#49161 - Men who shave their legs

What do you think about the latest hot topic from the 100 Hour Board? Speak your piece here!

Moderator: Marduk

User avatar
vorpal blade
Posts: 1750
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by vorpal blade »

Portia wrote:I was thinking about this, and I think Vorps has the wrong dichotomy. I don't think men who shave their legs look like women--that's silly. They do, however, look more like little boys, perhaps. I wouldn't think a guy who shaved his legs was a future transvestite, necessarily, but I might wonder why he felt the need to revert to a pre-pubescent state. Even when men shave their faces, it's nice to be able to tell that they at least have something to shave--I don't find a complete lack of male body hair to be attractive at all.

I think male movie stars, and the like, have trended towards a more "little boy" look of late: Michael Cera or Matt Damon seem to be current paragons of male attractiveness, versus the more mature looks, say, Charlton Heston or Humphrey Bogart. Even men's voices somehow sound different in older films.

So I think Mr. Blade is making up this feminization phenomenon, but I do think the zeitgeist might trend towards youth at best and immaturity at worst. I would see excessive removal of body hair as a rejection of manhood, not in favor of femininity, but in favor of boyhood. And that's not particularly attractive to me, though it might be to others. I would want a masculine, mature man, and surely mad baking and housework skills, and a rejection of the sexist, lumberjack mentality, can be compatible with that. I do, however, wonder at the infantilization of some men, who have the emotional maturity of young teens (I've met and even dated such specimens), or who, as was discussed in another thread, feel "threatened" by smart, accomplished women.

Maybe it just comes down to more men needing to wear fedoras these days. ;)
Interesting theory, Portia.

I’d just like to point out that reverting to pre-pubescent state is still feminizing men. I’m told that women can dress up or disguise themselves to act like men. Such actresses don’t have near as much trouble playing the part of a very young or very old man as they do when they try to play the part of a man in the prime of his manhood. Youth look and act more feminine than grown men.

In my family we have talked about the “little boy” or feminine look of popular male actors today. My youngest daughter is strongly attracted to Orlando Bloom. To me he looks effeminate. I haven’t seen the last Pirates of the Caribbean movie, but I understand they worked hard to make him look more masculine. Yet lots of young girls like that feminine look these days.

My next to youngest daughter prefers the more rugged and manly actors, like John Wayne in his earliest movies. Charlton Heston and Humphrey Bogart are in the same class as John Wayne. We watch a lot of old movies. Can you imagine John Wayne saying he shaves his legs “because it feels amazing on the bedsheets. Hoo doggie. It's also much cooler in the summer; most of us guys with year-round hairy legs don't grasp how much climate control is actually involved here, but it makes a big difference.” I can’t even imagine Orlando Bloom saying it, but it seems more likely than John Wayne. But that’s just me, and probably millions of others.

I can’t claim to have been the first to comment on the feminization of America. I don’t think your theory is much different from mine.
Foreman
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 6:31 am

Post by Foreman »

My new official opinion:

I don't freakin' care.

Agree to disagree, whatever, blah blah, I'm just saying the discussion is dead to me.
User avatar
vorpal blade
Posts: 1750
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by vorpal blade »

Laser Jock, that was an excellent talk. I remember thinking so the first time I heard it, and I thought so again when I just now reread it.
User avatar
Portia
Posts: 5186
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:06 am
Location: Zion

Post by Portia »

vorpal blade wrote:*tinyurl'd by Portia because scrolling back and forth drives her nuts. LDS.org, the URLs you spit out are shaking my testimony. ;)

Thank you Portia. It does look better now.

I think I know what you mean when someone throws at you a juxtaposition of scriptures and conference talks with sources you disagree with. Makes you grit your teeth. Sorry about that.
No, I am furrowing my brow in the general direction of LDS.org (not you), because their URLs are always in the hundreds of characters. Surely they could get some programming geeks to fix this.
User avatar
vorpal blade
Posts: 1750
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by vorpal blade »

Portia wrote:
vorpal blade wrote:*tinyurl'd by Portia because scrolling back and forth drives her nuts. LDS.org, the URLs you spit out are shaking my testimony. ;)

Thank you Portia. It does look better now.

I think I know what you mean when someone throws at you a juxtaposition of scriptures and conference talks with sources you disagree with. Makes you grit your teeth. Sorry about that.
No, I am furrowing my brow in the general direction of LDS.org (not you), because their URLs are always in the hundreds of characters. Surely they could get some programming geeks to fix this.
Oh, I see my mistake! I feel silly now.
Imogen
Picky Interloper
Posts: 1320
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:51 am
Location: Texas

Post by Imogen »

vorpal, any misbehavior on the part of a child in my classroom is punished, no matter what it is. i punish the boy who refuses to stay in his seat just as much as the girl who can't stop talking because they are both disrupting the learning environment. if you had seen my theater class today, you'd realize what i mean. ANY disruptive or rowdy behavior is not allowed, no matter what genitalia the kid has between their legs. period. i still don't see that as "feminizing." if a girl leans over and whispers something mean to another student, she is still disrupting my class, even if it's done quietly (also i hear really well, so whispering doesn't get by me). misbehavior is bad no matter what it is.

also, i don't believe in eternal gender, so that whole argument is lost on me. i believe one's biological SEX cannot be changed (unless there's some sort of chromosomal removal/exchange i've never heard of) but GENDER is all a social construct. those things are very different to me.

i think standing by one's principles against peer pressure and being stubborn are different as well. just as being aggressive obviously has degrees. it's one thing to pursue something with vigor and another to act out.

