What Do Men Think It Means To Be A Man?

[Jolly_Penguin]

I'm not sure what a "DK fuckhead" is, but it's interesting to me that emasculation would be used as a tool in this discussion. Using stereotypes would appear counterproductive to meaningful discussion, it seems to me.

Dark Knight. He's talking about Batman. He's sick of vigilantes in spandex and finds them too girly. That must be it.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I'm not sure what a "DK fuckhead" is, but it's interesting to me that emasculation would be used as a tool in this discussion. Using stereotypes would appear counterproductive to meaningful discussion, it seems to me.

Does it? Does that seem counterproductive to you? You should try smiling.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure what a "DK fuckhead" is, but it's interesting to me that emasculation would be used as a tool in this discussion. Using stereotypes would appear counterproductive to meaningful discussion, it seems to me.

Dark Knight. He's talking about Batman. He's sick of vigilantes in spandex and finds them too girly. That must be it.

It must be.

 

[ruby sparks]

Yes. I believe that is, in fact, the explanation.

But my point, which was aimed at LD, was that the relative differences between two things which may seem separate can be compared in the same discussion.

Kind of like people may be willing to discuss the topic of a thread and be uninterested in participating in straw men, red herrings, non sequiturs or just turns in the conversation that don't interest them?

No. Sort of the opposite of that, mostly, by which I mean I think there are ways in which the comparisons/contrasts made here were valid, useful and interesting, and not straw men, red herrings or non sequiturs.

 

[ruby sparks]

Well, ironically, one thing is clear; we know what does NOT make a man thanks to certain DK fuckheads itt.

I'm not sure what a "DK fuckhead" is, but it's interesting to me that emasculation would be used as a tool in this discussion. Using stereotypes would appear counterproductive to meaningful discussion, it seems to me.

I'm so behind the curve that not only do I not get what DK means (even after googling) but I didn't initially know what itt was either! lol

 

[ruby sparks]

I can pretty much discount prevalence and sympathy in that both are differences in extent, not quality; this may reasonably justify a difference in the extent of the output of the function with regards to responsibility, but not in quality.

I think that if you switch from a grouping that is considered oppressed to one that is considered oppressing (ie, women to men, black to white, western to muslim) it often does change the quality, by going from a positive to a negative sentiment. If a black man is kicked when he's down, by a white man, that's seen as a horrible racist act. If a white man is kicked when he is down, by a black man, that is seen as fighting back against the man. If we actually consider all four men as individuals, rather than as members of groups, this difference dissipates.

Personally, I think that the races don't matter here, but rather the context of the act. If a man kicks a woman, I want to know WHY before proclaiming ethical judgement, same as if a woman kicks a man. I don't accept that group identity EVER is more important than context. (Edit: unless the group identity IS context through some tortured attempt to form the context into group identities, and even then they would be equally important, because they would then be the same thing)

Well, you're possibly aware of the video-recorded social experiments (I can find at least 3, see below*) where two actors, one male and one female, argue in public, with one shouting at, harassing and even hitting the other. When it's the male actor being the aggressor, people intervene to criticise the man, express concern for the female victim and offer to report the incident, but when the female actor does exactly the same thing (they switch roles during the experiment) virtually no one intervenes, and in one video, a woman passing by when the female actor is being the aggressor makes a sort of fist pump action and later explains that her silent reaction was 'you go girl!', and in another video people nearby smile and laugh on seeing the woman abusing the man.

Imo, you can't justify those difference in responses ethically, because there were no differences in the behaviour, but you can understand them nonetheless. People are using their internal estimates of probability partly based on actual differences in prevalence and severity (of male abuse) and in some cases no doubt their personal experiences. Those are partly the context, in other words, albeit the wider one, not the individual one. And yes, in these cases, we could say that identity politics or group analysis is not helpful.

And to go back to your point about prevalence and sympathy being differences in extent, I'm not sure we can discount them because of that, because surely when we talk of the differences (the potential double standards) we are talking about differences in extent, in the wider sense. For example it's not that men are always expected to denounce sexual abuse by males or that [insert alternative group] aren't ever asked to denounce [insert appropriate undesirable behaviour] but that the degree of expectation is greater or more widespread in the former.

Instead of offering a comparison to muslims and terrorism, could we offer the closer-to-the-topic example that women are asked much less often to denounce sexual abuse by females? I think we can see there how both (a) prevalence and (b) underdog sympathies might be validly operating. I'm thinking that the 'higher purpose' factor might even also be involved, given that women's fight for gender equality could and in fact probably would in some cases be cited as a higher purpose, albeit in a way which means it might essentially be a version of (b) in this case.

So, whilst in principle or in an ideal world, men would not be asked to denounce sexual abuse by males to a greater extent than women would be asked to denounce sexual abuse by females, there are ways in which the former is arguably more justified in the real world. Iow, to analogise, we can understand why there are more requests for men to denounce sexual abuse by men in the same way that we can understand why there is more need for women's abuse shelters than men's abuse shelters. So while we can see that both (denouncements should be expected), we can also see why the expectations are greater in extent in one case rather than the other. To say otherwise would be to risk equating things which are not equal and to thus apply the wrong emphasis. And while group analysis or identity politics (as it is sometimes disparagingly referred to) can at times be problematical, it is also often useful, indeed necessary, to explain general trends (and aim for general solutions).

Sadly, one downside is that for some or many men, what it means to be a man is sometimes to be seen as part of a group that deserves more suspicion and less sympathy. And not just in the scenarios illustrated here. I can readily think of a few others.








*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3PgH86OyEM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/5d33c36d-cd41-4351-97ed-4516962d5c44

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks

 

[ruby sparks]

I realise that when asking the OP question the thread starter may (or may not) have had in mind to explore male identity (a) in terms of what men think it means to be a 'good' man and not necessarily (b) 'what it is like to be a man' in both positive or negative terms, and I accept that I've been doing (b) at this point in time. I can see how that may be seen as a slight segue.

In terms of (a) I would echo what several other male posters have said, including about positive role models and so on.

And someone, I believe, mentioned, in this thread I think, that MRAs are not necessarily the place to go for a balanced response to the OP question, and while I too have reservations about many MRAs, here's one I feel I can support, and which provides (imo) helpful answers to the OP question:

The Good Men Project.
https://goodmenproject.com/category/sex-relationships/

Lots of positive stuff in there, imo, with less of the anti-women/anti-feminist aspects. More proaction that reaction in other words.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Does it? Does that seem counterproductive to you? You should try smiling.

You presume an awful lot. For all you know I'm smiling when I read your posts.

Your attempts at needling people are amusing, but not useful.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Does it? Does that seem counterproductive to you? You should try smiling.

You presume an awful lot. For all you know I'm smiling when I read your posts.

You missed it.

Your attempts at needling people are amusing, but not useful.

Like hijacking a thread. But now you must tell us what is your operating principle for what is or is not “useful” and whatabout things that can be “useful” as opposed to things that ought to be “useful.” And do you speak for all people when you condemn something as “amusing” not somehow being “useful”? To be amused is to feel satisfied—like one is in on the joke (in spite of not actually being in on the joke)—and this in turn can be found “useful” by some, so your blanket condemnation of the use of amusement is not appropriate to the topic of what it means to be a Muslim, so tell us, why won’t you condemn humor among terrorists? That’s despicable that you find terrorism amusing.

Oh, I’m sorry. Was that not the topic of this thread? Because if you find one thing amusing, you must find ALL things amusing to be logically consistent...so...why are you laughing at the victims of terrorists?

 

[Toni]

Yes. I believe that is, in fact, the explanation.

But my point, which was aimed at LD, was that the relative differences between two things which may seem separate can be compared in the same discussion.

Kind of like people may be willing to discuss the topic of a thread and be uninterested in participating in straw men, red herrings, non sequiturs or just turns in the conversation that don't interest them?

No. Sort of the opposite of that, mostly, by which I mean I think there are ways in which the comparisons/contrasts made here were valid, useful and interesting, and not straw men, red herrings or non sequiturs.

And so because that is the way you see things, everyone else must be willing to discuss whatever?

 

[Jarhyn]

No. Sort of the opposite of that, mostly, by which I mean I think there are ways in which the comparisons/contrasts made here were valid, useful and interesting, and not straw men, red herrings or non sequiturs.

And so because that is the way you see things, everyone else must be willing to discuss whatever?

More, this is what WE are discussing, as a majority here. You are trying to wag the dog, and are using cries of "straw man", "red hereing" and "non-sequitur" to accomplish that... while engaging in straw-manning, non-sequitur, and special pleading.

If you want my respect you will answer my questions.
If you want to participate in a discussion, participate in the discussion that is happening.
If you want to make arguments, support the corollaries or show why you do not believe there are such corollaries.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

No. Sort of the opposite of that, mostly, by which I mean I think there are ways in which the comparisons/contrasts made here were valid, useful and interesting, and not straw men, red herrings or non sequiturs.

And so because that is the way you see things, everyone else must be willing to discuss whatever?

More, this is what WE are discussing, as a majority here.

It’s not a quorum. It’s a thread with a particular topic. You either stay on topic—and talk about the topic—or you don’t and get rightfully bashed for derailing the thread.

If you want my respect you will answer my questions.

Fuck you and off. You will stop posting off topic drivel.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, you're possibly aware of the video-recorded social experiments (I can find at least 3, see below*) where two actors, one male and one female, argue in public, with one shouting at, harassing and even hitting the other. When it's the male actor being the aggressor, people intervene to criticise the man, express concern for the female victim and offer to report the incident, but when the female actor does exactly the same thing (they switch roles during the experiment) virtually no one intervenes, and in one video, a woman passing by when the female actor is being the aggressor makes a sort of fist pump action and later explains that her silent reaction was 'you go girl!', and in another video people nearby smile and laugh on seeing the woman abusing the man.

I think that this speaks to one of the key differences in "What it means to be a man" as opposed to "What it means to be a woman".

Rightly or wrongly, the identity of a man is tied in with the notions of self-reliance and being able to handle oneself, far more than that's tied in with the identity of a woman. If a woman is seen physically abusing a man, the default assumption is that he is choosing to allow this since he could actually stop the abuse at any time and he's either just being a wuss or just standing there letting the woman vent because sometimes bitches be crazy and you need to deal with it. There's not a sense that he's actually in any kind of danger, so it's not some kind of serious situation.

There's a different perception involved in seeing a woman being victimized by a man and a man "allowing" a woman to victimize him. When the argument is given that he's not actually just allowing it and he's actually a victim here, the responses tend to fall along the lines of "So, you're saying he's not really a man?", because a man would be able to handle himself.

 

[laughing dog]

No. Sort of the opposite of that, mostly, by which I mean I think there are ways in which the comparisons/contrasts made here were valid, useful and interesting, and not straw men, red herrings or non sequiturs.

And so because that is the way you see things, everyone else must be willing to discuss whatever?

More, this is what WE are discussing, as a majority here

Technically, that is not true, if you count the number of participants at the time the straw man discussion (which was prompted by an unsubstantiated claim of fact about a poster). While any subset of posters is free to engage in whatever tangential derail or stupid shit they wise, it is unreasonable to demand that anyone participate in that derail.

I will note that your statement does appear to yet another example of mansplaining.

 

[ruby sparks]

No. Sort of the opposite of that, mostly, by which I mean I think there are ways in which the comparisons/contrasts made here were valid, useful and interesting, and not straw men, red herrings or non sequiturs.

And so because that is the way you see things, everyone else must be willing to discuss whatever?

Please don't put words in my mouth.

That is not what I said or think. I said I think there are ways in which the comparisons/contrasts made here were valid, useful and interesting, and not straw men, red herrings or non sequiturs, and I did not say anything about you not answering or discussing.

But since you raised it, yes, I would have liked your answer to my question, but I stopped asking quite a while back and moved on. In case you hadn't noticed.

I'm still waiting to hear from Loren though.

 

[ruby sparks]

Well, you're possibly aware of the video-recorded social experiments (I can find at least 3, see below*) where two actors, one male and one female, argue in public, with one shouting at, harassing and even hitting the other. When it's the male actor being the aggressor, people intervene to criticise the man, express concern for the female victim and offer to report the incident, but when the female actor does exactly the same thing (they switch roles during the experiment) virtually no one intervenes, and in one video, a woman passing by when the female actor is being the aggressor makes a sort of fist pump action and later explains that her silent reaction was 'you go girl!', and in another video people nearby smile and laugh on seeing the woman abusing the man.

I think that this speaks to one of the key differences in "What it means to be a man" as opposed to "What it means to be a woman".

Rightly or wrongly, the identity of a man is tied in with the notions of self-reliance and being able to handle oneself, far more than that's tied in with the identity of a woman. If a woman is seen physically abusing a man, the default assumption is that he is choosing to allow this since he could actually stop the abuse at any time and he's either just being a wuss or just standing there letting the woman vent because sometimes bitches be crazy and you need to deal with it. There's not a sense that he's actually in any kind of danger, so it's not some kind of serious situation.

There's a different perception involved in seeing a woman being victimized by a man and a man "allowing" a woman to victimize him. When the argument is given that he's not actually just allowing it and he's actually a victim here, the responses tend to fall along the lines of "So, you're saying he's not really a man?", because a man would be able to handle himself.

I think that's true.

And if so, interesting to note that (or wonder if) the responses of both women and men are similar in that regard.

There is evidence to suggest that traditionally masculine traits in men are promoted and favoured as much by women as by men.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think that's true.

And if so, interesting to note that (or wonder if) the responses of both women and men are similar in that regard.

There is evidence to suggest that traditionally masculine traits in men are promoted and favoured as much by women as by men.

I can't see there being much of a difference. The social constructs around masculinity are engrained in all of us. There may be a bit of a difference of women thinking "Well, I wonder what the asshole did to deserve that?' while men would think more along the lines of "Ha! He's letting himself get slapped by a woman in public. What a tool", but there wouldn't be too many reactions along the lines of "Oh my god, there's a domestic assault happening in front of me! I should call the police and try to protect the victim from this aggressor!".

 

[ruby sparks]

I think that's true.

And if so, interesting to note that (or wonder if) the responses of both women and men are similar in that regard.

There is evidence to suggest that traditionally masculine traits in men are promoted and favoured as much by women as by men.

I can't see there being much of a difference. The social constructs around masculinity are engrained in all of us. There may be a bit of a difference of women thinking "Well, I wonder what the asshole did to deserve that?' while men would think more along the lines of "Ha! He's letting himself get slapped by a woman in public. What a tool", but there wouldn't be too many reactions along the lines of "Oh my god, there's a domestic assault happening in front of me! I should call the police and try to protect the victim from this aggressor!".

Yes.

Caveat: without suggesting that you think they are only social constructs, I myself would not say they were only social constructs. I would opt for guessing that they are a mixture of nature and nurture.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I think that's true.

And if so, interesting to note that (or wonder if) the responses of both women and men are similar in that regard.

There is evidence to suggest that traditionally masculine traits in men are promoted and favoured as much by women as by men.

I can't see there being much of a difference. The social constructs around masculinity are engrained in all of us. There may be a bit of a difference of women thinking "Well, I wonder what the asshole did to deserve that?' while men would think more along the lines of "Ha! He's letting himself get slapped by a woman in public. What a tool",

I think that's more the response of a boy as opposed to a man. A very immature boy at that, which, btw, is not, unfortunately, restricted by age.

but there wouldn't be too many reactions along the lines of "Oh my god, there's a domestic assault happening in front of me! I should call the police and try to protect the victim from this aggressor!".

While I agree that there may be some element of white knightism involved in that scenario (i.e., the man not calling the police because of a perhaps misperception that the one being abused is not in any significant danger), I would also argue that our threshold for stepping in when others abuse is far too high just in general.

But then, that would be an excellent quality in defining a man as one who would step in when others are abusing someone, including if the scenario were a woman abusing a man. But of course that has to be an in the moment judgment call.

Certainly a man should intervene and/or offer assistance to anyone being physically overwhelmed (i.e., unable to defend themselves in whatever the situation may be), regardless of gender, but the threshold should arguably be that of severity and not merely that an altercation is occurring.

Though that raises issues of whether or not any such intervention must be requested. I prefer to fight my own battles, even if I may look like I'm losing them in any given moment. There's a great scene in Deadwood where one of the characters is about to fight another character (to the death, presumably) and his friend says he'll jump in and save him if it looks like things are going south and he says, "Going south ain't the end of it." Or words to that effect. Then in the fight, things are indeed looking very bad for the "hero" when he suddenly gets the upper hand and wins (in a very gruesome way).

 

[ruby sparks]

Certainly a man should intervene and/or offer assistance to anyone being physically overwhelmed ....

But what if the man who could intervene is a WWW (Weedy Wimpy Wuss)?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes.

Caveat: I would not say they were entirely social constructs. I would opt for guessing that they are a mixture of nature and nurture.

All social constructs are a mixture of nature vs nurture, but that doesn't mean we can't completely cull out any of the nature parts we no longer agree with.

Part of what it used to mean to be a man was that you'd whack a woman over the head and drag her back to your cave when you wanted to have sex with her and kill anyone who had a problem with you doing that (even though the only "problem" anyone would have had was that they wanted to do this to her themselves). This is a completely natural procreation strategy but we've taken that out of modern day social constructs despite it being natural and anyone who tried this today would very quickly find themselves on the receiving end of more than a few very snarky tweets attempting to apply peer pressure against this sort of behaviour.

Social conditioning trumps natural tendencies every time.