What Do Men Think It Means To Be A Man?

[ruby sparks]

... that doesn't mean we can't completely cull out any of the nature parts we no longer agree with......

....Social conditioning trumps natural tendencies every time.

Actually, I think that's a bit optimistic. It might be a lovely idea though.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

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)?

Well, I'd argue that those traits make him more of a boy than a man in the first place, but the act of intervening on someone's behalf that is being physically overwhelmed (or other forms of abuse) would tend to turn at least two of the W's out.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

On that last sentence of yours: that's the whole point of having a dynamic neural network between our ears: to do stuff different from our genetically pre-loaded behavior. Social conditioning's entire purpose - and I suppose it's natural definition - is to trump natural tendency.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

I disagree. If I saw a man slapping a woman on the street, I'd interpret it as a dangerous situation where someone is getting victimized and something which warrants intervention. If I saw a woman slapping a man on the street, I wouldn't interpret it as dangerous at all and wouldn't really care.

That's not a result of immaturity or whatever, but an assessment that the average man isn't in a lot of physical danger from the average woman. If he wants her to stop hitting him ... he can just stop her from hitting him or wait for her to stop on her own without getting much of any injury before that happens. Third party intervention isn't required. Additionally, there's the assessment that he's a man and therefore it's fairly insulting to him to get in the middle of things and imply that he was unable to deal with it himself.

Those are, of course, incorrect assessments in some situations, but as part of a risk evaluation of an unknown scenario, they're reasonable ones to make.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

... that doesn't mean we can't completely cull out any of the nature parts we no longer agree with......

....Social conditioning trumps natural tendencies every time.

Actually, I think that's a bit optimistic. It might be a lovely idea though.

Dude, we're men. If we want to override our natural impulses in order to become superior individuals, we can just do it. We don't need to be slaves to our biological processes like some kind of useless child or female.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Men are whoever says they are a man. That's the easiest answer. My dog is a man too.

 

[WAB]

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.

I disagree. If I saw a man slapping a woman on the street, I'd interpret it as a dangerous situation where someone is getting victimized and something which warrants intervention. If I saw a woman slapping a man on the street, I wouldn't interpret it as dangerous at all and wouldn't really care.

While I think you're correct in general, I would intervene in either case: admittedly more stridently in the case of a man hitting a woman. There's never a good reason to beat on anyone (unless in self-defense), and I could never imagine myself not caring if I saw one person beating another.

ETA: There are many women who can be lethally dangerous. I personally know several who could kick my ass in two seconds.

 

[Toni]

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.

Why wasn't my: I think this is a non sequitur and I'm not playing enough for you? Or for other men (asking since there are others who may be reading and willing to respond.)?

 

[Toni]

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.

As has been pointed out, you are incorrect about what a majority was discussing. What I was attempting to do is to keep to the subject of the thread. As I stated repeatedly. Why wasn't that enough for you?

I am not the person who took the discussion into a self absorbed set of non sequiturs. That was you. I chose not to participate and stated that, quite clearly. Why wasn't that good enough for you?

Why would I care to have your 'respect' when you've done little but demonstrate that you have no respect for anyone, that you are merely interested in the sound of your own voice and whatever confirms whatever it is that you already think or 'think?'

Why would I give a damn about what you think when you cannot or will not take no for an answer?

Is this how you behave in real life?

Do you see any similarities between your refusal (and that of others) to accept that I was not going to participate in a discussion you wanted to have (that was not related to the thread I was responding to) and other instances where men refuse to take no for an answer from women?

Why do you (and some other men) have so much trouble accepting no from a woman? What gives you the right to attempt to force her to participate in anything she does not wish to participate in?

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

As has been pointed out, you are incorrect about what a majority was discussing. What I was attempting to do is to keep to the subject of the thread. As I stated repeatedly. Why wasn't that enough for you?

I am not the person who took the discussion into a self absorbed set of non sequiturs. That was you. I chose not to participate and stated that, quite clearly. Why wasn't that good enough for you?

Why would I care to have your 'respect' when you've done little but demonstrate that you have no respect for anyone, that you are merely interested in the sound of your own voice and whatever confirms whatever it is that you already think or 'think?'

Why would I give a damn about what you think when you cannot or will not take no for an answer?

Is this how you behave in real life?

Do you see any similarities between your refusal (and that of others) to accept that I was not going to participate in a discussion you wanted to have (that was not related to the thread I was responding to) and other instances where men refuse to take no for an answer from women?

Why do you (and some other men) have so much trouble accepting no from a woman? What gives you the right to attempt to force her to participate in anything she does not wish to participate in?

Why do I have so much trouble accepting NO here? Because what I have said is NO. I will not engage with you, and have said I will not talk about something different because I am free to speak about what I wish, here within the context of concepts surrounding and relating to expectations held of men, and have done so. You are attempting to silence me and my objections to what I judge as sloppy thinking. I have said NO to sloppy thinking, especially when it involves someone attempting to foist a responsibility or ethical rule on myself and others without any defense of that ethical rule by the person proposing it.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

As has been pointed out, you are incorrect about what a majority was discussing. What I was attempting to do is to keep to the subject of the thread. As I stated repeatedly. Why wasn't that enough for you?

I am not the person who took the discussion into a self absorbed set of non sequiturs. That was you. I chose not to participate and stated that, quite clearly. Why wasn't that good enough for you?

Why would I care to have your 'respect' when you've done little but demonstrate that you have no respect for anyone, that you are merely interested in the sound of your own voice and whatever confirms whatever it is that you already think or 'think?'

Why would I give a damn about what you think when you cannot or will not take no for an answer?

Is this how you behave in real life?

Do you see any similarities between your refusal (and that of others) to accept that I was not going to participate in a discussion you wanted to have (that was not related to the thread I was responding to) and other instances where men refuse to take no for an answer from women?

Why do you (and some other men) have so much trouble accepting no from a woman? What gives you the right to attempt to force her to participate in anything she does not wish to participate in?

Why do I have so much trouble accepting NO here? Because what I have said is NO. I will not engage with you, and have said I will not talk about something different because I am free to speak about what I wish, here within the context of concepts surrounding and relating to expectations held of men, and have done so.

And yet, you insist to deny that same privilege to someone else with your infantile insistence that someone respond to your straw man questions.

You are attempting to silence me and my objections to what I judge as sloppy thinking.

No one is trying to silence you - that claim is sloppy thinking. No one is stopping your poorly thought out arguments. Some people just refuse to play by your rigid and ill-conceived rules.

 

[Toni]

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.

As has been pointed out, you are incorrect about what a majority was discussing. What I was attempting to do is to keep to the subject of the thread. As I stated repeatedly. Why wasn't that enough for you?

I am not the person who took the discussion into a self absorbed set of non sequiturs. That was you. I chose not to participate and stated that, quite clearly. Why wasn't that good enough for you?

Why would I care to have your 'respect' when you've done little but demonstrate that you have no respect for anyone, that you are merely interested in the sound of your own voice and whatever confirms whatever it is that you already think or 'think?'

Why would I give a damn about what you think when you cannot or will not take no for an answer?

Is this how you behave in real life?

Do you see any similarities between your refusal (and that of others) to accept that I was not going to participate in a discussion you wanted to have (that was not related to the thread I was responding to) and other instances where men refuse to take no for an answer from women?

Why do you (and some other men) have so much trouble accepting no from a woman? What gives you the right to attempt to force her to participate in anything she does not wish to participate in?

Why do I have so much trouble accepting NO here? Because what I have said is NO. I will not engage with you, and have said I will not talk about something different because I am free to speak about what I wish, here within the context of concepts surrounding and relating to expectations held of men, and have done so. You are attempting to silence me and my objections to what I judge as sloppy thinking. I have said NO to sloppy thinking, especially when it involves someone attempting to foist a responsibility or ethical rule on myself and others without any defense of that ethical rule by the person proposing it.

As far as I can tell, no one was attempting to silence you. I certainly was not. Some people pointed out that you and a couple of other people were badgering me and attempting to bully me into participating in a way that you, personally found acceptable. That's not attempting to silence you. That's pointing out bad behavior.

If you really don't believe in sloppy thinking, then I think you have a lot of work to do. On you.

 

[Jarhyn]

Jolly_Penguin, if I may solicit a thoughtful and perhaps more-intimate-than-is-normal tone in this place: has this discussion at all impacted you or forced you to think more deeply about what obligations cultural access, and access to (being an authority within a cultural context) implies to those with an opportunity to speak out? Has it shaped your views on feminism in a way you deem "softening" to the notion that men should speak out when they hear men abusing women, (even if only because men are generally the only ones present?) or even promoted reinvestigation into such concepts? How has this whole debaucle of discussion impacted your views? Has it generated a moment of self-reflection as to what obligations you may have going forward, with respect to or even agnostic to your gender?

 

[ruby sparks]

Why wasn't my: I think this is a non sequitur and I'm not playing enough for you?

Ok I changed my mind. Keep going. Put some more words in my mouth.

 

[Toni]

Why wasn't my: I think this is a non sequitur and I'm not playing enough for you?

Ok I changed my mind. Keep going. Put some more words in my mouth.

Hey, I tried. Sorry if it is too much for you.

 

[ruby sparks]

Sorry if it is too much for you.

Ah. Mind reading. S'okay, you can do that too.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

That's not a result of immaturity or whatever, but an assessment that the average man isn't in a lot of physical danger from the average woman.

Which is what I meant in regard to severity and judgement in the moment.

Additionally, there's the assessment that he's a man and therefore it's fairly insulting to him to get in the middle of things and imply that he was unable to deal with it himself.

Which is what I would classify as the immature part; the idea that it would be an insult to require/need help in any given situation, much less in one that involved a woman attacking a man. I see where you're going with it, to be sure; I'm just trying to parse it. Perhaps "maturity" and "immaturity" is a better metric than gender?

Those are, of course, incorrect assessments in some situations, but as part of a risk evaluation of an unknown scenario, they're reasonable ones to make.

Agreed, but with caveats as noted.

 

[Toni]

Sorry if it is too much for you.

Ah. Mind reading. S'okay, you can do that too.

Well, I thought I'd try my hand since a bunch of the guys like to play that game.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I will not talk about something different because I am free to speak about what I wish, here within the context of concepts surrounding and relating to expectations held of men, and have done so.

Horeshit. You repeatedly attempted to shift the focus OFF of expectations held of men and instead derailed the thread with irrelevant fallacies and insipid drivel about ethical principle categories that had fuck-all to do with the topic of this thread. And when this was pointed out to you, you went all Bridge On The River Kwai.

You are attempting to silence me and my objections to what I judge as sloppy thinking. I have said NO to sloppy thinking

While ironically embracing it wholeheartedly and obstinately for no other purpose than to derail and redirect. Pathetic.

 

[ruby sparks]

Dude, we're men. If we want to override our natural impulses in order to become superior individuals, we can just do it. We don't need to be slaves to our biological processes like some kind of useless child or female.

I so wanted to add to your reputation for that post, but then I worried in case others found out I had done that, so I didn't. Hey, I dodged a bullet by catching myself on just in time. Go me.