Personality Cafe banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,344 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So I was listening to this both entertaining but simultaneously sad video, you know the feeling of not knowing whether to laugh or cry. I already had the impression this has already happened as a result of the "sexual revolution", that is reducing women to sex objects.


I can't say I agree with Lucian's reductionism of certain biological functions to commodities, but I can see how market forces must eventually play out. Until then, I'm signing off as a member of the lost generation with little more incentive to live.


Thoughts?

Also I would appreciate an explanation of what a "bromance" is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,365 Posts
Didn't watch the video but I can tell you that a bromance is not a new phenomena. In fact it is one of the oldest companionship's in existence.

The oldest piece of literature "The Epic of Gilgamesh" features the bromance between Gilgamesh and Enkidu. The bond is so strong that the eventual loss of Enkidu leads Gilgamesh to incredible amounts of despair that eventually has him confronting his own mortality and dying. A story telling of the strongest bond between men eventually devolves into a tragic tale of the eventual finality of human life.
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
9,483 Posts
I didn't watch the video, it's too long and I don't care for that guy's commentary.
I can't access the study either, so I'll just brainstorm a bit.

To start, I think friendships are really important and I think men should have friends they are emotionally open with and trust them.

With that being said, I can imagine how it can turn 'bad' for women, if those friendships are based on "bros before hoes" mentality, because it creates a conflict of sorts. So it may depend on individual variances of "bromance" than just the connection itself.

I remember the term "bromance" was coined on the internet about a decade ago and it was based on such premises. Obviously the relationships themselves are not something new, but this mentality could be and perhaps it's what this study is about. If you could summarize the video it would be useful.

Bromance is basically being close with another male, emotionally open, trusting and affectionate. It started as a way to say "we're not gay we just love each other as friends". It was puzzling to me to see the need for such a distinction, but I understand that men many times are not comfy with being so close to other men, especially when young.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,161 Posts
I can't access the study either, so I'll just brainstorm a bit.
Sci-Hub Brah

Discussion
By engaging with a critical appraisal of bromances, alongside traditional heterosexual romances, we illustrate how these thirty millennial men conceptualize and express the value of their close male friendships. The most significant finding in this study concerns the virtually unanimous narrative that these men found it easier to open up and express their feelings to their bromances, more so than their romances. This was suggested for two reasons. First, the most consistent finding concerned the lack of emotional boundaries and limits in bromances. Bromances were described—even if overly idealized—as being judgment free and having a lack of boundaries which allows them to push to margins of traditional masculinity through more physical and emotional behaviors. Conversely, many of the men did identify boundaries in their romances. Often, they could not talk fully about their interests, anxieties, health, and sexual desires, even when emerging adults often idealize romantic partners and exaggerate their supportiveness (Murray, Holmes, and Griffin 1996).

Second, men we interviewed expressed that, with a romance, one was constantly posturing and self-monitoring, not only to achieve desired heterosexual sex but to prevent relationship destruction. The men would restrict what they would say and instead act the part of the adoring boyfriend. The men reasoned that they did this because, in their view, women held onto grudges longer than men and were more unpredictable in their emotional responses, often recalling and reusing historical instances of conflict in later arguments. Indeed, some scholars reason that gendered stereotypes about emotionality inherently affect our display of emotion (Shields 1991), with women continuing to report, from a self-gauge perspective, that they have more frequent and intense emotional experiences and are more sensitive to their feelings (Sprecher and Sedikides 1993; Kring and Gordon 1998). On the contrary, the participants found it much easier to resolve disputes and arguments with their bromances because they found them to be more forgiving. Consequently, they were less guarded in their personal disclosure and identity management with their bromances, despite their romances following a more traditional trajectory.

