Is Being a “Manly Man” a Bad Thing?

by minimus 194 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  fulltimestudent

  Also found this discussion of what appears to be the same show already referred to previous comments.

  Its published in New Statesman America, and to my surprise it seems that there were three different series, with what may be called different outcomes.

  I should point at that the author was a woman ( Anna Leszkiewic) so some comments could have bias, it could be argued.

  In the three series referenced there appears to have been different outcomes, with the women coming off best in the last. (Read her thoughts and see what you think!!)

  https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/tv-radio/2016/04/outrageous-sexism-island-bear-grylls-might-be-what-makes-it-great-show

  Quote:"The men had been struggling from the start: as soon as their boat hit the shore, Bradford’s 26-year-old Riz broke down sobbing, explaining he was “getting emotional”. The rest of the men waited awkwardly for him to stop crying (offering such useful support as, “he’s properly crying!”, “fuck, man” and “we shouldn’t be moving with that”) before beginning their hunt for a habitable spot. They had to stop several times on their trek for him, spending their first night in the middle of a dense forest."

  Compare that viewpoint, with the women:

  Quote: "The women, meanwhile, led by army veteran and amputee Hannah, and 57-year-old retired farmer Erika, had found a habitable campsite and food sources, immediately built a fire, and settled in rather comfortably by the end of day one. Hannah, in particular, refused to slow the group down, despite having several issues with her prosthetic leg."

  Which brings me back to the point I made earlier about cultural influences. All these people were from the same general cultural group, but with different experiences in life (if you like, with different sub-cultural influences.

  The young male who cries on the first day has a different sub-cultural experience to the ex-army, one legged woman and the woman ex-farmer who seem to have become leaders for the female group.

  So now I'm wondering, did Bear Grylls select people who may illustrate his arguments, or were they selected randomly? What do you think? If it had been a genuine scientific experiment the participants would have had to be selected randomly to prevent the selectors possible bias influencing the outcom
• 

  cofty

  TobyJones I agree with you but I would go further.

  Mentally they are really no different

  Boy brains and girl brains differentiate in the womb under the influence of testosterone. Even before they are old enough to be socialised baby boys and girls reliably demonstrate differences in interests and aptitudes. In his book We are our Brains the neuroscientist Dick Swaab describes numerous differences in the architecture of male and female brains.

  When babies are born who with intersex genitalia it used to be believed that doctors could decide the sex and parents raise them accordingly. In 50% of cases this is a disaster for the child. Best practice now observes the child until it can be determined how the brain was sexed and then perform surgery on the genitals.

  What I am NOT saying is that men or women are more intelligent. We are also talking about averages measured over a group which is why individual anecdotes are not useful.
• 

  cofty

  FTS - The Bear Grylls programme was nothing but light entertainment. Interesting but anecdotal. The evidence that matters is from neuroscience and evolutionary psychology. Babies are not blank slates.
• 

  Bungi Bill

  It is a little hard to comprehend the reaction of many to the Gillette advertisement's anti-bullying and anti- harrassment of women message.

  There is nothing "manly" about beating up a weaker opponent. As we would have been told while growing up: "Go pick on someone your own size".
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  There is nothing "manly" about beating up a weaker opponent. As we would have been told while growing up: "Go pick on someone your own size" - true. And yet a company that exists simply to sell razors for prophet appoints itself to act as our moral authority.
  

  It is a little hard to comprehend the reaction of many to the Gillette advertisement's anti-bullying and anti- harrassment of women message - the message conflates ordinary manly behaviour with toxic behaviour.

  Can you imagine Gillette putting out another advert for its range of lady's razors?

  Only this time, it would be: 'Gillette - the best a woman can be'

  "We know you can behave poorly during your monthly cycle, but we know you can be better ... flirting with your male boss to get promotion is wrong - we know you can behave ethically and be rewarded with promotion ... using your feminine charms to steal another woman's man is wrong ... just let that handsome guy be with his wife ..."

  Can you imagine the uproar if Gillette targeted toxic femininity?

  Feminists would be going ape over it.
  

  Ordinary people like you likely wouldn't claim they don't understand people's reaction and they wouldn't rush to defend it by saying that's what kids were told growing up.
  
• 

  fulltimestudent

  
  

  Quote: FTS - The Bear Grylls programme was nothing but light entertainment. Interesting but anecdotal.

