How interesting! And yes, it is difficult to think about things that are good about being a man (and at 5'6" I don't even have height). Some of the advantages we enjoy (for example, being less likely to experience sex discrimination) are hardly things to be proud about.
Reflecting on me and my son (Sam), there are some social roles (labels, if you like) that are probably more open to men/ boys than women/ girls. Sam and I are definitely "geeks" - we love board games, fantasy stories, and being mildly obsessive about various things. I think it is probably a bit trickier for girls who have this interest. But of course, it cuts both ways - and many "feminine" social roles are trickier.
Thanks James. Your comment reflects one of the challenges I had with the exercise - avoiding thinking about the downsides!
I'm not sure I agree that men in general are less likely to experience sex discrimination these days. I speak to many recruiters who would prefer to hire women, for example.
I know many men who are empathetic, kind, compassionate, resilient, intelligent, productive, driven etc. I was struck by how hard it was to think of those words when thinking about men more broadly.
I wonder if one of the challenges of claiming some of these characteristics for men is the implicit association they don’t apply to women. Of course many men are those wonderful things and more, but not uniquely. To say a it’s great to be a man because men are intelligent/driven/compassionate is problematic.
There is a broad problem of generalisation & exclusion with this whole exercise. The list of 25+ good things they claimed for women included lots of attributes I associate with some men.
Maybe that's where they got stuck. It's not possible to define things that are generally true for half the population and generally not true for the other half.
I think the goal was to celebrate the positive of one group, rather than exclude other groups.
I couldn't agree more with both of you! In constructing identity groups, it is unavoidable that we define not only those in the groups but also (implicitly at least) those outside them.
Of course, it is often very helpful to recognise and celebrate particular groups - and it is also fantastic when people realise they are in a particular group and "find their tribe". But every time we say what makes a group special, we are defining what other groups lack!
For what it's worth, this is where an existential approach can help. Jean-Paul Sartre said "existence precedes essence", which I understand as meaning that we are not "essentially" one thing or another - and the labels others apply to us (or we to ourselves) do not define us. We exist, and are free to be who we want to be - if labels and groups help us do this, then great (although I don't think Sartre would be a big fan of identity politics), but we need to hold this lightly.
How interesting! And yes, it is difficult to think about things that are good about being a man (and at 5'6" I don't even have height). Some of the advantages we enjoy (for example, being less likely to experience sex discrimination) are hardly things to be proud about.
Reflecting on me and my son (Sam), there are some social roles (labels, if you like) that are probably more open to men/ boys than women/ girls. Sam and I are definitely "geeks" - we love board games, fantasy stories, and being mildly obsessive about various things. I think it is probably a bit trickier for girls who have this interest. But of course, it cuts both ways - and many "feminine" social roles are trickier.
So - not a lot to add, I'm afraid!
Thanks James. Your comment reflects one of the challenges I had with the exercise - avoiding thinking about the downsides!
I'm not sure I agree that men in general are less likely to experience sex discrimination these days. I speak to many recruiters who would prefer to hire women, for example.
I know many men who are empathetic, kind, compassionate, resilient, intelligent, productive, driven etc. I was struck by how hard it was to think of those words when thinking about men more broadly.
I wonder if one of the challenges of claiming some of these characteristics for men is the implicit association they don’t apply to women. Of course many men are those wonderful things and more, but not uniquely. To say a it’s great to be a man because men are intelligent/driven/compassionate is problematic.
There is a broad problem of generalisation & exclusion with this whole exercise. The list of 25+ good things they claimed for women included lots of attributes I associate with some men.
Maybe that's where they got stuck. It's not possible to define things that are generally true for half the population and generally not true for the other half.
I think the goal was to celebrate the positive of one group, rather than exclude other groups.
I couldn't agree more with both of you! In constructing identity groups, it is unavoidable that we define not only those in the groups but also (implicitly at least) those outside them.
Of course, it is often very helpful to recognise and celebrate particular groups - and it is also fantastic when people realise they are in a particular group and "find their tribe". But every time we say what makes a group special, we are defining what other groups lack!
For what it's worth, this is where an existential approach can help. Jean-Paul Sartre said "existence precedes essence", which I understand as meaning that we are not "essentially" one thing or another - and the labels others apply to us (or we to ourselves) do not define us. We exist, and are free to be who we want to be - if labels and groups help us do this, then great (although I don't think Sartre would be a big fan of identity politics), but we need to hold this lightly.
Love that James