Are modern men 'too feminine'?

jeanjolie

Before anyone accuses me of being a backwards-ass conservative Catholic...The title is click-bait and I'm actually a feminine man myself.

The reason why I ask is because this is a 'common' belief among a sizeable majority/minority of people. Even in relatively liberal countries (Canada, America- excluding Deep South and Midwest, most Western European countries), you hear people complaining that society has feminized young men <phrase deleted>, focus too much on their appearance,no longer act like gentlemen by showing respect towards elders and women/children and don't know how to use their physical aggression properly

AFAIK, these all seem ridiculous to me. It may be only my experience in Ireland which is still quasi-conservative with a few liberal elements, but I don't think most men could be considered relatively feminine at all. Not that being a traditionally masculine man is wrong or better but the vast majority seem to fall in life with masculinity and most women fall into femininity but there is a greater variation in the latter. I don't even think I've seen 'metrosexual' guys who are are into doing their hair into pixie cuts. (Friends told me she knows 4 guys on bus that she's and claims that feminine men are an epidemic).

What's your experience with men and masculinity/femininity and what are your own opinions?

JackTaylorFan

jeanjolie wrote: »

(Friends told me she knows 4 guys on bus that she's and claims that feminine men are an epidemic).

I don't know if your friend was just voicing her frustration of not being able to meet a more masculine man or what, but to refer to what she perceives is happening as an "epidemic" is kind of a worrying thing. That word implies a lot.

jeanjolie wrote: »

What's your experience with men and masculinity/femininity and what are your own opinions?

I think as a society we are slowly becoming more aware of non-binary people - though I'm not sure it will ever be a thing where a major percentage of the populace won't identify as either male of female.

More androgynous type people for whatever reason seem to garner all sorts of extreme responses from a society steeped in binary - ranging from extreme kink to extreme rage - and sometimes both.

Me personally, as a woman: I'm probably a 3 (maybe 4) on the ridiculous scale below and would be looking, ideally, for a partner who would balance us out to a 12 - therefore I find effeminate men unattractive in a romantic capacity - as i believe they would not fulfill the role I desire in a partner - I have no issue beyond this. It is also true I would find overly masculine men unattractive. I would be looking for a 9.





I wonder if any of that makes sense to people who don't subscribe to gender being on a spectrum.

Probably not.

Oh well.

silverharp

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Me personally, as a woman: I'm probably a 3 (maybe 4) on the ridiculous scale below and would be looking, ideally, for a partner who would balance us out to a 12 - therefore I find effeminate men unattractive in a romantic capacity - as i believe they would not fulfill the role I desire in a partner - I have no issue beyond this. It is also true I would find overly masculine men unattractive. I would be looking for a 9.





I wonder if any of that makes sense to people who don't subscribe to gender being on a spectrum.

Probably not.

Oh well.

I wouldn't agree with putting both sexes on the same scale and the recent fad of trying to label "57 genders" is nonsense coming out of Tumblr or the nuttery of US academia.
But sure both men and women can be seen as more "feminine" or "masculine" or the other term used being Alpha male or female or Beta male or female or people are just a mix of both traits.

As for the original question, no idea. there certainly could be issues in countries like the US where a lot of kids don't grow up with fathers as role models so boys either might be more likely to get their role models from negative sources like gangs or grow up basically surrounded by women between school and home and might appear to have less masculine qualities than they might otherwise have had.

JackTaylorFan

silverharp wrote: »

I wouldn't agree with putting both sexes on the same scale and the recent fad of trying to label "57 genders" is nonsense coming out of Tumblr or the nuttery of US academia.
But sure both men and women can be seen as more "feminine" or "masculine" or the other term used being Alpha male or female or Beta male or female or people are just a mix of both traits.

Okay, forget the silly chart.

I think really what we are talking about is the variance of gender - regardless of sex. So I still see no reason why you can't have all sexes on the same scale/spectrum. If one's gender becomes entirely incongruent to the gender they identify you get transgender - i.e. Person A: female chromosomes, but identifies as male. This is pretty much the way all progressive schools of thought view gender these days.

I agree 57 gender is a bit of internet nonsense - but there are certainly more than 2 genders, you'd agree? Unless you stick rigidly to binary and believe sex determines gender - in which case, explain intersex people?

silverharp wrote: »

As for the original question, no idea. there certainly could be issues in countries like the US where a lot of kids don't grow up with fathers as role models so boys either might be more likely to get their role models from negative sources like gangs or grow up basically surrounded by women between school and home and might appear to have less masculine qualities than they might otherwise have had.

That's just Freudian claptrap - I've spoken to a number of psychologists who've spent their career specializing in gender and the theory of no father figure causing "less masculine qualities" in a child has been debunked as nonsense. Though it's the same theory used by homophobic bigots for decades.

BlinkingLights

Considering that a few centuries ago aristocrats faffed around in silks and the flounciest biggest collars imaginable and dressed like peacocks and that was considered 'masculine'.

I would reckon men are men and rating masculinity is just a load of ....

brevity

What's considered too feminine though? Using moisturiser? Crying? Talking about what's bothering them?

Should i be a manly man and keep everything bottled up so much so that i resort to offing myself or turn to drink/drugs...

What should a man be?

JackTaylorFan

BlinkingLights wrote: »

Considering that a few centuries ago aristocrats faffed around in silks and the flounciest biggest collars imaginable and dressed like peacocks and that was considered 'masculine'.

I would reckon men are men and rating masculinity is just a load of ....

So your argument is: the idea of masculinity and femininity doesn't exist?

JackTaylorFan

brevity wrote: »

What should a man be?

an individual?

brevity

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

an individual?

I'd agree with that, but couldn't that also apply to women?

A man needs to be like this, a woman needs to be like that....the whole argument is baffling to me really.

Arghus

A million new kids coming into the world every 4 dsys or so. Men seem to be working fine.

JackTaylorFan

brevity wrote: »

I'd agree with that, but couldn't that also apply to women?

A man needs to be like this, a woman needs to be like that....the whole argument is baffling to me really.

So you don't subscribe to gender construct at all? So assuming you are a man - why do you wear trousers instead of a nice free flowing skirt?

silverharp

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Okay, forget the silly chart.

I think really what we are talking about is the variance of gender - regardless of sex. So I still see no reason why you can't have all sexes on the same scale/spectrum. If one's gender becomes entirely incongruent to the gender they identify you get transgender - i.e. Person A: female chromosomes, but identifies as male. This is pretty much the way all progressive schools of thought view gender these days.

I agree 57 gender is a bit of internet nonsense - but there are certainly more than 2 genders, you'd agree? Unless you stick rigidly to binary and believe sex determines gender - in which case, explain intersex people?

in my head there are either 2 genders which are grounded in biological sex or no genders and is just a subjective idea. I don't think people with a medical condition constitute a third gender or sex.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

That's just Freudian claptrap - I've spoken to a number of psychologists who've spent their career specializing in gender and the theory of no father figure causing "less masculine qualities" in a child has been debunked as nonsense. Though it's the same theory used by homophobic bigots for decades.

Freud doesn't need to come into it . I'd say that how masculine someone is primarily down to genetics and testosterone. However lacking a male roll model has to be judged as something that would have a negative effect on someone and not a positive effect all things being equal, not withstanding that the particular male roll model might be toxic themselves in which case none would be better.

silverharp

Arghus wrote: »

A million new kids coming into the world every 4 dsys or so. Men seem to be working fine.

in the third world sure, what about certain European countries or Japan


what about these cats? cant see them being any use to the Japanese military if they want to attack Pearl again :pac:

JackTaylorFan

silverharp wrote: »

in my head there are either 2 genders which are grounded in biological sex or no genders and is just a subjective idea. I don't think people with a medical condition constitute a third gender or sex.

A medical condition?

Oh, I think I get where you are coming from but just for fun could you elaborate, please?

silverharp wrote: »

Freud doesn't need to come into it . I'd say that how masculine someone is primarily down to genetics and testosterone. However lacking a male roll model has to be judged as something that would have a negative effect on someone and not a positive effect all things being equal, not withstanding that the particular male roll model might be toxic themselves in which case none would be better.

No, you are confusing the quality of femininity in a man to that of social delinquency. Which is troubling.

But I agree: there are many negative social aspects to not having a good male role model ( Psst... I emboldened the "role" bit especially for your benefit ). Your argument is poor: there is still no link to gender variation. You are trying to conflate one very negative quality with one that is benign.

silverharp

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

A medical condition?

Oh, I think I get where you are coming from but just for fun could you elaborate, please?

I just mean that inter sex is a disorder or whatever term you want to put on it so I don't think it adds much to the gender arguments, it seems to be used to "prove" that somehow the male female as basic categories isn't true

No, you are confusing the quality of femininity in a man to that of social delinquency. Which is troubling.

I don't think so , if you mean social delinguency as in violent or criminal or something Im not implying the individual is less masculine, more that they adopt a negative model of masculinity because of their poor "role" models. For instance sometime you hear the term "hyper-masculinity" used for the behaviour of gang members. That's not a useful term because for me hyper should mean better or more of, they aren't better men they are delinquents.
the other point I was suggesting was that its possible to over "mother" boys whereas a positive father figure would bring more balance to a boy's upbringing. In terms of a boy I'd suggest that less masculine doesn't have to mean more feminine, they just havnt hit their masculine potential if you will

RDM_83 again

BlinkingLights wrote: »

Considering that a few centuries ago aristocrats faffed around in silks and the flounciest biggest collars imaginable and dressed like peacocks and that was considered 'masculine'.

I would reckon men are men and rating masculinity is just a load of ....

But if we are going to engage in broad strokes those same aristocrats would have mainly been hyper masculine by modern standards, deeply concerned with personal honour and willing to fight and die for perceived slights. Being a peacock doesn't preclude masculinity.

This is a famous quote by a French cavalry officer from the period your probably referring to

"My friend, any hussar who does not die by thirty is a blackguard..."

BlinkingLights

It's all about being confident in your own skin and being comfortable about being yourself.

The definition of what's acceptably "masculine" has changed enormously over the decades and centuries. Masculine fashion a few hundred odd years ago was powdered wiggs and the fanciest silks you could afford - there was nothing non masculine about it.

The biggest change I'm seeing is being accused of being gay is no longer something that worries most straight men and they're a hell of a lot freer now to be in touch with their emotions and be themselves.

I think in many ways that concept that was brought up by Panti Bliss about people "checking themselves" about being masculine and heterosexual looking applies to everyone, it's not just drag queens, it's the lad going around putting on a persona in case anyone thinks he might be gay.

Sure go back to the 1950s and 60s and guys wouldn't push a buggy or a pram weirdly in case anyone thought they were a sissy. Now many of us go around being super dad with babies and all their various bags of equipment hanging out of us and consider it to be a really important and masculine thing to do.

In Ireland anyway, I think most of those old crazy things are fading away.

I actually think fixation on guys' masculinity is a form of oppression. If as a way of controlling men - turning us into compliant, emotionless drones who dressed in dull colours, didn't cry, didn't complain and worked down coalmines and as canon fodder while our "betters" in the upper classes felt no such restrictions and endulged their artistic sides.

To me fixations on gender roles and fixation on people's sexual orientation is just a means of putting people into boxes and controlling who they are with social bullying.

Just be yourself and enjoy it!

nozzferrahhtoo

The problem for me with answering a question like the Thread Title is that there are too parts of the question I can not understand.

The first is what it even means to be masculine or feminine. For example you list this under masculine traits........

jeanjolie wrote: »

no longer act like gentlemen by showing respect towards elders and women/children and don't know how to use their physical aggression properly

............. and I would see them as applying as equally to women as to men in general. And this is a trend I see a lot. When people try to explain to me what it means to be "masculine" or "a gentleman" they invariably list things that I would equally apply to a quality woman too.

The second issue I have is the "too" part of the question. For someone to be "too" much of something, I would suspect the something in question must be either a negative thing...... or something that starts out positive but ends up negative in excess. But here again the examples listed tend to apply to BOTH sexes, not one or the other. Take your other text for example:

jeanjolie wrote: »

focus too much on their appearance

Focusing on your appearance is a good thing I think, is again not something I think of as EITHER a masculine OR feminine trait exclusively. But focusing on it to excess I would see as a negative in BOTH sexes too. So again I am not seeing a man/woman or masculine/feminine distinction here to parse the question into anything I could meaningfully answer.

So really I think I need help or education on what these terms even mean, and what distinguishes them from each other, before I could even BEGIN to wonder if one group is "too much" like the other in some way.

What I SUSPECT is probably happening is something slightly different. We as a society may be letting go of archaic, useless, often damaging, and very often sexist ideas of "Gender Roles" and what men and women should or should not be doing. We are starting to learn that on average, aside from their obvious roles in the process of reproduction, there IS no differences of any useful significance between the sexes. And perhaps the word would be a better place if people were treated based on their individuality and merits rather than based on what "box" we can put them into.

Guy Sajer

I'm sure new technology and availability of services help create the impression that men are becoming less macho.
Alot of us have/had a dad or grandpa that used to fix everything. Nowadays you can book online or call any denomination of services to come and do it for you.

Daledge

I thought this non-binary sh!te had come and gone?

I don't care what you act like, but you're either a male if you have a penis or a female if you have a vagina. Unless you're in the small percentage that are born without either genitilia, or similar circumstances, you can't just "choose" to identify as one or the other depending on how you feel.

If I didn't get along with one of my biological parents I couldn't just choose to identify someone else as my birth mother. That's just life, play the cards your dealt and stop wining about it.

I hate this generation.

nozzferrahhtoo

Not sure what "this generation" has to do with anything. Have you in some way established that gender identity has only arisen as a phenomenon in recent times? Or has it pretty much always existed and is just recently becoming fodder for Social Justice Warriors and Twitter flame wars? And as for "whining" you would so far be the only person in the thread I have seen who has done any, or expressed anger or hatred for or towards anyone.

I think gender identity is another subject altogether but even then I do not think it is merely about what the "choose" to do. I doubt they wake up one morning and simply say "I think I will be a man from now on". I genuinely expect there to be a lot more going on at the level of the brain than that.

Let us take an example from something unrelated. There are a number of people, quite a few of them out there, who go around wanting one or more of their perfectly healthy limbs removed. Of course the first reaction of lay people, and many people in the psychological sciences, was to merely assume such people must be simply insane in some way. After all for most of us the idea of losing an entire limb is a horror story, so the idea that someone actively WANT to lose one is as bat-s-crazy as it gets.

But these people are complaining that this limb or limbs is making them entirely miserable. They YEARN to have it removed. They describe all levels of things from acute depression to actual physical pain. And some of them travel to countries with more labile medical ethics to get the limb removed and they come home expressing all kinds of relief and happiness and freedom.

As we learn more and more about conditions like "Phantom limb syndrome" however we begin to understand the underlying causes that make these people want to lose their limb. We have learned that the brain maintains a body map of sorts (sorry if I am going over lay man on this, I do not mean to offend in doing so) and if this goes out of sync with the other inputs and processes the brain maintains then it results in misery for the individual.

So we realize these people are not insane. There are genuine processes at the level of the brain that result in them actively, genuinely, and positively wanting to lose a limb. They did not wake up one morning and simply decide it would be a nice change in life to have an arm lopped off.

I strongly suspect that when it comes to gender identity we are going to find similar hormonal and/or neurological foundations for what these people are feeling and there is no basis at all for judgement of them, let alone hatred of either them OR the generation in which they find themselves.

But as I said at the opening of the post, there is likely differences between being feminine or masculine, and gender identity. As I said I am not generally sure I know what it even means to "be masculine" but people like Eddie Izzard spring to mind. He is a man I have high respect for in both body and mind. He learns foreign languages and European history essentially on a whim, he runs insane quantities of marathons in equally insane short periods of time. His stamina, endurance, strength of character are highly respectable.

He also, quite often, like to dress in women's clothing. Yet he identifies as entirely male, and entirely heterosexual at that.

So I would simply be cautious before conflating masculinity, or lack of it whatever it might be, with gender identity. It would seem to me that the former is quite often not a matter of gender or sex, but of social fashion and mores.

jeanjolie

Daledge wrote: »

If I didn't get along with one of my biological parents I couldn't just choose to identify someone else as my birth mother. That's just life, play the cards your dealt and stop wining about it.

I hate this generation.

What do you mean by that? I take this in two ways;

Obviously claiming that someone else is your biological mother is delusional seeing as genetics proves otherwise, however are you in this case talking aboutwanting another mother or believing someone else is your mother (i.e. your analogy is a young black man wanting to be a young white girl or believing he is a young white girl?

jeanjolie

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What I SUSPECT is probably happening is something slightly different. We as a society may be letting go of archaic, useless, often damaging, and very often sexist ideas of "Gender Roles" and what men and women should or should not be doing. We are starting to learn that on average, aside from their obvious roles in the process of reproduction, there IS no differences of any useful significance between the sexes. And perhaps the word would be a better place if people were treated based on their individuality and merits rather than based on what "box" we can put them into.

I don't really think so..I'd love for that to be true but.....that's not the case even in 'liberal Ireland'.

Sure young men may not butcher gay men who 'flirt' with them in other countries, but there's a lot of covert sexism.

NIMAN

When I saw a man crying on a TV programme because his cake didn't rise, I knew that was the end of it.

Airyfairy12

Whats wrong with femininity?

Crying doesnt make someone 'feminine' its a human emotion and telling men that they have to be traditionally masculine and bottle up emotions has always led to frustration, violence, aggression and built up anger not to mention a suicide epidemic.

I think society in general is more accepting these days of people who dont fit into a stereotypical box so people are free to discover their own identity but in regards to clothes and physical appearance I think it's partly to do with media, culture and fashion, people follow trends, they always have.

L1011

No - your ideas of feminine might be too outdated though.

A generations concept of masculinity is unlikely to last beyond that generation. In the 1950s/early 60s men who presented to current masculine standards were immediately considered to be gay - no man needed to be that built/butch in the eyes of everyone else. Hence the "lumberjack" gay stereotype and also the surreal situation of often quite homophobic metalheads wearing the current metalhead uniform of early 60s gay fetishwear via Judas Priest. Lads in leathers - gay as ****, in 1965! Beyond the leathers the current gym bunny fitness thing matches 1950s gay culture.

I'm gay and would be seen as very masculine by modern standards - in what I work at, what I wear, what I do etc. There are hyper-camp guys who are straight and have little trouble with getting partners from what I can see. Camp voices are basically gone as a negative identifier with the Taoiseach effectively having one yet sounding exactly like a major rugby legend to the point that either could substitute the other.

Da Regulator

An Eastern European girl I know says the majority of Irish men are too feminine. Their society has a very traditional view of masculinity and feminity.

I think most men are doing more sedentary and non physical jobs such as office work these days which might contribute to a more feminine perception.

wordofwarning

Da Regulator wrote: »

An Eastern European girl I know says the majority of Irish men are too feminine. Their society has a very traditional view of masculinity and feminity.

Ah here, I would not go as far as to say Eastern Europeans have a clearer definition of masculine and feminine. You see a lot of Eastern European men far more groomed here, than Irish guys ie mad for tanning, weight lifting etc. I would not call Eastern European women more feminine than Irish women at all.

Da Regulator

wordofwarning wrote: »

Ah here, I would not go as far as to say Eastern Europeans have a clearer definition of masculine and feminine. You see a lot of Eastern European men far more groomed here, than Irish guys ie mad for tanning, weight lifting etc. I would not call Eastern European women more feminine than Irish women at all.

I never said Eastern European women were more feminine than Irish women, but it is an interesting point you raise.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I've lived in Hungary, Poland and Croatia. Their women are definitely more feminine in the classical sense, they get married earlier, look after themselves more (even though I do notice fitness has increased in Ireland when I returned) and tend to fulfill traditional female roles (e.g. whenever I dated an Eastern European woman she always cooked for me, I note many Irish women don't know how to cook).

This is what I've observed, I'm not trying to stir anything or cause offence.

JackTaylorFan

Daledge wrote: »

I don't care what you act like, but you're either a male if you have a penis or a female if you have a vagina.

My birth cert, almost the entire first world medical profession, any stranger that ever meets me, and the Irish State would all say different.

Daledge wrote: »

, you can't just "choose" to identify as one or the other depending on how you feel.

But, I agree. Nobody "chooses" their gender. See you're learning

Daledge wrote: »

I hate this generation.

Yeah, I suspect it's because you're from the Jurassic Age.

And What generation exactly? Gen Y? Gen X? Millennials? The Post-Millennials Are you really trying to put everything you dislike about gender variance in society into one neat pigeon-hole?

Just Wow!

Speedwell

Too feminine for what? You have a long row to hoe if you want to answer this one. First you have to propose some sort of arbitrary scale ranging from "too feminine" through "appropriately feminine" and "not feminine enough". I suspect this was not exactly what you meant. You probably meant to propose a scale of "too masculine" through "appropriately masculine" and "not masculine enough". You have to explain what "appropriate" and "enough" and "not enough" mean with sufficient precision that anyone could consistently look at a given person and assign them a precise place on the scale.

Once you propose this scale, you have to define the terms "feminine" and "masculine" according to your context and your culture. Indeed you have to define your context and the notions of "feminine" and "masculine" in your culture, assuming you are a fit spokesperson for your own culture and you are able to back up your definitions with sociological research. You will need to do this without resorting to some religious dogma unless you are speaking about the idea of femininity and masculinity within a certain specified religious community, such as Orthodox Jews in Buffalo, New York (and I can assure you there are differences of interpretation even there, mostly between the men and the women themselves, or between people of different ages).

