Question of the day #1

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Will on April 23, 2009 at 9:44pm

I'll quote an article (by me) on the main site, http://artofmanliness.com/2009/02/12/is-manliness-obsolete/#more-1569:

"Some years ago I read a book (Manhood in the Making, by David Gilmore) which surveyed the concept of masculinity in civilizations all over the world. The author found that almost everywhere you went, people had the same expectations: a man should be brave, economically successful, responsible, generous, sexually capable, procreative, and sociable with other men."

That's the consensus of civilizations.

My view is that we should modify it if it's wrong. And you could be manly without having *every* aspect of this. You could, for example, be celibate, and therefore not procreative. You could be a hermit, and therefore not sociable.

But I think you have to be brave. It's the chief manly virtue as seen by people all over the world, and without it, what do you have?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Shaun Daws on April 24, 2009 at 7:22am

That was a good article WIll...out of curiosity, how would you order the following then?

brave, economically successful, responsible, generous, sexually capable, procreative, and sociable with other men

I'd go:
1. brave
2. responsible
3. sociable
4. generous
5. economically successful
6. sexually capable
7. procreative

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Will on April 24, 2009 at 9:16am

Yes, thank you. I think I would use about the same ordering. Generous before sociable, but that's about it.

There were some variations between civilizations. For some, "procreative" came with "...especially sons"; or "sexually capable" meant "promiscuous before marriage, and having a slew of children after." Don't think I'd adopt those!

But especially I think bravery needs to be way up there.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Daniel Ian Richardson on April 24, 2009 at 5:18pm

I would argue that this question is significantly deeper than most people think. The answers that have been posted before this mostly seem to answer the question by pointing out specifc characteristics which are generally deemed to be manly. However I think we need to look further and deeper than this. Shaun stated the following; brave, economically successful, responsible, generous, sexually capable, procreative, and sociable with other men, as a summayr of what it is to be manly.
Many fine and certainly manly virtues there I concur. However where do such virtues spring from why is it that these are deemed to be manly? In order to truely answer this question I think we need to come to an understanding as regards the origin of man.
If we are the result of millions of years of evolution then it seems to me highly unlikely that we would have any inclination to value characteristics such as generosity and responsibility. I believe (if you haven't guessed already) that we have the ultimate blueprint for manliness in the God who created us in his image. Hence characteristics such as sacrificial love, generosity, bravery, selflessness, responsibility and kindness are regarded highly.

What are your thoughts?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Will on April 24, 2009 at 7:09pm

Although I also think we're designed for God's image, this particular list seems to me to have survival value: not for the man, but for his community.

That is, which community is more likely to survive: one in which the men are brave, wealthy, generous, fertile, and ready to be part of a team; or one in which the men are cowardly, impotent, irresponsible skinflint loners?

(This isn't a basis for ethics. Why should a man care if his community survives, as opposed to himself? But it is a basis for why civilizations that honor these virtues outlast those that don't.)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Morgan Williams on April 25, 2009 at 6:12pm

Second Will on bravery.

I think the essence of manliness (as distinct from humanity) is the desire and ability to effect change, according to his desires, beliefs or values.

This could be as major as playing a role in public life, or as small-scale as putting together a piece of wordwork.

When I can look back at something (even something trivial) and think "but for me, this would not be so", then that's when I feel more of a man.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Daniel Ian Richardson on April 25, 2009 at 6:25pm

The ideal man would be willing to sacrifice himself in order to facilitate the survival of his community. Yet not all men would be willing to do so. Many men with their life on the line would probably fall into the category of a cowardly, irresponsible skinflint loner with nothing to live for but himself. (As for being impotent I think its unfair to say that a manly man must be fertile, men who are infertile can still step up and display manly character that would put a fertile man to shame). I agree with what you said. The ideal man should be a selfless guardian of his community or family. Putting them before his own wellbeing.Will said:

Although I also think we're designed for God's image, this particular list seems to me to have survival value: not for the man, but for his community.

That is, which community is more likely to survive: one in which the men are brave, wealthy, generous, fertile, and ready to be part of a team; or one in which the men are cowardly, impotent, irresponsible skinflint loners?

