It's been asserted that the liberal worldview embraces two apparently mutually exclusive viewpoints: (1) Gayness is genetic, and (2) Maleness is learned. Discuss.

kanuk876 · 2010-07-24T22:30:02+00:00

OP is highlighting a tried-and-true tactic to bias opinions. Claiming this-trait-we-like is genetic, whereas this-trait-we-don't-like is learned.

Feminism successfully used this tactic to cast positive-female and negative-male traits as innate (nature), and cast negative-female and positive-male traits as learned (nurture).

John Gordon in his book "The Myth of the Monstrous Male" discusses this tactic and presents the following illustration.

Create four lists of adjectives to describe: (1) positive male traits, (2) negative male traits, (3) positive female traits, and (4) negative female traits. Gordon provides the following:

Positive male traits: (M+)
- strong
- reliable
- independent
- adventuresome
- analytical
Negative male traits: (M-)
- brutal
- inflexible
- selfish
- reckless
- legalistic
Positive female traits: (F+)
- gentle
- responsive
- supportive
- prudent
- deep
Negative female traits: (F-)
- weak
- flighty
- dependent
- timid
- superstitious

Feminism claims that M+ and F- are learned, whereas M- and F+ are innate. This is the source of bullshit like "if women ran the world, there would be no wars." Or "If women ran wall-street, we could have avoided our current economic meltdown".

If a man does something good, it's because some woman nurtured him well. If a man does something bad, it's because men are innately evil.

*A lot of people believe this shit. *

I'll quote Gordon further:

... if a mother nurses her baby, it's her doing; if she kills it, it's some doctor's [fault].

...

You cannot continue the above lists very far without noticing that many of the permutations -- for instance from "adventuresome" to "reckless" (M+ to M-) or from "timid" to "prudent" (F- to F+) are just positive or negative terms for the same thing, no more objectively distinguishable than the difference between "sweet" and "too sweet." That is why language, as opposed to anything real, is so important to these people. As with Judy Chicago's Dinner Party, they believe that the issue is not so much what is in the picture as it is the frame around the picture and the label put on the frame: A pornographic painting or literary passage becomes transfigured when labeled as part of a show for the edification of women, or included in a book on the sins of male authors.

The reverse applies equally. Take absolutely any page at all from the oeuvre of Andrea Dworkin, for instance, give it to a feminist literary critic as an example of the dialog of some male novelist's female character, and it will not take her long to identify this character Dworkin as a fourth-rate Molly Bloom illustrating all the sexist stereotypes -- the flow, the gush, the luridness and hysteria, the syntactic torpor and logical slobbishness and everywhere manifest all-around crappiness of mind. Then take away the homo fecit, and suddenly we have a leading feminist spokesperson, her excesses the mark of a noble soul hurt into anger, transcending male-imposed standards. So for all its fertile-Myrtle lyricism about woman as the source of everything living and everything real, modern feminism is often very close to the ultimate abstractness of total relativism: nothing true or false, good or bad, but thinking, and above all naming, makes it so. It accepts the substantiality of substance no more than it does the reasonableness of reason.

It may be observed that [the above lists are] simply a logical outgrowth of the outline of history given [earlier in the book], the essential idea of which is that the "womanhood" originating in the state of nature (F+) degenerates into "femininity" (F-) when passing under the influence of maleness (M-). The corollary is that M+, such as it is, is is a partially redeemed extract of M-, savage man socialized by woman halfway to humanity, at the cost of her own happiness and purity.

In other words, women are good for men and men are bad for women. (It is at this point that we are likely to hear of polls indicating that single women are happier than single men, and married men happier than married women, thereby showing that marriage is good for men but bad for women (!!) -- a set of figures that, if accurate, would lead to the conclusion that the traditional female attitude toward marriage is a sign of the most virulent masochism, or stupidity, or both.) Again, this may sound like a ridiculously reductive version of a wide and still-evolving range of ideas. And again, I can only say, look around.

"The Myth of the Monstrous Male" was published in 1982.

(!!) How many articles in magazines and newspapers since 1982 have claimed this exact result?

2010-07-24T23:59:24+00:00

Wow.

How are those mutually exclusive?

Gareth321 · 2010-07-24T21:54:59+00:00

It doesn't matter if behavior is by nature or nurture, if it isn't destructive then there is no reason to object

ThrustVectoring · 2010-07-24T22:30:28+00:00

Maleness is only partially learned. They tried to raise a boy who had his genitals destroyed at birth as a girl. It did not work. He later committed suicide.

godlessgamergirl · 2010-07-24T20:23:50+00:00

Gayness is a sexual preference (motivation comes from within the brain), whereas "Maleness" usually refers to a set of behaviors (motivation is influenced from without, i.e. society). Apples and oranges, I think. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by maleness.

2010-07-24T21:09:00+00:00

wat?

ignatiusloyola · 2010-07-24T21:55:49+00:00

I would say that the stereotypes that follow homosexuality (for example, the frilly, effeminate nature of some homosexuals) and both genders (girls playing with dolls, males playing with trucks) are learned behaviours. To some degree, there may be some genetic predisposition towards such behaviours that are brought out by cultural influences, but overall they are learned.

