Manliness

[Rumple Foreskin]

I voted and, since it's late, I'll slip my explanation in as a service to all of you suffering from insomnia; pay attention, the cure has arrived.

I chose the "has no meaning" option because it seemed the closest to how I think about the concept of manliness.

If you paid attention during your high school physics classes, you may remember something called the Bohr atomic model. That's the model of an atom in which the nucleus is surrounded by electrons traveling in neat little circular orbits. This model was found to be fatally flawed and has since been replaced by a more sophisticated model based upon quantum mechanics.

However, the old Bohr model was so good at explaining certain phenomena (such as spectral emission lines) that it's still used today to help students understand the atom. Even though it's not correct, its historical value and the concepts it introduces make it worth retaining for educational uses.

Well, that's how I see the concept of manliness. That it's of historical value is without doubt, and it has educational value in learning the progression of thought about gender roles and related topics. But it's also incorrect and outmoded. Hence my vote.

Pleasant dreams, everyone.


(Hmm, I should have saved this post for the thread-killer dare.)

No problem. Repost it over there. We won't tell, honest.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Owlwhisper]

.....

 

[SeaCat]

Do I honestly need to reply here?

I am a man.

In many cases my views are looked upon with disdain, until I am needed.

I live by a code, a code that is in many cases no longer understood. It is called Honor.

How do I describe this? How can I describe something that is no longer taught and is in many cases looked upon with derision?

I love my wife. I trust her without question.
I protect her when she needs protection.
I allow her to make her own choices, and stand by her when she does so.
I will not raise my hand against my wife, no matter the provocation.
I will not tolerate another man raising his hand against a woman.
I will help those who need my help.
I will accept responsibilty for my actions.

I am me, I am a man, a Man of Honor.

Cat

 

[Pure]

thoughts

there are, i agree, lots of gender neutral terms available for human virtues, e.g., courage, honesty.

but in my opinion, i haven't seen good reasons for employing ONLY gender neutral terms, in describing various human excellences or 'virtues.' this statement is based on looking over several postings, including those of malach, wyod, minsue, munachi, charleyH, liar.

i do mean to imply that the quality--though in strong form, rare overall--is *loosely* associated with males, and if there's some jealousy about such an association, it might be mentioned that therefore the weird deformities are more often seen in males (blowhard swaggering). other vices are known to 'favor' males, such as a taste for serial killing.
so jealousy seems unwarranted.

while there is no shortage of reasonably intelligent 'action' [physically courageous] figures (who lack foolhardiness) in real life and art ("Will Kane" as played by Gary Cooper in High Noon), i'd like to place a couple names as candidate who may give a 'fix' as to what qualities I'm thinking of: "Harry Morgan"[boat owner] , played by Bogart, in the films, To Have and Have Not"; In real life, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Luther King.

Perhaps others, of the favorably disposed group, have their examples?

that's my 2 cents, and my vote would thus go towards retention of the term, to one of the positive (first) choices, such as 'usually a good thing'; recognizing, however, the commonness of deformities, like stupid recklessness.

 

[Liar]

Do I honestly need to reply here?

I am a man.

In many cases my views are looked upon with disdain, until I am needed.

I live by a code, a code that is in many cases no longer understood. It is called Honor.

How do I describe this? How can I describe something that is no longer taught and is in many cases looked upon with derision?

I love my wife. I trust her without question.
I protect her when she needs protection.
I allow her to make her own choices, and stand by her when she does so.
I will not raise my hand against my wife, no matter the provocation.
I will not tolerate another man raising his hand against a woman.
I will help those who need my help.
I will accept responsibilty for my actions.

I am me, I am a man, a Man of Honor.

Cat

Not sure what you're saying here. You're a good, honest person. This I know. What I fail to see is what you being a man has to do with that.

You say you will not tolerate another man raising his hand against a woman. How about against another man? Is there a distinction?

