Why did we give up talking about what makes men tick?

Submitted by Mastodon on Tue, 2014-04-22 22:49

Article here. Excerpt:

'United Nations special rapporteur Rashida Manjoo, a South African human rights expert, has landed herself with the twin charges of relativism and hyperbole for claiming that the British "boys' club culture" is more sexist and pervasive than many others. But if she had said the same thing 20 years ago, a small chorus of men would not only have agreed with her, they would have earnestly promised to do better. The early 1990s was a heyday of curiosity about masculinity and what makes males tick – and no one was more intrigued than the men themselves, at least the minority trying gently to nudge aside their macho chauvinist alter ego to find the egalitarian him inside.
...
Davina James-Hanman, director of Against Violence and Abuse (AVA), is a tutor at the national police college and a former adviser on domestic violence to the Department of Health. If anyone asks her why some men, reared in violence, go on to beat their loved ones and some don't, she has an answer. What makes a difference is that a boy has a teacher, aunt or adult who gives love and attention outside the violent home.

What matters is a clear and coherent story, so when the police arrive, they don't instruct a man at war in his own home to kiss and make up; instead, they take him away as the instigator of behaviour that is clearly wrong. That ambivalence about how a real man is expected to behave (demonstrated not least by some women) is still alive and well.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Oh yeah, they don't exist.

Like this guy's comment here:

'Probably because the proportion of men whose behaviour is cited as being the problem is utterly miniscule, to a point where the overwhelming majority of men simply don't recognise that behaviour. Accordingly, referring to "men" and "their behaviour" simply does nothing but at best confuse and at worst alienate most men. I myself am in the alienated category - I frankly couldn't care less about 'women's' problems and how I as a 'man' am somehow duty-bound to ponder them.

Nothing will change until sexists like yourself and gender politicians are no longer the ones leading the discourse.'

Pretty much sums it up. If taunted by schoolchildren as you walk to the bus stop in the morning you are at first surprised, offended, etc., that's to be expected. If it goes on for some time you become inured to it and simply go on about your business and the taunting kids are puzzled as to why you don't act annoyed about it much, then it's a pretty sure sign that the kids are fairly clueless about human nature. Or, that they're actually adult feminists (well, so-called 'adult'...).

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2014-04-24 04:29

drive down an unfamiliar road and assume all the traffic was 'one way only'. especially when the avoidance of contrary evidence requires use of a blindfold.

speaking of a blindfold, I just now (after seeing the ref. art.) figured out a way (test) of just looking at a woman and determining her degree of radical feminism, like a black belt, or a brown belt in karate.

test: how many physical features would she have to alter ever so slightly to be able to trick or treat as a man?

think about it. there has to be a cause /effect thing going on here. its just too 'in your face' to not have some type provable correlation going on somewhere in the bizarro world of the blind, deaf and dumb we have lived in since feminism first decided what was right and wrong for all of us.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by daveinga on Sun, 2014-04-27 00:44