sally4sara Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 Your grandfather is one cool dude, S4S. He was with me, but only me. He beat the snot out of my mom, her brothers, and my grandmother before I came along. I only learned the full scope of the damage he did as an adult. I guess I had a calming effect on him. Out of my cousins, I was the only one unflinching enough for him to take a liking to and he had to almost kill me for that to happen. As a child, I was proud of that. As an adult, I see the way this hurt other members of my family and how it isolated me from them.
Shakz Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 He was with me, but only me. He beat the snot out of my mom, her brothers, and my grandmother before I came along. I only learned the full scope of the damage he did as an adult. I guess I had a calming effect on him. Out of my cousins, I was the only one unflinching enough for him to take a liking to and he had to almost kill me for that to happen. As a child, I was proud of that. As an adult, I see the way this hurt other members of my family and how it isolated me from them. I'm sorry to hear that, S4S. My father was something like that. Maybe it was the times; a generation which suffered much. He never struck my mother but completely dominated her through intimidation. Yet he could express his love for here in magical ways. He never raised a hand to me, I think because he knew I would not tolerate it, but he singled out my older brother and held him responsible for everything, often beating him mercilessly. Yet he treated my brother's minor accomplishments with reverence and constantly bragged on him while often ignored my own. When he died, I was unmoved, but my brother was overcome and my mother distraught for years. Now they have come full circle and remember only the good things, while I still have trouble forgiving him. What is this strange thing called love, that it can both destroy and heal, favor and despise, feed and starve, all at the same time?
Feelin Frisky Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 It seems like there have been quite a few heated debates over wimpy men and nice guys recently. So I invite men and women to describe what does it mean to be a real man? Is it courage? Inner strength? Physical strength? Confidence? Ruggedness? Of course all the answers will vary, but I think it's one of the biggest concepts in this world that men are striving to understand, and women have a longing for. As the concept of 'real man' becomes more difficult to describe/identify these days, it wouldn't be a bad idea to discuss what makes a man, a MAN. This could provide frameworks for others (who are willing to try something new) to work with. I just think it's a guy who assess the big picture of immediate circumstances and takes action if no one else steps up. I don't mean stuff like starting fisticuffs, but on rare occasions the circumstances may demand the risk of throwing oneself into the fray to put down an offender.
samspade Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 A "real man" pursues and enjoys the life he wants.
Art_Critic Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 A "real man" pursues and enjoys the life he wants. What about his family ? Should a real man consider his family while pursuing his wants ?
Shakz Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 A "real man" pursues and enjoys the life he wants. That's pretty general, Sam. Suppose the life he wants to pursue is that of a woman?
Art_Critic Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 Sometimes what a person wants is at direct odds with their other responsibilities.
Shakz Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 Sometimes what a person wants is at direct odds with their other responsibilities. Indeed. I would go so far as to say that what a person desires is most often at odds with what he requires.
sally4sara Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 I'm sorry to hear that, S4S. My father was something like that. Maybe it was the times; a generation which suffered much. He never struck my mother but completely dominated her through intimidation. Yet he could express his love for here in magical ways. He never raised a hand to me, I think because he knew I would not tolerate it, but he singled out my older brother and held him responsible for everything, often beating him mercilessly. Yet he treated my brother's minor accomplishments with reverence and constantly bragged on him while often ignored my own. When he died, I was unmoved, but my brother was overcome and my mother distraught for years. Now they have come full circle and remember only the good things, while I still have trouble forgiving him. What is this strange thing called love, that it can both destroy and heal, favor and despise, feed and starve, all at the same time? I wrote this for him many years ago. Dear Friends We do not talk as often As we once did Fall days when the sunlight and Your caress on my cheek Only made the time warm Grandpa told me You had secrets to share If I showed respect Earned trust Learned patience At first I Held my breath my Bundle of eager nerves I So wanted to make him proud And, in time His tunnel vision became mine "Breathe", a silent precursor to My own echos for the world to hear We'd walk to see What secrets the day yield We'd marry the tokens To alchemy Small scales to measure Exact amounts of magic Into the funnel Into the casing Into the press Till renewed; recycling At its efficient best Such precise work seemed worship To be deemed worthy of One more long stare Then we would work Clockwork; well oiled and clean Tear down and reassemble Sometimes I catch a hint A familiar smell on a passerby Instantly I know them well Without sharing a word My kin; my brethren They know the blend Of a skill honed Half out of interest And half out of providence With his Alzheimer's having gotten so bad, he doesn't even remember who I am.
