try my best not to be anti-female after my dealings with the courts, but this article is way off. What I do see as a positive developement is that men themselves are thinking, and talking some, about what it means to be a man these days.

In fact, I think more harm has been done to men by the feminism movement than help to the females.

American men have become victim themselves to the female driven "victimization" thing that has become so commonplace. Every woman claims to be some sort of victim of male behavior, while using this to excuse thier own bad behaviors. This doesn't mean there wasn't injustice done to females, but, a great injustice has been done to males at the same time.

While the mom that takes care of the kids and goes to work is "super mom" - there is no such feeling towards a male that does the same thing. I have to do it all. I take my kids to thier soccor practice, gymnastics, kiss boo-boos, try to tend to all thier needs, hold thier hands when they go for shots, and do arts and crafts and thier reading every night. I am also a body builder, bike builder and biker and hunter, all considered manly things to do I believe. I have never beaten a female or emotionally abused, or physically abused, anyone but myself on occasion. I was a good husband, and am a good father, and am proud of that fact, comfortable and confidant in those roles.

Why do I need to evolve at all? I am the breadwiinner, always have been. But I have balanced this with my time with my children- which are my "time off" as far as I am concerned- I am happiest and most contented when I am doing something with them- I don't see it as a duty or a burden- something my much more "evolved" ex wife never was able to transcend to!

2.)What is the "next step" evolution wise for men psychologically and/or physically?

Wings? I would LOVE to be able to fly! Become more masculine and get our gonads back from the feminist movement, and perhaps take back some power in our society? i am not talking about political leaders- I am talking day to day men, not those in power- 'cause I sure as heck don't have any!

1.)Is it time to abandon the idea that men have certain psychological or social traits that inherenlty come with being biologically male? Please explain using specific examples.

It is important to not confuse the styles of a particular culture with "manliness" or lack thereof. When Louis XIV was wearing powdered wigs and perfume instead of bathing, he was also producing a male heir, Louis XV. Thinking about this only makes me queasy (Ewwwwww... ). But call the dude a sissy or its French equivalent could end you up in the Bastille.

It seems to me that basic masculinity, while it conjures certain traits in our collective consciousness, has to do with protecting one's tribe, procreation, gathering or growing food, and (if there is time) pursuing some activity that speaks to the man's spirit.

A man who does not interest himself in the ritualized combat that we call sports is a man nonetheless.

A man who feigns enjoyment in participating in the designated "manly" activities such as hunting, fishing or warfare is not being true to himself and is no more a man than the male who cares nothing of what others think about his activities.

Maybe we shouldn't abandon altogether the cultural stereotypes we've grown up with as much as reexamine their importance in light of the philosophy and moral teachings of our society. And by this I mean those teachings of honesty, kindness, and integrity. Is it possible to otherwise honor diversity within the male gender?

Certainly we would not want a male nurse or surgeon who possessed no tenderness or compassion, traits that are more often attributed to the female gender. By the same token, who would cast aspersions on a woman who had to--and did--physically fight off an attacker to protect herself and possibly her children?

2.)What is the "next step" evolution wise for men psychologically and/or physically?

Maybe the "next step" is to be more conscious of what we all do and why we're doing it every day. If something that we habitually do doesn't make sense or isn't working for us, why should we keep doing it?

If the poker game is boring and the man would actually rather go shopping or stay home and cook with his female companion (or other companion), what's wrong with that?

With six and a half billion people on this earth, we really aren't suffering from a shortage of males or females doing certain, traditional things in our communities. Not every man has to act like John Wayne, and not every woman has to cook meals while wearing pearls or high heels.



That's a sweeping generalization if ever I've read one. You know better than that, CR! :shaking finger emoticon:

There are a lot of victims in this society, and they are certainly not all female. The trick is to take charge of life and go on in spite of the unfair things that have happened to us, but it takes a strong measure of maturity and determination to do this. It also takes a measure of loving oneself to get out of the trap.

Fortunately, maturity and determination can be had by members of both genders and anyone in between.

Apologies- bad choice of words on a board where words are everything- no pictures allowed -

It should read "so many unsuccesful in life women I have met have blamed men for all thier problems, this is kind of silly when you are past 40, at some point, you have to be your own person, and blaming men for all your bad behaviors does not make you a better person" - better?

But- on top of that- there is this culture we see today, though said in jest, it seems to somewhat grounded in earnst- the "men are always wrong" thing- you familiar with this PE?

When women are in labor in the US- I have seen this deal where they blame the men for thier condition- humorous of course- but, this doesn't usually happen , as a statement, from what I have heard from Drs in the know on this kind of stuff- it seems to be a US type culture thang.

Your Daddy was mean to you- so you could never have a decent relationship for yourself and on and on.

Now, we have a couple of generations of men that buy into this stuff- I was abused as a child, so that excuses so much of my behavior.

This is a conflict that is all across this board and across US culture- you see it in the racial threads, you see it in the gender threads etc-

Of course I believe justice must be sought by goverment for wrong doing- but, also, at some point, the adult individual has to assume responsibility for thier lives. We can't legislate this, or use a goverment "fix"- only in righting individual wrongs- which is why I am for programs like AA- they right specific wrongs as they occur, and despite propaganda to the contrary- they only establish quotas in the case of gross wrongdoing.

So what, in my torturous journey in getting to the point- - I am saying this- men don't need to evolve more, women don't need to evolve more, our culture swings wildly from one end of the spectrum to the other, and we need some balance, usually found in the middle, so that every person can find thier own unhappiness on thier own

Though, I still would dig the wings!

What you are speaking about is biology. While that is unchangeable in regards to gender, how masculine or what a given male strives to be sociallly, is something that can be more fluid. While having the same physical features, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Alan Alda are two very different men socially. We have also seen the emergence of the "metrosexual." Same appendages and all, but different social mindsets. BIG difference that cannot be tucked away into biology.



Nature does provide some interesting situations where what is *desirable* can change. A muscle bound cave man obviously was a prize over the one that has the physical features of Woody Allen. However, in this day and age, such a person without a good education or social skills is undesirable as compared to say....Bill Gates or the average "nice guy" who is an accountant or a smokin' hot teacher.

1.)Is it time to abandon the idea that men have certain psychological or social traits that inherenlty come with being biologically male?

No.

Please explain using specific examples.

Testosterone.

I know I'm not supposed to give short replies, but higher levels of testosterone make the male experience significantly different from the female experience, which leads to "psychological or social traits that inherenlty come with being biologically male". Here's support from a clinical study: The study in question tried, and failed, to disprove the conclusions of the cited authors. It raised interesting questions, though.

2.)What is the "next step" evolution wise for men psychologically and/or physically?

While it has always been incumbent upon men to overcome many of the negative effects of their natural testosterone-driven urges, there are also many positive side effects of maleness that make us one of the two best genders in history (paternal instinct, protection, provision, etc.). While individual males might need to change certain habits, maleness overall is a great trait among men. All sissification efforts are doomed to failure (Romo admiration not included).

The title of this thread assumes there is something wrong with being masculine. But masculinity and feminity were not invented by human beings but by nature.

Male and female images and roles evolved from the simple biological fact of gender bifurcation in the human species.

Proceeding from that scientific premise, If our concept of the persona and social role of the male must change, then it cannot do so without a concomitant change in the female image and role.

The adjective, open, is here used abstractly. Used concretely, it means a bodily orifice is open or that a person has a gaping wound. When we examine the idea of "being open," we find that it is a meaningless and unfeasable abstraction that really just amounts to one person's imposition on another.

There is no necessity for a male or a female to "be open," whatever that means. Each person should be allowed to pursue their lifestyle with the greatest amount of self-determination that does not harm any other person. Whether someone is "open" or not is the opinion of a second person observing the actor. This will, even if it is not intended to, produce a crippling self-consciousness in the subject.

To make a blanket statement that a category called "male" must conform to a behavioral or attitudinal standard called "open" is an invitation to social engineering and totalitarianism, which Western society engages in with the alacrity of ladies meeting for weekly bridge.

Readers of this thread might want to consider that the way this subject is framed implies a male should feel insecure about the gender he was given through no fault of his own. Questioning masculinity is like saying African-Americans, or Jews, etc. are inherently inferior to other races. Wake up and smell the fascism.

sarpesius

No. It if quite clear that men and women are different and that they didn’t “learn” the differences. Carl Sagan maintained that 20,000 generations of hunter gatherers had much to do with it. Men, who had no child (infant) feeding duties did the “hunting” and women did the “gathering”. The men that lived and had the most children were the more aggressive, physically skilled hunters. And warriors.



Evolution is a long slow process. Modern society imo just allows “softer” people to survive and have children. Weather this is “good” or “bad” is hard to say. Certainly the “hunters” of 200,000 years ago had no Beethoven’s.