What is masculinity?

[Kevin Beal]

I'm just curious what all y'all think about masculinity, specifically how you'd define it.

 

This is the dictionary definition for masculine:

"having qualities or appearance traditionally associated with men, esp. strength and aggressiveness."

 

There are some masculine virtues like courage, assertiveness etc that are also sometimes considered feminine virtues (among many other examples), and yet I totally feel more masculine when I am courageous and assertive.

 

There are some male stereotypes that a lot of guys take to be how they measure their masculinity like in how split off from their feelings they are, or how they drunk they can get or in an obsession with sports statistics etc. But these things are not things that would give me that same sense of masculinity. Those things actually put me off.

 

I also notice that I have a strong bias to say that the values I practice in my life make me masculine.

 

And of course people project a model of masculinity that was their father or other male role model growing up.

 

So, I'm curious. How do you determine what masculine means for yourself? Or if you are a woman, how do you see masculinity?

 

Is it really as simple as muscles and body hair? I don't think so, but what do you think?

Also these podcasts are really good:

 

FDR 444 Anti-Masculinity pt1

FDR 445 Anti-Masculinity pt2

[Drew.]

Personally, I've only just started thinking about masculinity. I used to think that there really was no difference between men and women, with the exception obvious biological differences (penis, vagina, breasts, birth, etc.)

 

But I'm starting to see how those biological differences may impact the development of the mind. This is after listening to a few of Stef's podcasts. Namely these two (FDR242 and FDR243, I think) One thing that Stef mentioned in those podcasts is that once a month, a woman's body is flooded with hormones. These hormones change the chemical environment of her blood and ultimately influence thought processes, much in the same manner as drinking wine influences thought patterns.

 

I think that masculinity is stability. Our body chemistry remains fairly consistent, without many sudden shifts. We are anchors. I think the expression of masculine virtue falls into a few different actions and moods. It is a value when a man remains calm and driven. When he is confronted by a stressor, he uses the skills and abilities that he has available to navigate a solution. As men, our minds are more trained to deal with logical, empirical reality. So, many of those skills involve physical reality directly. His drive are the feelings that push him to act, his feelings being another tool he has acquired from interacting with reality.

 

Women on the converse are more social animals. More focused on interacting with people than the hard facts of reality. They are the netting and glue that keep a tribe together.

 

That is about as far as I've thought things. Muscles are tools to help men navigate reality. A significant chunk of history required physical strength as a pre-requisite for survival. That's why muscles have been traditionally seen as masculine.

 

Anyway, tell me what you think about what I've shared.

[PatrickC]

I think masculinity has been characterized as either a cartoonish stereotype or as a thing we men must control and temper. However, as men we bring different and valuable qualities to the world and the people we interact with.

 

Of course this is not to suggest that women don't bring the world enormous benefits, because they do. But masculinity is an area I'm enjoying exploring, even if I have yet to fully understand it right now.

[JonnyD]

I think Elliot Hulse explains the difference between Masculinity and Femininity quite well in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YjXK7zjTJLA

[PatrickC]

Elliot touches on these differences quite well I think. But I think masculinity is probably something we do (as men) despite how females might respond to us. I'm beginning to resonate much more with the idea of becoming 'better' at being a man amongst men (our peers), rather than attempting to be a better man (amongst women).. Of course, this approach will likely produce the attraction within women that Elliot speaks of, but I think it's a separate topic to how as men we experience masculinity.

[_LiveFree_]

StrongestSelf, that was good video. Thanks for sharing!

 

One thing that is common between masculinity and femininity is authentic confidence. Part of the problem of identifying masculinity is that typically people think the opposite of it is femininity. And they confuse lack of confidence with femininity. Therefore, the opposite of masculinity is a lack of confidence, which is feminine. This is not true, of course, since a woman (or man) who is feminine or displays feminine qualities can have authentic confidence. Likewise, the opposite of femininity is not masculinity, but also a lack of confidence. (There are more qualities and descriptors of masculinity and femininity, but to keep my point simple I'll stick with confidence.)

 

To help picture this a bit better, think of love. The opposite of love is not hate but indifference. The opposite of something is nothing. 

 

Therefore, I put forward the idea that to better understand masculinity and femininity, we should disassociate both terms from genitalia and apply them to behaviors only. How one behaves a majority of the time will determine if they are considered masculine or feminine. And it is not bad in and of itself for a woman to act in a masculine way, nor bad for a man to act in a feminine way. And no one, in my very humble opinion, can say they only act one way or the other all the time. Is a penis an inside out vagina or is a vagina an inverted penis? Ever have a coat that you could turn inside out? No matter which way you turned it, it was still a coat. The opposite of The United States is no state, not Russia. 

