What Do Men Think It Means To Be A Man?

[ruby sparks]

The question of the OP doesn't mean anything to me. I see the world as me; I respond to the world as me. I am male and surely observers might identify some of my behaviors as characteristically male. However, I don't process the world as a male; I process it as me.

I don't kill bugs because I am the male. I kill bugs because my spouse finds the task more daunting than I do. I carry heavy things because I can not because I am male. It may be true that I can carry heavier things because I am male, but that isn't why I do it.

I don't think of my life in terms of being male, though I am. I don't think about "what it means to be a man."

In many ways, that could be the perfect mentality. After all, we are all probably more similar, and similar in more ways, than we are different. And as you say, even when there are differences, it can be that the differences affect how we behave and not our sense of masculinity or femininity (although there being differences and our sense of them may be causally overlapping at the psychological level).

Some people though (and I have no reason to think this means you though it does apply to me, and most people), if they are somewhat oblivious to their gender, can run the risk of not being aware of the invisible ways it can confer advantages and/or disadvantages.

 

[ruby sparks]

There are some interesting and thought-provoking suggested examples of male privileges in this article:

160+ Examples of Male Privilege in All Areas of Life
https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/02/160-examples-of-male-privilege/

And, for balance, some examples of suggested female privileges in this one:

Ladies, check your privilege
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/ladies-check-your-privilege/article33797846/

I think that reading both is enlightening.

I would say though that just because I'm statistically likely to work longer hours (in paid employment), retire later, die sooner and with a greatly increased chance that this will be from suicide or workplace-related injury or by being attacked (usually by another man), this does not mean I am entitled to grab (without consent) as much pussy as possible while the going's good.




ETA: Ok so I started a new thread:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?16172-Male-and-female-privileges-acknowledgement-thread

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I think Loren's point is that many of the same people who constantly urge Muslims to denounce terrorism are men who will not denounce male assaulters.

Heads might explode if they grasp the extent of their double-standard.

That, and those on the left that call on males to denounce assaulters won't call on Muslims to denounce terrorism. There are plenty of people on both sides of this double standard.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

I think Loren's point is that many of the same people who constantly urge Muslims to denounce terrorism are men who will not denounce male assaulters.

Heads might explode if they grasp the extent of their double-standard.

That, and those on the left that call on males to denounce assaulters won't call on Muslims to denounce terrorism. There are plenty of people on both sides of this double standard.

The comparison would be worth its weight in money... if sexual harassment and assault weren't a bit more common than global terrorism!

 

[WAB]

Men are aggressive, 'tough' and callous.
Kindness and compassion are feminine traits.

Is this meant to be sarcastic?

I'm a totally non-aggressive male, certainly not tough, not callous. I'm not homosexual, though I've had occasional bi-curious fantasies, and have even debated with myself about possibly being TG (up to the point of asking to be called Jill on some boards I've frequented, including this one).

I am also kind and compassionate.

I think the simplistic distinctions between what men and women are supposed to be are wholly abortive, and only serve to screw a lot of people up - including myself.

Rather than being transgender, I'm probably just a man who feels he hasn't lived up to society's expectations of what it "means" to be a man (I'm happy with the frank & beans). It's caused me a lot of self-examination and self-recrimination, all needlessly.

To go further, the question the OP asks in its title presumes too much, IMO: it presumes there is or ought to be something that it definitively "means" to be a man.

Naturally, many men (and women) do feel that it is or ought to "mean" something, but I am arguing that that is not true. A person has the right to define themselves anyway they wish; but they have no right to impose that definition, or any other definition, on anyone else.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I think Loren's point is that many of the same people who constantly urge Muslims to denounce terrorism are men who will not denounce male assaulters.

That, and those on the left that call on males to denounce assaulters won't call on Muslims to denounce terrorism.

So, Loren, to get this straight, the full extent of your “point” was that you think people who constantly urge Muslims to denounce terrorism are men who will not denounce male assaulters AND that there are people (on the left) who call on males to denounce assaulters, but won’t call on Muslims to denounce terrorism?

So, as it relates to the topic of this thread, you think heads will explode because there are men who will not denounce male assaulters and that there are people (on the left) who will.

In regard to topics that have nothing to do with this thread, you think there are men who constantly urge Muslims to denounce terrorism and that there are people (on the left) who do not.

There are plenty of people on both sides of this double standard.

What double standard? I think what you THOUGHT Jarhyn said was that the same liberals who are calling on men to denounce assaulters won’t call on Muslims to denounce terrorism. Which is asinine, false and even if true would not be a double standard.

So, again, what heads are going to be exploding?

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm a totally non-aggressive male, certainly not tough, not callous. I'm not homosexual, though I've had occasional bi-curious fantasies, and have even debated with myself about possibly being TG (up to the point of asking to be called Jill on some boards I've frequented, including this one).

I am also kind and compassionate.

I think the simplistic distinctions between what men and women are supposed to be are wholly abortive, and only serve to screw a lot of people up - including myself.

Rather than being transgender, I'm probably just a man who feels he hasn't lived up to society's expectations of what it "means" to be a man (I'm happy with the frank & beans). It's caused me a lot of self-examination and self-recrimination, all needlessly.

To go further, the question the OP asks in its title presumes too much, IMO: it presumes there is or ought to be something that it definitively "means" to be a man.

Naturally, many men (and women) do feel that it is or ought to "mean" something, but I am arguing that that is not true. A person has the right to define themselves anyway they wish; but they have no right to impose that definition, or any other definition, on anyone else.

Well said.

I have always admired Grayson Perry and Eddie Izzard for the way in which they subvert gender stereotypes.

I am not sure if gender distinctions are wholly or necessarily unbenign, but then I would say that because I'm CIS gendered.

I do also admit to relying on them quite often (while appreciating that they are generalities) when trying to understand or explain stuff.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are plenty of people on both sides of this double standard.

What double standard? I think what you THOUGHT Jarhyn said was that the same liberals who are calling on men to denounce assaulters won’t call on Muslims to denounce terrorism. Which is asinine, false and even if true would not be a double standard.

So, again, what heads are going to be exploding?

Either men should denounce assaulters and Muslims should denounce terrorists, or men don't need to denounce assaulters and Muslims don't need to denounce terrorists. It should be consistent.

The right wants Muslims to denounce but doesn't say men need to. The left says men need to but doesn't say Muslims need to.

 

[Toni]

There are plenty of people on both sides of this double standard.

What double standard? I think what you THOUGHT Jarhyn said was that the same liberals who are calling on men to denounce assaulters won’t call on Muslims to denounce terrorism. Which is asinine, false and even if true would not be a double standard.

So, again, what heads are going to be exploding?

Either men should denounce assaulters and Muslims should denounce terrorists, or men don't need to denounce assaulters and Muslims don't need to denounce terrorists. It should be consistent.

The right wants Muslims to denounce but doesn't say men need to. The left says men need to but doesn't say Muslims need to.

Those are independent of each other. It’s not a tit for tat.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Either men should denounce assaulters and Muslims should denounce terrorists, or men don't need to denounce assaulters and Muslims don't need to denounce terrorists. It should be consistent.

The right wants Muslims to denounce but doesn't say men need to. The left says men need to but doesn't say Muslims need to.

Those are independent of each other. It’s not a tit for tat.

While the acts are independent the reasoning is not. Why should one be expected but not the other??

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Either men should denounce assaulters and Muslims should denounce terrorists, or men don't need to denounce assaulters and Muslims don't need to denounce terrorists. It should be consistent.

The right wants Muslims to denounce but doesn't say men need to. The left says men need to but doesn't say Muslims need to.

Those are independent of each other. It’s not a tit for tat.

While the acts are independent the reasoning is not. Why should one be expected but not the other??

Thy only difference in the reasoning is the percentage of offenders in each grouping. A higher percentage of men sexually assault women than there are muslims who commit terrorist acts.

I'm not sure if that should matter. The reasoning is otherwise identical.

 

[bilby]

While the acts are independent the reasoning is not. Why should one be expected but not the other??

Thy only difference in the reasoning is the percentage of offenders in each grouping. A higher percentage of men sexually assault women than there are muslims who commit terrorist acts.

I'm not sure if that should matter. The reasoning is otherwise identical.

No, it's not.

People generally don't choose to become men, nor do men have the option to stop being men if they decide that the group doesn't represent them. Being a man is not an idea, has no foundational doctrine or rules, and is involuntary and usually permanent. None of that applies to Islam (or any religion).

It's far less reasonable to demand that men apologise for (or actively condemn) the actions taken by other men in the name of masculinity, than it is to demand that the religious apologise for (or actively condemn) the actions taken by other members of their religion in the name of that religion.

There are similarities, sure. But the two circumstances are far from equivalent, and it's foolish to pretend that they are the same.

Hitler was a Nazi with brown hair. If someone else is a Nazi, it's reasonable to assume that he agrees with Hitler's actions and ideals, and if he doesn't, then he has only himself to blame if people assume that he does, unless he actively condemns Hitler, or more reasonably, resigns from his NSDAP membership. It's NOT reasonable to demand that people with brown hair condemn anti-semitic genocide, however, as they didn't choose to share that particular characteristic with Hitler.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

People generally don't choose to become men, nor do men have the option to stop being men if they decide that the group doesn't represent them.

Point taken, but that depends on where you stand on the trans issue.

 

[bilby]

People generally don't choose to become men, nor do men have the option to stop being men if they decide that the group doesn't represent them.

Point taken, but that depends on where you stand on the trans issue.

No, that trivial and irrelevant edge-case is more than adequately addressed by my use of the qualifier 'generally', whose sole purpose was to deflect that very predictable but stupid criticism.