I'm just curious, because I see that perspective quite a lot, the whole positive spin on gender roles. Never hit a woman (no matter what), but gladly annihilate any man who acts un-gentlemanny. I'm not saying that you represent that, but your post leans towards that impression.

 

[Pure]

otoh, liar, you've given no reasons for 'negative spin' on what you call 'gender roles' (activities which, with certain qualifications, and for best cases, are loosely associated more with one gender).

my opinion is that seacat's typical stance --going by his postings!--may be called one of 'manliness.'

 

[Pure]

a couple items

relevant to the topic


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.com/html/fritscher.html

----
The book Self Made Man: One woman's journey in to manliness and back , by Norah Vincent, is, from all reports, a good read. She 'crossed over' for 18 months.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/biography/0,,1733973,00.html

 

[Owlwhisper]

.....

 

[Liar]

otoh, liar, you've given no reasons for 'negative spin' on what you call 'gender roles' (activities which, with certain qualifications, and for best cases, are loosely associated more with one gender).

No, why should I? I try to avoid either spin. Which activities, pray tell, are we talking about? Which "male virtues" are in fact more prominent among males than females? The ones related to physical size and strength, possibly. (And which are those?) But the virtue there is not to be born with muscles, but to act according to your capabilities. To protect those weaker than you against those stronger than them. Whoever you and them are.

 

[Munachi]

IMHO, it's not a question of leaving anyone out. Being male or female is a function of physical attributes. Being a man has to do with character, not sexual equipment or orientation.

Rumple Foreskin

okay, i agree with some of what you said, i guess i put it wrongly... but, the point i was trying to make is, that lacking certain characteristics doesn't make you less a man imho, if you see yourself as one. my phrase was not necessarily meant word by word, but more as a provocation against the cliché of what a "real man" has to be like...

let me explain maybe for women instead of men - so i can use myself as an example... i am a woman. i identify myself as one, i like being quite feminine at times - but there are aspects in which i am not what a woman is expected to be like. when i was younger (school) i often felt my femininity challenged. in part of course due to my behaviour - which was partly me being me, and partly me trying out things to find my place - leading for example to guys seeing me as a good friend, but not considering me ever as a potential girlfriend, which felt like they couldn't see me as a woman. now, but am i not a woman because i don't do this or have that and that character?

and is for example a coward guy not a man then, to use one of the characteristics that seem to go against what is associated with "being manly" - what is he then?

i do disagree with what you said that being a man has to be "earned" - what is with those that didn't earn it, then? and who exactly decides what you have to do to earn it?

 

[Pure]

Hi Owl,

It's an interesting exercize, substituting.

Off hand, what most seems 'off' is the following:

That’s what I looked for all my life: the chance to say Yes to a woman like that. I look in women for nothing more than that affirmative something that grabs you and won’t let you look away. [owl's substitutions]

to me the original indicated a pursuit and 'yes'; if you like, the 'manly' pursuit, and the womanly 'yes.' your altered version seems odd, there.

PS: as another example:
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. [owl's substitutions]

in the original it seemed the womanly role to be seeking and relaxing into 'absolute trust' (attributed to the world, but clearly residing in the person's relation to the world). again, your altered version seems odd, in this passage given what I've known of men and woman..

 

[Pure]

Liar said in part: No, why should I? I try to avoid either spin. Which activities, pray tell, are we talking about? Which "male virtues" are in fact more prominent among males than females? The ones related to physical size and strength, possibly. (And which are those?)

How about the virtues related to being a good fighter pilot? (not really related, btw, to size or strength).

 

[SeaCat]

Not sure what you're saying here. You're a good, honest person. This I know. What I fail to see is what you being a man has to do with that.

You say you will not tolerate another man raising his hand against a woman. How about against another man? Is there a distinction?

I'm just curious, because I see that perspective quite a lot, the whole positive spin on gender roles. Never hit a woman (no matter what), but gladly annihilate any man who acts un-gentlemanny. I'm not saying that you represent that, but your post leans towards that impression.

Liar,

Yes there is a distinction, and yet there isn't. It's hard to describe.
(Yes I know I'm opening myself to flames here but that's nothing new.)

I will do my best to protect those who need protection whether it is physical, emotional, or any other way in my powers. Women for the most part, because of their physical differences as well as how our society views them, need more protection from physical aggression than men. I will go out of my way to help and protect them. the same as I will for children.

Men for the most part do not need help or protection against physical aggression, but when they do need it I am more than willing to help them.

As for annihilating one who acts un-gentlemanly? That depends on what he has done. To me it is not so much being ungentlmanly but being without Honor.

Cat

 

[BlackShanglan]

I consider the world "womanly" and "womanliness" when thinking of this. The particular list of qualities are not exclusive to women. Neither are they necessarily as sought after, nor is the term used in the same context as "manliness". Both are umbrella terms which come from the past and, as all-inclusive terms, are not useful now. I think the particular virtues are worthwhile, but the term itself is archaic, loaded with baggage, and useless. "Grace under fire" is perfectly fine on its own. The gender association is impossible to break, and if "womanly" and "Manly" are equivalent terms except for the gender to which they apply, I'd make a vote for combining those virues into the term "humanly" or other, similar word.

I love everything about this but that last word.

Seriously, I do love this. I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Wrong question. What one should ask is, is there a point retaining a gender association with the virtue?

And I love this too. Clearly I have a great deal of love to give the world tonight.

 

[BlackShanglan]

the word "manly" for me sounds too much of "real men" and "what real men should be like" and stuff like that...

imho - if he's got a dick, chances are pretty high he is a real man... no matter how he behaves...

or of course, there aren't "real men" and "real women" anyway, just people, each of them different, and some of them coincidentally have more things in common, others have other things in common...

Hmmm hmmm hmmm ... compiling list of lovely humans ... so many tonight ...

Oh, I really must stop. But I agree with all of the above and what echoes it. I respect sacrifice, integrity, courage, defense of the vulnerable, grace under pressure, and so forth. I just can't imagine why the author feels that these qualities have genitals.

Shanglan

 

[alice_underneath]

'Manliness' is one of those things that is nearly impossible to describe. Something you can feel more than you can explain. Something you just sort of recognize when you see.

This is a manly self-description:

I love my wife. I trust her without question.
I protect her when she needs protection.
I allow her to make her own choices, and stand by her when she does so.
I will not raise my hand against my wife, no matter the provocation.
I will not tolerate another man raising his hand against a woman.
I will help those who need my help.
I will accept responsibilty for my actions.

I am me, I am a man, a Man of Honor.

Cat

And this is a photograph of the most manly man in all of film, based on the most manly man in all of literature:

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e16/alice_emerging/tokillamockingbird.jpg

Women can have the exact same character traits as those possessed by a manly man. But to me, it just feels different when I perceive it in a guy.

Call me old-fashioned or heterosexual or whatever the heck you want, but my opinion is this. 'Manliness' is a uniquely male quality. And it's unbelievably hot.

Alice

 

[Owlwhisper]

.....

 

[welfare mom]

If you would just *read* "The Feminest Mistake* by Betty Freedan you would *know* that men just need to *listen* more omfg it is *so true*

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Liar,

Yes there is a distinction, and yet there isn't. It's hard to describe.
(Yes I know I'm opening myself to flames here but that's nothing new.)

I will do my best to protect those who need protection whether it is physical, emotional, or any other way in my powers. Women for the most part, because of their physical differences as well as how our society views them, need more protection from physical aggression than men. I will go out of my way to help and protect them. the same as I will for children.

Men for the most part do not need help or protection against physical aggression, but when they do need it I am more than willing to help them.