 

So, masculinity can be defined as assertiveness, while femininity can be defined as passiveness. But do you see how that doesn't work based on how I just defined "opposite"? Femininity is not the opposite of masculine, but the opposite of assertiveness IS passiveness. So maybe we need a new term? 

 

Passive assertiveness

 

Aggression is direct; passive aggression is indirect. (aggression = initiation of force)

 

Assertiveness is direct; passive assertiveness is indirect. (assertive = confident peaceful action through conscious choice)

 

Masculine is direct; feminine is indirect. 

 

So what is it that masculine and feminine are describing, since it has become clear (to me at least) that they are describing complimentary sides of the same thing? Is it simply sexuality? Is there more to it than that? 

 

I think I've reached the end of my thought train, so instead of leaving you with  "God did it", I'll just let you all take over from here!   

 

(Quick note: I am not gay, but I was raised by a single mom from 6-15. Then I moved in with my gay dad until 22. There was never a consistent masculine figure for me to interact with. So at 31, after realizing what I didn't receive, I've set out to find it. I don't feel not masculine, but have had to weather the constant barrage of "assertiveness = rape" propaganda, which inevitably led to a complete lack of self-confidence. My mother was raped by her step father and my father was molested by the neighbor. So I'm beginning to realize that we are having to define and rediscover these incredibly simple and obvious concepts because they have been so aggressed against. That's why I think it's important to first identify what masculinity and femininity are descriptors of. In doing so, we will be able to much more easily define masculinity.)

Edited August 28, 2013 by Nathan Diehl

[Kevin Beal]

I appreciate you guys's responses.

 

I was thinking about this topic again today at work and I remembered this study that was showing that there is actually a difference in male and female vision. Apparently men can pick up details better, smaller gradations of contrast while women see differences in color better (and the only known tetrachromats are women).

 

How I like looking at it is that men are lasers and women flashlights. I think this metaphor works in a lot of ways.

 

Maybe it's just me, but I find myself thinking about the tiniest details in an argument or comment someone made (sometimes at the expense of other larger details), but I think the flipside is a potential for precision and may explain why the best scientists and mathematicians are almost all men. Like the specialization Stef talks about in Reclaiming Masculinity pt1 (Drew's links above).

 

The following section is full of broad generalizations that definitely don't apply in all cases, but just go with me for a sec.

 

There are also other aspects to male biology that I think are relevant in making the case I'm going to make. So the Corpus Callosum which connects both hemispheres of the brain is smaller in men (at least right handed men) and it's also crucial in healing from psychological and brain trauma. Men also require more carbs and protein since our bodies are bigger. We carry less of a percentage of fat on our bodies. We die of almost all known diseases sooner. These resources are going elsewhere.

 

There is, I will argue, something uniquely risky about being a man.

 

These things were seemingly necessary for our nomadic caveman ancestors to brave all kinds of different environments and expend their resources toward (usually) one very singular goal: to bring back a saber tooth tiger for the village to eat.

 

Women died in childbirth in huge numbers, need lots of resources when they are pregnant and taking care of children, are smaller than evil men etc so they have their own risks for sure, but there is a very different quality to these risks.

 

Like Elliot talks about in the video linked above men's risks are more around going out, looking outward into the world.

 

When you look at the jobs men and women have it seems there are men at the top, women in the middle and more men at the bottom. And this seems in line with the concept of the alphas, betas and omegas (and zetas!). In many ways it's a lot of pinning men against each other and coercion. This is a more tribal arrangement and not what it would look like in a free society (I would imagine).

 

When I think of entrepreneurship and how it tends to be in the more free market sectors, there (at least in my experience) seems to be more comradery. Society itself wouldn't be here without men working together.

 

It reminds me of the different evolutionary approaches to life that a baby boy is geared for out of the womb depending on whether or not there were a lot of stress hormones flooding through his developing fetus body. If the mother was stressed, his amygdala is larger and frontal cortices smaller, and he is more reactionary needing to take quick action in an environment of desperation and strife. (I don't remember the podcast, but Stef talks about this somewhere).

 

In the same way I think a distinction can be made between a healthy and unhealthy masculinity, between men mindlessly at war and men pulling together to achieve great things.

 

Bringing it back to risk, I don't think that virtue is possible without some level of risk. (Speaking truth to power for example is clearly a virtuous thing).

 

Confirming my own experience of feeling masculine when I act in line with my values, when I act virtuously, I think it's fair to say that is in some respects a measure of the health of my own masculinity. My own solidity when facing the things that make me anxious or otherwise tense, my developing maturity, my mastery of my environment. These things not only make me more attractive to women (at least I hope so, haha), but also attractive to other men. Just anecdotally, this seems to be the case, to whatever degree I achieve that.

