you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]worried19[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

If you are male, then there are certain roles, expectations, and stereotypes that you are expected to fulfill because you were born with XY chromosomes and a penis.

"Boys don't cry" is a good example. I'm speaking of gender the social construct in GC terms.

[–]uwubunny 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

Even if we're dealing in stereotypes peculiar to white American culture, men aren't thought of as odd for crying when their football teams win or in other intense situations.

How do you know that isn't just the way that men tend to be? There are plenty of reports that when men transition and take estrogen they tend to cry a lot more.

[–]worried19[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

If you don't believe there are gender stereotypes associated with being of the male sex, then I suppose this question doesn't apply to you.

[–]uwubunny 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

Sure there are sex stereotypes, but my point is that they're largely accurate and don't seem to be heavily enforced. I've been to school. I don't remember the boys having classes on how to be violent, or anything. I'm sure we would have noticed.

It might be that the enforcement is the other way around. Maybe part of the way adults bring kids up is trying to make boys less boy-like. Children are pretty nasty selfish creatures by default.

[–]worried19[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

Then I guess that's your answer. You don't hate any of the sex stereotypes associated with being male.

[–]uwubunny 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

You might as well ask what we dislike about, say, sharks. Sharks harm certain animals by existing, a bit like the male sex drive is inherently dangerous to women, but the first step has to be accepting that we're seeing a natural process here. Ideally, nobody would harm anyone, and the obvious way to do that in the matter of sexual harm, is to separate men and women from one another as far as possible.

[–]just_lesbian_things 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Dying of diseases is natural. Yet here we are, prescribing medication and shoving ventilators down people's throat instead of letting them waste away the way nature intended. If male sex drive is inherently dangerous to the people around them, castration should be a societal default, the way vaccination is.

[–]uwubunny 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Societies might not exist without the male sex drive, and besides, it would be wrong to systematically harm a whole sex. Although a surprising number of men voluntarily opt for a kind of mild castration - not trans, but finasteride.

However, societies can easily have a very high degree of sex separation, so why not simply plan around separating men and women nearly all the time? Women could have their own offices, hospitals, gyms, parks, city blocks, clubs, transport systems, cities... in fact, it gets easier as you scale up. Of course, they'd want to interact with men at times to find mates or socialize, but that would be done with strict zoning for sex mixing. In other places, women can wander as they like without seeing a man.

[–]just_lesbian_things 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

As we can see by the high level of male on male sexual violence in male only spaces and environments like prisons, schools, and athletics, I don't think the problem can be solved by segregation. It's not fair to the male victims of male sexual violence. There are no societal jobs men can do that women can't; so the point about society ceasing to exist without the male sex drive is moot. It will exist even if all men were locked up.

it would be wrong to systematically harm a whole sex.

It would be wrong to subject everyone to harm on account of the uncontrollable urges of half the population. Either men take personal responsibility and get that shit under control or everyone steps in to make that decision for them.

[–]uwubunny 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Men aren't complaining, so that's moot. The feminists who believe male violence is a problem that needs to be solved are women. We can give them what they want by segregation. Indeed, if men are violent as a result of competing for women, segregation might also lower male violence.

A look around heavily male dominated jobs shows many of importance, from essential infrastructure maintenance and resource extraction to farming to creative technical jobs to leadership. Women might simply not be willing or capable of stepping up in the numbers required. It's hard to even think of a moderately large corporation that's ever been solely run by women. Some kind of patriarchy might be essential for any recognisable civilization to exist. Moreover, the kind of jobs and roles that women have are important, too, and society might also need women who do them not to be diverted to male type jobs.

There's no more reason to think men can reduce male violence to the level of women than there is to think women can reduce female gossip and bullying to the level of men, and no real reason to restructure society around doing either of these things.