647. Masculinity Is Obsolete And An Anachronism

647.  Masculinity Is Obsolete And An Anachronism

Ruthless capitalistic people do not hesitate to enhance their profit, and propagating masculinity is just one example:

"Where male attitudes are concerned, a new study implicates magazine advertisements specifically aimed at men as helping to reinforce a certain set of views on masculinity termed "hyper-masculinity.""

"Hyper-masculinity is an extreme form of masculine gender ideology comprising four main components: toughness, violence, dangerousness and calloused attitudes toward women and sex."

"Vokey's results are consistent with considerable prior research showing a positive association between hyper-masculine beliefs and a host of social and health problems, such as dangerous driving, drug use and violence towards women. "

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130228113359.htm

Masculinity is not only a hazard to women and sometimes also to other men, it is also obsolete and an anachronism when considering the circumstances of modern life.


What is usually defined and understood by the word masculinity, are either physical traits or traits and behaviors derived thereof. 

• Strength, endurance, stamina, high libido
• Muscles, speed and fitness acquired by physical exercise
• Skills acquired by sports and exercises like catching and throwing objects, fighting, riding, climbing
• Aggression, violence, competition, risk taking, fearlessness, domination.

Masculinity does not include any intelligence and cognitive skills, which depend exclusively upon the quality of the brain.   Masculinity is understood as what distinguishes men from women.   The cognitive qualities, which women can have as much as men, are not used to define masculinity.    This reduces masculinity to physical traits.
Men can easily demonstrate their innate physical advantage by beating up, abusing and raping defenseless women, while any male claim of higher intelligence contradicts reality.   Only fools deny the evidence of women's cognitive equality.       

A positive attitude to their masculinity is men's pathetic attempt to interpret their biological advantage of merely physical strength as an alleged superiority.    It really is both sad and ludicrous to consider it a sign of superiority, when someone is physically able to force his will upon a helpless victim.


In prehistoric times the survival of hunter and gatherer societies depended upon men's attributes of masculinity.  

• Hunting for food and fighting for the protection against wild animals and marauders required physically strong and fit men, who cultivated masculinity.   
• Leaders had to proof their abilities by fighting and competing over other men.    
• When resources were extremely scarce, fighting over access to the resources was fighting over who would live and who would perish.  
• High male libido deprived women of a choice and caused many unwanted pregnancies.  This may have contributed to the survival of the human species by compensating for the high mortality.

Today, masculinity is obsolete.  

• Any intelligent, trained and educated person of both genders even with physical disabilities can do research and construct or invent machines, tools, appliances, chemicals, which are stronger and faster and more efficient than any prototype of an extreme masculine man could ever be.   
• Politicians, leaders, rulers, bosses need to be elected for their wisdom, responsibility, justice, intelligence, education and the ability to cooperate and to communicate.   Those who get to the top by successful fighting are the wrong ones to be there.   I suspect that masculinity contributes to the Peter principle.   
• Today, the global resources suffice for a modest, frugal life for all living humans, a fair distribution requires cooperation.   Fighting over resources today is fighting for unjust greed, not for basic survival.
• Today, male high libido causes women's suffering and global overpopulation.   Today, those who invent the best and safest birth control methods compensate for the damage, that male libido does.  

Today, many of those people of both genders, whose qualities enable them to contribute to the technological, medical, chemical and social progress, would have been failures and losers as cave men.  The females would have been wasted as breeders.    Femininity is as obsolete as is masculinity.   


When persons of both genders are wearing comfortable clothes like jeans and t-shirts, the most prominent visual distinction between natural and unmodified men and women would be a man's beard.   A beard is in fact the only distinctive sign a man's maleness, which neither does harm women nor can be used to do so by a man's choice.  
It is weird and absurd, that men shave off this sign of being men and then they compensate for the lost distinction by enhancing and accentuating what they consider as masculinity and what makes them hazardous.    A man with a beard presents himself so unmistakably as a man, that neither muscles nor aggression can add anything to this.     


What is needed is a model of humanity, which is contrasted with animality and which replaces the gender distinction.  Those cognitive qualities, which are the enabler of progress are gender-neutral.
Only primitive fools derive their identity from their masculinity and as being different from women.   Wise intellectual men derive their identity from the cognitive qualities of their brains.  They recognize this as shared with women but as a decisive distinction from animals.

Nothing of what I and many other educated and intelligent women wish to share with a man requires masculinity.   

