The Decapitated Centaur said:
The problem is when you get to the line 'You judge a man BY his masculinity'. You have provided nothing useful that masculinity provides that simply valuing those other attributes on their own doesn't.
Yes, this is true.
However, this "system" is not meant to judge whether or not someone is a good person or not, not in the universal sense at least, human societies have always distributed it's labour between it's men and women and thereby measure them on their own separate merits, it's not something that has ever been agreed on to use.
The Decapitated Centaur said:
Please provide all these laws that have been obligating men all the way into antiquity. Then tell me why anyone should care about ancient laws when it comes to how we ought to behave NOW. Because what you are defending is people following these notions. I am all for being rid of them.
And people don't need to continue to sustain foolish traditions and if they try to they have no one but themselves to blame. I'd have sympathy for those who don't try to sustain them, but if you do try then that is your own problem.
I will not provide you with "all the laws" from now into antiquity, that would require several posts with lots of repetition in between, an obvious example of these would be conscription laws and non-criminal civil service, things that are still in effect to this day, even in the United States.
The value in observing these laws is observing how these roles are more than mere tradition, I use the term traditional as a shorthand to refer to old fashioned gendered values.
One might call them foolish, but societies are build upon these notions, not because they're good and just but simply because they work, that is the legal and societal aspect to it, placing a moral judgement on it is a futile affair.
The Decapitated Centaur said:
No, it isn't observation. It is at tradition. An observation has no compelling force to it.
And please don't try this biological bullshit without citing how each thing you are talking about is instinct based on actual studies. People always make up bullshit about instinct here.
Here are some:
https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwiv16j2ydrSAhWGKMAKHeZ_DwgQFggpMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.321.2372%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&usg=AFQjCNFraMjKWh6iC54AMvklntilhj2I6A&sig2=LRMteHKJGjLS_xbPA512yQ&cad=rja
https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwiv16j2ydrSAhWGKMAKHeZ_DwgQFggzMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhumancond.org%2F_media%2Fpapers%2Fbuss89_sex_differences_in_human_mate_preferences.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGSgQv-K6c503l8i5zc1DpOdSoq_Q&sig2=un3BGQx3wQU3J39rWLllpA&cad=rja
https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0ahUKEwiv16j2ydrSAhWGKMAKHeZ_DwgQFghdMAc&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psyencelab.com%2Fuploads%2F5%2F4%2F6%2F5%2F54658091%2Fhuman_mate_selection_theory_an_integrated_evolutionary_and_social_approach.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHXbDOsT7hSzi0YcMzutm4pkBIbSA&sig2=feSjd8NCjM1B83fVq5mlmQ&cad=rja
There are many like it and these are just a few, but across the board you will see differences in preferences based on sex, women tend to value social status and the ability to provide more than men while men value signs of good health and fertility more, generally speaking.
The Decapitated Centaur said:
Then tell me what is valuable about it that isn't just valuing things that you could value independently. Because the problem isn't valuing strength or something. You are arguing for traditions of men taking care of women etc, women working at home more when one has the freedom. You have seemed to be arguing that we shouldn't give the weight we do to primary caregivers when determining custody because it leaves traditionalists in the cold. Tell me why I shouldn't just call it their own fault for choosing to be traditionalists and not being the primary caregivers?
Here's the thing about masculinity, and femininity as well: These terms serve to judge one's worth specifically as a man/woman, usually when it comes to mating potential.
And? Oh wow, some people use a dumb standard. Why should we accommodate it? It's their choice. If people want to be some dumb freaks worrying over 'mating potential' then let them do that, but if that leaves them as not the primary caregiver then sucks to be them.
Isn't the stay-at-home mother just as much of a traditionalist, though?
These standards are not rigidly or formally defined, they naturally form from the preferences that people generally exhibit.
Wanting to make yourself more attractive to the opposite sex (or the same, whatever boats your float) is not a dumb or freaky thing to do, people do it all the time, it's why women put on make up and men work out at the gym, or buy expensive crap to show off.
These are not formally defined rules, they are natural, human, behavioral tendencies, you are not dumb for behaving like a human being.
And I still contest the notion that a father that spends less time at home should be considered enough of a non-factor to the development of the child to cut him out of the family by default, blaming them for the value judgement SOMEONE ELSE makes of them is masculinity in action right there: they were not fatherly enough, therefor, it is justified not to consider them.
The Decapitated Centaur said:
And what benefit does having a gender role ideal instead of a gender neutral ideal give? Why should I want it in society? You've said something incredibly vague. A 'good man'. Great, why should I share this ideal and why should it be 'man' instead of 'person'? What is the additional benefit to it? Why should I want ideals of a good man or a good woman instead of a good human? What makes them any better? Why should there be a gender divide in it?
Because certain ideals weigh more heavily on you depending on whether you are male or female, the collection of which are defined under either masculinity or femininity. not the other way around.
Being a good person is defined by different metrics, piety is one example of such, but a pious monk in medieval times would not be considered a good man despite how much of a good person they are because he does not embody the masculine values of the time.
Do not conflate the two, they mean very different things, masculinity is very much a father/brother/son sorta deal, the virtues of being a good person may overlap with them but they are judged separately.
The reason you should care? I dunno, why would you care? if being a good man equates to being a good person, why would you care how they define it?
The Decapitated Centaur said:
I see no reason that qualities should be important for a particular gender. You're not selling me on it by telling me that some people do think some qualities should be important for a particular gender. I realize people think this. I see no reason to not seem them as utter fools.
Ahh, it's funny in an age where we emphasize respecting people's choices and the way they live, we are very particular about what lifestyles we hold in favorable regard.
The reasons why I've addressed above, though.
The Decapitated Centaur said:
Historical trends and universality is not much use to telling us what it is when what it is is defined by what it is viewed as now. I also don't give a damn if there is or is not a culture who doesn't distinguish. What is the value of that information? It doesn't make it right or reasonable. If you're suggesting it matters that seems like fallacious logic.
It means that the concept of gender-based labour divisions are universal, and not bound to culture at all, some particulars may be bound to culture, but the concept of the masculine and the feminine are universal across humanity.
Now, the difference may not matter to you, but I would pose that masculinity and femininity are integral to the human experience, it being right or reasonable is like judging our need for emotional support and companionship, its just there.
The Decapitated Centaur said:
It exists as a concept in society, sure.
In every society, as a matter of fact.
The Decapitated Centaur said:
The expectations are hardly from just the opposite sex, and just men and women is a laughably narrow view of things when you consider human sexuality.
The conception of a child requires a heterosexual relationship, unless you plan to adopt, which is an incredible minority in the population.
Masculinity and femininity are supposed to compliment each other, this is why they are viewed in that context.
The Decapitated Centaur said:
No, I don't think gender roles are important. Gender identity and a gender role aren't the same thing anyways.
But they do tie into one another, you'll certainly agree, gender identity is not just what you feel your gender to be, it also refers to what it means to be that gender, it ties into one's personal identity.
If having a certain gender bears no relevance, why would we distinguish between the two? what would even be the point of transitioning between the two and how would we know someone CAN be transgender if we don't place any particular value or meaning on it?
If gender DOES matter, on the other hand, we seek to define it and give meaning to it, this is what human cultures have done since the dawn of civilization, that is what gender roles are in a nutshell.
To restate what may not have been plain, I do not defend masculinity, it simply exists and will continue to exist as long as there are males, the same can be said for femininity.
What I will defend are empathy and understanding, these are the tools with which we can analyze and solve our problems much more effectively than moral condemnation.