NationStates Jolt Archive

Inspired a bit from the "manly man" thread. After I read it I realized i was in such strong disagreement with the OP that I had to put forth my own definition of what i view to be a "real man"

A real man is not afraid to feel, feel happy, feel sad, feel lonely. A real man does not shut out the world when he's not at his best. A real man is not afraid to tell the person he loves that he's feeling sad. A real man is not afraid to show emotion. And if you are uncomfortable letting the people you care about know how you feel, then YOU are not a real man.

And a real man is not made squemish by others showing their feelings. A real man doesn't judge people by how they live their life, as long as nobody gets hurt. A real man doesn't get uncomfortable just because they're in the presence of "teh gayz". And if you are uncomfortable watching people show their feelings of being upset, of crying, or even loving, yes, other men, then YOU are not a real man.

A real man gives defference to his partner whom he loves. A real man builds relationships out of compromise, not authoritarianism. A real man does not consider himself inferior or superior to his partner. A real man realizes that sometimes his female partner might know more than he does about something. A real man recognizes when someone knows something he doesnt, and knows when to shut the hell up and listen. A real man recognizes that in the 21st century his female partner might well make as much, if not more than he does, and a real man accepts that. And if you believe that by virtue of being male you get the last say, all the time, your the provider, you're the male, your choice is final, if she doesn't disagree too bad, then YOU are not a real man.

A real man works on rationality, and calm thinking. A real man solves his problems without the need for violence. A real man when he sees someone in distress worries more how to help that person, then punish the one who put them there. A real man resorts to violence only at the last resort. A real man, when forced to commit violence, regrets that this was the only option he was left with. A real man values his mind, his ability to think, to care, to reason. And if you chose brawn over brain, if you see the first way to fix the problem is trying to go beat someone up, if you worry more about making someone "pay" then making someone right, if you get a hardon for violence and relish the opportunity rather than enter into it regretfully as the last choice, then YOU are not a real man.

A real man recognizes that the face he presents to the world is the way he is viewed. A real man recognizes that people judge him on the way he looks, and the way he presents himself. A real man recognizes that the best way to succeed is impress people, work his way up, and do better. A real man recognizes that the way to do this is to dress well, look good, smell good, smile nicely, and have a good haircut. A real man recognizes that the unwashed, unshaven, disheveled look might work for being around the house on a weekend, it doesn't cut it in the office monday morning. A real man takes care of his physical appearance because he knows that people will judge him, at least in part, by his physical appearance, and he needs to take care of himself to help ensure the success of his professional life, and help secure success for his family. And if you think a real man should be in jeans, bearded, wearing smelling, grease clothing and not recognize that to be a professional you must look sound and act like a professional, then YOU are not a real man.

A real man kid, gives his whole self to the people he loves, he isn't afraid to tell them he loves them, he isn't afraid to give them emotional support. He isn't afraid to sometime just give a hug. And he isn't afraid to ask for one when he needs one.

And most importantly, a real man doesn't live his life in some way just because some john wayne move, some paper towel actor, or some punk ass kid on the internet tells him he should. In short a real man means something in THIS century a WHOLE lot different then the mysoginistic, myopic, outdated world view of those who want to talk about what it's like to be a "real man". And those that think a "real man" should be some closed down, emotionally dead john waynish type...they ain't real mean.

Why "real man" instead of "good, wise person"?

Why "real man" instead of "good, wise person"?

that's the point. They're the same thing. A "real man" is a "good, wise person", it's the same thing. Anyone who bases the definition of a "real man" on anything else but effectively promotes a vision that is not that a good, wise man (person).

that's the point. They're the same thing. A "real man" is a "good, wise person", it's the same thing. Anyone who bases the definition of a "real man" on anything else but effectively promotes a vision that is not that a good, wise man (person).

We agree, then.

Well said.

Real men are people who think of themselves as men. Simple as.

Real men are people who think of themselves as men. Simple as.

Seconded.

A real man is not afraid to feel, feel happy, feel sad, feel lonely. A real man does not shut out the world when he's not at his best. A real man is not afraid to tell the person he loves that he's feeling sad. A real man is not afraid to show emotion. And if you are uncomfortable letting the people you care about know how you feel, then YOU are not a real man.
Some people (like me, and like the classical image of a real man) prefer to be stoic and not lay their troubles on others.

And a real man is not made squemish by others showing their feelings. A real man doesn't judge people by how they live their life, as long as nobody gets hurt. A real man doesn't get uncomfortable just because they're in the presence of "teh gayz". And if you are uncomfortable watching people show their feelings of being upset, of crying, or even loving, yes, other men, then YOU are not a real man.
Emotional openness makes some people (some men, rather, for the sake of this conversation) uncomfortable because of the way they were brought up. How does that make them any less of a man?

A "real man" would be considered different by all. Personally I believe a "real man" is a man who respects women, is willing to stand up for what he believes in, a man who is open minded, willing to do anything legal or illegal to protect his family or his country, not willing to allow his emotions to get the better of him, and a willingness to become educated so that he may better understand the world around him.

Those are some of the basic, page after page could be writting about the qualities of a "real man".

Emotional openness makes some people (some men, rather, for the sake of this conversation) uncomfortable because of the way they were brought up. How does that make them any less of a man?

People are a lot of ways "because they were brought up". Doesn't make it right, or preferable. A good man, by value of being a good PERSON, should not be uncomfortable with his, or other people's, feelings. It's a sign of being closed off emotionally, and that's something that should be combatted, not excused "because that's how I was brought up", and never, NEVER celebrated.

A real man has nothing to prove to anyone.

People are a lot of ways "because they were brought up". Doesn't make it right, or preferable. A good man, by value of being a good PERSON, should not be uncomfortable with his, or other people's, feelings. It's a sign of being closed off emotionally, and that's something that should be combatted, not excused "because that's how I was brought up", and never, NEVER celebrated.

I don't celebrate my inability to be emotionally open with people, and you still fail to explain how it makes me less of a man, or less good.

Cannot answer this question without assuming that universal "ideal" characteristics can be assigned to someone purely on the basis of their gender:headbang:.

I don't celebrate my inability to be emotionally open with people, and you still fail to explain how it makes me less of a man, or less good.

one thing I should clarify here, and I made a point about it in this post and the other one, is that I think the concept of "less of a man" stupid. It's about being a good person, not based on some outdated gender stereotypes.

Now for a person to be "good", I take this as a list of characteristics that only come about when one lives to his/her good potential.

So if I define as being a "man" as a "good person" and I define "good person" as one who lives to his/her best potential, then one who does not live to his/her full potential is not as good a person as he, or she, could be.

And I think being emotionally closed off is failing to live to one's potential.

Cannot answer this question without assuming that universal "ideal" characteristics can be assigned to someone purely on the basis of their gender:headbang:.

they can't, that's the point. The only way to be a "good man" is to be a "good person". The characteristics of what makes a good person is irrelevant to gender. I wrote this post in response to one about "many men", and honoring such a rediculus proposition.

Some people (like me, and like the classical image of a real man) prefer to be stoic and not lay their troubles on others.
Yup.

A real man has nothing to prove to anyone.
Yup.

A real man recognizes that the face he presents to the world is the way he is viewed. A real man recognizes that people judge him on the way he looks, and the way he presents himself. A real man recognizes that the best way to succeed is impress people, work his way up, and do better. A real man recognizes that the way to do this is to dress well, look good, smell good, smile nicely, and have a good haircut. A real man recognizes that the unwashed, unshaven, disheveled look might work for being around the house on a weekend, it doesn't cut it in the office monday morning. A real man takes care of his physical appearance because he knows that people will judge him, at least in part, by his physical appearance, and he needs to take care of himself to help ensure the success of his professional life, and help secure success for his family. And if you think a real man should be in jeans, bearded, wearing smelling, grease clothing and not recognize that to be a professional you must look sound and act like a professional, then YOU are not a real man.
Since I dont want to be accused of being less of a man for not voicing my emotions...
You OP are a bigoted simple minded classist, and pissant elitist.
You would dare suggest that somehow the REAL MEN who fix your car, built your roads, built your house, cut lawns, built your damned car, deliver the goods from coast to coast we all consume, toil in the fields, and sweat in the labor of making this world available to ingrates like you because they dont buy tans and wear a suit, on behalf of the millions of less then real men everywhere fuck you....just sharing my emotions.

they can't, that's the point. The only way to be a "good man" is to be a "good person". The characteristics of what makes a good person is irrelevant to gender. I wrote this post in response to one about "manly men", and honoring such a rediculus proposition.

Doh! I evidently put this argument in the wrong thread then! :(

I promise to read threads properly before posting angry rants in response
I promise to read threads properly before posting angry rants in response
I promise to read threads properly before posting angry rants in response
I promise to read threads properly before posting angry rants in response
I promise to read threads properly before posting angry rants in response
I promise to read threads properly before posting angry rants in response
I promise to read threads properly before posting angry rants in response
I promise to read threads properly before posting angry rants in response
I promise to read threads properly before posting angry rants in response
I promise to read threads properly before posting angry rants in response
etc

A real man is a male specimen of Homo sapiens sapiens.

A real man is a male specimen of Homo sapiens sapiens.

Beat me to it.

Since I dont want to be accused of being less of a man for not voicing my emotions...
You OP are a bigoted simple minded classist, and pissant elitist.
You would dare suggest that somehow the REAL MEN who fix your car, built your roads, built your house, cut lawns, built your damned car, deliver the goods from coast to coast we all consume, toil in the fields, and sweat in the labor of making this world available to ingrates like you because they dont buy tans and wear a suit, on behalf of the millions of less then real men everywhere fuck you....just sharing my emotions.

Or...they are just as much as a man but no more as those who don't conform to "traditional" manliness? The very fact that there are the conflicting masculinities to which you contrast suggests it is wrong to stereotype. The point of this thread should be that one version ISN'T better, which, to my mind at least, is quite the opposite of elitist...indeed your argument seems more elitist if you do not mind me saying;). I'd disagree with both the OP and yourself for this reason. NEITHER is better

Hey! More arbitrary distinctions!

Since I dont want to be accused of being less of a man for not voicing my emotions...
You OP are a bigoted simple minded classist, and pissant elitist.
You would dare suggest that somehow the REAL MEN who fix your car, built your roads, built your house, cut lawns, built your damned car, deliver the goods from coast to coast we all consume, toil in the fields, and sweat in the labor of making this world available to ingrates like you because they dont buy tans and wear a suit, on behalf of the millions of less then real men everywhere fuck you....just sharing my emotions.

May I add "should be literate" to my list?

Lemme show you again:

And if you think a real man should be in jeans

Notice the words SHOULD BE.

Lemme show you again.

And if you think a real man should be in jeans

Nothing wrong with it, if you can get away with it. But the idea that those of us who wear a suit to work every day, are somehow LESS of "real men" or whatever bullshit there is, is stupid.

If you can get away with it, fine. Some of us can't. And if you don't have to dress the part, then ok. That doesn't make you any less of a person. It doesn't make you any more of one either.

one thing I should clarify here, and I made a point about it in this post and the other one, is that I think the concept of "less of a man" stupid. It's about being a good person, not based on some outdated gender stereotypes.
So why is this thread "The definition of a REAL 'real man'" instead of "The definition of a REAL 'good person'"?

Now for a person to be "good", I take this as a list of characteristics that only come about when one lives to his/her good potential.
"Good potential"? Is there also a kinetic goodness? :confused:

So if I define as being a "man" as a "good person" and I define "good person" as one who lives to his/her best potential, then one who does not live to his/her full potential is not as good a person as he, or she, could be.
Using the same logic, you'd define being a "woman" as a "bad person".

And I think being emotionally closed off is failing to live to one's potential.
Gee, where the hell did you come up with that totally-not-obvious idea? :rolleyes:
No one is emotionally closed off because they want to be, the just are.

Well... I don't want to sound bad but aside from the giving and asking for a hug (which I am mostly afraid to do because I don't know how the other person would react, not because of people not directly involved or something like that), not caring much about my looks (sure I brush my teeth, my hair, wash myself, etc. regularly, but I don't use any perfume-like chemistry, hairstyling gels and more than a few minutes in front of the mirror) and occasional strong depressions (although when I'm not depressed, I'm usually in the other extreme) I think I could be (according to the first post) called the "real man"... Too bad it doesn't necessarily imply being popular among the girls :rolleyes: I sometimes think it's the other way around: The less you're a "real man" the more girls will like you... Too bad for me :(

So why is this thread "The definition of a REAL 'real man'" instead of "The definition of a REAL 'good person'"?

Because it was in direct response to a specific other post on the topic. Someone was talking about what it meant to be a "real man" in another thread, so I decided to make this one.

Using the same logic, you'd define being a "woman" as a "bad person".

You fail at logic. A "good man" is a good person, who is a man. A "good woman" is a good person, who is a woman. The chracteristics for what make a good person are the same regardless of their gender. The words "man" and "woman" are irrelevant, and unecessary. I include them only to make this post a response to another.



No one is emotionally closed off because they want to be, the just are.

Nobody "just is" in this regard. I believe it's entirely LEARNED behavior. And if it's learned, it can be unlearned.

Beat me to it.

Yes, but I forgot to add the distinction of physical maturity. Otherwise it could be a real boy instead. No prizes for pinocchio references

Yes, but I forgot to add the distinction of physical maturity. Otherwise it could be a real boy instead. No prizes for pinocchio references

pinochio!

I know I spelled that wrong...

A real man is a male specimen of Homo sapiens sapiens.

This will do. /thread

A "real man" would be considered different by all. Personally I believe a "real man" is a man who respects women, is willing to stand up for what he believes in, a man who is open minded, willing to do anything legal or illegal to protect his family or his country, not willing to allow his emotions to get the better of him, and a willingness to become educated so that he may better understand the world around him.

Those are some of the basic, page after page could be writting about the qualities of a "real man".
Just a couple of responses for the sake of conversation:

1) "willing to do anything legal or illegal to protect his family or his country"

Male or female, "real" or whatever, I could not accept the company of someone who believes this because one of the things I think is necessary for a good person, male or female, is personal principle and ethics. A person who would do anything is not an ethical or principled person because ethics and principles are delineated by the things we will not do. A person who will do anything is not someone who can be trusted.

2) "not willing to allow his emotions to get the better of him"

What does that mean?

It could mean a person who is aware of his own emotions and doesn't just give in to them in contradiction to rational thought. I would agree with that. It is very important to feel and express our emotions, but we must avoid using emotional responses as a shortcut to thinking.

However, it could mean someone who thinks being emotional makes a person weak. I cannot agree with that. A person cuts off his emotions, cuts himself off from himself and does not understand himself or his own motivations. A person who fears emotion or perceived weakness is a person who lets a fear dictate his life, and that is far more of a weakness than letting yourself cry in public, in my opinion.

pinochio!

I know I spelled that wrong...

Do not discriminate poor little Pinocchio! :mad: :p

Now for a person to be "good", I take this as a list of characteristics that only come about when one lives to his/her good potential.

So if I define as being a "man" as a "good person" and I define "good person" as one who lives to his/her best potential, then one who does not live to his/her full potential is not as good a person as he, or she, could be.

And I think being emotionally closed off is failing to live to one's potential.

Since when does potential have ANYTHING to do with good? If i decide on any given day to sit on the couch and watch TV instead of doing something more productive im now not a good person because i havnt lived up to and maximized some subjective potential? Thats rediculous. Id suggest you rethink your logic there.

Nobody "just is" in this regard. I believe it's entirely LEARNED behavior. And if it's learned, it can be unlearned.

Looks like someone needs to learn about childhood development. (That someone is you, by the by.)

Yup.


Yup.


Since I dont want to be accused of being less of a man for not voicing my emotions...
You OP are a bigoted simple minded classist, and pissant elitist.
You would dare suggest that somehow the REAL MEN who fix your car, built your roads, built your house, cut lawns, built your damned car, deliver the goods from coast to coast we all consume, toil in the fields, and sweat in the labor of making this world available to ingrates like you because they dont buy tans and wear a suit, on behalf of the millions of less then real men everywhere fuck you....just sharing my emotions.
Your post seems to imply that working class guys aren't emotional, don't consider women their equals, don't show emotional attachment to their children, or any of the other things the OP listed. Why would you think that? Most of the working class guys I know -- I grew up around working class dudes of several generations -- are extremely emotional, respectful of their ladies, love to play with and care for their babies, enjoy a nice soak in a hot tub, even with bubbles in it, after a hard day's work, and even wear nice suits on special occasions. Of course, they are mostly Italians, but...

Italian guys seem to like babies, like to dress well, and like to cry at movies.

Since when does potential have ANYTHING to do with good? If i decide on any given day to sit on the couch and watch TV instead of doing something more productive im now not a good person because i havnt lived up to and maximized some subjective potential? Thats rediculous. Id suggest you rethink your logic there.

It depends on what you define as potential. If you define potential as "I accomplish something" then you are correct, it's a ludicrus statement.

however you lying on the couch didn't close you off from the people who care about you, didn't stop you from doing your part to support your family, didn't fill you with some rediculous bias against someone for the way they live, didn't do anything.

It's not hard to be a good person, or at least, you don't have to do much, though doing some of those may be hard for some. Everything else is superfluous.

Come to think about it, why are you arguing over definitions? It's not that A) it will change anything or give better insight on something or B) it's a useful definition you could use later on to form theorems that would give better insight.

Looks like someone needs to learn about childhood development. (That someone is you, by the by.)

Me? Oh pray tell.

By your own words, that's how you were raised. By definition, it's behavior you LEARNED based on your upbringing. The whole point of childhood development is that it is DEVELOPMENT, it is caused by factors, it is not genetics.

If you are a certain way by the product of your upbringing, that behavior CAN be unlearned, if you try hard enough, are willing, and make the effort.

Saying "I was raised that way I can't change" is, however, none of the above.

I think to be the ultimate man as opposed to real, but then real as in taken to the ultimate realness (yes I think that will work), would entail basically a man going into hell with a group of people, would he crumble or would he take a shotgun in hand, shoot demons and lead the people to safety, any man who can go into hell and not come out a mental case is a real (as in ultimately realest of the real keeping it real) man. Like captain Kirk, Mc Coy gets killed by a knight, sure he mourns for 2 seconds, then he gets his landing party in order so no more of them die. A man can be crying, sensitive whatever, but if they dont loose their heads under that pressure then theyre real men.

In fact defining real genders is a load of bollocks if you ask me, live and let live, I dont care, I like girls who are into rock music and horror films, not girly girls who Im sure would be considered to epitomize real feminity. Im actually surprised there isnt a thread on what makes a real woman. Guess its some kind of inertia from the patriarchal days or is it just evolutionary drives resurfacing. Men after all are meant to be the providers, but even thats meaningless cause you have married men with wives who earn more, unusual, but as I said a lot of its down to society. So the question of realness for me is essentially meaningless, but I gave you my meaningless answer so there

(I dont believe in heaven or hell or any of that stuff, just metaphorically speaking)

Come to think about it, why are you arguing over definitions? It's not that A) it will change anything or give better insight on something or B) it's a useful definition you could use later on to form theorems that would give better insight.
It could become an interesting conversation about the effects of stereotypes on how people live, using ideas of what constitutes a "real man" as an example....but I kind of have a feeling it won't.

Why "real man" instead of "good, wise person"?
that's the point. They're the same thing. A "real man" is a "good, wise person", it's the same thing. Anyone who bases the definition of a "real man" on anything else but effectively promotes a vision that is not that a good, wise man (person).
Good to see that reply - what Soheran said was my first thought.

One thing I don't necessarily agree with is this:
A real man recognizes that the face he presents to the world is the way he is viewed. A real man recognizes that people judge him on the way he looks, and the way he presents himself. A real man recognizes that the best way to succeed is impress people, work his way up, and do better. A real man recognizes that the way to do this is to dress well, look good, smell good, smile nicely, and have a good haircut. A real man recognizes that the unwashed, unshaven, disheveled look might work for being around the house on a weekend, it doesn't cut it in the office monday morning. A real man takes care of his physical appearance because he knows that people will judge him, at least in part, by his physical appearance, and he needs to take care of himself to help ensure the success of his professional life, and help secure success for his family. And if you think a real man should be in jeans, bearded, wearing smelling, grease clothing and not recognize that to be a professional you must look sound and act like a professional, then YOU are not a real man.
I can see where you're coming from, seeing the derision heaped on "metrosexual" men in other "real men" threads, and I certainly don't want to argue against whatever seems to strike some as "metrosexual".
But I do think that a guy can be as dishevelled as he wants to be, just as I want to be as dishevelled as I want to be.
I'm not feeling the whole "Dress for Success" thing I think you're talking about.
Unwashed is never okay, but unshaven? Sure, why not?


But that aside, here, have a big fluffle for talking some sense on the topic. Bad enough these things apparently aren't as self-evident as one would think they are. :fluffle:

OP is hardly true.

OP is hardly true.

Oh no?

I thought the only thing being a "real man" means is that you have a dick and you've passed puberty. Just be yourself, thats real enough for me. If someone isn't nice and perfect, that hardly qualifies them for being less real.

A real man is Captain Kirk. Emulate him now or thou shalt never get laid.

Inspired a bit from the "manly man" thread. After I read it I realized i was in such strong disagreement with the OP that I had to put forth my own definition of what i view to be a "real man"

A real man is not afraid to feel, feel happy, feel sad, feel lonely. A real man does not shut out the world when he's not at his best. A real man is not afraid to tell the person he loves that he's feeling sad. A real man is not afraid to show emotion. And if you are uncomfortable letting the people you care about know how you feel, then YOU are not a real man.

And a real man is not made squemish by others showing their feelings. A real man doesn't judge people by how they live their life, as long as nobody gets hurt. A real man doesn't get uncomfortable just because they're in the presence of "teh gayz". And if you are uncomfortable watching people show their feelings of being upset, of crying, or even loving, yes, other men, then YOU are not a real man.

A real man gives defference to his partner whom he loves. A real man builds relationships out of compromise, not authoritarianism. A real man does not consider himself inferior or superior to his partner. A real man realizes that sometimes his female partner might know more than he does about something. A real man recognizes when someone knows something he doesnt, and knows when to shut the hell up and listen. A real man recognizes that in the 21st century his female partner might well make as much, if not more than he does, and a real man accepts that. And if you believe that by virtue of being male you get the last say, all the time, your the provider, you're the male, your choice is final, if she doesn't disagree too bad, then YOU are not a real man.

A real man works on rationality, and calm thinking. A real man solves his problems without the need for violence. A real man when he sees someone in distress worries more how to help that person, then punish the one who put them there. A real man resorts to violence only at the last resort. A real man, when forced to commit violence, regrets that this was the only option he was left with. A real man values his mind, his ability to think, to care, to reason. And if you chose brawn over brain, if you see the first way to fix the problem is trying to go beat someone up, if you worry more about making someone "pay" then making someone right, if you get a hardon for violence and relish the opportunity rather than enter into it regretfully as the last choice, then YOU are not a real man.

A real man recognizes that the face he presents to the world is the way he is viewed. A real man recognizes that people judge him on the way he looks, and the way he presents himself. A real man recognizes that the best way to succeed is impress people, work his way up, and do better. A real man recognizes that the way to do this is to dress well, look good, smell good, smile nicely, and have a good haircut. A real man recognizes that the unwashed, unshaven, disheveled look might work for being around the house on a weekend, it doesn't cut it in the office monday morning. A real man takes care of his physical appearance because he knows that people will judge him, at least in part, by his physical appearance, and he needs to take care of himself to help ensure the success of his professional life, and help secure success for his family. And if you think a real man should be in jeans, bearded, wearing smelling, grease clothing and not recognize that to be a professional you must look sound and act like a professional, then YOU are not a real man.

A real man kid, gives his whole self to the people he loves, he isn't afraid to tell them he loves them, he isn't afraid to give them emotional support. He isn't afraid to sometime just give a hug. And he isn't afraid to ask for one when he needs one.

And most importantly, a real man doesn't live his life in some way just because some john wayne move, some paper towel actor, or some punk ass kid on the internet tells him he should. In short a real man means something in THIS century a WHOLE lot different then the mysoginistic, myopic, outdated world view of those who want to talk about what it's like to be a "real man". And those that think a "real man" should be some closed down, emotionally dead john waynish type...they ain't real mean.

I'm a man and I approve this message. :)

I don't celebrate my inability to be emotionally open with people, and you still fail to explain how it makes me less of a man, or less good.
It may not make you less of a man or less of a good person, but in my book it makes you less desirable. I want a man who can not only be emotionally open with me, but his good friends also. Afterall, I don't want to be his only emotional support any more than I want him to be mine.

It may not make you less of a man or less of a good person, but in my book it makes you less desirable. I want a man who can not only be emotionally open with me, but his good friends also. Afterall, I don't want to be his only emotional support any more than I want him to be mine.

*shrug*
I never said I was desirable at all. I was just wondering why the baggage from my childhood made me less of a man.

A real man is Captain Kirk. Emulate him now or thou shalt never get laid.

I like that the implicit definition of "real man" is that all a man wants is to get laid. It nicely illustrates how problematic such social constructions are.

*shrug*
I never said I was desirable at all. I was just wondering why the baggage from my childhood made me less of a man.Not desirable to me=/= not desirable

I like that the implicit definition of "real man" is that all a man wants is to get laid. It nicely illustrates how problematic such social constructions are.
*whisper-whisper* I don't think he was being serious.

I've been wrong before, though.
Not desirable to me=/= not desirable

I s'pose, but most girls (and a lot of guys) don't find stoicism mixed with occasional awkward (ackward?) displays of emotion to be very attractive. :)

I like that the implicit definition of "real man" is that all a man wants is to get laid. It nicely illustrates how problematic such social constructions are.

Looks more like an intentional No True Scotsman Fallacy to me. Taking the Kirk thing at face value just suggests that a real man takes to wearing a corset in later life.

Looks more like an intentional No True Scotsman Fallacy to me. Taking the Kirk thing at face value just suggests that a real man takes to wearing a corset in later life.

and a tribble on his head.

I like that the implicit definition of "real man" is that all a man wants is to get laid. It nicely illustrates how problematic such social constructions are.

Looks more like an intentional No True Scotsman Fallacy to me. Taking the Kirk thing at face value just suggests that a real man takes to wearing a corset in later life.

...are you... talking to yourself?

Inspired a bit from the "manly man" thread. After I read it I realized i was in such strong disagreement with the OP that I had to put forth my own definition of what i view to be a "real man"

There was a book I read recently whose terms put it better than I had been able to articulate before. The 7 Basic Stories.

He breaks it down to 4 catagories based on whether or not they have masculine and feminine virtues. And men and women are supposed to have both.

Lacking manly characteristics does not make a man womanly. Women have their own virtues that must be cultivated, and men are supposed to try to gain those too. In other words, a man can not define his masculinity by showing off how feminine he is not.

A man is supposed to have masculine characteristics like strength, courage, ambition, and rational intellect.

A woman is supposed to have feminine characteristics like empathy, understanding, and intuition.

An adult is supposed to have all of those things. If a man has all the masculine values but lacks empathy understanding and intuition, he'll be easily manipulated by people who want his strength to serve their own purposes and will create more enemies than even his strength can hope to deal with.

Like how Cheney, Karl, and Rumsfeld who glorified masculine strength and bragged about lacking any feminine virtues (like when Karl said that Dems want to give bin Laden therapy instead of jail). They thought they could bully the Democrats around instead of working with them and now find that the Dems run Congress mainly because people are so mad at what assholes the Repubs have been.

A man who worries about being a manly man is in fact just a child.

Me? Oh pray tell.

By your own words, that's how you were raised. By definition, it's behavior you LEARNED based on your upbringing. The whole point of childhood development is that it is DEVELOPMENT, it is caused by factors, it is not genetics.

If you are a certain way by the product of your upbringing, that behavior CAN be unlearned, if you try hard enough, are willing, and make the effort.

Saying "I was raised that way I can't change" is, however, none of the above.

Well, this is sort of a "yes and no" thing.

Yes, men are taught to repress their emotions because of an immature understanding of what masculine stoic strength is supposed to be. Ideally man is supposed to be able to control his emotions to get "the job" done. From a historical stand point, this makes sense. If a group of men set of to kill a buffalo that suddenly charges them, men should be able to resist the sudden urge to flee long enough to kill the buffalo, then have their emotional release, whether it's laughing, cursing, or wetting themselves.

OTOH, men are biologically less conected to their emotions. Much more so than women, men identify their emotional states based on how they see themselves acting as much as how they feel. A man might not know that he is depressed if he has been so for some time, but hasn't been crying about it. That's why a couple of weeks ago the Father on 7th Heaven advised a woman "think about how you want to feel, act as if you feel that way, then sooner or later you'll start to feel that way."

For a man, that stands a pretty good chance of working. Most women would think the whole idea is absurd.

Think of it like getting into a hot bathtub. It's hot when you get into it. You'll get used to it, and it won't feel so hot anymore. Sooner or later, the water will cool down. By then it's going to be hard to tell which has happened sooner. You might not know until you start shivering that the water is now a tepid 75 degrees in your chilly 65 degree bathroom.

...are you... talking to yourself?

Bodies Within Organs and Bodies Without Organs.

Very different.

Nice to see my thread started a spin off thread. :D Really, I am flattered that my thread started two threads. That is awesome!

Inspired a bit from the "manly man" thread. After I read it I realized i was in such strong disagreement with the OP that I had to put forth my own definition of what i view to be a "real man"

A real man is not afraid to feel, feel happy, feel sad, feel lonely. A real man does not shut out the world when he's not at his best. A real man is not afraid to tell the person he loves that he's feeling sad. A real man is not afraid to show emotion. And if you are uncomfortable letting the people you care about know how you feel, then YOU are not a real man.

Yea, but whining over a broken nail? Comon, you got to draw the line somewhere. Also, when you have a family you have to be strong, you have to be their guiding light, someone who leads the ship in a time of distress if you will. What good does it does the family if you're crying when they need someone to be strong?


And a real man is not made squemish by others showing their feelings. A real man doesn't judge people by how they live their life, as long as nobody gets hurt. A real man doesn't get uncomfortable just because they're in the presence of "teh gayz". And if you are uncomfortable watching people show their feelings of being upset, of crying, or even loving, yes, other men, then YOU are not a real man.

I don't have any problem with loving, or upset, and I don't have a problem with "gays". In fact I'm friend with a few at my university. It's true I can't stand crying, but eh what are you going to do.


A real man gives defference to his partner whom he loves. A real man builds relationships out of compromise, not authoritarianism. A real man does not consider himself inferior or superior to his partner. A real man realizes that sometimes his female partner might know more than he does about something. A real man recognizes when someone knows something he doesnt, and knows when to shut the hell up and listen. A real man recognizes that in the 21st century his female partner might well make as much, if not more than he does, and a real man accepts that. And if you believe that by virtue of being male you get the last say, all the time, your the provider, you're the male, your choice is final, if she doesn't disagree too bad, then YOU are not a real man.
[quote]

A real man should be a provider, because that's one of the job of being a husband and father. The woman should work too, because it's not fair that she should stay home and watch Oprah while the man works. I don't have any problem with a woman making more than me, even if it's my woman. Hell I know my girlfriend is going to make more than me, and eh, hey as long as she's making any amount of money I'm happy.

[quote]
A real man works on rationality, and calm thinking. A real man solves his problems without the need for violence. A real man when he sees someone in distress worries more how to help that person, then punish the one who put them there. A real man resorts to violence only at the last resort. A real man, when forced to commit violence, regrets that this was the only option he was left with. A real man values his mind, his ability to think, to care, to reason. And if you chose brawn over brain, if you see the first way to fix the problem is trying to go beat someone up, if you worry more about making someone "pay" then making someone right, if you get a hardon for violence and relish the opportunity rather than enter into it regretfully as the last choice, then YOU are not a real man.

The only thing people understand is force, and if people realize that when you hurt someone that you love and care about, they hurt you, and when they realize that when they hurt you, they made a mistake, then they realize that they're screwed.


A real man recognizes that the face he presents to the world is the way he is viewed. A real man recognizes that people judge him on the way he looks, and the way he presents himself. A real man recognizes that the best way to succeed is impress people, work his way up, and do better. A real man recognizes that the way to do this is to dress well, look good, smell good, smile nicely, and have a good haircut. A real man recognizes that the unwashed, unshaven, disheveled look might work for being around the house on a weekend, it doesn't cut it in the office monday morning. A real man takes care of his physical appearance because he knows that people will judge him, at least in part, by his physical appearance, and he needs to take care of himself to help ensure the success of his professional life, and help secure success for his family. And if you think a real man should be in jeans, bearded, wearing smelling, grease clothing and not recognize that to be a professional you must look sound and act like a professional, then YOU are not a real man.

I never said that the man should never groom, but what man needs as much crap on his side of the mirror as his girlfriend/wife does to look good? All I have is toothpaste, toothbrush, shaving cream, razor, shampoo, soap, deodorant, and sometimes cologne. Men don't need 500 different type of skin, hair, crotch moistures. Speaking of grooming, I need a haircut.


A real man kid, gives his whole self to the people he loves, he isn't afraid to tell them he loves them, he isn't afraid to give them emotional support. He isn't afraid to sometime just give a hug. And he isn't afraid to ask for one when he needs one.

Agreed.


And most importantly, a real man doesn't live his life in some way just because some john wayne move, some paper towel actor, or some punk ass kid on the internet tells him he should. In short a real man means something in THIS century a WHOLE lot different then the mysoginistic, myopic, outdated world view of those who want to talk about what it's like to be a "real man". And those that think a "real man" should be some closed down, emotionally dead john waynish type...they ain't real mean.

Yes, but a real man does need to be strong physically, emotionally, spiritually, in morals and in values.

Yea, but whining over a broken nail? Comon, you got to draw the line somewhere.

What does it matter to you? If someone lives their life in a way that doesn't harm you, what business of it is yours what they do? How dare you suggest where "the line" might be for someone in their own life? What right do you have to tell other men how to live so they can be "real men"?


Also, when you have a family you have to be strong, you have to be their guiding light, someone who leads the ship in a time of distress if you will. What good does it does the family if you're crying when they need someone to be strong?

This is where you are fundamentally wrong. A family, and specifically a relationship, is a partnership, an equality. When times are tough you work TOGETHER, it's everyone's job, it's everyone's burden. To expect "the man" to be "guiding light" is not only offensive to suggest that women need a man to help them through the hard times, it is a bad relationship strategy for men, as it just leaves them feeling resented and under stress to always be right. For a relationship to work both partners must be able to support each other, the idea that the man remains a pillar of strength for the poor women folk who need someone to keep a cool head while they go to peaces is offensive to both sides, and damaging overall.

A real man should be a provider, because that's one of the job of being a husband and father.

See what I said above. Each partner should work with the other.

I don't have any problem with a woman making more than me, even if it's my woman.

Pray tell how YOU would be the provider, when she's making more than you? If anything she'd be your provider it would seem. It just highlights the lunacy of your point that one party should "provide" for the other.

The only thing people understand is force, and if people realize that when you hurt someone that you love and care about, they hurt you, and when they realize that when they hurt you, they made a mistake, then they realize that they're screwed.

Oh brilliant, eye for an eye. I hurt someone you care about, so you hurt me, all done, right?

Oh, except when the people I care about go hunting for you, for hurting me. And then other people go for them, and back and forth ad infinitum. Eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind and all that.

Wrong. If someone hurts you in a mean, but legal way, you dissassociate yourself with that person and move on with your life. If someone hurts you in an illegal way, you have them arrested for it. Resorting to violence isn't justice, it's vigilante vengence. And vigilante vengence has no place in civilized society or with a civilized person. It's barbarism, nothing more. It's a sign of being incapable of controlling your emotions and incapable of living in civilized society. Violence should be used only in self defense, nothing more. If I say something mean to you, you grow up, suck it up, and move on. If I assault you, have me arrested. If I threaten your life, kill me if you must. But don't go looking to "kick some ass" because I wronged someone you care about. Have me arrested if you can. If you can't, move on. That's the adult thing to do.

I never said that the man should never groom, but what man needs as much crap on his side of the mirror as his girlfriend/wife does to look good? All I have is toothpaste, toothbrush, shaving cream, razor, shampoo, soap, deodorant, and sometimes cologne. Men don't need 500 different type of skin, hair, crotch moistures. Speaking of grooming, I need a haircut.

Once again, who the hell are you to tell what another man should or should not do? If my skin gets dry in the winter so I moisturize it (it does, and I do, mainly because I FEEL like it) then where the hell do you get off telling me that I shouldn't?

Yes, but a real man does need to be strong physically, emotionally, spiritually, in morals and in values.

I'll be sure to inform that Stephen Hawking and Michael J. Fox, both of whom suffer from crippling neurological diseases that have left them very physically weak that they're not real men because they're not strong.

If you of course want to call one of the smartest people whose ever lived not a "real man" that's your perogative.

What does it matter to you? If someone lives their life in a way that doesn't harm you, what business of it is yours what they do? How dare you suggest where "the line" might be for someone in their own life? What right do you have to tell other men how to live so they can be "real men"?

Eh I don't, I was just stating my opinion on the change of men's behavior in society.


This is where you are fundamentally wrong. A family, and specifically a relationship, is a partnership, an equality. When times are tough you work TOGETHER, it's everyone's job, it's everyone's burden. To expect "the man" to be "guiding light" is not only offensive to suggest that women need a man to help them through the hard times, it is a bad relationship strategy for men, as it just leaves them feeling resented and under stress to always be right. For a relationship to work both partners must be able to support each other, the idea that the man remains a pillar of strength for the poor women folk who need someone to keep a cool head while they go to peaces is offensive to both sides, and damaging overall.

When my girlfriend is weak, she expects me to be strong, and vice versa. It does her no good for me to be weak too. If she is hurting, or if there's something wrong, she expects me to care enough to find out what is wrong and try to correct the situation. Sometimes it can just be a hug and cuddling.


Pray tell how YOU would be the provider, when she's making more than you? If anything she'd be your provider it would seem. It just highlights the lunacy of your point that one party should "provide" for the other.

So, you would be ok if one party just slacked off and did nothing to contribute to the running of the household? Also if both of us are working, then we're both providing. If you go back to my thread I never said sole provider.

Oh brilliant, eye for an eye. I hurt someone you care about, so you hurt me, all done, right?

Yea pretty much. If you hurt anyone that I care about, and love, you can expect to see me.


Oh, except when the people I care about go hunting for you, for hurting me. And then other people go for them, and back and forth ad infinitum. Eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind and all that.

Yea, but if they come looking for me, at my place, where all of my guns are, well they just made the stupidest mistake in the world. Because they are on my property illegally, and under North Carolina law, I have a right to shoot them.


Wrong. If someone hurts you in a mean, but legal way, you dissassociate yourself with that person and move on with your life. If someone hurts you in an illegal way, you have them arrested for it. Resorting to violence isn't justice, it's vigilante vengence. And vigilante vengence has no place in civilized society or with a civilized person. It's barbarism, nothing more. It's a sign of being incapable of controlling your emotions and incapable of living in civilized society. Violence should be used only in self defense, nothing more.

Yes, but prisons nowadays being what they are, they're basically day care. You would get better result if they know that the person they robbed, hit, or raped has someone looking out for them, and who will stand up for them. Police here are useless when the situation is going on right now. They're only for after the crime has happened.


If I say something mean to you, you grow up, suck it up, and move on.


We're talking more than just petty words.


If I assault you, have me arrested. If I threaten your life, kill me if you must. But don't go looking to "kick some ass" because I wronged someone you care about. Have me arrested if you can. If you can't, move on. That's the adult thing to do.


Like I said, prison are day cares, they get internet, cable TV, gym equipment, 3 square meals a day, etc. prisoners just come out stronger and meaner. However if they know that the "innocent" (some people are not so innocent) people they wronged have back up, and people who are willing to stand up for them, then they'll think twice.


Once again, who the hell are you to tell what another man should or should not do? If my skin gets dry in the winter so I moisturize it (it does, and I do, mainly because I FEEL like it) then where the hell do you get off telling me that I shouldn't?

It's just an opinion, calm down.



I'll be sure to inform that Stephen Hawking and Michael J. Fox, both of whom suffer from crippling neurological diseases that have left them very physically weak that they're not real men because they're not strong.

If you of course want to call one of the smartest people whose ever lived not a "real man" that's your perogative.

When I said physically strong, I meant not letting yourself become a fat ass. I realize that there are some people who can't help their physical condition, however for those who can, lift some weight, go for a walk, keep in shape dammit.

A real man can down ten beers in an hour, and not show any sign of alcohol or excessive carbonated beverage in his belly.

A real man can down ten beers in an hour, and not show any sign of alcohol or excessive carbonated beverage in his belly.

and that man will never get arrested for DUI or DWI.

When my girlfriend is weak, she expects me to be strong, and vice versa.


Also if both of us are working, then we're both providing. If you go back to my thread I never said sole provider.

So your whole point is, a man should be able to be there when his partner needs support, and likewise a female should be there when her partner needs support.

Also a man should pull his own weight in the relationship and do his share. A woman should pull her own weight in the relationship, and do her share. Each partner supplies equally.

So if both the man, AND the woman are expected to help EACH OTHER EQUALLY and both the man AND the woman are expected to do their equal share in the relationship, then it would seem you're advocating equality.

So what is this bullshit about "the man should be strong" and "the man should be the provider"? Basically you're saying "the man should be strong, the man should be the provider oh, but the woman should do the same too"

In other words this has nothing to do about what a MAN should be, any different than what a WOMAN should be? What the hell does this have to do with men?

A PERSON should be emotionally available, a PERSON should pull equal weight in a relationship, a PERSON should help his OR her partner when that partner needs help. In short, a PERSON should be equal to the other PERSON. To treat one as if he OR she had any different obligation is insulting to both.

Yes a man should do these things, a woman should to. I have no idea then why you felt compelled to talk about what "man" should do...other than to talk about some bullshit about how a man's home is his castle and it's HIS job to lead the family, and ONLY his.

Let me ask, clearly, right now, is a man supposed to be absolutely equal to his partner in a relationship, or isn't he? If you say he is, then all your points raised in your thread are invalid. if you say he isn't, then any claims about what you should do, and what she should do, are likewise invalid.


Yea, but if they come looking for me, at my place, where all of my guns are, well they just made the stupidest mistake in the world. Because they are on my property illegally, and under North Carolina law, I have a right to shoot them.

OK, so they'll just wait until you're outside, gang up on you, and beat you to death. Works?


Like I said, prison are day cares, they get internet, cable TV, gym equipment, 3 square meals a day, etc. prisoners just come out stronger and meaner. However if they know that the "innocent" (some people are not so innocent) people they wronged have back up, and people who are willing to stand up for them, then they'll think twice.

And when you take out your vengence on them...and their people come after you? What if some guy slaps your girlfriend, so you go beat him up, that's what you'd do right?

OK, so what happens when 6 or 7 of his friends show up, and kick in your skull for it? By your logic, you hurt someone they cared about, they are just as justified as you were.

Vengence is not the solution, it never is. If you want to live your life by the philosophy of eye for an eye fine, you lose your right to complain when someone blinds you.

The minute you violate the law and commit an illegal assault you are no better than the one you assault. It's juvenile, nothing more. It's not the way adults behave. if you wish to live your life by that philosophy I have no respect for you, and I think you have no place in this society. If you want to behave like an animal you deserve to be put in a cage. The rest of us will keep up civilization just fine without you and "men" like you.

A real man can down ten beers in an hour, and not show any sign of alcohol or excessive carbonated beverage in his belly.

Except less-than-coherent posts on NS? ;)

So your whole point is, a man should be able to be there when his partner needs support, and likewise a female should be there when her partner needs support.

Agreed.

Also a man should pull his own weight in the relationship and do his share. A woman should pull her own weight in the relationship, and do her share. Each partner supplies equally.

Yes, but it's not always equal. One partner may make more than the other.


So if both the man, AND the woman are expected to help EACH OTHER EQUALLY and both the man AND the woman are expected to do their equal share in the relationship, then it would seem you're advocating equality.

I do actually.


So what is this bullshit about "the man should be strong" and "the man should be the provider"? Basically you're saying "the man should be strong, the man should be the provider oh, but the woman should do the same too"

Honestly, I really have no clue. I think I may have pushed the manly man thing a bit too far on that part.


OK, so they'll just wait until you're outside, gang up on you, and beat you to death. Works?


Kinda hard to hide on my property and hers. We both have dogs, and they both bark like crazy whenever they hear movement outside, and they both won't shut up until they see what it is. That's why I follow my dog out at night when he starts barking like that, along with my 12 gauge, because he may be barking at an intruder. I also have a 9mm which I carry with me and put in my car. My girlfriend and I do go to the shooting range to keep our shooting skills sharp.


And when you take out your vengence on them...and their people come after you? What if some guy slaps your girlfriend, so you go beat him up, that's what you'd do right?

Yes, because it was wrong for him to do that. We (my girl and I) believe that a man's right ends where the other person's nose begin. If someone slapped my girlfriend, then he has revoked his right to not be harmed. Of course after I take care of him, I take away his car keys, and I call the cops.


OK, so what happens when 6 or 7 of his friends show up, and kick in your skull for it? By your logic, you hurt someone they cared about, they are just as justified as you were.

That's the reason for the 9mm and the 12 gauge.


Vengence is not the solution, it never is. If you want to live your life by the philosophy of eye for an eye fine, you lose your right to complain when someone blinds you.

If someone blinds me because I beat him up after he slapped my girlfriend, or raped her, then I have every right to be mad. What good does it do to call a cop in the middle of the hostile situation anyways? "Oh thank you for calling the cops honey, I mean sure we were robbed, your cell phone got broken after you tried to call the cops, and I got raped, several times, and the cops are still looking for the preps, but at least you didn't try to defend me like a 'barbarian' would, no you just kept a 'cool' head about it and called the cops, even though that did not work out too well."


The minute you violate the law and commit an illegal assault you are no better than the one you assault. It's juvenile, nothing more. It's not the way adults behave. if you wish to live your life by that philosophy I have no respect for you, and I think you have no place in this society. If you want to behave like an animal you deserve to be put in a cage. The rest of us will keep up civilization just fine without you and "men" like you.

An adult deserving respect would never harm me or the people I love and care about. Once a person has harmed someone I care about and love, or harm me, all bets are off. Police are usually for "after the crime" to clean it up and gather up evidence. The minute a person slaps my girlfriend, or rape her, he has violated the law, and thus his rights are revoked and deserving of my fist in his face. Quite honestly, if you don't respect me because I believe in protecting the people I care about and love, then I don't want your respect.

*blink* No. A real man must be athletic, must let people in when happy and shut them out or keep a facade when not. He must be relatively strong. He must be able and willing to fight if the situation dictates it, and ready to use words when it does not. He must love and respect his partner, and not be afraid or judgmental of others. He must be kind when it is required, and stern when it is required. (This is my honest answer of what I believe in my heart of hearts)

*blink* No. A real man must be athletic, must let people in when happy and shut them out or keep a facade when not. He must be relatively strong. He must be able and willing to fight if the situation dictates it, and ready to use words when it does not. He must love and respect his partner, and not be afraid or judgmental of others. He must be kind when it is required, and stern when it is required. (This is my honest answer of what I believe in my heart of hearts)

I can agree with that. :)

A real man must be athletic,

Why should he be athletic? There are better things to do.

must let people in when happy and shut them out or keep a facade when not.

Why? No one is strong enough to handle everything on their own.

That's the reason for the 9mm and the 12 gauge.

And when they bring 6?

A gun doesn't make you invincible. Far from it, if anything it makes you overconfident. You think because you have a gun you're suddenly immune? If I knew where you lived, had access to a gun, and wanted to kill you, I assure I could. And more importantly, you'd never see it coming.

That wonderful 9mm you have? Won't do you a damned bit of good if the stranger behind you jammed a knife down your spine and kept walking. Won't do you a damned bit of good when that car going down the street lobs a molatov through your bedroom window and drives off.

I assure you, if someone is actively trying to harm you, that gun isn't going to matter for shit. If I wanted to kill you, you'd never have a chance to use it.



What good does it do to call a cop in the middle of the hostile situation anyways? "Oh thank you for calling the cops honey, I mean sure we were robbed, your cell phone got broken after you tried to call the cops, and I got raped, several times, and the cops are still looking for the preps, but at least you didn't try to defend me like a 'barbarian' would, no you just kept a 'cool' head about it and called the cops, even though that did not work out too well."

You should have said "a real man can read" but since you didn't, let me repeat what I said before.

Violence should be used only in self defense, nothing more



An adult deserving respect would never harm me or the people I love and care about. Once a person has harmed someone I care about and love, or harm me, all bets are off.

By your logic, if someone harms the person you care about, that gives you the right to harm them back.

OK, but only if you agree that the people who loved the person you harmed have equal right to come looking for you.

And don't go talking about your guns again, as I said, I promise you any halfway intelligent person would make very sure you never had the chance to use them.

Police are usually for "after the crime" to clean it up and gather up evidence. The minute a person slaps my girlfriend, or rape her, he has violated the law, and thus his rights are revoked and deserving of my fist in his face.

only if you then admit that when you assault that person by putting your fist in his face you deserve to have your neck snapped in exchange.

That's what vengence is, that's what it does. If you say "he harmed someone I love so I can harm him back" you invite that bullet in the back of your head when you're not looking.

Quite honestly, if you don't respect me because I believe in protecting the people I care about and love, then I don't want your respect.

Once again, vigilantism is different than defense. Protect yourself, yes. Going off in search of "vengence" no. One is legal, the other is not. Civilized people operate within the law of their society, providing that law is just. Uncivilized people do not. That is the definition of what it is to be civilized.

*blink* No. A real man must be athletic

Once again, I suggest you ring up stephen hawkings and tell him he's not a real man.

shut them out or keep a facade when not. He must be relatively strong.

Right, because being emotionally distant and shut out is an admirable quality...right.

not in this century.

He must be able and willing to fight if the situation dictates it, and ready to use words when it does not. He must love and respect his partner, and not be afraid or judgmental of others. He must be kind when it is required, and stern when it is required. (This is my honest answer of what I believe in my heart of hearts)

And this part is different from what I have said...how?

Once again, I suggest you ring up stephen hawkings and tell him he's not a real man.



Right, because being emotionally distant and shut out is an admirable quality...right.

not in this century.



And this part is different from what I have said...how?

It's not really, I just felt the need to include it.
Why should he be athletic? There are better things to do.



Why? No one is strong enough to handle everything on their own.

I don't know.I have not researched or anything this is just how I feel.

And when they bring 6?

The wife will know how to shoot too, and like I said, I have a dog that won't shut up when he hears something outside. Usually I look out my windows before I go outside when that happens. If I see someone out there, *psh* I'm not stupid enough to go out. I'll just use the .22 semi automatic and fire off a shot, and then call the police. They may not be there when they arrive, but like I said, police are clean up.


A gun doesn't make you invincible. Far from it, if anything it makes you overconfident. You think because you have a gun you're suddenly immune? If I knew where you lived, had access to a gun, and wanted to kill you, I assure I could. And more importantly, you'd never see it coming.

That is true, but everything make noise, your footsteps, your breathing, the way your clothes rustle when you move. Because I have a sensitive hearing aid, I can pick up all of those noise. So if I hear something that shouldn't be there, then I know there's something wrong with the picture.


That wonderful 9mm you have? Won't do you a damned bit of good if the stranger behind you jammed a knife down your spine and kept walking. Won't do you a damned bit of good when that car going down the street lobs a molatov through your bedroom window and drives off.

What's a molatov?

I assure you, if someone is actively trying to harm you, that gun isn't going to matter for shit. If I wanted to kill you, you'd never have a chance to use it.

Yea, but you're forgetting the following.

1. I have a dog that doesn't shut up until he sees what making that noise.
2. If he's barking, I never go outside without looking out first.
3. I am almost armed all the time.
4. I am very aware of my surroundings, all the time.
5. I have fast reflexs.
6. I am a pretty strong guy, so while a knife my slow me down, if it doesn't hit anything vital, that's all it'll do, is slow me down. I can still squeeze off a few shot while you're running away.


You should have said "a real man can read" but since you didn't, let me repeat what I said before.

A real man doesn't use petty insult.

By your logic, if someone harms the person you care about, that gives you the right to harm them back.

Now you're getting it.


OK, but only if you agree that the people who loved the person you harmed have equal right to come looking for you.

Yes, but they are in the wrong, and at that point I have every right to defend myself and my family. Once person A has made his transgression against me or my family, then anyone else that person A brings into this, is wrong because person A has made the transgression, not me.

And don't go talking about your guns again, as I said, I promise you any halfway intelligent person would make very sure you never had the chance to use them.

Idiots who think they can be "stealthy" always make the loudest noise, and that gives them away.

only if you then admit that when you assault that person by putting your fist in his face you deserve to have your neck snapped in exchange.

Nope because I am in the right, and he is in the wrong.

I don't know.I have not researched or anything this is just how I feel.

People research what a "real man" is?

I know there's been serious work in the area of historical gender roles, and the roots and nature of present ones, but I didn't think its objective was formulating a "correct" definition.

The wife will know how to shoot too,

Fine, so you take out one, maybe 2. You're both still dead.

and like I said, I have a dog that won't shut up when he hears something outside.

Then the dog's dead too.

Usually I look out my windows before I go outside when that happens. If I see someone out there, *psh* I'm not stupid enough to go out.

You leave your house now and then, do you not?


What's a molatov?

Simple device. Get a glass bottle, fill it with gasoline. Stuff a rag in it, set the rag on fire, toss. Instant fireball.



Yea, but you're forgetting the following.

1. I have a dog that doesn't shut up until he sees what making that noise.
2. If he's barking, I never go outside without looking out first.
3. I am almost armed all the time.
4. I am very aware of my surroundings, all the time.
5. I have fast reflexs.
6. I am a pretty strong guy, so while a knife my slow me down, if it doesn't hit anything vital, that's all it'll do, is slow me down. I can still squeeze off a few shot while you're running away.

And if you think that as you walk down the street to go where ever it is you're going that you're going to see me coming, perhaps someone you've never met, wouldn't know, and are going to react fast enough before I put a shot through the back of your head then you're an idiot.

A real man doesn't use petty insult.

A real man makes sure he knows what the hell he's talking about before spouting off. If he doesn't, he deserves to be insulted.



Yes, but they are in the wrong, and at that point I have every right to defend myself and my family. Once person A has made his transgression against me or my family, then anyone else that person A brings into this, is wrong because person A has made the transgression, not me.


Nope because I am in the right, and he is in the wrong.

I see, so when the friends and family of the guy you "beat up" have you pinned on the ground with a tire iron above your skull ready to bash it in, make sure to tell them you were right, and they're wrong.

Vengence is wrong, period. The minute you start acting in vengence rather then adhering to the social contract and working within the law, you invite vengence back upon you. And as much as you wanna talk tough about your guns and superior hearing, you're never safe all the time. You're arguably never 100% safe any of the time.

Get a big enough group of people who want to kill you, and you will die. Vengence begats vengence, and if you live by vengence you'll die by it. Simple fact, that's why we formed society in the first place. no matter how much you talk about "who is in the right" and how you're justified but they are not, if enough people who want to kill you get together they will kill you. Maybe you'll take some of them out first, maybe you won't. Maybe you'll live a while before bleeding to death, maybe you won't.

You're still dead. That's what vengence does, it's an anathma to society, it is destructive, and should never be allowed and NEVER be encouraged.

People research what a "real man" is?

I know there's been serious work in the area of historical gender roles, and the roots and nature of present ones, but I didn't think its objective was formulating a "correct" definition.

I mean I have no reasons.:p (Well, I spose I do, but they're locked into my subconscious)

3. I am almost armed all the time.

What is the difference between being 'almost armed all the time' and being 'armed almost all the time'?

What is the difference between being 'almost armed all the time' and being 'armed almost all the time'?

it means that his arms can be detached at the shoulders... :D

there's only one man man enough to be called a man

his name is jack bauer

The wife will know how to shoot too, and like I said, I have a dog that won't shut up when he hears something outside. Usually I look out my windows before I go outside when that happens. If I see someone out there, *psh* I'm not stupid enough to go out. I'll just use the .22 semi automatic and fire off a shot, and then call the police. They may not be there when they arrive, but like I said, police are clean up.

That is true, but everything make noise, your footsteps, your breathing, the way your clothes rustle when you move. Because I have a sensitive hearing aid, I can pick up all of those noise. So if I hear something that shouldn't be there, then I know there's something wrong with the picture.

What's a molatov?

Yea, but you're forgetting the following.

1. I have a dog that doesn't shut up until he sees what making that noise.
2. If he's barking, I never go outside without looking out first.
3. I am almost armed all the time.
4. I am very aware of my surroundings, all the time.
5. I have fast reflexs.
6. I am a pretty strong guy, so while a knife my slow me down, if it doesn't hit anything vital, that's all it'll do, is slow me down. I can still squeeze off a few shot while you're running away.


Idiots who think they can be "stealthy" always make the loudest noise, and that gives them away.


Nope because I am in the right, and he is in the wrong.Alright, Rambo. You do realize you sound like a twelve year old with testosterone poisoning and an addiction to Schwarzenegger movies.

@ Arthais- my hero

Yup.


"You would dare suggest that somehow the REAL MEN who fix your car, built your roads, built your house, cut lawns, built your damned car, deliver the goods from coast to coast we all consume, toil in the fields, and sweat in the labor of making this world available to ingrates like you because they dont buy tans and wear a suit, on behalf of the millions of less then real men everywhere fuck you....just sharing my emotions."

Um - what?

@ Arthais- my hero

So...how YOU doin?

Get rid of the whole "real man" thing and great!
I know you keep saying that you simply mean a decent person but you only further the ridiculous idea of there being a "real man" ideal with certain characteristics when using the term "real man".

there's only one man man enough to be called a man

his name is jack bauer

fuck yeah :D


:gundge: <--- is me as jack bauer :)

fuck yeah :D


:gundge: <--- is me as jack bauer :)

Jack Bauer didn't have a biorifle.

And Donald Sutherland could whoop the sh*t out of him.

Jack Bauer didn't have a biorifle.

And Donald Sutherland could whoop the sh*t out of him.

pah, daddy's an old man!

and that's me with a biorifle pretending to be jack :) :)

pah, daddy's an old man!
Yeah, that's how awesome he is: he can kick the crap out of Jack Bauer, even when he's 71.

and that's me with a biorifle pretending to be jack :) :)

Bah, semantics!

I never said that the man should never groom, but what man needs as much crap on his side of the mirror as his girlfriend/wife does to look good? All I have is toothpaste, toothbrush, shaving cream, razor, shampoo, soap, deodorant, and sometimes cologne. Men don't need 500 different type of skin, hair, crotch moistures. Speaking of grooming, I need a haircut.


Women don't necessarily have 500 different types, either...apparently I have less than you, and I'm a girl (toothpaste, toothbrush, razor (electric), deodorant, shampoo, and soap). I don't see how what grooming products one uses has anything to do with how masculine or feminine one is.

Get rid of the whole "real man" thing and great!
I know you keep saying that you simply mean a decent person but you only further the ridiculous idea of there being a "real man" ideal with certain characteristics when using the term "real man".

I agree, the term is ridiculus. The reason I use it is in response to another thread posted here, talking about what makes a "real man".

My whole point here is that the term is ridiculus, and meaningless. That the only way to call someone a "real man" or other ludicrus term is to see that man as a good person overall. I simply used the terminology in rebutal to another thread, to demonstrate how ludicrus that terminology is.

May I add "should be literate" to my list?

Lemme show you again:



Notice the words SHOULD BE.

Lemme show you again.



Nothing wrong with it, if you can get away with it. But the idea that those of us who wear a suit to work every day, are somehow LESS of "real men" or whatever bullshit there is, is stupid.

If you can get away with it, fine. Some of us can't. And if you don't have to dress the part, then ok. That doesn't make you any less of a person. It doesn't make you any more of one either.

Quote yourself in context you snobby fuck.

I never said anything about jeans, attempting to remove your words from the issue is simple minded and sad, at least have the stomach to back your own convictions.
A real man recognizes that the face he presents to the world is the way he is viewed.A real man recognizes that people judge him on the way he looks, and the way he presents himself. [1] A real man recognizes that the best way to succeed is impress people, work his way up, and do better. [2] A real man recognizes that the way to do this is to dress well, look good, smell good, smile nicely, and have a good haircut. [3] A real man recognizes that the unwashed, unshaven, disheveled look might work for being around the house on a weekend, it doesn't cut it in the office monday morning. A real man takes care of his physical appearance because he knows that people will judge him, at least in part, by his physical appearance, and he needs to take care of himself to help ensure the success of his professional life, and help secure success for his family. And if you think a real man should be in jeans, bearded, wearing smelling, grease clothing and not recognize that to be a professional you must look sound and act like a professional, then YOU are not a real man.

1. Success for a real man is through trite vanity, this is your supposition.
I support this with point 2. in your blather, because according to you a real man(See Point 2) is not supposed to work hard he supposed to "dress well, look good, smell good, smile nicely, and have a good haircut" this is without exception(per your own words) what a real man should do, your real man.
3. Office?, no where else are real men found...why, because the unclean masses covered in the filth of making lazy simple minded fucks like you comfortable do not equal real men by your definition.

What beards, jeans, grease, or goodness forbid body odor from ::shudder:: sweat has to do with being less then a real man I have no idea.

So stick you 'strawman' jeans arguement straight up your ass, you are an Elitist who through your own words demonstrates a clear disdain for men who you are I am most certain happy to have around but just dont consider them your equal.
I also never said the worker was superior to the manager, you however directly supposed the opposite.
That literate enough for you.

Quote yourself in context you snobby fuck.

I never said anything about jeans, attempting to remove your words from the issue is simple minded and sad, at least have the stomach to back your own convictions.

a. great insight into how you treat people, looks, not character is what is obviously important to you, as it is the first thing you mention in the paragraph--where as character is nowhere to be found.
1. Success for a real man is through trite vanity, this is your supposition.
I support this with point 2. in your blather, because according to you a real man(See Point 2) is not supposed to work hard he supposed to "dress well, look good, smell good, smile nicely, and have a good haircut" this is without exception(per your own words) what a real man should do, your real man.
3. Office?, no where else are real men found...why, because the unclean masses covered in the filth of making lazy simple minded fucks like you comfortable do not equal real men by your definition.

What beards, jeans, and/or grease or goodness forbid body from ::shudder:: sweat has to do with being less then a real man I have no idea.

So stick you 'strawman' jeans arguement straight up your ass, you are an Elitist who through your own demonstrates a clear disdain for men who you are I am most certain happy to have around but just dont consider them your equal. Not to mention it is you who suggested men who didnt wear suits were less then men I never stated the opposite, you made the distinction directly.
That literate enough for you.

awww, did I get your feathers are ruffled? Someone call you a grease monkey a few too many times?

I already explained myself, if you chose to ignore that, that's your problem not mine. Trying to twist my words around to satisfy some righteous indignation? Get your feelings hurt a bit?

You want to read into what I said to satisfy whatever inbuilt angst you've developed, go right the fuck ahead. I promise you, I don't care.

Whatever seeming inferiority complex you've seemed to develp, I suggest it's better worked through at a therapist's office, not NSG.

I never stated the opposite

You perhaps not, others had. And a good rule of thumb is that if someone is speaking in generalities, and he is responding to something you didn't say...odds are, and keep with me cause this is complicated, he isn't SPEAKING TO YOU.

awww, did I get your feathers are ruffled? Someone call you a grease monkey a few too many times?
.

My point proven.
Its too bad this is over the internet I bet I'd have gotten a racial epithet thrown in as well.
Your words are clearly the words of a bigoted class elitist as only that would use the slang term for a gas station worker as an insult.

My point proven.
Its too bad this is over the internet I bet I'd have gotten a racial epithet thrown in as well.
Your words are clearly the words of a bigoted class elitist as only that would use the slang term for a gas station worker as an insult.

(Grease monkey is slang for mechanic, not gas station attendant...)

My point proven.
Its too bad this is over the internet I bet I'd have gotten a racial epithet thrown in as well.
Your words are clearly the words of a bigoted class elitist as only that would use the slang term for a gas station worker as an insult.

Yes, point proven exactly.

Unfortunatly for you...you proved MY point. See...I never called you that, I never refered to you in a negative way, or with a disparaging name. I never did so at all, and go ahead and find me ONE place that I did.

All I said was that given your great sensitivity on this topic, I posit that others have, many others, and you've developed quite the inferiority complex over it.

And, as I said, you proved my point, by taking something written one way, and trying to reread it in some way to prove your "point". Except, again, I didn't say it, you were just OH so ready to think I did, to the point where you either didn't bother to read, or some subconsious cognitive dissonance prevented you from reading it correctly. I'm sure you're literate, but sometimes subconsious issues get in the way.

As I said, I suggest therapy for this inferiority complex. It's all gonna be ok buddy, the bad men who called you names can't hurt you now.

Yes, point proven exactly.

Unfortunatly for you...you proved MY point. See...I never called you that, I never refered to you in a negative way, or with a disparaging name. I never did so at all, and go ahead and find me ONE place that I did.
Implied meaning has just as strong an impact as direct meaning.

All I said was that given your great sensitivity on this topic, I posit that others have, many others, and you've developed quite the inferiority complex over it.
Further insults here. May or may not be intended, but "inferiority complex" is widely used to belittle people, as you should, and probably do know.

And, as I said, you proved my point, by taking something written one way, and trying to reread it in some way to prove your "point". Except, again, I didn't say it, you were just OH so ready to think I did, to the point where you either didn't bother to read, or some subconsious cognitive dissonance prevented you from reading it correctly. I'm sure you're literate, but sometimes subconsious issues get in the way.
Once again, insulting him by implying he is dumb.

As I said, I suggest therapy for this inferiority complex. It's all gonna be ok buddy, the bad men who called you names can't hurt you now.
And you're just flaming at this point...

You are awfully defensive about doing something you say you didnt do.
Expecting a reaction from me about your bigoted opinion of workers is not insightful, at this point not expecting a response would be absurd.
I am not a grease monkey, I am a gear jockey...almost as much grease but I dont do repairs, I just do the driving, less educated then the grease monkey.
Strawman, and circle logic which are poorly executed do not change the plainness of your words;

"[1] A real man recognizes that the best way to succeed is impress people, work his way up, and do better. [2] A real man recognizes that the way to do this is to dress well, look good, smell good, smile nicely, and have a good haircut. "

Your words offered without exception.
Your bigotry against the worker.

Implied meaning has just as strong an impact as direct meaning.

Only if you wish to imply it, which you shouldn't. I asked a question as to what happened in his past to cause the anger I'm seeing. Perhaps I'm wrong, I stated a hypothesis.


Further insults here. May or may not be intended, but "inferiority complex" is widely used to belittle people, as you should, and probably do know.

It is a technical term which I believe describes this phenominon.

Once again, insulting him by implying he is dumb.

Dumb? Not at all, I merely suggest that my observation may be the root cause.


And you're just flaming at this point...

Perhaps, but I think "elitist fuck" was far more obvious a flame, wouldn't you say?

You are awfully defensive about doing something you say you didnt do.
Expecting a reaction from me about your bigoted opinion of workers is not insightful, at this point not expecting a response would be absurd.
I am not a grease monkey, I am a gear jockey...almost as much grease but I dont do repairs, I just do the driving, less educated then the grease monkey.
Strawman, and circle logic which are poorly executed do not change the plainness of your words;

"[1] A real man recognizes that the best way to succeed is impress people, work his way up, and do better. [2] A real man recognizes that the way to do this is to dress well, look good, smell good, smile nicely, and have a good haircut. "

Your words offered without exception.
Your bigotry against the worker.


In fairness as I read it I can understand how the wrong conclusion can be drawn.

I would like to amend my statement to state instead:

"A real man recognizes that A way to do this is to dress well, look good, smell good, smile nicely, and have a good haircut, when the profession requires".

I do not intend to demean or dismiss men in professions that do not, just so the "other side" does not intend to dismiss men in professions that do.

I don't devalue someone because he wears jeans and a tshirt to work, and likely I do not expect to be devalued as a person, or as a male, because I wear a suit.

Now as I said, I admit the wording could be construed wrongly, however that wasn't the intention, and it wasn't the point of what I was saying. In fact it would be the exact opposite of it.

Actually you do use the term Inferiority Complex in an insulting way as the none of the clinical requirements have been met to reach even remotely a diagnosis of "Inferiority Complex".

Inferiority Complexes tend motivate specific behaviors, not debates.

I find the capitalized REAL and the quotes around "real man" in the title to be incredibly amusing.
I don't know why.

Only if you wish to imply it, which you shouldn't. I asked a question as to what happened in his past to cause the anger I'm seeing. Perhaps I'm wrong, I stated a hypothesis.
Unfortunately for you, both of us are somewhat smarter than a brick. Try something believable next time.

It is a technical term which I believe describes this phenominon.
Phenomenon. And, though it's hardly technical, it is sometimes used to describe feelings of inferiority. However, it's a subconcious feeling, so asking him if he has such a complex can only be used as a mode of belittlement.

Dumb? Not at all, I merely suggest that my observation may be the root cause.
Ooh, big words. I'm so impressed that I won't argue against your nonsensical statement. :rolleyes:
Essentially, your big words boil down to "he's pissed because of what I said". Which means you either flamed him or flamebaited him. And that violates TOS. ;)

Perhaps, but I think "elitist fuck" was far more obvious a flame, wouldn't you say?
He didn't call you an "elitist fuck", he called you a "snobby fuck". Maybe you should actually read his posts before you insult him, wouldn't you say? :rolleyes:

Unfortunately for you, both of us are somewhat smarter than a brick.

I never said anything about your intelligence. Either of you. You assume I did, but I'd like you to show me when I did so.

it's a subconcious feeling, so asking him if he has such a complex can only be used as a mode of belittlement.


Quite right. Now show me where I asked if he had one. I didn't, I merely stated my observation that he did, and suggested that, based on my observation, he receive treatment for it.


Essentially, your big words boil down to "he's pissed because of what I said". Which means you either flamed him or flamebaited him. And that violates TOS. ;)

Incorrect. It's only flamebaiting if my intent was to make him mad. The unintended result of him getting mad doesn't make a flamebait. He got mad, I clarified my statement, a few times, I even went to sfar as to say that I could understand his reading of the words, and corrected myself.

If he still wants to get mad, that's his problem.

He didn't call you an "elitist fuck", he called you a "snobby fuck".

Fair enough, I was reciting from memory. Now that we've established that it was "snobby fuck" instead of "elitist fuck"....this is better, somehow?

In fairness as I read it I can understand how the wrong conclusion can be drawn.

I would like to amend my statement to state instead:

"A real man recognizes that A way to do this is to dress well, look good, smell good, smile nicely, and have a good haircut, when the profession requires".

I do not intend to demean or dismiss men in professions that do not, just so the "other side" does not intend to dismiss men in professions that do.

I don't devalue someone because he wears jeans and a tshirt to work, and likely I do not expect to be devalued as a person, or as a male, because I wear a suit.

Now as I said, I admit the wording could be construed wrongly, however that wasn't the intention, and it wasn't the point of what I was saying. In fact it would be the exact opposite of it.

Okeydokey.
My hostility was rooted in your defense of the statement.
Ending that defense of the statement for a clearification of point and intent to include people of good character as opposed to ...vapid facades.
I am good with that.
My opinions of suits have always been and will always be;
The man makes the suit, not the suit makes the man.
So we are done here then?

Okeydokey.

alright, since we're both clawing at each other's faces due to a "the" being put where an "a" should have been....

truce?

you bet.

Okeydokey.
My hostility was rooted in your defense of the statement.
Ending that defense of the statement for a clearification of point and intent to include people of good character as opposed to ...vapid facades.
I am good with that.
My opinions of suits have always been and will always be;
The man makes the suit, not the suit makes the man.
So we are done here then?

The reason I defended the statement was that the statement (as I had intended it to be) was that the qualities of "a man" (or indeed, a person) is not measured in superficial. That someone whose chosen occupation requires him to be presentable rather than some John Wayne idealism is not any less of a man/person.

So I defended that statement as true. now when I went back and read it I realized how it could be misread, and clarified. I don't look down on ANYONE's profession. Some people's jobs require them to be well dressed (subjectivly) and well groomed (again, subjectivly), others do not. If they don't, ok. But for those that do, they are no less of a person, and no less of a "man".

Inspired a bit from the "manly man" thread. After I read it I realized i was in such strong disagreement with the OP that I had to put forth my own definition of what i view to be a "real man"

A real man is not afraid to feel, feel happy, feel sad, feel lonely. A real man does not shut out the world when he's not at his best. A real man is not afraid to tell the person he loves that he's feeling sad. A real man is not afraid to show emotion. And if you are uncomfortable letting the people you care about know how you feel, then YOU are not a real man.

And a real man is not made squemish by others showing their feelings. A real man doesn't judge people by how they live their life, as long as nobody gets hurt. A real man doesn't get uncomfortable just because they're in the presence of "teh gayz". And if you are uncomfortable watching people show their feelings of being upset, of crying, or even loving, yes, other men, then YOU are not a real man.

A real man gives defference to his partner whom he loves. A real man builds relationships out of compromise, not authoritarianism. A real man does not consider himself inferior or superior to his partner. A real man realizes that sometimes his female partner might know more than he does about something. A real man recognizes when someone knows something he doesnt, and knows when to shut the hell up and listen. A real man recognizes that in the 21st century his female partner might well make as much, if not more than he does, and a real man accepts that. And if you believe that by virtue of being male you get the last say, all the time, your the provider, you're the male, your choice is final, if she doesn't disagree too bad, then YOU are not a real man.

A real man works on rationality, and calm thinking. A real man solves his problems without the need for violence. A real man when he sees someone in distress worries more how to help that person, then punish the one who put them there. A real man resorts to violence only at the last resort. A real man, when forced to commit violence, regrets that this was the only option he was left with. A real man values his mind, his ability to think, to care, to reason. And if you chose brawn over brain, if you see the first way to fix the problem is trying to go beat someone up, if you worry more about making someone "pay" then making someone right, if you get a hardon for violence and relish the opportunity rather than enter into it regretfully as the last choice, then YOU are not a real man.

A real man recognizes that the face he presents to the world is the way he is viewed. A real man recognizes that people judge him on the way he looks, and the way he presents himself. A real man recognizes that the best way to succeed is impress people, work his way up, and do better. A real man recognizes that the way to do this is to dress well, look good, smell good, smile nicely, and have a good haircut. A real man recognizes that the unwashed, unshaven, disheveled look might work for being around the house on a weekend, it doesn't cut it in the office monday morning. A real man takes care of his physical appearance because he knows that people will judge him, at least in part, by his physical appearance, and he needs to take care of himself to help ensure the success of his professional life, and help secure success for his family. And if you think a real man should be in jeans, bearded, wearing smelling, grease clothing and not recognize that to be a professional you must look sound and act like a professional, then YOU are not a real man.

A real man kid, gives his whole self to the people he loves, he isn't afraid to tell them he loves them, he isn't afraid to give them emotional support. He isn't afraid to sometime just give a hug. And he isn't afraid to ask for one when he needs one.

And most importantly, a real man doesn't live his life in some way just because some john wayne move, some paper towel actor, or some punk ass kid on the internet tells him he should. In short a real man means something in THIS century a WHOLE lot different then the mysoginistic, myopic, outdated world view of those who want to talk about what it's like to be a "real man". And those that think a "real man" should be some closed down, emotionally dead john waynish type...they ain't real mean.


This is subversive degenerate claptrap. A real man is someone who does not know the word quit. A real man is a man who knows and lives the values of moral purity, dedication, sacrifice, duty, loyalty, and courage. A man who works hard, loves his family, his country, and his maker. A man who does not allow his family to degenerate into a cesspool of corruption. A man under whose care the family lives clean and honest, whose business prospers, and whose community is all the better for having him as a member.

The qualities that make a good person are the same for both men and women. In my opinion, one of those qualities is that the individual completely rejects all the bullshit gendertyping that humans have invented, and recognizes that being a "real man" will require precisely the same things as being a "real woman."

The qualities that make a good person are the same for both men and women. In my opinion, one of those qualities is that the individual completely rejects all the bullshit gendertyping that humans have invented, and recognizes that being a "real man" will require precisely the same things as being a "real woman."

You make a clear, valid point. The only exception I make is a bullshit gendertyping- I feel that in my household, ultimately, the buck stops with me.
I'm responsible for everything when all is said and done. This isnt to diminish or demean my wife of 14 years in any way, its just a little more traditional in my house than most.

I like it! It has a nice, poetic quality to it. However I think that 'real men' like you described are quite rare. It's hard to find one that ticks all those boxes; and if you do they've already been snatched up long ago. But as something to aspire to, then, yeah, I guess it's a good indicator.

You make a clear, valid point. The only exception I make is a bullshit gendertyping- I feel that in my household, ultimately, the buck stops with me.

Do you believe the buck stops with you because you are YOU, or because you are male?


I'm responsible for everything when all is said and done. This isnt to diminish or demean my wife of 14 years in any way, its just a little more traditional in my house than most.
Some people feel most comfortable in authoritarian relationships/families. Some of these people feel most comfortable being the authoritarian leader, while others feel comfortable following the authoritarian leader. There are men who want to be the leader in such a system, and men who prefer to follow, just as there are women who prefer to lead, and women who prefer to follow.

I see this as more a manefestation of individual personalities and relationships. Maleness or femaleness is usually just the excuse people use because (for whatever reason) they don't feel like chalking it up to their own feelings or wants.

Looks more like an intentional No True Scotsman Fallacy to me. Taking the Kirk thing at face value just suggests that a real man takes to wearing a corset in later life.

That is quite possibly the most amusing example of that particular fallacy I have ever heard.

Do you believe the buck stops with you because you are YOU, or because you are male?



Its hard to answer that honestly, Bottle. It could be my personality or it could be my "male" personality. Does that make sense?


Now-this isnt some obvious feature of my family, its not like I flaunt that I'm the king of the castle and all that.
My wife makes many family decisions- she knows our schedule and responsibilities best. I trust her,she keeps our ship afloat and moving ahead.
She is unselfish and bright and has clearer thought than I do most of the time.
I wish I could quote a specific instance for illustration now, but I'm at a loss.

In an emergency situation, everyone looks to me here.

My wife and I are married 14 years today. We get along very well for the most part-the things we dont agree on are insignificant and I've learned never to argue just to get something insignificant to go my way.
I have no control issues because our style of marriage and parenting seems to flow smoothly and we compliment each other.
Our kids seem to be flourishing, but I suspect they were pretty god kids to begin with.

Does my wife need a "man" in her life, or is it just "Me: that she needs? I dont really know.

I'm still working on being A "Real Man"...."Real Father"...."Real Husband".

One thing I know- the foundation for all three is listening and compassion. Then you work your way up.

Some people feel most comfortable in authoritarian relationships/families. Some of these people feel most comfortable being the authoritarian leader, while others feel comfortable following the authoritarian leader. There are men who want to be the leader in such a system, and men who prefer to follow, just as there are women who prefer to lead, and women who prefer to follow.

I see this as more a manefestation of individual personalities and relationships. Maleness or femaleness is usually just the excuse people use because (for whatever reason) they don't feel like chalking it up to their own feelings or wants.

I'm not authoritarian, for 99% of the time. In some cases, I see fit to make something absolute, but I'll tell my wife why and she usually agrees-before making any decree.
Like my 13yr old son wanting to watch "Silence of the Lambs"- he is recently into some horror movies and wants to see this in its uncut version. I dont think its appropriate yet for him. I dont thik its best for him to see it now-he has a very vivid imagination and I thin certain aspects of the story would stay with him and trouble him, nightmares,etc...
A rather small thing, but one place I made the decision and I can be the bad guy.

Thank you for that concentrated dose of feminazi political correctness.

And they wonder why testosterone levels in men have been falling over the past several decades. Maybe it's because of the relentless drive over the same time to feminize and pussify men along the lines set forth.

And BTW: John Wayne will be remembered as a "real man" long after you and your fellow true believers are dead, buried and part of the food chain and your "modern" ideology has become one with the Eleusinian Mysteries.

Thank you for that concentrated dose of feminazi political correctness.

And they wonder why testosterone levels in men have been falling over the past several decades. Maybe it's because of the relentless drive over the same time to feminize and pussify men along the lines set forth.

And BTW: John Wayne will be remembered as a "real man" long after you and your fellow true believers are dead, buried and part of the food chain and your "modern" ideology has become one with the Eleusinian Mysteries.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/NuGo1988/1161134855581.jpg

Thank you for that concentrated dose of feminazi political correctness.

And they wonder why testosterone levels in men have been falling over the past several decades. Maybe it's because of the relentless drive over the same time to feminize and pussify men along the lines set forth.

And BTW: John Wayne will be remembered as a "real man" long after you and your fellow true believers are dead, buried and part of the food chain and your "modern" ideology has become one with the Eleusinian Mysteries.

Is this directed to me?

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/NuGo1988/1161134855581.jpg

And you fail at being on gabbly. :p

And you fail at being on gabbly. :p

I'm on now, I are teh win!

I'm on now, I are teh win!

