Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The cologne that I wore was pretty much the only thing associated with my masculinity when I was growing up. It didn't change and it defined my male aura. Anatomically...nothing much." Seriously? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yip I can’t answer this question at all I mean I ware dress lingerie and heels and make up " Of course you can! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The cologne that I wore was pretty much the only thing associated with my masculinity when I was growing up. It didn't change and it defined my male aura. Anatomically...nothing much." Lynx Africa? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The area I grew up in masculinity was defined by your ability to look after yourself (fight), if you were a good fighter you were one of the top boys, if you couldn’t fight you were basically a runt Now though, masculinity to me revolves a lot around maturity & chivalry, that’s a very high level explanation of it because I could be here all day " No I appreciate your response bro. I think actually being physically strong is a familiar indicator of masculinity for lots of people. What changed your views on this stuff? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The cologne that I wore was pretty much the only thing associated with my masculinity when I was growing up. It didn't change and it defined my male aura. Anatomically...nothing much. Lynx Africa? " After his time | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What were the things that defined masculinity when you were growing up?" Paul McGrath. George Best. Oz from Auf Wiedersehen Pet. Hard drinkers. Hard players. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yip I can’t answer this question at all I mean I ware dress lingerie and heels and make up Of course you can! " Was meant to be a little joke at myself there ha ha | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No I appreciate your response bro. I think actually being physically strong is a familiar indicator of masculinity for lots of people. What changed your views on this stuff? " Yeah I think it’s not just unique to where I’m from, I think it was a common stance to have for boys growing up that if you could fight you were a proper “man” I was that idiot who wanted the top bloke status and was always in fights and nearly ended up in prison over it, decided then and there to change my life and realised that being the fighter doesn’t mean your the “top man”, if anything it means you’re scum  nothing good ever comes out of a street fight and it never will | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What were the things that defined masculinity when you were growing up? Paul McGrath. George Best. Oz from Auf Wiedersehen Pet. Hard drinkers. Hard players. " Real men. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't really have masculinity in me. I float between androgyny and being a fem guy." There’s no one definition of masculinity and it differs across cultures. But I get you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Haha apologies for the passionate reply " Don’t apologise for caring or knowing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
No idea what I think of it now, it’s so outdated. There’s this ridiculous term being popularised right now called EP - executive presence, there’s even an EP Test ! I think in some ways it’s like the new masculinity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No I appreciate your response bro. I think actually being physically strong is a familiar indicator of masculinity for lots of people. What changed your views on this stuff? Yeah I think it’s not just unique to where I’m from, I think it was a common stance to have for boys growing up that if you could fight you were a proper “man” I was that idiot who wanted the top bloke status and was always in fights and nearly ended up in prison over it, decided then and there to change my life and realised that being the fighter doesn’t mean your the “top man”, if anything it means you’re scum nothing good ever comes out of a street fight and it never will "I completely get this. Do you think there’s a class element to it too? I wonder, without making any assumptions about you, whether these are less common indicators of masculinity amongst ‘dominant’ social classes. I think it’s good you came away from that though. For safety and avoiding prison most of all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Men- I’m extremely interested in masculinities. So tell me about your masculinity. What were the things that defined masculinity when you were growing up? And what are the things that define masculinity to you now?" My masculinity was engineered by sociatile expectations and the law saying i couldn’t have sex with men. Finally broke free from those shackles x  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The cologne that I wore was pretty much the only thing associated with my masculinity when I was growing up. It didn't change and it defined my male aura. Anatomically...nothing much. · Lynx Africa? " • Lynx™ Wolverhampton® — limited edition. xx | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No I appreciate your response bro. I think actually being physically strong is a familiar indicator of masculinity for lots of people. What changed your views on this stuff? Yeah I think it’s not just unique to where I’m from, I think it was a common stance to have for boys growing up that if you could fight you were a proper “man” I was that idiot who wanted the top bloke status and was always in fights and nearly ended up in prison over it, decided then and there to change my life and realised that being the fighter doesn’t mean your the “top man”, if anything it means you’re scum nothing good ever comes out of a street fight and it never will
I completely get this. Do you think there’s a class element to it too? I wonder, without making any assumptions about you, whether these are less common indicators of masculinity amongst ‘dominant’ social classes.
I think it’s good you came away from that though. For safety and avoiding prison most of all. "I would say that strength would have still been an indicator in upper class areas, but not necessarily fighting, like everyone knows growing up the biggest and strongest is the “ring leader” as to say, like an Alpha, but I would say fighting wouldn’t have been a part of their up bringing | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think heterosexual masculinity is in crisis. That’s what I think about it. " I think I agree that whatever the different masculinities of cis het men generally are, is in crisis. But I think it’s also a reflection of the fact that people seem to believe in the idea that masculinity has to be one way. Which cannot be true considering different factors that make our experiences - cultural differences, social class differences, religious differences etc | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Men- I’m extremely interested in masculinities. So tell me about your masculinity. What were the things that defined masculinity when you were growing up? And what are the things that define masculinity to you now?" Apparently, being good at DIY was meant to be a masculine thing when I was growing up. However, my wife and I joke that she's the one that owns the drill in our household  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Its an odd concept. I guess growing up it was all about being strong, sporty & hairy
No idea what I think of it now, it’s so outdated. There’s this ridiculous term being popularised right now called EP - executive presence, there’s even an EP Test ! I think in some ways it’s like the new masculinity."Some of the whole ‘EP’ thing is in fact really good, learning to listen, being a good communicator etc. but as with all these things there’s a load of bullshit too. Being confident and owning the room etc. There’s this ridiculous idea that confidence = competence, when in reality it means you probably aren’t in full possession of the facts. Never trust anyone who professes to completely confident about anything. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Its an odd concept. I guess growing up it was all about being strong, sporty & hairy
No idea what I think of it now, it’s so outdated. There’s this ridiculous term being popularised right now called EP - executive presence, there’s even an EP Test ! I think in some ways it’s like the new masculinity.
Some of the whole ‘EP’ thing is in fact really good, learning to listen, being a good communicator etc. but as with all these things there’s a load of bullshit too. Being confident and owning the room etc.
There’s this ridiculous idea that confidence = competence, when in reality it means you probably aren’t in full possession of the facts. Never trust anyone who professes to completely confident about anything."It is changing yes the recent article on Harvard business review mentions some good changes between 2022 and 2012 - height has gone ! And diversity and people of colour are in a better position now but still need to create a polished look! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Its an odd concept. I guess growing up it was all about being strong, sporty & hairy
No idea what I think of it now, it’s so outdated. There’s this ridiculous term being popularised right now called EP - executive presence, there’s even an EP Test ! I think in some ways it’s like the new masculinity.
Some of the whole ‘EP’ thing is in fact really good, learning to listen, being a good communicator etc. but as with all these things there’s a load of bullshit too. Being confident and owning the room etc.
There’s this ridiculous idea that confidence = competence, when in reality it means you probably aren’t in full possession of the facts. Never trust anyone who professes to completely confident about anything.
It is changing yes the recent article on Harvard business review mentions some good changes between 2022 and 2012 - height has gone ! And diversity and people of colour are in a better position now but still need to create a polished look! "The idea of how a person dresses having anything to do with how good they might be at their job has always been an anathema to me, sadly it’s still a big part of corporate culture. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What were the things that defined masculinity when you were growing up? Paul McGrath. George Best. Oz from Auf Wiedersehen Pet. Hard drinkers. Hard players. Real men. " I mean, they all developed horrendous drinking problems but they didn't complain about it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think heterosexual masculinity is in crisis. That’s what I think about it. I think I agree that whatever the different masculinities of cis het men generally are, is in crisis. But I think it’s also a reflection of the fact that people seem to believe in the idea that masculinity has to be one way. Which cannot be true considering different factors that make our experiences - cultural differences, social class differences, religious differences etc " Great point. There are different - expressions? - of masculinity. I am not a woman (and don’t want to be one) I have masculine traits I’m sure. They are just expressed in ways which are mine. So there must be variations even within cultures. Ok I’m not straight but maybe sexuality is a red herring when considering this topic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m reading a lot of interesting recollections of childhood expectations, but what about now? 2024? In the day of Andrew Tate, bears in the wood, me too, drag race, how ever many genders there are thus weak..what is masculinity? " I have no idea who Tate is because I don’t do social media. All I know of him is what I read on here. _My_ view of masculinity is basically defined by the above - even to this day I do what is interesting to me. Why the fuck would I care what anyone else thinks when there is something interesting over here? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m reading a lot of interesting recollections of childhood expectations, but what about now? 2024? In the day of Andrew Tate, bears in the wood, me too, drag race, how ever many genders there are thus weak..what is masculinity? " For many people it’ll still be the loosely the same things. I think that also, across many cultures it won’t have changed much as the traditional values in general haven’t changed much. But I think there are more masculinities now. Metrosexuality is a factor. But I wonder if that is still linked to traditional ideas in some cultures of defining masculinity around sexual promiscuity and being able to get sexual partners etc. men care more about their appearance now maybe. The job market has changed. Education laws have changed which mean that you have to be in a form of education longer. Feminism has meant that ideas of being breadwinners may have declined too etc. But these are things that may have always existed amongst some groups? Hazel Carby writes about Black women working outside the home due to black male unemployment rates. So the breadwinner role might not have been as relevant there anyway. In many Caribbean cultures- men cook in the home and many men will have grown up with dads cooking and learning to cook. They may have grown up flamboyant. Etc etc. I’m just hypothesising here but I reckon the research would be interesting. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m reading a lot of interesting recollections of childhood expectations, but what about now? 2024? In the day of Andrew Tate, bears in the wood, me too, drag race, how ever many genders there are thus weak..what is masculinity? For many people it’ll still be the loosely the same things. I think that also, across many cultures it won’t have changed much as the traditional values in general haven’t changed much. But I think there are more masculinities now. Metrosexuality is a factor. But I wonder if that is still linked to traditional ideas in some cultures of defining masculinity around sexual promiscuity and being able to get sexual partners etc. men care more about their appearance now maybe. The job market has changed. Education laws have changed which mean that you have to be in a form of education longer. Feminism has meant that ideas of being breadwinners may have declined too etc. But these are things that may have always existed amongst some groups? Hazel Carby writes about Black women working outside the home due to black male unemployment rates. So the breadwinner role might not have been as relevant there anyway. In many Caribbean cultures- men cook in the home and many men will have grown up with dads cooking and learning to cook. They may have grown up flamboyant. Etc etc. I’m just hypothesising here but I reckon the research would be interesting. "  this post. I’ve just learned something
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson et al. model of masculinity seems, to me, to come entirely from a place of insecurity, inadequacy, and fear. Tate is scarred by the idea that he was never good enough for his father and instead of facing up to the fact his father was just a terrible person, he blames everyone else, especially women. His misogyny comes entirely from the fact his father abandoned him, and the cognitive dissonance it caused. Peterson just hates the fact the world is changing and people like him are losing whatever power they had, I’m not sure if this is as a result of his fairly obvious mental breakdown, or the breakdown has been caused by the reaction to his tedious nonsense. The ‘masculinity’ they espouse is outdated nonsense, harking back to a time where women knew their place. It’s hilarious, and pitiful, that people listen to them." It is but it’s not surprising though. They represent a manliness and masculinity that is dying out but is still culturally relevant to many. And they give voice to traditional values that still exist amongst some groups. The reasoning I’m not sure but it’s complex I imagine. More complex than we jokingly say when we assert that we can’t understand how anyone agrees with them or call them stupid. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Obviously I’m not a man, but can I chip in? Through my teenage years I think manliness was still very much seen as being physically strong, sporty, the boss in a relationship. Showing off in front of their pals, trying to be top dog. I was never attracted to that version of masculinity. Much more to creative guys, “geeky” guys, guys who you could talk to as an equal rather than them peacocking. Not much has changed in terms of me. Honestly not sure in terms of society. Mrs TMN x" You've said it all, we agree. I'll say something more profound later. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson et al. model of masculinity seems, to me, to come entirely from a place of insecurity, inadequacy, and fear. Tate is scarred by the idea that he was never good enough for his father and instead of facing up to the fact his father was just a terrible person, he blames everyone else, especially women. His misogyny comes entirely from the fact his father abandoned him, and the cognitive dissonance it caused. Peterson just hates the fact the world is changing and people like him are losing whatever power they had, I’m not sure if this is as a result of his fairly obvious mental breakdown, or the breakdown has been caused by the reaction to his tedious nonsense. The ‘masculinity’ they espouse is outdated nonsense, harking back to a time where women knew their place. It’s hilarious, and pitiful, that people listen to them. It is but it’s not surprising though. They represent a manliness and masculinity that is dying out but is still culturally relevant to many. And they give voice to traditional values that still exist amongst some groups. The reasoning I’m not sure but it’s complex I imagine. More complex than we jokingly say when we assert that we can’t understand how anyone agrees with them or call them stupid. " That’s a fair point, people deal with change differently and there’s a significant minority who will always desperately cling to reasons they shouldn’t change while the rest of the world changes around them. It’s just a shame to see the ‘old man shouts at clouds’ meme brought to life so frequently. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men" " "Some men", I don't subscribe to this AT ALL. I find it an immature trait of those who are insecure. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men" "Some men", I don't subscribe to this AT ALL. I find it an immature trait of those who are insecure. " Also, it’s not hardwired within men | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". But no matter what you consider to be masculine or what kind of masculinity you prescribe to, I think it will always contain the element of competition, I think that's an evolutionary element. Mrs x" That's an interesting perspective, and I feel one that has been prevalent for a long time, what is human nature? Kropotkin challenged Darwin on competition highlighting that collaboration was as much an evolutionary drive in his book: Mutual Aid. I recall a friend, this guy was such an athlete, he trained with Colin Jackson. We played squash every week, we both enjoyed the competition, but it bugged him that he couldn't beat me. Until one day he did and then he never wanted to play again. I was happy that he won and was hoping he would let go of whatever was bothering him, so we could just enjoy playing. I think there's a difference between competition and dominance. I don't think either are uniquely a male drive, it's human nature. The emphasis on dominance for men in a patriarchal society - is something I see as a social construct that fosters an unhealthy need to dominate. When hierarchy damages liberty I find appeals to nature are no longer persuasive. I think the essence of the issue is not competition, but as Erich Fromm put it: To Have or to Be. Making temperance the challenge for all, perhaps moreso men in these times. And it is a challenge to unravel what is conditioning and what is organismic, one men have been poorly equipped to deal with, which often is overlooked. I don't know that it's masculine per se, but that's my motivation and I find my life more fulfilling as a consequence. The things that help me in that endeavour are self-awareness, acceptance and empathy, the latter seems to follow as a consequence of the former. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men" "Some men", I don't subscribe to this AT ALL. I find it an immature trait of those who are insecure. Also, it’s not hardwired within men" I'm talking about the word and idea of masculinity. Like it's a thing to strive for and there's a ladder to climb. The more below you the better.. f@&k all that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men as part of our species development. This explains their need to fight for dominance." I actually do agree with this. The only men who'll tell you they dislike competition generally tend to be the ones who never win any competitions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men as part of our species development. This explains their need to fight for dominance. I actually do agree with this. The only men who'll tell you they dislike competition generally tend to be the ones who never win any competitions." Sorry... But that's nonsense... Its a scale that adds unnecessary pressure to the insecure. Added to that, it's seeping into youth where the extremes like Tate unfortunately have a platform to spout their sh*te. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's so easy as a woman to comment on it but I'm refraining as it's actually, I think it's really interesting to hear from Men what they reflect on and think of masculinity, how different generations/ backgrounds/ cultures reflect differently. I think the crisis of change is always hardest on the generations living though the change, similar to mobile phones/ the internet/ etc.. takes a few generations to absorb the 'new normal' or see the issue differently. I think another question following the OP, is what do men want masculinity to look like? How do they want to own or reclaim the word to mean? " I guess, my thought is masculinity is many things and different for different people. Masculinity can be whatever you want it to be. My reflection when I studied was- learning about these white British perspectives of masculinity are cool but they don’t apply to me or my growing up making sense of what masculinity is or what makes me a man. And that taught me that when we talk about masculinities we have to factor in class and race and religion and ethnic background and other cultural factors. So what do we want masculinity to be? Whatever an individual wants it to be. But what it is now, isn’t fixed or any one thing anyway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men as part of our species development. This explains their need to fight for dominance. I actually do agree with this. The only men who'll tell you they dislike competition generally tend to be the ones who never win any competitions." Is masculinity innate? Is that why women don’t fight for dominance? Because they’re simply not hardwired to? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men" "Some men", I don't subscribe to this AT ALL. I find it an immature trait of those who are insecure. " I’m inclined to agree with this, I think too much is made of ‘evolutionary’ traits. We tend to as robe to them actions we don’t want to change, or excuse behaviours we don’t like in those we love or respect. I feel the competitiveness element is just another manifestation of insecurity, people can only feel good about themselves when they can measure themselves as ‘better’ than others. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men as part of our species development. This explains their need to fight for dominance. I actually do agree with this. The only men who'll tell you they dislike competition generally tend to be the ones who never win any competitions. Is masculinity innate? Is that why women don’t fight for dominance? Because they’re simply not hardwired to?" Women don't fight for dominance? Wait, has my entire fucking life and decades of experience watching women been a lie? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men as part of our species development. This explains their need to fight for dominance. I actually do agree with this. The only men who'll tell you they dislike competition generally tend to be the ones who never win any competitions. Is masculinity innate? Is that why women don’t fight for dominance? Because they’re simply not hardwired to? Women don't fight for dominance? Wait, has my entire fucking life and decades of experience watching women been a lie? "Maybe I’m waiting to find out | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men as part of our species development. This explains their need to fight for dominance. I actually do agree with this. The only men who'll tell you they dislike competition generally tend to be the ones who never win any competitions. Sorry... But that's nonsense... Its a scale that adds unnecessary pressure to the insecure. Added to that, it's seeping into youth where the extremes like Tate unfortunately have a platform to spout their sh*te." The desire to compete with other people has nothing to do with "insecurity" at all for many people. Believe it or not, some people actually find competition fun. The reason games & sports were invented was as an outlet where this side of our nature can be expressed without violent consequences. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men as part of our species development. This explains their need to fight for dominance. I actually do agree with this. The only men who'll tell you they dislike competition generally tend to be the ones who never win any competitions. Is masculinity innate? Is that why women don’t fight for dominance? Because they’re simply not hardwired to? Women don't fight for dominance? Wait, has my entire fucking life and decades of experience watching women been a lie? "Or mine. Seriously though, the SDO Invariance Hypothesis has been challenged and several studies have had results where SDO was comparable or equal between men and women. It's situational. Biological explanations alone are insufficient, cultural factors need to be considered also. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men as part of our species development. This explains their need to fight for dominance. I actually do agree with this. The only men who'll tell you they dislike competition generally tend to be the ones who never win any competitions. Is masculinity innate? Is that why women don’t fight for dominance? Because they’re simply not hardwired to? Women don't fight for dominance? Wait, has my entire fucking life and decades of experience watching women been a lie?
Or mine.
Seriously though, the SDO Invariance Hypothesis has been challenged and several studies have had results where SDO was comparable or equal between men and women. It's situational.
Biological explanations alone are insufficient, cultural factors need to be considered also."The more I flirt with this kind of research, the more I believe that gender is basically bollocks. (In the same way that laws are basically bollocks though - there are still consequences if you don't perform as expected). Starting at a university open day where we had a choice of mini lectures in a variety of subjects. Even though I never studied gender studies or sociology, my abiding memory of that day was the lecturer putting out hypotheticals about how we might define the concept of gender and/ or biological sex. "Drip dry or flip dry" was my favourite | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men as part of our species development. This explains their need to fight for dominance. I actually do agree with this. The only men who'll tell you they dislike competition generally tend to be the ones who never win any competitions. Sorry... But that's nonsense... Its a scale that adds unnecessary pressure to the insecure. Added to that, it's seeping into youth where the extremes like Tate unfortunately have a platform to spout their sh*te. The desire to compete with other people has nothing to do with "insecurity" at all for many people. Believe it or not, some people actually find competition fun. The reason games & sports were invented was as an outlet where this side of our nature can be expressed without violent consequences." The desire to compete may not be linked to insecurity, but a need to dominate is a different matter. We are hardwired for play and fear. A need to dominate can come from a fear response. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Men- I’m extremely interested in masculinities. So tell me about your masculinity. What were the things that defined masculinity when you were growing up? And what are the things that define masculinity to you now?" For me personally... And everyone I know well. They haven't changed then and now. What defines masculinity? Behaviour, physique, mentality, appearance,attitude...oh... Fucking huge great zz top beard and a cock the size of a small south American country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men as part of our species development. This explains their need to fight for dominance. I actually do agree with this. The only men who'll tell you they dislike competition generally tend to be the ones who never win any competitions." Interesting, I won plenty of individual (athletic) competitions as a lad and don’t subscribe to that theory at all. I never derived the satisfaction from individual wins that I did just from being part of a team. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Men- I’m extremely interested in masculinities. So tell me about your masculinity. What were the things that defined masculinity when you were growing up? And what are the things that define masculinity to you now?" Oh the world has changed so much from when I was young. It’s being secure enough in yourself or being able to act that you’re secure enough in yourself. Clothes or accessories do not maketh the man. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men as part of our species development. This explains their need to fight for dominance. I actually do agree with this. The only men who'll tell you they dislike competition generally tend to be the ones who never win any competitions." Based this, I must be a man cos I'm exceptionally competitive and have won lots of competitions over my life. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men as part of our species development. This explains their need to fight for dominance. I actually do agree with this. The only men who'll tell you they dislike competition generally tend to be the ones who never win any competitions. Based this, I must be a man cos I'm exceptionally competitive and have won lots of competitions over my life. " The question was about masculinity so I gave my perspective from the point of view as a biological male. There's a separate thread for women to define femininity so if they all say in that thread that being competitive is what makes them feel feminine then I guess it can't be genderized. I do know of competitive women too, but I'm not going to speak on their behalf and I'll just see what they say in the other thread | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men as part of our species development. This explains their need to fight for dominance. I actually do agree with this. The only men who'll tell you they dislike competition generally tend to be the ones who never win any competitions. Is masculinity innate? Is that why women don’t fight for dominance? Because they’re simply not hardwired to?" Mate womens politics is different, there is in my experience amongst some groups of ladies is just as many power struggles. The whole Queen Bee thing didn't come around by accident. For me growing up in a forces estate was a simple dynamic to masculinity. The men would get smell of brute or old spice and then tinker on cars or bikes or being doing phys. When not doing these they would be out on the lash with their oppos or with the wives if it was a function. For me masculinity after finally growing up and seeing the bigger picture is being someone that's a decent role model for my kids ( not that my old man wasn't it's just the world was different and he was playing by those rules). What does that mean to me? Being supportive - in any way not just a hand fixing something or being a bit of cash. Showing them that you balance work with home life. Being that guy that despite anything that happens will be there putting anything on the line to help them. How other men view me and the way I conduct my life is inconsequential to me which is very different to my old man. He always worried what would such and such say if we are the ones with the rubbish car, the messiest garden or the kids that didn't conform. I genuinely don't care a shit what any other bloke thinks when I walk out with painted finger nails beçause my youngest has done them for me, or what my lad who openly gay is seen with a lad out in the world. Bollocks to the lot of them. Masculinity in its traditional sense is a fucking club for the under-evolved. We need to rebrand it to mean something else. To mean men that are strong, sensitive and able to see others views and respect them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men as part of our species development. This explains their need to fight for dominance. I actually do agree with this. The only men who'll tell you they dislike competition generally tend to be the ones who never win any competitions. Based this, I must be a man cos I'm exceptionally competitive and have won lots of competitions over my life. " PFA fab player of the season.? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men as part of our species development. This explains their need to fight for dominance. I actually do agree with this. The only men who'll tell you they dislike competition generally tend to be the ones who never win any competitions. Is masculinity innate? Is that why women don’t fight for dominance? Because they’re simply not hardwired to? Women don't fight for dominance? Wait, has my entire fucking life and decades of experience watching women been a lie?
Or mine.
Seriously though, the SDO Invariance Hypothesis has been challenged and several studies have had results where SDO was comparable or equal between men and women. It's situational.
Biological explanations alone are insufficient, cultural factors need to be considered also.
The more I flirt with this kind of research, the more I believe that gender is basically bollocks. (In the same way that laws are basically bollocks though - there are still consequences if you don't perform as expected).
Starting at a university open day where we had a choice of mini lectures in a variety of subjects. Even though I never studied gender studies or sociology, my abiding memory of that day was the lecturer putting out hypotheticals about how we might define the concept of gender and/ or biological sex. "Drip dry or flip dry" was my favourite "
I have no problem with that definition of gender. I view conventions as rituals, which emerge to navigate complex subjects, the ritual veils the taboo. Don't conform to them and feathers get ruffled. The fabric of society will come apart at the seams!
My preference is sunny-side-up, I like the texture profile and touch of crispiness. A nice runny yolk compliments a Ribeye very well. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men as part of our species development. This explains their need to fight for dominance. I actually do agree with this. The only men who'll tell you they dislike competition generally tend to be the ones who never win any competitions. Is masculinity innate? Is that why women don’t fight for dominance? Because they’re simply not hardwired to? Women don't fight for dominance? Wait, has my entire fucking life and decades of experience watching women been a lie?
Or mine.
Seriously though, the SDO Invariance Hypothesis has been challenged and several studies have had results where SDO was comparable or equal between men and women. It's situational.
Biological explanations alone are insufficient, cultural factors need to be considered also.
The more I flirt with this kind of research, the more I believe that gender is basically bollocks. (In the same way that laws are basically bollocks though - there are still consequences if you don't perform as expected).
Starting at a university open day where we had a choice of mini lectures in a variety of subjects. Even though I never studied gender studies or sociology, my abiding memory of that day was the lecturer putting out hypotheticals about how we might define the concept of gender and/ or biological sex. "Drip dry or flip dry" was my favourite
I have no problem with that definition of gender. I view conventions as rituals, which emerge to navigate complex subjects, the ritual veils the taboo. Don't conform to them and feathers get ruffled. The fabric of society will come apart at the seams!
