Sivok Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 Indeed. I would go so far as to say that what a person desires is most often at odds with what he requires.Yup. What tastes good isn't always good for you. A real man is assertive and sticks with his word. Honestly, I think that's #1. Alot of guys say things but don't follow through. One whose actions carry his words is a rare breed indeed.
Mr White 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. I agree with this, but with a twist: Social expectations and typical paths are a good thing insofar they do provided much needed structure for people to have direction and to gauge their success. Do not undermine the satisfaction that having a clear path against which you can measure your progress could provide. The problem arises when - much like today - there are hideous double standards applied, specifically in villain-izing men for "not being all they can be" while at the same time expecting them to be stuck in the "old" stereotypical roles (but also ridiculing them as such). It doesn't work both ways. The old school "family man" may not have had the most inspiring life, but at least he got plenty of respect for being the solid guy in a grey flannel suit that got things done. The modern day "family man" gets spat on and trampled on for being "just" a family man, and as such - both inadequate, a punching bag for unrealistic expectations and entitlements. In that sense, I agree that it is time to either a) tell everybody to f* off and feed themselves while those guys pursue their passion no matter how ridiculous or b) stay in character, but demand the appropriate level of respect and deliver consequences if it does not materialize.
Chicago_Guy Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 This is a difficult question to answer because gender is of course subjective and in many ways we are conditioned to be men or women. Throughout history and of course within differing cultures, the concept of what makes a man a REAL man is different and liable to change. Traditionally a 'real man' has tended to have to proof his worth somehow. He is the hunter/gatherer, protector, father, strong, silent etc. I'm sure some people now see a 'real man' as promiscuous and unfaithful. Some men suprisingly perhaps, see being disrespectul and cruel to women as the mark of a 'real man' i.e. violent men that hit women to assert their masculinity. To me a real man is... A man who has respect for himself and others. Works hard. Can stand up for himself and those he loves. Is honest and loyal. Can be a good husband and father. Is not afraid to be who he really is. Has morals. But I would say the same also makes a real woman too. Again...its a hard thing to define as I think gender is a far too conditioned subject. Very few of us really fit a mould; we just are what we are and sometimes we pretend to be more or less of something because we are told we should be. What does that part I bolded really mean? I have seen women write that they want a man who is "not afraid to be who he really is" or is "comfortable in his own skin." What does that vague language actually mean?
Crusoe Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 Has anybody yet mentioned the ability to give? To my mind that's the real measure of a man, by what he is prepared to give.
Art_Critic Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 I'm capitalist. I ask myself what can you do for me, not what I can do for you. What the heck does Capitalism have to do with this thread ? Do you know what it means ?
Shakz Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 I'm not aware of what evils Ghandi or Teresa may have commited, but surely they are not on a par with Hitler, are they?
sally4sara Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 I'm not aware of what evils Ghandi or Teresa may have commited, but surely they are not on a par with Hitler, are they? While Hitler had the body count victory over Gandhi and Teresa didn't actively pursue murder, Hitler was the least hypocritical of the three. He stood by his crazy beliefs more than Gandhi and MT. Gandhi shared Hitler's bigotry and warmongering but his favorite hated group was black people rather than Jews. Teresa's health clinics were filth ridden causing many avoidable deaths and she gave donated money to Haitian warlords, heralding their leadership. When she was ill, she didn't go to any of her own clinics. She preferred pricey California clinics.
Crusoe Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 My point being a real man doesn't give and give, he gives and then expects something in return. So it might be give, give, give, then it is take, take, take, take. No, not at all. Weak men take, strong men give.
samspade Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 While Hitler had the body count victory over Gandhi and Teresa didn't actively pursue murder, Hitler was the least hypocritical of the three. He stood by his crazy beliefs more than Gandhi and MT. Gandhi shared Hitler's bigotry and warmongering but his favorite hated group was black people rather than Jews. Teresa's health clinics were filth ridden causing many avoidable deaths and she gave donated money to Haitian warlords, heralding their leadership. When she was ill, she didn't go to any of her own clinics. She preferred pricey California clinics. I see your point (here and before), but I don't think there is a moral equivalence between what Hitler did and what Gandhi or M. Teresa did. Gold star to him for not being a hypocrite, but there is a huge difference between harboring hatred or prejudice, and acting on it to the tune of six million deaths. Everyone is entitled to think what they want; actions are a different story. In any case, I was citing those people as examples of do-gooders in the public eye - everyone has shortcomings and no one is holy. Getting back to being a real man (or woman) - and pursuing your goals - I recommend you listen/watch this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgUc7eLXs0s It's an old recording and the visuals are kind of silly, but it's worth at least one listen. The guy has a sweet voice. Good for motivation.
You'reasian Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 (edited) A real man creates his own luck, lives an ever changing destiny, perfects his trade with pain staking sacrifice and still has time to bang his woman. Edited July 13, 2010 by You'reasian
Chicago_Guy Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 No, not at all. Weak men take, strong men give. Actually, don't women usually think men are weak if they give more than they take?
Shakz Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 A real man creates his own luck' date=' lives an ever changing destiny, perfects his trade with pain staking sacrifice and still has time to bang his woman.[/quote'] Damn, I like that YA. I'm going with that one. Need something in there about kids though.
You'reasian Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 Actually, don't women usually think men are weak if they give more than they take? It depends on whether the woman likes the giver or not. If they like him and he's an allround generous guy, he's great. If they don't like him and he's an allround generous guy, he must want something or he's a weak, fool.
