There seems to still be a lingering concept that things guys do need to be "manly" or "not girly"

Carzinex

New member
Mar 29, 2011
44
0
0
Kathinka said:
It's rooted in biology. Girls, generally speaking, like assertive, confident, aggressive guys. It's just how it is. Those, that in the cave man days could have slain the mammoth, taken their share of the berries, produced healthy offspring and defended the tribe with a spear.

Obviously, we don't live in caves anymore. But from an evolutionary standpoint, it was only the day before yesterday that we did, so these qualities are still ingrained into our brains as desirable. Wonder why the hot girls so often end up dating the jerks? Because jerkdom and these qualities often overlap.

"wonder why the hot girls so often end up dating the jerks?" This is a line that annoys me, not saying from you, as it usually precedes "and they treat them like shit and i'm so nice why don't they like me"

I'm a confident guy and have been accused of having this outer jerk, brosef exterior and i've heard this line about me. Can i be a jerk to people i don't like, well yeah i can be an arse. Am i a cheeky asshole to my GF in public sometimes, well yeah, im a cheeky asshole in public sometimes, so's she. However, when we are one on one, alone in the house you would be sickened by the cutesiness on display. And that's what is important at the end of the day. How you and your partner are alone together.

I know there are people out there that act all honorable and knightly in public with their GF's but at home are complete monsters.

OT: I believe "manliness" is a confidence issue and self awareness issue. Like most on here i was into comics, games and nerd culture "before it was cool" and never had a problem because i didn't care that other folks thought it was sad, i knew that others thought it was weird, but because i just did't care i was still one of the "cool kids"(god i hate that phrase).

I think alot of the toxic side of it comes from a lack of self awareness, especially the anti girly, homo/transphobic side of things. It seems alot of folks think that if they act "girly" or enjoy "gay culture" or heaven forbid find a transexual attractive then that means they are gay. It can be confusing and confusion breeds hostility to whats confusing them. It's why i think Bailey Jay becoming so famous is a great thing, she's exposing more guys to the fact that, "hell, she may still have a penis but my god is she a beautiful woman"
 

inmunitas

Senior Member
Feb 23, 2015
273
0
21
Dark Knifer said:
LifeCharacter said:
Important for early survival, sure, maybe, evo-psych away with that speculation because it's at least somewhat reasonable. One of the "key reasons" our race has made it this far? Absolute nonsense. Pretty much every other advantage humans had ranks above gender roles as reasons we succeeded. Not to mention that, unless "this far" means little more than achieving our prehistorical status, gender roles likely restricted our ascension to the current state by refusing to let half the population partake in advancement.
True. To say one way or another though we'd need a society that has been built up with no gender roles, and i don't think such a society exists. Every society has had them at one point or another and I'm not keen saying one way or another without a lot of research. I would say they helped in some ways, very unhelpful in others but that depends on your basis of success whether its ethical, technological advancement, political advancement, societal advancement, pure survival. It's certainly worth the study considering how consistent it is among the species.

Either way, I'm optimistic for the future and seeing where gender ideas go and the benefits for less strict gender roles.
That's because you're talking about human survival instincts, the most successful of which "gender roles" are based on to a degree.
 
Oct 2, 2012
1,267
0
0
I don't believe you're full of it man. I think it's bullshit too. I'm Bipolar and have fought severe depression (and other issues) since childhood. I was bullied and beaten by friends, schoolmates, even family for being sad or crying as a child and teen. I wish that it was more socially acceptable for males to express emotions other than rage, and that we were less afraid of seeking help for our issues.
I have my share of physical scars and I've been in more fights and given into violence more often than I care to admit (things my family taught me were "manly") and I'cve suppressed my emotions a lot, but I think it's bullshit.
I didn't let myself get the help I needed early because of my "image" and it still bothers me to this day.
But now I think "Fuck what other people think. Unless they're my boss or future potential boss they don't fucking matter. I'll cry if I want to and get whatever kind of help I need or want!"

Sorry if this is unhelpful, off-topic, or completely incomprehensible;. I'm fucking wasted and am only getting by on Opera's spellcheck function.
'
 

Carzinex

New member
Mar 29, 2011
44
0
0
cleric of the order said:
You know what, I had this whole spiel but i think I'm just going to crank you my opinion this way.
Why do I need, or any man woman or child need to openly express their emotions by crying.
Why is that indicative to emotions for some people and why does that indicate anything good.
Ignore manliness or girlishness, lefts put down the stupid sex question and ask it.
Crying is not the be all end all emotional response.
And everyone responds to emotional separately, so there are indeed men that cannot cry naturally because of how they deal with their emotions.
There are people whom their responsibility renders the privilege of easily expressing their more vulnerable personage impossible and the best option is to soldier through it.
IT is not the nicest possibility but an acceptable one.
Others pour their emotions into their work and out of their pains and joys they find a new life, a rich inner life bred within the contours of their own minds.
And many others in many other ways.
Myself I've cried more I'd like and every-time it was more a produce of rage and incomprehension then actual sadness. I never really cry at sad things and I wish i could. my EXTERNAL emotional responses do not simply function that way.
Simply emotions are and have always been a complex thing, not something you could just tie down to sexes or the like alone but something more intricate. A complex measure of our biological functions.
And while it does sound simply wrong in our day to suggest this but perhaps these social expectations are the societal mean of biological factors. Simply the most common response of the sex in question over time. I have no idea myself, it seems possible but I have no proof or evidence to support it.
But either way, if anyone tells you men don't express emotions, punch them in the face. I WILL NOT HAVE THEM BEFOULING THE NAMES OF EVERY MAN THAT HAS EVER LIVED, NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH BEING THE GREAT MALE ARTISTS AND WRITERS THAT HAVE CREATED WORKS OF SUCH HAUNTING BEATUY THAT THEY LINGER ON LONG AFTER THEIR DEATHS.
If they say men should cry then well that's up to you, crying tends to solve nothing anyway but who am I to judge.
Yeah, i haven't cried in at least a decade, so do i feel that makes me emotionally stunted, hell no.

When i'm upset at something i get focused, i use my energy to solve what ever is upsetting me or focus it elsewhere, go for a run, play a game. (Never drink! very important, i had a rule from my teen years, never drink when upset or angry.)

Now does that make me judge people who cry, no but i do tend to judge people who mope about and just cry and complain and do nothing to change their position. That's not me thinking their "girly" or "not manly" that's me thinking they are weak/lazy, i don't identify that as a gender trait just a personality trait.
 

Yuuki

New member
Mar 19, 2013
995
0
0
LifeCharacter said:
Important for early survival, sure, maybe, evo-psych away with that speculation because it's at least somewhat reasonable. One of the "key reasons" our race has made it this far? Absolute nonsense. Pretty much every other advantage humans had ranks above gender roles as reasons we succeeded. Not to mention that, unless "this far" means little more than achieving our prehistorical status, gender roles likely restricted our ascension to the current state by refusing to let half the population partake in advancement.
Define "advancement" because if an entire HALF of a population really wants to get done something (and has equal or better capability of getting it done), nothing can to keep them down. Absolutely nothing.
If women were truly equally as capable of getting everything done, then overall we would have seen very close to a 50/50 split and gender roles would have never come around to begin with.

Yet...there is a pattern throughout history (and in many cases even present) when it comes to gender roles. This pattern is evident whether you're looking 50, 500, or 5000 years back. Even with civilizations that NEVER communicated with each other and prospered in their own parts of the world, the same patterns existed.

Is that just coincidence? Do you really believe it wasn't one of the key reasons we made it this far?
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,576
3,532
118
Yuuki said:
LifeCharacter said:
Important for early survival, sure, maybe, evo-psych away with that speculation because it's at least somewhat reasonable. One of the "key reasons" our race has made it this far? Absolute nonsense. Pretty much every other advantage humans had ranks above gender roles as reasons we succeeded. Not to mention that, unless "this far" means little more than achieving our prehistorical status, gender roles likely restricted our ascension to the current state by refusing to let half the population partake in advancement.
Define "advancement" because if an entire HALF of a population really wants to get done something (and has equal or better capability of getting it done), nothing can to keep them down. Absolutely nothing.
If women were truly equally as capable of getting everything done, then overall we would have seen very close to a 50/50 split and gender roles would have never come around to begin with.
What, you mean the way that kings are inherently more capable of ruling than the people of their nation, that white British people were inherently more capable of ruling parts of the empire in which they were a minority and so on?
 

mecegirl

New member
May 19, 2013
737
0
0
Dark Knifer said:
LifeCharacter said:
Dark Knifer said:
I'd argue less. Much less so in modern times but when we were a younger species yes, gender roles were important. It's why most sexually reproducing species have them because it gives a specific purpose to both genders. In our own species, men were encouraged by both genders to take risks because if often brought in more rewards, larger hunting kills and things like that.

Women were more protected for reproduction purposes so that encouraged non-risk taking behavior for them.

In modern times we're going to an exciting metamorphosis that is moving away from this idea and I like that. Personal freedom yay. But I'm not going to talk down the importance of gender roles when we were younger because they were important. I agree they don't need to be around much anymore but lets not ignore history, that would be silly. Gender roles definitely had its uses but we're moving past it. But we're very alone in that sense because most sexually reproducing animals have gender roles to an extremely large degree.
Important for early survival, sure, maybe, evo-psych away with that speculation because it's at least somewhat reasonable. One of the "key reasons" our race has made it this far? Absolute nonsense. Pretty much every other advantage humans had ranks above gender roles as reasons we succeeded. Not to mention that, unless "this far" means little more than achieving our prehistorical status, gender roles likely restricted our ascension to the current state by refusing to let half the population partake in advancement.
True. To say one way or another though we'd need a society that has been built up with no gender roles, and i don't think such a society exists. Every society has had them at one point or another and I'm not keen saying one way or another without a lot of research. I would say they helped in some ways, very unhelpful in others but that depends on your basis of success whether its ethical, technological advancement, political advancement, societal advancement, pure survival. It's certainly worth the study considering how consistent it is among the species.

Either way, I'm optimistic for the future and seeing where gender ideas go and the benefits for less strict gender roles.
Why would we need to see a society like that? On the physical side of things maybe, but what about the mental? When a large portion of the population his held back from getting a whole education of course it would restrict our advancement. That's way to many potential scientists, doctors and inventors held back by a lack of education. As well as potential politicians, and business owners.

But beyond that, looking at American history, its kinda hard for me to believe how much gender roles have really helped. There are too many men and women who weren't treated like "men and women". And because they were not American society has advanced significantly, but free labor will do that. So to have a gender role that would keep "women" away from physical labor while still expecting slave women to do heavy labor. How exactally does that work? And furthermore if slave women could do such labor who is to say that free women couldn't? Or even free women on the frontier vs free women who lived in more urban areas. With the exception of certain tasks the farm work has to be done by someone. If women who lived on the frontier and were born to farmers lived up to certain gendered expectations a lot wouldn't get done.

Or what about a man's expectation to guard and provide for his family? Men who were slaves weren't given that option. Families were broken up all the time so that slaves could be sold. And even after slavery when certain jobs are off limits because of the color of your skin it makes it harder to provide, and so the women have to work hard as well. Joining the military wasn't always and option either when you are considered too incompetent to serve as anything other than a human shield. If that...

Gender roles just aren't applied well across the board throughout human history. There are always exceptions, so why take them seriously?
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
Kathinka said:
Wonder why the hot girls so often end up dating the jerks? Because jerkdom and these qualities often overlap.
This sort of thing annoys me, because I have known many girls who enter in unhealthy relationships with controlling guys, and they are typically by no means very high on the "hotness" scale. In fact, their lack of good looks are often a major insecurity, and contribute to the self-deprecation which makes them want to stick it out in abusive relationships. There are women who go after "jerks" for various reasons, but if you're going to say it's "hot women" clearly you're operating under a stereotype rather than actually thinking of the behaviors and temperaments which precipitate these situations.

It's also making a rather sweeping generalization which I have never seen proven to encompass any significant number of women. It's a trope which people accept as fact, yet rarely bother actually digging in to find numbers to prove any of it. It's unhelpful in knowing the root of relationship problems, and the way it's so casually trotted out it's demeaning to both women and men. It's demeaning to women because it pretends we're all potential abuse victims waiting to find our Christian Grays, and it's demeaning to men because it pretends all men who are confident are horrible people.

Please, if you're going to perpetuate this thing, at least provide some numbers or sound science as opposed to armchair psychology.
 

Dark Knifer

New member
May 12, 2009
4,468
0
0
mecegirl said:
As I said before, they aren't needed now so we don't need to have them but I think they are important for a historical context and scientific.

No-one should have to live by them now, but they should be studied how beneficial or negative they were and why they are so consistent among humans and so many other animals.

Sorry if that wasn't clear, that's all I wanted to say.
 

carnex

Senior Member
Jan 9, 2008
828
0
21
IN every group there has to be someone who takes certain type u burdens and carry it for the group. Traditionally it was men's job to haul the more unpleasant loads. Dangerous, depressing etc. It's not a steadfast rule, but it was how roles ended up in most situations. In case of highly emotional situations, in order for some to break down, there must be one or more persons ready to carry the responsibilities left behind by those who did break down and there must by someone to whom those who did break down can latch on until they collect themselves and stand back up on their legs.

