What it means to be a Man. - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All sociological topics not appropriate or suited to other areas of the board.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#13665317
Why? Why, Oxy? What is the important thing here....that men and women 'know their place'....or that people be given the freedom they need to find their place? Is raising children a valuable thing? If it is, does it become less valuable when a man does it?


It is important for society to have structure, and it is vital that both males and females have a way to grow from adolecents into adulthood through rights of passage. I believe in freedom, but through a lense of structure. For example my favorite saying is Ultimate freedom is the freedom to oppress others, meaning you cannot allow people true freedom because then they would infringe on the rest of the society. Yes a a Man is a father, and a woman is mother niether can replace each other.

Feminists aren't forcing you to stay home with your kids and forcing women out of the home to work. The only ones who seem to advocate force are...well you. And those who apparently support you.

Feminists are pushing for a system that destroys biological and social order.

Again...why?


Because freedom can only be implemented when things are structured properly.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#13665320
am a feminist, Oxy.

I am not guilty of wanting what you claim I want.

I would like you to not tell me what I want as a feminist.


Like I said in the thread hijacking threads you are a Feminist, but you do not represent all feminists. You have your view on what Feminism means to you, and I am speaking of my view of Feminism in general.
User avatar
By noemon
#13665324
Lightman wrote: Oxy, why do you believe that these relatively recent social constructs are biologically male?


He didn't claim that these are biologically male. How are these social duties, recent constructs? They are not recent at all. These are timeless ideals, surely men have not abided by these rules, nor are they all abiding by them now.

That striking women was or is socially accepted does not mean that it should be an ideal among the peers in this community, similarly that weak men exist does not mean that weakness should be an ideal.

Yiwahikanak wrote: I have the crazy belief that people should be who they are, not who they are arbitrarily forced to be. (If they really were that way, they wouldn't need to be pushed into their roles.)..... Why? Why, Oxy? What is the important thing here....that men and women 'know their place'....or that people be given the freedom they need to find their place? Is raising children a valuable thing? If it is, does it become less valuable when a man does it?

Feminists aren't forcing you to stay home with your kids and forcing women out of the home to work. The only ones who seem to advocate force are...well you. And those who apparently support you.


The problem with your rationale is your perspective, you see gender roles as emanating from patriarch values(.ie from men as units) or from liberal feminist values(.ie from women as units), gender roles emanate from family values, to identify the ideal gender roles, one has to ask himself, what is the best way of raising the children, rather than what is the best way for the father inside a family or for the mother inside a family. The focus should be on the children interests rather than on the male or the female of the family.

Having said, I am fairly convinced that for at least the first year of a child's birth, it requires breast-feeding, which requires the mother next to it at all times. Except for some extreme cases where the mother is truly(not artificially) unable to breastfeed, there is no excuse for a woman to not provide this to her child. Removing the ego is the path to wisdom for both males and females and child-rearing provides this opportunity in practice. This is the reason marriage is "sacred", it is sacred in the sense that it is the human's opportunity to remove the ego for the sake of humanity(the children).

After the breast-feeding session has come to an end, naturally rather than artificially, then the family can discuss the available options to them, the father and mother can then share the raising of the children according to what is best for the whole family. Neither of their careers should be an end in itself.
Last edited by noemon on 25 Mar 2011 14:10, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By yiwahikanak
#13665337
Oxymoron wrote:It is important for society to have structure, and it is vital that both males and females have a way to grow from adolecents into adulthood through rights of passage. I believe in freedom, but through a lense of structure. For example my favorite saying is Ultimate freedom is the freedom to oppress others, meaning you cannot allow people true freedom because then they would infringe on the rest of the society. Yes a a Man is a father, and a woman is mother niether can replace each other.


How is a stay at home father infringing on society?

How is a female electrician infringing on society?

Oxymoron wrote:Feminists are pushing for a system that destroys biological and social order.


How?

Oxymoron wrote:
Because freedom can only be implemented when things are structured properly.


I do not accept your definition of freedom, as it is coercive and oppressive. This is precisely what I oppose...I do not want to force anyone into gender roles they themselves do not accept and want for themselves.

To go back to your complaints about how men are portrayed in the media...are you aware that there are many feminists who criticise this?

This feminist discusses how men are portrayed as invisible victims in popular media:

As Ren correctly points out, Female death, when it occurs at all, is paid more attention. If the evil scheming darkhaired women does buy it, it’s still depicted as tragic. The hero will have tried to save her and failed, and he will express sadness at her loss. Virtuous women very rarely die, and when they do it is always milked for every tearjerking moment as she dies in the hero’s arms, last words of love on her lips. In contrast to men, as children we are taught to care about women.

The creators of shows intended for adult audiences can count upon their audience already having internalised these values. Male death is background noise, but if they really want to shock or horrify their audience, they have to beat up, rape, or kill a woman, or, even stronger, a girl.

These cultural values are also manifested in how we react to non-fictional death. An upsurge of female murders will provoke international humanitarian and political concern. The vast majority of male victims are relegated to a footnote at the end, or ignored entirely


Would you agree with what this feminist has to say about the way in which the suffering of men is ignored and accepted both in society and in the media?

This media awareness site tackles the portrayal of men in the media and explicitly notes that media critics and feminists have been examining these portrayals for some time. Here is a bit of what they have to say on the issue:

From common stereotypes of men in media, explicitly discussing the stereotype you brought up:

The Buffoon commonly appears as a bungling father figure in TV ads and sitcoms. Usually well-intentioned and light-hearted, these characters range from slightly inept to completely hopeless when it comes to parenting their children or dealing with domestic (or workplace) issues.


Other stereotypes are outlined as well...stereotypes you haven't addressed in your focus on The Buffoon.

You might like this...from Men's Magazines and the Construction of Masculinity, referring to the popularity of men's magazines like FHM and Maxim:

...the recent popularity of these magazines is a reflection of men’s uncertainty over the roles they are expected to assume in society, at work, and in their relationships.

In her 1983 discussion of Playboy, Barbara Ehrenreich notes when the magazine emerged in 1953, American men were beginning to feel constrained by the demands of marriage, work and fatherhood—and Playboy unapologetically celebrated the bachelor’s lifestyle.

She argues that Playboy painted an idealistic picture of the well-educated, confirmed bachelor who appreciates the finer things in life: wine, jazz, scotch, art, and women. Playboy’s success was built on its celebration of male independence from the domestic responsibilities of marriage and fatherhood.



Feminist critique does indeed include the impact of gender stereotypes on men and in fact many of the things that you have said about how men are portrayed in the media have been extensively studied and criticised by feminists.

Is it suddenly wrong when feminists point out the problems with portraying men as inept fathers, foolish husbands and unattractive losers with super hot wives?

Oxymoron wrote:
Like I said in the thread hijacking threads you are a Feminist, but you do not represent all feminists. You have your view on what Feminism means to you, and I am speaking of my view of Feminism in general.


Yes, but when you attempt to claim that I am a rare feminist, I am going to provide you with evidence that my views are not that rare within feminism. It would be helpful if you could provide evidence that your view of feminism in general is actually supported by mainstream feminists.

YOU claim my views do not represent all feminists. On the most obvious level that is true as there are many different kinds of feminism out there and I cannot possibly encompass all of them...but neither are the things that I say on the 'radical' end of feminism.

_________________________________________________________________________

noemon wrote:The problem with your rationale is your perspective, you see gender roles as emanating from patriarch values(.ie from men as units) or from liberal feminist values(.ie from women as units), gender roles emanate from family values, to identify the ideal gender roles, one has to ask himself, what is the best way of raising the children, rather than what is the best way for the father inside a family or for the mother inside a family. The focus should be on the children interests rather than on the male or the female of the family.


Actually, I see gender roles as they are seen within Western society as emanating from Western liberal values as these gender roles in no way reflect the gender roles as perceived by my own Cree people.

In addition, I believe that what is best for children is an extended family approach to child-rearing where both men and women play important roles in teaching and nurturing the children. The entire notion of an isolated, two parent approach to raising children, seems to me an inefficient and difficult way to go about things.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#13665343
How is a stay at home father infringing on society?

How is a female electrician infringing on society?


I dont have a problem with women working, as long as they perform well.

I dont have a problem with a stay at home dad either, as long as he is not trying to be the Mother. My issues are not anecdotal in nature, my concern is general. My concern is if there is no ideal then there is chaos. We need to have certain expectations of males and females in society, and not simply accept all types of behavior in terms of large scale. I am not one to want goverment involved telling people what they should do, but socially we should pressure people to act as good responsible members of society.
User avatar
By yiwahikanak
#13665355
Oxymoron wrote:I dont have a problem with women working, as long as they perform well.

I dont have a problem with a stay at home dad either, as long as he is not trying to be the Mother.


Can you describe to me what that would entail? Being the Mother?

What would being the Father mean?


Oxymoron wrote: My issues are not anecdotal in nature, my concern is general. My concern is if there is no ideal then there is chaos. We need to have certain expectations of males and females in society, and not simply accept all types of behavior in terms of large scale. I am not one to want goverment involved telling people what they should do, but socially we should pressure people to act as good responsible members of society.


I'm sorry but so far, your concern is so general that I honestly still have no idea what your concerns are...what the 'bad things' are and how feminists supposedly cause them.

Your vague complaints remind me of this...an otherwise good critique of how men are portrayed in the media which is echoed by the links I provided earlier.

Everywhere I turn, men are being belittled and no one is saying a word about it.


Except they are. Feminists are critiquing these portrayals even while men who claim to oppose feminism do the same. You, Oxy, seem often to be claiming that feminists don't care about men and don't address issues that impact men...when the reality is you simply don't seem to be aware of the fact that feminists indeed do spend considerable time exploring these things.

If feminists are opposed to these kinds of portrayals and spend time explaining why these portrayals are harmful...then who is creating these stereotypes and plastering them all over? Feminists? Really?

The issue is much more complex I'm sorry to say.


The ClockworkRat wrote:She asked quite a bit more than that.


I have to hope he's at least considering what I've said, and the evidence I've provided.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#13665362
Can you describe to me what that would entail? Being the Mother?

What would being the Father mean?


Meaning this, setting a proper gender example. Meaning if the father stays at home there better be a good reason for it. Best situation is if the Mother is the main caretaker, if she is the bread winner then I can see that a Father would be the better choice over a baby sitter.

I'm sorry but so far, your concern is so general that I honestly still have no idea what your concerns are...what the 'bad things' are and how feminists supposedly cause them
.

Feminists are pushing for womens power, they want equal compensation for unequal work, they want men to be complaint with this agenda. Feminist want to allow women freedom, but position men in subservant roles. Meaning anytime a man wants to defend himself and his beliefs he is labeled a Mysoginist or worse.

Your vague complaints remind me of this...an otherwise good critique of how men are portrayed in the media which is echoed by the links I provided earlier
.

Your examples are I am reviewing and will comment later.
User avatar
By U184
#13665365
So then yiwahikanak, in your view, is a feminist for or against a man treating women in a chivalrous manner? I.e. opening doors, taking the outside of the street, pulling out a chair, standing when a lady enters the room, etc?
User avatar
By noemon
#13665367
Yiwahikanak wrote: In addition, I believe that what is best for children is an extended family approach to child-rearing where both men and women play important roles in teaching and nurturing the children. The entire notion of an isolated, two parent approach to raising children, seems to me an inefficient and difficult way to go about things.


I partly agree, but that is irrelevant. To identify ideals, like in any mathematical system, one has to isolate the system. To identify the ideal gender roles, one has to do so first within an isolated family, after this exercise is complete one can enter the parameters of the extended-family and identify how these members can help within the community, and after this exercise is complete we can then proceed on setting the parameters for society as a whole through Law, and how can Law aid to preserve these ideals that we have agreed in the first place for the betterment of individual families and therefore society as a whole.

But we are not there yet. And to make this discussion comprehensive, we first have to set the micro-particles within an isolated system. As far as I am concerned it does not go more micro than the 2-base system of parenthood.

As Socrates said: You want democracy?, start with your family.
Last edited by noemon on 25 Mar 2011 14:38, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#13665375
Perhaps my issues are not so much with Feminists, but more generally with contempary society as a whole. That is why I created this thread, to discuss what should society look like, and what should we expect from its citizens. Obviously Men and Women are biologically different, there is a difference in the way our bodies are structured and how we react to the world, there is obviously a social element. So I want to figure out a balance between freedom of choice, and a healthy society.
User avatar
By U184
#13665388
I hardly see being chivalrous/respectful as subordinate/pointless.
User avatar
By yiwahikanak
#13665402
Oxymoron wrote:Meaning this, setting a proper gender example. Meaning if the father stays at home there better be a good reason for it. Best situation is if the Mother is the main caretaker, if she is the bread winner then I can see that a Father would be the better choice over a baby sitter.


That is still extremely vague. If the father stays home and is the primary caregiver...how could he be 'the mother'? What would that entail?

You said, "I dont have a problem with a stay at home dad either, as long as he is not trying to be the Mother." If being a stay at home father is not immediately a violation of the gender norms you support...then what would be, in his context as the primary caregiver to his children?

What would he have to do to 'try to be the Mother'?

Oxymoron wrote:
Feminists are pushing for womens power, they want equal compensation for unequal work


I have never seen a feminist advocate this, anywhere. In fact, the refrain is "equal pay for equal work". This is the sort of claim you need to back up with some sort of proof given how opposed it is to the actual advocacy done by feminists.

Oxymoron wrote:, they want men to be complaint with this agenda. Feminist want to allow women freedom, but position men in subservant roles.


What are subservient roles, in your opinion? How are men positioned into these roles by feminists?

Oxymoron wrote:
Meaning anytime a man wants to defend himself and his beliefs he is labeled a Mysoginist or worse.


Again, none of this makes much sense without examples.

Oxymoron wrote:
Your examples are I am reviewing and will comment later.


Appreciated.

Oxy, I am trying to understand what your position is here...but I'm having a lot of difficulty. Can you be more specific, and provide examples of feminists actually doing or advocating the things you claim they do?

Because it's fine to have an opinion that 'this is feminism'...but if you want other people to believe that your opinion is a correct characterisation then you sort of have to back it up. Particularly since you have told me in a few threads that my views are not represented in mainstream feminism (to which I am very willing to respond with evidence that contradicts your assertion).

--------------------------------------------------------------

noemon wrote:
I partly agree, but that is irrelevant. To identify ideals, like in any mathematical system, one has to isolate the system. To identify the ideal gender roles, one has to do so first within an isolated family, after this exercise is complete one can enter the parameters of the extended-family and identify how these members can help within the community, and after this exercise is complete we can then proceed on setting the parameters for society as a whole through Law, and how can Law aid to preserve these ideals that we have agreed in the first place for the betterment of individual families and therefore society as a whole.

But we are not there yet. And to make this discussion comprehensive, we first have to set the micro-particles within an isolated system. As far as I am concerned it does not go more micro than the 2-base system of parenthood.

As Socrates said: You want democracy?, start with your family.


Well that's your particular approach, but it certainly doesn't suit my cultural paradigm, so forgive me if I don't accept it as a methodology I wish to apply when I think about gender roles and family.

I don't have much to say about what you've described in terms of breast-feeding and negotiating what comes after that...you haven't introduced inherent limits to the roles of parents, thus I am not in opposition.

-------------------------------------------------------------

KFlint wrote:So then yiwahikanak, in your view, is a feminist for or against a man treating women in a chivalrous manner? I.e. opening doors, taking the outside of the street, pulling out a chair, standing when a lady enters the room, etc?


The problem with what many people call 'chivalrous' is that with it comes expectations of how the woman is supposed to act.

I open the door for people regardless of gender, and I imagine most polite people do the same. Well, I'd hope so anyway. Nothing worse than having a door slam in your face because someone couldn't be bothered to even hold it open behind them.

Would you be offended if a woman opened a door for you to be polite? Would that harm your 'chivalry'? If not, I'm not seeing the problem.

I don't understand the need to stand when a lady enters a room, but if that's your particular custom, I'm not going to be offended by it. Not unless based on that custom you think I need to do something that I don't want to do...examples of which I can't come up with, perhaps you have some?

What you call chivalry, I'd call human politeness and I do not think it is limited to a single gender. Consideration for others does not need to be a gendered issue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oxymoron wrote:Perhaps my issues are not so much with Feminists, but more generally with contempary society as a whole. That is why I created this thread, to discuss what should society look like, and what should we expect from its citizens. Obviously Men and Women are biologically different, there is a difference in the way our bodies are structured and how we react to the world, there is obviously a social element. So I want to figure out a balance between freedom of choice, and a healthy society.


I think most people share your dissatisfaction with contemporary living, whether they approach this from a feminist perspective or not. I see increasing urbanisation being carried out in ways that alienate people from one another (suburbs) rather than promoting closer social bonds. I support a more communal approach to child-rearing, which would ideally include extended families but could also involve a network of friends etc. I want there to be more space for families in general, which would mean altering the way in which we work in order to allow us to spend time with our loved ones. I want these things for men and women because I believe that modern living can be profoundly unhealthy if we continue to alienate ourselves from one another and from our environment.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#13665408
On some of your last points I think we can agree.
User avatar
By U184
#13665413
For the most part I show the same respect to everyone, regardless of age or sex. I open the doors for strangers, I call everyone Sir or Mam, from the homeless 50 year old man, to the 12 year old girl taking my order at a family restaurant. In fact, in terms of respect, I treat my wife the same as my priest, my students, my employes, even my pets are treated with respect.

In this case I am more interested how this particular subset sees these actions. I will continue to act in the manner I do, because I see it as the right thing to do.
User avatar
By noemon
#13665415
Well that's your particular approach, but it certainly doesn't suit my cultural paradigm, so forgive me if I don't accept it as a methodology I wish to apply when I think about gender roles and family.


I don't understand that, this is not a matter of cultural paradigms. I too believe that extended-family and friends should participate in child-rearing of the community in general, in some societies they don't and in some they do, in all societies the Law participates even further.

For a discussion to be comprehensive it cannot discuss, Law, extended-family and parents at the same time, it has to break it down and start with the base(parents), then extended family into the equation and then the law, this is merely for the sake of clarified discussion, not because it operates within a cultural paradigm.

I don't object to discussing law or extended family, but we do have to be concise if we want to make any sense out of this discussion.
Last edited by noemon on 25 Mar 2011 15:04, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#13665420
That is basically what I am trying to talk about Flint.

What should society expect of people socially. Should older people be given special respect? Should women still expect men to treat them with chivalry? What is expected of modern man and woman.
User avatar
By U184
#13665422
I show respect to everyone who continues to deserve it, an elder does not get a free pass to be a prick merely because he is old, my parents do not have the right to treat me rudely just because they are my parents.

You get what you give.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@Potemkin They've spent the best part of two […]

Juan Dalmau needs to be the governor and the isla[…]

Whats "breaking" here ? Russians have s[…]

@Puffer Fish You dig a trench avoiding existin[…]