Yes, it's a self fulfilling prophecy. What is masculine is what men do. Men, masculine men, sometimes wear make up, and skirts and heels and have sex with other men. Therefore that is masculine behaviour. Occasionally they castrate themselves, that is masculine behaviour. Sometimes they shave and sometimes they grow a set, and both are masculine behaviour.

In short, let the images and stereotypes follow you, rather than feeling you ought to follow them, let alone that you ought to oblige another to follow them on pain of being stabbed and burned. That too is masculine behaviour, but more to the point, it is repulsive behaviour.

Yes, it's a self fulfilling prophecy. What is masculine is what men do. Men, masculine men, sometimes wear make up, and skirts and heels and have sex with other men. Therefore that is masculine behaviour. Occasionally they castrate themselves, that is masculine behaviour. Sometimes they shave and sometimes they grow a set, and both are masculine behaviour.

In short, let the images and stereotypes follow you, rather than feeling you ought to follow them, let alone that you ought to oblige another to follow them on pain of being stabbed and burned. That too is masculine behaviour, but more to the point, it is repulsive behaviour. — unenlightened

So, is it a deficiency in some emotion or feeling that causes (predominantly) men the need to express or display their masculinity in such a manner and way or is it an excess of some sort? How does one guide men to tame these animalistic spirits? Heck, I doubt animals are capable of such deeds and actions. The sane and rational me is quite worried about this state of affairs.

Even deeper, is it society to blame for this form of behavior? I can't imagine these events happening in more developed cultures like Germany or the European countries or the UK. Typically the neuroticism doesn't reach psychotic levels there and if one can't-do anything about it, they tend to off themselves or are deprived of the tools to make their desire manifest.

So, is it a deficiency in some emotion or feeling that causes (predominantly) men the need to express or display their masculinity in such a manner and way or is it an excess of some sort? How does one guide men to tame these animalistic spirits. Heck, I doubt animals are capable of such deeds and actions. — Posty McPostface

Well yes, I think you have it about right. Shall we say that a perceived deficiency, measured according to a faulty image of masculinity, leads to an exaggerated performance of the image, which is itself already exaggerated, and so to an excessive demand that others also perform to support the image? I think this is the best explanation of homophobia and the like - that even the possibility that another can deviate from the image is a threat to one's whole being. Thus, not to join in with the gauging and burning is to fail the image of masculinity.

It is perhaps in pointing out the weakness, the effeminacy, the sheeplike nature of such behaviour, that one might hope to guide others to have the strength to resist the images that are purveyed by society and the media.

Well yes, I think you have it about right. Shall we say that a perceived deficiency, measured according to a faulty image of masculinity, leads to an exaggerated performance of the image, which is itself already exaggerated, and so to an excessive demand that others also perform to support the image? I think this is the best explanation of homophobia and the like - that even the possibility that another can deviate from the image is a threat to one's whole being. Thus, not to join in with the gauging and burning is to fail the image of masculinity. — unenlightened

There seems to be more to it than just an image that can't be realized. Not unlike the concept of self-esteem, there is an image that changes due to the variety of people; but, also an issue that the image cannot ever be realized (after all who has learned how to limit their desires apart from the sages and Buddhists, which are in the grand scheme of things, quite a few). So, at some deeper level, one can live with having low-self esteem and be depressed or neurotic; but, with masculinity, it goes to the deeper level of some sense of insecurity about one's self.

It is perhaps in pointing out the weakness, the effeminacy, the sheeplike nature of such behaviour, that one might hope to guide others to have the strength to resist the images that are purveyed by society and the media. — unenlightened

Yes, however, you can't reason with such a drive or desire to be masculine if you so happen to be a male. I don't quite understand the process of adapting to not being masculine, it goes against that drive at a very deep level.

I may have used the wrong word. What would you count them as? Social-constructs? — Posty McPostface

Traits.

Is there really a difference between expressing a belief masked as a social construct and on the other hand displaying it? — Posty McPostface

Masculinity is not a belief.

Saying masculinity is a belief is like saying attached ear lobes are a belief.

Obviously, there's a social element to masculinity; just as obviously, there's a biological element that kicks in after puberty. So, no, masculinity is not a purely social construct nor is there anything necessarily bad or wrong about it. So, it's malleable to a degree but it's not fully fluid. As for expressing masculinity, it depends on the context. Do it when it works.

Masculinity is not a belief. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Then what is it?

Some unconscious process?

Do it when it works. — Baden

How do you know that?

Then what is it?

Some unconscious process? — Posty McPostface

It's a set of physical and mental traits associated with maleness.

How do you know that? — Posty McPostface

Observe. You want to be a leader, for example, act masculine (to a degree).

