Pink Is the New Blue

It's not easy being blue.  I'm talking not about depression, or people who live in left-leaning states, but "blue," meaning "all things male."

I know, it's hard being a girl too, but there are unique pressures that come with being a boy.  At some point early in most of our lives, we stop becoming affectionate, emotive humans and instead adopt a facade of stoicism, distance and aggression.

Here!TV's series Sexplorations sexamined what has been deemed the "boy code."

It is no sexaggeration to say there is a dead seriousness behind the old sexhortation, "Big boys don't cry."  But the sextent to which these messages are internalized by children at very young ages isn't necessarily what you might sexpect.

Boys in the video as young as age 6 sexplained they clearly delineated ideas of gender roles.  For sexample, some talked about the sexpectation that they must "be tougher," or must sexercise.  One boy even sexposed his pining for the variety found in women’s wardrobes as compared to men’s.

The sexperts posited a variety of reasons for such gender roles, going so far as sexpounding on fears that anything less might weaken our competitiveness as a nation.

Could it be that the very sexistence of America rests upon perpetrating these constrictive stereotypes?  To concede such a point would be quite sexasperating indeed.

[Watch video – 14:08, WMV format, high bandwidth]

[Watch video – 14:08, WMV format, low bandwidth]

Comments

[Boy At Heart]

For a rebuttal of the views expressed in the video above, see Christina Hoff Sommers' excellent book "The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men."

[North Dallas Thirty]

I'm going to assume there's a thin mist of sarcasm hovering over this one, too. :)

Jack will speak to this far better than I ever will, but in my opinion, "nurture only" as a psychological theory died and was buried a long, LONG time ago, only to be reanimated as a rotting zombie in service of feminists trying to get around the basic facts of biology.

For only the four hundred and twelfth time, men and women are biologically -- which means genetically, hormonally, and physiologically -- DIFFERENT. It stands to reason that the brain, being an organ affected by all three of those, will differ physically in males and females -- which means they will think and act differently.

Unfortunately, for radical feminists, the fact that men and women are different automatically translates in their mind to making women inferior. Therefore, the only thing they have, since they can't carry out forced emasculation and they can't abort male babies automatically, is to make men feel like there's something wrong with them for being and thinking male.

[Tommy]

Could it also be that "radical right-wingers" use the biological difference of the genders to support social, economic and polictical power over women?

Ofcourse, your indictment of "radical feminists" rings hollow when your defining them.

[Malcontent]

To me it didn't seem the message of the video was that boys were being prevented from being boys, just that there was an enforced idea about what "being a boy" means.

I don't think we should pretend that there isn't a genetic predisposition to many of the things that are "distinctly" male, such as competitiveness, violence and general cluelessness, but I do think we'd be better off if the idea of being a "sissy" weren't so anathema.

[Jack Malebranche]

Thanks, NDT.

You know, believe it or not, I was just thinking about this at the gym.

To hear people talk, you'd think that these ideals of masculinity came out of thin air. Like many stereotypes and myths, there's usually some basis of fact under all of that 'programming.'

Why are males drawn to certain behaviors and ideologies more than females in the first place? How did the conceptualization of masculinity occur? Core concepts of masculinity are cross-culturally comparable. Feminist/pomo notions that sex differences are insignificant and constructed are actually more of an artificial development than these traditional gender roles that evolved organically from the experience of physical difference.

Is it all just social conditioning? Most parents who watch even the youngest children at play would probably say it isn't. Parents certainly affirm gender roles, but I've spoken with my sister (who has a two year old boy, and whose husband is a relaxed computers guy, not some macho type that would harshly discourage any perceived hints of effeminacy)and she said that even at the age of one, watching my nephew and watching female childen was like night and day. He wasn't even talking until this year.

A very convincing book on this topic is "Taking Sex Differences Seriously," by Steven E. Rhoads. It's jam packed with references to studies that challenge feminist ideologies. Most biologists acknowledge significant differences between the sexes--it's just feminists and quasi feminist gays that live in the 'gender is just a construct' world. One of the most amusing anecdotes is about a feminist peacnik woman living in Berkley, who was desperately trying to raise a sensitive, peace loving son. At something like age 3, the kid was completely fascinated with toy guns, much to her dismay.

My feeling, generally speaking, is that many aspects of the evil constructed masculinity have actually been time-proven to bring out the best in most men. Fostering competitiveness and a certain amount of aggressiveness(to which boys gravitiate naturally anyway) is good for men, and men respond to that, and on some level that has probably contributed to some of the greatest achievements of mankind.

Today we live in a society where masculinity is demonized ; masculinity is blamed for violence and oppression, whereas emotional sensitivity is over-rated as some sort of universal good that could prevent all of the world's ills.

Could it be that the very sexistence of America rests upon perpetrating these constrictive stereotypes?

You know, I had some feminist comment on my blog a while back that matriarchies would be better for everyone. My question to that is..."then why have none of them survived and thrived?"

