Why Are Masculine Traits Seen As Desirable In Society?

[Aznsilvrboy]

Talking about feminist IR theory in tutorial the other day made me wonder. Why is it that masculine traits are desirable in society? I say 'desirable' because "men" hold most of the positions of authority, power and etc. By "men", I don't mean men in a biological sense, but rather the social construct. For instance, "men" are:

- strong/brave
- logical
- the breadwinner for the family
- protectors of the weak (women/children)
- the list goes on

Just think about the ratio of men to women in top positions in the world, it's hardly balanced. Even Margaret Thatcher (nicknamed "Iron Lady") admitted that she had to behave like "men" in order to perform her duties. Candidates in U.S elections like to show off their service record with the U.S military or National Guards (there's a reason for this). Men and women may be "equal" legally, but that's just on paper and reality is a lot different and it's heavily biased for men. Another example would be that women earn less than their male counter-parts in the same position. So why do you think the world is this way?

[AnnaBanana]

For evolutionary reasons. we need men to protect us / provide for us (if we are to bear children), therefore we need someone strong / smart / confident.

It's that easy!

[mavericknm]

hmmm what about other masculine traits like

aggressive
simple minded
stuborn
solitary

[Aznsilvrboy]

hmmm what about other masculine traits like

aggressive
simple minded
stuborn
solitary

Those are too personal, and they don't really hinder "men's" progress up the ladder in society. Remember I was talking in the context of IR, which is much larger and broader. You would never catch a U.S presidential candidate trying to show off his "womanly" side if he has any. That's the point I'm trying to make.

[shawn99]

You answered your own question. Physical attributes of a man contributed to him being the protector and producer (hard labor), this allowed their position to flourish into other venues while the women's position was suppressed.

[Aznsilvrboy]

You answered your own question. Physical attributes of a man contributed to him being the protector and producer (hard labor), this allowed their position to flourish into other venues while the women's position was suppressed.

C'mon, this is the 21st century. I bet we have a lot more people making money with their brains than with their hands now (at least in the developed world). Also in the developed world, women generally outnumber guys in terms of post-secondary enrollment. So why does this suppression persist??

[najibs]

Having a big wang is an important trait you forgot to mention :twisted:

[Aznsilvrboy]

Having a big wang is an important trait you forgot to mention :twisted:

I'm afraid that trait only applies to certain "men" :lol:

[applecheeks]

Having a big wang is an important trait you forgot to mention :twisted:

Typical najibs comment. :P

[bkustra]

It seems like a number of those qualities are just good in an absolute sense though, irrelevant of gender.

Consider this:
Would you rather have a leader who is brave or who is afraid?
Would you rather have a leader who is logical who is illogical?
Would you rather have a leader who protects the weak or who attacks the weak?

So it seems that some masculine traits are more desirable because they are just really good traits. I imagine some feminine traits are also desirable because those are just good traits for anyone to have (the first one off the top of my head is 'a good communicator').

[shawn99]

C'mon, this is the 21st century. I bet we have a lot more people making money with their brains than with their hands now (at least in the developed world). Also in the developed world, women generally outnumber guys in terms of post-secondary enrollment. So why does this suppression persist??

Well you asked why our society the way it is, well you look into the past for clues. Going all the way from cavemen to farmers tending their own land to wars.

[najibs]

Leaders are leaders for a reason. Everyone wants a leader who is brave, powerful, exudes confidence, people can look up to and so on...

it doesn't necessarily mean they know everything or are what they exude to be. It's all about people's perception towards them...

[Aznsilvrboy]

It seems like a number of those qualities are just good in an absolute sense though, irrelevant of gender.

Consider this:
Would you rather have a leader who is brave or who is afraid?
Would you rather have a leader who is logical who is illogical?
Would you rather have a leader who protects the weak or who attacks the weak?

So it seems that some masculine traits are more desirable because they are just really good traits. I imagine some feminine traits are also desirable because those are just good traits for anyone to have (the first one off the top of my head is 'a good communicator').

No to all of those, but why is it that those traits are more commonly associated with men? Also, the modern stereotype for women is what `men` is not.

[AnnaBanana]

but those qualities are almost always preferred in a man over a woman (look at how mrs. clinton was bashed and name-called when she wore PANTS or 'acted' like a man). not to go the political route, but women can achieve more positions of power by acting 'masculine', but then they are criticized for it as well. i remember learning in a women's studies course that women prefer working for a woman than men do, however they still OVERALL prefer working for a man.

Print out this thread and submit it for your next paper. i'm sure you'll get top marks for all the smart responses (like about wangs).

[bkustra]

No to all of those, but why is it that those traits are more commonly associated with men? Also, the modern stereotype for women is what `men` is not.

I guess it's a causation question. Maybe these traits are associated with men because they are more common in men. Or maybe they are traits that leaders tend to have and since historically men have been leaders, society has associated these traits more with men than with women.

[Piro21]

women earn less than their male counter-parts in the same position.

There was a study done on this that was posted on MSNBC a while back, and it says this is in part to men being viewed as the 'traditional providers'. The argument was that men felt pressure to earn more to support their families, and thus tended to be more aggressive in negotiations and jumping jobs for ones with higher salaries. Women who felt the same pressures did better than women who didn't, and men who didn't feel those pressures did a lot worse than the ones who did. In short, pussies earn less for the same jobs. The other bits were attributed to age and gender bias. Why gender bias? Who knows. Lots of old fogies are still out there, but the game is changing every day. Out of all the people I went to high school with, the two highest salary earners are both girls, ($96k and $65k respectively, 27 and 26 years old), while the highest earning guy is only at $58k.

[BornRuff]

Your list is sexist in itself, and poses a really stupid question.


- strong/brave
- logical
- the breadwinner for the family
- protectors of the weak (women/children)
- the list goes on

You make it sound like if we want our leaders to be strong and logical, we are being sexist.

Many women can fill all those roles will maintaining a feminine identity. Women do not need to be irrational gold diggers to be feminine.

[Aznsilvrboy]

There was a study done on this that was posted on MSNBC a while back, and it says this is in part to men being viewed as the 'traditional providers'. The argument was that men felt pressure to earn more to support their families, and thus tended to be more aggressive in negotiations and jumping jobs for ones with higher salaries. Women who felt the same pressures did better than women who didn't, and men who didn't feel those pressures did a lot worse than the ones who did. In short, pussies earn less for the same jobs. The other bits were attributed to age and gender bias. Why gender bias? Who knows. Lots of old fogies are still out there, but the game is changing every day. Out of all the people I went to high school with, the two highest salary earners are both girls, ($96k and $65k respectively, 27 and 26 years old), while the highest earning guy is only at $58k.

Wow, and you guys have been out of high school for almost 10 years. What are the guys that you know doing for a living (insert question mark, my keyboard is having some problems lol).

[ahigo]

is this gilady's class?
if not ignore this post.

[Ojam]

Because bad ass mustaches are awesome.

http://www.automatedculture.com/sam_elliott/images/front.jpg

and women can't grow em, once they can, they will catch up, until then they need to suck it up. Bad ass mustaches make the world go round, they make the world go round chasing after fat bottom girls.

[Piro21]

Wow, and you guys have been out of high school for almost 10 years. What are the guys that you know doing for a living (insert question mark, my keyboard is having some problems lol).

The 96k girl is a CA, blew right through Waterloo straight into the big 4, worked her ass off for Deloitte for a few years to the point we barely saw her once every few months, and is now works for a large pharmaceutical firm. Second place went from Laurier economics on to being a CMA, and now works for a large property management company. The guy went to Ryerson ITM and now works for RIM.

Because bad ass mustaches are awesome. and women can't grow em, once they can, they will catch up, until then they need to suck it up.

I've seen some pretty awesome ones on some women downtown. They're starting.

[Aznsilvrboy]

Your list is sexist in itself, and poses a really stupid question.



You make it sound like if we want our leaders to be strong and logical, we are being sexist.

Many women can fill all those roles will maintaining a feminine identity. Women do not need to be irrational gold diggers to be feminine.

As I said earlier, the modern `feminine` identity is basically the complimentary opposite of `men`. Hence, women are:

- Not strong
- Illogical
- Stay at home mothers (nurturing)
- good at crafts
- etc

Surely there`s nothing wrong with being a stay at home mom. But why are the qualities we look for in our leaders, and other top positions of society, are mostly that of `men`. Sorry I cannot type a question mark right now. For example, we don`t look for good stay at home dads for our leaders and nurturing is nowhere near as valued as being `strong`in our society.

[Ojam]

As I said earlier, the modern `feminine` identity is basically the complimentary opposite of `men`. Hence, women are:

- Not strong
- Illogical
- Stay at home mothers (nurturing)
- good at crafts
- etc


Do you know any women?

[Piro21]

As I said earlier, the modern `feminine` identity is basically the complimentary opposite of `men`. Hence, women are:

- Not strong
- Illogical

This is going to sound sexist, but I've gotta say it. If those are some of the traits women are really using to form their identities they're dumber than I thought. Women aren't as physically strong as men, but they do have other traits where they're far better than we are. They can multitask better, they can generally understand people better, and they're as smart or smarter than us when they put their minds to it. If you have to focus on the physical, they make much better jet pilots than us since they're able to withstand higher g-forces better than we can.

That statement really makes me think you don't understand women though.

[Aznsilvrboy]

Do you know any women?

Are you going to take my word for it?

[Ojam]

Are you going to take my word for it?

if you think that is what most women strive to be, then no I will not take your word for it unless you say no, the only time you ever met a women was when your mother birthed you.

[Aznsilvrboy]

This is going to sound sexist, but I've gotta say it. If those are some of the traits women are really using to form their identities they're dumber than I thought. Women aren't as physically strong as men, but they do have other traits where they're far better than we are. They can multitask better, they can generally understand people better, and they're as smart or smarter than us when they put their minds to it. If you have to focus on the physical, they make much better jet pilots than us since they're able to withstand higher g-forces better than we can.

That statement really makes me think you don't understand women though.

Women don`t form their identities using those traits, society as a whole branded them as such. I just used the common perception of women (albeit a small part of it, but i put etc) to illustrate my point. I didn`t say that`s all they are. Stop feeding me positive traits of women as if I don`t know them. My question was why don`t we look for those traits more in the top positions of society? We dont care that our CEOs can withstand more g-forces than us, but we care whether they`re assertive (another masculine trait) or not. Why is there a patriarchy going on in the men`s favour (generally)?

EDIT: I`m not trying to talk about what women STRIVE to be. Where the hell did that come from?

[Ojam]

Good at crafts?

I want a leader who can make a real snazzy gift basket.