(This isn't a basis for ethics. Why should a man care if his community survives, as opposed to himself? But it is a basis for why civilizations that honor these virtues outlast those that don't.)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by David Hawkins on April 27, 2009 at 5:55pm

Very good attempt at a definition Shaun. I like it quite a bit. I have a few suggestions for improving it
1) Manliness is an abstract term that cannot be the concrete "embodiment" of a set of abstract ideals. I think you were going for something more like "a collection of ideals" or the "Perfect Example of"
2) "Behavior" should also be added to the list of qualities.
3) Manliness is more than just the good. Unfortunately there is a bad side to manliness as well. I noticed the conversation quickly became a list of the higher positive attributes and virtues which constitute only part of the definition. Some societies, at least the female side of it that I am most familiar with, also expect that burping, farting, and scratching are some decidedly disgusting and distinctly male behaviors. Go ahead, ask any girl and she would probably call those behaviors, "a man thing". Few women seem to want to try hard enough to see the humor in the notorious Benjamin Franklin essay, "Fart Proudly". I am glad I am a man and have one more thing in this world to laugh about.
4) I think you allude to it but do not stress enough the critical aspect that "others" are the ones that will determine what a term like manliness means. When we think about ourselves, we use the knowledge of us which other people already have. We judge ourselves with the means other people have and have given us for judging ourselves. We learn from our culture what it is to be a hero or a villain, a man or a woman.

Here is how I would rewrite it.

Manliness is a subjective conceptual archetype of ALL intellectual, physical, spiritual, psychological, and behavioral attributes expected of a man for himself based upon the expectations that his group has for all the males belonging to that group.

Daniel is right on a couple of points. The question is a very deep one, and the answers given will rely strongly on a person's ontological views on being, existence, and reality.

Here are mine:
1) A supernatural God or creator in whose image man was created most likely does not exist. Even if God existed it would not change anything because either
a) Existence precedes essence. Before man existed he was nothing. Then he comes into existence and is something. Only after his existence can man define himself all on his own. Man is then free to conceive for himself what he is and wants to be, what he wills himself to be, and what his purpose is.
b) You believe a creator has given you free will without revealing an ultimate purpose.
3) This total freedom that we all have to define ourselves is a great responsibility and cause of anxiety and despair. It is very much like showing up for a new job without ever being told what the employer expects you to do, or how they expect you to do it.

So then 2 things happen
1) People act in Bad Faith in an attempt to fool ourselves that we are not free. We attempt to build numerous structures through roles, norms, cultures and beliefs to define our sense of reality - to give the illusion that a blueprint exists into which we fit and are part of. ~Jean Paul Sartre.
2) To attempt to manage the conflict that arises out of non-conformity to the roles, norms and cultures, a society will often try to influence individuals to change their behavior and become who society wants them to be.

Part of manliness for me is
1) The ability to embrace and accept the freedom of choice and the resulting anxiety from the responsibility of developing and evolving your own purpose and moral compass to steer by and commit to our own choices.

2) Seeking the truth. Knowing that committing to our choices is the healthiest when it is not without doubt, but in spite of doubt. To be utterly convinced and at the same time to allow doubts presupposes a greater respect for truth and acknowledges the awareness that truth often goes beyond anything that can be said or done at any given moment.

3) Making good choices for yourself based on reason that are in your own best interest or enjoyment without need or interest in gaining validation from others, and taking the responsibility for the consequences of those choices.

While recognizing these are not gender exclusive, I personally feel a good man trying to follow a good life will work to develop the following attributes.

1) Develop knowledge and self-knowledge. Socrates argued that knowledge is good and that knowledge leads to knowledge of the self, which in turn leads to knowledge of the difference between good and evil. Only in knowing one's self can one be good, because one at least has the choice of not committing a wrong if he knows it is wrong. However, he can commit wrong if he is ignorant of his actions. Therefore, knowledge is a virtue and conversely, ignorance is vice. From this, he stated the four virtues which could all be traced back to knowledge.
1) courage
2) temperance
3) justice
4) piety (adhering to moral principles)

▶ Reply to This