• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What does it mean to be a "man"? [W40]

This topic came up a few weeks ago in a discussion I was having regarding my rather useless son-in-law (I have nick-named him “Left”…’cause he ain’t “right”).

Anyway, it was noted in this discussion that my idiot son-in-law really has no idea of what it means to be a “man” and since I’m a “man’s-man” then I owed it to my son-in-law to teach him how to be a "man".

I found this to be a rather interesting proposition since, frankly, I am under no obligation to teach him anything (and I don’t particularly care for his company, either. Let’s face it, his favorite TV show is Spongebob and he is 31 years old. We really have nothing in common except for my daughter).

However, this proposition has given me pause and actually think about what it means to be a man. For me, it’s rather inherent and nothing I ever really had to put into words before and so now I find myself attempting to define what it means to be a “man”.

It does strike me that it’s rather obvious when you have a “grown child” (i.e. my son-in-law) vs. of a "man". It's easy to identify or even define a "grown child". But how do you define a "man"?

For examples of my son-in-laws idiocy, please consider:

1. my son-in-law's word means nothing. If he tells you he will do something you can not rely on it.

2. he is unable to keep a job. He and my daughter have been married about seven years and I really couldn’t tell you how many jobs he has lost during that time. Certainly more than I can count using all my fingers and toes!

3. he has no boundaries in my home. He thinks nothing of ransacking my pantry for food or my personal belongings to see if there is something that he can borrow (DVDs, etc.). I view this as incredibly disrespectful.

4. he recently borrowed our truck and got into an accident. I realize that accidents happen but he returned the truck for me to pay to have repaired.

5. He is a high-school drop-out who has squandered every opportunity. He won’t get his GED making the excuse that he doesn't study or test well (Remember Henry Ford’s quote? “Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right).

Obviously if you take the opposite of each of the traits my son-in-law has exhibited in the examples I have cited above then you certainly begin to define my idea of a “man”.

I would also add that since men are generally stronger than women it is their job to protect / defend women and not dominate them.

I will also add one more caveat to my definition of man before turning this discussion over. To be a “man” you have to, as a minimum, be born a male. Regardless of what you may try to convince yourself, sex-change surgeries do not make you a man. It makes you a rather confused woman.

So how do you define a “man”?
ok first of all i would highly suggest that you give this guy a good boot out the door before your daughter gets annoyed and tells you to to do it anyways. second, i think personally that being a man means realizing that the world no longer revolves around you. Now this is not just putting someones good above your own. It is taking extra shifts at work to get more money because if you dont you'll have to choose between the electricity and the heating. Its giving up your own dreams so they can pursue theirs, it is wanting to be apart of something bigger not to be that something bigger. It is being there when it counts and keeping your word when it is needed.

And the unfortunate thing is that the guys these days( yes i will admit i even have a problem with this) have become the dreamers and they have stopped letting that go when they are supposed to grow up and they stay children forever because that is where their minds have stopped. And im not saying it is all the parents fault because there are some good parents out there who did do good jobs it just didn't stick, but it is also society's fault, for both babying the kids of today and not taking them into the adult lives we are forced to live immediately after high school. I mean i graduated in 06 and it was a serious amazement for me to see just how much the real world does not give a s*** that you are hurt or tired or you don't have a social life. I was lucky to make it through it and alot of the guys today just cant handle it and end up adult sized children.
 
I'm not saying that a man without a job due to economy is not a man.

Many would disagree with this statement.

SBu said:
I'm not saying that a man with a low paying job is not a man.

Many would disagree with this statement. Particularly old men who bummed off the government for 40 years via government employment aka glorified welfare or cadillac welfare.

SBu said:
I'm saying that a man without a job, that sits around playing video games all day in a blissful extension of childhood while outsourcing responsibility, child rearing, and effort generally to his wife is not a man.

What is the appropriate action for an unemployed person? If playing video games is out, is playing on the internet an acceptable way for an unemployed person to use his spare time? Is laying in bed an extra 7 hours per day an appropriate use of free time? Is watching TV an appropriate use of free time for unemployed persons? What other activities do you consider inappropriate for unemployed persons that seem to be appropriate for employed persons?

SBu said:
You can be poor as hell, but still be represent the pinnacle of what a 'man' is.

Many would disagree with this statement. The government bums that I referenced earlier. "I bummed off the government for fourty years. Why can't you go get a government job like me?" inquires the 60 year old a**hole. "Because the government is trying to save money. They don't disguise charity any more with government employment." says the lazy, pathetic and worthless 30 year old.
 
Women today are more often than not the ones with the jobs while the "slacker" gets by putting in the least amount of effort, usually by having a series of menial jobs and living hand to mouth, much like the Baron describes his son-in-law.

Do you think a women who is offered a job making double her husband's salary should deny the job or should she take it?

Do you think the husband in the above scenario should kill himself so that he doesn't have to feel like a loser? If not, what appropriate response should he take to avoid being labelled as a slacker by you?

Did arrogant men in days of old mimick your same rhetoric to describe women as slackers?
 
Many would disagree with this statement

You're free to disagree.

Many would disagree with this statement. Particularly old men who bummed off the government for 40 years via government employment aka glorified welfare or cadillac welfare.

You're free to disagree. As for the rest, this conversation wasn't about 40 years of welfare.

What is the appropriate action for an unemployed person? If playing video games is out, is playing on the internet an acceptable way for an unemployed person to use his spare time? Is laying in bed an extra 7 hours per day an appropriate use of free time? Is watching TV an appropriate use of free time for unemployed persons? What other activities do you consider inappropriate for unemployed persons that seem to be appropriate for employed persons?

The appropriate action for an unemployed person that isn't independently wealthy is to try to find a job and take even crappy jobs until they get back on their feet.

Many would disagree with this statement. The government bums that I referenced earlier. "I bummed off the government for fourty years. Why can't you go get a government job like me?" inquires the 60 year old a**hole. "Because the government is trying to save money. They don't disguise charity any more with government employment." says the lazy, pathetic and worthless 30 year old.

You're free to disagree. Bumming isn't being a 'man.' The only time bumming would be acceptable according to man code is to feed a family when all else fails.

Being a 'man' isn't about objective measures, it is a mentality. Pride in oneself that motivates one to achieve in work, practice patience at home, and take responsibility for ones situation and improve it as best one can.
 
The appropriate action for an unemployed person that isn't independently wealthy is to try to find a job and take even crappy jobs until they get back on their feet.

Is sleeping allowed during this time period? or should the person stay awake the entire time? Some people have been unemployed over 3 years. If you don't sleep in 3 years, you will die.
 
Is sleeping allowed during this time period? or should the person stay awake the entire time? Some people have been unemployed over 3 years. If you don't sleep in 3 years, you will die.

If you're unemployed for 3 years, it is your own fault. As for the rest of your sarcastic comment, yes, you can sleep up to 8 hours per night.
 
Being a 'man' isn't about objective measures, it is a mentality. Pride in oneself that motivates one to achieve in work, practice patience at home, and take responsibility for ones situation and improve it as best one can.

If a "real man" had the following job offers, which one would he take?

Offer One: A job working for the federal government counting maps in an air-conditioned office for $75,000 per year, guaranteed employment for 20 years, full retirement, health insurance, life insurance, company car, 30 days paid vacation and all other benefits that have been traditionally allowed for government employment.

Offer Two: A real job assembling plane parts for Southwest Airlines for $17,000 per year. No benefits. No contract. $17,000 per year, that's it.

I'd choose option One but we aren't talking about me. We are talking about a hypothetical "real man" that doesn't bum off of the government except as a last resort. Remember low income doesn't mean you aren't a man. You can take offer two without bumming and without losing other manly traits.
 
If a "real man" had the following job offers, which one would he take?

Offer 1: A job working for the federal government counting maps in an air-conditioned office for $75,000 per year, guaranteed employment for 20 years, full retirement, health insurance, life insurance, company car, 30 days paid vacation and all other benefits that have been traditionally allowed for government employment.

Offer 2: A real job assembling plane parts for Southwest Airlines for $17,000 per year. No benefits. No contract. $17,000 per year, that's it.

I'd choose option One but we aren't talking about me. We are talking about a hypothetical "real man" that doesn't bum off of the government except as a last resort. Remember low income doesn't mean you aren't a man. You can take offer two without bumming and without losing other manly traits.

Let's make things more interesting. Let's say the wife gets offer one and the husband gets offer two. A family need requires 18 hour attention of the other parent, which offer should they agree to take as a family?

The Wife's job offer: A job working for the federal government counting maps in an air-conditioned office for $75,000 per year, guaranteed employment for 20 years, full retirement, health insurance, life insurance, company car, 30 days paid vacation and all other benefits that have been traditionally allowed for government employment.

The Husband's job offer: A real job assembling plane parts for Southwest Airlines for $17,000 per year. No benefits. No contract. $17,000 per year, that's it.

I'd choose option One but we aren't talking about me. We are talking about a hypothetical "real man". What to do? Is it manly to allow your wife to not only earn more income than you but also agree to bum off of the government?
 
Last edited:
If a "real man" had the following job offers, which one would he take?

Offer One: A job working for the federal government counting maps in an air-conditioned office for $75,000 per year, guaranteed employment for 20 years, full retirement, health insurance, life insurance, company car, 30 days paid vacation and all other benefits that have been traditionally allowed for government employment.

Offer Two: A real job assembling plane parts for Southwest Airlines for $17,000 per year. No benefits. No contract. $17,000 per year, that's it.

I'd choose option One but we aren't talking about me. We are talking about a hypothetical "real man" that doesn't bum off of the government except as a last resort. Remember low income doesn't mean you aren't a man. You can take offer two without bumming and without losing other manly traits.

I think you are misunderstanding my argument. Being a 'man' isn't about what job you have or how much you make. It is mostly about responsibility and pride in oneself. I wonder if you'll ever actually come out and say what you think a man is instead of positing questions for what others think.
 
To answer the original question and this is something that I have learned recently.

A man is a male adult above the age of 18 who maximizes the utility of his environment to the fullest for the benefit of himself and those under his care. A man understands his place in the world. A man understands his status in the world. A man remains strong for the benefit of those under his care. This would include a wife, children, employees, assets or other persons or things for which he has accepted responsibilty. A man also unloads those responsibilities that he knows he is incapable of properly providing care. A man doesn't take on too many responsibilities that he cannot handle. A wife requires a lifelong responsibility. A child requires an 18 year responsibility. A mortgage requires a 30 year responsibility or the commitment to honor the terms. A job doesn't really require a long term commitment unless a contract is involved. A man knows his limitations and doesn't take on what he cannot handle. A man knows himself and is confident enough to disregard any and all criticism. A man is steady and strong regardless of his environment.

Just joking. I dont' really know what a man is. :lol:
 
The American economy is much different than it was in the 1950's. Some people have cited that if minimum wage was translated from past eras it would be equivalent to $23 an hour. If one person could make $23 an hour, I'm sure there would be many stay at home moms or stay at home dads. Without traditional biases clouding that decision I would bet that in most cases it would be stay-at-home moms. Today people need to work 3 jobs between 2 people to have the same standard of living that the older generations enjoyed. It is no surprise that the older generation thinks the younger generation is lazy. I provided my wife and kids with this, this and this and my low-life son-in-law doesn't even give his family this. With that being said I don't think being a man can be defined by his income. It is easy to point out that flawed logic even though a man who earned $23 an hour equivalent his whole life would never listen to any logic.

In my personal situation (I'm 34 by the way) my wife hasn't been required to work out of the home for the first 9 years of our marriage. The last 3 she has been required to shoulder almost 45% of our household income. Does that mean I am less of man than I was during those first 9 years? By some standards people would say yes. (That would include myself.) Can a man be a man in any economic situation or is his manhood entirely dependent upon his environment? It's a puzzle to me.



It feels wrong as wrong can be. This was not the way I was raised. The lifestyle held by both of my grandparents and my parents allowed the father to be bread winner and financial manager while the mother was child raiser, housekeeper and all the other torments that go along with that. It seems to me that men are suited better for what Americans call the "traditional father figure". It seems to me that women are suited better for what Americans call the "traditional mother figure". The only thing that stays the same is that everything changes. Our global, cultural, financial, political, economic, weather and historical situations have changed and will continue to change. Does this mean that what it means to be a man changes with the wind? I would say, no.



Sure you can. We all pass judgement all the time. We have an ideal of what constitutes a good man or what constitutes a good woman. My life has been very harsh the last 3 years. I have been doing some major soul searching and trying to find out how to be a man. In good times, it was easy to be a man. It bad times, the lack of manliness starts to shine through. I would suggest that The Baron would not feel this way if the economy was brimming out of it's ears with jobs. A booming economy can make even the sorriest son-in-law look like a champion. That's why we call these "good times".

My question is this: Does the definition of a man change when the economy is bad? Let's be fair. This son-in-law probably isn't as bad as he is being described.

To answer the original question and this is something that I have learned recently.

A man is an male adult above the age of 18 who maximizes the utility of his environment to the fullest for the benefit of himself and those under his care. A man understands his place in the world. A man understands his status in the world. A man remains strong for the benefit of those under his care. This would include a wife, children, employees, assets or other persons or things for which he has accepted responsibilty. A man also unloads those responsibilities that he knows he is incapable of properly providing care. A man doesn't take on too many responsibilities that he cannot handle. A wife requires a lifelong responsibility. A child requires an 18 year responsibility. A mortgage requires a 30 year responsibility or the commitment to honor the terms. A job doesn't really require a long term commitment unless a contract is involved. A man knows his limitations and doesn't take on what he cannot handle. A man knows himself and is confident enough to disregard any and all criticism. A man is steady and strong regardless of his environment.

Just joking. I dont' really know what a man is. :lol:

Just scrolling through this thread, I think a lot of "real men" got stuck in 1955! Any sociologist or modern history expert is going to make note of the fact that the era of the "stay at home wife" was a blip on the radar screen of history....and it wasn't even universal, as historically, high numbers of black women and women of all colors who were also below the average middle class income levels, had to go out and work whether they had children at home or not! So, don't get all hung up about the traditions of your parents and grandparents...it was only the norm for a few generations in the entirety of human history.

I think the hypothetical $23.00 minimum wage is an estimate made of what the minimum wage would be if productivity gains filtered their way evenly throughout the economy...let's say if trickle-down economic theory actually worked! What's happened instead is that all working class incomes...even those of us at the higher end, in skilled trades have had our wages flattened while the rentier class that lives off of capital they've already accumulated, are the only ones who have gained, and are still gaining in income today.

That minimum wage hasn't even kept up with inflation in most locales, as I had left home at 17 while I was working for minimum wage almost 40 years ago; and I had enough money to afford a one bedroom apartment, and all of my necessities with even a little money left over for going out and savings....if I felt like it! Can anyone afford to comfortably live on their own today on minimum wage?
 
Lot of talk about responsible behaviour and manhood. Sorry , that is adulthood. Had the op been describing a female inlaw it would be just as bad.

In a somewhat related area, I read someplace a good description.
"The measure of a man is not how many women he can be with in a lifetime. The measure of a man is living a lifetime with one woman, the right woman"
 
If you're unemployed for 3 years, it is your own fault. As for the rest of your sarcastic comment, yes, you can sleep up to 8 hours per night.

Funny how the ration of People whose fault it is they are unemployed and not og up and Down With the economy .... This is such an idiotic statement that ignores actual economic conditions.
 
Funny how the ration of People whose fault it is they are unemployed and not og up and Down With the economy .... This is such an idiotic statement that ignores actual economic conditions.

I stand by my statement. You're free to disagree.
 
The OP seems to be about self reliance and responsibility. Why anyone would think that those things are integral to living as an adult male as opposed to an adult female is beyond me. That kind of perspective not only disrespects women, but also encourages them to exist vestigial to males. And it puts impossible standards upon men. Integrity, courage, and perseverance are not male traits. They are human traits.
 
All what it takes to be a real man is to treat others with respect. Anything less is childish. And if you are being childish (ie treating woman, children, other men, animals, property, badly) then you are definitely not a real man, you are instead a childish fool that garners no respect. SO basically if you treat people as the bible dictates then you are not a real man.
 
All what it takes to be a real man is to treat others with respect. Anything less is childish. And if you are being childish (ie treating woman, children, other men, animals, property, badly) then you are definitely not a real man, you are instead a childish fool that garners no respect. SO basically if you treat people as the bible dictates then you are not a real man.

IMHO it also includes treating yourself with respect. Keeping your own reputation as an honest person is one way of respecting yourself.
However, knowing that the measure of your self worth is not how much you can drink or how high you can get, or how injured you can be before letting it slow you down. I have met people who boast about the fact that they have never seen a doctor in the last 20 years, never gone to a dentist, never had their eyes checked (that last one ordered a club sandwhich for lunchone time,, didn't need a menu. Sure he can read, he just cannot make out the letters on the menu anymore, what a guy!).

I am quite confident in my manhood but when I noticed a problem I saw a doctor. Long story short, had I not I'd have died in 2001 or 2002.

In my late twenties I had an epiphone that I would still be a man if I stopped getting falling down drunk every weekend. I was right, my penis did not fall off. :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom