The Lost Art of Manliness

[Paisley]

Without getting political or whatnot, I'll just come out and say that there are virtues and honors for men and virtues and honor for women, and though there is certainly a gray area between them, they are for the most part different, no matter how much the modern world will tell us that we are all exactly the same. Emotionally, mentally, etc, we are built for different things. This doesn't necessarily mean one is built for a superior purpose, merely different, equal, complimentary purposes. Women may have strength but the strength that is considered feminine is the nurturing kind. Indeed some women may find themselves to be tomboyish or have masculine habits, or excel at sports or hobbies or trades of men but they are still women, and they represent an exception. the same apples to men. Exceptions don't disprove the rule. The whole concept of the two sexes as such is as old as time itself and is reflected in most histories and cultures, so as to the whole women's lib movement, i quote GK Chesterton and say on this and many other issues, Don't tear down fences till you fully understand why they were put up.

My objection isn't to the fact that men and women are different. It's to the idea that women are all about alike, in that except for a few oddballs, we all just want to get married, have babies, and have some feminine interests, and the desire to do something outside of those things, like having a career or playing a sport, is there only because those women's libbers told us we should. Having a family and feminine interests are great, but even for women who love those things, there's more to life.

 

[Fletch]

My objection isn't to the fact that men and women are different. It's to the idea that women are all about alike, in that except for a few oddballs, we all just want to get married, have babies, and have some feminine interests, and the desire to do something outside of those things, like having a career or playing a sport, is there only because those women's libbers told us we should.

"Or," as Tomasso said in a somewhat different context, "she'll be a lesbian." This kind of comment gets a pass these days, because GLBT thinking is so identity-driven that no one else gets to answer back, but from a purely human POV, it's just another stereotype to tie people down.

Having a family and feminine interests are great, but even for women who love those things, there's more to life.

True. But women still have great difficulty finding a balance between those worlds - just as men do. (One reason traditionalists say such a balance is either unrealistic or actually harmful to society.)

 

[jamespowers]

Ah yes. I haven't seen him in an age. 'Ow is Old Monogamous these days, anyway?

He is pretty hared to find. Once in a while you see him.

 

[Paisley]

"Or," as Tomasso said in a somewhat different context, "she'll be a lesbian." This kind of comment gets a pass these days, because GLBT thinking is so identity-driven that no one else gets to answer back, but from a purely human POV, it's just another stereotype to tie people down.

How did we get on the subject of lesbianism?

 

[reetpleat]

Who said men have to listen? It's a choice. So if I may say it back to you, why not shut up and do something, like respectfully change the subject next time you are "subjected" to a woman talking about feelings instead of whining about it? I don't mean that in a hostile way, just using your own terminology.

Don't know about you, but many women want tyheir guys to listen, and if a guy changes the subject, they gt very upset. And with good reason. When you want someone to listen to you, you can get pretty upset if they don't. I just think women should expect it a little less, as most guys are not that good at it or interested in it. but I do think guys shold do it more. My point though, is that media etc stresses how men should change in that way, but don't seem to do the same for encouraging women to be quiet or take action once in a while. Much reverence is paid to women's ability to talk and feel, but not enough to men's ability to problem solve na shut up and dget things done.

 

[reetpleat]

We're talking about meeting one's responsibilities being a sign of...let's say adulthood, nongendered.

Could it be that manliness - to some anyway - lives in approaching responsibility as an abstract duty? Something you do "just because," rather than to help or to fill a need?

Think of the fact that it is historically a man's obligation to serve militarily, which includes acting as a unit, following orders without question, as a core value. Think also of traditional sports as a military substitute, with similar, but less strict, authority and unit values.

This is as good an example as I can find of learning to put one's "emotions" aside - and "emotions" might mean anything from whining to pants-wetting terror to (more sinister yet) the need to determine what is right and worthy by your own codes.

Think finally of responsibility as work, and work as a good in itself. There you pretty much have the Protestant Work Ethic, which traditionally is all mixed up with masculinity. If you're philosophy-minded, think Kant, or deontology.

Wow, truly insightful observation.

 

[Maguire]

My objection isn't to the fact that men and women are different. It's to the idea that women are all about alike, in that except for a few oddballs, we all just want to get married, have babies, and have some feminine interests, and the desire to do something outside of those things, like having a career or playing a sport, is there only because those women's libbers told us we should. Having a family and feminine interests are great, but even for women who love those things, there's more to life.

of course! Men may be brave or whatnot but i don't know any men who dream of spending their entire lives charging up and down a battlefield or fighting duels. The important thing is to know where one stands and not lose sight of natural purpose. How many women will put a "career" before their family life and how many men would go and let their womanizing break their family and desert the family they already have?

 

[Marc Chevalier]

How did we get on the subject of lesbianism?

It started here: http://www.thefedoralounge.com/showpost.php?p=910779&postcount=188

.

 

[Paisley]

How many women will put a "career" before their family life and how many men would go and let their womanizing break their family and desert the family they already have?

Quite a few. Much depends on what an individual can and can't do, and what they're suited for. A womanizer, for example, would probably be better off as a bachelor.

 

[Paisley]

It started here: http://www.thefedoralounge.com/showpost.php?p=910779&postcount=188

.

I wasn't sure how the subject came up then, either. Maybe it's a reference to a joke I haven't heard. [huh]

 

[Geesie]

I wasn't sure how the subject came up then, either. Maybe it's a reference to a joke I haven't heard. [huh]

Just stereotypes I guess.

 

[Paisley]

Ah--now I see.

 

[reetpleat]

Quite a few. Much depends on what an individual can and can't do, and what they're suited for. A womanizer, for example, would probably be better off as a bachelor.

Or in an open or poly relationship(s)

the insistance on monegamy can be seen as the biggest factor in unfaithfulness.

Of course, that may be like saying marriage is the leading cause of divorce.

 

[get_atomized]

We're talking about meeting one's responsibilities being a sign of...let's say adulthood, nongendered.

Could it be that manliness - to some anyway - lives in approaching responsibility as an abstract duty? Something you do "just because," rather than to help or to fill a need?

Think of the fact that it is historically a man's obligation to serve militarily, which includes acting as a unit, following orders without question, as a core value. Think also of traditional sports as a military substitute, with similar, but less strict, authority and unit values.

This is as good an example as I can find of learning to put one's "emotions" aside - and "emotions" might mean anything from whining to pants-wetting terror to (more sinister yet) the need to determine what is right and worthy by your own codes.

Think finally of responsibility as work, and work as a good in itself. There you pretty much have the Protestant Work Ethic, which traditionally is all mixed up with masculinity. If you're philosophy-minded, think Kant, or deontology.

Hm, linking masculine responsibilities with work - that's interesting. Even if we are defining feminine responsibilities traditionally, which would locate us in the private sphere, the obligations and duties of adult women are WORK too.

Also, I would be a little surprised to learn that most men understood their masculinity and masculine responsibilities in the abstract sense you describe... I hear men articulate their duties to family and state by referring to individual action in larger scale core and authority unit values (if I may use your terms?) just as much as I hear them relate that masculine role to more personal experiences, private relationships in families and communities and work environment.

It sounds almost like masculinity is being articulated in terms of citizenship, if you can make sense of what I mean by that.

Edited to say that in retrospect, I think I mention citizenship because you refer to adulthood, and adult males' historical roles as soldiers and athletes (and you are adept in your linking the two!). This I link to historical notions of citizenship, which are not only bound up in ideas of what it means to be a good member of society (military participation and keeping one's body strong and athletic made good ancient Greek citizens, for example) but also of course most undeniably to maleness in itself!

 

[get_atomized]

Also, I noticed a few other book recommendations on the topic of masculinity/manliness in this thread and (if I may be so bold!) a few titles have come to mind. I don't think either of these books are terribly radical, although they are written from a feminist perspective, neither author devalues traditional gender roles. Rather, I think both of these books make intelligent commentary on the degradation of men and women in contemporary society and they both challenge 21st century constructions of masculinity and femininity, much like I have seen done in the analyses of Fedora Lounge members.

Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity, Robert Jensen.

"In our culture, porn makes the man. So argues Robert Jensen in Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity. Jensen's treatise begins with a simple demand: "Be a man." It ends with a defiant response: "I chose to struggle to be a human being." The journey from masculinity to humanity is found in the candid and intelligent exploration of porn's devastating role in defining masculinity.

Getting Off seamlessly blends personal anecdotes from Jensen's years as a feminist anti-pornography activist with scholarly research. In his trademark conversational style, he shows how mainstream pornography reinforces social definitions of manhood and influences men's attitudes about women and how to treat them.

Pornography is a thriving multi-billion-dollar industry; it drives the direction of emerging media technology. Pornography also makes for complicated politics. These days, anti-porn arguments are assumed to be "anti-sex" and thus a critical debate is silenced. This book breaks that silence. Alarming and thought-provoking, Getting Off asks tough, but crucial, questions about pornography, sex, manhood, and the way toward genuine social justice."

(i'm actually a pro-porn feminist, but I see what Jensen is getting at)

Working Construction: Why White Working-class Men Put Themselves—and the Labor Movement—in Harm's Way, Kris Paap.

"Kris Paap worked for nearly three years as a carpenter’s apprentice on a variety of job sites, closely observing her colleagues’ habits, expressions, and attitudes. As a woman in an overwhelmingly male—and stereotypically "macho"—profession, Paap uses her experiences to reveal the ways that gender, class, and race interact in the construction industry. She shows how the stereotypes of construction workers and their overt displays of sexism, racism, physical strength, and homophobia are not "just how they are," but rather culturally and structurally mandated enactments of what it means to be a man—and a worker—in America.

The significance of these worker performances is particularly clear in relation to occupational safety: when the pressures for demonstrating physical masculinity are combined with a lack of protection from firing, workers are forced to ignore safety procedures in order to prove—whether male or female—that they are "man enough" to do the job. Thus these mandated performances have real, and sometimes deadly, consequences for individuals, the entire working class, and the strength of the union movement.

Paap concludes that machismo separates the white male construction workers from their natural political allies, increases their risks on the job, plays to management’s interests, lowers their overall social status, and undercuts the effectiveness of their union."

Those descriptions are from amazon.com.

PS, if the f-word (FEMINIST!) turns you off, or the book descriptions don't sound like your cup of tea, I think many Fedora Loungers would be pleasantly surprised by the methods and arguments employed in these books. I found them to be useful critiques of modern society, anyway

 

[Foofoogal]

get_atomized

your post is quite thought provoking. Makes me extra glad I am a woman at least.

I would love to see a study on risk taking and the sexes.

 

[Geesie]

get_atomized

your post is quite thought provoking. Makes me extra glad I am a woman at least.

I would love to see a study on risk taking and the sexes.

Just ask an insurance salesman.

 

[Edward]

Chuck Norris strives for balance.
He's got a gun in each hand.

Question: who is Chuck Norris?? I've seen im mentioned a lot recently on various online forums (always from US posters) as a byword for a certain type of "manliness", but I must confess I have never to my knowledge heard of the fellow, and I cannot place him in any context (other than that it is obvious that he is likely to be the sort of "man" with whom i would rather not have any dealings. lol ).

While Rollins entertains the troops, which is cool, he has never been pro war or pro military. Quite the opposite. But he seems to be quite pro troops in touring to entertain, but to also, in his words, give them alternative ppoints of view because they can get pretty disconnected out there. He has also been very supportive of veterens, especially those with problems from the war. But yyou likely, already knew that.

Personally, I would not at all see entertaining the troops as being manly or unmanly. it is more of a political choice.

But, to be against the war, and then be able to care about the soldiers and back that up by doing something about it, i consider pretty manly indeed.

I was not previously aware rollins had done that. I agree that it is indeed a political chocie - especially as it is typically one that is assumed to be an indication of support for the military campaign as opposed to the individuals ordred to go and fight therein. That Rollins has dared to defy this comfortable assumption by supporting the individual troops even while he maintains an opposition to the particular conflict in which they are engaged is a brave move (likely as it is to lead him to be criticised by both camps), and it certainly does raise him in my estimation that he is prepared to weather any such criticism to do what he believes is right.

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???

Many women I know believe strongly that Thatcher set back the 'women's movement' by at least twenty years. Far from bringing a woman's influence to politics, she sought every means of masculinising herself - it is especially obvious if you see old footage of her from her early days in the public eye and compare how she changed as she rose to the post of PM - the shoulders become squarer, the whole dress sense becomes more about emphasising the shoulders etc - more 'manly' attributes, traditionally - and her voice dropped by what seemed to be almost an octave. This was the result of many, many hours with a vocal coach. There are very many women of my acquaintance who believe that in her very public rejection of an apparently more feminine persona, Thatcher rather confirmed politics as a 'boy's game' rather than advanced the cause of women therein. It is certainly telling that even today women are very underrepresented in Westminster (no more so, at least the last time I checked, than in Thatcher's own party, ironically enough).

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.

Who was the lady who said:

"A woman must be twice as competent as a man in order to be thought half as good. Fortunately, that is not hard."

lol

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.

As far back as I can remember, my mother, who worked for very many years as a teacher, retiring only a ouple of years ago, always said that when they went on school trips away, it was always the boys who arrived loaded down with more haircare products etc than the girls, and who took far longer in the bathroom in the morning. lol

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

Absolutely. And one thing I will say is that while I have only in my life very rarely seen two women involved in a physical fight, as compared with the relative frequency of such behaviour among men, without exception a fight between women is infinitely more vicious and intent on causing damage to the other. Maybe that's the 'mama bear' instinct, acting of course outside of its natural purpose?

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.

And, to be fair, most of the good things too. Yeah, I've known (and known of) a few Angels in my time. Many of them can be wonderful people, but only an idiot would cross them all the same....

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.

I quite agree....

I am also reminded of Irsih stand up, Andrew Maxwell, when he said:

"I think we should have a matriarchal society. Really, I do. Men have made such a mess of the world....

[cue great cheers from the women in the audience]

...let's give it to the women. Here you go girls, you can clean it up. That's your job."

lol

If we exclude qualifiers for manliness that can't be applied to women, what we're left with is father and Navy Seal (more or less).

Well, as someone definately opposed to becoming either, that's me out. Guess it's time to hand in my mancard, if that's the case! lol

How did we get on the subject of lesbianism?

I believe it was a humourous reference to a tired old stereotype, to whit that a young lady raised to not feel dependent on a man is "in danger" of turning out to be "one of those".

 

[Foofoogal]

Just ask an insurance salesman.

lol true. our son made our car insurance go up 30% for 3 years the day he started driving.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

Question: who is Chuck Norris?? I've seen im mentioned a lot recently on various online forums (always from US posters) as a byword for a certain type of "manliness", but I must confess I have never to my knowledge heard of the fellow, and I cannot place him in any context (other than that it is obvious that he is likely to be the sort of "man" with whom i would rather not have any dealings. lol ).






Many women I know believe strongly that Thatcher set back the 'women's movement' by at least twenty years. Far from bringing a woman's influence to politics, she sought every means of masculinising herself - it is especially obvious if you see old footage of her from her early days in the public eye and compare how she changed as she rose to the post of PM - the shoulders become squarer, the whole dress sense becomes more about emphasising the shoulders etc - more 'manly' attributes, traditionally - and her voice dropped by what seemed to be almost an octave. This was the result of many, many hours with a vocal coach. There are very many women of my acquaintance who believe that in her very public rejection of an apparently more feminine persona, Thatcher rather confirmed politics as a 'boy's game' rather than advanced the cause of women therein. It is certainly telling that even today women are very underrepresented in Westminster (no more so, at least the last time I checked, than in Thatcher's own party, ironically enough).

Your perspective regarding Thatcher may be accurate, but, it does not speak to my premise.