Many men join in the effort to reduce violence against women and children and other men. He speaks of the need to place responsibility on men instead of focusing on women to stop violence. He offers a breath of fresh air, as do so many of the men on this Atheist Nexus: Hang with Friends site.

Tony Porter: A call to men
http://www.ted.com/talks/tony_porter_a_call_to_men.html

Views: 501

Attachments:

Replies to This Discussion

We (people of any gender, in the world) should be listening when women speak up!!

Now on Urban Dictionary: "man box", "Dominator Culture", "Partnership Culture"

(Yes, UD has a high noise-to-signal ratio, but this might help make those terms a bit more visible on the internet.)

Please vote "thumbs up" on these definitions if you agree with them. Thanks!

Thanks for the links, to make it easier to vote for good definitions.

The precursor of the  Dominator Culture is the religious culture.  The status , value and demeaning of women is a a major theme of the Abrahamic religions - Islam being the most extreme of the lot. (although the RW Xtians are trying very hard to gain that distinction).  All of which is another reason for my anti-theism stance.  At one time I was tolerant of a person's religious convictions - no longer - they are a boil on the ass of humanity.

There was a time when women had an honored position in society, it was based on women's ability to bleed and not die, to bear children, and to suckle them. It was not a time of female dominance over male. The notion of domination didn't occur until the belief of man's dominion over all that swims, crawls and flies. As evidence of this claim, I visited many archaeology sites with Gimbutas and Eisler where female figures occurred far more frequently than males, burials of females contained equal or more treasure than males, and art portrayed females and males as equal. That all changed when the ancient belief system became male domination centered.


Marija Gimbutas - Life and Work 

Riane Eisler, The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future

Revisiting this important discussion...

Here are copies of those links at the Wayback Machine:

Marija Gimbutas - Life and Work (at archive.org)

Riane Eisler, The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future (at archive.org)

Parents unwittingly have a double standard for their daughters and for their sons, beginning at birth.

In "Toxic Masculinity Is Killing Men: The Roots of Men and Trauma" (Alternet), Kali Holloway writes:

...both mothers and fathers imagine inherent sex-related differences between baby girls and boys. Even when researchers controlled for babies’ “weight, length, alertness, and strength,” parents overwhelmingly reported that baby girls were more delicate and “softer” than baby boys; they imagined baby boys to be bigger and generally “stronger.” When a group of 204 adults was shown video of the same baby crying and given differing information about the baby’s sex, they judged the “female” baby to be scared, while the “male” baby was described as “angry.”

Intuitively, these differences in perception create correlating differences in the kind of parental caregiving newborn boys receive... other studies... consistently find that “from the moment of birth, boys are spoken to less than girls, comforted less, nurtured less.” To put it bluntly, we begin emotionally shortchanging boys right out of the gate, at the most vulnerable point in their lives. 

It’s a pattern that continues throughout childhood and into adolescence. [Psychologist Terry] Real cites a study that found both mothers and fathers emphasized “achievement and competition in their sons,” and taught them to “control their emotions”—another way of saying boys are tacitly instructed to ignore or downplay their emotional needs and wants. Similarly, parents of both sexes are more punitive toward their sons, presumably working under the assumption that boys “can take it.” Beverly I. Fagot, the late researcher and author of The Influence of Sex of Child on Parental Reactions to Toddler Chil..., found that parents gave positive reinforcement to all children when they exhibited “same-sex preferred” behaviors (as opposed to “cross-sex preferred”). Parents who said they “accepted sex equity” nonetheless offered more positive responses to little boys when they played with blocks, and offered negative feedback to girls when they engaged in sporty behavior. And while independent play—away from parents—and “independent accomplishments” were encouraged in boys, girls received more positive feedback when they asked for help. As a rule, these parents were unaware of the active role they played in socializing their children in accordance with gender norms. Fagot notes that all stated they treated sons and daughters the same, without regard to sex, a claim sharply contradicted by study findings.

Undeniably, these kinds of lessons impart deeply damaging messages to both girls and boys, and have lifelong and observable consequences. But whereas, as Terry Real says, “girls are allowed to maintain emotional expressiveness and cultivate connection,” boys are not only told they should suppress their emotions, but that their manliness essentially depends on them doing so....

Little boys internalize this concept early... research suggests they begin to hide their feelings from as young as 3 to 5 years old. “It doesn't mean that they have fewer emotions. But they're already learning the game—that it's not a good idea to express them”... 

(ellipses and bolding mine)

RSS

About

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service