What Do Men Think It Means To Be A Man?

[ruby sparks]

First, if we want meaningful data, we should be mindful of how the question is asked and what the definitions given are when they are asked. Overly wide or narrow definitions will swing the numbers in either direction.

'If' you are interested in that, I think some of the studies include methodology. More could be googled further. It was not apparent to me that there were any obvious flaws in the methods, of the sort you raise.

If we define it as only holding somebody at knife point and penetrating them, then the number will be tiny.

It does not appear to be that sort of scenario in the studies.

If we define it as smiling or saying hello (see the vid I posted earlier) ...

It does not appear to be that sort of scenario in the studies.

It isn't acceptable even if it is a miniscule number.

It does not appear to be that.

(my boldings)



How much of the material did you actually read through? Or are we just doing uninformed quibbles and off the cuff hypothetical ifs about tiny and miniscule and relatively harmless today?

 

[ronburgundy]

I would think that most men don't need to rethink their on the job behavior, because most men are well behaved at work.

So most men in an office... which means not all men in the office. Which means that that a minority of men's behavior is being tolerated for whatever reason.

I think the main problem a man has is his vision. He seems to think if he doesn't do anything wrong, nothing wrong happens. If he does do something marginal... it doesn't mean anything... she doesn't think it is a big deal. Neither of these statements are necessarily true.

Isn't #metoo about having a better awareness of harassment.

The respondents were never asked whether or not they would tolerate other men engaging in sexual harassment. It is not any more men's than women's responsibility to control their coworkers behavior, yet only men were surveyed, so clearly that was not meant to be implied by the question.
What they were asked is whether they view their own behavior differently since #metoo, which implies that that now view some of their own behaviors as harassment.

IOW, Bronzeage is correct. Only men who were already mistreating women at work and now realize it should answer "yes" to the question they were asked.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

IOW, Bronzeage is correct. Only men who were already mistreating women at work and now realize it should answer "yes" to the question they were asked.

No, not at all. It could also include men who never really considered the question in the first place. They could have never mistreated women at all simply because they were decent human beings but now have a greater awareness of the issue so they'd make a point of specifically not doing it if a situation ever happened to arise.

 

[ronburgundy]

IOW, Bronzeage is correct. Only men who were already mistreating women at work and now realize it should answer "yes" to the question they were asked.

No, not at all. It could also include men who never really considered the question in the first place. They could have never mistreated women at all simply because they were decent human beings but now have a greater awareness of the issue so they'd make a point of specifically not doing it if a situation ever happened to arise.

That would mean they now think more about their behaviors, not they they now think differently about the behaviors they have engaged in. The latter implies, they thought about those behaviors and concluded what they had thought wasn't harassment actually was. If someone you thought you knew kills someone, and you "now think differently about that person", it doesn't imply you give more thought to them now than before but that you've reached a different conclusion about them now than you had previously.
In the context of the overall survey, this is a far more likely interpretation of the question, and if the question could mean any one of these various and very different things, then it is a bad survey and the results don't mean anything.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

You can call it a nuanced version. I think it is pretty much pointless. Most decisions are made on incomplete and less than perfect data - it's called life.

Yes, well, in life, I don't make broad generalizations about total strangers with such odious overtones based on such incomplete data. Unlike so many people, I'm comfortable saying "I don't know." If you feel compelled to draw conclusions from incomplete data, have at it.

No, it is not a simple mathematical argument. It is a suggestion based on experience and observation. It is not a proof.

You appeal to numbers shorn of context. How you justify it doesn't change the fact that you're committing the same mistake you're accusing me of doing.

Yes, but that does not mean they were not sexually harassed. It just means someone ought not to be punished. For some reason, you seem unable to comprehend that nuanced distinction.

Actually, had you read my previous posts, you'd understand that your accusation here is vapid, and is likely an unnecessary personal attack and nothing more. I've had to investigate and discipline subordinates for these sorts of matters. I understand the need for nuance.

That said, I've been courteous to you, and prefer continuing to do so. I expect the same in return, but if I don't receive it, I have no problem making your change in the coin you tender.

You are drawing a straw man. I never said that well over half of men share that jerkiness. Moreover, men who do not step up and call out these jerkiness were included in my comments,

My apologies. It was Koyan who used the specific numbers, not you; sorry for the misattribution. That doesn't change my point that your logic (more than half of all women experience harassment, therefore there must be a significant number of make harassers) is flawed:

1) The only way to determine how many male harassers there are is to examine male behavior.

2) It is entirely possible and indeed does occasionally happen that women sexually harass each other. That number of course is very small compared to male-on female harassment, but it does happen.

 

[Jarhyn]

There's a parallel that may be drawn here, I think:

"Muslims should denounce Islamic terrorists and reject this behavior of a minority of their members because it is unacceptable"
"Men should denounce abusers and reject this behavior of a minority of their members because it is unacceptable"

 

[Tom Sawyer]

IOW, Bronzeage is correct. Only men who were already mistreating women at work and now realize it should answer "yes" to the question they were asked.

No, not at all. It could also include men who never really considered the question in the first place. They could have never mistreated women at all simply because they were decent human beings but now have a greater awareness of the issue so they'd make a point of specifically not doing it if a situation ever happened to arise.

That would mean they now think more about their behaviors, not they they now think differently about the behaviors they have engaged in. The latter implies, they thought about those behaviors and concluded what they had thought wasn't harassment actually was. If someone you thought you knew kills someone, and you "now think differently about that person", it doesn't imply you give more thought to them now than before but that you've reached a different conclusion about them now than you had previously.
In the context of the overall survey, this is a far more likely interpretation of the question, and if the question could mean any one of these various and very different things, then it is a bad survey and the results don't mean anything.

Well, it would depend on the exact wording of the question and how they'd interpret it. If someone asked me "Would you behave differently in light of the #metoo movement?", I'd answer yes. That's not because I've ever sexually harassed or abused anyone but because the answer would mean "Yes, I'd be less oblivious about potential situations of sexual harassment than I may have been in the past".

Now, I haven't encountered any such situations since the #metoo movement started to test that theory about myself out and I can't recall any situations before it where my being more woke now means I wish I'd intervened or acted differently (that's not to say they didn't happen and I was just kind of oblivious to what was going on), but that doesn't mean I'd alter the "yes" answer.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, well, in life, I don't make broad generalizations about total strangers with such odious overtones based on such incomplete data. Unlike so many people, I'm comfortable saying "I don't know." If you feel compelled to draw conclusions from incomplete data, have at it.

I feel compelled to acknowledge reality and to survive, so I draw conclusions from incomplete data all of the time - just like everyone else in the world.

You appeal to numbers shorn of context. How you justify it doesn't change the fact that you're committing the same mistake you're accusing me of doing.

Repeating your incorrect argument does not justify it.

Actually, had you read my previous posts, you'd understand that your accusation here is vapid, and is likely an unnecessary personal attack and nothing more.

No, it is not. For some reason, you keep bringing up the apology, etc... stuff which is irrelevant to the issue of who feels he or she has been harassed. It does have relevance to issues of action against or punishment. My comments (which you were addressing) did not mention action against or punishment. Given my view, what conclusion would you draw about someone persisting in interjecting what you consider to be irrelevant material?

My apologies. It was Koyan who used the specific numbers, not you; sorry for the misattribution. That doesn't change my point that your logic (more than half of all women experience harassment, therefore there must be a significant number of make harassers) is flawed

First, "significant" is undefined by you. One could argue that any number of harassers is significant given the effects of harassment. Second, I did not posit any number of harassers. The statement that started all of this was in post 51 of

One reason the metoo movement resonates with women is that almost every single one of them can tell you they have experienced some form of sexual harassment or assault. Which strongly suggest to the mentally aware that the problem goes way beyond a small portion of men.

I was unclear about the "problem", but I have since clarified it to mean men who sexually harass or assault women and men who do not stand up to such behaviors. And the term "way beyond a small portion of men" is also undefined, since no one has any real data on this. But I think once one uses my clarification and understands I made no claim about actual numbers, my statement is not outrageous or illogical.

Apparently, there are participants in this thread who cannot bear the thought that more than a small portion of men behave so poorly that they require these portions nailed down to 2 decimals from perfectly collected and analyzed data. I don't believe you are in that group.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There's a parallel that may be drawn here, I think:

"Muslims should denounce Islamic terrorists and reject this behavior of a minority of their members because it is unacceptable"
"Men should denounce abusers and reject this behavior of a minority of their members because it is unacceptable"

Yes. That is an excellent parallel, and where people generalize it to Muslims as a group or call terrorism "Muslim culture" they are rightly called out for it, and often by the same people who do the same to men.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

50% of women being victims says the number of men who harass must not be more than 50% and must be more than minuscule as 50% of women must have come into contact with them. You can't draw a narrower conclusion than that from the 50% figure.

It does not even establish that much. The number could be higher than 50% if you consider that each act of harassment could have done by more than one person, that each woman could be harassed more than once, and that women may do some of the harassing, all of which we know happen. And the number could be much much lower than 50% with only very few men doing the vast majority of the harassing.

It can't be very few because that would preclude 50% of women from coming in contact with them.

You're right on the upper bound, I goofed that part.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's a parallel that may be drawn here, I think:

"Muslims should denounce Islamic terrorists and reject this behavior of a minority of their members because it is unacceptable"
"Men should denounce abusers and reject this behavior of a minority of their members because it is unacceptable"

Cue heads exploding in 3, 2, 1...

 

[ruby sparks]

There's a parallel that may be drawn here, I think:

"Muslims should denounce Islamic terrorists and reject this behavior of a minority of their members because it is unacceptable"
"Men should denounce abusers and reject this behavior of a minority of their members because it is unacceptable"

Or "priests should denounce abusers and reject this behavior of a minority of their members because it is unacceptable".

Or "football fans should denounce racism and reject this behavior of a minority of their members because it is unacceptable"

To me, it would seem not unreasonable to ask the non-offending majority in many situations to reject and perhaps denounce the behaviour of the offending minority among them. I'm not suggesting it should be forced, but it could be encouraged, and it would do no harm and might help in many ways. Personally, I have no problem with it. I'm a man. I find the behaviour of a minority of men when it comes to sexual harassment and assault unacceptable. How hard is that to say?

 

[Angry Floof]

We don't seem to be getting any closer to answering the question of what men think it means to be a man.

However, we do know what *some* men think it means to be a man, and that is to be cruel to girls and women to impress other insecure little boys.

 

[ruby sparks]

We don't seem to be getting any closer to answering the question of what men think it means to be a man.

What did you think of the survey saying that 42% of American men self-identify as 'wholly masculine' compared to 28% of British men?

Obviously, what they mean by that (in either or both cases) is an important question vis-a-vis the thread title.

But I'm wondering if the USA is more 'macho' than here?

If you had asked me to suggest countries which I thought had any sort of significant macho male culture, I'd have said Latin America, or Southern/mediterranean Europe, North Africa, perhaps also the middle east, maybe Eastern Europe and Russia? I wouldn't automatically have thought of the USA.

However, we do know what *some* men think it means to be a man, and that is to be cruel to girls and women to impress other insecure little boys.

Did you really have to add that?

I'd like to think we already knew it. Just as we know that some girls can often be just as cruel as boys and that some women (albeit fewer than men) can be cruel, harass and/or assault (men and women).

Hey, at least we have some figures to set against men's behaviour (as opposed to numbers of reported victims). 4% self-reporting having sexually harassed in the workplace (compared to 67% in the navy) and 25% of male college students self-reporting having committed a sexual assault.

So we might say the average (eg non-military) workplace is a lot safer for women than college. Why? My guesses, as to why colleges may be less safe, having done some reading, might be:

1. Younger (more sexually active) demographic.
2. More social and informal, 'off duty' situations.
3. More alcohol.
4. Fewer 'rules and policies' governing the interactions.

Possibly others.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

There's a parallel that may be drawn here, I think:

"Muslims should denounce Islamic terrorists and reject this behavior of a minority of their members because it is unacceptable"
"Men should denounce abusers and reject this behavior of a minority of their members because it is unacceptable"

Cue heads exploding in 3, 2, 1...

What about any of that do you think explodes anybody's head? They're both absolutely accurate. Muslims should denounce Islamic terrorists and men should denounce abusers. These are both non-controversial statements.

 

[bilby]

I suspect that the difference between US and UK survey results is easier to understand if you assume that men asked whether they self-identify as 'wholly masculine' actually answer as if they were asked "Would you be devastated if there was the slightest chance that anyone might (mistakenly) think you could possibly be homosexual?".

The prevalence of religion and therefore of oppression of, and even violence towards, homosexual men, could then explain the difference in response very easily.

 

[Lion IRC]

We don't seem to be getting any closer to answering the question of what men think it means to be a man.

Didn't the link in the Op already answer the question?
Case closed.

Some interesting results

FiveThirtyEight and WNYC partnered with SurveyMonkey for a nationwide survey of 1,615 adults who identify as men.1 We asked respondents to reflect on their ideas of masculinity, workplace culture and intimacy, among other things. The results: A majority of men in the workplace say they haven’t rethought their on-the-job behavior in the wake of #MeToo; a little more than half of men feel it’s at least somewhat important that others see them as masculine; and nearly half of all men say they sometimes or often feel lonely or isolated.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-do-men-think-it-means-to-be-a-man/?ex_cid=538twitter

 

[Opoponax]

I don't shave my pubes. It's full on Stone Age style down there.

That's what it means to be a man.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

We don't seem to be getting any closer to answering the question of what men think it means to be a man.

I’d say it means a number of things:

Be honest and loyal
Be reliable and dependable
Take responsibility for your own actions and choices
Be able to open jars

So, it’s sort of like what it means to be a woman, except for the jar thing. Basically, my point is that women are about 75% of men, hence the pay gap.

 

[Angry Floof]

Didn't the link in the Op already answer the question?
Case closed.

Yeah. I was just leading in because I thought it was funny.

I like how you snipped off the rest of my comments. HOW RUDE.