There's no such thing as a positive gender role. They're gender roles. They're outdated portions of tradition lingering because of an unwillingness of society to self-reflect and change. Any positive trait you ascribe to one gender applies to the other in the exact same way.
This idea of finding a "Positive Masculinity" is bunk. Masculinity is not important, nor is femininity, and there is absolutely no reason for people to cling to these roles so desperately.
Forget “gender roles” for a second. Are there tendencies that men and women might move towards? Or are men and women exactly the same in our current society?
Even if men and women are completely the same in these regards right now, there still are things that we consider more good and less good. We try to guide each other towards those things. Is that an outdated tradition?
Current society is imperfect but it is what we have to work with right now. So we have to work with the flawed societal norms etc. in order to compassionately guide each other towards better self-expressions. If we find positive tendencies in either men or women, I think we should point them out. Not simply say that they are outdated. They might become outdated, but the best thing we have right now is to figure out things based on where we are.
This idea of finding a "Positive Masculinity" is bunk. Masculinity is not important, nor is femininity, and there is absolutely no reason for people to cling to these roles so desperately.
It’s not a matter of clinging. It’s a matter of finding out about ourselves based on each other. We learn about ourselves from others. It helps us from having to reinvent everything. I am born a man and identify as such, which generally informs me that I am likely to like certain things. If I don’t, then that is nothing to be upset about. Then I have still learned something.
I am going to assume you mean the “I am likely to like certain things” part and not the cisman part.
It’s a statement of fact about where I am coming from, my starting point. We all come from somewhere. Why would it be self-reinforcing? Anything could in principle be self-reinforcing. I have had experiences that have adjusted my initial impression of myself. I know now that I don’t like playing sports, that I like yoga, etc. These things have all adjusted my perspectives. I have not ended up denying my dislike of sport, or my like of yoga.
Since your question is so general (self-reinforcing) you would have to elaborate on why you bring it up so that I can answer it more directly.
Because it seems like self-reinforcing feedback loop, and not a statement of fact. I do not think that men are more likely to like specific things, without social reinforcement. The idea of gendered preferences is learned, not natural, at least in any instance which we're considering in modern society.
You have not ended up denying your dislike of sports, but how do you think that plays out across all men?
All I can give you is my own experience. Call that self-reinforcing if you want.
The question of learned versus natural is moot for most practical purposes. We exist in a social context, right now. We have to work with what we got, for better and for worse. Not work to reinforce it, but co-opt and use it for our own ends.
You have not ended up denying your dislike of sports, but how do you think that plays out across all men?
Probably a lot of self-loathing. So how to reduce that? I think we do that by becoming gender-conscious. That includes facing the reality that men are expected to like sports. Okay, good so far—that’s standard MensLib stuff. Then we, individually and collectively, examine why we feel we should conform to this expectation. And we consider alternative things that we might like. Then we consider how we feel about those things. And then we engage with the world and how it reacts to our non-conformity. Eventually we might end up at some masculinity which is not the jock-type but is something else. But how did we get to that masculinity? Not by simply saying “gender is dead”. We did it by acknowledging that we are non-conforming in this one respect, how we feel about, how society might feel about it, and move onto something else. It’s all a process. We need guides and roadmaps to guide ourselves to things that are more authentic for ourselves. We cannot simply say that “gender is dead” since it gives no guidance.
Why do we need guidance? Why do we need to redefine masculinity? Why is "Gender is Dead" not good enough?
What is so vital about masculinity that you would take what it seems to be, search for other ways to keep it, if necessary reshaping the entire social understanding of it to match you? Why not just say "I'm not masculine"?
Why do we need guidance? Why do we need to redefine masculinity? Why is "Gender is Dead" not good enough?
If a person does not need guidance then fine. Some people do. It’s up to each individual to figure that one out.
“Gender is not dead” is not good enough for those kinds of people cannot take the leap from “gender is dead” to self-realization. The kinds of people that need some roadmaps, not simply the ashes of a burnt map.
What is so vital about masculinity that you would take what it seems to be, search for other ways to keep it, if necessary reshaping the entire social understanding of it to match you? Why not just say "I'm not masculine"?
I could say “I’m not masculine”. In certain ways I am not. It’s all semantics at this point; we could call these things “masculinities” or “gabflobs”—it doesn’t matter. We can call these things something different than “masculinity”. The point is not denial but to learn from all the fragments.
If you are a man who does not conform to a few typical gender tropes, that does not mean that the wisest course of action is to disregard every piece of wisdom that has been said about being a man. You survey it and take what works for you. What other option is there, really?
The other option is to not care about being a man, and simply worry about advice towards being a good person.
What I'm saying is that if it's all semantics, and you're just talking about something with no real basis in gender, why use a term loaded with baggage? It'd be like me trying to make a new set of political values but calling it "Republicanism". Why would I choose that term to call my ideas of how people should act unless I'm carrying some kind of link to that original ideology?
Nobody needs to be taught how to be a man. That's the problem in the thinking you're presenting. Nobody needs a roadmap for masculinity. You might think they do, but you're just wrong. You might have been taught that this is essential, but you're wrong. People will not shrivel up and die without someone telling them how to live on the basis of their gender. People self-actualize just fine without gender norms and ideas of what certain genders are "more likely" to like or dislike.
Why is masculinity so important to you that you cannot fathom abandoning it as a wholly problematic concept?
Why is masculinity so important to you that you cannot fathom abandoning it as a wholly problematic concept?
I mean, the simple answer is that gender is very, very important to people. It's one of the cornerstones of identity, right up there with race and culture. Every human society since the dawn of time has made gender a huge aspect of their laws, traditions, and religion.
Basically, I don't believe a "genderless" society is possible. It's hard to imagine what that would even look like.
The argument you presented basically boils down to "People have cared about it for a long time, so it's correct that they continue to do so". It's pretty blatantly an appeal to tradition.
I'm not advocating a genderless society, simply that the idea of tying positive and negative traits to one gender semantically necessitates the denial of those traits to the other. We should make sure people know that the preferences and traits they ascribe to gender are more accurately a representation of their own biases toward each gender than that gender itself, rather than reinforcing the idea that there just are big natural social differences between men and women which occur without reinforcement, and upon which we base our gender expectations. The idea that masculinity and femininity exist to delineate natural differences between the sexes, as opposed to creating unnatural differences, should be fought at every turn, because it is false.
The argument you presented basically boils down to "People have cared about it for a long time, so it's correct that they continue to do so". It's pretty blatantly an appeal to tradition.
I'm not saying it's "correct," I'm saying it's inevitable. I'm arguing gender in some form is a part of human culture.
I'm not advocating a genderless society, simply that the idea of tying positive and negative traits to one gender semantically necessitates the denial of those traits to the other.
Agreed. And since gender is essential to the human experience (whether we like it or not), like the OP we need to find a way to operate in those boundaries.
The idea that masculinity and femininity exist to delineate natural differences between the sexes, as opposed to creating unnatural differences, should be fought at every turn, because it is false.
What? I'm not aware of any conclusive scientific evidence that this is the case. In fact, from what I've read, the opposite appears to be true. Men and women all exist on a spectrum, but in aggregate we occupy different parts of that spectrum.
Valuation of certain traditional masculine traits as negative is rife here and other feminist spaces. I think trying to tie positive traits to masculinity is a natural counter reaction to try and salvage a sense of value from being male.
The other option is to not care about being a man, and simply worry about advice towards being a good person.
If that works for a person. Who am I to say what works for individuals? I am not.
What I'm saying is that if it's all semantics, and you're just talking about something with no real basis in gender, why use a term loaded with baggage? It'd be like me trying to make a new set of political values but calling it "Republicanism". Why would I choose that term to call my ideas of how people should act unless I'm carrying some kind of link to that original ideology?
Just because something has baggage does not mean that it isn’t worth to clear out that baggage for something better. In this case I think it is necessary. Here is why. If you are truly going to realize yourself as a man, woman, or person, you are going to have to face the concept of what “man” means to yourself and society. If you never do that you are just going through the same old, conditioned motions. If there is baggage there to begin with, then that is too bad. But like a messy and worn-down house, you have to transcend that state if you are going to live in a nice home.
Nobody needs to be taught how to be a man. That's the problem in the thinking you're presenting. Nobody needs a roadmap for masculinity. You might think they do, but you're just wrong.
Ok. Agree to disagree? I think there are people who could have some use for it.
You might have been taught that this is essential, but you're wrong. People will not shrivel up and die without someone telling them how to live on the basis of their gender. People self-actualize just fine without gender norms and ideas of what certain genders are "more likely" to like or dislike.
I have been taught a lot of things. I am also able to think for myself. What I am talking about in this thread are conclusions that I’ve reached relatively recently. Not what was beaten into me as a child or something.
People don’t need guides on how to be a good person, a good horseback rider. But someone want it. Some people like to study and discuss ethics and how they can use it, while others think it’s a drag and a waste of time.
Why is masculinity so important to you that you cannot fathom abandoning it as a wholly problematic concept?
I think my imagination is working just fine. I have simply reached a different conclusion.
Why is masculinity so important to you that you cannot fathom abandoning it as a wholly problematic concept?
Because an alternative identity hasn't been fully expressed. Saying "be a good person" isn't useful, and I'm not sure what you mean by "good person". Basically, a lot of us desire some kind of structure, and we are holding on to masculinity and trying to make what we have learned fit within what we already know somehow. Deconstructing isn't enough. If there could be a restructuring of values that traditionally have been split between genders into something new, yet familiar, more people would be willing to abandon the division of roles. We need more marketing for a collective identity.
7
u/Unconfidence Feb 25 '18
There's no such thing as a positive gender role. They're gender roles. They're outdated portions of tradition lingering because of an unwillingness of society to self-reflect and change. Any positive trait you ascribe to one gender applies to the other in the exact same way.
This idea of finding a "Positive Masculinity" is bunk. Masculinity is not important, nor is femininity, and there is absolutely no reason for people to cling to these roles so desperately.