Support NeoGAF

[brucewaynegretzky]

It's a summary. To see how deep the rabbit hole goes you have to read the book. I can't just type up everything.




Many studies are mentioned as well as his own that he conducted while writing said book. What's the point of even posting if you're going to be like this?

Sorry I was a psych major. I've had too many profs go on rants about stuff like this. There are studies out there for virtually every proposition you could want to make. The bottom line is for the MOST part men and women are actually very similar. We can talk about culturalization all we want, but the bottom line is that individual differences are so huge that sweeping analyses like these are not very valuable. Funnily enough as we gain more and more access to niche subcommunities these things are becoming even more useless.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

1. Boys don't cry
2. It's better to be mad than sad
3. Don't get mad–get even
4. Take it like a man
5. He who has the most toys when he dies, wins
6. Just do it or Ride or Die
7. Size matters
8. I don't stop to ask for directions
9. Nice guys finish last
10. It's all good

The problem is that this list loses all of the nuance behind some of these ideas and spins them into being negatives, when inherently they are not necessarily bad. They're the answers you're going to get from people when you sit them down and ask for a response off the cuff, not responses you're going to get when you ask for more than a bullet point.

A classic example is "boys don't cry." Every well adjusted adult male knows this doesn't mean what it says on its face. Boys don't cry, as a concept, means that there are times and places for showing your emotions that are appropriate and inappropriate. Boys don't cry is about keeping in mind that your emotions have an impact on those around you who are relying on you and if you aren't careful with how and why you show them you can negatively impact others. No well adjusted adult male would actually sit down and think they actually have to bottle those emotions up no matter the situation.

It's better to be mad than sad is actually quite simple to me. Sadness is a terrible emotion for which there is no relief. Madness is an emotion you think you can do something about. In a lot of cases I feel like this is actually a net positive, giving the ability for a well-adjusted person to channel the emotion into a positive outcome. Madness is related to drive for a lot of guys. It ties in with "don't get mad-get even". The goal of mad isn't to just blindly take out your rage on others like it seems this may be presenting you should do. When I am sad about a situation and I have the option to turn that situation into a challenge I can be mad about, it gives me he drive to better my situation. So yeah, a lot of the time I'd rather be mad than sad. It's an emotion I can do something with, I can "get even" and by even I mean I can push myself to overcome whatever situation I've been put in.

It almost seems like all of these are positive aspects of masculinity spun to be negative aspects by making them negatively framed bullet points. I have personally never met any male who would even dream of taking those bullet points at face value, but they would probably all give you similar things if you asked them for bullet points. Trying to describe masculinity isn't something that's easy to do. It's like asking someone "who are you really?" and expecting them to give you more than "Well I think I am a good person." You're not going to get it without asking some real questions or delving deeper.

There are very real problems men face in this world, but on of the more recent problems is caused by the fact that the behavior of young men is now considered inappropriate in almost all settings. Boys don't behave like boys, boys misbehave. Education, which used to center around them, now considers them problem students, all the while focusing on making sure girls aren't alienated in classrooms.

Anyway, it sort of angers me that there was an arbitrary constraint on this thread that we can't discuss the negative impacts feminism may have had on the situation of men, whether intentional or unintentional. If you actually want an accurate picture of why men are the way they are I don't see why you would eliminate a huge section of society's input on what it means to be men in the modern context.

 

[brucewaynegretzky]

wall o'text.

Gets it.

 

[squidyj]

I always get pissed off whenever I hear the phrase "be a man" because that's not what it means, it means "I'm going to appeal to some identity bullshit here to try to coerce you into some behaviour for my benefit" It doesn't matter what the person saying it is extolling, giving blood, getting into a fight, not getting into a fight, it's still predicated on bullshit and it pisses me off to no end.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Yeah, AbortedWalrusFetus has it about right, though I'd say that the larger point is that ANY of those bullet points can be good or bad, depending on the context or the person.

 

[marrec]

The problem is that this list loses all of the nuance behind some of these ideas and spins them into being negatives, when inherently they are not necessarily bad. They're the answers you're going to get from people when you sit them down and ask for a response off the cuff, not responses you're going to get when you ask for more than a bullet point.

I think the problem you're having is not reading the list for what it is. As an identifier of multiple generations of men it is a constraint. That list represents everything that is holding back men and I can't see a single positive amongst them. Instead of being able to build an identity based on a shared experience, we have to build our identity around what it means to be a "Man".

Whether we choose to ignore the list, or adhere to the list, it identifies us.

