NationStates Jolt Archive

Manliness: what it is, why it's good, and why our "gender-neutral" society hates it (but can't get rid of it!)

Manliness
by Harvey C. Mansfield

Here at last is the first comprehensive study -- and unapologetic defense -- of manliness, refuting the feminist propaganda that dominates popular culture's portrayal of men and masculinity. Harvard professor Harvey C. Mansfield examines manliness from a huge variety of perspectives, including vulgar aggression, assertive manliness, philosophical manliness, and -- as is most needed in these effeminate, anti-manly times -- manliness as a virtue.

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/9149/manliness0yx.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

:D

What a silly book.

OK...........

:rolleyes:

:: Bows vugarly to St. Harvey ::

Harvard professor Harvey C. Mansfield

They're letting dumbasses in Harvard, now?

They're letting dumbasses in Harvard, now?
Now? Since when has being a dumbass procluded one from access to Hahvahd?

My balls are as big as golf balls. :)

They're letting dumbasses in Harvard, now?
Of course. I think Bush went there.

Of course. I think Bush went there.

That was Yale.

Of course. I think Bush went there.

He studied International Business, I'm just surprised that he can spell it...

This was intended to initiate a discussion about "manliness" and what you think it is, or should be, not an opportunity to rant against the book ( even though you've never read it ), the writer, Harvard, or Bush. :p

This was intended to initiate a discussion about "manliness" and what you think it is, or should be, not an opportunity to rant against the book ( even though you've never read it ), the writer, Harvard, or Bush. :p

Well, it went where it went, so tough shit. :p

That was Yale.

...And Harvard too...

...And Harvard too...

Oh. Well, either way, it was through daddy's connections. He never could've gotten into a respectable university on his own, that's for sure.

Well, it went where it went, so tough shit. :p
How ... enlightening. :rolleyes:

This was intended to initiate a discussion about "manliness" and what you think it is, or should be, not an opportunity to rant against the book ( even though you've never read it ), the writer, Harvard, or Bush. :p
Yeah, well, Hahvahd can suck it, and, um . . .
*struggles to connect his point back on topic*
real men don't go there. Yeah, prolonged exposure to that place causes one's genitals to shrivel up and retreat between there legs, leaving a mangina behind.

Manliness to me is about two things:
a)Having facial hair
b)Having something dangle between your legs

Now admittedly some females have facial hair, but if they have something dangling between their legs than this thread has just taken one scary turn...

[Edit]That's my two cents on the issue, alas however, Australian no longer circulates one or two cent coins, so I guess I'm not going to get change back anytime soon.

They're letting dumbasses in Harvard, now?
Only when their names can be alliterated with Harvard. The Harvard profs get a kick out of introducing him as 'Harvard Harvey'.
What passes for humour in those ivory-towers.

Only when their names can be alliterated with Harvard. The Harvard profs get a kick out of introducing him as 'Harvard Harvey'.
What passes for humour in those ivory-towers.

...I see...

Now I wanna go there even less (not that I even wanted to in the first place). :p

Considering the number of people who refuse to take responsibility for the course their lives take, and the number of people who are afraid of confrontation maybe a little more manliness is a good thing.

...I see...

Now I wanna go there even less (not that I even wanted to in the first place). :p
Congratulations!
*Awards Potarius 10 pints of Manliness*

Eut, what were you expecting? Manliness is a social construct, that book has a boring cover? :confused:

Considering the number of people who refuse to take responsibility for the course their lives take, and the number of people who are afraid of confrontation maybe a little more manliness is a good thing.
THANK YOU! At least someone "gets it!" :)

This was intended to initiate a discussion about "manliness" and what you think it is, or should be, not an opportunity to rant against the book ( even though you've never read it ), the writer, Harvard, or Bush. :p
Well, maybe you should give us some pointers as to what *you* think, then, seeing how we, as you correctly pointed out, have never read the book? :)

Eut, what were you expecting? Manliness is a social construct, that book has a boring cover? :confused:
It could be argued that some versions of "manilness" could be little more than a "social construct," but I suspect that lack of proper role models, and constant battering from extreme feminism has rendered a number of men in our society nutless drones. I also suspect that this is one of the major reasons for so many boys dropping out of school, or not pursuing further education, or failing when they do.

Well, maybe you should give us some pointers as to what *you* think, then, seeing how we, as you correctly pointed out, have never read the book? :)
See above. :)

I would have thought taking responsibility for oneself was adultliness not manliness since only one of these descriptions excludes feminine adults...:rolleyes:

It could be argued that some versions of "manilness" could be little more than a "social construct," but I suspect that lack of proper role models, and constant battering from extreme feminism has rendered a number of men in our society nutless drones. I also suspect that this is one of the major reasons for so many boys dropping out of school, or not pursuing further education, or failing when they do.
You might want to re-read your own thoughts on this. In the first place there is a lack of male role models, well only men can be role models that are male. Perhaps the constant battering from extreme feminism is actually just some women telling home truths about the unwillingness of males to act in such a way to be role models....or perhaps your premise is fatally flawed...or maybe the 'extreme feminists' figure that since they are not men and dont want to be manly their best course of action is to act without any responsibility for themselves (thus explaining any irresponsible extremeness on their part) or perhaps too the designation of taking responsibility for oneself as a manly (rather than adult) characteristic is also a load of crap...:rolleyes:

I would have thought taking responsibility for oneself was adultliness not manliness since only one of these descriptions excludes feminine adults...:rolleyes:
Uh ... the thread is about MANliness, not WOMANliness. Duh. :p

You might want to re-read your own thoughts on this. In the first place there is a lack of male role models, well only men can be role models that are male. Perhaps the constant battering from extreme feminism is actually just some women telling home truths about the unwillingness of males to act in such a way to be role models....or perhaps your premise is fatally flawed...or maybe the 'extreme feminists' figure that since they are not men and dont want to be manly their best course of action is to act without any responsibility for themselves (thus explaining any irresponsible extremeness on their part) or perhaps too the designation of taking responsibility for oneself as a manly (rather than adult) characteristic is also a load of crap...:rolleyes:
Or perhaps you're having trouble getting your mind around the concept that men and woman are like, you know ... DIFFERENT! Hellohhh!

What a silly book.

Indeed, manliness is a silly and outdated ideal, if you ask me. It doesn't put food on the table, it doesn't solve our growing environmental crisis or rapidly diminishing sources of energy, and has little relevance to the modern world.

It could be argued that some versions of "manilness" could be little more than a "social construct," but I suspect that lack of proper role models, and constant battering from extreme feminism has rendered a number of men in our society nutless drones. I also suspect that this is one of the major reasons for so many boys dropping out of school, or not pursuing further education, or failing when they do.

Actually, that just sounds like laziness. They need to take responsibility for their own actions, not blame their failings on feminists who demand that they succeed by their own merits rather than rely on patriarchy to cut them enough slack to succeed, anyway. Those who become drones in the face of feminism were not that great to begin with if they rely strictly on manliness to stave off droning.

Actually, that just sounds like laziness. They need to take responsibility for their own actions, not blame their failings on feminists who demand that they succeed by their own merits rather than rely on patriarchy to cut them enough slack to succeed, anyway. Those who become drones in the face of feminism were not that great to begin with if they rely strictly on manliness to stave off droning.
So far as I know, "they" haven't "blamed feminists" for anything. Those are my words. It's not a matter of "partiarchy," or "blaming," or "succeeding by thier own merits," or any of those things. It's about a generalized feeling that society has denigrated being male to the point that many young men wonder what the hell they're doing here.

Uh ... the thread is about MANliness, not WOMANliness. Duh. :p
The category 'manliness' has no meaning but for it's exclusion of womanliness...Duh:p
To talk about 'what is manliness' is to talk about traits that are manly as opposed to general. Since the 'other' that gives the category of manliness any semblence of meaning is womanliness, naturally to state a trait as an example of a characteristic of manliness in the context of a discussion about 'what is manliness' one is excluding it as a trait of womanliness. Otherwise we are talking about adultliness not manlieness, yet the thread isnt called 'Well what do you make of manliness'?Hmm?? is it?

Or perhaps you're having trouble getting your mind around the concept that men and woman are like, you know ... DIFFERENT! Hellohhh!
I'm having no trouble with that at all. Perhaps you are having trouble with hallcinations, or with reading and comprehension, or perhaps you just like making utterly non-sequitor suppositions....:confused:

Manliness: what it is, why it's good, and why our "gender-neutral" society hates it (but can't get rid of it!)

Manliness
by Harvey C. Mansfield

Here at last is the first comprehensive study -- and unapologetic defense -- of manliness, refuting the feminist propaganda that dominates popular culture's portrayal of men and masculinity. Harvard professor Harvey C. Mansfield examines manliness from a huge variety of perspectives, including vulgar aggression, assertive manliness, philosophical manliness, and -- as is most needed in these effeminate, anti-manly times -- manliness as a virtue.

:D

So this thread is just an advertisement for a book?

The category 'manliness' has no meaning but for it's exclusion of womanliness...Duh:p
To talk about 'what is manliness' is to talk about traits that are manly as opposed to general. Since the 'other' that gives the category of manliness any semblence of meaning is womanliness, naturally to state a trait as an example of a characteristic of manliness in the context of a discussion about 'what is manliness' one is excluding it as a trait of womanliness. Otherwise we are talking about adultliness not manlieness, yet the thread isnt called 'Well what do you make of manliness'?Hmm?? is it?
Oh bullshit. You're simply trying to obfuscate the issue: what does it mean to be a man?

CN is teh secksi
CN is teh 1337

So this thread is just an advertisement for a book?
Sigh. No. You'll notice there is no link to a site where you can purchase it.

This thread, as I have said before, was intended to begin a discussion about what it means to be a man.

So this thread is just an advertisement for a book?

What do you think Nationstates is, at the end of the day?

So far as I know, "they" haven't "blamed feminists" for anything. Those are my words. It's not a matter of "partiarchy," or "blaming," or "succeeding by thier own merits," or any of those things. It's about a generalized feeling that society has denigrated being male to the point that many young men wonder what the hell they're doing here.

Well, they shouldn't rely so much on their gender for their identity. Society has not denigrated being male, it has merely started to remove privilege based on gender. They're learning the hard way that being a good man does not equal being a good human. Aren't supporters of capitalism, such as yourself, always saying that people should stop whining and simply push themselves harder, anyway?

Well, they shouldn't rely so much on their gender for their identity. Society has not denigrated being male, it has merely started to remove privilege based on gender. They're learning the hard way that being a good man does not equal being a good human.
So what does it mean to be a man? Any thoughts on that?

So what does it mean to be a man? Any thoughts on that?

It means you have certain genetic and physical characteristics such as a Y chromozone, penis, tendency toward a certain size, bone structure, and musculature, and so on.

Sigh. No. You'll notice there is no link to a site where you can purchase it.
I don't even have to check the dictionary to know that the entry for "advertisement" doesn't mention hyperlinks.
I was simply referring to the fact that the majority of the content was about a book. Your red-coloured sentence just looked like an introduction to the book.

This thread, as I have said before, was intended to begin a discussion about what it means to be a man.
The first post is usually a good place to say such things. I don't think you'll like my answer to your question, since it would be pretty much a biological definition (only not as well written).

It could be argued that some versions of "manilness" could be little more than a "social construct," but I suspect that lack of proper role models, and constant battering from extreme feminism has rendered a number of men in our society nutless drones. I also suspect that this is one of the major reasons for so many boys dropping out of school, or not pursuing further education, or failing when they do.
Actually, I disagree.

For one, I don't see that
1) men have become wimpier in the first place,
therefore
2) I wouldn't know why there should be a lack of role models
and
3) the "constant battering from extreme feminism" is, if not entirely made-up, at the very least HIGHLY exaggerated. Plus, it's not "extreme feminism" (what is that anyway?) that has done any "battering", it's the realization that women can and should be equal to men that has luckily set in quite some time ago now and has steadily chipped away at the chauvinistic societal arrangements of yesteryear. And I never took you for somebody who'd like his women to shut up and switch off their brains and go back to cleaning the kitchen, Eutrusca. ;)


Now, if you want to talk about the "many boys dropping out of school, or not pursuing further education, or failing when they do", as you put it, I'll have to assume that you're talking about those on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder, because I certainly don't see middle and upper class boys going down in flames like that.

If you are, then I think you have it completely wrong and the opposite is actually the case.
The problem these kids have is not that they can't see a "manly role" they could fulfill and despair because of it. It's that they very clearly see a very manly role, yet they also see that they can't possibly fulfill it.
The traditional concept of masculinity embodies things like being strong, self-sufficient, in charge, being able to support your family. If you look at many of the recent immigrant families (e.g. Hispanics in the US, Turkish in Germany) you'll find a concept of masculinity that is part of a patriarchic culture that is a lot stronger than that of the "West".

So basically many of these kids grow up with a clear of picture of what is expected from them - yet with no visible means how to live up to that picture.

Mostly, the downslide has already started with their fathers, the first generation to immigrate. They either can't find work or work at miserably paid, often humiliating, jobs, which means they have a hard time being able to support their families. Plus, their kids will grow up in this new society and will likely "revolt" just a bit more than usual, i.e. the girls dressing "seductively" and wanting to have boyfriends and not being the all-obeying good daughter.
So yes, these men may well end up feeling emasculated, but not because they lack a picture to aspire to, but because that picture is so strong and pervasive and yet impossible to attain in those new surroundings. This, by the way, is a major reason for the domestic violence in these families - the men lose control over the outside world, so they cling to the only power they still wield - the control (sort of) of those they not only can but also are traditionally supposed to control.

So, to get back to the kids growing up in families like that (and I'm obviously neither saying every Hispanic/Turkish/etc. immigrant family is like that, nor am I excluding the rest of the social "underclass", black, white, or green).
Like I said, these kids are probably the ones with the very strongest ideal of masculinity among their age group, yet at the same time they're also the ones that are least equipped to fulfill it.

If you look around and all you see is people who are unemployed, on drugs, on a sorry excuse for "welfare", or have taken to petty crime to make some money, and when chances are that you and most of your friends will end up exactly like that, because there simply are no jobs besides flipping Burgers for the minimum wage, that doesn't exactly give you the impression that you'll ever succeed in this "manly ideal" thing.

Interestingly, once more, the answer to this is actually usually a turn to what sociologists have called "hypermasculinity", i.e. the mere acting out of a highly exaggerated image of masculinity and coolness and machismo. Which is, pretty much, what you can see in these kids when you meet them on the street. I know I do when I ride the subway.

Oh bullshit. You're simply trying to obfuscate the issue: what does it mean to be a man?
I'm not trying to obfusicate anything. I believe that taking responsibility for oneself is a trait of adulthood, rather than a characteristic of manliness. You seem to think it is a trait of manliness. What that means if it doesnt meant that it is manly rather than womanly to be responsible for oneself, I dont know.

I really have no time for esoterical nonsense about the meaning of being...If you are an adult male then you are a man, so being a man means you are an adult male....I can think of no other response that isnt esoterical naval gazing...other than 42 of course.

"Manliness" does get looked down on these days, but it is mainly because most people who are "manly," are so proud of it that they look down on anyone who isn't.

Of course, that ignores the near impossibility of defining just what exactly constitutes "manliness."

OH! I get it, this is an anti woman thread, because what with equal opportunity and all that evil nonsense, the world is a crappier place. Men can't go round being manly anymore becaue I am allowed to vote and own property in my own name...I now see the error of womens ways and will direct all my female friends to read this book so that we know how to properly raise our sons.

:p

It means you have certain genetic and physical characteristics such as a Y chromozone, penis, tendency toward a certain size, bone structure, and musculature, and so on.
So what you're saying is that what it means to be a woman is to have a vagina and breasts, with double Y chromosomes, etc.? I suspect that most women would take exception to that rather limited concept of what it means to be a woman.

This is apparently part of the problem. When you say that men are nothing more than a penis, you dehumanize them, you lead them to believe that all they're good for is impregnation and after that they're worhtless.

OH! I get it, this is an anti woman thread, because what with equal opportunity and all that evil nonsense, the world is a crappier place.
This thread isn't sexist at all. Why would it be trying to define masculine-only traits, you say? Because, um, because . . .
Look, over there! It's an Interweb! (www.google.com)

"Manliness" does get looked down on these days, but it is mainly because most people who are "manly," are so proud of it that they look down on anyone who isn't.

Of course, that ignores the near impossibility of defining just what exactly constitutes "manliness."
Which is what this thread is all about. :)

OH! I get it, this is an anti woman thread, because what with equal opportunity and all that evil nonsense, the world is a crappier place. Men can't go round being manly anymore becaue I am allowed to vote and own property in my own name...I now see the error of womens ways and will direct all my female friends to read this book so that we know how to properly raise our sons.
Straw man. That's not what I said, nor is it anything I either intimated nor believe.

This thread isn't sexist at all. Why would it be trying to define masculine-only traits, you say? Because, um, because . . .
Look, over there! It's an Interweb! (www.google.com)
Again, part of the problem.

Why on earth is it sexist to ask what constitutes being a man?

This thread isn't sexist at all. Why would it be trying to define masculine-only traits, you say? Because, um, because . . .
Look, over there! It's an Interweb! (www.google.com)


:fluffle:

This is apparently part of the problem. When you say that men are nothing more than a penis, you dehumanize them, you lead them to believe that all they're good for is impregnation and after that they're worhtless.

Having a penis and being a penis are not the same thing.

Having a penis and being a penis are not the same thing.
Explain, please.

Explain, please.

Not everyone who has a dick is one.....

Not everyone who has a dick is one.....
What does that have to do with the theme of this thread, pray tell?

Now admittedly some females have facial hair, but if they have something dangling between their legs than this thread has just taken one scary turn...


Mate, some women with a few years...

Ever think to ask yourself why some people feel so threatened by a simple question? It's because by allowing it to be a legitimate question, they may have to come to grips with an actual answer to it which might be very traumatic.

What does that have to do with the theme of this thread, pray tell?

I have no idea my love, but I was merely explaining the post that you queried.

I have experience of what I think are called manly men. I was married to a very manly guy, 6'4", built like arnie, worked hard at his very physical job and provided for his family. He didn't help around the house, he didn't help with the children, he didn't think stuff like that was 'manly' He also used to shout at his kids if they played dress up because if his son wore a dress it would make him gay...He was a dick. My new partner is a good man, a kind man, he cries at sad stuff, cares for my children and me, helps around the house...you know, al that un-manly stuff. :p

Explain, please.

Defining a man as someone who has a penis does not mean that a man cannot be more than that, it just sets the minimum requirements.

I think that was pretty clear this time. I'm not deliberately unhelpful.

Defining a man as someone who has a penis does not mean that a man cannot be more than that, it just sets the minimum requirements.

I think that was pretty clear this time. I'm not deliberately unhelpful.
Then can you list some of the other "requirements?"

Eutrusca,
Not to be a ninny- but women don't have any Y chromosomes.

for everyone who can't figure out why there is a lack of masculine role models it does not take much logic to comprehend. Roughly 1/3 of American households with children are single-parent - and the vast majority of those are women. No male present = no male role model - at least on par with the female influence. Then we end up with households fathered by men who had no father role model. The cycle spirals downward.

I frankly don't see any problem with discussing the responsibilities and challenges of masculinity - in fact I think this nation men needs much more of that.

Apparently there are a substantial number of people here who find the concept of masculine value, introspection and worth too threatening.

I have no idea my love, but I was merely explaining the post that you queried.

I have experience of what I think are called manly men. I was married to a very manly guy, 6'4", built like arnie, worked hard at his very physical job and provided for his family. He didn't help around the house, he didn't help with the children, he didn't think stuff like that was 'manly' He also used to shout at his kids if they played dress up because if his son wore a dress it would make him gay...He was a dick. My new partner is a good man, a kind man, he cries at sad stuff, cares for my children and me, helps around the house...you know, al that un-manly stuff. :p
I was laboring under the obvious delusion that this topic could be discussed relatively rationally.

Trying to interpret what you have just posted, and reading a bit between the lines, a "man" is one who works hard at his job, provides for his family, helps around the house, is "kind" ( though that's a term which begs for elaboration ), cries at sad stuff, doesn't yell at his son for wearing a dress ... anything else?

BTW ... my condolences on your having married a dick the first time around, but I am not he.

For everyone who can't figure out why there is a lack of masculine role models it does not take much logic to comprehend. Roughly 1/3 of American households with children are single-parent - and the vast majority of those are women. No male present = no male role model - at least on par with the female influence. Then we end up with households fathered by men who had no father role model. The cycle spirals downward.

I frankly don't see any problem with discussing the responsibilities and challenges of masculinity - in fact I think this nation men needs much more of that.

Apparently there are a substantial number of people here who find the concept of masculine value, introspection and worth too threatening.
I agree with you. I see this as a problem in desperate need of a solution, but I have no idea what it might be. :(

So what you're saying is that what it means to be a woman is to have a vagina and breasts, with double Y chromosomes, etc.?
Unless the poster is woefully ignorant of basic biology, then no they didnt mean that.
I suspect that most women would take exception to that rather limited concept of what it means to be a woman.
I think any woman with 2 Y chromosomes would be exceptional, in fact any woman with any Y chromosomes would to my mind be exceptional....;)

This is apparently part of the problem. When you say that men are nothing more than a penis, you dehumanize them, you lead them to believe that all they're good for is impregnation and after that they're worhtless.
When you try to categorise all men as having or failing to have some particular quality or qualities you deny their personhood as individuals and dehumanise them.

Then can you list some of the other "requirements?"

Well, actually I'm not sure what the best way to define it is. Even if, like me, you stick within a biological definition, it's hard to say. For example:

Is it sufficient to have had a penis in the past, for those who have lost it?
What about the other organs that are necessary for it to function correctly?
Or is it the presence of testosterone? Or the effect testosterone has on the body's development?

It's actually quite a hard question.

Unless the poster is woefully ignorant of basic biology, then no they didnt mean that.

I think any woman with 2 Y chromosomes would be exceptional, in fact any woman with any Y chromosomes would to my mind be exceptional....;)

When you try to categorise all men as having or failing to have some particular quality or qualities you deny their personhood as individuals and dehumanise them.
The Y chromosome was my error. Sue me.

Other than your mocking that error, I don't understand your post.

Well, actually I'm not sure what the best way to define it is. Even if, like me, you stick within a biological definition, it's hard to say. For example:

Is it sufficient to have had a penis in the past, for those who have lost it?
What about the other organs that are necessary for it to function correctly?
Or is it the presence of testosterone? Or the effect testosterone has on the body's development?

It's actually quite a hard question.
So no behavioral charcteristics whatsoever? Interesting.

I was laboring under the obvious delusion that this topic could be discussed relatively rationally.

