Since this sort of item has gone over fairly well in the Femme cf, I figured I
would enter one in the Homme cf.  So, men, what do you like best about being
male?  I can think of a ton of reasons why I *love* men, so now it's your turn
to brag.  =)

81 responses total.

Hmm...
I like the fact that people don't assume I'm weak or incompetent - I don't
feel like I have to prove myself to people the same way women seem to have
to.
I like not having to deal with periods, or PMS, or worrying about getting
pregnant, although in a way I'm also a bit jealous of that.
As insignificant as it sounds, I like being able to go to the bathroom
standing up.
I like not having to worry about walking alone at night, but I also feel a
bit guilty when I realize how lucky I am in that respect.

Actually, it surprises me how hard a time I have coming up with this list...
hmm...

Orinoco - I'm extremely envious of the "unzip and whip" feature, especially
when I'm hiking or camping.

Peeing standing up is a big plus.  Facial hair and the need to scrape
it off every single day is a minus, but having the choice of letting
it grow if you like more than offsets that.  

Some comedian (Tim Allen or Dennis Leary) taunts the women in the
audience by casually dropping the line: "Of course, we own all the
good stuff."  ("We" meaning men.)  It gets a big cheer from the men
in the audience and nervous laughter from the women.  It may be more
or less true, but I'm not sure it's an advantage for any particular
man or a disadvantage for any woman.  It's like being an alumnus of
U. of M. and bragging about "your" school going to the Rose Bowl.
It give you a boost psychologically, but it's not going to pay your
mortgage.  Also, not only do we own all the good stuff, but we own 
all the really bad stuff as well, and we have the responsibility
that comes with ownership of stuff, good or bad.  Still, we do
own it all.  Can't deny that.

This next one is controversial and I know a lot of hands are going
to go up, but...   Men are *way* more competent with mechanical
things.  It's true.  And I'm beginning to think there's a genetic
element of some kind to it.  The exceptions (put your hands down,
please) are few and far between, and, frankly ladies, not very 
impressive.  The biggest exception I've ever seen was a fictional
character: Marisa Tomei's character in the movie "My Cousin Vinnie,"
who said her work history included "tune-ups, lube jobs, rebuilt a
few trannies" -- and that was like seeing a dog trained to walk on 
its hind legs.  So unusual and impressive was it that Tomei won an
Oscar for making it even a little bit believable.  ;-)

Just what it is that men "own", Michael?

The Fortune 500.  The banks, the investment houses, the insurance
companies.

Land.  Airlines.  Trucking companies.  Shipping companies.

The great private libraries and art collections.

Most of the small businesses and franchises.

You know, stuff like that.

I thought the stockholders owned most of those things and
last I heard women were buying stocks too, in large numbers.

The artwork is owned by married couples, mostly, or being held in trusts
to keep the taxperson at bay.  Businesses and franchises are not owned by
men to the extent they can claim ownership over ownership.  Banks and
insurance companies are *run* by old white men.  Their time is almost up. 
Shall we throw them a going away party when they die? 

> Banks and insurance companies are *run* by old 
> white men.  Their time is almost up.  Shall we 
> throw them a going away party when they die?

Why the emphasis on "run"?  "Run" as opposed to what?  Owned?  But 
they're owned *and* run by men ("old white" ones, too, as you say).  
As to who replaces them when they die, the comedian I mentioned was 
only playing off an oft-repeated and well-justified feminist complaint. 
If it's about to be no longer true, then, all kidding aside, women 
won't be able to complain anymore, will they?  If I thought there was
the smallest chance of *that* happening I'd gladly join you in nursing
the preposterous hope that the current Gnomes of Zurich will be 
replaced by lady gnomes when they die.  I'd even go over there and 
whack a couple of gnomes myself.

> Businesses and franchises are not owned by men to 
> the extent they can claim ownership over ownership.

75% of all private corporations are owned by men, and these male-owned 
corporations generate 92% of the revenues of all private corporations.  
If you want to say that's not enough to "claim ownership over 
ownership," whatever that means, I won't argue with you.  I'm too busy 
counting my money.