Further, you will need to do so without resorting to simplistic definitions based on things like external genitalia and secondary sexual characteristics, not merely because people's sexual expression differs based on their own perceived gender, but because the science of genetics and expressed characteristics is much too complex to allow an educated person to point at anyone and say "that person is a (something)". There are cases in which people have changed external sex characteristics wholly without surgical intervention (Zoe Brain is a wonderful example). There are people with genetics normally assigned to "male" who are far more feminine than the average woman (androgen insensitivity, for example). These genetic issues are much more fundamental than any cultural notions of what is proper for people of a given sex to do, think, and feel.

When you've managed to do all that, come back to me and we can talk about trivialities such as who has to do the dishes when the footy's on.

Edit: You're even going to have to think hard about that. My husband has just finished culinary school and he and I fight over making dinner. I'm not inclined to give up cooking pasta, which as a woman of part Italian heritage I have been carefully taught to do well, to someone whose idea of cooking macaroni is to throw it in a pot and add cold water. He thinks I cook too slowly and with too great precision. My mother-in-law tells me (in simpler words) that I'm transgressing on his masculine rights. His right to kick me the hell out of the kitchen, yet. I allow him to exercise his masculine rights over the doing of the dishes, which he thinks he does better than me because he doesn't waste hot water to rinse them. It would be funny if it was funny; as it is it isn't even an inversion of masculine/feminine roles because it's about competence and territory.

JackTaylorFan

Speedwell wrote: »

Too feminine for what?

I agree with most everything you said...

but if you look more closely at the OP's original post, you'll see the title is deliberately misleading:

Jeanjolie wrote:

"What's your experience with men and masculinity/femininity and what are your own opinions?"

Peregrinus

Speedwell wrote: »

. . . My husband has just finished culinary school and he and I fight over making dinner. I'm not inclined to give up cooking pasta, which as a woman of part Italian heritage I have been carefully taught to do well, to someone whose idea of cooking macaroni is to throw it in a pot and add cold water.

What kind of "culinary school" did your husband attend? I think he should ask for his money back.

JackTaylorFan

Peregrinus wrote: »

What kind of "culinary school" did your husband attend? I think he should ask for his money back.

Probably the same one I went to :pac:

Speedwell

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

I agree with most everything you said...

but if you look more closely at the OP's original post, you'll see the title is deliberately misleading:

You leave my experience with men out of this

No, but seriously, my first serious relationship (and my partner's first as well) was with a man who later discovered (pronoun shift alert) much of her distress and anxiety was due to having been assigned the wrong sex at birth. I have had (and still have) transgender friends, asexual friends, you name it... so long as I'm not sleeping with them, I have no interest in what they look like and I'm only concerned with whether they're comfortable with themselves. As far as useless minutiae such as whether an engineer, for example, should be a man or a woman, I take the point of view of the machine... that is, that I don't care who the engineer is so long as they are competent.

Speedwell

Peregrinus wrote: »

What kind of "culinary school" did your husband attend? I think he should ask for his money back.

It was a training course he was able to go to because he's been out of work and is changing careers. I quite agree that if he had paid money for it he should ask for it back. They did a unit on Mexican food that made me see all kinds of red with purple polka dots; I'm an expat Texan with a Mexican sister-in-law and I worked in a Mexican restaurant one summer, and I slashed through his handouts with a red pen until I ran out of ink. I'm no slouch as a cook myself and I think that course basically taught people enough to qualify them to work in fast food.

Fortunately my husband got more training later, and he is careful when it comes to commercial cooking, but he still cooks like his mother at times when we're at home. I admit that my background qualifies me to sort potatoes by colour; I actually said "does it matter what variety you buy" once when we were dating and he mentioned it every time we were in the supermarket for about six months.

s7ryf3925pivug

I think that young people in general are too focused on their appearance, and I've been shocked at the level of discourtesy I've seen from younger people towards my very-obviously-pregnant wife. It's not specific to a gender though, and I don't perceive these traits as feminine.

JackTaylorFan

Speedwell wrote: »

You leave my experience with men out of this

No, but seriously, my first serious relationship (and my partner's first as well) was with a man who later discovered (pronoun shift alert) much of her distress and anxiety was due to having been assigned the wrong sex at birth. I have had (and still have) transgender friends, asexual friends, you name it... so long as I'm not sleeping with them, I have no interest in what they look like and I'm only concerned with whether they're comfortable with themselves. As far as useless minutiae such as whether an engineer, for example, should be a man or a woman, I take the point of view of the machine... that is, that I don't care who the engineer is so long as they are competent.

Thanks for that little insight

And as far as jobs/roles - such as engineers - being assigned on the basis of gender - I agree with you, it's bogus.

It is funny you mention that particular field, though: I know a girl who is studying engineering (don't ask me the exact course name - no idea - but I know it's got engineering in the title) - and she is the only female in a class of 20 something students. She is actually top of the class (well, so she claims). But it does beg the bigger question why do some professions/activities appeal more to one gender more than another? Can it all be social conditioning from an early age? Or is it a more inherent thing? I think it's worth mentioning this girl, I mentioned, grew up working with her father in a garage.

Speedwell

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Thanks for that little insight

And as far as jobs/roles - such as engineers - being assigned on the basis of gender - I agree with you, it's bogus.

It is funny you mention that particular field, though: I know a girl who is studying engineering (don't ask me the exact course name - no idea - but I know it's got engineering in the title) - and she is the only female in a class of 20 something students. She is actually top of the class (well, so she claims). But it does beg the bigger question why do some professions/activities appeal more to one gender more than another? Can it all be social conditioning from an early age? Or is it a more inherent thing? It's worth mentioning this girl, I mentioned, grew up working with her father in a garage.

I studied engineering and worked with engineers for many years, which is why I used that particular example. We discussed this issue in my latest job, which involved IT support for engineering (a double whammy). My team decided that it had more than anything to do with how you defined the vocation; someone who invents a new, more efficient sort of knitting needle while figuring out how best to wrap a nappy so it doesn't leak is engaging in "engineering", specifically design engineering. Or as my senior engineer said, crudely, "you don't draw blueprints with your dick".

What routine parenting tasks do we now think of as "mothering" as opposed to "fathering"? What if the mother is unable to breastfeed? It all gets kind of stupid at the point where a parent has to ask "permission" from the culture to take care of their own children competently. And if you can't even justify a division based on gender there, where does it really matter? The only common thread I can see is that jobs that are both intimate and low-status appear to be assigned to women because it's convenient to assign one sex a lower status than the other, and women happen to be that sex.

silverharp

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Thanks for that little insight

And as far as jobs/roles - such as engineers - being assigned on the basis of gender - I agree with you, it's bogus.

It is funny you mention that particular field, though: I know a girl who is studying engineering (don't ask me the exact course name - no idea - but I know it's got engineering in the title) - and she is the only female in a class of 20 something students. She is actually top of the class (well, so she claims). But it does beg the bigger question why do some professions/activities appeal more to one gender more than another? Can it all be social conditioning from an early age? Or is it a more inherent thing? I think it's worth mentioning this girl, I mentioned, grew up working with her father in a garage.

I'd go with biological inclination as being the balancing factor. At some stage if you tell everyone they can do engineering yet there is a persistent gender difference in take up then its reasonable to look at biological differences between the sexes. There have been a number of studies looking at kids and infants which have shown difference in play and attention to things versus people

silverharp

Speedwell wrote: »

I studied engineering and worked with engineers for many years, which is why I used that particular example. We discussed this issue in my latest job, which involved IT support for engineering (a double whammy). My team decided that it had more than anything to do with how you defined the vocation; someone who invents a new, more efficient sort of knitting needle while figuring out how best to wrap a nappy so it doesn't leak is engaging in "engineering", specifically design engineering. Or as my senior engineer said, crudely, "you don't draw blueprints with your dick".

What routine parenting tasks do we now think of as "mothering" as opposed to "fathering"? What if the mother is unable to breastfeed? It all gets kind of stupid at the point where a parent has to ask "permission" from the culture to take care of their own children competently. And if you can't even justify a division based on gender there, where does it really matter? The only common thread I can see is that jobs that are both intimate and low-status appear to be assigned to women because it's convenient to assign one sex a lower status than the other, and women happen to be that sex.

"assigned" is a weird way of describing things. Everyone fills out the same "CAO" forms these days. the rest is down to competition

Speedwell

silverharp wrote: »

I'd go with biological inclination as being the balancing factor. At some stage if you tell everyone they can do engineering yet there is a persistent gender difference in take up then its reasonable to look at biological differences between the sexes. There have been a number of studies looking at kids and infants which have shown difference in play and attention to things versus people

And those studies have themselves been shown in meta-analysis to have been coloured by the researchers' expectations, as is not uncommon.

There is more variation within a sex than between sexes, by far, and the overlap is near total.

Speedwell

silverharp wrote: »

"assigned" is a weird way of describing things. Everyone fills out the same "CAO" forms these days. the rest is down to competition

"Assigned" is the standard way of speaking about something that the individual themselves did not choose for themselves and that is due to cultural or other contextual expectations.

Peregrinus

What Speedwell says. It's true that everybody fills out the same CAO form, but people's vocational and career ambitions and expectations have been heavily shaped long before they ever see a CAO form.

silverharp

Speedwell wrote: »

And those studies have themselves been shown in meta-analysis to have been coloured by the researchers' expectations, as is not uncommon.

There is more variation within a sex than between sexes, by far, and the overlap is near total.

Im sure there are more variation within a sex but so what? if there is any sex differences beyond the obvious physical ones they might explain the differences everyone is so bothered about.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

What Speedwell says. It's true that everybody fills out the same CAO form, but people's vocational and career ambitions and expectations have been heavily shaped long before they ever see a CAO form.

in what ways? I'd agree for instance that class comes into it and has moulded the kid growing up. However if you are talking about middle and upper middle class families and gender then this this would be a weaker force , a girl will not be turned off engineering by her parents or school and if said girl said she wanted to be a nanny or child care worker the family would more likely suggest she do something with more social status.

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

Im sure there are more variation within a sex but so what? if there is any sex differences beyond the obvious physical ones they might explain the differences everyone is so bothered about.

Well, it might. But we have no reason to think that it does. There are a whole variety of other factors that might be at work here that you'd need to exclude.

And it would be very surprising if it turned out that the differences were accounted for by biological differences. After all, we know that social class is hugely influential in shaping careers, and class is an entirely social construct with no bioligical component at all. If social constructions of class do that, would it not be startling to discover that social constructions of gender do not?

Speedwell

silverharp wrote: »

in what ways? I'd agree for instance that class comes into it and has moulded the kid growing up. However if you are talking about middle and upper middle class families and gender then this this would be a weaker force , a girl will not be turned off engineering by her parents or school and if said girl said she wanted to be a nanny or child care worker the family would more likely suggest she do something with more social status.

As a girl from an upper middle class background who studied engineering and knows many women engineers and engineering students, I disagree quite strongly with your contention about a girl (regardless of class) not being turned off engineering by her parents or school or even by fellow students and work colleagues. This is a battle that most women in IT and engineering fight every day.

I think you've pulled those "statistics" out of the place where most "statistics" are pulled from. That being your preconceptions.

JackTaylorFan

silverharp wrote: »

in what ways? I'd agree for instance that class comes into it and has moulded the kid growing up. However if you are talking about middle and upper middle class families and gender then this this would be a weaker force , a girl will not be turned off engineering by her parents or school and if said girl said she wanted to be a nanny or child care worker the family would more likely suggest she do something with more social status.

If we are talking about what conditions a child to conform to a certain role in life, I would argue you have to broaden the area of what influences children far beyond that of parental guidance. For example: young adult television with its almost constant reinforcement of nuclear families and archetypes for whichever gender. It seeps in on a subliminal level.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, it might. But we have no reason to think that it does. There are a whole variety of other factors that might be at work here that you'd need to exclude. ?

if m/f brains are wired differently then one must consider evolutionary reasons for example why men and women behave differently or make different choices.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And it would be very surprising if it turned out that the differences were accounted for by biological differences. After all, we know that social class is hugely influential in shaping careers, and class is an entirely social construct with no bioligical component at all. If social constructions of class do that, would it not be startling to discover that social constructions of gender do not?

social class is not entirely a social construct. The people with the lowest IQ are not generally at the top of the hierarchy and IQ certainly has a biological input, not everyone would be capable of being an "Einstein"

Speedwell

silverharp wrote: »

if m/f brains are wired differently then one must consider evolutionary reasons for example why men and women behave differently or make different choices.

Strictly speaking you must demonstrate they are wired differently before attempting to explain why.

social class is not entirely a social construct. The people with the lowest IQ are not generally at the top of the hierarchy and IQ certainly has a biological input, not everyone would be capable of being an "Einstein"

Trump is your counterexample. Wealthy Republicans first became alarmed by his rise to power because they started to see him as a threat to their cherished meritocracy narrative.