On the matter of Men, Manliness, Norms and Expectations... wall-o-text warning..

Disclaimer: I'm in my 50s, youngest child of parents that grew up as Depression-era farm kids, so I'm coming from a relatively old-fashioned perspective. At the same time, I have a 21yo son and a number of close relatives in their teens, and understanding what it is to be a man in modern society is something I try to be open minded about.

Some history first, particularly for the young folks and those who haven't really thought about it in historical terms....


The baseline for my parent's generation was defined between 1930 and 1960. The 30s and 40s were pretty grim times, and called for hard men, hard decisions, and a resolve for struggle and suffering. Many men worked themselves to death before they were 50.

The 50s brought in a new era of prosperity. Hard work and saving was the key and that, and taking care of one's family well, was the defining issue of manhood in that era.

A thing to understand is WW2 opened the door to women working in factories and doing many jobs traditionally male. The 50's seemed to have a reactionary push-back to that, and societal pressure to reinforce stereotypical roles and behaviors again seemed dominant.

One thing you have to understand is this stuff occurs in cycles (like most things). No two cycles are identical but there are similarities.

The 60s resembled the 20s in some ways, as both eras involved loosening of societal strictures and a lot of what had previously been considered immoral behavior, but were more dramatic and more of a paradigm shift, as various women's movements joined under a general banner of feminism, not to mention the anti-war, hippies and so on.

Now to be very blunt... a lot of young male (15-35) behavior is directly attributable to "what does it take to get laid?" In the 50s it typically took a steady job and financial stability and marriage, though under the surface things were not nearly as straight-laced as the public image of the era.

The 60s answer to that question, for young men 18-30, was often to be "down with the struggle" or going with the popular trends and winds of change, to a large degree. Being Mr Manley Mann was no longer essential to getting laid or having man-friends. Being the Football Hero, War Hero or Bread Winner still had its fans but being Mr Sensitive Guy Who Says Down With the System rose to dominance as a winning reproductive strategy.

For a while, at least.

The 70s, which I remember well and compare to "the 60s with a hangover and the buzz wearing off" was more of a mixed bag. A lot of the social message disappeared under a glitzy facade of drugs, disco and Hippy/Boomers saying oh-****-we're-growing-up-NOW-what-do-we-do? The 70s had a party-hearty veneer covering a rather grim and uncertain subtext amid the oil crisis and Soviet expansionism.

A good many of them eventually fell back on a model similar to what their 50s-era parents did, and got corporate jobs and started climbing that ladder. The 80s were very businesslike and relatively strait-laced (in public at least) compared to the previous two decades. A slightly milder version of Mr Manley Mann was back "in", though feminism was certainly still around and still active.

The 90s were kind of defined sexually by Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton and oral-isn't-really-sex, along with the Nirvana generation, the rise of Emo and Goth subcultures and a lot of other things I won't go into to save time. In a way it sort of reflected back on the 20s and 60s: society was prospering but at the same time growing more "decadent" and more open to non-traditional behaviors and lifestyles. Manliness in the traditional sense began a slide back down the popularity scale, and more emotional expression in men became accepted and expected.

9/11 was a defining event and brought back manly role models like soldiers and fireman for a time, but the cultural trends reasserted themselves within a few years and continued into trends we see now: young men not becoming independent until their 30s, marrying late if at all, "hookups" and so forth.


Con't...

So we arrive in 2017 where society, as a whole, has far looser gender-role and gender-norm standards, especially among the Millennial generation. Indeed it is practically an article of faith for the more liberal half of society that each individual gets to define their own gender-norms, or even gender. "Metrosexual" is a thing.

It all looks pretty bizarre to someone who grew up in the 70s and 80s, but it is what it is.

So where does a young man look today for how to define himself as a man?

In many cases, the same places they've always looked: at their father, brothers, peers, and role-models.

Some major problems with that are lots of absentee fathers, few families with more than 1 or 2 children, and peers that are just as clueless as anyone else.

That leaves role models, for many. In this media-saturated age, celebrities of one sort or another, moreso than people-they-actually-know.

Problems with that are pretty obvious... a celebrity is a public image and may have little to do with reality, and is usually more concerned with presenting an exciting and attractive image than with presenting responsibility or anything like virtues.

Now some people think this is perfectly fine; men don't have to be this and women don't have to be that, you have freedom to define yourself and be who/what you want to be.

There's a certain sense in that but it also creates problems: without even a loose baseline of acceptable behavior or standards, you get a lot of irresponsible and problematic choices made, and consequences for both the individual and society. Lots more kids growing up with no Dad worth mentioning, for one. Lots of single-mother households with statistically poor odds for prosperity.

While too-rigid roles and standards are a problem, NO standard is also a problem.

My conclusion: like many things in our society, manhood is broken and not working very well.

Causes? Well we can blame media and feminism and so forth, and they were certainly factors in breaking down the traditional roles, but chiefly we need to look at ourselves. All too often, the reason a given boy grows into manhood without knowing how to be a man is because of a father that walked away, wasn't involved with his son... or was just a ****ty role model to start with.

If you don't like the way young men are turning out these days, maybe the best solution is to mentor one. Join Big Brothers. Fill in for that kid you know down the street that has no Dad. Bite the bullet and marry that gal with three young kids and try to be a real father to them. Be a friend to a 20-something who doesn't know what to do with his life. Honor your commitments. Married men, keep your pants zipped away from home and remember you said "for better or worse".

Whether it is our fault or not, it IS our responsibility to try to make things better... because that's what real men do, they take responsibility, own the problem, and work to FIX it.

We can stand around arguing about who is to blame while the house burns down, or we can roll up our sleeves and get to work.

Now, about standards...


I don't think we need to get hung up on little things, images or symbolic stuff. Ok maybe Junior dresses really different than anything you'd be comfortable with, and you don't much like that he has five hoops in each ear.

Ok, but that's shallow stuff. Let's talk about the really important things.


Honor and responsibility. Whatever the era, Being A Man is absolutely about being responsible; saying what you mean and meaning what you say; owning your **** and fixing your mess; fulfilling your commitments to others; being honest in your relationships and friendships; not stabbing people in the back who trusted you.


This is just a baseline; the details can vary but to me this is The Minimum Standard Of Manliness.


Some more...

Don't be a bully. You want to fight, pick on someone in your weight class.

You can be as sensitive and open as you want, when circumstances allow... but when it is time to Man Up and Deal With ****, you do what has to be done.

You can love art galleries and fine clothes and lattes all you want, but when the sink breaks you need to do something about it: either fix it or get The Man there pronto, if you want to keep your family's respect.

Why do these values have to be assigned to a specific gender?

Goshin said:

...



Honor and responsibility. Whatever the era, Being A Man is absolutely about being responsible; saying what you mean and meaning what you say; owning your **** and fixing your mess; fulfilling your commitments to others; being honest in your relationships and friendships; not stabbing people in the back who trusted you.


This is just a baseline; the details can vary but to me this is The Minimum Standard Of Manliness.


Some more...

Don't be a bully. You want to fight, pick on someone in your weight class.

You can be as sensitive and open as you want, when circumstances allow... but when it is time to Man Up and Deal With ****, you do what has to be done.

You can love art galleries and fine clothes and lattes all you want, but when the sink breaks you need to do something about it: either fix it or get The Man there pronto, if you want to keep your family's respect.

Click to expand...

Oh and BTW, I know we could just as easily call that How To Be A Decent Human Being Period Regardless Of Gender, for the most part, but the subject in question is Manliness, and I'm addressing it from that perspective.

Yeah I know some people think even talking about Manliness is itself sexist or something; if so walk on please, this thread isn't for you.

Your Star said:

Why do these values have to be assigned to a specific gender?

Click to expand...

Knew that was coming from somebody. See above.



In brief, "It's a Man Thing."

Ok seriously though... men and women really are different. Not just physically but mentally, there are some big differences.



Yes, some of it is cultural but that doesn't make it unimportant; and some of it is biologically hard-wired.


Those differences are reason I'm addressing this from the male perspective, even if a lot of it crosses gender boundaries.

Goshin said:

We can stand around arguing about who is to blame while the house burns down, or we can roll up our sleeves and get to work.

Click to expand...

If you want to know why people are living with their parents longer, it's the jobs. The cost of living has far outstripped the amount of money a job pays. THe cost of rent, transportation, utilities, education, and food has gone up so much faster than what jobs pay that people can't afford to live on their own.

RAMOSS said:

If you want to know why people are living with their parents longer, it's the jobs. The cost of living has far outstripped the amount of money a job pays. THe cost of rent, transportation, utilities, education, and food has gone up so much faster than what jobs pay that people can't afford to live on their own.

Click to expand...

