Site on masculine gendered men

Discussion on what it means to be straight acting, whether it's good, bad or indifferent.

Moderators: selective_soldier, furface

Do you think Gender (i.e. is masculinity and/or femininity) is biological?

There are only two sexes. Gender is purely a social construction.
4
25%
Both masculinity and femininity are basically natural traits
12
75%
 
Total votes : 16

Postby masculinity » Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:00 pm

RedKen99 wrote:You can't know fear, if you haven't experienced it! What I like is the commercials where superficial fem women are parading their beauty on t.v. Of course they are not like that, but what kind of life is there if all a woman does is apply their make-up and wear dresses?

Where's the femenist in that, or reality?

It's the same thing with men. Gillette is a great shaving brand, but they try to make it to look techy on their commercials. Almost like they are selling cars. Then at the end they show this lady comes out looking happy at the man who shaved.

I hate these superficial gender commercials.


This is what I call social femininity and social masculinity.

There is nothing feminine about putting on make-up or trying to look good. It has arbitrarily been adjudged 'feminine' because our society wants women to look good for men. However, if you look at ancient tribes, the warriors don a lot of make up. Ancient kings and noblemen wore a lot of jewellery.

And in the animal world, its the male who is more keen about preening himself.

Similarly, even though technology is deemed 'masculine' I am not too sure. Technology has been the greatest enemy of natural masculinity. It has almost completely made natural masculnity redundant, and in the modern world we only have symbolic, social or fake masculinity.

In my mind a naturally masculine man would prefer to do things that exerts him physically than use technology that gives him comfort and luxury. So instead of driving a car he may be more inlined to ride a bicycle or trudge on foot.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby Ben » Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:57 pm

masculinity wrote:There is nothing feminine about putting on make-up or trying to look good. It has arbitrarily been adjudged 'feminine' because our society wants women to look good for men. However, if you look at ancient tribes, the warriors don a lot of make up. Ancient kings and noblemen wore a lot of jewellery.



These are all very interesting thoughts.
When it comes to make-up and jewelry, I think the deciding factor of whether a guy is feminine or not are his mannerisms. Men of all culteres have always groomed themselves and enhanced their attributes, but that doesn't mean they are feminine. The Vikings - the very archetype of masculinity had (despite what pop-culture says) a very rich "male culture". They groomed themselves thorougly. Archeological finds have revealed combs, tooth cleaning gear - even tiny little spoons made for picking ones nose so they wouldn't have to use their fingers. They had beautilful jewelry of gold silver and bronze, with the most intricate patterns and designs.

They didn't have make-up though.
From what I know, they didn't do warpainting.

But on the other hand, I hardly think warpainting counts as make-up of today's meaning. The difference is that today's meaning of make-up is to enhance your features of beauty. Warpaintings were done to look scary and intimidating in battle. It was made to hide facialexpressions of ones own intimidation and fear.

They're working hard, at least here in Europe to pitch make-up products to men. It's all the "new man"-crap. They claim, that when done correctly, the man-makeup should be invisible, only enhance his male attributes like cheekbones, chin, eyebrows etc. It's funny because last time i checked, these are the very same features that women are looking to enhance.

Result: I've never seen one single picture or person representing an example of this "new man", "invisible make-up" that doesn't look... made up with layers of foundation and eyeliner etc. They DO look more female and delicate with today's standard and association.

Today's Standard and Association make them feminine. The feminine mannerisms like exaggerated vanity also seem to follow.

Vanity is also an interesting concept.
There IS a difference between female vanity and male vanity. I think what I just mentioned above are examples where men - heterosexual men have crossed over into female vanity. I can't even explain the difference with words but I clearly percieve it. Can anybody else put words to it?


