Living with XY Chromosomes

17810121316

Comments

  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Sock tangent:
    For a long time, I only had one kind of sock. Black Wright Sock™. They were good for running and hiking, plus looked good enough to wear to work. I just kept them in a pile in a drawer, and would grab 2 as required. When they started to wear out, they got demoted to "shop rag" and removed from circulation. Privileged laziness ideal.

    Sadly, they stopped making my sock. Bastards.
  • RooK wrote: »
    Sock tangent:
    For a long time, I only had one kind of sock. Black Wright Sock™. They were good for running and hiking, plus looked good enough to wear to work. I just kept them in a pile in a drawer, and would grab 2 as required. When they started to wear out, they got demoted to "shop rag" and removed from circulation. Privileged laziness ideal.

    Sadly, they stopped making my sock. Bastards.

    Have you tried gold toe black fluffies? I've worn them for years and they have many of the same properties.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Identical black socks is my approach.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Possibly, the freedom to just luxuriate in the low-stress wonderland of having a single ilk of sock to sock is, like ubiquitous pockets, another manifestation of institutionalized male privilege.
  • Pockets grrrrrrrr.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    There's a whole podcast episode about pockets. There was a period of history where having no useful pockets was a sign of a woman's high social status. Only vulgar people had to work and therefore carry things.

    https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/pockets-articles-of-interest-3/

    (Actually the whole 6-episode "Article of Interest" miniseries about clothing was fabulous.)
  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    OTOH I'm not sure more pockets would accommodate all the things necessary to existence currently in the handbag (purse, keys, plastic, bus pass, glasses, comb, pills, salves, data stick, toothpicks, tissues).
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    I just buy clothes with pockets, facilitated by having worked out my size in “men’s” trousers.

    (You can fit an iPad mini in the pockets - A5)
  • Yes, but women can carry a handbag, and put lots of stuff in it. Men can't. We're discriminated against I tell you!
  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Yes, but women can carry a handbag, and put lots of stuff in it. Men can't. We're discriminated against I tell you!

    Briefcase. Gladstone bag. Backpack. Sporran.

  • Murse.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Messenger bag.
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    Guys,*

    I will accept that gendered clothing is relevant to this thread, but for the love of god or of my patience, can we take the general clothing tangent to heaven?

    Gwai,
    Epiphanies Host


    *See what I did there
  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    So done. ('Socks and Handbags' - sorry, can't get the linky thing to work).
  • edited January 2020
    <.>
  • I’m going on a stag do with mostly people I don’t know this weekend. The WhatsApp group’s had loads of ‘bants’ about the groom being whored, raped, chucked in a river, etc. I’m sure it’s all ‘good natured fun’ and will be fine, but God, I’d rather have been with the hens. What’s up with flipping blokes?
  • I'm spending a lot of time watching YouTube clips, where many people post their own reviews of films and TV. Most of these are negative, as it seems easier to blast than to praise. It has struck me there are a lot of insecure blokes out there.

    One case in point is the hatred directed at the Captain Marvel film as a whole, and Brie Larson in particular. Apparently it's a tipping point in the culture wars, white men aren't going to put up with being made the villains any longer, and the entire thing is an attack on men. I'm a white man, who watched the film with a great deal of pleasure. It's not the greatest thing I've ever seen, but it was pleasant, and a good way to pass the time. There are many other examples, Doctor Who, Batwoman, and so forth, which aren't debated on their own merits, but resented as personal attacks.

    Really? REALLY? What is going on?
  • If you start from a place of privilege, equality feels like discrimination.

    That's why we've had the recent, unedifying shriek from the top private schools complaining they can no longer guarantee their pupils places at Oxbridge. Likewise, positive action for BAME artists and actors feels like shutting out white creatives.

    So men are used to operating in an environment where they interact with men, and get promoted as men, and see men in power, and see men represented on screen and on page, and when they don't, it jars. It is pretty laughable (I can do it in a self-deprecating way, because I full know that in my literary career, I'm far more likely to be under female supervision than male - my editor, her boss, and her boss are all women) but some men get both angry and anxious about women managers. We should, rather than mock (which is fun, but a bit counterproductive), find out what they're afraid of and show them that the world has changed for the better.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    I’m going on a stag do with mostly people I don’t know this weekend. The WhatsApp group’s had loads of ‘bants’ about the groom being whored, raped, chucked in a river, etc. I’m sure it’s all ‘good natured fun’ and will be fine, but God, I’d rather have been with the hens. What’s up with flipping blokes?

    Sounds like textbook toxic masculinity. Perhaps you can be a force for balance? This sort of display is usually, as suggested, a way to cover fears. If you can be brave enough to volunteer something relevant you are vulnerable about, maybe you can engage the "stags" with a meaningful discussion about the profound duty and responsibility it is to become a life-long partner.

    Or maybe just hide and tolerate it. Sometimes it's too soon for people to grow.
  • RooK wrote: »
    This sort of display is usually, as suggested, a way to cover fears.

    So, it turned out that it was pretty much just one guy, who was your textbook 'lad', who was pushing the rough side of the pre-stag discussion. From literally all of the other guys, there was either a little bit of engagement on his level to humour him, or eye-rolling. But it's amazing how it only takes one person to make it appear that the majority is one thing, when in reality, it's a minority of one. The best man did a great job of navigating it all.

    Your diagnosis above is really interesting, and on reflection could be accurate. It makes me wonder what it is that we're all scared of, and that guy in this case.
  • Your diagnosis above is really interesting, and on reflection could be accurate. It makes me wonder what it is that we're all scared of, and that guy in this case.

    Usually, engaging with their own emotions, their vulnerability, their loneliness and self-inadequacy. We have to do better at this (myself obviously included).
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    It has been alluded to a few times in this thread, but western society has systemically done a disservice to males with respect to the navigation of feelings - both our own, and those of others. The "cool" ideal pushed for a long time is predicated on the impossibility of "not having feelings". It can be emulated by ignoring feelings, or suppressing them.

    This does not work well. For anyone.

    It has been the work of a lifetime to embrace the degree to which I am "warm", and not "cool". It seems to be something most other males struggle with as well. It can happen to anyone, but it certainly seems like my female friends tend to have more default options available to them for developing "emotional intelligence".
  • I read a lot of sci-fi when I was younger (mostly written by males). There was definitely a theme that the ideal human is calm, logical, removed, has full mastery over their feelings and does not let them influence their decisions and choices. Feelings are seen as an unhelpful distraction.

    It’s unhelpful and unrealistic.
  • I read a lot of sci-fi when I was younger (mostly written by males). There was definitely a theme that the ideal human is calm, logical, removed, has full mastery over their feelings and does not let them influence their decisions and choices. Feelings are seen as an unhelpful distraction.

    It’s unhelpful and unrealistic.

    Depends. Your feelings are important if you're considering how much you want something, whether it is important to you, and so on. If you're considering what the likely outcomes of decision X are, your feelings are only going to lead you astray.

    So what kind of decision are you making?
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    But even if you’re not going to let your feelings guide your decision, it is important to acknowledge what they are, and to be able to manage them, not simply suppress them.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin
    edited February 2020
    I read a lot of sci-fi when I was younger (mostly written by males). There was definitely a theme that the ideal human is calm, logical, removed, has full mastery over their feelings and does not let them influence their decisions and choices. Feelings are seen as an unhelpful distraction.

    It’s unhelpful and unrealistic.

    Depends. Your feelings are important if you're considering how much you want something, whether it is important to you, and so on. If you're considering what the likely outcomes of decision X are, your feelings are only going to lead you astray.

    So what kind of decision are you making?

    I read pretty much the same sf. Re-reading it now, many of the protagonists I used to admire come over as monsters. Feelings are important (if not critical) in choosing the best path forward, and I'm determined not to write monsters.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    What the science fiction I read growing up seemed to often gloss over was the degree to which emotions creep into motivations, even when one thinks that they are being systemically logical. Especially feelings of fear and hate.
  • Sorry to butt in on an interesting conversation, but I wanted to post this article on parental leave and reducing the pay gap. Maybe middle class 30-somethings are moving things forward, one step at a time...
  • I read a lot of sci-fi when I was younger (mostly written by males). There was definitely a theme that the ideal human is calm, logical, removed, has full mastery over their feelings and does not let them influence their decisions and choices. Feelings are seen as an unhelpful distraction.

