I am not, as you may have noted, a man, but I'll be honest; I'm fond of the lugs. I'm a huge fan of Saul Bellow's Henderson the Rain King, which is the book I give to every boy I know, in hopes that he will — much like Henderson — become a man. (I believe it works, too.) It's tricky to tell what makes a man these days, which is probably a good sign — a multiplicity of masculinity — but it can be somewhat confusing as well. As we noted on our "gaydar" segment, the rise of the "metrosexual" means that a "real" man may be caught sipping a cold glass of Pinot Grigio rather then knocking back a glass of bourbon. Depictions of men in pop culture range from Johnny Depp's sensitive pirate, to the boyish crew on Entourage and in Judd Apatow's oeuvre, all the way to the ever (seriously forever) hard-bodied, bald-headed (testosterone!) John McClane in the Die Hard series. What actually makes a man, though? Do you see yourself reflected in the tech-geeks, new-agers, or man-children of popular culture? Let us know here. Don't be shy. It'll put hair on your chest.
Blog Of The Nation
I think what we see happening these days is that the media is starting to reveal the complexities of the male psyche. Real men aren't the one-dimensional tesosterone-laden machines that they are often portrayed to be. Men are multidimensional creatures, and a single , one-size-fits-all definition of "manliness" really doesn't fit.
Men behaving in a way that is sensitive is not counter to manliness. Sharing and helping in the home is not counter to manliness either. Shooting everything on the block in NOT being manly.
Manliness tends to be most pronounced by those who are able to:
1) Control their temperament
2) Protect and Develop relationships within the family
3) Be a benefit to society around them
What does it mean to be a man? I try to be as close to my father's persona as I can. He died when I was 15 and with 6 sisters, had no role model to follow.
He was good to my mother, and respectful to all my sisters, he played with all the grandchildren (boys or girls of all ages), but was ready to distribute discipline just the same. He was not the macho type, but a caring father and husband, yet he stuck to the typical tasks assigned to men when the topic of housework came about. He did not cook, but if truly needed, he knew how to do it, and how to saw up a button. He taught all his children to shine their own shoes, wash the car, and while he did not mind if my mother worked, he still handed her his check every week to do what was needed. He did not have to have total control. She managed the house, and he managed the office.
More important, he did not keep his feelings wrapped up. He wiped away our tears and hugged us and showed us how to be tough when it was needed.
I'd go with none of the above. I'd like to think that as a society, we've gotten to the point where we value individualism over conformity and certain archetypes.
Perhaps this is one reason why we see so much variety today? We have a wide gamut of male celebrities, from the openly-emotionally vulnerable Chris Carrabba of Dashboard Confessional to the burly Barry Bonds, and everything in between.
It seems that we've grown more segmented, but also more accepting of alternatives.
What happened to manlyness in the Roman sense of virtue (vir=man)? It usedto be that character counted. George Washington was respected not because he could kick ass but because he was honest, gentlemanly, etc. John Wayne would not play a villain. Now character doesn't seem to count.
Being a man means, first and foremost, to provide for the needs of your family. But, men should also help out AT home. EX: washing dishes, changing diapers, babysitting, etc.... Try it. I am sure your wives wil love it.
I am a practitioner of BDSM or as it was once called S&M. I find how Maxim portrays men and women as shallow, dysfunctional, and sick. Even worse it encourages people to hide their individuality as well as ignore the basic humanness of their partner.
While the superficial appearance of my relationship would seem to almost be a hyper example of what Maxim portrays (manly man ordering his submissive female partner about) it is actually the complete opposite.
In order to make our relationship dynamic work we strive to improve our self awareness as well as our ability to communicate our needs, wants, and issues to each other.
My partner has never had someone pay closer attention to her mental state, care more deeply about her needs and desires, all while her serving me and my needs.
A man can be strong and independent and caring and sensitive, they are not mutually exclusive traits.
What makes a man? First, a Y chromozone. Then a good socialization into whatever role your society, micro and macro, has for you. And lastly, it is the same thing that makes a woman. Maturity and the ability to do what is necessary and accept responsibility and think for yourself.
One line of thought says that men view things more from the outside because the center of their energy is more outside of their body. This is why they are more externally-driven, according to this line of thought. Women's center of energy is more inside the body. This is why they are more oriented to attend to internal feelings. This is a main physical difference between the sexes, according to this line of thought. The view is that people benefit from balancing these different forces -- masculine and feminine, external and internal -- in their lives.
I suspect that anyone engaged in hand-wringing over what is manly probably isn't. It's the 21st century; get with the program: anachronistic notions of status, including being manly, are no more worthy of consideration than is the value of keeping women barefoot & pregnant.
The concept of what is "manly" and who the "real men" are will most likely revisited at least once a generation. I know, that comment is trite, but the question comes as a result of being encouraged to examine our lives, who we are and how we interract. While listening the Joe Jackson song "Real Men" (I believe that's the title, I don't have it with me at the moment) came to mind. In the song, Mr. Jackson examines the exact question posed during your program. Of course the the song came out around 25 years ago.
The question seems rife with contradictions. I'll close with a portion of the chorus "all the gays are macho can't you see the leather shine?"
I'd like to hear from any transgender persons or someone that identifies on the FTM spectrum (female to male). How have you come to understand what "male" is? It certainly seems to be more than chromosomes and genitalia.
This has to be most vacuous coversation in a history of NPR. Please, No Mas! No Mas!
I think this is a "non-issue". Just as it is for women and "femininity".
A healthy individual's identity needs to be something he/she is comfortable with, despite the social, moral, and fashion trends of the moment.
If a man or woman is trying to be feminine, emotionally sensitive, cuddly, and sweet but doesn't honestly identify with those behaviors they are being false--to themselves and to those they interact with. Most people in social situations can spot such "posers" in a relatively brief interaction. Generally, we engage in such "posing" to impress someone we are attracted to--to make ourselves more desirable to the desired.
It has been my experience that this tactic is never successful, but causes more damage than intended.
An individual cannot lie to others, and especially to himself/herself for too long. The sincerity and continuity of the lie begins to crumble, revealing the deceivers true nature (actually making the lier look more sinister than he/she may actually be).
My advice to men, as well as women, is to be sincere. Be who you are, be what feels comfortable. Don't flirt with the fickle waves of "personality fashion" to fit a trend. Be who you are and you will be liked or disliked for being genuine.
I think what's defined our previous notions of "manly men" started during serious wars where men had to learn how to grow up fast in live or die situations. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam. These wars created our "stand up" men. Gen X'ers missed out on this and became perhaps confused. As an educator, however, I've seen a difference in the new young men. These new men coming home and going to college on the GI bill are totally different than their Gex X predecessors.
Boys who grew up on a farm doing what their father did eventually reached, task by task, the knowledge that they could do what their father did, that they had the knowledge and the strength to be men. But, now, how do men gain that deep assurance that they are OK as men? I took my sons to watch their father teach so they could see what he did, but that still did not give them the assurance that they could do it as adults. Achieving "manliness" is, for most males in this culture, a much delayed process and often leaves so much uncertainty that they lack a soul-certain sense of adequacy as a male.
Why can't men who are short get the same respect that our taller counterparts receive? If a shorter guy is upset about something and displays his anger then he is said to have Napoleon Complex. A man of average height can be upset about the same situtation and nothing is said about it. Also, I've been told by some women that they feel more comfortable and "secure" with a tall guy. What's up with that? It kinda hurts but, I'm a big boy so to speak. I'll find someone who likes me for all 5'6 of me.
I always think of my father as a prime example of being a man. My father is a typical hard-working military retiree who rarely expressed his feelings. As I grew up, however, he morphed into my best friend. Definitely I am a daddy's girl and he became the parent that took me everywhere. My funniest memory of my father is a stern looking older man staring into space in Forever 21 while his daughter shops for clothes. Men in my generation pale in comparison to my father. He did everything for his family and tried hard to relate to his daughters.
Perhaps rather than being 'swish' or 'butch' or whatever, the evolution of manliness is our increasing ability to communicate deeply with women, men and our children. Being emotionally remote, stoic etc. is no longer appropriate.
I believe that the more emotionally accessible male finds himself caring more about his role in the family, the community, friendships, etc. Indeed, being more emotionally accessible also allows men themselves to have more access to themselves -masculinity is therefore flexible and individual.
But I do see that if we place men and women at opposites on a continuum, where women moved toward the center with respect to profession, place in society,rights, etc., perhaps men are now themselves moving toward the center, embracing the roles, behaviors, thinking that has traditionally thought of as feminine. If women can adopt 'masculine' ideals, men can/should also with the same enthusiasm as women did several decades ago.
Despite all the variations, the definition of manhood has remained fairly constant in Western culture: spiritedness, self-assertiveness, courage, independence. (Needless to say, these qualities are not the exclusive possessions of biological men.) How the qualities are expressed varies from generation to generation, as different practices and values come to stand for assertiveness, independence, etc., but I don't see that the qualities themselves have gone out of fashion.
My impression of "what it takes to be a man" is mature masculinity - which has several characteristics: integrity, authenticity, a deep connection to feelings, and a sense of purpose, or mission in the world. When a boy/man develops these characteristics, he is able to operate not from a wounded persona, but from a place of true mature masculinity.
What's interesting is that cultivating mature masculinity violates many societal messages. Men are taught from a young age to ignore their feelings, and compete from a place of "win/lose". Maybe you've heard these expressions: "Suck it up!", "Tough it out!", "If you don't stop crying, I'll give you something to cry about!", "Big boys don't cry", "When the going gets tough, the tough get going". Oliver Wendell Holmes said "We are tattoed in our cradle with the beliefs of our tribe"... and our parents unwittingly teach us to repress our feelings from early childhood.
Fortunately for all of us, men are moving in the direction of the mature masculine. The ManKind Project, now 35,000 men strong, is opening men to feelings, and "what it REALLY takes to be a man". See http://www.mkpla.org/warrior/downloads/la/video/NWTA_Video_MKPLA_20051108_Conversations_hi_res_swf.htm for some examples.
Today???s (July 2) program on what makes a man ???manly??? was oddly archaic. The very question presupposes that there is some commonly recognized state of manhood we can compare ourselves to.
Historically, manhood was defined by the roles men were expected to fill. If you possessed the attributes that allowed you to fill a man???s role in a superior way, you were more ???manly??? than another man who was not able to fit the role as well. For example, if ???warrior??? was an important role for a man, then the aggressive, strong, fearless, and fight-trained man would be most likely to be judged ???manly???.
Societal expectations have always defined manhood which is why concepts of manhood vary across time, place, and culture.
In our modern culture, the socially acceptable roles available to men have expanded greatly. The athlete, the CEO, the scholar, the artist, the construction worker and the stay-at-home dad will succeed in their varying roles by utilizing various skills and temperaments which are unlikely to be the same among all the players. The spectrum of temperaments and skills associated with manhood has expanded right along with the expansion in socially acceptable roles for men. I am guessing this is the root of the confusion over what it is to be masculine, although I confess to being blind to the problem until today.
I believe this confusion is a non-issue, even though it is apparently causing some real angst. The real questions are: ???Are you doing what you want to do???? and ???Are you comfortable in your own skin????. If you can answer ???Yes??? to both questions and you are male, then I???d say you are manly. If you can answer ???Yes??? to both questions and you are female, then I???d say you are womanly. These two questions are essential questions of personhood and are paramount to the subservient issue of gender.
Gender has become less of a determinant in defining the roles people play in society even as it remains a significant component of personality.
Personhood is a far more fruitful area of inquiry than either manhood or womanhood.
Since my first name has become associated with females over the last couple of decades, I want to declare myself as being a younger grandfather and to state that I speak from my gender but not necessarily for my gender.
I think this show is a prime example of NPR being out of touch with certain large segments of our population. I've lived in St. Louis all my life, and moved to a town of 10,000 people for my undergraduate work. Now I am living in Manhattan, KS. In the midwest the idea of the man being the head of the family is still very much in vogue. Granted, there are some changes, like men helping with house work (sometimes), but the show today promoted the assumption that all men know that they should help out with house work. I know my parents haven't changed, and my good friend just moved in with her boyfriend and he does the yard work and maintenance of the home, and she does all the cleaning.
Hollywood, and other media, are always ahead of the general population. While there are more variations in the idea of what a man is supposed to be, I think most of the population has yet to catch up. Yeah there are movies out there like "Knocked Up", but for every movie there are loads of commercials communicating the exact opposite. For example: Subway's commercial where the dad tries to cook, but the pans fall all over the floor, so the dad has to take the family to Subway. These images reach the general public more frequently than any progressive movies.
Manliness is most evident when a man doesn't overtly express it. An overt expression is vanity or inferiority. Manliness exists freely in a wide spectrum of traits, behaviors, and mannerisms and its most obvious expression is self-confidence (the same for womanliness). Additionally, it is unfortunate npr chooses use labels like "swish" and "swagger" when discussing this topic. Such labelling only reinforces archaic stereotypes.
A man is a man is a man. If you are defined by a role you must play then you are not yourself and you are weak. Even if your incarnation of a man is meek and humble.
I will not wear panties and a dress but I sure as heck will bake, take care of my kids, change diapers, drink wine, read novels, wear pink, dress sharp and colorful, talk and enjoy myself at the women table, clean the house, grocery shop, cut cake at a party, .... everything but know the names of colors outside of the primary colors. (I just can't remember if schartuse is red or blue or if amber is blue or brown).
Who needs a social revolution or psychologists or even very friendly media writers to be themselves? Life is not a play or a movie ... it is breath and heart beats. We all are embodied souls. We are spirimals. We are anigels. We just need to be ourselves. If you are not comfortable doing something, don't do it. If you are comfortable ... don't worry. If people think you are gay ... it will not make it true. Live baby live! (INXS) And not half alive!
Desiring a "manly" man is as much admitting you enjoy being around a poseur who allows a generic societal construct to dictate their entire persona. I can think of nothing more embarrassing than a male submitting to being an assh*le simply because he believes he is expected to. I don't like a "manly" men or "sensitive" men - I like real people who have a personality untainted by stereotypical nonsense. And lucky for me, there seem to be plenty.
Comments
Discussions for this story are now closed. Please see the Community FAQ for more information.