Sexism and Men's Issues

One way to help circumvent the issue is to feature the same minority among the protagonists. If you have an evil Gay Guy and a good Gay Guy, it highlights the idea that the Gay is not what made the evil guy evil. It may seem silly and obligatory now, but that only needs to be done until the minority in question has gotten over the hump of visibility and can reasonably make appearances without every appearance being earth-shattering.

I'm currently under orders to eat less cow and pig and more bird, fish, and vegetables. Losing meat feels like losing a part of myself, which was an interesting experience. It got me to thinking about meat and masculinity.

Eating meat is an important part of the male cultural identity. I see it in other men around me as well; one of my coworkers, a burly mechanic, described it as, "I don't eat food that food eats." I also see it as a popular plot for creating drama; the Sitcom Dad is told he has to take on a diet of some sort and can't bring himself to do it until the wife convinces him in the climax of the episode. Roseanne did this best with the speech, paraphrased, "Being married has meant doing a lot of things I didn't want to do, but don't ask me to stand here and watch you die, because I won't do that."

It's in images like this one◊ which isn't explicitly coded male but still oozes masculinity. It's in gendered assumptions that dangerous predators are male, up to and including the popular use of male gender pronouns to refer to Jurassic Park dinosaurs who are explicitly female. It's in hunting and killing your first wild animal still being a rite of passage from boy to man even in parts of the world where food comes from the supermarket. It's in every reminder restaurants have to give people not to eat pink meat, because "the redder, the better" is the meat equivalent of cat-calling, done to reinforce one's masculinity.

Men are carnivores, women are herbivores. Men hunt, women graze. Men kill and eat their still-bloody prey, women eat what's in front of them. These are the assumptions that have ingrained meat as a part of the male cultural identity - to such an extent that some men would rather die choking on a piece of bacon than let go of it.

There's also this◊.

But I've only seen that kind of meat masculinity in American media in any greater extent. Here it's more that men just prefer to eat more (which probably has more to do with the female thinness ideal than anything else), and a salad generally isn't as filling. But that's still a "generally", since there are still lots of very filling salads, so it doesn't really show anyway.

Pretty much, is a side efect of the whole "white are standar" the last time I see a good black villian was in a steven segal movie(really) in which the guy as a sociopath, he was awsome because how cold and apathic was on his own deeds which contract a lot with the other chararter(the movie happen in a prision so almost any chararter is a "thug")

You know, I can barely remenber some men playing the whole "real men eat meat" in a long time, but on the other hand I saw how men barely care or think in doing a diet unless a doctor tell them while women strugle with eating a lot.

Hardy has said in many panels and interviews how it wasn't hard for him to engage in homosexual prostitution when he was at his heaviest drug abuse phase because he was bisexual, though he accepted that was a low he needed to hit to improve.

Tom Hardy's bi? Now I like him even more :3. He's a groovy actor. On the whole thing of minorities and diversity in media, my solution when writing minority characters is this: no tokens (have Loads And Loads Of Characters and several of different demographics), write them the way men are written, ie they are all at different places on the moral spectrum. And if you have, say, a black or female villain, have their mooks be a mix of genders and races and have good guys who are also different colours and genders.

On the subject of bi- can't remember who posted it, but are you sure people aren't born with their sexuality? Cos haven't post mortems been done on gay men (for example) and basically the gender-identity part of their brain is virtually the same as straight dudes, but a little warped to slightly match a straight woman's. Or is that BS? It's just that I don't remember choosing to be bi, and in fact when I first started coming out to myself I hated the idea I might be bi (thanks, homophobic parents!).

I'd think it's less choosing and more developing that kind of mentality from impressions of society. Sort of like choosing who you fall in love with, which fiction has proved us works every time exactly the way you want it to.

We are born that way, but there isn't enough definitive proof that you can scientifically measure to see how different we are.

Especially when you take in degrees Of how complicated sexuality is and how it depends on so many factors.

Wasn't implying that what you're born with is irrelevant.

Duck, wasn't talking to you.

Good.

I don't really agree with the notion of "born with you sexuality" as its used, since it heavily down plays how much of an effect one's environment can have on a persons sexuality.

no doubt there is an in built, born with bias or preference (hence why I said people sexualities are kind of a range in my earlier post), however, that's not all there is to it.

