I think there's a lot more in this space than people may be aware of. I have seen a fair number of breadtube discussions about what positive masculinity looks like.
In particular, F.D. Signifier just talked about masculinity in anime, and what good masculinity looks like.
But honestly this exists in a lot of places. Ted Lasso in S1 of Ted Lasso is a reasonable example of more positive masculinity.
And the real question that I think is gonna make a lot of people mad is. Why do we need a separate definition of "What makes someone a good man?" vs. "What makes someone a good woman?" vs. "What makes someone a good person?"
Why is it important for people to be good while attached to a gender? I say this as a cis-het-white man who is following my best impression of how to be a good man. But the answer I'm running headlong into, is that there's nothing about my gender that means I shouldn't be striving to just be a "good person".
> Why is it important for people to be good while attached to a gender?
Because societal roles for men and women differ? Because biology for men and women differ? These differences are so stark that the problems the others face are often not even registered as existing by the other group. While there is a large intersection between what makes each group "good", it's not a complete overlap.
My theory is because we are intrinsically selfish, so even when doing a good act, we expect some sort of return, even if it's a person' smile or a good feeling (I know that's roughly the definition of selfless).
Being a good man is a statement usually seen in the context of straight couples, so when I read it my interpretation is "doing good stuff as a person in a way that attracts potential partners". Again, good person with something in return
Why is that different for men vs. women even in a heterosexual couple?
Why are the "good" things you do that attract a partner for you, different than the "good" things you're attracted to?
Also, are you saying you wouldn't do good stuff for another person of the same gender as you (assuming you're heterosexual)? I had a roommate like that, and the dude was a colossal prick. He would do things for women, but if you wanted to do something for you, he demanded something in return.
It's not really sustainable. Also, it's pretty transparently a signal that you're just not a "good" person if you only do "good things" to get something in return. IMO.
I'm saying that when it's used with a gender attached it is in reference to doing some specific things that attracts other partners. Also, the thing is not mutually exclusive, you can be a good person and a good man/woman (good person with potential to attract partners you are interested in).
Just to be clear, my talk is abstract, I'm not referring to my personal behavior.
That being said, when I do a nice thing for somebody else's sake with 0 expectations in return, I know my body will provide me with a warm feeling that will probably make me smile, thinking the other person felt good about it. I can't help but think that this is the reason why I would do that, so I feel selfish either way
I'm gonna start with your 3rd point. I think that's an okay time to feel fine about a thing. Honestly, I think that's the best time to feel good about something.
#2 Yeah, sorry, I think I made it seem like I was suggesting something about you, when in fact, I was just reminiscing about how much I didn't like that roommate. I don't know you. But I think that doing nice things for people without expecting something in return is fine regardless of your sexual inclinations. It doesn't make you a "good man" or a "good woman" it makes you a "good person". And I think that's the goal above the other 2 goals.
#1 I think I understood your original point, and I'm asking why do we think that the things that would attract a partner of a different sex than us, are necessarily different? Why are some good/bad actions necessarily gendered? I think we've been fighting a bunch of double standards that negatively impact everyone, and we're recognizing that it's good/bad behavior regardless of who it is. For example, holding the door open for someone is a fine behavior regardless of who you do it for. There's nothing inherently nicely masculine about it.
I think I agree with you.
In the end is just what I'm used to hear (I do hold the door for anybody, somebody did that for me in Canada and I really appreciated it), but maybe the wait to fight this perception is to just stop using it and do nice things for everybody.
Yes, exactly. The gender-driven questions have been replaced by a general (and imho more important) question of how to be a good person. That question, however, is also much more abstract (I can measure my body fat, how do I measure “good”?) and, logically, people will struggle more to find answers. Particularly if they lack good humanitarian education which should, fundamentally, provide a deep insight into all of the accumulated thoughts on the human condition. Given men tend to gravitate towards STEM and the ideologization of humanities, the situation kinda makes sense.
The 'ground truth' is biology and genetics. Women are attracted to men with certain characteristics. Only women can have children. Men are aggressive and fight wars and impregnate women.
If you're not reproducing>2 and want to be a creature of pure intellect that's great; you get one generation to fart around. Meanwhile the traditional religious conservatives shall inherit the earth.
I think there are a lot of religious conservative women who are discovering there's more to life than having children with aggressive men. And also that they don't find themselves attracted to those men for very long.
But also, you're making it sound like we're just animals and nothing more. And while I agree we're animals, I think it's unfair to reduce us to our most animalistic traits. Why are you typing on a computer if you're just an animal and nothing more?
I'm saying that there are real differences between men and women and what they look for in a mate, and what ultimately matters over a timespan >1 generation is who is making more babies, because without that preliminary step nothing else matters.
In particular, F.D. Signifier just talked about masculinity in anime, and what good masculinity looks like.
But honestly this exists in a lot of places. Ted Lasso in S1 of Ted Lasso is a reasonable example of more positive masculinity.
And the real question that I think is gonna make a lot of people mad is. Why do we need a separate definition of "What makes someone a good man?" vs. "What makes someone a good woman?" vs. "What makes someone a good person?"
Why is it important for people to be good while attached to a gender? I say this as a cis-het-white man who is following my best impression of how to be a good man. But the answer I'm running headlong into, is that there's nothing about my gender that means I shouldn't be striving to just be a "good person".