[worry]

Any sex between a man and a woman is heterosexual, even if it involves pegging/role reversal/etc.

[Whisperzzzzzzz]

foolio, on 28 July 2010 - 04:52 PM, said:

and man this little diddy by Whisper just absolutely reminds me of why I spend time on this board.... "Real men punch sexism in the face and make it cry."

Is that sarcastic or appreciative?

[foolio]

Whisper, on 28 July 2010 - 08:51 PM, said:

foolio, on 28 July 2010 - 04:52 PM, said:

and man this little diddy by Whisper just absolutely reminds me of why I spend time on this board.... "Real men punch sexism in the face and make it cry."

Is that sarcastic or appreciative?

totally appreciative, I rep'd you dude

This post has been edited by foolio: 28 July 2010 - 08:58 PM

[worry]

I don't agree with a single thing amphibian said, but I'd fight to the death to protect his right to say it!

[amphibian]

foolio, on 28 July 2010 - 04:52 PM, said:

and from the original article....

Quote

Wanting a woman to fuck you in the ass does not make you gay.

are you sure? I might have to disagree with this small point....

Nah, it just means that you want a woman to put things up your butt - which is still heterosexual.

Raymond Luxury Yacht, on 28 July 2010 - 08:25 PM, said:

I was a bouncer for five years, and got in one fight, which I won without throwing a punch. Just saying.

I give a bouncer a ride to home/work after BJJ often and he's told tons of stories about his job. What's so interesting is that almost the entirety of the confrontations within the story are resolved without violence - exactly like RLY describes. My friend has really got the hang of talking people down, remaining in control of his emotions and presenting the appearance of possessing overwhelming force (he's a big dude and has a good stare). He's good at his job and his tactics help keep the customers coming back. Plus he's further motivated by the potential legal repercussions of possibly losing his license, being arrested/sued for assault/battery and all that stuff if something goes wrong.

worrywort, on 28 July 2010 - 10:30 PM, said:

I don't agree with a single thing amphibian said, but I'd fight to the death to protect his right to say it!

You agreed with nothing from that big long post? Wow.

This post has been edited by amphibian: 29 July 2010 - 01:23 AM

[worry]

I agreed with just about zero of your main positions (though smaller points went in both directions), but mostly I was making a joke about how I disagreed with the notion that fighting can solve problems and I would fight for your right to say it. Explaining jokes sucks, of course, but basically I liked the paradox. I don't actually think fighting or violence is always wrong or unhelpful, but suffice it to say that my reaction to your post was as nails-on-chalkboard as your reaction to Kalam's post. If you decide that our disagreement must be settled by hand-to-hand combat, I'll understand.

[amphibian]

worrywort, on 29 July 2010 - 02:10 AM, said:

I agreed with just about zero of your main positions (though smaller points went in both directions), but mostly I was making a joke about how I disagreed with the notion that fighting can solve problems and I would fight for your right to say it. Explaining jokes sucks, of course, but basically I liked the paradox. I don't actually think fighting or violence is always wrong or unhelpful, but suffice it to say that my reaction to your post was as nails-on-chalkboard as your reaction to Kalam's post. If you decide that our disagreement must be settled by hand-to-hand combat, I'll understand.

I was looking more for the reasons why you disagreed with my breakdown of the five things and/or agreed with the original author's list; you know, the on-topic stuff...

This post has been edited by amphibian: 29 July 2010 - 02:55 AM

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

ON topic? What do you think this is, the discu... Oh right.

I remember how pissed I was that I was forced into that one fight (guy punched me in the face several times, felt obligated to stop him from continuing to do so) and losing my violence free streak. It was a point of pride. Still, I never hit him, so it was somewhat intact.

I don't know if it says anything that of all the points we could focus on from the article, we are gravitating to fighting. Is this the epitome of "man code?"

What's funny is that while I make a point to not use violence in my daily life, and disassociate from those who do, I absolutely love watching fighting for sport. Maybe it's because while I don't punch people in the face, I often want to.

[worry]

Okie dokie, I'll do this as best as I can.

First of all, by no means are males and females different "breeds." I wouldn't accept any conclusion founded on this premise.

I don't subscribe to the notion that gender roles are shaped primarily by evolution. They are certainly rooted in natural phenomena, but they are just as much social constructs as anything. If they were not, then we wouldn't recognize a mere two genders. Males and females tend toward their general natural differences, of course, but it's more like a spectrum with two poles and plenty of crossover than a simple binary. Social custom has artificially crystallized gender roles far more than any evolutionary guidance.

I also evolution can be used to rationalize any and all human behavior, and frankly I don't think we should settle for that narrow conception. I think it's reductive, irresponsible, and frankly even disingenuous to pretend our evolution hasn't afforded us the intellectual opportunity to transcend our baser animal traits. And yes, we share the needs of our ancestors, and I'll grant that we are to some degree limited by those needs, insofar as maintaining health and comfort, but we are unique in our ability to shape so many different possible paths to fulfill those needs.

I think you've ignored the context of the article (the fact that she's interviewed several men about this topic, and is synthesizing their answers into a list). You're speaking theoretically, when as a matter of fact men feel, recognize, and respond to these pressures. They exist. I've felt them, and I'm willing to bet a good portion of this board has felt them. In that regard, I'm not quite sure if your problem with the list regards the pressures themselves, or simply whether you judge these pressures to not be negative as the author presents them. I think given your discussion of nature that you probably don't deny their existence, so it's the latter. All that is preamble I suppose to my (counter)positions on the article, but I thought it was necessary because many of your positions adhere to a truncated view of man's evolution. We are certainly not devoid of the instincts our ancestors developed, and the more primitive parts of the brain haven't merely been replaced, but we don't stop there. We are capable of transcendence.

1. Actually with the first one you seem to suggest that men are not expected to fight, and are actually encouraged to do so only as a last resort. This counters my experience and observation so strongly that my jaw dropped when I read it. Machismo has an absolute stranglehold on the majority of young men, from music and film heroes to the canonization of those in military service to the big man on campus. I've rarely seen the winner of a fight get rejected by his peers. I'm not sure how you can deny this pressure and not too many paragraphs later exert it upon Kalam, even if it was just self-reflection. I've never been in a fight, personally, and I don't want to, but I can't tell you how many times I've dreamed of it.

2. Here she talks about all the contradictory factors that contribute to how males should handle sexual interaction. Men should be surface-level chivalrous, womanizing, handsome, rugged sexual dynamos who somehow please women while minimizing their wants and needs. Basically a man is expected to cast their relationships with women in the light of how it will impress their guy friends, even as they design a self that will attract women. If you've ever been exposed to college fraternity culture or heard the terms "player" and "pimp" as compliments, then I don't see how you can find fault with this point. The notion that women and men make themselves attractive to the opposite sex is self-evident, and not really what she's arguing here; nor is she suggesting that men should construct personalities that conform to a woman's wishes. In fact, it seems she is addressing men who've already more or less developed their personalities, and how they relate to the women they are in relationships with. Men who listen to their spouses are demeaned as whipped. I notice even you phrase men learning from other men as a secondary source, but don't give men learning from women any such leeway; the characterization there is instantly that of giving in to someone else, of weak character. Do men have nothing to learn from women? In general? From spouses in particular?

3. With her third point, I think you latch onto one point and kind of skew it. Her broad point is that men are pressured to score. Quantity is at least as important as quality, and you earn points with your friends for sexual experience. This even happens quite literally, as I recall fairly well at least one fraternity that made headlines when they created an elaborate point system for a wide variety of sexual conquests. When she describes the phenomenon as "predatory" she is dead on the money. You mostly address the issue of men seeking women of a certain standard of beauty, and idiosyncrasies being pressured out. So here you don't deny the existence of the pressure, you just don't feel it is a problem. And perhaps here where actual sex is the issue, your deference to evolution does make the most sense. But it's still a stupid, subhuman pressure to inflict. Actually, I would think when a species has reached the level of "society" that it no longer makes sense for the population not to expect and do better. I know I've had Maxim Magazine shoved into my face by friends, because they know I'm inclined to avoid it. That's just horseplay between friends, but I do think you succumb to the assumption that the current standard of beauty conforms to the "fittest" women for procreation. That doesn't explain the obsession with supermodels and actresses who are sickly thin. At this point we're divorced from the evolutionary process so far that standards of beauty are almost entirely social constructs. I guess if there's a natural throughline it's an attraction to symmetry, but beyond that human attractions don't seem to be particularly concerned with actual fitness, either consciously or subconsciously.

4. This point I think you've kinda mangled her meaning. A stiff upper lip is not about controlling emotions (appropriate), it's about stifling them all together (deleterious). And it's not just in dangerous, serious, or public situations...it's always, the pressure to never outwardly express strong emotion, even to your loved ones (exceptions: watching Old Yeller or a John Wayne movie). You preoccupy your argument with the subject of violence, which is at best a tangent. What she's talking about is crying, showing that your feelings are hurt, showing actual affection that isn't sexually-based or dominating (like bear hugs), showing fear. It doesn't necessarily even have to be intense emotion, just any emotion outside the realms of machismo and stoicism.

5. I agree with you most here, in terms of gayness =/= weakness. But I can't get behind the acceptance that weakness is lesser. Some men are weak and they are still men. Some men are wusses and they are still men. Some men can't win fights and they are still men. They may all very well be good men. And, of course, there is more than one kind of strength. Here I may be inferring too much from what you said, and if so, I apologize. But your reaction to Kalam -- and I got the impression that you're not presenting your analysis of that first instinct as a retraction of those feelings, but something more neutral -- is almost exactly opposite to my own reaction.

This has been a bit wordy, and I apologize, but I tried to address everything I could think of. And not that it's especially pertinent, but it's a topic that hits close to home. To sum up: I don't subscribe to your view of human evolution, that straps us irrevocably to our inheritance from lesser ancestors. We have abilities and opportunities no other species have, and they're a result of evolution too. There's no reason to revert. Also, all of the phenomenon this author describes exist. We know this because she got this top five from actual men she surveyed; in addition I recognize all of them from personal experience, and observation of friends/family/acquaintances/strangers/media/etc. And I'm not the only one, as some others in this thread attest. So since these pressures do exist, are they bad? Yes, insofar as they normalize stupid, negative, destructive behaviors, or coerce a naturally, beautifully diverse species to conform to a very few artificial norms (even if they have some basis in evolutionarily successful behaviors).

[HoosierDaddy]

Mildly, I think the manliest attribute at all is to do things the way you prefer to do them. Seriously? I don't think about this shit, and I'd hope other men don't either.

This post has been edited by H.D.: 29 July 2010 - 07:36 AM

[worry]

Well, I don't think men consistently give in to all of these pressures or anything. I don't think Jersey Shore represents a super majority of American men. But this stuff is in the air for men the same way they are for women, and can effect men on levels they don't perceive. They're not as prevalent in cultural dialogue, but they do real damage, just as the female equivalents contribute to pro-ana culture and the like. How awfully misunderstood is Fight Club, for instance?

[drinksinbars]

I think the problem with articles of this nature is that it covers a very small cross section of society and then applies it across the entire male speices like canon, ignoring many of the factors which would shape and determine the nature of a person in general. From my own background growing up in a divided society there was always a very real physical danger all be it from a shadowy type source as a child to a sort of alcohol based battlefield as i reached my late teens. Mostly though the repression of mens emotions and the determination of weakness by acceptance or reluctance was for me not nearly as bad as for people i grew to know. Basically what i am saying is the geography of the situation we find ourselves is a massive factor in how we act, growing up in belfast where lines were drawn between religions, or growing up in the pre equality days for people of varying colours would have had a massive impact on how people acted and the sort of expectations placed on people. An impact that would dwarf the basic traits we inherit through our evolution for sure, so in some ways the statement of amph regarding animal breed etc is in essence true, but for people in general we are pushed and prodded from so many directions that its hard to see where one ends and another begins. One only has to look at the difference between generations from grandparents or great grandparents to younger people today. through familys there will be a core theme of personality but each generation will be wildly different in their views on the world around them and would react in entirely different ways with people of their own generation.1

expectations also change drastically on circumstance, and depending on the force of your personality you can be a driving factor in the dynamic of the people you spend a lot of time with. As people influence you, in turn you are influencing them, and it tends to be that like minded people flock together. i have met very few people in my life who given the choice will consistently place themselves ina position where they feel uncomfortable, though i am sure this does happen. As people the pressures on us change as we get older. when younger we are also more inclined to search for acceptance with others, while later in life (mostly after your early twenties but it depends on the person) you settle into the person you are and stop thinking about what people think. Int his aspect i believe men are better suited to it than woman as the pressures for simple physical appearance do not carry as much weight. Certainly some of the articles assertations about what is expected of men have little to do with how men think and more to how they perceive woman to think about men. Indeed if you are going to make an assumption on half of the human speices interviewing more then five people might be an idea.

finally - the pressure of life and the expectations we all feel regardless of outside influences are solely the responsibility of the individual. How you react to those expectation impacts every aspect of your life and can had both benefical and detrimental side affects but unless people are sure of who they are they will never be happy or fully able to cope with the weight other people put on them.

