• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What makes a man...

PhantomWolf

Penultimate Amazing
PhantomWolf
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
21,203
Taking this post from the Gender thread to avoid derailing it....

Robin said:
Miranda Devine, who at other times has denied that there is any difference between gender and biological sex writes:

"This is the noble side of masculinity that we once would perpetuate in folklore and stories passed down from father to son about what it means to be a real man."

Presumably they all said "Son, in order to be a real man, be over sixteen and have a penis and testicles".

Later she says:

"The male attributes it fingered as most worrisome were: stoicism, competitiveness, dominance, aggression, anti-femininity, achievement, “eschewal of the appearance of weakness,” adventure, risk and violence.

Gimme a break! Without any of that, all you’re left with is a soy boy with whom no self-respecting woman would want to mate."

So even Miranda Devine identifies another gender: "soy boy".

If I am not stoic, nor competitive, not dominant, not aggressive, not anti-femininity, a low-achiever, non-adventurous and non violent and don't eschew the appearance of weakness then I am not a man, I am a "soy-boy".
Click to expand...

So in this post ten attributes are shown, and the poster seems to believe that these things are important to being a man. I just want to look a little closer and see if they are, or if they can be an issue.

Stoicism (The endurance of pain or hardship without the display of feelings and without complaint.)

Is this really a good thing? We have been teaching men that the display of feelings and emotion is weak and that men should just tough it up and not complain. Modern medicine seems to disagree with this philosophy showing that this repression of emotions can lead to mental disorders, explosive outbursts and PTSD. So should men really be excessively stoic?

Competitiveness (Possession of a strong desire to be more successful than others.)

While some competition is certainly a good thing, as it makes us strive to be better, both with men and women, the question here is should we set our goals and competitiveness against what others can do, or against what we have done previously. If we use competitiveness to surpass our past achievements, and to reach for new goals, then it can be productive, however when our competitiveness leads to the need to win at all costs and to crush others as we step over then, then is becomes a negative trait.

Dominance (To have power and influence over others.)

In a world were we accept that all people should be free to conduct their own lives as they wish as long as they do so without breaching the rights of others, is the desire and drive to have power over other people truly a good thing. Can we truly have a society of equals where some lord power and influence over others and use that power and influence to keep those that they see as beneath them from rising? Is it more manly to wield power over someone, or to lift them up to your own level?

Aggression (feelings of anger or antipathy resulting in hostile or violent behaviour; readiness to attack or confront.)

I'm not even sure that I have to make an argument as to why this is a bad idea to be a trait that should be promoted.

Anti-femininity (Against having qualities or attributes regarded as characteristic of women.)

Because men should never be seen to show gentleness, empathy, humility, and sensitivity.

Achievement (The act of carrying out a goal successfully)

This one I have little issue with, but I also don't see that it is an attribute that should be just encouraged in men. All people should be encouraged to achieve their goals.

Eschewal of the appearance of weakness

Similar to Stoicism, this tells men that they can never be weak, that they have to always hide their hurt and tough it out. It leads to similar results.

Adventure (Seeking out an unusual and exciting or daring experience.)

This is the other one that I have little issue with of the ten, we need to have goals and sometimes we need to seek out and extend ourselves by doing things that can be exhilarating. There is one issue with it, but that comes under the next heading.

Risk (Putting oneself in a situation involving exposure to danger.)

The issue with this one is when people are putting themselves into unacceptable risk because they are men and men having to take risks. Rick which is managed and mitigated is something that we need to be aware of and work with, but taking risks that are both an unregulated danger to ourselves and others should never be acceptable, and men should not be taught that taking such risks is what it takes to be a man.

Violence (Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.)

Again, I don't even know why I need to say anything about why this should not be a trait that we should accept as being required to be a man, especially give the systemic issues with domestic violence and continual shootings in places such as the US.

So yeah, in my opinion, if you want to be a man, embrace competition with yourself to achieve your goals and experience adventure while doing that, and feel free to show your emotions and feelings. Don't feel you have to step on others and grasp power over them, but instead show others compassion and feel empathy for them. In the end you'll be a better man for it, and society will be better for it too.
 
About 8/10. but you knew that. :D

Actually, 9 & 2 halves, there are a couple sort of ambiguous definitions. Anti-feminine? Half way- I think women should be feminine, but not men. Aggressive? I'm assertive, and never threw the first punch. Only the last.

Did the OP make up those definitions?
 
STO 14
COM 12
DOM 10
AGG 8
ANF 4
ACH 13
EAW 11
ADV 10
RSK 9
VIO 7

So, what character class would work best with these stats? I'm up for a game of Real Man: The RPG.
 
casebro said:
Did the OP make up those definitions?
Click to expand...

No, took them from the dictionary. Most I did was drop a bit deeper to clarify when the definition used the same word base or it was a bit ambiguous, like "Achievement - The act of achieving something."
 
Here's a link to the article referenced in the OP.


https://nypost.com/2019/08/14/its-masculinity-to-the-rescue/

PhantomWolf said in the OP,

So in this post ten attributes are shown, and the poster seems to believe that these things are important to being a man. I just want to look a little closer and see if they are, or if they can be an issue.
Click to expand...

