|
InvisibleBlack -> RE: Forced Masculinity, Take 2 (1/21/2010 6:36:47 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23
quote:
ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack
Evidence, please.
The entire canon of western literature, starting with the story of Genesis and continuing up to Bridget Jones' Diary. I mean seriously man, you're asking for evidence for something that is a basic assumption in literary studies, in feminism, in sociology, etc. If you really need me to provide evidence for this then I would suggest you're simply not prepared to be involved in a serious discussion of this subject...
Now ... generally when someone says something like this I assume what they're trying to say is "You're just wrong." or "That's just the way it is." neither of which is a valid argument or discussion point and generally is indicative of a closed mind or a narrow viewpoint. I think what you're saying here is that for you it is so foundational that it isn't questioned - in which case I'm asking you to question it. The entire reason I'm engaging in this discussion is that certain of the comments you made questioned things I take for granted, and since I take them for granted I am, by their very nature, unable to question them - while you are. Whatever the result, it's given me insight into why I believe what I believe and how I think about these issues and for that I thank you.
If the best you can come up with is "that's just the way it is" then it needs some expansion.
Also ... allowing me the entirety of "Western literature starting with the story of Genesis" to play with is pretty much allowing me cherry pick any example I want to prove my point. Hey, Adam and Eve - so Eve eats the apple from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and then gives it Adam and he eats it. So Eve is the active one, choosing knowledge over immortality and Adam is the passive one - just kind of going along. So when God shows up and throws a hissy fit, Adam points to his wife and goes "She made me do it!". That's not "bold" or "assertive". So Adam, the primordial man, is less masculine than Eve? Do I have this right?
When the rampant suitors invade her home while her husband is away, Penelope is unable to fight them off (showing that she's not "masculine", yes). However, she managed to retain leadership of her household and prevent them from achieving their aims for years by means of her "feminine wiles" while Odysseus, being cursed by Poseidon, is stumbling around the Mediterranean trying to get home (I don't want to be too hard on Odysseus - I do like the guy). Penelope was widely held up in classic Greek culture as the ideal wife, the perfect woman. While she was not bold and strong, she was intelligent, creative, faithful, enduring and unyielding. Obviously their view of "feminine" is at odds with yours.
Concepts of masculine and feminine, as has been discussed, are societal or cultural concepts and as such, change over time. I suspect Leonidas of Sparta wouldn't find anyone on this board even vaguely "masculine". A Viking from the era when the eddas and sagas were written probably has a radically different definiiton of masculine and feminine than a Victorian gentleman from 1880's London and both of their views wouldn't mesh with an Afghan muslim's today. When you said your concept was "traditional" it seemed to imply that there was one universal concept which all cultures and traditions followed - which I why I asked you for examples or evidence. It seems to me that your view of "feminine" is very Victorian in its outlook. They held that women were highly emotional creatures incapable of higher cognitive thought. I don't believe that view is universal nor than it can be seriously claimed that it applies to modern Western culture.In fact, I would argue that even in the Victorian era it didn't truly apply - as the very gentleman who would state such a view and hold up his prim and dainty wife as a perfect example, would later that evening go and see his lively, vivacious and witty mistress - indicating a pretty sharp dichotomy in their view of "feminine" as well as the vaunted Victorian hypocrisy.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23
...and need to adopt a student mind rather than trying to argue from a position of gross ignorance.
It's been a long time since someone condescended at me. It's cute.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23
quote:
I would agree that the term "strong" does correspond with "masculine" but that does not necessarily imply that "weak" must apply to "feminine"
Yes, actually, it does necessarily imply that. That is how duality works. If A is X, then -A is -X. If masculinity is strong (A=X), then femininity is weak (-A=-X).
No, it doesn't imply that. Masculine and feminine are not polar opposites, like pH or electrical charge where adding a little acid makes something less basic or adding an electron makes something less positive. They are aspects of the human condition and as such share a common ground.
Elsewhere you stated that "masculine" and "feminine" are value neutral, but that's not true. Up until recent gender issues arose, calling someone "masculine" or a "man's man" was perceived as a compliment. Being "masculine" was seen as having a distillation of masculine virtues. Masculine men were admired. Feminine is a little more difficult to see as women were seen as inferior, but in a culture, for its given time, to call a woman "feminine" would still be intended as a compliment. The Victorian housewife would not be offended by being called feminine - she would be appreciative of it. Feminine attributes were seen as being complimentary to the male attributes - not in opposition to them. If "femininity" refers to qualities and behaviors judged by a particular culture to be ideally associated with or especially appropriate to women and girls - then it isn't a value neutral term but instead intended to be a positive.
Removing one set of virtues from a person does not necessarily mean that they would acquire the complimentary set. So if a man were a spineless, treacherous, repulsive craven (a la Gollum) he would lack all masculine traits but not be feminine or have feminine traits. If a woman were a nagging, shrewish, ill-tempered hag she would be decidedly unfeminine without becoming masculine.
Masculine and feminine are not two opposing points on a line, but more two sections of a larger plane with little or no overlap between them. One can move away from masculine towards feminine (i.e. be feminized) or vice versa, or can move away from both of them.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23
Okay. I don't really understand the argument we're having here. From my perspective, it seems like you are simply being obtuse because you don't want to acknowledge that weakness is a feminine quality, as implied by the claim that strength is a masculine quality.
Actually, I think you're just refusing to acknowledge my point - but it's your privilege to feel I'm being obtuse.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23
quote:
Ah, you've now introduced "yielding" and "soft" as feminine requirements. I suppose that goes with "weak".
I'm not the one introducing them. Look, here's some more randomly selected lists of feminine and masculine qualities assembled by people who are not me...
The internet isn't the one who brought those definitions up or defended them - you did. It's easy to web search and find almost anything to prove your point:
Feminine: possessing the qualities and behaviors judged by a particular culture to be ideally associated with or especially appropriate to women and girls - i.e. gentility, charm, grace, poise, empathy, patience, kindness, affectionate, compassionate
Feminine traits: trust, cooperation, compassion, interpersonal communication and a nonthreatening demeanor
Are these lists any more valuable than the ones you put forward? No. They're just lists I picked off the internet because they disagree with your view. The fact that someone who is "not me" assembled them doesn't alter the fact that I went and found them. With good enough Google-fu you can pretty much find a site that will support any view. I mean, come on, months ago I posted a site that claimed that Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for bombing the secret Nazi base on the dark side of the moon with the NASA LCROSS lander and ending World War II.
Although, I did find a definition of "the traditional American model of masculinity" which was "a rare combination of masculine toughness and stoicism with doing good (i.e. Superman)". I kind of like that.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23
From a sociology textbook:
Feminine Traits: Submissive, Dependent, Unintelligent and Incapable, Emotional, Receptive, Intuitive, Weak, Timid, Content, Passive, Cooperative, Sensitive, Sex object, Attractive because of physical appearance
I'm rather curious - what's the date of publication of that sociology textbook?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23
Strength is masculine, you already agreed to that. By saying she is strong, you are attributing a masculine quality (and again, you've already agreed to this!) to her.
Ah. Fine. Perhaps I used the wrong term. If I used the word "powerful" instead would that be better? That a woman can have power that is different from a man's without being masculine? If Mata Hari achieves the objective differently than James Bond - can they both be successful and competent and yet Mata can be feminine and James can be masculine?
I do see, however, that in your view if the "idealized woman" is the polar opposite of the "idealized man" and the "idealized man" has all the masculine virtues, than rather than being an uber-woman, she would have to be a "negative man" - which would indeed be an extremely bad thing. I feel that this kind of muddy thinking has infested far too much of social discourse and caused far too much grief - whether in hypocritical 1800's England or today.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23
Her language is never confrontational, she tries to see other's side, apologizes for disagreeing, sometimes even apologizes for having her own opinion, etc. The early Disney princesses, Snow White, Cinderella and especially Sleeping Beauty are all extremely feminine archetypes.
Whoa. Okay ... hang on a sec. Your highest example of femininity is the Princess Aurora in Sleeping Beauty? The woman who spends the better part of the plot unconscious? I agree with you that the "damsel in distress" is as valid a feminine archetype as the "femme fatale" ... but to hold up an unconscious victim as the perfect example of being feminine - I think even the Victorians wouldn't go that far. I'm pretty sure the Victorian man wanted his woman awake and aware. You don't see that the point you're putting forward is extreme?
It's actually kind of humorous since the Disney film is based on the somewhat darker Brothers Grimm tale - which I believe has its roots in the Nordic Volsung Saga - where Brunhilde the Valkyrie confronts Odin, the All-Father of the Gods and in punishment for this is cursed to slumber until awakened by a kiss from a man - who she must marry. Odin later takes pity on her and surrounds her with a ring of fire that can only be passed by a man without fear - thus ensuring that Brunhilde will have a worthy husband. Of course, this turns out to be the hero Siegfried who after slaying the dragon Fafnir hears of Brunhilde's plight and goes to rescue to her. The whole thing ends messily and bloodily, but all the Norse sagas do. Anyways, Brunhilde is a much more active and resourceful female protagonist than Aurora - but then again I suspect to the Norse the term "feminine" had little correspondance with "weak" or "timid".
quote:
ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23
Very feminine characters tend to be rare in fiction and literature, usually playing an exceedingly minor role...
I don't think this is accurate. Stories, tales, myths and the like, even modern fiction, exist to transfer knowledge, to enforce or change social mores and beliefs - I would argue that just as many characters throughout literature and fiction are held up as ideals for men to aspire to, many female characters are put there as ideals for women to aspire to. If you find "feminine women" rare in fiction and literature, I would suggest that this is because your view of what is feminine does not conform with that of the people creating the fiction and literature.
Now off with the feminine and on to the masculine!
quote:
ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23
quote:
I wasn't trying to put forward the Western hero as an example of a masculine submissive. I was trying to show that masculinity does not require dominance. Being independent is not being dominant. Refusing to submit is not being dominant. Being in complete control of yourself is not being dominant. Dominance and submission are by their very nature social attributes. Someone alone, the "perfect loner", can be neither dominant nor submissive.
I disagree completely. Like 100% with every single thing you just wrote. That is, in my opinion, the very definition of being dominant.
I don't want to go too far into this, since arguing the definition of "dominant" on a BDSM board is like arguing what the "nature of God" is at a religious convocation - actually, I suspect it's more like arguing what the definition of "goth" is in a goth club - but I think that your definition of dominant differs from that of the majority of people and from standard usage.
The loner is not dominant. In the wolf pack, the "lone wolf" is not dominant. The alpha male is. The alpha male leads the pack. If for some reason a lone wolf and the pack's alpha male got into a fight and the lone wolf killed the alpha male - the lone wolf would still not be dominant unless he took up leadership of the pack and became the new alpha male. If the lone wolf wandered off again - then the beta wolf would assume leadership of the pack and become dominant.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being a loner - I'm just saying that it's not dominant. Dominance, by definition, requires that you be dominant over someone. At this point there's really no purpose to debating whether one can be masculine without being dominant since we're not using the word in the same way at all and never will.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23
quote:
Moving on - since the Western hero is only one masculine archetype - when we look at such masculine models as the football star, the marines raising the flag at Iwo Jima, the Spartans at Thermopylae and the like - would you agree that it's possible to be extremely masculine and be a team player? That independence is not a prerequisite for being masculine?
It depends on whether you embrace fascism or not.
*blink* Okay. You lost me.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23
I'm entirely serious when I say that the archetypes you just listed are not masculine archetypes but fascist archetypes. Two types of soldier and football players, and everyone knows that football is just a big metaphor for trench warfare. I don't want to get into a massive digression on this point...
I probably should have used hockey. I often refer to football as a limited scale wargame - but I was trying to pick a masculine sport and football came to mind first.
However - I absolutely don't want to go into this digression as it would result in a massive threadjack to no purpose. I do want to ask a question though - you do understand that your viewpoint here is seriously skewed from the normal? That's it's not the typical viewpoint?
Because if "masculinity" is those qualities a society or culture traditionally ascribes to men then it's the common viewpoint that describes those qualities and not the divergent view. Most people view martial icons as extremely masculine - whether Sergeant York or George Patton or the Light Brigade or whoever. Terms like heroism and valor are generally viewed as masculine.
I'm not sure that there's much purpose in going back and forth on this as we seem to differ on such basic terms as dominant and such basic concepts as the masculine team member but for the sake of those souls hardy enough to read this far along - I'll at least show where I was going with this. I recognize that you view the totally isolated and independant loner as dominant and masculine and so this argument will have no validity for you but I think it does have validity for the majority of people so I want to get it out there.
If one can be masculine and be a team player - as on a hockey team or a military squad (or even a team such as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid) then independence isn't a masculine trait. Beyond that - leadership isn't a masculine trait. What do I mean? Quite often the leader - the team captain, the squad leader, the big boss - the one who makes the decisions and controls the group - is not the most masculine.
If you look at the knights of the Round Table - Arthur was dominant. He was the king. He was the king as a boy and when half the kings in England rebelled against the idea of serving a boy - Arthur united the remaining kings, welded their forces into a huge army, and utterly smashed all the opposition at the age of something like 15. Arthur was quite dominant - he ruled, controlled, led - whatever nifty adjective you want to attach to the term. Arthur's ideals became the guiding vision of all of England. Arthur gathered the toughest and bravest men he could find to enforce his ideals - and they did. Arthur was not, however, the most masculine knight at the court. Several knights were bolder, stronger, braver, more rugged, more competent, whatever than Arthur. Lancelot, Gawaine, Lamorack, Tristram were just outright bigger, tougher, bolder, etc.
They served Arthur.
Many men - many extremely masculine men - look to serve a higher ideal. Something bigger than themselves. Sometimes it's a grand and noble cause, or a country, or a vision. Sometime it's in pursuit of a powerful emotion - revenge, love, anger. Sometimes it's a person - the family patriarch, the great teacher, the profound love, the worthy leader. They gain their sense of success, their recognition of their achievement from that service. Whether the cause or the ideal or the person they're serving is worthy of that service is a value judgement - and no truly masculine man is going to accept someone else's value judgement over what his own sense of self is telling him to do.
That's my ten cents. Time for dinner.
[Edited. Typos. You know the song.]
[Edit 2: Great googly-moogly, this is long. This is a treatise. I apologize. I'll try and be more concise (or less verbose) in the future.]
|
|
|
|