 

[leadbelly]

Why do you feel the need to apologize for certain behaviors that you think come naturally when we are people driven by choices and emotions? Boys cry plenty then are instructed not to.

Because as I have said many times before, we are completely self-aware. If evolution is correct we evolved from a more primitive primate. We are no different in that sense than other animals. Chimps evolved from the same ancestor. We have gone beyond mere natural impulses in a way that no other animal has. We don't completely eradicate those primitive impulses we just express them in different ways.

I believe personally that we go beyond mere animals. I try to live my life the best way I can.

 

[Mangotron]

I think that a lot of the "man-isims" expressed in the OP are just things people say, not what 99% of guys actually act on. Most of them stem from the fact that males had to grow up relatively quickly in the past. You were expected to get married, and women were often unfairly limited in their power to provide for themselves. However I think a lot of the sayings are being taken at face value, rather then their deeper meaning.

Most of this stuff isn't specific to guys, especially anymore, it's primarily a list of qualities adults should have to cope by themselves. Maybe I'm lucky, but I've never been told I have to do anything "because I'm a man", just that I need to do it to grow up and take care of myself.

That said, I have never felt overwhelming pressure from "society" to do anything. In my circle of guy friends, there's everything from factory workers to college students to people who live at home and play video games all day. We all hang out together, and we don't call each other failures.

In my opinion "society" is a largely fictional entity made up by people without the motivation to take a stab at what they want in life, I can't think of a time in my (short) life where anyone has set up any roadblock that was TRULY impossible to overcome. In modern day, first world countries, and ESPECIALLY as a man, saying the world is against you/too hard to deal with because of your genitals is honestly ridiculous.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

I think the problem you're having is not reading the list for what it is. As an identifier of multiple generations of men it is a constraint. That list represents everything that is holding back men and I can't see a single positive amongst them. Instead of being able to build an identity based on a shared experience, we have to build our identity around what it means to be a "Man".

Whether we choose to ignore the list, or adhere to the list, it identifies us.

I think his point is that the list, as phrased, DOESN'T identify us, really.

 

[Devolution]

I think that a lot of the "man-isims" expressed in the OP are just things people say, not what 99% of guys actually act on. Most of them stem from the fact that males had to grow up relatively quickly in the past. You were expected to get married, and women were often unfairly limited in their power to provide for themselves. However I think a lot of the sayings are being taken at face value, rather then their deeper meaning.

Most of this stuff isn't specific to guys, especially anymore, it's primarily a list of qualities adults should have to cope by themselves. Maybe I'm lucky, but I've never been told I have to do anything "because I'm a man", just that I need to do it to grow up and take care of myself.

That said, I have never felt overwhelming pressure from "society" to do anything. In my circle of guy friends, there's everything from factory workers to college students to people who live at home and play video games all day. We all hang out together, and we don't call each other failures.

In my opinion "society" is a largely fictional entity made up by people without the motivation to take a stab at what they want in life, I can't think of a time in my (short) life where anyone has set up any roadblock that was TRULY impossible to overcome. In modern day, first world countries, and ESPECIALLY as a man, saying the world is against you/too hard to deal with because of your genitals is honestly ridiculous.

So you've surrounded yourself with a variety of men who accept each other and don't try to validate some abstract notion of manhood?

I think his point is that the list, as phrased, DOESN'T identify us, really.

Or you and Walrus are just more self-aware and can realize when you're being fed bullshit you don't particularly aspire to. I saw Walrus's post more as a kind of apologia for some rigid definitions of manhood that don't really lend themselves to the nuance he thinks they do. Certainly not when the very people espousing them don't stop to clarify what they mean, like the women whom he asked did. When you miss what the women said in conjunction with the men, the point becomes clear. The definition of manhood is still narrow.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

I think the problem you're having is not reading the list for what it is. As an identifier of multiple generations of men it is a constraint. That list represents everything that is holding back men and I can't see a single positive amongst them.

Look, you can take your sorry schtick elsewhere. Everyone who has ever had a discussion with you about men on this forum knows that what your actual goal is is the complete demonization of everything it means to be masculine. You, for some reason, have an issue with the gender entirely. The only thing that ever holds anyone back are attitudes like yours in which there can be no valid thing about men unless it conforms to your own personal narrow-minded view of what is appropriate. Frankly, it's tired, and you've proved yourself incapable of actually discussing anything positive about men because of your preconceived notions.

Feel free to post in this thread, but don't expect anyone who actually has any interest in bettering the position of either gender to take you seriously if you continue with your completely asinine viewpoints on the subject.

