Well, at least you didn't say "Yes". :D

A song for all the real men... — unenlightened

Personally, as an aside, I ain’t no real nothing … and am real with myself in so being (yea, deal with the multiple negatives … hopefully, I counted them properly). Were I to have been birthed in Scotland, I’d be no true Scotsman either. Etc. That said, this song brings up the question: Wouldn’t self-proclaimed real dicks say that this song is for real pussies?

Now, I gather that dicks, pussies, and assholes are not cultural constructs (yes, they are biological givens) … but the symbolic connotations culturally ascribed to all three sure as culture are. People like Cleopatra have no place in our current cultural constructs: Was she feminine? Yes according to what we’re told (Cesar certainly thought so). Was she a pussy? Um, it would be doublethink to assert either “yes” or “no”. I get that this is swimming upstream against the flow of modern culture, so—instead of building up a long justification for this, which won’t make any difference anyways—I’ll skip strait to the intended conclusion: to pigeonhole real men (and thus masculinity) to being a dick and real women (and thus femininity) to being a pussy is to be a real asshole.

I can hear the real men grumbling: the real men hold the positive traits and it can only be a pussy—a sex betraying pussy at that—that will affirm that pussies aren’t defined by negative traits. (This form of culturally ingrained reasoning is why I personally believe feminists as a group have gotten such a bad rap for their desire of equal worth between men and women.)

All I got to say to this is that pussycats can sometimes be found in damn big sizes. Ya know, tigers and such. Other times they’re stated to wear boots. In any case, I wouldn’t mind living in a world where pussies (and femininity) are deemed of equal value to dicks (and masculinity), and in which neither draw blatant attention to also being assholes (a gender-neutral trait).

(I figure my initial question still stands in regard to the issue of masculinity.)

my initial question still stands in regard to the issue of masculinity — javra

Sorry, what question was that?

Sorry, what question was that? — unenlightened

this one:

Wouldn’t self-proclaimed real dicks say that this song is for real pussies? — javra

To be clear, the question (and post) was thrown out there in general; not to you in particular. Again, to me, it touches upon what the concept of masculinity is to some (e.g., non-pussy-ness: including lack of attributes such as those of understanding and respectful compromises), and on what it is, or ought to be, to others (e.g., appreciation of things inclusive of the song you've posted).

Edit: just in case this needs clarifying: I’ve always taken for granted that the song “I’m not in love” is about a guy who’s in self-denial about being in love … and that it’s sentimental. Where I’m from, plenty of macho men would presume this song is for wusses. I at least wouldn’t be playing this song loudly while driving through the ghetto thinking that others would view me as masculine for listening to it (unless I felt like proving somethin’ … theoretically).

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. — Agustino

It is entirely subjective. What you say does not make someone masculine or feminine, it just makes someone stronger or weaker. This woman at my gym who has an arm the size of both my thighs is not masculine, she is just strong.

The identification to these so-called masculine attributes and gender-roles is so powerful that despite its imagined and hybrid status, people will continue to defend its existence as much as a racist would continue defending his position against the Other. The emotional attachment to this imagined masculine-feminine paradigm yields the actual belief that they love the person that personifies the same archetype and that those who conform to the same attitude are their friends and comrades. That is how stupid they are. It is nothing but a relational mode of identification.

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. — Agustino

Uh, you're not getting it.

Alright, think of it like the gender-neutral harmony between masculine and feminine attributes in Taoism; the Yin Yang solidifies an inseperable bond within that cultivates the dissolution of vicious or cruel behaviour through moral virtue and ethics. This is an individual, subjective challenge and whether physically you are a man or a woman, to find this balance you need to welcome and identify with both. Characteristics that form feminine attributes are soft, modest, non-violent while those of masculinity are firm, honourable and conditional or unforgiving. There is no dominant/subservient when seeking moral consciousness and to be genuinely loving but rather a unity or equality.

A woman that stays with a man because he controls and manipulates her into thinking she loves him and for him to think that she loves him is insanity, it will only last as long as he continues inflicting fear, which is why many men control women by preventing them from work or education because as soon as their partners start growing professionally, they begin to realise that they are not actually happy and end up leaving them. Real love is about two people who genuinely want one another, an equal balance.

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. — Agustino

You need to understand that how you perceive masculinity is different according to the culture that you come from, hence the subjectivity. It has nothing to do with the objective facts, his physical form. In some cultures, women eating with men is just morally deplorable and it makes those men who witness a woman eating feel less masculine. Or a woman who gets circumcised is more feminine than a woman who doesn't. Just because a large cohort of people practice the same behaviour, does not make it real.

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

We have the capacity to transcend and form our own identity; it may be that we are inevitably doomed to never escape this epistemic position but we can identify to Forms, to universal moral principals that we define according to our desire to perfect our own character. It is to translate that desire and communicate the best possible outcome for our inescapable condition.

:D That is way better than those guys that take selfies and attach flower crown filters around their head. Or dandies as unenlightened would say.

Wouldn’t self-proclaimed real dicks say that this song is for real pussies? — javra

Well the song depicts a man trying to persuade himself that he does not have tender feelings; a man trying to be manly according to a common image of manliness. It expresses the pain of doing that to oneself, and the impossibility of it.

On the one hand, we could argue sociologically about what images of manhood are promoted in a particular culture that men are pressured to conform themselves to. And on the other hand, we could argue biologically about what are the facts of manhood.

If we are arguing about the facts of manhood, then we need to accept the fact that men are very varied in their personalities, inclinations habits and identities. There are, in almost every culture, dandies and scruff-bags, aggressive and unaggressive, feeling and unfeeling, gays and straights, and so on.

If there is an argument about whether it is better to be a pussycat or a tiger, one might want to count the offspring, or one might want to count the populations, or one might want to read the Bible. However one measures it, one is moving from the facts to the images, and not merely describing but advocating. I'm with Bob Dylan on this:

Well, I try my best
To be just like I am
But everybody wants you
To be just like them
They say 'sing while you slave', and I just get bored
I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more.

Male:Female::Young:Old
Power involves risk.

Well the song depicts a man trying to persuade himself that he does not have tender feelings; a man trying to be manly according to a common image of manliness. It expresses the pain of doing that to oneself, and the impossibility of it. — unenlightened

Interesting. To me, for example, the image of a father (an image of masculinity) does bring about inherent notions of tenderness, such as toward his kids, this alongside firmness when needed. This to try to say that the experiencing of love is to me as much masculine as it is feminine, though the two will sometimes express and react to it in different ways. Though, yes, being an owner of tender feelings might be viewed as weakness of being, non-masculine, in some notions of masculinity.

On the one hand, we could argue sociologically about what images of manhood are promoted in a particular culture that men are pressured to conform themselves to. And on the other hand, we could argue biologically about what are the facts of manhood. — unenlightened

Agreed. I also like and agree with your notion of “image”, btw. I’ll venture that the image of masculinity is furthermore in part made by a) what males, boys included, desire to become (the image of this being potentially termed “a man’s man”) and b) what women desire to someday be around romantically (the image of this being potentially termed “a woman’s man”). The exact opposite could be argued for femininity; though I’ve yet to hear of “a woman’s woman” and of “a man’s woman”--at least not with the semantics here intended.

I find agreement with the rest of your post. In truth, my main interests with this thread can be boiled down to this personal belief: A sense of compassion (alongside others, such as courage and strength) ought to be at the very core of all images we hold of masculinity, else we risk our cultural image of masculinity to become an esteemed image of psychopathy. Other than that, to each their own. (But no, one man’s opinion does not a culture make.)

Alright, think of it like the gender-neutral harmony between masculine and feminine attributes in Taoism; the Yin Yang solidifies an inseperable bond within that cultivates the dissolution of vicious or cruel behaviour through moral virtue and ethics. This is an individual, subjective challenge and whether physically you are a man or a woman, to find this balance you need to welcome and identify with both. — TimeLine

Yes, yes, all well and good (and very, very nicely stated, too). But how does one answer the rebuttal that, “this is all part of a movement to castrate men’s masculinity by depriving men of our inalienable (God and/or biology-given) rights to subjugate women as we men see fit (else, we’re not true men)”?

No, really; I personally don’t know how to address such a rebuttal effectively. So I’m asking. I see a little too much of this type or reasoning from my own corner of the world, including on the internet (hopefully it’s much better in other parts of the world).

What you say does not make someone masculine or feminine, it just makes someone stronger or weaker. — TimeLine

Okay but objectively, because there is a difference in physical strength between men and women, it is physical strength that is associated with masculinity. Physical strength isn't used to denote just the physical aspect though as it seems to, but rather any kind of brute force that overwhelms the other through its very application. That's why control over the army is similar to physical strength - it is masculine, the kind of power that overwhelms by brute strength - by compelling the other will to obey it forcefully, rather than - for example - persuading it or manipulating it.

Persuasion is born out of love, but manipulation and brute strength are forms of violence.

This woman at my gym who has an arm the size of both my thighs is not masculine, she is just strong. — TimeLine

I would say that that's precisely one thing that makes her more masculine than you in that regard.

The emotional attachment to this imagined masculine-feminine paradigm yields the actual belief that they love the person that personifies the same archetype and that those who conform to the same attitude are their friends and comrades. That is how stupid they are. It is nothing but a relational mode of identification. — TimeLine

Okay I agree with this, but it doesn't have to do with what I said before.

Alright, think of it like the gender-neutral harmony between masculine and feminine attributes in Taoism; the Yin Yang solidifies an inseperable bond within that cultivates the dissolution of vicious or cruel behaviour through moral virtue and ethics. This is an individual, subjective challenge and whether physically you are a man or a woman, to find this balance you need to welcome and identify with both. — TimeLine

Sure, as an individual each has both feminine and masculine traits.

moral virtue and ethics — TimeLine

That depends from what perspective you look. I will demonstrate with the example below.

A woman that stays with a man because he controls and manipulates her into thinking she loves him and for him to think that she loves him is insanity, it will only last as long as he continues inflicting fear, which is why many men control women by preventing them from work or education because as soon as their partners start growing professionally, they begin to realise that they are not actually happy and end up leaving them. Real love is about two people who genuinely want one another, an equal balance. — TimeLine

Real love does not require the consent of the other, it is purely an individual choice - it only has to do with the individual, unlike violence which always has to do with the other. Nothing, not even rejection, can stop real love from loving. But from the point of view of the wicked party - of the violent party - love is the absolutely most violent and cruel phenomenon.

Many people treat virtue and compassion as weak and ineffective - but the truth is that they are like two swords - the sharpest of swords.

Take your example of the manipulative man. His behavior justifies - in the eyes of the woman - her betrayal of him. Her violence is justified by his violence in her eyes, and therefore she can commit it in good conscience. She can betray her husband, because he has first initiated aggression. And her husband will react the same way she reacts - through an escalation of violence because he is now justified to be more violent, which of course does nothing but cement the woman in her violence towards the husband. She is proven to be correct in her eyes, she has all the right to betray him, she has all the right to be violent. That is, of course, a great lie. She could just forgive him.

But now imagine that the husband always encourages the woman in her career, and always seeks to help her. Now there is great trouble... even if she wants to leave him, she cannot - at least not in good faith. She cannot leave him in good faith without seeing herself for what she is - a traitor. The Socratic irony is that love ends up being the best form of control, and the sharpest sword, even though it looks like it is the weakest of all. To betray her husband she will have to first do great violence to herself and repress the truth of her actions. Such is only possible in bad faith by lying to herself and will never be justified. And so, if she is a wicked, selfish person, she will perceive her husband's love as the absolute worst form of violence, and will probably try to provoke the husband to violence, in order to have a way to justify herself.

This is what Jesus Christ revealed through His Passion. By allowing Himself to be killed by the forces of evil without opposing them, he revealed their true nature. Evil could no longer play the game of its violence being justified - it could no longer pretend that the victim is guilty and deserves death. And so we are reminded of Dante's image from the Divine Comedy of Satan nailed to the Cross.

To me, for example, the image of a father (an image of masculinity) does bring about inherent notions of tenderness, such as toward his kids, this alongside firmness when needed. This to try to say that the experiencing of love is to me as much masculine as it is feminine, though the two will sometimes express and react to it in different ways. Though, yes, being an owner of tender feelings might be viewed as weakness of being, non-masculine, in some notions of masculinity. — javra

Clearly you were not brought up to have a stiff upper lip with which to administer The British Empire. That whisper, 'Big boys don't cry' sends a shiver down my spine still. And google sent me to this article about male depression, which is very relevant to the op, and several others on this site.

Does masculinity vary from individual to individual and why, if so? — Posty McPostface

Yes, I think that psychologically people are different.

As for why, I think it may be because of a combination of upbringing and personality. Nature vs. nurture. The truth is that both contribute to a person's path in life. It's possible something biological could predispose people to certain things, even influencing personality. But nature isn't all to blame, people train children to act a certain way. Parents have their own issues they pass on to their children one way or another, although they manifest in different ways.

Do the over-masculine or machos just need some love and care in their lives from women? — Posty McPostface

I don't think they necessarily need a woman, I think they need ways to relax after long days of toil and work. Any guy with a computer can go to porn when he needs to. Sometimes relationships can be more frustrating than not. Men don't need to be weighted down by more frustration after their already daily frustration. And it kind of bothers me when people think that relationships can solve everything. Relationships are work. Friendships and romantic involvement are not like getting a pet. A man should be able to be happy and care for himself on his own without a woman.

Okay but objectively, because there is a difference in physical strength between men and women, it is physical strength that is associated with masculinity. Physical strength isn't used to denote just the physical aspect though as it seems to, but rather any kind of brute force that overwhelms the other through its very application. That's why control over the army is similar to physical strength - it is masculine, the kind of power that overwhelms by brute strength - by compelling the other will to obey it forcefully, rather than - for example - persuading it or manipulating it.

Persuasion is born out of love, but manipulation and brute strength are forms of violence. — Agustino

Thus a person without physical strength is not masculine? One of my friends, for instance, is a physically muscular Samoan guy who is a giant marshmallow and wouldn't hurt a fly and squirms at the sight of violence. Is he masculine? Just like how the ideology of nationalism is imagined and yet the depth of this social construct is nevertheless contained within a highly sophisticated and productive network that materialises the unreal, you are transferring this phenomena into an objective reality that does not actually exist neither is it natural. We are attempting to define ourselves within society by adapting to the social construct of masculinity as a way or language to articulate your relationship with your environment and form a bond with it. If we deconstruct the psychological foundations of masculinity in an individual, it exhibits a vulnerable person who has a distorted ego that attempts to adopt this appearance as a way to culturally signal that he epitomises what society has formed as an archetype. It is just an image.

Real masculine/feminine are in Forms, the material or physical is merely symbolic as we communicate to others through body language. "I am a man. I am not weak. I can hurt you so back off." But, without any clarity of what masculinity actually is vis-a-vis forms, i.e. courage and a strength of will, all the physical represents is conformity to the social construct. It is an empty shell. This is why in aggressive, paternalistic cultures that promotes violence as an indication of masculinity, gender-based violence is at epidemic proportions along with suicide rates due to the unwarranted pressure. An army without morals is dangerous.

I would say that that's precisely one thing that makes her more masculine than you in that regard. — Agustino

Mistake. Why? See your own quote next:

Many people treat virtue and compassion as weak and ineffective - but the truth is that they are like two swords - the sharpest of swords. — Agustino

This is what the masculinity/femininity paradigm represents; justice, righteousness, loyalty, moral firmness that contains the very solidity and effective prowess that transcends the material form. It is subjective and representative of the choices that you make, the fruits of your labour and not how you appear which only indicates conformity.

Real love does not require the consent of the other, it is purely an individual choice - it only has to do with the individual, unlike violence which always has to do with the other. Nothing, not even rejection, can stop real love from loving. But from the point of view of the wicked party - of the violent party - love is the absolutely most violent and cruel phenomenon. — Agustino

Love is not violent, you see when you become capable of transcending the social construct and forming an idealised version of yourself based on moral consciousness, your love becomes universalised. You understand the ebb and flow of giving love that it cannot be violent or cruel; you have moved beyond the need to feel anger or hatred because you become whole and are no longer attempting to communicate or articulate who you are to the material world around you. Just as one imagines and falsely follows social archetypes and constructs and become fixated on continuously trying to prove himself to an insatiable and unsatisfied environment in all its futility, letting that go and embracing who you are is what one would call self-love.

Only two individuals who have transcended social constructs to universalise love by forming an idealised version of themselves based on forms and morality are they capable of being able to "see" and ultimately experience "real" love with someone who has also done the same. It is two individuals of the same nature sharing. If you follow an archetype, you are conformist who follows society and are thus vulnerable to loving the same, which would certainly make it cruel; if you don't know yourself, how can you love others?

One of my friends, for instance, is a physically muscular Samoan guy who is a giant marshmallow and wouldn't hurt a fly and squirms at the sight of violence. Is he masculine? — TimeLine

In regards to his physical strength and physical size yes. In other regards, no.

Love is not violent — TimeLine

Maybe not in itself, but to the one who is violent, love is also violent. Violence cannot see beyond itself, and will perceive even love to be of its own nature fundamentally.

In case anyone is interested I posted something along the lines of what has been mentioned here over at PhysicsForums.

Really great people there too.

Is there a certain way that we ought to express masculinity? — Posty McPostface

As I see it this is _the_ philosophical question --or at least the central question of amateur or genuine philosophy. I stress "amateur" as opposed to academic philosophy as "genuine" because insisting that philosophy should be an institutionalized expert culture is already to assert implicitly "a certain way that we ought to express masculinity." It _assumes_ a "spirit of seriousness" and IMO is already "scientistic." The medium is the message here. The invisible background is itself already the decision.

I stress masculinity when I ought to stress virtue. The deep question is "how ought we to express virtue?" Arguably we answer this constantly whether we want to or not. If I conflate the expression of masculinity and virtue, I'm just nodding to the fact that (to my knowledge) the vast majority of those (outside of the institutions of expert culture) who invoke the "great philosophers" in their presentations of their own notions of virtue are men. These great philosophers, especially "the old masters," are of course themselves men. They are the "fathers" of profound, transcendent, universal truth. This "profound, transcendent, universal truth" is itself the philosophical "phallus."

I personally read political and epistemological positions as secondary. They are (for me) expressions of personal virtue. If they are presented as "rational," then rationality itself is the personal virtue involved.

From my arguably perverse and boring and irrational perspective, Posty's OP question implies a answer. As he asked it, he implied that seeking after the true way to express masculinity (virtue in men) is itself the true way of expressing masculinity (virtue in men). I agree, but explicitly, and without thinking the question is merely rhetorical.

In light of the recent shitshow that I started about whether I was being too sensitive about jokes being made about sex in the shoutbox, I wanted to revive this thread.

I'm hoping for any new input and to dispel the bleak and depressing "truth" that a man only is a man if he can realize his full potential as a male.

Because humans are sexually dimorphic, and exhibit extremely plastic social behavior. But, I get the feeling that the sentiment of others on this forum is that this is not the case, or at least normatively doesn't matter?

So, if we assume the above, then we can either choose to reinforce the male dominant stereotype or embrace some other alternative, which surely exists.

In case anyone doesn't only want to bash prejudices about what the 'ego' or 'man' is all about, or how he ought to act, there's this topic I started a while ago that in many ways is refreshing to the opinion bashing on these forums...

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/can-human-traits-be-formalized.927606/

:flower:

Yeah, after a while I just got used to the beatings my father did to me physically and psychologically.

Got ya.

Because humans are sexually dimorphic, and exhibit extremely plastic social behavior. But, I get the feeling that the sentiment of others on this forum is that this is not the case, or at least normatively doesn't matter?

So, if we assume the above, then we can either choose to reinforce the male dominant stereotype or embrace some other alternative, which surely exists. — Posty McPostface

I'm not sure what you're seeking to find out by this. Especially by choosing to reinforce or take up an alternative for male dominant stereotype. Who is to choose that?

The most important trait, in any case, is adaptability. So, even if we reach a conclusion that male/female stereotype is just a thing of our day and age, we still live in the society of those stereotypes (there is a good reason for them anyway).

If you live only for yourself, then you may simply not care about what expressing masculinity is or is not. You simply do whatever you want, which, realistically speaking, is almost impossible. If you, on the other hand, care about what others think of you and your position in our pecking order, then adapting to our current social hierarchy and stereotypes is the only valid option.

whoa I meant nothing of the sort. I do apologize if that is how I came across. I am sorry.

No, it was a facade. But, you get the point don't you? This is a special place.

No, it was a facade. But, you get the point don't you? This is a special place. — Posty McPostface

What was the "facade"? And yes, I DO get the point that this is a special place.

Over the past decade I have talked privately to the administration of both PF and TPF and I think all of the moderators individually, letting them know just how much I value their being here.

Remember that the forum, any forum is nothing without it's members and their contributions, so I do try to handle those I meet here carefully and lovingly.

And that is not a facade, it's who I genuinely am and my hope is that it is enough for you.

Men are more visually orientated, while women are more audio and language orientated. Males tend to use the front to back paths in the brain, more, while women tend to use side to side. Men and women were designed to be compliments. This difference is connected to the visual cortex; male, being in the back of the brain and the audio cortex; female, side to side. Data is processed differently.

It is not coincidence that men have invented and discovered the vast majority of things. This is connected to seeing in the visual cortex and processing in the frontal lobe. Women are better at maintaining the social capacitance of culture, as defined by language and traditions. Males are more likely to become criminals or rebels, since the frontal lobe and male front to back pathways are connected to the imagination, which brings up things beyond the limits of the senses.

Being male is connected to fully developing the front to back and back to front pathways of the brain. This can lead to the development and use of sensory expectation. Sensory expectation anticipates what is out there, ahead of time. When this expectation is seen, in the future, it will trigger a gut feeling; eureka.

This based on the male sexual drive. In the male, the happy ending appears first in the imagination. Foreplay is for the women. This sensory expectation motivates him to move within his environment to get reality to overlap, so he can satisfy the expectation. Sometimes, the path in the middle may not conform to social PC and female standards, since the goal, is the goal, not the path. This flexible path approach allows men to be risky and learn to tolerate discomfort during the path, since the goal is the goal. Discovery builds upon this basic schema.

Maternal instinct is more geared to security since the female is vulnerable during pregnancy and has to care for the needs of a vulnerable child after pregnancy. She prefers a secure structuring. This is offered by the side-to side processing of cultural thoughts and feelings.

In the ideal world, men are able to be men and women are able to be women so they can take advantage of natural instincts. Each learns to fully level their key pathways. When they unite as one, in intimate relations, the two different pathways of the brain; front to back and side to side, form a symbolic cross in time and space, so each can help the other learn the way of the other. The team becomes more than the sum of its parts.