Late night musings...shit be heavy yo

[fortheplaid!]

I need a little help from the guys here on Nerdfitness- and if the ladies feel like chiming in, Im more than happy to hear from them too ^.^ So, what is it that I need from anonymous (mostly) male nerds? Basically, Im wondering what I, a 27 yo man in 2015 America, should aim to do as "a man". And what I mean by that is simple: what sort of man do you think it is best to be in this modern age? The supposed "traditional" male (protector/provider)? The "neutered" male (think gay friend without the gay part)? These hipsters Ive heard so much about? When I get some more sleep I'll be sure to edit this to explain myself more clearly, but for now Id like to hear what the Internet has to say...

 

Edit: As promised, Ive gotten some sleep and I will more fully explain myself. I see a few people have already responded, but I think my thoughts stand well enough alone without having to reply to any one person. Anyway, here goes. I see "traditional" masculinity as dead in 21st century America- not because it is a bad thing, but because it is increasingly difficult to practice. The role of protector/provider (as delineated by The Myth of Male Power) is something increasingly being shared between the partners....that is, when people decide to get married at all. This is not a condemnation of people who choose not to marry, it is simply recognizing that the trend is to cohabitate for several years, usually ending in marriage only if children arrive (and children are often a very unwelcome surprise). Add to that the growing "pressure" of the homosexual movement (yes, I firmly believe that people are being pressured into being, if not gay, at least bisexual in a bid to be more "tolerant")  and you have a society in which strong, virile men, those paragons of masculinity are reviled, if not outright mocked as "old-fashioned." But here is what really upsets me. Despite all the above, it is a biological fact (to the best of my knowledge) that women, despite the social conditioning, are wired to respond to the virile, domineering male over the simpering, pedistalizing "beta" (to borrow a term from the "manosphere"). Why is an easy fact of early evolution: you had to be strong to protect your mate- if you werent, you (and most likely she as well) would die, along with your children. Do I want to be the protector/provider? Yes, as that is how I was brought up. The problem, to bring this back full circle, is the young women of today are apparently all "bad ass bitches" who think that they can run around beating men at anything- including literal physical violence. Why would any man want that in his mate? It confuses and somewhat enrages me. Anyway, thanks to everyone who has replied, I look forward to any further comments/questions/concerns people have after the edit ^>^

[BellaDonna]

Whatever 'man' is being yourself? Whether that includes 'traditionally' male or female attributes. But. . a 'neutered' man? That seems an odd concept. I have several male friends with no romantic interest from either party, but I wouldn't say they are 'neutered'

[Dleffe]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that with 'neutered' he means guys that have been beaten so far into submission by feminism that they will jump through a burning hoop on command so to speak.

[Mark D]

First, you will find some good content at http://www.artofmanliness.com/.  Everything from style to working-out to dating.  

 

Second, despite social pressure to beat manliness out of men, we find manly men are still popular.  While the details change over time, the things that make a man are the same as they've ever been, honor, valor, hardihood, pride, skill, virtue. 

 

Then of course there's one of my favorite quotes about manliness, from the movie Secondhand Lions (Robert Duvall speaking to Haley Joel Osment): "Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love... true love never dies. You remember that, boy. You remember that. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. You see, a man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in."

 

I find it upsetting that young men today have so few good male role models.  So few boys and young men have men in their lives they can look up to and say "I want to be like that!"  

[Oramac]

First, you will find some good content at http://www.artofmanliness.com/.  Everything from style to working-out to dating.  

 

Second, despite social pressure to beat manliness out of men, we find manly men are still popular.  While the details change over time, the things that make a man are the same as they've ever been, honor, valor, hardihood, pride, skill, virtue. 

 

Then of course there's one of my favorite quotes about manliness, from the movie Secondhand Lions (Robert Duvall speaking to Haley Joel Osment): "Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love... true love never dies. You remember that, boy. You remember that. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. You see, a man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in."

 

I find it upsetting that young men today have so few good male role models.  So few boys and young men have men in their lives they can look up to and say "I want to be like that!"  

 

All of this.  Yes.  What he said.  

 

And I'll throw out another +1 for The Art of Manliness as well.  Fantastic site.  

 

One more thing, if you're a Believer, I highly recommend reading a book called "Wild at Heart" by John Eldredge.  Seriously.  It'll hit you like a ton of bricks and you'll be stronger for it.  It's amazing.  

[RoryAverage]

Another vote for ArtofManliness. Along with Nerd Fitness, those two sites have had the most positive, dramatic impact on my life.

 

Start here.http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/06/09/semper-virilis-a-roadmap-to-manhood-in-the-21st-century/

[BellaDonna]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that with 'neutered' he means guys that have been beaten so far into submission by feminism that they will jump through a burning hoop on command so to speak.

 

Ohhh, right, I think I get it now. Oops, I'm probably one of those 'bad ass bitches'. But really, can't one respect a woman who is strong enough to hold her own, and stand equally? Must we be EITHER submissive OR a 'bitch'. The men I most appreciate are ones who can let a woman shine in her own way without feeling 'neutered' if she happens to be a bad ass.

 

I leave physical violence (abuse, I guess you mean?) out because that's just a NO from either men or women. That isn't being a bad ass. That's being an ass.

 

The virtues Mark D mentions are good values in a man. I would argue they are good values for any person

[Oramac]

But really, can't one respect a woman who is strong enough to hold her own, and stand equally? 

 

Can they?  Sure.  But more and more often they simply aren't.  There's a great tragedy in our society today that seemingly requires men to not be men.  What I mean by that is, as men, we need to be out there fighting, hunting, defending, climbing, running, jumping, swimming, diving, and yes, killing if it comes to that (God forbid).  It's in our DNA to protect, preserve and procreate.  (Maybe not literally in our DNA, but the metaphor stands)  There's a lot of today's society that calls men beasts or heathens or any number of other terms if they do these things that come naturally to us.  Thus resulting in the neutering of the modern man.  

 

The book I mentioned earlier, "Wild at Heart", actually talks quite a bit about this concept, as does the Art of Manliness website. 

 

[Disclaimer] I realize I may not make any friends with this post.  But it needs to be said.  

[Mark D]

"you have a society in which strong, virile men, those paragons of masculinity are reviled, if not outright mocked as "old-fashioned.""

 

Well, you're on a forum of a web site that advocates eating the same basic types of foods as cave-men ate and getting in shape by lifting heavy things repeatedly.  Doesn't seem to me that "old fashioned" is an insult around here.

 

And why do you care about being considered old fashioned anyway?  Maybe now that I'm middle aged (and yes, I DO plan on loving to 102!) I can see that those old fashioned virtues (the ones I list in my first post on this thread) were honored at the time because they worked, because they were seen as good.  Just because some people don't accept that anymore doesn't mean they're not still good, or not worth developing in yourself.

 

I alluded to this earlier too, but it used to be that boys and young men would have older men (usually fathers, but not always) to guide them in the ways of manliness (and give them a good swift kick in the pants when they screw up).  It was something men just DID, they mentored the younger men and helped them find their place in society.  We lost that some time ago, I'm close to the last generation that had that level of mentoring.  So you have young men who've never learned the concepts of honor, virtue, valor, etc and the world is a worse place for it.  Still, I also see young men like yourself asking these questions over and over, so there's something about being a young man that makes you WANT those qualities and which makes you realize there's something missing if you've never learned them.

[Suited hippy]

A few things for you to consider-

 

A mid to late 20's existential crisis like this is super common for men of our generation, take solace in the fact that many have gone through the same fears and concerns as you.

 

Bisexuality, is a sexual orientation, and not influenced by media pressures. Just like being gay, it is, it is not influenced. I am bisexual, and extremely manly. I have fell multiple trees this year, I did a 67 pushup set this morning, and I helped a person load their car with boxes as I was passing by to lend a hand. The last example is what I hold true to be a man, to help those in need, when able. Sexuality and manliness are not related. Tolerance, acceptance, or hatered do not effect a persons sexuality, and to think it does is downright obnoxious.  Your statement could be hurtful to people, and it makes you seem like a bigot.

 

Want to create a new identity? Try to be more compassionate.

 

Want to define yourself? Do something of note, "Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing." - Benjamin Franklin

 

The past value of a man can no longer apply in this world. Only the future values that you hold to yourself. Create the new man, the new manliness, the new era of great men. 

[Hit]

This question was so promising, and then you're edit happened :|  lets take a few step backs and look at the original question - what is it to be a man? a lot of people make the following assumption:

 

male = man = masculine 

 

Because alliteration is never wrong! Except when it is. and in fact "male" does not equal "man" which in turn does not equal "masculine". These are three separate concepts, and while there are commonalities between all three they are not intrinsically linked. Instead of thinking of these things as the same, lets categorize them appropriately:

 

male (sex)

man (identity)

masculine (action)

 

So the issue you're having is that you feel the need to perform certain actions to be "masculine" and hence reinforce your identity "man" as determined by your sex "male". And well, you don't. So what should you aim to do "as a man"? Whatever the damn hell you feel like doing - being more or less masculine wont make you any more or any less of a man. 

 

I've removed a whole lot of ranting rebuttals to the claims you make in your edit - instead I'm just going to point out a couple times this (or similiar) ideas popped up in the men only thread.

 

on what defines a man: http://rebellion.nerdfitness.com/index.php?/topic/18210-men-only-thread-part-two/?p=1167951

 

on men not wanting to be married: http://rebellion.nerdfitness.com/index.php?/topic/18210-men-only-thread-part-two/?p=1306335

[Zorch]

I think your definition of masculinity is a bit(okay, more than a bit) off.  While it's true that the "traditional" definition of masculinity involves being "strong", "strength" isn't always as simple as having big muscles, or constantly attempting to assert one's authority.  And in relationships, others will find the latter behavior justifiably off-putting.  And ultimately, if a woman isn't interested in the kind of person you want to be, don't complain about it, move on and find someone who's a better match.  The women you are talking about are typically seeking a man who is capable of taking charge when necessary, but is comfortable enough with himself that he doesn't feel the need to be "in charge" when the situation doesn't require it.  You seem to have some issues with the latter part.

 

"Strength" comes in many forms - be it physical, intellectual, or otherwise.  One does not have to dominate and cast down others to be strong - rather, "strength" can be seen as some combination of the following:

• Security/confidence in oneself
• Ambition - knowing what one wants
• The willingness to work for what one wants
• Raw ability - Physical, intellectual, or otherwise

Society in general(and that includes most prospective partners, regardless of which sex you're interested in) respond positively to someone who is talented, self-confident, and who knows what they want and is willing to work for it.  If you don't believe that, I suggest you open your eyes.

 

In the context of heterosexual relationships, the above qualities happen to fit very well with the "protector/provider" role you described.  The problem with your attitude is the expectation of a one-sided relationship.  In modern heterosexual relationships, it's still usually expected for one to be *CAPABLE* of filling the role of a protector/provider when needed - however, that shouldn't mean your partner has to give up their ambition either.  One can still be "strong" without forcing others into a submissive role.  Strength from oneself does not require relative weakness from others around you.  If you are capable enough yourself, you should have nothing to fear when others assert themselves as well.

[Nubbins McGee]

There are so many potential landmines in this thread that I'm going to avoid...

 

I am going to say a couple things though:  I don't think that modern, western society teaches boys (by and large) how to do the things that "men" did in previous generations.  At my last job, I worked with this huge group of women who were all, on average, about 15 years younger than me.  Some were married, some were in serious, long term relationships, some still dating.  Almost without fail when Monday rolled around and we got to talking about what happened over the weekend, the look of amazement that would happen when I fixed the AC/built a deck/rewired the garage/made my wife the table she asked for etc., would blow my mind. Their men didn't know how to do it.  In my generation, and certainly in my father's generation, you changed your own oil.  You owned tools.  You fixed things, and you did manual labor.   I don't think that that is expected of young men these days and yet I think there is probably some longing for it.   I know whenever I'm confronted with something I don't know how to do, I feel kind of useless.  I'm not sure how I'd feel if the only thing I had ever gotten good at was video games.

 

I'm not passing a value judgement here, this is just an observation.  I think that somewhere between baby boomer and millennial a lot of gender based cultural knowledge has been lost.  Not just for men, but women too.  We expect others to do for us--and we're willing to pay for it-- so we never learn how to do things ourselves that were once pretty traditional and expected.  I think a lot of good has come of that, by the way.

 

Here's the other thing, which still blows my mind.  For over the first 20 years of my marriage, we were a two income family.  My wife not only always had a job, but for better than ten years, she ran a company. A real one, with employees, and inventory, and a vehicle fleet.   We split everything.  I've been to more parent teacher conferences than I can count.  I changed a lot of diapers, I made a lot of dinners, french braided little girls hair before school... you name it.  I even sold my company and went back to working for a big faceless corporation because it was interfering with my wife's career.    We were the model family of equality.   A while back she looked at me one day and said "I'm tired of working.  I want to stay home, keep the house clean, cook you dinner, and make sure the kids have their homework done."

 

I actually laughed at her.  That is so not her.  I told her she wouldn't last a month at home.

 

But she did it.  And much to my amazement, we're both pretty happy with it.  In fact, I can't remember when she's been so happy so consistently.  She makes me breakfast, packs me lunch, and cooks dinner during the week.  (I do a lot of the cooking and cleaning on the weekends, also... I still do ALL my own ironing) My house is clean, and my kids are coming to their own house every day after school instead of to a baby sitter, and if something comes up at work, I no longer have to worry about running home because she has to work late too.  

 

There is nothing inherently wrong with traditional western gender roles, as long as both people are embracing them and it's not  used as a tool to oppress.  I think that we're bringing up a generation taught to deliberately eschew those traditional, normative roles, and that's probably a good thing.  As the father of daughters (yes, plural) I certainly want them to be able to do whatever they want in life.  If what they end up wanting is to raise a family instead of being a CEO, that's ok too.

[Robpocalypse]

Well lets address one part first in your edit comments, namely the assumption that somehow broadening acceptance of homosexuality is an agenda being pushed on people. I've yet to meet a gay man or woman that said: "Hey good point, Queer Eye for the Straight guy totally pushed me over the edge." I believe a more reasonable assumption is there are just many more gay people in society than you realize and they feel that making their true selves known to the world is safer in the current society. I find it extraordinarily hard to buy, for a moment, that somehow society pressure can force someone to be gay. Don't confuse widening acceptance and courage of people coming out as an increase in the percentage of population turning gay; that's frankly preposterous. I've seen all the seasons of Spartacus and Game of Thrones, am subject to the same society pressures and did not erupt in spontaneous human homosexuality. Also you seem to infer homosexual as effeminate which is just not accurate. I have a family member who fits the typical male mold to perfection, strong as shit, rebuilds and sells classic cars, deep voice and great guy.. so is his boyfriend.

I would argue technology has given rise to a redefining of some desirable male traits. 100 years ago you had to be able to farm, mine or march. 500 years ago you had to be able to swing a sword, farm or blacksmith. 1,000 years ago you had to hoist a sail, swing a sword or stack a brick and all that shit is gone now thanks to modern technology. If you were a female, who do you think is going to provide more value to a relationship? The dude who can sword fight (cool as hell, don't get me wrong) or the guy that's going to be gainfully employed with a solid income because he can code? Don't blame women for a shift in desirable traits because technology has obsoleted old, male-centric qualities.

There is a trend in society to value intellect over strength, which is interesting. They are two traits that people all possess to varying degrees, yet one is viewed as socially acceptable to use against your fellow man and the other is viewed as abhorrent. A savvy business man is lauded for using his brain to convince someone into giving him money, even if it's a poor deal and the other party is unaware. Oops! Should have known better! How many people are suckered into crushing debt by banks and credit cards with little hope of escape? Both of these are socially accepted transfers of assets because one party was mentally weaker, yet in either situation if someone were to walk up, drop a sucker punch and empty the victims pockets they would be arrested. Why is it more socially accepted to defeat your enemies with intellect rather than strength? Probably a longer question for another day, but whenever I see the conversation about the war on manliness this has to be mentioned because strength, generally is thought of as a male trait and the devaluation of strength as a desirable human quality can be seen, in some circles, as a devaluation of manhood.

I'm sure thousands of years ago there was some cave man bitching about his son because the kid was off planting vegetables in the dirt instead of hunting a saber tooth tiger (not historically accurate I realize), yet farming allowed a steady food source and continue proliferation of the human species. Doesn't make either father or son less manly, just means shit changes.

[TMedina]

You're trying to deal in absolutes, and it's doomed to failure.  I'm familiar with the whole "Alpha", "Beta", and various other archetypes.  Those get blurred into what are more commonly called "gender roles" - traditionally, or perhaps stereotypically, your expected role in society was largely defined by your gender.  And there is some basis for that from a purely primitive, scrabbling to survive point of view.  But as soon as other options developed besides "hunter" and "not hunter", gender roles became largely useless.

 

If you have a limited number of females, to ensure the "tribe" (for lack of better) survives, you want to keep them pregnant and away from potential danger (i.e. hunting, in this case).  I think this is the first, and most basic development of gender roles based on having to protect the tribe's reproducers for months, whereas the man's basic function in that capacity was over and done with in minutes.

 

But once there were more choices to acquire food besides the dangers of hunting, the absolute need for explicit gender roles fell by the wayside.  

 

So, where does that leave us now?

 

Everyone is different.  A man who is an aggressive, assertive, commanding so-called "Alpha" male will appeal to some women.  The key word here is some.  Other women will find that same "Alpha" as a patronizing, demeaning douche.  There is no one quick fix, no one universal "solution" to make a male attractive to all women everywhere.  *Because women are individuals with tastes, preferences, likes, and dislikes that are unique to them as individuals*.

 

As for what it means to "be a man" - find your own definition.  And realize that not everybody will agree.  That's ok - you have to be able to live with yourself.  And if you want to date, and/or get married, cool - find a woman you love who happens to love you for who you are, including your personal definition of masculinity.

[Rostov]

I find myself really suspicious of any claims about the "true" nature of men and women and culture and relations that rest heavily on assumptions about evolution or evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology can be really useful in explaining certain aspects of human behaviour (e.g. thinking fast and slow/lizard brain stuff) and the way we react to things, but I'd argue it's much less useful once claims stray from biology into issues around culture and society. One problem is that we don't know for sure how early humans lived and organised their societies, and especially how much variation there was between groups and over time.  I wonder how much wishful thinking and projection is going on to some imagined past where men were "real men" and women "knew their place".

 

But another is explaining why any of this is even relevant.

 

For me, the most striking thing about humans is their adaptability - both individually in terms of learning new skills and tasks and collectively in terms of how we organise ourselves. It's amazing to me that the vast majority of humans are capable of learning how to read and write and how to drive a car. How on earth can we do that, and take it entirely for granted that we can and will?

 

Our capacity to pick up new skills is phenomenal, and the only aspect evolution can take credit for is that adaptability to learning new tasks. Humans have also gone from a extended family/tribal method of organisation through villages and towns into cities and countries and now a global society and economy.... from a simple hunter/gather society through agricultural, industrial, and computer revolutions... and we now have a social and economic order and levels of technology that are so complex that it's been a very long time since any one person understood everything. We've also changed in terms of ethics and morality, how we treat others, the level of empathy we feel for other people.  Believe it or not, we've become less and less violent as a species as we've become more interconnected, developed our levels of empathy, and understood each other better.  We're also capable of reflecting on and criticising and proposing changes to the existing order of things - we're not the prisoners of them. And even within my lifetime we've seen huge changes in terms of technology, social relations, the way we live and work together.

 

So the idea that we should reach back through all of human history to one particular point, to a point that I don't think we really understand very well, and say "that's it, that's how nature has ordained us to be, and therefore that's how we ought to be now, under entirely different circumstances" is a very peculiar one. At least to me. It's also something that as a man I find insulting. I don't deny that evolution has its legacy in terms of my instincts and my reactions, but the idea that I'm a slave to them and can't help myself against them (and, crucially, can't get better at dealing with unhelpful/unhealthy reactions) is surely entirely wrong.

 

Now I've read all that back and read the thread again, I realise that I don't think anyone *has* expressed kind of reductive quasi-evolutionary psych argument, so perhaps this is just me shooting at straw targets, or making a point that doesn't need to be made. At any rate, it's not intended as a direct response or criticism to anything anyone here has said.... more of a general response to some of the ideas that are out there.

[fortheplaid!]

Ohhh, right, I think I get it now. Oops, I'm probably one of those 'bad ass bitches'. But really, can't one respect a woman who is strong enough to hold her own, and stand equally? Must we be EITHER submissive OR a 'bitch'. The men I most appreciate are ones who can let a woman shine in her own way without feeling 'neutered' if she happens to be a bad ass.

 

I leave physical violence (abuse, I guess you mean?) out because that's just a NO from either men or women. That isn't being a bad ass. That's being an ass.

 

 

I have no problem giving respect to anyone, if you EARN it. What I bridle at is this unwritten (unspoken?) trend among modern women that because penis I am automatically beneath you, especially if I want to work and have you stay at home. This, I think, is the key point of what I was trying to convey. Gender roles change, I understand that. Im not saying it is a bad thing. What I am saying is, when you (society) socialize young men (boys) to be the providers/protectors, to consider themselves expendable (again, through socialization), and then ridicule or criticize them for being/doing exactly what you essentially taught them to be/do, its extremely confusing, frustrating, and frankly depressing. I hope my thoughts are a little more clear on that aspect of things.

 

And, while women and men seem to abuse each other (Intimate Partner Violence, IPV) at equal rates, men overwhelmingly are the ones going to jail for it. That is what i mean by "bad ass bitches"- feeling free to assault, or indicate your intention to assault, a man because you (the attacker in this situation) know 9.9 times out of 10 you wont get in any trouble for it "because youre a woman/girl"

[Oramac]

1,000 years ago you had to hoist a sail, swing a sword or stack a brick and all that shit is gone now thanks to modern technology. 

 

I have to point out that the assumption that "all that shit is gone" is just flat wrong.  Period.  We still build things and wage war.  Therefore, laying bricks and shooting guns (as modern replacements for swords) are still very much in demand. 

[Robpocalypse]

I have to point out that the assumption that "all that shit is gone" is just flat wrong. Period. We still build things and wage war. Therefore, laying bricks and shooting guns (as modern replacements for swords) are still very much in demand.

I should have been a bit more clear that I didn't mean gone in a literal sense. We still actively particpate in construction, warfare and agriculture but the evolving nature of technology has decreased the need for raw strength (generally a male dominated trait) and increased the demand for other skills shared between the sexes.

There will always been a need for house framers, pavement layers, landscapers etc. But the introduction of heavy equipment means strength as a desired trait is reduced. Dockworkers at the big ports don't need to be burly dudes because everything is moved by crane, lift and jack. Warfare is increasing dominated by drones and mechanized divisions, that doesn't mean there is no need for infantry, merely that that days of your armed forces being composed of able bodied men are falling to the wayside. Men historically dominated armed forces because they had the strength and stamina to wear armor and carry heavy weapons, but modern warfare has generally evolved to ranged combat and shooting is not a skill that is really dependant on physical strength or masculinity.

These were all things generally considered male-centric because a lack of technology left little option and that lack of option is generally gone now.

[Rostov]

I have no problem giving respect to anyone, if you EARN it. What I bridle at is this unwritten (unspoken?) trend among modern women that because penis I am automatically beneath you, especially if I want to work and have you stay at home. This, I think, is the key point of what I was trying to convey. Gender roles change, I understand that. Im not saying it is a bad thing. What I am saying is, when you (society) socialize young men (boys) to be the providers/protectors, to consider themselves expendable (again, through socialization), and then ridicule or criticize them for being/doing exactly what you essentially taught them to be/do, its extremely confusing, frustrating, and frankly depressing. I hope my thoughts are a little more clear on that aspect of things.

 

And, while women and men seem to abuse each other (Intimate Partner Violence, IPV) at equal rates, men overwhelmingly are the ones going to jail for it. That is what i mean by "bad ass bitches"- feeling free to assault, or indicate your intention to assault, a man because you (the attacker in this situation) know 9.9 times out of 10 you wont get in any trouble for it "because youre a woman/girl"

 

It's hard to know how to respond to this, as it's not immediately obvious where you're from and so what culture/country you're talking about. My guess from language/spelling would be North America somewhere. I'm not, I'm from the UK. So... perhaps things are different.

 

But it's hard to imagine that it's true that "intimate partner violence" happens at equal rates. That just seems hugely unlikely to me, and runs against all the evidence I've ever seen on the topic. But maybe there are some cultures where that's the case. But I don't really understand how this is relevant to your general concerns.

 

More to the point, I worry a bit about this "respect must be earned" line. I agree that "respect" shouldn't be unconditional, but I'd have framed it differently. I try to respect everyone automatically (and hopefully that comes across even in writing), and instead say "respect can be lost". Framing things that way means everyone gets the benefit of the doubt, they get initial goodwill and a fair chance/hearing, but it's not unlimited or unconditional. Maybe we agree on this - I suspect we might well do - but I would suggest framing it in this way rather than "respect must be earned".

 

But key is this bit "What I bridle at is this unwritten (unspoken?) trend among modern women that because penis I am automatically beneath you, especially if I want to work and have you stay at home"

 

I don't really understand this. As a man, if someone says to me "I want to work, and I want my wife to be a home maker", I would regard that as old fashioned. I'd regard it as limiting in a number of ways, and I'd regard someone with that view as drastically reducing the pool of potential mates. But if he accepts that as the consequence of his choice, that's fair enough. Because just as he has the right to say "I want this kind of relationship", so does everyone else - men and women. By way of a parallel case, I probably wouldn't consider a potential partner who only wanted to be a home maker, rather than perhaps just when the kids are young or whatever. I take that decision, that rules out potential mates for me. Similarly if someone decides they won't (say) move more than three miles from their parents, or won't live in a apartment, or won't live with a non-vegetarian, or won't have sex before marriage or whatever. I think everyone puts limits on their partner choices, and that's fine. The key is knowing that you're doing it, and accepting the consequences that follow. For me that was one girl at university, who wouldn't have gone out with me anyway!

 

What is okay, I think, is expecting a degree of respect for your opinions and choices. Others have a right to their opinion, and may voice it. I'd hope that everyone you encounter is respectful of your views and your choices and preferences. But I also think it's okay for people to challenge a little bit. And fine, you bridle away if people challenge too much, or treat your choices with disrespect.

 

What is not okay - for any of us - is to expect the rest of the world to arrange itself to suit our preferences. If you want a woman to be a homemaker, you have to accept that that's going to be a dealbreaker for a lot of women. And just as you don't want to be made to feel belittled for your preference, so you need to respect and accept theirs.  As above, perhaps you can challenge it a little bit, but what you shouldn't do is expect a woman who doesn't share your views to fall into line because that's what you want. And what you really shouldn't do - in your own interest - is get frustrated and resentful when it doesn't happen, and look to blame anything but your own preferences.

 

Now don't get me wrong.... in general I admire people who have principles, even if I disagree with them. who stick to them. I think typically that's an admirable quality. It's good for everyone to have their own code, and I prefer people who stick to their code than those who chop and change as things suit them. But having a code and having minority views comes at a cost.

