INCOMING WALL OF TEXT
There's an assumption of gender dichotomy in your grammar evaluation though. There does not -have- to be a single alternative to not being masculine. Put another way, if I said "I am not masculine" it DOES NOT necessarily mean "I am feminine", that is just the assumption in our culture. So when I say "there is only one alternative to not being masculine, which is to be feminine," I am referring to the context of our culture, which is what I said I was referring to in the sentences before it. I am referring to how most people think. If I said "there is only one alternative to not being scissors, which is to be rock," would you say that is grammatically incorrect? I wouldn't, I would just say it is factually incorrect, since paper is another alternative (or gun, if you were a cheater like me in elementary school).
To help clarify, there are cultures that have more than two genders. There were many Native American tribes that had a 3rd gender, called Spirit People, which westerners described as strange mix of masculine and feminine characteristics as well as some culturally specific religious leadership roles. Today, some male to female and female to male (m2f, f2m) transgendered individuals believe that they occupy neither masculine nor feminine roles, at least in their more intimate social circles. India had a third gender, Hijras, also religiously oriented. I suppose it would have been clearer to say "people assume there is only one alternative to not being masculine, which is to be feminine."
Roy Hunter is right to say they are not absolutes nor antitheticals in individuals. People do tend to view qualities
on a continuum of "masculine - gender neutral - feminine", (there's also a belief that we assume masculine until we recognize feminine signifiers, leaving no gender neutral human characteristic) but individuals can have qualities ranging from one end to the other, such as his example of Eddie Izzard's physique to clothing choice. The problem arises that people generate gender roles, like PMK said, where they assume and pressure people, usually based on their sex, to occupy certain gender characteristics. You can bet Izzard and Lang have been the brunt of jokes and verbal (maybe even physical) attacks because of their violation of the gender roles guidelines
Now, the tl;dr at the end of my quote was kind of intended to be taken less seriously and less a part of the actual argument, but the logic isn't really tortured. Preying off insecurities and feelings of masculine inadequacy promotes the notion of a masculine ideal to which men should adhere. Given the cultured assumption that gender exists in binary and is heavily correlated to sex, it promotes the preexisting separate ideals of men being masculine power seeking, and women being feminine submissive. It is only under the conditions where men are expected to seek power and women are expected to bend to it that domestic violence occurs. There are only four cultures on earth where there is no evidence of domestic violence; one of them is a matriarchy and doesn't quite count, but the other three have the same thing in common. Women share equal power in the three major social realms of economics and business ownership, politics and governance, and religious leadership and practice. Because the relationship of gender does not have men expected to power seek over women, domestic violence does not occur.
Now it's true what PMK says that penis pill ads don't outright promote the violent or sexist aspects of masculinity, but it's the case that violence and sexism aren't why domestic abusers do what they do. Domestic violence is about power and control - domestic violence isn't even always violent, it could be a husband locking his wife outside in the cold all night to "teach her a lesson", or stealing her car keys to keep her at home, or threatening with violence towards her or her children. As long as it's intended to control and overpower, it qualifies as domestic abuse (or at least that's all that's required to get you into a domestic violence relief shelter). Now the real issue is that our culture's gender roles have masculinity as power seeking, femininity submissive, and as a result the casual promotion of gender roles in our culture promotes the power difference of the genders. So the line of thought,
PKMKII wrote:if a man feels inadequate in his masculinity, that automatically means he's sexist, and that automatically means he's violent in his sexism, and that an ad offering masculinity in a pill is therefore promoting violence
isn't really the line of thought in that particular perspective at all. It's more "gender roles in our culture produce a power difference in the genders, so promoting a gender ideal promotes those roles and therefore promotes the power difference, and it is because of that power difference that domestic violence occurs." Penis pill ads promote the idea, or at least an aspect of a generally recognized ideal masculinity, accepting it as real.
Now to keep this is line with "Games, Fun, and Jokes" theme of this section of the forum, here's a link to a bunch of synonyms for penis, all which would be hilarious to see in enlargement ads.http://www.namingschemes.com/Penis_Synonyms