I use myself and my own experiences most of the time in trying to understand things like this, in part because I have difficulty understanding other people's mindsets (I can't really imagine myself, as anyone other than myself thanks to BS in my life), and in part because I never have any real conversations about these sorts of topic in real life, just here on the interwebs.

now, in my personal experience, I'm pretty sure I've always been Asexual, or since I was 8 (woo associative memory), however I've not always been Homoromantic. I was Aromantic til I was about 18. and since I self-examine myself a lot, I can see all the things that led to that change. now a lot of that stuff was crap in my environment that I had little to no control over, but did effect me. stuff like:

• being in a homosocial environment for most of my life. seriously, I did not have any real life female friends until last year. as such, it made me significantly more comfortable being around guys than girls.

• women being treated as 'the other' for most of my life. since, I've only developed real life female friends recently, for most of my life, my relations to the other sex came from, my family, mass media, and the internet, all of which didn't endear me to the concept of women, as something I'd want to be apart of.
  • my family makes me uncomfortable. I can barely talk to any of them about anything.

  • media's general portrayal of women is shit, to put it lightly. worse, is that they often try to sexualize the female form, which as a sex-repulsed asexual, just turned off of the concept. the male form's general lack of sexualization appealed to me much more.

  • the internet is where a lot of women go to have a voice about the sexist BS in their lives. which itself is good thing, awareness in all that, but for me, constantly consuming that resulted in utter paranoia when dealing with women (I don't want to offend them), and acute sense of guilt for simply being male, and a paralyzing fear of voicing my opinion online.

• sexist Gender role BS throughout my life. when I was in my stage of questioning my romantic orientation, I said I was biromantic, because gender shouldn't really be an obstacle to love, right? however, as the more I thought about it, the more my mind ran hypothetical based on gender, using traditional gender roles in my assumption of my relationship with a women. and under that framework, I knew I wouldn't be happy. my mind didn't produce any such framework form a relationship with a man. in my 18 year old mind, I could be happier with a guy, cause I'd be free of gender role BS in a relationship.

since then, I accepted the idea that I am homoromantic, and it grew to be true. I am homoromantic. that's just who I am. but I wasn't born that way. it's just simply who I am.

I alluded to the concept of why the early LGBT movement adopted the idea of "born that way" as a explanation in my earlier Big post. my thought process is generally this:

most cultures put a value on agency, the ability to make choices. however, with that ability, comes the notion most societies put on there being "bad" choices, things worthy of punishment.^note Hyper-agencey is itself a men's issue. the assumption that a man is always in control, and thus always punishable for failing to live up to societies expectations and the like.

however, the notion that someone is "born gay" (or bi, ace, pan, what have you), means that it wasn't their choice, thus not something that can be punished. that was the early grounds the LGBT movement used, "its not a choice, so don't punish us".

of course, it is not a choice, but not something you are completely born with either. its kinda a grey area. of course, society doesn't like grey areas, it likes digesting things in binary, black and white, good and bad, Man and Women, Straight and Gay, etc.

edited 5th Jul '15 9:53:30 AM by Jetyl

Sexuality is as inborn as height is. Yes, there are environmental factors that influence it, but the studies are point more and more to the fact that epigenetic factors are the largest contributor to sexuality.

Now, what makes you aware of your sexuality is much more environmental. What you're talking about sounds far more like the factors of you discovering your sexuality and how you interact with it. Not what your sexuality actually is.

Shima is right.

I didn't know I was bisexual until later in life because I didn't have an opportunity to inspire that reaction in me. But I was still bisexual.

And to pull closer to topic that is why a variety of male role models in the media is so important.

My son can't exercise a healthy option for male expression if he doesn't know it exists.

I had my doubts during my early teens so I tried to find out through porn and if seeing other naked teenagers on my swimming lessons would incite something.

I just found out I have no attraction towards men, even then what made me have some doubts were guys who were a wig and fake breasts away from looking like females.

For most of the people sexuality isn't something they go to a point in life and choose a path to follow if they like male, females, nothing or...animals or...children...or cars.

What people are nowadays is being more aware of how sexuality works and more conscious about they choices they can make.

I think you guys are mixing up sexuality with sexual orientation. The latter is an importante part of the former, but the former is overall a lot more expansive and covers a lot more things than it.

Either way, the point that we know precious little about sexuality as a whole stands. I actually we can think on some ways we could study it easily, thing is... Most of them are highly unethical.

Although, this sorta reminds me of a talk I had recently with a friend recently. Wait until tomorrow though, I AM gonna need an atual keyboard.

Environment can have a big effect on one's sexuality, depending on the person.

by modern standards, Ancient Roman was Bi-normative. every guy was assumed to be bisexual, and unsurprisingly, most men were Bisexual (and pedophilic. again, I'm talking about an ancient culture in modern standards here, which isn't completely correct, but my point stands).

Situational Sexuality is a thing. the way I see it, people's sexualities are broader and more malleable than people give it credit for. simply because it changes, doesn't mean how you felt then or how you feel now are any less real.

If you don't feel that applies to you, you're right, it probably doesn't. people are different. there are probably people whose sexuality is completely in stone, and some people whose sexuality is entirely determined by their environment.

in the end, your sexuality it entirely what you say it is, and that includes how it developed.

and that goes for everyone. Please don't talk about my sexuality like you know it better than me.

In ancient Rome, men were not assumed to be bisexual. They were expected to be if only to show their dominance over other males.

It's closer to how men these days are supposed to be stoic and not show any "feminine" emotion (whatever that means).

Yeah back then gay sex wasn't about being sexually attracted to men, it was about power and expressing it over them.

Really nasty stuff to be frank.

Yeah, the Romans were big on the whole penetration-as-dominance thing. They weren't fans of lesbians for this reason – women were only there to be penetrated.

Although, I don't think keeping pretty slave boys around was an uncommon thing, either, so there was probably just a straight up pleasure component as well.

The Romans inherited the ideal of the beautiful youth from the Greeks who had a different system of pederasty going on. There it was more of a tutoring/mentor thing for the upper classes which had a sexual component.

edited 5th Jul '15 8:10:06 PM by majoraoftime

My understanding of the Greeks and the Romans was that men were taught that women only existed to make babies. If a man wanted to get sexual pleasure, he should seek another man to have sex with.

However, as sex was also a way of showing dominance, ideally they had to be the dominant force in the act. Men who took the submissive role were seen as little more than "women with a penis".

So, it was just toxic masculinity taken to its horrifying extreme.

edited 5th Jul '15 8:23:43 PM by Lorsty

Overall sexuality is probably a complex mixture of genetics, hormonal balance in the womb and societal/external influences. No one factor can really be wholly responsible. Generally people downplay the external influences because they can be used by homophobes as an excuse to try and 'fix' LGBT+ people, but I think they can potentially play an equal or greater role than genetics (depending on the person). For example some asexuals attribute their asexuality to sexual trauma. Of course most do not, but it does vary from person to person.

Speaking of Romans masculinity and sexuality.

The Romans seem to be not that far from what we have today.

Even if male bisexuality wasn't frown upon, seeking other men for pleasure wasn't that common, given the amount of female prostitutes, women were still the primary sources of sexual pleasure for Roman men.

Also. Gaius and Aulus, such strong bromance that it went down to become recorded on history.

edited 6th Jul '15 7:12:51 AM by AngelusNox

It was just an upper class thing, something which was seen as "chic" rather than something the men did because they were bisexual or gay. Right?

edited 6th Jul '15 10:34:37 AM by Ogodei

As far I remenber well, the greek acept homosexuality not by the "tolarance" thing of today but a rather extremist notion that women are barely beast who serve for nothing but procrate so of course love between men is going to be better than that.

In fact I remenber who a extremist spanish webside(you know the usual, darwinist thinking, who afrcia brought on their on problem,white power,regular stuff) said something about how men today are feminize and how they should return into a greek model where men are men....I cant stop laguhing about it.

Also there is a good thing about ancient greek: they hero usually weep, and not the typical "one single manly tear" but actually cry as any person should(correct me if im wrong)