As for annihilating one who acts un-gentlemanly? That depends on what he has done. To me it is not so much being ungentlmanly but being without Honor.

Cat

A beautiful way of life in all manners of considering it, but you also stumble upon it. This term is really Honour and the defense of that virtue. All of the connotations of words do not taint the virtues, or we would certainly hope so. Chivalry, honour, "doing the right thing", heroism, all of these words already encapsulate these virtues much better and with less baggage than manliness. There is no reason to actively change anything, we know what honour is.

And as an aside, may we all stand up and welcome ami to the thread, our resident valley girl.

 

[Alpheratz]

This poll got me to wondering.

What, exactly, is “manliness”?

Is it a quality? A state of being? An image? Can it be taught?
Learned?

I’m not sure if I have it. I’m a man, so maybe I have some of it. At least I have the equipment, such as it is.

The word immediately evokes to me an image of a member of the
male species who is quietly confident, courteous, respectful to
all. He has physical strength which he uses sparingly, he has
unfailing moral strength, he has unshakeable strength of character. He smiles. He is courageous. He believes in the concept of nobless oblige. He treats all women as if they are somebody’s mother. Or his own sister. In the face of anger he exhibits quiet calm. In the face of danger he exhibits good-natured confidence. In the face of accusation he exhibits humble indifference. He has learned that he can share his own world without feeling threatened. He can love without expecting something in return. He can make a commitment, and he can call the next day. He doesn’t rely on cars or chemicals to make his life complete. He believes in raising others to his level rather than tearing them down to his level. He loves dogs and horses and her cat.

But I know women that have many of those same characteristics. And they aren’t “manly”. So maybe my image of “manliness” is not accurate at all, because it is the image of “Womanliness” as well.

 

[Pure]

comments, and note to Alice, Alpheratz, Luc

i think respect for women has to be part of the recipe, not just the ones in the kitchen baking biscuits for all the kiddies while hubby, smoking a pipe, feet up in the living room, exercizes Objective Rationality for the entire family.

hence certain bilious folks with lots of insulting provocations for women who disagree, do not actually practice manliness, as it is conceived by those choosing the first options in the poll. rather, they're being 'passive aggressive' (see Kingwell, above).

Alice, nice picture: Peck's character (and probably Peck himself, though I don't have biographical facts) certainly seems like a good example. And owl's 'substitution' test seems not to work so well, here

Alpheratz, the quasi objection "one sees this in women" that keeps popping up in your posting and others does not really undermine the concept, IMO; nor does "one doesn't see this in many men." If I may use an analogy, one may show doggish devotion to one's spouse: but this doesn't mean that one is a dog, nor that all dogs are so devoted to their masters.

----
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.' indeed, 'overlapping' is not quite the right word, for manliness without honor is a shortfalling manliness--one example that comes to mind is Macbeth, who only late in the game manages, almost, to re-acquire it.

 

[Alpheratz]

Sorry, Pure, but an objection, quasi or otherwise, was the furthest thing from my mind. Perhaps I didn't explain myself completely. The point I was hoping to make was that the character traits that one might use to describe "manliness" work as well as a definition of "womanliness". They are character traits which would endear anyone to us.

 

[Pure]

alph, i read you loud and clear; i simply took your posting as an example simce the wording closely resembled some other intended and fundamental objections of other posters, though it didn't have the same spirit --- i bumblingly tried to account for this when I said yours was a 'quasi objection.'

J.

 

[Liar]

Liar,

Yes there is a distinction, and yet there isn't. It's hard to describe.
(Yes I know I'm opening myself to flames here but that's nothing new.)

Oh, I wouldn't know about flames. But questions. There were things about your post I didn't understand, so I prompted for clarification, that's all.

It seems we're not all that much different in this. I'm not sure why you think living according to a code of honor would be something gathering disdain. Is it? I've seen now and then that it gathers a bit of confusion from those too caught up in either egocentrism or day-to-day routine struggle to handle it.