Trying to interpret what you have just posted, and reading a bit between the lines, a "man" is one who works hard at his job, provides for his family, helps around the house, is "kind" ( though that's a term which begs for elaboration ), cries at sad stuff, doesn't yell at his son for wearing a dress ... anything else?

BTW ... my condolences on your having married a dick the first time around, but I am not he.

Nah...I think that boys need good role models, I just resent the term manly because it has conotations that are not good for many people, especially women and men who do not conform to the stereotypical views held by so many. My son has a wonderful role model in my lovely Canadian, he is teaching him all the important stuff about being a good PERSON, I think that is the important thing here. PEOPLE. We all need positive role models in life, good people to show us the way to live right, there is no need for them to be especially a man or a woman, they just need to be good and someone worth taking a lead from. Thats my bottom line. GOOD PEOPLE. all the rest is bunkum and twaddle.

Nah...I think that boys need good role models, I just resent the term manly because it has conotations that are not good for many people, especially women and men who do not conform to the stereotypical views held by so many. My son has a wonderful role model in my lovely Canadian, he is teaching him all the important stuff about being a good PERSON, I think that is the important thing here. PEOPLE. We all need positive role models in life, good people to show us the way to live right, there is no need for them to be especially a man or a woman, they just need to be good and someone worth taking a lead from. Thats my bottom line. GOOD PEOPLE. all the rest is bunkum and twaddle.
You had me agreeing with you right up until the last sentance.

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that there are no behavioral charcteristics which help to define what a man is, yes?

So no behavioral charcteristics whatsoever? Interesting.

Well, behaviour can be determined by biology, but perhaps that's too simplistic an answer. There is a concept, named "manliness" that describes a certain kind of behaviour. It is so named, because it is a kind of behaviour more common among men than women, but that does not necessarily mean it can be used to determine whether one is a man or a woman.

I agree with you. I see this as a problem in desperate need of a solution, but I have no idea what it might be. :(

AHA! Now no one will question my idea for daily Fight Club viewings for all males above 12!!!

http://www.rupyb.com/images/articles/clockwork/wee_big.jpg

Manliness is eating everything on your plate, not because it's polite, but because you're hungry.
Manliness is hauling lumber up a hill, not because it's a workout, but because that lumber isn't going to move itself.
Manliness is spending a week in the woods, not because it's a test of your survival skill, but because it's both relaxing and exciting.
Manliness is trusting yourself to do what needs doing.

It doesn't hurt to own some flannel and good work boots, of course.

The Y chromosome was my error. Sue me.

Other than your mocking that error, I don't understand your post.
I think it is dehumanising to concieve of a nebulus of homogenous traits and judge people of a particular gender on how well they conform to those traits.

Manliness is eating everything on your plate, not because it's polite, but because you're hungry.
Manliness is hauling lumber up a hill, not because it's a workout, but because that lumber isn't going to move itself.
Manliness is spending a week in the woods, not because it's a test of your survival skill, but because it's both relaxing and exciting.
Manliness is trusting yourself to do what needs doing.

It doesn't hurt to own some flannel and good work boots, of course.

Marrying the girl and paying the mortgage isn't too bad, either.
Helping those in need.
Being stong enough not to have to use it.
Being wise enough to know why
and
Being smart enough to know you don't know it all.

Well, behaviour can be determined by biology, but perhaps that's too simplistic an answer. There is a concept, named "manliness" that describes a certain kind of behaviour. It is so named, because it is a kind of behaviour more common among men than women, but that does not necessarily mean it can be used to determine whether one is a man or a woman.
Other than bioligcally based characteristics, is there anything which can be used to help determine whether someone is a "man" or not?

Admittedly, "manly" has some negative connotations in the minds of some, Carisbrooke being an example due to negative experiences. I'm not aware of another word which might be less emotionally charged, however. Perhaps that's part of the problem: the only ( or at least most often used ) term which refers to "being a man" has become loaded with negative connotations?

EDIT: Which brings up an interesting point. Does the word "womanly" have the same sort of negative baggage as the term "manly?" Hmmm.

Marrying the girl and paying the mortgage isn't too bad, either.
Helping those in need.
Being stong enough not to have to use it.
Being wise enough to know why
and
Being smart enough to know you don't know it all.
Good points. Some of those points may indeed help to determine what constitues "being a man."

What about the word "masculine" as an alternative to "manly?" Better?

Good points. Some of those points may indeed help to determine what constitues "being a man."

Some of those...traits...in a woman would not make her more manly, though.

Other than bioligcally based characteristics, is there anything which can be used to help determine whether someone is a "man" or not?
Well, I consider a "man" to be an adult male human, and I consider being an adult, male or human to be biological traits.

Admittedly, "manly" has some negative connotations in the minds of some, Carisbrooke being an example due to negative experiences. I'm not aware of another word which might be less emotionally charged, however. Perhaps that's part of the problem: the only ( or at least most often used ) term which refers to "being a man" has become loaded with negative connotations?
Well, it depends on context. Before I go further, I ought to ask whether you mean "man" as opposed to "boy" or as opposed to "woman". That's quite important I think.
If you wanted to tell a male to "be a man", without it sounding sexist, you could simply say "act your age" or "grow up", and they ought to correctly infer whether you want them to switch sex in the process.

Some of those...traits...in a woman would not make her more manly, though.

No, but it's a simple thing to place the first rule in place "to qualify for manliness, one must first be male".

So what you're saying is that what it means to be a woman is to have a vagina and breasts, with double Y chromosomes, etc.? I suspect that most women would take exception to that rather limited concept of what it means to be a woman.

This is apparently part of the problem. When you say that men are nothing more than a penis, you dehumanize them, you lead them to believe that all they're good for is impregnation and after that they're worhtless.
pfffft

all that is REQUIRED to be a man or a woman is the right genetics or the right parts (or sometimes the right mindset). the rest is society.

are you going to claim that a very "feminine" man isnt a man? or that a very "masculine" woman isnt a woman?

a man is a man and he doesnt have to prove it with certain kinds of behaviors.

Manliness: what it is, why it's good, and why our "gender-neutral" society hates it (but can't get rid of it!)

Manliness
by Harvey C. Mansfield

Here at last is the first comprehensive study -- and unapologetic defense -- of manliness, refuting the feminist propaganda that dominates popular culture's portrayal of men and masculinity. Harvard professor Harvey C. Mansfield examines manliness from a huge variety of perspectives, including vulgar aggression, assertive manliness, philosophical manliness, and -- as is most needed in these effeminate, anti-manly times -- manliness as a virtue.

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/9149/manliness0yx.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

:D
He could have saved us all some time by just using the title, "My Name Is Harvey, And I Am Extremely Insecure About The Size Of My Penis."

......

a man is a man and he doesnt have to prove it with certain kinds of behaviors.
Some men are somewhat more manly than others though...

are you going to claim that a very "feminine" man isnt a man? or that a very "masculine" woman isnt a woman?
Yes, many people do claim exactly that. They feel entitled to dictate what a "real man" or "real woman" must act like. This is usually because they are unimaginative and insecure.


a man is a man and he doesnt have to prove it with certain kinds of behaviors.
I would go even farther: a man is a person, and who the fuck cares about how well he fulfills his culture's particular hangups about gender roles?

There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support the idea of innate personality differences between the sexes.

What makes a man is his XY chromosonal makeup, and that is that. Everything else, especially things that we associate as 'natural' for a man to do, is not innate, but instead learned behavior. The idea that changes in how men behave represent an assault on how men 'naturally' are is just plain wrong.

No, but it's a simple thing to place the first rule in place "to qualify for manliness, one must first be male".

I know a very manly woman....:confused: ......who is not a male at all

I would go even farther: a man is a person, and who the fuck cares about how well he fulfills his culture's particular hangups about gender roles?

You win the thread.

Some of those...traits...in a woman would not make her more manly, though.
You are .... confusing. :p

I know a very manly woman....:confused: ......who is not a male at all

No no no, the term for a woman is Man-ish. Or Masculine. You can have Masculine women and Feminine men.

Some men are somewhat more manly than others though...
only by someone else's definition.

and if one goes by a stereotypical definition of manliness, a MAN would never let someone else dictate how he acts even if the rest of the world sees it as feminine.

pfffft

all that is REQUIRED to be a man or a woman is the right genetics or the right parts (or sometimes the right mindset). the rest is society.

are you going to claim that a very "feminine" man isnt a man? or that a very "masculine" woman isnt a woman?

a man is a man and he doesnt have to prove it with certain kinds of behaviors.
Who said anything about "proving" anything? I'm simply trying to determine whether there are certain characteristics ( other than the obvious biological ones ) which make a man "masculine."

And there are scientifically verifiable behaviors normally associated with gender.

You are .... confusing. :p
And you have a TG.

[/Off-topic] Sorry.

only by someone else's definition.

and if one goes by a stereotypical definition of manliness, a MAN would never let someone else dictate how he acts even if the rest of the world sees it as feminine.
LOL! We're getting all entangled in semantics here I'm afraid.

I suspect it's strength of character which determines whether someone, male or female, is going to allow someone else to dictate behavior.

And you have a TG.

[/Off-topic] Sorry.
Already answered that one, yes??

No no no, the term for a woman is Man-ish. Or Masculine. You can have Masculine women and Feminine men.
So define "masculine" for me then. :confused:

For some reason, my idea of "maniless" is always connected with the term "redneck" (the not inbred Northern version of the term).
Thanks mom, thanks a whole lot.

So define "masculine" for me then. :confused:
masculine is defined by society. there is no truth in it for all men. some men would only be playng a role if they conformed to societal expectations for the way men act. and yet, if they are true to themselves, they are not unmanly.

So define "masculine" for me then. :confused:

masculine: suggestive or characteristic of a man. So things like larger body, excess hair, big hands for all those seinfeld fans, even lesser stuff maybe, like finger length or range of voice.

For some reason, my idea of "maniless" is always connected with the term "redneck" (the not inbred Northern version of the term).
Thanks mom, thanks a whole lot.
Would that be one of the negative connotations of the term "manliness" then??

You are .... confusing. :p

hmm. I'll try and defuse you then. Here goes:

Some traits/characteristics have been mentioned, such as being responsible, taking care of stuff, providing for the family etc.

Whether those characteristics in a person increase the manliness of that person, depend on gender, right?

Those characteristics in a woman do not make her more manly.

Those characterisics in a man on the other hand...hmmm?

Man:
requirements:
y chromosome. Doesn't matter if it is the usual XY or the freaky XXY/XYY.
Woman:
requirements:
No y chromosome, whether she is XX or the freaky XXX.

Yes, you can have a triple chromosome. It's just a weird mutation.

Rudyard Kipling


If

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on";

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!

Would that be one of the negative connotations of the term "manliness" then??
It depends, really, how one views the term "redneck". Plad shirts are not exactly a plus, nor are they a negative. Rednecks usually kill things, like deer, birds, and fish. We also like guns. Saving things "just in case" is very common, and leads to pat-rat-like behavior as if it we still lived in the Great Depression. There is also "redneck ingenuity" which goes along with being a "redneck" and is a plus. Fixing things to work marvelously only to see them fall apart in a matter of minutes, days, or months happens often. We get into brawls every now and then and like beer, however, we are not all alcoholics. Did I mention outdoors recreation? Yeah, we do the outdoorsy stuff, we don't just kill random animals. We tinker with knots, orientiering, botany, and militias among other things. Hmm....

There's more, but in my opinion, being a "redneck" is far more a positive trait than a negative one.

EDIT: Lawn care is a biggy in manliness. The greener the lawn, the more potent and successful he must be.

