• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 hours ago

    You likely have already guessed that I would think of it this way, but isn’t it just that “good people are worthy of respect”? Because it seems to me like if you try hard to take care of your family and do right by others, you’re a good person deserving of respect.

    You know what I mean? If there’s no need for the trait to be exclusively masculine, then why do we do it? Translate “manly” into “worthy of respect”, that is. Is there some benefit to thinking about it in terms of masculinity rather than just in terms of goodness?

    You skipped the OTHER criteria I listed for being “manly” besides just “goodness”, that being: for a person that identifies with the biological reproductive role of a male.

    However, the phrase “manly” is referring to societal measures

    they should have favorable societal traits and behaviors

    Also, I do acknowledge this side of things. I wrote some thoughts about it in a reply to another comment in this thread, if you want to check that out. It’s an important point, and I don’t want you to think i’m just ignoring it. In summary, I think it’s kind of a bummer if in the end, manliness is just a tradition people feel compelled to participate in

    I’m not sure, but I think you’re hearing the “man” in “manly” and assuming the opposite would “woman”, “gay”, or “enby”. Not the case. The opposite to “man” in this case is “boy”.

    We could dissect why “manly” translates to “being worthy of respect”, but that’s a tangent from your question.

    I think this pretty much gets to the root of the friction I experience when this topic comes up. I wouldn’t mind digging into it.

    Its the “man” vs “boy” part, as in, a sign of maturity, of coming of age where you stop being a young and selfish boy and can see where you are in the world and what responsibilities you have to yourself and those around you in society. Society has few expectations of responsibility for a “boy”. Responsibilities with weight go to those with maturity. Mature boys being men. Even the phrase “man up” usually means “to stand up and face the challenge instead of shying away”, or to take responsibility. A boy still be 40 years old if he doesn’t take up his adult responsibilities. At 40 years old he still wouldn’t be “manly”.

    If you are taking exception with these phrases being associated with “man”, then your beef is really with the last 3000 or 4000 so years of history. The concepts of equality across genders and sexual orientation are relatively recent in the last 20-40 years. History doesn’t stop being history simply because we’ve evolved beyond some of our worst parts of it. We carry baggage for awhile as our language evolves to match our new values. Expecting language to change on a dime isn’t very realistic. We’ll need a few generations to die off and take this language with them.

    • jumperalex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      38 minutes ago

      Its the “man” vs “boy” part, as in, a sign of maturity, of coming of age where you stop being a young and selfish boy and can see where you are in the world and what responsibilities you have to yourself and those around you in society.

      I’m not who you’re replying to, but I feel the same way as them. Take what I quoted from you above and replace man/boy with woman/girl. How is it any different? Maturity isn’t gendered. Taking on adult responsibilities isn’t gendered; heck you acknowledge that when you used the word “adult”, it’s right there in the language you used.

      I’m not taking exception to thousands of years of history, because so many of the traits would still apply to both genders and aren’t about equality. Keep in mind that’s different than discussing gender roles which certainly have relevant history. But “taking care of your family” is a trait and women we expected to do that to. Just with different tasks. Same with being honest / honorable and just about any trait was practically speaking, non-gendered, but with gendered expressions of those traits.

      I’d also say that if we don’t try to change our language, then it will never change. If we don’t immediately question questionable assertions, historically relevant or not, then it will never change. The best day to have questioned a definition of masculinity that isn’t actually gender specific was thousands of years ago, the 2nd best day is today.

      I will say I DO get what you are saying about history. It isn’t lost on me how it has influenced cultural norms and language today. But I’m also saying that, ironically, if you isolate traits from expressions of those traits, even thousands of years ago I could make the same case that the traits weren’t actually gendered if dissected.