487. Wide-Faced Or Narrow-Faced Men

487.   Wide-Faced Or Narrow-Faced Men

I am demisexual, I do not get physically attracted to looks.   I am consciously ready to create a bonded commitment with any man, whose personality and intellect attract me, while there are no dealbreakers.   But while I do neither perceive nor need physical attraction, physical repulsion is a deterrent. 

Consciously, I am attracted to men who are more nice guys than machos, who are more psychologically androgynous than virile.    Aggression, dominance, power, competition as the typical indications of virility are repulsive to me.   Consciously, I need to rely upon a lot of information to find out, if I can trust a man to appreciate and treat me as an equal partner.   I consider first and superficial impressions as misleading.   

But after reading about the study quoted below connecting facial proportions with personality, now I am wondering, if my subconscious reacts to visual stimuli, of which I am consciously ignorant.  

I prefer bearded men.   So far, I attributed my pognophily only to my preference for someone's personality trait of lacking vanity, of considering shaving as a ludicrous waste of time.    I considered the act of shaving in itself as a repulsive behavior.   But maybe there is more than that.   Maybe a beard covers stimuli, which my subconscious mind perceives as repulsive.    

One study is of course not enough to be conclusive.   But it allows me to scrutinize for what my subconscious mind is doing to me.    I have no answers, but at least some important new questions.  

• Does my subconscious mind recognize indications, which I am consciously oblivious of?
• Do I have a subconscious preference for narrow faces in men?   
• Do wide faced men scare me?  
• Do they scare me less, when a beard covers the indication of facial virility?   
• Do I perceive clean shaven men as more repulsive, when they have wide rather than narrow faces?     

Sources:

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/120107_facialstructure

"You can to some ex­tent assess a per­son’s trust­wor­thi­ness from their looks, ac­cord­ing to new re­search that could up­set dec­ades of settled sci­en­tif­ic think­ing.

In a stu­dy, Mi­chael Hasel­huhn and Elaine Wong of the Uni­vers­ity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee found that men whose faces are rel­a­tively wide for their height are sta­tis­tic­ally more likely to act un­eth­ic­ally.

“Our re­sults dem­on­strate that stat­ic [fixed] phys­i­cal at­tributes can in­deed serve as re­li­a­ble cues of im­mor­al ac­tion,” Hasel­huhn and Wong wrote, adding that their find­ings ap­pear to apply to males on­ly. “Per­haps some men truly are bad to the bone.”

How­ev­er, they added, re­cent find­ings have linked more ag­gres­sive ten­den­cies in men to faces that are wide rel­a­tive to their height. Such men are sta­tis­tic­ally more likely “to re­tal­i­ate to per­ceived slights by oth­ers [and] to act in their own self-in­ter­est, even if it means vi­o­lat­ing an­oth­er’s trust,”

In their own stu­dy, Hasel­huhn and Wong con­clud­ed that the great­er propens­ity of men with these fa­cial types to act un­eth­ic­ally flows from a sense among these men that they have more pow­er than av­er­age. There­fore, they tend to feel they can get away with it.

A major objection to the idea that facial fea­tures could predict bad be­ha­vior, they said, has been that men with such fea­tures would swiftly drop out of the gene pool. Pre­sum­ably, no one would trust them so they would have trouble mat­ing. This ob­ject­ion loses force, Hasel­huhn and Wong ar­gued, if you suppose that the draw­backs of having such a face may be coun­ter­ba­lanced by an ad­vant­age, namely that those faces also signal ag­gres­sion and domi­nance-a trait that ap­peals to many women."

http://www.livescience.com/14909-wide-faces-predict-unethical-behavior.html

""We believe that men's facial structure should be used as one important cue in detecting liars and cheaters, but caution should be taken in automatically labeling relatively wide-faced men as bad seeds."

Future research can investigate whether men with broad faces "have truly evolved to be less ethical, or whether these men 'learn' to be less ethical over time," Haselhuhn noted. "For example, if people are naturally inclined to act deferentially to men with relatively broad faces, these men may feel more powerful over time, leading them to act less ethically.""

350. Pognophile - Naturalness - Self-Modification

Pognophile - Naturalness - Self-Modification
I just happened to discover the word 'pognophile' for people, who like beards, and I started to ponder about my own preference for fully bearded men.

