Is masculinity a trap?

[Ben_Sinner]

This is something that is commonly believed by post-modern, liberal, types.

Is masculinity a trap, or is it an essential part of God’s creation of the male species?

 

[Cheiron]

This is the first time I read about it. What does it even mean to say that masculinity is a trap?

 

[Rhubarb]

I agree.

Go oooooon?

 

[GEddie]

I agree.

Go oooooon?

• 2

 

[1neophyte]

A trap into what?

 

[Ben_Sinner]

I’m assuming they meant that men are “trapped” to be masculine by social standards such as being tough, not showing alot of emotion, being repulsed by the thought of being attracted to other men, and refusal to show one’s feminine side.

Basically they are trying to justify homosexual/transsexual behavior by stating that heterosexuals find it “unnatural” and repulsive because they have been programmed to think that men should be “manly”

“Manliness” is just a social construct. (According to them)

 

[Cheiron]

I’m assuming they meant that men are “trapped” to be masculine by social standards such as being tough, not showing alot of emotion, being repulsed by the thought of being attracted to other men, and refusal to show one’s feminine side.

Basically they are trying to justify homosexual/transsexual behavior by stating that heterosexuals find it “unnatural” and repulsive because they have been programmed to think that men should be “manly”

“Manliness” is just a social construct. (According to them)

Thank you, that’s a lot clearer.

Manliness is certainly for a large part a social construct. What it means to be a man in 21st century Canada is different from what it meant to be a man in ancient Rome or 18th century England. In 18th century England, being a man meant showing a lot of passion and emotion. Only after the emotional outburst of the French Revolution did the British attitude change. Emotion became associated with the horrors of the Robespierre regime and the bloodbaths in Paris in the 1790’s. That’s how the ‘stiff upper lip’ developed.

There is some truth in that statement about homosexuality too. In ancient Rome, sexual identity was defined by how you behaved in bed. Being a man meant having a dominant role in bed, regardless of whether you were sleeping with a man or a woman. Same-sex behaviour did not diminish someone’s manliness, unless he had the receiving role ofcourse.

Personally, I care little about the expectations of something as impersonal as ‘society’ and I feel comfortable in my own skin, so I don’t feel “trapped” by this social construct at all.

 

[Wesrock]

I think of it as masculinity vs machismo. Masculinity are traits natural to men and are healthy in themselves. Machismo is taking these to excess, pride in these traits, shaming others for not conforming . . . Basically machismo is turning masculinity into a caricature in one way or another.

 

[Rhubarb]

I’m assuming they meant that men are “trapped” to be masculine by social standards such as being tough, not showing alot of emotion, being repulsed by the thought of being attracted to other men, and refusal to show one’s feminine side.

Basically they are trying to justify homosexual/transsexual behavior by stating that heterosexuals find it “unnatural” and repulsive because they have been programmed to think that men should be “manly”

“Manliness” is just a social construct. (According to them)

I agree with the other poster. What constitutes “manliness” does change between cultures and in time. There is overwhelming evidence of that fact. There are times and places where being manly required facial hair.

Each culture does have expectations about how each gender should behave. These are called gender norms. But I mean. Consider all the characteristics that make up manliness… Got them?

Okay. Does wearing pink make you less manly? My grandfather frequently wore a pastel blue shirt with a pink tie. But in his youth he also broke horses. I saw him wrangling a bucking horse well into his 70s. That’s pretty manly to me. Even if he wore pink on occasion. Does enjoying RomComs make you less manly? Really? Or how about knitting. Can men not be men if they knit? What about a man who has a tea party with his young daughter? Or lets her apply make-up to him as they play in the yard?

Conversely,my freshman science teacher built her own home. Does that make her manly? In that, does it threaten her status as a woman? How about those pin-up cowgirls that shoot guns, drink beer, and drive lifted pickup trucks? That’s all “manly” stuff. Does that make them manly? I know my grandmother took a LOT of flack wearing slacks to her government job in the 60s. But she also raised 4 children, crocheted, and wore hats in church.

I know discussing gender norms makes some people uncomfortable. Even the words evoke ridiculous social justice warriors. But I think that the above points to masculinity and femininity being 1. socially derived, 2. not good indicators of anything, really, and 3. Masculinity and femininity aren’t set in stone somewhere. It changes with the people and the times.

But to the point about being trapped. I think it can be… confining to have society hoist social expectations on people, yes. But that’s not masculinity being a trap, as you said.

 

[Leifler]

Specifics are socail sure, but there are ALOT of similarities going through all of known civilizations. Let alone tendencies of most animals. Then we have what God has said. And God said homosexuals and such are not good and against his will.

So assuming pure nature, there is alot of human evidence that manliness at least to a degree is innate.

Again assuming nature the same into the animal kindgdom.

The only positive arguemnt possible for modern mentality is to suggest that we can guide our evolution to something new and different. And we can pick out the rare exceptions in nature and say “they can so can we!!”

Now assuming God is in the mix, modern arguements seem to sell exactly the things God said is evil. And we know who likes to advocate for evil

 

[1neophyte]

Specifics are socail sure, but there are ALOT of similarities going through all of known civilizations. Let alone tendencies of most animals. Then we have what God has said. And God said homosexuals and such are not good and against his will.

So assuming pure nature, there is alot of human evidence that manliness at least to a degree is innate.

Again assuming nature the same into the animal kindgdom.

The only positive arguemnt possible for modern mentality is to suggest that we can guide our evolution to something new and different. And we can pick out the rare exceptions in nature and say “they can so can we!!”

Now assuming God is in the mix, modern arguements seem to sell exactly the things God said is evil. And we know who likes to advocate for evil

So profound. Have you written any books?

 

[GEddie]

I think of it as masculinity vs machismo. Masculinity are traits natural to men and are healthy in themselves. Machismo is taking these to excess, pride in these traits, shaming others for not conforming . . . Basically machismo is turning masculinity into a caricature in one way or another.

In the Latin-American and possibly Spanish orbit, masculine and macho are perceived as almost the same.

ICXC NIKA