And those who are not us are teh lose! :cool:

You know, all this reminds me of communications classes and sociology. All our ideals were created thousands of years ago by hunting/gathering tribes as women were needed to care for the young at a time when it was extremely hard to survive. :cool:

Now that my reasoned garbage is out of the way.:sniper: Anyone could be held up to those ideals stated in the original post, but the point is that men need to realize that women will always redefine what a man should be. So it makes no sense to try and define what "real men" should be. Everyone has different ideals and to try to make a uniform ideal is ridiculous! So it goes without saying that we all have different thoughts...this is what makes the world unique.:cool:

And those who are not us are teh lose! :cool:

Being on Gabbly>being not on gabbly

Standing,that is what ,man does best.

forgot to mention I'm a girl.:p :D

written by Queen Aslein's mun.

Come visit Avaloar, where all are welcome and anyone who breaks the one important rule is kicked out. "If you tell anyone too much about our kingdom...you're kicked out." So stated King Morgoth the Dragon when he created his kingdom.

forgot to mention I'm a girl.:p :D

Then stop posting here, get your arse in the kitchen and bake me a pie! :p

Bah. Real men eat bowls of nails with whisky for breakfast, and then they eat the bowl!

They also chop their hands off, smear the stubs with honey, and then go out to hunt bears.

I never bake pies for those who don't ask nicely. And I happen to find that funny, seeing as how that's how my father proposed to my mother! If you ask nicely, I'll bake you a pie, what kind would you like?:D

Its hard to answer that honestly, Bottle. It could be my personality or it could be my "male" personality. Does that make sense?

I think I understand what you are saying. My question was more about how you consciously think about it; do you believe you should be in charged because you are male, or do you believe that you should be in charge because of individual qualities about yourself in particular? Do you believe that maleness is what qualifies you to be in charge, in other words?


Now-this isnt some obvious feature of my family, its not like I flaunt that I'm the king of the castle and all that.
My wife makes many family decisions- she knows our schedule and responsibilities best. I trust her,she keeps our ship afloat and moving ahead.
She is unselfish and bright and has clearer thought than I do most of the time.

I wish I could quote a specific instance for illustration now, but I'm at a loss.

In an emergency situation, everyone looks to me here.

If, as you say, your wife "has clearer thought" than you "most of the time," why does everyone look to you in an emergency? I'm not trying to be a jackass here, but in a crisis I tend to look to people who I know are most clear of thought.


My wife and I are married 14 years today. We get along very well for the most part-the things we dont agree on are insignificant and I've learned never to argue just to get something insignificant to go my way.
I have no control issues because our style of marriage and parenting seems to flow smoothly and we compliment each other.

Our kids seem to be flourishing, but I suspect they were pretty god kids to begin with.

I don't know if you have control issues or not. I'm certainly not about to randomly insist that you do, based only on what you've told me about your relationship. However, I must point out that having a "smoothly flowing" relationship does not in any way mean that you cannot have control issues. I have an uncle who is a paranoid and controling person, but his household runs like clockwork and his wife has never said a single bad thing about him or their life together. His kids get excellent marks and are accomplished athletes. Even his dog has won awards.


Does my wife need a "man" in her life, or is it just "Me: that she needs? I dont really know.

Doesn't it kind of matter to you?

I mean, I would be bothered if my place in my lover's life could be filled just as well by any female. If he simply needs "a woman," and I happen to be a woman, that's a pretty shitty foundation for our relationship.

Of course, I think "need" is a shitty basis for a relationship in the first place. I know my partner doesn't need me, and I don't need him. I wouldn't date anybody who needed me, and I most certainly wouldn't date anybody who needed "a woman" or "a man."

Yeah, I have issues about dependency. :D


I'm still working on being A "Real Man"...."Real Father"...."Real Husband".

Well, you know my thoughts on it. Work on being a good person, and you'll be much better off than if you try to be a "real man." Work on being a good parent, and you'll be better off than trying to be a "real father." Work on being a good spouse, and you'll be better off than any "real husband."

Gendering these issues accomplishes nothing other than to introduce stereotypes that quite often don't remotely fit with your personality, your partner's, or your childrens'. Be the best individual you can be, and let each of your individual relationships shape themselves according to the individuals involved. Don't waste time trying to conform to some Form of The Real X or The Real Y. It's not worth it.

Thank you for that concentrated dose of feminazi political correctness.

And they wonder why testosterone levels in men have been falling over the past several decades. Maybe it's because of the relentless drive over the same time to feminize and pussify men along the lines set forth.

Wait, let me get this straight.

Women are still underrepresented in every branch of government everywhere in the world. Women still are economically disadvantaged everywhere in the world. Women still lack fundamental human rights in the majority of the countries in the world. Violence against women is not only legal but encouraged in the majority of the nations in the world. Even in some of the most "progressive" modern nations, women have only recently even begun to appear in positions of power, and must still fight for fundamental rights like the right to make their own medical decisions.

And despite all this, women are managing to oppress MEN?!

Wow, women really must be superior to men! Even with thousands of years of advantage on your side, you guys can be "pussified" within a few generations! Women endure thousands of years of treatment as property and slaves, yet are able to rise to such unchallenged power in a single lifetime!

I guess the maleness must just be such a biological disadvantage that you guys can't handle the slightest challenges. Oh well, survival of the fittest, and whatnot...I guess women will just have to take over, since men are so easily beaten down.


:D

If, as you say, your wife "has clearer thought" than you "most of the time," why does everyone look to you in an emergency? I'm not trying to be a jackass here, but in a crisis I tend to look to people who I know are most clear of thought.


There are those people however that work better under pressure even though that might not be the case in everyday life. The way I think of it in my head is the difference between a sprinter and a long distance runner.

A real man abandons his kids...wait, that's a dead beat dad, nevermind :D

There are those people however that work better under pressure even though that might not be the case in everyday life. The way I think of it in my head is the difference between a sprinter and a long distance runner.
That is one possibility, which is why I was asking for more information.

However, it's also possible that people turn to him instead of his wife because of gendered assumptions. I've seen a lot of people automatically assume that a male must be the one to assume a position of leadership when one is required, even if there are able females present. I've even experienced situations where people express surprise that I decided to "take charge" even though my (male) lover was also there; they make comments about how "now we know who wears the pants!" or do that whip-crack thing, I guess because it's emasculating for a male to NOT take charge if there are females present.

A real man abandons his kids...wait, that's a dead beat dad, nevermind :D


That was such a bad statement...:headbang: Must not think of going to look at new dog.

Bah. Real men eat bowls of nails with whisky for breakfast, and then they eat the bowl!

They also chop their hands off, smear the stubs with honey, and then go out to hunt bears.
Hehe. This actually reminds me of the current trends in pop culture for defining "Real Men." They all seem to involve men doing very stupid, unhealthy, or dangerous things.

Like all those commercials for fast food that show how Real Men would never eat icky veggies or healthy foods, because Real Men only gorge on Big Macs and other unhealthy trash foods. I guess Real Men all have heart attacks by the age of 45...?

I never bake pies for those who don't ask nicely. And I happen to find that funny, seeing as how that's how my father proposed to my mother! If you ask nicely, I'll bake you a pie, what kind would you like?:D

Apple or peach would be nice. :)

Hehe. This actually reminds me of the current trends in pop culture for defining "Real Men." They all seem to involve men doing very stupid, unhealthy, or dangerous things.

Like all those commercials for fast food that show how Real Men would never eat icky veggies or healthy foods, because Real Men only gorge on Big Macs and other unhealthy trash foods. I guess Real Men all have heart attacks by the age of 45...?

Good one, I think those commercials are lame.

I think I understand what you are saying. My question was more about how you consciously think about it; do you believe you should be in charged because you are male, or do you believe that you should be in charge because of individual qualities about yourself in particular? Do you believe that maleness is what qualifies you to be in charge, in other words?



Thats the hard part-I cant honestly detach myself from manhood to give you an accurate answer there.

When I'm in a group of people-say going camping or out to dinner or other things a group will do- Its like I'm automatically in charge. I say something and people do it. I dont see myself as an "alpha male" and from talking to me in here, you probably dont get that impression either.

I think people I deal with in general are very comfortable going along with my ideas and suggestions.

Is it maleness or personality? I really dont know.

What qualifies me to be in charge? The apparent acceptance of others to follow what I say. Is it simply because I'm bigger and stronger than many people in my circle of life? I wont pick you up and shake you if I dont agree.
I guess I'll never know that for sure. I'd prefer though that its more that people trust my judgement and advice and base their comfort on my track record.

I dont f-up too much.

If, as you say, your wife "has clearer thought" than you "most of the time," why does everyone look to you in an emergency? I'm not trying to be a jackass here, but in a crisis I tend to look to people who I know are most clear of thought.



Nothing sharpens my focus like a threat. And maybe some of it has to do with reflexes and conditioned response.

I sometimes cant remember what the date is or a phone # or how to retireve vm from my cel phone. I cant program the DVR to record a show.

But, when my son was choking I grabbed him and cleared his throat in a second. My wife couldnt recall the red cross first aid course we took when he was born,specifically to avoid that situation.
Who do they want driving in another country on the opposite side of the road? Me-because they've already seen me drive out of the most impossible situations,when they were sure we'd die under the truck in our lane.

So- while I might miss some stuff, I'm the one the kids call in the middle of the night. Do they feel safer when a dog is barking at them and I pick them up? Probably. Is it because I'm male? Maybe.

Just keep in mind-I'm not beating me chest and grunting around the fire-though I am the only one that seems to be able to start a fire without matches when everything is wet and everyone is hungry-THAT IS A MALE THING.

Its entirely possible I'd be the same way if I were female.

Minus the penis, of course. ;)

Thats the hard part-I cant honestly detach myself from manhood to give you an accurate answer there.

Not to worry, I think most people have that trouble at various times.

I often find myself wondering how I would have turned out if I hadn't been brought up in such a gendered culture. For instance, maybe my assertive personality is due to the fact that I've always felt I had to speak up louder and bolder than the boys just to get the same amount of attention. It's odd, but I kind of feel like I'm a naturally shy person, even though everybody who knows me would probably describe me as an extrovert.


When I'm in a group of people-say going camping or out to dinner or other things a group will do- Its like I'm automatically in charge. I say something and people do it. I dont see myself as an "alpha male" and from talking to me in here, you probably dont get that impression either.

I think people I deal with in general are very comfortable going along with my ideas and suggestions.

Is it maleness or personality? I really dont know.

Well, I'm guessing that you sometimes hang around with other males, so if they also recognize this leadership quality in you then it's not just your maleness at work. It may be a part of why they respond to you as they do, but I think there must be more to it as well.

I'm almost exactly the opposite, as chance would have it, because my friends know that in a crisis I usually start coming up with ludicrous ideas that will mostly lead to humorous but disastrous results. :D


What qualifies me to be in charge? The apparent acceptance of others to follow what I say. Is it simply because I'm bigger and stronger than many people in my circle of life? I wont pick you up and shake you if I dont agree.
I guess I'll never know that for sure. I'd prefer though that its more that people trust my judgement and advice and base their comfort on my track record.

I dont f-up too much.
Hey, there's nothing wrong with any of that.

I don't have the least objection to males taking positions of leadership. I just object to ANYBODY taking (or giving up) positions of leadership BECAUSE they are or are not male. I don't think maleness qualifies or disqualifies a person from leading, and it only irritates me when I encounter guys (or girls) who think that having a penis automatically means you get to be in charge.

Nothing sharpens my focus like a threat. And maybe some of it has to do with reflexes and conditioned response.

I sometimes cant remember what the date is or a phone # or how to retireve vm from my cel phone. I cant program the DVR to record a show.

But, when my son was choking I grabbed him and cleared his throat in a second. My wife couldnt recall the red cross first aid course we took when he was born,specifically to avoid that situation.

Who do they want driving in another country on the opposite side of the road? Me-because they've already seen me drive out of the most impossible situations,when they were sure we'd die under the truck in our lane.

So- while I might miss some stuff, I'm the one the kids call in the middle of the night. Do they feel safer when a dog is barking at them and I pick them up? Probably. Is it because I'm male? Maybe.

Just keep in mind-I'm not beating me chest and grunting around the fire-though I am the only one that seems to be able to start a fire without matches when everything is wet and everyone is hungry-THAT IS A MALE THING.

Its entirely possible I'd be the same way if I were female.
Well then that's perfectly reasonable. Being generally clearer-headed is great, but some people respond differently in emergency situations. It doesn't sound like any of this has to do with gender, just your individual strengths and weaknesses.

When it comes to physical defense, my (male) lover steps up to take the lead in our relationship. This is not because he is male, but because he is roughly double my size and has a black belt. It would be stupid of me to try to pretend that we are equally capable of physically defending ourselves in a fist fight. On the other hand, when it comes to talking smack to Yankees fans, my boy knows to sit back and watch me work, because there just ain't no way he's keeping up with me. :D

I don't know if you have control issues or not. I'm certainly not about to randomly insist that you do, based only on what you've told me about your relationship. However, I must point out that having a "smoothly flowing" relationship does not in any way mean that you cannot have control issues. I have an uncle who is a paranoid and controling person, but his household runs like clockwork and his wife has never said a single bad thing about him or their life together. His kids get excellent marks and are accomplished athletes. Even his dog has won awards.




I dont think I have control "issues". I certainly like when things go my way. I'm definately not selfish, so if I tell the family we should do this and they decide not to, I dont make them suffer- I work to make that work too.
And I dont say "I told you so." People that are smart already know that.
I do draw the line at anything I clearly know to be a bad idea-wether for safety or waste of time and effort.
For instance, I vetoed white water rafting this summer-its a bad idea to go with one strong male, a well intended female and two boys 13 and 8-and one 2 1/2 year old. its asking for trouble. Even though her friends did it with no trouble, I dont do family activities where teh stakes are that high.
I pulled her and my 13 year old out of the river a year ago-they were going to swim across and overestimated themselves and underestimated a spring runoff current. I had to grab a friend and insist he watch my other two kids while I bounded in, fought the current and dragged the two of them out of the water. barely. They were both exhausted and the water was cold-they made a bad choice and against the odds, I saved them. People on the shore just watched (this still amazes me).

