Masculinity and men

[Buddha1]

Men are not made for bringing up children. It's not a woman's job, it is her privilege to do that! "

Gesus, christ! It is boths privilege. :rolls eyes

You are right to some extent.

But for most women it is a natural privilege.

For men it is basically a social (=artificial) privilege granted to them by the marriage institution.

But if you look at the bad job that so many men do of it.....

And how men run away from marriage.....and what they think of it,

You know that not all of them want that privilege or deserve it.

But I agree that to be able to 'have' a child and to play with it and to 'own' it, when you've not given birth to it is all really fun --- and a great privilege, but when it comes to looking after the child --- to bathe it, to clean its shit, to prevent it from cold, to feed it regularly and appropriately, to wake up the whole night because to look after the baby --- all this is not something that many men are capable of or willing to do.

 

[Buddha1]

I've added to the above post, so read it again.

 

[Buddha1]

So, Buddha1, if you ruled the world, what would be appropriate roles for women in your ideal society?

I can see sarcasm oozing out of that post!

I've always talked about a society that is closer to our natural instincts, needs and aspirations. Our gender and sexual roles should also reflect those.

After all, the society only exists to help humans realise these natural, basic needs. It doesn't exist to please some god or an ideology --- or to unduly empower a few!

Of course women also differ from each other. There are masculine gendered women, who care little about raising children --- and whould very much like the freedom and power that the lack of this responsibility entails. They would like to fight in the armies, join politics, play sports and all those things.

Any ideal society should be able to accomodate everyone's needs without marginalising or denigrating them.

 

[Buddha1]

So, Buddha1, if you ruled the world, what would be appropriate roles for women in your ideal society?

Then again, the whole idea of this discussion is not what I think the solution is. The important thing is that we see that there is a problem. I'd be successful in my endeavour when I make people see that there is a problem. I am sure there are many capable people there who will together find out a solution.

 

[Buddha1]

So, Buddha1, if you ruled the world, what would be appropriate roles for women in your ideal society?

One of my first counsins always wanted to have a husband who would provide her enough security that she could live at home and look after her children. She just did not want to have to work.

But the way things are in my society which is going through a transient phase of modernism, women in big cities also work in order to support their families. Her husband does not work --- because he is a dreamer who doesn't want the responsibility of a family. He works a lot but not to earn money, but following aparticular dream of his. That his wife works gives him the financial security.

But the thing is he doesn't look after the home or the two little children at all. My cousin works hard outside, comes back home and works till late in the night, while he just sits there, because he is enjoying the privilege of a 'man' granted by the traditional society, without bearing the responsibility of that 'traditional' man.

But I see this trend happening more and more. As my country goes through heterosexualisation, I find many men who are out of job becasue women are taking up the jobs. Then women work outside while husbands willy nilly look after the house and children. (Although the few cases I'm talking about the husbands are what I describe as the 'true' heterosexuals and kind of enjoy raising up and looking after children!)

 

[Giambattista]

Sounds like the husbands are having good fun!

The population must be controlled, my dear Buddha!

Now, are you feeling intellectual enough to answer my previous question about men and body images (or what have you)?

 

[Giambattista]

I think women are just fine. They should have jobs. And if they don't want to have children, that's even better. They must be aggressive, shark-like.

I will say though, women have a higher concentration of a certain hormone that encourages "softness" and nurturing. Apparently this hormone (oxytocin?) also makes women seek out more romantic, meaningful, long-lasting relationships, as opposed to short, sexual trysts.

 

[Buddha1]

I think women are just fine. They should have jobs. And if they don't want to have children, that's even better. They must be aggressive, shark-like.

I will say though, women have a higher concentration of a certain hormone that encourages "softness" and nurturing. Apparently this hormone (oxytocin?) also makes women seek out more romantic, meaningful, long-lasting relationships, as opposed to short, sexual trysts.

Heterosexual bullshit!

 

[Buddha1]

I think women are just fine. They should have jobs. And if they don't want to have children, that's even better. They must be aggressive, shark-like.

That is a typical heterosexual/ homosexual view!

I have nothing against women doing jobs. But then jobs should suit their sex/ gender potentials. Men and women are not the same. And the workplace should also respect this difference. That women need to work is no excuse for heterosexualisation of social spaces, including work spaces.

It's o.k. too if women don't want to have children --- but this happens naturally in only a few women. But if most women don't want to have children due to social conditioning, then what will they do, when their primary drive in life is taken away from her. A woman does not feel complete unless she has a child --- and this is nothing social, its natural.

Women are still welcome to do politics and do other stuff that men do! But that is still no excuse for heterosexualisation of social spaces.

 

[Buddha1]

They must be aggressive, shark-like.

The real heterosexual men will dig that!

 

[Buddha1]

Double standards by which men are chastised for being sexually promiscuous, while women are applauded for the same behaviour.
Yeah, women have it all.

In the traditional society being called a 'whore' meant more or less the same about of stigma for women as being called a 'homo' meant for men.

But is the heterosexual society really fair and free.

It removed the stigma of being a 'whore' from women --- by making it mainstream, when (if the study is correct) only 20% of women possess that gene that makes them seek multiple partners. The society didn't care to marginalise them into a separate identity even when there is a solid scientific basis for doing it.

Contrast it with how they treat men! The term 'homo' becomes more pronounced, marginalised and stigmatised than ever before, and the science too has given its stamp to it --- when there are no clear cut proof yet of any biological basis for 'homosexuality'. There is no scientific evidence to prove that it is not a trait that every man possesses, and there are enough evidences from history, sociology and science to prove otherwise.

The society still goes and creates a marginalised misrepresentative 'homosexual' identity!

Would you still say women are more oppressed than men?

 

[Ophiolite]

In the traditional society being called a 'whore' meant more or less the same - when there are no clear cut proof yet of any biological basis for 'homosexuality'.

Of course there isn't. Studies such as this one are the figments of the overworked imagination of researchers protecting their heterosexually oriented, culturally induced, power base.

Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2005;29(7):1057-66.
The neurodevelopment of human sexual orientation.
Rahman Q.
One of the most enduring and controversial questions in the neuroscience of sexual behaviour surrounds the mechanisms which produce sexual attraction to either males or females. Here, evidence is reviewed which supports the proposal that sexual orientation in humans may be laid down in neural circuitry during early foetal development. Behaviour genetic investigations provide strong evidence for a heritable component to male and female sexual orientation. Linkage studies are partly suggestive of X-linked loci although candidate gene studies have produced null findings. Further evidence demonstrates a role for prenatal sex hormones which may influence the development of a putative network of sexual-orientation-related neural substrates. However, hormonal effects are often inconsistent and investigations rely heavily on 'proxy markers'. A consistent fraternal birth order effect in male sexual orientation also provides support for a model of maternal immunization processes affecting prenatal sexual differentiation. The notion that non-heterosexual preferences may reflect generalized neurodevelopmental perturbations is not supported by available data. These current theories have left little room for learning models of sexual orientation. Future investigations, across the neurosciences, should focus to elucidate the fundamental neural architecture underlying the target-specific direction of human sexual orientation, and their antecedents in developmental neurobiology.

 

[Giambattista]

Heterosexual bullshit!

Is that so?

 

[Giambattista]

It removed the stigma of being a 'whore' from women --- by making it mainstream, when (if the study is correct) only 20% of women possess that gene that makes them seek multiple partners.

More heterosexual bullshit?

 

[Giambattista]

Contrast it with how they treat men! The term 'homo' becomes more pronounced, marginalised and stigmatised than ever before, and the science too has given its stamp to it --- when there are no clear cut proof yet of any biological basis for 'homosexuality'. There is no scientific evidence to prove that it is not a trait that every man possesses, and there are enough evidences from history, sociology and science to prove otherwise.