I think he may be misattributing a sentiment to "the poster". Robin (the poster) was quoting from Miranda Devine's article, the one I linked above. If read casually, it might be easy to not realize which were his words, and which were Miranda Devine's. I think Robin was criticizing Ms. Devine's sentiments.

The list of ten attributes came from the American Psychological Association. The list wasn't a direct quote from the APA, though. It was Ms. Devine's interpretation of what the APA authors said. I think she exaggerated for effect, as one might expect from a New York Post columnist.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
I think he may be misattributing a sentiment to "the poster". Robin (the poster) was quoting from Miranda Devine's article, the one I linked above. If read casually, it might be easy to not realize which were his words, and which were Miranda Devine's. I think Robin was criticizing Ms. Devine's sentiments.
Click to expand...
The easy way to tell which were Robin's statements and which were Miranda Devine's is that Miranda Devine's statements are in the quote block.
 
arthwollipot said:
The easy way to tell which were Robin's statements and which were Miranda Devine's is that Miranda Devine's statements are in the quote block.
Click to expand...

No, that's not correct.

Robin did not use a quote block at all. The quote block in the OP was quoting Robin. Within that text, Robin quoted Miranda Devine, but not using a quote block.

ETA: I assumed above that "quote block" meant a VBulletin quote block. Robin used traditional quote marks to indicate where he was quoting Devine, but if not reading carefully, you could miss that.
 
Last edited:
I actually found the original APA source, and Devine's characterization of it is extremely inaccurate.
 
Meadmaker said:
No, that's not correct.

Robin did not use a quote block at all. The quote block in the OP was quoting Robin. Within that text, Robin quoted Miranda Devine, but not using a quote block.

ETA: I assumed above that "quote block" meant a VBulletin quote block. Robin used traditional quote marks to indicate where he was quoting Devine, but if not reading carefully, you could miss that.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah. Never mind.
 
Meadmaker said:
I think he may be misattributing a sentiment to "the poster". Robin (the poster) was quoting from Miranda Devine's article, the one I linked above. If read casually, it might be easy to not realize which were his words, and which were Miranda Devine's. I think Robin was criticizing Ms. Devine's sentiments.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I knew that Ms. Devine stated those attributes, my issue was more with Robin's declaration that you couldn't be a man without them, but rather some sort of "soy-boy".

I was hoping for a discussion about the attributes and if people are on the side of Men should have those attributes, or the side of a man can be a man without having to take on what would seem to be harmful and toxic attributes, but which have have been deemed manly.
 
PhantomWolf said:
To be fair, I knew that Ms. Devine stated those attributes, my issue was more with Robin's declaration that you couldn't be a man without them, but rather some sort of "soy-boy".
Click to expand...
I interpreted the "soy-boy" comment as pure Devine. Notice the position of the enclosing quotation marks:

Later she says:

"The male attributes it fingered as most worrisome were: stoicism, competitiveness, dominance, aggression, anti-femininity, achievement, “eschewal of the appearance of weakness,” adventure, risk and violence.

Gimme a break! Without any of that, all you’re left with is a soy boy with whom no self-respecting woman would want to mate."
Click to expand...

Both paragraphs are enclosed within a single set of quotes.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
I interpreted the "soy-boy" comment as pure Devine. Notice the position of the enclosing quotation marks:



Both paragraphs are enclosed within a single set of quotes.
Click to expand...

Yes, that does seem to be correct, seems I got caught out by the lack of quote boxes. My bad.

Still I think it's an interesting thing to discuss, even if I incorrectly identified the speaker.
 
PhantomWolf said:
To be fair, I knew that Ms. Devine stated those attributes, my issue was more with Robin's declaration that you couldn't be a man without them, but rather some sort of "soy-boy".

I was hoping for a discussion about the attributes and if people are on the side of Men should have those attributes, or the side of a man can be a man without having to take on what would seem to be harmful and toxic attributes, but which have have been deemed manly.
Click to expand...

I think Robin was speaking sarcastically, intending to denigrate Ms. Devine's words.

I find the underlying issue rather complex. I think there are real differences between men and women, beyond the physical, and I believe some are biological, not cultural. On the other hand, the idea of being a "real man" is a bit silly.

I also think there are pop culture and media voices that are anti-masculine, but Devine exaggerated them, a lot. In general, right wing commentators might speak of a war on men, but that's greatly exaggerated.

As for the ten attributes, I think that men definitely display them, but some are admirable, and some are side effects, and some may or may not be good. For example, a willingness to take risks is, I believe, more pronounced in males, and it leads to admirable behavior such as what Devine cited in her article. It also leads men to say, "Come on. No one will catch us."
 
What makes a successful man now is not exactly the same attributes that made a successful man during our evolutionary history. Our psychology is stuck in the past. Many of the attributes listed are indicators of physical superiority and dominance, things that were very important in the past but are practically irrelevant now in terms of survival.
 
Most of those attributes characterise psychopaths rather than men.
(But in psychopaths Achievement (The act of carrying out a goal successfully) would probably be pretending to have carried out a goal successfully or maybe taking credit for a goal carried out successfully.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom