Of course you're right that car knowledge is coded as masculine. But that doesn't mean that if you don't have that car knowledge, you're "less of" a man. That's what he is implying when he's mocking someone for not having that knowledge. Hunting is also coded as masculine. But would anyone think it's reasonable to think someone is less of a man if they don't hunt?
Of course you're right that car knowledge is coded as masculine. But that doesn't mean that if you don't have that car knowledge, you're "less of" a man. That's what he is implying when he's mocking someone for not having that knowledge. Hunting is also coded as masculine. But would anyone think it's reasonable to think someone is less of a man if they don't hunt?
I still think his point was accurate in that the breadth of baseline knowledge about cars or hunting or construction or any other example that you can pull out of a hat was much higher and more commonplace in the past.
Any current conversation about man-cards being revoked will lead to the same rabbit hole. The standards have shifted slightly for today’s society, but that’s partially his point.
Of course you're right that car knowledge is coded as masculine. But that doesn't mean that if you don't have that car knowledge, you're "less of" a man. That's what he is implying when he's mocking someone for not having that knowledge. Hunting is also coded as masculine. But would anyone think it's reasonable to think someone is less of a man if they don't hunt?
Your point is well made.
I still think his point was accurate in that the breadth of baseline knowledge about cars or hunting or construction or any other example that you can pull out of a hat was much higher and more commonplace in the past.
Any current conversation about man-cards being revoked will lead to the same rabbit hole. The standards have shifted slightly for today’s society, but that’s partially his point.