 

[shadyspace]

So you've surrounded yourself with a variety of men who accept each other and don't try to validate some abstract notion of manhood?

You say this like it's something difficult to do. Bros are derided at large for a reason.

 

[marrec]

I think his point is that the list, as phrased, DOESN'T identify us, really.

Maybe, but:

It almost seems like all of these are positive aspects of masculinity spun to be negative aspects by making them negatively framed bullet points. I have personally never met any male who would even dream of taking those bullet points at face value, but they would probably all give you similar things if you asked them for bullet points. Trying to describe masculinity isn't something that's easy to do. It's like asking someone "who are you really?" and expecting them to give you more than "Well I think I am a good person." You're not going to get it without asking some real questions or delving deeper.

He seems to say that the list is what you get when you distill what identifies men to a bullet point.

Look, you can take your sorry schtick elsewhere. Everyone who has ever had a discussion with you about men on this forum knows that what your actual goal is is the complete demonization of everything it means to be masculine. You, for some reason, have an issue with the gender entirely. The only thing that ever holds anyone back are attitudes like yours in which there can be no valid thing about men unless it conforms to your own personal narrow-minded view of what is appropriate. Frankly, it's tired, and you've proved yourself incapable of actually discussing anything positive about men because of your preconceived notions.

Feel free to post in this thread, but don't expect anyone who actually has any interest in bettering the position of either gender to take you seriously if you continue with your completely asinine viewpoints on the subject.

Ouch, okay.

My views are men are a bit more complicated then you've presented but I don't want to make this thread about what I think about men. Everyone knows I hate us. I'm very interested in discussing how I feel Men hold Men back, and not how Men hold Women back.

 

[Devolution]

You say this like it's something difficult to do. Bros are derided at large for a reason.

Bros who encapsulate all of those characteristics. Let's not pretend that all of those things are aloof to men. I see them plenty, played out on this forum and in my every day interactions. They don't have to be overt or said that way to be noticeable.

 

[brucewaynegretzky]

Bros who encapsulate all of those characteristics. Let's not pretend that all of those things are aloof to men. I see them plenty, played out on this forum and in my every day interactions. They don't have to be overt or said that way to be noticeable.

No but they aren't per se negative either. And the author is spewing bullshit when he says that women don't have some preset answers to what being a "woman" is. Of course there are going to be cliches that each gender says, but that's all they are. They have value sometimes and are worthless the majority. Most people get this. Others would rather generalize about gigantic populations based on cliches.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

So you've surrounded yourself with a variety of men who accept each other and don't try to validate some abstract notion of manhood?

The only time any man brings up any notion of what manhood is to another man is to manipulate them. Don't confuse the manipulation of some with an actual reflection on what manhood is.

Or you and Walrus are just more self-aware and can realize when you're being fed bullshit you don't particularly aspire to. I saw Walrus's post more as a kind of apologia for some rigid definitions of manhood that don't really lend themselves to the nuance he thinks they do. Certainly not when the very people espousing them don't stop to clarify what they mean, like the women whom he asked did. When you miss what the women said in conjunction with the men, the point becomes clear. The definition of manhood is still narrow.

You can say they don't lend themselves to nuance all you want, but they do and I just illustrated how, and I am sure you could find innumerable men who would feel exactly the same way. Just because you don't see the nuance doesn't mean it's not there. As far as things go with people not clarifying them, and instead answering simply, there's actually some fairly well established differences in how men and women communicate that nicely explain that difference. As a man, if someone asked me what it meant to be a man I would answer with those exact same bullet points and it would never even occur to me that I needed to explain further. I answered the question as it was asked. If the author, instead of expecting men to offer them up voluntarily asked more probing questions I would imagine you would have read a very different book.

When it comes down to it men like bullet points because it lets them get an idea across succinctly. That doesn't mean reading the bullet point itself is going to bring the entire concept across.

 

[Emitan]

So I guess all the isolation I've gotten over my life for not being masculine enough is made up, right?

Yup, it's only "bros" doing this, not "normal people"

 

[Devolution]

No but they aren't per se negative either. And the author is spewing bullshit when he says that women don't have some preset answers to what being a "woman" is. Of course there are going to be cliche's that each gender says, but that's all they are cliches. They have value sometimes and are worthless the majority. Most people get this. Others would rather generalize about gigantic populations based on cliches.

Women don't necessarily lack preset answers. He said they have an array of women to look up to who fit all kinds of molds and that they're not limited in the "feminine" anymore as the only definition of what a woman is and is capable of. Their answers reflect that the definition of woman has opened up while the definition of manhood stays pretty rigid. Do you really want to deny this? In all of your reading or even socializing have you not heard someone referred to as fruity? Gay? A faggot? Or denigrating men who cry? See someone told to "man up." What is the point of the denial here?

 

[Mangotron]

So you've surrounded yourself with a variety of men who accept each other and don't try to validate some abstract notion of manhood?

Essentially, yes. That isn't to say that everyone doesn't fall into some male stereotypes in one way or another. Generally though, I'd say guys (and well-adjusted people in general) are more focused on having a good time then nitpicking what qualities their peer group is lacking, or constantly trying to make themselves look like a perfect human being.

I would have to say that (in my experience) the primary area that guys are actually pressured in is how well they relate to women. I would say you are FAR more likely to be made fun of for being a virgin, not being good at talking to women, etc. then you are for any kind of financial or similar "failure". I think this is somewhat true for both genders though.

 

[Devolution]

I would have to say that (in my experience) the primary area that guys are actually pressured in is how well they relate to women. I would say you are FAR more likely to be made fun of for being a virgin, not being good at talking to women, etc. then you are for any kind of financial or similar "failure". I think this is somewhat true for both genders though.

Well the book definitely goes into that and there are some interesting stats about how men perceive other men's sexual prowess. The overwhelming suggestion was that men overestimate how successful other men are and feel the need to compete with some stud they effectively made up in their head.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

So I guess all the isolation I've gotten over my life for not being masculine enough is made up, right?

Yup, it's only "bros" doing this, not "normal people"

Let's talk about your isolation. Is it really due to you not being "masculine" enough, or is it because of your sexual orientation, hobbies, personality, etc? I'm not saying any of those things justify your isolation, not at all, but I question the fact that every male relationship you've had in your life has been defined solely by what it means to be masculine. Did your circle of friends exclude you specifically because you didn't meet their definition of masculinity, or was it because you wouldn't do the things they found entertaining? I'm not saying that it had nothing to do with it, but I wonder how much of the ostracism you faced purportedly because of your lack of masculinity wasn't caused in reality by them not being able to manipulate you into conforming to whatever activities they condoned.

Women don't necessarily lack preset answers. He said they have an array of women to look up to who fit all kinds of molds and that they're not limited in the "feminine" anymore as the only definition of what a woman is and is capable of. Their answers reflect that the definition of woman has opened up while the definition of manhood stays pretty rigid. Do you really want to deny this? In all of your reading or even socializing have you not heard someone referred to as fruity? Gay? A faggot? Or denigrating men who cry? See someone told to "man up." What is the point of the denial here?

I think you're confusing issues of not being willing to accept others sexual identities with characteristics of masculinity. Rock Hudson can be as gay as he wants, but no one is going to say he wasn't masculine. Ignorant people are going to use hurtful terms to ostracize any group they have problems with, but I think that has far less to do with concepts of masculinity than plain old fashioned hatred. The concept of masculinity is just used as a tool to ostracize in those cases.

As far as the man up thing goes... That's pretty much done when people reach adulthood and realize what being an adult male is actually about.

 

[shadyspace]

Bros who encapsulate all of those characteristics. Let's not pretend that all of those things are aloof to men. I see them plenty, played out on this forum and in my every day interactions. They don't have to be overt or said that way to be noticeable.

For me it's about setting expectations. Sure, I've befriended guys that initially were very boxed into that narrow definition of masculinity but seldom do they enjoy being in that position. They'll guard themselves due to past experiences but then I'll make a point of being emotionally available and non-judgmental and they'll begin to feel comfortable acting in kind. At least around me.

 

[marrec]

No but they aren't per se negative either. And the author is spewing bullshit when he says that women don't have some preset answers to what being a "woman" is. Of course there are going to be cliches that each gender says, but that's all they are. They have value sometimes and are worthless the majority. Most people get this. Others would rather generalize about gigantic populations based on cliches.

Sure there are things that women consider more feminine and would help define them as a gender. I think one of the problems with men though is that expanding yourself beyond the predetermined 'Man-List' by say, crying at a movie, automatically marginalizes you amongst other men. This is especially true in media.

 

[Devolution]

For me it's about setting expectations. Sure, I've befriended guys that initially were very boxed into that narrow definition of masculinity but seldom do they enjoy being in that position. They'll guard themselves due to past experiences but then I'll make a point of being emotionally available and non-judgmental and they'll begin to feel comfortable acting in kind. At least around me.

That's one of the solutions mentioned briefly in the book actually.

 

[shadyspace]

So I guess all the isolation I've gotten over my life for not being masculine enough is made up, right?

Yup, it's only "bros" doing this, not "normal people"

Move out of Texas, bud.

 

[marrec]

Move out of Texas, bud.

The same can be said of anywhere. In various environments.

At college it was especially prevalent, but even in the office environment that I work in presently isolation can come from not being a 'Man'.

 

[Sanky Panky]

I'm sorry if I chuckle at the premise of polling high school and college kids on what it means to be a man. No wonder the author got those kind of responses.

A mature man can be sensitive and express emotions, and the insecurities of the young don't reflect on the needs of a real man to accumulate toys or beat someone over Xbox live to validate himself.

What is inherently masculine is more down to hormones and behaviors we see in the animal kingdom. Wanting to be the provider/protector, the hunter, and being the dominant male to court the female are all things that I think influence men (and men are often judged by these). We can talk about equality all day long, but even ardent feminists can appreciate a strong man that wants to protect/provide for them.

I'm dating a staunch feminist right now, and she turns to mush when I act like a man.

 

[shadyspace]

I'm sorry if I chuckle at the premise of polling high school and college kids on what it means to be a man. No wonder the author got those kind of responses.

A mature man can be sensitive and express emotions, and the insecurities of the young don't reflect on the needs of a real man to accumulate toys or beat someone over Xbox live to validate himself.

What is inherently masculine is more down to hormones and behaviors we see in the animal kingdom. Wanting to be the provider/protector, the hunter, and being the dominant male to court the female are all things that I think influence men (and men are often judged by these). We can talk about equality all day long, but even ardent feminists can appreciate a strong man that wants to protect/provide for them.

I'm dating a staunch feminist right now, and she turns to mush when I act like a man.

They can now that the second-wave is dead and buried, and thank Christ for that.

 

[Devolution]

I'm sorry if I chuckle at the premise of polling high school and college kids on what it means to be a man. No wonder the author got those kind of responses.

A mature man can be sensitive and express emotions, and the insecurities of the young don't reflect on the needs of a real man to accumulate toys or beat someone over Xbox live to validate himself.

What is inherently masculine is more down to hormones and behaviors we see in the animal kingdom. Wanting to be the provider/protector, the hunter, and being the dominant male to court the female are all things that I think influence men (and men are often judged by these). We can talk about equality all day long, but even ardent feminists can appreciate a strong man that wants to protect/provide for them.

I'm dating a staunch feminist right now, and she turns to mush when I act like a man.

Women (and gay men) can be attracted to characteristics without thinking that a man must be that 24/7 or that he's somehow less of a man if he's not x,y, and z. And a man doesn't need to be isolated from a social group because of his perceived lack of masculinity in some arena. I'm sure a lot of gay men have a great time fitting in, in various places.

 

[Emitan]

I'm dating a staunch feminist right now, and she turns to mush when I act like a man.

act like a man?

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

Women (and gay men) can be attracted to characteristics without thinking that a man must be that 24/7 or that he's somehow less of a man if he's not x,y, and z. And a man doesn't need to be isolated from a social group because of his perceived lack of masculinity in some arena. I'm sure a lot of gay men have a great time fitting in, in various places.

And well-adjusted adult men realize they don't have to have those characteristics 24/7. Funny how that works out.

 

[marrec]

I'm sorry if I chuckle at the premise of polling high school and college kids on what it means to be a man. No wonder the author got those kind of responses.

A mature man can be sensitive and express emotions, and the insecurities of the young don't reflect on the needs of a real man to accumulate toys or beat someone over Xbox live to validate himself.

What is inherently masculine is more down to hormones and behaviors we see in the animal kingdom. Wanting to be the provider/protector, the hunter, and being the dominant male to court the female are all things that I think influence men (and men are often judged by these). We can talk about equality all day long, but even ardent feminists can appreciate a strong man that wants to protect/provide for them.

I'm dating a staunch feminist right now, and she turns to mush when I act like a man.

In spite of my caution for offending AbortedWalrusFetus, I'll respond to you Sanky.

Sanky surely you know that men can be sensitive until they are around other men. In that group being sensitive is ALWAYS seen as a negative. This is not healthy for our gender. And when you say women appreciate strong men, I think what you mean is that women appreciate a strong partner. It has nothing to do with being a 'man' and everything do to with being dependable.

 

[Mangotron]

For me it's about setting expectations. Sure, I've befriended guys that initially were very boxed into that narrow definition of masculinity but seldom do they enjoy being in that position. They'll guard themselves due to past experiences but then I'll make a point of being emotionally available and non-judgmental and they'll begin to feel comfortable acting in kind. At least around me.

That's been my experience as well. I've always been into "girl" music, and dressing well/slightly more adventurously then my peers. If you can overcome the initial ribbing, they'll get to know you as a person, and not just a laundry list of things they assume about you. I think for a lot of people insecurity comes out as intolerance and then you get the "I'm more manly then you because x,y,z".

 

[Devolution]

And well-adjusted adult men realize they don't have to have those characteristics 24/7. Funny how that works out.

What's your definition of a well adjusted man?

 

[Sanky Panky]

act like a man?

A little domination, assertiveness, master of my domain, will do what I please - type stuff.

Sanky surely you know that men can be sensitive until they are around other men. In that group being sensitive is ALWAYS seen as a negative. This is not healthy for our gender. And when you say women appreciate strong men, I think what you mean is that women appreciate a strong partner. It has nothing to do with being a 'man' and everything do to with being dependable.

hmmm I can see instances when being sensitive around other men would be negative. You got punched and are crying in a corner, got taken advantage of and just took it, etc etc are things that I think go beyond gender. These are clear signs of weakness. I'm not saying that crying on the shoulder of your boy at the end of Titanic is not viewed negatively, but being able to express your feelings comes with maturity. Not caring what people think of you because you are sure of yourself, also comes with maturity. The idea of sucking it up, is simply the mature of idea that no matter what, you have to do what you have to do.

Also, I think women wanting a man goes beyond the idea of dependability. I think it is ingrained in our biological make-up for women to want a masculine strong figure. This is something that we can all embrace without putting limitations or subjugating a gender to the other.

 

[Emitan]

A little domination, assertiveness, master of my domain, will do what I please - type stuff.

Only men can do those things?

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

In spite of my caution for offending AbortedWalrusFetus, I'll respond to you Sanky.

Sanky surely you know that men can be sensitive until they are around other men. In that group being sensitive is ALWAYS seen as a negative. This is not healthy for our gender. And when you say women appreciate strong men, I think what you mean is that women appreciate a strong partner. It has nothing to do with being a 'man' and everything do to with being dependable.

See, here's the problem. In WHAT group? Maybe in a group of frat bros or a high school clique or the marine corps. In real life adult men groups of friends, sensitivity is never a negative. The most I would even grant is that oversensitivity is a very large negative, but just because that's the case it doesn't mean sensitivity is taboo. You can put me in any group of adult males and I'm going to feel comfortable talking about how sad I was when my grandfather died, or how frustrating fights with my spouse were.

 

[timetokill]

Why do you think guys invented the phrase "no homo" if not for a way to try and express things with other guys that they normally wouldn't be able to without being seen as less of a man?

This is an interesting topic, and thanks again to Dev for posting it. I mentioned in the other thread (before this was made) that I read a thread on Jezebel about this book that was very depressing some time ago due to the reactions of the female audience, so I'm eager for more mature conversation about it.

Ultimately I think that as feminist ideals advance, we have to address more of the issues men are facing due to it. Feminism largely gives women advice and knowledge and empowers them to break out of traditional gender constructs, but does little to help men do the same thing. So what are men to do?

 

[Emitan]

See, here's the problem. In WHAT group? Maybe in a group of frat bros or a high school clique or the marine corps. In real life adult men groups of friends, sensitivity is never a negative. The most I would even grant is that oversensitivity is a very large negative, but just because that's the case it doesn't mean sensitivity is taboo. You can put me in any group of adult males and I'm going to feel comfortable talking about how sad I was when my grandfather died, or how frustrating fights with my spouse were.

All groups of me are not interchangeable. You've been lucky enough to run in the right circles. Great! Some of haven't!

It's perfectly fine to say you've never been in these situations and are unaware of them, but don't deny their existence because they are real.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

In spite of my caution for offending AbortedWalrusFetus, I'll respond to you Sanky.

Sanky surely you know that men can be sensitive until they are around other men. In that group being sensitive is ALWAYS seen as a negative. This is not healthy for our gender. And when you say women appreciate strong men, I think what you mean is that women appreciate a strong partner. It has nothing to do with being a 'man' and everything do to with being dependable.

Again, this is simply not true. I have PLENTY of guy friends that I could, say, cry at a movie in front of and not get second looks, especially artist types. That's not to say that such an outdated conception of masculinity doesn't exist, of course, for stereotypes often do come out of truisms, but the idea of "being a man" is not, in itself, a bad thing unless you're so insecure about it that you let it define you.

