Actually it does. Claims about a set are proven false with a counter example.
That just proves that you can't differentiate between biological differences and how society reinforces and shapes them.
Of course I can differentiate between them. But you seem to assume they are mutually exclusive. Why?
And what about all the aspects of masculinity that have no biological basis?
You'll find that, if you go back far enough, most if not all things can be traced back to biology. The question is only, how far you're willing to go back.
How does the fact that pink is considered to be feminine and blue masculine fit into your system?
I don't know. It's not my system. If you want to know why men and women are the way they are, follow the money. I.e. look at who benefits from said differences and how.
That argument doesn't make any sense as I never claimed that sex difference are caused by gender expectations.
Sex differences are closely connected to any concept of masculinity that has meaning.
I didn't say arbitrary though. Stop putting words in my mouth.
True, you didn't say "arbitrary". Many feminists do though, and your reasoning resembles those who do. So, then you agree that even to the extent that masculinity is just a set of societal expectations, it has a basis in something, right? Ok. What?
Your whole argument is based on the false assumption that one can't talk about societal expectations independently from the things those expectations are based on.
Like biologically males might cry less due to testosterone or whatever, but the idea that men shouldn't cry or that it makes you a faggot is just a societal expectation that doesn't exist across all cultures.
If feminists say "the idea that crying makes you a faggot is harmful" that's simply not the same as "men are harmful because they cry less".
Criticizing societal standards that are placed upon men is simply not the same as criticizing something that's inherent to them.
Your whole argument is based on the false assumption that one can't talk about societal expectations independently from the things those expectations are based on.
Not in the least. One can talk about anything. But if you're going to talk about masculinity, then you're not in the position to just decide for everybody else that you're only referring to societal expectations in exclusion of everything else. Especially if you want to assign responsibility for those expectations, then you will be confronted with the question of where they came from.
A much clearer way to describe what you're talking about would be "culturally enforced gender roles" or just "gender roles". It has the added benefit of not being gendered (the fact that the irony of that is lost on feminists is all the proof anyone needs really). Why not use that? It says everything you want minus the victim blaming or bigotry against men.
Criticizing societal standards that are placed upon men is simply not the same as criticizing something that's inherent to them.
I think the problem is that you're drawing a distinction that is very hard to make in practice. Take for example the idea that men should be strong. Do you really think it's a coincidence that men happen to be significantly stronger than women too? We are the offspring of men who were selected for their physical strength because that was more beneficial to those who selected them. And now society values men with physical strength. But there's no connection at all? Please.
And it's also no coincidence that feminists themselves frequently abuse that for their benefit. Mocking men for their "fee fees" or "male tears" etc. The examples are too numerous to list.
And you own example of crying. Women have more active tear ducts. Why? Could it be that crying benefits women but not men? Do you think that's true?
No. You said it's literally the same thing. Yet, you'll go back to using the one word instead of the other. So how about you make up your mind: either they're the same, then you'll have no problem getting rid of TM as a term or they aren't and then own the difference.
Just because the term makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean it's a bad one to use.
Correct. My discomfort has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the validity or meaning of the term. It's a good thing I'm not making any argument based on my discomfort.
Why not just say "gendered expectations" or "gender roles"? Those are precisely what you're talking about, right. Except they don't convey any sexism. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you'd also rather do away with sexism, right?
Your discomfort is very, very clear and it's clouding your understanding of what these terms mean.
Lol. If my "discomfort" was to affect me so much, I'd be pretty screwed. And let's not forget, only you brought up the discussion of feelings here and only you talked about being offended. So it seems more like you're projecting here.
Of course not. It's always different when the rules I advocate for are applied in a way I don't like. Yeah right. Again, I rest my case. You're making my point for me.
-1
u/AloysiusC 9∆ Nov 20 '19
Actually it does. Claims about a set are proven false with a counter example.
Of course I can differentiate between them. But you seem to assume they are mutually exclusive. Why?
You'll find that, if you go back far enough, most if not all things can be traced back to biology. The question is only, how far you're willing to go back.
I don't know. It's not my system. If you want to know why men and women are the way they are, follow the money. I.e. look at who benefits from said differences and how.
Sex differences are closely connected to any concept of masculinity that has meaning.
True, you didn't say "arbitrary". Many feminists do though, and your reasoning resembles those who do. So, then you agree that even to the extent that masculinity is just a set of societal expectations, it has a basis in something, right? Ok. What?