What Makes a Man?

[BertrandRussell]

I thought a companion thread would be interesting.

A recognition of one's own disposability relative to women and children.

Which plays through to risk taking, suicide and limited attendance to ones physical and emotional health.

Sorry Bert, a big part of my sarcasm-y posts was an underlying irritation at how quiet this thread is in comparison to the 'what makes a woman' one - cause man-ness doesn't deserve the same debate that woman-ness does. I wasn't so much attempting to be funny as I was attempting to keep the thread bumped :)

Manners, according to my grandma.
'Calling the shots', that's it. Like defining what a woman is. Because they get to say.

So can I become a man simply by saying I am a man?

If you're following their example, certainly. Go for it.
"I'm a man."
From now on, I pee standing up.

Following pointer from other thread...

A man is a biological category to me, same as a woman. Adult human male, of the sex class that produces sperm (the mobile gamete).

Of course there's a shitload of gender stereotyping about what a "real man" should be , but that's just the same deliberate confusion of biological (adult human male) with cultural (masculinity) that I reject when it's applied to women.

The other thread presumably brought with it many posters from Jack's original In The News thread - feminist theory is notoriously quiet.

Meph, other than your mother who I know treated you badly, do you honestly think women in general regard men as disposable?

So can I become a man simply by saying I am a man?

I don't think so.
In the 'What makes a woman' thread I said I think that 'woman' is a social construct. I think the same is true of 'man'.

Social constructs can't just be swept aside or dismantled by individuals at will. Saying you're a man (or a woman) doesn't make you one.

A penis. I was with a trans man. I can't believe that a piece of paper in 2004 determined that I was having sex with a man, as opposed to the very real fact that he had a womb.

Yes readers, I divorced him.

A man is someone with a Y chromosome and its attendant development thru endocrine system.

A man is also a man by virtue of gender training into masculinity aka male supremacy a la patriarchy.

Both biology and gender training are important in the making of man.

I see some people making distinctions between male and man. Using male to refer to biology and man to refer to gendered training into masculinity.

I don't know how I feel about using that kind of definition for man and male.

maybe others can expand on why they use those two terms differently.

Meph says:

"A recognition of one's own disposability relative to women and children."

Men are not disposable. That's men's rights BS. Certainly though, if you buy into masculinity you will probably feel disposable and take risks that will hurt you.

That's the problem with gender: it hurts both sexes but it definitely hurts women more because of the hierarchy inherent in gender training.

You know, sometimes I just wonder, what is happening to womankind? Have we turned into a bunch of whining victims and man haters? Are we our own worst enemy at times? Do we act and play the victims far too readily and blame everything on our partners and men in general, as to why our relationships or the world are not perfect and we arent being treated like princesses all the time? I was watching the movie "As Good as it gets" recently and one scene struck me particularly. Its the scene where Jack Nicholsons character is waiting to go into an office and the receptionist having been a fan of his writing asks excitedly..."How do you write women so well?" to which Jack Nicholsons character retorts..."I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability." Now I know this is meant to be a cutting and sarcastic retort to the annoying receptionist but it did strike a chord with me. Is there some truth to that? Is part of the problem with women, that we are unreasonable, irrational and we dont take responsibility for our own failings and crap? That we are in essence not as emotionally mature as we think we are!!!!

To expound on this let me tell another story. Recently my eldest child who is a 6 year old boy came into the kitchen crying because he had been hit in the face with a football and it hurt. My husband picked him up and asked what the matter was and between the sobs my son imparted the nefarious tale of his friend kicking the ball which hit a wall and rebounded to strike him in the face. My first reaction to was to feel crushed and helpless to defend my precious child from harm. I felt crippled at seeing him cry and feel sad and hurt. I wanted to comfort him to make him feel safe and let him sob uncontrollably into my bosom. My husband on the other hand picked him up, brushed his hair out of his eyes, listened to him sob and then gave him a hug, and told him..."you're a big boy now, and its only a bit of a fright you got. It will sting for a little bit, thats all. No harm done, and its not your friends fault. Go and give your face a wash and we will go kick some football together". To this my son hicked his last few sobs and said "okay daddy". While my son was washing his face and my husband was changing his shoes to go kick some football I told him that he should be more comforting, should not be teaching our son its not okay to cry or to come to us and that his friend should be more careful. My husband let me rant on for 3 or 4 minutes and then told me...he's a boy. He has to learn that the world isnt perfect, it is hard sometimes and yes you have to take your knocks and get on with it. Crying and blaming somebody else because you got hurt doesnt solve any problems. It doesnt equip a boy with what he needs. He went on to tell me that his earliest memory was of being knocked over playing football with his friends and lying there crying until his own dad came over and picked him up and told him the same thing. Life is rough. Sometimes accidents happen and sometimes through nobodies fault you will get hurt. Blaming everyone and crying and whining to anybody who will listen and take your side wont make anything any easier. Sympathy solves no problems. It makes you feel like you are in fact right to cry and be a victim. It just turns you into a person who sits and wallows in self pity and blames everyone else while the world passes you by. Life still goes on. Why waste time crying about it, feeling like a victim because of the fact that it isnt perfect?

