How to be a Man

DanB, you got this, bro.

DanB wrote:

ok I just looked up the side effects for ART and not one of them mentioned increases in the those "hegemonic masculine" behaviours, here's the first 3 links I found:

Here's a good paper on it though it gives a better description of hypogonadism than hypergonadism (see table #1). The effects in reverse are just as significant. I say this not only having read a lot on the subject but due to personal experience.

why should we accept that these are acceptable male traits?

A lot of the negativity in that article is in the connotation. Call a behavior "aggressive" and it sounds bad but call it "assertive" and it sounds alright. Imagine if someone were to create a list of estrogen-related behavioral traits paired with negative connotations and say, as you seem to be, that we should not accept that and should give women cognitive behavior therapy to attempt to stop them from acting "hysterical". People actually used to do exactly that and we now understand it as clear sexism. Why is it different in reverse? Note I'm not saying, "poor men, we have it so bad". I'm just saying that I think your approach is a poor way of understanding behavior differences between men and women.

We need to accept behaviorial differences between men women as natural and try to understand them rather than trying to fix them.

Also, it might help for you to clearly restate your position DanB. You started with "male behaviors are learnt" and now seem to be saying something different that I'm reading as "male behaviors have a biological basis but we should try to fix the bad ones". If you still claim that male behaviors (at least some of them) do not have a clear biological basis then I'd like to start there as that's an important part of what I'm saying. If you are willing to agree to that then I think we can move on to why I think it's a mistake to try and normalize/fix behavior rather than accommodating/understanding differences between sexes.

StGabe wrote:
DanB wrote:

ok I just looked up the side effects for ART and not one of them mentioned increases in the those "hegemonic masculine" behaviours, here's the first 3 links I found:

Here's a good paper on it though it gives a better description of hypogonadism than hypergonadism (see table #1). The effects in reverse are just as significant. I say this not only having read a lot on the subject but due to personal experience.

Personally I'm not seeing the direct correlation between the traits in table 1 (which appear to be broadly the same as in the links I provided) and the list of hegemonic male behaviours. Worth noting that the list of symptoms for Female Androgen deficiency are more or less the same as those for men (diminished sense of well being, persistent unexplained fatigue and decreased sexual desire, sexual receptivity etc...). I also think that it's a bit of a reach to suggest that the opposite of those symptoms is the same as some (many?) of the hegemonic masculine traits lister.

StGabe wrote:
DanB wrote:

why should we accept that these are acceptable male traits?

A lot of the negativity in that article is in the connotation. Call a behavior "aggressive" and it sounds bad but call it "assertive" and it sounds alright. Imagine if someone were to create a list of estrogen-related behavioral traits paired with negative connotations and say, as you seem to be, that we should not accept that and should give women cognitive behavior therapy to attempt to stop them from acting "hysterical". People actually used to do exactly that and we now understand it as clear sexism. Why is it different in reverse? Note I'm not saying, "poor men, we have it so bad". I'm just saying that I think your approach is a poor way of understanding behaviour differences between men and women.

We don't just get to redefine "aggression" as "assertive" when talking about expression of gender as behaviours they are quite different things, applicable to very different settings. Personally I do think there are plenty of behaviours we would do well to fix in men and women. Those behaviours that are likely causing measurable harms to people/society. I doubt that amounts to CBT for all, it probably entails having much broader ranges of acceptable scripts for men and women; why shouldn't it be completely socially acceptable for women to be assertive?

I forget if I already linked this but here's a report from The Samaritans in the UK over the impact of societal expectations of masculinity on suicide stats. A strikes me as fairly clear case where "accepted" gender norms have a clear negative impact on actual people
http://www.samaritans.org/media-cent...

StGabe wrote:

We need to accept behaviorial differences between men women as natural and try to understand them rather than trying to fix them.

We need to accept biological/physiological differences in men and women; and as I keep saying behaviour then arises as the expression of our biological/physiological state, and a great many behaviours are learnt and highly plastic (I would guestimate most but I'm willing to come down to 50%).

StGabe wrote:

Also, it might help for you to clearly restate your position DanB. You started with "male behaviours are learnt" and now seem to be saying something different that I'm reading as "male behaviors have a biological basis but we should try to fix the bad ones".

I don't think I've said anything other than behaviours are the expression of biological/innate/physiological states and the modes of expression or realisation of those states are learnt. And in light of that it's more than possible to teach and learn new mode of expression. I don't think that's especially radical. It's not a notion I just pulled out of thin air, it has fairly broad support in psychology research, in therapy circles, in gender studies and has parallels in chomsky's (P & P) model of language acquisition, Marc Hauser's similar model for acquiring morals and Caroline Dweck's work on motivation and learning.

It's quite specifically not Nature Vs Nurture. Nurture is always layered on top of Nature and because of neuro-plasticity the two are in constant interaction; repeat a behaviour enough (or learnt it at a young enough age) and it will feel innate.

It's really only a mistake to "fix" current patterns of behaviour if you think that the list of acceptable/understood traits for men and women are biologically innate and not learnt (and that biological innateness equals right). Personally, since I've taken and interest in it, I've yet to see any evo-psych research that argues for contemporary gendered behaviours that can stand up to reasonable, structured rebuttal. I've suggested Cordelia Fine's 'Delusions of Gender' but you could also look to Anne Innis Dagg's 'Love of Shopping is not a Gene'. Additionally Christopher Ryan & Cacilda Jethá's 'Sex at Dawn' and Sarah Hrdy's 'Mothers and Others' paint quite different pictures of what it is to be human than contemporary mores around gender (and evo-psych) suggest.

DanB wrote:

We don't just get to redefine "aggression" as "assertive"

It's all in the eye of the beholder though, at least at the level of discourse we're having. You and that article are calling it aggression, because hey that sounds better for your argument. However that's an argument based purely on connotation. You've no particular reason to call it aggression, rather than assertiveness or confidence, other than that fitting your argument. The usage of the term "hegemony" in that discussion is pure hyperbole/assumption with no factual basis.

I don't think I've said anything other than behaviours are the expression of biological/innate/physiological states and the modes of expression or realisation of those states are learnt. And in light of that it's more than possible to teach and learn new mode of expression. I don't think that's especially radical.

It is radical. It's exactly a hair away from telling women that they're hysterical. But we're at a point, historically, where I think it's easy to miss that. You've said little to nothing that differentiates your position from this.

It's really only a mistake to "fix" current patterns of behaviour if you think that the list of acceptable/understood traits for men and women are biologically innate and not learnt (and that biological innateness equals right). Personally, since I've taken and interest in it, I've yet to see any evo-psych research that argues for contemporary gendered behaviours that can stand up to reasonable, structured rebuttal.

This isn't about evo-pscyh (blech). Don't get me started on that dodge -- strawman anyone?

You didn't really answer my question above about your position but since you don't seem to agree that many behaviors have a biological basis let's start with this.

If you believe that socialization -- the molding power of our environment -- is the main cause of gender differences, consider this: Berenbaum's data on girls with CAH point to the power of sex hormones, particularly those we're exposed to prenatally, in shaping our choices and aptitudes as children.

As a group, the girls in Berenbaum's study tend to prefer toys more typical for boys, show more interests in sports, have better spatial ability, and show less interest in infants and dolls than girls without CAH. Despite the hormone-balancing medication they've received since birth, exposure to high androgen levels during brain development in-utero seems to have a lasting masculinizing effect.

"The question is 'How does that happen?'" asked Berenbaum. "It's very complex. Despite some of my own data, I certainly wouldn't make a direct equation that hormones cause you to like trucks." And, she added, laughing, there's no dishwashing gene.

"Yes, there's evidence that biology does influence behavior that shows sex differences," said Berenbaum. "It's also true that, for all behaviors studied, the distributions for males and females overlap on a continuum. Nevertheless, the differences are observed consistently."

FWIW I totally agree with the statement that we shouldn't "make a direct equation that hormones cause you to like trucks". At the same time ignoring evidence like this, or equating it with evo-psych, is little more than willful ignorance.

(sorry, I had to edit this quite a bit as I was rather tired when I posted it and that led to many typos/grammos)

Just because it routinely comes up against a wall, PDF warnings

http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapte...

Basic slide version with much of the same.

Behavior is a confluence of genetics, neuroscience, endocrine, environmental, learned. To discount one or inflate the role of any other is just wrong. And it is not something that we can say 20% Endocrine, but 50% environment.

So gender has both a biological and a behavioral (learned) component.

So what?

I mean it's an interesting line of research for sure. And it has medical implications. But for the simple question of "how to be a man" I don't see how it has much relevance.

I mean, say it is true that biologically men are more disposed to be aggressive. Let's say that 90% of men are aggressive due to biology. It'd still be pretty clear that that's not all men, and those men who aren't aggressive deserve the same rights and respect as the men who are. You don't need to conform to any statistical average to be a man.

So I guess I'm asking what exactly you're driving at here?

The trip was to show facts and research, wasn't it a wild ride?

StGabe wrote:
DanB wrote:

We don't just get to redefine "aggression" as "assertive"

It's all in the eye of the beholder though, at least at the level of discourse we're having. You and that article are calling it aggression, because hey that sounds better for your argument. However that's an argument based purely on connotation. You've no particular reason to call it aggression, rather than assertiveness or confidence, other than that fitting your argument.

I don't think aggression and assertiveness can be conflated.

StGabe wrote:

The usage of the term "hegemony" in that discussion is pure hyperbole/assumption with no factual basis.

I'm not a huge fan of the word "hegemony", although you were the one that brought that list in to the discussion. I just stuck with the phrase to make the discussion easier to follow.

StGabe wrote:
I don't think I've said anything other than behaviours are the expression of biological/innate/physiological states and the modes of expression or realisation of those states are learnt. And in light of that it's more than possible to teach and learn new mode of expression. I don't think that's especially radical.

It is radical. It's exactly a hair away from telling women that they're hysterical. But we're at a point, historically, where I think it's easy to miss that. You've said little to nothing that differentiates your position from this.

Well you've pretty much not explained how the former concept of hysteria is at all related to the model of learnt behaviour so I can't really comment on this

StGabe wrote:
It's really only a mistake to "fix" current patterns of behaviour if you think that the list of acceptable/understood traits for men and women are biologically innate and not learnt (and that biological innateness equals right). Personally, since I've taken and interest in it, I've yet to see any evo-psych research that argues for contemporary gendered behaviours that can stand up to reasonable, structured rebuttal.

This isn't about evo-pscyh (blech). Don't get me started on that dodge -- strawman anyone?

If behaviour is innate (that is evolved and biological) then we're pretty firmly in contemporary evo-psych territory. How else would male and female behaviours become innate if they weren't evolved?

StGabe wrote:

You didn't really answer my question above about your position but since you don't seem to agree that many behaviors have a biological basis let's start with this.

If you read what I said I'm making the hard assertion that behaviours have a biological basis in the hormonal and psychological states living beings move between. The physical realisation of those states, the behaviours, are learnt and socially cued. Being masculinised leads you to a psychological position where you are more likely to draw form male scripts you've seen in your environment.

WRT that Penn State article we can both play the selective quoting and highlighting game

"Yes, there's evidence that biology does influence behavior that shows sex differences," said Berenbaum. "It's also true that, for all behaviors studied, the distributions for males and females overlap on a continuum. Nevertheless, the differences are observed consistently."

Don't rule out the impact of socialization on gender though, cautioned Berenbaum. "What happens to most people is that we start out with small biological differences which send us off on different environmental trajectories. Socialization then magnifies the differences until they become bigger over time."

Coming back to the point that differences in men and women overlap on a continuum this Economist article, which discuss a review of sex differences in the scientific literature, is worth a look http://www.economist.com/node/7245949
Of the 124 traits analysed that men and women were supposedly measurably different in only a fifth of them held to be statistically valid. And that's to say nothing of that bit at the end that literally discusses how a trait that men and women are differentiated in can be taught to women (and can in turn lead to a change in behaviour).

The question behind the main topic appears to be "How can I be what women expect of me when society's expectations seem to differ?"

Despite giving it a lot of thought, I haven't been able to touch this topic other than a Popeye quote (I am what I am...) because it seems stupid to me. Why try to live up to any expectations at all? Isn't being yourself difficult enough without throwing that garbage in the works? Who are you trying to fool?

Inside your head you're a unique bag of hormones and neurons. Outside yourself you're located in a unique environment with a combination of people, places, and things that are all your own. Want people to respect that? Then be it. Don't like something about that? Then work to change it. At least stay true to yourself, though.

LouZiffer wrote:

The question behind the main topic appears to be "How can I be what women expect of me when society's expectations seem to differ?"

As a whole, society has few expectations for one other than not creating problems that said society will have to clean up after. If a guy wants to be the type who would traditionally be called a wuss or whatever else, that's ultimately fine by society as long as there's no societal burden because of it.

As for what women want, we all know that it depends on which women one is referring to. Some women want the classic man while others prefer the hipster class.

With so many varied tastes, it doesn't really matter. Just be who you're comfortable being as long as it doesn't create problems for others. Lost and not sure what kind of man or woman you want to be? Start with Heinlein's list of what a person should be able to do and work from there.

I have added this thread to my favorites!

As have I. In the interests of discussion continuity I'll quote my post from the Rape Culture thread that led to LarryC linking me here.

Me wrote:
oddity wrote:

"The good men project" is garbage. It's basically a bunch of men apologising for having penises and begging for forgiveness.

That would be the less-nice way of explaining why it doesn't speak to me personally. (-: It fails the reverse-Bechdel test in that it's largely about how to be a good man in relation to women, and much of it is explicitly how women want (or think they want) men to be good. There's a place for that, but it shouldn't be the entire conversation.

A good man should be kind and generous and help and protect others, but he should be a man first. I found the Art of Manliness blog when I was looking for a primer on wet-shaving, and I found a classic article called How to Shave Like Your Grandpa. On the surface, a simple how-to article. But think about the way it's framed. It comes from a place of embracing your masculinity, of finding a positive male role model (in this case, an idealized grandfather archetype hailing from a time before "man" was a pejorative) and taking pride in emulating him.

I mean, it's right there in the names. "The Good Men Project": Implied is that we're not like all those "bad men" out there which are the default. Because we've embarked on this project to add the "good" to the otherwise-bad "men". "The Art of Manliness": Implied is that manliness itself is good, and that we're engaged in the time-honored art of cultivating that and other good qualities in ourselves. That doesn't mean there's any less emphasis on kindness, generosity, and empathy-- see articles like Lessons In Manliness From Atticus Finch for more on that-- but it comes from a place of wanting to be the best man possible for yourself first, as opposed to seeking female approval, and that frame matters.

hbi2k wrote:

That would be the less-nice way of explaining why it doesn't speak to me personally. (-: It fails the reverse-Bechdel test in that it's largely about how to be a good man in relation to women, and much of it is explicitly how women want (or think they want) men to be good. There's a place for that, but it shouldn't be the entire conversation.

Well, as pointed out in the other thread, it ISN'T the entire conversation on that site. There are tons of articles on there that aren't about being a good man in relation to women.

hbi2k wrote:

That would be the less-nice way of explaining why it doesn't speak to me personally. (-: It fails the reverse-Bechdel test in that it's largely about how to be a good man in relation to women, and much of it is explicitly how women want (or think they want) men to be good. There's a place for that, but it shouldn't be the entire conversation.

Well, as pointed out in the other thread, it ISN'T the entire conversation on that site. There are tons of articles on there that aren't about being a good man in relation to women.

I get it that hbi2k may feel that a substantial fraction of Good Men content seems like it's kowtowing to women in a gender conflict. Pointing out that his exaggeration is literally incorrect doesn't seem like a very strong point, however correct it may be.

LarryC wrote:

I get it that hbi2k may feel that a substantial fraction of Good Men content seems like it's kowtowing to women in a gender conflict. Pointing out that his exaggeration is literally incorrect doesn't seem like a very strong point, however correct it may be.

