Just curious. It's not really an easy thing to do, I think, unless you directly compare men to women.

In fact, do you think you could describe masculine behaviour without a feminine foil?

Either way, what do you think?

have no clue

Only on a hormonal level

Masculinity: possessing an XY genotype

Feminity: possessing an XX genotype

All else is cultural. Well, except an excessive interest in shoes.

Can you be more specific on what you're asking?

Now now Att, you're forgetting that the presence of testosteron during the foetal stage will change what would genetically be a female into something looking and acting like a man, and that a lack of it in one with the Y chromosome will do exactly the opposite.

Masculinity: constant urge to have sex and destroy things :D

I have to agree with Attalus. Male and Female are genetically determined but masculinity and femeninity is a societal convention and perception. Now saying that, I do believe that hormones contributed to some traits in males and females. I believe that testoterone makes males "tends" to be more aggressive; estrogen "tends" to make females more nuturinb. But that is just a tendency, not engraved in stone and we all know vest exceptions to this.

Much the same with male and female "roles." What ti hell is a female or male role? Just things that society has decided should be. They should just be "people roles."

<font color="cyan">It is all social.

I've got both ears pierced, my left one twice (once at the bottom once at the top), now in England having the right ear pierced is meant to be a sign of being gay. So i get some stick from it, and I also wear some gay-ish clothes, (vests, light blue stuff), and I have a tattoo on the bottom of my back, which is considered a womans place. So all in all, my attributes make me very feminine.

But I've had enough ladies to last me a lifetime, and am now happily settled down with the current one.

And never a single gay experiance.

So you cant judge it, you'd probably be wrong.</font>

sofar as i can see socitiy has got it all wrong. steriotypes should not be enforced by taunting or such as it is upto each person to decide what they will be. eg the right ear ring thing is totaly an english (maby american) steriotype. im sure in other cultures the more earings a bloke has in either ear the better. masculinity and femininty are also steriotypes for kinds of men and women. just because a woman learns to box would make her 'mascuine' even thoough in reality she may still be the most efeminate woman you ever met. and of corse in reality weather she is either shouldnt matter, as only who *she* specifiacly is should matter.

summary: its the person that matters not the steriotype

(not bad for 1:30 am) [img]graemlins/goodmorning.gif[/img]

Actually, no. I'd rather leave it open to interpretation.

Hormones are not just something teenagers go through. Everyone has them, all the time. If you feel happy, or depressed, or hungry, that's all because there's some kind of substance in your blood which decided to interact with your brain.
But what you sense and think does of course have an effect on how much of which hormones are released into the bloodstream, and all they do is encourage or discourage cells to do certain things (like divide, produce a different hormone, selfdestruct or produce more enzymes). Most of the effects don't affect the brain, but work on other organs instead. The ones that do influence your thinking, influence your thinking. They don't usually override everything else in there.

It's not the boxing, it's the aquiring of muscle mass under the influence of anabolic-androgenic steroids (like for example... uhm, testosterone) that causes physical changes which we usually associate with a masculing appearance. These steroids don't always enter the bloodstream through needles (doping) but many can and will be produced naturally as well.
That people would think her masculine based on what she does rather than what she looks like comes from our knowledge on what most boxing women look like in our experience. Culture, or what the society thinks of as proper behaviour for a man/woman, play a part in the forming of an opinion as well.

Yepp this is my thougts as well not counting the shoes that is! [img]tongue.gif[/img] Had you said clothes I would haev agreed to all. :D

IMO masculine and feminine are standards of behavior that allow us to categorize people (something the human brain is quite good at and REALLY likes to do... not always to it's benefit).

They are also highly subjective and gender sensitive... the definition of "masculine" for a male is somewhat different from "masculine" for a female.

My subjective opinion of masculine:
- independant
- creative
- logical
- strong
- physical
- internally focused
- morally absolute
and many more...

feminine:
- dependant (not in a negative way... but more along the lines of a person that creates webs of relationships as opposed to "going it alone")
- nurturing
- emotional
- collective
- externally focused
- morally relative
and many more...

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Masculinity = being a man.
Femininity = being a woman.

