The last phrase I still think is focused on an observable/measurable reality - specifically evidence of potency. Why does someone need to be the first to volunteer? If you’re second or third, what does that mean? — Possibility

I think this is key. Much of what makes hero archetypes toxic in modern society is nothing to do with the virtues they exemplify but the way in which they're measured. If I say "head North", the degree to which you've complied is not measured by how far north you have got, but rather by the relationship between where you are now and where you were.

I think masculinity and femininity are not toxic. The same behaviour in animals is called survival. We hold ourselves to standards that are unrealistic.

We tend to think that we need to transcend humanity. Focusing on beings that potentially are higher on the evolutionary ladder than us. Perhaps we can learn a lot from descending. Why did the birds survive and not the dinosaurs?

Compassion as a survival mechanism is what our spiritual leaders do. The Dalai Lama, The Pope etc.
We simply mirror their lifestyles which are based on the life & teachings of the Buddha, the Christ. In that regard the fool and the sage are the same. They both need to adapt to survive.

Why does someone need to be the first to volunteer? If you’re second or third, what does that mean? — Possibility

Volunteering boosts your social status. Especially if you're the first one.

Save yourself first or you can't save someone else, — Gregory

I've actually found that by saving someone else people save themselves.

:up:

Well put, Isaac. :up:

:up:

Boys need to develop the masculine virtues. Men need to develop the feminine ones. Otherwise, one will be lopsided. First become what you are, and then transcend it.

I don’t think this has anything to with survival.

:100: Not that I live up to that (far from it), but :100:

Your edits of the OP are definitely more to my liking. As for the physical-emotional dichotomy, my cruder(?) corollary has always been – observing 'grown females' among family & friends compared to 'grown males' – that males tend to be sprinters (out of the gutter, peeps) and females relay or distance runners. Explosive strength and endurance strength (which are complementary). Each sex is constituted by both strengths and individuals vary in the ratio of complementary strengths manifest in their respective dispositions. Yin-Yang, right? Still, perhaps due to the traditional straitjackets of gender-socialization, females, on average, are "built" to endure labor-pains, acute menses, child bereavement & interminable patience; males, on average, seem fragile by comparison and thereby psychologically "need" to overcompensate for our actual and perceived inadequacies. Whatever. 'Hermaphroditic polymorphs' shoehorned into (orthoprax) gender roles? :eyes: I don't know. — 180 Proof

As @BigThoughtDropper said in the OP, this is a comment on societal expectations. I think it’s not so much that we’re ‘built’ to endure (or that men are ‘built’ to act?), it’s more that we’re expected to.

Yes, that's what I was trying to suggest by "perhaps due to the traditional straitjackets of gender-socialization" followed by "built" and then "need" (the latter in quotes) as expectations not biological traits, etc.

What distinguishes "this version of masculinity" is an emphasis on physicality.

Sure, let it "have a place"; but it's mundane, somewhat anachronistic, and needlessly restricting. So let's not commend it. — Banno

Not how I’d put it, but I agree. I thought it was an honest place to start the discussion, though. This version of masculinity does have a ‘place’, whether we ‘let it’ have one or not. Recognising its limitations enables one to transcend it.

:up:

I think the most important thing a person can do is conquer their ego. It's the root cause of a lot of problems, for men and women. I don't think it's possible to totally overcome your ego, but it's possible to minimize it's destructive influence.

Then what do you think it has to do with?

Hi Guys,


I am going to take a wild stab and guess that the male demographic of contributors on this forum are like me: youngish, humanities-educated, and nerdy. (If I am wrong please let me know!)

This is a question about masculinity. Nowadays the "John Wayne" image of the "strong silent" type of man is viewed as being regressive and borderline toxic. And hell: I've never been that; all through high school I was nerdy, non-sporty, and obscure AF. However, due to the working class background of my family, and because of genes that have given me an ironically massive body, I have always had a very strong sense of manhood.

I will briefly summarise the "man code" as it has been handed down to me.

(I am not suggesting that women are not capable of these things. I have met women in my life that embody these attributes a lot better than I ever can. This is a comment on societal expectations.)

As a man you should not complain too loudly about difficulty or pain, you should expect hardship and bear the burden, you should never use your physical strength to harm those weaker than you, you should use your strength to help those weaker than you, you should be the first to volunteer, et al.

We (male audience, although women very interested to hear opinion) will have different versions of roughly the same code.

My question is this: do you think that this version of masculinity has a place in the modern world? — BigThoughtDropper

I have to draw attention to social change, education, and Star Trek. If you can, watch the original Star Trek and the Second Generation Star Trek. As you said Captain Kirk is the John Wayne of outer space. Captain Picard is not! This is the result of a change in education that has manifested as social change.

Until 1958 we educated for independent thinking. That gets you the John Wayne role model. In 1958 we began education for a technology society with unknown values and "group think" because it is best for the rapid advancement of technology. This is clearly demonstrated with Picard and his crew.

group·think
/ˈɡro͞opˌTHiNGk/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: group-think
the practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility.
"there's always a danger of groupthink when two leaders are so alike"
Definitions from Oxford Languages — Oxford Languages

We might realize what is happening today is the result of the change in education.

To answer your question. I am very much in favor of men being men and women being women. :grin:

I think the most important thing a person can do is conquer their ego. It's the root cause of a lot of problems, for men and women. I don't think it's possible to totally overcome your ego, but it's possible to minimize it's destructive influence. — RogueAI

An interesting thought, but how responsible is the egoless, person? What can of leader will this person be? As we argue about communism, socialism, or capitalism we might consider the leadership personality of each, and the economic advantages or disadvantages. Would the egoless person be the best captain for our ship?

How might honor and pride play into what is good about being human?

I don’t think this has anything to with survival. — Possibility

Hum, what would we want in a captain of the ship or a captain of industry? Bill Gates is a take-charge person and he has accomplished a lot. We might not like how he got to the top, but we have all benefited from what he accomplished.

The Dalai Lama is very different from Bill Gates, and for all the good of his leadership, I don't think his leadership would lead to a high standard of living with schools and hospitals and the industry for a strong economy.

My question is this: do you think that this version of masculinity has a place in the modern world?

I think it should. But manhood is a question of maturity as much as it is masculinity. In an infantilizing society one can get away without both.

Until 1958 we educated for independent thinking. — Athena

I challenge this, although I acknowledge that from a recent viewpoint this seems true. Your date of change is about right. A survey of high school yearbooks around that time shows a change from a jacket-and-tie and short haircut conformity to a much more relaxed standard, and in more than dress and personal style. This change occurring in just a few years.

If I have to sum it up, before 1960 students were expected to learn and know and behave, and for the most part, they did. The idea being that they would enter the workplace as young adults and with some competency, school itself being all about that preparation. After 1960, not. None of it. And in the 62 years since, it seems to me that education, having surrendered educating, has not figured out what its business or purpose is. And by now, the educators themselves are, and are from, the uneducated.

What you call "independent thinking" is just application of learned knowledge. It is a shame, and not your fault, that you are (maybe not you personally) so far removed from real independent thinking that you take a basic level of taught competency for it.

I know of what I speak, being of that age. And I know something about independent thinking, both from my own efforts and difficulties with it, and as well from the lack of it in my person and in my community - that being the USA. That is not to say that no one knows how to think, or that everyone is ignorant, but I myself often feel out in the world as I imagine the Jumblies might have felt at sea.

I am going to take a wild stab and guess that the male demographic of contributors on this forum are like me: youngish, humanities-educated, and nerdy. (If I am wrong please let me know!) — BigThoughtDropper

I did not address this before. You might be right as a general principle. I don't know. But as for me, I'm older, humanities-educated, and kind of nerdy. But I've been around the horn and over seas, I've had over 34 different jobs last count, and virtually all of those were outside and in work that is generally viewed as "masculine", tough, and physically demanding. Whether or not any of that is the true me, I don't know, but I don't think so. I think there's a little boy in there somewhere that was lead astray early on. I'm circling back around, but I do think it's important to put some bark on.

Those who go through life blaming others for making them feel are victims of their own mental illness. Whether or not the rest of us should be sensitive to the suffering of the mentally ill is a matter of 1. Knowledge, and 2. Reasonableness. Do we know, or should we know of this person’s mental illness? What knowledge are we reasonably charged with? And are the steps required to avoid upsetting the ill person reasonable steps? Or can we just allow the mentally ill to suffer? It's an individual and a community question. But there is a difference between a bull in china shop and a bull in the field. It might be advisable to wrangle one, but it might be advisable to leave the other one alone.

This is a really good post. Well thought out, well expressed, and well.... right. Mostly.

"Suck it up" is important. It's a big part of what it means to me to be a man. It's also at the heart of a lot of pain in my life and I think of many men. Most men. Maybe all men. What happens when you build your life and yourself around doing your duty and then fail, suck it up, fail, suck it up, and fail again. The flip side of suck it up is the terror of disappointing people.

I think this has a lot to say about how many people, men, support Donald Trump. As a liberal, I find that understandable and moving. Even admirable.

Anyway - good post.

masculinity exists as a set of behavioral attributes grounded in biology. — Joshs

To me, this is clearly at least partly true.

Thank you.

My own intuition is just to get on with it and be. — Tom Storm

That's exactly right, except you left out "suck it up."

but I do think it's important to put some bark on.... But there is a difference between a bull in china shop and a bull in the field. It might be advisable to wrangle one, but it might be advisable to leave the other one alone. — James Riley

Amen to this and the elided parts. I'll add a cautionary tale. I was requested on a few occasions to give a ride to a morbidly, and grossly, obese person - beg off, if you ever get such a request! The lesson quickly learned was not that I was helping anyone, but rather was enabling them; not so much giving a person a ride, a decent thing to do, as I was giving their fat a ride. From that epiphany a dawning appreciation of how much "fat" there is in the world, and how willing are people to convert others into their beasts of burden to carry it. About that time I developed a personal phrase, sometimes even said aloud, "I don't play [[that, those] games]"

As to those who need help, often that need can only be met by a corporate level of effort. Individual effort being like a man who cannot swim jumping into deep water to try to save another.

New Yorker Cartoon caption (below sketch of 2 guys chatting)

Last summer I tried using prostitutes and found it surprisingly affordable. — Bitter Crank

Ah, yes. New Yorker cartoons. It's like Playboy. I buy it for the articles.

Off the top of my head, death loves "real" men but the feeling may not be mutual.

Disclaimer: Idiosyncracy warning!

As to those who need help, often that need can only be met by a corporate level of effort. — tim wood

Indeed. Some things just can't get done without cooperation. It cannot only be futile to try and do something on your own; it can actually be counter-productive. That doesn't necessarily mean one should do nothing, but one can try to organize people to cooperate.

A real man is someone who is a father, an Olympic champion, a stepfather, a husband, a multi-millionaire, someone who raises billionaire daughters and step-daughters, an international celebrity, and someone who will be the next Republican governor of California. He is all that and America's sweetheart. — Hanover

I remember the 1976 Olympics and Bruce Jenner's performance. That has always represented the best of what athletics can be to me. I always looked up to him. The sadness I feel watching Kaitlin Jenner now has nothing to do with her transition. It's the comparison of the dedication, discipline, and skill it took to win the medal to the sideshow freak she has turned herself into.