> I thought the stockholders owned most of those 
> things and last I heard women were buying stocks 
> too, in large numbers.

I'm also too busy counting my money to look up what the percent of 
women-owned equity in public corporations is, but I bet it isn't very
big.  I don't know about these investrices you claim exist "in large 
numbers"; but there's no denying that there are some *staggering* blocks 
of stock in the hands of little old ladies who inherited them from
their husbands.  I'm rather fond of little old ladies, however, so I 
won't suggest throwing them a going-away party when they die.  (There 
are also the first-wives-club jackpot-winners like Ivana Trump.  You 
can have her.)

Anyway, I only said it was "more or less true."  There are always 
exceptions.  So we own *almost* all of science, technology, commerce, 
finance, transportation, communications, energy, real estate, sports 
and the arts.  I won't deny that women own almost all of everything 
else. ;-)  

Mary, much as I hate to admit it, md's right on that one.  Yes, women do own
stocks, companies, etc. - I'm not disputing that - but you can't claim that
the ground is equal here.  The corporate world is made up overwhelmingly of
men, and the higher up you go the truer that is.
I wouldn't say it was something I was _proud_ of, certainly it's not one of
the reasons I like my gender, but hey, to each his own...

Too, women have come much farther in stock ownership than in executive 
suite residency.  Current corporate culture is that the latter really
means far more than the former.

I guess I'm looking at it from the point of view things are
getting better for women.  When I see that 75% of all private
corporations are owned by men (your stated figures) that 
makes me feel quite good.  I mean, the ideal figure would be
50%, right?  And women have only been playing the game for
maybe the last 20 years or so.

I'd also bet that if you counted all of the stock owned by
women, either jointly with their spouse, or individually,
it would amount to quite a chunk of corporate assets.
I call that ownership.  I'm not talking about little old
ladies who hold vast amounts of B&O Railroad.  I'm talking
about your female neighbor, your daughter's female teacher,
the waitress at Big Boy.  Scary, eh?  Our money is just
as green.

Sexist corporate policy is indeed still a problem, but it's
getting better.  Check out the backlash at Avon right now
over the installation of a male CEO.  Stockholders are not
amused.  And I think similar companies are watching with
interest.

But go ahead, think of yourself (men) as owning it all.
Just don't forget to ask permission before buying anything
with *your* money. ;-)

This response has been erased.

If you want to test the REAL native cooking ability of a manly man, do
it out in the middle of nowhere on a men-only macho tough wilderness trip.
Given real hunger, macho reinforcement, and no way to dump the job on a
woman, pizza joint, etc., most men quickly prove that they weren't born
to be worthless in a kitchen, just raised that way.

Not sure how much of a gender bias there is to techno-mechanical ability
(remember Rosie the Riveter?), or how far socialization pushes things
from their "natural" state, but i'll certainly vouch for the powerful
genetic influence in that area.  I spent a couple evenings over at my
sister's a few winters ago fixing a garage door opener that had "died"
the coldest week of the year.  Each night, a niece spent most of the 
time out in the garage with me (choice, or maternal command?  dunno).
One was willing to help, but ignored my work and chatted unless given
direction.  The other wanted both continuous tasks she could do to help
and continuous explanation of how the opener worked, what might be wrong
with it, the logic behind my troubleshooting choices, etc., etc.  Every-
thing i've seen & heard about them suggests that their differing interests
are NOT environmentally based.  Any problem guessing which one will grow
up to be better at the various macho & nerdly arts?

(It occurs to me that enjoying being male because 'men are better mechanics'
and enjoying being female because 'women are more flexible' or 'women are more
open' aren't too far apart, and nobody's objecting to the stereotypes on the
female side.   I don't know whether the difference in reactions is justified
or not...)

This response has been erased.

I think there are enough exceptions to these stereotypes that
they are useful only to those who need to feel part of a group.
Some get a sense of "specialness" from being part of a religion.
Some get it from having similar color skin.  Some get it from
sharing similar genitals.

All those who can assemble a bicycle on Christmas Eve now
raise their hands.  But I don't think those who can't are
any more likely to be sitting near the tree in a lotus positon.

This response has been erased.

The traditional feminist explanation for the huge discrepancy in
culinary abilities between men and women is that the patriarchy
keeps women confined to the kitchen (and the nursery) so they won't
be able to compete with men in the workplace.  If there was ever 
any truth in that, you'd think it would've entropied itself away
to nothingness by now.  I, for one, am offended by the stereotype
of the cartoon dad in his barbecue apron and singed-off eyebrows
standing over a pile of unrecognizably burnt gobbets of meat on
the grill, or the hapless husband cracking an egg on the counter
and then trying to carry it messily over to the frying pan on the 
stove, as his wife stands amusedly by.  

Luckily, I belong to yet another of those groups that Mary says 
impart a sense of "specialness" to their members: I'm Italian.  
As a result, I fit the equally cartoonish, yet, in this case, 
accurate stereotype of the man who will shove everyone else of both
sexes and all ages out of "his" kitchen, at gunpoint if need be, so 
he can create, from scratch, a pot of delicious pasta sauce, 
complete with meatballs or sausage or whatever the family request, 
as depicted in one movie after another.  Think of Danny Aiello in 
"Two Days in the Valley" or Paul Sorvino and Ray Liotta in 
"GoodFellas."  (Note that they have to get actual Italians to play 
these parts.  No amount of mere acting can make you look like you 
know what you're doing in the kitchen.)  In general, though, I 
agree that my fellow testiculo-Americans are lamentably deprived in 
this area.  Any time you're tired of the meatloaf and stuffed 
cabbage, guys...

Mary - while I agree with what you're saying, it's interesting that nobody's
raised that objection in the version of this item in femme...

What do *you* think the reason is, 'noco?

This response has been erased.

Women have the attribute of being able to have babies.
  (*really* impressive upbringing)
Men have the attribute of being macho stupid jerks.
  (can't help it, genetic, not our fault, more denial, etc.)

Re #19: I can't say for certain, but I'd guess it's something similar to the
discrepancy valerie's talking about.  
I think part of it is that 'women's work' has been made little of for so long
that now things are flowing in the opposite direction and it's becoming a
matter of pride for women that they tend to be more nurturing, etc.  But, on
the other hand, 'men's work' has been overinflated for so long that now, in
reaction, traits that are traditionally masculine - like strength, holding
in one's feelings, and so forth - are seen as less important.
Thinking about it now, it may also be due to the fact that those 'masculine'
virtues are becoming less important.  In most of our lives, strength isn't
really important anymore, while things like communication are.  I don't know
whether that's really a valid reason or not.
Yeah, I gotta go think some more too...

Stereotypes can be a comfort.  When I attack some defective device with an
array of tools, I have my whole culture behind me, assuring me that I can
figure out how to use a pipe wrench because I'm a guy and guys know how to
do these things.  Actually, I don't know anything of the sort, but the
stereotype makes it easier for me to bluff, and a good bluff works out an
amazingly large percentage of the time.  The cultural presumption of
competence allows me to easily approach anything from walking through a
dubious neighborhood at night to addressing the board of directors with
relative confidence.  This is one of the nice things about being a guy.

Of course, the cultural presumption of confidence abandons me completely when
it comes to things like picking up a baby.  If a guy picks up a baby, our
culture watches suspiciously, since he is quite likely to drop it on its head.
Similarly, while a man may walk the streets at night with less fear, it is
a sure thing that every woman that he meets on those dark streets will suspect
him of being a rapist.

Hmmm...I guess I don't have much to add to "what I like about being male"
beyond what orinoco said in the first response.  Mostly minor things.  I don't
think much about being male.  I try to like being myself.  Maleness isn't that
important a part of that.

(speechless)

(why?)

It gives me great comfort to walk into a classical
music concert wearing white skin because white skinned
people fit the sterotype of the classical music culture
in our society.

