Feminization

[Stuartp523]

"The best way to know if your living in fantasy is to see if your ideals are flattering."

Agreed. The whole of what passed for civilization is designed to make the directed 'feel', and to feel special, or unique, or different.

Pampered and catered to, they rarely note the leash around the neck.

#

"Not a perfect system, but it works for most of us."

It's not a system...it's the way things 'are'.

The natural hierarchy can be systemized (mostly, the application of labels to events and phenomena) but the sequence and clusters of events and phenomena flow well enough without oversight, without labels.

Directed, Directors, Self-directed: As the expression goes, 'know thyself'...

I agree. But, what I meant by system, was not the actual use of fantasy as an escape from reality, but the litmus test of asking once self if one's ideals are flattering in determining if one uses fantasy as an escape.

Every time I flatter myself, and do so often, maybe a little more so in the past than recently, I know its a fantasy. But, then again if one really knew one's fantasies were fantasies one would reject them, so call it a rational, or even declarative attempt at rejection of intuition based fantasy.

[Stuartp523]

Alpha and beta male distinctions are not very good understandings of the complexity of human society and very sexist way of looking at power.

It's ok if some people's feelings get hurt. I'm trying to describe reality in a concise manner, so generalizations are necessary.

Whereas the animal world's use of dominant figures are absolutistic, like absolute monarchies, modern society are divided into "roles" for the most part, and human relations very complicated and narrowly exploitable, meaning that people typically don't have the power to do whatever they want but only what they are mandated, else they are replaced and discarded by masses of people and not by simple trials.

Some are closer to this alpha and beta idea of yours than others, though.

Yes, yes, yes, didn't I imply all that in my OP? But what does all that have to do with the simple premise of my OP, that civilization promotes feminization?

[Stuartp523]

You are making up your own spekulative conclusions based on pure fantasy, please study the scientific studies before making mroe unqualifyed statements.

Ok, you motivated me to finally spend the twenty minutes necessary to find a link to an appropriate study.

There always has been alpha males and beta males. Beta males are decisively less masculine in that a natural effect of their position is a decrease of testosterone production. Here's a good place to start for those who doubt this simple fact: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3541278/ [Edit: I just recently found that link.]

[The Voice of Time]

Yes, yes, yes, didn't I imply all that in my OP? But what does all that have to do with the simple premise of my OP, that civilization promotes feminization?

That feminization is a social construct. Human beings are too complicated to just be put into categories of masculine and feminine.

And that what is considered feminine one place is not in another, the world differs. In Scandinavia the notion of feminine subordination and feminine ladyness is almost eroded away by a modern society. Women are independent, strong and sexually liberated. In the middle east on the other hand, women are like property, weakened by lack of education and training, and concealed beneath clothes.

The two ways of being "feminine" seems to not be very much related or reconcileable.

And history is full of back and forth between characteristics that would be considered feminine and unfeminine or masculine. I'm a handbag wearing person for instance because I need the space to carry my schoolbooks, and though it might not be particularly pink or purple or with "hello kitty" symbols on it it's still a handbag. Historically, there's never been much of a female domination in wearing handbags, that's quite a recent invention and idea about the female character. People wear handbags because they need to carry things around, basically.

Just because something is trendy with a segment of a gender group, does not mean you can legitimize it as being a definitive character of the gender. And clearly, the more abstract concepts of power, domination, leadership and control, are all eroding away as any possible character of gender, and all depend upon the time and place in history.

So I might ask, why bother with such a term as "feminization" at all? If you have any more specific term, some specific property of people that you want to talk about as civilization creating more and more of, then please do so. But "feminization" is an incorrect term.

[HexHammer]

You are making up your own spekulative conclusions based on pure fantasy, please study the scientific studies before making mroe unqualifyed statements.

Ok, you motivated me to finally spend the twenty minutes necessary to find a link to an appropriate study.

There always has been alpha males and beta males. Beta males are decisively less masculine in that a natural effect of their position is a decrease of testosterone production. Here's a good place to start for those who doubt this simple fact: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3541278/ [Edit: I just recently found that link.]

"There always has been alpha males and beta males." This might be very true in itself, but rest is pure nonsense.

A male's testosterone lvl doesn't automatically determine it's place in society, there's also intellectual properties. In many primitive cultures the "elders" are placed far above an Alpha male, elders with supposed wisdom.

In OP you first speak aobut femenization, then you suddenly speak about Alpha and Beta males which in your context is misplaced, sure in modern times we talk about feminization of males, sharing the household duties, like washing clothes, caring for babies, making dinner, etc, that doesn't correlate with the sudden talk of testosterone.

[Stuartp523]

Yes, yes, yes, didn't I imply all that in my OP? But what does all that have to do with the simple premise of my OP, that civilization promotes feminization?

That feminization is a social construct. Human beings are too complicated to just be put into categories of masculine and feminine.

Do you at least admit to the obvious physical differences between males and female?

And that what is considered feminine one place is not in another, the world differs. In Scandinavia the notion of feminine subordination and feminine ladyness is almost eroded away by a modern society.

Women in Scandinavia, perhaps beyond all else, are losing much of their femininity, through the meme that they should take on the-male roles of the fairly recent past. Though unlike men, I don't think they're actually heading in the direction of the opposite gender; in any task where they're actually asked to be masculine, not just pseudo-masculine, they generally fail.

Women are independent, strong and sexually liberated.

They're generally about as subordinate as before, only to the state rather than family, but you mention sexual liberation and that reminds me that any freedom that they've actually obtained, is still in itself a subordination, except in that case a subordination to nature, meaning specifically their natural desires, the direction women generally take without male guidance.

In the middle east on the other hand, women are like property, weakened by lack of education and training, and concealed beneath clothes.

It seems women there have long lost a reasonable extent of their femininity for an entirely different reason. Rather than being asked to take on pseudo-male roles, their femininity is simply being suppressed in some regards.

Just because something is trendy with a segment of a gender group, does not mean you can legitimize it as being a definitive character of the gender.

You're the one bringing up ephemeral fashions. Masculine and feminine attitudes relate to the evolved sexual types, not fashion.

And clearly, the more abstract concepts of power, domination, leadership and control, are all eroding away as any possible character of gender, and all depend upon the time and place in history.

First you make the absurd claim that power is only an abstract concept, which in itself is becoming archaic, simply because you find it difficult to find the source of your slavery, then you claim that relates to the supposed correlation between the defining characteristics of gender attitudes and fashion?!

So I might ask, why bother with such a term as "feminization" at all? If you have any more specific term, some specific property of people that you want to talk about as civilization creating more and more of, then please do so. But "feminization" is an incorrect term.

I can compromise once again, and ask if you agree that men are being emasculated?