- #1
Researcher X
- 93
- 0
That's a mouthful, but what I mean is this: why is it that we are concerned about other members of our gender living up to their masculinity or femininity? Also, is this perhaps stronger in males than females?
If a boy or even a man is a "sissy", and exhibits stereotypical feminine traits, he is almost invariably - and across cultures, though what is considered masc or fem in particular may vary - made into a target and attacked for the way he is. This may also be the main motivation behind homophobia. Even adults find humor in a man stepping outside of gender roles, and often see him as weak and pathetic.
Why is this? If a man is less masculine, he is less competition. Encouraging other males to be more stereotypically male and live up to the challenge of their contemporaries is a loser's game, because you encourage someone to improve into a rival they would otherwise not be.
A simple example: picking on the weak, lazy fat guy, only encourages him to lose weight and become more motivated, perhaps in the future becoming successful enough in life to take females from you. From this line of thought, the behavior makes little sense, and is an evolutionary disadvantage.
Fathers and mothers would want their children to live up to attractive archetypes, however, so is it possible that the enforcing behavior on non-related persons of the same gender is simply an emergent byproduct of the behavior needed for fathers and mothers to ensure a continuing gene line?
If a boy or even a man is a "sissy", and exhibits stereotypical feminine traits, he is almost invariably - and across cultures, though what is considered masc or fem in particular may vary - made into a target and attacked for the way he is. This may also be the main motivation behind homophobia. Even adults find humor in a man stepping outside of gender roles, and often see him as weak and pathetic.
Why is this? If a man is less masculine, he is less competition. Encouraging other males to be more stereotypically male and live up to the challenge of their contemporaries is a loser's game, because you encourage someone to improve into a rival they would otherwise not be.
A simple example: picking on the weak, lazy fat guy, only encourages him to lose weight and become more motivated, perhaps in the future becoming successful enough in life to take females from you. From this line of thought, the behavior makes little sense, and is an evolutionary disadvantage.
Fathers and mothers would want their children to live up to attractive archetypes, however, so is it possible that the enforcing behavior on non-related persons of the same gender is simply an emergent byproduct of the behavior needed for fathers and mothers to ensure a continuing gene line?