(I think Jan just exactly fit what I was describing in #15.)
(Way to go, Jan!) ;-)

What Mary said in #15 was: "I think there are enough exceptions to
these stereotypes that they are useful only to those who need to 
feel part of a group.  Some get a sense of "specialness" from being 
part of a religion.  Some get it from having similar color skin.  
Some get it from sharing similar genitals."

We have no way of knowing whether Jan is the sort of person who 
"needs to feel part of a group," although I've never seen any 
evidence that he does and I would never suggest so.  But that's 
beside the point.  Jan *is* part of this particular group and, 
for better or for worse, is identified as such by others, on 
sight.  He's just telling us what it's like.  What's the problem?

Well, I've never had the experience of going to a classical music concert in
black skin, but I've been white in primarily black audiences and male in
primarily female audiences, and it can be a bit disconcerting.  
I guess the strongest example of this is a Tori Amos concert I went to a while
back, with an audience that was at least three-quarters female.  Tori builds
up an incredible amount of energy performing live, and there was an incredible
amount of energy in the audience, and there were times when it struck me that
all that energy was directed against who I am.  It was frightening to realize
that, but it was also food for thought.

I see what you're saying, mary, in #26, but it also occurs to me that, if you
turned that statement around, it wouldn't seem so strange.  It sounds deeply
racist to say 'I like going to classical concerts because I'm a white guy in
a white audience', and similarly it would seem racist for a white musician
to devote his act to white supremacist ranting; on the other hand, it seems
reasonable that black audience members in an all-black audience should find
it a positive experience, or that some black musicians should become popular
by ranting against white society.
It's the same with the sex of a group - if I said I liked going to heavy metal
concerts because there weren't many women in the audience, I'd sound like a
sexist pig, but if a woman at that Tori Amos concert said she liked being in
a mostly-female audience, it would sound reasonable.  And if an all-male band
puts out a song with heavily misogynist lyrics, a lot more people are offended
than if a female artist puts out an equally misandrist (is that even a word?)
song.

isn't country music more white than classical music?
I honestly don0t whether it is regarded a positive thing for black musicians
to rant against white people.
Such actions always contain the risk of putting people up against each other,
and this never is a good thing.
But hey, as a former punk rock singer I ranted against anything I didn't like
(society mainly), so maybe it is all part of being young.
Also, I have got great doubt about the sincerety of the average musician
(black, white purple) towards society and the like.

Ok, my opinion:
stereotypes are to be countered.
That's why many men don0t think I am a man's man, that0s why many women think
I a such a good person to talk to, that's why I am almost never regarded a
threat in whatever perspective.
This is my personal way ofbeing a man, and I am proud of that.

I think Mary was using the white skin/classical concert thing as
an extreme and much more obvious example of the absurdity she
thinkscharacterized Jan's response.  She doesn't actually feel
happy to be white when she goes to a classical music concert,
she was just ...  Oh, forget it.  Reminds me of the website that
has a feature aimed at proving the absurdity of the Bible Code
book, by using the Bible Code author's method to find uncanny
prophecies in Moby Dick.  They found Princess Diana's death,
you name it.  They were very pleased with themselves until they
started getting emails from people who thought they were
serious and had actually discovered some mystical code in
Moby Dick.  James Randi's site.  Check it out.

<laugh>
They should have just changed books again.  To something like the Buffalo,
NY phone directory or the Pentagon's procurement standard for toilet paper.

From _Webster's New World Dictionary_:

stereotype: n. 3.an unvarying form or pattern: specif., a 
            fixed or conventional notion or conception, as of
            a person, group, idea, etc., held by a number of
            people, and allowing for no individuality, critical
            judgement, etc.

Using stereotypes are dangerous.  Even when they look like a harmless form
of comfort they are dangerous, to someone.  I don't mean to pick on Jan
here, as we all do it to some degree, but I'll use his ability to draw
comfort and courage from the fact he is male and males have a
mechanical ability hard-coded into their genes, to get him through those
hard times when it's necessary to use a screwdriver. 

Now, if there is a chance Jan is just funnin' with us here, but if
he isn't then I find it hard to believe that when he goes to hire
a person for a job where mechanical skills are essential, that his
"comfort zone" won't mean that a woman is at a disadvantage, even
if this critical judgement is mostly unconscious.  Discrimination
thrives through stereotypes.

If I bought into a stereotype of Italian men it would go back
to 90% of the Italian men I've ever know while growing up in
a predominantly Italian neighborhood in Detroit.  They are all
short and strong and they are gods when it comes to cement.
They love food and love eating but are never seen in
the kitchen.  The Italian women cook, and keep house, and
raise the children.  And for it they are treated like cattle
with very little show of respect from their husbands.  Good
thing I don't buy into that being the way it is for all Italians,
eh?

I try to avoid using stereotypes, in general.  They tend to 
be wrong, dangerous to someone, and make us lazy thinkers.
So, unless you're talking about a task requiring a uterus
or a penis, eggs or sperm, then I don't buy into any phrase
starting with "men always" or "women are".

Mary, you obviously read Jan's response through the haze of your 
total rejection of it.  You should go back and re-read what Jan 
wrote.  I think he *was* having a little fun with the subject but 
in a Jan-esque way, which often means looking for the element of 
truth, however small or ironic, in some unpopular opinion. 
In any case, he certainly didn't say *anything* like "men have a 
mechanical ability hard-coded into their genes."  Go read it for yourself.

[Clue: If you can make an intelligent and reasonably accurate
paraphrase of what someone says, it's probably okay to go ahead
and criticise it.]

This response has been erased.

This response has been erased.

[I haven't noticed anything weird]

I think there are two separate issues here.  The first is whether the two
sexes have different tendencies at all, and the second is whether it is
appropriate to be proud of these tendencies.

As for the first, mary, I'm well aware - and I think Jan is too - that
stereotypes can be dangerous things.  But, and this is important, there is
often an element of truth in them, they can be helpful as well as dangerous,
and whether you like it or not you use them.
Stereotypes do arise for a reason.  This doesn't mean _all_ stereotypes are
useful or harmless, but it means some are.  Consider, for instance, the idea
of a "Jewish banking conspiracy".  This is an example of a stereotype that
I _would_ call wrong-headed and dangerous, but it is rooted in some small way
in reality.
In England during, I belive, the 1600s, there were pretty heavy restrictions
placed on foreigners that tended to channel them into certain professions and
away from others.  Because of these restrictions, and because the Jews there
at that time tended to be moderately well-educated and literate, many of them
wound up as merchants or moneylenders.  
So, I'm not saying it would be a good thing if my first reaction, upon
learning someone was Jewish, was to think "Oh, gee, there goes a vile scheming
member of the international banking conspiracy."  What I am saying is that,
if I lived in 1600's England, "Oh, gee, I wonder if they're a merchant" would
be an appropriate reaction.  It's neither a harmful nor a malicious
assumption, and if I found out they were something else, I'd just change my
impression of them.

So no, mechanical aptitude doesn't require a penis, testosterone, or sperm
any more than nurturing requires a uterus, estrogen, or eggs - but it is true
that a certain type of man will conjure up an image in my mind of him changing
the oil in his car, and a certain type of woman will conjure up an image of
raising kids.  Now, this is entirely different from assuming that the man is
an insensitive, uncaring brute and the woman is a weak-minded inept sissy.
Instead, it's a harmless generalization - usually correct, occasionally 
wrong - and I don't see how it does any damage.

     (49) #23  Jan Wolter (janc)
     Fri, Jan  2, 1998 (23:18).   21 lines.
     Stereotypes can be a comfort.  When I attack some defective device
     with an array of tools, I have my whole culture behind me, assuring
     me that I can figure out how to use a pipe wrench because I'm a guy
     and guys know how to do these things.  [The response continues]

Okay, Michael, I reread it.  Now what. ;-)

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss