More over, I think it would be beneficial for buys to de-construct masculinity a little. Some people will shit bricks when they hear phrases like that because they have some misconception about what it means. Think back to how the ideal woman was very clearly defined in the 50s. Housewife, looks after the children, attends to her appearance, has dinner on the table when her husband gets home. In the 60s feminists de-constructed femininity and became free to do what they wanted without conforming to that old ideal or being judged for not doing so. Women became more than just home makers (although of course that is still a valid choice, but the point is that it is a choice). Men could use the same thing now, and to some extent it has happened. Being a nurse or a stay-at-home dad is mostly fine now, but there is still a lot of macho rubbish that men feel pressure to live up to.
I think that there is a place for the deconstruction of masculinity, but it's not necessary everywhere. What is the harm in having masculine men and feminine women? There's no need to vilify masculinity. For one, I am attracted to feminine women. (Sounds very sexist, but in all honesty, I don't want to date a girl who doesn't enjoy being girly sometimes. I've dated both types of girls, both "tom-boys" and typical "girly girls." I enjoyed dating the girly girls more. That's just who I am.) That's one reason FOR different sexes. If you ask a bunch of women out there if they'd like to date a really feminine guy, (I'm talking REALLY feminine, not just "in touch with his feminine side.") I'm sure SOME of them would say yes, but many of them would say no. These opposite traits are what attract people TO the opposite sex. Why do we need to destroy (sorry, deconstruct) them? Do some guys need to keep their ego in check? Yes. Do some women need to keep their hyper-sensitivity in check? Yes. And THAT is the important part. It goes BOTH WAYS.
It's OK for a guy to be non-masculine, but it should not be BAD for him TO BE masculine.I find it interesting that people frame the argument this way. The guy is being a jerk, behaving badly, and so has to change. The girl isn't behaving badly, she is the one on the receiving end of negative behaviour (even if it is unintentional) but is also required to change. Wouldn't a better solution be if everyone just stop behaving in a negative way, rather than framing it as a men vs. women conflict?
Agreed, my phrasing was off. Let me try again. If a man in the situation above acts as he normally does around other men, he will probably not be liked by his female coworkers. He HAS to be more sensitive to their feelings. (Or come off AS a jerk. Not purposely acting like a jerk, but perceived as one.) Every guy (ok most guys) know this. In all honesty, this in itself IS sexist, as it stems from the 50s when men were told women are fragile creatures and we have to treat them accordingly. (But, as sexist as the original thought was... was it wrong?) Now, when a woman enters a typically male dominated field, how come she isn't expected to change the way she acts to fit in as well?
Men are expected to be "softer" around women, why are women not expected to be "harder" around men?What bothers me is that the majority of the time, the women don't think that they are part of the problem at all. They can do no wrong. But that's not true. They ARE part of the problem (part, not all.) It's OBVIOUS that, in general, women are more emotional than men, and I think that's where part of the problem lies. If you're going to talk about deconstructing masculinity, then I think we need to take a step back and deconstruct the insecurities many women have. Sure, some may come from society, but others come from OTHER WOMEN. As mentioned before, much of the ill repute for females is held by other females. There's no space for insecurity at the top of STEM fields.
This factors into evolution as well. Males have always been able to sense/see insecurities in other males or competitors since the dawn of higher thought. That's part of evolution, and it still holds true today. When a woman is insecure and a man knows it, he's either going to go into "Super helpful mode" (considered by women to be condescending), or go into "Super annoyed mode" (which then makes the woman feel even more insecure.) If the guy simply ignores the insecurity, then they're considered "not helpful at all." Have you noticed that it's not generally the very confident women that have these problems? I experience this every day. I'm either "condescending" (when I'm trying to help) or "a jerk" (when I just tell them that they're wrong.) Even my confident (ex) girlfriend tells me that the way I talk makes me come off as condescending, and I am in no way, shape, or form trying to be. I'm just simply TALKING. I don't know what I'm doing wrong, as she could never give me specifics, so I don't know how to fix it. This would come up at the weirdest times as well, very much out of the blue. Just to be clear, I'm not lying because I'm anonymous over the internet. I am telling you the 100% truth. I think this relates back to the hyper-emotional-response that many women have.