Good luck with the show! I'll be in Iceland, if all goes well. There are real men and women there. I fear we may lose it.

Sex and gender are two different things. Though we scientifically understand next to nothing about sexual orientation, we know something about gender and much more about sex. Most of us don't question our sex or gender, especially men, comfortable with their maleness and masculinity. Why should they? They are 'Real Men On Top' as Robin's forthcoming book is titled.

Here's why. There is no state or country where men outlive women. Being male kills men. Men are victims of crime at much higher rates than women as well. Men commit homicides nearly nine times as often as women. The stats go on and on.

There are biological reasons for this disparity, but social norms that don't support males through adulthood bring much pain and harm. That may seem odd to say men need support when they are the criminals and lottery winners with respect to wages and opportunity. Nevertheless, it is perhaps true. That men rarely are open and honest about their lives is further fodder for change.

The absolute best solution for the ills of masculinity is equal rights for women. Once we correct that wrong, we can genuinely share the childcare and parenting that perforce humanizes.

Women and men are more alike than they are different despite the broad differences in masculinity and femininity. Cognitively there is far more variation within the sexes than between them. SARS 2 may have reversed course on women in the workplace. Hopefully, we can right that ship. Male lives depend on it.

https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/what-masculinity#comment-6888

You must first define what "...a man" is before you can define what it is that "makes" one. In our day and age it cannot be assumed that the individual recieving ur query has a true definition of what a man is.. Many feel that there is more to a man than just having a penis/fallace. Then there are those who believe that identifying male from female is as simple as that; what are its genitalia/body parts?
This may sound like oversimplification, and it is in part; but if u consider the fact that we, as human beings, regularly look at othe species/life forms as male or female based on the "gear/junk" they physically have, then it stands to reason that a base definition for what a man is or isnt could readily be identified by what "equipment" the body is carrying.

You must first define what "...a man" is before you can define what it is that "makes" one. In our day and age it cannot be assumed that the individual recieving ur query has a true definition of what a man is.. Many feel that there is more to a man than just having a penis/fallace. Then there are those who believe that identifying male from female is as simple as that; what are its genitalia/body parts?
This may sound like oversimplification, and it is in part; but if u consider the fact that we, as human beings, regularly look at othe species/life forms as male or female based on the "gear/junk" they physically have, then it stands to reason that a base definition for what a man is or isnt could readily be identified by what "equipment" the body is carrying.

Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) and 5-alpha reductase 2 deficiency give me pause to accept Robin’s views toward masculinity. These can manifest in gonadal male youth being raised as girls until puberty, when their intersex is discovered. Any view of masculinity must include these males and protect their freedom, childhood, and bodies. This would entail a philosophical commitment to careful, cautious, and enlightened nurturing of all children through puberty and adulthood. Protecting youth is where masculinity philosophers need to focus their thought.

Parenting is a counterexample to the complementarity argument for using masculinity for its explanatory sake. Sensuality, pleasure, and friendship are other examples. Humans have standard biology, purpose, and meaning in life that far outweighs their gender differences.

It is incumbent on philosophers of gender to push back on feminist psychology that has co-opted gender to talk to female issues, values and emancipation. This is not pleasant work or popular. It is a foundation of the masculine view whether Dembroff agrees with it or not. They should speak to it. Philosophy needs a broader perspective than expressed by Robin here.

The history of gender, surgical reconstruction, and power are morally questionable. Dembroff needs to call these out more clearly (I hear them, but it has to be a primary and fundamental tenet) if they want to speak to utilitarian masculinity. The problem of women’s bodies is, to a large extent, masculine.

Overall I’m impressed with Robin’s theses and look forward to reading and reacting to this book. Sex, gender, sexual orientation, behavior, and sensuality are crucial to a happy life. It’s hard to be critical when this book is forthcoming, and I didn’t attend the show. This show didn’t go where I thought it would, and now I’m sorry not to have written in questions for Dr. Dembroff.

Cross post with show - https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/what-masculinity#comment-6906

I would imagine that a person/persons such as Hellen Keller and or those who are born with "deafblindness" syndrome had/have to be able to identify/learn about the nature of not only their fellow beings but also about the beings that they are. Without being able to see or hear they must come to know what a man is, If not how would they be able to distinguish the abilities/Masculinities of themselves and others?
They obviously do come to a "base" definition of male/female, how else would they know what they are physically capable of? That "base" definition must and can only be established by defining parts of the body. Since they cannot see the gestures of male or female, which in todays society often "define" to individuals gender (such as walk style), nor can they hear the bias opinion of what "makes" a man differ from woman, they must solely rely on tacktile information and must therefore judge/conclude through touching of the body part/cover of humans/books of what a man or woman is. This is, as i stated at the outset, the "base" of understanding that, i believe, we as humans must first agree upon before we can try and understand "what" makes/defines the book/man (i.e., book contents).