[BornRuff]

As I said earlier, the modern `feminine` identity is basically the complimentary opposite of `men`. Hence, women are:

- Not strong
- Illogical
- Stay at home mothers (nurturing)
- good at crafts
- etc

Surely there`s nothing wrong with being a stay at home mom. But why are the qualities we look for in our leaders, and other top positions of society, are mostly that of `men`. Sorry I cannot type a question mark right now. For example, we don`t look for good stay at home dads for our leaders and nurturing is nowhere near as valued as being `strong`in our society.

Dude, you are about 50-60 years behind the times. This would be an ok description of the ideals of women in the 50's. Things have changed dramatically since then.

Inequality exists, but having a real discussion about this based on outdated bigoted views like this is really not possible.

"Why do people prefer men who are logical over women who are illogical in their leaders?"

It's an asinine question.

[Aznsilvrboy]

Dude, you are about 50-60 years behind the times. This would be an ok description of the ideals of women in the 50's. Things have changed dramatically since then.

Inequality exists, but having a real discussion about this based on outdated bigoted views like this is really not possible.

"Why do people prefer men who are logical over women who are illogical in their leaders?"

It's an asinine question.

Those bigoted views are not so out of date I think. It`s still prevalent in the world today (do you deny it?). I`m basically putting on my `gendered lenses` as my textbook calls it and trying to argue from a feminist`s point of view. Believe it or not, this is what they are proposing. So feminists are foolish then? :confused:

[Ojam]

Those bigoted views are not so out of date I think. It`s still prevalent in the world today (do you deny it?). I`m basically putting on my `gendered lenses` as my textbook calls it and trying to argue from a feminist`s point of view. Believe it or not, this is what they are proposing. So feminists are foolish then? :confused:

You're failing your homework.


F

[ahigo]

The problem is that you labelled these traits as 'modern'. They are obviously not modern stereotypes in the sense that they were not formed in the modern era.

Having said that, I agree that these stereotypes still exist.

If you are wondering why we live in a male-dominated society, it's not a question that hasn't been asked before and will be easy to find answers on google.

[BornRuff]

Those bigoted views are not so out of date I think. It`s still prevalent in the world today (do you deny it?). I`m basically putting on my `gendered lenses` as my textbook calls it and trying to argue from a feminist`s point of view. Believe it or not, this is what they are proposing. So feminists are foolish then? :confused:

How often do you actually go to this class of yours?

The mere fact that you would make a comment about the views of "feminists" shows that you don't understand how many different viewpoints and theories within the study of gender.

But yes, of course some feminists are foolish. There are nut cases in every field.

I don't deny that bigotry exists in the world(while it is much less common today than in the past in our society).

The main issue I have is how stupid your question is. Your question assumes that these bigoted assumptions are true, and then asks why we don't want our governments run by illogical women. Well, it is obvious that if women were the way you describe them, then nobody would want them in a position of power.

[Aznsilvrboy]

You're failing your homework.


F

You think you`re good at putting down other people aren`t you? :lol: So righteously handing me a big red F on my so-called homework. This ain`t my homework, I`m just interested in these social issues.

[Becks]

People need to have a good education, first and foremost. Being logical is not something that men are good at. Logic is something that people have and should be nurtured. As for "emotions", women have that as well as men. When men get pissed off and hit their woman, like Chris Brown, I'd call that "being emotional". Nowadays, when ppl look at figures like Hillary Clinton and freak out a bit at the thought of a woman leader, it is a bit strange. Hello, have people never heard of Elizabeth I? Oh wait, that shiat happened before they were born. Anyways, what is it really to be a truly good leader? So many leaders are religious and believe in fake stuff. Is that a good trait for a leader? To believe blindly in something that cannot be proven? To "believe" that Saddam had nukes and go to war over that? To believe that, no matter what happens, heaven's on the other side?

[Aznsilvrboy]

How often do you actually go to this class of yours?

The mere fact that you would make a comment about the views of "feminists" shows that you don't understand how many different viewpoints and theories within the study of gender.

But yes, of course some feminists are foolish. There are nut cases in every field.

I don't deny that bigotry exists in the world(while it is much less common today than in the past in our society).

The main issue I have is how stupid your question is. Your question assumes that these bigoted assumptions are true, and then asks why we don't want our governments run by illogical women. Well, it is obvious that if women were the way you describe them, then nobody would want them in a position of power.

I`ve went to every class thus far, but I`m quite behind in my readings (I`m a CS major, so this course isn`t my priority, but I did read the feminist theory chapter). I don`t and I didn`t assert that they are true. I said they are perceptions about women and that these perceptions exist and are the common perceptions about women TODAY. It doesn`t matter if women are really illogical, if people think that they`re not, then they won`t support them to run for office. My main issue is WHY do we associate illogical as a feminine trait (amongst others)? Why do we associate those highly valued traits with men and not just simply `good traits to have`?

[Piro21]

Women don`t form their identities using those traits, society as a whole branded them as such. I just used the common perception of women (albeit a small part of it, but i put etc) to illustrate my point. I didn`t say that`s all they are. Stop feeding me positive traits of women as if I don`t know them. My question was why don`t we look for those traits more in the top positions of society? We dont care that our CEOs can withstand more g-forces than us, but we care whether they`re assertive (another masculine trait) or not. Why is there a patriarchy going on in the men`s favour (generally)?

EDIT: I`m not trying to talk about what women STRIVE to be? Where the hell did that come from?

