Of course they are. The more they get to know their classmates the less ignorant they become and hence the less weird behaviors they exhibit.
Eh. Males on their own don’t tend to exhibit that behavior. It’s less ignorance and more ape like competitiveness. When you put them together the testosterone compounds and leads to machismo, which results in a bunch of dumb shit.
This argument is saturated in assumptions and is difficult to swallow.
The idea of lack of close physical contact promoting bad behaviour is a well studied phenomenon in many areas, including road rage, and online discourse.
So I actually read the article — you should try it some time — and it literally states males exhibit this behavior due to competitiveness.
So no, my argument is not saturated in assumptions. It’s saturated in experience, and backed by science.
Turns out your argument was saturated in assumptions and theirs followed the article. Funny how you got real quiet after that, bozo.
There are studies of men growing up with sisters are more likely to act in a woman’s best interest, than the stereotypical macho douchebag persona
When you put them together the testosterone compounds and leads to machismo, which results in a bunch of
dumbfun shit.
After a quick read of the article, it’s not measuring how matcho they are, but how competitive they are. Even that is by proxy. Men who have lived with more men will tend towards a game of skill for a larger payout, over a fixed payout.
I personally consider the risk management of being competitive to be an extremely important life skill. Knowing your capabilities requires practise and comparison. Men also tend to change their behaviour patterns when a women is present, particularlyyounger men. “Machoism” is often just our tribal bonding instincts kicking in. It let’s young men learn the limits of their own capabilities and the capabilities and temperament of these they are working closely with.
Testosterone spikes inhibit risk assessment. Testosterone spikes based on social circumstance rather than the time of day. When there are smaller males/females around you can dominate, testosterone spikes. When the other males are bigger, stronger and more aggressive, testosterone doesn’t spike. Making you avoid conflict instead.
A lack of risk assessment, along with increased impulsivity, is a feature. Useful to get males to initiate fighting.
Reducing human behavior to a single hormone is a choice that is not very representative of reality.
I never said that. It’s only a factor.
Testosterone has complex effects. It is also one of the few hormones that significantly changes in the male brain. Learning to both control and utilise its effects is critical to the proper development of a man.
Testosterone changes your risk assessments, rather than jamming them. Uncontrolled, it can be problematic. It takes practice and training to channel that in productive directions. Without that practice, it’s effects are either bottled up (with a tendency to explode) or lead to fighting, or crude domineering. Neither is healthy.
After a quick read of the article
Definitely NOT what you want to read when talking about academic studies and statistics. It unfortunately makes you sound like an armchair expertEdit: I misunderstood the comment and was unnecessarily rude
I wasn’t reading and critiquing the underlying paper, I was primarily checking if the headline and methods matched up. They don’t. Confidence and controlled risk taking are very different from “macho”.
They also seem to make the correlation ≠ causation fallacy, though that might be fixed in the actual paper. Is it living in a mixed house makes men less confident, or are less confident men more likely to end up in a mixed house?
I’m definitely no more than a reasonably informed layman in sociology. I do have scientific training, however, so can spot the more glaring signs of a journalist going beyond what a paper says, or the data backs up.
My mistake for misunderstanding what you meant then! I thought you were referring to the scientific article itself, not the news article
K. I’d rather be less macho and more getting laid. Bonus points for pegging.
Yes, we’ve always known that men who associate more regularly with women than other men, act more like women.
Being less macho isn’t “acting more like a woman”. You can be many without being "macho "
What’s the difference? Genuine question. I frequently see standard male behavior touted as “toxic masculinity” on this platform, so I’m not really sure what you consider manly, but not macho.
Toxic masculinity is generally founded on the idea that the world owes you something because you’re a man. Positive masculinity is a rejection on that. It’s using your strength and intelligence to contribute to yourself, your family, your community, and the world. Knowing when to give and when to take.
Tim Walz is a good example of positive masculinity. He’s manly af. A soldier, a football coach, a hunter, a leader, a father, a husband. He’s used those roles to improve himself and the world around him, he fights against those who hurt him, his family, and community. I’m not arguing he’s perfect or the only example. Being perfect isn’t part of positive masculinity, but he’s a recent example that has gotten a lot of attention.
Genuine question. What is standard male behavior?
Some examples could include competitiveness with other males, being less risk averse than females, and being more analytical than emotional,
And what exactly out of those things is considered to be toxic in general or is it more that the extreme forms of those things are considered to be toxic?
You asked for examples of standard male behaviors, not toxic male behaviors.
Edit: oh, you’re asking which of those, people here would consider toxic? Pick one! Put a negative spin on it, and you can probably find that sentiment pretty easily around these parts.
What do you mean by negative spin? You don’t think that for example extreme competitiveness can be negative - or what is the point you are trying to make.
Ffs.
I operate a rock climbing meetup and hiking meetup and most of my mates are women.
In my experience people who act macho are also the least macho, and they do it because they’re scared or insecure
Acting toxic isn’t acting like a man. It’s just an indicator they never left high school.
When the situation gets bad, it’s often the non macho ones who take control and fix it when hiking.
Also, I’ve met world record mountaineers (including a first time 7 summits guy). They just act normal.
“Acting toxic isn’t acting like a man.”
Yes it is. As much as being kind, protective, supportive, abusive, cruel and every other behaviour is. Words and ideas do not define what acting like a man is. Men acting the way they do does. Which is countless of ways.
I didn’t say macho, and you added toxic. Men and women behave differently. It’s natural. We have different chemicals pumping through our systems and driving our decisions. But men who spend more time with women behave more like women. There’s a study right here talking about it.
We have mostly the same chemicals just different concentrations. Also humans in general show wide variability of behavior, it helps to get out there to realize we are all very similar and different at the same time and there is almost no benefit in thinking in gigantic buckets that encompass half of us.
Define " like women"
You’re downvoting pretty benign responses, and adding a lot of your own preconceptions to what I’ve said, so I’m going to pass. Have a great day though. Keep-on sending it on the wall!
That’s a very reasonable question which you’re clearly trying to avoid answering. You’re generalizing women.
None of the women I know fit into a specific category . My down votes don’t make what you’re saying valid.
Just so you know, it’s possible I misinterpreted what you said, but it sounds like you’re implying it’s a negative thing. Some of the most masculine blokes I know are actually the most supportive people I know. People fit a spectrum.
I know plenty of women with high levels of testosterone in their blood and very little estrogen. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
You know the hormonal levels of several acquaintances? That’s odd. Just because you know people outside of the normal ranges doesn’t change the fact that among people in the ranges that are considered normal by medical science, men have far higher levels of testosterone than women, and lower levels of estrogen. The fact that outliers exist doesn’t change that proven fact.
Are there rules for how genders are supposed to act?
Yes, despite the fact that the existence of those rules is heavily contested in modern society. But I wasn’t talking about social expectations, I’m talking about the effects of hormonal balances which are scientifically proven.
Hormonal balances like %50 female in the dorm?
There are over 200 years of records and observation.
We can make models of how the average man or woman tends to behave in a given region.
For example. We know that men are a lot more likely to study to become mechanics than women. That’s not a rule that women can’t. But it’s a statistic that they often don’t
What’s the statistics say about which ear is good for an earring?
Depends entierly on the region. Different places have different customs regarding the stereotype for which ear is the “good ear”.
What if I don’t follow the rules, but I’m straight?
I never said it’s a rule. I said it’s a stereotype. I dunno. Someone might assume you’re gay.
Assuming is pretty rude. I need an indicator over my head. Something to let them know.
