[The Clockwork Rat]

So where's the issue?

[Oxymoron]

Flint, I understand that, my question is aside misbehavior should we set certain guidelines for rewarded and respectable behavior by citizens. Should there be differences in how we approach different groups in society based on gender, and age?

[yiwahikanak]

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.

I do the same. As long as you aren't telling me what to wear, what jobs I should be allowed to work at, and how I should live my life, then I'm not seeing an issue.

I don't understand that, this is not a matter of cultural paradigms.

Breaking things down to what you see as their 'constituent' parts is absolutely a culturally-dependent approach which is not shared by my culturally-dependent approach that is often described as 'holistic'.

I'm not saying my approach is better than yours, I'm merely pointing out that your approach is not universally accepted as the best way to go about examining things.

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.

I understand your needs and you are free to engage in this approach. Once you've done more than outline your methodology, I'll probably participate.

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

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.

To bring it back to feminism...I support treating people with respect regardless of their gender and that also means respecting their choices and not assuming that choosing not to fulfill traditional gender roles is inherently harmful. I think people are happier when they are able to be themselves without fear of reprisal if that 'way of being' is not consistent with (so far ill-defined) gender norms...and without fear of reprisal if that 'way of being' IS consistent with certain gender norms.

As for what is expected...trying to fit yourself into some sort of ill-defined role is damn hard. If someone does not want to be your romantic partner because you are 'x'...should you try to be more 'x'? The answer to that should be based on what is best for you as an individual...if becoming more 'x' harms you as a person, then it's probably a bad idea and you'd be better off with someone who values you for being 'x'.


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

Flint, I understand that, my question is aside misbehavior should we set certain guidelines for rewarded and respectable behavior by citizens. Should there be differences in how we approach different groups in society based on gender, and age?

I think there should be limits on how we approach people if those ways are harmful, but not otherwise.

In my culture, we approach elders in a certain way and I can't help doing that even if the elder in question is not of my culture. I don't think this way of approaching them is harmful.

However, if a culture treats women like shit because they are women, then I do support trying to change this. Ditto with other groups, elders of either gender, children, and so on.

[U184]

I suppose it depends on individual customs and personal expectations. I certainly do not hold that people should be treated differently but other people do. I had a pretty bad row with the inlaws when I first meet them for calling them Sir and Mam, instead of Mr. and MRS. they wold not relent stating their expectations, so I informed them that they could give what they expected and address me as MR. Flint, that went over harshly.

[yiwahikanak]

I suppose it depends on individual customs and personal expectations. I certainly do not hold that people should be treated differently but other people do. I had a pretty bad row with the inlaws when I first meet them for calling them Sir and Mam, instead of Mr. and MRS. they wold not relent stating their expectations, so I informed them that they could give what they expected and address me as MR. Flint, that went over harshly.

I would certainly like to see a more common understanding of cultural variation, without requiring that people necessarily KNOW what those variations are. I found when I was first integrating into my ex's family that there were many unexpected cultural differences I hadn't anticipated beyond the obvious ones we usually are prepared for, like language and music and food.

For example, I was raised that you should ensure everyone has something to eat before starting, so you sort of eyeball the amounts to take and if there is food left over it can be shared again. In his family, they would fill up their plates with everything they were going to eat and if I took a small amount to ensure everyone had enough, I often ended up hungry at the end. I found their custom very rude...they felt I was insulting their cooking. It took a long time for us to openly discuss this, at which point it was something to laugh about when before it had caused a lot of tension.

I still have a hard time looking older people in the eye because I was taught this was extremely rude....I can do it because in the mainstream culture I have to function in, not meeting someone's eyes is a sign of shame or deception. I know this and can adapt, but if you didn't understand this about my culture, working with my people would have you thinking we were being insolent for not looking you in the face.

Etc.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Where do you look instead? To the side?

[yiwahikanak]

Where do you look instead? To the side?

At their lips or chin...if you're really deferring to them, you'll look at their neck or straight down at the floor. But it's generally lips for me. Helps me understand what they are saying too, and then I notice if they point at something. (also done with lips )

[noemon]

Breaking things down to what you see as their 'constituent' parts is absolutely a culturally-dependent approach which is not shared by my culturally-dependent approach that is often described as 'holistic'.

I'm not saying my approach is better than yours, I'm merely pointing out that your approach is not universally accepted as the best way to go about examining things.

I don't see the relevance to the particular discussion we are having, nor do I see how is my dialectic non-holistic.

To come back to the basics, I am merely saying that before we argue the gender roles within the small community(.ie extended family or tribe) or the gender roles within society(.ie within a nation), we should first define the gender roles within a household under the constraint that these gender roles should adhere to the principle of healthier family relation and better children.

Are we in agreement?

If we are we can then proceed to define the objective. What is healthy marriage relationships and what is better children?

Would you like to define these 2 parameters? Or would you like myself to do that?

Just a note, I can return to this discussion later tonight.

[yiwahikanak]

I'd like Oxy's view on your questions actually.

"What is healthy marriage relationships?"

"what is better children?"

[Pants-of-dog]

No Feminists want freedom for females to take on any social role, but feminization of Males. This trend can be seen in pro Gay/Feminist Hollywood, Media, Literature, and other outlets. Portraying straight males as stupid, dirty, selfish idiots, while women are leaders,intelligent, clean, and most importantly always right.

Please provide evidence that a large percentage of feminists actually want the feminisation of males.

He is not a man, no. He is a useless organism sucked dry of any meaning.

What has he done to you that you should treat him as "a useless organism sucked dry of any meaning"? That seems a bit harsh for someone who has never bothered you in any way.

But when you strip men of manliness you are hurting others, when men dont have a way to become men they find gangs and other none productive venues. There was an interesting stpry on NPR about urban cities and new progras that focus on getting boys out of gangs through male bonding in socially positive ways, and developing socially positive male structures, which you want to tear down.

Feminisst do not want to tear down socially positive male structures. Nor do they want to strip men of manliness. What we want to get rid of is the social expectation that males have to conform to some outdated and limiting definition of manhood.

[QatzelOk]

The focus should be on the children interests rather than on the male or the female of the family.

Part of the ruse of Modern feminism is to externalize children, and treat them like chattel that can be ignored or worse. Feminism represents non-women as either perpetrators (men) or irrelevant (children), and as if the self-fulfillment of the female (or, resentfully, the male) is the primary reason for the existence of the family.

In fact, the family emerged as the best way for caring for offspring, who in turn cared for their parents. Separating parents from their families damages this natural cycle tremendously. The parentless youth of today may not take care of the elders. They might let them die in hospitals instead. Like feminists, they might ask themselves: Why should we give up our fun to take care of others?

...

What it means to be a man is to act in a way that facilitates life.

It means to take responsibility for your own actions, and to not give or take orders to/from other males in an ant-like hierarchy of diffused responsibility.

If you give or take orders from others and repress your own opinions and feelings and thoughts, you aren't a man. You're a man-child (or a domesticated male pet) looking for approval from your masters, rather than applying your own instinctive moral sense of responsibility.

[yiwahikanak]

I'm sure it would be fruitless to ask you to back up your claims, Qatz, so I make only a token effort to do so.

And also:

I am a feminist, Qatz.

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.

You could also show us how these 'Modern' feminists have done or advocate what you claim.

[QatzelOk]

You could also show us how these 'Modern' feminists have done or advocate what you claim.

I could - if this thread was about feminism.

But it's not. It's about what it means to be a man.

[yiwahikanak]

Then perhaps you could expand on your definition of what it means to be a man, without the yapping about your version of feminism so this thread doesn't become a discussion about your version of feminism?

Although I understand why you would bring feminism into it, given that Oxy explicitly brought it up in the OP.

[Wills]

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.)

This.

People only conform to these stereotype because society makes it seem the norm. Both Men and Women can have the traits you listed in the OP, that's just part of their personality not because they are male or female.

[Political Interest]

In my view a real man has a heart. This is something I find lacking in those who love to flaunt their "manliness" today. They go to the gym or by gift of God are given a very masculine appearance and because of this expect every single person, male or female, to think that their the best thing since sliced bread. They look down on other males and love to emasculate them, are often hyper-sexual and have a less than flattering view of women. They are not real men because to them manliness is only in the size of their muscles. Instead they should seek to uplift others and not be such bloody animals.

[anticlimacus]

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 see three problematic assumptions with Oxy in his many posts, including the above:

The first is that we are close to or entering into a state of cultural chaos where gender roles are so mixed that being a man and being a woman has become meaningless. This is a reactionary position that really does not seem to have any basis in reality. There are very much dominant views of what is "masculine" and what is "feminine" (and ironically Oxy posted them in his OP!!), whether or not we agree with them.

The second problematic assumption is this idea that we can and should decide what proper culture is from an abstract position and then impose it on society. Culture develops from the ground up, not from some timeless position in which we think, without concerns for the conditions of its production and the situatedness of social actors, what is "good" culture as opposed to "bad" culture and then assign it by fiat.

The third is the implicit notion that social actors simply need to walk around with a vivid and clear idea of what a man and what a woman is and then conform to the rigidity of those norms. The assumption here seems to leans towards a dogmatic intellectualism, which is again reactionary to difference, toleration, and change. People embody social norms (i.e they don't first think them, they, without thinking, play them out), and enact them without really thinking about them. Even the most staunch feminist still embodies many of the basic gender roles that society ascribes. The attempt to challenge them is not problematic and agents do not need to walk around with a clear idea of what the "correct" roles are. What this would be calling for is close to a theocracy of unchallengeable norms--a cultural straightjacket resulting in a mechanical reproduction of rehearsed values.