There are certain characteristics I have that I am confident about - that are part of how I think about myself, my identity. These include that I am my three children's father, I am intelligent, I write well, I am a Clark, I think like an engineer, I see the world in ways that not many other people do, I am loyal, and I am a man. My maleness manifests as intellectual aggressiveness; an ability to deal with conflict in an honorable way; competitiveness; a strong drive to make and take responsibility for decisions that affect my life sometimes without waiting for other's agreement; a desire to protect my family, friends, and people who are more vulnerable than I am; and a desire for emotional and sexual intimacy with women. That's what being a man means to me.

Oh yes, and I have a penis.

So the opening question: What is a man? — Moliere

An adult human with XY chromosomes.

And the titular question: What is masculinity?

Yang (re: taijitu). Unbalanced, tends to break before bending (contrary to / complementary of Yin which tends to bend before breaking). :fire:

So the opening question: What is a man?

Not sure.

And the titular question: What is masculinity? — Moliere

I know the clichés and I dislike most of them. As a male I have no particular insight into my own gender and rarely think about masculinity. One of my colleagues is a trans-male and seems more overtly masculine than I am - even if I am a foot taller. :wink:

So the opening question: What is a man?
And the titular question: What is masculinity? — Moliere

There are certain characteristics I have that I am confident about - that are part of how I think about myself, my identity. — T Clark

Ask a reductionist question and you get a reductionist answer. Masculinity gets defined as being the kind of matter which possess a certain collection of properties or essences.

So a problem is created right at the start. We have to identify a set of characteristics that are then arguably just accidents and which lack any contextual justification.

This is not a good way to proceed.

As a holist, I would ask what does masculinity seek to oppose itself to? What does it dichotomously "other".

Of course, that would be the feminine. Well perhaps. We might start down this road and start to think that the masculine~feminine dichotomy isn't that massively useful after all. It kind of gets at something, but lacks strong explanatory value.

Logic demands we get down to useful dichotomies – polarised limits that capture a critical axis of difference. And the truth of biology is that male and female involves considerable overlap. The truth of culture is that humans are remarkably plastic.

How are we telling the truth of the world when we allow dialectical argument to drive us to opposing extremes that are mostly about just putting small tilts one way or the other under a giant magnifying lens?

So sure, we could give an accurate answer about maleness as biological identity and masculinity as cultural trope. We can put the small statistical differences under a spotlight. That is an interesting game, especially when you are a masculine male wanting an easy check list to confirm what you suspect.

But philosophically, we have to start by realising how the current gender wars are a cultural symptom more than a metaphysical question.

The right of politics has turned its aggression and frustration outwards on migrants and liberalism because the political realm is simply stalled when it comes to addressing humanity's real problems of climate change, food insecurity, etc. And likewise the left has followed its own inbuilt dialectical tendency by turning its frustrated rage inwards on the question of identity within the social collective.

One others to construct the outsider. The other others to deconstruct the legitimacy of leaving anyone out. The right promotes over-exclusion. The left promotes over-inclusion. And for both it is the only political game left to them as real world control has been taken off the table.

To join in with a reductionist analysis is not going to help solve anything. Male~female is already a marginal kind of dialectical difference, not worthy of cashing out in the language of substance ontology – what is the "right stuff" in terms of a set of metaphysical-strength properties.

What we should be more worried about is how left~right became such a politically neutered debate in terms of actual economic and institutional power, even as it became such a fevered debate in terms of gender politics and other superficial identity issues.

Personal identity counts for shit in the world of real politik. Because real politik has now institutionalised the impersonal flows of capital and entropy.

This is from one of my favorite books:

"For the self-control of the warrior, which we observe and admire in his comportment, is but the outward manifestation of the inner perfection of the man. Such virtues as patience, courage, selflessness, which the soldier seems to have acquired for the purpose of defeating the foe, are in truth for use against enemies within himself—the eternal antagonists of inattention, greed, sloth, self-conceit, and so on.
When each of us recognizes, as we must, that we too are engaged in this struggle, we find ourselves drawn to the warrior, as the acolyte to the seer. The true man-at-arms, in fact, can overcome his enemy without even striking a blow, simply by the example of his virtue."

Ask a reductionist question and you get a reductionist answer. Masculinity gets defined as being the kind of matter which possess a certain collection of properties or essences. — apokrisis

I found myself laughing at your post. I value your opinions and ideas when it comes to science, but in this particular situation, your opinion doesn't mean anything. I was describing my own personal experience of being a man - what being a man means to me. Maybe that doesn't fit in with what you think I ought to think and feel, but that's your issue, not mine.

As a holist, I would ask what does masculinity seek to oppose itself to? What does it dichotomously "other"...Of course, that would be the feminine. — apokrisis

For me, it's not. I'm not a man in opposition to anything. A man is what I am. I can't say I treat women exactly the way I treat men, but I apply the same standards - fairness, friendliness, respect. I admit I feel more protective of women in general than I do of men. I can sometimes be a pretty intimidating person for people who don't know me. I'm high energy and aggressive verbally. Women tend to be more intimidated by me than men do, so I have to be more careful.

At the same time, women tend to like me and trust me once they know me better. I treat them with respect they can sense is sincere. I'm pretty transparent. People can see I'm trustworthy and not a threat.

How men treat women, how people treat other people, is not a political question, no matter how much political ideologues try to make it one.

Ask a reductionist question and you get a reductionist answer. Masculinity gets defined as being the kind of matter which possess a certain collection of properties or essences. — apokrisis

I agree with everything @apokrisis has commented, I was fussing over how to phrase my argument only to find everything I wanted to say has already been said.

At the bare minimum, we would need a context & a goal to say anything useful, such as discussing the role of masculinity in dating and highlighting some specific topics such as chivalry, for example.

I'm tempted to keep the OP this simple. But given my expressions in various posts I obviously have some thoughts on the issue...

So the opening question: What is a man?
And the titular question: What is masculinity? — Moliere

Interesting thread and conversation, so far. Mixing the analytic and the personal as in this particular exchange:

As a holist, I would ask what does masculinity seek to oppose itself to? What does it dichotomously "other".
Of course, that would be the feminine. Well perhaps. We might start down this road and start to think that the masculine~feminine dichotomy isn't that massively useful after all. It kind of gets at something, but lacks strong explanatory value. — apokrisis

For me, it's not. I'm not a man in opposition to anything. A man is what I am.

I can't say I treat women exactly the way I treat men, but I apply the same standards - fairness, friendliness, respect. I admit I feel more protective of women in general than I do of men. I can sometimes be a pretty intimidating person for people who don't know me. I'm high energy and aggressive verbally. Women tend to be more intimidated by me than men do, so I have to be more careful. — T Clark

It reminded me of a previous discussion and definitions:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13595/what-does-real-mean/p1
@Banno introduced me to the perspective of:

To understand what "real" is doing here we ask what it is to be contrasted with, and what other term might replace "not real". Use pattern is "it's not a real X, its a Y" - "it's not a real world, its... what? imagined? fake? counterfeit? Nothing seems to fit. So we can pass such an unfounded musing by. Language on holiday. — Banno

Keeping that in mind and returning to

What is a real man? — Moliere

we can ask:
"As opposed to what?"
I like this:

How are we telling the truth of the world when we allow dialectical argument to drive us to opposing extremes that are mostly about just putting small tilts one way or the other under a giant magnifying lens? — apokrisis

What differences are magnified? Who does this and for what purpose? For whose benefit?

The right of politics has turned its aggression and frustration outwards on migrants and liberalism because the political realm is simply stalled when it comes to addressing humanity's real problems of climate change, food insecurity, etc. And likewise the left has followed its own inbuilt dialectical tendency by turning its frustrated rage inwards on the question of identity within the social collective. — apokrisis

How true is this? How do you know? How helpful is it to use extreme positions of 'right' and 'left'?

I am still a man. I know those patterns.
But I'm not interested in being a real man. — Moliere

Whatever that means.