Many felt that the sexual dimension of a heterosexual relationship was implicitly linked to, and interfered with, having an efficacious and emotionally stable relationship. Baumeister and Twenge (2002) explain the dissonance highlighted by the men’s comments regarding the exchange of adoration for sex in a heterosexual relationships. They reason that under the Female Control Theory, women are able to regulate men’s behavior and increase their affection for women through restricting access to sex. Consequently, men may engage in intense and prolonged instances of female adoration, or “being nice” as one participant puts it. The participant’s preoccupation and essentialist approach to sex does not recognize the male capacity to withhold sex from their romantic partners to gain affection, however. Unlike romantic relationships, bromances operate as “nonprofitable” friendships that are based on mutual compatibility (Hammare´n and Johansson 2014), not on the pursuit of self-gratification. For the men in this study, the absence of sexual desire in a bromance has placated the prospect of conflict.

There was a conclusive determination from the men we interviewed. On balance, they argued that bromantic relationships were more satisfying in their emotional intimacy, compared to their heterosexual romances. They saw social liberty in a bromance that exceeds the disclosure and openness achievable in their romantic relationships. This was articulated to be because of the effort required to maintain a romance, compared to the ease upon which two males can relate in a bromance. This is perhaps why men without girlfriends did not seem altogether longing for one.

We contend that the male preference for emotionality between other men, rather than women, has come about due to a significant cultural shift in the structure of masculinity. In the time that has passed since the 1980s, where a cultural zeitgeist of hegemonic masculinity existed, young men have rapidly come to esteem a more advanced and complex level of emotionality in their same-sex friendships. Men would have previously denounced the presence of intimacy in their friendships (Walker 1994), but they now embrace and speak of it openly. Where men had once reserved secret sharing and exclusive disclosure for women only (Komarovsky 1974), it was clear from our research that these millennial men have now transcended the emotional regulation experienced in the homohysteric era before them, to become highly tactile, inclusive, and caring toward other men.

There are however significant and worrying results here for women. These men perceived women to be the primary regulators of their behavior, and this caused distain for them as a whole in some instances. The men often generalized personal experiences to women as a collective, under an “us and them” binary which associated all women with any negative experiences the men had. The narratives used by the participants undoubtedly reflect the allegiances that they feel toward their own sex, and the nature of their disclosures suggests that some have a limited respect for their past and present girlfriends. Much in the same way that woman are portrayed in contemporary cinema as objects for male gratification (Gill and Hansen-Miller 2011), several of the participants spoke of women they knew in a generally negative way. There was a tendency, as in Hollywood, to deliver sexist perspectives in a humorous and banterous way to deter accusations of sexism, and this is problematic. Mehta and Strough (2009) propose that the strengthening of homosocial bonds contributes toward the devaluing of cross-sex socialization, and it may be that the rise of the bromances may not altogether be liberating and socially positive for women. We believe that the binary approach to questioning (i.e., bromances vs. romances), and the fact that the interviewer was of the same sex as participants, may have subtly influenced the nature of the language used to describe women.

Men in this research highlight that the physical and emotional dimensions of bromances resemble the traditional expectations of romantic companionship, namely, the declarations of love, kissing, cuddling, and exclusive emotional confidence. We show, that while one of the fundamental differences between bromances and romantic relationships is sex, these are less rigid due to the progressively inclusive attitudes around same-sex touch. We find that the organization of bromances and romantic relationships is not dissimilar from one another. Under the rubric of inclusive masculinity, young men at this university are embracing their innate desire to search for companionship (Collins and Repinski 1994; Zorn and Gregory 2005), particularly with men, free from social stigma.

These findings are consistent with Anderson’s notion of inclusive masculinity (2009) and resonate with other recent findings on young men (Hammare´n and Johansson 2014; Zorn and Gregory 2005). It seems that, for the millennial men in this and other studies, they do not hold back on embracing their capacity for emotional versatility; rather, they are free to develop dynamic relationships with other men, offering them “valuable, tangible and socio-emotional support” (Zorn and Gregory 2005, 211).

There are interesting potential implications for domesticity too. These heterosexual millennial men cherish their close male friends so much, so that they may even provide a challenge to the orthodoxy of traditional heterosexual relationships. Given that young men are now experiencing a delayed onset of adulthood and an extended period of adolescence (Arnett 2004), men may choose to cohabit as a functional relationship in the modern era. Just as many of the men in this research share exclusive same-sex houses while at university, they may continue with their bromances and domesticity well beyond university years. Howard (2012) has already found some older men doing this, and Magrath and Scoats (forthcoming) find that men in their thirties have regrets about not maintaining their bromances into later life, with marriage being a key barrier to this. This, again, is another indication that bromances may not altogether benefit cross-sex relations. In other words, because heterosexual sex is now achievable without the need for romantic commitment (Bogle 2008), and because bromances are privileged for these men, the bromance could increasingly become recognized as a genuine lifestyle relationship, whereby two heterosexual men can live together and experience all the benefits of a traditional heterosexual relationship.
In regards to the last bolded part, I thin this has to do with informal sex segregation, generally men who don't socialize that well and regularly with women tend to have issues surrounding it in regards to their view of women.
Not that a guy can't have guy friends, but it is a reasonable heuristic in some cases that men who don't bond well with women do often end up socialized in a way that can be detrimental to how they view and eventually treat women.
Reminded of a quote by Raewyn Connell.
The structural problem of counter-sexist politics among men needs to be stated plainly, as it is constantly evaded. The familiar forms of radical politics rely on mobilizing solidarity around a shared interest. That is common to working-class politics, national liberation movements, feminism and gay liberation. This cannot be the main form of counter-sexist politics among men, because the project of social justice in gender relations is directed against the interest they share. Broadly speaking, anti-sexist politics must be a source of disunity among men, not a source of solidarity. There is a rigorous logic to the trends of the 1980s: the more men's groups and their gurus emphasized solidarity among men (being "positive about men," seeking the "deep masculine," etc.), the more willing they became to abandon issues of social justice.
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
9,483 Posts
OK so it's basically what I thought it would be - men who feel they can't be themselves with women so they bond with men instead.
Obviously, I see bonding with other men to be totally fine, but it likely feeds a negative loop of undermining romantic relationships.
This is consistent with the newly discussed perspective men have about women that has expanded on the internet, see MGTOW for its extreme.

Obviously, the difficulties between the socialization can be real, regardless of opinion, but they are probably nurtured to be negative instead of overcoming them. I've seen it happen often in 'underground' internet communities like 4chan, which is full of poorly socialized millennials who often dislike or hate women. I've been the recipient of that, even mentioning that you are a woman they start hating on you saying you are an attention whore for revealing that, they have tons of memes on women being shitty etc etc. They rely on a few examples of women to make up their image of the whole sex, very often, which of course is downright sexist. It's a pretty sad thing tbh.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,065 Posts
Sci-Hub Brah



In regards to the last bolded part, I thin this has to do with informal sex segregation, generally men who don't socialize that well and regularly with women tend to have issues surrounding it in regards to their view of women.
Not that a guy can't have guy friends, but it is a reasonable heuristic in some cases that men who don't bond well with women do often end up socialized in a way that can be detrimental to how they view and eventually treat women.
Reminded of a quote by Raewyn Connell.
I've experienced much sex segregation throughout my formative years. There was always an odd thing where the boys and girls would be separate. This was not forced, we even had gym classes with the girls at the same time in my older school. There was some cross interaction, but most of what'd you see was giant groups of girls or giant groups of boys. My second high school had separate physical education groups for the males and the females. We didn't even play together. That struck me as odd, just seeing that formal separation.

Then I came to college and every single one of my male friends say, "I get along better with females as friends as opposed to males." The interesting thing is that the find male friends to be untrustworthy and turn out to be bad people. I have little experience with the other gender, especially the strongest expressions of it. My female friends have always been of the "tomboy" variety at best. So it is odd to me to find such new friends. One of my friends says that he doesn't distinguish between the two genders and talks to them equally. That's the best way to get to know members of the opposite sex.

