What is a REAL Man?

[boatsnguitars]

When someone says, "Now there's a REAL Man!" Or, when someone says, "Now that's a Manly Man!"

What is it that makes a Man?

There is a lot of talk about the "feminization" of men, and I don't know what this means. Was Sean Connery a "real man"? Is Andrew Tate?

When we talk about what makes a man, what do we mean? Is it biological? Cultural? Something else?

[AgnosticBoy]

I think you've succumbed to the social pressure - and a probable belief that men and women are completely different - with no recognition that some women are more butch than many men, and some men more feminine than many women. And that is only in appearance - forget the their brains differ wildly too.

I also think that you feel that whatever proclivity you have to docile, subservient women must be the normal and what everyone ought to aspire to, as you seem to tie it to your 'evolution'. I don't discount that many people do like to stay home. Both men and women. You seem to think there is an unwritten law that forbids men from doing it, but demands women be respected for it - regardless of their situation?

I think you must get quite a shock while you are out on the dating scene and you aren't getting many women to fall for you - or, that so many people simply want to be decent people - not cavemen. I imagine you feel there need to be more women calling men "Daddy" because you are either a pedophile or it's a healthy kink - but either way, not finding those women - because it's creepy to many of them. I'd encourage you to reconsider the importance of a woman calling you Daddy - if you were serious (I sense you were trolling or joking).

The point being. You are probably most likely wrong about your views, since there is a wide variety of views on this matter - and there are no rules. Simply choosing the social norms you grew up with is nothing but choosing a religion because you were born into it.

I'm going on 2 years now in a relationship with my girlfriend. The biggest complaint I've gotten so far is from her family wanting us to tie the knot. My girlfriend and exes have never complained about gender roles. From my experience of relationships, these roles tend fall into place naturally as we go through the relationship. And it also doesn't hurt that I set the tone for all of these roles to be expressed in a way that makes her feel special. For instance, if masculine men are supposed to be strong, then let me express that by getting the door for her; if we're in the cold and I have a jacket, then I'll offer my jacket, etc.

Of course, women and men are capable of doing a lot of the same things, but I also can't deny that each gender has their strengths and weaknesses, on average. Some gender roles were imposed on women in patriarchal societies, but I think some of them are a natural expression of their traits. We see some of these differences in the non-human animal world, so a lot of that is natural. Sure, as a man, I can do all of the domestic work at home (cook, clean, child-rearing), but if we were to assign tasks, the main factor I'd consider is who does it better. In my relationship, I try not to become too overdependent on my girl for anything so cleaning is a shared responsibility. If she's tired, I do all of the cleaning.

Enough about my perspective. Let's address yours.

A problem I tend to find with those who hold your view is their definition of gender abuse/inequality. It seems your side wants to get rid of the baby with the bath water when all that's needed is to get rid of the abusive parts as opposed to scrapping gender roles, entirely. Also, to put this in a heterosexual context, I find your standards to be boring. It might make women feel satisfied but I question if it makes them feel special. Sure she can get the door herself, she has the ability to, but does that have the same feel as when I get the door for her?

Another issue I see from your side is that you are imposing your view, as opposed to letting people decide for themselves. I question if you've considered that there can be more than one way to improve gender equality? Why not have a system where every gender has equal opportunities at everything (your position), while also allowing for systems that adopts some gender-based roles?! The two can coexist to some degree, like having one standard in a professional setting or workplace, and have the other standard (or both standard as an option) in other settings. And of course, have all of this take place between consenting adults.

[LittleNipper]

The following are traits of a man according to the Bible:
I Timothy 6:2b-12 These are the things you are to teach and insist on. 3 If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4 they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5 and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.

6 But godliness with contentment is great gain. 7 For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. 8 But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. 9 Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
11 But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness. 12 Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.

No one gives to shifts about what the Bible says.

You realize that your statement is entirely FALSE and without any merit whatsoever. I for one do care exactly what the Bible has to say and I'm totally sure that there are others. Even some who may not entirely believe the Bible are more than likely to care what is therein.

[otseng]

No one gives to shifts about what the Bible says.

Moderator Warning


Incivility is not allowed on the forum.

Please review our Rules.



______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[AgnosticBoy]

You realize that your statement is entirely FALSE and without any merit whatsoever. I for one do care exactly what the Bible has to say and I'm totally sure that there are others. Even some who may not entirely believe the Bible are more than likely to care what is therein.

I'm a non-believer, and I'll be the first to admit that the Bible has plenty of good advice in it that anyone would benefit from. Of course, there are some parts that are objectionable, but it would be unreasonable to judge the entire Bible, including ignoring the good parts, based off of the questionable parts. Maybe I'm just too open-minded...

[LittleNipper]

You realize that your statement is entirely FALSE and without any merit whatsoever. I for one do care exactly what the Bible has to say and I'm totally sure that there are others. Even some who may not entirely believe the Bible are more than likely to care what is therein.

I'm a non-believer, and I'll be the first to admit that the Bible has plenty of good advice in it that anyone would benefit from. Of course, there are some parts that are objectionable, but it would be unreasonable to judge the entire Bible, including ignoring the good parts, based off of the questionable parts. Maybe I'm just too open-minded...

So, that's a start ------ give me an idea of a part you object to.

[AgnosticBoy]

I'm a non-believer, and I'll be the first to admit that the Bible has plenty of good advice in it that anyone would benefit from. Of course, there are some parts that are objectionable, but it would be unreasonable to judge the entire Bible, including ignoring the good parts, based off of the questionable parts. Maybe I'm just too open-minded...

So, that's a start ------ give me an idea of a part you object to.

I've actually gone down that path before, listing all of my objections, and getting responses from Christians. In the end, it wasn't enough to get me to rejoin the club (i am a former Christian) because my objections run deeper than just the objectionable Bible material. I see no reason to fully commit to any worldview, Christianity or otherwise, unless such a system can be fully validated using logic and evidence. Christianity is not built to be such a system. Some times I question if even science is such a system when scientists tend to adhere to materialism.

[LittleNipper]

I'm a non-believer, and I'll be the first to admit that the Bible has plenty of good advice in it that anyone would benefit from. Of course, there are some parts that are objectionable, but it would be unreasonable to judge the entire Bible, including ignoring the good parts, based off of the questionable parts. Maybe I'm just too open-minded...

So, that's a start ------ give me an idea of a part you object to.

I've actually gone down that path before, listing all of my objections, and getting responses from Christians. In the end, it wasn't enough to get me to rejoin the club (i am a former Christian) because my objections run deeper than just the objectionable Bible material. I see no reason to fully commit to any worldview, Christianity or otherwise, unless such a system can be fully validated using logic and evidence. Christianity is not built to be such a system. Some times I question if even science is such a system when scientists tend to adhere to materialism.

We have a risen SAVIOR. What does the Uniformitarian possess or the Evolutionist? They collect data and define it according to their regard of nature. There are archeologists and creationists who define the Bible according to the revelation found in the scriptures and the leading of the HOLY SPIRIT, and arrive to different conclusions that support the Bible.

[Purple Knight]

When someone says, "Now there's a REAL Man!" Or, when someone says, "Now that's a Manly Man!"

What is it that makes a Man?

There is a lot of talk about the "feminization" of men, and I don't know what this means. Was Sean Connery a "real man"? Is Andrew Tate?

When we talk about what makes a man, what do we mean? Is it biological? Cultural? Something else?

Real men love cats. /thread

On a more serious note, this is a question about traditional gender roles. People who talk about a man's man, manly men, and real men, are describing the male role in the traditional sense. The question doesn't even make sense without that qualification.

It includes things like promiscuity, high attractiveness standards for their mates (real men only love 10's), aggression, proud selfishness, hedonism, and deliberately low empathy. There's also a redneck version that includes things like mate protection, honour, a sense of justice, willingness to endure pain, standing up for what's right even if you must make sacrifices, bravery, and providing for one's family. These are polar opposites and it really just depends on the culture.

It's hard to draw a common thread between the two, but the biological underpinning of both seems to be unwillingness. A "real man" in the modern sense creates injustice. He favours himself. He's slick. He gets ahead. And modern people exalt him for it. In the redneck sense, a "real man" fights injustice. In neither case does he passively endure injustice.

[Data]

When I think of a man I think of someone like Ernest Borgnine or Segourney Weaver.

It was just a joke. Don't have a cow. Please send all angry correspondence in care of Transponder, at . . . .

[AgnosticBoy]

It's unfortunate that people tend to jump to the bad examples of gender roles when they bring up these issues. If after a date, I call or text to her to make sure she gets home safely, that concern or care for her safety, does not mean I'm trying to control or suppress her. There is nothing wrong with that type of gender norm. If the issue is that both men and women can act on either gender roles, then that's one thing, but what I tend to hear from some leads to scrapping all gender roles entirely, as if they go against women equal rights. I'd argue that isn't the case for all traditional gender norms.

Anything wrong with this perspective?

I can’t believe this is even a question… This is how lost the Western society is today; it has completely lost touch with the biological realities of human nature. It’s absolutely insane…

And just to spell it out: The answer is, YES! Most men want to take care of a woman (be her protector and provider). Most men are biologically programmed that way - in exactly the same way that most women are biologically programmed to want to be taken care of (be protected and provided for) by a man.

This is an empirical fact of most men and women, which naturally reveals itself in a sexual/romantic context between a man and a woman. Most men and women will be able to observe this within themselves, if they just pay attention to it when they’re in a sexual/romantic situation with the opposite sex.

Men love to protect their woman, and women love to feel protected by their man. It’s pretty simple.

Source: Quora