I can similarly look back on my life and see nothing like that. No simple lesson that says going around blaming everyone and taking your crap out on the world is not only unproductive, its a waste of everyones precious time and gives you a severe victim mentality that is anything but good. Why dont we teach our daughters that, instead of wrapping them up in cotton wool and treating them like they are made of glass...especially emotionally. Now Im not saying that we teach our children to bottle up their emotions...my husband listens intently and will offer any comfort he can, but he has been teaching our son to take responsibility for his feelings, not to play the vicitm, and once the feelings are out to forget about them and move on. Do we teach our daughters this? Were we taught this ourselves? I certainly wasnt. I was taught to bitch, moan, whine, and play the victim at every and any opportunity, to blame everyone else for anything that wasnt perfect in my life. By listening to my own mum and aunts, by my own interactions with my own group of peers when growing up...the all night sympathy sessions and boxes of tissues as we gushed endlessly about our problems, many of which were entirely our own making if we had to be utterly honest...and so we carry on. Playing the victims.

And sometimes I have to say I silently thank my father in law for teaching his son this lesson, because without that our relationship simply wouldnt work. He is the stable one. The rational one. The one with all his shit nailed down and water tight. He isnt perfect, but he is a good dad, and a good man. And I have to admit most of the men I know are this way too. Yes, they might be a bit macho and juvenile at times, but its only blowing off steam and flexing muscles. In the end they are men too. We constantly bitch and moan about our female hormones, yet we conveniently forget testosterone is a hormone too...we dont have it so we can easily dismiss its affects on how it operates in men. It doesnt mean they are all neanderthals and slaves to it or driven by it but it has an effect that we dismiss sometimes completely out of hand. We so easily and so often throw the hormone card on the table and expect it to be used as our get out of jail free card when we decide the rules of being kind and loving and responsible need to be thrown out for a period of time, but men dont get to do that. Instead he will do his darndest to be the stable, rational, and emotionally responsible one when I am having my period and take all the crap of the world out on his head, and he just takes it. Weathers it and goes on loving me. Why??? Because the first lesson he ever learned was that shit happens, its not your fault, blaming and crying doesnt solve it, and dont ever play the victim...because while you are feeling sorry for yourself another few minutes or hours or days of life have just passed you by. We love each other dearly. And one of the cornerstones of our entire relationship is his strength and resolve and his ability to still love me if I am being a bit crazy. I sometimes wonder why cant I be that too? A lifetime of being taught that playing the victim, seeking sympathy and blaming everyone for the things that I dont like in the world is why!!! Indulging my own feelings to the point that they utterly take over is why!!! That and nothing else.

Is that why we are honestly the weaker sex. We think we are emotionally mature and nurturing, when many of us are just stunted cry babies who cant and wont admit it???

You know, at the point someone brings out the term "man hater" I always stop reading.

Okay...leaving cliches aside then what do you make of the contention that men are by and large brought up better equiped to deal with adversity and the less pleasant aspects of the world and relationships and that women to some extent are only victims because we were taught to embrace that all our lives and seek sympathy...not a way to solve or get over a problem. That is one general difference between men and women where men by and large have got it right and women by and large wrong!!!

I would say look at the suicide stats for men.

So we as women with a history of being brought up playing the victim, seeking sympathy and generally being less well equiped to get over things and our own feelings is the better way to deal with problems??? I look with unabashed envy at how well my husband and other men handle the stresses of life while I listen to and have partaken in whining sessions where copious amounts of sympathy and there there isnt he a horrible man have been doled out to less than perfect women who were uninterested in seeing that they may be the biggest part of their own problems.

This is actually a tricky question.

Gender feminism holds (largely correctly in my view) that no innate maleness or femaleness determines ones identity. Therefore masculinity and femininity are social constructs rather than inarguable biological realities.

But this conclusion gives rise to two further sets of questions. 1) Can masculinity or femininity be voluntarily adopted or eschewed by the individual , like a suit of clothes? Or will centuries of re-socialisation be required to break down patriarchal distinctions?

2. What form should this re-socialisation take? Should masculinity be invalidated as an identity but femininity remain valid? Or, to put it another way: should women be encouraged to continue being 'feminine' if they so choose, but males discouraged from being 'masculine'? Or to put it another way again, should men become more 'feminine'?

So there are two possibilities.

1. Both femininity and masculinity in all their permutations should be rejected so that humans become, in an identitarian sense, genderless. Both would have to be rejected because, as binary opposites, one reenforces the other to constitute patriarchy.

2. We keep them, but reach a consensus as a society on which constructions of femininity and masculinity are more conducive to equitable relations between the sexes and the overall health of society.

If we opt for 2, then the final question becomes: What form should this reformed masculinity take?

In that case, what your question should have been is 'What should it mean to be a man?' And I have to say it's not a question to which anyone, many third wave feminists included, has responded with a satisfactory answer.

Speak for yourself katey. Please don't speak for me or project the way you deal (or don't deal) with your problems on to other women. You say you are a whiner. Don't assume you are typical of women.

Shit happens - deal with it.

A Y chromosome. End of. All this 'identifying as a woman' stuff is bollocks.

"All this 'identifying as a woman' stuff is bollocks."

Or, according to this latest BBC story (yet again!) it's...................

"They're [women] much more comfortable around me and compliment me on my hair, make-up or clothes."

"Men go out of their way to hold doors for me or ask me if I need help."

Fragility and femininity, pretty clothes and make-up.

"Now that my body matches how it was supposed to look in my brain, I'm happy."
And this is despite still having a penis, so seems magic laydeebrain knows about clothes and shoes and boobs and make-up, but isn't so bothered about the bits that no one else can see (like her dick!). They admit to dysphoria, but the over-whelming emphasis here is on the social side and femininity.