[foolio]

amphibian

Quote

What's so interesting is that almost the entirety of the confrontations within the story are resolved without violence - exactly like RLY describes. My friend has really got the hang of talking people down, remaining in control of his emotions and presenting the appearance of possessing overwhelming force (he's a big dude and has a good stare). He's good at his job and his tactics help keep the customers coming back. Plus he's further motivated by the potential legal repercussions of possibly losing his license, being arrested/sued for assault/battery and all that stuff if something goes wrong.

I think being large and scary looking is a huge advantage in avoiding actual fisticuffs. I am rather slight(5'11 -170 lbs back then, and I am sorry I am a dimwhitted american and dont really know the metric conversion). I also really never had legal issues because generally I was the smaller person, and while I dont think that officially factors in the police generally take that into consideration in bars. Usually the big scary looking guy is intimidating enough to get his message across. The dump I worked at usually had a large fight and/or someone needing to be physically thrown out every night.

Quote

and from the original article.... Quote

Wanting a woman to fuck you in the ass does not make you gay.

are you sure? I might have to disagree with this small point....
Nah, it just means that you want a woman to put things up your butt - which is still heterosexual.

OK , how about is the chick is dressed up like Richard Nixon? JK



and just completely on a side note, I think most of us have some of this exhibited in their personas. For an example , I like to think of myself as someone relatively comfortable not being preasured into feeling or acting a certain way, but I would probably be ashamed and furious with myself for crying. Some people think there is no exceptable reason for a man to cry...EVER. I can think of two situations that I would certainly excuse. 1 Death of a pet
2 death or serious injury to wife or daughter, or maybe just maybe something bad happening to someone else's children(I mean they are children)....Thats about it... Dumb?


edit:dreadful spelling

This post has been edited by foolio: 29 July 2010 - 02:54 PM

[Use Of Weapons]

foolio, on 29 July 2010 - 01:47 PM, said:

I think being large and scary looking is a huge advantage in avoiding actual fisticuffs. I am rather slight(5'11 -170 lbs back then, and I am sorry I am a dimwhitted american and dont really know the metric conversion). I also really never had legal issues because generally I was the smaller person, and while I dont think that officially factors in the police generally take that into consideration in bars. Usually the big scary looking guy is intimidating enough to get his message across. The dump I worked at usually had a large fight and/or someone needing to be physically thrown out every night.

In fact most of the guys at my MA club to whom I've spoken about this tend to agree that being large and scary more often invites aggression from other guys aiming to 'prove' something. Fewer people target the smaller guys (or at least, not for the same reasons).

It's not purely physical, of course -- there are a whole host of factors that contribute to becoming a target for physical aggression, and only one of those is the physical appearance dimension. Others are confidence, awareness (obliviousness to danger), group dynamics vs. being alone, presence of females, dress, spectacles wearer, carrying bags, and many many others.

An interesting read on the subject is Geoff Thompson's _Dead Or Alive_.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

Here is an NPR interview about domestic violence. More specifically, it's about domestic violence against men, and how our attitude towards "violence against women" has exacerbated the problem (which is far more prevalent than we might think). The article they're referring to gives a little more information.

Interesting food for thought. Myself, I never realised that the problem was quite that prevalent. 'Course, I haven't fact-checked yet, but the information seems reliable enough. I'll get around to that eventually.


Edit: Did some hunting around. Found some studies and articles (mostly from the late-'90s) in JAMA and published by StatsCan and the US Department of Justice that lend credence to the claims made.

This post has been edited by Goaswerfraiejen: 29 July 2010 - 05:33 PM

[amphibian]

worrywort, on 29 July 2010 - 07:23 AM, said:

First of all, by no means are males and females different "breeds." I wouldn't accept any conclusion founded on this premise.

