- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -


MENZ.org.nz Logo First visit to MENZ.org.nz? Here's our introduction page.
MENZ ISSUES

MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Mon 10th July 2006

What is too ‘girly’?

Filed under: General — New Zeal @ 4:10 pm

Which of the following do you consider to be too girly?

?

  • Staying home as a house husband to look after the kids while the partner works full time
  • Shaving/waxing under the armpits
  • Wearing jewelry such as rings and studs
  • Putting a band aid on a 10 year old boy’s knee
  • Compromising in a conflict situation rather than attempting to win outright
  • Shaving/waxing the chest
  • Washing and ironing clothes
  • Wearing a skirt
  • Preparing food and feeding a 2 year old in a high chair
  • Caring about your skin
  • Asking the doctor to check out the pain in your back which has been worrying you for the past month
  • Taking an interest in how different clothes feel against your skin

?

If you answered ‘yes’ to any of the above then you don’t stand a chance against feminism, because feminists don’t consider anything too ‘manly’? They do everything that men do and retain their femininity.? ? My daughter wears a tie to school every Friday, and when I was a kid, I thought that was something that only men wore!

?

Basically feminism has enabled women to make huge strides and while they have been doing that, men have lurked in the background reluctant to change, trying to hang onto the last bastion of some outdated definition of masculinity.

?

So, what does being a male mean in modern society?

What things are too ‘girly’?

Should there be anything that is too ‘girly’ given that there is nothing that the feminists consider too ‘manly’?

What is your definition of masculinity?

30 Responses to “What is too ‘girly’?”

  1. triassic says:

    Here is a start……Understanding that I am driven by the hormone Testosterone which makes me act differently, not better or worse, than women in certain situations. That I hold a baby, cry, laugh, empathise and discipline in a masculine way. Because of my strength I must take risks and be ready to protect regardless of the danger involved to myself. Being able to admit when I have made a mistake or bad judgment and make ammends.

  2. Bevan Berg says:

    Just because a few women want to pretend they are men, does that mean all men should try to be women. We are not lurking in the background, we are just not that dumb.

  3. New Zeal says:

    Understanding that I am driven by the hormone Testosterone

    Females have as much if not more testosterone than men, they just have other hormones as well.

    Just because a few women want to pretend they are men

    Which women are pretending to be men? Women took the trousers which were considered men’s garments and made them their own. Now they do the trouser better than men.

  4. New Zeal says:

    Females have as much if not more testosterone than men, they just have other hormones as well.

    Sorry, I have overstated my case for women’s testosterone levels. See link
    Women have levels well below that of men, but they are necessary and important.

  5. julie says:

    Hi New Zeal,

    I am interested where you are going with this.

    All the above are manly. And I am not going to give you reasons. But they go from daddy to bicycle riders to about time caring for males skin to liking fabrics.

    You are not going to convince people to put skirts on boys and put trousers on girls as toddlers, are you? We have already discussed that.

    Please do not try and tell us we need to make children equal from birth and then we will have changes. If you do then you have been taught wrong.

    I will be asking your mother’s name otherwise.

  6. New Zeal says:

    You are not going to convince people to put skirts on boys and put trousers on girls as toddlers, are you? We have already discussed that.

    Please do not try and tell us we need to make children equal from birth and then we will have changes. If you do then you have been taught wrong.

    I don’t believe that I am trying to do anything of the sort. I am asking the questions and seeing what answers people come up with.

    People here don’t understand feminism the way I do. My understanding is that it was about doing positive things for women, and it appears it has worked. In return masculinism should be about doing positive things for men, not about doing negative things for feminism. It should be about throwing off the social shackles of what it is accepted masculinity and exploring new options. That is what I mean by redefining masculinity, and I believe that is happening, slowly.

  7. julie says:

    Hi again new Zeal,

    You have created a good time for me to get out for a while. My boys are too old (18 +15) to change being male so I am not too interested in all this.
    But I will get into it after starting a south auckland group with Jim Bailey.
    Good luck.

  8. New Zeal says:

    Okay, bye for now

    Maybe I’ll meet you some day. I doubt if I’ll be posting here when you get back. I’ll be too busy

    All the best

  9. starr says:

    zEAL
    “In return masculinism should be about doing positive things for men, not about doing negative things for feminism. ”

    given that this is true.. why is feminism doing negative things for men?

    “It should be about throwing off the social shackles of what it is accepted masculinity and exploring new options.”

    can you enlighten us here giving specifics?

  10. New Zeal says:

    I don’t know if feminism is doing negative things for men. If you hadn’t noticed our society is still largely run by men. Any hi status women like Helen Clark or Theresa Gattung get extra hard treatment because they are women.

    I briefly read the two new posts in this blog. The expensive lawyers and judges who make the decisions are largely men who probably never laid hands on a nappy like the new generation of men like you. I think the FC system is probably good, its just staffed by people who make bad decisions because they belong to the old definition of masculinity, which is now outdated.

    Feminism as a movement is history. It started in the 60’s and has fizzled out since. Sure, there are changes now in society and our current government is staffed by many who got their feminist training in the 60’s, but there are just as many doddery old men like Don Brash without the faintest idea of what fatherhood is about in the 21st century.

  11. Intrepid says:

    1. A man isn’t rule by his fears. He has them but never rationalizes them and tries to over come the ones he needs to. If he does rationalize them he hasn’t crossed the rubican, and thus remains effeminate. Women can cross the rubican and be tomboys, and funny enough I’ve found these women more attractive. Yet the fact remains most women rationalize fears, and a large minority of men do the same. We all have fears, yet most never come to deal with them and instead do as Kent and develop a evangilical New Age humanistic psudeo-theory around his fears to convince himself and other fools that he is some avanguard mystic new psudeo-masculinity instead of just a girlie man of the worst sort.

    You remind me of the fanatic Christians Mr. “There is no absolute truth” as your continue to push your truth, and therefore deserve Sir Winston Churchills quote:

    A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.

  12. Stephen says:

    Feminism articulated womens powerlessness and men’s power for 30 odd years. It overlooked women’s power and men’s powerlessness, thus giving teh impression that we have lived in a patriarchy and men must be stripped of power.
    That was a wrongheaded analysis which requires redress. That is why femininism is being deconstructed by critical analysis.

    Try stopping this and you repress men.

    Read Goldberg, Warren Farrel and other modern day Men’s movement advocates for more.

  13. Scrap_the_CSa says:

    Zeal

    People here don’t understand feminism the way I do….

    Very big assumption. You understand one ideological expression of feminisim that suits your belief structure from a very middle class western white perspective. Thats what you write of.

    As to feminism benifiting women, thats the subject of huge academic debate espically in islamic countries where educated women have rejected western feminism in droves.

    Take a real pan-global view not a distorted womens studies 101 outlook and you might begin to understand feminism.

    Regards

    Scrap

  14. New Zeal says:

    Very big assumption. You understand one ideological expression of feminisim that suits your belief structure from a very middle class western white perspective. Thats what you write of.

    I’m very well aware of my narrow white western view of society. I said that the way I did because I didn’t want to make sweeping generalizations about what feminism is, rather than, what appears to be quite correct, to say that I see feminism differently from you guys.

    I think that our society is currently in a transition and is quite unsure of itself. At the moment, less dynamic older social structures such as the Muslim one have become assertive and appear quite attractive to many. Once we have found solid ground to hold onto, and to feel good about, then it will be apparent that feminism was just one step among many in social progress towards better conditions for all.

    Intrepid:

    a girlie man

    I like that. That seems to be a good description of a bloke who maintains that none of the items listed above are unmanly. I will hold onto that. Maybe it is the men’s equivalent of tomboy. A girly man. This phrase carries the meaning well:

    Acceptance of the current blokey perception that many of these things are ‘girly’.

    Open license for the so called girly man to do things which previously were only considered things that women did

    By retaining use of the word ‘man’ this phrase asserts manhood

    Sounds good, Thanks, Intrepid

    Sorry, Stephen, I don’t understand your post at all

  15. starr says:

    Zeal.. either you are confused or do not know what you are talking about… compare your comment in No. 6 to number 10. it appears you are contradicting yourself.

  16. New Zeal says:

    Not sure what you mean Starr. You’ll have to explain how I contradicted myself.

  17. Stephen says:

    I previously posted –

    “Feminism articulated womens powerlessness and men’s power for 30 odd years. It overlooked women’s power and men’s powerlessness, thus giving the impression that we have lived in a patriarchy and men must be stripped of power.
    That was a wrongheaded analysis which requires redress. That is why femininism is being deconstructed by critical analysis.

    Try stopping this and you repress men”.

    New Zeal / Kent.
    You say you don’t understand at all the above statement.

    Read Warren Farrel’s – ‘The myth of male power’ or later works of his.
    He explains it far better than I.
    He was on the board of the NAtional Organization for Women in USA (The largest feminist organisation anywhere apparently). He observed, listened, thought it through over 10 years with N.O.W. then rejected feminism as misguided, one sided and unjust.
    He then put his analysis of feminism into print.
    I’ve merely reiterated it in it’s most simple form.
    A warning bro.
    If you read Farrel and cross the rubicon into this new paradigm it can be very unsettling at first. Some haven’t handled it well. Still, at least these days there are more folks who ascribe to Farrel’s type of worldview to turn to for support.

    For the record I’ve met the man in person. He appears to be a very polite and mild mannered, extremely articulate, white middle aged Californian. He has a plethora of degrees in a range of subjects principally in political science and psychology.

  18. New Zeal says:

    I am not going to argue with you over whether or not we still live in a patriarchy. However, I don’t understand what it has got to do with the questions asked in this thread.

  19. Stephen says:

    It’s really simple Kent / New Zeal.
    You say that masculinism
    “should be about throwing off the social shackles of what it is accepted masculinity and exploring new options”.

    OK. Well, Farrel offers an alternative viewpoint on men. In the process I believe he throws alot of much needed light onto the topic of your thread.
    Have you actually read the man’s works?

  20. New Zeal says:

    Stephen,

    I haven’t read Farrel that I know of (could have been a passage inserted here and there in some assignment at some time). Have you any links I can follow.

  21. Stephen says:

    New Zeal / Kent.

    Go to –

    http://www.warrenfarrell.org/

    But be careful. Like I said this man’s work can be very unsettling emotionally until his ideas are assimilated.

  22. New Zeal says:

    I read the excerpts from the book and have little doubt about the veracity of what he says. But you can argue against everything.

    Take something like suicide statistics. Males are a lot more successful than females at killing themselves. They usually choose a more violent method and execute it more effectively. Females attempt suicide just as frequently but are more likely to fail.

    Part of the package of being in power is that you have to be first in the firing line. When Caesar ruled Rome he had absolute power. His power made him a target for enemies to kill him and they eventually did. That males are more likely to be killed by homicide, in wars, etc etc etc and all the other things pointed out by Farrel are actually symptomatic of being the gender who has the power. The weaker gender misses out on that because they do not have the power. Their role is to look after the men and the children and they still predominantly do.

    Farrel’s statistics about men being powerless because they die more readily are rubbish. In the Kalahari desert, lions are more likely statistically to meet an early death than Wildebeast. Does that make them less powerful?

    Having said that I would agree that men have been left behind by the women’s movement and have less freedom than women in many respects, but I would say that it is up to men to lead the movement for change. Who is Farrel addressing his book to? Women? Does he want women to read it and then say “there, there, I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware that we were giving you a hard time. Let me make it up to you”.

    Men still hold most of the positions of power in all the western parliaments in the world. I, during my lifetime, have never doubted the supremacy that males have over females in our society. As a member of the more powerful gender I would expect males to be treated less gently in law, social attitudes and all the things that Farrel points out. My power means that I am more able to absorb such treatment.

  23. Stephen says:

    Breathtaking callous sophistry from New Zeal / Kent here.
    Even men committing suicide he sees as symptomatic of how ‘powerful’ they are.

    Oh
    My
    God.

    And you seriously want folks coming to you for advice and support.

    I’m afraid you’re a real worry bro’.

  24. New Zeal says:

    Well, if you don’t want to argue the points and instead stoop to pure insult then there’s not much point is there.

  25. Stephen says:

    Kent / New Zeal,
    Yes, I’ve no doubt from your perspective you feel insulted. Too bad. Having been a suicidal disempowered dad myself who went on to counsel similar guys in days gone by, I too could say I feel insulted reading what seems to me your callous theoretical twaddle.

    You state –
    “That males are more likely to be killed by homicide, in wars, etc etc etc and all the other things pointed out by Farrel are actually symptomatic of being the gender who has the power”.

    Reading that I agree with you there’s little point in continuing this discussion. My energy is better spent elsewhere than arguing with you ad infinitum.
    We are poles apart bro.

  26. New Zeal says:

    Just because you insult me, doesn’t mean I feel insulted.

    theoretical twaddle

    I could make the same comment about Farrel’s ideas.

    My energy is better spent elsewhere than arguing with you ad infinitum.

    I agree wholeheartedly.

    Good luck with everything.

    Bye

  27. Intrepid says:

    Dear Proud Girlie Man,
    Your understanding of both history and biology is breath taking too. Caesar for most of his political life never has total power. As part of a triumpertant he shared power with two others. Earlier he had even less power to wheeled. Even when given full power formally in his last days he still had to deal with senators.

    Feminists have pointed to the lions as the real hunters and the males as lay a bouts for many years in the past. Then a new study came out and revealed the truth. I saw on camera what the professor published. A pride of lions was being pushed off their territory by a very large and aggressive group on hyenas (who are female run and organized by the way). The female lion hunter females all took flight. Then the head male lion came along caught one of the probable female hyenas and crushed it head on camera. The pride reestablished it territory and then some. Unfortunately the feminists continue to pass on this rubbish lie campaign as well. In direct or indirect conflicts males show their superiority. Aggressive females (like the hyenas & Amazonians) are pack like at their worst (no hollywood BS), fearing to fight on their own directly.

    The Amazonians (another distorted feminist symbol) never faced anyone head on (just like you Kent dear) but come into range with their javelins or arrows and shot again and again at a safe distance always galloping off from real risk. They may be one of the root instigators of indirect war and indirect gradualism in the media, with terrorism as our present version of the practice.

    Deconstructionism, which you seem to adore, is about breaking down male ideas, and never standing and delivering anything of your own, despite lots of print and talky talk. This is the way of the fox or weasel. Foxes don’t ever say they are a proud weasel they call themselves new fashionable things like a new forum of man (please use some PC term for I’m unaware of such terms for they aren’t worth remembering, for they won’t last half a decade like all the others before them).

    As for more biology, females lions let their cubs die at the hands of the new males who take over a pride, thus staying alive at all costs instead of defending thier own offspring. The removed males either die immediately or later from their wounds. They often die having to deal with out numbering new males wanting to mate.

    Women aren’t inept at suicide they often go through the motions for attention and so they can get someone to nurture them, defend them, talk to them yet again. This of couse comes at the expense of someone else getting these peoples attention in these peoples lives (like their kids, wife, parents or grandparents, thus stealing empathy through once again indirectness). If this sounds like a broken record you’d be right, and this is how boring your lack of real definable ideas are- Kent proud to be a girlie man New Zeal.

  28. New Zeal says:

    I’m not sure what you are saying with your lion stories except to describe how male lions exert their physical power. I guess there are many forms of power, so it is not clear cut and Mr Farrel’s perception of power is not uncontestable.

    I’m not sure what you are saying about Julius Caesar, who took Rome from being a republic (with some answerability), to a military dictatorship and the most powerful civilisation in Eurasia. I suppose you could argue that his gallery maids on the balance of it had more power than he because they were likely to live longer. That’s fine, if that is your definition of power. Tell that to the gallery maids.

    In addition if you see yourself, because of some definition put forward by Warren Farrel, to be powerless in the face of women, lawyers and the FC, then that is how you see yourself, and I have no desire to change that.

    This thread had its moments but has led nowhere useful and it is time to call it quits.

  29. starr says:

    ZEAL
    WWhat do you really know about Caesar.. since you claim to be an expert..

  30. Stephen says:

    Final word on this thread to Kent –

    And just because you browbeat doesn’t mean I’m beaten.

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

Since May 2016 this site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

« »

Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar