Is the emasculation of the American male leading to war?

Just a question I have recently began asking myself...I do not have a position other than feeling intrigued and wanting to do some research on this topic.

If biologically males have evolved to work in teams to hunt or fight as a part of our daily lives, is there a repression that occurs in civilized, corporate life that drives American men to seek conflict via proxy? Examples: Football, Boxing, Action movies, War. Is this the "chickenhawkitis" that plagues so many War Mongers? Are we so alienated from a natural means of production that we seek out conflict in order to satisfy an innate desire for comradery against the "other" ? I think this topic also leads into Dean's research on Authoritarianism.

Does anyone know of any good research on this topic?

leading to war-mongering.

OMG! If that is the case - "Men's natural inclination to blow up shit must predominate all reason." - then, the entire human race is doomed to extinction. :(

Methinks when the military is BROKE (not more than a couple of years from now) and The Draft kicks in in full force, we're gonna discover there are many more PEACE LOVING men. Lottsa them! :wow:

After all, there's no "reset" button in the real world of WAR, i.e., death is final. :(

would bring the average psychologist's salary down.

Forgive them though - they know not what "horrid implications" they convey.

AS IF, using the typical feminine traits of consensus-building and conflict resolution are NOT positives for Humanity and Civilization? :eyes:

True, it was a TOTAL body rush - a thrill - to fire the Cal-50 machine gun. However, when you pause a moment and realize that such weapons have been used to cut other human beings in half ... well the thrill was soon gone. :shrug:

than another? If so, is war more masculine than the study of the mind? If it is true that many more male humans have some extra tendency towards physical aggression (ie war is masculine) than females, isn't the repression of that a much subtler and more emotional issue than money?

I am skeptical of the OP's proposition as well but you're analogy of some sexist asshole saying "masculine" ideas are more marketable or that more women in the field means lower pay is not applicable to the topic.

Edited for spelling.

I'm listening.

please educate yourself.

If I wanted to just do research, I would not have posted on a discussion board.

I am not going to point it out :)

Goodbye.

:P

"educate me."

You had a chance to influence someone else's thinking toward your opinion and blew it off. Almost as if you preferred the person to remain "sexist." When that person was reaching out and asking your opinion, you just acted snide and superior.

especially if the particular type of racism has been debated unendingly?

i dont.

Debating it unendlingly could refer to other people. yet this poster evidenced an open mind.

By deciding to be snide and superior, you lost an opportunity to promote your own cause.

it should be all our causes. if it isnt, maybe we should reconsider why we post on du.

as i said i dont like pandering to disingenuous bullshit

It's a good thing schools don't follow that philosophy.

"It's a good thing schools don't follow that philosophy."

But on the other hand, DU isn't a school. A schools don't have search engines that make it almost instantaneously convenient to look up thesis papers of almost any topic imaginable.

As for self-education, it's a wonderful thing, and we all appear to have the tools at our disposal to engage in it... if that is indeed the goal.

I've heard the adage that there are no stupid questions. I strongly disagree. For my part, I think LP showed an inordinate amount of restraint in replying to a stupid question.

people will laugh at you.

however if the person laughed at you cos you need a blood transfusion, that would be shitty.

genuine, you've only helped perpetuate the bullshit.

On a message board, I tend to err on the side of caution. You could have tossed at least a Wiki link out.

because its just indulging the bullshit.

I'm just not so sure. :shrug:

caused our most recent wars.

Here's a tip: ditch the fat pile of bullshit that is Faludi's "Stiffed" and go read real information about what's going on with American males.

notion that "real men" are mindless, violent jerks.

I attribute it to bozos who have bought into the "macho mystique," not realizing that women prefer masculine to macho, and then are frustrated because women reject their boorishness.

Men can bond together for CONSTRUCTIVE purposes as well as DESTRUCTIVE purposes.

You want male bonding? Get together with a bunch of other guys and volunteer to fix up houses in New Orleans or along the Gulf Coast.

That's CONSTRUCTIVE masculinity.

maybe the Family Research Council... or even Focus on the Family

I'm sure they go on and on about the emasculation of the American male

so can they be happier and be emasculated at the same time?

"emasculated" sheesh

I'd dearly love to see examples - precisely and exactly and conclusively - of how American males are being "emasculated"...and of course, I really want to hear the causes...

snort

I have no idea where this idea is coming from. If anything, in comparison with previous generations, they're becoming hyper-testosterised, if that's a word. which I don't mind, so long as they don't turn into jerks.

which is the constructive masculinity Lydia talks about, and a destructive macho mentality.

You aren't a real man otherwise. Or something like that. Explosions are cool. No real man didn't have a few stints of putting firecrackers into models or melting plastic toy soldiers with a magnifying glass. Snips and snails and puppy dog tails and all that.

OTOH, I also like watching a tearful drama too... but I try to keep that a secret. Everybody thinks that's pretty funny for a guy to admit to that. See what I mean about double standards?

Or serious?

Nor are most of the other American males I know.

Conflict doesn't make me more manly, but I have no shortage of it.

...on the contrary, it is the hypermasculinization of our society that leads to war.

That, and the military industrial complex whose imperative is to make more and newer weapons, thus needing to find ways to dispose of the older weapons, thus ensuring that not only we, but every petty dictator and tyrant on the planet is armed to the teeth.

Sorry, I suspect your question was frank and earnest and not trollish, but seriously... step back and think a bit.

Why should we even entertain the notion that behaving in a more civilized fashion is anything but a Good Thing?

Why should anyone give a shit if my male bretheren get upset about having to behave themselves, and crying "Pee Cee! Pee Cee! Wahhhh!!" any time one of their (not mine!) heroes has to grovel before the public and ask forgiveness for behaving stupidly?

Put short, the solution to hyperactive warmongering fools like Cheney/Bush is to defeat them and grind their neocon movement into a fine, dry powder.

war is so simple, even cavemen did it

After that, I'm through with helping you stir this crap.

Just held up to higher standards than women now days. Feminism has broken women free of alot of the gender roles of the past but it has done nothing for men who don't live up to the ideal 1950's guy. Cold, stoic and strong, passionless but ambitious, money and power hungry and successful. Women, and society in general, still have problems with men that don't make as much money or aren't as successful. Men don't feel "de-manned" by women or society as much as irrelevent and held to double standards.

I've had a few net aquaintances I know, run me down when they figure out I'm a 30 something male that's unemployed and having a tough time finding work. I think if people knew I were a woman, they would go easier on me. It is like it is worse than being a cross-dress or effeminate to be a powerless man. It goes against all those myths that people are still holding onto.

However, I don't think all that said has much to do with the war in Iraq. If anything, the whole "security mommy" thing seems to have been behind alot of George Bush's early support. Maybe women craved real men with power (DICK cheney anybody?), after feminism has pretty much de-powered most ordinary men?

Feminism is, first and foremost, about women and improving our own conditions in life.

It's just more "mommy/wife/servant" crap to expect that feminism will take the lead in changing social expectations of men.

Every time somebody tries to bring up men's issues in the popular consciousness, invariably feminists and the powers that be just shrug it off as a joke, or as irrelevent, or worse, sexist.

stupid nonsense should be laughed at however.

I believe in equality - but the point of feminism is make life better for women, not to make sure simultaneously that men are happy too.

Men have been on top throughout virtually all of recorded history, and every bit of progress women have made has been through our own efforts. The odd man has joined the fight, but the majority have not and do not give a crap about making life better for women.

So, fight your own battles. That's what we're expected to do.

(Oh, and "feminists" and "the powers that be" don't really go together, that's just some bullshit right there.)

then what is the point? I guess if feminism is right I should support it's own sake, but what is the point of supporting an ideology that says "umm... whatever happens to men, who cares".