 

I'm totally not gay, right, but I notice that I'm attracted to guys who take risks, work to master their environment and are virtuous. They bring value to their relationships, to the economy, to the progress of mankind. And I think it's totally underrated.

 

On the flipside of all of this there seems to me to be a lot of anti-masculine propaganda, things that really are masculine virtues made out to be vices and things that are really not that great for men made out to be virtues. This idea of male disposability, I think, resonates with a lot of guys (including me) because it makes the risks men take and turns them into unchosen positive obligations put on men.

 

And so part of me actually resists the idea that I should be risking things. I resent the idea that in order to have masculine virtue I'm supposed to be a war machine. I resent the idea that there are certain types of women out there who expect things of me because of my masculinity. There don't seem to be a whole lot of external incentives to achieve masculine virtue a lot of the time. And yet it's probably among the 3 most important things in the world.

 

I hope that makes some sense.

 

tl;dr = men are awesome

[PatrickC]

On the flipside of all of this there seems to me to be a lot of anti-masculine propaganda, things that really are masculine virtues made out to be vices and things that are really not that great for men made out to be virtues. This idea of male disposability, I think, resonates with a lot of guys (including me) because it makes the risks men take and turns them into unchosen positive obligations put on men.

 

I have been rethinking this 'disposability' theme around masculinity recently. Currently the prevailing culture assumes that men will put themselves in the line of fire for all womankind. At least that is seen as the noble thing to do. However, I'm curious if this has to do with the kind of collective ideology we have mostly grown up with and less about our natures as men perhaps.

 

I think it was Karen (GWW) who made the analogy once that the man would be expected to be that guy that stood on the porch with a shotgun, ready to take out an imminent threat, whilst the women and children would hide away inside the cabin. The distinction here that this is the mans domain and that he is willing to fight to the death to protect his own family. A family that means as much to him, as they feel for him. Whilst clearly this can be seen as having a disposable theme to it, I tend to think this is a role I would naturally assume without a thought.

 

Where the conflict comes I think, is when it's assumed that it is virtuous to apply this process to the collective, many of whom you nether know or even care for.

[Kevin Beal]

Where the conflict comes I think, is when it's assumed that it is virtuous to apply this process to the collective, many of whom you nether know or even care for.

 

That's really interesting. Could you speak more to that? Like, what are some examples of applying it collectively? Like conscripting men for war?

[PatrickC]

Yes, conscription would be the most obvious example I think. But also the many examples of 'white knighting' that occur.. The assumption that a woman can do no wrong, at least compared to a man's ability to do wrong, which is assumed to be the more likely.

 

On a different vein I think it hooks into mens propensity for tribalism. Except collectivism is a twisted form of the tribe, insofar as we assume a similar role as 'protector' for women we don't even know, but we identify within the collective.

 

I hope that makes sense. These are ideas I'm working with for now and not entirely processed.

[PatrickC]

I had some further thoughts on this concept of the tribe, because I think tribalism can be easily confused with nationalism. Or worse still an archaic form of survivalism that actively seeks to attack those from outside the tribe. These are my initial thoughts on this topic, so feel free to point out any errors in my thinking. It's a work in progress let's say.

 

For me I see the tribe as your friends, family and business associates. They are people we have come to trust, love and respect and likewise they return the same reciprocity. Traditionally men would seek out other men that would aid them. This was of course mutual, but enormously beneficial for the whole tribe, in terms of providing food, shelter and protection from harm.

 

Fast forward to the future, where survivalism is far less necessary, thanks to the wonders of technology. What can we as men bring to the table. Well these days I think it has more to do with 'thriving' than 'surviving'. Men will always be more willing to take the risks, but those risks will be tempered or exacerbated dependent on the group of men that we surround ourselves with. Are these men that you can trust to not harm your family, career or marriage. But conversely, will these men help those parts to your life thrive (mutually) and become more fulfilling.

 

This is what I'm beginning to understand as masculinity. Again, I hope that makes sense.

[Kevin Beal]

Yea, actually I've been thinking about the distinction you make between collectivism/tribalism concerning male disposability, and I found that to be very helpful in understanding it myself. That bridged a few gaps in my thinking.

 

I also think I see what you mean about masculinity in a tribe. Still chewing on it though. I'm so used to thinking of men as a rock and an island.

 

Keep it coming

[PatrickC]

Well it's not surprising that most men struggle with the idea of relying on other men. Primarily the prevailing culture doesn't like it when we get together as men. About the only place it occurs now, is within sports. Men's clubs and mutual associations have been basically outlawed as sexist. Of course men can still meet up and get together, but the institutions that encouraged this male bonding have been largely eradicated from mainstream life.

