The Lost Art of Manliness

[Carlisle Blues]

Yes, but I do consider it a fairly manly or masculine trait to be able to turn off the emotions, complicated thought, etc, and think simply and do what needs to be done. Then get back to being more well rounded. But that is a necessary trait that men must know.

What about female heads of state???? Like Golda Meir or Margret Thatcher. Corporate CEOs Muriel "Mickey" Siebert or Mary Kay Ash. They can act on their emotions because they are women???

 

[Miss Neecerie]

What about female heads of state???? Like Golda Meir or Margret Thatcher. Corporate CEOs Muriel "Mickey" Siebert or Mary Kay Ash. They can act on their emotions because they are women???

Nope...They have to forcefully have -half- as many emotions in the workplace as men would be allowed...lest they be perceived as weak and incapable.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

^^^
My point...it is not manly or womanly it is sexless and a required part of the role they have assumed.

 

[Foofoogal]

People are just people, to castigate a person because they do not fit into our version of what a particular sex should be or act like is tantamount to the most of prejudicial of behavior; very myopic at best.

Once again I have no idea what you mean here.
If you are suggesting no limits to how one sex should act or not act I disagree with you.
If I was in a fox hole and shooting was going on overhead I would most likely want to be in that hole with a man and not a woman acting like a man.
Very general I know and there are exceptions but brute strength is a reality.
This to me is the bottom line.

 

[Fletch]

Brute strength is the bottom line only in contests of brute strength.

I've heard lots of arguments that combat should be the measure of all men - if not in actual fact, at least by example. I'd like to hear yours.

 

[Dr Doran]

Gee, I never figured you for a gender essentialist.

The use of the term "gender essentialist" is not advisable as it is not a neutral term to define a position. As far as I can see, the only persons that use that term are persons who believe that "gender essentialists" are bad, wrong people. (In some quarters, such as in many departments of Women's Studies at many universities, this term is in practice equivalent to the term "fascist" or "Nazi.") This association is automatic in academia. Or in some departments, at least. Certainly not in biology or in physical anthropology. I think the term is deeply flawed. In academia in the present day, particularly or solely in the humanities and in the softer of the social sciences -- ever since these disciplines divorced themselves from biology in the first half of the twentieth century (an entirely regrettable divorce) -- the only "acceptable" position seems to be that all large-scale observable, quantifiable behavior differences between males and females of the human species are wholly culturally conditioned and have no biological basis. There is absolutely no evidence to support that view. I follow the evidence. Whether I like it or not.

So, am I a "gender essentialist"?

If you are asking me whether I believe that

-- the quantifiable, objectively (not only subjectively) existent large-scale behavioral differences between males and females of various primate species

-- are NOT wholly created arbitrarily by culture and social conditioning,

the answer is, I do not think these differences are arbitrarily created solely by cultural conditioning.

There are large-scale differences between the males and females of all species. Several trends seem to be prevalent, in most species.

The large-scale differences in behavior are at root attributable to anisogamy, or the differences in size of gametes. This difference has huge effects in what may be termed male culture and female culture. The differences are not arbitrary or solely the creation of human custom. On the contrary, human custom is the creation of the biological differences. The differences are largely cross-cultural: they exist in very different societies, and they arose independently in them.

Whether we, in the 21st century, can be FREE of the more unpleasant of these differences is another question. Yes, women have the luxury of not needing to reproduce an average of 6 children anymore in order to have 2 survive until they themselves reproduce. Medical advances have freed us of this. But just because we are free of what may be termed certain gender obligations does not mean that those instincts do not still exist. The fact that a strong-looking, quick-moving male still, all things considered, statistically attracts more females than a weak-looking one does, even when society has changed to the point that physical strength is no longer really necessary to earn a living, is very clear evidence that the instinct of attraction to these types of men still exists.

Various other points on this thread have descended into arguing whether a caricature of a bull-necked marine/pseudo-marine is what is meant by people when they talk about what is masculine. This is entirely ridiculous. It is quite silly to assume that the assertion "biologically-derived differences exist between males and females of various primate species, including human" means "males must be bull-necked macho men and if they aren't, then they are not real males."

Further, the assertion that the only way we can evaluate human behavior is subjectively and qualitatively through personal experience, overlooks entirely the quantitative studies of human behavior that have been conducted and that still continue to be conducted by economists, anthropologists, biologists, and other scientists. Economic behavior differs between males and females cross-culturally. So do many other forms of behavior.