My preference is sunny-side-up, I like the texture profile and touch of crispiness. A nice runny yolk compliments a Ribeye very well."Absolutely agree. People cling to these conventions like they mean something, rather than just recognising that they're picking from the influences around them which are ultimately made up. For example, in ancient Greece it was viewed as weak and feminine to eat more than once a day, like those sissy Persians did. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Even when the very idea is being discussed, men can't help but be competitive with each other  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One thing I almost guarantee you won't see in the femininity thread, are women arguing amongst themselves for their personal definitions of what femininity is, trying to persuade you that their ideas are superior to other women's ideas, like you're seeing here
Even when the very idea is being discussed, men can't help but be competitive with each other "Just because you can't recognise catfighting for what it is | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men as part of our species development. This explains their need to fight for dominance. I actually do agree with this. The only men who'll tell you they dislike competition generally tend to be the ones who never win any competitions. Based this, I must be a man cos I'm exceptionally competitive and have won lots of competitions over my life. PFA fab player of the season.? " I'd like to thank my husband, my PE teachers, the Pope and my own grit and determination for *this* shiny award. Thank you everyone | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men" "Some men", I don't subscribe to this AT ALL. I find it an immature trait of those who are insecure. Also, it’s not hardwired within men" If its not hardwired in to males, why is it when looking at other mammals, competition is a driver for the advancement of a species. When resources are scare, it's those that 'compete' best that tend to survive. I'm not saying that we haven't evolved to adopt different approaches but life essentially involves aspects relating to survival and passing on your genetic code. Both of which benefit from being good at competing, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men" "Some men", I don't subscribe to this AT ALL. I find it an immature trait of those who are insecure. Also, it’s not hardwired within menIf its not hardwired in to males, why is it when looking at other mammals, competition is a driver for the advancement of a species. When resources are scare, it's those that 'compete' best that tend to survive. I'm not saying that we haven't evolved to adopt different approaches but life essentially involves aspects relating to survival and passing on your genetic code. Both of which benefit from being good at competing, Mrs x" Even monkeys look for the biggest cock | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men" "Some men", I don't subscribe to this AT ALL. I find it an immature trait of those who are insecure. Also, it’s not hardwired within menIf its not hardwired in to males, why is it when looking at other mammals, competition is a driver for the advancement of a species. When resources are scare, it's those that 'compete' best that tend to survive. I'm not saying that we haven't evolved to adopt different approaches but life essentially involves aspects relating to survival and passing on your genetic code. Both of which benefit from being good at competing, Mrs x" But humans evolved to work together and help each other, it’s one of the reasons Homo sapiens flourished and other, stronger, hominins died out. By working together and living in larger communities H sapiens were more adaptable and able to secure more resources than the likes of H neanderthalensis. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men" "Some men", I don't subscribe to this AT ALL. I find it an immature trait of those who are insecure. Also, it’s not hardwired within menIf its not hardwired in to males, why is it when looking at other mammals, competition is a driver for the advancement of a species. When resources are scare, it's those that 'compete' best that tend to survive. I'm not saying that we haven't evolved to adopt different approaches but life essentially involves aspects relating to survival and passing on your genetic code. Both of which benefit from being good at competing, Mrs x But humans evolved to work together and help each other, it’s one of the reasons Homo sapiens flourished and other, stronger, hominins died out. By working together and living in larger communities H sapiens were more adaptable and able to secure more resources than the likes of H neanderthalensis." And then brexit happened | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When younger. Strength,not showing weakness or emotional vulnerability. As I've grown up I feel it's very different. To me it's about reliability, honesty, leading by example. Trying to lead by example and manners. But honestly are we even allowed to be masculine anymore? The word masculinity is a trigger word for feminist's. It's a like we are trying to reverse nature and go against mother nature by creating an androgynous society where everyone is gender neutral." How is it plenty of men, women and people who identify as neither, manage to survive and thrive perfectly well without fulfilling the stereotypical gender norms of masculinity/femininity? We are prime examples. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When younger. Strength,not showing weakness or emotional vulnerability. As I've grown up I feel it's very different. To me it's about reliability, honesty, leading by example. Trying to lead by example and manners. But honestly are we even allowed to be masculine anymore? The word masculinity is a trigger word for feminist's. It's a like we are trying to reverse nature and go against mother nature by creating an androgynous society where everyone is gender neutral. How is it plenty of men, women and people who identify as neither, manage to survive and thrive perfectly well without fulfilling the stereotypical gender norms of masculinity/femininity? We are prime examples." Because people are not all the same? One size does not fit all? There's more than one stereotype? If people want to be stereotypical or are stereotypical (not even sure what that means) then let them. If people want to be different to that. Then let them. No drama. We can do this people! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When younger. Strength,not showing weakness or emotional vulnerability. As I've grown up I feel it's very different. To me it's about reliability, honesty, leading by example. Trying to lead by example and manners. But honestly are we even allowed to be masculine anymore? The word masculinity is a trigger word for feminist's. It's a like we are trying to reverse nature and go against mother nature by creating an androgynous society where everyone is gender neutral. How is it plenty of men, women and people who identify as neither, manage to survive and thrive perfectly well without fulfilling the stereotypical gender norms of masculinity/femininity? We are prime examples. Because people are not all the same? One size does not fit all? There's more than one stereotype? If people want to be stereotypical or are stereotypical (not even sure what that means) then let them. If people want to be different to that. Then let them. No drama. We can do this people! " "Everyone is different" is exactly the point. How is expecting people to conform to traditional stereotypes allowing for people to be different? By saying "we're trying to reverse nature" and imply traditional gender role stereotypes should persist one is NOT allowing for individuality! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Where I was raised we all played together. There were some boys that were tough but I knew more tomboys (I'm not sure if you're permitted to say that in this day and age). I was very different from my two brothers. They played football and other sports and I liked dressing up. I was never given a row for that, mum actually did not mind and did say to me when I had grown that she knew I was either gay or trans. But that's just me "Why wouldn’t you be allowed to say ‘tomboy’? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When younger. Strength,not showing weakness or emotional vulnerability. As I've grown up I feel it's very different. To me it's about reliability, honesty, leading by example. Trying to lead by example and manners. But honestly are we even allowed to be masculine anymore? The word masculinity is a trigger word for feminist's. It's a like we are trying to reverse nature and go against mother nature by creating an androgynous society where everyone is gender neutral. How is it plenty of men, women and people who identify as neither, manage to survive and thrive perfectly well without fulfilling the stereotypical gender norms of masculinity/femininity? We are prime examples. Because people are not all the same? One size does not fit all? There's more than one stereotype? If people want to be stereotypical or are stereotypical (not even sure what that means) then let them. If people want to be different to that. Then let them. No drama. We can do this people! "Everyone is different" is exactly the point. How is expecting people to conform to traditional stereotypes allowing for people to be different? By saying "we're trying to reverse nature" and imply traditional gender role stereotypes should persist one is NOT allowing for individuality!" Personally I think it's more nuanced than that. I think stereotypes exist for a reason as do traditions and that is a good thing. That does nt mean if people don't or can't be stereotypical that should be less than. But I see no benefit at all in being "anti" stereotypes and traditions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When younger. Strength,not showing weakness or emotional vulnerability. As I've grown up I feel it's very different. To me it's about reliability, honesty, leading by example. Trying to lead by example and manners. But honestly are we even allowed to be masculine anymore? The word masculinity is a trigger word for feminist's. It's a like we are trying to reverse nature and go against mother nature by creating an androgynous society where everyone is gender neutral. How is it plenty of men, women and people who identify as neither, manage to survive and thrive perfectly well without fulfilling the stereotypical gender norms of masculinity/femininity? We are prime examples. Because people are not all the same? One size does not fit all? There's more than one stereotype? If people want to be stereotypical or are stereotypical (not even sure what that means) then let them. If people want to be different to that. Then let them. No drama. We can do this people! "Everyone is different" is exactly the point. How is expecting people to conform to traditional stereotypes allowing for people to be different? By saying "we're trying to reverse nature" and imply traditional gender role stereotypes should persist one is NOT allowing for individuality! Personally I think it's more nuanced than that. I think stereotypes exist for a reason as do traditions and that is a good thing. That does nt mean if people don't or can't be stereotypical that should be less than. But I see no benefit at all in being "anti" stereotypes and traditions. " I'm not going to judge anyone who wants to be individual although I think even that is a very fine line between individual and following trends. However if someone chooses to be neither male nor female that's entirely their choice and having the option to identify as such is great
I'm saying that the majority of people are going to identify as the birth gender and large percentage of those will follow "stereotypes" perceived to be characteristic of their sex( I'm not talking about sexual orientation) I mean as a man I want to display characteristics of the male species but I can do this without being a misogynist.
If I fancy women or men has nothing to do with how masculine I am or choose to be.
We can be individual yet still follow our natural characteristics given by nature.
Same as people have the option not to.
But nobody tell me I can't do that it's my choice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When younger. Strength,not showing weakness or emotional vulnerability. As I've grown up I feel it's very different. To me it's about reliability, honesty, leading by example. Trying to lead by example and manners. But honestly are we even allowed to be masculine anymore? The word masculinity is a trigger word for feminist's. It's a like we are trying to reverse nature and go against mother nature by creating an androgynous society where everyone is gender neutral. How is it plenty of men, women and people who identify as neither, manage to survive and thrive perfectly well without fulfilling the stereotypical gender norms of masculinity/femininity? We are prime examples. Because people are not all the same? One size does not fit all? There's more than one stereotype? If people want to be stereotypical or are stereotypical (not even sure what that means) then let them. If people want to be different to that. Then let them. No drama. We can do this people! "Everyone is different" is exactly the point. How is expecting people to conform to traditional stereotypes allowing for people to be different? By saying "we're trying to reverse nature" and imply traditional gender role stereotypes should persist one is NOT allowing for individuality! Personally I think it's more nuanced than that. I think stereotypes exist for a reason as do traditions and that is a good thing. That does nt mean if people don't or can't be stereotypical that should be less than. But I see no benefit at all in being "anti" stereotypes and traditions. " Female genital mutilation is a tradition in some parts of the world. Tell me again that tradition is a good thing. Tradition is just habit that has accumulated over years and have been controlled and reinforced by some members of society. The "some members of society" have generally been of the XY persuasion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When younger. Strength,not showing weakness or emotional vulnerability. As I've grown up I feel it's very different. To me it's about reliability, honesty, leading by example. Trying to lead by example and manners. But honestly are we even allowed to be masculine anymore? The word masculinity is a trigger word for feminist's. It's a like we are trying to reverse nature and go against mother nature by creating an androgynous society where everyone is gender neutral. How is it plenty of men, women and people who identify as neither, manage to survive and thrive perfectly well without fulfilling the stereotypical gender norms of masculinity/femininity? We are prime examples. Because people are not all the same? One size does not fit all? There's more than one stereotype? If people want to be stereotypical or are stereotypical (not even sure what that means) then let them. If people want to be different to that. Then let them. No drama. We can do this people! "Everyone is different" is exactly the point. How is expecting people to conform to traditional stereotypes allowing for people to be different? By saying "we're trying to reverse nature" and imply traditional gender role stereotypes should persist one is NOT allowing for individuality! Personally I think it's more nuanced than that. I think stereotypes exist for a reason as do traditions and that is a good thing. That does nt mean if people don't or can't be stereotypical that should be less than. But I see no benefit at all in being "anti" stereotypes and traditions. I'm not going to judge anyone who wants to be individual although I think even that is a very fine line between individual and following trends. However if someone chooses to be neither male nor female that's entirely their choice and having the option to identify as such is great
I'm saying that the majority of people are going to identify as the birth gender and large percentage of those will follow "stereotypes" perceived to be characteristic of their sex( I'm not talking about sexual orientation) I mean as a man I want to display characteristics of the male species but I can do this without being a misogynist.
If I fancy women or men has nothing to do with how masculine I am or choose to be.
We can be individual yet still follow our natural characteristics given by nature.
Same as people have the option not to.
But nobody tell me I can't do that it's my choice."Nature? Good lord. If you want what's given by nature, put the phone down, give up your house. We're thousands of years outside "me have pee pee, me big and strong, you have vaggy, you good broodmare" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When younger. Strength,not showing weakness or emotional vulnerability. As I've grown up I feel it's very different. To me it's about reliability, honesty, leading by example. Trying to lead by example and manners. But honestly are we even allowed to be masculine anymore? The word masculinity is a trigger word for feminist's. It's a like we are trying to reverse nature and go against mother nature by creating an androgynous society where everyone is gender neutral. How is it plenty of men, women and people who identify as neither, manage to survive and thrive perfectly well without fulfilling the stereotypical gender norms of masculinity/femininity? We are prime examples. Because people are not all the same? One size does not fit all? There's more than one stereotype? If people want to be stereotypical or are stereotypical (not even sure what that means) then let them. If people want to be different to that. Then let them. No drama. We can do this people! "Everyone is different" is exactly the point. How is expecting people to conform to traditional stereotypes allowing for people to be different? By saying "we're trying to reverse nature" and imply traditional gender role stereotypes should persist one is NOT allowing for individuality! Personally I think it's more nuanced than that. I think stereotypes exist for a reason as do traditions and that is a good thing. That does nt mean if people don't or can't be stereotypical that should be less than. But I see no benefit at all in being "anti" stereotypes and traditions. Female genital mutilation is a tradition in some parts of the world. Tell me again that tradition is a good thing. Tradition is just habit that has accumulated over years and have been controlled and reinforced by some members of society. The "some members of society" have generally been of the XY persuasion. " Sure, of course there are some traditions that now are no longer acceptable. But let's not use a few outliers to damn all traditions. That does not make a great argument, smacks of whataboutery. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am an individual, other people follow trends." Yes we are all individuals... Sod it I'm off to a stoning. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When younger. Strength,not showing weakness or emotional vulnerability. As I've grown up I feel it's very different. To me it's about reliability, honesty, leading by example. Trying to lead by example and manners. But honestly are we even allowed to be masculine anymore? The word masculinity is a trigger word for feminist's. It's a like we are trying to reverse nature and go against mother nature by creating an androgynous society where everyone is gender neutral. How is it plenty of men, women and people who identify as neither, manage to survive and thrive perfectly well without fulfilling the stereotypical gender norms of masculinity/femininity? We are prime examples. Because people are not all the same? One size does not fit all? There's more than one stereotype? If people want to be stereotypical or are stereotypical (not even sure what that means) then let them. If people want to be different to that. Then let them. No drama. We can do this people! "Everyone is different" is exactly the point. How is expecting people to conform to traditional stereotypes allowing for people to be different? By saying "we're trying to reverse nature" and imply traditional gender role stereotypes should persist one is NOT allowing for individuality! Personally I think it's more nuanced than that. I think stereotypes exist for a reason as do traditions and that is a good thing. That does nt mean if people don't or can't be stereotypical that should be less than. But I see no benefit at all in being "anti" stereotypes and traditions. Female genital mutilation is a tradition in some parts of the world. Tell me again that tradition is a good thing. Tradition is just habit that has accumulated over years and have been controlled and reinforced by some members of society. The "some members of society" have generally been of the XY persuasion. Sure, of course there are some traditions that now are no longer acceptable. But let's not use a few outliers to damn all traditions. That does not make a great argument, smacks of whataboutery. " Smacks of picking and choosing which traditions you like and dislike, rather than accepting that things change over time and that there's absolutely no good reason to insist upon or expect that traditions around anything (in this discussion, masculinity and femininity) need to be followed just because they are traditional. Lots of traditions have fallen by the wayside (quite rightly) and so can outdated notions of masculinity and femininity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lots of modern thinking here but mainly a load of old tosh. Picture a plane of tourists crashing in the jungle and everyone survives but need to escape the jungle. Who will read the map? Who ill actually be the leader? Who will fight off wild dangerous animals? Who will make the fire? Who will decide the best place to make camp? The Man. Who will look after and calm the frightened children? The woman. It's just nature ..." Miss scarlet in the library with the candle stick | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lots of modern thinking here but mainly a load of old tosh. Picture a plane of tourists crashing in the jungle and everyone survives but need to escape the jungle. Who will read the map? Who ill actually be the leader? Who will fight off wild dangerous animals? Who will make the fire? Who will decide the best place to make camp? The Man. Who will look after and calm the frightened children? The woman. It's just nature ..." Not you Tom, you'll be hiding from the snakes and crocs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lots of modern thinking here but mainly a load of old tosh. Picture a plane of tourists crashing in the jungle and everyone survives but need to escape the jungle. Who will read the map? Who ill actually be the leader? Who will fight off wild dangerous animals? Who will make the fire? Who will decide the best place to make camp? The Man. Who will look after and calm the frightened children? The woman. It's just nature ... Not you Tom, you'll be hiding from the snakes and crocs." Tom would lead and guide away from the swamps, crocs etc | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lots of modern thinking here but mainly a load of old tosh. Picture a plane of tourists crashing in the jungle and everyone survives but need to escape the jungle. Who will read the map? Who ill actually be the leader? Who will fight off wild dangerous animals? Who will make the fire? Who will decide the best place to make camp? The Man. Who will look after and calm the frightened children? The woman. It's just nature ..." And if it was only men, they would do both or visa versa with women. But since we aren't in the jungle, in day to day life here (where survival needs are met), masculinity could mean different things. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lots of modern thinking here but mainly a load of old tosh. Picture a plane of tourists crashing in the jungle and everyone survives but need to escape the jungle. Who will read the map? Who ill actually be the leader? Who will fight off wild dangerous animals? Who will make the fire? Who will decide the best place to make camp? The Man. Who will look after and calm the frightened children? The woman. It's just nature ... And if it was only men, they would do both or visa versa with women. But since we aren't in the jungle, in day to day life here (where survival needs are met), masculinity could mean different things. " Indeed comparisons to an extreme survival scenario aren't particularly reflective of contemporary society. It's as meaningful as viewing poverty in terms of are you starving or not. That aside, I think the same basic argument could be made but then also replace the final statement with. 'It's just conditioning'. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Masculinity just comes from your contrast against femininity. Basically being and doing the opposite of what girls were doing at that time. That’s how I saw it. I’m sure that’s how most people viewed it growing up. I still believe there’s inherent differences between male and female behaviour when growing up. " Ahhh happy days | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Masculinity just comes from your contrast against femininity. Basically being and doing the opposite of what girls were doing at that time. That’s how I saw it. I’m sure that’s how most people viewed it growing up. I still believe there’s inherent differences between male and female behaviour when growing up. " What if girls were playing football, or rugby? Does that mean masculinity was not playing football and rugby? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men" "Some men", I don't subscribe to this AT ALL. I find it an immature trait of those who are insecure. Also, it’s not hardwired within menIf its not hardwired in to males, why is it when looking at other mammals, competition is a driver for the advancement of a species. When resources are scare, it's those that 'compete' best that tend to survive. I'm not saying that we haven't evolved to adopt different approaches but life essentially involves aspects relating to survival and passing on your genetic code. Both of which benefit from being good at competing, Mrs x But humans evolved to work together and help each other, it’s one of the reasons Homo sapiens flourished and other, stronger, hominins died out. By working together and living in larger communities H sapiens were more adaptable and able to secure more resources than the likes of H neanderthalensis." So what you are saying is that as a species Homo sapiens competed better within their environment and secured more resources than other Homonid species. So competition and being better equipped to compete, is an advantage to survival. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men" "Some men", I don't subscribe to this AT ALL. I find it an immature trait of those who are insecure. Also, it’s not hardwired within menIf its not hardwired in to males, why is it when looking at other mammals, competition is a driver for the advancement of a species. When resources are scare, it's those that 'compete' best that tend to survive. I'm not saying that we haven't evolved to adopt different approaches but life essentially involves aspects relating to survival and passing on your genetic code. Both of which benefit from being good at competing, Mrs x But humans evolved to work together and help each other, it’s one of the reasons Homo sapiens flourished and other, stronger, hominins died out. By working together and living in larger communities H sapiens were more adaptable and able to secure more resources than the likes of H neanderthalensis.So what you are saying is that as a species Homo sapiens competed better within their environment and secured more resources than other Homonid species. So competition and being better equipped to compete, is an advantage to survival. Mrs x" What I’m saying is that H. Sapiens evolved to work collaboratively in order to make the best of the environment, as the other Hominid species were often bigger and stronger, so competing with them for the same resources would’ve been unsuccessful. H. Sapiens propensity for helping each other meant they were more likely to thrive, spread, and increase their population, thus leading to them becoming the dominant hominid species. If you want to retrospectively say that this was a competition then feel free, but in reality our adaptability and willingness to collaborate and look after each other was just a more successful way of living. It’s likely saying that the man who exercises regularly, doesn’t drink or smoke, and has a healthy diet ‘won the competition’ against a man who drank, smoked, didn’t exercise and had a poor diet; because he lived longer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Masculinity just comes from your contrast against femininity. Basically being and doing the opposite of what girls were doing at that time. That’s how I saw it. I’m sure that’s how most people viewed it growing up. I still believe there’s inherent differences between male and female behaviour when growing up. What if girls were playing football, or rugby? Does that mean masculinity was not playing football and rugby?" This “what if” makes no sense because they weren’t doing it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Masculinity just comes from your contrast against femininity. Basically being and doing the opposite of what girls were doing at that time. That’s how I saw it. I’m sure that’s how most people viewed it growing up. I still believe there’s inherent differences between male and female behaviour when growing up. What if girls were playing football, or rugby? Does that mean masculinity was not playing football and rugby? This “what if” makes no sense because they weren’t doing it." They were when I was growing up. The point being that you are setting up masculinity as not being anything in itself, entirely reactive and not really having meaning. The success of the Lionesses last year must have really thrown your idea of masculinity into confusion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Masculinity just comes from your contrast against femininity. Basically being and doing the opposite of what girls were doing at that time. That’s how I saw it. I’m sure that’s how most people viewed it growing up. I still believe there’s inherent differences between male and female behaviour when growing up. What if girls were playing football, or rugby? Does that mean masculinity was not playing football and rugby? This “what if” makes no sense because they weren’t doing it." I'm a couple of years younger than you. I'm female. I was playing football when I was a child. It was happening. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Masculinity just comes from your contrast against femininity. Basically being and doing the opposite of what girls were doing at that time. That’s how I saw it. I’m sure that’s how most people viewed it growing up. I still believe there’s inherent differences between male and female behaviour when growing up. What if girls were playing football, or rugby? Does that mean masculinity was not playing football and rugby? This “what if” makes no sense because they weren’t doing it. They were when I was growing up. The point being that you are setting up masculinity as not being anything in itself, entirely reactive and not really having meaning. The success of the Lionesses last year must have really thrown your idea of masculinity into confusion." Were they yeah? Girls playing football and rugby in the same numbers as lads were? It’s clearly untrue, since even now that doesn’t happen. No need to exaggerate for the sake of trying to prove a point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Masculinity just comes from your contrast against femininity. Basically being and doing the opposite of what girls were doing at that time. That’s how I saw it. I’m sure that’s how most people viewed it growing up. I still believe there’s inherent differences between male and female behaviour when growing up. What if girls were playing football, or rugby? Does that mean masculinity was not playing football and rugby? This “what if” makes no sense because they weren’t doing it. I'm a couple of years younger than you. I'm female. I was playing football when I was a child. It was happening. " Yes for a minority of girls. And also this whole football/rugby thing is a strange argument because it’s not what I was even talking about (someone else brought that up). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Masculinity just comes from your contrast against femininity. Basically being and doing the opposite of what girls were doing at that time. That’s how I saw it. I’m sure that’s how most people viewed it growing up. I still believe there’s inherent differences between male and female behaviour when growing up. What if girls were playing football, or rugby? Does that mean masculinity was not playing football and rugby? This “what if” makes no sense because they weren’t doing it. They were when I was growing up. The point being that you are setting up masculinity as not being anything in itself, entirely reactive and not really having meaning. The success of the Lionesses last year must have really thrown your idea of masculinity into confusion. Were they yeah? Girls playing football and rugby in the same numbers as lads were? It’s clearly untrue, since even now that doesn’t happen. No need to exaggerate for the sake of trying to prove a point. " I’m not exaggerating anything, you just said that to you masculinity is doing the opposite of what women do. I think that’s a bit reductive, that’s all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Masculinity just comes from your contrast against femininity. Basically being and doing the opposite of what girls were doing at that time. That’s how I saw it. I’m sure that’s how most people viewed it growing up. I still believe there’s inherent differences between male and female behaviour when growing up. What if girls were playing football, or rugby? Does that mean masculinity was not playing football and rugby? This “what if” makes no sense because they weren’t doing it. They were when I was growing up. The point being that you are setting up masculinity as not being anything in itself, entirely reactive and not really having meaning. The success of the Lionesses last year must have really thrown your idea of masculinity into confusion. Were they yeah? Girls playing football and rugby in the same numbers as lads were? It’s clearly untrue, since even now that doesn’t happen. No need to exaggerate for the sake of trying to prove a point. I’m not exaggerating anything, you just said that to you masculinity is doing the opposite of what women do. I think that’s a bit reductive, that’s all." Of course it’s reductive, I’m talking about being a child | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Masculinity just comes from your contrast against femininity. Basically being and doing the opposite of what girls were doing at that time. That’s how I saw it. I’m sure that’s how most people viewed it growing up. I still believe there’s inherent differences between male and female behaviour when growing up. What if girls were playing football, or rugby? Does that mean masculinity was not playing football and rugby? This “what if” makes no sense because they weren’t doing it. I'm a couple of years younger than you. I'm female. I was playing football when I was a child. It was happening. " I was playing rugby and I was fucking outraged when a ban was placed on girls because we need extra safety (not the UK)  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men" "Some men", I don't subscribe to this AT ALL. I find it an immature trait of those who are insecure. Also, it’s not hardwired within menIf its not hardwired in to males, why is it when looking at other mammals, competition is a driver for the advancement of a species. When resources are scare, it's those that 'compete' best that tend to survive. I'm not saying that we haven't evolved to adopt different approaches but life essentially involves aspects relating to survival and passing on your genetic code. Both of which benefit from being good at competing, Mrs x But humans evolved to work together and help each other, it’s one of the reasons Homo sapiens flourished and other, stronger, hominins died out. By working together and living in larger communities H sapiens were more adaptable and able to secure more resources than the likes of H neanderthalensis.So what you are saying is that as a species Homo sapiens competed better within their environment and secured more resources than other Homonid species. So competition and being better equipped to compete, is an advantage to survival. Mrs x What I’m saying is that H. Sapiens evolved to work collaboratively in order to make the best of the environment, as the other Hominid species were often bigger and stronger, so competing with them for the same resources would’ve been unsuccessful. H. Sapiens propensity for helping each other meant they were more likely to thrive, spread, and increase their population, thus leading to them becoming the dominant hominid species. If you want to retrospectively say that this was a competition then feel free, but in reality our adaptability and willingness to collaborate and look after each other was just a more successful way of living. It’s likely saying that the man who exercises regularly, doesn’t drink or smoke, and has a healthy diet ‘won the competition’ against a man who drank, smoked, didn’t exercise and had a poor diet; because he lived longer." That's not strictly true. All homonids lived in family groups, much like the great apes they evolved from. Neanderthals lived in such groups too, in fact the more recent theories suggest they were much more of an evolved species than previously thought. It's more likely the Neanderthals were bred out as a species and there is DNA existence of them in the current human population. You mention other species being stronger and that's undeniable but strength of body doesn't always equate to species survival. So as you suggest it's just this collaborative effect that ensured our survival, what about the requirements of reproduction? Child rearing requires the female to carry a child for nine months. How long do you think they could, hunt and scavenge, on and equal footing, whilst pregnant? How long after giving birth could she get back to hunting on the same level as the men in her family? What about when the men went on a hunt, which look after the infants, to keep them safe? It was the females. Females are much more caring than men, more empathic. Men are more savage. This is not a societal construct, it's evolutionary. Like all evolution it takes vast amounts of time for change, that's why we are still born with an appendix. An organ designed to break down cellulose into something nutritious. This organ is still with us despite the fact we stopped eating grass and leaves eons ago. So yes men are hardwired to be competitive, I'm not saying society hasn't advanced to allow those men that have a reduced capacity for competition to survive. But it's still in men maybe expressed in different forms but it's not going anywhere. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Masculinity just comes from your contrast against femininity. Basically being and doing the opposite of what girls were doing at that time. That’s how I saw it. I’m sure that’s how most people viewed it growing up. I still believe there’s inherent differences between male and female behaviour when growing up. What if girls were playing football, or rugby? Does that mean masculinity was not playing football and rugby? This “what if” makes no sense because they weren’t doing it. They were when I was growing up. The point being that you are setting up masculinity as not being anything in itself, entirely reactive and not really having meaning. The success of the Lionesses last year must have really thrown your idea of masculinity into confusion. Were they yeah? Girls playing football and rugby in the same numbers as lads were? It’s clearly untrue, since even now that doesn’t happen. No need to exaggerate for the sake of trying to prove a point. I’m not exaggerating anything, you just said that to you masculinity is doing the opposite of what women do. I think that’s a bit reductive, that’s all. Of course it’s reductive, I’m talking about being a child " I played football, and climbed trees, and rode bikes with loads of girls when I was a child, so I just don’t get where you’re coming from. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men" "Some men", I don't subscribe to this AT ALL. I find it an immature trait of those who are insecure. Also, it’s not hardwired within menIf its not hardwired in to males, why is it when looking at other mammals, competition is a driver for the advancement of a species. When resources are scare, it's those that 'compete' best that tend to survive. I'm not saying that we haven't evolved to adopt different approaches but life essentially involves aspects relating to survival and passing on your genetic code. Both of which benefit from being good at competing, Mrs x But humans evolved to work together and help each other, it’s one of the reasons Homo sapiens flourished and other, stronger, hominins died out. By working together and living in larger communities H sapiens were more adaptable and able to secure more resources than the likes of H neanderthalensis.So what you are saying is that as a species Homo sapiens competed better within their environment and secured more resources than other Homonid species. So competition and being better equipped to compete, is an advantage to survival. Mrs x What I’m saying is that H. Sapiens evolved to work collaboratively in order to make the best of the environment, as the other Hominid species were often bigger and stronger, so competing with them for the same resources would’ve been unsuccessful. H. Sapiens propensity for helping each other meant they were more likely to thrive, spread, and increase their population, thus leading to them becoming the dominant hominid species. If you want to retrospectively say that this was a competition then feel free, but in reality our adaptability and willingness to collaborate and look after each other was just a more successful way of living. It’s likely saying that the man who exercises regularly, doesn’t drink or smoke, and has a healthy diet ‘won the competition’ against a man who drank, smoked, didn’t exercise and had a poor diet; because he lived longer.That's not strictly true. All homonids lived in family groups, much like the great apes they evolved from. Neanderthals lived in such groups too, in fact the more recent theories suggest they were much more of an evolved species than previously thought. It's more likely the Neanderthals were bred out as a species and there is DNA existence of them in the current human population. You mention other species being stronger and that's undeniable but strength of body doesn't always equate to species survival. So as you suggest it's just this collaborative effect that ensured our survival, what about the requirements of reproduction? Child rearing requires the female to carry a child for nine months. How long do you think they could, hunt and scavenge, on and equal footing, whilst pregnant? How long after giving birth could she get back to hunting on the same level as the men in her family? What about when the men went on a hunt, which look after the infants, to keep them safe? It was the females. Females are much more caring than men, more empathic. Men are more savage. This is not a societal construct, it's evolutionary. Like all evolution it takes vast amounts of time for change, that's why we are still born with an appendix. An organ designed to break down cellulose into something nutritious. This organ is still with us despite the fact we stopped eating grass and leaves eons ago. So yes men are hardwired to be competitive, I'm not saying society hasn't advanced to allow those men that have a reduced capacity for competition to survive. But it's still in men maybe expressed in different forms but it's not going anywhere. Mrs x" I’m not sure how anything you have said leads you to the conclusion that competitiveness is ‘hardwired’ in men. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men" "Some men", I don't subscribe to this AT ALL. I find it an immature trait of those who are insecure. Also, it’s not hardwired within menIf its not hardwired in to males, why is it when looking at other mammals, competition is a driver for the advancement of a species. When resources are scare, it's those that 'compete' best that tend to survive. I'm not saying that we haven't evolved to adopt different approaches but life essentially involves aspects relating to survival and passing on your genetic code. Both of which benefit from being good at competing, Mrs x But humans evolved to work together and help each other, it’s one of the reasons Homo sapiens flourished and other, stronger, hominins died out. By working together and living in larger communities H sapiens were more adaptable and able to secure more resources than the likes of H neanderthalensis.So what you are saying is that as a species Homo sapiens competed better within their environment and secured more resources than other Homonid species. So competition and being better equipped to compete, is an advantage to survival. Mrs x What I’m saying is that H. Sapiens evolved to work collaboratively in order to make the best of the environment, as the other Hominid species were often bigger and stronger, so competing with them for the same resources would’ve been unsuccessful. H. Sapiens propensity for helping each other meant they were more likely to thrive, spread, and increase their population, thus leading to them becoming the dominant hominid species. If you want to retrospectively say that this was a competition then feel free, but in reality our adaptability and willingness to collaborate and look after each other was just a more successful way of living. It’s likely saying that the man who exercises regularly, doesn’t drink or smoke, and has a healthy diet ‘won the competition’ against a man who drank, smoked, didn’t exercise and had a poor diet; because he lived longer.That's not strictly true. All homonids lived in family groups, much like the great apes they evolved from. Neanderthals lived in such groups too, in fact the more recent theories suggest they were much more of an evolved species than previously thought. It's more likely the Neanderthals were bred out as a species and there is DNA existence of them in the current human population. You mention other species being stronger and that's undeniable but strength of body doesn't always equate to species survival. So as you suggest it's just this collaborative effect that ensured our survival, what about the requirements of reproduction? Child rearing requires the female to carry a child for nine months. How long do you think they could, hunt and scavenge, on and equal footing, whilst pregnant? How long after giving birth could she get back to hunting on the same level as the men in her family? What about when the men went on a hunt, which look after the infants, to keep them safe? It was the females. Females are much more caring than men, more empathic. Men are more savage. This is not a societal construct, it's evolutionary. Like all evolution it takes vast amounts of time for change, that's why we are still born with an appendix. An organ designed to break down cellulose into something nutritious. This organ is still with us despite the fact we stopped eating grass and leaves eons ago. So yes men are hardwired to be competitive, I'm not saying society hasn't advanced to allow those men that have a reduced capacity for competition to survive. But it's still in men maybe expressed in different forms but it's not going anywhere. Mrs x I’m not sure how anything you have said leads you to the conclusion that competitiveness is ‘hardwired’ in men." Because at the beginning of our journey as humans only the strong survived. This competitive streak ensured you could out compete others for the best resources, mates even and the best environment to survive. By competing better than others you could ensure your DNA would be passed on, which really is the only thing any living organism is required to do. Evolution shows this time and time again, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men" "Some men", I don't subscribe to this AT ALL. I find it an immature trait of those who are insecure. Also, it’s not hardwired within menIf its not hardwired in to males, why is it when looking at other mammals, competition is a driver for the advancement of a species. When resources are scare, it's those that 'compete' best that tend to survive. I'm not saying that we haven't evolved to adopt different approaches but life essentially involves aspects relating to survival and passing on your genetic code. Both of which benefit from being good at competing, Mrs x But humans evolved to work together and help each other, it’s one of the reasons Homo sapiens flourished and other, stronger, hominins died out. By working together and living in larger communities H sapiens were more adaptable and able to secure more resources than the likes of H neanderthalensis.So what you are saying is that as a species Homo sapiens competed better within their environment and secured more resources than other Homonid species. So competition and being better equipped to compete, is an advantage to survival. Mrs x What I’m saying is that H. Sapiens evolved to work collaboratively in order to make the best of the environment, as the other Hominid species were often bigger and stronger, so competing with them for the same resources would’ve been unsuccessful. H. Sapiens propensity for helping each other meant they were more likely to thrive, spread, and increase their population, thus leading to them becoming the dominant hominid species. If you want to retrospectively say that this was a competition then feel free, but in reality our adaptability and willingness to collaborate and look after each other was just a more successful way of living. It’s likely saying that the man who exercises regularly, doesn’t drink or smoke, and has a healthy diet ‘won the competition’ against a man who drank, smoked, didn’t exercise and had a poor diet; because he lived longer.That's not strictly true. All homonids lived in family groups, much like the great apes they evolved from. Neanderthals lived in such groups too, in fact the more recent theories suggest they were much more of an evolved species than previously thought. It's more likely the Neanderthals were bred out as a species and there is DNA existence of them in the current human population. You mention other species being stronger and that's undeniable but strength of body doesn't always equate to species survival. So as you suggest it's just this collaborative effect that ensured our survival, what about the requirements of reproduction? Child rearing requires the female to carry a child for nine months. How long do you think they could, hunt and scavenge, on and equal footing, whilst pregnant? How long after giving birth could she get back to hunting on the same level as the men in her family? What about when the men went on a hunt, which look after the infants, to keep them safe? It was the females. Females are much more caring than men, more empathic. Men are more savage. This is not a societal construct, it's evolutionary. Like all evolution it takes vast amounts of time for change, that's why we are still born with an appendix. An organ designed to break down cellulose into something nutritious. This organ is still with us despite the fact we stopped eating grass and leaves eons ago. So yes men are hardwired to be competitive, I'm not saying society hasn't advanced to allow those men that have a reduced capacity for competition to survive. But it's still in men maybe expressed in different forms but it's not going anywhere. Mrs x I’m not sure how anything you have said leads you to the conclusion that competitiveness is ‘hardwired’ in men.Because at the beginning of our journey as humans only the strong survived. This competitive streak ensured you could out compete others for the best resources, mates even and the best environment to survive. By competing better than others you could ensure your DNA would be passed on, which really is the only thing any living organism is required to do. Evolution shows this time and time again, Mrs x" But that’s not how human society evolved, it never has been. Also, it that were the case, it would require the same competitiveness to be ‘hardwired’ into women. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Evolutionary psychology is largely a bunch of just-so stories designed to prop up whatever shit people have made up about how people "must" be. Sort of, grab a collection of prejudices, wank fantasies, and unexamined beliefs, slap "Science TM" on them, and go to town." Not true. There’s lots of evidence to support evolutionary psychology. Mostly through looking at brain regions by the order they appeared and then comparing them with animals that have/don’t have those same parts examining their behaviour/successes/failures/relationships (this also includes extinct creatures too). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Evolutionary psychology is largely a bunch of just-so stories designed to prop up whatever shit people have made up about how people "must" be. Sort of, grab a collection of prejudices, wank fantasies, and unexamined beliefs, slap "Science TM" on them, and go to town. Not true. There’s lots of evidence to support evolutionary psychology. Mostly through looking at brain regions by the order they appeared and then comparing them with animals that have/don’t have those same parts examining their behaviour/successes/failures/relationships (this also includes extinct creatures too)." Btw I’m not saying I support the other guys ideas. There’s all kinds of different ideas under the same umbrella. Some stupid, some not so stupid. That’s all I’m trying to say. there’s definitely no need to dismiss them all and it’s definitely not true that it’s “just-so stories” and “prejudices” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Evolutionary psychology is largely a bunch of just-so stories designed to prop up whatever shit people have made up about how people "must" be. Sort of, grab a collection of prejudices, wank fantasies, and unexamined beliefs, slap "Science TM" on them, and go to town. Not true. There’s lots of evidence to support evolutionary psychology. Mostly through looking at brain regions by the order they appeared and then comparing them with animals that have/don’t have those same parts examining their behaviour/successes/failures/relationships (this also includes extinct creatures too)." I'm not saying all evolutionary psychology is bunkum (although I might have overstated my position initially). But there is a fuckton of bunkum that comes out of evolutionary psychology, both directly and through fanboi wank chat. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Men- I’m extremely interested in masculinities. So tell me about your masculinity. What were the things that defined masculinity when you were growing up? And what are the things that define masculinity to you now?" Hey Pickles you probably don’t remember me but we spoke briefly I think around February/March time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Evolutionary psychology is largely a bunch of just-so stories designed to prop up whatever shit people have made up about how people "must" be. Sort of, grab a collection of prejudices, wank fantasies, and unexamined beliefs, slap "Science TM" on them, and go to town. Not true. There’s lots of evidence to support evolutionary psychology. Mostly through looking at brain regions by the order they appeared and then comparing them with animals that have/don’t have those same parts examining their behaviour/successes/failures/relationships (this also includes extinct creatures too). Btw I’m not saying I support the other guys ideas. There’s all kinds of different ideas under the same umbrella. Some stupid, some not so stupid. That’s all I’m trying to say. there’s definitely no need to dismiss them all and it’s definitely not true that it’s “just-so stories” and “prejudices”" Sometime last year I was part of a review of some work that involved neuropsychology, and it's actually surprising how much of it is "just-so stories" and "prejudice". People do things like take a 0.5% difference between outliers of men and women and blow it up into something enormous, and paint the diagrams pink and blue to get their point across. It's really fucking dishonest, because the majority of studies show that the majority of brains are indistinguishable between "male" and "female". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men" "Some men", I don't subscribe to this AT ALL. I find it an immature trait of those who are insecure. Also, it’s not hardwired within menIf its not hardwired in to males, why is it when looking at other mammals, competition is a driver for the advancement of a species. When resources are scare, it's those that 'compete' best that tend to survive. I'm not saying that we haven't evolved to adopt different approaches but life essentially involves aspects relating to survival and passing on your genetic code. Both of which benefit from being good at competing, Mrs x But humans evolved to work together and help each other, it’s one of the reasons Homo sapiens flourished and other, stronger, hominins died out. By working together and living in larger communities H sapiens were more adaptable and able to secure more resources than the likes of H neanderthalensis.So what you are saying is that as a species Homo sapiens competed better within their environment and secured more resources than other Homonid species. So competition and being better equipped to compete, is an advantage to survival. Mrs x What I’m saying is that H. Sapiens evolved to work collaboratively in order to make the best of the environment, as the other Hominid species were often bigger and stronger, so competing with them for the same resources would’ve been unsuccessful. H. Sapiens propensity for helping each other meant they were more likely to thrive, spread, and increase their population, thus leading to them becoming the dominant hominid species. If you want to retrospectively say that this was a competition then feel free, but in reality our adaptability and willingness to collaborate and look after each other was just a more successful way of living. It’s likely saying that the man who exercises regularly, doesn’t drink or smoke, and has a healthy diet ‘won the competition’ against a man who drank, smoked, didn’t exercise and had a poor diet; because he lived longer.That's not strictly true. All homonids lived in family groups, much like the great apes they evolved from. Neanderthals lived in such groups too, in fact the more recent theories suggest they were much more of an evolved species than previously thought. It's more likely the Neanderthals were bred out as a species and there is DNA existence of them in the current human population. You mention other species being stronger and that's undeniable but strength of body doesn't always equate to species survival. So as you suggest it's just this collaborative effect that ensured our survival, what about the requirements of reproduction? Child rearing requires the female to carry a child for nine months. How long do you think they could, hunt and scavenge, on and equal footing, whilst pregnant? How long after giving birth could she get back to hunting on the same level as the men in her family? What about when the men went on a hunt, which look after the infants, to keep them safe? It was the females. Females are much more caring than men, more empathic. Men are more savage. This is not a societal construct, it's evolutionary. Like all evolution it takes vast amounts of time for change, that's why we are still born with an appendix. An organ designed to break down cellulose into something nutritious. This organ is still with us despite the fact we stopped eating grass and leaves eons ago. So yes men are hardwired to be competitive, I'm not saying society hasn't advanced to allow those men that have a reduced capacity for competition to survive. But it's still in men maybe expressed in different forms but it's not going anywhere. Mrs x I’m not sure how anything you have said leads you to the conclusion that competitiveness is ‘hardwired’ in men.Because at the beginning of our journey as humans only the strong survived. This competitive streak ensured you could out compete others for the best resources, mates even and the best environment to survive. By competing better than others you could ensure your DNA would be passed on, which really is the only thing any living organism is required to do. Evolution shows this time and time again, Mrs x But that’s not how human society evolved, it never has been. Also, it that were the case, it would require the same competitiveness to be ‘hardwired’ into women." As a woman I wouldn't want to be 'savage' like a man. I'm saying we are much, more nurturing, caring and empathic. If certain qualities aren't intrinsically within us, how would we learn this? We are just highly evolved animals but that's what we are, animals. Yes we can communicate, express ideas and disseminate them and this has vastly encourage our success beyond those of other animals. But if we are born without instincts how could we develop life skills if there was no one to show us? Small homind groups needed someone to be able to hunt or gather food. If they didn't have this 'drive' to do so, who would do it? A group that knew it needed food couldn't just 'collaberate' to obtain it. There needed to be competent individuals to do this. Even when humans developed hunting in packs, there had to be a leader for it to be effective. The documentary on Netflix, Chimp Empire, is fascinating in regards to this. How Chimps hunt together, have patrols that look after a troops borders and a hierachal system is amazing. I didn't realise Chinps had such a highly developed society. They behave so human like or maybe we behave Chimp like. Definitely worth a watch. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men" "Some men", I don't subscribe to this AT ALL. I find it an immature trait of those who are insecure. Also, it’s not hardwired within menIf its not hardwired in to males, why is it when looking at other mammals, competition is a driver for the advancement of a species. When resources are scare, it's those that 'compete' best that tend to survive. I'm not saying that we haven't evolved to adopt different approaches but life essentially involves aspects relating to survival and passing on your genetic code. Both of which benefit from being good at competing, Mrs x But humans evolved to work together and help each other, it’s one of the reasons Homo sapiens flourished and other, stronger, hominins died out. By working together and living in larger communities H sapiens were more adaptable and able to secure more resources than the likes of H neanderthalensis.So what you are saying is that as a species Homo sapiens competed better within their environment and secured more resources than other Homonid species. So competition and being better equipped to compete, is an advantage to survival. Mrs x What I’m saying is that H. Sapiens evolved to work collaboratively in order to make the best of the environment, as the other Hominid species were often bigger and stronger, so competing with them for the same resources would’ve been unsuccessful. H. Sapiens propensity for helping each other meant they were more likely to thrive, spread, and increase their population, thus leading to them becoming the dominant hominid species. If you want to retrospectively say that this was a competition then feel free, but in reality our adaptability and willingness to collaborate and look after each other was just a more successful way of living. It’s likely saying that the man who exercises regularly, doesn’t drink or smoke, and has a healthy diet ‘won the competition’ against a man who drank, smoked, didn’t exercise and had a poor diet; because he lived longer.That's not strictly true. All homonids lived in family groups, much like the great apes they evolved from. Neanderthals lived in such groups too, in fact the more recent theories suggest they were much more of an evolved species than previously thought. It's more likely the Neanderthals were bred out as a species and there is DNA existence of them in the current human population. You mention other species being stronger and that's undeniable but strength of body doesn't always equate to species survival. So as you suggest it's just this collaborative effect that ensured our survival, what about the requirements of reproduction? Child rearing requires the female to carry a child for nine months. How long do you think they could, hunt and scavenge, on and equal footing, whilst pregnant? How long after giving birth could she get back to hunting on the same level as the men in her family? What about when the men went on a hunt, which look after the infants, to keep them safe? It was the females. Females are much more caring than men, more empathic. Men are more savage. This is not a societal construct, it's evolutionary. Like all evolution it takes vast amounts of time for change, that's why we are still born with an appendix. An organ designed to break down cellulose into something nutritious. This organ is still with us despite the fact we stopped eating grass and leaves eons ago. So yes men are hardwired to be competitive, I'm not saying society hasn't advanced to allow those men that have a reduced capacity for competition to survive. But it's still in men maybe expressed in different forms but it's not going anywhere. Mrs x I’m not sure how anything you have said leads you to the conclusion that competitiveness is ‘hardwired’ in men.Because at the beginning of our journey as humans only the strong survived. This competitive streak ensured you could out compete others for the best resources, mates even and the best environment to survive. By competing better than others you could ensure your DNA would be passed on, which really is the only thing any living organism is required to do. Evolution shows this time and time again, Mrs x But that’s not how human society evolved, it never has been. Also, it that were the case, it would require the same competitiveness to be ‘hardwired’ into women.As a woman I wouldn't want to be 'savage' like a man. I'm saying we are much, more nurturing, caring and empathic. If certain qualities aren't intrinsically within us, how would we learn this? We are just highly evolved animals but that's what we are, animals. Yes we can communicate, express ideas and disseminate them and this has vastly encourage our success beyond those of other animals. But if we are born without instincts how could we develop life skills if there was no one to show us? Small homind groups needed someone to be able to hunt or gather food. If they didn't have this 'drive' to do so, who would do it? A group that knew it needed food couldn't just 'collaberate' to obtain it. There needed to be competent individuals to do this. Even when humans developed hunting in packs, there had to be a leader for it to be effective. The documentary on Netflix, Chimp Empire, is fascinating in regards to this. How Chimps hunt together, have patrols that look after a troops borders and a hierachal system is amazing. I didn't realise Chinps had such a highly developed society. They behave so human like or maybe we behave Chimp like. Definitely worth a watch. Mrs x" Are you citing a *documentary* to back up your position? Really? Really? Oh god, man, whatever. I give up. The earth is flat because something on Netflix says so. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men" "Some men", I don't subscribe to this AT ALL. I find it an immature trait of those who are insecure. Also, it’s not hardwired within menIf its not hardwired in to males, why is it when looking at other mammals, competition is a driver for the advancement of a species. When resources are scare, it's those that 'compete' best that tend to survive. I'm not saying that we haven't evolved to adopt different approaches but life essentially involves aspects relating to survival and passing on your genetic code. Both of which benefit from being good at competing, Mrs x But humans evolved to work together and help each other, it’s one of the reasons Homo sapiens flourished and other, stronger, hominins died out. By working together and living in larger communities H sapiens were more adaptable and able to secure more resources than the likes of H neanderthalensis.So what you are saying is that as a species Homo sapiens competed better within their environment and secured more resources than other Homonid species. So competition and being better equipped to compete, is an advantage to survival. Mrs x What I’m saying is that H. Sapiens evolved to work collaboratively in order to make the best of the environment, as the other Hominid species were often bigger and stronger, so competing with them for the same resources would’ve been unsuccessful. H. Sapiens propensity for helping each other meant they were more likely to thrive, spread, and increase their population, thus leading to them becoming the dominant hominid species. If you want to retrospectively say that this was a competition then feel free, but in reality our adaptability and willingness to collaborate and look after each other was just a more successful way of living. It’s likely saying that the man who exercises regularly, doesn’t drink or smoke, and has a healthy diet ‘won the competition’ against a man who drank, smoked, didn’t exercise and had a poor diet; because he lived longer.That's not strictly true. All homonids lived in family groups, much like the great apes they evolved from. Neanderthals lived in such groups too, in fact the more recent theories suggest they were much more of an evolved species than previously thought. It's more likely the Neanderthals were bred out as a species and there is DNA existence of them in the current human population. You mention other species being stronger and that's undeniable but strength of body doesn't always equate to species survival. So as you suggest it's just this collaborative effect that ensured our survival, what about the requirements of reproduction? Child rearing requires the female to carry a child for nine months. How long do you think they could, hunt and scavenge, on and equal footing, whilst pregnant? How long after giving birth could she get back to hunting on the same level as the men in her family? What about when the men went on a hunt, which look after the infants, to keep them safe? It was the females. Females are much more caring than men, more empathic. Men are more savage. This is not a societal construct, it's evolutionary. Like all evolution it takes vast amounts of time for change, that's why we are still born with an appendix. An organ designed to break down cellulose into something nutritious. This organ is still with us despite the fact we stopped eating grass and leaves eons ago. So yes men are hardwired to be competitive, I'm not saying society hasn't advanced to allow those men that have a reduced capacity for competition to survive. But it's still in men maybe expressed in different forms but it's not going anywhere. Mrs x I’m not sure how anything you have said leads you to the conclusion that competitiveness is ‘hardwired’ in men.Because at the beginning of our journey as humans only the strong survived. This competitive streak ensured you could out compete others for the best resources, mates even and the best environment to survive. By competing better than others you could ensure your DNA would be passed on, which really is the only thing any living organism is required to do. Evolution shows this time and time again, Mrs x But that’s not how human society evolved, it never has been. Also, it that were the case, it would require the same competitiveness to be ‘hardwired’ into women.As a woman I wouldn't want to be 'savage' like a man. I'm saying we are much, more nurturing, caring and empathic. If certain qualities aren't intrinsically within us, how would we learn this? We are just highly evolved animals but that's what we are, animals. Yes we can communicate, express ideas and disseminate them and this has vastly encourage our success beyond those of other animals. But if we are born without instincts how could we develop life skills if there was no one to show us? Small homind groups needed someone to be able to hunt or gather food. If they didn't have this 'drive' to do so, who would do it? A group that knew it needed food couldn't just 'collaberate' to obtain it. There needed to be competent individuals to do this. Even when humans developed hunting in packs, there had to be a leader for it to be effective. The documentary on Netflix, Chimp Empire, is fascinating in regards to this. How Chimps hunt together, have patrols that look after a troops borders and a hierachal system is amazing. I didn't realise Chinps had such a highly developed society. They behave so human like or maybe we behave Chimp like. Definitely worth a watch. Mrs x" You’re talking about you, personally though. And the hunger drive compels us to seek out food, not some hardwired competitiveness, and certainly not being a man. Having a leader on a hunt is not down to competition, it’s down to the understanding that someone has to coordinate efforts, not because someone clubs their way to the top! Maybe you need to stop watching Netflix documentaries about chimps and extrapolating. We share common ancestors with chimpanzees but that doesn’t make us the same. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think pickles has turned into the new Tom" Well yeah, if by that you mean Pickles posts actual things and Tom rewrites them to sound wank worthy to people who don't understand reality. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men" "Some men", I don't subscribe to this AT ALL. I find it an immature trait of those who are insecure. Also, it’s not hardwired within menIf its not hardwired in to males, why is it when looking at other mammals, competition is a driver for the advancement of a species. When resources are scare, it's those that 'compete' best that tend to survive. I'm not saying that we haven't evolved to adopt different approaches but life essentially involves aspects relating to survival and passing on your genetic code. Both of which benefit from being good at competing, Mrs x But humans evolved to work together and help each other, it’s one of the reasons Homo sapiens flourished and other, stronger, hominins died out. By working together and living in larger communities H sapiens were more adaptable and able to secure more resources than the likes of H neanderthalensis.So what you are saying is that as a species Homo sapiens competed better within their environment and secured more resources than other Homonid species. So competition and being better equipped to compete, is an advantage to survival. Mrs x What I’m saying is that H. Sapiens evolved to work collaboratively in order to make the best of the environment, as the other Hominid species were often bigger and stronger, so competing with them for the same resources would’ve been unsuccessful. H. Sapiens propensity for helping each other meant they were more likely to thrive, spread, and increase their population, thus leading to them becoming the dominant hominid species. If you want to retrospectively say that this was a competition then feel free, but in reality our adaptability and willingness to collaborate and look after each other was just a more successful way of living. It’s likely saying that the man who exercises regularly, doesn’t drink or smoke, and has a healthy diet ‘won the competition’ against a man who drank, smoked, didn’t exercise and had a poor diet; because he lived longer.That's not strictly true. All homonids lived in family groups, much like the great apes they evolved from. Neanderthals lived in such groups too, in fact the more recent theories suggest they were much more of an evolved species than previously thought. It's more likely the Neanderthals were bred out as a species and there is DNA existence of them in the current human population. You mention other species being stronger and that's undeniable but strength of body doesn't always equate to species survival. So as you suggest it's just this collaborative effect that ensured our survival, what about the requirements of reproduction? Child rearing requires the female to carry a child for nine months. How long do you think they could, hunt and scavenge, on and equal footing, whilst pregnant? How long after giving birth could she get back to hunting on the same level as the men in her family? What about when the men went on a hunt, which look after the infants, to keep them safe? It was the females. Females are much more caring than men, more empathic. Men are more savage. This is not a societal construct, it's evolutionary. Like all evolution it takes vast amounts of time for change, that's why we are still born with an appendix. An organ designed to break down cellulose into something nutritious. This organ is still with us despite the fact we stopped eating grass and leaves eons ago. So yes men are hardwired to be competitive, I'm not saying society hasn't advanced to allow those men that have a reduced capacity for competition to survive. But it's still in men maybe expressed in different forms but it's not going anywhere. Mrs x I’m not sure how anything you have said leads you to the conclusion that competitiveness is ‘hardwired’ in men.Because at the beginning of our journey as humans only the strong survived. This competitive streak ensured you could out compete others for the best resources, mates even and the best environment to survive. By competing better than others you could ensure your DNA would be passed on, which really is the only thing any living organism is required to do. Evolution shows this time and time again, Mrs x But that’s not how human society evolved, it never has been. Also, it that were the case, it would require the same competitiveness to be ‘hardwired’ into women.As a woman I wouldn't want to be 'savage' like a man. I'm saying we are much, more nurturing, caring and empathic. If certain qualities aren't intrinsically within us, how would we learn this? We are just highly evolved animals but that's what we are, animals. Yes we can communicate, express ideas and disseminate them and this has vastly encourage our success beyond those of other animals. But if we are born without instincts how could we develop life skills if there was no one to show us? Small homind groups needed someone to be able to hunt or gather food. If they didn't have this 'drive' to do so, who would do it? A group that knew it needed food couldn't just 'collaberate' to obtain it. There needed to be competent individuals to do this. Even when humans developed hunting in packs, there had to be a leader for it to be effective. The documentary on Netflix, Chimp Empire, is fascinating in regards to this. How Chimps hunt together, have patrols that look after a troops borders and a hierachal system is amazing. I didn't realise Chinps had such a highly developed society. They behave so human like or maybe we behave Chimp like. Definitely worth a watch. Mrs x You’re talking about you, personally though. And the hunger drive compels us to seek out food, not some hardwired competitiveness, and certainly not being a man. Having a leader on a hunt is not down to competition, it’s down to the understanding that someone has to coordinate efforts, not because someone clubs their way to the top! Maybe you need to stop watching Netflix documentaries about chimps and extrapolating. We share common ancestors with chimpanzees but that doesn’t make us the same." I'm not talking about me, don't know how you came to that conclusion. Only when I said I'm glad I'm not a 'savage' man. I'm not saying as society evolved that communication wasn't effective, in fact I said it was a major benefit in the development of our species. However prior to language primitive homonids would have had to have someone who was a competent hunter. This would need someone with a 'desire' to hunt and the drive to do this. Those better at this would obviously be more successful. The hunger drive wouldn't necessarily translate into being efficient at hunting. If you couldn't hunt it would be effective in starvation. I live by a coastline, there's an abundance of fish but I that doesn't mean I can fish. Men who could fish could provide, those men who could compete more effectively with their peers can provide more successfully and this is were competition proves useful. As for Chimp Empire, I was just referencing a more primitive kind of society than ours, which demonstrates that stronger, more competitive males thrive. I'm sorry for referencing Netflix. As for being the same, I never said we were. If you had cared to read my previous post on here I said competitiveness was an advantage to most mammalian life. This includes in terms of food, resources, mates etc. Being the strongest seems to be an advantage in life. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men" "Some men", I don't subscribe to this AT ALL. I find it an immature trait of those who are insecure. Also, it’s not hardwired within menIf its not hardwired in to males, why is it when looking at other mammals, competition is a driver for the advancement of a species. When resources are scare, it's those that 'compete' best that tend to survive. I'm not saying that we haven't evolved to adopt different approaches but life essentially involves aspects relating to survival and passing on your genetic code. Both of which benefit from being good at competing, Mrs x But humans evolved to work together and help each other, it’s one of the reasons Homo sapiens flourished and other, stronger, hominins died out. By working together and living in larger communities H sapiens were more adaptable and able to secure more resources than the likes of H neanderthalensis.So what you are saying is that as a species Homo sapiens competed better within their environment and secured more resources than other Homonid species. So competition and being better equipped to compete, is an advantage to survival. Mrs x What I’m saying is that H. Sapiens evolved to work collaboratively in order to make the best of the environment, as the other Hominid species were often bigger and stronger, so competing with them for the same resources would’ve been unsuccessful. H. Sapiens propensity for helping each other meant they were more likely to thrive, spread, and increase their population, thus leading to them becoming the dominant hominid species. If you want to retrospectively say that this was a competition then feel free, but in reality our adaptability and willingness to collaborate and look after each other was just a more successful way of living. It’s likely saying that the man who exercises regularly, doesn’t drink or smoke, and has a healthy diet ‘won the competition’ against a man who drank, smoked, didn’t exercise and had a poor diet; because he lived longer.That's not strictly true. All homonids lived in family groups, much like the great apes they evolved from. Neanderthals lived in such groups too, in fact the more recent theories suggest they were much more of an evolved species than previously thought. It's more likely the Neanderthals were bred out as a species and there is DNA existence of them in the current human population. You mention other species being stronger and that's undeniable but strength of body doesn't always equate to species survival. So as you suggest it's just this collaborative effect that ensured our survival, what about the requirements of reproduction? Child rearing requires the female to carry a child for nine months. How long do you think they could, hunt and scavenge, on and equal footing, whilst pregnant? How long after giving birth could she get back to hunting on the same level as the men in her family? What about when the men went on a hunt, which look after the infants, to keep them safe? It was the females. Females are much more caring than men, more empathic. Men are more savage. This is not a societal construct, it's evolutionary. Like all evolution it takes vast amounts of time for change, that's why we are still born with an appendix. An organ designed to break down cellulose into something nutritious. This organ is still with us despite the fact we stopped eating grass and leaves eons ago. So yes men are hardwired to be competitive, I'm not saying society hasn't advanced to allow those men that have a reduced capacity for competition to survive. But it's still in men maybe expressed in different forms but it's not going anywhere. Mrs x I’m not sure how anything you have said leads you to the conclusion that competitiveness is ‘hardwired’ in men.Because at the beginning of our journey as humans only the strong survived. This competitive streak ensured you could out compete others for the best resources, mates even and the best environment to survive. By competing better than others you could ensure your DNA would be passed on, which really is the only thing any living organism is required to do. Evolution shows this time and time again, Mrs x But that’s not how human society evolved, it never has been. Also, it that were the case, it would require the same competitiveness to be ‘hardwired’ into women.As a woman I wouldn't want to be 'savage' like a man. I'm saying we are much, more nurturing, caring and empathic. If certain qualities aren't intrinsically within us, how would we learn this? We are just highly evolved animals but that's what we are, animals. Yes we can communicate, express ideas and disseminate them and this has vastly encourage our success beyond those of other animals. But if we are born without instincts how could we develop life skills if there was no one to show us? Small homind groups needed someone to be able to hunt or gather food. If they didn't have this 'drive' to do so, who would do it? A group that knew it needed food couldn't just 'collaberate' to obtain it. There needed to be competent individuals to do this. Even when humans developed hunting in packs, there had to be a leader for it to be effective. The documentary on Netflix, Chimp Empire, is fascinating in regards to this. How Chimps hunt together, have patrols that look after a troops borders and a hierachal system is amazing. I didn't realise Chinps had such a highly developed society. They behave so human like or maybe we behave Chimp like. Definitely worth a watch. Mrs x You’re talking about you, personally though. And the hunger drive compels us to seek out food, not some hardwired competitiveness, and certainly not being a man. Having a leader on a hunt is not down to competition, it’s down to the understanding that someone has to coordinate efforts, not because someone clubs their way to the top! Maybe you need to stop watching Netflix documentaries about chimps and extrapolating. We share common ancestors with chimpanzees but that doesn’t make us the same. I'm not talking about me, don't know how you came to that conclusion. Only when I said I'm glad I'm not a 'savage' man. I'm not saying as society evolved that communication wasn't effective, in fact I said it was a major benefit in the development of our species. However prior to language primitive homonids would have had to have someone who was a competent hunter. This would need someone with a 'desire' to hunt and the drive to do this. Those better at this would obviously be more successful. The hunger drive wouldn't necessarily translate into being efficient at hunting. If you couldn't hunt it would be effective in starvation. I live by a coastline, there's an abundance of fish but I that doesn't mean I can fish. Men who could fish could provide, those men who could compete more effectively with their peers can provide more successfully and this is were competition proves useful. As for Chimp Empire, I was just referencing a more primitive kind of society than ours, which demonstrates that stronger, more competitive males thrive. I'm sorry for referencing Netflix. As for being the same, I never said we were. If you had cared to read my previous post on here I said competitiveness was an advantage to most mammalian life. This includes in terms of food, resources, mates etc. Being the strongest seems to be an advantage in life. Mrs x " Your theory doesn’t hold up though, you assume that only men did the hunting and fishing, and that isn’t the case. You’re projecting what you see as natural gender roles onto homo sapiens and I’m afraid hunting and fishing were jobs for men and women in those days. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men" "Some men", I don't subscribe to this AT ALL. I find it an immature trait of those who are insecure. Also, it’s not hardwired within menIf its not hardwired in to males, why is it when looking at other mammals, competition is a driver for the advancement of a species. When resources are scare, it's those that 'compete' best that tend to survive. I'm not saying that we haven't evolved to adopt different approaches but life essentially involves aspects relating to survival and passing on your genetic code. Both of which benefit from being good at competing, Mrs x But humans evolved to work together and help each other, it’s one of the reasons Homo sapiens flourished and other, stronger, hominins died out. By working together and living in larger communities H sapiens were more adaptable and able to secure more resources than the likes of H neanderthalensis.So what you are saying is that as a species Homo sapiens competed better within their environment and secured more resources than other Homonid species. So competition and being better equipped to compete, is an advantage to survival. Mrs x What I’m saying is that H. Sapiens evolved to work collaboratively in order to make the best of the environment, as the other Hominid species were often bigger and stronger, so competing with them for the same resources would’ve been unsuccessful. H. Sapiens propensity for helping each other meant they were more likely to thrive, spread, and increase their population, thus leading to them becoming the dominant hominid species. If you want to retrospectively say that this was a competition then feel free, but in reality our adaptability and willingness to collaborate and look after each other was just a more successful way of living. It’s likely saying that the man who exercises regularly, doesn’t drink or smoke, and has a healthy diet ‘won the competition’ against a man who drank, smoked, didn’t exercise and had a poor diet; because he lived longer.That's not strictly true. All homonids lived in family groups, much like the great apes they evolved from. Neanderthals lived in such groups too, in fact the more recent theories suggest they were much more of an evolved species than previously thought. It's more likely the Neanderthals were bred out as a species and there is DNA existence of them in the current human population. You mention other species being stronger and that's undeniable but strength of body doesn't always equate to species survival. So as you suggest it's just this collaborative effect that ensured our survival, what about the requirements of reproduction? Child rearing requires the female to carry a child for nine months. How long do you think they could, hunt and scavenge, on and equal footing, whilst pregnant? How long after giving birth could she get back to hunting on the same level as the men in her family? What about when the men went on a hunt, which look after the infants, to keep them safe? It was the females. Females are much more caring than men, more empathic. Men are more savage. This is not a societal construct, it's evolutionary. Like all evolution it takes vast amounts of time for change, that's why we are still born with an appendix. An organ designed to break down cellulose into something nutritious. This organ is still with us despite the fact we stopped eating grass and leaves eons ago. So yes men are hardwired to be competitive, I'm not saying society hasn't advanced to allow those men that have a reduced capacity for competition to survive. But it's still in men maybe expressed in different forms but it's not going anywhere. Mrs x I’m not sure how anything you have said leads you to the conclusion that competitiveness is ‘hardwired’ in men.Because at the beginning of our journey as humans only the strong survived. This competitive streak ensured you could out compete others for the best resources, mates even and the best environment to survive. By competing better than others you could ensure your DNA would be passed on, which really is the only thing any living organism is required to do. Evolution shows this time and time again, Mrs x But that’s not how human society evolved, it never has been. Also, it that were the case, it would require the same competitiveness to be ‘hardwired’ into women.As a woman I wouldn't want to be 'savage' like a man. I'm saying we are much, more nurturing, caring and empathic. If certain qualities aren't intrinsically within us, how would we learn this? We are just highly evolved animals but that's what we are, animals. Yes we can communicate, express ideas and disseminate them and this has vastly encourage our success beyond those of other animals. But if we are born without instincts how could we develop life skills if there was no one to show us? Small homind groups needed someone to be able to hunt or gather food. If they didn't have this 'drive' to do so, who would do it? A group that knew it needed food couldn't just 'collaberate' to obtain it. There needed to be competent individuals to do this. Even when humans developed hunting in packs, there had to be a leader for it to be effective. The documentary on Netflix, Chimp Empire, is fascinating in regards to this. How Chimps hunt together, have patrols that look after a troops borders and a hierachal system is amazing. I didn't realise Chinps had such a highly developed society. They behave so human like or maybe we behave Chimp like. Definitely worth a watch. Mrs x You’re talking about you, personally though. And the hunger drive compels us to seek out food, not some hardwired competitiveness, and certainly not being a man. Having a leader on a hunt is not down to competition, it’s down to the understanding that someone has to coordinate efforts, not because someone clubs their way to the top! Maybe you need to stop watching Netflix documentaries about chimps and extrapolating. We share common ancestors with chimpanzees but that doesn’t make us the same. I'm not talking about me, don't know how you came to that conclusion. Only when I said I'm glad I'm not a 'savage' man. I'm not saying as society evolved that communication wasn't effective, in fact I said it was a major benefit in the development of our species. However prior to language primitive homonids would have had to have someone who was a competent hunter. This would need someone with a 'desire' to hunt and the drive to do this. Those better at this would obviously be more successful. The hunger drive wouldn't necessarily translate into being efficient at hunting. If you couldn't hunt it would be effective in starvation. I live by a coastline, there's an abundance of fish but I that doesn't mean I can fish. Men who could fish could provide, those men who could compete more effectively with their peers can provide more successfully and this is were competition proves useful. As for Chimp Empire, I was just referencing a more primitive kind of society than ours, which demonstrates that stronger, more competitive males thrive. I'm sorry for referencing Netflix. As for being the same, I never said we were. If you had cared to read my previous post on here I said competitiveness was an advantage to most mammalian life. This includes in terms of food, resources, mates etc. Being the strongest seems to be an advantage in life. Mrs x Your theory doesn’t hold up though, you assume that only men did the hunting and fishing, and that isn’t the case. You’re projecting what you see as natural gender roles onto homo sapiens and I’m afraid hunting and fishing were jobs for men and women in those days." So who looked after any children or did they hunt too?, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ah "right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ah
right? "Every time I think of leaving I think- but how can I leave this | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ah
right?