 

The reason I started exploring this area was because I recognised a tendency in me to enjoy hanging with my male friends a lot more. Amongst male company you will always be challenged and argued with. Nicely I might add. But a male environment tends to be one in which you have to prove yourself in areas like mastery and maturity. Men like to help other men become better at being men, even if they are unaware of it these days. No where is this more important than within the tribe, because your mastery and maturity benefits everyone.

 

Of course, this all sounds like women have nothing to offer, which simply isn't true. Women benefit from our mastery and of course the closest and most intimate relationship we are going to have is with a woman.

 

[A.I.]

Men have evolved to be good at two things: dealing with reality and dealing with women. Women have evolved to be efficient with two things: children and men.

 

When I think masculine, I think of hands-on kind of problem solving, superior logical ability, a lot of emotional strength and stability, and extreme empirical observation skills.

[PatrickC]

I would disagree A_I... Most men do not know how to deal with women at all. They are mostly stuck with the problem of pleasing them rather than improving themselves I think.

[A.I.]

I would disagree A_I... Most men do not know how to deal with women at all. They are mostly stuck with the problem of pleasing them rather than improving themselves I think.

Are you taking propaganda into account? With the rise of modern feminism, most people are utterly confused with gender roles.

[PatrickC]

Yes, feminism hasn't helped men understand their skills and qualities. Largely it has cursed men with any ability at all. Which is why they often struggle with connecting with them.

[Kevin Beal]

Yes, feminism hasn't helped men understand their skills and qualities. Largely it has cursed men with any ability at all. Which is why they often struggle with connecting with them.

 

That reminds me, I'm curious what y'all think about the "manginas" or otherwise anti-masculine men.

 

Personally, it makes me really sad. I know guys like this and I live in an area that is heavily mystical/new agey with a lot of guys who are vaguely feminist.

 

That is how I saw myself for a long time, and it scares me that I was like that.

 

The problem you see, is not that we have rulers, but that our rulers are men! If women ruled the world, there would be no war! etc

 

Haha, and yuck.

[PatrickC]

The anti masculine male feminist is perhaps the most irksome man to ever meet. It's the weakest strategy to engage with women. But I have to say, given the caliber of woman that might be attracted to this, that it's fairly low rent.

 

I can tolerate it much more in men under 25. But with men in their 30's and older, really chaps, wake up!

[A.I.]

The anti masculine male feminist is perhaps the most irksome man to ever meet. It's the weakest strategy to engage with women. But I have to say, given the caliber of woman that might be attracted to this, that it's fairly low rent.

 

I can tolerate it much more in men under 25. But with men in their 30's and older, really chaps, wake up!

It's actually a really great way to meet women and make them feel at ease, so You can really get to know them before passing judgement. People often think I give off a gay vibe, but I think it's just because of trauma in the past.

[PatrickC]

Well AI, I'm not so sure, attempting to placate these ideologues (feminists) could well be more trouble than it's worth in the long run. I've had my fair share of interaction with them over the years, much of which has just been plain awful, with a few exceptions I grant you. I'm reminded by a quote I heard recently.

 

"For men, feminism offers a retreat from the harsh judgment of other men. That's what feminism calls "freedom." It does not, however, offer men freedom from the harsh judgment of women."

[Kevin Beal]

"For men, feminism offers a retreat from the harsh judgment of other men. That's what feminism calls "freedom." It does not, however, offer men freedom from the harsh judgment of women."

 

I wonder if actually, that's the point: to be harshly judged by women.

 

I remember being attracted to the girls who were mean to me and rejected me. I notice that dynamic in lots of areas, like with cats for example. The cats who just want to get any kind of attention you will give them always put me off, but the cats who pretended like they couldn't care less have some sort of seductive quality and I try to win their affection, haha.

 

It drives me a little bit crazy when gals I've been interested in would play hard to get, but I can totally see that dynamic working. It doesn't really do much for me anymore, but I see it in a lot of guys.

[PatrickC]

Yes, that is possibly true Kevin, which is why I easily forgive it in men under 25, given the backdrop of an education system that actively encourages this ideology.

[Wuzzums]

I think it's more about a question of who is doing the judging. From a female's perspective men have value only as the far as the benefits she can get from them. Taking only in account the biological imperative. Men have this drive within them to achieve, create, invent, excel, to make something out of themselves (things that are attractive) that sometimes goes to an extreme. It's like the peacock's tail, it's there to attract females yet more tail (more attractiveness) isn't advantageous for the species as a whole because it lowers the male's chances for survival against predators (bigger tails would make them slower, more noticeable, etc). Simon Baron-Cohen argued that autism might be a hyper-masculinization of the brain thus you could theorize that the autistic traits are indicative of male specific traits (don't quote me on this). I think autistic savants in particular are such an example of preferable male traits in humans. Savants are incredibly good at doing one task and they're unable to do any other task, nor do they want to do any other task. These traits seem to be somewhat correlated to activities people find alluring, like music, and we all know what effect rockstars have on the female kind.