Now, here is the important bit. That doesn't mean that person, the stoic one, isn't or shouldn't be emotional. Quite the opposite, unemotional person is the last one you want to be the support in those cases. It's precisely the strong emotions of empathy, love, compassion etc that will give that person strength to endure those heavy tasks and latches for which those who need support can grab onto. That person has to appear strong and unflinching while enduring all the emotional pain and trauma internally.

Thus the idea of man tears. Man tears are tears shed in "safe zone", place where you are out of reach of those who need your support. It's tears that people shed alone or with people unrelated to the emotional trauma that are still either close enough or skillful and willing enough for the "crying man" to latch on to pick itself up.

To be clear, that's not exclusively male role to take. But it's predominantly male as males, on average, are predisposed towards that task. In males emotions tend to cause somewhat less havoc and with somewhat delayed kick off. There are plenty of males absolutely unfit for such position and females that can perform that role without a sweat, but males, on average, have an advantage. It' not really important who that person is as long as that person is already established as someone stoic or that person can assume that position strongly enough that others who need help can recognize the role.

Well, so much about the concept of "male tears" and the fact that many women and many more men shed them in dark corners around the world.

On the other hand, there is one more important aspect to assess. And that is professional world and emotional outburst.

Professional world is, for the most part, competitive in nature. Your competitors will do a lot, or anything, to stay ahead of you. That doesn't mean they are bad or evil people, where there is limited resource and that quantity is not enough to go around, or at least is perceived not enough, there will be competition. Be it a contract with supplier of rare resource or next promotion people will be jockeying for that goal and not everyone can arrive there first or on time.

Second part of that puzzle is perception of ones qualities and worthiness. Control, and even more so, self-control are one of most valued and most needed qualities of leader, a successful business man. Emotional outbursts are in their essence act of losing or letting go of that control, therefore it's a weakness, an indication that you are a flawed as a leader. To be specific, I'm talking about emotional outbursts. Strictly controlled emotional responses like sheding a single tear while standing strong are seen, and are showcase of ultimate emotional self-controll. Once your lack emotional control is displayed you are giving your competition a weapon with which they will attempt to put you below them on the ladder. And while they can be abused to gain advantage too, that actually requires far more self-control and skill in people manipulation, especially for males.

Given those who facts, I would argue that it's clear why males are instinctively driven and taught to suck it up, take those punches and move on until the time is right. Even they need to cleanse themselves of those negative emotions; it's just expected of them to do it in safe zone where his support for others will not be dismantled and destroyed or where they will not teach their competition how to take them down. And then they need to pick themselves up and return to their position of pillar of integrity.
 

mecegirl

New member
May 19, 2013
737
0
0
Dark Knifer said:
mecegirl said:
As I said before, they aren't needed now so we don't need to have them but I think they are important for a historical context and scientific.

No-one should have to live by them now, but they should be studied how beneficial or negative they were and why they are so consistent among humans and so many other animals.

Sorry if that wasn't clear, that's all I wanted to say.
But I'm not talking about now, I'm talking about then. :p And really, there was no true consitancy back then, either across cultures because of cultural differences. Or within a culture because adhering to them was only expected to those of a certain class. It's not this "natural" thing.
 

lionsprey

New member
Sep 20, 2010
430
0
0
DizzyChuggernaut said:
One of the most celebrated "masculine" traits is confidence. Which is ironic when you consider how god damn insecure most dudebro "alpha" types are. Oh, and how insecure fedora-wearing "gentlemen" are (as much as they hate each other they are really very similar).

You know what confidence is? Doing what the fuck you want to do without submitting to the demands of "cultural norms". You're a male with the beard of a Swedish death metal singer and you like Sailor Moon? Fantastic. You're a male that takes a lot of time to look good, you shave your legs, wear makeup and have fabulous hair? Amazing. You're a misogynistic asshole that calls men you disapprove of "faggots"? Well, you might just be an insecure little douchebag.

In relation to your point about MLP, bronies are a disturbing bunch. If you're a male adult and you like My Little Pony, that's fine. If you like drawing perverted fan art, that is also fine. But the show was not written for you, and the amount of creepy neckbeards intruding on spaces designed for little kids is appalling. And I think that relates to the insecurity you mentioned in your original post. They can't just appreciate a show for little kids (little girls, to be specific). They have to be convinced that it caters specifically to them.
im so sick of people getting this wrong. My little pony the franchise was created to sell toys to girls yes. but My little pony Friendship is magic the TV series was created to be a FAMILY show similar to for example pixar movies. in fact it was created by lauren faust to specifically be more then a tv show for little girls.
 

