:up: Yes, I was thinking about that one too.

I've certainly known many stress tolerant women. — Hanover

I'm thinking selection bias.

Not to the question of patriarchy, but to the larger question of whether it is subjectively better to be male or female, females report higher happiness levels than men: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2003/10/29/global-gender-gaps/

So while maybe men have certain competitive advantages in society, they don't serve to promote happiness.

I would just keep it simple. A man has masculine physical characteristics and functions physically. Their style of communication can be anything. Their interests can be anything. I would try to extract sex from common societal roles which are more subject to change.

Thank you for being so patient, with me trying to get away without laying my worldview out in much detail. (So to speak.)

I can see I would need to start a new thread to fill in the details, and while I might be up for that, it would be a sciency explanation of how I see humans as existing within a system, and most affectingly, within a system of their fellow humans and the universe at large.

It would help motivate me to take on such a project, if I had confidence it wasn't going to feel like a waste of my time. So how interested are you? — wonderer1

First off, I'll keep this short and simple. Why? Limited time, energy and patience. I sense avoidance.
Secondly, to answer my questions, there is no need to start a new thread setting out your worldview.
That's a bit overkill.
However, if that is something you want to do, then already therein lies the motivation.
Whether or not it will be productive or a waste of your time - time will tell.

A refreshing new direction. The site looks informative with a range of topics.
Unfortunately, time is not on my side for the next week.
I will be joined by a 'real man' - a professional - for some home improvements. Some men think they are good at DIY and refuse to countenance another man taking over - not to mention the cost. My argument is that a pro generally gets the job done more efficiently with a better outcome. So worth it. IMO.

A quick first response before I go.

So while maybe men have certain competitive advantages in society, they don't serve to promote happiness. — Hanover

Other than the well-known problems/limitations in interpreting research findings.
Measurement, reporter bias, etc.
How good are people at knowing what happiness is?
If males measure success by being a winner, then what about the perception of being a 'loser'?
Is it more about objective quantity rather than subjective quality?
How big is... a male...ego?

In my experience the writer's world is often very competitive - who gets to be interviewed and on what media, sales figures, invitations to speak, prizes. Several of my friends are successful writers and journalists. They describe a hive of competition, bitter rivalries, irrational hatreds and enmities. If it's your profession, the solitary act of writing is often subsumed by the social world of writers. — Tom Storm

Sure, but that's a different kind of writing than I'm talking about. For what I write, it only matters if what I write is good, or, on a bad day, good enough.

I'm thinking selection bias. — Srap Tasmaner

A good, subtle insult.

Thought maybe nobody would notice that one. ;)

Clearly I was talking about predicates and not names when talking about self-labelling. A name makes no claim about the qualities you possess. — apokrisis

Just, in thinking about this a little more. Would you not agree that a human name was not normally arbitrarily chosen? It was related to your job or your place of birth or who your father was (rather than your mother) Mac Donald, O' Donnal, Von Don, etc. Indigenous peoples often named their children related to qualities they possessed such as 'Raven Hair,' or 'Sitting bull' or perhaps even 'dances with wolves.' Perhaps it could be claimed that human names can even be chosen or influenced by how patriarchal a society is, certainly the 'son of' idea would suggest this. I have not heard a name such as Mac Mary, Mac Agnes or Mac Catherine in Scotland anyway? Do you know of any strong matriarchal influences on the 'son of' method of naming children?

How's this for a play on masculinity, from a heterosexual man, married three times, has a daughter, his father was a catholic priest, his mother, the daughter of a rabbi. Got his first paying entertainment job:
From wiki:
In 1963, he landed his first paying gig at Page 3, a gay and lesbian club in Greenwich Village, playing 6 hours a night and 6 nights a week for $96 per month.
'Tiny Tim,' or 'Herbert Butros Khaury' died in 1996.

Here is the masculine icon, 'The Duke Wayne' kneeling before him, for comic effect I'm sure, or perhaps Marion secretly liked one of the backing group in the picture.

Is this masculinity at it's best, as its comfortable in showing its femininity?
Or will people just do what ever pays well?
What do you think John Wayne said to his 'macho' pals when they ribbed him about him bowing to Tiny Tim? Do you think they would have ribbed him about it?
If you knew nothing about the life of Tiny Tim, would you be certain he was not a manly man after watching this?:

Was this all just good clean Amurican fun? or does it exemplify American cultural confusion as to their national notion of patriarchy and masculinity. Was it always, in truth, fluid?
Is the American notion of a man still fronted as John Wayne style or do most of them in truth (or even secretly) prefer the tiny Tim persona today compared to The Duke Wayne?
I merely refer to America in this because the Tiny Tim and the John Wayne caricatures are American products.