In short, men compete, women get along.

In long, the attributes necessary for a company to survive and prosper in a world full of competition are aggression, the ability to accurately measure risk, being able to prevent your emotions from interfering with making the logical choice, and so forth. The reason they're considered 'masculine' traits is because men have historically been the leaders of the tribe due to social bias that goes all the way back to the caveman days, but women who display these traits will generally succeed as well.

Women have a harder time doing this due to said social bias affecting their development as children. Men are generally raised playing sports to learn how to function as a team, pushed more towards hard sciences and math (where answers are objective rather than subject to interpretation), women are generally not. Girls face pressure and anger from backwards parents, other girls (who get it from their backwards parents), and boys they may have feelings for when they try to do something that's seen as too 'boylike'. If society were to drop these social constructs and give both sexes an equal chance, girls would do a lot better than they are now, but the obstacles they face currently require an unbelievable amount of willpower to get over.

The traits you're seeing in your books as 'masculine' really have nothing to do with males, they're just traits necessary for general leadership. The fact that guys have typically been the ones to embody them throughout history is simply a result of historical conditions. Nobody thinks Gordon Ramsay is womanly for cooking, and the only people that think I'm womanly for doing my laundry should probably have stayed in Utah or wherever instead of coming to Canada. A leader who is overly compassionate gets walked on, male or female, and their followers will get walked on while they're busy walking on the leader.


... I don't know why I'm doing your homework for you.

[Aznsilvrboy]

In short, men compete, women get along.

In long, the attributes necessary for a company to survive and prosper in a world full of competition are aggression, the ability to accurately measure risk, being able to prevent your emotions from interfering with making the logical choice, and so forth. The reason they're considered 'masculine' traits is because men have historically been the leaders of the tribe due to social bias that goes all the way back to the caveman days, but women who display these traits will generally succeed as well.

Women have a harder time doing this due to said social bias affecting their development as children. Men are generally raised playing sports to learn how to function as a team, pushed more towards hard sciences and math (where answers are objective rather than subject to interpretation), women are generally not. Girls face pressure and anger from backwards parents, other girls (who get it from their backwards parents), and boys they may have feelings for when they try to do something that's seen as too 'boylike'. If society were to drop these social constructs and give both sexes an equal chance, girls would do a lot better than they are now, but the obstacles they face currently require an unbelievable amount of willpower to get over.

The traits you're seeing in your books as 'masculine' really have nothing to do with males, they're just traits necessary for general leadership. The fact that guys have typically been the ones to embody them throughout history is simply a result of historical conditions. Nobody thinks Gordon Ramsay is womanly for cooking, and the only people that think I'm womanly for doing my laundry should probably have stayed in Utah or wherever instead of coming to Canada. A leader who is overly compassionate gets walked on, male or female, and their followers will get walked on while they're busy walking on the leader.


... I don't know why I'm doing your homework for you.

Exactly the type of response I wanted to hear. Great input, back to proving algorithm complexity and correctness :lol:

[Ojam]

You think you`re good at putting down other people aren`t you? :lol: So righteously handing me a big red F on my so-called homework. This ain`t my homework, I`m just interested in these social issues.

You're problem is you are dealing in too many absolutes, you're saying society believes these ridiculous things you are putting forth with no proof what so ever. You're confusing so called "masculine" traits with simply good leadership traits and then taking totally opposite "Feminine" traits and wondering why society doesn't think they are good leadership qualities, but neglecting to ask if they are good for anything else. You are also cherry picking these same traits to make one side look better than the other in your so called ideal so yes, you fail.

[corrupt123]

C'mon, this is the 21st century. I bet we have a lot more people making money with their brains than with their hands now (at least in the developed world). Also in the developed world, women generally outnumber guys in terms of post-secondary enrollment. So why does this suppression persist??

Check the numbers. More men enroll in programs that lead directly into the workforce. i.e. engineering, business, accounting, etc.

Women study stories and history.


In short, men compete, women get along.


Ding. Here's your answer.

[Aznsilvrboy]

You're problem is you are dealing in too many absolutes, you're saying society believes these ridiculous things you are putting forth with no proof what so ever. You're confusing so called "masculine" traits with simply good leadership traits and then taking totally opposite "Feminine" traits and wondering why society doesn't think they are good leadership qualities, but neglecting to ask if they are good for anything else. You are also cherry picking these same traits to make one side look better than the other in your so called ideal so yes, you fail.

You sure about that? Are you sure society in general dont view men as the breadwinners for the family and that women are less logical than men? I`m not confused at all. These good leadership traits are grouped under masculine traits as well and that is the problem. I think it`s better to just call good traits `good traits`. The negation of masculine traits = feminine traits comes from my classes and textbook. I`m sure the authors of the book and my TA are very fail :lol: For the record, I did list and acknowledge good traits in women, but pointed out that they`re not valued as much for high positions.

[Aznsilvrboy]

Check the numbers. More men enroll in programs that lead directly into the workforce. i.e. engineering, business, accounting, etc.

Women study stories and history.




Ding. Here's your answer.

Well, that can explain why there are more men in top positions than women, but it doesn`t explain why women earn less than men in the same position.

[Becks]

Women get paid less for doing the same duties because they don't ask for raises as much as men. There are also other reasons.

If you are, indeed, just interested in social issues and not writing a paper, I'd suggest you read in your spare time The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan. A lot of your premises are not fact, but are unproven assumptions. To have true conclusions, u need to have true premises first.

[jayisthebest88]

Well, the ones you are talking about are the "good" traits of men, of course good things are desirable just like how the "good" traits of women are desirable, like being understanding, being able to multi-task, being good at making sammiches, dat ass, being strong minded, etc. etc.

[BornRuff]

I`ve went to every class thus far, but I`m quite behind in my readings (I`m a CS major, so this course isn`t my priority, but I did read the feminist theory chapter). I don`t and I didn`t assert that they are true. I said they are perceptions about women and that these perceptions exist and are the common perceptions about women TODAY. It doesn`t matter if women are really illogical, if people think that they`re not, then they won`t support them to run for office. My main issue is WHY do we associate illogical as a feminine trait (amongst others)? Why do we associate those highly valued traits with men and not just simply `good traits to have`?

The idea of a woman as a housewife really isn't that common today in our society. How many women do any of us know who don't work, and are not either retired, in school, or new mothers?

Being a housewife is impractical today. Back in the day it made sense to have one person work outside the home and one person work at home, since there was so much work to be done at home. Before we had microwaves, frozen food, instant food, dish washers, vacuum cleaners, washing machines, etc, taking care of a home really was a full time job. Now you can really only be productive at home up until a certain point, and then the value of you being at home become so low that taking just about any job makes sense.

Women earn less for many reasons though. For one thing, women tend to work less. They are more likely to work part time and they are more likely to take breaks from the labour force(going on maternity leave for example, or working fewer hours to be home in time to pick up the kids). Because they spend less time in the labour force, they gain less experience, they gain job specific skills more slowly, and get less chances for promotions. When they actually leave the labour force for a period of time, like mat leave, they actually lose some of their job specific skills(from not using them, and from things changing while they are gone) and miss out on opportunities for promotions.

They also tend to gravitate towards particular careers. Health care(the actual "care" side of things, not so much the technical parts) and teaching are two prime examples of careers that women tend to dominate, and while they don't pay poorly, they also do not tend to pay super high wages either. This is certainly partly due to gender roles and expectations, though it is rapidly changing. Women face much fewer barriers to entering any profession, and wages for men and women are converging.

[notsoanon]

- strong/brave


The average man is bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than the average woman. This is due to genetics.


- logical

A number of studies have suggested men have better math/visual spatial skills than women (perhaps due to gender roles, perceptions, stereotype threat, etc).


- the breadwinner for the family

The average man works longer hours and makes more money,


- protectors of the weak (women/children)

The average man is better able to physically protect women/children than the average women.

All of your "masculine" characteristics are those that are shown more frequently by men. So it makes sense to call them masculine?

I would consider empathy, patience, and kindness important qualities, and those are definitely "feminine". Those are also good things?

[go leafs]

Women are illogical...but that doesn't seem to hurt them. Ever tried to get into an arguement with your gf/wife? Right or wrong you can never win ! :D

[Shinyuki]

Perhaps in this society these "masculine" traits are seen as desirable. If we grew up in a matriarchal society we would be possibly even more successful. There was a study done of two African tribes of similar geographies, one was run by men and one was run by women. The one run by men, was far more barbaric where women were no more than tools for birth, they hunted their food and were more nomadic. The male children were initiated into adulthood where they would go through trials in the wilderness alone with the other grown men, where the children would be masturbated and used by the older men. Culturally the music they played was primitive, and the tribe people looked unhappy.
Meanwhile, the tribe run by women was more of a foraging/gathering tribe, men and women were trained to worked together to accomplish tasks. Children would assist in making baskets while the adults would go forage for food for example. The music they played was much more happier and people would smile.

meh...some movie I saw in gender class.

[crackheadpakman]

if its one thing i hate, its feminine guys (asians tend to do that)....its really g!y. Super long - dyed hair and thin as f@1k bodies.

[crackheadpakman]

The average man is bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than the average woman. This is due to genetics.

A number of studies have suggested men have better math/visual spatial skills than women (perhaps due to gender roles, perceptions, stereotype threat, etc).


The average man works longer hours and makes more money,


The average man is better able to physically protect women/children than the average women.

All of your "masculine" characteristics are those that are shown more frequently by men. So it makes sense to call them masculine?

I would consider empathy, patience, and kindness important qualities, and those are definitely "feminine". Those are also good things?

Come see at UTSC before you say that :lol:
at utsc most asians are weaker and physically smaller than the average female
p.s no i am not hating on asians, I am asian myself.

[DJ Dennis]

Talking about feminist IR theory in tutorial the other day made me wonder. Why is it that masculine traits are desirable in society? I say 'desirable' because "men" hold most of the positions of authority, power and etc. By "men", I don't mean men in a biological sense, but rather the social construct. For instance, "men" are:

- strong/brave
- logical
- the breadwinner for the family
- protectors of the weak (women/children)
- the list goes on


Because you don't a weak pushover leader who acts irrationally.

Why do we associate those highly valued traits with men and not just simply `good traits to have`?

We associate those highly valued traits with men because it just so happens that men exhibit those traits more often than women. It's a complete lie to say men are the same as women, and because of those differences, men exhibit different traits. No one wakes up in the morning and decides "let's **** with women today and spread some lies about them". As someone previously said "men compete, women get along".

I don't know about other professions, but in sports, men get paid more because it's more entertaining to watch men's sports (generally).