That's why I don't like identity politics. It's BS. When push comes to shove, each of the little factions will tear each other to pieces over their own petty little issues. It isn't a good way to build a political party. Political parties are built on common interests. That's why I'm not a feminist and don't buy into identity politics of any kind.

Whenever female progressives have joined in solidarity with men, putting our own issues aside, we have gotten screwed over.

And you don't have to mention that you're not a feminist. We could tell. And why do I get the sense that if we feminists started devoting 95% of our efforts to improving conditions for men, that wouldn't be enough for you?

on "more important things" with the promise that our issues will be dealt with when it's done, but it's never done, and our issues are never dealt with.

So excuse us if we're in no hurry to go through that yet again.

This thread was supposed to be about men.

I didn't see anything in the OP about feminism or feminization or any such thing. I saw a question about emasculating of men.

And I felt compelled to jump in when I saw someone complaining that feminists aren't doing enough to help men.

Also, whenever terms like "emasculation" or "feminization" are being used about men, you can be sure that the blame is going to be laid on women at some point.

I'm being serious here. There are precious few men in the world who are seriously concerned with the status and oppression of women and making an effort to change things for the better, so why are feminists expected to worry about men's issues?

Where's the solidarity from the men's rights movement? There is none, because the entire basis of the men's rights movement is that feminists are ruining their lives (which seems a little odd to me considering how little acceptance our concerns and ideas get in the public and the media) - they constantly degrade and disregard women and women's issues - they have not shown themselves to be allies, yet that is what people expect of us.

No thanks.

"However, I don't think all that said has much to do with the war in Iraq. If anything, the whole "security mommy" thing seems to have been behind alot of George Bush's early support. Maybe women craved real men with power (DICK cheney anybody?), after feminism has pretty much de-powered most ordinary men?"

seriously how can you say this? this war was waged predominantly by men: colin powell. bush. cheney. rumsfeld.

and yet, even for this women are to blame?

what utter bullshit.

didn't they? Granted, maybe not all women voted for Bush, but enough of them voted for George Bush that he got re-elected. Soccer moms/security moms were a key voting group for Republicans in the 2004 elections. They favored Republicans strongly over Democrats.

only 44 percent for Kerry.

It doesn't exactly look good for males who voted for Bush, but women were the swing vote and suppossedly up for grabs on both sides, and if you ask me, they chose poorly.

I too do not hold women or feminists responsible for emasculation. I blame Capitalism and civilized life which separates mankind from the land and the means of production.

My point is that this "hyper-masculinity" is an over-reaction against un-natural condition of our civilized, capitalist life.

I have felt the same way as you when you were unemployed. I went from being a successful IT professional making good money to being a poor English student getting his M. A. -- so yes, I know quite a bit about feminism ;) -- Now I am back to being an IT professional/project manager. I think I had exactly 1 date in 2 years while being poor student. When I was back into IT, I was able to date many women and eventually got married to a beautiful, intelligent, successful woman. There was a great deal of difference in the way people reacted to you when you told them what you do for a living. As far as myths that people hold onto...Yes, a great deal of it is social and mythological, but I can't help but also feel that their is an evolutionary aspect at work here that is biological as well as social.

And the funny thing that you realize in corporate life is that those who most often rise to the top of the management chain are those, male and female, who exhibit traits usually identified with hyper-masculinity. Not always, but usually. For those who do not exhibit these hyper-masculine traits day-to-day, some look for escapism and then enjoy action movies, football, politics, and war. I dunno. I don't have all of the answers -- just lots and lots of ideas and questions.

Yes, I believe some of it is rooted in biology but humans are suppossed to be more than walking sperm banks and umm... receptacles. The fact that so many people walk through life evaluating people based on old and outdated criteria is damning of the human species. There are very few freethinkers anymore. The things that will let human civilization survive another millenia are not going to be the values that let it survive the last couple thousand. Maybe it will require the evolution of a whole new kind of man (or human, to be PC).

I also agree with your later point on solidarity between these different groups. Feminism is fine, advancing womens' issues is great, but the hostility that your post sparked pretty much proved your point, IMHO.

Men can still hunt, fish, rockclimb, drive four-wheelers, go to strip clubs, build shit, take apart shit, run through the woods, whatever.

Name any "traditional male activity" (as defined by those who might justify war) and "manly men" still have the ability to assert their manliness.

War is about raping, pillaging and looting - and a convoluted sense of power.

And not all past successful cultures were warmongering. They just got wiped out by the ones that were.


Ridiculous notion, IMHO.

I am baffled at the level of assumption here.

I can't even articulate how stupid this is.

This pretty much sums up my feelings on it.

"Research" that "proves" one sex is in some way inferior or superior to the other due to biological imperative (or the suppression thereof) is more often a manifestation of the researchers personal issues than discernible fact. Take it with a grain of salt.

I do think the more violent and competitive sports, movies and video games are a way to satisfy aggressive urges without the negative consequences of war. I think it is more ignorance of war (or, in the case of warriors, the unfamiliarity with anything else) that causes average people to want to go to war. But it's complicated, because the average person cannot start a war, it must be started by those in power. And those in power seldom, if ever, personally participate in the combat. So, for them, the motivation is more related to increasing power, maintaining power or some sort of business transaction.

"Superior" and "inferior" have nothing to do with the OP's point.

Like squeezing a water balloon, exerting social pressure to change people's behavior doesn't make the predispositions (which caused the behavior in the first place), go away, it just displaces it into other venues.

Modern sport isn't a outlet for aggressive urges, it's the offspring of their displacement. The kind of hyper-masculine gruntfest which passes for "sport" today, is, in my opinion, a manifestation of this displaced aggression. I don't think it's that much of a stretch to suggest that war cheerleading may be another.

You summarized my question well.

...and certain behaviors, like going to war, are generally unacceptable and undesirable. Saying that a specific gender embodies a biological imperative towards an unacceptable behavior implies that it is inferior to genders that don't.

You carry the genes of those who prevailed at war. The other guys didn't have any descendants.

Is aggression an anachronism?

Once again, my point is that research which seeks to promote or condemn, directly or indirectly, a specific gender is likely not good research, and is more likely an expression of the researcher's personal issues. I didn't say the OP did or did not have related personal issues, nor did I argue for or against aggressive behavior or its being a biological imperative, though I did make the true assertion that war is generally thought of as a bad thing, though in different terms.

To answer your question, though, aggression is hardly an anachronism (which I never said or implied). In fact, it's a common trait of many different life forms. There is even some evidence that aggression is necessary on some level for the survival of a species. That doesn't make it right, wrong or contrary to my original assertion that research suggesting aggression to be gender-specific is likely a bunch of bullshit.

Edit: stray "s" for no reason

Andrea Dworkin.

I love how her name gets tossed out as a weapon against all feminism when the people throwing it have almost never read anything she's written first-hand.

Get a clue.

News to me...

got emasculated.

:P

How come you didn't ask for any help? I wasn't doing anything important in '97. I could've helped. :)

sorry, i know i should have organized better.

LOL

:hi:

I never know from one minute to the next if gender violence is funny or sick.

I wouldn't want to accidentally say something that might make me a pariah.

Thanks in advance.

:P

I'm going to watch my vitals, now that I know what you're about.

nope. still there.

Let's dig deeper...that's what I am trying to do.

patriotism.

In fact, there are many circumstances in which the bravest, most patriotic, most masculine thing a man could do would be to resist the siren call of militarism.

But what of a man banding together with his neighbors to ward off an invaiding tribe? In that case, a sense of family or tribe patriotism would be a good thing in order to summon courage. The thing is, this kind of defense is no longer a reality in this civilization. So instead, perhaps, men channel their aggression and patriotism into other venues in an act of projection. I guess this goes back to arguments on "What is a just war"? and pacifism. Like I said, I don't have the answers, just lots of questions.