A feminist world where masculinity is seen as an unfortunate aberration is fine and dandy, until you need a man with a capital M. Could you even have an army without the religion of masculinity? A peaceful, nurturing society is great, so long as EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE is peaceful and nurturing. That sort of mentality doesn't lend itself to the duties that we really need men for. Courage, toughness, stoicism, competitiveness and aggression are all vital to the occupations of defending and policing society. Masculinity is kind of like a gun that way. If only criminals have balls...

I'd like to pre-empt discussions about female soldiers and cops by noting that they have to adopt the same masculine qualities noted above under discussion to do their jobs.

So, before we talk about masculine traits as being anachronistic or unnecessarily restrictive, you'd better make sure you don't need masculine men, and make sure you aren't throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Core concepts of masculinity are pretty much static. If certain culturally-constructed details no longer make sense, they can be evaluated and altered (cultures have been doing this forever), but the core will--and should--remain.

I could go on and on and on about this, and get into the whole escaping the womb and self-reliance bit, but I'll stop there for now.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Could it also be that "radical right-wingers" use the biological difference of the genders to support social, economic and polictical power over women?

As I always say when this is brought up.....then repeal domestic violence laws, rescind the default judgements that assume children are better off with their mother than with their father, and give the father of a child the right to have a say in the abortion process.

If feminists want equality, let them have it. But it's pretty obvious that what they want is not equality, but special rights.

[Jack Malebranche]

I don't think we should pretend that there isn't a genetic predisposition to many of the things that are "distinctly" male, such as competitiveness, violence and general cluelessness, but I do think we'd be better off if the idea of being a "sissy" weren't so anathema.

Well, it's walking a thin line there. From a certain perspective, being a sissy is easy. Being 'tough' is hard. It requires a lot of self-control. I think it's difficult to say, "well, it's OK to break down and cry when things don't go your way," and still encourage men choke it down and push forward. If being a sissy is OK, everyone will want to do it. That sounds 'slippery slope,' but achievement requires self-discipline. I think if you want to bring out the best in men, you sort of have to discourage being a sissy. I see being a sissy as being kind of self-indugent and performative as well, and if you reward that sort of behavior, it increases. Why, just look at modern gay advocacy for examples of that. What group has embraced the idea that "being a sissy" is great more? And yet we regularly see here on this blog complaints about the self-indulgent, melodramatic whining that these advocates do.

I do think that there are males who are naturally more effeminate, and the problem I think is whether or not we stigmatize these kids. Honestly, I do think it is in their best interest to discipline them a little bit; there are plenty of opportunities to be a sissyboy in adult life these days and certain people who will applaud that. I do think there's a place for that in society, but encouraging that would be at the expense of society as a whole.

Now, whether or not beig a sissy and being a homo are the same thing, that's another subject entirely. I do think it's possible to promote masculinity among men without overly stigmatizing homosexuality, and there are plenty of cultures in history that have achieved that.

[Jack Malebranche]

If feminists want equality, let them have it. But it's pretty obvious that what they want is not equality, but special rights.

Agreed. Women today are in the enviable position of being able to have their cake and eat it to. They have far more viable options than men, and far less is expected of them.

[Tommy]

NDT: Your comment on the laws is a non sequiter to the comment you are quoting. If the law recoginizes differences between men and women then it recognizes biological difference (which is what you profess to believe in). If the law restrains the stength of one group (which is what law does) then it will advantage the other. If you and Jack are feeling emasculated by them - by civilization, sorry.

[hank]

Replace "women" with "gays", and it's the same argument we hear from the religious right.

I had a friend who had very rigid ideas about what was "masculine" and what was "feminine". He was, I think gay, although never accepted or admitted it. Hair was very important to him. It had to short and military looking. Behavior was strictly controlled. No excess laughter, "colorful" words or expressions. The saddest rant I heard him give, was about colors. There were certain colors expressly forbidden to men. Pink, lavender, purple, yellow, and red were "femenine". Black, brown, dark blue, green, and grey (dark not light), were masculine.

He rarely laughed, never married, had a heart attack and died at 49.

[Tommy]

Jack - Your construct is that there is a "perfect" man and a "perfect" woman. But biology can't be that simple, some men/boys are bound by biology to be more "femininine" then others and some women are bound by biology to be more "masculine" then others. Unless you are willing to say all such indivduals are to be exterminated then you have to make room for them to grow up healthy and happy because all your social engineering won't change them.

[Jack Malebranche]

Replace "women" with "gays", and it's the same argument we hear from the religious right.

Hank...part of the problem with the religious right, and others, is that "gays" are too often replaced with "women."

If you look at the vast majority of non-religious objections to the "film about the cowboys that shall not be named" you'll see that they often object not to homosexuality, specifically, but to a perceived feminization of masculine iconography.

Must we reject an idea because the religious right has a similar viewpoint? To say that feminists and their gay stooges haven't actually mounted an attack on masculinity in the past few decades is simply false. It's there in every innuendo. Is part of homosexuality despising masculinity? One would think it would be just the opposite...

