Lessons posted:babyfinland posted:
can't good masculinity just be men being goodbecause all this to do about the symbolic qualities of masculinity seem to ignore the much more immediate, in fact much more real, ways in which masculinity operates as a social role
so what should i do instead of being a good man-person to accomodate whatever the problem is with masculinity as a social role
Lessons posted:babyfinland posted:
can't good masculinity just be men being goodbecause all this to do about the symbolic qualities of masculinity seem to ignore the much more immediate, in fact much more real, ways in which masculinity operates as a social role
...
babyfinland posted:
so what should i do instead of being a good man-person to accomodate whatever the problem is with masculinity as a social role
honestly i don't have objection to that approach, just trying to be a good person, and i can't imagine anyone would. but i also think if you're going to look at it analytically the starting position has to be the problems with masculinity rather than some ideal conception of a masculinity without those problems.
littlegreenpills posted:
or that you're going to have a hard time finding a prescriptively "masculine" trait that wouldn't be just as valuable and useful when installed into a woman or a robot
right so does that mean that when women do this it is also oppressive or something. this all seems really wishy washy
babyfinland posted:
yes if youre reductive in a particular way you are going to find what you're looking for. i dont think thats useful or relevant to real life
the exact purpose of that sort of reductionism is to draw the focus away from abstract or broad social conceptions of 'gender roles', etc., and to attempt to understand gender from an everyday, performative perspective. that definitely useful in real life imo, it's also a very influential way of looking at it from sociological perspective, (and pomo butlerism too i guess).
babyfinland posted:
right so does that mean that when women do this it is also oppressive or something. this all seems really wishy washy
why don't YOU come up with a manual of masculinity along the lines of maddox's "dictionary of manliness" and see if it passes muster
this might also be a matter of semantics because i think masculinity is simply the character of men in a given society, and to perform a good masculinity simply means a man being good. you seem to be arguing for criticism of the prevailing idea of what makes a good man and i would agree
littlegreenpills posted:babyfinland posted:
right so does that mean that when women do this it is also oppressive or something. this all seems really wishy washywhy don't YOU come up with a manual of masculinity along the lines of maddox's "dictionary of manliness" and see if it passes muster
It's called Sunnah.
(jk though the prophet was noted for being "feminine" and whatnot and it really shook things up, still does. but to me thats all inclusive of a positive masculinity. maybe i need more consistent definitions if i can include femininity in masclunity and vice versa but thats how i sees it)
crustpunk_trotsky posted:
george bush was a deserter during a war of blatant imperialism while john kerry was a "war hero" famous for murdering someone for defending their homeland. food 4 thought
babyfinland posted:
ok like i can understand wanted to be critical about what it means to be a good man and how if you do that uncritically it can perpetuate sexism and whatnot but i think it's fairly simple to just move beyond that into a universally good masculinity that isn't tethered to a specific sexist historical category (i think its amusing that you are arguing for historicization of the problem here and im dismissing it)
this might also be a matter of semantics because i think masculinity is simply the character of men in a given society, and to perform a good masculinity simply means a man being good. you seem to be arguing for criticism of the prevailing idea of what makes a good man and i would agree
i don't think it's entirely semantics. i'm trying to say a) that being a good man, as i understand that term, comes into conflict with being a man at all as our society recognizes it b) i don't agree that resolving that tension is such a simple matter.
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/clar0514/academic/west%20and%20zimmerman.pdf
it's a (heh) seminal text
Lessons posted:babyfinland posted:
ok like i can understand wanted to be critical about what it means to be a good man and how if you do that uncritically it can perpetuate sexism and whatnot but i think it's fairly simple to just move beyond that into a universally good masculinity that isn't tethered to a specific sexist historical category (i think its amusing that you are arguing for historicization of the problem here and im dismissing it)
this might also be a matter of semantics because i think masculinity is simply the character of men in a given society, and to perform a good masculinity simply means a man being good. you seem to be arguing for criticism of the prevailing idea of what makes a good man and i would agreei don't think it's entirely semantics. i'm trying to say a) that being a good man, as i understand that term, comes into conflict with being a man at all as our society recognizes it b) i don't agree that resolving that tension is such a simple matter.
nah i disagree with that
