A Real Man Is...

[SithDoughnut]

Looking at this thread, I have an alternative definition:

A "real" man is one who recognises that there is no such thing, and who does not try to create a list of personal qualifications that entitles someone to their own gender.

 

[Gadarene]

Looking at this thread, I have an alternative definition:

A "real" man is one who recognises that there is no such thing, and who does not try to create a list of personal qualifications that entitles someone to their own gender.

Heh, that's what I've often thought.

People who try and insist on definitions of Real Manliness (which invariably just "happen" to include themselves) remind me of people who will insist that they are cool or alpha or whatever. Trying a little too hard to convince everyone else, it would seem.

Of course that could also be applied to this definition, so OH BUGGERY.

 

[juvenissun]

See, this is what I am getting at.

For all intents and purposes, the former president of the States would be considered "The Man." However, you say that (I assume) even though he was the leader of the "free world," in a position of power, had money, provided for his family, his infidelity disqualified him as a real man. Please, and respectfully, correct me if I am wrong. If I am right, why does infidelity "disqualify" a male from being a real man?

You barked up the wrong tree.

It is not his infidelity to his wife, but his inability to be the head of his wife.

 

[motherprayer]

To me, a real man takes responsibility. He give honor and credit where it is due, and takes credit when he should, even if its uncomfortable.
He forgives when he should, and asks forgiveness when he should as well.
He never asks for more than someone is comfortable with, and is willing to give of himself when necessary.
He knows when to ask for guidance, and when he offers guidance, he offers with Grace.
He understands there are times that call for gentleness, and other times that call for firmness.

For the record, all these things apply to a "real woman" as well. There is only one thing I would add that is just for men:
He leads with respect, and accepts guidance to make him a better leader, as he knows what areas in which he needs to grow.

 

[KCfromNC]

Are you talking about "real man" as opposed to "unreal man" or as opposed to "real woman"?

A real man is 90 degrees out of phase from an imaginary one, but that's more of a physics or engineering take on the subject. But probably just as useful as the philosophical approach.

 

[KCfromNC]

Because some males are not MEN, which implies a certain amount of moral, patriarchal, and social responsibility. There are forty-year-old males that live like what one would expect a 10-year-old boy to live. Likewise, there are 10-year-old MEN that live how a forty-year-old man should live.

Is it MEN or boys which resort to name calling when others live by different standards then their own arbitrary ones?

 

[KCfromNC]

Because I am a male, and I have observed the topic of the philosophical discussion at hand. I have also had many girlfriends in my youth that have informed me what they [rightfully so] expect from a man, and not a little boy.

So a real man lets women define his desired identity?

Like someone said before, a man takes care of the household. What does that mean? Does it mean he provides monetary security while he has sex with every other woman? Does it mean showing no emotion, but everyone has food to eat, and a warm bed?

Does it mean that a single mother is by this definition a real man?

 

[Noxot]

Looking at this thread, I have an alternative definition:

A "real" man is one who recognises that there is no such thing, and who does not try to create a list of personal qualifications that entitles someone to their own gender.

wise panda.

 

[Received]

Looking at this thread, I have an alternative definition:

A "real" man is one who recognises that there is no such thing, and who does not try to create a list of personal qualifications that entitles someone to their own gender.

I've had my share of construction work (between undergrad and grad school; great cash, interesting coworkers), so I've had the "be a man," phrase thrown around a few times, including in my direction. I'm surprised by how vacuous and dumb it really is when you get down to it. All it could possibly mean outside of an arbitrary cultural message of "do this thing we all want you to do or you're not part of the group," is "have a penis (because somehow, if you don't do this act I'd like you to, you don't have one)."

 

[Eudaimonist]

Here's a thought. Being "a man" could mean dealing with the challenges of one's sex in a constructive way.

For instance, males typically have an abundance of libedo during puberty and in to early adulthood. (Am I stating anything that isn't obvious?) This provides a challenge for the formation of character. In the novel Dune, the main character, Paul Atreides, had to "conquer Shai'Hulud" (a giant sandworm) as a test of manhood, and readers should be able to guess what that signifies.

Granted, those particular challenges may be to some extent based on what men are expected to be able to do within a particular culture, but the concept could possibly make some sense.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

The closest, I think, we could get to an "objective" definition of what it means to be a man would be looking at evolution. But, you know, I don't think we would like doing that, given that men are hardwired to spread their genes, split when it comes to deep commitments, and are therefore arguably hardwired to cheat. The other hardwired mechanisms are all based in the drive to survive, so they can be pretty, uh, primitive and uncivilized.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The closest, I think, we could get to an "objective" definition of what it means to be a man would be looking at evolution. But, you know, I don't think we would like doing that, given that men are hardwired to spread their genes, split when it comes to deep commitments, and are therefore arguably hardwired to cheat. The other hardwired mechanisms are all based in the drive to survive, so they can be pretty, uh, primitive and uncivilized.

Perhaps it is overcoming evolution, instead.

Personally, I'm not insisting on any particular definition, though I do find it interesting to see such resistance to the idea of the concept of a "real man". I'm wondering what culturally led to this.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Stevelee44]

I believe a real man is doing what Jesus did. Being just like him. Walking in Love. Treating everyone with respect and Honor. Walking in the Fruit of the Spirit. Seeing everyone as a person not as a race. Seeing the person not the color of someone.

 

[Rajni]

To me, a man is logical, sensitive, reasonable, patient, loving, caring, strong mentally, a leader, intelligent, wise, cunning, courageous and confident. These traits are independent of physical or financial status. Muscles fade, bones break, and money melts and burns. But, to me, these qualities would last - from rich to poor, peak fitness to sickness - in a real man.
What about you?

I don't see these qualities as being only man-specific. Women can have these qualities as well.

At any rate, doesn't the Christians' bible say something along the lines that in Christ there is no male or female?

 

[Gadarene]

Here's a thought. Being "a man" could mean dealing with the challenges of one's sex in a constructive way.

For instance, males typically have an abundance of libedo during puberty and in to early adulthood. (Am I stating anything that isn't obvious?) This provides a challenge for the formation of character. In the novel Dune, the main character, Paul Atreides, had to "conquer Shai'Hulud" (a giant sandworm) as a test of manhood, and readers should be able to guess what that signifies.

I think Paul Atreides dealing with the challenges of sex had kinda already been covered by that point, when he gets jiggy with Chani during the Tau orgy.

The closest, I think, we could get to an "objective" definition of what it means to be a man would be looking at evolution. But, you know, I don't think we would like doing that, given that men are hardwired to spread their genes, split when it comes to deep commitments, and are therefore arguably hardwired to cheat. The other hardwired mechanisms are all based in the drive to survive, so they can be pretty, uh, primitive and uncivilized.

There's being a man in the sense of simply being, and our genes are a large part of that. That said, this plays right into the naturalistic fallacy. Just because we're predisposed to a particular behaviour doesn't oblige us to act on it.

Perhaps it is overcoming evolution, instead.

Personally, I'm not insisting on any particular definition, though I do find it interesting to see such resistance to the idea of the concept of a "real man". I'm wondering what culturally led to this.

Probably because it's been a source of unmitigated nonsense over the years? It strikes me as about as meaningful as "True Scotsman".

The problem I find is that people will say they want to define something that describes all men, and then pick out properties that are statistical and only apply to a subset of men - or applies to more genders than simply "male".

No one is denying that men may have a greater tendency to display trait x than females - that doesn't make it something fundamental to being a man, because then you have automatically ruled out all men who don't naturally display trait x.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think Paul Atreides dealing with the challenges of sex had kinda already been covered by that point, when he gets jiggy with Chani during the Tau orgy.

The Fremen test of manhood is symbolic, and is for tribal recognition of manhood. I'm guessing that it doesn't have to do with "getting jiggy", but rather being in control of one's own actions and destiny despite the urge to "get jiggy".

I'd say that Paul's Bene Gesserit training had prepared him well for self-control, as we saw very early on with his test of "the box".

No one is denying that men may have a greater tendency to display trait x than females - that doesn't make it something fundamental to being a man, because then you have automatically ruled out all men who don't naturally display trait x.

You seem to think that I'm proposing something mathematically rigorous. I'm not.

I agree that there may be outliers, and I am entirely sympathetic to the observation that individuals have uniqueness that defines them as individuals.

However, wouldn't you agree that there is still likely to be strong clustering? We may all be individuals with our own individual ideals, but there is likely to be a strong similarity among most of them, with only a small percentage who are significantly different from the norm?

Based on that clustering, one may be able to develop a kind of cultural role model (or symbol) of excellence in facing up to the challenges experienced by the norm. Sure, such a role model can't be taken as representing the ideal of all members of a particular sex, but it may be enough for presenting as a standard of achievement for most, probably as I had suggested as a kind of role model.

It seems at least reasonable, as long as one doesn't start to impose the role model on everybody.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gadarene]

You seem to think that I'm proposing something mathematically rigorous. I'm not.

I know you're not, but this problem seems to arise pretty often when what constitutes members of "Real <groupname>" is under discussion.

