Where are all the men?

[JMohegan]

That said, I still would like to see something other than anecdotal evidence that demonstrates actual changes in mass behavior that would indicate that western men have been feminized in large numbers.

Click me.

 

[midwestyankee]

Click me.

Men have always used grooming products. Remember the powdered wigs of the 18th century? More recently, there was the craze of using pomade and later Brylcreem, for example. I don't think the article you linked really demonstrates anything new or startling compared to the way life was fifty years ago. My father went to the barber shop weekly to get his hair trimmed and he dressed meticulously for work as a sales manager. I don't see anything qualitatively different from the way men of the 1950s (which seems to be a sort of standard) behaved with respect to their personal grooming and the way things are now.

I don't have time to search for them, but I'd be willing to bet that advertisements for men's grooming products used potential appeal to women as their core message throughout the 20th century. How is what we're seeing now any different from that on a substantive and qualitative level?

Maybe the more important question is this: what do we mean by the notion of feminization? My concern is what does it look like in the behavior of men that differentiates their behavior from past generations of men?

 

[JMohegan]

Men have always used grooming products. Remember the powdered wigs of the 18th century? More recently, there was the craze of using pomade and later Brylcreem, for example. I don't think the article you linked really demonstrates anything new or startling compared to the way life was fifty years ago. My father went to the barber shop weekly to get his hair trimmed and he dressed meticulously for work as a sales manager. I don't see anything qualitatively different from the way men of the 1950s (which seems to be a sort of standard) behaved with respect to their personal grooming and the way things are now.

I don't have time to search for them, but I'd be willing to bet that advertisements for men's grooming products used potential appeal to women as their core message throughout the 20th century. How is what we're seeing now any different from that on a substantive and qualitative level?

Maybe the more important question is this: what do we mean by the notion of feminization? My concern is what does it look like in the behavior of men that differentiates their behavior from past generations of men?

Look at this bullshit. Facial cleansing masks. Tea and Honey Eye Cream. Wrinkle Corrector. Did your dad spend money on that kind of crap?

Somebody must be buying that shit now, or they wouldn't have it on the shelves. As I've said, I consider this "feminizing" in the sense that traditionally female insecurities (wrinkles - gasp!) are now being pushed on men.

Did your dad ever get the message that he'd have to rip his chest hair out by the roots, just so he could get laid? Magnum P.I. is out, and smooth girly skin is in. You don't see that as a feminizing shift in physical preferences?

 

[ownedsubgal]

on the feminization of men:

beyond such disturbing superficial trends as manscaping and metrosexuality, i have noticed, particularly among younger generations, that it's no longer "kosher" for a man to be a man.

and what i mean by that, is the fact that traditionally valued characteristics that once defined a real man, are now considered by many to be characteristics of an abuser or control freak. the man who has a solid, stable job and tells his wife he doesn't want her to work, will now get an hour (actually 44 minutes) on the couch with Dr. Phil. the wife of the man who wants his dinner prepared and his home reasonably clean when he gets home from work gets directions to the nearest women's shelter. and the jobless, aimless bum who sits in his girlfriend's house all day playing video games, watching porn and scratching his butt is no longer considered a loser, but is actually praised and congratulated by his buddies. it is called being "kept" and apparently it's not just for gold-digging women anymore!

all of these trends and many more really terrify me, and make me fear for the direction this society is headed.

 

[satindesire]

What this whole conversation makes me wonder is why have we thrown out personal responsibility?

Honestly, I don't care how young or old you are, if you're dumb enough to be influenced negatively by something you see through the mass media, that's YOUR bad genetics. In my opinion, I shouldn't be made to feel guilty because I like a particular starlet just because someone else is scared that someone's kid might go out and try to emulate her. That's not my responsibility nor is it my fault. That kid should ultimately have some ideas of what's good and bad impressed upon them from their parents, which I think are the most influencing factor in a child's life. Plus, are we forgetting that children have their own brains and the ability to make their own decisions? When did we decide that people were mindless zombies?

I don't feel sorry for anyone who molds themselves to be like someone or something they see through the media or through their peers. People have free will. We are not slaves to the TV and we have freedom of choice. If I want to buy a pair of Dereon jeans, that's my choice and no one forced me to.

However! We all try to fit in with the herd in some way or another, and we're all influenced, but I'd say a good portion of us have at least two brain cells to rub together and always take our style/personality/mannerisms/blah blah blah from what we believe works for us rather than some force outside of ourselves.

All this conspiracy nonsense makes my head hurt. There are plenty of masculine men out there and plenty of feminine women. Traditional family roles ala 1950s household still exists en masse. Gender roles are not disappearing, I think that you guys have just had some bad luck in the dating pool recently.

Try E-Harmony. I heard it works pretty good.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Try E-Harmony. I heard it works pretty good.

haha! for kicks i filled out the e-harmony personality profile a few years ago, and they rejected me. they politely explained that i was among the 1 in 5 who they did not feel they could find a suitable match for, so they had no desire to even try. i was like...dang, this was just for fun, now they're insulting me by not even wanting to take my money, lol. then a year later i filled it out again...and was rejected AGAIN! i want to know the secret formula for not being rejected by e-harmony, dangit!!!

 

[satindesire]

haha! for kicks i filled out the e-harmony personality profile a few years ago, and they rejected me. they politely explained that i was among the 1 in 5 who they did not feel they could find a suitable match for, so they had no desire to even try. i was like...dang, this was just for fun, now they're insulting me by not even wanting to take my money, lol. then a year later i filled it out again...and was rejected AGAIN! i want to know the secret formula for not being rejected by e-harmony, dangit!!!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wXFzZwZ6zAg/SSNInY4A1ZI/AAAAAAAADMk/FCCQ3PqueM4/s400/248029_rejection.jpg

 

[Sir_Winston54]

haha! for kicks i filled out the e-harmony personality profile a few years ago, and they rejected me. they politely explained that i was among the 1 in 5 who they did not feel they could find a suitable match for, so they had no desire to even try. i was like...dang, this was just for fun, now they're insulting me by not even wanting to take my money, lol. then a year later i filled it out again...and was rejected AGAIN! i want to know the secret formula for not being rejected by e-harmony, dangit!!!

Don't feel lonesome, osg. I filled out their application/profile about a year or so after they started operations. I don't think I've ever gotten a response from a company so fast: They didn't want me, either. I guess that's what I get for being honest.

 

[Keroin]

I'd like to flesh out my original post a bit.

If Roach Man was staying in a suite, in the Hyatt, in Vancouver and saw the roach, I may have been more sympathetic. But he wasn't. He was staying in a beach bungalow, in a fairly undeveloped part of the tropics. When you come to the tropics, if you are not staying in a four or five star resort, you can expect the following: roaches, ants, geckos, spiders, mosquitoes, and several bugs I don't know the names of. This is why I say, "Get over it". To freak out about seeing a roach here is the equivalent of throwing a fit in downtown Manhattan because you see a taxi cab.

(Right now I am watching a battalion of ants trying to move a dead roach, which I shall clean up shortly).

I'd also have been more understanding if he'd delivered his tale as a bit of self-deprecating humour. As a, "Gee, I'm such a tourist, I saw a roach last night and nearly fainted, ha, ha, ha" sort of thing. If I'd seen he recognized how wussy his behaviour appeared, it wouldn’t have made such an impression on me.

Or, if he'd explained that he had a phobia of roaches or insects in general, I would have cut him large amounts of slack.

But no, he was a grown man who lost a night's sleep because of a bug, a nonpoisonous bug that probably spent the night munching on crumbs in the kitchen. If you want to crown me Queen Bitch for thinking that's a tad unmasculine, so be it.

I don’t set myself up as judge and jury for all things manly, and cod knows I fall far outside the lines of feminine stereotypes. These trends in male fashion and beauty products don’t show me that males are being feminized en masse, they do, however, prove - since they are obviously selling – that men are every bit as gullible and exploitable as women. Actually, I think the majority of men are still quite manly and the majority of women are still quite feminine, (thanks estrogen and testosterone!). I have, though, observed a noticeable increase of young men (early to mid twenties) that strike me as lacking in the “man” department. Why that is, I don’t know – that’s why I thought I’d ask the men, (and women), on this forum for their thoughts

I have different standards for men, depending on my relationship with them and I pointed out this particular male because he was a convenient metaphor. (Yes, I use men for their metaphors and dump them. What a slut.) A man who spends more time grooming than me or a man that has to use a magazine as a guide for buying me a gift, just isn’t going to cut it as a partner, for me. That’s not saying they are not manly or that they wouldn’t be perfect for someone else.

But then, I’m one of those terrifying women that OSG thinks is bringing down civilization, so maybe my opinion is invalid?

“Chuck” is a beta male. Quiet, calm, soft-spoken, non-violent, kind, cerebral – he’s the anti-Keroin – and yet, very, very, very much a man, where it counts. It’s not the accoutrements, in my opinion, it’s what glows at the core.

Wow, got off on a ramble there, didn’t I?

 

[JMohegan]

OK, men, help me out here.

Yesterday, I talked to a man, a grown man, who told me he had seen a cockroach in the bungalow he’s staying at and was so freaked out and scared he couldn’t sleep all night. Dude, it’s a cockroach not a Bengal tiger. Get over it.

Has the man train left the station, never to return? Seriously, I’m seeing it more and more. What’s going on?

I wouldn't describe this behavior as unmanly. I'd describe it as immature.

That is to say, if it's "unmanly" when a guy does this, then one must also say that it's "unwomanly" when a female does it. Otherwise, are we not equating feminine behavior with failure to act like an adult?

 

[Keroin]

I wouldn't describe this behavior as unmanly. I'd describe it as immature.

That is to say, if it's "unmanly" when a guy does this, then one must also say that it's "unwomanly" when a female does it. Otherwise, are we not equating feminine behavior with failure to act like an adult?

You know what, I think you've made an important distinction here. This behaviour is immature. "Unmanly" in this context not referring to being feminine but to being boyish.

Good clarification. Thanks.

 

[JMohegan]

You know what, I think you've made an important distinction here. This behaviour is immature. "Unmanly" in this context not referring to being feminine but to being boyish.

Good clarification. Thanks.

My inner kid is strongly objecting to use of the term "boyish" in this context, but I've got him by the scruff of the neck and I'll let it pass.

Seriously, though - thinking about my own childhood, I'm wondering if part of the problem here is that so many people are being raised in sterile environments. Carefully controlled daycare centers, soccer fields, basements with video games, and so on.

My childhood friends and I spent every possible moment outdoors. Unsupervised. Dirty, scraped, bitten, muddy, bumped, bruised, falling out of trees, fighting with sticks, collecting bugs, digging for gold, racing downhill on our bikes, losing huge chunks of skin when wiping out on those bikes, building forts in the woods, crawling through logs, swinging from branches, wrestling in the mud - you name it, we did it. And lived.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I wouldn't describe this behavior as unmanly. I'd describe it as immature.

That is to say, if it's "unmanly" when a guy does this, then one must also say that it's "unwomanly" when a female does it. Otherwise, are we not equating feminine behavior with failure to act like an adult?

i disagree with this premise, i don't think it goes both ways. no, women are not children, but we are still the fairer, more delicate sex (well most of us anywho). tho annoying, i think a woman is entitled to freak out over bugs and dirt, even in an environment where such a thing is only natural and to be expected. not that such an attitude is justified or appropriate, just that it's an understandable feminine response. it is NOT an understandable masculine response, and hence the reason why most folks would label the guy in Keroin's story a complete pussy.

only those who actually have pussies, are entitled to act like pussies, imho.

 

[JMohegan]

i disagree with this premise, i don't think it goes both ways. no, women are not children, but we are still the fairer, more delicate sex (well most of us anywho). tho annoying, i think a woman is entitled to freak out over bugs and dirt, even in an environment where such a thing is only natural and to be expected. not that such an attitude is justified or appropriate, just that it's an understandable feminine response. it is NOT an understandable masculine response, and hence the reason why most folks would label the guy in Keroin's story a complete pussy.

only those who actually have pussies, are entitled to act like pussies, imho.

People are entitled to act however they want.

But roaches don't belong in the kitchen. And if an adult woman can't bring herself to deal with the presence of a roach when I'm not home, well - that inability is just not something I personally would respect.

I'll also venture a guess that the overwhelming majority of mothers in this world would take on a rabid dog with a broomstick, if her children were threatened and no one else around. My observation is that the physically "delicate" are not always mentally so - and particularly not when it's really, really important.

 

[midwestyankee]

Look at this bullshit. Facial cleansing masks. Tea and Honey Eye Cream. Wrinkle Corrector. Did your dad spend money on that kind of crap?

Somebody must be buying that shit now, or they wouldn't have it on the shelves. As I've said, I consider this "feminizing" in the sense that traditionally female insecurities (wrinkles - gasp!) are now being pushed on men.

Did your dad ever get the message that he'd have to rip his chest hair out by the roots, just so he could get laid? Magnum P.I. is out, and smooth girly skin is in. You don't see that as a feminizing shift in physical preferences?

My take on this is still the same: men have been getting the message for centuries that they have to look a certain way in order to be in step with society. That the specifics of that message are different now from the similar messages that we received forty and thirty years ago does not seem to me to be evidence that men are any different now than they were in decades past.

So far, the only argument I've seen that seems to be held consistently is that men today are expected to be in closer touch with their emotions than in previous generations. Another way to think about this idea of being in better touch with one's emotions is to say that one has a better handle on oneself. In other words, we're talking about increasing levels of maturity and self-awareness that approach what Maslow called self-actualization.

The message that I'm hearing is that people think that it's more manly to be less in touch with oneself and less well actualized. Is that really what we mean when we say that today's man is somehow less manly than the men of previous generations? Because if it is, I'll be first in line for the girly-man credentials.

 

[ownedsubgal]

People are entitled to act however they want.

But roaches don't belong in the kitchen. And if an adult woman can't bring herself to deal with the presence of a roach when I'm not home, well - that inability is just not something I personally would respect.

I'll also venture a guess that the overwhelming majority of mothers in this world would take on a rabid dog with a broomstick, if her children were threatened and no one else around. My observation is that the physically "delicate" are not always mentally so - and particularly not when it's really, really important.

oh of course not, one has nothing to do with the other. men have their strengths and weaknesses, we women have ours. they are just not the same, imo, or else why would we have any need for one another. to me, "weaker sex" does not mean less valuable, less strong, less intelligent, less capable, less anything. i know that my own inner strength and resolve is something my Master can only dream about.

btw, a roach or spider in the house will squick me out and have me hopping up and down waving my hands as much as any typical wussy girlie chick, but if i'm home alone that won't stop me from gritting my teeth, grabbing a couple of paper towels and some lysol and terminating the little critter. but as a girl, a little freak out over creepy-crawlies is acceptable. for a man, it just isn't.

 

[Keroin]

My inner kid is strongly objecting to use of the term "boyish" in this context, but I've got him by the scruff of the neck and I'll let it pass.

Seriously, though - thinking about my own childhood, I'm wondering if part of the problem here is that so many people are being raised in sterile environments. Carefully controlled daycare centers, soccer fields, basements with video games, and so on.

My childhood friends and I spent every possible moment outdoors. Unsupervised. Dirty, scraped, bitten, muddy, bumped, bruised, falling out of trees, fighting with sticks, collecting bugs, digging for gold, racing downhill on our bikes, losing huge chunks of skin when wiping out on those bikes, building forts in the woods, crawling through logs, swinging from branches, wrestling in the mud - you name it, we did it. And lived.

"Boyish" can be attractive, under the right conditions.

I've ranted before about this same point. I know others will argue but I just have to look around me to see what our ultra-sterile and safe society is doing to kids. Here, kids live much like you and I did growing up - refer to text in bold.

One day I was at the airport watching a group of local and tourist kids play together. When the local kids fell or stumbled or took some kind of knock, their parents did nothing. The local kid would look dazed for a moment, then he/she would shake it off and keep going. The tourist kids, however, were scooped up the moment their parents saw them so much as bump an elbow. These kids would break into a full-on, screaming cry, while their parents stroked and soothed them.

Yes, there are exceptions to the rule but too much time in front of a computer/TV and too much "protection" is doing far more damage to our youth than any legion of scantily clad pop stars ever could. I know I yammer on about my little island but I think living in a third world country has given me a level of objectivity about first world living that is impossible to have when you're immersed in it.

 

[Keroin]

The message that I'm hearing is that people think that it's more manly to be less in touch with oneself and less well actualized. Is that really what we mean when we say that today's man is somehow less manly than the men of previous generations? Because if it is, I'll be first in line for the girly-man credentials.

I don't believe it's less manly to be in touch with one's feelings, not at all. I chose the giant-headed Dalai Lama as one of my examples of a "real man" for just that reason. Here's a quiet, peaceful man who I'd say is not only in touch with his own feelings but in touch with the feelings of millions of others, and he wears a dress! But he's a man through and through. I don't know many individuals who would oppose the might of China with the persistence and passion the Dalai Lama has demonstrated.

And I have a hard time picturing him freaking out over a roach.

 

[midwestyankee]

I don't believe it's less manly to be in touch with one's feelings, not at all. I chose the giant-headed Dalai Lama as one of my examples of a "real man" for just that reason. Here's a quiet, peaceful man, who I'd say is not only in touch with his own feelings but in touch with the feelings of millions of others, and he wears a dress! But he's a man through and through. I don't know many individuals who would oppose the might of China with the persistence and passion the Dalai Lama has demonstrated.

And I have a hard time picturing him freaking out over a roach.

I would contend that your understanding of manliness is not in line with the understanding that is behind the whole less-manly-than-ever-before crowd.

 

[Keroin]

I would contend that your understanding of manliness is not in line with the understanding that is behind the whole less-manly-than-ever-before crowd.

Maybe that's because I understand that one can be a "real woman" without wearing dresses and being able to cook.

Or maybe it's just that I'm super awesome?

 

[JMohegan]

My take on this is still the same: men have been getting the message for centuries that they have to look a certain way in order to be in step with society. That the specifics of that message are different now from the similar messages that we received forty and thirty years ago does not seem to me to be evidence that men are any different now than they were in decades past.

So far, the only argument I've seen that seems to be held consistently is that men today are expected to be in closer touch with their emotions than in previous generations. Another way to think about this idea of being in better touch with one's emotions is to say that one has a better handle on oneself. In other words, we're talking about increasing levels of maturity and self-awareness that approach what Maslow called self-actualization.

The message that I'm hearing is that people think that it's more manly to be less in touch with oneself and less well actualized. Is that really what we mean when we say that today's man is somehow less manly than the men of previous generations? Because if it is, I'll be first in line for the girly-man credentials.

I don't know what it means to be "in touch with your emotions." I'm not saying I'm not in touch; I'm saying that the phrase makes no sense to me.

Same thing with self-actualization. What the heck is that? I've got no clue about Maslow.

Just to give one example - I know what it's like to be angry, and I know how to deal with my anger in a mature way. I learned this from my father, who learned it from his father before him.

I don't agree that there's been a change in expectations regarding my personal response to anger, but again - I don't really know what you're talking about here.

 

[midwestyankee]

I don't know what it means to be "in touch with your emotions." I'm not saying I'm not in touch; I'm saying that the phrase makes no sense to me.

Same thing with self-actualization. What the heck is that? I've got no clue about Maslow.

Just to give one example - I know what it's like to be angry, and I know how to deal with my anger in a mature way. I learned this from my father, who learned it from his father before him.

I don't agree that there's been a change in expectations regarding my personal response to anger, but again - I don't really know what you're talking about here.

This is probably why we're having a hard time reaching a conclusion between us. I'm seeing the issue of feminization from an entirely different angle than you are.

I think that you may already have a sense of what it means to be actualized, based on your use of "mature" to describe appropriate responses to such challenges as finding a roach in the kitchen. Here is what the wikipedia article says, in part, about actualization:

"People that have reached self-actualization are characterized by certain behaviors. Common traits amongst people that have reached self-actualization are as follows: [5]
They embrace reality and facts rather than denying truth.
They are spontaneous.
They are interested in solving problems.
They are accepting of themselves and also others and lack prejudice.
For Goldstein it was a motive and for Maslow it was a level of development; for both, however, roughly the same kinds of qualities were expressed: independence, autonomy, a tendency to form few but deep friendships, a "philosophical" sense of humor, a tendency to resist outside pressures and a general transcendence of the environment rather than a simple "coping" with it."​

In the sense that actualization is about becoming the best of oneself that can be, actualization is a form of full maturity. I think that's pretty much in line with what you're saying when you speak of handling anger in a responsible way. You're also empathetic with the less fortunate and you prefer to deal with reality rather than imagined ills. That's closer to actualization than a lot of people ever get.

Does this help you see what I mean?

 

[00Syd]

My thoughts on the matter: Who gives a shit?

Eh? Eh? Any takers?

All the bitching and monaing about the feminization of men in todays manly-fortitude-decaying day and age sounds just like that to me: bitching and moaning. And as we all know, bitching and moaning is incredibly manly.

 

[Keroin]

My thoughts on the matter: Who gives a shit?

Eh? Eh? Any takers?

All the bitching and monaing about the feminization of men in todays manly-fortitude-decaying day and age sounds just like that to me: bitching and moaning. And as we all know, bitching and moaning is incredibly manly.

5 points deducted for unnecessary ambivalence.

Syd, my friend, I could ask the same question for 90% of the topics discussed here. Answer: No one, really. It's just fun to debate.

Please, I have four more months here, allow me my harmless entertainment. Please?

Are you still in Yerip?

p.s. You misspelled "moaning" so I've deducted another 5 points. HA!

 

[00Syd]

5 points deducted for unnecessary ambivalence.

Syd, my friend, I could ask the same question for 90% of the topics discussed here. Answer: No one, really. It's just fun to debate.

Please, I have four more months here, allow me my harmless entertainment. Please?

Are you still in Yerip?

p.s. You misspelled "moaning" so I've deducted another 5 points. HA!

pfff.... I'm a few strong Austrian beers in... so... I'm allowed my ambivalence! I'm also allowed my irateness. And my bluntness. And my ability to make up words. AND MY TYPOS. So there. Nyah.


And yes, I'm in Vienna at the 'mo. We're going to Amsterdam tomorrow afternoon and then we're flying home on the 8th! Woop!