 

Men may have most of the world's greatest inventions under their belts but women did invent the greatest invention ever, the man. Whenever men go on a path that's not useful for women they'll either get ignored, i.e. have unattractive behavior or they get attacked and here the whole "shaming" phenomenon comes in (the once derogatory term "nerds" applies to these males). It's unmanly to collect pokemon cards, not drive a car, still live with your parents, be physically weaker than a female, etc. Looking into the past where one can argue that maleness from a female perspective was the typical "knight in shinning armor". Being a knight implied strength and wealth, so they were able to offer both protection and support for women. Now both of these things can be given by the state and your typical woman want a lot more from a man than we can offer. This great sketch comes to mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbJOLq5wXwk

 

From a male perspective maleness can be easily defined by the main character in most cheesy action movies: the only one that can get things done and his only real obstacle, it seems, is the multitude of women that keep throwing themselves at him. This is all fantasy of course, yet we all heard about similar characters that walk amongst us. But again those people only exist in the eyes of the beholder, I have heard many times guys referring to other guys as being a real-life action movies heroes. It's just bad association and a simplistic view of human beings. They see someone with a nice car and an attractive girlfriend and go "boy, if I have a nice car I'll have an attractive girlfriend too!", or a guy with muscles, or a guy that's funny, and so on. They fail to see the actual truth which is that he doesn't have an attractive girlfriend just because he has a car, he has an attractive girlfriend because she chose him based on her own motives.

 

So if you wanna trouble yourself what a male is or ought to be (genitals aside) I think it's essential to empathize with the opposite sex. Here's a great read that I found useful http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Female_Brain_(book) 

Furthermore I find this generalizing or defining to be quite worrisome, it makes maleness and implicitly femaleness specific traits that allow for no variation. Like if long hair is considered female-ish and short hair male-ish, what is medium sized hair supposed to be?

[Kevin Beal]

Thanks for posting!

 

So if you wanna trouble yourself what a male is or ought to be (genitals aside) I think it's essential to empathize with the opposite sex. Here's a great read that I found useful http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Female_Brain_(book)

Furthermore I find this generalizing or defining to be quite worrisome, it makes maleness and implicitly femaleness specific traits that allow for no variation. Like if long hair is considered female-ish and short hair male-ish, what is medium sized hair supposed to be?

I really appreciate the insight, but this paragraph is a little dubious, I think. 

 

I don't understand why you would be worried about generalizations like hair length. Personally, I find generalizations incredibly helpful even if they don't fit together perfectly. I recognize this is a common occurrence, and I would imagine that we all do.

 

I know there are women who could beat me up (if they wanted to) and men who like flowers a lot. That doesn't bother me.

 

I realize you didn't actually say this, but there is this idea that it's our generalizations that lead to bigotry, so that if we say that women generally like flowers and guys don't then it's going to lead to us bullying guys who like flowers. I have heard this kind of thing all my life and I think it's complete horseshit (pardon my french).

 

Bigotry is not irrationality, it's anti-rationality (if loosely fitting generalizations could even be described as "irrational").

 

So when you say it's "quite worrisome" I just imagine you thinking "oh no! what are we going to do about people who think medium length hair applies to only one sex or to the wrong one!" (dramatized for my own amusement, of course).

 

Also there is of course masculinity as compared to femininity, which is the compliment or negation of feminine traits. That's all very interesting and I'm sure there is a lot to learn from that (maybe you could elaborate?), but obviously there is more to it than just that. Men and women are almost separate species evolving somewhat independently from each other and that's very interesting to me.

 

There are two things that bother me a tad about defining masculinity by it's compliment: femininity. The first is that simply describing dualities like receptivity vs assertiveness or strong vs tender doesn't (usually) explain very much. The second is that there is a troubling amount of this "be a man" or "a real man does X" that a lot of women like to engage in that comes from a kind of irrationality or bigotry, which makes men (or just me maybe) think that women just have no idea what it's like to be a man and should really stop that (especially considering how seriously men take women's opinions of them). I don't know what it's like to be a woman.

 

Sincerely though, I'm very interested to hear more, especially what you found so helpful about the female brain book.

[PatrickC]

Wuzzums, to be honest, I had a struggle understanding your position, given the large amount of text.. Perhaps you could break down your points more succinctly so that I might understand your position better.