I agree that there may be outliers, and I am entirely sympathetic to the observation that individuals have uniqueness that defines them as individuals.

However, wouldn't you agree that there is still likely to be strong clustering? We may all be individuals with our own individual ideals, but there is likely to be a strong similarity among most of them, with only a small percentage who are significantly different from the norm?

Based on that clustering, one may be able to develop a kind of cultural role model (or symbol) of excellence in facing up to the challenges experienced by the norm. Sure, such a role model can't be taken as representing the ideal of all members of a particular sex, but it may be enough for presenting as a standard of achievement for most, probably as I had suggested as a kind of role model.

It seems at least reasonable, as long as one doesn't start to impose the role model on everybody.

The problem is that that's exactly what people do end up doing with such groupings/role models. It is an inherent consequence of the labelling. By defining what a man is, you also define what it is not, and you run the risk of it starting to exert pressure on those who are "not" - either self-imposed, or imposed by those who "are". This is exactly how stereotyping begins, IMO.

And I also don't see the sense in calling being something that other people aren't an "achievement" if it's referring to something that's innate, or at least greatly determined by biology and quality of upbringing. Say leadership is our "Real Man" criterion -you might have someone with the best leadership potential in the world, but the only difference between and someone who is actually known for leadership could be opportunity. Social level. Financial ability of one's parents. None of those things are really within the control of either person, but one get's the Real Man Achievement for actually having done comparatively little, the other is forgotten, even though if one controlled for other variables they would be as competent a leader.

It just seems to me that it's daft to compose these groupings along gender lines. Why not simply make "leadership (potential)" itself the grouping rather than whether or not they have a Y chromosome?

 

[Eudaimonist]

The problem is that that's exactly what people do end up doing with such groupings/role models. It is an inherent consequence of the labelling. By defining what a man is, you also define what it is not, and you run the risk of it starting to exert pressure on those who are "not" - either self-imposed, or imposed by those who "are". This is exactly how stereotyping begins, IMO.

That's a reasonable concern.

And I also don't see the sense in calling being something that other people aren't an "achievement" if it's referring to something that's innate, or at least greatly determined by biology and quality of upbringing.

Don't you leave any room open for personal achievement? Why speak of what is "greatly determined by biology and quality of upbringing"? These wouldn't be good standards of achievement.

Say leadership is our "Real Man" criterion -you might have someone with the best leadership potential in the world, but the only difference between and someone who is actually known for leadership could be opportunity. Social level. Financial ability of one's parents.

That would disqualify leadership as the sort of standard I mean.

It just seems to me that it's daft to compose these groupings along gender lines. Why not simply make "leadership (potential)" itself the grouping rather than whether or not they have a Y chromosome?

One could, I suppose. But I don't see that one should limit it to that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gadarene]

Don't you leave any room open for personal achievement? Why speak of what is "greatly determined by biology and quality of upbringing"? These wouldn't be good standards of achievement.

My point was made mainly regarding my example of leadership as some property of a "real man" - the problem as I saw it was that someone who could display leadership but for a lack of opportunity and support is "not a real man", someone who could would be a "real man" - but the only difference between them are things totally outwith their control....

That would disqualify leadership as the sort of standard I mean.

...but then maybe it is a bad example.

One could, I suppose. But I don't see that one should limit it to that.

Again, that was only with reference to my one example. My point is, if "being a man" becomes a list of properties/actions/traits, say - it's pretty obvious that there are going to be few things one can think of that are (a) applicable to all men and (b) inapplicable to many members of other genders as well. It simply seems more expedient to evaluate people, whoever they are, based on whether or not they display the property we are interested in, rather than on the gender they happen to have.

The problem isn't "clustering" as you put it per se, the problem is clustering with regard to attributes like gender that are largely irrelevant to the things we actually claim to value like character, right action etc. Other attributes are also given needless and undeserved prominence in this regard, like race, for example.

I think this is a pretty common fault in humans - even those trying to solve problems of inequality. We still haven't shaken off the desire to look for simplifying panaceas that make it easy to categorise people accurately. It simply isn't that straightforward, and I think we would be better off actively disregarding that tendency. Very few of the generalisations it produces seem to actually work and be represented by the facts.

 

[Received]

Perhaps it is overcoming evolution, instead.

Right! If there is a cultural influence, the evolutionary definition doesn't apply. There is a cultural influence, therefore limiting the definition of man to unmitigated evolutionary inclinations and impulses (if that's even possible, which I don't think is, given that the inclination to culture is itself evolved) doesn't jive.

So we're back to the position that defining a "man" is meaningless without cultural definitions, and therefore cultural relativism.