In my case, you get surrounded by males all the time and then in a way becomes an echo chamber. All I hear were bad things. Stories of rejection, exploitation by women and so on. Then you have the kind of alt-right people who just have nothing to do but trash talk feminism. That is opposed to actually talking females. So it is a like a group that closes itself in. I don't have many female friends afterward anyway. In a way the conversation is probably more broad than small talk. Generally my interests don't align with females anyway. That's a waste.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,161 Posts
I've experienced much sex segregation throughout my formative years. There was always an odd thing where the boys and girls would be separate. This was not forced, we even had gym classes with the girls at the same time in my older school. There was some cross interaction, but most of what'd you see was giant groups of girls or giant groups of boys. My second high school had separate physical education groups for the males and the females. We didn't even play together. That struck me as odd, just seeing that formal separation.

Then I came to college and every single one of my male friends say, "I get along better with females as friends as opposed to males." The interesting thing is that the find male friends to be untrustworthy and turn out to be bad people. I have little experience with the other gender, especially the strongest expressions of it. My female friends have always been of the "tomboy" variety at best. So it is odd to me to find such new friends. One of my friends says that he doesn't distinguish between the two genders and talks to them equally. That's the best way to get to know members of the opposite sex.

In my case, you get surrounded by males all the time and then in a way becomes an echo chamber. All I hear were bad things. Stories of rejection, exploitation by women and so on. Then you have the kind of alt-right people who just have nothing to do but trash talk feminism. That is opposed to actually talking females. So it is a like a group that closes itself in. I don't have many female friends afterward anyway. In a way the conversation is probably more broad than small talk. Generally my interests don't align with females anyway. That's a waste.
I think the informal sex segregation varies with years, sometimes the kids are acutely aware of being a boy or girl and its associations, other times less so. I think when get older what drives that wedge is sexual attraction, it creates a tension that has to be overcome.
So when I hung around and had a good time with any particular girl, it would lead to accusations of sexual attraction which could stifle intimacy as friends. Also the case that when people enter relationships ti can stifle cross-sex friendships to some degree just our prioritizing time and intimacy so as not to raise jealousy from ones partner in some degree.
Though this can then of course break down when its friends of couples again at an older age.

But certainly the case that peoples social groups can be echo chambers because we often end up with those we find some similarity and likeness with to bond. Finding friends itself has difficulties regardless depending on how much one puts themselves in social situations and engages people.
And I guess even with same sex friends it is the type of social dynamics of that group that can be significant. Like when I hang out with my guy friends, the dynamic is less on women unless its in the realm of teasing one another, light banter at one another and jokes is the standard interaction.

But I think this echo chamber thing is probably more emphasized for many of us that spend so much time online in that it lacks many qualities of offline social interaction that are important. So could imagine someone engaging in a lot of things online that are reinforcing our own world views, finding like minds and feed us certain resonate narratives for our own experiences more so than how people interact offline. Don't remember people really talking much politics and gender stuff except at times when gender kind of pressed itself into the frame because of a social tension between people.
So seems that its easy to avoid a lot of the stuff online that probably agitates peoples views.
People who don't spend as much time online and not often alone probably unaware of and care little for what sort of things trend here for example.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,065 Posts
I think the informal sex segregation varies with years, sometimes the kids are acutely aware of being a boy or girl and its associations, other times less so. I think when get older what drives that wedge is sexual attraction, it creates a tension that has to be overcome.
So when I hung around and had a good time with any particular girl, it would lead to accusations of sexual attraction which could stifle intimacy as friends. Also the case that when people enter relationships ti can stifle cross-sex friendships to some degree just our prioritizing time and intimacy so as not to raise jealousy from ones partner in some degree.
Though this can then of course break down when its friends of couples again at an older age.

But certainly the case that peoples social groups can be echo chambers because we often end up with those we find some similarity and likeness with to bond. Finding friends itself has difficulties regardless depending on how much one puts themselves in social situations and engages people.
And I guess even with same sex friends it is the type of social dynamics of that group that can be significant. Like when I hang out with my guy friends, the dynamic is less on women unless its in the realm of teasing one another, light banter at one another and jokes is the standard interaction.

But I think this echo chamber thing is probably more emphasized for many of us that spend so much time online in that it lacks many qualities of offline social interaction that are important. So could imagine someone engaging in a lot of things online that are reinforcing our own world views, finding like minds and feed us certain resonate narratives for our own experiences more so than how people interact offline. Don't remember people really talking much politics and gender stuff except at times when gender kind of pressed itself into the frame because of a social tension between people.
So seems that its easy to avoid a lot of the stuff online that probably agitates peoples views.
People who don't spend as much time online and not often alone probably unaware of and care little for what sort of things trend here for example.
Most of the people are more of jokers than anything. Memers. Alt-right is full of memes, but I don't think these people are actually vested in the theory of this Our Nation First or ethnocentrism. I don't know if they are serious about that, but I'm sure they aren't really being ironic and are actually the opposite end of the spectrum. There have been annoying people in the past who complained about police shooting and had a strong opinion and big mouth but most people don't talk to those kinds of people.

I used to follow a group of girls around as a kid. Not in a stalker sort of way, I used to not speak to my peers so it was different to begin with. I associated with them as friends. Then I grew up, made mistakes and now it's hardly the same. It was a different time. Nowadays, people perceive more and more behavior as suggestive or red flag ridden. When you're weird, you're not just weird. You weird people out. That apparently goes into the area of the suggestive or frightening. That's just weird.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,161 Posts
Most of the people are more of jokers than anything. Memers. Alt-right is full of memes, but I don't think these people are actually vested in the theory of this Our Nation First or ethnocentrism. I don't know if they are serious about that, but I'm sure they aren't really being ironic and are actually the opposite end of the spectrum. There have been annoying people in the past who complained about police shooting and had a strong opinion and big mouth but most people don't talk to those kinds of people.

I used to follow a group of girls around as a kid. Not in a stalker sort of way, I used to not speak to my peers so it was different to begin with. I associated with them as friends. Then I grew up, made mistakes and now it's hardly the same. It was a different time. Nowadays, people perceive more and more behavior as suggestive or red flag ridden. When you're weird, you're not just weird. You weird people out. That apparently goes into the area of the suggestive or frightening. That's just weird.
Agreed, the alt-right one seen online isn't significant nor organized but reactive and passive as many of those they politically disagree with.

Mmhhmm I knew a couple of kids at my school who were selectively mute, was strange to people but they did alright socially. I guess because they eventually started talking a little bit more and them being quiet made others curious to listen.

Ah yes, ambiguity and uncertainty making it hard to interpret things socially freaks people out and generally prone to be anxious or fearful of such lack of clear understanding.
Some will still sense the weird without the sense of anticipation of threat/hostility, but many people don't jive well with even slight differences which can be jarring to a lot of others in they some people express quite crudely disapproval of that which doesn't fit within their narrow social conventions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,065 Posts
Agreed, the alt-right one seen online isn't significant nor organized but reactive and passive as many of those they politically disagree with.

Mmhhmm I knew a couple of kids at my school who were selectively mute, was strange to people but they did alright socially. I guess because they eventually started talking a little bit more and them being quiet made others curious to listen.

Ah yes, ambiguity and uncertainty making it hard to interpret things socially freaks people out and generally prone to be anxious or fearful of such lack of clear understanding.
Some will still sense the weird without the sense of anticipation of threat/hostility, but many people don't jive well with even slight differences which can be jarring to a lot of others in they some people express quite crudely disapproval of that which doesn't fit within their narrow social conventions.
Even in the context of selective mutism I was unusual. I knew one another kid who was selectively mute. She would only talk to one of her friends and then slowly she branched out. In typical cases that is what happens. The individual meets a peer and gets comfortable with them. I was the opposite in that I would talk directly to an authority figure but never a peer. Then it wasn't until I was 15 that I moved to a new school and took the fresh start. Then I started talking to people, including females. But usually I don't talk to people to get to know them. But not very related.

I think it's more important to know real people. Nothing wrong with meeting people on this site. But it's important not to make these figures like in feminism that can just be outrageous or alt-right or whatever that just make you think they are bad people. Don't generalize all people based on one subset of a subset of those people. You aren't going to get along with females if all you know are stories of divorce or "gold diggers."

I think that's one of the problems people may have. The Internet is a discussion place for people who have issues. More than it is a discussion place for people who are having no issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,161 Posts
Even in the context of selective mutism I was unusual. I knew one another kid who was selectively mute. She would only talk to one of her friends and then slowly she branched out. In typical cases that is what happens. The individual meets a peer and gets comfortable with them. I was the opposite in that I would talk directly to an authority figure but never a peer. Then it wasn't until I was 15 that I moved to a new school and took the fresh start. Then I started talking to people, including females. But usually I don't talk to people to get to know them. But not very related.

I think it's more important to know real people. Nothing wrong with meeting people on this site. But it's important not to make these figures like in feminism that can just be outrageous or alt-right or whatever that just make you think they are bad people. Don't generalize all people based on one subset of a subset of those people. You aren't going to get along with females if all you know are stories of divorce or "gold diggers."

I think that's one of the problems people may have. The Internet is a discussion place for people who have issues. More than it is a discussion place for people who are having no issues.
Interesting, fella I new would rely on his cousin to share his answer to teachers and stuff.
New school aye, guess it opened up an opportunity to try things a bit different without baggage.

Agreed, people often talk in reference to their hypothetical person in their mind they've developed rather than concrete persons on here. I guess can just ignore the generalizations and accept that they reflect a person's impression and sense of some demographic.
But then, a lot of people struggle to actually differentiate between their abstractions and people, in that they end up treating their mental images as encompassing the reality and so can end up projecting things as inherent to things they perceive.
So its as if its an objective part of things rather than something derived from their own psychology in relation to that thing.
Even in seemingly benign forms it causes problems, an ill fit between one's sense of things and the reality revealing a gap that can be quite confronting and either force distancing one's self from reality in order to not force growth or to refine one's sense of things.

Well this site is certainly a hot bed for people who are down on themselves, often young, seeking to cultivate an affirmed identity and so on. There are positives to the online space, what ever positives and negatives there are I think are reflective of the dynamics that occur offline, it's just in a different medium with different limits.
Then again, most people have issues and aren't self actualized and well adjusted people a lot of the time. Just not as explicitly broadcasted offline perhaps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,065 Posts
Interesting, fella I new would rely on his cousin to share his answer to teachers and stuff.
New school aye, guess it opened up an opportunity to try things a bit different without baggage.

Agreed, people often talk in reference to their hypothetical person in their mind they've developed rather than concrete persons on here. I guess can just ignore the generalizations and accept that they reflect a person's impression and sense of some demographic.
But then, a lot of people struggle to actually differentiate between their abstractions and people, in that they end up treating their mental images as encompassing the reality and so can end up projecting things as inherent to things they perceive.
So its as if its an objective part of things rather than something derived from their own psychology in relation to that thing.
Even in seemingly benign forms it causes problems, an ill fit between one's sense of things and the reality revealing a gap that can be quite confronting and either force distancing one's self from reality in order to not force growth or to refine one's sense of things.

Well this site is certainly a hot bed for people who are down on themselves, often young, seeking to cultivate an affirmed identity and so on. There are positives to the online space, what ever positives and negatives there are I think are reflective of the dynamics that occur offline, it's just in a different medium with different limits.
Then again, most people have issues and aren't self actualized and well adjusted people a lot of the time. Just not as explicitly broadcasted offline perhaps.
And that's the thing to always remember. Even if someone seems to have very healthy development in one area, that doesn't mean they are good across the board. I used to look up to a couple of people here because they have an ease with socialization and mating practices. But after talking to some specific people, it becomes apparent that they have their problems that are just of a different variety than mine.

There are a lot of misinterpretations and prejudices out there. Hindsight is really good for spotting these. As wise as it is to recognize some of the common assumptions or mistakes and to help others, it takes a much more aware person to stop them while they happening or to prevent them from occurring entirely.

Now if only the movie theater didn't have a power outage today. We could be criticizing the new Star Wars movie.
 

·
Registered
INTP
Joined
·
4,491 Posts
It's easy for me to say feminism did a lot of damage, but in reality I think capitalism, etc., developed in such a way as to make feminism inevitable. So, yeah, men and women don't need each other any more and it's all a big mess.

If some men find that friendship with other men is all they can expect out of life, well, they're probably right, and I don't blame them for that. And really, it isn't that different from the way men have gotten together in the past, or in other cultures, etc., and there have always been men who were alienated from mainstream society, or who were out of the marriage market. In Fight Club, they were waiters and security guards, but that kind of job (and ranch hands and so on) has always been around. Nowadays there might indeed be more, or maybe they're just more visible and organized because of the Internet or whatever.

I don't think the phenomenon has changed that much--just the fact that it's now a phenomenon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,161 Posts
It's easy for me to say feminism did a lot of damage, but in reality I think capitalism, etc., developed in such a way as to make feminism inevitable. So, yeah, men and women don't need each other any more and it's all a big mess.

If some men find that friendship with other men is all they can expect out of life, well, they're probably right, and I don't blame them for that. And really, it isn't that different from the way men have gotten together in the past, or in other cultures, etc., and there have always been men who were alienated from mainstream society, or who were out of the marriage market. In Fight Club, they were waiters and security guards, but that kind of job (and ranch hands and so on) has always been around. Nowadays there might indeed be more, or maybe they're just more visible and organized because of the Internet or whatever.

I don't think the phenomenon has changed that much--just the fact that it's now a phenomenon.
It certain does make feminism of a liberal variant inevtiable upon industrialization.
Women, Politics, and Power: A Global Perspective By Pamela Paxton, Melanie M. Hughes
ECONOMIC POWER
In most societies, women's work has long been overlooked or underestimated. Although many ofen think that throughout history men have been the workers while women have been the mothers and wives, anthrpological research indicates that among early civilizations women were the primary labor force in teh vast majority of gathering and cultivating societies (Murdock 1967; cited from Blumberg 1984). Even today, statistics on labor tend to ignore the work of poor rural women (Donahoe 1999). Therefore, it is clear that women's labor alone is not sufficient to give them economic power. Specifically, economic power is based in control over the means of production and control over the allocation of surplus. It is control over surplus (in money, goods, land, or the labor of others) that leads individuals to have resources to pursue and acquire political power. So though women's level of labor force participation or income may be important, gender stratification theorists argue that it is control over labor or income that matters (Blumberg 1984; Chafetz 1984). For example, Staudt (1986) explained that although women in Africa have control over money within their households, they cannot own land, putting them at a serious economic disadvantage compared with men in that society.

Although economic power does not guarantee that women will gain formal political power, gender stratification researchers argue strongly that women's economic power must precede political power. For example, according to Rae Lesser Blumberg (1984), a power hierarchy exists - political power rests at the top, and other types of power, such as economic power, appear below. Achievement of power at the lower levels of power, such as in the labour force, must occur before power can be reached at the next highest level (cited from Paxton 1997)> IN an ethnographic analysis of 61 preindustrial societies, Blumberg (1984) found only one instance in which women had significant political input without autonomous economic power. (The exceptional example was the Mende of Liberia. Although the women did not do much of the productive labor, they were organized in a secret society and used their clout to influence the political sphere.)
But I don't think it's entirely new in that I remember looking into some Australian writers, Banjo Patterson and others.
And a criticism was made that their classic poetry and short stories of the Australian bushman was actually a reflection of middle class bohemian urbanite men.
The Australian Legend: Writing Australian Masculinity/Writing 'Australian' Masculine - Linzi Murrie
Certain qualities of the bushman masculinity, however, found a pronounced resoance in the bohemians' own masculine identites. The separatism of mateship was expressed in their (more or less) male-exclusive Dawn and Dusk club, as well as in their literary pursuits, where women were dismissed as 'amateurs'.19 They fancied themselves as 'nomads' like the bushman, they promoted drinking and sexual indulgence, and seriously avoided marriage. Where marriage did occur, it was often with the sisters of fellow bohemians, suggesting something of an act of exchange between the men.20 Celebrating certain aspects of the bushman, they could join in a masculinist defence against feminist campaigns for social equality, and protect their own 'bohemian' freedoms from the constraints which a feminised social order would impose on their own urban, and potentially domestic, masculinities.
This tends to summarize such a tendency as an anxiety of emasculation, an already unstable masculine identity relative to perceived more masculine roles and reaction against changes that would disrupt their wants.
This is why MGTOW in some degree can be political because they have certain interests that are shared that ferment upon realizing their shared predicament or interests/values and is part of the sense in which it ends up anti-femininst, a kind of masculinism.
But from this history comes to me the idea that the same conditions give rise to the same mentalities and responses to the same tensions in society that have not effectively been solved.
This is a kind of masculinity that is typically different from a conservative masculinity that emphasizes a paternalistic care of women, being a man who provides for women (benevolence sometimes for restricted autonomy/independence or increased economic dependence).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,083 Posts
@Euclid I find in war situations bromance at its finest. Everything else is a pale imitation.

Shou Yanbo3 years ago (edited)
As a warloard, Liu Bei didn't care about his wives and son, he could just pick an other woman and have more babies. However generals are much more precious, that's why Cao Cao wanted to capture Zhao Yun alive, that's also why Liu Bei throwed away the baby to gain the loyalty of Zhao Yun. 
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,161 Posts
On the positive side, despite the stereotype that men don't share their emotions, in practice it may be that they always had in private and it not been a public thing.
Which I think applies to women also despite the stereotype, that the real contours of emotional intimacy and expressiveness has always practically been private versus public. Men and women feel pressures on themselves that makes emotional outbursts in the workplace or elsewhere intolerable relative to intimate relationships with their partners and close friends privately.
What does seem to be laxing though, is perhaps that in private many men still retained a stoicism which is being eased up among young men. That their sense of masculinity isn't the idealized stoicism exactly, but more contingent no circumstances, allowing new spaces for vulnerability.
This is a boon for women in regards to how much emotional labour women as their partner often do for men. Because they don't portion their issues and its a tidal wave of stuff onto a single person. But in this case having various avenues of support helps share the emotional load.
So in this regard, intimacy between men is positive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,765 Posts
Yes I'm taking your thread seriously, that's why I'm posting.
Also I would appreciate an explanation of what a "bromance" is.
What? sorry I won't watch the video due to many diff reasons, but yes I read you watched it and didn't know about laughing or crying, yet... the video doesn't explain what bromance is? it's not mandatory but whenever something is going to be discussed, some basis and concepts have to be exposed, otherwise people go diff ways discussing diff stuff (thinking they are talking about the same thing). While this is not mandatory, any study discussing how something hurts people, animals, society, etc, and doesn't elaborate or expand the "concept"... is not to be taken seriously, in fact it can be just... opportunistic taking chances on whatever people understand.

I already had the impression this has already happened as a result of the "sexual revolution", that is reducing women to sex objects.
Depending on your area and culture, women can do things in freedom that only hurt themselves and still complain about the public, the reaction, not their failed actions. Fashion (example) is fashion, but there are boundaries when its not just fashion, it's something creating a response inside men... nope, not men: inside people who are attracted to that kind of woman physically, and this can be men and women. Many women try to talk about fashion in irresponsible ways as if there is no reaction to what they are doing (outside their so wanted boundaries).

Thoughts?
The title says Study: The rise of Bromance hurts women, well, a lot of women and men (reporters, news reporters etc) can bring topics to discussion in how something affects someone, but as a man, me... it's like "the rise of bars hurt women", "the rise of gamers hurts women", I mean, there is people in this planet regardless gender that can't think and are always talking about how something "HURTS" someone, and the topic of WHATEVER hurts women has been abused enough.

What about women hurt men? and women hurt women? I mean, whenever a relationship makes you happy, you want more and you want to stay there. Many women complain about men sharing time with "whatever kind of people" because they are just not always there at their side, but... nobody suppose to be "always there" and we all can have friends(ships). At 40, I'm not exactly projecting but memories come to my mind about me and male friends, whose GFs complain about other people, but whenever you are there "they are not there" or just complain and complain.

The rise of golf hurts women. Well, there has been enough play on standup comedy on how golf was made up to have excuses... you know, so you can stay off your house the weekend.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top