Do bronies challenge traditional masculine values?

[Lilani]

Why is it demeaning to like something made specifically for girls. The show has great animation, voice acting and writing.
It's no different from someone watching Transformers, Thundercats or Gravity Falls.

I saw someone compare it to watching puppies play for half an hour.

This is why we can't have anything nice.

Oh dear. I apologize for moving into triple-post territory. My last reply for a while, I promise!

Anyway, from what I've been able to gather, something that is targeted toward a male demographic is considered to be "gender-neutral." Legos, Transformers, Power Rangers, TMNT...all of these things are targeted toward a male demographic, but it is still "okay" for girls to like it. And the same goes for the toys and other things involved with the marketing of these things (action figures, building blocks and sets, cars, etc). You build things and rescue things and go on adventures, and those are all alright things for girls to do. This is because...well just because, really. This might become clearer after my next point.

But what are feminine toys? Kitchen sets, baby dolls, regular houses, dolls you can dress up with hair you can braid. And what are girls expected to do with these things? Cook dinner, care for babies, keep an orderly house, and dress things up to look pretty.

So the way I see it, the assessment that "boys toys" are gender-neutral is a fairly accurate one. These days, both men and women are expected to be just as capable when it comes to dealing with mechanical things and being heroic when the time comes. But, for some reason only toys for boys cover these themes. Girl's toys don't really help you do anything in life except learn to be a housewife (or house-husband) and doll yourself up to impress others. While those aren't totally useless kills, it's rather irreprehensable to raise a child to only value those things. In society we can accept a person who shuns a domestic life to forward their success, but there is a certain amount of shame put upon people who put aside personal success to complete domestic tasks. I personally don't think that's a shameful life to live, but I think it's safe to say most people don't wish for their children from day one to become housewives.

Considering how long toys have been like this, I think it's only perfectly natural that the shame that comes with focusing exclusively on domestic tasks has come to taint all things geared toward girls, whether or not they are truly like other girl's toys (see my other two posts above for more on that).

So TL;DR: Things geared toward girls tend to not just be feminine in nature but domestic, and because of perceived gender-roles to focus exclusively on domestic skills is still alright for girls but is downright shameful for boys. As a society we are ready to accept that women can be as successful as men, however unfortunately we aren't ready to see how unfair and conter-intuitive it is to pile all of these domestic expectations upon girls from such a young age. The problem only becomes visible to us when those domestic expectations are piled onto boys.

 

[Hazy]

I'm fine with bronies, I just wish some of them would stop jamming it down everybody's throats. I mainly find it hypocritical that many of them preach love and tolerance, but flame anyone who disagrees with them to hell and back.

 

[Hagi]

So TL;DR: Things geared toward girls tend to not just be feminine in nature but domestic, and because of perceived gender-roles to focus exclusively on domestic skills is still alright for girls but is downright shameful for boys. As a society we are ready to accept that women can be as successful as men, however unfortunately we aren't ready to see how unfair and conter-intuitive it is to pile all of these domestic expectations upon girls from such a young age. The problem only becomes visible to us when those domestic expectations are piled onto boys.

I think that probably differs greatly based on where you are. I can't speak for all societies but I do know that here in the Netherlands it's completely expected for men and boys to take up their fair share of domestic work.

A failure to do so is shameful. An incapability to cook and clean is considered childish and seen as a sign that the only woman you should be spending time with is your mother.

Which isn't to say everything is fine and dandy, plenty of problems still to be found. But I do think that on this point, men taking up responsibilities traditionally considered feminine just like women have taken up responsibilities traditionally considered masculine, a lot of improvement has already happened, is still happening and will continue to happen.

 

[Lilani]

I think that probably differs greatly based on where you are. I can't speak for all societies but I do know that here in the Netherlands it's completely expected for men and boys to take up their fair share of domestic work.

A failure to do so is shameful. An incapability to cook and clean is considered childish and seen as a sign that the only woman you should be spending time with is your mother.

Which isn't to say everything is fine and dandy, plenty of problems still to be found. But I do think that on this point, men taking up responsibilities traditionally considered feminine just like women have taken up responsibilities traditionally considered masculine, a lot of improvement has already happened, is still happening and will continue to happen.

In most parts of America, men are also expected to take up their fair share of domestic work. While there are parts of the country that encourage the idea of the wife being the housekeeper, most of the country sees that approach to familial dynamics as backwards and archaic, and even shameful.

However, when it comes to children, it is still overwhelmingly acceptable for girls to exclusively play with girl toys. And as I said, girls toys only focus on domestic tasks and personal beauty. So most of a girl's life she is expected to perform on-par with men and share those tasks with them...except in that phase of growing from toddlerhood to about adolescence. During that time, it is perfectly acceptable (and in some ways expected) for the girl to be focused purely upon "girly" domestic tasks. This expectation transcends familial and domestic setups. Even couples who split domestic tasks right down the middle will load down their girls with exclusively girly toys without so much as batting an eye. And it is arguable that this phase of growing-up has the greatest affect on what they will value as an adult.

The shame associated with domesticity doesn't come from the domesticity itself, but rather a focus on it that is exclusive to everything else. Girl's toys exclusively focus on domestic tasks, and so they are considered shameful for boys to use. So that's the point I'm trying to make: While most of America expects women and men to share domestic tasks, there is still a phase of life girls go through in which focusing exclusively on being a housewife is perfectly acceptable. A phase that boys also go through, but are (if it is at all possible) they are prohibited from focusing so exclusively on domesticity.

 

[somonels]

Umm, why not?
Looking it as a social acceptability struggle they do challenge the traits that might accompany masculinity and get labeled as weirdos. some of them do this intentionally, as did the glam rockers three decades ago; more of them are or were hipsters or just fad followers; many like the series and don't care much.

I'm fine with bronies, I just wish some of them would stop jamming it down everybody's throats. I mainly find it hypocritical that many of them preach love and tolerance, but flame anyone who disagrees with them to hell and back.

And that is pretty much what's become of the Web 2.0.

 

[C. Cain]

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

That particular scenario only applies when you are trying to prove the existence of something, not when you're examining the traits of a group.

So traits are not 'something' then? Either way - It's an appeal to ignorance regardless.
What you're essentially saying is that trait A of group 1 has not been proven true and must therefore be false.

You even admit that you cannot measure the average manliness of every member and yet you claim, in the very next sentence no less, that we can say with confidence that your hasty generalisations are true.

They are hardly 'hasty'. The stereotypical brony is not a masculine fellow, they also aren't your average fellow.

Instead of withholding judgment, which would be the default position when there's barely any evidence, you immediately jump to conclusions based on a laughably small sample size. So yes, they are hasty. As to whether a stereotypical brony cannot be considered a masculine- or even average fellow seems to be irrelevant; stereotypes don't tend to be reflective of reality. Hence the negative connotations.

And while we are at it - may I suggest that you define your terms first? What constitutes manliness in your book? If I recall correctly you said earlier that a 'masculine' man who also happens to be a brony challenges the notion of masculinity on an individual basis. Therefore I have to assume that being a brony is per definitionYour definition. Or rather what I deduce might be part of your definition. a trait that somehow conflicts with masculinity. Which, in turn, would make your previous statement (i.e. "We can say with confidence that the average brony will not be as masculine as the average male.") true. Having said that, however, it'd also make it a tautology and therefore utterly useless.

When dealing with averages a tautology is not utterly useless, especially when more elaborate sources of evidence are not available.

Very well. Irrespective of the usefulness of tautologies as far as averages are concerned - this particular one is useless. It offers nothing of value. If you're charitable you may come up with a few implications that amount to little more than cum hoc ergo propter hoc or maybe even post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Being a fan of My Little Pony is the opposite of a masculine thing, ergo we can confidently say that it will tend to attract less masculine members. The same can be applied to cartoons attracting children - certainly there will still be an adult or young adult following but the most common demographic is children. I want to provide more examples as to how stereotypical bronies are less masculine than average but such examples will naturally offend or upset.

Speaking of the aforementioned fallacies...

Feel free to provide as many examples as you wish. Since you are presenting examples of stereotypical bronies rather than average ones your comparisons will offer little in the way of evidence for your argument.

As for the definition of masculinity I assumed we were talking about the traditional version of masculinity: high physical development, no-nonsense attitude and avoiding expressions of emotion. Hell, Ron Swanson is the poster-boy of masculinity.

You cannot merely assume to be on the same page as everyone else. The 'traditional' version of masculinity has always been subject to change. It drastically differs depending on the era we are examining as well as on the culture we are dealing with.

 

[Hagi]

I think that probably differs greatly based on where you are. I can't speak for all societies but I do know that here in the Netherlands it's completely expected for men and boys to take up their fair share of domestic work.

A failure to do so is shameful. An incapability to cook and clean is considered childish and seen as a sign that the only woman you should be spending time with is your mother.

Which isn't to say everything is fine and dandy, plenty of problems still to be found. But I do think that on this point, men taking up responsibilities traditionally considered feminine just like women have taken up responsibilities traditionally considered masculine, a lot of improvement has already happened, is still happening and will continue to happen.

In most parts of America, men are also expected to take up their fair share of domestic work. While there are parts of the country that encourage the idea of the wife being the housekeeper, most of the country sees that approach to familial dynamics as backwards and archaic, and even shameful.

However, when it comes to children, it is still overwhelmingly acceptable for girls to exclusively play with girl toys. And as I said, girls toys only focus on domestic tasks and personal beauty. So most of a girl's life she is expected to perform on-par with men and share those tasks with them...except in that phase of growing from toddlerhood to about adolescence. During that time, it is perfectly acceptable (and in some ways expected) for the girl to be focused purely upon "girly" domestic tasks. This expectation transcends familial and domestic setups. Even couples who split domestic tasks right down the middle will load down their girls with exclusively girly toys without so much as batting an eye. And it is arguable that this phase of growing-up has the greatest affect on what they will value as an adult.

The shame associated with domesticity doesn't come from the domesticity itself, but rather a focus on it that is exclusive to everything else. Girl's toys exclusively focus on domestic tasks, and so they are considered shameful for boys to use. So that's the point I'm trying to make: While most of America expects women and men to share domestic tasks, there is still a phase of life girls go through in which focusing exclusively on being a housewife is perfectly acceptable. A phase that boys also go through, but are (if it is at all possible) they are prohibited from focusing so exclusively on domesticity.

A good and true point (I think?), hadn't really looked at it that way.

Then again, I must admit to a complete and utter lack of knowledge on the part of domestic toys, which I guess goes a fair way in proving you right.

On the other hand in my youth I can honestly remember only a single kid that had exclusively girly toys, who was a boy... All the girls I can remember had their fair share of toys I wouldn't call girly.

All of that's just anecdotal though, so I can't really say anything for certain.

What I find somewhat odd though is that around here being a housewife seems generally considered to be in that awkward area where it isn't quite right to say it's wrong but most everyone kinda does believe it to be not entirely acceptable. Not sure how that applies to little children but I do know that seems to be an increasingly popular perception of adults.

 

[babinro]

Shows like Sailor Moon, Gummi Bears, Carebears, PowerPuff Girls had significant male followers as well.
MLP:FIM simply caters to a different generation than those older shows.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

snip.

Well that would make sense if MLP FIM was like that, but it isn't, all of the main characters have job and a place in life. None of them are a housewife and they do go on adventures.

However, I see what you mean. I personally think it's dangerous for people to look down on things like housework and both sexes just be taught it's something respectful and a lot of the times being house wife or husband is as difficult as working. Especially looking after kids. I see that your reasoning is logical but it's not an excuse if you see what I mean.

I personally don't think there is any shame in watching MLP:FIM. Hell I have Rainbow Dash stickers on my PC. A guy who likes My Little Pony would just get on with me better.

 

[s0p0g]

let's just see how a great evening for your average mid to end-twenty male might look like:
meet friends at gym, work out, have a nice steak at someone's place, pop a beer or two or three or..., and watch a couple of episodes of MLP: FiM

yep, totally girly.
wait, what?


look, we play shooters and RTS, we love our movies with lots of dakka and sploshuns but no real plot, we love steak, beer, whiskey, working out, our families or just spouses, we make dirty jokes, and we watch MLP
you tell me

brohoof! /)

 

[Legion]

No, they're just man-children with an unhealthy obsession over a cartoon that's aimed at little girls. :/

A guy got warned for saying the same thing a single post down from the OP, and you decide to do it as well.

Honestly...

Not that I particularly care about MLP or Bronies either way, but I do find it odd that people use "It's a cartoon that's aimed at little girls" as an argument against it.

Call of Duty is aimed at teenage boys/men in their early twenties, does that girls/women shouldn't play it, just because they are not the target audience? Pokemon shouldn't be played by anybody above the age of 12? Disney/Pixar movies as well?

It just comes across as a very lazy, poorly thought out argument against it. Especially as non-gamers use similar arguments against adults playing computer games. So I guess it's hypocritical as well.

I can understand the irritation that comes with it seemingly being everywhere, I get pretty annoyed when I can try and find an image of a game/film/TV show, only to find a MLP version of it. Seriously, even the more obscure ones seem to have a frigging MLP fan version made. But to suggest there is something wrong with actually watching it in itself doesn't make much sense.

No, they watch a show aimed for very young girls and creepily obsess over it.

The guy is right, and doesn't even directly insult anyone, but gets warned. . .

Nowhere in the rules does it say insulting people is okay, as long as it isn't directly.

 

[rosac]

Nope, because pretty much everyone I know has no idea what a brony is. They're a fringe group of a fringe group.

 

[Pinkamena]

No, they watch a show aimed for very young girls and creepily obsess over it.

The guy is right, and doesn't even directly insult anyone, but gets warned. . .

I was surprised at that as well.

 

[Mattlore]

During the beginning of the fandom when it was just about finding out that the show is indeed, a good show, then yes. I believe that bronies were challenging social and gender norms by being forward about their legitimate love of the series. Now, not so much. The community has essentially turned from "Hey man, this show is actually good!" to using the source material as a means to fulfill their own deviant, social and sexual fantasies.

This is why I've dissociated myself from the fanbase, by in large.

 

[generals3]

A guy got warned for saying the same thing a single post down from the OP, and you decide to do it as well.

Honestly...

Not that I particularly care about MLP or Bronies either way, but I do find it odd that people use "It's a cartoon that's aimed at little girls" as an argument against it.

Call of Duty is aimed at teenage boys/men in their early twenties, does that girls/women shouldn't play it? Just because they are not the target audience? Pokemon shouldn't be played by anybody above the age of 12? Disney/Pixar movies as well?

It just comes across as a very lazy, poorly thought out argument against it. Especially as non-gamers use similar arguments against adults playing computer games. So I guess it's hypocritical as well.

But it is a very sensible argument. I mean, i have seen quite a few bronies say they like the show because it talks about friendship and such. And while that may be true it still talks about it in an extremely childish way. It's like having a uni professor teaching the same way a 1st grade teacher would. In a sense it all boils down to one point: bronies like to be communicated with as if they were kids. And that is quite weird. Surely most would agree they would find it inappropriate or insulting if someone would talk to them as if they were 8y old children. And even the "good animation" argument seems dodgy at best. Because even if they are good we're still talking about a little kids show being well animated. The animation is a way to wrap the content, if the content isn't appropriate at all than no amount of good animation will make it so.

Now off course this is my view on things and i may be terribly wrong.

 

[Moderated]

No.
1: The majority of bronies are not masculine.
2: It's just some people liking a show.

 

[Quadocky]

So all in all, white guy nerds being white guy nerds.

Which I think, we all can agree, is not a very masculine thing to do.

Well, the thing is, while its not contemporary masculinity it is generally considered to be the domain of men. Many geeky/nerdy subcultures are saturated with men.

The problem I see though is that even though they may also at the same time be considered rejects of traditional masculinity, they still conform to it.

 

[m0ng00se]

Liking My Little Pony challenges traditional masculine values about as much as liking Regular Show, or SpongeBob SquarePants.

Physical masculine values:
Muscles, good beards, body hair, doing physical stuff sometimes/always.

Social masculine values:
Putting yourself last, taking a proactive role in relationships, some more stuff I'm sure.


What kind of TV you watch doesn't really impact either of those sets? Unless you watch too much of it then the other things probably take a hit.

 

[ChristopherT]

No, not really. I think part of the idea stems from bronies being "bronies" and not just "fans of MLP". There's a difference between being a fan of something and identifying yourself by something. It's the same with "gamer" - oh, so you sit around and play violent abusive videogames out of your parents' basement? - "brony in the house" you're one of those middle aged guys who watches a little girls' show, posts pony pics all over the internet, and has a MLP FiM body pillow?

I think we're in a state of judgement and identification, rather than getting to know each other - even just for a second. We are on machines, that can help us communicate instantly with anyone around the world, and we call them retarded ****** mother-fuckers. A statement like -> "teh tittles rong its spelt MYLITTLEPONY:FRIENDSHIPISMAGIC u forgetted the :" is responded with -> "learn to SPELL YOU fucking moron" When it could just as easily be ignored. Combined with the idea of identification markers to sort everyone by preference - Brony, Gamer, Gamer Girl, ect. seems to be on the rise. There are very few identifications I can think of for older media - Trekkie, and that's all that comes to my mind. However now there seem to be newer ones popping up more often.

Which leads to judgement beings based quickly -> MLP is a kids' show, what's wrong with you
Which leads to defensive -> It's written really well and is very adult
Back and Forths -> It's for little girls, it's about ponies }{ Yeah, what of it? I love it, I'm a guy, I got hair on my chest and I love mlp, love and tolerate asshole
To Offensiveness -> only little girls and Bearded Man-Children watch MLP, those poor pathetic bastards, the girls I mean, being lumped in a group with old guys with a sick fascination with girly ponies on a girly kiddie cartoon show for girls, most likely half of which are pedos
To Defensive -> MLP:FiM is just as great as any other 'boy' cartoon there has ever been or will be. It's funny, intelligent, and teaches moral values and doesn't devalue anypony for whom they are on inside. So what if I like it? I love it. I'm challenging social acceptance! I'm a unique rebel!

That's how I see it anyways.

 

[AngloDoom]

I would consider it to be socially unacceptable for many men to say they like My Little Pony because they are men, yet some men continue to watch it without hiding it from the world regardless.

It may not be a confrontational burning of bras or "we're here, we're queer" but I'd consider that to be challenging masculine values.