What is a man?

[Mathbud1]

When someone tells a kid to act like a man, what does it mean?

It mean's they are teaching the kid toxic masculinity and that woman and femininity is inherently inferior.

What is toxic masculinity? How is telling a boy to act like a man teaching him that women and/or femininity are inferior?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Zmrzlina]

When someone tells a kid to act like a man, what does it mean?

It mean's they are teaching the kid toxic masculinity and that woman and femininity is inherently inferior.

What is toxic masculinity? How is telling a boy to act like a man teaching him that women and/or femininity are inferior?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Because it is usually said to a boy who is expressing emotions. If it was really a statement concerning acting more responsible and mature than the child should be asked to act like an adult, regardless of their gender. The ridiculous arguments earlier in the thread about whether to say manning or womaning up to girls should be evidence enough that parents should just say what they actually mean instead of gendering maturity and responsibility.

Here is a good video on the subject.

 

[whitehall]

When you gotta ask that question, society is in trouble. In the olden times being a "man" was about duty, honor and Country and other things like responsibility. Modern pop-culture science would tend to judge a "man" by his sexuality. Responsibility in pop-culture jargon translates to finding the best technicians to kill the unborn life in a woman who thought she found a "man".

 

[Mathbud1]

It mean's they are teaching the kid toxic masculinity and that woman and femininity is inherently inferior.

What is toxic masculinity? How is telling a boy to act like a man teaching him that women and/or femininity are inferior?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Because it is usually said to a boy who is expressing emotions. If it was really a statement concerning acting more responsible and mature than the child should be asked to act like an adult, regardless of their gender. The ridiculous arguments earlier in the thread about whether to say manning or womaning up to girls should be evidence enough that parents should just say what they actually mean instead of gendering maturity and responsibility.

Here is a good video on the subject.

It sounds like that guy had a pretty messed up childhood and was taught since pretty messed up things about women.

That said, I don't think there is anything wrong with telling a boy to act like a man in the context of a boy acting irresponsibly and immature and needing to be told to stop.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Mathbud1]

When someone tells a kid to act like a man, what does it mean?

It mean's they are teaching the kid toxic masculinity and that woman and femininity is inherently inferior.

I agree to an extent. If this is some male adult role model telling a kid to assume responsibility for his actions that is one thing. Same thing as "grow up". That's the intent. Biological.

It becomes a toxic masculinity when say parents split up and dad leaves and says to number one son---you are the man of the house now. Anecdotal: there are women who then encounter problems with that kid when he attempts to exert dominance in the household because it is his right as a male. It is the assumption that women are inferior and are not capable of running the household. And as men they don't have to abide by rules. Some of those kids then attempt to take on more responsibility then what they are prepared for in how they treat their siblings (disciplinarian) and what they can and cannot do.

It can filter down in a two parent household the exact same way simply by watching it in action.

It definitely filters down through media stereotypes.

There are instances where it is instigating or granting approval for violence. Masculinity=respect=violence. Machismo. Femininity is simply a structured performance if we follow Butler. So is masculinity.

I was taught that being a man was about responsibilities not about rights, and I would hope that others are taught the same. Too many people get caught up in their rights and forget about their duties. If I ever said, "you are the man of the house now" to my son it would mean that he had a duty to listen to his mother and help her raise and protect the other children as much as he could. That he would have to take the responsibility to serve, not that he would have the right to lead.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Anathema]

And the sexism begins.

Begins? It's been ongiong for thousands of years, as it should continue to be.

 

[Disir]

Who decided what constitutes a a proper society?

The people who first founded the society, and created a way of life that existed for more than a thousand years, and which we have destroyed in about a century and a half.

There has never been a perfect society. In fact, women have not always played the role that you are saying that they have. There have been massive problems in society that predate the last century and a half. So, what I am trying to understand is who decided that this was perfect? What criteria are you using to define perfect? What problems do you think that this solves? What do you perceive as it's destruction?

 

[Disir]

What is your definition of a man? When someone tells a kid to act like a man, what does it mean? Is your definition of what it means to be a man different from the expectations of others?

If you do not know what it means when a young boy is told act like a man then you have never been around one. Humans with different organs than you maybe but noooo Men.

If you can't articulate what a man is or define with your own criteria then there is no crying in how that is filtered down to young boys and how they proceed in the future.

 

[Anathema]

There has never been a perfect society. In fact, women have not always played the role that you are saying that they have. There have been massive problems in society that predate the last century and a half. So, what I am trying to understand is who decided that this was perfect? What criteria are you using to define perfect? What problems do you think that this solves?

You are correct that perfection in society is a goal rather than a destination. The number of matriarchal societies of any significant size which have existed over time has been pretty small. Definitely not in the last 1500 years. In the past the problems have been the exception to the main body of society. Now the few of us who can still claim to live any level of decent life are the massive exception to the main body of society which exists in a state of immorality, indecency, and general filth.

The concept of a PROPER (not perfect) Society is one in which the standards, norms, responsibilities and duties of the members of society are known, understood, embraced, and carried out by the vast supermajority (90%+) of the society. It is a culture/society where morals, values, and responsibility are the hallmarks of everyday life. Where the expectations are known and carried out by that vast supermajority of the people. A time and place where what SHOULD be done is vastly more important to people than what they WANT to do.

 

[midcan5]

I once ask my wife the same question and her reply was someone who was comfortable in his skin. The phrase means tougher up, grin and bear it, work it out, or get over it. 'Grow up' is another way of saying it. As for me, a man (and woman) is someone who recognizes we are all on this boat together and our lives are all combinations of luck and work. Out of that should grow a bit of empathy and respect for all while calling BS what it is and other bad behaviors what they are.

"A man is what he thinks about all day long." Ralph Waldo Emerson

"A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that's unlocked and opens inwards; as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push." Ludwig Wittgenstein

"To be a man is, precisely, to be responsible." Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him someone to look down on and he'll empty his pockets for you." Lyndon Johnson

"If you can keep your wits about you while all others are losing theirs, and blaming you. The world will be yours and everything in it, what's more, you'll be a man, my son." Rudyard Kipling

"Behind every great man is a woman rolling her eyes." Jim Carrey

 

[Derideo_Te]

What does that mean exactly?

What it means is that in a proper society there is "A Place for Everyone and Everyone is In That Place." Society only runs properly when Men, women & children understand, accept, embrace, and carry through on their proper roles and responsibilities to themselves, each other, and society as a whole.

Men are the leaders, the breadwinners, the ones in charge. It is His place to earn the money, to be the head of household, and the one who ensures that the family operates properly. Women are the support staff. The homemakers. The mothers and wives who cook, clean, and deal with the majority of the domestic tasks. Children's role is to learn, both through formal education and by soaking in the active and passive lessons taught by their parents in order to be able to take on their proper places in society as they become adults.

That sounds just like the Taliban social order to me. Denying education and professions to women purely because of their gender. Denying males their right to be caring and nurturing because of their gender.

I prefer a society where individuals are not constrained into archaic gender specific roles. Some women make better leaders than their male counterparts. Some men are better at raising children than their wives. In your rigid society you would have inferior male leaders and children raised by mothers who were not up to the job. That is a disservice to society as a whole.

A real man is not threatened by a women leader. A real man is not threatened by having to change a diaper. A real man knows his own limitations and supports others to achieve their potential. A society of real men with those values would be infinitely superior to the regressive one that you describe.

 

[Anathema]

That sounds just like the Taliban social order to me. Denying education and professions to women purely because of their gender. Denying males their right to be caring and nurturing because of their gender.

Close but not quite. Definitely closer to the Taliban than to the failed system we currently have in place here in the United States. It's not denying education, it's simply properly focusing it for the eventualities that the individual is going to have to deal with due to their gender, levels of intelligence and common sense, and other factors.

I prefer a society where individuals are not constrained into archaic gender specific roles. Some women make better leaders than their male counterparts. Some men are better at raising children than their wives. In your rigid society you would have inferior male leaders and children raised by mothers who were not up to the job. That is a disservice to society as a whole.

Not necessarily. What you would have is women who were not fit to be mothers doing other things, like being housewives to Men who don't want kids, or being clerks at some women's clothing store. You would have Men who are unfit to be leaders, being the average, everyday worker (as I am). The disservice to society is the lack of Law and Order when people are allowed to make choices outside of the standard order of things.

A real man is not threatened by a women leader. A real man is not threatened by having to change a diaper. A real man knows his own limitations and supports others to achieve their potential. A society of real men with those values would be infinitely superior to the regressive one that you describe.

He's not threatened because a real Man doesn't deal with a female leader (turned down a significant promotion because it would have meant working with a female supervisor). A real Man has a wife whose job it is to change that diaper because he's headed out the door to work. A real Man does know his limitations, both genetic/emotional/mental AND societal. A real Man ensures that those around Him understand, accept and live up to the expectations of them; whether that means limiting their potential or not.

You have a right to your opinion on the topic, just as I am. I will let you know right now that I'm not here to change your mind and that mine most definitely won't be changed.

 

[strollingbones]

a man is the guy who gets up daily and goes to work...who looks forward to returning home to his family....he is not a special guy to the outside world....but to that family he is the sun and moon,,,,he is the reason the sun comes up in the morning....he is also the idiot who changes the head lamp in my car in just his sandals....real men are too busy living real lives to get much attention....

 

[Derideo_Te]

That sounds just like the Taliban social order to me. Denying education and professions to women purely because of their gender. Denying males their right to be caring and nurturing because of their gender.

Close but not quite. Definitely closer to the Taliban than to the failed system we currently have in place here in the United States. It's not denying education, it's simply properly focusing it for the eventualities that the individual is going to have to deal with due to their gender, levels of intelligence and common sense, and other factors.

I prefer a society where individuals are not constrained into archaic gender specific roles. Some women make better leaders than their male counterparts. Some men are better at raising children than their wives. In your rigid society you would have inferior male leaders and children raised by mothers who were not up to the job. That is a disservice to society as a whole.

Not necessarily. What you would have is women who were not fit to be mothers doing other things, like being housewives to Men who don't want kids, or being clerks at some women's clothing store. You would have Men who are unfit to be leaders, being the average, everyday worker (as I am). The disservice to society is the lack of Law and Order when people are allowed to make choices outside of the standard order of things.

A real man is not threatened by a women leader. A real man is not threatened by having to change a diaper. A real man knows his own limitations and supports others to achieve their potential. A society of real men with those values would be infinitely superior to the regressive one that you describe.

He's not threatened because a real Man doesn't deal with a female leader (turned down a significant promotion because it would have meant working with a female supervisor). A real Man has a wife whose job it is to change that diaper because he's headed out the door to work. A real Man does know his limitations, both genetic/emotional/mental AND societal. A real Man ensures that those around Him understand, accept and live up to the expectations of them; whether that means limiting their potential or not.

You have a right to your opinion on the topic, just as I am. I will let you know right now that I'm not here to change your mind and that mine most definitely won't be changed.

I am old enough to have no expectations of changing anyone's mind on any topic. You are correct that we both have the right to express our opinions and there is no obligation to agree. In this thread we are under an obligation to be civil. That was why I did not liken you to the Taliban but instead merely made the comparison between what you described and their preferred social order. I left out everything else.

Personally I prefer an integrated society where roles are not rigidly defined. Having been in the military I found that rigid roles are limiting. Yes, they work well in conflict but even then the best decisions are not always made because the decision maker does not always have the skills, knowledge and judgment.

In a diverse society where open lines of communication exist between roles and responsibilities there is a better decision making process. This is reflected in our modern society where corporations need to be more agile and flexible in order to prosper. Likewise the roles in the family need to be agile and flexible. Teaching your son how to make his own dinner is just as important as showing your daughter how to change a flat tire on her car.

Perhaps the most glaring example is right here on the internet. Unless someone declares their role you have no idea who you are talking to. You have no option but to accept them based upon nothing but the content of their posts. You would have no idea if you are responding to a precocious 13 year old female or a 60 year male. On the internet everyone is equal.

 

[Disir]

Anathema, I don't have time to address your entire post as I have to leave.

This:

The concept of a PROPER (not perfect) Society is one in which the standards, norms, responsibilities and duties of the members of society are known, understood, embraced, and carried out by the vast supermajority (90%+) of the society.

So, what I hear you saying is that you are one of the few that is qualified to dictate how the rest of society should live. What makes you qualified? Where do you get that authority?

 

[Zmrzlina]

Anathema, I don't have time to address your entire post as I have to leave.

This:

The concept of a PROPER (not perfect) Society is one in which the standards, norms, responsibilities and duties of the members of society are known, understood, embraced, and carried out by the vast supermajority (90%+) of the society.

So, what I hear you saying is that you are one of the few that is qualified to dictate how the rest of society should live. What makes you qualified? Where do you get that authority?

He benefits from a patriarchal ordering of society so of course that is the best system.

 

[Anathema]

IPersonally I prefer an integrated society where roles are not rigidly defined. Having been in the military I found that rigid roles are limiting. Yes, they work well in conflict but even then the best decisions are not always made because the decision maker does not always have the skills, knowledge and judgment.

Roles SHOULD BE limiting. That's the entire point of them. The decision making issues are worked out by not allowing there to be more than a few decisions to be made at all.

IIn a diverse society where open lines of communication exist between roles and responsibilities there is a better decision making process. This is reflected in our modern society where corporations need to be more agile and flexible in order to prosper. Likewise the roles in the family need to be agile and flexible. Teaching your son how to make his own dinner is just as important as showing your daughter how to change a flat tire on her car.

I'm not interested in a "diverse society". In fact I believe that phrase in and of itself is an oxymoron. Teaching my son how to cook would be a stop-gap measure to get him through college and early adulthood. Once there's a woman in His life, that's another story entirely. If a daughter of mine needed to change her own tire, something has gone dramatically wrong.

IPerhaps the most glaring example is right here on the internet. Unless someone declares their role you have no idea who you are talking to. You have no option but to accept them based upon nothing but the content of their posts. You would have no idea if you are responding to a precocious 13 year old female or a 60 year male. On the internet everyone is equal.

Screennames, avatars, signature lines, profile information, etc... all give a very good idea of who a preson likely is. To that end, I've added more individuals to Ignore Lists over the years based on those criteria than probably anything else.

So, what I hear you saying is that you are one of the few that is qualified to dictate how the rest of society should live. What makes you qualified? Where do you get that authority?

Not in the least. I grew up in this screwed up society as much as anyone else. I was born in 1974, well after America stopped having any decency. I have no authority. All I'm saying is that we should be going back to the society we had previously, or at least an updated version of it. I'm just one of the few willing to open my mouth about it.

He benefits from a patriarchal ordering of society so of course that is the best system.

Everyone benefits from a partriarchal society because that is how human beings were designed to live.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

Rudyard Kipling

 

[Zmrzlina]

Everyone benefits from a partriarchal society because that is how human beings were designed to live.

[Citation needed]

 

[Derideo_Te]

IPersonally I prefer an integrated society where roles are not rigidly defined. Having been in the military I found that rigid roles are limiting. Yes, they work well in conflict but even then the best decisions are not always made because the decision maker does not always have the skills, knowledge and judgment.

Roles SHOULD BE limiting. That's the entire point of them. The decision making issues are worked out by not allowing there to be more than a few decisions to be made at all.

IIn a diverse society where open lines of communication exist between roles and responsibilities there is a better decision making process. This is reflected in our modern society where corporations need to be more agile and flexible in order to prosper. Likewise the roles in the family need to be agile and flexible. Teaching your son how to make his own dinner is just as important as showing your daughter how to change a flat tire on her car.

I'm not interested in a "diverse society". In fact I believe that phrase in and of itself is an oxymoron. Teaching my son how to cook would be a stop-gap measure to get him through college and early adulthood. Once there's a woman in His life, that's another story entirely. If a daughter of mine needed to change her own tire, something has gone dramatically wrong.



Screennames, avatars, signature lines, profile information, etc... all give a very good idea of who a preson likely is. To that end, I've added more individuals to Ignore Lists over the years based on those criteria than probably anything else.

So, what I hear you saying is that you are one of the few that is qualified to dictate how the rest of society should live. What makes you qualified? Where do you get that authority?

Not in the least. I grew up in this screwed up society as much as anyone else. I was born in 1974, well after America stopped having any decency. I have no authority. All I'm saying is that we should be going back to the society we had previously, or at least an updated version of it. I'm just one of the few willing to open my mouth about it.

He benefits from a patriarchal ordering of society so of course that is the best system.

Everyone benefits from a partriarchal society because that is how human beings were designed to live.

By your own admission you are 40 years old and have "no authority". Has it occurred to you that your own attitude might be what is holding you back in the current diverse reality that is America today? This nation is cobbled together out of diversity. There are people here from every nation on the planet. For some of them their ancestors came here thousands of years ago, for some it was a century or two, for many it was only decades and some are arriving on a daily basis.

America is a not a stagnant society. It's strength lies in it's diversity. The people that build this nation originally and those who are still building today are either immigrants or the children and grandchildren of immigrants. The vibrancy of the US economy is because those who arrive here bring with them ideas and opportunities of all kinds.

The "greatest nation on earth" did not arise from a rigid "patriarchal society". It came about because people from all parts of the earth came together and formed a new and different society. One that rewarded innovation and progress. A society that wasn't afraid to challenge the old "patriarchal society" and find a new and different way of doing things.

This was a society that built public libraries and public schools because it valued an educated population and understand that in order to have a self governing society it is important that everyone has an education.

Personally I embrace change because one of the lessons of history is that which is rigid and unchanging stagnates and dies. I look forward to learning new things and seeing things change. Certainly there are some things which should be preserved but if you look at the natural world it is in a state of constant change. The forest that you see today is not the same one you saw last year. Some trees have died and others have taken their place. Streams have altered course, habitats are different, the wildlife mix has altered.

Change is the natural order. As a man I see change and know I must deal with it and accept the new responsibilities and challenges that it presents.