Started by Rob Layton, Jul 12, 2006, 08:37 AM
Summary:blah blah blah women like blah blah blah women like blah blah blah women like blah blah blah feminazis are all to blame blah blah blah provider blah blah blah men shouldn't take care of their appearance blah blah blah a real man provides for women blah blah a real man defines himself by women's needs blah blah blahWhy is it so necessary to define manhood _for everyone_? Isn't it something individual?
Giving men a positive outline of what it means to be a man is a good thing.
Some men need to hear that they can act / think / be like they were designed to be & there's nothing wrong with that.
I disagree. I don't need to be told how to be a man. And I don't consider this article to provide a positive outline. Is it talking about things like being responsible, courteous, forgiving, etc.? No, it's harping about metrosexuals... you know, those men who take care of themselves like "women" and aren't slobs like us real men. And there's also the same whine most of these articles include about men needing to provide for women. And the usual telling us how to be men by telling us what women like.
This article says there's nothing wrong with it as long as they were "designed" to meet the mold it defines. I'm not feminine enough to let it define how I act/ think/ or behave.
Why do men need a positive outline?
How come I never see an article offering a positive outline for women? Is it because women are innately positive?
Years of feminism, which insists on the absolute interchangeability of the traditional roles of man and woman, are giving way to a reassertion of the male attribute of machismo, it is claimed. The metrosexual, that urbanised, sensitive, emotionally and physically androgynous model of 21st-century manhood, is dead.
Up and down America, feminists bearing torches and pitchforks are on the trail of Harvey Mansfield, a Yale University professor whose book, Manliness, laments: "We are in the process of making the English language gender neutral, and 'manliness', the quality of one gender, or rather of one sex, seems to describe the essence of the enemy we are attacking, the evil we are eradicating. He continues: "Feminism needs to come to terms with manliness. I think women are confused about what they want men to be and that leads to male confusion."Mansfield believes there are stark differences between the sexes, and that they should be celebrated. If those manly attributes are hard to pin down, most women tend to know them when they see them.A straw poll of the wives and mothers in my small Kent community offered up the following characteristics. A real man is chivalrous and emotionally robust and mature. He is modest, does not wear his heart on his sleeve, and is dutiful to wife or lover, and to family. A real man provides for and protects those he loves.All those attributes that allowed men to drag down mammoths for their families and communities in prehistoric times - aggression, competitiveness, decisiveness - still survive and govern the most basic aspects of sexual attraction, marriage and child rearing.This does not make a man superior, but underpins the fact that men and women complement each other, bringing unique gifts to the business of ensuring the survival of the species.
In meritocratic America, where welfare is harder to get, self-betterment is a constituent part of staying fed and housed. Men cannot afford to be feckless. If they don't help themselves, no one will.
The feminist lobby, which has achieved much for women over the past 40 years, must take its foot off the accelerator. It is established beyond doubt that men and women are equal in all fields ranging from human dignity to employment rights, but this must not be allowed to evolve into the idea that men and women are the same.
Men must learn to reclaim manliness, not in the machismo mould of previous generations, but in a modern incarnation that will serve as an anchor in the shifting sands of today's gender politics.
So this article about what duties men should perform reminds you of an empowerment article? Well I suppose it might be if you mean it empowers the women they will be performing the duties for.A man defines manliness by existing. The article makes it sound like a man is a social construct. I think I was actually born naked.
All hail the modern caveman. But wait a minute. Before we even ask what kind of man modern women really want, how exactly are we defining manliness? My dictionary lists "courage, valour and energy" as key characteristics of the manly man. But by that measure, my wife, who has gone through the horror of childbirth and who runs a family of six, is more of a man than me.
All those attributes that allowed men to drag down mammoths for their families and communities in prehistoric times - aggression, competitiveness, decisiveness - still survive and govern the most basic aspects of sexual attraction, marriage and child rearing. This does not make a man superior, but underpins the fact that men and women complement each other, bringing unique gifts to the business of ensuring the survival of the species.
In the Christian tradition, the man has a set of immutable duties towards wife and family that cannot be overlooked, and these duties rest on the ethics of personal responsibility, morality and, overriding all this, a responsibility to provide for the family. How dramatically those duties have been eroded.
...However, articles that steer men away from the current "lady-boy" image are a good thing. Like I said... this one isn't perfect, but it beats what I'm used to seeing & is a step in the right direction.