Millennials and masculinity

[Bill the Piper]

We know that civic generations should be preoccupied with masculinity and have a disdain for female influence in politics. Do you see any signs this is happening? I don't

There are signs that millennials are more in favour in some aspects of traditional masculinity. More guys wear beards than it used to be the case in early 2000s. There have been some movies where tough men are portrayed in positive light rather than as outcasts and bandits. But in general, feminism is stronger than ever. Furthermore, millennial men are often stereotyped as "snowflakes". It's the ladies who flex their biceps on Instagram!

I suspect the 2030s won't be nearly as male-fixated as the previous 1T was. It could even be a feminist-oriented decade. Then, the 2T would be a rebellion against millennial mother figures rather than dads as the previous time.

[Eric the Green]

You seem to be right about that, Bill

[pbrower2a]

(11-08-2018, 05:54 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: We know that civic generations should be preoccupied with masculinity and have a disdain for female influence in politics. Do you see any signs this is happening? I don't

There are signs that millennials are more in favour in some aspects of traditional masculinity. More guys wear beards than it used to be the case in early 2000s. There have been some movies where tough men are portrayed in positive light rather than as outcasts and bandits. But in general, feminism is stronger than ever. Furthermore, millennial men are often stereotyped as "snowflakes". It's the ladies who flex their biceps on Instagram!

I suspect the 2030s won't be nearly as male-fixated as the previous 1T was. It could even be a feminist-oriented decade. Then, the 2T would be a rebellion against millennial mother figures rather than dads as the previous time.

It's easier to get a feminist if one isn't a male chauvinist. Feminist women could be more desirable -- they might have higher incomes, be better educated, be better at conversation, and be able to participate in shared activities.

[Bill the Piper]

(11-08-2018, 09:30 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: It's easier to get a feminist if one isn't a male chauvinist. Feminist women could be more desirable -- they might have higher incomes, be better educated, be better at conversation, and be able to participate in shared activities.

Sure, but this is not an answer to the question:

Why aren't millennials as macho as the previous civic generations?

Actually I don't like macho blokes at all, I see them as potential bullies, but I want to answer this question in light of the generational theory.

[pbrower2a]

(11-09-2018, 11:47 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-08-2018, 09:30 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: It's easier to get a feminist if one isn't a male chauvinist. Feminist women could be more desirable -- they might have higher incomes, be better educated, be better at conversation, and be able to participate in shared activities.

Sure, but this is not an answer to the question:

Why aren't millennials as macho as the previous civic generations?

It still could be that men are adjusting to the realities of gender in America, and that there has not been a Crisis that has yet empowered men while leaving women out of roles that rely upon brute-force construction or combat  as did the Crisis Eras from the Armada Crisis on.

If the Crisis is dealing with a President trying to rule as a despot, then women are already the leaders of the resistance. Think of the Argentine response to the collapse of credibility of the military junta.

Quote:Actually I don't like macho blokes at all, I see them as potential bullies, but I want to answer this question in light of the generational theory.

My observation, too. Bullies and rapists. Men who put their maleness as the center of their personhood are usually lacking something. It's almost as bad as being proud of being white.

[gabrielle]

(11-08-2018, 05:54 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: We know that civic generations should be preoccupied with masculinity and have a disdain for female influence in politics. 

I'm not sure this is necessarily true.  

It seems to me that from the victory of the 19th Amendment onward through the sexual revolution of the 1920s, the era of fast-talking, pants-wearing dames like Barbara Stanwyck to the Rosie the Riveter crisis era there was a steady advancement in the roles of women.  Disdain for women in politics?  Compared with today, certainly, but women were becoming more involved than ever before--women like Eleanor Roosevelt, Frances Perkins.



Often during times of particularly dynamic advancement for women there is an accompanying undercurrent of male anxiety.  That's why you'll see in a lot of old films of the era, particularly after the Hayes Code, there is an admonishment for strong women to eventually slow their role, so to speak, or face punishment.  Feminist sentiments are particularly strong today, but you can detect a seething resentment in the underground.  Sometimes this comes out in violent ways; many of the mass shootings of recent years are misogynist in nature.  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...g-misogyny

[Ragnarök_62]

(11-09-2018, 03:08 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-09-2018, 11:47 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-08-2018, 09:30 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: It's easier to get a feminist if one isn't a male chauvinist. Feminist women could be more desirable -- they might have higher incomes, be better educated, be better at conversation, and be able to participate in shared activities.

