Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
A chivalrous man, certainly, but masculinity is not quite so simple as all that. It's been argued- I think Cheetah made a decent case for it- that chivalry can in fact be viewed as a restraint on masculinity, rather than it's natural manifestation. It certainly doesn't seem to be an entirely universal value.A man who was masculine as traditionally defined would have stopped that rape not walked out and pretended it was awesome.
Also, the sort of rape which occurred is generally outside of the bounds acknowledged by traditional Western culture, following, as it was, from a lack of consent, rather than an explicit refusal. Add in traditional machismo, a lack of concern for the bodily autonomy of women and that whole whore/virgin dichotomy, it gets very complicated very quickly. Do remember, that sort of thing happened very regularly within marriages until fairly recently, and received very little recognition- spousal rape was only criminalised in the UK in 1991, for example. To a many women of a certain age, and married to certain men, it was just something that happened to them, whether they liked it or not.
But how does that explain the alleged preference which women have for "jerks"? Frankly, this is all getting a bit Put-Upon Nice Guy.Sexual behavior has various components: autonomous, unconscious and conscious.
I'll make the comparison to eating. Chewing is conscious behavior. Swallowing is partly an unconscious reflex. Digestion is autonomous.
At each of these levels, behavior is genetically determined to some degree, although far more so at the autonomous level. So it depends what level of sexual attraction and sexual behavior you want to discuss. But things like attractive-face studies have shown considerable uniformity across cultures about what is sexually attractive.
I agree, the example which Tony gave was radical, and I believe that it was very specifically intended as such: remember, the 16-year-old in question was noted as having a very unstable background and no real male role models, and so, as far as I could see, was intended to represent the toxic side of masculinity given human manifestation. Why not address, perhaps, the more subtle examples of the damage of masculinity, such as the emotional stuntedness experienced by Tony's father which prevented him from effectively dealing with his sons death, or Tony's own difficulty in relating to his son outside of the terms of traditional masculinity? What of the twelve-year old who had so internalised the demand for a constant performance of rigid masculinity that to be referred to as a "girl" would "destroy him"? What of the nine-year old who observed that, if these rigid constraints of accepted behaviour were taken off his shoulders, he "would be free"? There was rather more to the talk than one gruesome anecdote.Traditional masculinity doesn't mean being a jerk, nor does it mean treating women as mindless playthings or being disrespectful to them. You are falling into the same trap as Tony, conflating macho ghetto thuggery with what it really means to be a man.
Just because women appreciate decisiveness, protectiveness, aggression, honor and courage in their men does not mean those men have to be domineering, controlling, condescending, jealous, macho, bullying jerks.
But you argue not merely for the centrality of heterosexuality on the evolution of biological sex, but for the centrality of heterosexuality to the development of gender, which is a social, rather than biological quality. (There is no stable third sex, after all, but many cultures entertain formal third genders.) How, then, if heteroseuxality is as over-achingly vital an aspect of gender identity as you claim, does one explain the relative novelty of the normalisation of heterosexuality? Many cultures made no such assertions, and some, most famously Classical Greece, hung a great deal of their understanding of the male gender and of masculinity on homosexuality and same-sex romance.Are men defined by heterosexuality? um, yes? duh? Sexual dimorphism is all about signalling "hey! I'm the opposite sex! do me!" Men and women are sexually dimorphic in their appearance and behavior to increase reproductive fitness.
WRT straight men, fitness is absolutely associated with appearing masculine: that is, heterosexual and interested in having sex.
You seem to have this thing where if you pretend a concept is offensive that will keep it from being true. Sorry but masculinity is definitively heterosexual. This doesn't mean homosexuals "aren't real men" or anything stupid like that.
My objection, you see, is not one of the offended PC Fascist, but of someone who does not indulge in your particular form of heteronormative essentialism.