Skip to main content

In Search of Non-Toxic Manhood


Research in gender at least as far back as the 80's, where I remember reading about it, would have shown that men who were more mixed in their gender role outlook, having an even mix of feminine and masculine qualities were happier, more likely to be satisfied socially and sexually, and more attractive to women as compared to traditional men. Although the concept has gotten bad press, as when the press described Michael Jackson's non-sexual persona as androgynous, thereby smearing men with balanced sex roles, it is still a better option for men and for women. Little has changed since then, except that traditional male orientation has been found to be in many ways harmful.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/opinion/sunday/toxic-masculinity.html?comments#permid=30249130

Granted, we have a moderately traditional culture so many of the expectation will not go away any time soon, if ever, but the bad impulses can be tamed. We need to create a better variant, something that rejects traditional masculinity but is smart and educated, athletic and fit but not obsessed with strength, attractive to women, having a broad range of interests, etc. One can satisfy the demands of masculinity without engaging in what people typically think of as traditional masculine endeavors, nor does one have to suffer under the typical understanding of stoicism.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/opinion/sunday/toxic-masculinity.html?comments#permid=30249382

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst by Robert M. Sapolsky My rating: 5 of 5 stars I finished reading this crying. It is a work of neurobiology, social science, anthropology, and history, but ultimately it is a work of great humanity, suggesting ways that humans, our groups, our systems, and our societies can be made better. View all my reviews

Don't learn to code. Learn to think.

A response to  Don't learn to code. Learn to think. : Below is is my usual response when I see an article stating that everyone should learn to code:  Rather than programming, it is more important to impart the thinking of computer science (CS) than a specific implementation. Programming can be an end point for some students, but it is likely that programming itself will be increasingly automated, so that one needs more the general concepts common in CS. Even then, programming itself is to some degree a grunt task that one progresses beyond:  The following are typical components of a CS degree: algorithms & flowcharting systems thinking logical systems and set theory object-orientation & patterns probability, statistics, mathematics All of the above can be useful in an increasingly automated and data-driven world.

A Journey — if You Dare — Into the Minds of Silicon Valley Programmers

My responses in a NY Times comment section for the book, Coders: The Making of a New Tribe and the Remaking of the World by Clive Thompson : #1 - Link Although I've been a software developer for 15 years, and for longer alternating between a project manager, team lead, or analyst, mostly in finance, and now with a cancer center, I found it funny that you blame the people doing the coding for not seeing the harm it could cause. First, most scientific advancement has dark elements, and it is usually not the science but how it is used and sold by business people that is the problem. This leads to the second problem, in that it is not coding that is in itself problematic, but specifically how technology is harnessed to sell. It is normal and desirable to track users, to log actions, to collect telemetry, so as to monitor systems, respond to errors, and to develop new features, but that normal engineering practice has been used to surveil users for the purpose of selling. Blaming