Sure, but this is not an answer to the question:

Why aren't millennials as macho as the previous civic generations?

It still could be that men are adjusting to the realities of gender in America, and that there has not been a Crisis that has yet empowered men while leaving women out of roles that rely upon brute-force construction or combat  as did the Crisis Eras from the Armada Crisis on.

If the Crisis is dealing with a President trying to rule as a despot, then women are already  the leaders of the resistance. Think of the Argentine response to the collapse of credibility of the military junta.

Quote:Actually I don't like macho blokes at all, I see them as potential bullies, but I want to answer this question in light of the generational theory.

My observation, too. Bullies and rapists. Men who put their maleness as the center of their personhood are usually lacking something. It's almost as bad as being proud of being white.

This means there should be a change in the implied social contract between the sexes.  I'm OK with this, btw. Aside from reproductive differences, there is to be no consideration of whether a person is male or female. This means the most qualified person should get the job. Also, it means that all other interactions besides stuff like mating, that a person should or should not intervene in activities between others based on sex. For example, if a person is getting beat up, the proper response is to call 911 and nothing else. Males who rely on out of date customs may get #Metoo'd or called a chauvinist pig. Likewise, if local custom allows for door opening, then it's ok to do that, regardless of sex.  And... yes, nobody should be proud of being <insert race pronoun here>.  It is for that reason that terms like "people of color" is divisive. If someone says that "people of color are X". Then that implies that people who are not people of color are ! X. Discussions framed as such are propaganda, since they focus on outcomes, not underlying factors. For example, the war on drugs, along with police for profits results  in more blacks ending up in prison. Another factor for a higher proportion of blacks in prison relates to mutual distrust amongst a large number of the black population and police forces. I'm sure there are other underlying factors as well. Outright racism / distrust among other populations towards blacks may also be a factor so a reason should be given for this phenomenon.  In this case, data indicating high crime levels associated with majority black zip codes may foster this sort of fear. So here, reasons for this high crime need to be discussed. These reasons should be viewed in the manner in which assorted environmental/social conditions lead to high crime. IOW, it's not really the population per say, but conditions that act on the population that do so.

[Bill the Piper]

(11-09-2018, 11:53 PM)gabrielle Wrote: It seems to me that from the victory of the 19th Amendment onward through the sexual revolution of the 1920s, the era of fast-talking, pants-wearing dames like Barbara Stanwyck to the Rosie the Riveter crisis era there was a steady advancement in the roles of women.  Disdain for women in politics?  Compared with today, certainly, but women were becoming more involved than ever before--women like Eleanor Roosevelt, Frances Perkins.

Eleanor Roosevelt and Frances Perkins were Missionary, i.e. prophetic not civic.

pbrower2a Wrote:there has not been a Crisis that has yet empowered men while leaving women out of roles that rely upon brute-force construction or combat as did the Crisis Eras from the Armada Crisis on.

If the Crisis is dealing with a President trying to rule as a despot, then women are already the leaders of the resistance. Think of the Argentine response to the collapse of credibility of the military junta.

All civics love teamwork, but Millennial teamwork is nonviolent and revolves around social media, corporations and the activist community. It doesn't require men to be macho, or to exclude women.

Another Civic trait is standardizing everything. Just like previous Civics overlooked tribal differences, Millennials overlook gender differences. It'll be up to the iGeneration to recover "lost art" of masculinity (I mean being a gentleman, not a bully). Artists are always interested in differences.

The ideal for me is a culture which celebrates gender differences, but allow people to opt out of them and be "unisex" if someone wants it.

[pbrower2a]

(11-10-2018, 02:09 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(11-09-2018, 03:08 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-09-2018, 11:47 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-08-2018, 09:30 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: It's easier to get a feminist if one isn't a male chauvinist. Feminist women could be more desirable -- they might have higher incomes, be better educated, be better at conversation, and be able to participate in shared activities.

Sure, but this is not an answer to the question:

Why aren't millennials as macho as the previous civic generations?

It still could be that men are adjusting to the realities of gender in America, and that there has not been a Crisis that has yet empowered men while leaving women out of roles that rely upon brute-force construction or combat  as did the Crisis Eras from the Armada Crisis on.