Used to be, that this was the only definition that was needed [img]smile.gif[/img]
Life is sooo complicated now, and Men have let themselves become so feminized that it is no wonder so many of them have no idea what being a man is.
I think this blurring of gender roles has caused more problems than it has solved. Record numbers of Psychiatrists, Psychologists, Psychoanalysts asnd new age feel good programs seem to indicate a real and growing problem.
</font>

Preach it, brother. I was pondering this while doing groceries late last night, looking for such idiosyncratic treasures as diced pimientos that my wife had put on the grocery list.

I think that both the "stay at home caregiver" and the "breadwinner" roles play an important part with kids. My problem with the feminist movement is that rather than empower women for what attributes that are traditionally associated with "feminine," the movement has instead encouraged women to become men, and told them they are not a success unless they do in fact assume what were traditionally male roles. This has left a dearth in society, a void, of the "stay at home caregiver" role -- which these days is relegated to a day care service. :rolleyes:

Oh, and sex. Feminism has really sexed-up women, and I guess the one female attribute it has made great use of is the ever-increasing showing of skin (low rise pants + cut off top + thong string peeking out is all too common these days) as a way to turn men into drivelling idiots. As if we couldn't do just fine at being drivelling idiots without all the help. :rolleyes:

I'm not saying women should not work or should not be empowered. I am saying that there is something incredibly worthwhile about the "female" qualities and we should dislike seeing them disappear from society. Lucy and Wilma Flintstone may not have been the breadwinners in their families, but they were powerful figures nonetheless. ;)

Had to take issue with this Timber - I don't think this was ever the goal of "feminists" as a whole. It may have been the goal of a some of them, but pretty much any book I've read about feminism has decried exactly this phenomenon you describe - if you simply encourage women to become men, as opposed to encouraging them to become liberated, then they end up simply sharing the problems men have always had. And of course adding a whole new level of psychological baggage as well. The thing is not to make femininity the same as masculinity, but instead to stop the artificial elements of femininity from dominating women, and vice versa for masculinity.

Well, thats my take on it anyway.

Modern feminism relies on the idea of "victomhood", believing that the Wilma and Betty were being "oppressed by the patriarchy". The radicals believe that women won't be free until they've destroyed "male dominated" society.

Here's an interesting discussion that was broadcast on KRLA 870 am in LA recently:

http://www.glennsacks.com/audio/hs_7_6_03_mp3.mp3

it's a discussion between Glenn Sax and Prof. Daphne Patai on Academic Feminism (she used to teach Womens Studies, a fairly draconian feminist/lesbian indoctrination program in many schools)... it discusses a number of the issues you touched on (like the idea that women have no power).

I've read recently that the occurances of stay at home parents has slightly increased after decades of decreases. While the vast majority are still women, men have been gaining ground as the stigma of the stay at home dad has been attacked. Interestingly it's most often WOMEN who attack men who don't work... there's a number of interesting articles about "the lace cieling" (or maybe it was "the lace curtain"... can't remember) and the methods employed by women to keep men out of traditionally female roles, even as they push farther into male ones.

IMO more dedicated moms and dads at home is very good news for our children, now if we can just get our schools moving in the right direction.

[ 07-08-2003, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

I really do not know what to think!

So you are saying that feminists should fight for the right to stay at home? But I'll agree to the "stay at home caregiver" when you scratch feminists from the same paragraph. A child (may) benefit from having his/her mother around while growing up (I wouldn't give up my rights for maternal leave!). BUT a child benefits an equal amount from having his/her father around. I wonder why that has never come up in politics. ;) A huge [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] to all IW fathers who stayed at home from work after their children were born! Perhaps it is time to encourage men to become women. ;)

As a feminist in training, this is an interesting thread. [My feminist side has only manifested itself in wanting to hit a few advertising executives and shrieking at men arguing against abortion. Natch.] -Says no more for now, watching the thread. This could turn out to be verrrrrrrrry interesting.-

Indeed it could. It would be intresting to hear your views as well, dear...

Sproutmeister:
It seems we agree on what *should* be, and only disagree on what the "feminist" movement has taught. I'm happy to agree to disagree on that and keep the rest.

On the feminist movement issue, I think your view sounds more modern, and I think the path the movement took through the 60s, 70s, and 80s may be more akin to what I was describing. I am jaded, I admit. My feminism studies were taught by a pretty draconian professor.

Yepp this is my thougts as well not counting the shoes that is! [img]tongue.gif[/img] Had you said clothes I would haev agreed to all. :D </font>[/QUOTE]This *would* hold water were it not for the fact that many different genotypes exist. Among them, i have to note, an XX male variety. I mentioned this in another thread a few weeks back. Do a search for chromosomal disorders (using the terms XXXXX, XYY, XXY), and you will turn up all sorts, including a few types that contradict you.

However, in the vast majority of cases, I would agree with you. I'm just being difficult again [img]smile.gif[/img]

We happened to discuss this very issue in my Educational Psychology class last evening.

The one important fact that I took away was that Masculinity is often defined (by psychologists) as being related to aggressiveness.

The discussion went on to discuss why aggression can be good. For example, competition forces people to work together within established boundaries.

From a parent's perspective my wife tends to worry that our son is being too aggressive. He will play Dungeon Siege with me and then for the next three days he runs around the house pretending to bash stuff with his plastic sword.

After last night's discussion, I am relieved to discover that children who engage in aggressive play (wrestling, swashbuckling, playing war) are better at anger management and cooperation as adults.

I would just like to point out a relationship between this development and an issue which has somehow slipped away from the attention of the Ironworkers, despite it's most serious nature and the priority it should enjoy. I speak, of course, of the Trouser Tyranny.

[img]graemlins/givingspeech.gif[/img]
Trousers are a relatively recent development. In earlier times, men were accustomed to wearing unbifurcated clothing - such as robes, togas, tunics, sarongs, and various kilt-like or skirt-like garments. These unbifurcated garments were not divided between the legs, and therefore...

Hmm, well, for those who do not yet know and/or this reminder is insufficient, someone you know may well start a new thread some day...
Until then, remember to say NO to the Trouser Tyranny.
Vive la resistance!

Is this another plug for the Free Land Of Kilts? ;)

No... the free land of kilts and blaiuts is another plug for the struggle against Trouser Tyranny [img]tongue.gif[/img]
Ah, to such a terrible state it has all come when not even our more level-headed members recognise the most dire nature of this struggle. Perhaps the time has indeed come to act, if not for victory than for the attention it shall bring the subject.

I happen to agree with you, and look forward to a time when we ALL can enjoy a cooling breeze on a hot day. Why the Scotts EVER traded in their kilts for trousers is beyond me.

Ah yes but here's an interestin fact. No more than ONE X chromosome remains active in each cell. ;) The other one is shut down. Therefore Attlus' and my reasoning isn't all that bad after all you know. I'm just being difficult here. ;)

The second X chromosome does one important function, it gives female chromosomes the ability to correct transcription errors, and for a while some of the radfems were claiming that since Y chromosomes didn't have a second Y to correct errors, males would disappear in time as their genetic code got corrupted.

Now it's been published that Y chromosomes carry duplicates of important sequences so they can correct themselves... women won't be getting rid of us that quickly I'm afriad. Additionally the Y chromosome carries an additional gene for brain development that the X chromosomes doesn't have, although it's function isn't known at this point. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Yes but it has also been published that the Y chromosome contains less and less information. [img]tongue.gif[/img] You wno't be around that much longer. [img]tongue.gif[/img] :D (I'm obviously joking :D ) But the Y chromosome carries several "additional" genes. ;)

[img]smile.gif[/img] Yea the less and less thing was based on the idea that Y chromosomes couldn't repair themselves... I seem to recall one feminist claiming men would be gone within 100 generations or something absurd like that (in their dreams... [img]tongue.gif[/img] ).

What got me about that article was the amount of junk that chromosomes have in them... apparently there are large sections of both the X and Y chromosomes that have dead genes and parts of old genes and just plain garbage code in them.

How this part is easy. It develops the part of the brain that surpresses the desire to ask for directions! [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img]

Yeah some studies have shown that 99% of all our DNA is junk! Left overs from retrovira, evolution etc.

Rokenn, ROTFLMAO! [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]