More pro-homosexual propaganda.

 

[Giambattista]

Please take this discussion about homosexuality to appropriate thread!

 

[Buddha1]

Of course there isn't. Studies such as this one are the figments of the overworked imagination of researchers protecting their heterosexually oriented, culturally induced, power base.

Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2005;29(7):1057-66.
The neurodevelopment of human sexual orientation.
Rahman Q.
One of the most enduring and controversial questions in the neuroscience of sexual behaviour surrounds the mechanisms which produce sexual attraction to either males or females. Here, evidence is reviewed which supports the proposal that sexual orientation in humans may be laid down in neural circuitry during early foetal development. Behaviour genetic investigations provide strong evidence for a heritable component to male and female sexual orientation. Linkage studies are partly suggestive of X-linked loci although candidate gene studies have produced null findings. Further evidence demonstrates a role for prenatal sex hormones which may influence the development of a putative network of sexual-orientation-related neural substrates. However, hormonal effects are often inconsistent and investigations rely heavily on 'proxy markers'. A consistent fraternal birth order effect in male sexual orientation also provides support for a model of maternal immunization processes affecting prenatal sexual differentiation. The notion that non-heterosexual preferences may reflect generalized neurodevelopmental perturbations is not supported by available data. These current theories have left little room for learning models of sexual orientation. Future investigations, across the neurosciences, should focus to elucidate the fundamental neural architecture underlying the target-specific direction of human sexual orientation, and their antecedents in developmental neurobiology.

For all your taunting, the above example provided by you clearly points out that the 'notion' that there is a biological basis for 'sexual orientation' as a 'unique' trait, that causes so called 'homosexuality' in everyone is not yet proved. Every theory or study yet propounded is half-baked.

And don't forget that we have already seen how the recent study conducted by Rahman has several major drawbacks.

Furthermore, every study conducted so far has 'assumed' that there is a biological group called 'homosexual', and a biological trait called 'homosexuality' when there is no such thing in reality.

Science should not have any room for 'assumptions'. If they base their studies on unproved assumptions how can their studies be of any scientific worth?

 

[Buddha1]

More pro-homosexual propaganda.

Not really. Can't you see that it talks against homosexuality! So it can't be a homosexual propaganda. If anything it is an anti-homosexual (whether its just a propaganda will have to be proved by proving what I said to be wrong!). Which is the same thing as an anti-heterosexual. Homosexual and heterosexual are two opposite sides of the same coin. Part of the same heterosexual set up, same heterosexual ideology --- that of opposites attract.

 

[Buddha1]

Please take this discussion about homosexuality to appropriate thread!

The above discussion, although it involves homosexuality has flown from a discussion about 'masculinity' and oppression of men vs oppression of women.

But you're right, I'll not expand it any further here, and any other posts that I get about it, I'll take it to another thread.

 

[Buddha1]

To remind you of the other factors that we have to analyse if they are part of genuine masculinity or are artificially decreed masculine by the society, here is the list:

Here is a list of social masculinity in males:

1- being powerful and strong
2- being virile
3- having sex with women.
4- big dick
5- fucking males
6- getting oral sex from males
7- outdoor sports
8- being adventurous
9- being bold/ courageous
10- being brave
11- being intelligent
12- being practical
13- being logical
14- willing to fight physically
15- being a man of words
16- uncaring about getting old.
17- uncaring about looks
18- body building
19. Self-control

Here is a list of social femininity in males:

A- crying
B- Getting fucked by a male
C- Giving oral sex to a male
D- Giving oral sex to a female
E- being too cosy or emotional in a relationship with a female.
F- yoga
G- nurturing and looking after babies/ children
H- indoor sports
I- being creative
J- interior decoration
K- colour sense
L- being emotional
M- dancing
N- cooking
O- make-up
P- Jewellery
Q- avoiding physical scuffles
R- being a coward
S- not keeping his words