Maybe this re-inforces their faith in me. I never give up.

Wait, let me get this straight.

Women are still underrepresented in every branch of government everywhere in the world. Women still are economically disadvantaged everywhere in the world. Women still lack fundamental human rights in the majority of the countries in the world. Even in some of the most "progressive" modern nations, women have only recently even begun to appear in positions of power, and must still fight for fundamental rights like the right to make their own medical decisions.

And despite all this, women are managing to oppress MEN?!

Wow, women really must be superior to men! Even with thousands of years of advantage on your side, you guys can be "pussified" within a few generations! Women endure thousands of years of treatment as property and slaves, yet are able to rise to such unchallenged power in a single lifetime!

In fact since women are a majority of the US population, in a democracy, the females own inability or unwillingness to organize as a single voting bloc is the only thing that has prevented the US from being a virtual matriarchy by a legal and democratic vote.

In fact since women are a majority of the US population, in a democracy, the females own inability or unwillingness to organize as a single votive unit is the only thing that has prevented the US from being a virtual matriarchy by a legal and democratic vote.
Well, that, and the fact that we have only been able to vote for like 100 years. I mean, it's a little hard to be a voting majority when you aren't allowed to vote. :P

Well then that's perfectly reasonable. Being generally clearer-headed is great, but some people respond differently in emergency situations. It doesn't sound like any of this has to do with gender, just your individual strengths and weaknesses.

When it comes to physical defense, my (male) lover steps up to take the lead in our relationship. This is not because he is male, but because he is roughly double my size and has a black belt. It would be stupid of me to try to pretend that we are equally capable of physically defending ourselves in a fist fight. On the other hand, when it comes to talking smack to Yankees fans, my boy knows to sit back and watch me work, because there just ain't no way he's keeping up with me. :D


I'm a Yankee fan since the early 70s and I have chunks of black belts in my stool, though they do give me cramps.

Physical defense-yeah- My kids know if someone bothers them, Dad will rend their spines from their bodies.
Could a 120 lb woman pull my wife and kid out of the river? She'd have to be pretty determined BUT pretty strong too. I wasnt paying too much attention to myself at the time, afterwards, I was concerned I was having a hearty attack. It was really strenuous and wasnt over in 5 minutes.

With my personality, I'm happy to be male. And if we're friends, you wouldnt be sorry I was.

Well, that, and the fact that we have only been able to vote for like 100 years. I mean, it's a little hard to be a voting majority when you aren't allowed to vote. :P

And your excuse for the last 100 years? If memory serves we hold major elections every 2 years.

And your excuse for the last 100 years?
Well, I've only been allowed to vote for the last three election cycles, so I don't intend to take the blame for anything before that. :D

However, on behalf of Womankind, I would direct your attention to the earlier pages in history in which men first tried out systems that gave (male) citizens the right to vote and participate in government.

Hell, the US itself didn't make it a full generation before having a Civil War, and that was well before women were allowed to have a voice in the political process. White males were the only ones voting, and they STILL couldn't come together enough to prevent a freaking WAR!

Hell, the US itself didn't make it a full generation before having a Civil War, and that was well before women were allowed to have a voice in the political process. White males were the only ones voting, and they STILL couldn't come together enough to prevent a freaking WAR!

Way to simplify history to support your ideology... :rolleyes:

Hell, the US itself didn't make it a full generation before having a Civil War, and that was well before women were allowed to have a voice in the political process. White males were the only ones voting, and they STILL couldn't come together enough to prevent a freaking WAR!

And yet generations of women still voted for male leaders over female leaders as they do by vast majority (although less so) today.

And yet generations of women still voted for male leaders over female leaders as they do by vast majority (although less so) today.

Possibly a repurcussion from all those years of having male leaders and no vote though. Women have been taught that men are the better leaders.

Possibly a repurcussion from all those years of having male leaders and no vote though. Women have been taught that men are the better leaders.

If a femenist heard you suggest that women arnt capable of making thier own informed desicions about thier leaders and are hapless byproducts of state indoctrination, they would want to have your head stuffed and mounted for even insinuating it.

If a femenist heard you suggest that women arnt capable of making thier own informed desicions about thier leaders and are hapless byproducts of state indoctrination, they would want to have your head stuffed and mounted for even insinuating it.

Its a fair point. If you're raised in a society that sees men as the natural leaders who would you vote for? I dont imply it is only women who are affected this way. Everyone is

Its a fair point. If you're raised in a society that sees men as the natural leaders who would you vote for? I dont imply it is only women who are affected this way. Everyone is

Then explain Hillary Clinton, aside from her manlike appearence ;)


PS> I live in NY so this gives me free licence to make fun of her :)

Then explain Hillary Clinton, aside from her manlike appearence ;)


PS> I live in NY so this gives me free licence to make fun of her :)

There is bias even in her case which works against her. Its something she has to work against and has done so far

A real man is too busy being the master of his own destony to worry about whether someone else calls him a pansy. ; )

Seriously. I don't think I ever stop and think "Is what I'm doing manly enough?" or "Do I fit the image of what makes a good male human?"

I'm apparently male because I have a y chromosome (hopefully only one), and a penis and two testicles.

I think if I were female instead, not much would change, except I'd have some different mood swings, and other people would look at me differently.

My personal sense of worth isn't based on how macho or manly or male other people view my actions or demeanor. That doesn't mean that I _ignore_ the way I present myself to others - I know that the way I act and appear to others will communicate things to them that they'll react to.

But I'm much more concerned with being a strong, decent, right-acting, honest, brave, compassionate, fierce, and good person than I am with fitting into anyone else's mold.

When I look into the metaphorical mirror, I like what I see. I don't measure myself by things that were accidents of fate, like how attractive my features might be, or how tall I am, or what sort of body type I have. The fact that I'm male is fine, and I enjoy being male, but I'm not a gonad. I _have_ gonads, and I could just as easily have had a different set, the same way I could have had different hair, or eyes, or intelligence, or health, or any of a number of other things that I didn't get for myself.

When I was a kid, I used to get annoyed when people made a fuss over me for being intelligent, or for having good eyesight (don't have to worry about _that_ any more at least!), or for being good-looking. I didn't _do_ anything to have any of that stuff, it was the luck of the draw. Those things were nice to have, and I'm not going to spit on them, but I didn't earn them, or choose them, or work for them, so to me, they don't count towards what really makes me myself.

To me, it's the choices I make, the things I work for, the values I decide to uphold, and the things I either accomplish or try to accomplish that count.

I'm not afraid to admit my limitations to myself, or to people I trust (I reserve the right, at my choosing, to conceal my weak points from anyone I think is an enemy who would try to use them against me, although I rarely bother even with that.)

I don't hate myself for not looking like Brad Pitt. I don't think I'm less moral because I'm not Ward Cleaver, or haven't picked a more popular religious belief. Frankly, it takes more work for me to be myself than to go with the flow, but I choose as I choose because I think it's right.

I don't think that a man, or anyone, is measured by what they can destroy, or who they can be tougher than. I think that the only thing that you can measure yourself against, as a man, is your own ideal of what a good man should be.

For anyone who has read "The Dark Tower," I suspect that when they talk about "Remembering the face of your father," that this is what they mean. They don't necessarily mean your literal father, but the ideal that you hold within you that tells you that you're doing the right thing, and doing what you should be proud of.

That's what I try to do, every moment of every day. And while it's hard sometimes, I don't think it's harder than wandering around being craven, or not thinking about the consequences of your actions. It's definitely easier than making excuses, or lying, or having to hide who you are either because you're afraid, or because you know that if you revealed your true self that other people would start hiding their valuables and locking up their kids.

I see a lot of "manly men," who to me look like they're more worried about _looking_ like a man, and _looking_ like they can kick ass, or _looking_ like they can look down on others... than they are about actually _being_ a man.

The illusion is not the thing. Some people think that being able to mimic the appearance of certain qualities is the same as having them, presumably because they can use that imitation to get other people to give them the _rewards_ of some of those qualities, without having to actually _be_ brave, or strong, or just, or fair, or sexy, or whatever.

Most of the time, when I see someone posturing about what a real man is, or what a real man they are, it's so clearly a display of insecurity that it boggles my mind that anyone, especially the person themselves, is fooled.

I always know who I am. I know what I'll do. I know me.

It amazes me that there are so many people who apparently don't know themselves. I mean... I can do it. Hell... if there's anyone who can see who you are, it's got to be you.

I think I only have a rudimentary ability to hide things from myself. I tried it when I was younger, but the problem was that I always knew I was doing it. But I see people all the time that give me the impression that they've succeeded where I failed. That it _is_ possible to lie to one's self, until you don't know you're doing it. I guess the big thing I can't understand is why you'd want to.

I _suspect_ that people often do it so that they can take the easy way out on stuff. So that they can do stuff that if they really admitted their reasons for it, they'd feel bad about themselves. Well... I like and respect myself, so I just don't go around _doing_ things I'd have to be ashamed of.

I guess my point is, that being a real man is less important to me than being a real person, or being a _worthy_ person.

But if you _are_ going to be a real man, a lot of it has to do with doing what you know is right for a real man to do. And I don't think you get that by asking someone else to do the thinking for you.

When I was a kid, I used to get annoyed when people made a fuss over me for being intelligent, or for having good eyesight

Wow. You had people fuss over your EYESIGHT being good? Hell if i got B+'s in school i got yelled at that i wasnt applying myself properly LMAO. (Or did you mean to say your eyesight was bad?)

I still want someone to bake me a pie. :p

Way to simplify history to support your ideology... :rolleyes:
You are, by far, the most humorless person I've encountered in General.

Honestly, don't take everything so seriously (or so personally). Chill.

And yet generations of women still voted for male leaders over female leaders as they do by vast majority (although less so) today.
Given the relative availability of female leaders compared to male leaders, is that really a shock?

You are, by far, the most humorless person I've encountered in General.

Honestly, don't take everything so seriously (or so personally). Chill.

I save my humour for other things (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11896250&postcount=21). :p

If a femenist heard you suggest that women arnt capable of making thier own informed desicions about thier leaders and are hapless byproducts of state indoctrination, they would want to have your head stuffed and mounted for even insinuating it.
That's a radical leap from what he was saying.

Nobody, least of all feminists, is claiming that human beings make choices in a vaccuum. We all are influenced and shaped by the culture we live in. If we are all surrounded by messages that say, "Men lead, women follow," is it really any surprise that we carry with us some unspoken (perhaps even unconcious) assumptions about the gender that our leaders should have? If we live in a culture where women who are out-spoken, assertive, and aggressive are described as shrill bitches, is it not possible that our perception of such women will be colored by these messages?

That hardly equates to saying that women have no conscious agency. It simply says that women, like men, are influenced by their experiences. No shocker there.

That's a radical leap from what he was saying.

Nobody, least of all feminists, is claiming that human beings make choices in a vaccuum. We all are influenced and shaped by the culture we live in. If we are all surrounded by messages that say, "Men lead, women follow," is it really any surprise that we carry with us some unspoken (perhaps even unconcious) assumptions about the gender that our leaders should have? If we live in a culture where women who are out-spoken, assertive, and aggressive are described as shrill bitches, is it not possible that our perception of such women will be colored by these messages?

That hardly equates to saying that women have no conscious agency. It simply says that women, like men, are influenced by their experiences. No shocker there.

Yeah I think i'll just let you say these things. Comes out a whole lot clearer than when I try

Is this directed to me?

Sorry, it was directed to the original post. I just replied to it rather than quoting the whole wild farrago of misandry, not to mention disrespect to The Duke :D

Wow. You had people fuss over your EYESIGHT being good? Hell if i got B+'s in school i got yelled at that i wasnt applying myself properly LMAO. (Or did you mean to say your eyesight was bad?)

Up until about age 17, I had very good eyesight. After that, it rapidly degenerated. ; ) And yes, I got complimented for having good eyesight. Which I did nothing to get. Was this supposed to tell me that people born with worse eyesight were inferior?

I used to get complimented on my looks when I was younger. And all I can think of is that I didn't pick how I looked, and that eventually, I'd be old and wrinkly and grey, anyway, which is what happens to pretty much anyone. I remember looking at older pictures of relatives from when they were young, and good-looking, and looked like me, and of course I could see that they were now wrinkled and saggy and barely resembled their former selves. But they were still fun, enjoyable, nice people.

As for grades: When I finally just quit even trying in school, and was making D's and F's, my mother kept pleading that if I'd just make a C, she'd be happy. The next year, I changed schools, buckled down, and made pretty much straight A's and A pluses. Then I got an A minus in something or other, and she wigged out on me and said I wasn't applying myself and should work harder.

This is amusing, because she used to hang up signs in her workplace that said "If each day, you do a little more than is expected of you, it will soon become expected of you."

But yes... when I was a kid, not only did this happen with me, but I'd see it happen all _around_ me, and on TV, and everything else... people would get complimented for things like being young, or good-looking, or tall, and people would make a fuss.

I never got that.

Coyote

Way to simplify history to support your ideology... :rolleyes:

That hardly deserves rolly eyes unless you are able to show how the complications that you believe make a difference do in fact make a difference.

A real man does what he wants, and doesn't listen to other people to have them tell him what he should be.

A real man can make anyone believe that 09999.......=1


i.e. A real man is Chuck Norris.

gnaw ...

a functional deffinician of a "real man" might well be from hienline's "notebooks of lazerous long".

i.e. someone who can cry, chainge a diaper, make their own quieche, AND build and maintain infrastructure, make both peace and war and prevent genocides.

gender expectations ARE a cultural thing. remember the honorable samurai, who was also expected to be a poet, caligrapher and artest, as well as a formidable warrior.

and don't forget also, "the female of the species is more deadly then the male" -rudgyard kippling-

=^^=
.../\...