What makes a man?

wellwasi. I thought I was clear-a defining parental identity, and qualified again. Stressing parenthood seemed appropriate here...

of course not wellwasi, what an unsophisticated take on Adela's post.

So if a woman doesn't have children they are the same as men?

Loving, caring, looks after their kids and doesnt abandon them. Would say the same for women. Other than that just do what you like.

I dont go for men that follow stereotypes and I dont follow stereotypes myself. I am my own person and if you dont like it then bollocks to you.

I do however know how lucky we are to be the ones to carry and birth children. My husband was dead jealous when I was pregnant and always talks about how he wishes it was him. I think that is the main difference between men and women overall.

What makes a man is never having to ask that question, because maleness is so normalised.

Which, on the context of this site in particular, gives men immense freedom to move between roles in their lives (employee, boss, scholar, parent, friend) without constantly having their gender brought into things as a defining feature.

I would suggest that not being able to give birth is a defining parental identity for most men, but accept its not strictly 'male'-there may be some transmen who have, and there are many non-birth mothers who haven't.

Sprogger what you say there give me pause for thought as to just how much emphasis culture put on making male and female look different.

Surely those that are attracted to the opposite sex would not be confused if there were less obvious markers - eg hair styles/nails/make-up/girly-clothes .

I really think this proves for me that these practices are to separate us out as women - different from and to be regarded as lesser than men.

No, and also SGB you'll notice that musicians beloved by huge numbers of men are completely visually stunning (Motorhead, Slipknot, Radiohead) (yes I know lots of women like them too thanks), whereas musicians adored by women and girls are loved purely for their musical ability, with their looks completely irrelevant (Take That, Girls Aloud, Justin Bieber etc).

E&M: So no publishing company would ever waste money on producing posters, calenders and magazines dedicated to Robert Pattinson/Brad Pitt/Take That/[insert name of percieved-as-attractive male sleb of choice here], would they? Because women don't want to look at pictures of men, women are into lurrve and oh well they might read some erotic fiction....

Sorry rambling a bit now. But I remember having a sickening realisation one day, that for most women, in most countries, throughout most of known history - that is, billions of women - they NEVER knew what it's like to sleep with a man you have actually chosen for yourself.

yes "men are more visual".

What a STONKING GREAT COINCIDENCE that for the majority of recent history, men have been able to choose their partner based on looks/attraction, whereas women have just had to bloody well lump it and sleep with whoever they get given (often older/crumblier).

Men are more visual = not very cryptic code for "so men deserve/need sex with younger beautiful women, whereas women should just put up with old greying moobs because it's all about security/sense of humour for them".

OK I started another thread on the specific subject, but I was at a workshop on women's erotica at the weekend (focusing specifically on photos of men in the scud) and the same stuff applies - people insist there is some profound inherent difference in sexual response when the evidence actually shows there isn't much at all but socialisiation for women is a matter of convincing them that they don't like sex for itself, that for them it's a means to an end and therefore they don't seek pleasure independently of what men want of them.

I don't really think that "feminism asserts" very much (except the core beliefs that women are oppressed and shouldn't be, commitment to try and end that etc). Individual feminists probably vary quite a lot in their views, depending on preconceptions, experience, knowledge, personal beliefs etc.

I think that feminism debunks myths that "men are" this and "women are" that. That we are opposites, that in fact there are any general differences between the sexes. You can say "boys are born with more muscle" on average, but there are bound to be boys who aren't born with much muscle, and some girls who are. There are so many exceptions to most of these "rules" that the rules are meaningless.

But notice how shitty people get (i know this from experience) if you dare to doubt the assertion that "men are taller than women" for instance. On average men are taller than women. But put a bunch of men and women together (especially from different races/countries where genes and environmental factors differ) and loads of the women will be taller than loads of the men. It's just true. But people don't want to hear it. You get accused of "splitting hairs". However say something of the same nature that benefits women, e.g. "girls are cleverer than boys", and despite the fact that exam results "prove" this (the magical on average agan), this is looked on as an outrageous claim.

Yes but it would make sense, given that women often have several children, that we all had several sets of arms in order to hug them all or do lots of things at once. We don't though. At least, I don't

Women do have testosterone as well though. Men have more of it on average, but women are more sensitive to it.

It's intersting how many people believe the myths about male and female difference and make totally unsupported assertions of their own about the big differences between men and women - and them stomp their ickle feet and protest when someone corrects them.
The differences only matter because it's important to some people that men are better than women, and that men's privileged status is natural and women should just shut up and accept that they are not full human beings at all.

Interesting observation BeenBeta - and your comment:

"At the extremes of intelligence I am more likely to be more intelligent or less intelligent than a woman but apart from that I am doubtful if there is much more to maleness."

That really chimes in with what I've been reading in Pink Brain Blue Brain.

A really good visual picture from that book is to imagine a bell shaped curve for women's and men's heights.

These 2 curves have overlap but the difference between the average heights is 6 inches or so and statistically quite large.

When you plot these bell curves for aggression/empathy/intelligence there are extremes at either end for men - but the rest of the curves are so so statistically close - yet we allow small average differences to dominate our thinking/coverage/reality etc of what it is to be a man or a woman.

Every so often someone expresses surprise on MN when they realise I am a man. Its funny when it happens because I dont think I write in a feminine way or go out of my way to avoid writing as a man. I have seen it happen to other men on MN too so its not just me.

A few months ago I namechanged because I wanted to talk about something very personal. Several of you on this thread wrote to me as a woman. I wasn't trying to trick you or be sneaky. I didnt change my writing style or make out I was a woman. You just assumed it and you couldnt tell by the way I wrote or expressed myself.

These observations makes me think that being perceived as a man has a huge amount to do with physical attributes and appearance. At the extremes of intelligence I am more likely to be more intelligent or less intelligent than a woman but apart from that I am doubtful if there is much more to maleness.

If I express typical 'male' attitudes that are put there by my upbringing and society in general they are not 'male' but merely attitudes put there by society because of my male body.

Craft/sewing/knitting shows

However, the big fly in the ointment there, is that the focus is a man/ men.

The only other things I can think of is:

Women's Institute meetings.

Reclaim the Night

Moonwalk/ Walk for Life

Feminism conferences.