You're not eliminating competition, you're just reducing the risk of loss so that the limited reward of winning is worth entry into the contest.

The risk of loss is the stress associated with criticism or being told you rank beneath your peers. The reward of winning is a pat on the back. To get more entrants, you either need to reduce the risk of loss (e.g. don't have an objective rating system or don't permit harsh criticism) or increase the rewards of winning (e.g. give the winner $1,000).

Since we have limited resources to increase rewards, we opt to limit risk. That is, you just rewrote the rules to your competition. You didn't eliminate it. — Hanover

Well, I can't take credit. It was @unenlightened who got me thinking about it and @Caldwell who took charge of the least competitive and most successful round. Anyhow, a couple of points, the first is yes, competition wasn't eliminated, but, as I said "purposely downplayed". That is, the result, winning or losing, was made less important.

But this wasn't done in order to get more entrants (my initial concern was that being less competitive would result in less entrants because I was also looking at it overly superficially). In fact, the idea of adjusting the activity purely on that basis rather than focusing only on what would make for a good activity parallels the idea of entering such an activity to "win" as opposed to participate.

So, we're back to result over process again. We can conceptualise the competition itself as ends oriented (competing against other hypothetical or proposed competitions with the prize being the number of entrants) or we can conceptualize it as process oriented (something that is good in itself where the focus is on the experience) and so with the writing of the stories or anything worth writing or doing (including this debate we're having now). There's usually a balance to be had that doesn't involve the elimination of either aspect. The default approach tends to be skewed towards the competitive though.

As to stress tolerance, a critical attribute of any competitor (arguably as critical as intelligence and conscientious), if that is more a male trait, you are correct that its reduction would benefit women. That thesis would rest on the idea that women seek stability more than men, perhaps owing to their nurturing instincts, but that's an idea based on stereotype, but maybe supportable empirically. I don't know. I've certainly known many stress tolerant women — Hanover

You must have taken me up wrong as this is a distortion of where I'm coming from. It's not a competition between men and women to get society to cater to their respective needs that I'm espousing. That would be unfortunately ironic. What I'm saying is first of all let's recognize that the prevailing and dominant ideology is masculine. We're infused with it and it's evident in the default way we conceptualise our interrelationships>>aggressive, competitive, ends oriented etc. Then let's ask why and what we can do about it to make things better for everyone, male and female (Just as I believe the short story competition was better for everyone when reconsidered as an "activity").

To reiterate, though the primary beneficiaries of a patriarchal society are men, they are not men in general. As@180 Proof pointed out, patriarchy (as I conceive it, simply a society dominated by masculine values) funnels wealth and power to a small cadre of a particular type who happen to be men, but theoretically could be of either sex. And the solution is not to eliminate competition or demonize men or masculine values but to recognize that the way we understand our interrelationships is infused with an arbitrary self-justifying way of looking at things that, I would argue, is deficient and in some senses destructive. (The short story "competition" vs "activity" issue is this in microcosm).

So while maybe men have certain competitive advantages in society, they don't serve to promote happiness. — Hanover

Yes. Everyone loses.

(I haven't read the Yin/Yang thread by the way, but I suspect there's plenty of overlap with what we're talking about here.)

FWIW, I think your attempts (with the contributions of Unenlightened and Caldwell,) to dilute the 'competitive' aspects of a writing competition, is very laudable.
As a school teacher of 30+ years experience and as a person who marked, final exams and was an examiner (checked and could alter the marking of other markers) and a setter (wrote sections of final computing exams, at Scottish higher grade and advanced higher grades). I came to despair of the Scottish exam system and all 'final exam' systems. I wont go into my reasons here, which are many and detailed (probably another thread). But the competition aspect of final exam systems is very very negative, towards the mental health of the majority of able and less able pupils imo.
Imo, a final exam should only contribute a max of around 25% of a continuous course assessment of the skill level a pupil demonstrates, within a particular subject.

I had a career in education that I doubt I'll go back to. Couldn't really stand behind what I was doing or the context in which I was doing it. Similarly to the above, but it wasn't just the exams, the whole thing was drenched in an ugly instrumentalism that made it boring, transactional and stressful for both teachers and students.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I think most teachers connect best with the minds of their students when they teach the subject content, almost as a side show to the 'personality' or 'showmanship,' they can manifest and present to the pupils. I found that my constant attempts to entertain pupils as well as deliver course content was absolutely key, to what I would consider a successful lesson.
This often meant that getting through the course content involved was a challenge. I mostly managed, but the energy and time input required became unsustainable, so early retirement was the best move I ever made. I was totally burnt out by then.

Limited time, energy and patience. — Amity

Yep.

Was this all just good clean Amurican fun? or does it exemplify American cultural confusion as to their national notion of patriarchy and masculinity. — universeness

My problem with Tiny Tim is that he built his career on a joke or rather on him being the joke. As far as I could tell, he didn't have any talent beyond being willing to make a fool of himself. Just like the first few episodes every season of American Idol.

As for masculine vs. feminine, another problem I have with TT is the one I have with drag performers - men wanting to steal something from women without ever having to pay their dues. I've always found it disrespectful.

Interesting....
So in your opinion, was Tiny Tim a willing participant in an overall wish by a patriarchal American culture to parody/ridicule homosexuality?
Why do you think John Wayne acted the way he did on stage, as the host of the show guffawed at the scene?
Do you think there are any parallels between this and going to see/laugh/be entertained, at the freak show where you could be smug and self-righteous, that at least you were not as low as a gay person or a black person or a woman or a 'freak,' you were a powerful white male that could laugh at all the 'freaks'/people with disabilities? The UK had it's own equivalents, with the horrific treatment dished out to people like John Merrick (The elephant man).

Are these complaints justified and accurate, as examples of what can happen when male masculinity is unchecked, and male patriarchy is allowed to become a main societal driver?
Should such behaviour or parodies of those who are not white, heterosexual, Christian males ever be acceptable in any humane society?
Does male masculinity and how it has historically manifested in patriarchy, have any place in the future world, you would like for your children?
Do you see any parallels here with the complains I am outlining, and the current treatment of many folks in the trans community?

Should posters here, be allowed to accent only, whatever evidence they think they have, for a future positive role, for traditional/historical male role models in a patriarchy, without counter points and red flags being raised by other posters?
Do these counter points/complaints have no power or validity to them, because certain jobs in the past and even today are mainly male dominated?
Should a heterosexual man, cosplaying as a trans person or a woman (drag Queen), to entertain an audience be ok, as it means they can make a living and provide for their children (if they have any), or do you;

I have with TT is the one I have with drag performers - men wanting to steal something from women without ever having to pay their dues. I've always found it disrespectful. — T Clark

think men should never parody women? or vice versa? Does it change your mind in any way, if the person in the drag Queen outfit is trans? and does identify as a woman and has had hormone treatments, professional psychological conformation/support and top and bottom surgery?
Do you have a personal 'cut off point' where you insist that any who fall below your line cannot be allowed to cosplay as a drag Queen, but it's ok for anyone above your line?
Is there anyone who should be allowed to perform a drag queen act, that was born as a male, that would get a thumbs up from you?

I am only asking you for such clarifications, to gain a clearer picture, of how your notion of your personal masculinity may affect others, perhaps even one of your own sons, if you found out they made a good amount of money, doing that extra job you never knew about, when they entertain others at the weekend as Princess Patrice. Such a person has to be someone's son, right? Would the fact that they loved the work and enjoyed the job very much, sway you in any way?
Would any members of your immediate family and friends enjoy attending such a show?
If they did, would this impact your relationship with them?
Sorry to throw all this at you in particular TClark, but you were the only one to respond to my post regarding the Tiny Tim caricature in comparison to the John Wayne caricature and how they are viewed by current American males of all ages?
My questions/probes here, are not intended as any kind of personal attack on you.
I am just interested in the issues involved.

Why would you say that you are not interested in being/becoming a 'real man' in the sense of growth you describe? — Amity

Asking this is sort of like asking me why I'm not interested in being or becoming something I'm not. I grew up into something but I don't think it fits with "real men", whatever that is. If I happen to fit the social traits of "real man" then that's not reason to keep my expressions the same, and if I happen to not fit the social traits of "real man" then that's no reason to change myself or feel shame about myself or who I am.

Interestingly, given the prior expressions of apathy towards turning masculinity into words this fits with notions of masculinity and real manliness put forward.

But this kind of goes to what I'm trying to do with the distinction between boyhood/manhood and feminine/masculine -- our adult selves are differentiated from our childhood selves more than they are differentiated from the other gender. We look for differences between men and women because that's part of the gender game is to find differences to confirm that we're different but complementary to one another. But in coming to understand masculinity I'm suggesting that the coming-to-age story is more relevant than the game of gender differences.

If that's so then it's actually a non sequiter to bring up that women can be tough, for instance. Of course they can! That's because masculinity and feminity don't have to be defined by one another -- they can co-exist with the same traits and acknowledge that the difference is more of how we express than who we are. It's partly a social dance, but then the social dance becomes a part of who we are too so things get confusing.

So, yes, I'm good with being an adult. But whatever my notion of adulthood is this idea of real manhood doesn't really do it for me.

Perhaps a more probative inquiry:
What are the functions, or duties, normatively expected of men at (this) historical moment and by (this) culture / in (this) society? And what does such an expectation 'to be a man' mean to (for) each concretely situated person?
A socio-psychological topic, however, rather than philosophical aporia, no? — 180 Proof

Somewhere in-between, I think -- "in the wild" there's a difference between what we say and what we do with respect to gender roles and gender identity, which is what makes room for philosophical reflection to have a place. At the very least to demonstrate that the topic isn't clear cut, that it "needs further research" and what a real man is isn't so clear-cut if what we mean is some singular definition of masculinity. It's too dependent upon social context.

So let's get off the idea that men and women are just the same but for a few anatomical differences, and that it makes sense to respect some amount of gender behavior is in fact caused by basic genetics, — Hanover

I agree with your first sentence, but I disagree with your last one. The cause is social I think, primarily, though I'm not a priori refusing genetic causal influence. Attributing social causes doesn't mean that it's not-real, or somehow lesser. Also I'll note that the language of causes differs from the language of intent, and with respect to how we self-identify or understand the identity of others then the language of intent is also important.

If we were talking genetics, though, we'd be referencing papers about such. But the truth is that we don't have enough knowledge about our biological makeup to construct something as complicated as an identity. That's kind of the mind/body problem in a nutshell.

So, given that scientific knowledge is incomplete, I propose that we "get by" through accepted social forms which can be understood by looking at their respective histories. But histories don't boil down into scientific fact very well -- they contain too much of the emotive aspect of living to do that. Which means that this genetics is, in fact, a pop-biology that's not looking at the wide range of expressions which are possible.

For instance -- I think that focusing on what a man's occupation does, that's the part that our culture generally takes for granted as being an important part of one's masculinity. But why should our occupations even be attached to our gender? I think that's because of our cultural notions of real manhood being tied to being breadwinners from the traditional roles of man/woman within a nuclear family household.

I don't usually do hot takes but here's one: it's about risk. I doubt it's entirely a social construction, but if I suggested that male mammals are more, shall we say, disposable, that would be a just-so story. Vaguely the right place to start though, to find the material social construction has to work with.

The roles men are expected to take on -- with the usual caveats here -- that neither women nor children are, are risky. Men go to war, not just because of their aptitude for violence, but also because there is considerable risk.

The Pony Express used to run this ad: "Wanted. Young, skinny, wiry fellows. Not over 18. Must be expert riders. Willing to risk death daily. Orphans preferred." As a group essential but individually disposable.

I won't multiply examples, but I'll add that it might make sense for a society to arrange itself partly in terms of risk. There have generally been dangerous things that need doing, so you probably don't want everyone doing them. Obviously today we have women soldiers, fire fighters, and so on, and we have child soldiers too. Yay. — Srap Tasmaner

I think this gets at why men are easy to coax into risky roles -- and also gets along with my notion that men are deeply passionate, rather than emotionless. I think men are deeply passionate about all kinds of things which others don't particularly care for, which is why men don't bother to share what they are passionate about -- the silence is preferable because others won't understand why I take this risk or push that boundary anyways. Something about men makes it easier to have them be attached to this aspect of life. In fact I'd say it's the deeply felt emotions of men that are their most attractive aspect.

Of course my thought is that the cause for men's masculinity is more social, but that's a causal description rather than a description of manliness and why men are masculine in their various capacities. Your answer is exactly what I'm looking for -- at the very least to let things sit beside one another.