However, I completely agree that there are many people with the "liberal" mindset (using quotes to denote the use of the term as colloquial and possibly pejorative as it is used in the title of this thread, rather than technical) that would agree with both of those statements.

cryptogirl · 2010-07-25T02:26:32+00:00

What are your thoughts on queer theory?

Gareth321 · 2010-07-24T23:58:01+00:00

This think this is a good time to bring to light a study which was recently published in New Zealand. The results show that people who reported experiencing abuse as a child were significantly more likely to be bi or homosexual. 15% of the abused category reported being bi or homosexual, versus 5% in groups that didn't report abuse.

I don't want to infer that homosexuality is a disorder, because I firmly believe there is an innate component. However, as with all behaviour and preference, I believe there is a component which is learned. If a person with a natural tendency toward homosexuality witnesses his mother attacking his father, mightn't he be more likely to explore intimate relationships with men?

Similarly, and to add to what the OP has stated, there is an even more confusing error in popular feminist logic. They claim that the appreciation of the female form - particularly breasts - is learned; somehow demeaning and objectifying. Yet appreciation of the male form - homosexuality - is entirely innate.

I see it as simply an exemplification of the movement as a whole. When it suits feminists, they demonize men and male traits. They have become so comfortable with the idea, that when a dissonance sets in, as with homosexuality, they either can't or won't honestly review their beliefs. I would generally advise people to steer well clear of such a person, but feminism and its associated doctrine is so ubiquitous in society and politics now that it's virtually impossible to rise above.

huntwhales · 2010-07-24T21:47:14+00:00

Well, the general worldview is that there's a mix of nature and nurture in traditionally masculine traits. Maybe some hardcore radical feminists take the all-nurture route.

Homosexuality is pretty clearly not a choice. This is a settled issue for pretty much any non-bigot.

Christ, those aren't even mutually exclusive ideas. You're wrong about the worldview, but the "Gay = nature, masculine = 100% nurture" you seem to think is common is perfectly logically consistent. It's wrong because 2) is wrong, but it's not at all contradictory.

What the hell are you trying to say?

5itemsorfewer · 2010-07-25T20:09:11+00:00

I would put it differently; at least, this is my viewpoint: Sexual orientation and gender are genetic regardless of what parts you have or whether your attraction is directed towards men or women, wheras: Presentation of your gender/sexual orientation (flamboyant, macho, butch, femme, whatever) is something that people pick up from others they identify with and which eventually becomes a standard presentation for a gender/orientation, misleading people to believe it is an inherent part of the inherent quality(g/o). Just as some men are genetically straight, some are genetically gay. However, this doesn't mean that the way that they dress, talk, and socialize is genetic- whether you prefer nikes and bud lite, or cote de rhone and gucci, don't blame your genes.

kloo2yoo · 2010-07-25T02:01:13+00:00

Worst thing I've seen in men's rights for a while.

kloo2yoo · 2010-07-24T20:19:39+00:00

Do you remember choosing to be straight?

yea, I don't think you do.

Do you remember social pressures directing your gendered behavior in superficial ways? "Blue is for boys!" "Boys shouldn't cry!" "Boys have to be tough"

I bet you do.

ringopendragon · 2010-07-24T20:24:14+00:00

I "decided" to be "straight" after I saw Goldie Hawn in a bikini on Laugh-In,...when I was five. I think we're gonna have to give up on that "Maleness is learned".

2010-07-25T01:33:22+00:00

not my liberal worldview. i think youre confusing liberals with radical left wingnuts

frewpe · 2010-07-25T03:36:52+00:00

Lol OP way to stick it to those damn liberals by showing you are to stupid to understand the differences between gender and sexuality. Nice try though.

stringerbell · 2010-07-25T00:20:28+00:00

Umm, the 'liberal' worldview - it doesn't matter what the subject - is virtually always the most knowledgeable and informed viewpoint (especially when compared to what the conservative side has to offer).

So, it most certainly is not (1) OR (2) of yours...

(1) Liberals believe there is a spectrum of human sexuality, much of which is influenced by genetics, environment, upbringing, etc...

(2) 'Maleness' is a vast array of different things, from genetics (which can't be learned) to traditional cultural roles (which can).

sli · 2010-07-24T22:55:18+00:00

Nature vs. nurture: the debate continues.

That's my response to this thread.

There-I-Said-It · 2010-07-24T20:32:41+00:00

http://www.narth.com/docs/bioresearch.html

Title	It's been asserted that the liberal worldview embraces two apparently mutually exclusive viewpoints: (1) Gayness is genetic, and (2) Maleness is learned. Discuss.
Author	kloo2yoo
Upvotes	20
Comments	86
Date	July 24, 2010 8:17 PM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/ctb8q/its_been_asserted_that_the_liberal_worldview/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/its-been-asserted-that-the-liberal-worldview.1048482 https://theredarchive.com/post/1048482

Comments