AgedGrunt

New member
Dec 7, 2011
363
0
0
Lingering concept? Asking whether people have encountered this before? Where do you live? Gender roles and stereotypes are still quite normal. Only recently have they become faced with generations of progressives that either believe the time has come for society to catch up to their views and/or work to force change.

Hate to burst anyone's bubble, but the majority of the world generally does not embrace progressive views on gender. If they did, there wouldn't be a minority of places in the world where LGBT is openly accepted and it would be fine for people to cross-dress.

Don't know why some people assume that society has embraced liberal concepts of various issues and sort of treat tradition and conservative views like a species that should go extinct, but that is getting us no where but divisive, bitter social battles because it ends up that nobody tolerates opposing views. Certainly it will be a long road to any peace and equality so long as there's intolerance on either side.
 

Mau95

Senior Member
Nov 11, 2011
347
0
21
"Manly tears" and whatever are just memes, attempts to get the top comment. Who cares?
 

Dizchu

...brutal
Sep 23, 2014
1,277
0
0
lionsprey said:
im so sick of people getting this wrong. My little pony the franchise was created to sell toys to girls yes. but My little pony Friendship is magic the TV series was created to be a FAMILY show similar to for example pixar movies. in fact it was created by lauren faust to specifically be more then a tv show for little girls.
It's not about a show being for girls or for a family audience, it's about a show being appropriate for all ages and certain adult fans feel like they're exempt from keeping their sexualisation of the show's characters on the down-low.

When MLP-themed events or conventions take place where children are attending, certain "bronies" feel like they have the right to openly discuss explicit fanfictions, as if the show was made specifically to provide characters for furry porn. It's fine if you're into that, but god dammit, I can't believe I'm actually gonna say this, but...

think of the children.
 

lionsprey

New member
Sep 20, 2010
430
0
0
DizzyChuggernaut said:
lionsprey said:
im so sick of people getting this wrong. My little pony the franchise was created to sell toys to girls yes. but My little pony Friendship is magic the TV series was created to be a FAMILY show similar to for example pixar movies. in fact it was created by lauren faust to specifically be more then a tv show for little girls.
It's not about a show being for girls or for a family audience, it's about a show being appropriate for all ages and certain adult fans feel like they're exempt from keeping their sexualisation of the show's characters on the down-low.

When MLP-themed events or conventions take place where children are attending, certain "bronies" feel like they have the right to openly discuss explicit fanfictions, as if the show was made specifically to provide characters for furry porn. It's fine if you're into that, but god dammit, I can't believe I'm actually gonna say this, but...

think of the children.
oh sorry i misunderstood i thought it was the usual "its a show with ponies and that means its for girls and that means they are gay and or pedofiles". i do agree they should take care where they post/discuss the more "adult" part of the fandom
 

Dark Knifer

New member
May 12, 2009
4,468
0
0
mecegirl said:
Dark Knifer said:
mecegirl said:
As I said before, they aren't needed now so we don't need to have them but I think they are important for a historical context and scientific.

No-one should have to live by them now, but they should be studied how beneficial or negative they were and why they are so consistent among humans and so many other animals.

Sorry if that wasn't clear, that's all I wanted to say.
But I'm not talking about now, I'm talking about then. :p And really, there was no true consitancy back then, either across cultures because of cultural differences. Or within a culture because adhering to them was only expected to those of a certain class. It's not this "natural" thing.
Maybe I'm talking more sex roles then gender roles. So men and women in history throughout the ages in every culture were treated differently and were expected to do different things. What was born of basic survival was then used by different people for greed etc, depending on the culture and we should study that.

And I would say it is natural because we're part of nature. It's impossible for us to act outside of nature but I think you mean natural as in everyone agreed, supported and felt an instinctual want to have society like that. Which generally isn't how it works.

If I've got this right then I think we're in agreement. Yay.
 

Malpraxis

Trust me, I'm a Doctor.
Jul 30, 2013
138
0
0
Even in the most conservative backgrounds that concept has diluted over time. Men are biologically hardwired to do things to attract women. Women are biologically hardwired to find a powerful mate. That simple thing kept us from going extinct from prehistoric times. You may say that it's good or bad, but it's nature, works for every other animal out there in slightly different ways.

Problem is, the definition of power has changed radically over the years. While before was the guy who could swing a truncheon and kill the biggest mammoth, or carry the bigger boulders to protect his home, now it's more of a commodity based thing with people using mostly smarts instead of raw strength. But to our more primal nature, strength equals manliness, and unmanly (i.e. weak) prospects should be shunned, as they won't reproduce and die. You don't want weak people in your tribe, hence the insults.