What makes a man?

[TheFeministParent]

Just wondering as I keep trying to articulate masculinity or maleness and I really couldn't tell you anything about a man that makes him a man that doesn't make him sound (or me) like an anti feminist!

So I was thinking strong, safe, straight forward....

Exactly Alice. These supposedly male/female differences usually break down as soon as you start comparing all men and women rather than only the ones who have been socialised in our culture.

I don't think men are more sportier than women. We have all seen the unfit couch potatoes who watch a ball game with a six pack. I think the difference is that they enjoy the competition between teams more. We all know men who few other topics of conversation than the statistical information on the number of away goals scored over the past decade; the "Statto" type figures of the Baddiel and ? show.

Oh Marsha I totally agree.

Having been on a couple of dates recently, what strikes me about men my age is just how unfit they are compared to me.

But seriously you're right, I don't think they are fitter overall. Their lifestyle and clothing does make it easier for them to be fit though, if they wanted to be.

(Which makes it all the more crushingly disappointing when they're not.)

HerBeatitude.

The facts / watching of sport is just some sort of displacement activity isn't it? Like lots of things both males and females do. Get overly involved in something to avoid... what? boredom, loneliness... not sure. Or to be part of something with a language other's speak.

Really being competitive (if that's a trait someone has), to me, is actually participating in the activity.

I am starting to think that for all of the "male" activities, which obviously show that their brains work in a different way , there are equivalent "women's" activities. The difference is that the "women's" activities are considered so utterly crap, that no-one talks about them very loudly, so they don't get noticed.

Women's activities aren't supposed to bring them together in large numbers though are they, that's something that's still reserved for men. I can't think of anything that results in huge hundred thousand strong groups of women all there for the same reason, with hardly any men present. Happy to be corrected on that.

Barry Manilow concerts?

Hmm why is that.
Historical? All the stuff was made for the men and it carried on?

snort cross post.

Ok Take That concert

Was going to say Take That.

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.

Craft/sewing/knitting shows

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.

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.

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.

Testosterone is a competitive hormone though isn't it? My old boss took part in a documentary about it, he had higher levels of the stuff and was a really driven man? (just putting it out there, would rather not be insulted!!).

It would make sense, given women give birth, that our hormones make us more nurturing.

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.

Thanks Elephants!! So we are better using the little testosterone we have!!? There is research that suggests hormones in pregnancy assist us in being sensitive to our babies, and men do not have this.

Does Feminism really assert that there are no differences between the sexes? AS I thought it challenged the idea that the differences make men better in a patriarchal society, not that we're actually the same. For a start boys are born with more muscle, men are stronger (generally).

[points and laughs at EAM with her two arms]

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 I have been in the company of many a Dane, all of which tower over my DH (6ft), but Danish men are taller than Danish women!!

I completely agree about rules though.

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.

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".

Apparently I have reading to do, it's really hard to unpick all of these myths that are embedded in my brain, but I am trying. To be honest it's quite unsettling to realise pretty much everything you have assumed to be FACT is not at all fact but nurtured and groomed myth!!

It's like girls and masterbation, we all worry about our boys looking (well I do) on the web and getting the wrong idea but I've barely thought about my dd looking at porn.

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.