Love this thread. :wink:
Don't try to be a great man, just be a man...
User avatar
Ben
Member
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:23 am
Location: Indiana

Postby edu999 » Tue Sep 26, 2006 4:23 pm

As far as vanity is concerned, I think that there is no such thing as feminine or masculine vanity. All vain people want to look good, and want others to think they look good. That's neither feminine nor masculine. It's just simple vanity.
User avatar
edu999
Moderator
 
Posts: 680
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 2:31 am
Location: SF Bay Area, CA

Postby masculinity » Wed Sep 27, 2006 2:51 am

Ben wrote:These are all very interesting thoughts.
When it comes to make-up and jewelry, I think the deciding factor of whether a guy is feminine or not are his mannerisms.

Very true. And these mannerisms basically flow from the masculinity or femininity within. It is this mannerism which is difficult to hide under social roles of masculinity.

One can also develop a lot of muscles, but if there is a lot of femininity within, that will come out.

Both masculinity and femininity can be photographed as well. How many times have you looked at the photo of a male and said -- he looks so 'gay'. Masculinity and femininity spills through one's eyes, in the way one sees, one talks, one conducts himself/ herself.


Ben wrote:Men of all cultures have always groomed themselves and enhanced their attributes, but that doesn't mean they are feminine. The Vikings - the very archetype of masculinity had (despite what pop-culture says) a very rich "male culture". They groomed themselves thorougly. Archeological finds have revealed combs, tooth cleaning gear - even tiny little spoons made for picking ones nose so they wouldn't have to use their fingers. They had beautilful jewelry of gold silver and bronze, with the most intricate patterns and designs.


That's and interesting piece of information. Of course even today we see masculine men trying to look 'good' as well as 'masculine', all the time. They even wear jewellery ----- ear rings, finger rings etc.

And sure men want to look beautiful too --- but in a masculine way. In my society where 'fair' skin is valued, I knew male friends in adolescence who would do all sorts of things to look fair. One boy would slap his cheeks to redden them. He grew up to be a virile, handsome dude.

However, there is a basic difference in this 'preening' and that which is practised by women and feminine gendered males.

While the former is to enhance the masculine charm, the latter is to enhance the feminine charm. Though I would like to add that in the west the popular culture is fast obliterating this difference between masculine and feminine, with women donning more masculine look and men donning more feminine look. I think it is all going towards meterosexuality --- a necessary fall out of heterosexualisation.

Again, afterall, the male of a species is always better looking than the female and that is a 'biological' fact. Whether it is the birds or the mammals like the lion. It's the male peacock which has a beautiful pack of feathers. It is the lion which has a gorgeous bunch of hair on his face.

Our society wants to revert this biological fact (because it makes heterosexuality almost impossible) by making women don make-up. The female needs to heavily use 'make up' in order to look good. While all that the male needs to do is take care of and enhance what he has.

Notice that our society has also taken enormous measures to 'desexualise' male body --- to make it seem devoid of any sexual appeal. In a heterosexual society, while women are expected to deck up and expose their bodies --- men are expected to cover their bodies, in a way that plays down their sexual appeal.

Ben wrote:They didn't have make-up though.
From what I know, they didn't do warpainting.

But on the other hand, I hardly think warpainting counts as make-up of today's meaning. The difference is that today's meaning of make-up is to enhance your features of beauty. Warpaintings were done to look scary and intimidating in battle. It was made to hide facial expressions of ones own intimidation and fear.

You are right about war-painting. However, I don't think masculinity is only about looking scary and intimidating. You wouldn't want to look scary and intimidating when you're courting. Although, I do think I like myself the way I am, and wouldn't think about make-up of any variety.


Ben wrote:They're working hard, at least here in Europe to pitch make-up products to men. It's all the "new man"-crap. They claim, that when done correctly, the man-makeup should be invisible, only enhance his male attributes like cheekbones, chin, eyebrows etc. It's funny because last time i checked, these are the very same features that women are looking to enhance.

Result: I've never seen one single picture or person representing an example of this "new man", "invisible make-up" that doesn't look... made up with layers of foundation and eyeliner etc. They DO look more female and delicate with today's standard and association.

Today's Standard and Association make them feminine. The feminine mannerisms like exaggerated vanity also seem to follow.

The western society is fast gravitating towards meterosexualism, and there is an important reason. By the way, meterosexualtiy implies making women masculine and men feminine.

There is a deep relationship between transgenderism and heterosexuality (notwithstanding centuries of hype of male-female sex being masculine). Bonds can only develop between people who are 'alike'/ same/ equal. And a heterosexual society cannot survive if it does not 'queer' its men and women........that is make women masculine and men feminine in order to make them compatible.

Ben wrote:Love this thread. :wink:

Thank you!
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby masculinity » Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:08 am

Ben wrote:Vanity is also an interesting concept.
There IS a difference between female vanity and male vanity. I think what I just mentioned above are examples where men - heterosexual men have crossed over into female vanity. I can't even explain the difference with words but I clearly percieve it. Can anybody else put words to it?

In my view, like I mentioned before, transgenderism is intricately related with heterosexuality. Just compare women in western society and those in a society like India. The former are so 'masculine'. You have already mentioned about the feminisation of men. Heterosexualisation of men, to my mind is the first step in their feminisation. Also, feminists have an inherent interest in feminising men, and when feminists are in power, what can you expect. It does not mean that I hate femininity in men.

About male vanity: Our societies have long discarded natural masculinity. I think from the day they discarded masculine male bonds. They do not have any need for natural masculinity, and in fact view it with suspicion/ hostility. Industrialisation gave it the final blow. No natural power can match the power of the machine. Natural masculinity is dwarfed before the power of technology.

So, whatever we have in the name of masculinity today is mostly vain --- including 'heterosexuality'. Especially, in modern societies we are only interested in the outer, vain masculinity, which only gives an illusion of being masculine, without having the real thing within us (most of the time). Today masculinity just implies having a huge looking body --- that doesn't really know to fight for one's honour, roaming about with girls, and other such stuff. Noone cares for the inner qualities of masculinity which really mattered to the ancients --- like honour, straightforwardness, bravery, courage and other such stuff.

And perhaps more unfortunately, while the society has wiped out positive masculinity from our amidst, it has not been able to remove negative natural masculinity. So, whatever symbols we have today of natural masculinity is negative ----- men persecuting the weak, e.g.

edu999 wrote:As far as vanity is concerned, I think that there is no such thing as feminine or masculine vanity. All vain people want to look good, and want others to think they look good. That's neither feminine nor masculine. It's just simple vanity.

Although you are right at the higher level, after all we are all the same in the end. But at the ground level, I think the difference lies in the nature and direction of this vanity.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby masculinity » Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:19 am

edu999 wrote:As far as vanity is concerned, I think that there is no such thing as feminine or masculine vanity. All vain people want to look good, and want others to think they look good. That's neither feminine nor masculine. It's just simple vanity.

Are you saying that wanting to look good in itself is vain or that just caring about one's outer appearance and neglecting the development of inner qualities....is vain.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby CoyoteMan » Wed Oct 04, 2006 4:18 am

This blog speaks to me. It's what I've known in the pit of my soul all my life. Thanks to the author for putting it together.

Regarding the sexes and vanity, makeup, etc;

-Is it just me, or does makeup applied normally (not Tammy Faye Baker
style) make women look more like men? Most men have 'madeup'
lips, eyelashes, eyebrows, blush, etc. naturally.

Could it be that heterosexually identified men are less-than-conciously drawn to this 'masucline' quality added to the surface women?
CoyoteMan
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 4:08 am

Postby masculinity » Fri Oct 06, 2006 4:59 am

CoyoteMan wrote:This blog speaks to me. It's what I've known in the pit of my soul all my life. Thanks to the author for putting it together.

Regarding the sexes and vanity, makeup, etc;

-Is it just me, or does makeup applied normally (not Tammy Faye Baker
style) make women look more like men? Most men have 'madeup'
lips, eyelashes, eyebrows, blush, etc. naturally.

Could it be that heterosexually identified men are less-than-conciously drawn to this 'masucline' quality added to the surface women?

Thanks buddy. I am the author. Why don't you strengthen this effort by joining as a volunteer.

You are right on with your comment about heterosexuality.

You know I consider heterosexuality to be actually queer. I am planning to put together a number of evidences to support my point, drawn from history, contemporary society, and wild-life.

I am fighting against the formidable forces of heterosexualisation forced upon us by the west, and when people like you join us, we will be able to make a difference.

thanks once again!
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby masculinity » Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:01 am

Do you guys feel this poll is confusing. Would you like to make suggestions to reword it (is it possible to reword?).
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby CoyoteMan » Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:32 pm

Did the thread starter intend for it to be a poll?
CoyoteMan
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 4:08 am

Postby furface » Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:36 pm

One would have to assume so as only the author of the thread can create the poll questions; and it is now said author questioning his poorly worded poll questions.

While it is possible to edit/expand the basis of the poll, if he has 'better' and/or more accurate questions parsed, a new thead would be a better alternative.
"Do not ascribe malice to that which can be reasonably explained by ignorance ... or incompetence."
Isaac Asimov
User avatar
furface
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1175
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 7:35 pm
Location: The Colony, TX

Postby masculinity » Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:23 pm

furface wrote:One would have to assume so as only the author of the thread can create the poll questions; and it is now said author questioning his poorly worded poll questions.

While it is possible to edit/expand the basis of the poll, if he has 'better' and/or more accurate questions parsed, a new thead would be a better alternative.

Dear sir,

there is absolutely nothing wrong with the wording. Only it seems there are somethings that many westerners don't understand and are too conceited to try to understand........something I pin down to cultural factors. The inability to understand or account for gender as a separate entity from sex is one of them.

Hence, I am offering to change the words in a way that westerners can understand, so that they don't ignorantly push the wrong button.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby foxeyes2 » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:03 pm

masculinity wrote:
furface wrote:One would have to assume so as only the author of the thread can create the poll questions; and it is now said author questioning his poorly worded poll questions.

While it is possible to edit/expand the basis of the poll, if he has 'better' and/or more accurate questions parsed, a new thead would be a better alternative.

Dear sir,

there is absolutely nothing wrong with the wording. Only it seems there are somethings that many westerners don't understand and are too conceited to try to understand........something I pin down to cultural factors. The inability to understand or account for gender as a separate entity from sex is one of them.


Hence, I am offering to change the words in a way that westerners can understand, so that they don't ignorantly push the wrong button.


Dear sir: Why do you ask for input then when given requested input you declare that it is wrong? Then on top of saying that the input in incorrect you also insult the person by stating that they are too conceited to understand. If you do not wish to get an answer that you do not like then you should not ask the question in the first place. I think that you owe Furface an apology for stating that he is conceited. Furface is many things but I can assure you Sir from my personal interaction with him that conceited is not one of them. I trust that you will do the right thing.
We are all one tribe. We are all one people.
Reduce Reuse Recycle
foxeyes2
Moderator
 
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 6:51 am
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby CoyoteMan » Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:56 am

This is a sad situation, as the originator of this thread really is onto something here. The retort was harsh, yeah, but the content of his site can provide some valuable insights around the angle we westerners have on sex, gender, masculinity, femininity, etc. I hope he comes back to the thread with an olive branch.
CoyoteMan
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 4:08 am

Postby rovie » Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:37 am

Do you think Gender (i.e. is masculinity and/or femininity) is biological? There are only two sexes. Gender is purely a social construction? Both masculinity and femininity are basically natural traits?


For most creatures generally it's biologically determined but for humans it will be that AND a social construction. So since I was responding as a human I'd go for 'Gender is ...... a social construction?'. I'm not going by ideals but but what actually happens.
love thy neighbour
User avatar
rovie
Moderator
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:38 am
Location: Sydney/Central Coast, Australia

Postby masculinity » Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:14 am

foxeyes2 wrote:Dear sir: Why do you ask for input then when given requested input you declare that it is wrong? Then on top of saying that the input in incorrect you also insult the person by stating that they are too conceited to understand. If you do not wish to get an answer that you do not like then you should not ask the question in the first place. I think that you owe Furface an apology for stating that he is conceited. Furface is many things but I can assure you Sir from my personal interaction with him that conceited is not one of them. I trust that you will do the right thing.

Foxeyes2,

(1) I have no problem apologising to anyone whom I may have hurt ----- it's all unintentional I assure you........

However when someone throws something at you with an intention to incite, it is not always possible to avoid such confrontations. Negativity begets more negativity.

I would not have responded negatively, had Furface not tried to put me down by telling me that I worded my poll poorly, when actually I have not. We have been through the discussion on the poll statement, but if Furface felt it was poorly worded he should have discussed it, in a positve way if possible.

I felt that Furface was trying to look smart at my expense, but I now realise I may have been wrong.

(2) You ask, "Why do you ask for input then when given requested input you declare that it is wrong?"

Let me see if I can explain.

The input is exactly what I would like to see. It supports everything I am saying --- that gender is not just a social construct but is also biological. However in the ensuing discussions, almost no one has supported my contention that gender is biological, and that biological gender is different from biological sex. Apparently, they said one thing on the poll, and quite another in the discussions. Don't you think there is a problem somewhere.

Because, I have had this discussion at several western forums, and I have encountered the same problem again and again (I don't have that problem on Indian forums), I have tried to analyse the problem. And I think I know what it is.

And that 'conceited' thing is not directed at Furface at all. It is a general statement --- and very true. Because, the normal reaction of westerners is, "well I know gender is not biological (i.e., natural) and I don't care what evidence or arguments you bring up....... I am right because that is what my culture says, and I don't want to discuss it beyong that."

This close mindedness can only be attributed to a belief that the west knows the best. It is not only the westerners who think that, btw. Most elites in my country think that way too, and don't think twice before junking age old Indian wisdom for ideas imported from the west --- without examining their worth.

I hope I have cleared much of the negativity with this.
Last edited by masculinity on Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby masculinity » Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:38 am

CoyoteMan wrote:This is a sad situation, as the originator of this thread really is onto something here. The retort was harsh, yeah, but the content of his site can provide some valuable insights around the angle we westerners have on sex, gender, masculinity, femininity, etc. I hope he comes back to the thread with an olive branch.

Thank you Coyote for your encouraging words. I am not totally unwanted here after all.
Last edited by masculinity on Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Postby masculinity » Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:30 am

rovie wrote:
Do you think Gender (i.e. is masculinity and/or femininity) is biological? There are only two sexes. Gender is purely a social construction? Both masculinity and femininity are basically natural traits?


For most creatures generally it's biologically determined but for humans it will be that AND a social construction. So since I was responding as a human I'd go for 'Gender is ...... a social construction?'. I'm not going by ideals but but what actually happens.


You are exactly on dot. I am amazed. You are the first westerner who has acknowledged gender to be a natural phenomena. And there is no denying that apart from the natural gender, humans have created their own version of gender.

However, I would encourage you to re-examine your second statement. You are saying that 'nature' is an ideal, and what the society has constructed is the 'real' thing, the only thing that should matter to human beings.

In my opinion, society is what we make it. By fixing gender arbitrarily and sometimes against what is natural, we harm humans. Such arbitrary social constructions are forced through unethical ways including violence. As a human being I should actually be saying that I will go with the natural thing, because that is the only real gender. And that social construction will have to fit in with the natural one.
Gays are a different species altogether from men (and women). They're not "men who like men," they are "third gender who like men."

http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com
masculinity
Member
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:44 pm
Location: India

Previous

Return to Straight Acting Men

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron