Poll of the Day > This past pride month has got me taking a look at myself.

(+) Yeah! (+)

I'm not really sure why I just started now of all times, but I've started asking questions that I never thought about before.

As fast as sexuality, I've already got that down; I'm just attracted to women. But some other aspects about me made me wonder if there's a deeper underlying cause, about gender identity specifically. I've never really felt *good* about my male body; just kinda like "this is fine." Also I have a decent interest in women's fashion and I've enjoyed learning about things like makeup in the past. In fact just a few moments ago I saw a customer at work and thought "damn; that's a cute dress and jean jacket combo." (Also I usually play as girls if given the option in games, but that's probably not relevant.)

On the other hand, I don't feel like I'd be more comfortable having a female body, and I don't have any interest in actually wearing women's clothing or makeup. I don't think that I'd be happier making any significant changes from the current me. I thought there was a possibility that I'm bi-gender or something along those lines. Or there's also the very real (and probably likely) possibility that I'm overthinking all this, and I'm just a regular dude with a few girly interests. Never hurts to do a little introspection, I guess.

You sound like every average straight man in America who is experiencing the decline of toxic masculinity and finally comfortable with saying pedicures make them feel good.

I've been labeled metrosexual my whole life (not by choice) just because I care about my hygiene and grooming. I sometimes go as female characters on Halloween with my wife by my side. I know without a doubt that I could never be in a romantic relationship with a man. Just be confident in who you are and people will eventually fuck off.

LonelyStoner posted...

You sound like every average straight man in America who is experiencing the decline of toxic masculinity and finally comfortable with saying pedicures make them feel good.

I've been labeled metrosexual my whole life (not by choice) just because I care about my hygiene and grooming. I sometimes go as female characters on Halloween with my wife by my side. I know without a doubt that I could never be in a romantic relationship with a man. Just be confident in who you are and people will eventually fuck off.

Pretty much this. Don't worry so much about trying to label yourself or figure out your identity. Labels describe. They don't define. Just do what you want without worrying about whether or not it fits what you believe about your personal identity. If those beliefs need to change, they'll change on their own as you figure out how to better describe yourself. If you can't figure out how to label yourself, just put off labelling yourself until you find it easier.

Nothing wrong with being non binary or just a guy who likes girl things either. If you think a dress is cute though, give it a try. No one would be hurt by it.

You can be a man and like girly thing, you can even be a manly man and like girly things, there's nothing wrong with that.

LonelyStoner posted...

You sound like every average straight man in America who is experiencing the decline of toxic masculinity and finally comfortable with saying pedicures make them feel good.

"Toxic masculinity" is just the lack of masculinity. Being a man is about being brave, strong, honest and protective, look at the heroes we hold up as examples of real men, like Aragorn, Luke Skywalker and Superman, they are symbols of what a real man is. I was told growing up that a real man is a man of his word, works hard, is responsible, protects his loved ones and the people that can't protect themselves, etc. I was never told I have to like monster trucks and beer or I'm not a real man.

keyblader1985 posted...

Or there's also the very real (and probably likely) possibility that I'm overthinking all this, and I'm just a regular dude with a few girly interests.

I'd go with this. Having a interest in stuff that is considered "girly" doesn't equal someones sexuality. From the top of my head I played with my sisters barbie dolls when a young one and have never thought I'm homosexual or even bisexual. Granted the internet wasn't as big then so the exposure to these possibilities wasn't as much as it is now but I think that's part of the problem as while the internet can help people discover themselves it can also get people questioning too much about things. Things they wouldn't give a second thought until someone brought it up online.

Muscles posted...

You can be a man and like girly thing, you can even be a manly man and like girly things, there's nothing wrong with that.

"Toxic masculinity" is just the lack of masculinity. Being a man is about being brave, strong, honest and protective, look at the heroes we hold up as examples of real men, like Aragorn, Luke Skywalker and Superman, they are symbols of what a real man is. I was told growing up that a real man is a man of his word, works hard, is responsible, protects his loved ones and the people that can't protect themselves, etc. I was never told I have to like monster trucks and beer or I'm not a real man.

You reinforced gender stereotypes in the same breath that you attempted to take them down.

Yeah men aint as masculine as they use to be. Its a generational thing. Boys are now growing up with moms who are making more money and may even be the breadwinner in the household. Some dads are stay at home dads. Stuff like that

Muscles posted...

"Toxic masculinity" is just the lack of masculinity.

No, it's the promotion of toxic traits as being acceptable, laudable, or even required under the pretense that they're "masculine." Even without considering the social ills, it's a pretty fallacious bit of reasoning. It's like if I murdered somebody, and you were all like "you shouldn't murder people," and I was all like "it's okay, it's the glarfindoogy thing to do" and walked away as though that had somehow settled the morality of the matter. "Masculine" offers exactly zero semantic value in that context.

More generally, though, it's a product of gendering traits and activities that don't need to be gendered. Being honest and courageous aren't "manly" traits, they're just good things for anyone to be. Gendering virtues and then treating the gender itself as being the virtue in question misses the point of the actual virtues and opens the door to lumping non-virtuous things in under the banner of the gender. Just skip the gendering part. It's completely useless and often outright harmful.

LonelyStoner posted...

You reinforced gender stereotypes in the same breath that you attempted to take them down.

What are you even talking about? People get so lost about what's masculine and what's feminine they can't see the forest for the trees. As a man you should try and be the best man you can be, which is doing the best you can to live like the heroes we hold up. Be honest, be a good person, stand up for the little guy, be a hard worker, etc. Things like liking fruity drinks, being gay, liking fashion, liking dolls, etc. don't make you less manly. Being a bully, a conman, a coward, etc. is what makes you less of a man.

Muscles posted...

What are you even talking about? People get so lost about what's masculine and what's feminine they can't see the forest for the trees. As a man you should try and be the best man you can be, which is doing the best you can to live like the heroes we hold up. Be honest, be a good person, stand up for the little guy, be a hard worker, etc.

Here, let's try a little experiment:

As a person you should try and be the best person you can be, which is doing the best you can to live like the laudable people we hold up. Be honest, be a good person, stand up for the little guy, be a hard worker, etc.

Did anything actually change about the core meaning of your post for having removed all references to masculinity? What does that tell you about your decision to reference masculinity?

gender is kinda silly. its better to figure out how you like to dress, how you like people to refer to you, what social roles you like to fill, etc.

none of those things need to 'match' each other, and the specific label you use for the group of gendered traits you have is less important. worrying about how to taxonomize yourself is kinda putting the cart before the horse.

for example, i like my body and face to look feminine and usually like femme pronouns, but i dress and act pretty androgynously and just use my default masculine-sounding voice.

i gave at some point on navel-gazing about whether im nonbinary or a woman or whatever, bc it just felt more like an unresolvable compulsion than something useful. whenever i have to answer a question like 'what is your gender identity' (usually on a survey or something), i just pick an answer other than male at random

adjl posted...

Here, let's try a little experiment:

Did anything actually change about the core meaning of your post for having removed all references to masculinity? What does that tell you about your decision to reference masculinity?

Men and women are inherently different, and have had different roles in all societies because of biological and psychological differences, and that's fine. What makes a good man and a good woman are 2 different things even if there is a lot of overlap that mostly boils down to "don't be a dick to people".

I know you are smart enough to realize the biological and psychological differences while also knowing they are equal.

Muscles posted...

I know you are smart enough to realize the biological and psychological differences while also knowing they are equal.

Can you name a single trait that you consider "masculine" that is not equally beneficial for women to have? What about one that you consider "feminine?"

Are there differences? Sure. Do those differences have anything to do with what constitutes good or harmful behaviour? Not so much, which makes using gender as a proxy for those virtues/sins completely pointless.

adjl posted...

Can you name a single trait that you consider "masculine" that is not equally beneficial for women to have? What about one that you consider "feminine?"

Are there differences? Sure. Do those differences have anything to do with what constitutes good or harmful behaviour? Not so much, which makes using gender as a proxy for those virtues/sins completely pointless.

Generally it breaks down to men being strong protectors and women being comforters/care takers but both rely more on being a good person then anything else. What makes a good man and good woman are mostly the same and at the end of the day if you are a good person you shouldn't worry about how masculine or feminine you are. You want to be a masculine man? Then be like Aragorn, not some meat head bully. If not that's fine, a truly masculine man won't be a dick to you because you are a man with more feminine energy.

It is healthy for most men to want to be masculine, and we can encourage that without saying you have to be. The same can be said about most women and feminity. It's the natural inclination but that doesn't mean it's bad for a man to be feminine or a woman to be masculine. What's not ok is having a lack of both and just being a bully. "Toxic masculinity" is just a man lacking any masculinity or femininity.

Muscles posted...

Generally it breaks down to men being strong protectors and women being comforters/care takers

And is it not equally beneficial for a woman to be a strong protector or a man to be a comforter/caretaker?

Note that I'm not suggesting the inherent biological/psychological differences don't cause men to tend toward the former and women the latter, if we're looking on a broad, statistical scale. I'm asking if there's anything about those traits that requires you to identify them as being the "ideal man/woman" instead of just saying they're good traits and leaving gender out of the evaluation process entirely.

adjl posted...

And is it not equally beneficial for a woman to be a strong protector or a man to be a comforter/caretaker?

Note that I'm not suggesting the inherent biological/psychological differences don't cause men to tend toward the former and women the latter, if we're looking on a broad, statistical scale. I'm asking if there's anything about those traits that requires you to identify them as being the "ideal man/woman" instead of just saying they're good traits and leaving gender out of the evaluation process entirely.

It is beneficial but that doesn't necessarily make it masculine/feminine but I'm not saying it's a bad thing for a man to have some femininity in him or a woman to have some masculinity in her.

Muscles posted...

It is beneficial but that doesn't necessarily make it masculine/feminine

So if a man is strong and protective, that makes him masculine, but if anyone else is strong and protective, then it's just a beneficial trait with no gender qualifier attached to it?

I work in a field that falls under "Pink collar" but I'm a semipro mma fighting former marine and ex deputy. I think the idea that MEN can't do not man stuff is actually silly.

This is the Musclesiest Ive seen Muscles act in a long while.

The two genders are tops and bottoms, everything else is a cosmetic add-on

adjl posted...

So if a man is strong and protective, that makes him masculine, but if anyone else is strong and protective, then it's just a beneficial trait with no gender qualifier attached to it?

It's just a woman with a masculine trait that may or may not also be more feminine overall

Muscles posted...

It's just a woman with a masculine trait that may or may not also be more feminine overall

And why is that trait specifically representative of an ideal man, instead of an ideal person of any gender?

The answer, of course, is because you've spent your whole life having such gender roles ingrained in you and you're struggling to look at the world through a different lens than that. That struggle is understandable, since old habits die hard, but you need to recognize how and why you're struggling. That way of thinking is a mistake. You're not going to be able to reconcile it to be logically consistent with a more open-minded understanding of gender, so stop trying.

Yeah but adjl, imagine youre alone out in the wilderness and then Luke Skywalker comes out of nowhere and strongly protects you.

Dont you think thatd be pretty hot?

Sarcasthma posted...

Yeah but adjl, imagine youre alone out in the wilderness and then Luke Skywalker comes out of nowhere and strongly protects you.

Dont you think thatd be pretty hot?

I personally wouldnt want him to weakly protect me.

That's how you get force ghosts

adjl posted...

And is it not equally beneficial for a woman to be a strong protector or a man to be a comforter/caretaker?

Note that I'm not suggesting the inherent biological/psychological differences don't cause men to tend toward the former and women the latter, if we're looking on a broad, statistical scale. I'm asking if there's anything about those traits that requires you to identify them as being the "ideal man/woman" instead of just saying they're good traits and leaving gender out of the evaluation process entirely.

This is a bad conception of the issue because it creates unrealistic expectations for women. Men are inherently better suited to be protectors physiologically and when you say that everyone should strive to be everything, women now have to be compared to people they can't possibly match

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

This is a bad conception of the issue because it creates unrealistic expectations for women. Men are inherently better suited to be protectors physiologically and when you say that everyone should strive to be everything, women now have to be compared to people they can't possibly match

Who said anything about comparing? Just expect people to be good people, laud them for doing laudable things, and leave gender out of it entirely. Gendering positive traits like that yields absolutely zero benefit, while creating problems in that it implicitly absolves ~half the population of pursuing things that would be beneficial to pursue, while guilt tripping anyone from the other half that fails to live up to those expectations despite having other talents that are equally beneficial.

Side note, you thought that post was worth bumping a two-week-old topic on the verge of purging?

Sarcasthma posted...

Yeah but adjl, imagine youre alone out in the wilderness and then Luke Skywalker comes out of nowhere and strongly protects you.

Dont you think thatd be pretty hot?

Well that goes without saying.

Sarcasthma posted...

Yeah but adjl, imagine youre alone out in the wilderness and then Luke Skywalker comes out of nowhere and strongly protects you.

Dont you think thatd be pretty hot?

i think this was an x-files episode.

adjl posted...

Just expect people to be good people, laud them for doing laudable things,

Everyone does that already. There's no benefit to expecting the same thing from men & women both because they're not the same. Best to play to our strengths instead. Doing away with expectations for men makes for mediocre men which helps no one.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Everyone does that already.

Which is why gendering some of those things is useless. People already understand how to deal with virtues without bringing gender into the mix. So why single out a handful of them (among quite a few less virtuous traits) as being gendered instead of just treating them like other virtues?

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Best to play to our strengths instead.

Which is precisely the benefit in expecting the same thing for everyone regardless of gender. People's strengths are an individual matter. Statistics will tell you what broad trends you'll likely end up seeing, but they don't dictate which individual people are better at which things. By gendering expectations, you pressure those whose strengths don't line up with those gender norms into doing something they aren't going to be very good at, while discouraging them from playing to their actual strengths. Encourage everyone to explore their strengths and learn what they're good at, then expect them to use those strengths to make the world around them a better place. Gendering any part of that process is useless at best and overtly detrimental in many cases.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Doing away with expectations for men makes for mediocre men which helps no one.

Are men not people? Does having expectations for people not therefore translate into having expectations for men?

adjl posted...

Which is why gendering some of those things is useless. People already understand how to deal with virtues without bringing gender into the mix. So why single out a handful of them (among quite a few less virtuous traits) as being gendered instead of just treating them like other virtues?

Gender expectations are just a suggestion, it's guiding men towards what they should aspire to be. It's useful because it happens to be the exact things men tend to excel at that they're guided towards. Do away with that and (because those things are challenging) you get subpar men who just don't do it because...why would they? There's no pressure to.

We're in an awkward place culturally right now where one extreme tends to want the idea of gendered anything done away with and the other extreme wanting everyone who doesn't fall in line shamed. Keeping the gendering of things that the latter does (as a guide) while offering leeway for edge cases is the best approach going forward imo but like everything politics have poisoned the well and you're either a chud or a cuck now so pick a side or you're even worse -- a centrist

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Gender expectations are just a suggestion, it's guiding men towards what they should aspire to be. It's useful because it happens to be the exact things men tend to excel at that they're guided towards. Do away with that and (because those things are challenging) you get subpar men who just don't do it because...why would they? There's no pressure to.

We're in an awkward place culturally right now where one extreme tends to want the idea of gendered anything done away with and the other extreme wanting everyone who doesn't fall in line shamed. Keeping the gendering of things that the latter does (as a guide) while offering leeway for edge cases is the best approach going forward imo but like everything politics have poisoned the well and you're either a chud or a cuck now so pick a side or you're even worse -- a centrist

I think thats the point. They should do those things because theyre expected to. They should do those things because they want to be a decent human being That said, those things shouldnt be defined by gender Instead of doing something just because your gender is expected to, do it to be good regardless And in the end, gendering certain things is still kind of dumb

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Gender expectations are just a suggestion, it's guiding men towards what they should aspire to be.

And what value is there in guiding men in particular toward those expectations instead of just guiding everyone toward them with no gendering? Sure, encourage people to play to their strengths, and the statistical reality of the matter is that men are more likely to excel at anything that requires physical strength (though the idea that "protectiveness" as a virtue requires exceptional physical strength isn't really valid in a world with so many easy-to-use weapons), but absolutely none of that requires gendering. Just holding everyone to the standard of doing what they - as individuals, rather than based on which bits they were born with - can do to improve the world around them.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

We're in an awkward place culturally right now where one extreme tends to want the idea of gendered anything done away with and the other extreme wanting everyone who doesn't fall in line shamed. Keeping the gendering of things that the latter does (as a guide) while offering leeway for edge cases is the best approach going forward imo but like everything politics have poisoned the well and you're either a chud or a cuck now so pick a side or you're even worse -- a centrist

Centrism for centrism's sake is a stupid position, though. There's nothing "fair" or "compromising" about just picking a moderate stance between two extremes that differ radically in how empirically or logically substantiated they are. What you're proposing is recognizing that gendering things causes harm and is pointless, but clinging to it anyway because apparently "you're subpar as a man if you don't do what you can to be a good person" is more motivating than "you're subpar as a person if you don't do what you can to be a good person." That's not a position with any logical merit. That's "you have a good point and I can't shoot it down, but I'm more comfortable sticking to a moderate position for the sake of being more moderate."

So what exactly is toxic about beer and monster trucks. Do you just see grave digger and some old milwaukee and go thats one toxic dude there!

dedbus posted...

So what exactly is toxic about beer and monster trucks.

The ethanol and exhaust, respectively.

Less obnoxiously literally, nothing, in appropriate moderation. Beer in particular becomes toxic when you start normalizing a culture of heavy drinking and/or drinking at inappropriate times, which is something that's often tied to masculinity by people with an unhealthy understanding of the concept. Monster trucks, mostly when they stop being a matter of putting on an entertaining show and you start driving them (or comparable oversized vehicles) around everywhere as a show of power, since that makes the road less safe for everyone and introduces a whole bunch of unnecessary extra problems like air pollution, noise pollution, and congestion.

It's also worth noting that neither of those things inherently has anything to do with masculinity. Like everything else I've been saying here, there's absolutely no need to gender them.

adjl posted...

And what value is there in guiding men in particular toward those expectations

Because men are the ones that will meet them better. Guiding "everyone" towards masculine things just makes women inevitably feel inadequate when they invariably can't match the average man. The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal. The fact that certain traits even came to be known as "masculine" traits is proof in itself that those things are of and by men.

adjl posted...

Centrism for centrism's sake is a stupid position, though.

Good thing no one did that then.

adjl posted...

Just holding everyone to the standard of doing what they - as individuals, rather than based on which bits they were born with - can do to improve the world around them.

There's a LOT of things not masculine or feminine that people can aspire to be without destroying ancient traditions that built the world we have today.

is the term tomboy derogatory

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Because men are the ones that will meet them better.

And? All sorts of different subpopulations will differ in their statistical-level performance in all sorts of criteria and expectations. What makes gender so special that it's the only one that gets this treatment?

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Guiding "everyone" towards masculine things just makes women inevitably feel inadequate when they invariably can't match the average man.

Half of men can't match the average man (inescapably by definition), and you're apparently fine with them being made to feel inadequate for it. For that matter, most people will find themselves below average in many of the countless other beneficial traits that aren't gendered, and that isn't a problem. Why are gendered traits the only ones where you can't wrap your head around the idea of forming expectations and judging people based on their individual talents? Do that, and nobody feels inadequate.

Again, I fully expect that even without deliberately gendering things, roles that involve more physical strength will end up with a disproportionate number of men. That's fine. The problem is not having more men in those roles, it's defining those roles as "manly," to the detriment of anyone else that's interested in and could excel at them, along with any men that aren't inclined to fill them.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

There's a LOT of things not masculine or feminine that people can aspire to be without destroying ancient traditions that built the world we have today.

"It's tradition, therefore we shouldn't change it."

Yeah, not the most convincing argument there. Especially when it comes to anything sociological, and even more so when gender gets involved because of how radically the role of gender has changed over time.

adjl posted...

Why are gendered traits the only ones where you can't wrap your head around the idea of forming expectations and judging people based on their individual talents?

You keep saying this like everyone doesn't already do it. Expecting the same of everyone doesn't help anyone and doing so doesn't mean you can't recognize outliers.

adjl posted...

The problem is not having more men in those roles, it's defining those roles as "manly," to the detriment of anyone else that's interested in and could excel at them, along with any men that aren't inclined to fill them.

Anyone put off by that isn't manly enough to fill those roles anyway so it's a moot point

adjl posted...

"It's tradition, therefore we shouldn't change it."

Yeah, not the most convincing argument there. Especially when it comes to anything sociological, and even more so when gender gets involved because of how radically the role of gender has changed over time.

If those traditions didn't work, we wouldn't be here. And it really hasn't. When women are considered the physically stronger sex then I'll concede that gender roles are a social construct like you say.

potdnewb posted...

is the term tomboy derogatory

idk but it's one of my favorite search terms on the hub

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

You keep saying this like everyone doesn't already do it.

Which is precisely why gendering these things is pointless. We already know how to handle virtues without considering gender as an intermediate. What point is there in using gender as a proxy for some of them?

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Anyone put off by that isn't manly enough to fill those roles anyway so it's a moot point

Logic isn't usually supposed to be round like that.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

If those traditions didn't work, we wouldn't be here.

Only if they didn't work so catastrophically that they caused an extinction event. There's considerable middle ground between "this is the best approach" and "oops we all died."

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

When women are considered the physically stronger sex then I'll concede that gender roles are a social construct like you say.

Surely you're not suggesting that physical strength is the only salient consideration in gender roles, and that nothing is considered "masculine" or "feminine" except based on how physically demanding it is.