I've mentioned Kate Millet a few times on these forums. — Moliere

I haven't been around, so have missed this. Also, I haven't read much about philosophy and gender issues, so thanks for this thought-provoking thread. More interested now as I begin to appreciate the political implications. I found this:

Does masculinity need a makeover for the 21st century? Should your gender matter to who you are as a person? Ray thinks masculinity is a tool of the patriarchy and should be rejected, but Blakey counters by suggesting that there may be multiple definitions of masculinity that need not all rely on narrow and stereotypical expectations. Ray is skeptical of a solution that would introduce more stereotypes into the mix, and they maintain that people should simply focus on what they have in common with all human beings.

The co-hosts are joined by Robin Dembroff, Professor of Philosophy at Yale University, who argues that any idea of what someone must be or ought to be on the basis of gender is constrictive.
Ray asks how their critique differs from standard critiques of masculinity, and Robin explains that their view emphasizes the close connection between masculinity and maleness. Blakey questions the ability to separate the two concepts, which prompts Robin to define masculinity as standing in opposition to femininity. Ray then considers how men are advantaged and disadvantaged by sexism due to the intersectionality between gender, race, class, and disability. — "

[emphasis added]

https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/what-masculinity

How many still think in absolute terms of masculinity/femininity?
Talking about being a 'real' woman or man...the extremes. Is that where we want to go, to be?

So, would you agree that 'what is a human?' is a much more important question, than what is a man? or what is a woman? and it always has been. To me, man and woman is almost synonymous in every way that really matters, the differences are far more trivial, compared to the commonalities.
We can still talk till the cows come home about the differences between a man and a woman BUT, they remain trivial by comparison.

Let's start with where we might find men. https://careersmart.org.uk/occupations/equality/which-jobs-do-men-and-women-do-occupational-breakdown-gender

What do men do? They build, they toil, they manipulate their environment, they brave the elements, and they protect. The vehicle that got you to work was likely designed by a man, built by a man, driven on a road laid down by a man. The building you walked into was likely designed and built by a man, the sink you used, the toilet you flushed, all built and maintained by a man. The HVAC, the elevator, the electrical system, all installed by a man with dirt on his hands and his name on his shirt. The desk you sit in front of, also built by a man. And most, real men I propose, do this less so because of the great rewards that might or might not follow, but it's because what real men do.

This is meant as a celebration of the man. The celebration of the woman is just as real, but looks much different. Their hand rocks the cradle and therefore rules the world.

Such outdated thinking I know. But I also know that someone here reads this and says "Thank God there are still people who say this." I wrote this for you.

You are like Sam Elliot at the end of The Big Lebowski.

Ask a woman. Ask Science Fiction. Don't ask the dicks round here, they'll start talking about their genitals and how they can lay bricks with them.

A "female man" is a woman with a man's mind, her body and soul still female.[2] Joanna's metaphorical transformation refers to her decision to seek equality by rejecting women's dependence on men and mirrors the journeys made by the other three protagonists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Female_Man

Or if you prefer your critique less angry, The Left Hand of Darkness.

On Gethen, the permanently male Genly Ai is an oddity, and is seen as a "pervert" by the natives; according to reviewers, this is Le Guin's way of gently critiquing masculinity. — wiki

What do humans do? They build, they toil, they manipulate their environment, they brave the elements, and they protect. The vehicle that got you to work was likely designed by a man or/and a woman, or/and an automated system, built by a man or/and a woman, or/and an automated system, driven on a road laid down by a man or/and a woman, or/and an automated system. The building you walked into was likely designed and built by a man or/and a woman, or/and an automated system, the sink you used, the toilet you flushed, all built and maintained by a man or/and a woman, or/and an automated system. The HVAC, the elevator, the electrical system, all installed by a man or/and a woman with dirt on their hands and their name on their shirt, or/and an automated system The desk you sit in front of, also built by a man or/and a woman, or/and an automated system. And most, real people, or/and an automated system, I propose, do this less so because of the great rewards that might or might not follow, but it's because its what real people, or/and an automated system, do.

This is meant as a celebration of the human. The celebration of the woman and the man is real, and is not different. Their hands rock the cradle and therefore rule the world.

