I have long had a pet theory. It goes like this: Many if not most of the world's troubles can be traced to men -- specifically, men overcompensating in response to perceived threats to their masculinity. (There are addendums; for instance: many men have absent or emotionally distant fathers, and thus either receive a warped picture of what masculinity is or have to forge one of their own, or get it from their peers.)
Traditionally -- and, arguably, in nature -- masculinity means strength, assertiveness, bravado, willingness to take risks and adventure and defend home and hearth and blah blah and so on. In the kind of hunter/gatherer societies where humankind evolved for millions of years, this worked out OK. But in a highly complex, densely populated, interdependent world, it doesn't always go so great.
Evidence for my pet theory just emerged in the form of a new study:
"I found that if you made men more insecure about their masculinity, they displayed more homophobic attitudes, tended to support the Iraq War more and would be more willing to purchase an SUV over another type of vehicle," said Robb Willer, a sociology doctoral candidate at Cornell. ...
Willer administered a gender identity survey to a sample of male and female Cornell undergraduates in the fall of 2004. Participants were randomly assigned to receive feedback that their responses indicated either a masculine or a feminine identity. While women's responses were unchanged regardless of the feedback they received, men's reactions "were strongly affected by this feedback," Willer said.
" Masculinity-threatened men also reported feeling more ashamed, guilty, upset and hostile than did masculinity-confirmed men," states Willer's report, "Overdoing Gender: Testing the Masculine Overcompensation Thesis."
Peace. Cooperation. Compromise. Voluntarily buying a smaller car. Burning less fossil fuel. Listening to treehuggers. These things are for chicks.
Masculinity-threatened participants also showed more interest in buying an SUV. "There were no increases for other types of cars," Willer said.
What? No hybrids?
Comments
View as Flat
Andy Brett Posted 12:37 pm
10 Aug 2005
Permalink
hansjones Posted 1:05 pm
10 Aug 2005
Permalink
bhurley Posted 9:51 pm
10 Aug 2005
Seriously, I once started (and then abandoned) an essay on the dangers of charisma (a trait not confined to men but usually associated with maleness). It all started from a line in a Nanci Griffith song, where she says "it's the boys who ask questions, but it's the man who knows," which made me think about how we expect our leaders and managers to be decisive and confident, even in the face of incomplete information and uncertainty. If a president or a presidential candidate changes his mind based on new information, he is said to be "wishy-washy." Political campaigns are built on strategies to attack the opponent's record by looking for inconsistencies. We look for leaders who are confident and unwavering in their views, firm in their convictions. But wouldn't the world be a much better place if it were ruled by people who ask questions rather than by those who (think they) know the answers? Why don't we value humility and the honest expression of ignorance? Why is it a bad thing to say "I don't know, I'll have to look into that?" And why is it a bad thing to change your mind when the weight of the evidence says you should?
Down with charisma! Let's hear it for the wimps!
Permalink
Andy Brett Posted 10:40 pm
10 Aug 2005
The "support group" comment reminded me of The Red Green Show. For those of you who haven't had the opportunity, here's a little snippet:
Man's Prayer:
I'm a man...
But I can change...
If I have to...
I guess.
Permalink
wedjr Posted 12:56 am
11 Aug 2005
Permalink
wedjr Posted 5:03 am
11 Aug 2005
Permalink
Emily Cunningham Posted 8:32 am
11 Aug 2005
Really?
I would say systematic oppression is the reason we're in such a mess, not men. I think society has to do a pretty big number on humans to set them up to be in an oppressor role. You have to isolate them, confuse them, scare them, etc. etc. Basically do everything possible to cut themselves off from their own humanity.
We isolate little boys, confuse them about a number of things (including the real picture of who women are) and scare them with violence, humiliation and rejection. Although one might say other groups experience similar abuse, I think it comes at men in a particular way and I think keeping them a part, isolated and unconnected is the biggest factor in how they handle the mistreatment that comes at them (from social institutions and society at large, not from "women" per say; women do not oppress men). Look at men (as a group). They're so cut off. They may have the privileged position in society in relation to women. They may reap many material and status benefits, but it comes at a cost. A high cost.
Sexism is horrendous, it's not fun, it's not pretty, and it kills people. But alluding that there is something innately oppressive about men is not just misleading and inaccurate, it's unproductive and doesn't get us any closer to solving society's ills. We need to change the way our society functions including the way it makes men and other groups into oppressors.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:43 pm
11 Aug 2005
The world would look very different without men behaving like men--different, but not necessarily better.
Men start and fight almost all wars, commit almost all violent crimes, and build almost everything you see. Just about every tree cut down and wild animal shot or trapped is at the hand of a human male. Look out your window. You will see houses, cars, roads, skyscrapers, and airplanes. They were almost all conceived, designed, and built by men. Some might suggest that these objects are the result of male domination. Male domination is very real, primarily because men are statistically more aggressive. Formalizing this domination with fundamentalist religion or secular laws exacerbates the problem, but male aggressiveness alone cannot account for our proclivity to build stuff.
Why are most women less interested in building structures and machinery? Only an idiot would suggest that women are incapable of such things. My hypothesis is that men in our culture build things to attract women. Like wasps building a nest, they just can't help themselves.
Men do it to compete with other males for higher status. Status is primarily how men attract women. The space shuttle and the atomic bomb are all constructs resulting ultimately from competition among males. Competition for breeding rights is a common thread all through nature. Those things men build are ultimately monuments to women. Men (and women) are largely clueless about this fact. Women also compete and seek status of course, but they are not quite as compelled to do so as men or in the same manner.
Women are not men with different shaped bodies. That simple fact that our bodies are so different is ample evidence that we also have different behavioral propensities.
Most men don't hesitate to ogle a member of the opposite sex that they find attractive. Women rarely bother. The most important job in human culture is the care and nurturing of our children. It is a difficult, time-consuming endeavor. This job falls almost universally on the shoulders of women simply because, statistically speaking, they are better at it than men. Women could and would build things if they were so motivated, but for the most part, they just aren't. Although completely capable of doing so, statistically speaking, they simply do not have the genetic incentive to create these monuments; it's not how they are made. Keep in mind that there are a number of women's engineering societies, all staffed by exceptional women engineers. Statistics apply to groups, not individuals.
These behaviors are generalizations, and there are many, many exceptions. Again, a prosperous and generous culture will make room for these numerous deviations in the name of individual freedom and happiness. That is what women's liberation is about, and it is a good thing for all of us. The differences we see between men and women have all been grossly magnified by our gigantically complex mega-cultures. Hunter-gatherer societies don't have the means to grossly exaggerate these sexually driven dimorphisms, but the differences still exist. San bushmen work hard at being good hunters not so much because they need the food, but so they can impress the women back in the village and hopefully parlay their status as a good hunter into some hanky panky--men, go figure. Just keep in mind, the male peacock looks the way he does because of female selection pressure.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:31 am
12 Aug 2005
Women won't fall for it.
The master/slave women and children as chattel patriarchy is serious stuff. And both the slave and the master are damaged by this poisoning of the cultural well.
Permalink
CM Hersh Posted 7:34 am
12 Aug 2005
We can, however, strive to make our society and institutions more equitable. Just because sex differences are "natural" does not mean that all manifestations of them are acceptable in a society of reasoning beings.
But it ain't all culture.
Permalink