Edit: And for what it's worth, a person will be isolated for ANY difference - masculinity, creativity, intelligence, ugliness, fatness, etc. That's just human nature. The challenge is in not giving a shit, which, admittedly, does not come naturally to everybody.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

What's your definition of a well adjusted man?

Do you want the bullet points?

A well adjusted adult man is someone who isn't afraid to show his emotions because he realizes that if anyone views them negatively they're not worth a second thought. (Be confident, don't put up with bullshit)

He's someone who is responsible and understanding. (Get your shit done at work an in relationships)

He's someone that will be that "sturdy oak" in a bad situation and do his best to get everyone he cares about through it, and then go to his spouse afterward and explain that he was actually scared shitless the whole time and just trying to do his best. (This could be "just do it" or "man up", whichever you prefer).

There are a ton of traits I could point to, it would take too much time to actually explain what masculinity means to me and men I know.

All groups of me are not interchangeable. You've been lucky enough to run in the right circles. Great! Some of haven't!

It's perfectly fine to say you've never been in these situations and are unaware of them, but don't deny their existence because they are real.

Make no mistake, I'm not saying it doesn't ever happen, I just don't think they're incredibly common or actually due to concepts of masculinity. They are because people are trying to manipulate other people or the circumstances they are in by shaming others with some bastardized notion of a masculinity they're not conforming to. It's not true masculinity that's the problem, or any aspects of it, it's the often negative ways in which people behave toward others that cause the problem. That's going to happen regardless of what it means to be a man as long as people can be manipulated using it. If crying at movies was "masculine" they'd make fun of the guys who didn't to reinforce their own position.

 

[marrec]

See, here's the problem. In WHAT group? Maybe in a group of frat bros or a high school clique or the marine corps. In real life adult men groups of friends, sensitivity is never a negative. The most I would even grant is that oversensitivity is a very large negative, but just because that's the case it doesn't mean sensitivity is taboo. You can put me in any group of adult males and I'm going to feel comfortable talking about how sad I was when my grandfather died, or how frustrating fights with my spouse were.

But can you talk about how moved you were by a piece of music you heard? Or how sad and small you felt when your dad hit you? Or how scared and vulnerable being a father makes you?

In my experience you can't express these types of deeper emotions without being seen as less than a man. Someone who can't control their weaker feelings.

Also, god-for-fucking-bid you actually acknowledge how handsome another man is.

 

[Professor Beef]

Why do you think guys invented the phrase "no homo" if not for a way to try and express things with other guys that they normally wouldn't be able to without being seen as less of a man?

This is an interesting topic, and thanks again to Dev for posting it. I mentioned in the other thread (before this was made) that I read a thread on Jezebel about this book that was very depressing some time ago due to the reactions of the female audience, so I'm eager for more mature conversation about it.

Ultimately I think that as feminist ideals advance, we have to address more of the issues men are facing due to it. Feminism largely gives women advice and knowledge and empowers them to break out of traditional gender constructs, but does little to help men do the same thing. So what are men to do?

"No homo" gave us that Lonely Island song, so it's not ALL bad.

 

[Devolution]

Do you want the bullet points?

A well adjusted adult man is someone who isn't afraid to show his emotions because he realizes that if anyone views them negatively they're not worth a second thought. (Be confident, don't put up with bullshit)

He's someone who is responsible and understanding. (Get your shit done at work an in relationships)

He's someone that will be that "sturdy oak" in a bad situation and do his best to get everyone he cares about through it, and then go to his spouse afterward and explain that he was actually scared shitless the whole time and just trying to do his best. (This could be "just do it" or "man up", whichever you prefer).

There are a ton of traits I could point to, it would take too much time to actually explain what masculinity means to me and men I know.

You and men you know because you've shrugged off the various narrow definitions of manhood. Can you explain to me why some men are still reviled for being gay? Wearing "fruity" shit? Called faggots? Expected to "man up." And as timetokill mentioned putting the disclaimer "no homo" on statements? You'll probably just handwave this with your "adjusted adult" statement despite the fact that all of those statements I've said are not just limited to teenagers/highschoolers and are in fact pervasive.

 

[The Anti-Monitor]

A little domination, assertiveness, master of my domain, will do what I please - type stuff.

And am I less of a woman if I act that way? Or how does that go?

But can you talk about how moved you were by a piece of music you heard? Or how sad and small you felt when your dad hit you? Or how scared and vulnerable being a father makes you?

In my experience you can't express these types of deeper emotions without being seen as less than a man. Someone who can't control their weaker feelings.

Also, god-for-fucking-bid you actually acknowledge how handsome another man is.

Every time I've seen this, people have made fun of him, but only if it wasn't serious.

Every other time other guys were very supportive, and I'm talking about college students.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

You and men you know because you've shrugged off the various narrow definitions of manhood. Can you explain to me why some men are still reviled for being gay? Wearing "fruity" shit? Called faggots? Expected to "man up." And as timetokill mentioned putting the disclaimer "no homo" on statements? You'll probably just handwave this with your "adjusted adult" statement despite the fact that all of those statements I've said are not just limited to teenagers/highschoolers and are in fact pervasive.

I didn't know it really needed an explanation, honestly. You're trying to paint the cause as being because the rules of masculinity dictate you behave like that, and that's simply not the case and is a misinterpretation of events on your part. People get reviled to being gay or being fruity or what have you simply because people take issue with what is different. It's about intolerance, plain and simple. Intolerance isn't a trait of masculinity and tolerance isn't a trait of femininity. Intolerance and tolerance have nothing to do with sexual identity and everything to do with prejudice and hate. Masculinity is just one tool of many tools that hateful people use to make sure groups they hate are marginalized, and it's gong to happen regardless of how you define masculinity. There's absolutely no point in conflating masculinity with required homophobia, because it's not remotely the same. I don't know why it's hard to see that.

 

[leadbelly]

I didn't know it really needed an explanation, honestly. You're trying to paint the cause as being because the rules of masculinity dictate you behave like that, and that's simply not the case and is a misinterpretation of events on your part. People get reviled to being gay or being fruity or what have you simply because people take issue with what is different. It's about intolerance, plain and simple. Intolerance isn't a trait of masculinity and tolerance isn't a trait of femininity. Intolerance and tolerance have nothing to do with sexual identity and everything to do with prejudice and hate. Masculinity is just one tool of many tools that hateful people use to make sure groups they hate are marginalized, and it's gong to happen regardless of how you define masculinity. There's absolutely no point in conflating masculinity with required homophobia, because it's not remotely the same. I don't know why it's hard to see that.

Yeah... We're speaking culture not nature of course.

What is masculinity to a chimp for instance? Or what is masculinity to a male lion? They certainly have masculine traits.

The truth is we can't compare ourselves entirely to animals because we have risen above them. Why people believe in religion and why people always question what the meaning of life really is.

Why I am not sure everything is simply by chance. It doesn't sit well with me because I am able to question.

 

[Suairyu]

AbortedWalrusFetus, you seem to be stating the those things as if they somehow discredit the notion of a socially-enforced wider 'guy code'. Just because you are able to intellectually surmise that 'masculinity' has no default creed doesn't mean society at large can. What exactly is your position?

As for masculinity/homophobia - homosexuals were traditionally (and still are) widely seen as less than men. Following this logic, the oft-mandated 'guy code'/societal expectation of masculinity is absolutely relevant and a part of homophobia.

edit - oh jesus people are mentioning animals? Have we really devolved into that particular level of stupid on the first page?

 

[leadbelly]

edit - oh jesus people are mentioning animals? Have we really devolved into that particular level of stupid on the first page?

I'm not going to get annoyed... why the hell would you not bring nature into the discussion when we are animals that evolved from earlier animals? Like other animlas we have instincts.

I at least make sure there is good reasoning behind everything I post. My posts are usually quite thoughtful.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

AbortedWalrusFetus, you seem to be stating the those things as if they somehow discredit the notion of a socially-enforced wider 'guy code'. Just because you are able to intellectually surmise that 'masculinity' has no default creed doesn't mean society at large can. What exactly is your position?

As for masculinity/homophobia - homosexuals were traditionally (and still are) widely seen as less than men. Following this logic, the oft-mandated 'guy code'/societal expectation of masculinity is absolutely relevant and a part of homophobia.

edit - oh jesus people are mentioning animals? Have we really devolved into that particular level of stupid on the first page?

I think that people examine society put their own particular spin on a guy code, whereas in reality it's not a pervasive thing at all but is very granular in its application, so granular that it changes between every social network men exist in.

In any case, relating to homophobia, I think again you're casting it that it was masculine ideals themselves that caused homosexuals to be view as less than men, and not pre-existing hatred for homosexuals (most likely instilled by religious views) that caused the other issue. Believe it or not there is a huge swath of the gay male community that is the exact opposite of feminine. Some of them probably fall out to be more stereotypically masculine than average.