Isn't "masculine men" a redundancy? If we say that masculine men are preferred, what do we mean, and what are our assumptions? That there's some presumptions about what the characteristics of men are and that men who more strongly bear those traits are to be preferred. And it may also imply that those men who are "feminine" are disapproved of.
Instead of using stereotypes about what men and women are supposed to be ideally, think of positive and negative traits without stereotypes.
Positive traits include taking care of people, talking with people, protecting the weak, cooking, honesty, pleasant personailty, etc.
Negative traits include violent behavior, greed, arrogance, ill temper, dishonesty.
None of these traits are essential to either men or women-- all are found to some degree or other in all people.
Essentialists come in various flavors -- those who think women are naturally nurturing earthmothers, chauvinist gay nazi misogynists, and they're all wrong. Generalizers, stereotypers, prejudicers. You can't assume -- or rather, you can, but it's assinine.
Some people also think that posessing secondary sexual characteristics in abundance, such as body or facial hair, musculature, or large breasts makes one more of a man or more of a woman.
Hogwash.
Being more like a stereotype doesn't make you a better person. Whether you're naturally endowed with some extra hormones, or you've been aquiring them elsewhere, you're still just a human, not some sort of oversexed demigod! You oughta recuperate! And put something on over that tanktop, for goodness sake!
A defense that could be used is that someone simply prefers people who fall withing a certain range of physical characteristics. That's fine when chosing sexual partners -- after all, nobody can have sex with every other person in the world. But to limit your social friendships based on physical characteristics or behavior is a form of prejudice.
Larry-bob
larrybob@gmail.com
8/18/2000