    It’s unhelpful and unrealistic.

    Depends. Your feelings are important if you're considering how much you want something, whether it is important to you, and so on. If you're considering what the likely outcomes of decision X are, your feelings are only going to lead you astray.

    So what kind of decision are you making?

    Two things, much that passes for logical reasoning is post-hoc i.e. we make the decision and then decide why it is a good thing.

    The other is that I am very good at logical reasoning, better than most men. That is not boasting, it comes with mathematical ability and when I took logic at university I was scoring over eighty percent all the time and I was not trying. However, I have applied it to my reasoning and I find the idea that ignoring emotion is a fallacy. Logical reasoning ONLY works perfectly in a situation where we know everything. Most decisions are made in a situation where we have limited knowledge. We also have limited time and rare have enough time to gather all the information we need. Our emotions actually store a lot of knowledge including things in our subconscious because are emotions rely to some extent on our past experiences. We also have to live with our decision and going against your emotions is a good way to sabotage your ability to live with something. Indeed emotions and habits in part are deliberately there to help us make decisions quickly. Logic is slow and energy consuming. It seems to me logically bad practice to ignore your emotions when making a decision as they could:
    • be an effective summary of information you need
    • be telling you about something you are overlooking
    • undermine the chance of success if you ignore them

  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Back in the days of such luxuries I was on a course for those newly redundant, which had a preponderance of men. The tutor was trying to get one middle-aged guy say what he felt about a situation. He could not even understand the question. Or, I suppose, could not identify any of his reactions as feelings.

    Though I cannot say I always did better. Someone I had once trusted said a thing to me. I didn't immediately react, but shortly afterwards found some clay (there being a pottery hard by) and thumped the daylights out of it. It only gradually dawned on me that I was very, very angry.

    I think we are schooled, both male and female, to suppress or discount emotional responses. Probably there is a gender difference in which ones.
  • Jengie Jon wrote: »
    I read a lot of sci-fi when I was younger (mostly written by males). There was definitely a theme that the ideal human is calm, logical, removed, has full mastery over their feelings and does not let them influence their decisions and choices. Feelings are seen as an unhelpful distraction.

    It’s unhelpful and unrealistic.

    Depends. Your feelings are important if you're considering how much you want something, whether it is important to you, and so on. If you're considering what the likely outcomes of decision X are, your feelings are only going to lead you astray.

    So what kind of decision are you making?

    Two things, much that passes for logical reasoning is post-hoc i.e. we make the decision and then decide why it is a good thing.

    The other is that I am very good at logical reasoning, better than most men. That is not boasting, it comes with mathematical ability and when I took logic at university I was scoring over eighty percent all the time and I was not trying. However, I have applied it to my reasoning and I find the idea that ignoring emotion is a fallacy. Logical reasoning ONLY works perfectly in a situation where we know everything. Most decisions are made in a situation where we have limited knowledge. We also have limited time and rare have enough time to gather all the information we need. Our emotions actually store a lot of knowledge including things in our subconscious because are emotions rely to some extent on our past experiences. We also have to live with our decision and going against your emotions is a good way to sabotage your ability to live with something. Indeed emotions and habits in part are deliberately there to help us make decisions quickly. Logic is slow and energy consuming. It seems to me logically bad practice to ignore your emotions when making a decision as they could:
    • be an effective summary of information you need
    • be telling you about something you are overlooking
    • undermine the chance of success if you ignore them

    That seems like very wise advice.
  • Firenze wrote: »
    Back in the days of such luxuries I was on a course for those newly redundant, which had a preponderance of men. The tutor was trying to get one middle-aged guy say what he felt about a situation. He could not even understand the question. Or, I suppose, could not identify any of his reactions as feelings.

    Though I cannot say I always did better. Someone I had once trusted said a thing to me. I didn't immediately react, but shortly afterwards found some clay (there being a pottery hard by) and thumped the daylights out of it. It only gradually dawned on me that I was very, very angry.

    I think we are schooled, both male and female, to suppress or discount emotional responses. Probably there is a gender difference in which ones.

