5 ms·

Being a Man in the 21st Century (Part 2)

9 points by bhousel 17y ago

jerf 17y ago
Basically, being a man in the 21st century, according to this author, is basically not "being a man" at all. The entire article applies to women as well. It's just being "yourself", with no guidelines laid on you based on your gender. I am not expressing agreement or disagreement; I just think the article beat around the bush and (probably not deliberately) went to great lengths to avoid the very conclusion it is drawing, which is that being a man has no particular meaning anymore, according to the author.
- Tichy 17y ago
  "being a man has no particular meaning anymore" And unfortunately, men are also not needed much anymore. I read somewhere recently that people are descendants of many more women than men (meaning women have children more often than men - few men are fathers). Women not needing the money of their spouses - will they really just be attracted to a wider variety of men? Another thing I read recently is that women are becoming more likely to care for physical attractiveness now. Good for them, but I can't really see the benefit for men gained from that. Also what tires me is the assumption that women where held down by barriers we erected. I think in "former times" it simply wasn't possible to survive alone, and the traditional roles where one successful approach to managing life. Women were supposed to do the household chores because men were working at their jobs earning the money. What really freed women therefore was not the destruction of barriers. It was the invention of dish washers, vacuum cleaners, washing machines and frozen food.
  - fnid 17y ago
    According to genetic research, 80% of women reproduce, but only 40% of men reproduce.
    - rtp 17y ago
      Not that I disbelieve you or find your post implausible, but do you have a source on that?
      - fnid 17y ago
        http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm EXCERPT: What percent of our ancestors were women? It’s not a trick question, and it’s not 50%. True, about half the people who ever lived were women, but that’s not the question. We’re asking about all the people who ever lived who have a descendant living today. Or, put another way, yes, every baby has both a mother and a father, but some of those parents had multiple children. Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.
        Tichy 17y ago
        Thinking about it again, that last statement seems inaccurate: since the world's population is constantly growing (exponentially, I presume), differences in later generations would have a much higher effect than ones in early generations. If I am not mistaken, that would also refute the argument that the differences would mostly be due to different circumstances in ancient times.
    - bhousel 17y ago
      I'm assuming that those percents are historic, not current. In the past, men were far more likely to die in war than today. I'm curious what that would mean in terms of evolutionary biology. Would Darwinism suggest that we self-selected a more peaceful human race by breeding men who stayed home, or a more aggressive human race by breeding men who were more successful at fighting wars and then returning? I realize that evolution works over extremely long time periods and we've been fighting wars regularly for our entire recorded history, but only recently has technology really started to remove humans from the business of fighting.
  - sp332 17y ago
    I'm genetically 50% female. After all, my mother was female ;) ^ It's a joke, OK? Don't take it so seriously.
    - Tichy 17y ago
      fnid described it better what I meant. It is about the diversity of men and women in your ancestry.
michael_browne 17y ago
The unstated (but unavoidable) conclusion of the article is that we are all now non-gendered, generic "individuals." Despite his best efforts at suggesting otherwise, what he's describing is not a new definition of masculinity, but the end of it. By definition, if a word or idea can mean anything at all then it really means nothing.

9 points by bhousel 17y ago

jerf 17y ago

Basically, being a man in the 21st century, according to this author, is basically not "being a man" at all. The entire article applies to women as well. It's just being "yourself", with no guidelines laid on you based on your gender. I am not expressing agreement or disagreement; I just think the article beat around the bush and (probably not deliberately) went to great lengths to avoid the very conclusion it is drawing, which is that being a man has no particular meaning anymore, according to the author.

Tichy 17y ago
"being a man has no particular meaning anymore" And unfortunately, men are also not needed much anymore. I read somewhere recently that people are descendants of many more women than men (meaning women have children more often than men - few men are fathers). Women not needing the money of their spouses - will they really just be attracted to a wider variety of men? Another thing I read recently is that women are becoming more likely to care for physical attractiveness now. Good for them, but I can't really see the benefit for men gained from that. Also what tires me is the assumption that women where held down by barriers we erected. I think in "former times" it simply wasn't possible to survive alone, and the traditional roles where one successful approach to managing life. Women were supposed to do the household chores because men were working at their jobs earning the money. What really freed women therefore was not the destruction of barriers. It was the invention of dish washers, vacuum cleaners, washing machines and frozen food.
- fnid 17y ago
  According to genetic research, 80% of women reproduce, but only 40% of men reproduce.
  - rtp 17y ago
    Not that I disbelieve you or find your post implausible, but do you have a source on that?
    - fnid 17y ago
      http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm EXCERPT: What percent of our ancestors were women? It’s not a trick question, and it’s not 50%. True, about half the people who ever lived were women, but that’s not the question. We’re asking about all the people who ever lived who have a descendant living today. Or, put another way, yes, every baby has both a mother and a father, but some of those parents had multiple children. Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.
      - Tichy 17y ago
        Thinking about it again, that last statement seems inaccurate: since the world's population is constantly growing (exponentially, I presume), differences in later generations would have a much higher effect than ones in early generations. If I am not mistaken, that would also refute the argument that the differences would mostly be due to different circumstances in ancient times.
  - bhousel 17y ago
    I'm assuming that those percents are historic, not current. In the past, men were far more likely to die in war than today. I'm curious what that would mean in terms of evolutionary biology. Would Darwinism suggest that we self-selected a more peaceful human race by breeding men who stayed home, or a more aggressive human race by breeding men who were more successful at fighting wars and then returning? I realize that evolution works over extremely long time periods and we've been fighting wars regularly for our entire recorded history, but only recently has technology really started to remove humans from the business of fighting.
- sp332 17y ago
  I'm genetically 50% female. After all, my mother was female ;) ^ It's a joke, OK? Don't take it so seriously.
  - Tichy 17y ago
    fnid described it better what I meant. It is about the diversity of men and women in your ancestry.

michael_browne 17y ago

The unstated (but unavoidable) conclusion of the article is that we are all now non-gendered, generic "individuals." Despite his best efforts at suggesting otherwise, what he's describing is not a new definition of masculinity, but the end of it. By definition, if a word or idea can mean anything at all then it really means nothing.