If the Crisis is dealing with a President trying to rule as a despot, then women are already  the leaders of the resistance. Think of the Argentine response to the collapse of credibility of the military junta.

Quote:Actually I don't like macho blokes at all, I see them as potential bullies, but I want to answer this question in light of the generational theory.

My observation, too. Bullies and rapists. Men who put their maleness as the center of their personhood are usually lacking something. It's almost as bad as being proud of being white.

This means there should be a change in the implied social contract between the sexes.  I'm OK with this, btw. Aside from reproductive differences, there is to be no consideration of whether a person is male or female. This means the most qualified person should get the job. Also, it means that all other interactions besides stuff like mating, that a person should or should not intervene in activities between others based on sex. For example, if a person is getting beat up, the proper response is to call 911 and nothing else. Males who rely on out of date customs may get #Metoo'd or called a chauvinist pig. Likewise, if local custom allows for door opening, then it's ok to do that, regardless of sex.  And... yes, nobody should be proud of being <insert race pronoun here>.  It is for that reason that terms like "people of color" is divisive. If someone says that "people of color are X". Then that implies that people who are not people of color are ! X. Discussions framed as such are propaganda, since they focus on outcomes, not underlying factors. For example, the war on drugs, along with police for profits results  in more blacks ending up in prison. Another factor for a higher proportion of blacks in prison relates to mutual distrust amongst a large number of the black population and police forces. I'm sure there are other underlying factors as well. Outright racism / distrust among other populations towards blacks may also be a factor so a reason should be given for this phenomenon.  In this case, data indicating high crime levels associated with majority black zip codes may foster this sort of fear. So here, reasons for this high crime need to be discussed. These reasons should be viewed in the manner in which assorted environmental/social conditions lead to high crime. IOW, it's not really the population per say, but conditions that act on the population that do so.

The social contract can change. Kings by divine right, slavery, and female subjection are all kaputt. I'd also like to believe that religious intolerance is outmoded, too, but then you see some mixed-up punk mowing down black people in a Christian church and more recently a neo-Nazi mowing down Jews in a synagogue. It appalls just about everyone.

I'd like our police to be less trigger-happy with black people.

Michigan had a proposition decriminalizing marijuana. I hate drugs, including marijuana; I simply concluded that the laws as now enforced do much harm and little good. I voted for the proposition.

[beechnut79]

By voting for the proposition you probably just realized that its prohibition was no more successful that it was with liquor nearly a century ago. How far off can decriminalization of sex work be? Hope to see that before my life is over.

[pbrower2a]

(11-10-2018, 03:34 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: By voting for the proposition you probably just realized that its prohibition was  no more successful that it was with liquor nearly a century ago. How far off can decriminalization of sex work be? Hope to see that before my life is over.

I don't have a daughter or granddaughter, and I would not want her involved in sex work even if it were lawful. I would not patronize sex workers if it were legal.

Sex work probably hurts the psyche of someone who does it. It is emotionally exploitative, and it is not a wholesome relationship. This is not to be confused with economic exploitation which is severe or benign in America depending on one's position on the economic spectrum. But really-low-paying work, as by retail sales clerks, does not have the facade of intimacy with a client.

I have heard people describe the situation in Amsterdam, where someone might walk down the wrong street. On one street is the museum, and on the next street over are sex workers showing their wares to attract clients.

This said, pornography is legal. It too is emotionally exploitative. I have heard of people in the business getting messed up. Yes, people can be messed up while doing 'legitimate' work such as clerks, nurses, teachers, cleaners, farm laborers, and salespeople, too -- but the suicide rate among people in the pornography business is high. It could be that troubled people are more likely to enter the sex trade than to become schoolteachers, accountants, or engineers.

This said, sex workers deserve some protection from people who abuse them. It is also best that such people have some protection from predators. If the sex trade is licit, then sex workers can unionize and can get the aid of law enforcement against people who would beat or kill them. The illicit character of the sex trade creates its own dangers, including the harsh judgment of creeps who murder then out of the perverse superego. Many of the victims of serial killers are prostitutes. I would support legal changes that would make the lives of sex workers safer, even if that implies legalization.

[gabrielle]

(11-10-2018, 04:47 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: Eleanor Roosevelt and Frances Perkins were Missionary, i.e. prophetic not civic.

OK.

Shirley Chisolm (1924), first black US Congresswoman
Patricia Roberts Harris, (1924), first black female Cabinet member
Martha Griffiths (1912), had protections for women included in Civil Rights Act
Fannie Lou Hamer (1917), Civil Rights activist
Bella Abzup (1920), Anti-Vietnam congresswoman

Satisfied?

My point is, when you ask why Millennials today aren't displaying more macho characteristics and a “disdain for women in politics” (because presumably that's what people from civic generations do), what you should be doing is looking at the 1930s and 40s or other crisis eras in the past, and compare what was going on then with what is going on today.

[sbarrera]

There is a linear trend of women being integrated into society in effect. It has only been a little over one saecular cycle that women could vote. And even more recently that there is an expectation that women have all careers open to them, and have the right to be in the workplace and other public spaces without being sexually harassed.

[pbrower2a]

(11-12-2018, 09:06 AM)sbarrera Wrote: There is a linear trend of women being integrated into society in effect. It has only been a little over one saecular cycle that women could vote. And even more recently that there is an expectation that women have all careers open to them, and have the right to be in the workplace and other public spaces without being sexually harassed.

Women and the vote, by generations:

The Transcendental generation was the first to call for the vote.
The Gilded had other concerns, and only a very few of them got the chance to vote.
Progressive women lived long enough that some got to vote only in old age.

Missionary women crusaded for the vote, got it, and rarely won political office. They did get Prohibition, arguably the first feminist cause to get results (the idea was that men prohibited from drinking would not drink up their pay in a saloon and come home only when they were broke, often  to beat their wives and children while hung over.
Lost women, except for the youngest, missed a few votes because women did not have the vote while some were coming of age.

GI  women always had the vote, which may have made America less tolerant of the fascistic KKK... a fact not forgotten by American generals at the end of the Second World War who insisted on women getting the vote in France, Italy, and Japan. Fascism of all kinds has typically been an almost exclusively-male club. The Allied victors figured that women were more likely to heed the teachings of Christian or Buddhist clergy than some drunken rabble-rouser in a drinking hole. France may have been an ally, but Charles de Gaulle could recognize that France had barely avoided a fascist takeover in the 1930s and that the sort of people who aligned themselves with Vichy had much the same cause for right-wing radicalization (angry rabble-rousers venting their hatred toward Jews, foreigners, liberals, and socialists) as did Nazis, the Klan, and other fascists. Women tended to oppose Communism unless they were already predisposed to it by family culture. 

The Silent Generation and later generations of women cannot imagine not having the vote, for the female franchise has been around throughout their lives.

And, yes, women are more likely to see Donald Trump in a negative light.

I'm not attacking alcohol -- I'm attacking drunkenness.

One drink dissolves much of my pathological anxiety. A second drink dissolves my shaky coordination. A third drink dissolves my conscience. A fourth drink knocks me out.

[Hintergrund]

[quote pid='39888' dateline='1541843257']
Another Civic trait is standardizing everything. Just like previous Civics overlooked tribal differences, Millennials overlook gender differences. It'll be up to the iGeneration to recover "lost art" of masculinity (I mean being a gentleman, not a bully). Artists are always interested in differences.
[/quote]

You may have a point about that. That would be the ultimate standardization indeed. Hopefully it won't happen.

@OP: Maybe the Millennial men would have to go through a "bath of steel" first, i.e. a huge war, before they really get masculine? We know too little about GIs before they were real GIs.

[Bill the Piper]

(11-14-2018, 09:56 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: @OP: Maybe the Millennial men would have to go through a "bath of steel" first, i.e. a huge war, before they really get masculine? We know too little about GIs before they were real GIs.

What do we know about another Civic gens which didn't go through a war?

American didn't have a Civic gen in the 19th century, but what about Europe? There was mostly peace from 1815 to 1914.

[pbrower2a]

Crimean War. Franco-Prussian War. Liberation struggles in Balkan Europe. Unification of Italy.

Even in America I am tempted to believe that the Gilded Generation took on many of the roles of a Civic generation while missing some. Like a Civic generation, the Gilded did things on a large scale (Big Business took off in energy, meat processing, and rails under the Gilded), believed in secularism (their preachers resembled more Billy Graham than Billy Sunday, Herbert W. Armstrong, or Jerry Falwell), became conformist, adopted a bland style in culture, got an early start and a late exit from the political sphere, and tended to an indulgent style of child-rearing. Unlike a purer Civic generation, they remained pecuniary; their morals were always suspect (think of the stereotypical villain of the silent movie era, the villain wearing a cape); they distrusted arcane intellectualism; and they had short fuses, as one would expect of a Reactive generation. The Civil War may have empowered Northern survivors of the Civil War while crushing the hopes of Confederates.

[gabrielle]

(11-14-2018, 01:38 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Crimean War. Franco-Prussian War. Liberation struggles in Balkan Europe. Unification of Italy.

Even in America I am tempted to believe that the Gilded Generation took on many of the roles of a Civic generation while missing some. Like a Civic generation, the Gilded did things on a large scale (Big Business took off in energy, meat processing, and rails under the Gilded), believed in secularism (their preachers resembled more Billy Graham than Billy Sunday, Herbert W. Armstrong, or Jerry Falwell),  became conformist, adopted a bland style in culture, got an early start and a late exit from the political sphere, and tended to an indulgent style of child-rearing. Unlike a purer Civic generation, they remained pecuniary; their morals were always suspect (think of the stereotypical villain of the silent movie era, the villain wearing a cape); they distrusted arcane intellectualism; and they had short fuses, as one would expect of a Reactive generation. The Civil War may have empowered Northern survivors of the Civil War while crushing the hopes of Confederates.

The Gilded Generation ladies may have had "other concerns" than suffrage as you put it up-thread, but they have the distinction of having in their ranks the first woman to run for US president--Victoria Woodhull.  She was a pretty remarkable person.[url=https://ehistory.osu.edu/biographies/victoria-woodhull][/url]

[Marypoza]

(11-10-2018, 04:47 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-09-2018, 11:53 PM)gabrielle Wrote: It seems to me that from the victory of the 19th Amendment onward through the sexual revolution of the 1920s, the era of fast-talking, pants-wearing dames like Barbara Stanwyck to the Rosie the Riveter crisis era there was a steady advancement in the roles of women.  Disdain for women in politics?  Compared with today, certainly, but women were becoming more involved than ever before--women like Eleanor Roosevelt, Frances Perkins.

Eleanor Roosevelt and Frances Perkins were Missionary, i.e. prophetic not civic.

pbrower2a Wrote:there has not been a Crisis that has yet empowered men while leaving women out of roles that rely upon brute-force construction or combat  as did the Crisis Eras from the Armada Crisis on.

If the Crisis is dealing with a President trying to rule as a despot, then women are already  the leaders of the resistance. Think of the Argentine response to the collapse of credibility of the military junta.

All civics love teamwork, but Millennial teamwork is nonviolent and revolves around social media, corporations and the activist community. It doesn't require men to be macho, or to exclude women.

Another Civic trait is standardizing everything. Just like previous Civics overlooked tribal differences, Millennials overlook gender differences. It'll be up to the iGeneration to recover "lost art" of masculinity (I mean being a gentleman, not a bully). Artists are always interested in differences.

The ideal for me is a culture which celebrates gender differences, but allow people to opt out of them and be "unisex" if someone wants it.

-- due to recent advances in modern medicene, we now have transppl, or trannies, the ultimate gender benders. As you say perhaps Millies just overlook gender differences.

Speaking of Presidents, Tulsi is gearing up 4 a Presidential run. I suspect this is just 2 get her name out there, the race she's really shooting 4 is 2028, maybe even 2024 if she gets her q-factor up high enough this time round. Millies are already the country's largest voting bloc, & will get even more influential thru the 2020s as us old farts die off. Will they ignore gender & elect a female prez? Otoh, they did send over 100  women 2 Congress last week, so maybe they aren't that concerned with gender roles

(& yes Eric, they do vote, @ least in my precinct they do, the place was swarming with Millies last week. They just dont vote 4 pos canddiates like the 2 running in 2016. They are picky that way & not just in politics, l have noticed they'll walk off jobs if they don't like them, even if they got mouths 2 feed. They don't slog away 4 the paycheck til they find something better, they just walk away period)