Manliness

[Pure]

An interesting hypothesis

Although we may not wish to get too deep in 'biologism', the point Trofimova makes is about men's role in the species 'expansion,' for instance development of new social forms. She looks at the temperament underlying such role. (Consider the westward expansion of the European 'races' in the US during the 19th century.)

To bring this back to 'manliness', this would involve fulfilling this 'expansive' function with with some style and confidence, respecting the broader moral and social demands of the developing society. (In other words, the gunslinging cowboy does not come into town, get drunk and shoot up the place.)

In a less physical sense, as dramatized in the picture Alice posted (lawyer in the courtroom, character played by Peck), men seem, generally speaking, to have developed the temparament inclinging them to undertake the 'expansion', that is development of the society into its less advanced areas. (In the case at hand, helping establish fairer legal in the South in a period where it is held back by racist laws and practice.)



Trofimova writes:

[start excerpt]

V.Geodakyan (1966) suggested [a hypothesis that is worth considering:] that nature «stores» in the female part of a species a species' most important characteristics, and in the «male» part of a species is the design for the development of the species, for «testing» new signs and characteristics.

Such an explanation agrees with the fact that nature produces more men than women, and this imbalance even increases during the war periods (explained by hormonal changes in women at this time). In addition, males die more early than females, suggesting the nature prefers that men be available to generate novelty rather than longevity.

In this sense nature separated a function of a species' expansion, development into new forms (giving this to men, making them [by temperament] more risky[risk-taking] and aggressive) and a function of conservation of a specie’s useful signs, giving this to women (making them more careful, sensitive and conservative).
[end excerpt]



EXCERPT FROM:
INTERCONNECTIONS BETWEEN GENDER, TEMPERAMENT AND SEMANTIC PERCEPTION

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...+SEMANTIC+PERCEPTION&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=1

Irina Trofimova, Psychology Department, McMaster University, Canada
http://www.fhs.mcmaster.ca/cilab/ira/ira.html

 

[alice_underneath]

Alice, nice picture: Peck's character (and probably Peck himself, though I don't have biographical facts) certainly seems like a good example.

In my mind Gregory Peck is, and always will be, Atticus Finch. His performance in that role was so spot on that I am mentally unable to separate the two.

Luc, I agree that 'honor' in some of its senses is an overlapping concept; but the sense it which it means 'doing right' or, as I would say it, acting justly, is not quite the same. If I may use Alice's example, the judge and/or jury in To Kill a Mockingbird acted justly, but I wouldn't necessarily call it acting 'manly.'

I agree with the distinction you make in your comment to Luc. Unfortunately, however, you have misremembered the tale.

The all-white jury convicted Tom Robinson, who was later shot to death while trying to escape from prison.

Alice

 

[alice_underneath]

To paraphrase earlier posters, I think that the virtues ascribed to manliness are not limited to males. The core of manliness is to be a person who uses everything he (or she) has been given responsibly, with the recognition that this means helping those who are less able. The "man-" part sneaks in as an implicit belief that women are shaded towards passivity, and are naturally included in the group of those "less able." This is the part that I find outmoded.

The hazard has always been that these paired beliefs of male virtuosity and female passivity can become an unintentional tool of oppression--resulting in the denial of a person's potential.

If that's your objection to the word 'manly', then my suggestion would be to focus on improving the images conveyed with the term 'womanly', rather than stripping the gender from the former word.

I, personally, do not want to live in a world in which gender has been stripped from every concept, idea, and word except penis and vagina.

As I said last night, the exact same set of character traits in a man feel different to me than they do in a woman. No less valid, no less important, no less magnificent. But undeniably different.

Alice

 

[Owlwhisper]

.....

 

[Owlwhisper]

.....

 

[Pure]

Some further thoughts on a previous post

Hi Owl,
Before I turn to your last interesting posting (below), I want to clear up some loose ends.

[Fritscher's narrator] That first night when I first saw Kick, I recognized one of life’s long shots at the Perfect Affirmation. He was a man. He had a man’s strength and fragility, a man’s grace and intensity, a man’s joy, and a man’s passion. He seemed my chance to celebrate the changes in me as growth. He was so fully a man, he was an Angel of Light. To him I could say nothing but Yes. One thing, you see, I know for sure: Nature very rarely puts it all together: looks, bearing, voice, appeal, smile, intelligence, artfulness, accomplishment, strength, kindness.

That’s what I looked for all my life: the chance to say Yes to a man like that. I look in men for nothing more than that affirmative something that grabs you and won’t let you look away. Maintaining my full self, to have some plenty to offer back in balance, I’ve looked for some man who fills in the appropriate existential blanks, for some man to be the way a man is supposed to be, for some man to keep on keeping on with, in all the evolving variations of friendship … beyond the first night’s encounter. I’ve looked for that to happen: to be able to say Yes inside myself when a good, clean glow of absolute trust settles over the world. Honest manliness is never half-revealed. When it’s there, it’s all right there in front of you. The hardest thing to be in the world today is a man....

--from the novel, "Some Dance to Remember"
abridged excerpt from

http://www.eroticauthorsassociation.../fritscher.html

Referring to the two Bolded passages, Owl said in part, during a discussion of changing the gender in the passage:

Owl: To me those two passages speak more to the issue of "male superiority," if I may use that tired phrase. There's a certain passive flavor to both of them, and I read them both as something a woman would say. Which is not to say that I agree with my own interpretation, if that's possible.

P: Yes, the passages seem to imply that the narrator [the "I"] is 'receptive', or on the receiving end in relation to the "manly" figure. "Passivity" is a loaded term.

It's a misjudgment to read in terms of 'something a woman would say.' The author is a gay male. The narrator is a gay male, apparently in the more 'receptive' position. So I doubt he is 'speaking to' male superiority, though he may be suggesting Kick excels in several areas.

Owl: To paraphrase earlier posters, I think that the virtues ascribed to manliness are not limited to males. The core of manliness is to be a person who uses everything he (or she) has been given responsibly, with the recognition that this means helping those who are less able. The "man-" part sneaks in as an implicit belief that women are shaded towards passivity, and are naturally included in the group of those "less able." This is the part that I find outmoded.

P: I don't think the 'found in females' objection gets you infinite mileage. It seems plausible because your formula of _giving all to help the less able_ is too abstract; hence indeed it is gender neutral.

In this case (following your line of analysis), of course, the writer is, it's plausible to say, implying that the 'passivity' (as you call it) is found in the male narrator.

So it's unwise to infer that the writer is drawing any such conclusion as 'women are shaded towards passivity' and 'less able' or that in some way this conclusion is "sneaked" into the reader's mind. I don't see the narrator as 'less able', just different.
----

Yes, I think your sources are speaking to the same issues as Trofimova, though she has credentials in psychology. I have given just a tiny excerpt from the article on temperament and 'semantic spaces; click on the url, if you're interested.

I certainly agree with your final statement (as it's consistent with what I said in an earlier posting about 'style')

Owl Again, the suggestion is that males are greater risk-takers and more competitive. I think we should be careful mapping these ideas into what we commonly call virtues or vices, however. I would suggest that enhanced risk-taking and competitiveness are morally neutral; it's how these attributes are used by individuals that determines if they become an Atticus Finch or a Bob Ewell.

P: Yes, the *manner* (style)in which 'risk taking' is lived is crucial, as with several other 'manly' virtues. After all, Son of Sam took risks, as did Ted Bundy, late in his career. Tonight on History channel was the story of the British SAS, a special ops unit, which essentially operated as mercenaries in several interventions. They received a storm of bad publicity when they cold bloodedly murdered three suspected (unarmed) terrorists in Gibralter, in front of lots of witnesses. What's missing of course is that 'disregard of risk' has to be done with some wisdom (implying control), and, justly, towards the end of human flourishing.

This has gotten too long; time to stop.

Thanks for your thoughts on these matters. I'd like to hear more.

 

[Owlwhisper]

.....

 

[Pure]

yes, owl,

that's not a bad summary of the 'yea sayers' ' position in the present poll:

Owl: If one accepts that there are differences between the genders then manliness and womanliness are simply the responsible (or wise?) application of these differences for the benefit of all. Living one's life this way requires self control so that one has the strength of will to do the right thing, rather than the easy, selfish thing [[or the thrilling, reckless thing]]. Living a responsible, loving life is, in some ways, neither specifically manly or womanly, but it does allow[[permit]] one to express one's differences fully (both as individuals and men and women). The extent to which someone correctly [[read 'appropriately]] lives out their gender differences for the benefit of all defines how manly or womanly they are, [[i.e. the strength of that virtue]]

P: In double brackets I've added a couple revisions. And after the last sentence I'd add:

P's addition: But the qualification is noted--in honor of M. d'Eon-- that 'manliness' [womanliness] is not the whole of virtue, and therefore lack of 'manliness' [or 'womanliness] in the persons of those respective genders, cannot, on its own support a conclusion about overall ethical status of the individual.

 

[Owlwhisper]

.....

 

[Pure]

Evidence

O: Many people don't accept the initial proposition, that there are significant, deep-seated differences of importance between the genders. For all I know they may be correct; I think the question remains open.

P: They may be correct, but there is no lack of evidence to establish at least an initial plausibility of the claim that there are differences. Taking for instance, the well known, Eysenck Personality inventory, it's often revealing of gender diffs, and the study below (which one has to buy to get past the abstract) includes many participants. See the other study [excerpted below] based on the common 5-factor model of personality. This is what five mins of research yields; there are dozens or hundreds of others.

Indeed, faced with evidence, the debate usually changes shape, in the direction of denying a biological or inherent basis. In effect, the claim is, 'it's always due to culture, which is fairly arbirtary and man/male-made." This is more complicated to refute and I'd argue that 'no difference' is really a matter of faith for hard core 'environmentalists.'

J.
PS. I altered the word 'correct' so as to open the number of possibilities; the term suggests a single standard or one exemplar. The word 'fitting' might also do.

--------
One Abstract, One excerpt

1: J Soc Psychol. 1997 Jun;137(3):369-73. Related Articles, Links

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9200973&dopt=Abstract

Gender differences in extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism in 37 nations.

Lynn R, Martin T.

Department of Psychology, University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland, UK.

Mean gender differences on Eysenck's three personality traits of extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism were collated for 37 nations. Women obtained higher means than men on neuroticism* in all countries, and men obtained higher means than women on psychoticism in 34 countries and on extraversion in 30 countries. The relation between the magnitude of the gender differences and per capita incomes was not significant for any of the three traits.

[[*Neuroticism is, roughly, the opposite of emotional stability, particularly with regard to stressors.]]


====
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~culture/mccrae.htm

CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH ON THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL OF PERSONALITY

Robert R. McCrae
National Institute on Aging
National Institute of Health
U.S.A.

ABSTRACT

The Five-Factor Model (FFM) is a comprehensive taxonomy of personality traits, which are tendencies to show consistent patterns of thoughts, feelings, and actions. Although it was originally identified in the United States, the model appears to describe personality structure well in a wide variety of cultures, suggesting that personality trait structure is universal. Age changes--decreases in Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness and increases in Agreeableness and Conscientiousness from adolescence to adulthood--also appear to be universal, as are gender differences. Current studies comparing the mean levels of personality traits across cultures show systematic patterns, but their interpretation is uncertain. The FFM is currently in use by psychologists around the world in a variety of applications. [...]


[On the NEO-PI-R measure, based on the five factors, and tested in many different cultures,]

Figure 1 compares gender differences among adults on the 30 NEO-PI-R facets in the United States (horizontal axis) with the average gender differences seen across the 15 other cultures where adults were assessed (vertical axis).

The facets on which men and women score highest are labeled. As Figure 1 shows, in the U.S. and around the world, women score higher than men in Anxiety, Vulnerability, Straightforwardness, and Openness to Aesthetics; men score higher in Competence, Assertiveness, Excitement Seeking, and Openness to Ideas.

These results, which were replicated in the college-age sample, suggest that gender differences are universal, and may be biologically based. It must be recalled, however, that the differences are relatively small compared to variation within each gender. That is, there are some men who score higher in Anxiety than most women, and some women who score higher in Assertiveness than most men.


Costa and colleagues also found evidence for cultural differences in the magnitude of gender differences. One might expect that gender differences would be minimized in modern, progressive cultures (like The Netherlands) and maximized in traditional cultures (like South Korea). In fact, however, exactly the opposite pattern was found: The differences were largest in modern European countries. There are several possible explanations for that unexpected effect, but perhaps the most likely is related to attribution. In countries where women are expected to be subservient, they attribute their low Assertiveness to their role as a woman rather than their traits. By contrast, European women who are equally low in Assertiveness identify it as a part of their own personality.

 

[Owlwhisper]

.....

 

[Pure]

(clink of bottles)!

 

[sweetnpetite]

All of the above. (except the last one)

Manliness can be silly, stupid, sexy, self-righeous, sexist and or something else.

When I was first dating my boyfriend- and I first went to his house, I have to admit, I was turned on by the 'manliness' of his house. There were NO feminine touches- no lacy curtains, no potpouri, no pastel anything, and NO chidlren's toys or equiptment. It completly unexpectedly turned me on.

Still, men sometimes do stupid things in the name of manliness- or out of fear of its opposite or showing signs of it's opposite.

And yet- an unshaved face, the smell of leather, shows of physical strength, big rough hands-- these things typically consider 'manly' although basically meaningless in and of themselves-- can be quite the turn on.

Gentleness can be manly too. And is also very sexy- manly gentleness- being a gentleman is definatly manly and sexy.

All sorts of manliness are sexy.

I would not like to see an end to manliness.

(from the man hater, imagine that!!!!)

 

[sweetnpetite]

I went with four. There might be something considered 'manliness', but it so easily becomes something else, or an excuse for something else that it's not a very useful concept.

I'll stick with my favourite virtues; empathy, wisdom and courage.

IMO, that is very manly.

A gentleman is both gentle and a man.

 

[HappyLlama]

IMO, that is very manly.

A gentleman is both gentle and a man.

Four footed friends are good, too.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Machismo, as someone mentioned, I think is fake manliness.

I think manliness includes a comfort and a security with your self and your sexuality. It's not putting on a front or trying to prove anything, it's simply striving to be a decent and virtuous person within context of manhood. (if that makes sence)

I think womanliness is different from manliness in that it is also about being secure in yourself and striving to be a decent and virtous person within the context of womanhood.

Which is not to say, 'womanly' means that you have to cook and clean and have babies. But I do think womanly is distinct from manly. A womanly woman is all woman- not because she's a slave to her female genes, but because she expresses a womanly/feminine energy. She's a woman weather she's in the kitchen or under a car. Same for a man, a manly man is masculine weather he is cooking or fixing- he exudes a certain masculine energy.

It's difficult to explain, but a manly man doesn't have to go around doing 'manly' things to prove he's manly. It comes from within.

Certainly there are men who are not manly, and this may or may not be ok, depending on how it is expressed. If the man is true to himeself and expresses a feminine energy and is virtous in that energy then he is good and virtous and will attract someone who is attracted to that combinations of qualities and that is all well and good. If he is not true to himelf and tries to overcompensate by being a jackass- then clearly he is not manly or womanly. He will certainly attract someone who is attracted to those qualities, and possibly will be mistaken for manly- but in his case it is all an act, and he is not manly. He is fake.

Just becuase you can fool people into thinking you are manly does not make it so.

Manliness can be expressed in such a variety of ways. But I do think that it's a healthy expression of testosterone (as opposed to an unhealthy expression, or a healthy or unhealthy expression of estrogen) which certainly influences behavior.

I am now rambling and probably starting to sound pretensious, so I'll just stop.

Hopefully my point will get across.

 

[kendo1]

Pretentious? Moi?

 

[sweetnpetite]

To protect those weaker than you against those stronger than them. Whoever you and them are.

Ooh, I like that. Certainly that could be a manly or a womanly virtue- but HOW it is expressed would, so some extent determine if the person was behaving 'manly' or 'womanly'

 

[sweetnpetite]

The problem comes, I think, from those who think that manly means 'not womanly.' Because there is certainly a large faction who sees womanliness or femininity as a weekness, and manliness as a higher function of personhood. For such a person being not manly means being womanly, being womanly means not manly. This i think is in error and was adressed in my earlier reply above, to some extent. Failer to be manly does not make you a woman- rather it makes you only less of a man. A woman in no way is less than a man. (those men who think so are not manly, nor can any woman who thinks so truely be womanly.)