Agree. The onus is now on hbi2k to provide concrete examples of where GMP performs these "how to be a good man in relation to women" articles, and further, prove that such article are somehow negative.

I mean what else would men want to be good men in relation to?

LarryC wrote:

I get it that hbi2k may feel that a substantial fraction of Good Men content seems like it's kowtowing to women in a gender conflict. Pointing out that his exaggeration is literally incorrect doesn't seem like a very strong point, however correct it may be.

I think it's relevant in that if someone can look at that web site and make that claim, it tells me a lot about their own biases.. ..given how few articles on that site are about being good "in relation to women".

LarryC wrote:

I get it that hbi2k may feel that a substantial fraction of Good Men content seems like it's kowtowing to women in a gender conflict. Pointing out that his exaggeration is literally incorrect doesn't seem like a very strong point, however correct it may be.

Yeah, I wasn't pointing out that hbi2k and oddity were literally incorrect. They weren't even close to a reasonable summary at all.

I probably won't have much to add to the conversation, but if that's okay, I wanna listen in and try to learn something.

Valmorian wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I get it that hbi2k may feel that a substantial fraction of Good Men content seems like it's kowtowing to women in a gender conflict. Pointing out that his exaggeration is literally incorrect doesn't seem like a very strong point, however correct it may be.

I think it's relevant in that if someone can look at that web site and make that claim, it tells me a lot about their own biases.. ..given how few articles on that site are about being good "in relation to women".

I think it's less relevant to talk about hbi2k's biases and talk about what his observations may or may not mean objectively or subjectively, his biases aside. Seriously, hbi2k's a great guy and all but I'm not so big of a fan that I'd like to talk about him for pages on end.

Bloo Driver wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I get it that hbi2k may feel that a substantial fraction of Good Men content seems like it's kowtowing to women in a gender conflict. Pointing out that his exaggeration is literally incorrect doesn't seem like a very strong point, however correct it may be.

Yeah, I wasn't pointing out that hbi2k and oddity were literally incorrect. They weren't even close to a reasonable summary at all.

Reasonable is relative. I can see where they might get that impression. I'll see about making it more explicit. They might want to weigh in first before letting me speak for them, though. Always best to get it from the horse's mouth. I can see it both ways.

Eleima wrote:

I probably won't have much to add to the conversation, but if that's okay, I wanna listen in and try to learn something. :)

Heya! Don't be shy. Post away. Even in a thread about masculinity and manhood, I still believe that having female representation and voices is helpful and enriches everyone's experience. I'd love to hear more from the ladies.

Don't worry about it, Larry. They made one assertion and I showed how it was completely ill informed, but somehow it's now about how things are "relative". I've seen enough of the Larry Makes Everything About Interpretation Somehow show to know it's better if I just tap out now.

jigoku wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I get it that hbi2k may feel that a substantial fraction of Good Men content seems like it's kowtowing to women in a gender conflict. Pointing out that his exaggeration is literally incorrect doesn't seem like a very strong point, however correct it may be.

Agree. The onus is now on hbi2k to provide concrete examples of where GMP performs these "how to be a good man in relation to women" articles, and further, prove that such article are somehow negative.

I mean what else would men want to be good men in relation to?

Other men duh. Cause f*ck everything else.

hbi2k's content explicitly says that the impression is that the "basic man" is bad and so there has to be a "Good Man Project" of some sort. My own impression is that the Good Man Project is "Good" to contrast itself to the many PUA stuff that's out there that's alternately brazenly misogynistic and self-hating. Much of it is directed to men and relationships and self-improvement. It's kind of like Cosmo for men, actually, except that I don't see the majority of it as toxic patriarchal sludge. Much of it is sex and relationship material that seems atypical for US culture so I can see where he might see that as BS.

Of course, I was raised matrilineal, so WTF do I know? I see a lot of hints at a commonly understood male culture in the West and the US that I can only guess at. I value hbi2k's perspective for providing some insight into it without all the toxic stuff that's completely incomprehensible.

jigoku wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I get it that hbi2k may feel that a substantial fraction of Good Men content seems like it's kowtowing to women in a gender conflict. Pointing out that his exaggeration is literally incorrect doesn't seem like a very strong point, however correct it may be.

Agree. The onus is now on hbi2k to provide concrete examples of where GMP performs these "how to be a good man in relation to women" articles, and further, prove that such article are somehow negative.

I mean what else would men want to be good men in relation to?

Well for me being a good man is the same as being a good woman and being good person. You are good person to the people and the world. Their gender doesn't matter. Meaning I would think you are still a piece of crap if you are only good to woman or if you are only good to white people, or if you are only good to family. Being a good person relates to all things in the world.

You might say a good man takes care of his family. I would say a good person takes care of his family. One implies only men can and are responsible for the care of the family. I don't subscribe to specific roles being set to one gender.

jigoku wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I get it that hbi2k may feel that a substantial fraction of Good Men content seems like it's kowtowing to women in a gender conflict. Pointing out that his exaggeration is literally incorrect doesn't seem like a very strong point, however correct it may be.

Agree. The onus is now on hbi2k to provide concrete examples of where GMP performs these "how to be a good man in relation to women" articles, and further, prove that such article are somehow negative.

I mean what else would men want to be good men in relation to?

I'm unaware that there's any onus on me to do anything of the kind, especially since y'all seem determined to flanderize any statement I make into a strawman parody of itself.

It's very simple: from what I have read of the Good Men Project, I believe that it is a very well-intentioned attempt to fill a niche that's going largely unfilled. It does not speak to me, personally, and I have offered an example of something that's more to my taste. The content of both is right there for you to draw your own conclusions from, and you are more than welcome to do so.

I would, however, like to draw attention to the bolded sentence. I think it says something that it doesn't even occur to you that one could want to be a good man for anyone's benefit besides a woman's.

To answer your rhetorical question:

I want to be a good man for myself first and foremost, because if I can't do that I'm not likely to be much good to anyone else. Integrity and self-respect are paramount. They are a foundation on which every other good quality can be built, and without that foundation every other good quality is transient and ineffectual.

After that, and in no particular order, are my partner (a woman in my case), my children (theoretical future children in my case, so of indeterminate gender, although I am preparing my life for the possibility of having one or more), my family (of both genders), my friends (of both genders), and so on.

Or, divided another way, and again in no particular order: other men, women, and children of both genders.

Women have a place on that list, but they're not the entire list.

jigoku wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I get it that hbi2k may feel that a substantial fraction of Good Men content seems like it's kowtowing to women in a gender conflict. Pointing out that his exaggeration is literally incorrect doesn't seem like a very strong point, however correct it may be.

Agree. The onus is now on hbi2k to provide concrete examples of where GMP performs these "how to be a good man in relation to women" articles, and further, prove that such article are somehow negative.

I mean what else would men want to be good men in relation to?

I suspect a large to universal number of gay men probably don't care quite so much about that part, or at least not more than how to be a good man in relation to straight men.

Demosthenes wrote:
jigoku wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I get it that hbi2k may feel that a substantial fraction of Good Men content seems like it's kowtowing to women in a gender conflict. Pointing out that his exaggeration is literally incorrect doesn't seem like a very strong point, however correct it may be.

Agree. The onus is now on hbi2k to provide concrete examples of where GMP performs these "how to be a good man in relation to women" articles, and further, prove that such article are somehow negative.

I mean what else would men want to be good men in relation to?

I suspect a large to universal number of gay men probably don't care quite so much about that part, or at least not more than how to be a good man in relation to straight men. :lol:

not ALL men!

No, in all seriousness, the person judging you doesn't have to be interested in you sexually to be objectifiying you. Women can feel judged by gay men OR straight women. Misogyny isn't always about literal intercourse.

Which kinda loops back around to where this thread started--what's the difference between telling someone to be a good man, and telling a person to be a good human? We can't seem to come up with a definition that distinguishes a man from a woman without stereotyping one or the other. Gender is like pornography--we know it when we see it, but we can't articulate it better than that.

Let me throw a half-baked idea out there: defining what it is to be a good 'man' in a patriarchial culture is like trying to define what it means to be a moral 'success' in a (edit) society with lots of wealth inequality.