Yeah but how do you know when that trait has been expressed to the required or sufficient and adequate amount or degree. It's almost as though it can be expressed forever without knowing some baseline or whether or not it's an inferiority complex manifesting itself or some form of neuroticism or overcompensation.

I think Socrates was a hyper masculine man. Poor Plato, though.

Do you mean something like you don't know if your beard, for example, is a simple expression of masculinity or based on some form of underlying neuroticism?

You can't have it all ways -- that masculinity is a sickness, instinctual, and a social construct -- because the causation is quite different, like social norms vs. biological instinct. — Bitter Crank

From a Lacanian perspective, you certainly can. The desire/sickness is formed by our unconscious ego that mirrors society.

First, that masculinity is a social construct... Style is socially constructed, certainly. The style in which some men present themselves--powerful, woman-abusing, insensitive--is one construction. — Bitter Crank

The point I was attempting to convey is that this image that we portray - call it 'style' - is empty, a vacuous expression formed by creating an false image of themselves according to the social attitudes masculinity or femininity represents in their environments. Being physically bulky by taking steroids, wearing certain forms of clothes, having a beard, what are they if this man is a coward? If he thoroughly enjoys hurting or watching someone being hurt who is vulnerable and in need of his support? This is where Kant comes in; a rational, autonomous being - a person who transcends this social bullshit - forms an idealised version of themselves based on moral principles that universalises their conscience to their identity. They can still be strong, still get defensive, but they will do it in favour of those that need their help, they will fight for injustice, for a cause.

No matter how big or small you are, a 'real man' is fearless. Fearless enough to be loving.

Yeah, that could serve as an example. I get the feeling that people may have not evolved, however they can adapt to an ever changing society.

I also get the feeling fat Continental philosophy tries to liberate us from the shackles of our evolutionary past. Analytic philosophy is very foundationalist or binary and in some sense displays a masculine approach towards doing philosophy.

Any Nel Nodding fans here?

'Masculinity' is a sickness, it is a pathology stemming from a self-defeating desire that mirrors a distorted and imaginative ideal saturated by the influence of fear. — TimeLine

I would say that masculinity is a natural acquisitive strategy that is predisposed to be chosen because of the average asymmetry in physical strength between men and women. The mimetic behavior of children quickly leads them into conflict when they imitate the other's acquisitive behavior for the same object (which obviously both can't possess). Men learn that "masculinity" or physical violence (or at least the threat of it) can get them what they want. Women learn that "femininity" or non-physical forms of violence (manipulation, whether through beauty or otherwise) can get them what they want while avoiding their weakness (lack of physical strength).

For example, two men may like the same women, and the more one of them likes her, the more the other will like her (because they imitate each other). If one of them is more masculine than the other (they have bigger muscles, more money, etc.) then they will use violence to get the woman for themselves. And the violence in our day is mostly invisible - only the unspoken threat of it is sufficient. Simply being bulkier, having more money, etc. is enough to convince the double.

Thus, violence is paradoxically the means through which the escalation of violence is brought to a halt. That is the fundamental trait of all human culture, society, and religion - the resolution of conflict and the establishment of order through violence, which is then effaced and projected unto a victim - oh it was her who didn't like him, she liked me. Or the other becomes sacralized - he's such a great guy, he backed down himself. And so the violence at the foundation of culture remains hidden, which is exactly what is required for it to play its founding role.

Only Christ unearths the violence and sides with the victim.

You want to be a leader, for example, act masculine (to a degree). — Baden

Bah. When you say 'leader', I think you mean 'figurehead' - an image stuck at the prow of the boat - rather than the guy in the stern with his hand on the tiller. You want to be a leader, start steering the right course.

but, with masculinity, it goes to the deeper level of some sense of insecurity about one's self. — Posty McPostface

Yes it's a very deep root of identity. The self is made of such images, and being imaginary at root, is always insecure. This insecurity is intolerable, and 'un-masculine'. And so one acts masculine.

But one only has to act (as if) one was something, to the extent one is not that thing. If men are masculine, they do not have to act; if some men are more masculine than others, neither have to act. Folks act to escape what they are, which is futile, painful and self-destructive. Have a dick by all means, be a dick if that's what you are, but for God's sake don't feel obliged to act like a dick.

Thus, violence is paradoxically the means through which the escalation of violence is brought to a halt. That is the fundamental trait of all human culture, society, and religion - the resolution of conflict and the establishment of order through violence, which is then effaced and projected unto a victim - oh it was her who didn't like him, she liked me. — Agustino

Yeah, but we already know how that ends up. Jog your mind back to 1939. Fascinating and horrible times.

*On a side note, this is why Europe is considered the most culturally and educated place on the world. They learned what rampant violence leads to. So, does Russia know that violence abroad or at home is a cause for concern and are seemingly more rational than who won the Cold War? I can't but help but shake the belief that acts of tremendous violence on people or an ethnic group or an entire nation are a prerequisite for desiring peace. One can only understand a decision or the path taken in retrospect / looking behind. Then again, the spoils go to the victor.

Yes it's a very deep root of identity. The self is made of such images, and being imaginary at root, is always insecure. This insecurity is intolerable, and 'un-masculine'. And so one acts masculine. — unenlightened

I feel the influence of Jung here. I do agree that images are worth more than what words can say, therefore are we doomed to be led towards idealized pictures or can these things be rationalized and taught by words alone?

But one only has to act (as if) one was something, to the extent one is not that thing. If men are masculine, they do not have to act; if some men are more masculine than others, neither have to act. — unenlightened

No, that's the problem here. The desire can never be satisfied once a perceived deficit is conjured up. The image is never attained due to a variety of factors (which I would be interested in exploring more).

Folks act to escape what they are, which is futile, painful and self-destructive. — unenlightened

It's a form of self-soothing. We act so we can interact. Diogenes never found a true human being with his lantern after all. Maybe he just needed to take a look at himself in a mirror(?)

Have a dick by all means, be a dick if that's what you are, but for God's sake don't feel obliged to act like a dick. — unenlightened

There is something about being a dick that is satisfying. It makes me feel better when you feel bad or down. I justify my happiness by the misery of others.

Here is a quote that may have saved the world, during the Cuban missile crisis. It really touched me and struck a chord. In some manner, it changed my entire propagandized worldview about what the Soviets wanted... peace. It was an appeal to rationality, which almost failed, and we're here today because of luck, not reason, as after all reasonable people were in charge at the time yet let such a situation arise. So, we ended up being lucky and nothing more. I leave it for you and others to enjoy.

In the first message, Khrushchev said this: "We and you ought not to pull on the ends of a rope which you have tied the knots of war. Because the more the two of us pull, the tighter the knot will be tied. And then it will be necessary to cut that knot, and what that would mean is not for me to explain to you. I have participated in two wars and know that war ends when it has rolled through cities and villages, everywhere sowing death and destruction. For such is the logic of war. If people do not display wisdom, they will clash like blind moles and then mutual annihilation will commence."

Source.

Bah. When you say 'leader', I think you mean 'figurehead' - an image stuck at the prow of the boat - rather than the guy in the stern with his hand on the tiller. You want to be a leader, start steering the right course. — unenlightened

I didn't say "good" leader.

But one only has to act (as if) one was something, to the extent one is not that thing. If men are masculine, they do not have to act; if some men are more masculine than others, neither have to act. Folks act to escape what they are, which is futile, painful and self-destructive. Have a dick by all means, be a dick if that's what you are, but for God's sake don't feel obliged to act like a dick — unenlightened

We have to act. Period. In doing so we are necessarily acting as if we are something because we are something, something that is both a result of and a cause of our actions. It may be futile to pretend to be something but it's just as futile to pretend that you can't be more than you are at least to some degree. But that more should not be more dick. Agree with that part.

I would say that masculinity is a natural acquisitive strategy that is predisposed to be chosen because of the average asymmetry in physical strength between men and women. The mimetic behavior of children quickly leads them into conflict when they imitate the other's acquisitive behavior for the same object (which obviously both can't possess). — Agustino

To attribute physical predispositions to masculinity is a mistake; as mentioned, many men work very hard to convey this physical image and character as 'tough' but the experience of masculinity is entirely subjective. I may be female, feminine and small in stature, but I have 'bigger balls' then most men because masculine attributes are socially constructed ideas that purport 'strength' i.e. being emotionless, being the breadwinner etc., and other pressures that often lead to unhappiness and a lack of satisfaction in life. If I am absolute in my dedication to righteousness that I would turn my back even on the closest of people if they committed evils, if I believe in honour, integrity that has become a part of the fabric of my personality, if I endure in the face of severe hardship and apply methods to strengthen my fearlessness and courage, does that mean - despite the fact that I possess feminine physical attributes and that I am naturally petite and quiet in nature - that I am masculine?

Masculine and feminine are subjective and almost ideological that it presents itself as reality; the value of 'power' and 'achievement' becomes a productive network that enables such stereotypes to efficiently maintain the structure of society but the fact is that any physical 'image' that people categorise as representative of this ideology is false.

Men learn that "masculinity" or physical violence (or at least the threat of it) can get them what they want. Women learn that "femininity" or non-physical forms of violence (manipulation, whether through beauty or otherwise) can get them what they want while avoiding their weakness (lack of physical strength). — Agustino

As mentioned, just like political ideology can become the impetus that can promote mobilisation and a productive sociopolitical network as it functions in contrast to an Other that ultimately defines power, conformity can also do the same socially. As said by Anderson: "Communities are to be distinguished, not by their falsity/genuineness, but by the style in which they are imagined.... Finally, [the nation] is imagined as a community, because, regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. Ultimately, it is this fraternity that makes it possible, over the past two centuries for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willing to die for such limited imaginings.”

These social constructs form a bond, a community that in their own imagination develop a sense of belonging. At the moment, this so-called masculine look is very popular where I am from:



The worst part about it is that every guy who now has this look thinks he is original. How exactly is it possible for people to think they are independent and individual when they are doing what everyone else is doing? Is it not a sickness when you see young girls all trying to appear 'original' when they are mimicking the Kardashians?

For example, two men may like the same women, and the more one of them likes her, the more the other will like her (because they imitate each other). If one of them is more masculine than the other (they have bigger muscles, more money, etc.) then they will use violence to get the woman for themselves. And the violence in our day is mostly invisible - only the unspoken threat of it is sufficient. Simply being bulkier, having more money, etc. is enough to convince the double. — Agustino

The girl has nothing to do with it; it is just a display and entirely subjective for want of power. If either one actually loved the girl, it can easily be proven [think Solomon and the baby with two mothers].

...which is then effaced and projected unto a victim - oh it was her who didn't like him, she liked me. — Agustino

:s Such morons, its almost painful.

To attribute physical predispositions to masculinity is a mistake; as mentioned, many men work very hard to convey this physical image and character as 'tough' but the experience of masculinity is entirely subjective — TimeLine

It isn't entirely subjective. Whether someone is the stronger or weaker party is an objective fact. Say someone has a gun and the other person has a knife, the one with the gun is objectively stronger in most situations, even if he's a coward compared to the other one. Sure there is the extreme situation wherein he is such a coward that he cannot wield the gun well enough, but that's not what I'm talking about here.

I may be female, feminine and small in stature, but I have 'bigger balls' then most men — TimeLine

That may be so, but that's only one aspect of masculinity.

If I am absolute in my dedication to righteousness that I would turn my back even on the closest of people if they committed evils, if I believe in honour, integrity that has become a part of the fabric of my personality, if I endure in the face of severe hardship and apply methods to strengthen my fearlessness and courage, does that mean - despite the fact that I possess feminine physical attributes and that I am naturally petite and quiet in nature - that I am masculine? — TimeLine

It does mean that you have some masculine traits while lacking others.

And I wouldn't say being dedicated to righteousness is a "masculine" trait any more than it is a feminine one. Or do you mean to claim that women don't generally believe in honor, integrity and the like? I would think that that would be false - women can believe in honor and integrity just as much as men can and that doesn't make them masculine.

At the moment, this so-called masculine look is very popular where I am from: — TimeLine

LOL! I would say that that guy looks quite the opposite of masculine :P . You need to differentiate between masculinity as an objective fact and masculinity as a social construct. That guy may be thought of as masculine but the objective facts of the situation betray that he's not. It may be possible that for whatever reason females within a certain culture prefer a guy looking like that, but this cannot change the underlying reality. In this case, the said females would merely be deceived by what constitutes masculinity. And such states are artificial and will not last in the end.

The worst part about it is that every guy who now has this look thinks he is original. How exactly is it possible for people to think they are independent and individual when they are doing what everyone else is doing? — TimeLine

Because human beings are mimetic animals, meaning that our desires are not really our own but are acquired from others.

We have to act. Period. In doing so we are necessarily acting as if we are something because we are something, something that is both a result of and a cause of our actions. — Baden

I can own this by removing one word - well three, for grammar's sake:

We have to act. Period. In doing so we are necessarily acting as something because we are something, something that is both a result of and a cause of our actions. — unenlightened

I don't have to act as if I'm a logic chopping pedant, it comes naturally.

... it's just as futile to pretend that you can't be more than you are at least to some degree. — Baden

I call that 'learning' or 'applied ignorance', the magic whereby one can do what one cannot do. The pretence is that I am fixed, when it is only that I hold to a fixed image of myself.

I would say that that guy looks quite the opposite of masculine :P . — Agustino

The word you're looking for is 'feminine'. What is feminine there is the aesthetic concern with personal image over substance. Real men delight in their physicality without that narcissistic concern for the camera's gaze. Or so recent tradition would have it. We used to call men like that 'dandies'.

That's what I thought. Bloody hell...

I can only hope I can put my own vanity and narcissism to better use than that. Again, ugh.

Success!

Does manhood get any purer?

A song for all the real men...

Does manhood get any purer? — Baden

No >:O