Man:
requirements:
y chromosome. Doesn't matter if it is the usual XY or the freaky XXY/XYY.
Woman:
requirements:
No y chromosome, whether she is XX or the freaky XXX.

Yes, you can have a triple chromosome. It's just a weird mutation.
No, it's a trisomy (caused by non-disjunction), entirely different from a mutation....;)

There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support the idea of innate personality differences between the sexes.

What makes a man is his XY chromosonal makeup, and that is that.

But not EVEN that! There are physiologically male individuals who have XX chromosomes, and physiologically female individuals who have XY chromosomes!


Everything else, especially things that we associate as 'natural' for a man to do, is not innate, but instead learned behavior. The idea that changes in how men behave represent an assault on how men 'naturally' are is just plain wrong.
Indeed. Whenever you hear somebody start a sentence with, "All men are..." you know you're about to hear some juicy stupidity.

hmm. I'll try and defuse you then. Here goes:

Some traits/characteristics have been mentioned, such as being responsible, taking care of stuff, providing for the family etc.

Whether those characteristics in a person increase the manliness of that person, depend on gender, right?

Those characteristics in a woman do not make her more manly.

Those characterisics in a man on the other hand...hmmm?
We're obviously generalizing here. Not everyone fits the 'male vs. female' dichotomy.

I try to visualize two scales, or lines, both of about the same length, but one of which extends further to the "male characteriscs" side and the other of which extends further to the "female characteristics" side. There is considerable overlap, but still a significant difference between the two.

Something which looks a bit like this ( only without the dots ):


............Female Characteristics........................Male Characteristics

______________________________________

....................................________________________________________

Where a particular individual falls on this scale is largely irrelevant for purposes of this discussion. What is relevant is that, although the scales overlap, there is still considerable difference between the scales.

Comments?

Man:
requirements:
y chromosome. Doesn't matter if it is the usual XY or the freaky XXY/XYY.
Woman:
requirements:
No y chromosome, whether she is XX or the freaky XXX.

Yes, you can have a triple chromosome. It's just a weird mutation.
But, as I said, even this much is not true. I attended school with a girl who, during High School, found out she was XY. She was physiologically female (and actually pretty "girly"), but had "male" chromosomes.

This happens because "maleness" isn't defined by the whole Y or X chromosome. There is actually a relatively small bit of DNA, called the SRY region, that is primarily responsible from making a fetus become male. (Remember, all human fetuses start out as girls). If this region doesn't activate things properly, you can have an XY fetus that continues to develop as female. If you get an activation of the SRY cascade in an XX fetus, it will develop into a male phenotype.

Isn't it more like

.............Human Characteristics
___________________________________

?

masculine is defined by society. there is no truth in it for all men. some men would only be playng a role if they conformed to societal expectations for the way men act. and yet, if they are true to themselves, they are not unmanly.
I think I can agree with that, although I need to think about it a bit.

Who said anything about "proving" anything? I'm simply trying to determine whether there are certain characteristics ( other than the obvious biological ones ) which make a man "masculine."

And there are scientifically verifiable behaviors normally associated with gender.

In response to the first part of the quoted post: No, none that I can think of that are not socially or culturally relative.

As to the second part, I would love to see a cite of some sort, not because I don't believe you, but I would genuinely like to know.

masculine: suggestive or characteristic of a man. So things like larger body, excess hair, big hands for all those seinfeld fans, even lesser stuff maybe, like finger length or range of voice.
More left/right brain dichotomy?

More physically active?

More oriented toward the rational side than to the emotional?

Less concerned with relationships?

More willing to resort to force?

???

Rudyard Kipling


If
That's one of the very first poems I ever read. :)

We're obviously generalizing here. Not everyone fits the 'male vs. female' dichotomy.

I think the reality is that NOBODY fits the "male vs. female" dichotomy.

The most manly of manly men will usually have at least one "quirk" that doesn't quite fit the idealized picture of maleness. Maybe he doesn't have enough hair on his back. Maybe he doesn't really like to burp or fart. Maybe he secretly enjoys cooking. Maybe he knows, deep down, that his "action figures" are really dolls.


I try to visualize two scales, or lines, both of about the same length, but one of which extends further to the "male characteriscs" side and the other of which extends further to the "female characteristics" side. There is considerable overlap, but still a significant difference between the two.

Something which looks a bit like this ( only without the dots ):


............Female Characteristics........................Male Characteristics

______________________________________

....................................________________________________________

Where a particular individual falls on this scale is largely irrelevant for purposes of this discussion. What is relevant is that, although the scales overlap, there is still considerable difference between the scales.

Comments?
Well, given that the "scales" themselves are entirely made up, I don't see the point in arguing it. Sure, males and females in our society currently tend to show differing ranges of behaviors. Does that have anything to do with "innate maleness" or "innate femaleless"? Hell no.

It has to do with us giving little girls dolls and little boys trucks. It has to do with every commercial for Legos that doesn't have a single girl, and every My Little Ponies commercial that doesn't have a boy. It has to do with people being told their entire lives that men and women are fundamentally different creatures.

It also has to do with people seeing what they want to see. Alas, A Blog had a great post up about this, regarding Amp's daughter. Here's a link: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/03/27/monday-baby-blogging-sydney-and-gendered-behavior/

It depends, really, how one views the term "redneck". Plad shirts are not exactly a plus, nor are they a negative. Rednecks usually kill things, like deer, birds, and fish. We also like guns. Saving things "just in case" is very common, and leads to pat-rat-like behavior as if it we still lived in the Great Depression. There is also "redneck ingenuity" which goes along with being a "redneck" and is a plus. Fixing things to work marvelously only to see them fall apart in a matter of minutes, days, or months happens often. We get into brawls every now and then and like beer, however, we are not all alcoholics. Did I mention outdoors recreation? Yeah, we do the outdoorsy stuff, we don't just kill random animals. We tinker with knots, orientiering, botany, and militias among other things. Hmm....

There's more, but in my opinion, being a "redneck" is far more a positive trait than a negative one.

EDIT: Lawn care is a biggy in manliness. The greener the lawn, the more potent and successful he must be.
I hate doing yardwork! Does that make me less masculine somehow? :eek:

And there are scientifically verifiable behaviors normally associated with gender.
Well OF COURSE. Anybody can support the observation that men and women will display different behavior patterns, on average. This is because there is not one known human society that doesn't include pre-assumptions about gendered behavior.

More left/right brain dichotomy?

More physically active?

More oriented toward the rational side than to the emotional?

Less concerned with relationships?

More willing to resort to force?

???

Those are all emotional or habitual ideas. While still factors, they are less effective at determining manliness. A lot of those things are just indicators of passive or active will.

I hate doing yardwork! Does that make me less masculine somehow? :eek:
You don't have to like yardwork, I'm just saying the lawn needs to be green.
Oh, and no. That's my idea of "manliness". Make up your own. :D

Everything else, especially things that we associate as 'natural' for a man to do, is not innate, but instead learned behavior. The idea that changes in how men behave represent an assault on how men 'naturally' are is just plain wrong.

Indeed. Whenever you hear somebody start a sentence with, "All men are..." you know you're about to hear some juicy stupidity.
But ... does it really matter whether you are "assaulting" anything "innate" or assaulting something "learned?" Isn't the effect the same?

I hate doing yardwork! Does that make me less masculine somehow? :eek:

Short answer: Yes.

I hate doing yardwork! Does that make me less masculine somehow? :eek:
only if you dont get it done.

doing stuff you hate is very masculine

But, as I said, even this much is not true. I attended school with a girl who, during High School, found out she was XY. She was physiologically female (and actually pretty "girly"), but had "male" chromosomes.

This happens because "maleness" isn't defined by the whole Y or X chromosome. There is actually a relatively small bit of DNA, called the SRY region, that is primarily responsible from making a fetus become male. (Remember, all human fetuses start out as girls). If this region doesn't activate things properly, you can have an XY fetus that continues to develop as female. If you get an activation of the SRY cascade in an XX fetus, it will develop into a male phenotype.

Is it true that an XY female will not undergo puberty?

Well OF COURSE. Anybody can support the observation that men and women will display different behavior patterns, on average. This is because there is not one known human society that doesn't include pre-assumptions about gendered behavior.
It would be fascinating to see an attempt to prove this. As biological determinism ( term I despise! ) gains force, it seems that more and more personality characteristics which we have always thought were learned, now appear to be genetically inherited tendencies.

Isn't it more like

.............Human Characteristics
___________________________________

?
As compared to???

doing stuff you hate is very masculine
Oh, yes, my mother always loved doing the laundry, hoovering, cooking, sewing, cleaning things, and other stuff along those lines. ;)

In response to the first part of the quoted post: No, none that I can think of that are not socially or culturally relative.

As to the second part, I would love to see a cite of some sort, not because I don't believe you, but I would genuinely like to know.
I've read studies, but don't have any links just now. Perhaps I'll look for some later. :)

It would be fascinating to see an attempt to prove this. As biological determinism ( term I despise! ) gains force, it seems that more and more personality characteristics which we have always thought were learned, now appear to be genetically inherited tendencies.

I would disagree with that, since personality comes from the brain, and the human brain requires environmental influence to develop properly. If a human is brought up by dogs, it will behave like a dog.

Personally, I think "manliness" is stupid. Why should someone act in ways that society expects you to because of your gender? How will this benefit anyone?

I feel uncomfortable when I am talking with the guys because it seems all they talk about genreally are sports, cars and womens body parts; which I am sure are all nice things but I don't know anything about sports or cars because they don't interest me in the least - womens body parts are marvelous but it gets tiring really fast as a subject of conversation. So basically I avoid male friends, as I just don't get along with them.

Shouldn't people just be themselves and not try to fit into some mold, despite how others expect you to act?

I think the reality is that NOBODY fits the "male vs. female" dichotomy.

The most manly of manly men will usually have at least one "quirk" that doesn't quite fit the idealized picture of maleness. Maybe he doesn't have enough hair on his back. Maybe he doesn't really like to burp or fart. Maybe he secretly enjoys cooking. Maybe he knows, deep down, that his "action figures" are really dolls.

Well, given that the "scales" themselves are entirely made up, I don't see the point in arguing it. Sure, males and females in our society currently tend to show differing ranges of behaviors. Does that have anything to do with "innate maleness" or "innate femaleless"? Hell no.

It has to do with us giving little girls dolls and little boys trucks. It has to do with every commercial for Legos that doesn't have a single girl, and every My Little Ponies commercial that doesn't have a boy. It has to do with people being told their entire lives that men and women are fundamentally different creatures.

It also has to do with people seeing what they want to see. Alas, A Blog had a great post up about this, regarding Amp's daughter. Here's a link: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/03/27/monday-baby-blogging-sydney-and-gendered-behavior/
One example doth not a generalization make ... or something like that. ;)

There is no proof of which I am aware that "maleness" or "femaleness" is based solely on whether parents indoctrinate their children.

Men and women are different creatures, whether they are "fundamentally" so or not is open to debate.

Is it true that an XY female will not undergo puberty?
It gets a bit complicated at puberty, really. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't...it depends on what the original problem was. In some cases, they have the "normal" gene sequences, but the genes didn't activate properly in utero. In those situations, sometimes they will start to undergo "male" puberty. In other cases, there's been some different malfunction and they won't undergo any puberty at all.

However, I'm not a geneticist, and I don't pretend to be an expert on these conditions.

You don't have to like yardwork, I'm just saying the lawn needs to be green.
Oh, and no. That's my idea of "manliness". Make up your own. :D
"KILL! KILL! KILL!"