Lakeside_runner Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 Every top 30% ironman finisher is a real man
TheLoneSock Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 A real man is a man who pays his child support. Duh...
You'reasian Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 It depends on whether the woman likes the giver or not. If they like him and he's an allround generous guy, he's great. If they don't like him and he's an allround generous guy, he must want something or he's a weak, fool. What makes him a real man is that he doesn't care what others think, he's going to be a giving man anyway.
Mr White Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 I see your point (here and before), but I don't think there is a moral equivalence between what Hitler did and what Gandhi or M. Teresa did. Gold star to him for not being a hypocrite, but there is a huge difference between harboring hatred or prejudice, and acting on it to the tune of six million deaths. Everyone is entitled to think what they want; actions are a different story. In any case, I was citing those people as examples of do-gooders in the public eye - everyone has shortcomings and no one is holy. Getting back to being a real man (or woman) - and pursuing your goals - I recommend you listen/watch this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgUc7eLXs0s It's an old recording and the visuals are kind of silly, but it's worth at least one listen. The guy has a sweet voice. Good for motivation. Nice video, but again, this is only a part of the story. The biggest component is really deciding what goal to go for. For the most of human history, people's goals have been predetermined for them, and that's not an entirely bad thing. When you swing the pendullum all the way in the other direction, most people are still paralyzed, because, after all, if you can be whatever you want, then does it even matter what you and up being? In most cases, it is probably a combination of social constraints and proactive search. I often question my career path (academia), largely because it is as much (if not more) the result of accidents and dumb luck as of conscious choice. Of course it is a choice, but it is not like it happened in vacuum. And so I waste inordinate amounts of time questioning and reading forums on the internet. I am reasonably good at what I do, and want to become better. That doesn't mean I'll get the Nobel Prize. But, writing a half-decent paper does make me happy(-ish ), even as I ponder the rewards of a vagabond existence (bush pilot in South America with ties to the drug lords is another dream occupation of mine), so, things are allright. My point being that although generally liberating, the mere presence of unlimited choices can also create unnecessary anxiety. Most people are not equipped - or not willing - to deal with that, so in that sense things have not changed much other than the proliferation of a wide sense of dissatisfaction - to the extent that having a dull management job is perceived as "failure", while by any historical perspective measure the ability to hold clean occupation which provides enough to satisfy all physiological needs and to provide leisure time is a "success".
Crusoe Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 Actually, don't women usually think men are weak if they give more than they take? Start a thread, ask them, do they like a man who only gives so he can receive, and if so, does that make him strong?
Crusoe Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 It depends on whether the woman likes the giver or not. If they like him and he's an allround generous guy, he's great. If they don't like him and he's an allround generous guy, he must want something or he's a weak, fool. There is more to giving than being generous. A soldier doesn't give his life because he is generous. A father doesn't give up his hopes and dreams so his kids can have their hopes and dreams because he is generous. A fella does these things for other reasons, and that's real giving.
Author MrNate Posted July 13, 2010 Author Posted July 13, 2010 So now I wonder, then how would one define masculinity? I wonder if that concept has actually become more abstract than femininity.
Disillusioned Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 Hmm, looks like most of the other posters are confusing real men with RealMen ... A real man has an X and a Y chromosome, and all the requisite male anatomy. He is made of flesh and blood, not plastic, wood, or anything else. A RealMan has a LOUD voice, usually brags a lot, guzzles down oceans of beer without getting falling-down drunk, honestly believes that his sexual exploits can make the whole world jealous, and usually ends up getting the DTs after 3 days without sex. Clear enough for you?
CLC2008 Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 .............Men who don't discuss such a subject amongst one other. You da man! No, I da' man, man!!!
Stung Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 Hmm, looks like most of the other posters are confusing real men with RealMen ... A real man has an X and a Y chromosome, and all the requisite male anatomy. He is made of flesh and blood, not plastic, wood, or anything else. A RealMan has a LOUD voice, usually brags a lot, guzzles down oceans of beer without getting falling-down drunk, honestly believes that his sexual exploits can make the whole world jealous, and usually ends up getting the DTs after 3 days without sex. Clear enough for you? I've noticed that according to Hollywood RealMen are generally up for passionate, tender, mind-blowing sex just minutes after being shot. I would have thought that much blood flow being diverted away from the sex organs would be a functional problem, but not for a RealMan .
You'reasian Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 (edited) There is more to giving than being generous. A soldier doesn't give his life because he is generous. A father doesn't give up his hopes and dreams so his kids can have their hopes and dreams because he is generous. A fella does these things for other reasons, and that's real giving. I agree. Sacrifice is the highest and greatest form of giving, but this goes beyond anything we will encounter in the fast paced, quick fix dating world, where the highest form of sacrifice is missing one's favorite tv show. Edited July 17, 2010 by You'reasian
OceanTropic Posted July 17, 2010 Posted July 17, 2010 It all depends on how you're raised. A real man to me is a man who takes good care of his woman, makes sure she is always warm, fed and happy. A real man always pays on dates, holds the door, and is patient and kind. In return the woman is good to him as well. She will take care of him, cook the bacon he brings home, be honest and love him. On a personal note, a real man to me is one who is rugged and has dark features. Anything else is too feminine for me lol
Recommended Posts