and i don't think those traits you list are primarily boy traits. all my kids squirm and fidget. only the girls answer questions without being called on. but all them talk when they should be quiet. so ii may have a class full of ADHD kids. also, class has a lot to do with this. most of my kids are at risk, so they have been socialized a certain way outside the classroom.
beautiful, dirty, rich
User avatar
Tao
Posts: 909
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:37 pm
Location: All over the place

Post by Tao »

I have come to realize that many misunderstandings are based largely on linguistic imprecision. We say what comes closest to what we think, and then associate those words with that meaning and therefore, our views. Having not lived the lives of those who receive our words, we can not anticipate the meaning they will associate with them. Due to our connecting our views with our words, disagreeing with diction often leads to greater misunderstandings.
Forgive me, Imogen, for using one of your statements as an example, I could well have used another's.
Imogen wrote:also, i don't believe in eternal gender, so that whole argument is lost on me. i believe one's biological SEX cannot be changed (unless there's some sort of chromosomal removal/exchange i've never heard of) but GENDER is all a social construct. those things are very different to me.
In my mind, I received this as meaning that although physical characteristics, here: sex, are set in either masculine or feminine form from birth, while preferences, actions, and expectations, here: gender, are entirely conferred by societal influences. While this seems to fit well enough with Imogen's words, I may have grossly misinterpreted her intent, and therefore my disagreeing with the implications of my interpretation could well have nothing to do with her personal views. I have homosexual friends who would take umbrage against such a view; for all of the societal training they have received influencing them to align their actions and preferences to their physical categorization, they still feel compelled to act against said training.

To me, it seems like to the old adage "Boys will be boys" Imogen is saying "not in my class, they won't" and Vorpal Blade is saying "Exactly". Both would seem to agree that actions and behaviors that were once considered the norm in one gender and anathema in the other are becoming common to all. To me, the disagreement is not that this is occurring, but it's source and it's value. Vorpal Blade, I would disagree with my take on your view on source, my personal opinion is that this is much older than this past century and that while teachers have a visible role, they are no more the source of the change than any other group. As to value: it seems to me as though Vorpal Blade is concerned that leaving traditional roles has a weakening effect upon many who would have fit it, while Imogen seems to be pointing out that not doing so will greatly hinder those who would not. While taking either to an extreme has proven unfortunate, I do not think there is a solution that will be called good by all.

Forgive me if I have misrepresented anyone or completely missed the point. If nothing else, perhaps my misunderstandings will be helpful in showing where more clarification would be useful.
He who knows others is clever;
He who knows himself has discernment.
He who overcomes others has force;
He who overcomes himself is strong. 33:1-4
User avatar
vorpal blade
Posts: 1750
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by vorpal blade »

In my opinion you've added some thoughtful comments, Tao.

I was going to say a few words about what Imogen has said. I'm running out of time. Several of my children will soon be home for the Christmas vacation, and I plan on spending most of my time with them. So, I don't expect I'll post much in the next two weeks.

Let me just address a few things you said. I completely agree with you on the problem of communication. I've heard it expressed something like this: We don't so much convey information by the words we use, we induce a person to call up images, ideas, or thoughts that he or she already has stored in their memory. Well, you probably said it better than that anyway.
Tao wrote:In my mind, I received this as meaning that although physical characteristics, here: sex, are set in either masculine or feminine form from birth, while preferences, actions, and expectations, here: gender, are entirely conferred by societal influences. While this seems to fit well enough with Imogen's words, I may have grossly misinterpreted her intent, and therefore my disagreeing with the implications of my interpretation could well have nothing to do with her personal views. I have homosexual friends who would take umbrage against such a view; for all of the societal training they have received influencing them to align their actions and preferences to their physical categorization, they still feel compelled to act against said training.
I can see that this thought supports one of the ideas I've been trying to express - that there are certain innate gender associations which did not originate with societal influences. Yet, at the risk of incurring the wrath of some people, I can't entirely agree with you. It is true that much of our societal training tries to force your homosexual friends into behaving as heterosexuals, and this is evidence that we are capable of resisting such training. I believe that there probably is some tendencies your homosexual friends were born with, but I've found that many homosexuals experienced a life changing experience at an early age which could be the root cause of their behavior, whether they believe that or not. When I read the life stories of homosexuals I'm amazed at how often they were sexually molested at an early age. Of course many are sexually molested who do not develop a same-sex attraction, yet it happens often enough that it makes me wonder. In ancient Greece virtually all of the men were practicing homosexuals, which seems to me to argue in favor of Imogen's point that it is all a social construct. It is interesting to me to study what the Greeks did to ensure that result.

I would say that society does play an important role in shaping, or even distorting or changing gender roles and behavior. But there is something intrinsic to begin with. It is a good point, though, that if it were all up to the society then how do you explain homosexual behavior in this day and age?
Tao wrote:To me, it seems like to the old adage "Boys will be boys" Imogen is saying "not in my class, they won't" and Vorpal Blade is saying "Exactly". Both would seem to agree that actions and behaviors that were once considered the norm in one gender and anathema in the other are becoming common to all. To me, the disagreement is not that this is occurring, but it's source and it's value.
Very well put.
Tao wrote:Vorpal Blade, I would disagree with my take on your view on source, my personal opinion is that this is much older than this past century and that while teachers have a visible role, they are no more the source of the change than any other group.
You may be right. But I wouldn't underestimate the role of the teachers. They have a powerful influence on childhood development.
Tao wrote:As to value: it seems to me as though Vorpal Blade is concerned that leaving traditional roles has a weakening effect upon many who would have fit it, while Imogen seems to be pointing out that not doing so will greatly hinder those who would not. While taking either to an extreme has proven unfortunate, I do not think there is a solution that will be called good by all.
I don't understand this point.
Post Reply