[Jack Malebranche]

Tommy...did I not say that?

Also, it's not MY construct. It's something that has developed cross culturally throughout history.

[North Dallas Thirty]

If the law recoginizes differences between men and women then it recognizes biological difference (which is what you profess to believe in). If the law restrains the stength of one group (which is what law does) then it will advantage the other.

The point, Tommy, is that feminist dictum is that men and women are NOT different. Therefore, if they were consistent, they would reject laws which DO recognize biological differences and there would be no need for laws that restrain men.

[Malcontent]

Somehow I knew this thread would turn into the "He-Man Women-Haters Club."

If you look at the vast majority of non-religious objections to the "film about the cowboys that shall not be named" you'll see that they often object not to homosexuality, specifically, but to a perceived feminization of masculine iconography.

Really? I don't see that at all, and I'd be curious about where you're seeing it. The criticism is quite the opposite -- that "cowboys ain't a bunch of queers" -- and when it has to do with feminization, it just just by those who conflate gay with feminine.

And do you, or does anyone, honestly believe that Jack and Ennis were nothing if not masculine? Maybe Jake brought a touch of a femmy quality to his character (and his mustache was laughable), but Ennis seemed to me like a man's man who just happened to like fucking other men.

Oh, and "feminine" guys don't drink whiskey!

[hank]

What is an "attack on masculinity"? How?

"I do think that there are males who are naturally more effeminate, and the problem I think is whether or not we stigmatize these kids. Honestly, I do think it is in their best interest to discipline them a little bit">

"discipline"?"

"Ve haf veys to feex you sissy boy."

It was once thought that being left handed was a bad thing, so parents froced their children to write with their right hand. Turns out it caused those children trouble later in life. I wonder what effect your "discipline" would have?

[Tommy]

Jack - I didn't understand you to be saying that. I thought you wanted to reprogram them.

If the construct isn't true, it isn't true. If not all boys are masculine and not all girls are feminine - its no defense to perpetuate a false construct of how they must be, by saying it's always been that way.

[Tommy]

"feminist dictum is that men and women are NOT different"

Well I don't know who your talking about but my understanding of feminism is that men and women are EQUAL, not that they are NOT different.

[hank]

I agree Mal.

[Malcontent]

Tommy, I'm with NDT on this one, even though I don't always express myself in the same way he does.

Modern feminism has gone out of its way to deny basic gender differences. Of course, individuals will vary from "norms," but for instance, men as a rule are much physically strong than women. Yet feminists are worknig to get more female firefighters, for instance, and to allow different standards for their physical strength.

It's lunacy.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Well I don't know who your talking about but my understanding of feminism is that men and women are EQUAL, not that they are NOT different.

But again, if feminists were consistent, they would oppose laws and judgments that do not treat men and women equally, such as those pertaining to domestic violence, sexual assault, and child custody.

What feminists have done is created a legal construct in which men and women are "equal", but women are MORE "equal" than men; they've further reinforced this by programming like Mal references above, that denigrates traits that are traditionally considered masculine.

What makes feminism even more amusing is that, while denigrating male traits when men practice them, they actually encourage females to do so. For instance, feminists regularly rail how "irresponsible" men are when it comes to sex and how "cold" they are towards their children; however, their response is to encourage behaviors like abortion, which allow women the same freedom to be irresponsible in sex and uses language deliberately designed to subsume the feminine traits of nurturing and empathy by describing the baby as something cold and inhuman.

[hank]

I don't see anyone "encouraging" abortion.

[o]

It's a pity more feminists don't read the late Angela Carter. Try 'The Sadean Woman', a rather controversial and feminist-upsetting book proposing the Marquis de Sade as the first feminist philosopher.

[North Dallas Thirty]

I don't see anyone "encouraging" abortion.

It depends on how you define "encourage", hank.

For instance, you can argue that you aren't encouraging teenagers to drink when you lobby for repeal of rules blocking or punishing the sale of alcohol to minors, when you regularly subsidize its purchase, and when you repeatedly state that teenagers should feel no qualms or concerns about drinking.

Technically, yes, you aren't directly telling them to drink. But what you ARE doing is making it the easiest option, which most people would likely define as encouraging it.

[Tommy]

NDS - Political equality does not translate to laws that take no account of reality. Yes men are stronger then women and law restrains men from using that strength. The alternative is no law and no society. Your blaming it on women is kinda whiney. The point of democracy is to allow the fullest sphere of individual freedom within society. Feminism, that I am familiar with, holds that women deserve to be politically equal in that society (perhaps you don't believe that) but again that doesn't mean law would not natually restrain men more then women.

M - If there is an absolute need for strength in a job then I have some regard for your observation, if not the hyperbole. But, in that instance, the question would be, is the strength test empirically based, or does modern technology make the woman perfectly capable of performing the job? If so, then the strength test is mere code for prejudicial sexism as bad as precluding homosexuals because of perceived incompatibility with the job or because others wouldn't like it.