[Wuzzums]

I tried to point out that there are differences between males and females that might comes from having a Y-chromosome as opposed to not having one. In the book "The Female Brain" the author talks a lot about behavior that stems from hormonal changes, like how hormones directly affect your way of thinking and from behavior that comes from certain aspects of physiology such as a far shorter reproduction period (which is in itself also hormone based). Given this you could say that women are more relationship oriented isn't because of innate mental differences but because of physiological constraints. A guy has from puberty till about his 50's time to make healthy offspring, a woman from her puberty till about her early 40's (after 40 there's something like 1/100 chance of having a child with Down syndrome, the risk increasing with added years). 10 years doesn't seem like much difference but if you factor in her reproductive cycle and the fact that she has to compete with other younger women it takes her "off the market" quite earlier still. With age, women's reproductive value decreases, and the men's increases. 

 

These differences have nothing to do with mental capacity/behavior but it greatly affects it by prioritizing events. Women will become more mature faster, will try to seek out a partner earlier on, will put personal interests aside over financial stability, will try to get a more stable footing in society and so on. It's as if there are 2 guys, twins let's say, one's rich because he inherited a large fortune, the other has nothing and has to take care of a family of 4. The two will have vastly different behaviors due to their constraints, one might seek a career in art or some kind of intellectual pursuit like mathematics (and become introverted), the other will be more interested in business to make money, to make connections, etc (and become extroverted). There's nothing innate that differentiates them, yet they act entirely different. Or, to be a lot more vague about it: it's nurture because nature fullstop.

 

 

Also there is of course masculinity as compared to femininity, which is the compliment or negation of feminine traits. That's all very interesting and I'm sure there is a lot to learn from that (maybe you could elaborate?), but obviously there is more to it than just that. Men and women are almost separate species evolving somewhat independently from each other and that's very interesting to me.

 

I don't think that's the case. Men and women do compliment each other but that may just be due to effectiveness in child rearing or surviving rather than biology. Like how the woman is more loving and nurturing, the man more assertive and whatnot. I heard that in lesbian and gay couples when raising children especially they start to form the same roles, one takes the what is generally described as the male path and the other the female complementary path. I'm not entirely sure about this because I have never known such a couple, but the stereotypes are most certainly there from what's shown in the media.

 

The TL;DR version would go something like: Y-chromosome apart, being masculine/feminine is like being a christian or not. In order to be a christian there's this book full of rules which you must follow but those rules don't necessarily exist in nature, they're just words on paper. You can follow the rules or not but if you do really wanna be a christian then you must follow those rules because that's what christians do. It's fine if you wanna define christian as something else but the first ones that called themselves christians might take offense because they spent so much on building up a reputation.

 

 

There are two things that bother me a tad about defining masculinity by it's compliment: femininity. The first is that simply describing dualities like receptivity vs assertiveness or strong vs tender doesn't (usually) explain very much. The second is that there is a troubling amount of this "be a man" or "a real man does X" that a lot of women like to engage in that comes from a kind of irrationality or bigotry, which makes men (or just me maybe) think that women just have no idea what it's like to be a man and should really stop that (especially considering how seriously men take women's opinions of them). I don't know what it's like to be a woman.

 

Sincerely though, I'm very interested to hear more, especially what you found so helpful about the female brain book.

 

 

I don't know whether women do or do not know what it's like to be a male but they most certainly do know that men would mostly do anything if you start your request with the phrase "be a man, and (...)"

Males do that too to other males except they like to use the phrasing "stop acting like a woman, and (...)". It's a sales pitch, like "do you want this boring, crappy, stupid product or this awesome, magnificent, magical other product?"

I remember this story about this little kid that went home to his mother and said: "Mom, be a man and don't get upset, but I got a bad mark at school today".

 

As for the book it just helped get a female's perspective. I found it quite telling how awesome she made menopause look because women don't have to deal with that "omg I have to start a family!" thing and finally can focus on their careers and write books, and find hobbies, and so on. However I thought the title wasn't exactly accurate because she talks about the male brain too.

 

 

However let's assume I'm wrong on all accounts, that masculinity is solely defined by what's innate, what's inside your genes. And let's assume that aggressiveness is a male trait, that aggressiveness has a specific gene linked to it. From a genetic standpoint males are just mutant females, the Y chromosome's role is just to transform the default female body in a male body. You can live without a Y chromosome, you cannot live without an X chromosome. If masculinity is innate, and Y-chr creates masculinity, and aggressiveness is a masculine trait then the gene for aggressiveness must be found on the Y chromosome. And if it's not then the gene for aggressiveness is in females too hence it's innate in females too hence it's a toss of a coin which gender gets linked with aggressiveness and which not. I'm over-simplifying of course.

 

 

I don't understand why you would be worried about generalizations like hair length. Personally, I find generalizations incredibly helpful even if they don't fit together perfectly. I recognize this is a common occurrence, and I would imagine that we all do.