    I imagine there is a cultural difference as well. The English are famous for the "stiff upper lip" whereas anyone who has ever spent time in close company with Italians know that they tend to sway the opposite way.
  • RooK wrote: »
    What the science fiction I read growing up seemed to often gloss over was the degree to which emotions creep into motivations, even when one thinks that they are being systemically logical. Especially feelings of fear and hate.

    Currently I'm rereading Asimov's "I, Robot". It's the first time for decades,but I loved it as a kid. Sadly I'm finding it heavy going. Emotion really isn't his strong point.
  • (spoilers alert) The endgame of both Foundation and Dune* is that human consciousness should be merged with machine/AI consciousness and that is the pinnacle of our development and evolution. We should be more like computers.

    All Heinlein's protagonists are Bondesque in their ability to face unfazed anything that comes at them; with duty and a quick wit. It's fun and entertaining, but it's unhealthy to try and model oneself on it.

    Star Wars has a slightly less negative, but ultimately the same take: "Bury your feelings deep down Luke. They do you credit, but they could be made to serve the Emperor."

    The hero is always confident, dispassionate and has full control. I still love the sci-fi I grew up with for all sorts of reasons, but that side of it is bullshit. Men repress their emotions enough - we don't need to have idols that repress them even more.

    * Assuming Brian Herbert's vision of the final book(s) is accurate to Frank's.
  • RooK wrote: »
    What the science fiction I read growing up seemed to often gloss over was the degree to which emotions creep into motivations, even when one thinks that they are being systemically logical. Especially feelings of fear and hate.

    Currently I'm rereading Asimov's "I, Robot". It's the first time for decades,but I loved it as a kid. Sadly I'm finding it heavy going. Emotion really isn't his strong point.

    I had the same experience re-reading The Foundation Trilogy.
  • Goperryrevs, very good points. Often termed the schizoid male, this image has certainly had a good run in popular culture. The western has its share of unfeeling men, not just The Man with no Name. I find Bond very creepy.
  • * Assuming Brian Herbert's vision of the final book(s) is accurate to Frank's.

    Wasn't the crushing of that in the Butlerian Jihad what gave rise to the mentats and the deep suspicion of the Ixians?
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Wasn't the crushing of that in the Butlerian Jihad what gave rise to the mentats and the deep suspicion of the Ixians?

    Well, that's what I mean, it depends to what extent Brian's books are based on Frank's vision / notes.

    (more spoilers, and apologies for the tangent to those who don't give a crap)

    According to the Schools of Dune prequels, the first mentat was taught by a machine in the first place. The Butlerians are painted as crazy religious fanatics in those prequels - very different to the way that it's accepted orthodoxy in the original books.

    I think that Dune 7 was in broad strokes based around FH's vision (the return of the machines / Duncan being the ultimate goal of the Golden Path & the true Kwisatz Haderach), but the more they've written, the further they've wandered from the spirit of the originals - especially on the matter of the morality of AI and advanced technology. FH seemed to be warning us against it, BH & KJA don't seem bothered.

    But either way, Frank Herbert's books still suffer from the same attitude towards emotion as other sci-fi. I love the way he writes conversations, where you get to hear the characters' thoughts before you hear what they say. But the way they're written, emotions are a frustrating distraction from true thought and logic. Leto II's downfall is love. The Honored Matres are emotional and evil; the Bene Gesserit are passionless and relatively good. Mentats are great because they're logical. etc. etc.
  • Often termed the schizoid male, this image has certainly had a good run in popular culture. The western has its share of unfeeling men, not just The Man with no Name. I find Bond very creepy.

    Interesting that a personality disorder can become a goal towards which to strive!

    And yet, I loved all that sci-fi. I love the Spaghetti Westerns trilogy too. There's something about those characters that is incredibly alluring and aspirational for many men, even when we know the paradigm is unhelpful. What's that about?
  • Yes, it's much wider than scifi. So many adventure stories have the hero who never gets emotional. It must be easier to write, but why is it appealing to read?
  • Jengie Jon wrote: »
    It seems to me logically bad practice to ignore your emotions when making a decision as they could:
    • be an effective summary of information you need
    • be telling you about something you are overlooking
    • undermine the chance of success if you ignore them

    I think we might be talking past each other. I agree with you that your feelings about a decision are a good guide to what you want (rather than what you might argue yourself into thinking you want, and will subsequently regret). And I suspect we agree that the majority of decisions people make are at least coloured with their desires, rather than being dispassionate predictions of likely outcomes. And, of course, the degree to which you desire a particular outcome will affect the effort that you put in to achieving it, so many decisions are fundamentally entangled with your feelings.

    But I wonder if you're conflating feelings and instincts (and I have the same question about Firenze's redundancy course). Emotional responses are instinctual, but not all instinctive responses are emotional. And I'd claim that it was in instinct, rather than in emotion, where we embed our subconsciously learned information. Catching a ball is pure instinct. Nobody computes trajectories - it's not fast enough. We just instinctively place our hand where the ball is going to be. But there's no emotive content in catching a ball. (There probably is after the fact, if it's going to win you the game...)
    Logical reasoning ONLY works perfectly in a situation where we know everything.
    Bayesian logic is perfectly capable of dealing with limited knowledge.
  • I think catching a ball is a learned skill, and that some bit of you is calculating trajectories. Which is why some of us can't catch, no matter how much we try.
  • I think catching a ball is a learned skill, and that some bit of you is calculating trajectories. Which is why some of us can't catch, no matter how much we try.

    Definitely. I instinctively most certainly don't put my hand where the ball is going to be.

    I was one of those trying to get the PE teacher to understand that before we talk about hitting the ball to a place where there are no fielders we have to be able to hit it at all.

    This is relevant to the thread as my peers frequently referred to such failures to question both my gender and sexuality. Some of my earliest experiences of toxic masculinity.
  • I think it's appealing to read emotionless characters because they seem to have everything in control--and Lord knows, we don't.
  • Do you think it's attractive in that we want to have that control ourselves, or that we want that in a romantic partner? Or both (i.e. "women want Bond, men want to be Bond"*)

    *with the obvious heteronormative assumptions that go with that...
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    I think catching a ball is a learned skill, and that some bit of you is calculating trajectories. Which is why some of us can't catch, no matter how much we try.

    Definitely. I instinctively most certainly don't put my hand where the ball is going to be.

    I was one of those trying to get the PE teacher to understand that before we talk about hitting the ball to a place where there are no fielders we have to be able to hit it at all.

    This is relevant to the thread as my peers frequently referred to such failures to question both my gender and sexuality. Some of my earliest experiences of toxic masculinity.

    Oh yes. I've got that tshirt!
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    It seems to me logically bad practice to ignore your emotions when making a decision as they could:
    • be an effective summary of information you need
    • be telling you about something you are overlooking
    • undermine the chance of success if you ignore them
    But I wonder if you're conflating feelings and instincts
    I strongly suggest we discard this notion of parsing out "instincts" and "feelings" separately. It seems to imply that feelings are of less value, which is a mistake.

    Emotions are information. They are true, in the same way that the gauges on the dash of your car are relaying information. However, we must be mindful about how we interpret them, for they can be circumstantial or unrelated to our immediate considerations. Still, ignoring feelings can be as foolish as ignoring the soaring temperature gauge. Merely wanting to act like we're not feeling/overheating doesn't change the fact that we need to address the root cause of it, or face some consequences.

    @Jengie Jon is eminently correct in this way.
  • Yes, it's much wider than scifi. So many adventure stories have the hero who never gets emotional. It must be easier to write, but why is it appealing to read?

    If, remains one of Britain’s favourite poems - but it does leave you wondering about the difference between stoicism, indifference and bloody mindedness.
  • Do you think it's attractive in that we want to have that control ourselves, or that we want that in a romantic partner? Or both (i.e. "women want Bond, men want to be Bond"*)

    *with the obvious heteronormative assumptions that go with that...

    Speaking as a woman, I don't "want Bond" or anyone like him--the only attractive thing about him is extreme competence (within his limited area, but still). Competence is attractive, but I both want that in myself AND in my partner.
  • There is, to be fair, a trope in science fiction called 'competence porn'. 'The Martian' was essentially competence porn from start to finish, and a real-life example would be the CO2 filter built by the Apollo 13 astronauts out of socks and a flight manual.

    I have been known to dabble in it myself, because I honestly find it it an incredibly attractive trait and I'm drawn to it.
This discussion has been closed.