Ask the 2+2 Ladies Your Questions

[katyseagull]

[ QUOTE ]
In your opinion, are today's young men being emasculated, in that they're being discouraged from adopting traditionally masculine traits, or is this OOT's anti-feminist bias rearing its ugly head again? If so, do you think this is societal detriment, or societal progress?

[/ QUOTE ]


This is a really hard question for me. I guess I'm not sure whether or not today's young men are being emasculated. Maybe they are. And personally I've always been a little alarmed at how many boys are being medicated in the school systems. They are being medicated to help them study and settle down but it seems so sad to me that we have to do that.

Also, I've known a lot of guys in their 20s who cater to their girlfriends and wives. Sometimes I get the impression that the girlfriends are the dominant ones. And some of them seem kind of vain to me. I'm not saying all young guys but just some of the ones I know. I find the whole emo thing sort of a turn off. Personally, I like a dominant guy but I realize it's a personal preference.


If you want to know the truth, I think it is ultimately a detriment to our society. At first glance it might seem like a benefit because for one thing as men become more emasculated they won't tend to favor wars or violent acts in general. That would be a good thing. Second, they pitch in and pull their weight around the house which is cool for working moms who can help out with the family income. So yeah, benefit to society.

I think it's a detriment because some girls don't respect guys who are weak or who are passive. For some of us (and again I'm not pretending to speak for all the women) a strong man can bring out the best in us and make us better women. I can't explain why but I think it is healthy for societies to have masculine, dominant men. Maybe it's the Christian influence but I believe that men and women play certain roles and that society benefits from men not being emasculated. I always thought that eventually the emasculated ones would withdraw and become resentful. Well, that's just my take on it.

I am really interested in other people's opinion on this. I think it's a complicated subject.

Do you think work ethics today reflect any change in masculinity?

What is your take on this topic, Wookie?

[Godson]

To the lovely ladies of 2p2, quick question..

Quick background: Me and my ex-gf broke up 2 years ago, her sister's boyfriend is still my best friend though, we hang out all the time. I don't talk to my ex at all, she called me christmas twice and i didnt answer, although we are both in her sisters wedding this coming june and im going to be forced to see her.. my friend doesn't like her, thinks shes a u know what, etc. and I know she doesn't like the fact we are good friends. So now onto the question..

Last night I had to take my dad to the hospital, I got a call from my buddy and didnt get a chance to say why i was in the emergency with my dad and then my phone died for the night.. this morning I wake up and I have a text from her saying 'Is everything alright?'. I'm guessing her sister told her my dad was in the hospital obv, so now the question is what do i do? text her back? call her? I havent spoken to her in over a year i think, so idk what to do, a part of me wants to see/talk to her and another part says F that bitch. sorry ladies to be so blunt but thats how I feel you know, i got mad respect for y'all though.

[Blarg]

Asking if being emasculated is a good thing makes for a funny question. It's like if being a murderous son of a b*tch is objectionable. The term is so negative and loaded that you can't really have a discussion that's on the level once you start using it.

[Anacardo]

Katy,

I'm gonna drop a notion or two.

Keep in mind that these are not 'Cardoriginals, but I find them compelling.

We begin with two assumptions.

The first will be reasonably well received; that men, generally speaking, tend to filter the world through a more objective / logical perspective, and that women tend to filter the world through a more subjective / emotional perspective. This is far, far from absolute. Felicia, wave to the crowd. Nonetheless I think it's one of the safest 'prejudiced' assertions about gender differences.

My second assumption is somewhat more novel, and I assume less popular. I posit that there is a strong causal link between an objective-logical perspective and a preference for take-charge, organizing, administrative roles, and that a similar link exists between a subjective-emotional perspective and a corresponding tendency to favor laid-back, informative, supportive roles. The former set is associated by our culture with masculinity; the latter with femininity.

There are some exceptions in which the former sets of associations are reversed. These tend to loosely conform to one of two types - the 'laid-back thinker', classic analytical intellectual (think Einstein or Feynman) and the 'take-charge feeler,' a Ralph Nader / Margaret Mead type ethical crusader. These sorts of people aren't terribly common in the first place and tend to muck up our notions of gender role by mixing stereotypes, but happily for them they seem to pair off fairly well together. Look no further than, say, Ed Miller and Elaine Vigneault (sp?)

[rothko]

what is lady?

[SoloAJ]

Even though I'd actually agree with Anacardo's second observation, I can't tell which one I would fall under. And that isn't a matter of not wanting to be either one that is making it hard for me to figure out.

I am certainly the laid-back role but I think I blend about 2:1 logic to emotion. Shrug.

I don't have much problem with it Cardo. I think that, in general, the heart of your observation is the fact that gender roles are getting mucked up. That alone makes it hard to disagree with the specifics of your assessment. It is quite true that gender roles and perceptions of those roles are in a time of flux.

[diebitter]

I have a theory about the difference between men and women, based on one of the evolutionary pressures that I believe has been pretty strong in the development of our species: sexual selection.

And it's this: Men are the way they are because women, deep down, like them that way, and women are the way they are because men, deep down, like them that way.


What you think, ladies?

[katyseagull]

[ QUOTE ]
Asking if being emasculated is a good thing makes for a funny question. It's like if being a murderous son of a b*tch is objectionable. The term is so negative and loaded that you can't really have a discussion that's on the level once you start using it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we can all look beyond the word "emasculated" and it's funny connotation and glean what Wookie is trying to ask, which is... with our changing society and the continuing erosion of a distinct break between male and female roles and attitudes, is our society ultimately better or worse off?

I'm sure you have some great opinions on this.

[katyseagull]

Cardo, I would agree with your two assumptions. You're saying these are innate qualities, right? The logical/objective guy and the emotional woman? Or, are you saying these are environmentally shaped?

What happens when you take boys and you stifle their boyhood aggression and you tell them they should reflect on their feelings a lot more and they should embrace emotional decisions, etc? Does this change their ability to be logical and objective? Do we see it reflected in a change in work ethics and work environment? Like, are men becoming more wimpy and less organized and women getting a more "take charge" attitude in work settings?

If you tell your young daughters that you want them to act more assertive and aggressive...like you actually admire these traits in a girl... will it make them less supportive and nurturing when they grow up and marry?


Since you brought her up, do you think Elaine could have been a more passive, supportive woman if she had been given a different kind of upbringing?

[Anacardo]

Stretching out on an even more unqualified limb, I'm convinced that upbringing has much more to do with character than temperament; even then what two different children learn from the same experiences can be vastly different. I think people 'are the way they are' to a great extent, and that all else is refinement, or a lack thereof.