 

But I wonder if the way forward is to think about how you could reinvent the role of provider and protector and reinterpret it in a more flexible way.  Others have posted some interesting links above which I've not followed yet, but which must be worth a look.

[RoryAverage]

Rostov: I think your post was excellent and spot on. I do have a few things to add.

 

 

I agree that "respect" shouldn't be unconditional, but I'd have framed it differently. I try to respect everyone automatically (and hopefully that comes across even in writing), and instead say "respect can be lost". Framing things that way means everyone gets the benefit of the doubt, they get initial goodwill and a fair chance/hearing, but it's not unlimited or unconditional.

 

I think the more appropriate term is civil. As in, I act civilly to strangers, but I do not automatically respect them. I'm unfailingly polite, until they are impolite to me. Then I tell them off in no uncertain terms. It does get problematic, but I have friends of friends who have repeatedly been very uncivil to me for no reason I am aware of. I tell them off, make it clear just b/c we have a mutual friend does not mean they get a pass to be an asshole to me. Lo and behold, they act civilly to me, which I return.

 

 

But I wonder if the way forward is to think about how you could reinvent the role of provider and protector and reinterpret it in a more flexible way.  Others have posted some interesting links above which I've not followed yet, but which must be worth a look.

 

That seems to be the conundrum of modern man. We're biologically predisposed to act/think in certain ways, and like every other ideological difference, people blow it out of proportion. I find the statements "Women belong in the kitchen" and "Every man is a rapist" to be equally repugnant. Much of the current "debate" between feminists and meninists isn't a debate, it's a grand straw man burning party. Whilst both sides have legit points(see Custody courts ruling almost always in favor of mother vs Glass ceiling), it usually seems to me that the point of both sides is not to lift themselves up, it's to tear down the "opposition". Just makes bad blood between people who probably have alot more in common than differences.

 

Anyway, I highly suggest you check out that link I put up earlier. It's an attempt to find the middle path, where men can stay true to their biological drives, yet retain all the good stuff of current society. http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/06/09/semper-virilis-a-roadmap-to-manhood-in-the-21st-century/

 

[Oramac]

the point of both sides is not to lift themselves up, it's to tear down the "opposition". 

 

I've found this to be almost universally true when I encounter feminists.  I could go on a looooong political rant about this subject, but I'll just say this:  There's two ways to have the tallest building: 1) build it, or 2) tear all the other buildings down.  Sadly, i see too many people choosing option 2.

 

I admit that before now I'd never even heard the term "meninists", but I will be looking into it and educating myself about it.  

[RoryAverage]

Lol, I totally made it up. They call themselves MRAs, men's rights advocates. They get goofy with it but have some legit points.

[Oramac]

Lol, I totally made it up. They call themselves MRAs, men's rights advocates. They get goofy with it but have some legit points.

 

Interestingly, it's an actual term.  Google it and you get all kinds of things.  

[Sylvaa]

Be whatever type of man you want to be just realize that you will limit your potential mate pool. 

 

I suppose I would fall into your "bad ass bitches" category. I make more money than my husband, I travel while he takes care of the home front (he works too, just closer to home), and he is definitely the sensitive one. I can even hunt and fish. With all that being said, I find masculinity more desirable than the current metro-sexual trend (using that for lack of a better way to state it). If my husband were to say, "quit your job and stay home to raise the kids," I would not. It has to do with not wanting to be dependent on anyone. That being said, I know a lot of women who are stay at home moms and I still fully respect them and their choices.

 

I would like to say that historically, the female gender role has already shifted so it makes sense that the male gender role would also shift. Good thing? bad thing? let's debate. A lot of your generation grew up with two working parents - that is their norm.

 

As a final note, if you are surrounding yourself with people who demean you for being male or advocate acceptance of female violence against men (dear god I hope not!), find new people to be around! Yeah, that's harsh - I meant it to be. Strength and confidence in yourself should not necessitate bringing anyone else down /off the soapbox.