Every time I think of leaving I think- but how can I leave this "
You're not leaving us, are you?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So who looked after any children or did they hunt too?, Mrs x" They sell pink hunting rifles in Walmart, for your daughter's birthday. Now if that's not an advanced inclusive society, I don't know what is. I think it was usually elders that stayed to look after children. They were generally the better craftspeople and tool makers, because of the experience. So that allowed transfer of skills through education and ancestral knowledge. Division labour only really had a formal establishment during the medieval era and intensified after the industrial revolution. So the concepts we hold now about about specific trades, roles and professions only came about as civilisations became more organised and ruling classes developed. It would seem plausible that gender specific roles emerged as a consequence of Christian Organised religion in Europe. Prior to this in pagan cultures women are depicted quite differently. There's hunting goddesses etc. I mean come on Artemis is just hot, if I'm hunting I want her on the team. She can even have a blue bow, if she wants - I'll take the pink one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men" "Some men", I don't subscribe to this AT ALL. I find it an immature trait of those who are insecure. Also, it’s not hardwired within menIf its not hardwired in to males, why is it when looking at other mammals, competition is a driver for the advancement of a species. When resources are scare, it's those that 'compete' best that tend to survive. I'm not saying that we haven't evolved to adopt different approaches but life essentially involves aspects relating to survival and passing on your genetic code. Both of which benefit from being good at competing, Mrs x But humans evolved to work together and help each other, it’s one of the reasons Homo sapiens flourished and other, stronger, hominins died out. By working together and living in larger communities H sapiens were more adaptable and able to secure more resources than the likes of H neanderthalensis.So what you are saying is that as a species Homo sapiens competed better within their environment and secured more resources than other Homonid species. So competition and being better equipped to compete, is an advantage to survival. Mrs x What I’m saying is that H. Sapiens evolved to work collaboratively in order to make the best of the environment, as the other Hominid species were often bigger and stronger, so competing with them for the same resources would’ve been unsuccessful. H. Sapiens propensity for helping each other meant they were more likely to thrive, spread, and increase their population, thus leading to them becoming the dominant hominid species. If you want to retrospectively say that this was a competition then feel free, but in reality our adaptability and willingness to collaborate and look after each other was just a more successful way of living. It’s likely saying that the man who exercises regularly, doesn’t drink or smoke, and has a healthy diet ‘won the competition’ against a man who drank, smoked, didn’t exercise and had a poor diet; because he lived longer.That's not strictly true. All homonids lived in family groups, much like the great apes they evolved from. Neanderthals lived in such groups too, in fact the more recent theories suggest they were much more of an evolved species than previously thought. It's more likely the Neanderthals were bred out as a species and there is DNA existence of them in the current human population. You mention other species being stronger and that's undeniable but strength of body doesn't always equate to species survival. So as you suggest it's just this collaborative effect that ensured our survival, what about the requirements of reproduction? Child rearing requires the female to carry a child for nine months. How long do you think they could, hunt and scavenge, on and equal footing, whilst pregnant? How long after giving birth could she get back to hunting on the same level as the men in her family? What about when the men went on a hunt, which look after the infants, to keep them safe? It was the females. Females are much more caring than men, more empathic. Men are more savage. This is not a societal construct, it's evolutionary. Like all evolution it takes vast amounts of time for change, that's why we are still born with an appendix. An organ designed to break down cellulose into something nutritious. This organ is still with us despite the fact we stopped eating grass and leaves eons ago. So yes men are hardwired to be competitive, I'm not saying society hasn't advanced to allow those men that have a reduced capacity for competition to survive. But it's still in men maybe expressed in different forms but it's not going anywhere. Mrs x I’m not sure how anything you have said leads you to the conclusion that competitiveness is ‘hardwired’ in men.Because at the beginning of our journey as humans only the strong survived. This competitive streak ensured you could out compete others for the best resources, mates even and the best environment to survive. By competing better than others you could ensure your DNA would be passed on, which really is the only thing any living organism is required to do. Evolution shows this time and time again, Mrs x But that’s not how human society evolved, it never has been. Also, it that were the case, it would require the same competitiveness to be ‘hardwired’ into women.As a woman I wouldn't want to be 'savage' like a man. I'm saying we are much, more nurturing, caring and empathic. If certain qualities aren't intrinsically within us, how would we learn this? We are just highly evolved animals but that's what we are, animals. Yes we can communicate, express ideas and disseminate them and this has vastly encourage our success beyond those of other animals. But if we are born without instincts how could we develop life skills if there was no one to show us? Small homind groups needed someone to be able to hunt or gather food. If they didn't have this 'drive' to do so, who would do it? A group that knew it needed food couldn't just 'collaberate' to obtain it. There needed to be competent individuals to do this. Even when humans developed hunting in packs, there had to be a leader for it to be effective. The documentary on Netflix, Chimp Empire, is fascinating in regards to this. How Chimps hunt together, have patrols that look after a troops borders and a hierachal system is amazing. I didn't realise Chinps had such a highly developed society. They behave so human like or maybe we behave Chimp like. Definitely worth a watch. Mrs x You’re talking about you, personally though. And the hunger drive compels us to seek out food, not some hardwired competitiveness, and certainly not being a man. Having a leader on a hunt is not down to competition, it’s down to the understanding that someone has to coordinate efforts, not because someone clubs their way to the top! Maybe you need to stop watching Netflix documentaries about chimps and extrapolating. We share common ancestors with chimpanzees but that doesn’t make us the same. I'm not talking about me, don't know how you came to that conclusion. Only when I said I'm glad I'm not a 'savage' man. I'm not saying as society evolved that communication wasn't effective, in fact I said it was a major benefit in the development of our species. However prior to language primitive homonids would have had to have someone who was a competent hunter. This would need someone with a 'desire' to hunt and the drive to do this. Those better at this would obviously be more successful. The hunger drive wouldn't necessarily translate into being efficient at hunting. If you couldn't hunt it would be effective in starvation. I live by a coastline, there's an abundance of fish but I that doesn't mean I can fish. Men who could fish could provide, those men who could compete more effectively with their peers can provide more successfully and this is were competition proves useful. As for Chimp Empire, I was just referencing a more primitive kind of society than ours, which demonstrates that stronger, more competitive males thrive. I'm sorry for referencing Netflix. As for being the same, I never said we were. If you had cared to read my previous post on here I said competitiveness was an advantage to most mammalian life. This includes in terms of food, resources, mates etc. Being the strongest seems to be an advantage in life. Mrs x Your theory doesn’t hold up though, you assume that only men did the hunting and fishing, and that isn’t the case. You’re projecting what you see as natural gender roles onto homo sapiens and I’m afraid hunting and fishing were jobs for men and women in those days.So who looked after any children or did they hunt too?, Mrs x" They were communal living arrangements, the older tribe members looked after the children, while the younger, fitter members hunted. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being close to 50, masculinity was defined as being a good fighter or good at sports. Now my definition of masculinity is remaining calm when faced with a million things that should drive me mad." Also should say that growing up, men didn't cry. Men didn't have feelings. Now I'm old, I'm man enough to admit the fucking Barbie movie made me cry | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think masculinity is linked with competition. This is hardwired within men" "Some men", I don't subscribe to this AT ALL. I find it an immature trait of those who are insecure. Also, it’s not hardwired within menIf its not hardwired in to males, why is it when looking at other mammals, competition is a driver for the advancement of a species. When resources are scare, it's those that 'compete' best that tend to survive. I'm not saying that we haven't evolved to adopt different approaches but life essentially involves aspects relating to survival and passing on your genetic code. Both of which benefit from being good at competing, Mrs x But humans evolved to work together and help each other, it’s one of the reasons Homo sapiens flourished and other, stronger, hominins died out. By working together and living in larger communities H sapiens were more adaptable and able to secure more resources than the likes of H neanderthalensis.So what you are saying is that as a species Homo sapiens competed better within their environment and secured more resources than other Homonid species. So competition and being better equipped to compete, is an advantage to survival. Mrs x What I’m saying is that H. Sapiens evolved to work collaboratively in order to make the best of the environment, as the other Hominid species were often bigger and stronger, so competing with them for the same resources would’ve been unsuccessful. H. Sapiens propensity for helping each other meant they were more likely to thrive, spread, and increase their population, thus leading to them becoming the dominant hominid species. If you want to retrospectively say that this was a competition then feel free, but in reality our adaptability and willingness to collaborate and look after each other was just a more successful way of living. It’s likely saying that the man who exercises regularly, doesn’t drink or smoke, and has a healthy diet ‘won the competition’ against a man who drank, smoked, didn’t exercise and had a poor diet; because he lived longer.That's not strictly true. All homonids lived in family groups, much like the great apes they evolved from. Neanderthals lived in such groups too, in fact the more recent theories suggest they were much more of an evolved species than previously thought. It's more likely the Neanderthals were bred out as a species and there is DNA existence of them in the current human population. You mention other species being stronger and that's undeniable but strength of body doesn't always equate to species survival. So as you suggest it's just this collaborative effect that ensured our survival, what about the requirements of reproduction? Child rearing requires the female to carry a child for nine months. How long do you think they could, hunt and scavenge, on and equal footing, whilst pregnant? How long after giving birth could she get back to hunting on the same level as the men in her family? What about when the men went on a hunt, which look after the infants, to keep them safe? It was the females. Females are much more caring than men, more empathic. Men are more savage. This is not a societal construct, it's evolutionary. Like all evolution it takes vast amounts of time for change, that's why we are still born with an appendix. An organ designed to break down cellulose into something nutritious. This organ is still with us despite the fact we stopped eating grass and leaves eons ago. So yes men are hardwired to be competitive, I'm not saying society hasn't advanced to allow those men that have a reduced capacity for competition to survive. But it's still in men maybe expressed in different forms but it's not going anywhere. Mrs x I’m not sure how anything you have said leads you to the conclusion that competitiveness is ‘hardwired’ in men.Because at the beginning of our journey as humans only the strong survived. This competitive streak ensured you could out compete others for the best resources, mates even and the best environment to survive. By competing better than others you could ensure your DNA would be passed on, which really is the only thing any living organism is required to do. Evolution shows this time and time again, Mrs x But that’s not how human society evolved, it never has been. Also, it that were the case, it would require the same competitiveness to be ‘hardwired’ into women.As a woman I wouldn't want to be 'savage' like a man. I'm saying we are much, more nurturing, caring and empathic. If certain qualities aren't intrinsically within us, how would we learn this? We are just highly evolved animals but that's what we are, animals. Yes we can communicate, express ideas and disseminate them and this has vastly encourage our success beyond those of other animals. But if we are born without instincts how could we develop life skills if there was no one to show us? Small homind groups needed someone to be able to hunt or gather food. If they didn't have this 'drive' to do so, who would do it? A group that knew it needed food couldn't just 'collaberate' to obtain it. There needed to be competent individuals to do this. Even when humans developed hunting in packs, there had to be a leader for it to be effective. The documentary on Netflix, Chimp Empire, is fascinating in regards to this. How Chimps hunt together, have patrols that look after a troops borders and a hierachal system is amazing. I didn't realise Chinps had such a highly developed society. They behave so human like or maybe we behave Chimp like. Definitely worth a watch. Mrs x You’re talking about you, personally though. And the hunger drive compels us to seek out food, not some hardwired competitiveness, and certainly not being a man. Having a leader on a hunt is not down to competition, it’s down to the understanding that someone has to coordinate efforts, not because someone clubs their way to the top! Maybe you need to stop watching Netflix documentaries about chimps and extrapolating. We share common ancestors with chimpanzees but that doesn’t make us the same. I'm not talking about me, don't know how you came to that conclusion. Only when I said I'm glad I'm not a 'savage' man. I'm not saying as society evolved that communication wasn't effective, in fact I said it was a major benefit in the development of our species. However prior to language primitive homonids would have had to have someone who was a competent hunter. This would need someone with a 'desire' to hunt and the drive to do this. Those better at this would obviously be more successful. The hunger drive wouldn't necessarily translate into being efficient at hunting. If you couldn't hunt it would be effective in starvation. I live by a coastline, there's an abundance of fish but I that doesn't mean I can fish. Men who could fish could provide, those men who could compete more effectively with their peers can provide more successfully and this is were competition proves useful. As for Chimp Empire, I was just referencing a more primitive kind of society than ours, which demonstrates that stronger, more competitive males thrive. I'm sorry for referencing Netflix. As for being the same, I never said we were. If you had cared to read my previous post on here I said competitiveness was an advantage to most mammalian life. This includes in terms of food, resources, mates etc. Being the strongest seems to be an advantage in life. Mrs x Your theory doesn’t hold up though, you assume that only men did the hunting and fishing, and that isn’t the case. You’re projecting what you see as natural gender roles onto homo sapiens and I’m afraid hunting and fishing were jobs for men and women in those days.So who looked after any children or did they hunt too?, Mrs x They were communal living arrangements, the older tribe members looked after the children, while the younger, fitter members hunted." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm glad we're not still in the neolithic period. I'd be a goner. Hurrah for the 21st century and the fact someone hunts down the strawberries and lentils and soups and yoghurts for me and all I have to do is hand over my life savings for them "I often think about the women who would have been wonderful statesmen, generals, etc, who were allowed to be nothing more than a pretty broodmare maybe making some clothes, because "nature". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm glad we're not still in the neolithic period. I'd be a goner. Hurrah for the 21st century and the fact someone hunts down the strawberries and lentils and soups and yoghurts for me and all I have to do is hand over my life savings for them
I often think about the women who would have been wonderful statesmen, generals, etc, who were allowed to be nothing more than a pretty broodmare maybe making some clothes, because "nature"."My daughter read me a book about inspirational women the other day. The first one was Ada Lovelace. Both inspirational and sad if you know the whole story. Seems to be the case for a good number of the women who managed to rise above the society of the day. Anyway. Masculinity. Mr KC says it doesn't mean anything much to him but in his youth, it seemed to be something about liking football and hitting each other and taking the piss a lot. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm glad we're not still in the neolithic period. I'd be a goner. Hurrah for the 21st century and the fact someone hunts down the strawberries and lentils and soups and yoghurts for me and all I have to do is hand over my life savings for them
I often think about the women who would have been wonderful statesmen, generals, etc, who were allowed to be nothing more than a pretty broodmare maybe making some clothes, because "nature".
My daughter read me a book about inspirational women the other day. The first one was Ada Lovelace. Both inspirational and sad if you know the whole story. Seems to be the case for a good number of the women who managed to rise above the society of the day.
Anyway.
Masculinity. Mr KC says it doesn't mean anything much to him but in his youth, it seemed to be something about liking football and hitting each other and taking the piss a lot. "Yes. I think we forget how difficult it was for them, and how difficult it might be if we don't hold on to what we've got. I also think men get a raw deal, and should be able to be anything they want to be as well. The loudest voices on what masculinity is do seem to want to restrain men in what they can be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm glad we're not still in the neolithic period. I'd be a goner. Hurrah for the 21st century and the fact someone hunts down the strawberries and lentils and soups and yoghurts for me and all I have to do is hand over my life savings for them
I often think about the women who would have been wonderful statesmen, generals, etc, who were allowed to be nothing more than a pretty broodmare maybe making some clothes, because "nature"."What leads you to a conclusion that they would have been a great general then? If they weren't able to lead themselves how good would they have been leading an army? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm glad we're not still in the neolithic period. I'd be a goner. Hurrah for the 21st century and the fact someone hunts down the strawberries and lentils and soups and yoghurts for me and all I have to do is hand over my life savings for them
I often think about the women who would have been wonderful statesmen, generals, etc, who were allowed to be nothing more than a pretty broodmare maybe making some clothes, because "nature".
What leads you to a conclusion that they would have been a great general then? If they weren't able to lead themselves how good would they have been leading an army? "I didn't have any specific women in mind. I'm thinking of the societies where it wasn't an option. You were born without a penis, you got to weave, clean the house, and pop out some kids. I would bet my entire lifetime earning that many women (who could not choose to be leaders of that type, because they were women) would have been better leaders than many men who might have been eligible to be leaders. It's just statistics, really. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