I wish I could claim to be surprised that you chose that one non-issue to focus on, rather than consider and respond to my actual point. But I can't.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

People generally don't choose to become men, nor do men have the option to stop being men if they decide that the group doesn't represent them.

Point taken, but that depends on where you stand on the trans issue.

No, that trivial and irrelevant edge-case is more than adequately addressed by my use of the qualifier 'generally', whose sole purpose was to deflect that very predictable but stupid criticism.

I wish I could claim to be surprised that you chose that one non-issue to focus on, rather than consider and respond to my actual point. But I can't.

I did respond to your actual point. I said point taken. Its a good point. The people who argue that men should stand up to other men but don't say that muslims should stand up to other muslims are even more inconsistent than I had originally expressed.

 

[Toni]

No, that trivial and irrelevant edge-case is more than adequately addressed by my use of the qualifier 'generally', whose sole purpose was to deflect that very predictable but stupid criticism.

I wish I could claim to be surprised that you chose that one non-issue to focus on, rather than consider and respond to my actual point. But I can't.

I did respond to your actual point. I said point taken. Its a good point. The people who argue that men should stand up to other men but don't say that muslims should stand up to other muslims are even more inconsistent than I had originally expressed.

FFS: just admit you don’t feel up to the task of standing up to men who treat women badly without using a separate, unrelated issue as a red herring condition. Either do right or stop justifying your failure to do right because someone isn’t living up to whatever standard you have pulled out of your back pocket.

 

[bilby]

No, that trivial and irrelevant edge-case is more than adequately addressed by my use of the qualifier 'generally', whose sole purpose was to deflect that very predictable but stupid criticism.

I wish I could claim to be surprised that you chose that one non-issue to focus on, rather than consider and respond to my actual point. But I can't.

I did respond to your actual point. I said point taken. Its a good point. The people who argue that men should stand up to other men but don't say that muslims should stand up to other muslims are even more inconsistent than I had originally expressed.

There's no question of consistency; They are completely different questions.

 

[laughing dog]

No, that trivial and irrelevant edge-case is more than adequately addressed by my use of the qualifier 'generally', whose sole purpose was to deflect that very predictable but stupid criticism.

I wish I could claim to be surprised that you chose that one non-issue to focus on, rather than consider and respond to my actual point. But I can't.

I did respond to your actual point. I said point taken. Its a good point. The people who argue that men should stand up to other men but don't say that muslims should stand up to other muslims are even more inconsistent than I had originally expressed.

Unfortunately, your last sentence rebuts your second and third sentences. Clearly, you do not understand the point bilby made - that is not reasonable to demand that people who share a physical characteristic (like manhood) that is generally not the result of a choice to condemn other people sharing the same physical characteristic just because they share the same characteristic.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No, that trivial and irrelevant edge-case is more than adequately addressed by my use of the qualifier 'generally', whose sole purpose was to deflect that very predictable but stupid criticism.

I wish I could claim to be surprised that you chose that one non-issue to focus on, rather than consider and respond to my actual point. But I can't.

I did respond to your actual point. I said point taken. Its a good point. The people who argue that men should stand up to other men but don't say that muslims should stand up to other muslims are even more inconsistent than I had originally expressed.

Unfortunately, your last sentence rebuts your second and third sentences. Clearly, you do not understand the point bilby made - that is not reasonable to demand that people who share a physical characteristic (like manhood) that is generally not the result of a choice to condemn other people sharing the same physical characteristic just because they share the same characteristic.

???

I just wrote that.

It strengthens Loren's point and goes against posters like Toni and the Floor demanding men do so, and condemning them for not doing so.

Loren was noting that many would insist men do so but not that Muslims stand up to other Muslims. That's inconsistent, and even moreso since in the case of the Muslims they at least share an ideology, or at least the name of one, which is taken by choice.

 

[Toni]

Unfortunately, your last sentence rebuts your second and third sentences. Clearly, you do not understand the point bilby made - that is not reasonable to demand that people who share a physical characteristic (like manhood) that is generally not the result of a choice to condemn other people sharing the same physical characteristic just because they share the same characteristic.

???

I just wrote that.

It strengthens Loren's point and goes against posters like Toni and the Floor demanding men do so, and condemning them for not doing so.

Loren was noting that many would insist men do so but not that Muslims stand up to other Muslims. That's inconsistent, and even moreso since in the case of the Muslims they at least share an ideology, or at least the name of one, which is taken by choice.

I didn’t demand you or Loren do anything. You want to be a rape apologist: go ahead. Go ahead and create some artificial condition by refusing to condemn violence against women if people are not as a pre-condition demanding some other group condemn bad behavior/faulty ideology of some other group. Just don’t expect not to be called out on it. Especially if you pretend that violent behavior towards women isn’t a choice that transcends all racial, religious, cultural, socioeconomic groups isn’t a choice. A conscious choice. An invalid choice.