I don't get the hatred of gays.

[Hakajin]

If that idea has carried over, it's all but nonexistent now. Through the second half of the twentieth century, the man's role has extended greatly. Gender barriers in that area are pretty much gone. Men fill the 'feminine' roles of nurse, teacher, and stay-at-home parent rather naturally. The social attitude towards men in typically domestic or submissive positions has really become quite as even as that of women as doctors and office workers. I believe Time magazine had an article in an issue earlier in the year that included studies of domestic life and men's roles in relationships. The number of homemaker fathers (the kind of man you see changing the baby's diaper in the guys' restroom and handling a bottle of breast-pumped milk), with the mother as the primary 'pants-wearer,' has been increasing greatly.

I disagree. While men can fulfill these rolls, it's still not as acceptable as if a woman were to do it. There's a stereotype, especially among other guys, of guys who take on feminine rolls as being pansies, and in the case of stay-at-home dads, whipped. I mean, it's more acceptable in society, but the stereotypes persist.

 

[Strants]

Yes, anyone could with effort. Just like a person can stop liking carrots if they previously liked them, but there would usually be a reason behind it other than 'just because'.

That arguement is like saying "well, I can bend my finger back about 90 degrees away from my palm, so because the elbow is similar, I should be able to bend it back 90 degrees!" Everything sexual in the brain is controlled by the pinal gland, while I'd assume that, because you like carrots becauseyou remember tasting them in the past and liking the taste, likes/dislikes are controlled in the cerebrum, which the pinal body is not connected to. What I'm saying is, your argument is an apples to oranges comparison.

 

[Profesco]

I disagree. While men can fulfill these rolls, it's still not as acceptable as if a woman were to do it. There's a stereotype, especially among other guys, of guys who take on feminine rolls as being pansies, and in the case of stay-at-home dads, whipped. I mean, it's more acceptable in society, but the stereotypes persist.

Okay, Hakajin. But here's the kicker. The stereotype doesn't translate into the reality. The fact of society is that men are widely accepted in more domestic roles now. Saying the stereotype affects the actual condition is plain incorrect.

I forget how we ended up discussing this in the "hatred of gays" thread, though... Doesn't it seem like our last few posts would have made more sense in the "sexism against men" thread?

 

[Hakajin]

Okay, Hakajin. But here's the kicker. The stereotype doesn't translate into the reality. The fact of society is that men are widely accepted in more domestic roles now. Saying the stereotype affects the actual condition is plain incorrect.

I forget how we ended up discussing this in the "hatred of gays" thread, though... Doesn't it seem like our last few posts would have made more sense in the "sexism against men" thread?

I didn't say that the stereotype affects society. I was saying that other people think they have a duty to fulfill masculine rolls, even if they don't. I was just using that a possible explanation for the hatred of gays.

 

[Profesco]

I didn't say that the stereotype affects society. I was saying that other people think they have a duty to fulfill masculine rolls, even if they don't. I was just using that a possible explanation for the hatred of gays.

Well, if more men than ever are holding domestic roles like stay-at-home dads and kindergarten teachers, and those are okay positions in society's eyes, then who are you talking about that still perceives that stereotype? Not only that, but in order to be a reason to avoid gays, the stereotype of the 'manly man' would have to be set against the stereotype of the 'girly gay guy.' And we know that those stereotypes aren't truly representative.

...Oh, I get it. Your explanation does make sense as a reason for discrimination. In order for that to be the reason, a person must knowingly hold to both stereotypes even though they aren't representative. Well I can't argue with that. Bigotry is the cause for a lot of discrimination.

 

[Strants]

Well, if more men than ever are holding domestic roles like stay-at-home dads and kindergarten teachers, and those are okay positions in society's eyes, then who are you talking about that still perceives that stereotype? Not only that, but in order to be a reason to avoid gays, the stereotype of the 'manly man' would have to be set against the stereotype of the 'girly gay guy.' And we know that those stereotypes aren't truly representative.

IF they were okay if society's eyes. A man can be kindergarden teacher, but people still resent him for it. I remember reading an article saying that a male kindergarden teacher said he'd love to tie a child's scarf, and the child's mother pulled him from the class, saying she didn't wont her child taught by a gay. Also, just because something is outlawed (such as racism) doesn't mean it disappears. As such, saying 'Sexism is gone because it's illegal' mean very little. If I became president of the world and outlawed breathing, what do you think would happen?

 

[Profesco]

Hm. Well yes, Strants, I acknowledged that type of person in the other section of my post. However, the bigot is the societal minority nowadays, isn't it? These domestic men are societally accepted for the most part.

 

[Hakajin]

Well, if more men than ever are holding domestic roles like stay-at-home dads and kindergarten teachers, and those are okay positions in society's eyes, then who are you talking about that still perceives that stereotype? Not only that, but in order to be a reason to avoid gays, the stereotype of the 'manly man' would have to be set against the stereotype of the 'girly gay guy.' And we know that those stereotypes aren't truly representative.

...Oh, I get it. Your explanation does make sense as a reason for discrimination. In order for that to be the reason, a person must knowingly hold to both stereotypes even though they aren't representative. Well I can't argue with that. Bigotry is the cause for a lot of discrimination.

To tell the truth, I think it's mostly other guys who stick to those stereotypes. Mm... I think men who consider themselves just "average guys" who like "guy things" like sports and beer also discriminate against what they call "girly men."

 

[Profesco]

To tell the truth, I think it's mostly other guys who stick to those stereotypes. Mm... I think men who consider themselves just "average guys" who like "guy things" like sports and beer also discriminate against what they call "girly men."

Yes, I have uncles like that: total hurly-burly gruff men. But, one of my uncles is a stay-at-home dad, and the other is an ordained minister and loves to cook and paint.

I do understand what you're saying! I'm just going to stick to the point that the reality has changed. The stereotype (while it still exists in small circles) just isn't as prevalent anymore.

Hmm... The guys in the Confessions thread seem to think I'm around really open-minded people...

 

[blaziken33]

I think people just discriminate because they're not alike.

While being gay is a sin in the bible, people, guys usually shun gays because they're different, much like the racism a few decades ago.

Then again some guys are afraid of '***gots' making a move on them.

 

[Strants]

Hm. Well yes, Strants, I acknowledged that type of person in the other section of my post. However, the bigot is the societal minority nowadays, isn't it? These domestic men are societally accepted for the most part

You acknowledged bigotry? Can't believe I missed that!
However, saying bigots are a minority is, in my opinion, false. Bigotry doesn't have to be beating, denying rights, etc. Bigotry is often engrained so deep in our brains that we don't even notice it. What about fat people? If I denied that I though less of an obese person because of their wieght, I'd be lying (not proud of it, but it is the truth). Also, what about that two faced (literally) girl? She was thought of differently because of something she couldn't control. When it comes down to it, bigotry is a lot more common than we'd like to admit. Even racism (think mexicans) is not totally dead, and saying it is, or that it is a 'minority' can be an excuse to ignore it.

 

[Profesco]

Yes, here:

...Oh, I get it. Your explanation does make sense as a reason for discrimination. In order for that to be the reason, a person must knowingly hold to both stereotypes even though they aren't representative. Well I can't argue with that. Bigotry is the cause for a lot of discrimination.

However, saying bigots are a minority is, in my opinion, false. Bigotry doesn't have to be beating, denying rights, etc. Bigotry is often engrained so deep in our brains that we don't even notice it. What about fat people? If I denied that I though less of an obese person because of their wieght, I'd be lying (not proud of it, but it is the truth). Also, what about that two faced (literally) girl? She was thought of differently because of something she couldn't control. When it comes down to it, bigotry is a lot more common than we'd like to admit. Even racism (think mexicans) is not totally dead, and saying it is, or that it is a 'minority' can be an excuse to ignore it.

Really? I suppose having some bigotted thoughts is common, but as a society, we are significantly more accepting than we were thirty or forty years ago. (Of course, I didn't exist back then...) I'm also almost certain that I didn't say 'racism is dead'...

 

[Strants]

Really? I suppose having some bigotted thoughts is common, but as a society, we are significantly more accepting than we were thirty or forty years ago.

I won't deny that.

I'm also almost certain that I didn't say 'racism is dead'...

No, you didn't. Some people probably have, but not you. I guess I shouldn't have put it; I just get really fired up when posting, I guess. Sorry.

Anyways, we have the same views on the main topic, so this begs the question: why are we always fighting each-other? (I guess this is a valid question in almost every fight, but still. . .)

 

[Profesco]

Anyways, we have the same views on the main topic, so this begs the question: why are we always fighting each-other? (I guess this is a valid question in almost every fight, but still. . .)

We've been fighting each other? Sorry, Strants, I guess I didn't think we were arguing. We were discussing a societal status quo that was relevant to the current vein of the topic. Right? (Agree with me; the mods are always watching us...)

 

[Strants]

We've been fighting each other? Sorry, Strants, I guess I didn't think we were arguing. We were discussing a societal status quo that was relevant to the current vein of the topic. Right? (Agree with me; the mods are always watching us...)

We've had a disagreement, or argument, not a fight, I guess. Fight is just shorter, and as such, easier to say. (The mods are always watching? They seem to be omniscent; knowing what we post, omnipotent; as in banning, and they are supposed to be omnibenevolent. Sound familiar to something else we kindly debated like civilized gentlemen a page or two back?)

 

[Profesco]

We've had a disagreement, or argument, not a fight, I guess. Fight is just shorter, and as such, easier to say. (The mods are always watching? They seem to be omniscent; knowing what we post, omnipotent; as in banning, and they are supposed to be omnibenevolent. Sound familiar to something else we kindly debated like civilized gentlemen a page or two back?)

Very nice comparison. It all makes perfect sense now!

Oh yeah, I had forgotten about that. I guess you're right, we have quibbled over the same point of view before. Oh well. It's the debate forum, after all. What else is there to do but debate?

(Except for spamming this thread up... Sorry, Eszett! I'm going to stop now.)

(Strants, you can PM me if there's anything else you wanted to fight over. )

 

[Hakajin]

I do understand what you're saying! I'm just going to stick to the point that the reality has changed. The stereotype (while it still exists in small circles) just isn't as prevalent anymore.

Oh, well I agree with that. I was just saying trying to explain where the stereotype might come from, and how it might affect society's perception of gays.

 

[kotchomet]

Those who hate homosexuals are goings against the teachings of the Christian religion. These people do not represent Christians, and generalizations should not be based on them.

that's true, but there are a whole lot of haters, in fact more than non-haters, i would say, based on personal experience, so it's pretty justifiable when someone makes a generalization based on that. ;351-r;

 

[kotchomet]

Those who hate homosexuals are goings against the teachings of the Christian religion. These people do not represent Christians, and generalizations should not be based on them.

that's true, but there are a whole lot of haters, in fact more than non-haters, i would say, based on personal experience, so it's pretty justifiable when someone makes a generalization based on that. ;351-r;

 

[kotchomet]

Those who hate homosexuals are goings against the teachings of the Christian religion. These people do not represent Christians, and generalizations should not be based on them.

that's true, but there are a whole lot of haters, in fact more than non-haters, i would say, based on personal experience, so it's pretty justifiable when someone makes a generalization based on that. ;351-r;