~ archived since 2018 ~

Feminism is the last thing in the world boys need

EricAllonde

August 1, 2018

85 upvotes

/r/MensRights

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/feminism-is-the-last-thing-in-the-world-boys-need

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Feminism is the last thing in the world boys need
Author	EricAllonde
Upvotes	85
Comments	19
Date	August 1, 2018 3:24 AM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/93lcsh/feminism_is_the_last_thing_in_the_world_boys_need/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/feminism-is-the-last-thing-in-the-world-boys-need.896909 https://theredarchive.com/post/896909

Comments

[–]noriann 24 points25 points26 points 5 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

What modern feminists want is to rid the world of traditional masculinity, pure and simple.

I'm afraid it's not that simple. Feminists are positively enamored with traditional masculinity when it comes to men with power acting chivalrous toward women. Giving them all sorts of special treats and goodies, treating them like children in the criminal courts, protecting the honor of m'lady etc. Indeed feminists rely on "traditional masculinity" to a remarkable extent -- specifically the parts about protecting and providing for women. It's the treat men and boys with a modicum of fairness, respect and dignity part they object to.

It is completely delusional, of course, to expect that men are going to put up with this abuse indefinitely, but hey, that's feminists for yah. Feelz before realz.

[–]i_reckon_not 9 points10 points11 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Greg_W_Allan 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShutupPussy 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hadashi_blacksky 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HeForeverBleeds 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

I get a lot of the things in the article, and I'm definitely with the idea that fathers are important in children's lives, and that feminism is not helpful. But there are things that are just meh

do not tell our sons to play with guns or to not cry. We parents of sons know that both are instinctive to boys.

Obviously, not true. Many boys cry, especially when they're young. Many boys couldn't care less about guns. The idea that boys / men don't cry or do like guns is not instinct; it's social convention. Some boys are like this, others aren't. They are not all interested in the same thing; they do not all express emotions the same way

Tradcons who say it's unnatural for boys to cry or to not like guns or roughhousing are really no different than feminists who say it's unnatural for boys not to cry or to like guns or roughhousing. Both are trying to force their ideals of how a man must behave onto all boys

[–]girlwriteswhat 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I preface this comment with #NotAll

Well, yes, many boys cry. At the same time, testosterone inhibits crying. That's one of the most common observations of transpeople on hormone therapy--transwomen on T blockers report crying over every little thing and having difficulty controlling their crying (especially if they're on estrogen as well), and transmen on T often complain that they CAN'T cry, even when they want to and think it would make them feel better.

The testosterone flood during puberty also changes the physiological structures responsible for crying in young men, shrinking the glands and widening the ducts--meaning the smaller, less productive glands need to produce MORE tears before they'll spill from the wider ducts. This means adult men need WAY more emotional stimuli to actually cry than adult women do.

I'm sorry, but that's not socialization. That's biology.

As for boys preferring guns (or "boy toys" in general), this is well documented in the literature to be a thing, and that it begins long before socialization can have an impact. As in, day old boys stare longer at mechanical objects than at faces, on average, and day old girls do the opposite. To add insult to injury, boys receive another heavy dose of testosterone (sometimes called a mini-puberty) at around 6 months of age.

Toy preference has been replicated in juvenile rhesus monkeys isolated from adult influence (males choose trucks, females choose plushies), and in chimpanzee juveniles in the wild re their stick-carrying play (females split their time carrying their sticks like babies, and like tools/weapons; males do the latter only).

Toy preference at 9 months of age is a reliable predictor of gender for babies with ambiguous genitalia.

On top of this, higher prenatal testosterone is a clear predictor of preference for masculine styles of play among both boys and girls at least up to 5 years of age.

Honestly, if relative digit length of index and ring fingers is a reliable predictor of masculine/feminine traits and homosexuality in adulthood (digit length being affected by prenatal testosterone), then I see no reason to believe that gendered behaviors and toy preferences aren't partially influenced by biology.

[–]noriann 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

Hey Karen, speaking of crying...

You're aware that feminists are trying to "teach boys to cry more" because boys allegedly grow up to become emotional retards ("emotionally stunted" is the phrase I just heard by a feminist spamming the Melbourne Men's March Facebook page; perhaps "learning to control one's emotions" would be a more apt description?). I recall your suggesting that this will merely make their lives more difficult, because as soon as that voice breaks and the neoteny recedes so will the empathy.

What I don't understand is that women appear to be legitimately clueless about this. Like, they really don't seem to understand the empathy gap between men and women.

Example: an article in The Atlantic featured a woman who studied "gender shaming" for ten years and came to the conclusion that it is primarily women who enforce the male gender role. She said that when she realized this, she had an epiphany of sorts: "Holy Shit! I am the patriarchy!"

Since I know you like constructive criticism: at one point a guy asked how MRA's are possibly going to convince women to give up all the goodies in divorce.

I think the proper answer here would have been (a) because studies show that it is in the best interests of the mother herself and (b) because it's in the best interests of the child. A study in the UK determined that just over 50% of divorced women believe that it isn't necessary for the biological father to have any contact with the children at all. I just made a post about the extreme levels of sadism women often show toward their exes during/after divorce; but I also think that if women were at least aware of the importance of biological fathers that many more would willingly opt for joint custody. Of course, some women would still refuse due to the aforementioned sadism, so the ultimate solution lies in default shared parenting as well as requiring actual evidence for alleged abuse against the woman or children by the father.

Anyway, love your work. I really wish someone would arrange another debate between yourself and some feminist; it's cathartic for MRA's to see a man-hater getting her/his ass kicked. :)

[–]girlwriteswhat 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Well, look no further. Someone has arranged a debate (or discussion) between me and a feminist. I'll be on a panel with "the faithless feminist" Karen Garst at Mythicist Milwaukee in September of this year.

As for the giving up the goodies thing, I think there's always going to be a difference between even some women who will say, "yes, I think this is in the best interest of women, children and society in general," and "I want what I want when I want it the way I want it."

And I think a lot of women who are not like that don't see a need to legislate it. Because, you know, they're not like that. There's an idea among even a lot of women who share custody amicably that women who refuse to must have a good reason, because hey, THEY'D need a good reason to refuse to share custody or to refuse to encourage as much access for dad as possible.

And of course, there's the terror everyone lives in, all the way down the line, of making a fatal mistake in terms of giving a man the benefit not even of the doubt, but the mere benefit of due process. What if we tell her she CAN'T have that restraining order because she hasn't sufficiently proven her case, and she and her kids become a statistic?

In Australia, Rosie Batty became person of the year or something a few years ago. She WAS granted a restraining order. Her ex WAS under restricted, court-ordered supervised visitation. EVERYONE, including her and the courts KNEW he posed a threat. Then SHE decided to allow her ex unsupervised access to her son at a ball field or batting cage or something, and her ex murdered the boy.

That was blamed on the system, ffs. The system did everything right. SHE went outside of the bounds of what the system had decided. And now she blames the system for not doing enough to protect women and children from dangerous men?

We literally have a case where the system did everything the woman could have asked for in terms of protection for her and her child, and then SHE fucked it up, and it's the system at fault. What was the system supposed to do? Surveil her 24/7 on the off chance that she'd initiate a breach of the court order she herself had requested and put her son at risk?

This is the climate we're operating in.

[–]noriann 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[sorry for edit: you really do rock, even if I hate your Twitter linking to far right blowhards]

One of the main problems I see with the MRM is that while properly drawing attention to facts like eg men make up about 95 percent of workplace deaths and a similar number of homeless rough sleepers -- some of the MRM leadership supports far right politicians who would see that problem become even worse. Charity is great, but it's not enough. We know this due to the experiences of people during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

There was a post here a few weeks ago indicating that in the US, states where unions are attacked (they're barely surviving as it is in the private sector), workplace fatalities rise by up to 15 percent. That would seem to be a major MRM issue, yet the post was downvoted.

By the same token, right wingers aren't exactly in the habit of helping homeless men. Women, yeah sure. But not men. Even veterans. Right wingers and Democrats wave their flags in support of the war machine but quickly become boot-strap advocates when the Vets return home. And thus the propaganda lie that anti-Vietnam protesters spat in the face of returning vets is replaced by the truth that the same people who most staunchly support war are also more likely to spit on homeless vets and tell them to "get a job."

Numerous studies show that a solid majority of homeless people are mentally ill, and the remaining percentage consist of kids who are being abused at home and drug addicts.

At least that was the case during the 80's when the "responsible" and "conscientious" Ronald Reagan shut down all the mental institutions, attacked unions, and wasted billions on absurd "star wars" type projects and the rapid expansion of the police state.

I don't like Michael Moore and his films, but there is one telling moment in one of his docs where some banker is whispering in the actor Reagan's ear (the guy used to be a snitch) and the old man immediately changes his tune. That's not democracy. That's not even republicanism. It's plutocracy. Some piece of shit banker who exploits people for a living telling the President of the United States what to do.

I suspect that the homeless stats look different today. More in the way of people who have lost their homes (at a time when there about a thousand times more homes available for living than homeless people), more men who can't find a job at all and have given up, more men who have been kicked out of their homes due to some bogus "domestic violence" complaint.

If only there were enough jobs to go around. In fact, isn't that a theoretical possibility? And not automatically implying some Stalinist nightmare where everyone who dissents is thrown into gulags? Of course it is, and of course the right is full of shit, just like what passes for the left.

You're a brilliant woman, but if there's one thing that annoys me about you is that you appear to be remarkably credulous when it comes to far right propaganda. I mean you link to it all the time on your Twitter.

Let me explain something to you: anyone who thinks of politics purely in terms of "left" and "right" is a naive idiot. Any semi-competent ruling class would at least attempt to control both sides.

Good luck Karen. And I hope to arrange an interview between you and an actual feminist powerhouse.

[–]girlwriteswhat 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

some of the MRM leadership supports far right politicians who would see that problem become even worse.

And yet these are the very people who are acknowledging there are problems, and that the problems need attention.

Betsy DeVos, Trump's secretary of education, is the person who rescinded the "dear colleague" letter, and sat down with the falsely accused and their families and advocates, despite being smeared as a rape apologist.

Earl Earhart, a Republican in Georgia's house of representatives and head of their education appropriations committee, was the guy who told the assembled university presidents, "until you can give me some assurance that you will respect the due process rights of accused students, don't come talking to me about your budgets." He said that two years ago or more.

Philip Davies, a Conservative MP, has endured smearing in the press for speaking at ICMI16 about the gender gap in the criminal justice system. His message was equal parts men should be treated more fairly and women should be held more accountable, because that would be equal.

David Leyonhjelm, a member of a classical liberal, right libertarian party, uses the word "misandry" unironically in public life.

Shit, it was Trump who, when a bitchy feminist who demanded to know, with her hands on her hips and her head doing that side to side thing women do, whether women would earn as much as men under his presidency, told her, "if you do as good a job, you'll earn as much."

It's Breitbart that reported fairly on GamerGate and on HBB's expulsion from Calgary Expo.

>There was a post here a few weeks ago indicating that in the US, states where unions are attacked (they're barely surviving as it is in the private sector), workplace fatalities rise by up to 15 percent. That would seem to be a major MRM issue, yet the post was downvoted.

Link? I mean, listen, I've dealt with a few hard left wing people here on this sub. Most people here, I don't know their politics. But there are three people here who are left wing and are so antagonistic that I can't stand talking to them. If that link was posted by one of them, then I have no doubt it would be downvoted. The only really hard left person here who is even remotely tolerable to talk to is David Byron--and he's not just remotely tolerable, he's great.

And even if it wasn't one of those three really annoying people, what does that say? That most of the people on this subreddit who care about men's rights are right wing? Or at least, anti-hard left? What does that tell you?

>You're a brilliant woman, but if there's one thing that annoys me about you is that you appear to be remarkably credulous when it comes to far right propaganda. I mean you link to it all the time on your Twitter.

What does that tell you? That the right are saying the things I think are worth promoting? I read very widely, noriann (I really hope this isn't yet another sock of you and I know who). When the left say something I feel is worth promoting, I tweet it. It's not my fault they consistently say the opposite.

Fuck sake, when David Pakman's YouTube channel got demonetized, I invited him onto HBB to discuss it, and the implications for freedom of expression. That's AFTER he fucked me over in an interview that was dishonest and hostile and ended on, "I think you're arguing against strawmen, whoops, I can't let you speak to that because we're out of time."

Don't you tell me I haven't given the left a chance. I'll talk to anyone. I have accepted EVERY single interview I've ever been offered. CBC fucked me over. The New Republic fucked me over. Marie Claire fucked me over. TYT fucked me over (and told me to make a ham sandwich). BBC did a preliminary interview, then opted to not do the program. CTV interviewed me in studio in Toronto after I changed my travel plans at my own expense to accommodate them, then never aired the piece. I've done a 90 minute interview with fucking Buzzfeed News, and another with VICELand, both of which required me to travel when it was inconvenient for me and made things difficult for my family, and I can only imagine the 8 minute long, out of context, heavily edited nightmares they're going to produce out of those, if they even do anything with them.

The lefties here don't need to be told there are problems. Apparently they know it. But I'm not in this to preach to the choir. If that was what I was after, I'd be devoting myself to my channel, because I certainly don't make any money from doing a radio bit at 5AM. And another at 7:30. And another at 8:15.

I'm in this to talk to virgin bums on virgin seats, who have never heard of this shit before, or who, if they have, need someone in their mainstream to validate the issues before they'll take them up.

Right wing radio shows give me the opportunity to red pill a LOT of people. I talked for an hour on a radio show last night that went out to 500 stations across the US. How many listeners was that, do you think? How many virgin bums on virgin seats?

I didn't choose this political landscape. I'm just stuck operating in it.

[–]noriann 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Betsy DeVos, Trump's secretary of education, is the person who rescinded the "dear colleague" letter

Which was awesome. On the other hand, a Repug blocked a bill that would have prevented men who fell behind in child support from automatically going to jail. Gee Karen, I wonder who opposed that bill? Could it be the same degenerate scumbags you support? Why yes, yes it is. That's why you shouldn't take an explicitly far right wing position.

Philip Davies, a Conservative MP, has endured smearing in the press for speaking at ICMI16 about the gender gap in the criminal justice system.

I really like Davies, even if I disagree with most of his politics.

David Leyonhjelm, a member of a classical liberal, right libertarian party, uses the word "misandry" unironically in public life.

I have no idea who this guy is, but good for him.

"if you do as good a job, you'll earn as much."

By which you mean to say, "If you work hard enough, you'll be richly rewarded." This is completely retarded, though it appeals to low IQ morons who don't understand the way the world works.

It's Breitbart that reported fairly on GamerGate and on HBB's expulsion from Calgary Expo.

Well gee, I shall now rely upon Breitbart to give me my news!

You'll agree that would be idiotic; the problem is that even the "mainstream" media is full of lies. People on the right are literally just figuring this out. Like, when the media was telling lies about Vietnam and Grenada and Panama and Iraq and Israel it was A-okay. But don't touch my video games.

Hey, I understand, at least in the context of men. I don't have any video games, but I certainly understand why a man would like to be in control for once in his life.

a few hard left wing people here on this sub

To be honest, I very much doubt you've read any "hard left wing" academics at all, not even Marx. So you're like Jordan Peterson in that sense.

Righties are typically oblivious to the fact that there is a huge anti-authoritarian left. They simply don't now what to do about this, as their entire worldview centers around leftsts/Jews/whatever being an evil core.

It's idiotic.

When the left say something I feel is worth promoting, I tweet it.

You're lying. You've never once tweeted a pro-"leftist" message, even something that should be uncontroversial on the right, like gun rights. Hell you haven't' even supported the Palestinians. So you're reduced to being a pathetic whore for the far right, for people like Oded Yinon. That's a fact.

I'll talk to anyone.

I know. One of the reasons I think you are so awesome, and shouldn't get bogged down in alt-right douche-baggery.

I think it's hypocritical for righties to condemn feminism, because they have been joint partners at every step of the way. In truth, if we put aside rhetorical objections to feminism, the left has been leading the way, and the right is the main pusher of feminism.

But at the end of the day this left/right stuff is exceedingly simplistic.

No ruling class would allow working people to come together; better to stress bullshit like feminism and ID politics. Orwell talked about this. You know it, and I know it.

[–]girlwriteswhat 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Could it be the same degenerate scumbags you support?

Well, that's very friendly. The difference between you and me, I guess, is that no matter how many times I get stabbed in the back by leftists who smile to my face and then portray me as some kind of demon in a heavily edited hit piece, I'm still willing to consider the other side's position.

Also, I don't support those "degenerate scumbags", per se. I talk to them and to their audiences, and oddly enough, they don't call me a nazi or a male supremacist enabler or a self-hating woman or rape apologist. You do realize that the SPLC names me personally in its list of female male supremacist enablers, right? Alongside Erin Pizzey and Dr. Helen Smith. I wonder what side of the political spectrum the SPLC falls on?

That's why you shouldn't take an explicitly far right wing position.

What far right positions have I taken?

By which you mean to say, "If you work hard enough, you'll be richly rewarded." This is completely retarded, though it appeals to low IQ morons who don't understand the way the world works.

I know. We have no equal pay laws at all. The entire thing has been left up to the incredibly sexist free market that pays women less just because they're women, and not because of other factors that have nothing to do with "equal work". THE WAGE GAP IS REAL, BRAH!

Well gee, I shall now rely upon Breitbart to give me my news!

No. You should rely on The Mary Sue. And all the other lefty, SJW news sources. Rely on the Guardian and Huffpo and Salon and Slate and Rabble.ca. I don't care.

To be honest, I very much doubt you've read any "hard left wing" academics at all, not even Marx. So you're like Jordan Peterson in that sense.

Why are you bringing academics into this? I was talking about hard left wing people on this subreddit. One of them has a half dozen or more sock accounts he uses to pester me (is that you, skelefal?). He waffles between telling me how much he respects and admires me, and telling me what a naive, greedy, right-wing enabling piece of shit I am, then exonerates himself by saying, "I was drunk posting."

That said, I find the arguments of redditors who HAVE apparently read left wing academics and thinkers, including Marx, to be sad. The only argument you've presented here is tu quoque. "The right wing "scumbag degenerates" did it too!" Because it's been politicians on both sides of the aisle who've voted down alimony reform and shared custody legislation. It was female reps on both sides of the aisle who walked off the floor during a vote for shared custody legislation so the quorum couldn't be met and the bill was quashed. And you know, it wasn't a right wing president of the united states who used father's day as an opportunity to berate American fathers for not taking responsibility.

You're lying. You've never once tweeted a pro-"leftist" message, even something that should be uncontroversial on the right, like gun rights. Hell you haven't' even supported the Palestinians. So you're reduced to being a pathetic whore for the far right, for people like Oded Yinon. That's a fact.

I haven't stumbled on a left wing message that was pro gun rights. And now I'm quite sure you're skelefal. He's the one who usually brings up the fact that I won't touch the Israel/Palestine thing as if it means I'm against the Palestinians. Next, you'll be accusing me of supporting the bombing of Palestinian children by tweeting my agreement with Ben Shapiro's message that graduating high school, having a job and getting married before you have kids is a reliable way to reduce your risk of living in poverty. Because for you, it's not about the message, it's about the messenger.

Dude, I don't take sides. The sides either take me or they don't. The left doesn't. The right does, at least at the moment.

Also, who the fuck is Oded Yinon? Also, I really appreciate the rhetoric of the far left. Pathetic whore, degenerate scumbag, yada yada. You're certainly winning me over.

I know. One of the reasons I think you are so awesome, and shouldn't get bogged down in alt-right douche-baggery.

Yes. I'm an awesome pathetic whore.

But seriously. What do you want me to do? I'm not going to agree with the left on issues I don't agree with them on. I'm not going to stumble across leftist arguments for, say, gun rights, if the only people presenting them are obscure, little known, non-mainstream leftists with an audience of a couple hundred people. Why don't you link me some of these supposed leftist arguments I can get behind?

I think it's hypocritical for righties to condemn feminism, because they have been joint partners at every step of the way.

So we're in agreement. It's hypocritical for anyone to condemn feminism. Because while the right has been having a secret, torrid affair with feminism all along, feminism and the left have been legally married and the "yes dear"ing has been going on for almost 60 years now. Or are you going to tell me otherwise, with a straight face?

But at the end of the day this left/right stuff is exceedingly simplistic.

Yes, it seems so. The righties are degenerate scumbags and pathetic whores, and the left are unassailably correct and never once had anything whatsoever to do with promoting feminism. Also, if you agree with something someone on the right says, that means you're supporting everything they've ever said. Or something. Also, hi, skelefal.

No ruling class would allow working people to come together; better to stress bullshit like feminism and ID politics. Orwell talked about this. You know it, and I know it.

If Orwell were alive today, the left would denounce him as anti-leftist. You know it, and I know it. Because the left is consumed with ID politics and feminism. And you can go ahead and claim that the people who do that aren't really left, but all that means is the genuine left (that is, the left that exists in your imagination) is so small and weak and inconsequential as to be completely unimportant.

[–]noriann -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That said, I find the arguments of redditors who HAVE apparently read left wing academics and thinkers, including Marx, to be sad.

Wow. Just. Wow. So you're upset that some people read the people they criticize. This is so completely insane I don't know what to say.

gun rights.

Well I happen to be PRO gun rights, you commie. In fact, I have a thirst for guns.

In fact I would like to own a potato gun.

Also, who the fuck is Oded Yinon?

You silly, silly girli. Thats the guy who controls you. I don't mean to put too fine a point on it, but damn. Are you right wingers really this dumb? Oded Yinon suggested that Israel should use Western blood and treasure to destroy Israel's rivals and divide them up into little mini "states". And this has proceeded apace with the neocons.

Yes, it seems so. The righties are degenerate scumbags and pathetic whores

Indeed. Thankfully we agree on something.

If Orwell were alive today, the left would denounce him as anti-leftist.

Yeah, probably. That doesn't change the ideas -- some of us are anti-authoritarian leftists, like Orwell.

I think this is the difference between men and women: women like going with the herd, men like ideas.

Because the left is consumed with ID politics and feminism.

Not the left per se, but certainly the entire liberal establishment, funded by capitalist billionaires. Surely you're not so dumb to not realize this?

left that exists in your imagination) is so small and weak and inconsequential as to be completely unimportant.

And here I would have thought you would be sympathetic, but no.

You run to the nearest man with strength, ignoring that fact that MLK wasn't always strong. He had to build up his strength.

[–]noriann 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]HeForeverBleeds 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Nothing there changes the fact that some boys are like this, others aren't; they are not all interested in the same thing; they do not all express emotions the same way. (Especially since it seems you're trying to establish "boy" toys / styles of play with testosterone-driven toys / styles of play, the amount of testosterone a male or female has in the first place varies.) Which was my original comment, the point being that raising all boys like this is a given as the article suggests is unrealistic

As to the specifics, how much is is "WAY more" emotional or physical stimuli, and is it enough to conclude as they do that boys don't cry? The mechanical objects / faces thing seems inconclusive in terms of gendered toys. In that a boy can prefer things like toy cars as well as art or clothes, and that would not violate preferring mechanical things over faces

In other words, there are a lot of boys' toy like actions figures (which are more like dolls) and girls' toys like baking sets or mini kitchens (which are more like mechanical things), so looking more at faces or mechanical objects doesn't necessarily relate to the kind of toys a kid will play with

"if relative digit length of index and ring fingers is a reliable predictor of masculine/feminine traits and homosexuality in adulthood" But it isn't a reliable predictor. It was a big thing to do when I was in school and people would make jokes about "this girl must secretly be a butch lesbian" or "this guy is a closet queen", but realistically the correlation between that and a person's personality traits, let alone sexual orientation, is weak

[–]girlwriteswhat 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What do you think #NotAll means?

There are also things called distribution curves that reflect variation between individuals.

The reality tends to be that a woman needs to be more "masculine trait X" than 85% of women to be as "masculine trait X" as the average man. That doesn't mean there aren't masculine women. It doesn't mean there aren't feminine men--those men who have more "feminine trait X" than 85% of men that make them as "feminine trait X" as the average woman.

There is a difference between forcing masculine styles of play onto boys, and banning those types of play because they're toxically masculine. There is a difference, I would even argue, between prescribing parenting styles that suit 85% of boys at the expense of the other 15%, and prescribing parenting styles that suit 15% of boys at the expense of the other 85%.

>As to the specifics, how much is is "WAY more" emotional or physical stimuli, and is it enough to conclude as they do that boys don't cry?

Where in my comment did I conclude that boys don't cry? Boys, on average, do not cry as much as girls do on average, and for men the difference is more stark.

>The mechanical objects / faces thing seems inconclusive in terms of gendered toys.

True. But it does point to gendered interests.

>In other words, there are a lot of boys' toy like actions figures (which are more like dolls) and girls' toys like baking sets or mini kitchens (which are more like mechanical things), so looking more at faces or mechanical objects doesn't necessarily relate to the kind of toys a kid will play with

Tell that to [this mom](https://imgur.com/gallery/AT2Ak). Also, tell that to every parent out there who has seen her son turn a Barbie doll into a gun, or used a doll house as a fortress to play war.

Moreover, how do girls play with Barbies and doll houses? Mostly as fashion dolls interacting socially with other fashion dolls, you say? Not as an elite group of soldiers out to defeat the evil that has occupied the parlour of the doll house?

>But it isn't a reliable predictor.

Some studies that had some specific findings have not been replicated. Others that had other findings have been replicated.

And your own link says the correlation of low 2D:4D digit ratio with "butchness" and lesbianism has been replicated in several studies. Interestingly, the link provided in the article that found low, rather than high, 2D:4D was correlated with homosexuality in men had a very small sample size. Other studies with samples more than ten times larger indicate the opposite. However, that mini-puberty in male infancy may be confounding the results, particularly if boys are exposed to testosterone disruptors such as BPA and phthalates. (Phthalates are in everything from soft, plastic baby toys, bubble bath, shampoo, moisturizer, diaper creams, and intravenous tubing.)

All of that said, your link describes a number of well established correlations between digit ratio and behavioral traits and abilities, including aggression, risk taking, athletic ability, visual spatial ability, and musical talent (which is itself correlated with math ability).

And finally, regardless of the fact that some studies regarding some traits have not been reliably replicated, prenatal testosterone is a reliable predictor of pretty much everything regarding boys' (and some girls') preferences, again, in general, for masculine styles of play. That does not mean that some boys are not different. It means that most boys are, to one degree or another, more likely to enjoy and choose masculine toys and masculine styles of play.

What it means is that most boys will still be boys.

Honestly, I'm someone who spent my entire girlhood catching frogs, wrestling, building forts, playing with lego, dinosaurs and matchbox cars, and climbing trees with my mostly guy friends. I didn't even have a doll. I broke two vertebrae without realizing it jumping off a gymnasium roof onto the lower roof of the school when I was 10. The compression fractures were discovered much later, but it's the only thing I can think of that would have caused them. (Incidentally, my digits reflect all of those behaviors.)

In other words, I get it. Girls aren't always girly, and boys aren't always boyish. But there's a reason all my friends--at least the ones I chose to spend almost all my time with--were boys. The girls I knew just weren't interested in playing the games I wanted to play. Like, none of them. And the boys were.

My parents let me be who I was. And that's really what it should be about. It should NOT be about trying to force your son to be more emotionally expressive than he is or wants to be. It should be about understanding that if he doesn't want to cry, it's not necessarily because he feels he's not allowed to, but might be because he doesn't want to (or at least, he might not want to do it in front of people).

My own older son from age 1 year would leave the room and be alone if he needed to cry (because of upset--being physically hurt was different), and his father and I had NEVER given him any indication that crying was not allowed--we took the approach my parents did, which was that you let your kid discover who they are. In fact, it used to upset me that he wouldn't let me comfort him when he was crying... right up until I realized that I don't like people to notice or comfort me when I'm crying, and never have. But the moment he could choose what he wanted to do when he was upset, he chose to be alone until he felt in control of his emotions. So we let him do that.

If I was Jessica Valenti, I'd have described this behavior as toxic and tried to change it. I'd have tried to pry his feelings out of him, even if doing so made him more unhappy, or uncomfortable in his own skin.

My younger boy was different, but not by much. From very early on, like a year or two old, he'd cry in front of people he knew well (us, his grandparents, etc), but not in front of others. He's cracked his head and done faceplants on the pavement, and never shed a tear or made a sound until he got in the front door. Should he feel emotionally stunted because of this? Somehow inadequate? Not fully human?

Or is he just a boyish boy?