How about men banding together to rebuild the areas that are still in ruins two years after Katrina?

How about men banding together to teach troubled boys how to be masculine without being macho jerks?

How about men banding together to protest an injustice?

How about men banding together to start a new business in an economically depressed town?

How about men banding together to sing (and drink afterwards) like the miners in Wales (nothing wussy about them)?


There are lots of opportunities for male bonding other than militarism or team sports.

Saying otherwise shows a lack of imagination.

I am not talking about the nurturant aspect of men. I am speaking of what is usually referred to as the aggressive masculinity that tends to lend itself to the use of force and control.

I agree, the items you mentioned are wonderful and I think we would all be better off if more men (and women) would devote their lives to promoting nurturance and love rather than aggression and conflict. But yet we see the men and women of this country repeatedly fascinated and worshipping at the feet of Mars. I am raising a question aboutONE possible causation of this. I am not saying it is the SOLE causation or that men shouldn't try and do all of the things you listed.

they've lost what used to be their pride, being able to support a family on one person's earnings.

The frustration may make some men more aggressive, especially if they've been brought up with the sick notion that the only acceptable male emotion is anger. However, I reiterate the difference between masculine and macho.

I know a number of men who are thoroughly masculine, and yet I doubt that they've ever had a macho jerk moment in their lives. Interestingly, they know how to venture outside of stereotypical masculine pursuits (sports, war, hunting, fishing) without being in any way feminized.

Oh, and a man who finds himself uncontrollably aggressive anyway should 1) get some counseling to find out why he's such an anger junkie and 2) maybe play some sports with guys he knows instead of over-identifying with some overpaid gladiators on TV.

Of being able to TAKE what they want.

It is positively ENCOURAGED by
war/war movies.

Might makes right and all that...

No need to look for Freudian reasons as to why this happened.

But I think that there are problably multiple, intertwined reasons for it. Another reason is that Bush wanted to "kick some ass."

In "Southern Ladies and Gentlemen," author Florence King points out a pervasive culture of proving masculinity in her native South, and constrasts this with the Jewish men she knew in New York, who don't evidence this. Her hypothesis is that in Jewish culture, at a boy's bar mitzvah he is declared a man (from a religious and community point of view, obviously), he understands it, everyone else understands it, and it's a settled question.

Chickenhawkitis also comes of simply of being immature and privileged. You will notice that our leading chickenhawks did everything possible to get out of Vietnam. That's the difference between them and the folks in charge of the First Gulf War, who did do Vietnam and learned its lessons.

Perhaps our upper-class coming-of-age rituals need changing. Apparently, pickling your liver at Dartmouth is inadequate for the job.

then I'll be first in line to shave his problem off so that he'll have to pee sitting down for the rest of his life.

nt

It feels natural enough to me, even if it IS culturally conditioned. I am not convinced either way, although I would lean towards a belief that says it is both biological and culturally conditioned.

I posted below in post #125, but not sure if you're reading/replying to all so I wanted to point that out there. It is a serious look because I see sort of what you might be getting at, though disagree with the "emasculation", the masculine being the aggressive stuff. It seems to be a human thing, though many other animals have this also. I call it "us vs them" or "me vs you". I think humans have not evolved very far from gerbils (to pick another mammal that has severe "us vs you" issues). I have wondered if competitive sports have evolved culturally to channel human agressions, the "me vs you" into a culturally accepted form.

It's mostly hard-wired.

can you define "emasculate" and "masculine"?

If you are defining "masculine" as "dominating over other things" I would encourage you to examine why that is, and whether that assumption is an invisible part of reproducing existing unequal power structures.

I could write a novel and try to capture some of what I feel are aspects of masculinity, but I cannot define it in a simple statement.

I think Tolstoy does a pretty good job of it in War and Peace.

All the same, I am unwilling to start a discussion with "men have been emasculated" as a basic assumption unless it's defined, mainly because I suspect the definition itself is sexist and offensive.

By avoiding the definition we allow the sexism inherent in it to remain invisible. That's part of treating it as a "natural" part of how life is (unequal and patriarchal).

can surely find a willing recruiter to sign him up. Unfortunately, the fellows searching for their balls - or imagining they have giant ones - are also the kings of deferments.

However, you are allowed only one circuit of the bases at a time. You can't just run around and around the circuit accumulating a higher score.

Discussion in this thread will resume after someone either finds the baseball or buys a replacement baseball.

I've observed right wing women who cheer the war on the same way.

Though you could have a point. The male bonding thing is there. I don't completely understand it, but it seems to be a reality. They have to have something they do that doesn't include women. Now that women can be included in everything except actual combat, it's the only thing left.

on that perception. It's at the heart of the red meat they throw to the Freeper faithful.

It's why our good, strong, fair-minded liberal men get tagged by them with "pansy" and "pussies" and all that sort of weak-person talk.

It's not true of course, but you can't argue that they haven't used it most successfully. :-(

Younger sons who did not stand to inherit went off to the Crusades....


Good point though.

Of course, if there have always been unjust wars, why are we so shocked and surprised that they continue to happen? I ask myself that same question every day, but I retain a hope that our efforts can help prevent the next one.

have caused the American penis to shrink, hence the need for larger and larger weapons--and those eventually have to be used somehow, somewhere.

But seriously, folks, if you have an enormous military, eventually someone is going to use it for what it's for. The only way to prevent wars is to keep Defense as Defense. We don't need that kind of spending to defend this country.

and girls too

Did they try and kill your daddy?

... But you just don't have the defense spending for 200 legions of homicidal stormtroopers?

No problem, get Blackwater's RENT-A-MERC program.

nt

feminist. I haven't read this book however, or any other work she may have done.

haven't read anything since. maybe she changed? or not.

Now I can do some "research." :)

would be civil litigators. a definite aggressive, dominating trait most of them posses

can be argued to lead to war.

I don't think that the war in Iraq has anything to do with masculinity, or a lack thereof. It has to do with our global petroleum addiction, pure and simple.

If we want to address any "basic, root" causes, we should start with THAT.

Dammit if I can remember the "whos" and the "whats"...

The "chickenhawkitis" (great term!) would (likely) be something else, but the innate tribal nature of humans, male initiation into the tribe, and other stuff mentioned in your post (I'm "sounding" incoherent right now--do better with speaking) correlating with the drive to go to war has been talked about...

On edit: See post 86 (as you already have). A great reminder to me to not break the habit of reading the whole thread before yakkin'! ;)

Doesnt' mean it is Human nature (male or female) to war monger.

The war mongers will use anything to get what they want. And that includes manipulating human nature to thier own ends.

After all, the Nazis originally couched thier plan on killing the unworthy as "compassion".

:rofl: :thumbsup:

"If biologically males have evolved to work in teams to hunt or fight as a part of our daily lives" Is this true? Have they evolved for this reason, or in this manner? I don't agree with the basic assumption there, think males evolved to have sex, or rather impregnate females, instead and all the other stuff is just window dressing.

"is there a repression that occurs in civilized, corporate life" Are they repressed? How? Why whom? In what manner?

Sports. Now, there is something I have wondered about. Are "me vs you" sports, competitions, contributing to "me vs you" or come from "me vs you" or have nothing to do with "me vs you".

"Is the emasculation of the American male leading to war?" Are American males emasculated? What do you mean by this term? What is masculinity, what is emasculinity? I disagree with the "emasculation" term as I don't see American males being emasculated as I define emasculation. If you mean them playing sports rather than killing each other, which makes them so something that then they have to go kill each other, why stop at "American"? How about all those sports all over the world like, say, soccer? Are all soccer players "emasculated"?


I think you are trying to ask as I have wondered about sports, "us vs them", war.

:+

IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST

Losers in the gene pool, imho.


The Missing link