Such modern thinking I know. But I also know that many will read this and say "Thank goodness we no longer need to thank or blame non-existent gods, for anything people create, say or do." I wrote this for you.

I don't know if anyone noticed that I borrowed from the writing style of another poster to bring you this message. Please do credit them accordingly.

People seem to get themselves worked up in knots over these discussions. "In my day, men were men and women were women, by gawd!" seems to be a driving sentiment from conservatives. But in every generation, there has been some blurring of the lines. There were transvestites when I was young, men grew long hair in the 1960's and when you go back even further men had long hair bound with ribbons -- sometimes powdered wigs -- and wore hose, high heel shoes, and make-up. If you could go back in time, you'd think the American founding fathers were effeminate drag queens based on their appearance.

The strictly biological answer could be about how a man is an adult human with XY chromosomes, and that is easy enough. But the more one thinks about it 'being a man' is an abstraction... it's a personal identity, a social identity, and the biological answer is only the starting point, not the end point. So, there is no definitive or all encompassing answer for what masculinity is. If I tried to take a stab at it, I'd say masculinity is a set of behaviors biological males tend to exhibit and society expects men to have, both good and bad. Since men often exhibit these behaviors and also are expected to, it forms a closed circle of selective reinforcement.

Gender differences are trivial compared to the commonalities between men and women, but as we organise our language, culture, customs etc around gender, they're still nonetheless important. There's no merit in fostering an unnecessarily hostile competition between the sexes, maybe in that, we could agree. However, I'm not going to formulate my views differently just because some morons believe they're living in a patriarchy.

What do humans do? — universeness

The link. You missed the link.

So the opening question: What is a man? — Moliere

Well, don't ask Rudyard Kipling. It seems he thought a man to be a kind of demi-god, judging from his poem If, and told his (fictional) son in that poem he had to meet the impossibly high standards described in it in order to be one. He managed to arrange for his real son John to have a commission in the army in WWI, despite the fact that John had been rejected because of his eyesight was terrible. John was killed in battle, aged 18.

I doubt it's possible to define "a man" in any non-trivial sense, and think it's not worth the trouble.

However, I'm not going to formulate my views differently just because some morons believe they're living in a patriarchy. — Judaka

Why is it moronic though?

''Patriarchy is a system of relationships, beliefs, and values embedded in political, social, and economic systems that structure gender inequality between men and women. Attributes seen as “feminine” or pertaining to women are undervalued, while attributes regarded as “masculine” or pertaining to men are privileged. '

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/patriarchy#:~:text=Patriarchy%20is%20a%20system%20of,pertaining%20to%20men%20are%20privileged.

Are not the "masculine" attributes of e. g. aggressiveness and competition generally privileged in contemporary societies? Isn't social success primarily presented as being about dominance / status / material gain rather than e. g. caring / protectiveness / cooperation etc?

(Not intended as a criticism but) for some reason that reminds me of the old Apple ad that had Einstein and Edison in it.

I wrote this for you. — Hanover

Thank you....Hey...Wait a minute!

Ask Science Fiction. — unenlightened

More recent books I would recommend are the "Ancillary Sword" trilogy by Anne Leckie and the Murderbot books by Martha Wells. I wouldn't call them feminist, but they're pretty powerful.

:up:

Ask a woman. Ask Science Fiction — unenlightened

Talking about stories.
Interesting to consider the enduring popularity of the Regency Romance genre. For example: The Bridgerton series. For women only?
I listened to one just t'other day - 'An Offer From a Gentleman' - by Julia Quinn.
Set in England during the period of the British Regency (1811–1820) or early 19th century.
From wiki:

Many Regency romance novels include the following:
— Regency Romance - Wiki

• References to the ton (le bon ton)
• Depictions of social activities common during the social season such as carriage rides, morning calls, dinner parties, routs, plays, operas, assemblies, balls, etc.
• References to, or descriptions of, athletic activities engaged in by fashionable young men of the period, including riding, driving, boxing, fencing, hunting, shooting, etc.
• Differences of social class
• Marriages of convenience: a marriage based on love was rarely an option for most women in the British Regency, as securing a steady and sufficient income was the first consideration for both the woman and her family.[4]
• False engagements
• Cyprians (sex workers), demireps (women of ill repute), mistresses and other women employed by rakehells and men from the upper classes
• Mistaken identity, deliberate or otherwise
• Mystery or farce elements in the plot
• The rank system of the peerage of England plays a large role in the "marriage mart" of Regency Romance.