My choice of a mindmate is not influenced by differences between the natural looks of a man, my choice is for compatibility.    Even though my subjective taste is such, that hair growing naturally adds to what I perceive as physical attraction, this does not influence my choice.  
While the choice between different kinds of self-modification is a question of taste, a person's choice between naturalness and self-modification is a personality trait.  My choice of a mindmate is entirely based upon the compatibility with his personality.   I am strongly attracted by a man's decision to refrain from any self-modification, no matter what would be the resulting external appearance due to self-modification. 

An example:
A completely bald man and a man with a shaven head look exactly the same.    But it is far from being the same.   Baldness is genuine and not a decision, a shaven head is a choice, while there is an alternative.   This choice implies considering the impact of the looks upon the beholder and is thus an expression of appreciation or depreciation.  

For me, the visual difference between a man with a full head of hair and a bald man does not influence my choice, because both are their genuine natural selves.    But self-modification can never make a man more attractive, it only can make him repulsive.    Wearing a wig does not make a bald man more attractive, but shaving his head makes a man with natural hair repulsive.  

The difference between a man, who allows his hair to grow, and a man, who shaves his head, is not a difference between looks, it is a fundamental difference between attitudes.   

Shaving the head as an example of self-modification indicates

•  The man is shallow, his looks are important to him
•  and
• He is limiting his choice of a mate to those equally shallow women, who accept or prefer men with hairless heads
  or
• He considers himself as god's gift to women, who should feel attracted to whatever he does to his exterior.
  or
• His exterior is a submission in conformity to influences, that he considers more important than being attractive according to a woman's taste

I used the head without hair as an example, because the exactly same looks can be either natural or the result of self-modification.    The same reasoning as for removing the hair from the head can also be applied to removing the hair from the face, except that to my knowledge, there are no men with a naturally bald face.  

All men with a full beard indicate their naturalness, while all clean shaven faces are an expression of self-modification, either by choice or by gullibility.         

Naturalness is an attitude of what is important, of what defines a person's identity, either his body or his brains and his mind.    Naturalness expresses the evaluation of what is worth time and effort and what is not.   I have been wondering, if pognophile really describes me or not.    Naturalness in a man means of course that he has a full beard.   I value, perceive and consider this as the baseline.    Therefore shaving is a form of deviant behavior when compared with this baseline.    

Pognophile means to be attracted to beards, but since I am attracted to personalities and not prone to get infatuated by bodies, it is more precise to declare, that I feel comfortable with a bearded man, while the clean shavenness makes a face repulsive to me, independent of its attractiveness.   My indirect repugnance as a reaction to his attitude of self-modification causes my physical recoiling from shaven faces. 
 
When I see the face of a man, who shaves, no matter if he does this to his entire face or if he creates some more or less weird patterns in his face, or has stubbles, I perceive this as if something is not right, awkward, faulty, visually dissonant, missing.   It is hard to to put it into words.  It is like seeing a picture with a corner missing or a cracked vase.    It is visible, that he is wasting his time for the completely futile and irrational task of shaving again and again, what keeps regrowing as long as he lives.  
That leads to the question, how gullible he is, how much he is prone to do irrational things under influences pressing him to conformity.   If a man conforms to the weird behavior of shaving, I suspect him to do other weird things too in submission and by gullibility to mainstream society and external influences.    

It is certainly no coincidence, that many great independent thinkers like Darwin, Freud, Marx and Epicure had beards.  They had better things to do than to shave.  

Therefore naturalness is an important factor of compatibility.   I do not want or demand a man to grow a beard to please me, if shaving is his own preference, I am looking for a man, whose own innate naturalness is expressed in his having a beard. 
If a man feels being his own genuine self with a beard, then we are compatible.   If a man wants to shave as his preference, I respect his choice.   But it is also a choice for my recoiling reaction.   Asking him to grow a beard against his wish would not make us compatible, as we do not share naturalness.  


But my preference is based upon reciprocity of naturalness.   If a man is looking for a woman indulging in self-modification of any kind like damaged feed in high heals or shaven legs, I am not that woman and will never be.    I am the same natural as what attracts me in a man.   

I have never in my life painted my face or any other part of my body.    All my hair grows as it grows, I have never removed any hair from my body.    I have never worn high heels and I could not even walk in them.   Superfluous to say, that I would not accept damage to my body as are tattoos or piercings, except under the threat of a gun pointed at my head.   I do not only wear no jewellery, I do not even own any.  

A man with a clean shaven face

looks faulty like a cracked vase.