How's that? :D

Short answer: Yes.
:p

only if you dont get it done.

doing stuff you hate is very masculine
ROFL! What ... EVER! :D

What's all this stuff about "society determining manliness"?
What'd y'all do, buy in or sumthin'?
Shouldn't people just be themselves and not try to fit into some mold, despite how others expect you to act?
Has it ever occured to that maybe, just maybe, guys talk about cars, sports, and women's body parts because they actually like to, and not because some third party told them to?

There is no proof of which I am aware that "maleness" or "femaleness" is based solely on whether parents indoctrinate their children.
There is ample evidence (try JSTOR or PsychInfo or Pubmed) on how parental influence shapes gendered behaviors. There has also been research done on individuals who were born intersexed or with the "wrong" chromosomes (XY females, XX males) which suggests that socialization plays a larger role than genetics in determining "masculine" and "feminine" traits.


Men and women are different creatures, whether they are "fundamentally" so or not is open to debate.
Well yeah, that's what I'm saying. The final product (an adult male or female) is going to have certain typical characteristics. Whether or not they have those characteristics BECAUSE they are male or female is the subject of the discussion (I think?).

Oh, yes, my mother always loved doing the laundry, hoovering, cooking, sewing, cleaning things, and other stuff along those lines. ;)
Exactly! All those "feminine" traits! I REST my case! :D

"KILL! KILL! KILL!"
A trait also shared by sociopaths... :D

A trait also shared by sociopaths... :D

Ah, but do they have a greater desire to kill, or do they merely require less justification to carry it out?

I feel uncomfortable when I am talking with the guys because it seems all they talk about genreally are sports, cars and womens body parts; which I am sure are all nice things but I don't know anything about sports or cars because they don't interest me in the least - womens body parts are marvelous but it gets tiring really fast as a subject of conversation. So basically I avoid male friends, as I just don't get along with them.
There seem to be a great number of men on here who discuss considerably more than "sports, cars and women's body parts." I consider many of them to be very masculine indeed, and would like to think that at least some of them are my friends. :)

What's all this stuff about "society determining manliness"?
What'd y'all do, buy in or sumthin'?

Has it ever occured to that maybe, just maybe, guys talk about cars, sports, and women's body parts because they actually like to, and not because some third party told them to?

So parents don't prep their kids to acts like proper boys or girls depending on their gender?

Girls aren't given dolls and trained to be nurturers and boys arent given toy guns to play fight?

Yes I'm sure those guys do like those things they talk about or else they wouldn't talk about them I imagine.

Ah, but do they have a greater desire to kill, or do they merely require less justification to carry it out?
The same "justification" I use to harvest a deer would work marvelously on humans.
I'm not kidding. Not that I'm planning on killing anyone in the near future or anything...
*shifty eyes*

What's all this stuff about "society determining manliness"?
What'd y'all do, buy in or sumthin'?

Has it ever occured to that maybe, just maybe, guys talk about cars, sports, and women's body parts because they actually like to, and not because some third party told them to?
Heretic! [ trout-smack ]

I love to talk about women's body parts, and sometimes about cars, but the sports thang just usually leaves me cold. ( shrug )

Considering the number of people who refuse to take responsibility for the course their lives take, and the number of people who are afraid of confrontation maybe a little more manliness is a good thing.
Why is personal responsibility an especially manly characteristic? I agree that men tend to be more confrontational, and yes I think that more people should be a bit more confrontational (I'll kill the straw men before they are built; I am not endorsing crime).

A trait also shared by sociopaths... :D
LOL! Ah! But aren't sociopaths and schizophrenics more likely to be male?

There seem to be a great number of men on here who discuss considerably more than "sports, cares and women's body parts." I consider many of them to be very masculine indeed, and would like to think that at least some of them are my friends. :)

I fail to see where I said that all men only talk about those things. Perhaps you could point that out to me. Also this is a political message board more than anything so although we do still see people discussing those things it is not going to be the majority of discussions.

I was referring to our daily lives outside of the internet. I am speaking from me personal encounters with manly straight men. All I was saying is that I get along a lot better with women and gay men. It's always been that way for me because I have always had a hard time relating to most guys.

One example doth not a generalization make ... or something like that. ;)

There is no proof of which I am aware that "maleness" or "femaleness" is based solely on whether parents indoctrinate their children.

Men and women are different creatures, whether they are "fundamentally" so or not is open to debate.

I have a 7 months old daughter. She is not yet showing any sign of girlishness. Not showing preference for pink, etc. She does however grunt, burp and fart loudly, plus lots of other rude non-girlish stuff. She is impatient, loud, and makes no apparent attempt at controlling her temper.

Should I seek out a support group for fathers of lesbian juveniles?

Well yeah, that's what I'm saying. The final product (an adult male or female) is going to have certain typical characteristics. Whether or not they have those characteristics BECAUSE they are male or female is the subject of the discussion (I think?).
I think it's narrowed a bit to whether there is a biological basis for male behavioral characteristics or not. :confused:

There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support the idea of innate personality differences between the sexes.

What makes a man is his XY chromosonal makeup, and that is that. Everything else, especially things that we associate as 'natural' for a man to do, is not innate, but instead learned behavior. The idea that changes in how men behave represent an assault on how men 'naturally' are is just plain wrong.

It makes some difference. Turners syndrome is an example of this, oddly. I could expalin it, but I am lazy , so it might detail it on Wikipedia. Anyway, misbehavious is on the Mum's X chromosome.

However, there is no genetic basis to being upset about the whole issue. That is an American cultural issue.

I think.

Ah, but do they have a greater desire to kill, or do they merely require less justification to carry it out?
Lower "kill threshold?" :D

So parents don't prep their kids to acts like proper boys or girls depending on their gender?

Girls aren't given dolls and trained to be nurturers and boys arent given toy guns to play fight?

Yes I'm sure those guys do like those things they talk about or else they wouldn't talk about them I imagine.

That being said, though, I was given dolls to play with as a child, and I made guns out of those dolls. There is some degree of natural affinity for gender roles, however much socialization plays a part.

So parents don't prep their kids to acts like proper boys or girls depending on their gender?

Girls aren't given dolls and trained to be nurturers and boys arent given toy guns to play fight?

Yes I'm sure those guys do like those things they talk about or else they wouldn't talk about them I imagine.
The confounding factor is that people like to do things that get them positive responses.

As a kid, I got very positive responses from my parents when I read books. This made me enjoy reading books more, and so I read more. This lead to me getting better at reading, which made me like it more, which made me read more...etc.

My cousin, on the other hand, was called "sissy" for liking to read. If he wanted to spend an afternoon with a book, he was insulted and teased. If he wanted to go out and play baseball he was praised and given treats. Surprise surprise, as an adult he likes sports and isn't very interested in literature.

Does this mean we are all zombies programmed by our childhoods? No, of course not. Many of us persist in liking things that we were discouraged from, but that's because the situation is much more complicated than the very simple situations I used as examples. It's also because different people respond differently to the same pressures...my brother is a mule-headed fellow who deliberately chooses to like everything he's not supposed to do, while I was a child who fed off of encouragement and positive feedback. Same parents + different kid = different outcome.

So parents don't prep their kids to acts like proper boys or girls depending on their gender?
Girls aren't given dolls and trained to be nurturers and boys arent given toy guns to play fight?
What? Crazy generalizations my friend. Every woman I've had a relation with has recieved actual guns to go out and shoot game with. I also recieved those, but I also got a number of balls to play with.
No, not those balls.
Yes I'm sure those guys do like those things they talk about or else they wouldn't talk about them I imagine.
Exactly.
Of course, there's more things those with penises converse over, but its usually bad to hang around guys who are around guys.
Same thing happens to men. Most of the time.
Do I really want to hear about their period? Or how that nice lady at the spa waxed them, oh, you know, there? Or how hot that guy's butt is? How slutty than one girl is?
Not to mention every time I actually (or act like I'm caring), I get asked, "Are you gay?" Thanks ladies, thanks a lot. Like men can't be sensitive.

Why is personal responsibility an especially manly characteristic? I agree that men tend to be more confrontational, and yes I think that more people should be a bit more confrontational (I'll kill the straw men before they are built; I am not endorsing crime).
Interesting point. There are studies which show that most women are less inclined to engage in confrontational behavior than most men, largely because women seem to be less willing to jeapordize relationships.

There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support the idea of innate personality differences between the sexes.

What makes a man is his XY chromosonal makeup, and that is that. Everything else, especially things that we associate as 'natural' for a man to do, is not innate, but instead learned behavior. The idea that changes in how men behave represent an assault on how men 'naturally' are is just plain wrong.I think you're wrong here. I'm sure there have been scientific studies on the hormones and the development of the brain in the womb. The presence or lack of testosterone seems to have a very significant impact on the way the brain develops. Which I'm sure means differences in personality. Why is autism more common in males? Why do females tend to be better at multi-tasking? Why do men tend to have better visio-spacial skills? Why do women tend to live longer than men?

The physical and mental differences between males and females are intimately related, because they are caused by the same hormones. Testosterone causing masculine traits and oestrogen and progesterone causing feminine traits.

However, these hormones are not mutually exclusive. Testosterone, oestrogen and progesterone are found in both females and males. And a lack of any of those three causes problems for both sexes.

Thus masculinity and feminity is not a black and white issue. In my mind there is no distinctive stereotypical male or female. Just masculine and feminine traits that any human my possess in varying strengths. I also believe that there are both desirable and undesireable masculine and feminine traits, with neither set of traits being superior, but instead complementary.

Some psychological traits that I consider to be masculine:
- visiospacial skills
- competiveness
- assertive
- individualistic
- agressiveness
- impulsive

Like I said, these traits are not exclusive to males, just more prevalent in males. Competitiveness is by no means the preserve of males, but it is a dominant characteristic in our patriarchcal society. Sometimes it competiveness is useful and sometimes it is detrimental.

One a side note -
The increasing femininity of the population has been attributed to the inability of conventional water treatment facilities to remove oestrogen from drinking water. This has also been compounded by the increasing use of the contraceptive pill. The increased exposure to oestrogen is causing infertility in the male population and hormone imbalances in females.

I think it is good that western society is coming to reconise the importance of feminine traits, but there may come a time when we have to be wary of slipping into a matriarchcal society. The dominance of either set of traits is not a good thing. However, I currently think society is in no danger of becoming too feminine.

Human behavior is one part biological and two parts environmental.
For instance, the halves of a female brain are batter connected than the halves of the male brain. Experiments have shown that females tend to be more about the big picture while males tend to be more about the details. It is believed that this is because of the brain thing I mentioned. You can't really deny this when it has been tested over and over and over again, each time with a different pool of "lab rats"(testees). This isn't exactly learned behavior. It's biological.

However, most behavior patterns are environmental. If a boy grows up in the rough side of town, he's very likely to become aggressive. He's growing up in a place where the strong and aggressive get first dibs. He'll learn to become more aggressive, more animalistic. Likewise, if you place a girl in this situation, she'll also become aggressive. She'll learn the rules of the game. Of course, she might not be AS aggressive, hormones and all. But, she will become aggressive.

That being said, though, I was given dolls to play with as a child, and I made guns out of those dolls. There is some degree of natural affinity for gender roles, however much socialization plays a part.
I was given dolls and used them to construct buildings. My favorite toy was a My Little Pony I'd been given, on which I had replaced the head with a lump of putty that I had moulded into tentacles.

The fact that you made guns out of your dolls tells us something about you as an individual. It is entirely possible that you would have done precisely the same thing if you'd been born in a girl body.

I get along a lot better with women and gay men. It's always been that way for me because I have always had a hard time relating to most guys.
As do I. My best friends are almost all women, with some exceptions, perhaps for some of the same reasons.

...but the sports thang just usually leaves me cold. ( shrug )
Oh, me too. I couldn't care less about a game I wasn't at and didn't see with my own eyes. But, if I was at the game, or, even more importantly in the game, you can't shut me up. I personally only follow High School and College sports, and for the most part, American Football.

I have a 7 months old daughter. She is not yet showing any sign of girlishness. Not showing preference for pink, etc. She does however grunt, burp and fart loudly, plus lots of other rude non-girlish stuff. She is impatient, loud, and makes no apparent attempt at controlling her temper.

Should I seek out a support group for fathers of lesbian juveniles?
ROFLMFAO!!! Yes, by all means do so! :p

What? Crazy generalizations my friend. Every woman I've had a relation with has recieved actual guns to go out and shoot game with. I also recieved those, but I also got a number of balls to play with.
No, not those balls.

Exactly.
Of course, there's more things those with penises converse over, but its usually bad to hang around guys who are around guys.
Same thing happens to men. Most of the time.
Do I really want to hear about their period? Or how that nice lady at the spa waxed them, oh, you know, there? Or how hot that guy's butt is? How slutty than one girl is?
Not to mention every time I actually (or act like I'm caring), I get asked, "Are you gay?" Thanks ladies, thanks a lot. Like men can't be sensitive.
ROFLMAO! You GO, dude! LOL! :D

I think you're wrong here. I'm sure there have been scientific studies on the hormones and the development of the brain in the womb. The presence or lack of testosterone seems to have a very significant impact on the way the brain develops. Which I'm sure means differences in personality. Why is autism more common in males? Why do females tend to be better at multi-tasking? Why do men tend to have better visio-spacial skills? Why do women tend to live longer than men?

The physical and mental differences between males and females are intimately related, because they are caused by the same hormones. Testosterone causing masculine traits and oestrogen and progesterone causing feminine traits.

However, these hormones are not mutually exclusive. Testosterone, oestrogen and progesterone are found in both females and males. And a lack of any of those three causes problems for both sexes.

Thus masculinity and feminity is not a black and white issue. In my mind there is no distinctive stereotypical male or female. Just masculine and feminine traits that any human my possess in varying strengths. I also believe that there are both desirable and undesireable masculine and feminine traits, with neither set of traits being superior, but instead complementary.

Some psychological traits that I consider to be masculine:
- visiospacial skills
- competiveness
- assertive
- individualistic
- agressiveness
- impulsive

Like I said, these traits are not exclusive to males, just more prevalent in males. Competitiveness is by no means the preserve of males, but it is a dominant characteristic in our patriarchcal society. Sometimes it competiveness is useful and sometimes it is detrimental.

One a side note -
The increasing femininity of the population has been attributed to the inability of conventional water treatment facilities to remove oestrogen from drinking water. This has also been compounded by the increasing use of the contraceptive pill. The increased exposure to oestrogen is causing infertility in the male population and hormone imbalances in females.

I think it is good that western society is coming to reconise the importance of feminine traits, but there may come a time when we have to be wary of slipping into a matriarchcal society. The dominance of either set of traits is not a good thing. However, I currently think society is in no danger of becoming too feminine.
NOTE: If you haven't read the above post, please do so!

Excellent. Really excellent! My compliments. :)

The confounding factor is that people like to do things that get them positive responses.

As a kid, I got very positive responses from my parents when I read books. This made me enjoy reading books more, and so I read more. This lead to me getting better at reading, which made me like it more, which made me read more...etc.

My cousin, on the other hand, was called "sissy" for liking to read. If he wanted to spend an afternoon with a book, he was insulted and teased. If he wanted to go out and play baseball he was praised and given treats. Surprise surprise, as an adult he likes sports and isn't very interested in literature.

Does this mean we are all zombies programmed by our childhoods? No, of course not. Many of us persist in liking things that we were discouraged from, but that's because the situation is much more complicated than the very simple situations I used as examples. It's also because different people respond differently to the same pressures...my brother is a mule-headed fellow who deliberately chooses to like everything he's not supposed to do, while I was a child who fed off of encouragement and positive feedback. Same parents + different kid = different outcome.

I understand - I was merely saying that people do tend to be encouraged to fit into a certain role quite often. I never said it was the only factor that makes someone act how they do but it does play a role.

What? Crazy generalizations my friend. Every woman I've had a relation with has recieved actual guns to go out and shoot game with. I also recieved those, but I also got a number of balls to play with.
No, not those balls.

And all those women have also received countless messages about how they should and should not act because they are female, just like you have received countless messages about how a "real man" acts.


Exactly.
Of course, there's more things those with penises converse over, but its usually bad to hang around guys who are around guys.
Same thing happens to men. Most of the time.
Do I really want to hear about their period? Or how that nice lady at the spa waxed them, oh, you know, there? Or how hot that guy's butt is? How slutty than one girl is?
Not to mention every time I actually (or act like I'm caring), I get asked, "Are you gay?" Thanks ladies, thanks a lot. Like men can't be sensitive.
Um, none of the women I know want to talk about their periods. The subject really doesn't come up. You appear to be basing your idea of womanhood off of the tampon commercials. Here's a hint: sometimes TV isn't entirely accurate.

And, of course, absolutely none of what you say actually addresses the point, which is the question of whether these behaviors are innate or socialized. You can cite annecdotes that "prove" all men are one way and all women are another, and I can cite just as many that "prove" the opposite. The reality is that for every woman you can name who lives up to the "feminine" stereotypes, there will be ten more who don't fit into the neat little box of evolutionary psychology.

I understand - I was merely saying that people do tend to be encouraged to fit into a certain role quite often. I never said it was the only factor that makes someone act how they do but it does play a role.
Oh, I was agreeing with you! Just expanding, I guess...I tend to ramble...:P

Oh, me too. I couldn't care less about a game I wasn't at and didn't see with my own eyes. But, if I was at the game, or, even more importantly in the game, you can't shut me up. I personally only follow High School and College sports, and for the most part, American Football.
I love to watch the occasional football game, especially if my sons are there with me. However, I was more into things like long distance running, bicycling, weight-lifting, extreme sports ( military paracuting was almost the end of me! Heh! ), etc. They've discovered a "risk-taking gene," which I must have an overdose of! :D

What? Crazy generalizations my friend. Every woman I've had a relation with has recieved actual guns to go out and shoot game with. I also recieved those, but I also got a number of balls to play with.
No, not those balls.

Exactly.
Of course, there's more things those with penises converse over, but its usually bad to hang around guys who are around guys.
Same thing happens to men. Most of the time.
Do I really want to hear about their period? Or how that nice lady at the spa waxed them, oh, you know, there? Or how hot that guy's butt is? How slutty than one girl is?
Not to mention every time I actually (or act like I'm caring), I get asked, "Are you gay?" Thanks ladies, thanks a lot. Like men can't be sensitive.

Excuse me? It's a crazy generalization to suggest that girls are usually given dolls as children while boys are given guns (as well as sports equipmentm hot wheels, army men and toy tractors and whatnot)?

You are suggesting that kids arent normally encouraged to fit into certain roles depending on their sex?

Seriously?

...I tend to ramble...:P
Really? I hadn't noticed that! [ looks at cieling, whistles ] :D

NOTE: If you haven't read the above post, please do so!

Excellent. Really excellent! My compliments. :)
It's good, you're right, but it overlooks a very important factor as well: the cultural and historical context for our definitions of "masculine" and "feminine."

Ever notice how "feminine" traits just happen to be very compatible with the model in which females are subservient to males? Ever notice how "masculine" traits just happen to perfectly fit a model of male dominance? Think that, perhaps, these might have something to do with each other? Think that, perhaps, we could find parallels in racial or class stereotypes, which have been used across history to justify the "us-versus-them" systems that most benefit the people in power?

This ties right in to homophobia, too. Gay men freak the hell out of everybody, because if there are two guys having sex then that means one of them is the "woman"!!! A man, a dominant, strong, powerful man, is choosing to be a submissive, emotional, "nurturing" woman! *GASP* What the hell happened to our precious gender roles?! But gay women don't bother people as much, because OF COURSE women want to be "masculine"! Masculine means powerful, independent, rational, competative, and strong! No surprise that the little fillies want to play like the boys. Of course, they'll never really BE men, so nothing to worry about. It's not about the actual genders, it's about how best to ensure that certain groups and classes fulfill the roles they are supposed to fill.

You appear to be basing your idea of womanhood off of the tampon commercials.

Heh... I could start a whole topic on how unrealistic advert (commercial) speak is.

"Hey, what's that?"
"It's <full product name>!"
"<full product name>?"
"Yeah, it's got <long list of details>"
"That sounds great!"
"Not only that, but it has <extra detail>!"
"I'll have to go buy one of these <full product name>!"

Having a penis and being a penis are not the same thing.
It's impossible to be a penis. I don't see any disembodied cocks walking around.

Sorry, has anyone seen my cup of tea?

I'm sure it was around here.

I made it and then started reading this thread, but that was a while back and it might have gone cold.

It's impossible to be a penis. I don't see any disembodied cocks walking around.

I saw a cock walking about once.

not quite a walkign penis but
http://www.thefucksociety.com/forum/image.php?u=3024&dateline=1126674780

It's impossible to be a penis. I don't see any disembodied cocks walking around.

Walking around and existing are not the same thing....

It's impossible to be a penis. I don't see any disembodied cocks walking around.
He was trying to indicate that I was a "dick" for daring to bring up such a topic! Same on me! Shame! :D

And all those women have also received countless messages about how they should and should not act because they are female, just like you have received countless messages about how a "real man" acts.
Ah, yes, the omnipresent society and such. The arguement holds water.
You appear to be basing your idea of womanhood off of the tampon commercials. Here's a hint: sometimes TV isn't entirely accurate.
I'm sure you are fully informed of my life. It happens at times (and by that, I mean twice). Memorable enough due to the discomfort, memorable enought to complain about. The other stuff, not critiqued, I assume is much more common, due to my experiences and to your not quoting and disproving it. I don't know how you would feel about guys talking about masturabation, ejaculation, and such (which is much more common than period conversations), but most females I know don't really care for it.
And, of course, absolutely none of what you say actually addresses the point, which is the question of whether these behaviors are innate or socialized.
Its really up to the individual to act on the messages in the first quote of this post. The person I was responding to said that the vast majority of men talked about women's body parts, cars, and sports. I responded as I deemed neccessary. After all, the whole, "hot butt" thing is very common. I personally don't think that men posses anything close to a "hot butt". Yes, I do judge men at times. I usually do it to make me feel better about myself.
You can cite annecdotes that "prove" all men are one way and all women are another, and I can cite just as many that "prove" the opposite. The reality is that for every woman you can name who lives up to the "feminine" stereotypes, there will be ten more who don't fit into the neat little box of evolutionary psychology.
I was not attempting to "prove" anything, but merely attempting to disprove "proofs", or something. Talking about stereotypes, they are a "glove that fits no-one at all". Which is something I was displaying, or at least it was my intention to bust what I deemed as "stereotypes".
Excuse me? It's a crazy generalization to suggest that girls are usually given dolls as children while boys are given guns (as well as sports equipmentm hot wheels, army men and toy tractors and whatnot)?
Oh, no, not at all. I just think that using them to back up an arguement only adds support to the generalization. I like to steer away from them and dislike them. Now, someone's probably going to rail me on the comments I made on girl talk, but I would just like to say that those came form personal expierences, which is something I cannot link, prove happened (practically I should add, as I could always record what goes on around me, but I'm not going to do that, not to mention a little thing like a language barrier making inaccessable information to most NSers), and whatnot.
You are suggesting that kids arent normally encouraged to fit into certain roles depending on their sex?
While it happens in some sense I'm going to sidestep the entire question. The whole "fit[ting] into certain roles depending on their sex" really makes sense doesn't it? The whole penis and sperm, vagina and egg, circle of life thing is what its built on, right? Not to mention the testosterone and estrongene?
Seriously?
It should be noted that most of my posting is not serious. I'm taking all of this in and expressing myself rather light heartidly, as I use these forums as source of entertainment. Its really your duty to take me seriously or not.

He was trying to indicate that I was a "dick" for daring to bring up such a topic! Same on me! Shame! :D

Are you saying that I was calling you a dick?

I love to watch the occasional football game, especially if my sons are there with me. However, I was more into things like long distance running, bicycling, weight-lifting, extreme sports ( military paracuting was almost the end of me! Heh! ), etc. They've discovered a "risk-taking gene," which I must have an overdose of! :D
Heh, me too! :p

I haven't tried parachuting yet, but I do rock climbing. Distance running, biking, weight-lifting (something I've gotten used to calling "strength training"), all sorts of skiing (much better than snowboarding, I'm not kidding, went down the hill three times in the time it took for a group of snowboarders to stop sitting (as they usually do, for long, extended periods of times) and hit the slopes), wakeboarding, martial arts, and so forth. Oh, and beach football. Lots of great summer memories with that.

"Risk-taking gene"? I always thought that was the "livin'-it-up gene"!

Are you saying that I was calling you a dick?
That's how I interpreted your comment at that particular point in this thread, yes. If I was mistaken, I apologize.

Heh, me too! :p

I haven't tried parachuting yet, but I do rock climbing. Distance running, biking, weight-lifting (something I've gotten used to calling "strength training"), all sorts of skiing (much better than snowboarding, I'm not kidding, went down the hill three times in the time it took for a group of snowboarders to stop sitting (as they usually do, for long, extended periods of times) and hit the slopes), wakeboarding, martial arts, and so forth. Oh, and beach football. Lots of great summer memories with that.

"Risk-taking gene"? I always thought that was the "livin'-it-up gene"!
LOL! Perhaps it should be called that. :)

As much as I love to read, you would think that I would spend every available minute doing so, but I get too antsy. At first I thought the military had made me into a risk-taker, but then I remembered my somewhat hair-raising childhood and thought, "Nahh!" :D

It's good, you're right, but it overlooks a very important factor as well: the cultural and historical context for our definitions of "masculine" and "feminine."

Ever notice how "feminine" traits just happen to be very compatible with the model in which females are subservient to males? Ever notice how "masculine" traits just happen to perfectly fit a model of male dominance? Think that, perhaps, these might have something to do with each other? Think that, perhaps, we could find parallels in racial or class stereotypes, which have been used across history to justify the "us-versus-them" systems that most benefit the people in power?

This ties right in to homophobia, too. Gay men freak the hell out of everybody, because if there are two guys having sex then that means one of them is the "woman"!!! A man, a dominant, strong, powerful man, is choosing to be a submissive, emotional, "nurturing" woman! *GASP* What the hell happened to our precious gender roles?! But gay women don't bother people as much, because OF COURSE women want to be "masculine"! Masculine means powerful, independent, rational, competative, and strong! No surprise that the little fillies want to play like the boys. Of course, they'll never really BE men, so nothing to worry about.Good crticism. However, if I'd gone on to talk about about the historical context of gender and gender roles, and nurture part of the nature vs nuture debate, then I would have doubled my post length. I think it was getting long and convuluted enough as it was already.

I'm not sure why male traits became dominant. Maybe because some of the male traits were allowed to go unchecked into the extremes and began to dominate over the feminine traits? I think then that as the masculine traits were dominant humans became socialised into thinking they were superior. You mention that masculine means [overtly] powerful, independent, rational, competative and strong. But is there anything wrong with the converse traits: covert power, dependence and trust (independence can create ineffciencies if you always do everything for yourself - excessive micromanaging anyone?), emotional (love is irrational), cooperation and agility? I think they are all enviable traits, especially the ability to love.

I think I may have missed your point. Was it more to do with the fact that such a trait is masculine because the dominant group had them and wished to socialise society into accepting these traits as superior?

Good crticism. However, if I'd gone on to talk about about the historical context of gender and gender roles, and nurture part of the nature vs nuture debate, then I would have doubled my post length. I think it was getting long and convuluted enough as it was already.

I'm not sure why male traits became dominant. Maybe because some of the male traits were allowed to go unchecked into the extremes and began to dominate over the feminine traits? I think then that as the masculine traits were dominant humans became socialised into thinking they were superior. You mention that masculine means [overtly] powerful, independent, rational, competative and strong. But is there anything wrong with the converse traits: covert power, dependence and trust (independence can create ineffciencies if you always do everything for yourself - excessive micromanaging anyone?), emotional (love is irrational), cooperation and agility? I think they are all enviable traits, especially the ability to love.

I think I may have missed your point. Was it more to do with the fact that such a trait is masculine because the dominant group had them and wished to socialise society into accepting these traits as superior?
More like the masculine traits contained elements of dominance at a time when strength and aggressiveness were more important as survival skills.

More like the masculine traits contained elements of dominance at a time when strength and aggressiveness were more important as survival skills.That was kinda what I meant. I'm trying to think of a European culture that was more egalitarian, but collapsed into a patriarchcal state. I can't think of one though, maybe it's prehistory.

I agree with you. I see this as a problem in desperate need of a solution, but I have no idea what it might be. :(

Probably a good first step would be social recognition that masculine values are as deserving of merit as feminine values. As you can see by the beginning of this thread many - particularly the so called feminists - have a long way to go on giving the same respect they demand.

The second step would be more difficult. Women get plenty of advice on feminine issues - not all is good, in fact not much is - but it is out there. Men get basically none except from their father - if he is even present and if he is a good role model. Men also have a stigma of asking for help. God help the man who is caught by his pals reading a book about being a better man.

So what is society to do? Make it compulsory? Part of school? There is a can of worms. I dunno the answer other than maybe start a small little snowball of positive peer pressure.

Other than bioligcally based characteristics, is there anything which can be used to help determine whether someone is a "man" or not?

Admittedly, "manly" has some negative connotations in the minds of some, Carisbrooke being an example due to negative experiences. I'm not aware of another word which might be less emotionally charged, however. Perhaps that's part of the problem: the only ( or at least most often used ) term which refers to "being a man" has become loaded with negative connotations?

EDIT: Which brings up an interesting point. Does the word "womanly" have the same sort of negative baggage as the term "manly?" Hmmm.


Things that mean you're not a man;

1) Hitting a woman.
2) Cheating on your wife.
3) Disrespecting either parent. (if they were that bad men don't talk about them or go around them at all)
4) Chronic complaining
5) Expecting other people to solve your problems.
6) Using violence as a first second or third resort.
7) Not laughing at the three stooges... out loud... even just thinking about them.
8) Not loving your children more than yourself.
9) Vandalism - even accidental (fix it or replace it!)
10) Letting your fears rule you.

There's plenty more.

As far as 'manly' having negative connotations - who fucking cares? - It is just a word. Get over it. (or "be a man about it".) If they have a hang up over it it is their problem, not yours.

There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support the idea of innate personality differences between the sexes.

What makes a man is his XY chromosonal makeup, and that is that. Everything else, especially things that we associate as 'natural' for a man to do, is not innate, but instead learned behavior. The idea that changes in how men behave represent an assault on how men 'naturally' are is just plain wrong.


What planet are you from? THer are reams, nay LIBRARIES, full of such data. Everything from brain waves to spatial perceptions.

Go back to Orc Mork.

only by someone else's definition.

and if one goes by a stereotypical definition of manliness, a MAN would never let someone else dictate how he acts even if the rest of the world sees it as feminine.

I see - so you disagree with my prior list.

But not EVEN that! There are physiologically male individuals who have XX chromosomes, and physiologically female individuals who have XY chromosomes!


Indeed. Whenever you hear somebody start a sentence with, "All men are..." you know you're about to hear some juicy stupidity.


Close - the men have XXY chromosomes, not XX only. The women with XY chromosomes are missing parts of the Y chromosome - among other things. :)

I hate doing yardwork! Does that make me less masculine somehow? :eek:

I trump you - I am manly enough to hire a VERY manly landscaper to care for my yard.

Yardwork blows - but watching someone else do yours is sorta fun!

Is this like Maddox's book? Look it up people. Best page in the Universe. (I'm serious that's what it's called.)

Close - the men have XXY chromosomes, not XX only. The women with XY chromosomes are missing parts of the Y chromosome - among other things. :)Well technically the men with XY are women who are missing part of one of their X chromosomes. Kinda like a haemophiliac. The Y chromosome has no way to repair itself and is slowly disintergrating via generations of mutations. An X chromosome has about 1000 genes, the Y chromosome only has 50. Without human intervention the Y chromosome will disappear within the next 300,000-10,000,000 years.

Heretic! [ trout-smack ]

I love to talk about women's body parts, and sometimes about cars, but the sports thang just usually leaves me cold. ( shrug )


Ahhhhh... - if only Hooter's ran a classic auto restoration shop.

I understand - I was merely saying that people do tend to be encouraged to fit into a certain role quite often. I never said it was the only factor that makes someone act how they do but it does play a role.
Hence the term - role models.

More left/right brain dichotomy?

More physically active?



Less concerned with relationships?

More willing to resort to force?

???

[B}More oriented toward the rational side than to the emotional?
You've never really watched men watch sports, have you?


I'm also quite certain you're not a golfer. :)

That was kinda what I meant. I'm trying to think of a European culture that was more egalitarian, but collapsed into a patriarchcal state. I can't think of one though, maybe it's prehistory.

I'm willing to bet that patriarchy is synonymous with prehistory, because it was men who were able to bring in scarce resources. In our hunter-gatherer days, it was men who brought in the meat, since women can't really hunt with children about, but they can bring in the more plentiful and common nuts, berries, and tubers, as well as crack the bones to get the marrow, that made up the staple of early hominid diet.

The demise of a patriarchal system isn't because of revealing fundamental equalities in humans, so much as our system is organized such that neither sex is discriminated against when it comes to bringing in scarce resources.

I think the enforced stereotypes of masculine and feminine can be incredibely harmful for children, especially younger children, who do not necessarily conform to those stereotypes. That's pretty much my opinion on gender roles and stereotypes.

I'm willing to bet that patriarchy is synonymous with prehistory, because it was men who were able to bring in scarce resources. In our hunter-gatherer days, it was men who brought in the meat, since women can't really hunt with children about, but they can bring in the more plentiful and common nuts, berries, and tubers, as well as crack the bones to get the marrow, that made up the staple of early hominid diet.

The demise of a patriarchal system isn't because of revealing fundamental equalities in humans, so much as our system is organized such that neither sex is discriminated against when it comes to bringing in scarce resources.Try reading up on the Pygmies before making such a statement.

It is our patriarchy society that has given us a skewed view of history. It's is our culture's logic to assume that males are dominant and the breadwinners whilst females are the carers, ergo men, in a pre-agarian tribal society, would go out hunting and bring back food for the mothers. There is evidence that hunting is a recently human evolutionary development, before that foraging being the source of food. And that when hunting did occur that a small mixed gender group would stay behind to look after the children whilst the rest of the tribe would go out hunting.

indeed.

Am I the only one here who doesn't appreciate NSers using these forums to shill books?

Try reading up on the Pygmies before making such a statement.

It is our patriarchy society that has given us a skewed view of history. It's is our culture's logic to assume that males are dominant and the breadwinners whilst females are the carers, ergo men, in a pre-agarian tribal society, would go out hunting and bring back food for the mothers. There is evidence that hunting is a recently human evolutionary development, before that foraging being the source of food. And that when hunting did occur that a small mixed gender group would stay behind to look after the children whilst the rest of the tribe would go out hunting.

That is, in technical parlance, a load of horse-puckey. The Pygmies are a unique case because the material circumstances of their existence are also unique. The various tribes either net birds or use primitive bows and arrows to hunt them. In either case, primitive men in most societies out of the equatorial rainforest did not have enough birds around to rely on them as a food source. Instead, they rely on big-game animals for their food source, and to hunt big-game animals, you have to either a) run them to exhaustion, or b) run them off a cliff. Neither of these are practices well-suited to women's physiology: running for substantial periods of time is in the aggregate more difficult for women than men because they are more susceptible to stress fractures, and once you drive an elephant off a cliff, you then have to move the carcass in parts to the main camp, which is easier if you have stronger, larger people with a better spacio-visual system to find the main camp.

In other words, the Pygmies just serve as one more way of proving my ultimate point: if you want to equalize gender in society, then you organize your acquisition of material means in such a way as to not bias against one or the other sex. The Pygmies' method of hunting can be performed by either sex, so they have a relatively egalitarian society. Most societies, however, cannot rely on the Pygmies method of hunting, so they pick methods that will allow them to survive, but usually in a way that also biases in favor of male dominance.

Anyone who thinks that acting like a belligerent asshole makes one a man obviously doesn't understand the meaning of the word. Being a man -- hell being an adult -- means behaving in a mature, responsible manner, and taking responsibility for your own life and actions, rather than blaming someone else. It does not mean waving your dick around looking to fight anyone within reach.

I am most intersted to hear what Eutrusca thinks Manliness means?

I would also like to point out that the word manliness to ME doesn't hold negative conotations, it's a certain type of man who behaves in a certain type of way because he thinks its manly that I have a problem with.

The main drawback of using the internet to debate is that you don't get to see the persons face or hear thier voice to gauge how they feel about what they are saying. I was smiling when I posted, I was not threatened by your question, merely amused by it.

I have a culturally stereotypical view of manliness, that is shared by many.
But I am in love with, as I said before, a wonderful man, who although he is more male than you could shake a stick at, does not really conform to many of my cultures views of 'manliness' As I said, he helps around the house, which culture seems to dictate he ought not too, he is openly emotional, again not a culturaly accepted 'manly' trait, he does like to drink beer, fart loudly and think its funny, watch sport and look at cars (and he likes looking at pretty women, but we don't talk about those cheap whores...;) ) He talks to me, all the time, about EVERYTHING.

What I am trying to say is, I suppose, that I think that by reading the OP, I gained the impression that this was more a thread about a book that states that feminism is damaging manliness, and society is somehow stopping men from being 'manly', so therefore I was challenging this silly childishly sexist view, thats all. I have seen a bunch of sexist silly and outright dumb stuff posted on here, I posted some of it. At the end of the day, the world is changing whether we like it or not, the dislike of this is understandable, because we don't like the way some of it is going, but so much of the change is for the better, surely?

In societies where men stick to the widely held definition of 'manliness' to the letter, they tend to keep the little lady at home, doing the housework, raising the many babies, pay all the bills because he controls all the cash, dress the woman in a fetching little all over black number....you know what I am getting at here (and I am smiling by the way)

It's all relative, people are what they are, writing books about how something is the fault of feminism just shows a lack of 'manliness', don't you think? Come on man! shoulders back and stand your ground! don't let these bra burning lesbians with silly ideas about equality ruin things for you! Wave your penis at them and that'll shut 'em up! ;)

Right I am off to put some my little ponies and barbie dolls in my sons bedroom and take away his football boots and army cadet uniform, as being a woman I don't want him doing that kind of thing......I'll beat that manliness crap out of him if it kills me! :rolleyes:

Manliness is gay.

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/9149/manliness0yx.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
See, the problem with that book is that the cover is just not manly enough. It's a wuss of a cover! It just screams "I'm a sensitive guy! Where's my chamomile tea and stress candles?"

If I was ever going to read a book on manliness, I want my book to scream "I'm a man!", To holler like a howler monkey, "I am so manly that even though I'm just a book I need a shave. And a beer".

Any book about manliness should have a big monkey (or better yet, an ape) on it. Cause big monkeys immediately imply manliness (no idea why, it's like a law of physics or biology or something). To add to the manliness already inherrent with the ape the cover should also have a steroid guy fighting the monkey and looking like that's the normal everyday thing he does. Cause manliness means punching an ape.

Something like this book:
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/080652720X.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_V56138536_.jpg
Be honest now: Which book would you rather be seen reading?

^^ *points*

So manliness means wearing Ugg boots with blue satin ribbons?

Why, I had no idea! :eek:

^^ *points*

So manliness means wearing Ugg boots with blue satin ribbons?

Why, I had no idea! :eek:
Shows what you know about manliness! Real men are practical creatures.
To wit:
1. Ugg boots so the gorilla shit doesn't get between your toes. Have you any idea how stinky gorilla poop is?
2. It's a kilt, not a ribbon! Kilts are the best, as it allows quicker access to your male appendages and doesn't cause any reproductive problems that wearing too-tight underwear can.

Shows what you know about manliness! Real men are practical creatures.
To wit:
1. Ugg boots so the gorilla shit doesn't get between your toes. Have you any idea how stinky gorilla poop is?
2. It's a kilt, not a ribbon! Kilts are the best, as it allows quicker access to your male appendages and doesn't cause any reproductive problems that wearing too-tight underwear can.
Real men are also creatures with, um, interesting olfactory habits and bad eyesight, it seems.
To wit:
1. No, I have indeed not personally have had the displeasure of encountering gorilla poop within smelling distance, hence I would not, in contrast to, well, you, have any idea how stinky it is.
2. Honey, I was talking about the blue things (aka "ribbons") wrapped around his Ugg boots, not the admittedly equally fancy piece of shimmering blue satin wrapped around his luscious libidinous loins.

Shows what you know about manliness! Real men are practical creatures.
To wit:
1. Ugg boots so the gorilla shit doesn't get between your toes. Have you any idea how stinky gorilla poop is?
2. It's a kilt, not a ribbon! Kilts are the best, as it allows quicker access to your male appendages and doesn't cause any reproductive problems that wearing too-tight underwear can.


I have to agree with the idea that real manly men should wear ugg boots and short silky kilts...indeed I think ALL men should go around punching enormous angry looking gorillas wearing nothing else....the entire time! I think on occasions the gorrilla should knock the man down and sometimes the man should win, I also think that I should be allowed to take the winner out to lunch and discuss the financial implications of the entry of Turkey into the EU. or something.....:rolleyes: *nods*

I have to agree with the idea that real manly men should wear ugg boots and short silky kilts...indeed I think ALL men should go around punching enormous angry looking gorillas wearing nothing else....the entire time! I think on occasions the gorrilla should knock the man down and sometimes the man should win, I also think that I should be allowed to take the winner out to lunch and discuss the financial implications of the entry of Turkey into the EU. or something.....:rolleyes: *nods*

i heartily agree.

if a well groomed, clean-shaven white guy can't beat up a gorilla while keeping gorilla poo out from between his toes. what kind of man IS he?

of course the gorilla should sometimes win, if it were easy, men would have women doing it!

that lunch thing is just goofy though. after killing the gorilla the manly man should go home, take off his gorilla-poo covered ugg boots and have his woman make him a sammich.

Real men are also creatures with, um, interesting olfactory habits and bad eyesight, it seems.
To wit:
1. No, I have indeed not personally have had the displeasure of encountering gorilla poop within smelling distance, hence I would not, in contrast to, well, you, have any idea how stinky it is.
I honestly can't vouchsafe for gorilla poop, but I can tell you that oranguatan poop is really stinky, as is macaques crap. From these two facts I concluded that a gorilla, with it's bigger arse (and thus bigger crap producing ability) would produce even smellier shite.

2. Honey, I was talking about the blue things (aka "ribbons") wrapped around his Ugg boots, not the admittedly equally fancy piece of shimmering blue satin wrapped around his luscious libidinous loins.
Oh right, the ribbons round the ugg boots. They're simply for decoration to show his more sensitive side. Can also be used as a fan belt in emergencies (what did I say about real men - always practical).


Incidently, while obviously I've never been in a fight with a gorilla, I did come close to punching a macaque last year. They live wild in one of the parks here and one day I was there when about 30 of them came running in. The big male saw I had a bag and ran right up to me screaming. He was only a couple of feet away from me, and eye level (he had jumped onto a post). I yelled at him to "Fuck off", and surprisingly, he did. I didn't realise they could understand english.
So I can vouchsafe for my manliness, to a some small degree. How many of you lot have had to deal with an angry, hungry monkey?


[And while a macaque is admittedly much smaller than a man (especially one who weighs 110kgs like myself),....well....it does have these:
http://webperso.easyconnect.fr/baillement/images/macaque-bail.gif
So I feel somewhat manly about winning the confrontation.]

Interesting point. There are studies which show that most women are less inclined to engage in confrontational behavior than most men, largely because women seem to be less willing to jeapordize relationships.
Another male trait I tend to take on. Never had any problem expressing anger.

Incidently, while obviously I've never been in a fight with a gorilla, I did come close to punching a macaque last year. They live wild in one of the parks here and one day I was there when about 30 of them came running in. The big male saw I had a bag and ran right up to me screaming. He was only a couple of feet away from me, and eye level (he had jumped onto a post). I yelled at him to "Fuck off", and surprisingly, he did. I didn't realise they could understand english.
So I can vouchsafe for my manliness, to a some small degree. How many of you lot have had to deal with an angry, hungry monkey?


[And while a macaque is admittedly much smaller than a man (especially one who weighs 110kgs like myself),....well....it does have these:
http://webperso.easyconnect.fr/baillement/images/macaque-bail.gif
So I feel somewhat manly about winning the confrontation.]
whoa that IS manly! would you like me to fix you a sammich?


no really, it takes an impressive amount of self control to be able to yell "Fuck off" convincingly at an animal with teeth like that.

So I feel somewhat manly about winning the confrontation.]
Yes, but did you wear satin ribbons around your Ugg boots? Did ya? Did ya?

Nah, seriously, that was very manly! To reward this bravery in the face of danger, I'll have Ashmoria fix you a sammich. :p

whoa that IS manly! would you like me to fix you a sammich?


no really, it takes an impressive amount of self control to be able to yell "Fuck off" convincingly at an animal with teeth like that.
To be honest, it was the only thing I could think of at the time. Adrenalin has that wonderful time-slowing effect, and I weighed up all my options pretty quickly. I thought running was out, as he's much faster and last thing I wanted to do was turn my back on him. So all I could do was yell at it to go away, and hope it did - and get ready to punch it as hard as possible in the face if it did leap at me.
Luckily the yelling worked.
Last time I went for a walk thru that park, I found a big stick and carried it with me.
some morons here feed the monkeys so they can get close-up shots of the 'cute' monkeys eating, and (of course) as a result the monkeys now expect anyone carrying a bag to have food and will aggressively pester you.


PS thanx for the sammich (whatever the hell that is!)