Sorry, in Michigan you can afford $600 for a one bedroom apt. in a decent neighborhood, $400 for food, transportation and gas (drive a beater), and $250 for utilities including a basic phone and car insurance working at a temp job making $325 per week. Thing is, many kids nowadays can't stand to be seen in a beater or with a basic phone or don't want to invite their friends over to a $600/mo. apt..

Goshin said:

Knew that was coming from somebody. See above.



In brief, "It's a Man Thing."

Click to expand...

It's your friendly neighborhood feminist here to save the day! (Just getting, S&M has that title by a mile)

Anyways, to address your point, "manliness" or the more academic term, masculinity isn't necessarily a bad thing, and I don't think any mainstream feminist will argue that point. It's toxic masculinity that claims the root of the problems feminist often point out.

Things as severe as violence, rape, and sexual assault top the list. While lesser offenses, like a strict enforcement of gender roles for both men and women, generalized sexism, etc, tend to be lower down on the things that shock us, but they do all give way into each other. You know, that whole patriarchy thing. Like I pointed out in another thread, the patriarchy hurts both men and women. While it certainly favors men over women, it favors a certain kind of man more, the touch brooding John Wayne type, and men that go outside of that norm are often ridiculed and taunted. Which, you pointed out. Same goes for women. On a greater scale considering it has been ingrained in our society that women are somehow inherently placed on this Earth to please a man, and if we don't live up to some standard of beauty, it's our fault. But, I'm sure you're well aware of that.

Now, one of the big issues when discussing these things, and one of the biggest pieces of evidence that privilege does exist (I know that dreaded word!) is the fact that when discussing issues like this, we often see feminism, or LGBT activism, or African American activism, it really applies to anything. Anyways, we often see these groups protesting for rights as only fighting for themselves, and the people in the majority often think that it doesn't apply to them. Or even worse, when they think of gender issues, they think of women's issues. When they think of sexuality, they think of gay people. When they think of race, they think of black people, etc. It's a way of thinking that separates you from that conversation. Yes, white heterosexual cisgender men do have a sexuality, they do have a race, and they do have a gender identity. All of those issues we talk about apply to you, it's just that set is considered the "norm" and thus, anything that deviates from that is considered an other. Obviously this refers to western civilization, but I think that was a given.

I guess the point of that diatribe is to point out that I'm okay with having a conversation about masculinity and what it means to be a man, but I also think that in order to have those conversations it's important to ask how much of that is exclusive to people who identify as male? I think a lot of these roles are society based, we probably disagree on the degree of that, but I think we can say for sure that there are definitely gender norms that are completely arbitrary. And I do believe that most of those things you listed can be put under the category of, "Don't be a dick." Seriously, Wheaton's Law works for everything.

Anyways, I guess, I know what it's like to be a woman, I know that I am a woman, and I feel like a woman all the time. Yet, I don't know where that comes from other than my biology. What makes me a woman inherently? What does it mean to be a lesbian? What does it mean to be white? What does it mean for you to be male, and white and heterosexual? Are they innate qualities that define your being? Do they determine the kind of person that you are? Or are they markers that guide society in how you were raised and the expectations surrounding your existence? I personally think it's the ladder more, but what are your thoughts? Obviously there are biological differences, but I think they are largely overblown in these instances, and at the end of the day we are human.

To cap this off, I would also like to point out that this is what makes "identity politics" so interesting. I put that in quotes because it's become a term used to attack more than identify. This is why things like sex, race, sexuality matter, because they shape the lives we lead.

Hope I didn't break the character limit. :lol:

RAMOSS said:

If you want to know why people are living with their parents longer, it's the jobs. The cost of living has far outstripped the amount of money a job pays. THe cost of rent, transportation, utilities, education, and food has gone up so much faster than what jobs pay that people can't afford to live on their own.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's true for a lot of people in their 20s. I told Son#1 I had no problem with him living at home for the time being until he was in better financial shape... as long as he has a plan and is working that plan.

Goshin said:

Yes, that's true for a lot of people in their 20s. I told Son#1 I had no problem with him living at home for the time being until he was in better financial shape... as long as he has a plan and is working that plan.

Click to expand...

That was happening in the early 80's, and started getting worse. .. around the time of the recession that was in the 1982 time frame. I did that, and my mother was so disappointed until she read about how common it started becoming, for that very reason. The pay scale erosion is going to continue, and it's going to get worse before it gets better.

Your Star said:

It's your friendly neighborhood feminist here to save the day! (Just getting, S&M has that title by a mile)

Anyways, to address your point, "manliness" or the more academic term, masculinity isn't necessarily a bad thing, and I don't think any mainstream feminist will argue that point. It's toxic masculinity that claims the root of the problems feminist often point out. ......

Hope I didn't break the character limit. :lol:

Click to expand...

Appreciate the carefully considered reply.

I'm not really addressing "toxic masculinity" because I think it is a false masculinity. Things like violence towards dependents and less-physically-able victims is and always has been abhorrent to me. Horribly biased double-standards like damning female infidelity while treating male infidelity as a badge of pride and prowess is also abhorrent to me and always has been.

I see these things as a *perversion* of manliness, and not at all part of the real McCoy.

With apologies for resorting to an anecdotal story, I'd like to mention my father. He was not a perfect man; he had his faults. However, he went to work every day, and came home to his family for dinner every day. I never once saw him drunk; I never once heard him curse; I never once heard my mother wonder aloud where he was or what he was doing. He was known in the community; I never once heard anyone question that his word was good or that he didn't pay his bills or do what he said he would do.

As an adult I had a conversation with him about this, and how I'd been a grown man before I appreciated these things he did properly. His reply? "Well, when I was young, it was just expected. It was what you did." It was, he said, the minimum a decent man owed his family.

More than that, he loved his wife and children and, for a man of his generation, was fairly demonstrative of his love and had no qualms about saying so. He was even fairly easygoing and mindful of his family's wants and preferences as well as needs, regularly putting their wants ahead of his own.

Even so he was unquestionably a man of strength and decisiveness when the situation required it. He was widely liked and rarely quarreled with anyone, but if you so messed with his family, God have mercy on your soul for he would have none. Bad guys and troublemakers walked wide around him.


That was the standard I grew up with, God rest his soul.


Got something in my eye, be back in a minute...

Your Star said:

It's your friendly neighborhood feminist here to save the day! (Just getting, S&M has that title by a mile)

Anyways, to address your point, "manliness" or the more academic term, masculinity isn't necessarily a bad thing, and I don't think any mainstream feminist will argue that point. It's toxic masculinity that claims the root of the problems feminist often point out.

Click to expand...

No such thing as toxic masculinity.

Things as severe as violence, rape, and sexual assault top the list. While lesser offenses, like a strict enforcement of gender roles for both men and women, generalized sexism, etc, tend to be lower down on the things that shock us, but they do all give way into each other. You know, that whole patriarchy thing. Like I pointed out in another thread, the patriarchy hurts both men and women. While it certainly favors men over women, it favors a certain kind of man more, the touch brooding John Wayne type, and men that go outside of that norm are often ridiculed and taunted. Which, you pointed out. Same goes for women. On a greater scale considering it has been ingrained in our society that women are somehow inherently placed on this Earth to please a man, and if we don't live up to some standard of beauty, it's our fault. But, I'm sure you're well aware of that.

Click to expand...

You realize that even in the old days most men didn't think women were put here to please men, right? Trying to create a standard of behavior in men and women isn't a bad thing, but creates exceptions and a direction to society.

Now, one of the big issues when discussing these things, and one of the biggest pieces of evidence that privilege does exist (I know that dreaded word!) is the fact that when discussing issues like this, we often see feminism, or LGBT activism, or African American activism, it really applies to anything. Anyways, we often see these groups protesting for rights as only fighting for themselves, and the people in the majority often think that it doesn't apply to them. Or even worse, when they think of gender issues, they think of women's issues. When they think of sexuality, they think of gay people. When they think of race, they think of black people, etc. It's a way of thinking that separates you from that conversation. Yes, white heterosexual cisgender men do have a sexuality, they do have a race, and they do have a gender identity. All of those issues we talk about apply to you, it's just that set is considered the "norm" and thus, anything that deviates from that is considered an other. Obviously this refers to western civilization, but I think that was a given.

Click to expand...

People separate issues for different groups because different groups have different issues they face in society as a people. Men, women, gays, races, transgenders have unique issues that are best fought for by the people that live with them. There will also always be a norm and people outside that norm and I don't see that ever changing.

I guess the point of that diatribe is to point out that I'm okay with having a conversation about masculinity and what it means to be a man, but I also think that in order to have those conversations it's important to ask how much of that is exclusive to people who identify as male? I think a lot of these roles are society based, we probably disagree on the degree of that, but I think we can say for sure that there are definitely gender norms that are completely arbitrary. And I do believe that most of those things you listed can be put under the category of, "Don't be a dick." Seriously, Wheaton's Law works for everything.

Click to expand...

Any kind of standard will be arbitrary to a point, so you try to match your standard to what fits the majority.

Sometimes my wife is inexplicably in a bad mood. She says it's hormones. Periods, pregnancy, post-partum stuff, ya, youbetcha, it's definitely hormonal.

The thing is, if I were to go off the handle like she does from time to time (regular monthly stuff, not the post-partum stuff) , I would be considered "abusive". Because men aren't known quantities for emotional reactions chalked up to cyclical hormonal imbalances.

Now, is it that men - after their teenage years - really aren't hormonal? Or is it that we aren't allowed to react emotionally? Likely, it's a little from column a, a little from column b: we aren't quite so hormonal, not cyclicaly, and we are taught to control our emotions as part of our becoming-a-man training.

In the name of equality, should it be more socially acceptable for men to be bitchier, or should women have a higher expectation to control thenselves? Or... should we be treated differently?

Gonzo Rodeo said:

Sometimes my wife is inexplicably in a bad mood. She says it's hormones. Periods, pregnancy, post-partum stuff, ya, youbetcha, it's definitely hormonal.

The thing is, if I were to go off the handle like she does from time to time (regular monthly stuff, not the post-partum stuff) , I would be considered "abusive". Because men aren't known quantities for emotional reactions chalked up to cyclical hormonal imbalances.

Now, is it that men - after their teenage years - really aren't hormonal? Or is it that we aren't allowed to react emotionally? Likely, it's a little from column a, a little from column b: we aren't quite so hormonal, not cyclicaly, and we are taught to control our emotions as part of our becoming-a-man training.

In the name of equality, should it be more socially acceptable for men to be bitchier, or should women have a higher expectation to control thenselves? Or... should we be treated differently?

Click to expand...

That's a good point. Incidentally I spent my AFK hiatus having a long talk with Nephew-11 about tempers and the vital importance of self-control, despite provocation, after he threw something at Nephew-7's head. Relevance FTW

Part of the conversation was how he is nearing the point where he will be growing fast and getting stronger fast, and that if he doesn't learn to control himself he could end up seriously hurting someone he loves, and/or in big trouble that won't wash off if he unintentionally does permanent harm in a rage.

Testosterone is a lot like steroids; it tends to build muscle and make you stronger, but it also tends to enhance aggression. That's two of the differences; a grown man can't afford to start throwing things (or punches) in a rage, someone could get badly damaged. I mean it is BAD for ANYONE, but it is much worse for a man in the years of his peak strength to do such things.

In brief, yes men and women are fundamentally different and there's a reason why I'm coming at this from the male perspective, even if a lot of the basics have a lot of "crossover", there are some important distinctions.

Goshin said:

Some history first, particularly for the young folks and those who haven't really thought about it in historical terms....

Click to expand...

Here we go

One thing you have to understand is this stuff occurs in cycles (like most things). No two cycles are identical but there are similarities.

Click to expand...

FYI, women joining the workforce -- and men leaving -- was NOT a cycle. Women were increasingly joining

Now to be very blunt... a lot of young male (15-35) behavior is directly attributable to "what does it take to get laid?" In the 50s it typically took a steady job and financial stability and marriage, though under the surface things were not nearly as straight-laced as the public image of the era.

Click to expand...

lol

Yeah, I don't think so. People were not talking about sex in the 50s; that doesn't mean they weren't engaging in sex. That includes premarital sex, adultery, prostitution, homosexuality, pornography....

That was pretty much the point of Kinsey's research, flawed as it was.

The 60s answer to that question, for young men 18-30, was often to be "down with the struggle" or going with the popular trends and winds of change, to a large degree. Being Mr Manley Mann was no longer essential to getting laid....

Click to expand...

If you say so

Frankly, it sounds like you're describing a pretty small slice of Americans in your mini cultural history here. There weren't all that many people who started as hippies, who turned into disco bunnies, who turned into 80s yuppies and so forth. The vast majority were working class people, slowly making a transition from manufacturing to service jobs.

In addition, what seems like cycles masked longer-term trends....

The 90s were kind of defined sexually by Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton and oral-isn't-really-sex, along with the Nirvana generation, the rise of Emo and Goth subcultures and a lot of other things I won't go into to save time.

Click to expand...

Yeah... No.

If anything, the 90s showed a growing awareness of a diversity of cultures. What we now call the LGBT community gained more attention, in no small part due to the awareness of AIDS; the religious right developed a conservative attitude towards sex, and some tried to withdraw into their own subculture, and so forth.

9/11 was a defining event and brought back manly role models like soldiers and fireman for a time....

Click to expand...

riiiiiiiiight


Not seeing any cycles yet, by the way.

Ok Redress doesn't agree with anything I said. Noted without surprise.

Goshin said:

So we arrive in 2017 where society, as a whole, has far looser gender-role and gender-norm standards, especially among the Millennial generation. Indeed it is practically an article of faith for the more liberal half of society that each individual gets to define their own gender-norms, or even gender. "Metrosexual" is a thing.

It all looks pretty bizarre to someone who grew up in the 70s and 80s, but it is what it is.

Click to expand...

Unless it doesn't look bizarre at all to someone who grew up in the 70s and 80s.

So where does a young man look today for how to define himself as a man?

In many cases, the same places they've always looked: at their father, brothers, peers, and role-models.

Click to expand...

And the media.

In fact, I'd say culture is more important than family in many respects, since that's where pretty much everyone gets their ideas about gender roles.

What, like no one looked to Humphrey Bogart, Ernest Hemingway or John Wayne as templates of proper male behavior?

men don't have to be this and women don't have to be that, you have freedom to define yourself and be who/what you want to be.

Click to expand...

Yep. Sounds about right.

To be more specific: Gender roles are socially constructed, and often disadvantageous for specific groups.

There's a certain sense in that but it also creates problems: without even a loose baseline of acceptable behavior or standards, you get a lot of irresponsible and problematic choices made, and consequences for both the individual and society. Lots more kids growing up with no Dad worth mentioning, for one. Lots of single-mother households with statistically poor odds for prosperity.

Click to expand...

And yet, somehow society seems to be improving in many ways.

Crime rates peaked in 1991, and fell. Drug use, despite all the hysterics, has also been dropping since 1991. The so-called "opiate crisis" is an exaggeration, which ignores how cocaine and meth use has fallen drastically in the past several decades. There is no indication of an increase in LGBT behavior, only visibility and acceptance (both of which are positive).

Political polarization and income inequality increased... but that doesn't seem to have much to do with single parenthood.

Perhaps you are referring to the collapse of the political prominence of rock music and pro wrestling?

You need to be more specific about the alleged disasters -- and whether it has affected that 10-15% more kids living in single parent homes.

Causes? Well we can blame media and feminism and so forth, and they were certainly factors in breaking down the traditional roles, but chiefly we need to look at ourselves. All too often, the reason a given boy grows into manhood without knowing how to be a man is because of a father that walked away, wasn't involved with his son... or was just a ****ty role model to start with.

Click to expand...

Yeah... No, that doesn't really add up.

Many of the communities with high percentages of single mothers wind up steeped in misogynistic and hyper-masculine cultures, where young men lose their temper. It's far from clear that has anything to do with culture, because they listen to the same music, play the same video games, watch the same movies, and stream the same TV shows as young men who aren't misogynists, or hyper-masculine, or murderously fly off the handle in an instant.

If you don't like the way young men are turning out these days, maybe the best solution is to mentor one. Join Big Brothers.

Click to expand...

While that's a laudable goal, it's not the solution to broad cultural changes that you happen to dislike.

Bite the bullet and marry that gal with three young kids and try to be a real father to them.

Click to expand...

Wait, what?!?

Married men, keep your pants zipped away from home and remember you said "for better or worse".

Click to expand...

You do know that adultery is a perpetual behavior, of both men and women, throughout human history...?

We can stand around arguing about who is to blame while the house burns down, or we can roll up our sleeves and get to work.

Click to expand...

Or, we can accept that gender roles change pretty much constantly in culture.

Goshin said:

That's a good point. Incidentally I spent my AFK hiatus having a long talk with Nephew-11 about tempers and the vital importance of self-control, despite provocation, after he threw something at Nephew-7's head. Relevance FTW

Part of the conversation was how he is nearing the point where he will be growing fast and getting stronger fast, and that if he doesn't learn to control himself he could end up seriously hurting someone he loves, and/or in big trouble that won't wash off if he unintentionally does permanent harm in a rage.

Testosterone is a lot like steroids; it tends to build muscle and make you stronger, but it also tends to enhance aggression. That's two of the differences; a grown man can't afford to start throwing things (or punches) in a rage, someone could get badly damaged. I mean it is BAD for ANYONE, but it is much worse for a man in the years of his peak strength to do such things.

In brief, yes men and women are fundamentally different and there's a reason why I'm coming at this from the male perspective, even if a lot of the basics have a lot of "crossover", there are some important distinctions.

Click to expand...

I have been punched by two women in my lifetime. Well, slapped/pushed/kinda punched, but you get the idea. The thing is, while it hurt (I was in the military at the time, and so were they in both instances), there wasn't the same immediate reaction from everyone else as if I had hit a guy way bigger than me. There was no, "oh, you're going to get it" directed at the females like there would have been at me for hitting a much larger dude.

I was totally confused, because "be a man" means "take care of your own". So, let's say a man assaulted my wife... even the most die-hard feminist is going to recognize the protection instinct and not fault me for engaging. But what if one of those military women assaulted my wife? Do I need to end that fight like I would with another man? So, both times this hapoened, the back of my brain was firing "PROTECT PROTECT PROTECT" but the front was all, "um, I can't hit this one...?" I just stood there. Both times. Didn't even say a word (probably couldn't the second time, she caught me right in the lip).

RAMOSS said:

That was happening in the early 80's, and started getting worse. .. around the time of the recession that was in the 1982 time frame. I did that, and my mother was so disappointed until she read about how common it started becoming, for that very reason. The pay scale erosion is going to continue, and it's going to get worse before it gets better.

Click to expand...

Not to derail the thread but this is what globalism gave us. We can't do free trade with countries of unequal labor standards and environmental and safety regulations. It just results in too many good jobs being shipped over seas.

To try and tie this point together with the OP, I think some of this is related to the environment in which we are growing up. For example, the U.S. used to be a powerhouse in steel manufacturing. Chances are, the harsh environment of places like the steel industry turned you into a masculine male.

Now we are shrinking our industries and construction isn't really picking back up. Compound that with pushing kids to think the meaning of success is to go to college, get a degree, and then get a white-collar job. Well, things like computer programming aren't really known for making masculine men. That's something that blue collar work does.

OK, you raise a lot of points here, most of which I consider either invalid or misguided. I won't get into them all, and I'll try not to be condescending.

I just turned 50. I'm in law enforcement. I have, at last count, 18 nephews. My dad born in '35. Knew (and still remembers) hardship intimately. He's a retired eye surgeon; his dad was college brass in MI, MN and IN.

I grew up in Monterey County, CA, in and around Big Sur and Carmel.

A. The 70s were a fantastic time to be a kid.
B. The 80s, when I was a teenager, weren't even remotely straigt-laced.
C. The 90s were not defined sexually by Lewisnki. A man can be emotional and hard as a damned rock. Sir Thomas More was considered far more manly than many of his peers because of the fact that he could openly weep at tragedy. Goth was around in the 80s.
D. 9/11 didn't bring anything back. Those role models were always there and never went away.
E. Having "even a loose baseline of acceptable behavior or standards" has nothing to do with gender.
D. There still exist baselines.
E. Manhood is not broken
F. What you describe as "Minimum Standards Of Manliness" are what other people call 'just being an adult'.
G. This stuff......"You can be as sensitive and open as you want, when circumstances allow... but when it is time to Man Up and Deal With ****, you do what has to be done." Yeah, that applies to everyone, in every generation.
H. More of this stuffl....."You can love art galleries and fine clothes and lattes all you want, but when the sink breaks you need to do something about it: either fix it or get The Man there pronto, if you want to keep your family's respect." Fixng a sink, or truing a door, or changing spark plugs, or stopping a dripping sink or whatever has nothing to do w/a families respect. ANYONE can learn to do those things and in in my family, my youngest neice do a lot of that. She's 7.

Men and women ARE different. Everything you've referenced has nothing to do with that fact.

Goshin said:

That's a good point. Incidentally I spent my AFK hiatus having a long talk with Nephew-11 about tempers and the vital importance of self-control, despite provocation, after he threw something at Nephew-7's head. Relevance FTW

Part of the conversation was how he is nearing the point where he will be growing fast and getting stronger fast, and that if he doesn't learn to control himself he could end up seriously hurting someone he loves, and/or in big trouble that won't wash off if he unintentionally does permanent harm in a rage.

Testosterone is a lot like steroids; it tends to build muscle and make you stronger, but it also tends to enhance aggression. That's two of the differences; a grown man can't afford to start throwing things (or punches) in a rage, someone could get badly damaged. I mean it is BAD for ANYONE, but it is much worse for a man in the years of his peak strength to do such things.

In brief, yes men and women are fundamentally different and there's a reason why I'm coming at this from the male perspective, even if a lot of the basics have a lot of "crossover", there are some important distinctions.

Click to expand...

Adult hormones has nothing to do with the life choices people make, when you mention things like "honor" and "responsibility" You're going to get deserved criticism for fixating on being a 'proper man' under these terms, when there is very little that men do to act honorably and responsibly that women can't, or vice versa

Goshin said:

without even a loose baseline of acceptable behavior or standards, you get a lot of irresponsible and problematic choices made, and consequences for both the individual and society.

Click to expand...

You're over-complicating and mis-attributing. What has changed from the 50s is behavior is deemed more acceptable, so long as it doesn't harm others. Maybe what sets you at odds with 2017 is men are just more able to be themselves and it's that self you don't approve of, even if it doesn't harm others. It's a damn futile struggle to oppose human nature after that nature has broken free. Aside from that, i don't see why men can't be 'metrosexual' or just flat out homosexual, and still act honorably and responsibly. Kids can grow up just fine with two moms or a dad who isn't an emotionless neurotic freak or whatever.

Yeah, single working moms usually run into trouble, and i would argue economic forces are mostly to blame for that. There doesn't have to be a stigma on sexual promiscuity or 'metrosexual' or whatever, for there to be a stigma against abandoning your kids. I would argue it still does, as that falls under the 'harm others' category. But if it's not practical to provide for those kids, men run. Shaming only goes so far, when the alternative is child support they can't afford. And yeah, people abandoned their kids in the great depression

Nothing wrong with encouraging someone to help out with the kid down the block, but again, the key isn't gender but rather, the opportunities the kid has that are lacking that the 'mentor' can provide. Some men can teach cooking skills, some women can teach mechanics. You'll just have to deal with that

Visbek said:

Here we go



FYI, women joining the workforce -- and men leaving -- was NOT a cycle. Women were increasingly joining

lol

Yeah, I don't think so. People were not talking about sex in the 50s; that doesn't mean they weren't engaging in sex. That includes premarital sex, adultery, prostitution, homosexuality, pornography....

That was pretty much the point of Kinsey's research, flawed as it was.



If you say so

Frankly, it sounds like you're describing a pretty small slice of Americans in your mini cultural history here. There weren't all that many people who started as hippies, who turned into disco bunnies, who turned into 80s yuppies and so forth. The vast majority were working class people, slowly making a transition from manufacturing to service jobs.

In addition, what seems like cycles masked longer-term trends....

Yeah... No.

If anything, the 90s showed a growing awareness of a diversity of cultures. What we now call the LGBT community gained more attention, in no small part due to the awareness of AIDS; the religious right developed a conservative attitude towards sex, and some tried to withdraw into their own subculture, and so forth.



riiiiiiiiight


Not seeing any cycles yet, by the way.

Click to expand...

Interesting how your graph shows that single motherhood took off at the same time women started to enter the workforce, and both have grown accordingly. Right around 2000, both leveled off.

Perhaps a lot of isn't just deadbeat dads or the values shift the OP laments, but economic trends towards women being self sufficient and men struggling to make a difference in the family's survival. Without that dependence, there's less desire to make a struggling arrangement work. So divorce goes up and that explains it more than the 'sexual revolution' or 'metrosexual' or whatever

Goshin said:

Disclaimer: I'm in my 50s, youngest child of parents that grew up as Depression-era farm kids, so I'm coming from a relatively old-fashioned perspective.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, this is a bit long winded. And it really focuses on one theme. "How will younger people define themselves as a man?" I am a person of this ashe group and I define myself as a man based on my penis and testicles existing and being an adult human. A man is an adult human male. That's all it ever was.

The better question is how do we define masculinity? To wit I answer, likely differently than you do. That's what happens as life continues things change. And yes those changes bring with them issues that need to be resolved, that is nothing new either. If you feel you are out of touch with younger people, it's likely because you're focusing on the issues they face verses the people who are facing them. You may not be able to cope with defining masculinity for yourself, or not needing such labels. And you don't have to. The younger people do, and they are just as capable at adapring and over coming as your generation was facing it's issues. It's really going to be okay. They'll be just fine. And the little kids in school today will face issues I never did, and they'll be okay too.

Fyi there is nothing wrong with being old fashioned. It's important to talk to younger people, even if we say you ate long winded, to get perspective and to give it. But think back to the 60s. There were defiantly good things about it. But there were terrible things about it too. Same could be said for 2017 or 1924 or 1706 or any year you pick. There hasn't been any plagues or devastating droughts, so I think it's pretty good.