samspade Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 What about his family ? Should a real man consider his family while pursuing his wants ? Fair question. Having a family should happen because that's what a man wants. So if he has said family, it follows that supporting and providing for it is part of the life he wants for himself. I know in the real world sometimes families "happen." I do believe that if you produce offspring you have a responsibility to take care of them. That doesn't mean you have to sacrifice your own goals, however, though it may be more challenging to fulfill them. But I would like to add that a real man does well to prevent these circumstances if he does not want children. This includes: 1. Using contraception - always. 2. Exercising judgment in sex and relationships (whom he dates, sleeps with) 3. Not caving to pressure from society, family, or women to get married and/or have children if this is not what he wants. 4. In the event his partner/wife does have children, and especially if it is unplanned, obtain a paternity test. The world is littered with "family men," supposedly noble by virtue of their offspring, who are living lives of quiet desperation. Some had children because they were led to believe that this was a preordained path. Others were hoodwinked or even cuckolded. I'd guess it's a minority of family men out there who are strong, decisive, driven, and truly happy. But they are out there, and yes, they consider their family's health and security with any decision they make.
PJKino Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 Being true to who you are and not caring what women think a real Man should do or be..
samspade Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 That's pretty general, Sam. Suppose the life he wants to pursue is that of a woman? So be it. Interesting conundrum, but pursuing your goals, whatever they are, is tantamount.
TouchedByViolet Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 A real man is one who's children, spouse and loved ones define him as such. It is a title that comes from those who rely on him the most. I picture Arnold from Commando
Shakz Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 I wrote this for him many years ago. Dear Friends We do not talk as often As we once did Fall days when the sunlight and Your caress on my cheek Only made the time warm Grandpa told me You had secrets to share If I showed respect Earned trust Learned patience At first I Held my breath my Bundle of eager nerves I So wanted to make him proud And, in time His tunnel vision became mine "Breathe", a silent precursor to My own echos for the world to hear We'd walk to see What secrets the day yield We'd marry the tokens To alchemy Small scales to measure Exact amounts of magic Into the funnel Into the casing Into the press Till renewed; recycling At its efficient best Such precise work seemed worship To be deemed worthy of One more long stare Then we would work Clockwork; well oiled and clean Tear down and reassemble Sometimes I catch a hint A familiar smell on a passerby Instantly I know them well Without sharing a word My kin; my brethren They know the blend Of a skill honed Half out of interest And half out of providence With his Alzheimer's having gotten so bad, he doesn't even remember who I am. Thank you for sharing that. You, sir, are a real man. Don't worry, his heart remembers.
samspade Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 (edited) Indeed. I would go so far as to say that what a person desires is most often at odds with what he requires. This sounds self-defeating. I'd like to read an example though... Your primary responsibility is to yourself and the life you were given, in my opinion. What's required to pursue desires/goals is first to make the decision to do so, second to engage in that pursuit. Have you guys ever seen "American Movie"? It's about an amateur director in Milwaukee, with a minimum wage day job, whose goal is to complete and premiere his first film. The film is 20 minutes long but takes him years to produce, with very little money. I saw the movie (American Movie, the movie about him, that is) when it was released in a theater in NYC. The audience, myself included, couldn't help but laugh at this guy. He was kind of a hick, and he seemed a little delusional. He had to enlist the help of his friends and family to work on the film because he had no money. He spent nights on campus cutting, and all his free time shooting and directing. His family considers him a fool, and the film a waste of time. Much of the movie is played for laughs, but at the same time the audience can't help but respect the guy. He completes the film and it opens in a run down cinema in Milwaukee. All of his friends and family and some media show up, everyone who was part of the film. For one day at least, Mark Borchardt, the subject of the film, is celebrated as a director. He's accomplished the goal he had been focused on for so long. I remember walking away from that movie thinking that even though most of the audience laughed at or with Mark, how many of them followed their dreams with such passion? Were they merely laughing at his foibles, or were they also laughing because they were uncomfortable knowing that someone with so few resources could be so driven, and actually succeed on a level that satisfied him? How many people are afraid to make this commitment to themselves and their lives? How many in the audience that day were would-be film directors who wound up in middle management or running a Blockbuster? Mark Borchardt probably hasn't made much money, but the guy did what he wanted to do, and hopefully still is. I know that's kind of a long post, and sort of random, but it popped into my head. Edited July 13, 2010 by samspade
Ariadne Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 In my opinion, A real man takes care of everything and I take care of the house. Yeah.......... The day a guy tells me that I don't have a worry in the world, and whatever happens he'll take care, I have found my real man. Nice! And I'll just dedicate my life to live and love.
Mr White Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 (edited) A "real man" pursues and enjoys the life he wants. That's not very helpful because his "wants" could be pretty sad and pathetic. Leading life with the only goal of getting as much hedonistic enjoyment as possible, without taking anything else into consideration (Dorian Grey style), is pretty sad. No matter what philosophical or religious school of thought you take, probably the single thing most of them agree on is that life without responsibility is pretty much not worth living. Just because someone wants something, doesn't make it okay, and as much I like liberty and pluralism, some goals are more worthy than others. It doesn't mean slaving away at somebody else's whims either, but there is a long way between acknowledging that responsibilities often come in the way of desires and being a wimp. The difference is in knowing when to bend and when to stand up, and in understanding that there are always consequences. For example, I am still dreaming about dropping everything and joining the Foreign Legion and then going around the world in a sailboat. The truth is, I actually could do both of these if I commit enough. But it is also true that as much as I want these things, I am thinking that it is probably not worth it to turn my current life (which I also like) upside down (or destroy altogether) in order to get them. The same would apply when I have a family. As much as I wouldn't risk it all for essentially recreational activities, I also wouldn't submit my entire person to the disgusting world of american suburban domesticity. It's hard to keep your edge against the backdrop of these pressures, but so is pretending that you live on the fringes of the mainstream. I'm thinking about the hippies around the us/mexico border. Having air conditioning, wireless internet, and a steady supply of tourists to buy your handmade junk is not "sticking it to the man", it's being an annoying and stinky accomplice to "the man". Edited July 13, 2010 by Mr White
Shakz Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 This sounds self-defeating. I'd like to read an example though... Your primary responsibility is to yourself and the life you were given, in my opinion. What's required to pursue desires/goals is first to make the decision to do so, second to engage in that pursuit. Have you guys ever seen "American Movie"? It's about an amateur director in Milwaukee, with a minimum wage day job, whose goal is to complete and premiere his first film. The film is 20 minutes long but takes him years to produce, with very little money. Thank you for sharing your insights into the film. It sounds like a tribute to never giving up, which I'm all for. I have not seen it but will look for it. As far as my comment, it was not meant in a throw-up-your hands way, but rather in a "you can't always get what you want" way, ala the Stones song. Thank you again for clarifying your position. I do not think you are wrong, necessarily, but I do differ somewhat on what a person's primary responsibility ought to be. Like you, my opinion.
samspade Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 (edited) By endorsing the "pursue your goals" school of thought, I'm not giving carte blanche to the Jack the Rippers or Adolf Hitlers of the world. I don't support something that does serious harm to your fellow man. For example, I am still dreaming about dropping everything and joining the Foreign Legion and then going around the world in a sailboat. The truth is, I actually could do both of these if I commit enough. But it is also true that as much as I want these things, I am thinking that it is probably not worth it to turn my current life (which I also like) upside down (or destroy altogether) in order to get them. The same would apply when I have a family. As much as I wouldn't risk it all for essentially recreational activities, I also wouldn't submit my entire person to the disgusting world of american suburban domesticity. It's hard to keep your edge against the backdrop of these pressures, but so is pretending that you live on the fringes of the mainstream. There is nothing wrong with pragmatism. But which do you want more - the Foreign Legion, or to live comfortably in your current life? Neither answer is wrong - you are just choosing what's best for you. My point is some people choose against their true desires. You do have to put food on the table, for yourself or a family, but that doesn't mean you have to sacrifice your goals. It just makes them more challenging. Think of the author of the Twilight novels - mom and wife with plenty of day to day b.s. to deal with. Yet she hunkered down and wrote a book. Edited July 13, 2010 by samspade
sally4sara Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 Thank you for sharing that. You, sir, are a real man. Don't worry, his heart remembers. Thanks. And tho I am female - I'll take this as a compliment .
Shakz Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 By endorsing the "pursue your goals" school of thought, I'm not giving carte blanche to the Jack the Rippers or Adolf Hitlers of the world. I don't support something that does serious harm to your fellow man. There is nothing wrong with pragmatism. But which do you want more - the Foreign Legion, or to live comfortably in your current life? Neither answer is wrong - you are just choosing what's best for you. My point is some people choose against their true desires. You do have to put food on the table, for yourself or a family, but that doesn't mean you have to sacrifice your goals. It just makes them more challenging. Think of the author of the Twilight novels - mom and wife with plenty of day to day b.s. to deal with. Yet she hunkered down and wrote a book. Even Hitler did not percieve himself as an evil man. In his mind he was doing what he thought was best for his people. I'm sure Jack the Ripper thought he was doing his victims a favor. The man who chucks it all to follow his dream does so for noble purposes and the best of intentions. But what do they say about the road to hell? Ultimately, a man has a responsibility that transcends himself. When he modifies his perception of reality to fit his desire, he gets into trouble.
samspade Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 Ultimately, a man has a responsibility that transcends himself. I think this is where we disagree. I'm not sure what this responsibility is, or to whom, and to what end. I do know that even the noblest do-gooders - Mother Teresa, Gandhi, etc., were still serving themselves through serving others. If this is the type of transcendence you speak of, leaving the world a better place, well - we aren't born with this mandate. The individual is still sacrosanct in these cases. I don't believe it can be ignored. Even Jesus must have derived some fulfillment from what he did. I do know that you're given a life, and if you're given a mandate at all it's to make the most of it. This is what I think people lose sight of. We like to attach socially-approved "responsibilities" to people to justify our own decisions and paths. With men, subject of this thread, it's especially difficult in 2010 when we are told to "man up" and assume responsibilities that are dictated by others. On the flip side, men who take a stand and "man up" (I hate that phrase) are often derided as chauvinist by the same people challenging them. You see it all the time on LS. Men who don't commit or have families need to step up and be a man - as if the ability to fire off a sperm into an egg entitles us to our man cards. Men are called dispensable and redundant by the media and some feminists, while simultaneously being scapegoated for society's ills because we're not doing enough. I'm not suggesting we picket or fight for special privileges or entitlements. Heck, I'm not even complaining - I'm just stating the way it is. In all this noise and grandstanding, the proverbial Real Man has a choice to make. He can kowtow to the people and the pressure telling him how he SHOULD live his life, or he can own his decisions, adapt to modernity, and live the life he chooses. In a way, I've parroted what Rudyard Kipling wrote in "If," just from my perspective. I think that's a fantastic poem. As far as the evils of the world, yeah you can argue that they had good intentions. There are some universal moral codes to live by in my opinion. On some level, a man like Hitler knew what he was doing was wrong. Exceptions granted to the mentally ill or stunted who have no sense of right vs. wrong.
Author MrNate Posted July 13, 2010 Author Posted July 13, 2010 Maybe, a real man is one who creates his own reality. That's how I see it anyway.
threebyfate Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 Or maybe a real man is one who lives by his own code of ethics, one that includes self-responsibility and non-bigotry.
sally4sara Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 I think this is where we disagree. I'm not sure what this responsibility is, or to whom, and to what end. I do know that even the noblest do-gooders - Mother Teresa, Gandhi, etc., were still serving themselves through serving others. If this is the type of transcendence you speak of, leaving the world a better place, well - we aren't born with this mandate. The individual is still sacrosanct in these cases. I don't believe it can be ignored. Even Jesus must have derived some fulfillment from what he did. I do know that you're given a life, and if you're given a mandate at all it's to make the most of it. This is what I think people lose sight of. We like to attach socially-approved "responsibilities" to people to justify our own decisions and paths. With men, subject of this thread, it's especially difficult in 2010 when we are told to "man up" and assume responsibilities that are dictated by others. On the flip side, men who take a stand and "man up" (I hate that phrase) are often derided as chauvinist by the same people challenging them. You see it all the time on LS. Men who don't commit or have families need to step up and be a man - as if the ability to fire off a sperm into an egg entitles us to our man cards. Men are called dispensable and redundant by the media and some feminists, while simultaneously being scapegoated for society's ills because we're not doing enough. I'm not suggesting we picket or fight for special privileges or entitlements. Heck, I'm not even complaining - I'm just stating the way it is. In all this noise and grandstanding, the proverbial Real Man has a choice to make. He can kowtow to the people and the pressure telling him how he SHOULD live his life, or he can own his decisions, adapt to modernity, and live the life he chooses. In a way, I've parroted what Rudyard Kipling wrote in "If," just from my perspective. I think that's a fantastic poem. As far as the evils of the world, yeah you can argue that they had good intentions. There are some universal moral codes to live by in my opinion. On some level, a man like Hitler knew what he was doing was wrong. Exceptions granted to the mentally ill or stunted who have no sense of right vs. wrong. Agreed, though the only difference I can see between Hitler, Gandhi, and Mother Teresa was exactly what you talk about in how the media portrays men. They put Hitler's evils on blast while down playing those of Gandhi and Mother Teresa, but all three were corrupt. Same thing with men, or any grouped people. When it suits the story - they are the bane of society. Likewise when it suits the story - they are heralded as noble. Conservatives, Liberals, single moms, immigrants etc. Everyone of us will simultaneously receive blame and admiration. It keeps us divided and easier to manipulate into living up to expectations that don't work for everybody. If anyone dare speak up to their struggle to conform, they are demonized and shamed.
Recommended Posts