[pkguy]

How times are always changing.

30+ or so years ago a new dad wouldn't be caught dead pushing a baby carriage or stroller around the neighborhood by himself. Grandpa would proudly do it though.
Todays dads have no problem for the most part doing it.

Guys wouldn't color their hair either with other than what's that goo the Rocket used.

Nor would they shave their chests and privates etc like so many do today.. Geeze back then it was always something to have a hairy chest and to be the kid that couldn't grow hair on his chest was disappointing. LOL

[robiereid]

Talking about feminist IR theory in tutorial the other day made me wonder. Why is it that masculine traits are desirable in society? I say 'desirable' because "men" hold most of the positions of authority, power and etc. By "men", I don't mean men in a biological sense, but rather the social construct. For instance, "men" are:

- strong/brave
- logical
- the breadwinner for the family
- protectors of the weak (women/children)
- the list goes on

Just think about the ratio of men to women in top positions in the world, it's hardly balanced. Even Margaret Thatcher (nicknamed "Iron Lady") admitted that she had to behave like "men" in order to perform her duties. Candidates in U.S elections like to show off their service record with the U.S military or National Guards (there's a reason for this). Men and women may be "equal" legally, but that's just on paper and reality is a lot different and it's heavily biased for men. Another example would be that women earn less than their male counter-parts in the same position. So why do you think the world is this way?

Isnt this a bit like asking why men dont get pregnant? Why dont you ask why men die 10 yrs younger than women on average? The role of being male is more adult and more stressful. Women are designed to be relaxed and have babies and play with babies all day. Men have to do jobs like running into a hail of machine gun fire and jump in a trench and fight it out with only a shovel to the death. Its called role specialization.

[BananaHunter]

snip
Just think about the ratio of men to women in top positions in the world, it's hardly balanced. Even Margaret Thatcher (nicknamed "Iron Lady") admitted that she had to behave like "men" in order to perform her duties. Candidates in U.S elections like to show off their service record with the U.S military or National Guards (there's a reason for this). Men and women may be "equal" legally, but that's just on paper and reality is a lot different and it's heavily biased for men. Another example would be that women earn less than their male counter-parts in the same position. So why do you think the world is this way?

Your thinking is skewed because you're learning this in class. Work in the real world and you'll find it increasingly difficult to match what the textbook statistics say about male/female inequality. A lot of the examples of inequality relate to the PAST. I think in a few decades, men will only be able to hold jobs as assembly workers and bus drivers. Seriously in Canada we have taken some affirmative action and it's ********.

I wrote an essay couple years back for my sociology class and did pretty well. Here are some points I argued on with some life experiences added on.

Inequality in wage: No you'll rarely find ONE company that pays a man more than a woman for the same job. You'll find that women are more likely to work in non-profit sectors and smaller companies with more relaxed environment and better working hours. Men are more likely to work in places that are more stressful, which pays more for the same position. I currently work in a hospital and I've previously worked for some non profit. I can tell you that it's about 80% female workforce. Men simply don't like to work in hospitals as much as women.

Statistics don't account for CHOICE: Most cultures will raise boys to be breadmakers and girls to be mothers. Girls are therefore less driven to be successful because there's less expectation for them. It's not that girls are inferior. It's that some of them CHOOSE to take on worse paying positions. My family for example expects my sister to work less after marriage. This helps explain why more men are at the top. If a woman chooses to leave work for family reasons, then obviously she falls behind in climbing the ladder.

In today's world, physical strength don't matter at all. Neither does bravery. Logic helps a bit though but computers have made many jobs fairly simple.

Certain fields are dominated by men. Engineering programs are about 90% men. However, most companies want to hire approximately equal amounts of male and female to look good. This gives women the advantage in a field that they do not typically choose. The reverse does not work so well for men. Companies are happy to brag about having a high female to male ratio.

Equal opportunity does not mean equal results: You'll find that in today's society, there's no mechanism in society that systematically discriminates women.

So I'd like to conclude by reversing your statement. Legally women are defined as disadvantaged in the workforce but in reality, women are increasingly gaining the upper hand. This trend will continue until women hold all white collar jobs and men only hold physical labour jobs such as garbage men, factory jobs, and TTC operators. Welcome to Canada! :lol:

[Aznsilvrboy]

Your thinking is skewed because you're learning this in class. Work in the real world and you'll find it increasingly difficult to match what the textbook statistics say about male/female inequality. A lot of the examples of inequality relate to the PAST. I think in a few decades, men will only be able to hold jobs as assembly workers and bus drivers. Seriously in Canada we have taken some affirmative action and it's ********.

I wrote an essay couple years back for my sociology class and did pretty well. Here are some points I argued on with some life experiences added on.

Inequality in wage: No you'll rarely find ONE company that pays a man more than a woman for the same job. You'll find that women are more likely to work in non-profit sectors and smaller companies with more relaxed environment and better working hours. Men are more likely to work in places that are more stressful, which pays more for the same position. I currently work in a hospital and I've previously worked for some non profit. I can tell you that it's about 80% female workforce. Men simply don't like to work in hospitals as much as women.

Statistics don't account for CHOICE: Most cultures will raise boys to be breadmakers and girls to be mothers. Girls are therefore less driven to be successful because there's less expectation for them. It's not that girls are inferior. It's that some of them CHOOSE to take on worse paying positions. My family for example expects my sister to work less after marriage. This helps explain why more men are at the top. If a woman chooses to leave work for family reasons, then obviously she falls behind in climbing the ladder.

In today's world, physical strength don't matter at all. Neither does bravery. Logic helps a bit though but computers have made many jobs fairly simple.

Certain fields are dominated by men. Engineering programs are about 90% men. However, most companies want to hire approximately equal amounts of male and female to look good. This gives women the advantage in a field that they do not typically choose. The reverse does not work so well for men. Companies are happy to brag about having a high female to male ratio.

Equal opportunity does not mean equal results: You'll find that in today's society, there's no mechanism in society that systematically discriminates women.

So I'd like to conclude by reversing your statement. Legally women are defined as disadvantaged in the workforce but in reality, women are increasingly gaining the upper hand. This trend will continue until women hold all white collar jobs and men only hold physical labour jobs such as garbage men, factory jobs, and TTC operators. Welcome to Canada! :lol:

What about women's double burden? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_burden

I think when taking that into account, women are in no less of a stressful position than men.

[nickinto]

Society needs to take a step back and considering adopting a 50s style mentality. Life was better and families were happier.


http://j-walk.com/other/goodwife/index.htm

Hints:

* Have dinner ready. Plan ahead, even the night before, to have a delicious meal ready on time for his return. This is a way of letting him know that you have be thinking about him and are concerned about his needs. Most men are hungry when they get home and the prospect of a good meal is part of the warm welcome needed.
* Prepare yourself. Take 15 minutes to rest so you'll be refreshed when he arrives. Touch up your make-up, put a ribbon in your hair and be fresh-looking. He has just been with a lot of work-weary people.
* Be a little gay and a little more interesting for him. His boring day may need a lift and one of your duties is to provide it.
* Clear away the clutter. Make one last trip through the main part of the house just before your husband arrives. Run a dustcloth over the tables.
* During the cooler months of the year you should prepare and light a fire for him to unwind by. Your husband will feel he has reached a haven of rest and order, and it will give you a lift too. After all, catering to his comfort will provide you with immense personal satisfaction.
* Minimize all noise. At the time of his arrival, eliminate all noise of the washer, dryer or vacuum. Encourage the children to be quiet.
* Be happy to see him.
* Greet him with a warm smile and show sincerity in your desire to please him.
* Listen to him. You may have a dozen important things to tell him, but the moment of his arrival is not the time. Let him talk first - remember, his topics of conversation are more important than yours.
* Don't greet him with complaints and problems.
* Don't complain if he's late for dinner or even if he stays out all night. Count this as minor compared to what he might have gone through at work.
* Make him comfortable. Have him lean back in a comfortable chair or lie him down in the bedroom. Have a cool or warm drink ready for him.
* Arrange his pillow and offer to take off his shoes. Speak in a low, soothing and pleasant voice.
* Don't ask him questions about his actions or question his judgment or integrity. Remember, he is the master of the house and as such will always exercise his will with fairness and truthfulness. You have no right to question him.
* A good wife always knows her place.

[gizmo8]

Nickinto....in your fricking dreams......:lol:..the ladies took that crap because they had to stay home and basically no financial pull.These days women make as much or more than the men and unforunately having some of the bad habits of men (ex:drinking,smoking,cheating,etc,etc)....opps those were the good habits.....

[robiereid]

Nickinto....in your fricking dreams......:lol:..the ladies took that crap because they had to stay home and basically no financial pull.These days women make as much or more than the men and unforunately having some of the bad habits of men (ex:drinking,smoking,cheating,etc,etc)....opps those were the good habits.....

Women never had financial pull throughout evolution. Nature gave women psychological/social/sexual advantages over men to compensate. Giving money power to women corrupts society. Any society with our birthrate is not viable in the long-term. We need to go back to the 1950's or we will be extinct very shortly. This idea that women and men can be made equal is ludicrous and simplistic and childish.

[Hairball]

Women never had financial pull throughout evolution. Nature gave women psychological/social/sexual advantages over men to compensate. Giving money power to women corrupts society. Any society with our birthrate is not viable in the long-term. We need to go back to the 1950's or we will be extinct very shortly. This idea that women and men can be made equal is ludicrous and simplistic and childish.

Of course men and women will never be totally equal. But I'm still a bit alarmed at the amount of sexism we appear to have here though.

[WontonTiger]

C'mon, this is the 21st century. I bet we have a lot more people making money with their brains than with their hands now (at least in the developed world). Also in the developed world, women generally outnumber guys in terms of post-secondary enrollment. So why does this suppression persist??

First off, I don't think it persists by any means. Even in my short 29 years, I've seen things change. However, if you must have an answer (based on your criteria); It's ingrained in our culture, customs perpetuate themselves for as long as they're allowed to. Change doesn't come over night. We have to make change happen. I'm in the real world, and pay equity is fair for men/women where I work. Most of the real descrepencies (that I know of) are in the high end wage brackets (6 figures++).

As I said earlier, the modern `feminine` identity is basically the complimentary opposite of `men`. Hence, women are:

- Not strong
- Illogical
- Stay at home mothers (nurturing)
- good at crafts
- etc

Surely there`s nothing wrong with being a stay at home mom. But why are the qualities we look for in our leaders, and other top positions of society, are mostly that of `men`. Sorry I cannot type a question mark right now. For example, we don`t look for good stay at home dads for our leaders and nurturing is nowhere near as valued as being `strong`in our society.

You're in the minority if those are the traits that you "think" are associated with women. Keep in mind that this is your personal opinion, and not based in fact or merit.

I think you are applying lots of your own opinion to this. Women are not perceived this way in the real world. If what you know of women comes exclusively from TV sitcoms, then you need to broaden your knowledge base. Try finding strong, successful women in today's culture. Study the traits they exude, and you'll have a much better list of criteria.

Dude, you are about 50-60 years behind the times. This would be an ok description of the ideals of women in the 50's. Things have changed dramatically since then.

Inequality exists, but having a real discussion about this based on outdated bigoted views like this is really not possible.

"Why do people prefer men who are logical over women who are illogical in their leaders?"

It's an asinine question.

+1!

He said it better than I. Change your criteria and knowledge base, then try having this discussion.

[WontonTiger]

In short, men compete, women get along.

In long, the attributes necessary for a company to survive and prosper in a world full of competition are aggression, the ability to accurately measure risk, being able to prevent your emotions from interfering with making the logical choice, and so forth. The reason they're considered 'masculine' traits is because men have historically been the leaders of the tribe due to social bias that goes all the way back to the caveman days, but women who display these traits will generally succeed as well.

Women have a harder time doing this due to said social bias affecting their development as children. Men are generally raised playing sports to learn how to function as a team, pushed more towards hard sciences and math (where answers are objective rather than subject to interpretation), women are generally not. Girls face pressure and anger from backwards parents, other girls (who get it from their backwards parents), and boys they may have feelings for when they try to do something that's seen as too 'boylike'. If society were to drop these social constructs and give both sexes an equal chance, girls would do a lot better than they are now, but the obstacles they face currently require an unbelievable amount of willpower to get over.

The traits you're seeing in your books as 'masculine' really have nothing to do with males, they're just traits necessary for general leadership. The fact that guys have typically been the ones to embody them throughout history is simply a result of historical conditions. Nobody thinks Gordon Ramsay is womanly for cooking, and the only people that think I'm womanly for doing my laundry should probably have stayed in Utah or wherever instead of coming to Canada. A leader who is overly compassionate gets walked on, male or female, and their followers will get walked on while they're busy walking on the leader.


... I don't know why I'm doing your homework for you.

I agree with a lot of what you said, however you can't deny that there are genetic differences/traits that are associated to men and women. I don't want to further sexism, but let's be honest, men and women are wired differently. I think it's a good thing (it helps to add perspective).

You sure about that? Are you sure society in general dont view men as the breadwinners for the family and that women are less logical than men? I`m not confused at all. These good leadership traits are grouped under masculine traits as well and that is the problem. I think it`s better to just call good traits `good traits`. The negation of masculine traits = feminine traits comes from my classes and textbook. I`m sure the authors of the book and my TA are very fail :lol: For the record, I did list and acknowledge good traits in women, but pointed out that they`re not valued as much for high positions.

At least you've refined your viewpoint, and focused specifically on a common talking point, namely, "Men are more logical than Women," "Women are more emotional than men."

I think that is the most commonly perceived "difference" between men and women. Whether or not you believe it (or it's true), is up to you.

The idea of a woman as a housewife really isn't that common today in our society. How many women do any of us know who don't work, and are not either retired, in school, or new mothers?

Being a housewife is impractical today. Back in the day it made sense to have one person work outside the home and one person work at home, since there was so much work to be done at home. Before we had microwaves, frozen food, instant food, dish washers, vacuum cleaners, washing machines, etc, taking care of a home really was a full time job. Now you can really only be productive at home up until a certain point, and then the value of you being at home become so low that taking just about any job makes sense.


I agree with the quotes that I didn't include. I also agree with most of this, however I disagree on the reasons why they are now in the workforce (more prominently). It is now a necessity for men and women to work. The middle class is slowly eroding, and more women are forced to work in order to survive. There are also the changing moods of younger women (who want to compete in the workforce), as they realize that they don't want to have to rely on men for their wellbeing.

Productivity at home is somewhat relevant, however that is not remotely close to the primary motivation for women to work in today's society (or the last 15 years for that matter).

[Buggy166]

just reading tidbits.

a lot of what was said is true but you also need to remember a great man who does have all those traits is ALWAYS that way because s woman had a part to play in his development. same goes for women.

usually the stronger the men (generallistically speaking) the better the woman was when she played a role in their lives.

generally speaking you cant have great men without great women and vice versa.

not to be confused with marriage or long term relationships, but those can produce even stronger breeds if you will.

[BornRuff]

I agree with the quotes that I didn't include. I also agree with most of this, however I disagree on the reasons why they are now in the workforce (more prominently). It is now a necessity for men and women to work. The middle class is slowly eroding, and more women are forced to work in order to survive. There are also the changing moods of younger women (who want to compete in the workforce), as they realize that they don't want to have to rely on men for their wellbeing.

Productivity at home is somewhat relevant, however that is not remotely close to the primary motivation for women to work in today's society (or the last 15 years for that matter).

Well, this is more of a factor that has been changing over the past century really. You can't really deny the basic fact that if someone were still required to stay home to take care of household needs, the number of women in the workforce would be much much lower.

If you think about it, much of costs that make two incomes "necessary" come from "hiring out" stuff that someone who worked within the home used to do. Stuff like child care, house cleaning, buying clothing rather than making it, meals that are not from scratch, etc make up a large part of our expenses.