I believe that much of human behavior is rooted in evolutionary instincts and imperatives; I do recognize that societal behaviors have shaped a bit of human psychology and physiology in return (amping up teamwork behaviors, altruism, a bit of a "pack mentality" and reproductive behaviors etc.). Gender roles are something that I believe to be primarily shaped by evolution, and to a much lesser degree, societal imperatives. The capacity of humans to overrule instincts and create successful innovative solutions to problems posed by life is a great thing, but honestly, it happens far less than we would like it to. I don't view it as a reversion to listen to and understand these impulses. Often they work well, but when they don't work (usually by prioritizing the short-term over the long-term benefits), understanding why they're telling humans to act as they do serves us enormously.

I do recognize your point about the two poles and a spectrum in between, but believe we'll find the vast majority of people clustered at either pole, rather than in the spectrum between. I do see that the traditional concept of human binary genders is off - homosexuals, bisexuals, pre- and post-sexuals are all regularly encountered - but I do think that males and females have developed into distinctly different creatures with differing sets of physiological and psychological characteristics. There is some overlap, but the differences are significant.

Quote

1. Actually with the first one you seem to suggest that men are not expected to fight, and are actually encouraged to do so only as a last resort. This counters my experience and observation so strongly that my jaw dropped when I read it. Machismo has an absolute stranglehold on the majority of young men, from music and film heroes to the canonization of those in military service to the big man on campus. I've rarely seen the winner of a fight get rejected by his peers. I'm not sure how you can deny this pressure and not too many paragraphs later exert it upon Kalam, even if it was just self-reflection. I've never been in a fight, personally, and I don't want to, but I can't tell you how many times I've dreamed of it.

I believe that people - not just men or women - are indeed conditioned to solve problems without fighting by both evolution and societal pressures. It's too costly to be a primary conflict solving strategy; the individual who throws down to solve every problem is going to either end up dead or marginalized in exile/jail for a very long time. What I'm objecting to is her usage of the word/concept "pussy" to people who solve problems without violence. That's a misapplication of the concept, in my opinion. Those who solve problems without violence are generally not pussies. If she's just synthesizing a list of responses from other men, I think she misconstrued what they were saying, because I bet they were more concerned about looking like a pussy when solving a problem - ie. looking weak when they chose to back off or give in to the other party.

I don't know if you caught it, but at the end, I wrote:

Quote

I disagree that methods of conflict resolution that are not fighting are discouraged in modern American society or in most societies around the world. I do think that mainstream media does overempathize and always has overemphasized violent resolutions to conflicts without giving a context or explaining why non-violent conflict resolution works.

You list examples of men in the media as the symbols of machismo - which I think is correct when referring to the media, but is not correct when referring to how men actually operate in the real world. Yes, we're influenced a bit by media sources, but at the same time, normal behavior is different from what we see in the media - less fights, less of a narrative structure to our behaviors and things aren't as clear cut or unambiguous.

My main problem with Kalam's statement is that he seems to have taken one bad fight, in which an injury occurred, as a sign that he should not fight again. He would back down rather than stand for what he believes to be right or his. I also have questions about his dislike of fighting or violence, as his forum name is "KalamMekhar" - a character who is one of the most hyperviolent in the Malazan series.

Quote

2. Here she talks about all the contradictory factors that contribute to how males should handle sexual interaction. Men should be surface-level chivalrous, womanizing, handsome, rugged sexual dynamos who somehow please women while minimizing their wants and needs. Basically a man is expected to cast their relationships with women in the light of how it will impress their guy friends, even as they design a self that will attract women. If you've ever been exposed to college fraternity culture or heard the terms "player" and "pimp" as compliments, then I don't see how you can find fault with this point. The notion that women and men make themselves attractive to the opposite sex is self-evident, and not really what she's arguing here; nor is she suggesting that men should construct personalities that conform to a woman's wishes. In fact, it seems she is addressing men who've already more or less developed their personalities, and how they relate to the women they are in relationships with. Men who listen to their spouses are demeaned as whipped. I notice even you phrase men learning from other men as a secondary source, but don't give men learning from women any such leeway; the characterization there is instantly that of giving in to someone else, of weak character. Do men have nothing to learn from women? In general? From spouses in particular?

My position is that experience should be the primary factor in the conscious shaping of one's personality and attitudes. Learning from other men should be a secondary source, as well as learning from women. I do not agree that a man is expected to cast his relationships with women in light of how it will impress his male friends. I do think that occasionally a man's representation of the relationships to other men is consciously reduced to the idiotic "I wear the pants and she bends to my every whim" cliche. Why men do that is beyond me, as just about every single one of us has a complex, deep relationship with a woman, be it romantic, platonic or familial - it does not stand to reason that we'd be denigrated for representing one or more of them as exactly that, instead of the colossally untrue "pants/whim" shit.

A group of "friends" who call a man "whipped" for asking for advice about long-term life decisions is a shitty group of friends whose input should be largely ignored. Either the husband framed the issue to his friends in a much different manner than what the wife presents to us (quite possible) or they've no clue as to how long term relationships work in the real world or the problems they face.

I disagree with your "Men should be..." lines. That's a construct that is seized upon by people who discuss these issues, but I don't think real people worry about measuring up to that construct all that much. Men don't really ascribe to be Brad Pitt - but they do strive to be better than the men near them.

Quote

And perhaps here where actual sex is the issue, your deference to evolution does make the most sense. But it's still a stupid, subhuman pressure to inflict. [...] At this point we're divorced from the evolutionary process so far that standards of beauty are almost entirely social constructs. I guess if there's a natural throughline it's an attraction to symmetry, but beyond that human attractions don't seem to be particularly concerned with actual fitness, either consciously or subconsciously.

I don't view it as a "stupid subhuman" pressure at all. It's a function of biological life on Earth that continues in humans.

Within modern American society, just about every woman can reproduce. I speculate that the perception of beauty is still somewhat linked to the "fittest", as most of those pumped as hot by the crowds are successful at what they do, very healthy, at least somewhat physically able and generally very willing and able to get along well with people. That's a good genetic blueprint for any potential offspring's future success. Now, the fashion industry is completely fucked, but that's kind of... intentional. They twist and skew things to get to a point where it's not accessible to the majority of humanity.

Quote

4. This point I think you've kinda mangled her meaning. A stiff upper lip is not about controlling emotions (appropriate), it's about stifling them all together (deleterious). And it's not just in dangerous, serious, or public situations...it's always, the pressure to never outwardly express strong emotion, even to your loved ones (exceptions: watching Old Yeller or a John Wayne movie). You preoccupy your argument with the subject of violence, which is at best a tangent. What she's talking about is crying, showing that your feelings are hurt, showing actual affection that isn't sexually-based or dominating (like bear hugs), showing fear. It doesn't necessarily even have to be intense emotion, just any emotion outside the realms of machismo and stoicism.

You do a far better job of explaining what the author's trying to get at than she does.

All of the definitions and my own understanding of "a stiff upper lip" denote restraint of displaying emotions in public - not stifling them altogether. It's a generally acknowledged fact that women are wired very differently from men for emotions and empathy. I think the author's taken a break from synthesizing and put her own thoughts in here - which aren't as valid for men in general as they are for her, because of that difference in wiring. Yes, men should be able to accurately express their emotions without much repercussions when they wish, but it's not as high a priority as it is for women and doing so in public is almost never a good idea.

Quote

5. I agree with you most here, in terms of gayness =/= weakness. But I can't get behind the acceptance that weakness is lesser. Some men are weak and they are still men. Some men are wusses and they are still men. Some men can't win fights and they are still men. They may all very well be good men. And, of course, there is more than one kind of strength.

Weakness, whatever its form, does indeed make one lesser. How can you argue against that? It would be difficult to take "man" status away without some rather drastic physical surgery, so being weak and/or not being able to successfully fight against another doesn't mean the person stops being a man (or woman, or hermaphrodite).

A man can still be wildly successful without possessing the ability to win a fight against a tortoise (see Stephen Hawking).

[amphibian]

worrywort, on 29 July 2010 - 07:23 AM, said:

First of all, by no means are males and females different "breeds." I wouldn't accept any conclusion founded on this premise.

I believe that much of human behavior is rooted in evolutionary instincts and imperatives; I do recognize that societal behaviors have shaped a bit of human psychology and physiology in return (amping up teamwork behaviors, altruism, a bit of a "pack mentality" and reproductive behaviors etc.). Gender roles are something that I believe to be primarily shaped by evolution, and to a much lesser degree, societal imperatives. The capacity of humans to overrule instincts and create successful innovative solutions to problems posed by life is a great thing, but honestly, it happens far less than we would like it to. I don't view it as a reversion to listen to and understand these impulses. Often they work well, but when they don't work (usually by prioritizing the short-term over the long-term benefits), understanding why they're telling humans to act as they do serves us enormously.

I do recognize your point about the two poles and a spectrum in between, but believe we'll find the vast majority of people clustered at either pole, rather than in the spectrum between. I do see that the traditional concept of human binary genders is off - homosexuals, bisexuals, pre- and post-sexuals are all regularly encountered - but I do think that males and females have developed into distinctly different creatures with differing sets of physiological and psychological characteristics. There is some overlap, but the differences are significant.

Quote

1. Actually with the first one you seem to suggest that men are not expected to fight, and are actually encouraged to do so only as a last resort. This counters my experience and observation so strongly that my jaw dropped when I read it. Machismo has an absolute stranglehold on the majority of young men, from music and film heroes to the canonization of those in military service to the big man on campus. I've rarely seen the winner of a fight get rejected by his peers. I'm not sure how you can deny this pressure and not too many paragraphs later exert it upon Kalam, even if it was just self-reflection. I've never been in a fight, personally, and I don't want to, but I can't tell you how many times I've dreamed of it.

I believe that people - not just men or women - are indeed conditioned to solve problems without fighting by both evolution and societal pressures. It's too costly to be a primary conflict solving strategy; the individual who throws down to solve every problem is going to either end up dead or marginalized in exile/jail for a very long time. What I'm objecting to is her usage of the word/concept "pussy" to people who solve problems without violence. That's a misapplication of the concept, in my opinion. Those who solve problems without violence are generally not pussies. If she's just synthesizing a list of responses from other men, I think she misconstrued what they were saying, because I bet they were more concerned about looking like a pussy when solving a problem - ie. looking weak when they chose to back off or give in to the other party.

I don't know if you caught it, but at the end, I wrote:

Quote

I disagree that methods of conflict resolution that are not fighting are discouraged in modern American society or in most societies around the world. I do think that mainstream media does overempathize and always has overemphasized violent resolutions to conflicts without giving a context or explaining why non-violent conflict resolution works.

You list examples of men in the media as the symbols of machismo - which I think is correct when referring to the media, but is not correct when referring to how men actually operate in the real world. Yes, we're influenced a bit by media sources, but at the same time, normal behavior is different from what we see in the media - less fights, less of a narrative structure to our behaviors and things aren't as clear cut or unambiguous.

My main problem with Kalam's statement is that he seems to have taken one bad fight, in which an injury occurred, as a sign that he should not fight again. He would back down rather than stand for what he believes to be right or his. I also have questions about his dislike of fighting or violence, as his forum name is "KalamMekhar" - a character who is one of the most hyperviolent in the Malazan series.

Quote

2. Here she talks about all the contradictory factors that contribute to how males should handle sexual interaction. Men should be surface-level chivalrous, womanizing, handsome, rugged sexual dynamos who somehow please women while minimizing their wants and needs. Basically a man is expected to cast their relationships with women in the light of how it will impress their guy friends, even as they design a self that will attract women. If you've ever been exposed to college fraternity culture or heard the terms "player" and "pimp" as compliments, then I don't see how you can find fault with this point. The notion that women and men make themselves attractive to the opposite sex is self-evident, and not really what she's arguing here; nor is she suggesting that men should construct personalities that conform to a woman's wishes. In fact, it seems she is addressing men who've already more or less developed their personalities, and how they relate to the women they are in relationships with. Men who listen to their spouses are demeaned as whipped. I notice even you phrase men learning from other men as a secondary source, but don't give men learning from women any such leeway; the characterization there is instantly that of giving in to someone else, of weak character. Do men have nothing to learn from women? In general? From spouses in particular?

My position is that experience should be the primary factor in the conscious shaping of one's personality and attitudes. Learning from other men should be a secondary source, as well as learning from women. I do not agree that a man is expected to cast his relationships with women in light of how it will impress his male friends. I do think that occasionally a man's representation of the relationships to other men is consciously reduced to the idiotic "I wear the pants and she bends to my every whim" cliche. Why men do that is beyond me, as just about every single one of us has a complex, deep relationship with a woman, be it romantic, platonic or familial - it does not stand to reason that we'd be denigrated for representing one or more of them as exactly that, instead of the colossally untrue "pants/whim" shit.

A group of "friends" who call a man "whipped" for asking for advice about long-term life decisions is a shitty group of friends whose input should be largely ignored. Either the husband framed the issue to his friends in a much different manner than what the wife presents to us (quite possible) or they've no clue as to how long term relationships work in the real world or the problems they face.

I disagree with your "Men should be..." lines. That's a construct that is seized upon by people who discuss these issues, but I don't think real people worry about measuring up to that construct all that much. Men don't really ascribe to be Brad Pitt - but they do strive to be better than the men near them.

Quote

And perhaps here where actual sex is the issue, your deference to evolution does make the most sense. But it's still a stupid, subhuman pressure to inflict. [...] At this point we're divorced from the evolutionary process so far that standards of beauty are almost entirely social constructs. I guess if there's a natural throughline it's an attraction to symmetry, but beyond that human attractions don't seem to be particularly concerned with actual fitness, either consciously or subconsciously.

I don't view it as a "stupid subhuman" pressure at all. It's a function of biological life on Earth that continues in humans.

Within modern American society, just about every woman can reproduce. I speculate that the perception of beauty is still somewhat linked to the "fittest", as most of those pumped as hot by the crowds are successful at what they do, very healthy, at least somewhat physically able and generally very willing and able to get along well with people. That's a good genetic blueprint for any potential offspring's future success. Now, the fashion industry is completely fucked, but that's kind of... intentional. They twist and skew things to get to a point where it's not accessible to the majority of humanity.

Quote

4. This point I think you've kinda mangled her meaning. A stiff upper lip is not about controlling emotions (appropriate), it's about stifling them all together (deleterious). And it's not just in dangerous, serious, or public situations...it's always, the pressure to never outwardly express strong emotion, even to your loved ones (exceptions: watching Old Yeller or a John Wayne movie). You preoccupy your argument with the subject of violence, which is at best a tangent. What she's talking about is crying, showing that your feelings are hurt, showing actual affection that isn't sexually-based or dominating (like bear hugs), showing fear. It doesn't necessarily even have to be intense emotion, just any emotion outside the realms of machismo and stoicism.

You do a far better job of explaining what the author's trying to get at than she does.

All of the definitions and my own understanding of "a stiff upper lip" denote restraint of displaying emotions in public - not stifling them altogether. It's a generally acknowledged fact that women are wired very differently from men for emotions and empathy. I think the author's taken a break from synthesizing and put her own thoughts in here - which aren't as valid for men in general as they are for her, because of that difference in wiring. Yes, men should be able to accurately express their emotions without much repercussions when they wish, but it's not as high a priority as it is for women and doing so in public is almost never a good idea.

Quote

5. I agree with you most here, in terms of gayness =/= weakness. But I can't get behind the acceptance that weakness is lesser. Some men are weak and they are still men. Some men are wusses and they are still men. Some men can't win fights and they are still men. They may all very well be good men. And, of course, there is more than one kind of strength.

Weakness, whatever its form, does indeed make one lesser. How can you argue against that? It would be difficult to take "man" status away without some rather drastic physical surgery, so being weak and/or not being able to successfully fight against another doesn't mean the person stops being a man (or woman, or hermaphrodite).

A man can still be wildly successful without possessing the ability to win a fight against a tortoise (see Stephen Hawking).

[KalamMekhar]

amphibian, on 29 July 2010 - 08:49 PM, said:

My main problem with Kalam's statement is that he seems to have taken one bad fight, in which an injury occurred, as a sign that he should not fight again. He would back down rather than stand for what he believes to be right or his. I also have questions about his dislike of fighting or violence, as his forum name is "KalamMekhar" - a character who is one of the most hyperviolent in the Malazan series.

Since i have been in one fight, why woulld i not base how i look at fights going forward based on that one? Standing up for what i believe in or what is mine and important to me in my life doesnt mean i have to prove it in a fight with someone.

What i think of myself getting into fights has no bearing on what i like to read in books. I actually prefer books that have great fights and battles scene's, that is what makes a book good to me and what i look forward to reading in the books, hence why i picked the name. My dislike of violence and fighting only comes into play when it personally involves friends, family, or me. I love watching mma and watch almost every ufc, so its not like im just completely against fighting of all kinds. I just try to avoid it and dont put myself into that kind of situation.