Also why I didn't want to seem like I was emasculating. I think that masculinity is a sensitive topic, and it's good to let the views live together even if they contradict.

Maybe under the modern label of libertarian socialism there is "total equality" ... — 180 Proof

Well, naturally, that's where this all leads for me. :D

This caught my attention. I’m conscious of the effort to not explain ‘maleness’ in opposition to the notion of ‘female’, and I recognise this is a personal reflection, but it’s difficult not to consider answers such as these without asking ‘as opposed to…?’ Especially when reading it as a woman. — Possibility

I agree that these questions come up, and that asking "as opposed to...?" is a good avenue -- and I'm offering childhood as opposed to feminity as the contrast-class. So that. . .

Aggression, for instance, is traditionally considered a masculine trait - yet young women these days, freed from learned expectations of passivity as ‘feminine’, are often (not always) more openly aggressive than their mothers and grandmothers were. They no longer need to appear ‘ladylike’.

...is a perfectly acceptable form of femininity. Appearing ladylike isn't the feminine, but being an adult is. And isn't it the truth that women find ways to express their aggression when they aren't allowed?

So I suggest that it's a mode of expression rather than a trait which makes the difference (and, further, it's both pscyho-social, so the topic is naturally vague, making these conversations difficul for more than just because people are attached to them, but also because they aren't clear)

Protection to the vulnerable, too, without these learned expectations, is increasingly recognised as a human trait, rather than a particularly masculine one. As a woman, it isn’t that I have no intention to protect the vulnerable, only that in many (but by no means all) situations I recognise a lack of physical or political capacity to individually eliminate a threat. That I have and make use of other means to protect the vulnerable rarely registers as action on my part, or is dismissed as ‘underhanded’ or ‘manipulative’ because it lacks this physically or politically overt individual action. I gather the support of relationships, adjust the circumstances, lend my capacity to others…

The ‘maleness’ described here appears to prioritise individual agency and attributable action - a sense of identity and ownership found in isolating one’s self from the world as the subject. Competitiveness and conflict over collaboration - my life, my decisions, my honour, my family, my desire, as opposed to others and their (dis)agreement, vulnerability, etc.

When we use this kind of language, the frustration as a woman is that it isn’t as important for me to be recognised as the subject behind every event as it is for the event to occur. I, too, want protection for the vulnerable, I want less conflict, I want change, I want reliable and intimate relationships, and I’m willing to do what I can to achieve this - but this ‘maleness’ seems more about consolidating identity through attributable action than intentionality.

I think that's the sort of thing I want to highlight as being a very partial part of masculinity -- the part of the masculine identity that's close to the imagination of one's self and what one expects from oneself. The man, in his imagination, wants to be the provider of values to the world (what a lucky world it is!) such that even he isn't dependent but rather allows others to depend upon him. The man in his imagination can subdue even the world itself to his will. But the man in his reality shares a lot with women, even if the story gets told a certain way to make him happy.

or step back to critique the settings of social system that is seeking to over-simplify us. — apokrisis

Exactly! :D That's the spirit of this thread, or at least what I aimed for in my opening.

Regardless of whose lives are relatively better, we're all worse off. Men are not better off by being marketed a masculine ideology from a young age. The whole society is sick and we all suffer from it. — Baden

Yup.

The realities of class overrun our educated chatter about sex, gender, men (masculinity), and women (femininity). Educated, professional workers are just not in the same boat as blue-collar / gray collar workers. I've been both. The latter is definitely more pleasant than the latter. — BC

I think bringing class into the mix only heightens the notion of patriarchy, rather than downplaying it. The reason it's convenient to say that women do woman occupations and men do men occupations due to their nature is that it provides justification for the pay-gap -- they all purportedly had a choice in what they were to become (as if families don't pressure children to fit roles, or schools, or workplaces) and freely chose the professions where men are paid more and women are paid less, on whole.

The professions that need unions are often female dominated, by the numbers. Working class politics works hand in hand with feminism rather than being in opposition.

So in your opinion, was Tiny Tim a willing participant in an overall wish by a patriarchal American culture to parody/ridicule homosexuality? — universeness

One thing that was always clear is that Tiny Tim was completely sincere. I'm not sure whether he was not aware of the fact he was used as a parody or didn't care.

Why do you think John Wayne acted the way he did on stage — universeness

Wayne was playing around with his own image as the epitome of the masculine.

Do you think there are any parallels between this and going to see/laugh/be entertained, at the freak show where you could be smug and self-righteous, — universeness

I've always thought that prejudice results from people seeing in the person being looked down on traits that we are afraid to see in ourselves - weakness, shame, helplessness.

Does male masculinity and how it has historically manifested in patriarchy, have any place in the future world, you would like for your children? — universeness

As I have expressed previously, I don't think the idea of patriarchy is useful for understanding our society and how it treats men and women.

Should posters here, be allowed to accent only, whatever evidence they think they have, for a future positive role, for traditional/historical male role models in a patriarchy, without counter points and red flags being raised by other posters? — universeness

Posters should post whatever they want within the forum guidelines and other posters should respond in whatever way they want consistent with the guidelines.

Would the fact that they loved the work and enjoyed the job very much, sway you in any way? — universeness

My sons are grown men. I'm comfortable they are capable of making decisions about their own lives without my help. None of my children have ever done anything that I am ashamed of. I don't think they could. That's not the way I think about my children. I don't judge them.

think men should never parody women? — universeness

I have never seen a drag situation that didn't seem condescending to me.

Which means that this genetics is, in fact, a pop-biology that's not looking at the wide range of expressions which are possible. — Moliere

It's not pop biology any more than it's pop sociology to favor nature or nurture as primary. I realize the impossibility of proving the cause of behavior down to the last detail, but there have been separated twin studies to show the impact genes play. https://www.livescience.com/47288-twin-study-importance-of-genetics.html

A male's Y chromosome results in increased levels of testosterone, which dramatically impacts behavior. https://www.healthline.com/health/low-testosterone/effects-on-body#Central-Nervous-System

This is just to say the obvious, which is that your physical constitution plays a major role in who you are. Being dismissive of the role of genetics on behavior is required under certain political narratives, especially those that want to attribute all successes and failures to a rigged system.

I think the opposite is just as absurd (and clearly more evil), which is to state most successes are attributable to genetics, thus leading to this idea that some groups are superior to others.

My view is simply that genes and environment matter, but still leaving independent decision making to the person. But if you look and see that close to 100% of certain trades are men, it's doubtful that's 100% environment or 100% choice.

Thanks for your answers. It's interesting to get the viewpoint of (I assume) a white, male, American father of son's, on the questions I asked.

Thank you for attempting to clarify your point of view re masculinity.
However, I find myself confused. The source of this seems to be the ambiguity or vagueness surrounding the term 'real man'. See [*]

Starting with your:

I am still a man. I know those patterns.
But I'm not interested in being a real man.[*]
— Moliere

You say you

grew into 'something' which doesn't fit with 'real men' [*] whatever that is.

From what I understand you identify as a male. Transitioned from boyhood to manhood.
You focus on social traits (rather than physical, mental or psychological factors) related to being a woman or a man. Why?

What do you mean by 'social traits'?
Do you mean the forming of personality or character/istics including the emotions, whether or not they are masculine/feminine? How society places expectations on how people should be if they want to fit in?
The derogatory "Don't be a big girl's blouse!" when a male infant starts crying after a fall from a wall.
Even though the child doesn't know the meaning, they have been trained not to cry when hurt.

...this kind of goes to what I'm trying to do with the distinction between boyhood/manhood and feminine/masculine -- our adult selves are differentiated from our childhood selves more than they are differentiated from the other gender. We look for differences between men and women because that's part of the gender game is to find differences to confirm that we're different but complementary to one another. But in coming to understand masculinity I'm suggesting that the coming-to-age story is more relevant than the game of gender differences. — Moliere

You think that the difference between the feminine/masculine (or men and women) is less relevant than the transition from boyhood>manhood (or girlhood>womanhood) when it comes to understanding 'Masculinity'.
Have I understood you correctly? I don't think it is that simple.

Complexities arise when you consider that males (young and adult) can have a heady mix of masculinities and femininities along a spectrum of human characteristics/traits.

This becomes even more complicated in the case of Gender Dysphoria.
For example, transitioning from male to female during puberty. Growing from boyhood to womanhood.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/
and treatment (psychological and medical):
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/

Puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. Side-effects.
In general, people wanting masculinisation usually take testosterone and people after feminisation usually take oestrogen. — NHS

Then, surgery.

This is more than 'the game of gender differences' you suggest we play.
It is certainly relevant when exploring or understanding issues of 'masculinity'.

To journey to manhood is itself a story, and the question of what a real man [*] is is a way of differentiating one's childhood, immature, or adolescent self from one's responsible, grown-up, and mature self.

It's a Bildungsroman more than an opposition to the other sex, except when it gets ugly. — Moliere

What do you mean by 'except when it gets ugly'?

Edit to add: Fascinating as this topic is, it has taken up so much time/energy I'm exhausted!
I doubt I will participate further, thanks to you and all for this discussion !

Your answer is exactly what I'm looking for — Moliere

(How can I not quote that?)

Imagine a bygone era when social roles for the sexes were more sharply distinguished. There are some paradoxes. Most households are entirely dependent on the man's income (again, unlike most households today, I believe); if anything happened to him, the wife and the kids are at least materially screwed. And yet --- if the cat gets up on the roof, who is expected to go up there and get it? I think it's not just a question of capability, but there's an expectation that the man take on this risk. And that's interesting. He is in some sense carrying his whole family up the ladder and onto the roof to get that damn cat. But that's everyone's expectation.

From what I understand you identify as a male. Transitioned from boyhood to manhood. — Amity

Yes. Though my preference is to say "adulthood", in truth. I'm a man, but I can tell that my own mode of expression differs from a lot of people who are men. Might have something to do with my theory, eh? ;)

Else, I'm not a man. But that's somehow more confusing to me. That fits even less! So -- androgenous man is the gender identity I've come to prefer, but I'm not settled on the wording. I'm surprised to find others don't feel like me -- but isn't that all part of the path of self-discovery?

You focus on social traits (rather than physical, mental or psychological factors) related to being a woman or a man. Why?

Because if you compare cultures then men and women behave differently in those cultures than they do in other cultures -- suggesting that the social make-up is what accounts for variation among societies. If we expected the genetic factors, at least, you'd predict a lot more uniformity of roles across cultures than we observe. At least so my thinking goes. So I infer that the social has more influence than the biological from that, as well as because there are many people who break the expected traits to think that genetics is highly determinative of behavior.

What do you mean by 'social traits'? — Amity

The role which a person is to fulfill.

Do you mean the forming of personality or character/istics including the emotions, whether or not they are masculine/feminine?

Nope.

The emotions are deeper than these identities, I think. Or perhaps a better phrasing is that at childhood we have undifferentiated emotions which we can relate to one another, but through development we attain differentiation as well.

The Kate Millet tripartite division is Biology:Mentality:Role, and she turns this on its head in saying that role is primary, and the mentality is grafted onto biological traits in order to make an excuse for said role. So within patriarchy the reason women (biology) fit into the role of caregiver is because the mentality that arises from the biology is one that nurtures, and the reason men are the breadwinners is because their biological makeup influences their psyche to prefer the roles of risk-taking that men are associated with.

You think that the difference between the feminine/masculine (or men and women) is less relevant than the transition from boyhood>manhood (or girlhood>womanhood) when it comes to understanding 'Masculinity'.
Have I understood you correctly? I don't think it is that simple.

Complexities arise when you consider that males (young and adult) can have a heady mix of masculinities and femininities along a spectrum of human characteristics/traits.

This becomes even more complicated in the case of Gender Dysphoria.
For example, transitioning from male to female during puberty. Growing from boyhood to womanhood.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/
and treatment (psychological and medical):
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/
Puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. Side-effects.
In general, people wanting masculinisation usually take testosterone and people after feminisation usually take oestrogen.
— NHS
Then, surgery. — Amity

I hope not to oversimplify. If anything the issue of gender identity is not simple.

However I think that these complexities arise at exactly the time my notion would predict -- if it's the transition from childhood to adulthood which is the defining time, then puberty is the time when differences between gender identities (for whatever causal reason) would become more prominent.
While I'm astride the gender dichotomy, I am cisgendered, so I don't want to speculate too much on the psychology here. It's complicated, but I think the heady mixture is only in the minds of those who don't understand -- if anyone is certain of their gender identity, it's the trans person willing to undergo social scrutiny just to be who they are.

What do you mean by 'except when it gets ugly'? — Amity

I'm thinking of toxic masculinities here which are built around resentment of female power over a man -- real or imagined. Hence, ugly.

Thanks for that explanation and G'night :up: :yawn: