Do you believe some people who believe in gender equality only do so because they themselves are not masculine or feminine enough for society?

[MCheetah]

"Back when men were men, and women were women..."

I was talking to a friend last night and she had an interesting theory about gender roles in that the more masculine/manly a man is (or the more feminine/womanly a woman is), the more they'll have a very clear distinction between men and women being VERY different and less equal.

For example, old school manly-men like John Wayne or Sean Connery and what they thought about being men. Or classical women like Audrey Hepburn or Marilyn Monroe and their ideas of femininity.

This friend basically implied that the more you see men and women as "equals," the more beta or butch you are. That mainly soy boys and feminist dykes believe in "gender equality" because they themselves lack proper masculinity or femininity and this is their scapegoat to get out of manning/womaning up in life.

It was interesting and I didn't know what to say, because there might be some fire to that smoke. I can see that being true. Gender equality and "shedding gender norms" is very much a modern, hyper-liberal mindset.

I'm not ultra hyper-macho (nor am I feminine at all), but I've always believed in "equal opportunity" between the genders. I believe let women do anything men can and normally do (even if most of them will fail at it). But at the same time, I wouldn't want a female soldier or firefighter coming to my rescue, either. This doesn't make me "sexist" though; it's just biology.

In other words, I'm somewhere in the middle of agreeing and disagreeing with my friend. I don't know what to believe.

What do you think, though? Do many people who strongly believe in Gender Equality lack adequate masculinity or femininity themselves?

[inhua]

makes sense though I think it's more complicated than that. gender norms haven't changed since prehistoric times. our technology may have changed and we've integrated that into our life but the norms themselves don't change unless some outside influence is purposely trying to change it.

a lot of boys are taught that masculinity is "toxic" and therefore you must shun it if you want to attract a girl. this continues to be hammered into their minds, time and time again despite seeing the opposite.

fairy tales and false hope blue-pill fantasies continue to sell them this dream that being themselves i. e. (being feminine) will eventually bring its rewards but it never happens.

because the masculine is suppose to make girls feel safe and boys are lacking this, girls had to adopt their masculine traits to compensate for this otherwise they wouldn't survive. sometimes childhood trauma is the cause of girls becoming more masculine to save themselves.

overall this is one giant shit test many boys fail and for those that succeed and become men, they get the spoils of victory with claims to multiple women which is why monogamy is dying out while polygamy and hypergamy are on the rise.

the only way to fix this is to stop demonizing masculinity, to allow boys to be masculine so they grow up to become proper men and more importantly allow strong fathers to do their job. strong fathers doing their job isn't "oppressive" or "authoritarian".

[SomeGuyCalledTom]

I understand the rationale but I think it's reasonable to believe in equality as a legal and civil edict, whilst also recognising that men and women do differ in fundamental ways, and have correspondingly different interests, priorities, etc. Given total equality to enter any workforce, women on average are still far more likely to become a nursery school teacher than an oil rig technician, and men will overwhelmingly prefer to be an electrician than a ballerina. Okay that's a facetious example but you get the point, the differences are not trivial, but the existence of a woman's RIGHT to apply for work on oil rigs still exists as a civil liberty; it's just that most women, given the CHOICE, would use their free choice to NEVER EVER work on oil rigs. Most of the people who seriously claim men and women are "the same" probably work in cushy white collar offices, where being homogenous and sexless are just part of the corporate culture. Go work in a kitchen or a construction site with mixed gender workforce, and the contrast between the gender dynamics becomes immediately more apparent. Any workplace with HR sniffing around at the water cooler is gonna feel desexualised and austere, and that sexless monotony will be wrongly interpreted as "equality".

[G-Daz]

To start off, I'm going to say something highly controversial. I believe women exist.

I dont believe in equity, i believe in equality but for equality to truly apply. You need to consider the nature of men and women.

Men and women are NOT the same. There are of course outliers but when we make assumptions, we don't use the minority to decide what the majority are like. Facts are facts. I've found that yeah... normally a man who is basically a cuttle fish (pretends to be someone they believe women like in order to fuck them) sometimes called a soy boy.

With that said, women are VERY different from men. A man by their very nature has certain traits that are uncommon or non existent in women and vice versa. Men are stronger, more independent, more adventurous, physically protective, less emotional etc. Women are more social, more cautious, tidy, organised etc than men.

When we talk about equality. It really varies what that's related to (dating, jobs, roles etc) but as a whole. Men and women don't generally like the same things or do the same things the same way. Trying to force them to do so won't work

[MCheetah]

Great answer.

[G-Daz]

I can't believe sometimes the amount of people that seem to think men and women are exactly the same (assuming they believe in genders to begin with)

[Fuentes]

I agree men should be men and woman should be woman, but also I disagree with you on the female service member or firefighter although I do think American 1st world females should not be in any combat roles - I also will not say females can not be firefighters, they have saved people.

I think it's pretty different thought process to have whether it's a female or male saving you in an emergency situation most men aren't EMT or Paramedic- firefighters. I don't think it's a gender role specific job about whose keeping you stable and alive til you get to a hospital in a Dr's hand who is most likely going to be a female anyway lol as long as a human survives they survive in that aspect for first responders.

[MCheetah]

What I meant by that was, physical limitations in strength and such. I did not mean women can't have important roles in the military or emergency services. I just think women should be trying to be "like men" in certain jobs if they aren't physically built like men, although some of them are on steroids and *are* built like men. If you wanna count them.


For example, in the military, I can see mostly men being frontline soldiers, but women being medics and snipers. That's fine to me. The ones I was referring to were more-so the Mary Sues trying to out-man actual men. Almost like that one in the picture I showed you.

[MCheetah]

*shouldn't be trying to be

[Fuentes]

Lol those Mary Sue's will have a hard day in hell pretending they can be tougher then men hahaha

[NerdInDenial]

It is a possible explanation that people with less sexual dimorphism cannot differentiate the attributes of the two genders. The problem is the people who want to push for total equality regardless of gender are similar to the ones who desire equal results, which is not possible. Everyone has limitations on their abilities. Genetics play a role in your attributes.

[IceCreamSandwich]

Sure, you could put it that way. People who aren't accepted are more likely to want and push for change, and people who are already accepted are less likely to want change and may resist it so they don't lose their acceptance. Trick is it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. But that's how it's often viewed.

[MCheetah]

Except the outer group usually WANTS it to be exclusive, due to the very power dynamic you brought up. Hence, we get this narrative pushing for aggressive butch females trying to act like fake "Alpha Males" as some sort of form of fake "empowerment," and soft effeminate men who think they're still somehow owed respect from society, despite being entitled, childish, fragile, and mentally weak.




It'd be okay if that's just how they wanted to live. But they're also trying to call actual masculinity "toxic" and femininity "sexist/oppressive" while inverting things to be ass-backwards merely for their own benefit.

[IceCreamSandwich]

Exactly. Most people, on both sides, view it as mutually exclusive. They don't know how to promote their own side without putting the other side down. Them calling manly men toxic is just as bad as you calling feminine men mentally weak. It doesn't actually help anything because it just shifts the power dynamic to make the other group the ones excluded and the cycle will start over again.

Unfortunately I don't see this changing anytime soon, so I'm personally stepping back from that part of the culture war. I have good friends who are very feminine women and masculine men, and I don't want to be accepted at their cost. I wish it could be less divisive than this.

[MCheetah]

@IceCreamSandwich
Only I'm not saying it with judgment in order to "put them down." I'm being as objective and unbiased as possible. Or do you seriously think those are strong, brave, capable men in those photos?

I do get what you mean though, and I do agree there are "two sides" in this Culture War. However, the important thing to mention is, only one side started this "war" and it wasn't the married, church-going conservative couples in rural America just trying to mind their own business. (For the record, I'm against marriage, religion, and not even right-leaning, so no, I'm not talking about "my side" here; as I have no side.)

[IceCreamSandwich]

Neither is the other side trying to put people down. Most genuinely believe that type of traditional masculinity is toxic, and for men's own good it should be addressed. But of course it's not toxic, it's just masculine. But maybe you and me mean different things when we say manly or masculine. You seem to mean something better than, or even ideal, compared to its opposite. I'm sure you don't really mean that though, since you seem to also believe its good for women to be feminine. And so you must believe femininity is also good.

Unfortunately as long as the one in majority—even passively—says the minority are inferior, and as long as the minority—even passively—say the majority is evil, then there is going to be the cycle. This problem has been going on way longer than either of us has been around too, it's just recently gone full-blown culture war. Check out any old movie or book and you're likely to find a feminine man or masculine woman painted as evil, inferior, or both. Just like now you're likely to find the exact opposite. Both "sides" have been dogging forever. I almost want to be super masculine half the time so it won't look like I'm taking a side either. I just think both sides suck.

[MCheetah]

Fair enough.

[Tenebrae_mentis]

No. "Masculine" and "feminine" simply refer to traditional values. But those traditional values differ between cultures and over time. In some cultures, cooking is primarily done by men and is hence "masculine." In other cultures, cooking is primarily done by women and hence "feminine." However, despite these cultural differences in what constitutes as "masculine" and "feminine" most cultures tend to place a lot of value on their gender norms.

It should also be noted that you shouldn't have any worry about a female soldier coming to your rescue. The gun does most of the work and men's biology does not make them a better aim. Women also tend to be smaller targets, so she's less likely to die en route.

[MCheetah]

I meant more so, the 120 pound woman having to carry me out of the jungle while my kneecap has been shot, in addition to carrying her own gear. Or the female firefighter trying to carry me over her shoulder wearing 50 pounds of gear through a fire. Keep in mind, many women are hired for "diversity" purposes and not because they're actually capable of doing the job. (Some can, but most are just diversity hires.)

[Tenebrae_mentis]

Sure, but that's a very rare and specific scenario that the vast majority of soldiers and firefighters are never going to encounter.

I don't think there's any evidence to support the claim that most women hired are diversity hires incapable of doing the job. I suspect that's an assumption you're making based on personal bias because that's what you want to be true, whether or not it actually is.

[MCheetah]

I said it, due to my own experiences seeing it in real life, not you assuming you think you know me.

[Berethor]

In case of men maybe, in case of women no, most are weak and want rights without duties.

[msc545]

No, I think it is related to money and perceived power.

[The_Shadow_Dweller]

Her statement is very very interesting.

[JesseJayNeak]

Yes, in a way