How much has changed in the male power structure? Arguably, progress has been made in certain areas of empowerment. However, that can be swiftly swept aside.
How did ex-PM Johnson get away with telling lies in Parliament on an industrial scale? Why was it not allowed to call him out as a 'liar' in Parliament? *
Why are such individuals allowed to resign rather than be sacked? Why are dishonorable PMs allowed to produce a resignation honours list? What is that about, other than the continuation of power set in a privileged social class? The ruling classes.

The UK lives in an archaic system of structural inequalites still. But hopefully, things will change.
Listen to Dawn Butler:
https://www.channel4.com/news/our-democracy-shouldnt-grind-that-slowly-dawn-butler-on-holding-boris-johnson-to-account

* Most unacceptable is any insinuation that another member is dishonourable. So, for example, in the British House of Commons any direct reference to a member as lying is unacceptable, even if the allegation is substantively true.[1] A conventional alternative, when necessary, is to complain of a "terminological inexactitude".

I'll need a link.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_different

Not worth posting the vid here but the ambience seems similar to me. And again, not a criticism, but your piece struck me as a kind of ''advertisement'' for manhood. Which is appropriate as a 'real man' seems a thing of marketing--maybe that's the essence of it.

This has been quite a range of responses! I'm going to start with a general reflection.

One is that I think the lack of really caring about one's masculinity is itself a masculine trait. Who are you to tell me what kind of man I am? I can get by on my own without your approval -- like a man. This isn't intended as a criticsm of the mindset. As I said in the opening, I'm aware of the patterns. This is a common one I come across, though not universal. Which gets to something which is probably important to acknowledge and I should have started out with it -- there isn't so much a masculinity as there are masculinities.

I don't think that undermines the phenomena, though.

Another is that in my experience of masculinity I'd say that men tend to be deeply passionate. The notion that men are without emotions or somehow less emotional than women is false. It's the mode of expression which is different, not the actual emotional life of the person.

Another is a memory, which is sure to annoy. However in the military I recall that it was the women who tended to be "tougher" than the men (especially those in leadership positions). I believe this is because of self-selection among other reasons. But what this shows me -- I know it's anecdote so I don't expect to convince here, only sharing -- is that sexual difference doesn't account for some of the cliche's associated with men like toughness and strength. I've known too many people who do or do not live up to the cliches across the sex line to think sex is very determinative of one's traits or abilities. So I try not to look at gender identity as a collection of traits at all as much as a collection of attachments, expectations, feelings, and modes of expression. We can all be tough, but a tough man expresses differently from a tough woman, even though they are both tough.

Lastly, in light of there being masculinities, I fully expect there to be some competing notions of the masculine. I think it best to look at these in concert -- an individual will probably have a masculinity, but in thinking through masculinity in general it's OK that there are different ways to express the gender identity.

I'll need a link. — Hanover

Don't we all? This is a famous ad, a Clio winner, a classic.

I've known too many people who do or do not live up to the cliches across the sex line to think sex is very determinative of one's traits or abilities. — Moliere

Most of us know particular men and women who are not typical of men and women - in general. Take 1 million women and 1 million men and there will be significant differences.

https://careersmart.org.uk... — Hanover

I have spent many hours mulling over lists like this, trying to realistically locate myself in jobs I could do and jobs I wanted to do -- or, in roles I wanted to occupy.

One is that I think the lack of really caring about one's masculinity is itself a masculine trait. — Moliere

Thus emasculating your respondents.

I have a mate who owns a property near Wangaratta, drives a John Deere all day, keeps his cigs tucked in the shoulder of his singlet, and always has a half-smile on his face. He saw the title of the book "Real men don't eat quiche", and murmured quietly "Real men eat whatever they fuckin' want."