I recommend for starts the book Homicide by Daly and Wilson. It is an amazing monument of scholarship. It examines homicide cross-culturally, in many, many human societies. Quantitatively, checking and rechecking everything. Its first finding: males kill far, far, far more people than females do. Everywhere. All over the world. In every single society on this planet. Without a single exception. The notion that there is no biological gender difference in terms of aggression, at least, is laughable against this finding. Considering the allegedly diverse societies on this planet, it would be remarkable if every single society just happened to teach men to kill more. Further, the existence of this very obvious difference strongly suggests that more large-scale behavioral differences are not simply caused by differential training, but possess biological roots.

Here is your first (huge) piece of evidence to deal with, whoever wishes to assert that gender differences have no biological roots.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

Once again I have no idea what you mean here.

If I was in a fox hole and shooting was going on overhead I would most likely want to be in that hole with a man and not a woman acting like a man.
Very general I know and there are exceptions but brute strength is a reality.
This to me is the bottom line.

I am saying I accept people for who they are not their sex.

I would not mind these women protecting me:

The most famous female infantry soldier of the Civil War was Sarah Emma Edmonds ("Franklin Thompson") who served for two years in the 2nd Michigan Infantry as soldier, spy, and nurse. After the war when she applied for a pension, her former comrades confirmed her service and she was made the only known female member of the Grand Army of the Republic. She was in combat in several engagements.

The White Lily of Stailingrad Lydia Vladimirovna Litvyak, was a female fighter pilot in the Soviet Air Force during World War II. With 12 solo victories she is one of the world's only two female fighter aces, along with Katya Budanova.

 

[Viola]

What's "acting like a man" in a foxhole? Presumably you're being shot at, you're perhaps shooting back, and you're trying to keep all your blood and internal organs on the inside. I don't think behavior varies that much? Unless you go into labour or something.

What would be acting like a man? Knowing what to do? What would be acting like a woman; nurturing and protecting your comrades instead of attacking the enemy - like some of the bravest damn men on earth, the Navy Corpsmen?

 

[Foofoogal]

I've heard lots of arguments that combat should be the measure of all men - if not in actual fact, at least by example. I'd like to hear yours.

I may have to hide in a foxhole after this. lol
Once upon a time I believed in the tooth fairy (example) . While it is fun it is not reality now.
While if we had oodles of time and the world was a friendly fuzzy warm place I would not really care.
but...It is not.
Now we may see ourselves progressing to accept everyone however they are reality is a lot of people including our enemies do not and due to their ways probably will never.
We do not have the luxury of playing (especially after this year) when others want us dead.
Trying not to get political but in case you have not noticed lately on TV some want to obliterate us. Not exactly IMHO the time for MEN to get in touch with their feminine side.
Save it for another day.
I understand the need to be able to morph into whatever but if we do too much morphing none of our children will be around to figure it out.

 

[Foofoogal]

Carlisle. You know for a fact women can be sharp shooters or whatever. Brave, strong etc. I realize that also.
Most or a lot do not want to though. Good grief, we have the "Powder room."
Women want to do their nails and hair and wear pretty silky things.
Open the jar honey please is what most want to do.
Not all but...lol

Pick up a womens magazine or look on the Powder Room thread. We ain't talking about men stuff.

 

[Miss Neecerie]

What's "acting like a man" in a foxhole? Presumably you're being shot at, you're perhaps shooting back, and you're trying to keep all your blood and internal organs on the inside. I don't think behavior varies that much? Unless you go into labour or something.

What would be acting like a man? Knowing what to do? What would be acting like a woman; nurturing and protecting your comrades instead of attacking the enemy - like some of the bravest damn men on earth, the Navy Corpsmen?

This.


If I were in a foxhole...I would opt for a trained female over an untrained man any day of the week.

Its the skill, not the sex of the person that matters.

I would probably opt for Viola or Paisley or any of the other former military ladies here...over -most- of the men here...to be honest. (former soldiers excepted)

 

[Viola]

Honestly, I find this board a wealth of men who care just as much about what they wear and how their hair looks. I do not find that effeminate and I'm sure many of them could clean the clocks of those who deride it as such.

So yeah I like style and so on but I don't think that effects how strong I am or if I can fight. I would go home and clean myself up afterward that's all.

 

[Paisley]

I may have to hide in a foxhole after this. lol
Once upon a time I believed in the tooth fairy (example) . While it is fun it is not reality now.
While if we had oodles of time and the world was a friendly fuzzy warm place I would not really care.
but...It is not.
Now we may see ourselves progressing to accept everyone however they are reality is a lot of people including our enemies do not and due to their ways probably will never.
We do not have the luxury of playing (especially after this year) when others want us dead.
Trying not to get political but in case you have not noticed lately on TV some want to obliterate us. Not exactly IMHO the time for MEN to get in touch with their feminine side.
Save it for another day.
I understand the need to be able to morph into whatever but if we do too much morphing none of our children will be around to figure it out.

I assume you mean that if men aren't macho, our military will go to pot. However, we have a volunteer military, and men who aren't suited for military life don't have to join. Not every masculine man is suited for it. And not every military job requires brute strength. IME, what was mostly required was focus and self-control: the ability to do your job amid chaos, hunger and fatigue, plus the ability to work as a team.

Nice clothes, makeup and hairstyles are fine. But my enjoyment of those things wouldn't stop me from putting a bullet into an intruder who didn't beat a retreat.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Just when did the idea that slob = manly take over, anyway? Seems to me that the masculine ideal of the Era was certainly well-groomed, and even elegant -- so why now is the "Real Man" expected to run in terror at the thought of a pressed pair of pants?

Is it, perhaps, the dreaded Juvenilization of Culture that's to blame? Is it a mass regression to the general attitude of a five-year-old boy? ("I AIN'T gonna take no baff, an' you can't MAKE me!") And aren't there, if you stop and think about it, few things *less* manly than a pre-adolescent child?

(And as far as ladies not being capable of violence, I sleep with a Louisville Slugger next to my bed, which I would be more than happy to apply energetically to the kneecaps or other vital parts of anyone who paid me an unwanted visit.)

 

[get_atomized]

Carlisle. You know for a fact women can be sharp shooters or whatever. Brave, strong etc. I realize that also.
Most or a lot do not want to though. Good grief, we have the "Powder room."
Women want to do their nails and hair and wear pretty silky things.
Open the jar honey please is what most want to do.
Not all but...lol

Pick up a womens magazine or look on the Powder Room thread. We ain't talking about men stuff.

What is it about the existence, acknowledgement, and acceptance of women (or men) who veer far far outside traditional conceptualizations of femininity (or masculinity) that is so threatening or disturbing to traditional ideas about gender?

 

[Paisley]

I was just reading a few weeks ago how the definition of high status (which might be thought of as manly) has changed over the centuries. A thousand years ago, people revered mystics. Then knights were all the rage for a number of centuries. In the 19th century, you had to be sophisticated, and a great dancer to boot. Then it was great men of commerce, which for the most part, is where we are today. Now that they're being vilified (in some cases, rightly so), we'll be on to the next thing.

 

[Paisley]

(And as far as ladies not being capable of violence, I sleep with a Louisville Slugger next to my bed, which I would be more than happy to apply energetically to the kneecaps or other vital parts of anyone who paid me an unwanted visit.)

Those who know about such things say that the most dangerous animal is a female defending her young.

My brother used to be an SP (policeman) in the Air Force. Our mom doesn't think he could have shot anyone. But our sister--she was in the Hell's Angels. Every rotten thing you've ever heard about the Hell's Angels is probably true.

 

[reetpleat]

What about female heads of state???? Like Golda Meir or Margret Thatcher. Corporate CEOs Muriel "Mickey" Siebert or Mary Kay Ash. They can act on their emotions because they are women???

No, they probably are very good at finding certian solutions by accessing their feminine sides and usiing empathy, compassion, etc. But to be elected or appointed, and to do their job, they probably have to access a lot of their masculine side and do what needs to be done without thinking, debating, feeling etc so much.

Men and women can both do it, but it is a masculine trait, and most men tend to be better at it. Very useful in protecting your genes. Not always so useful in nurturing and raising your genes.

 

[reetpleat]

I may have to hide in a foxhole after this. lol
Once upon a time I believed in the tooth fairy (example) . While it is fun it is not reality now.
While if we had oodles of time and the world was a friendly fuzzy warm place I would not really care.
but...It is not.
Now we may see ourselves progressing to accept everyone however they are reality is a lot of people including our enemies do not and due to their ways probably will never.
We do not have the luxury of playing (especially after this year) when others want us dead.
Trying not to get political but in case you have not noticed lately on TV some want to obliterate us. Not exactly IMHO the time for MEN to get in touch with their feminine side.
Save it for another day.
I understand the need to be able to morph into whatever but if we do too much morphing none of our children will be around to figure it out.

FRANKLY, I prefer to see the world as a warm and fuzzy place and I do not think all that much of the idea that we have to base our argument on afew people who "want to get us"

Not to get too political either, but if women were in charge for the last two hundred years, maybe we would not have quite so many people out there wanting to get us. I don't think agression or brute strength has done much to keep us safe.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

What is it about the existence, acknowledgement, and acceptance of women (or men) who veer far far outside traditional conceptualizations of femininity (or masculinity) that is so threatening or disturbing to traditional ideas about gender?

:arated: That is one point I have been making throughout this thread. It seemingly scares the boogers out of people to see that their stereotypes be challenged and exploded.

Life is fluid and my roles have been ever changing. The most important thing that makes me a "man" is that I do my utmost to meet my responsibilities whether I am kissing a skinned knee or chopping down a tree.