Why do some masculists defend an incoherent set of beliefs about men?

Question

(As with questions concerning "some feminists", please note that "some" is different from "all" or "most" or "many".)

Some masculists defend a view of masculinity as the "strong, silent type", as primal, even primitive, uncomplicated, simple, not "over-analyzing", not "thinking too much", and even suggest that when men discuss feelings, they're being "feminized".

While they are entitled to their views on masculinity, I then have to wonder when they also make a show of celebrating how many men have been great philosophers, poets, and other thinkers

Did these men not analyze things? Did they not think things through over and over from many angles? Did they not express emotions? Were they the "strong, silent type"?

Does it make sense for masculists to celebrate the achievements of men who, on their own terms, aren't really much "men" at all?

Hopscotch, we actually know quite a great deal about many of these individuals. We have biographies, autobiographies, remarks by their contemporaries, correspondence. Some were quite talkative. Some were quite emotional. Some were quiet and restrained in their manner. Some were highly variable.

Answer 1

I cannot attach the term "masculinist" to my mindset, perhaps because of the contradiction you rightly point out.

I will say, however, that there is a tendency for men to withdraw and become perhaps too introspective when confronted with a crisis or challenge, when perhaps they would benefit from confiding in a friend who can help.

And perhaps that is the problem in today's society. Male friendships are commonly belittled as "male bonding." Male friends who are too friendly are maybe perceived as "gay" and a stigma results. I can't say for sure, but I wish I had more male friends in which I could confide. This is a definite emotional "advantage" that women have over men, or at least, that's how I see it.

Then again, I'm clinically depressed, so how I see the world is hardly any indicator of reality.

Answer 2

"While they are entitled to their views on masculinity, I then have to wonder when they also make a show of celebrating how many men have been great philosophers, poets, and other thinkers"

Interesting observations. this is the type of question that should be posted on the philosophy forum.

i would say its because we humans (both men and women) are sub-consciously aware of our 'dual identity'. I am aware of myself being 'myself' as an 'autonemous individual' with unique characteristics as well as an individual who belongs to this 'collective idenity' called 'Man" (or Woman). Thus, i could get offended when i hear someone making false claims about either one of the identities which I am an integral part of.

For example if i was a woman and a virgin and i hear someone say things like "all women are ho's" or "modern-day women are slu_tty" eventhough i know i am not a ho or slu_tty, i would get offended by the generalization which attacks my 'other non-individual identity'. I think you get the idea.

" Does it make sense for masculists to celebrate the achievements of men who, on their own terms, aren't really much "men" at all?"

Yes it makes perfect sense. Like i said, we all have this dual identity. As human consiciouness is inherently contradictory, it makes perfect sense for one to be arguing for the self but at the same time the same person could be railing against the 'attributes' that belong to the collective-idenity.

Hegel doesn't specifically address this issue but if you are interested to find out more perhaps you could try and read some of the stuff been written by the german idealists.

............edit..........

the human mind is incredibly flexible when it comes to embracing ideas and values. logical ppl and philosopher can spot the contradictions and get upset about it while non-philosophers are not likely to care or realize that there is a contradiction.

Answer 3

It's refreshing that you chose the word "some" (or even most would do) and not cast this as a generalisation, which I notice people do often in this section.

I'm not a masculist nor a feminist, but do agree that there have been countless men throughout world history which have been deep thinkers and all around artists (writers, painters, musicians, etcetera) in their own field, and have expressed their emotions, thoughts and experiences through their particular art, as have the deep thinkers re-created or developed many of the philosophies we are now familiar with in modern time.
While I do think that men often tend to be more rational than most women, I also think that men are by nature or can choose to be more emotional just as well.
There is a quote by Nietzsche that comes to mind (one of several translations):

"Man and woman have the same emotions, however, different in tempo: therefore man and woman never cease to misunderstand one another."

I agree mostly, but also think that we have the ability to choose. This post would go hand in hand with what I posted in your question about stereotypes...one of the reasons that we believe in these "roles" that pertain to one gender or the other, is because this is what we've been taught to believe.
From my perspective of human nature, outside of our upbringing, cultural and societal influence, classifications, dogmatisations, and so on...each one of us is an individual, simple as that.

Answer 4

No mindset has a monopoly on being incoherent or self contradictory, and indeed, many people who are have no idea that they are.

Over the last couple of days huge numbers of Q's have been posted, often next to each other on male/female circumcision, or gold diggers/dependent men male rape/female rape - and attracted almost polar opposite responses from the SAME poster in some cases, no hint of self reflection, no hint that they might be being hypocritical, inconsistent or incoherent.

I would point out that despite starting with "femi" - feminism is actually a unisex term which is defined in the dictionary as working towards equality. A word many men feel uncomfortable adopting because it "sounds girly" and because it associates them with self identifying feminist who are anything but.

From what I have seen of masculinists, most of them seem to want fair rights for men, equal rights usually and as such just using a word they feel more comfortable with than "feminist". And then there are the self identifying masculinists who are basically just mysoginists.

In the end its more about what you believe, what you say and how you act than the label you choose, but when someone uses a label, i do wish they would also use a dictionary because at least that way we are using the same language to mean the same thing.

Answer 5

Men are told they should "emote more" in everyday life just like women do. We're not designed that way & should be allowed the latitude for silent reflection when we choose.

When we do have something actually to say & ponder & philosophize... we do it.

When we don't... we don't just talk to fill the air with noise. (relax ladies... that's not what I'm saying you do.)

I think that's the difference with human communication.

"More" isn't always "better."

The great male philosophers & poets could have been as silent as church mice 95% of the time for all we know & only have spoken when they had something to say or only wrote when they were inspired to do so.

It's not a "female trait" to speak in-depth or speak analytically.

Men just don't tend to speak as much or about the same things that women do.

...That's all.


EDIT:

Autobiographies have to be full of thoughts & emotions or they fall flat.

Accounts from 2nd hand parties will never paint an accurate picture of a person.

Many poets, authors, and artists were and are reclusive outcasts.

How many times do we hear about authors that live in quiet seclusion?

...& many times we just don't know a whole lot about the person.

If you look at historical females such as "Joan of Arc" who refused to dress like a woman, acted & looked more like a man & was only "technically" female it seems...

is still considered to be a woman.

So even if Socrates was as chatty as his 80 year old aunt... he's still going to be tossed in the same bin as Clint Eastwood & General MacArthur.

If the ladies can have "Joan of Arc" ...We get Socrates.

Answer 6

I'm a jerk. A lovable, humorous, silly but serious at times Jerk. I love to think and I love to be silly. For anyone to take these old cliche standards and perpetrate them on to the next generation is a bafflement to me.

Men can be strong and silent, but so can women. Men can be Talk dark and handsome. Oddly enough so can women. In the end I don't think feminism or Masculinism have contributed anything to the 21st century. At least in the 20th century we had women's sufferage and rights violations to fight for. Now what? It's a fight of " Who's better " Men or Women. Lame and shameful.

Answer 7

Some misunderstanding is obvious on this thread. A mascul-ist is not some kind of a cross between Swarzegegger and neanderthal man and a femin-ist is not like a clone of the beautiful Gina Lollobrigida. A man is not always "mascul-ine" in appearance or approach anymore than a woman is always "femin-ine" in appearance or approach. No more stereotypes, please.

Answer 8

Maybe these dingleberries should watch the film Southern Comfort about a man named Robert Eads who was born female to really challenge all that is usually considered masculine or feminine, or what actually constitutes gender.
Is it based on the self identity in your heart and mind as Robert Eads said, or is it merely what's hangin' or not hangin' between your leggos. I've seen many women with qualities viewed as masculine "Chutzpah, courage, mechanical skill, analytical mind." and plenty of men who lack the same.

Word to the wise. Forget all this chauvinistic or feminist BS and just judge a person for himself or herself by his or her DEEDS, not appearance, or by what dangles and jigglebobs down under. Capisce?

In my area, four school trained male mechanics misdiagnosed a malfunction in my car with machines and computer diagnostics. A lesbian friend who learned from her dad correctly diagnosed the problem in less than five minutes and had it fixed in no-time.

So if I'd have ever doubted a woman could be as good a mechanic as a man, I doubted no more. And for the guys, not all are dipsticks, a man can still be a man and loving, considerate, caring and nurturing as well. I've seen men who were much better parents than some women were. Just being a woman does not constitute proficiency in the art of child raising nor being a man constitute lack of it. Nor does being born with a meat and two-veggies make you an expert at mechanics, math, art, science or politics.

Judge a person by their deeds and forget all this crap about man, woman, transgendered, gay, lesbian, straight or all these stupid words that divide us and keep us at each others throats. All of them, good and bad, are just people. Not gods, not devils either, just people.

Answer 9

It is difficult, but the masculinist who believes "I am man, I am all power, bow down to me" is becoming a huge minority, toward extinction, one can only hope.

Many of those "ape type" archaic men are trying to train their offspring into the same role, but it does not work when the mothers become stronger...

We can only hope that more thinkers get produced and taught, and less "I am man" types are developed.

Answer 10

No, it really doesn't make sense. In fact, I am not really attracted to men are superbly masculine according to these so called masculist. Who knows what their problem is, you should write a letter to them discussing your views.