  I agree, Cofty, so I find it hard to believe (unless I've missed something) that this 'entertainment' is being offered as evidence of female incompetence. I think you would agree with that.

  I do think there is at least some difference between male and female thinking that is likely the result of the processes you have already described. But we should not fall into the trap of thinking that its all standardised and final. It seems those processes produce a range of results with a wide range of what we call femininised/masculinised behaviours. All the people in the TV series we've discussed would have done better if they had had some good bushcraft training.

  Quote:The evidence that matters is from neuroscience and evolutionary psychology.
  

  Again I agree. If we do not depend on 'evidence' for our lives and minds, then we may as well go back to believing that yhwh or jesus or buddha or some other deity will tell us how to live and fix up all the hassles for us.

  Quote: Babies are not blank slates.

  And again. I agree. However, to continue your descriptive terminology, their minds are still like slates. Their minds will be influenced by their life experiences, (Imagine a young boy brutalised by an aggressive father, he grows up to be a similar adult to his father. Is that because of too much testosterone? Or, is it the training he received? Or, is his mind influenced by a sense of injustice and seeking revenge?). Nor, should we forget the role of culture. The culture that prevails in the society in which we live will be transmitted to us in many different ways.
• 

  Bungi Bill

  Hi LUHE,

  We are here talking about behaviours that can easily get somebody injured, or worse.

  What Gillette is putting across doesn't seem to be that much different from the Anti-Family Violence campaign being recently run on New Zealand TV. Whether it is a company who manufactures sharp razor blades, soft toilet tissue - or any item in between those - it is pleasing to see that at least somebody is taking up the case.

  Boys will indeed be boys, and there are many legitimate outlets for that - with the boxing ring and the rugby field coming immediately to mind. There, at least, the participants are all like minded and fairly evenly matched. (Rough sports also offer the advantage of teaching boys what it feels like to be on the receiving end. Anybody can dish it out; it is a real measure of toughness to be able to take it, too!)

  Regarding a "Gillette in Reverse" scenario, aren't you assuming a little bit too much in guessing how I would react to that - me being somebody you have never met, and do not know? Bullying can take many different forms, some far more subtle than others, and women tend to excel at the more subtle forms of bullying. Bloody hell - I grew up with two sisters, then reared two daughters. I think I can speak from some experience about the matter of female bullying.

  If you assume that I am going to defend that sort of behaviour, then you are definitely assuming too much!
• 

  cofty

  FTS - The genetic component in determining our personalities, talents and interests is huge. Of course culture does play a part in shaping our attitudes and beliefs - our personality not so much. Also it is true that a child can be permanently damaged by harmful parenting.

  The good news is that children will pretty much become what they were always going to be as adults as long as parenting is 'good enough'. The trend for excessive parental micromanaging of their offspring is a fool's errand.
• 

  Queequeg

  This is a great thread!

  On one hand, I really find the "alpha" male wannabe, asshole type of exaggerated masculinity to be ridiculous.

  On the other hand, as a fairly large, Neanderthal type, hairy bastard, who happens to like to do some things that are considered "masculine", I laugh when people with this strange bias against masculinity automatically categorize me as something that I'm not. A couple that I was building a house for, were shocked to realize that I was spending my lunch breaks playing with their kittens, lol. They ended up naming one of them after me...

  I don't feel guilty for being a male, and I don't feel like less of a male for going to the ballet, opera, or loving to cook.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  If you assume that I am going to defend that sort of behaviour, then you are definitely assuming too much! - ok fair enough, I take that back.

  We are here talking about behaviours that can easily get somebody injured - it was two boys rough housing. It's part of normal boy behaviour. The two boys looked of similar size and evenly matched.

  Occasionally, such behaviour gets out of hand and adults step in. But the actual behaviour isn't toxic per se because the vast majority of rough play serves a positive role in boys' development. The viewer wouldn't have gotten any of that from the commercial, though.

  Apparently, the Gillette advert was done by an Aussie feminist. That makes sense, I don't think she understands boys.

  And re the 'Gillette in reverse' scenario, aside from me assuming too much of you, we both know that Gillette would never in a million years put out this reverse advert, right?

  But they were ok with putting out the toxic masculinity one.

  Online bullying was briefly mentioned, too, despite online bullying not being a gendered issue - women bully online as well. But Gillette made it a gendered issue.