 

Yeah, I understand. To me "generally" sounds more like a rule that disregards exceptions. To take your example, we can say that on average women like flowers better than men and thus you can say "generally women like flowers". So whenever I guy likes flowers and someone remarks that "generally speaking women like flowers" it sounds more a bad critique. As if he's saying "because there are more women that like flowers than men that like flowers then liking flowers is a female trait, and not liking flowers is a masculine trait". It makes no sense

 

 

 

Wuzzums, to be honest, I had a struggle understanding your position, given the large amount of text.. Perhaps you could break down your points more succinctly so that I might understand your position better.

 

Well... it's safe to say I failed miserably on the succinct part.

[PatrickC]

Yeah, I understand. To me "generally" sounds more like a rule that disregards exceptions. To take your example, we can say that on average women like flowers better than men and thus you can say "generally women like flowers". So whenever I guy likes flowers and someone remarks that "generally speaking women like flowers" it sounds more a bad critique. As if he's saying "because there are more women that like flowers than men that like flowers then liking flowers is a female trait, and not liking flowers is a masculine trait". It makes no sense 

 

I've said this before.. An exception doesn't break the rule. I now see that most of your commentary is about defining the exception. Sure they exist, but so does the rule.

[Kevin Beal]

I really appreciate the point about the nature of the physiology creating different priorities, as I also am hesitant to accept nature (vs nurture) explanations for things. Just seems too fatalistic to me. That's an interesting approach that I haven't thought about (at least in this regard).

 

But I have to take issue with the point about generalizations. This is one of those things that irks me. I mean, if you take the time to add the qualifier "generally" then that is to imply that there are exceptions.

 

And this is not necessarily you, right, but whenever there is a discussion about the differences between the sexes (or between cultures or any other politically over-corrected topic), there is always a significant resistance to the idea that men and women really are very different. Often the reasoning is that collectives of people believing that certain traits are inherent (or so ubiquitous to make it not matter) leads to bigotry against those groups. That is, generally speaking

 

I'm certain that making mistakes about how men or women are is going to happen, and I'm also certain that (for the most part) it's not going to matter very much. It's not that people are wrong or irrational about things that is the problem there. When people are being bigoted they are unwilling to listen to counter argument and attack anyone who is trying to bring reason to the discussion. The fact that slave owners felt it right to own slaves is not because of mere ignorance. It takes active willful ignorance not to see the obvious irrationality there, the rationalizing they used is ex post facto.

 

To your point, the guy who likes the flowers being told that generally women like flowers and not guys, does sound to me like it could be some of that "don't be a woman / sissy" stuff. At least I would feel guarded if someone told me that about my love of flowers. But I'm curious why you felt this was important to bring up. Like, do you think that this sort of "don't be a woman" thing is going on here in this thread? Or are you afraid it might later?

 

Maybe it's just my own paranoia or being defensive or something, but that's why I took issue with your thoughts on generalizations.

 

I hope that makes sense.

 

It's one of those things I see a lot, and it could just be hyper-awareness, but I think it's important to notice and talk about.

[LovePrevails]

At the risk  of seeming terribly vague

 

it seems to me that masculinity is, at leasst to some degree, an abstract

 

and therefor it means what people define it to mean

 

as a man I am more concerned with what my masculinity means to me

 

I love it when I feel "strong, centred and in my masculine" - I feel I enjoy being a man

then sometimes when things get tough I lament the fact there is such a taboo on male vulnerability in our society

 

Do we have to impose clearly defined positions on what a abstracts such as masculinty are?

Or is it better they remain fairly subjective and we can explore what they mean to us personally?

[Kevin Beal]

At the risk  of seeming terribly vague

 

it seems to me that masculinity is, at leasst to some degree, an abstract

 

and therefor it means what people define it to mean

 

as a man I am more concerned with what my masculinity means to me

 

I love it when I feel "strong, centred and in my masculine" - I feel I enjoy being a man

then sometimes when things get tough I lament the fact there is such a taboo on male vulnerability in our society

Well, technically speaking, abstract doesn't mean vague, subjective or personal. Numbers are abstract for instance.

 

I think you're right though about definitions. Part of the reason I started this thread was to get how people are defining masculinity. How you or I relate to ourselves as men is of interest to me. It doesn't need to apply to every man, but it should apply to being a man. That would have to be a bare minimum I would think in arriving at some definition / standard is that it describes being a man, what makes men men (beyond the obvious biological traits).

 

 

 

Do we have to impose clearly defined positions on what a abstracts such as masculinty are?

 

Well, definitely not. I'm certainly not trying to impose anything on anyone. Was there something specifically that was said that gave you that impression?

 

 

 

Or is it better they remain fairly subjective and we can explore what they mean to us personally?

 

Possibly... I can't really say since you were unfortunately pretty darn vague

 

If we can come to understand something about reality or the people in it then that is objectivity. We can be objective about things that are subjective too. For example, the scale of values that people has for different goods is subjective, but the science of economics which measures those things is objective.

 

So to be a little more specific, I have a distinctly different relationship to the men in my life as compared to the relationship I do with women. I relate to men differently than I do women. There are the practical things like spending too much time with a married woman, or flirting with men (since I am straight) that have a lot to do with my sex, and then there are things about my relationships with other men that go beyond sharing the same gender as them, that are distinctly male. (If I were a woman hanging with women, it would be different obviously).

 

I too think that male vulnerability should be less of a taboo, and I think there is something to being a man that includes a different kind of vulnerability. 

 

What do you think?

[Wuzzums]

To your point, the guy who likes the flowers being told that generally women like flowers and not guys, does sound to me like it could be some of that "don't be a woman / sissy" stuff. At least I would feel guarded if someone told me that about my love of flowers. But I'm curious why you felt this was important to bring up. Like, do you think that this sort of "don't be a woman" thing is going on here in this thread? Or are you afraid it might later?

 

I brought up the whole "generally speaking women like flowers" thing because in my experience people confuse it with "the rule is women like flowers". The first one deals with statistics and cannot be applied to describe only one individual, and the second is a rule which ought to be applied to anyone.

 

 

I've said this before.. An exception doesn't break the rule. I now see that most of your commentary is about defining the exception. Sure they exist, but so does the rule.

For me the concept of rule is akin to a law or theory in science. It only requires one exception in order for the rule not to be correct unless not specified. But when you start specifying exception over exception the rule becomes too vague to even call it such.

[PatrickC]

For me the concept of rule is akin to a law or theory in science. It only requires one exception in order for the rule not to be correct unless not specified. But when you start specifying exception over exception the rule becomes too vague to even call it such.

 

I have to say, if you truly live your life like that, then good luck.

[LovePrevails]

Well, definitely not. I'm certainly not trying to impose anything on anyone. Was there something specifically that was said that gave you that impression?

 

no, just poor word choice on my part, I didn't mean you specifically

I was implying that if anyone defines masculinity rigidly they are saying what it is, therefor "imposing" that definition

 

If we can come to understand something about reality or the people in it then that is objectivity. We can be objective about things that are subjective too. For example, the scale of values that people has for different goods is subjective, but the science of economics which measures those things is objective.

 

So to be a little more specific, I have a distinctly different relationship to the men in my life as compared to the relationship I do with women. I relate to men differently than I do women. There are the practical things like spending too much time with a married woman, or flirting with men (since I am straight) that have a lot to do with my sex, and then there are things about my relationships with other men that go beyond sharing the same gender as them, that are distinctly male. (If I were a woman hanging with women, it would be different obviously).

 

I too think that male vulnerability should be less of a taboo, and I think there is something to being a man that includes a different kind of vulnerability. 

 

What do you think?

I don't know what you mean buy a different kind of vulnerability

 

the main thing is, in the norm, if a woman is having a hard time, even when she first meets a man

if the man thinks she is nice and a good perosn it won't get in the way of him being attracted, usually

 

wheras most women only want to ee a man's vulnerabile side show once she knows he's shown he's strong and in control

that way she gets the "special privelege" of seeing his softer side which no one else but her knows exists and this is special and intimate

a vulnerable male is not an attractive site to a woman early on (in general terms)

UNLESS the man is super ok with himself being vulnerable and can "wear it well" as a strenght - "look how ok I am with being vulnerable - amn't I strong"

which of course, is not the most common form of vulnerability and few people are capable of it

I am but only after lots and lots of self-work

 

it seems unfair that we always have to be strong

[Kevin Beal]

Thanks for posting!

 

wheras most women only want to ee a man's vulnerabile side show once she knows he's shown he's strong and in control

that way she gets the "special privelege" of seeing his softer side which no one else but her knows exists and this is special and intimate

a vulnerable male is not an attractive site to a woman early on (in general terms)

UNLESS the man is super ok with himself being vulnerable and can "wear it well" as a strenght - "look how ok I am with being vulnerable - amn't I strong"

which of course, is not the most common form of vulnerability and few people are capable of it

I am but only after lots and lots of self-work

 

it seems unfair that we always have to be strong

 

Yea. I totally relate. I've run into the same thing for sure.

 

I've seen some of the ladies respond with confusion and acute discomfort. I just imagine that what they are thinking is something like "omg, am I going to have to be the man in this relationship?" which totally sucks. Depending on how we are defining things, I think it's not unreasonable to sometimes take the feminine position in relationship and for a gal to be the masculine one.

 

And maybe there is some danger in that part alone. To think that vulnerability is a female trait (which in many ways it is) at the exclusion of seeing men as vulnerable. Or, like you said, men have to earn it.

 

Why is that you think?