You must log in or register to comment.
Strong people build others up. Weak people knock them down to feel big. You want to feel like a strong man? Protect others and be generous with your spirit.
You want to feel like a strong man? Protect others and be generous with your spirit.
Fucking this. Strong men—strong people—help others. Healthy or not, realistic or not, this is the message that’s been sold to us since time immemorial. The knight that slays the dragon and saves the kingdom. The alien that crash lands and moonlights as a superhero. The sled dog runs 261 miles to bring the medicine to a town beset by an epidemic.
Yes, sure, one can argue some romanticism (or propaganda) with any given example. But the overall message of heroism, of strength, is not one of selfishness or of “me and mine”.
Heroism is something we ought to focus more on as a culture in general. Doing things simply because they are right and protecting others who cannot protect themselves cannot be understated.
I think a challenge with “right” is that it is subjective. For example, there are people today who believe that doing what’s “right” entails doing things that hurt people, or deprive them of happiness, or even a future. Or, that doing what’s “right” means only helping your family or your friends or your church or your Elks club.
I would say heroism has plenty of cultural emphasis already, perhaps too much even. The prevalence of superhero movies, calling anyone who served in the military a hero, all of the nurses/caregivers/essential workers during covid: there are so many examples of loud proclamations of heroism in US/Anglo culture. It is clearly a value held by the vast majority of people.
I think instead we should be looking at the messages people are actually getting from all the hero worship, rather than what we think are the important take-aways. Things like exceptionalism, having strength to prevail against one’s enemies, making hard decisions for “the greater good”. Finding good stories to combat these potentially damaging and counterproductive ideas is where we should be focusing our cultural energies IMO, rather than more hero worship.
Semi-related, as this reminded me of a quote from Cary Grant:
I pretended to be somebody I wanted to be and I finally became that person. Or he became me.
This was then repurposed on Star Trek Strange New Worlds by chief engineer Pelia (from a species that lives several centuries):
Most heroes I’ve seen… are just pretending half the time. There’s this one guy I remember, he said to me, ‘I always pretended to be someone I wanted to be, until finally, I became that someone, or he became me.’
Hah, didn’t catch that when I saw the episode - Pelia knew Cary Grant!
How to really feel like a man
- Ignore gender wars bait, there are way more important things out there.
- See step 1
Yeah, first time hearing “a man wants to feel like a man”
My first interpretation was a bunch of guys fighting with sticks and everyone having a blast
Are you male? The phrase is primarily said to women which might be why you’re unfamiliar with it if so.
Sometimes you find a really great stick. I’ve got one on my porch right now.
There are fun casual LARP or Nerf groups all over the place. Most of them would love to have more people coming out to the park on the weekend. Bring friends, or make some while you’re there!
deleted by creator
You just fell on the first hurdle
deleted by creator
You:
A patient I dealt with had schizophrenia and dementia, “but I’m a man, not a little girl with panties” was his counterargument to everything.
You can only have one cigarette at a time because otherwise you lose them all and run out. “But I’m a man.”
You know the doctor says your food needs to be cut up. “Do I look like a little girl to you?”
That’s the communal cheese bowl, this is your plate. You can’t eat from the communal cheese bowl with a fork. “Do you see me wearing panties?”
Whenever I hear people making these kind of gender essentialist arguments, they just sound pitiably out of touch with reality to me.
deleted by creator
In my head I made many cutting remarks. But the reality of this level of cognitive decline is like 90% miserably depressing and only like 10% infuriating. Plus he wouldn’t be capable of understanding the criticism anyway.
That’s potentially worthwhile with someone who is cognizant but just an asshole. For someone with dementia, there’s no point
I don’t know what it says about you if you do it deliberately but I think there’s a lot to say for asking the question anyways because his speech filters don’t work properly and he might not be able to censor himself.
If Men want to feel like Men then they have ways to deal with their insecurity:
Redo their own plumbing, twice. Once to change things and again to fix the problem they caused.
Chop firewood.
Build a furnace that you’re only going to use like 4 times, ever.
50 pushups. If not reaching it makes you sad, start skipping numbers.
Redo their own plumbing, twice. Once to change things and again to fix the problem they caused.
I’m in this comment and I don’t like it.
Similarly there is an old adage that a home plumbing repair will take three trips to the hardware store.
This also describes me.
Plumbing is the one thing I won’t do myself in diy. If screw ups are made I want the responsible party to fix things, and I don’t want to be that party.
Add electrical to that list, because I’m not a fucking wizard, and electricity is magic.
With the plumbing example, the first time was a training exercise and doesn’t count.
I met a marine mechanic once - he fixed Argos afterwards, which is how I met him. His saying:
One [nut] for me, one for the bilge.
Thank you to everyone in this thread who made me feel part of a community of my peers online for the first time, in a long time.
Every plumbing project (even yesterdays quick upgrade of the kitchen faucet) is at least a 2 tripper. Each time I finish one I swear I’m never moving again. Then, 5 years later, I’m fixing the previous owners mishaps “one last time”.
To all the people who’ve bought houses I lived in, I’m sorry for all of the " what was that idiot thinking" moments I’ve caused you. Ha
To all the people who’ve bought houses I lived in, I’m sorry for all of the " what was that idiot thinking" moments I’ve caused you. Ha
Hmm from what you said it’s more like, “Yup, I can see what shit the last guy had to fix. Thanks friend I’ll never meet.”
I’ll take that perspective! Cheers
Argos is still frustrating at times, he did not succeed.
If not reaching it makes you sad,
start skipping numbersforgive yourself and repeat tomorrow. You’ll feel awesome when you get there.NO. THATS NOT MANLY ENOUGH. REAL MEN GIVE THEMSELVES THE AUTHORITY TO SKIP NUMBERS.
No! Perfection every time! Especially the first time.
Just change King to also say man.
So a trans person saying that he is a man, is not a real man? Or more adapted to context, a trans person saying that he wants to feel like a man, is not a real man? and doesn’t deserve to feel like a man?
I don’t agree with that at all. Weird thing to upvote tbh.
Edit: Today I learned, when I advocate for trans rights, I get up votes. When I apply the same support to cis men, I get down voted.
I thought this is a supportive space in terms of gender identity. I guess I was wrong. I will continue to support trans people for the same reasons, I support everyone. Human rights.
I’d say it’s rather that a trans person shouldn’t prove anything to anyone, same as cis. If they feel the need to prove, that’s likely because of influence of toxic gender standards
Well I don’t know where you read the proving part. it is about feeling like a gender, not proving that you are. If you want to change topics, sure, we can talk about a different topic. Do you like Chinese food?
Do you like Chinese food?
Yes, I do. I also do think that you were also reading what wasn’t in the thread starter’s post
It is the logical conclusion of comment. Trans men are men. Unless you want to argue that they aren’t. Or that the men in the comments were implied to be cis men and then want to argue that cis and trans people should be treated differently to each other and therefore a trans man have every right to want to feel like a man but a cis man doesn’t.
It is the logical conclusion of comment
No, why?
Trans men are men.
Yes. And to be men the don’t need to say that. Visibility is another thing, and in that regard one might argue that they need, but I think that increasing trans visibility is not the same as ‘I am man’ statements
Edit:
a trans man have every right to want to feel like a man but a cis man doesn’t
To this I would also say ‘No’, but I’m starting to guess, we have a very different views on what it is to ‘feel like a man’
Okay the post talks about “needing to feel like a man”. (I am ignoring The comment on the picture because that is not what my issue is. My issue is the general statement in the post of the “aunt” in the picture and The comment section here) The comment is a reaction gifs and I think you agree that maybe you shouldn’t take reaction gifs 100% literally without any adaption to the context. Here the context is men FEELING manly. So I think it is fair to understand it as “if you have to say that you want to feel manly, you aren’t”
In that context, you can’t remove looking like a man, or maybe doing stereotypical man stuff, or anything that makes that person feel manly. The questions are, of course, what the fuck do you need to feel manly? What causes you to say that? What are you requiring?
All Women need to submit to you? Well that is completely unreasonable and you are an idiot. Not wanting to have your living room painted in pink, rather reasonable.
I heavily reject the notion that you or me get to decide what makes someone feel manly. If it is something that would require something from someone else, Of course, there are reasonable requests and unreasonable requests. And you can reject to fulfill them, you can even mock them if you want, but they aren’t less of a man for wanting to feel like one and painting that desire with a broad brush like in aunt’s post is also pretty bad (and probably sexist)
Maybe we have a different view on what it is to feel like a man. But if that is the case, then tell me, why are we judging men for expressing that they want to feel like a man without asking them what the fuck they mean? Because we would mean different things, so why wouldn’t they mean something else than you or me?
The reason you’re getting downvoted is because you seem to be missing the point of the meme and then are getting argumentative.
What is the point of the meme? How is it not ridiculing/dismissing the desire of a man to feel manly? Something that rightfully usually finds support here for trans man.
Because it’s not ridiculing someone for feeling manly, it’s ridiculing the kind of person that goes around stating they’re manly as fuck all the time, going out of their way to show how manly they are and generally making “manliness” their entire personality.
Where does it say that?
The post in the picture, just completely dismiss any possibility other than a man wanting to feel superior.
That is the starting point, that is what I am talking about.
The comment in the picture provides us with a story and context but it is not the same story or context because it is a different user sharing their experience. I have no issue with that.
The reaction gif is implying that you aren’t a man if you express that you want to feel like one.
Where does it say that you say it says? Where does it state that it is about making it your entire personality? Where does it say, it is about people who want to show how manly they? Where does it state that they don’t like a man stating that they are so manly? It seems to be about the opposite. A man who struggles with feeling manly. Where does it state that it is something the person does all the time?
Some of these are inconsequential in some scenarios but all of them highlight how much you read in there that just is not present to justify toxic language and behavior.
The reaction gif is implying that you aren’t a man if you express that you want to feel like one.
Doesn’t say that anywhere on the gif
You are correct, technically it doesn’t. It is about kings, and the poster tells you to replace king with man.
Also technically it is saying that a trans person who tells you that they are a man, is not a real man. I mean trans men are men.
But I don’t think that is a fair reading of the text. But sure you can read the message that I call toxic, as a toxic message to men in general and especially towards trans men. I just don’t see where you want to go with that.
Alternatively, and admittedly, I am reading it in the context of the post in which it is about men expressing that they want to feel manly. Still toxic, and implicitly transphobic, but at least matching the post.
Why is it you’re allowed to infer things the meme doesn’t say but I’m not?
What am I infer that it doesn’t say? I am willing to give that point up if you can make your case.
This place can be supportive of trans rights and also downvote bad logic and arguments.
Trans men don’t “want to feel like a man”. They are trans specifically because they already feel like a man.
In addition, your comment was a total non sequitur. We were talking about the fragile egos of certain cis men, and you brought up trans men. And did so in a way that makes you look like you’re trying to be offended.
You seem like a good person. Please keep up the fight, but pick your battles a little more wisely.
A trans man feels like a man but before at least social transition, they probably don’t feel like a man, in the sense that we have been talking about it. Which is why they transition.
It is ridiculous to read this and misunderstand what kind of “feeling like a man” we have been talking about.
I am Talking about trans men because 1. They are men. We talked about men. 2. It is bs, to act like you understand why a trans man wants to social transition but give shit to any (apparently cis) men when they want to have their gender affirmed.
Yes there are toxic men who expect ridiculous things from other people to feel affirmed, and often they are toxic. But this whole conversation is generalizations over generalization to toxic stereotypes. I am highlighting how much bs that is. Fucking treat people as individuals. If they want to meet their boys for a beer and discussing how the process of their different projects is going and what they might be able to do, to feel “manly”, then why do you have to be toxic to them? How does that make them insecure? Is my mother insecure when she goes to a girls night?
People should fucking chill and if they want to judge people, be precise. Could you imagine how much the “immigrants are bad” folks would suffer if they had to be precise and explain to the class how their coworker is a good person and hard worker while being an immigrant, but all immigrants are lazy and criminal.
I am sick of the left copying right wing rhetoric. People are individuals and most of them are pretty cool.
So Where was my logic bad? Did we talk about fragile egos? No. We talked about a vague notion of men (not only cis) wanting to feel manly.
I’m stumped at the simple task of trying to imagine what does imply to “feel like a man”.
You listen to Shania Twain’s hit Man! I Feel Like A Woman backwards
Women’s shirts and long skirts
One might consider a blouse and kilt at least somewhat manly
A guy wearing it properly wears it with no underwear, which given the temperatures up there in Scotland means he’s quite literally a man with cold hard balls.
100% guy here, real man feel is when others can rely on me, when I can help, that kind of stuff. Not “big car hurr durr bbq male superyorr” and the likes.
I agree with you, but there’s no reason bbq needs to catch these strays.
Even trucks are great if you’re using them to help people move stuff. No comment on the pavement princesses with bigger cabs than beds.
Pavement princess is getting added to the lexicon. That’s amazing.
A lot of it is centered around achievement and feeling useful, so building or fixing something, physical activity, being seen as a provider etc.
It’s why men with families etc take being made redundant quite badly, not being able to provide for your family can really make you feel like a failure.
That’s also because we teach people that romantic relationships cannot be friendships. If your partner is your best friend then you aren’t redundant, you’re a power team.
I’m talking about losing your job, just to be clear.
Oh I see, the same point applies though. A friend pumps you up, gets you back out there. What we learn though is the guy is weak and should be left.
FYI this isn’t a term Americans know. I was super confused when I moved to the UK and kept hearing it mostly because people being made redundant weren’t technically ‘being made redundant’, if anything they were already made redundant (or just no longer needed for some other reason, or no longer affordable) and were now suffering the consequences. Idk, weird phrase, I’m going to go look up the etymology now. To be fair I suppose ‘laid off’ is pretty weird too
Given how commonly used it is in British media, I’m quite surprised by that.
Well that and not being able to put food on the table and a roof over their heads.
It’s not about feelings at that point, even if they still exist.
I’m stumped at the simple task of trying to imagine what does imply to “feel like a man”.
I feel like a man when I know I’ve met all of my responsibilities to myself and the ones I care about, and that I’ve moved the world even an infinitesimally small way forward to help the others in it. This means lending a hand or an ear to those that need it either with my labor or my mind (or many time both).
I hope others have something close to this definition, but realistically I don’t think its common.
I guess what confuses me about all of this is why these things are in any way manly?
Like being reliable and following through on your commitments. Is it masculine when someone who isn’t a man is like that?
Or if I’m told someone is manly, have I now learned that he is in fact dependable?
I don’t mean to try and excessively pick apart what you’re saying, it’s just something I’ve always really struggled with understanding. People always seem to say things that strike me as being ungendered character traits when they’re asked about their gender.
I guess what confuses me about all of this is why these things are in any way manly?
I don’t mean to try and excessively pick apart what you’re saying, it’s just something I’ve always really struggled with understanding. People always seem to say things that strike me as being ungendered character traits when they’re asked about their gender.
I think I see the issue you’re encountering with the perspective you’re communicating.
You’re looking for things that are exclusively masculine. Besides the role in physical biological reproduction, I don’t think there is anything exclusively masculine by that measure.
The traits I listed could absolutely apply to people that are not men. However, the phrase “manly” is referring to societal measures not biological reproductive process abilities. If we distill that down further for this conversation, “manly” translates to “being worthy of respect”. We could dissect why “manly” translates to “being worthy of respect”, but that’s a tangent from your question.
Ergo, for a person that identifies with the biological reproductive role of a male, and would like to be seeing as being worthy of respect in society, then they should have favorable societal traits and behaviors, in my opinion, such as those I listed.
We could dissect why “manly” translates to “being worthy of respect”, but that’s a tangent from your question.
I think this pretty much gets to the root of the friction I experience when this topic comes up. I wouldn’t mind digging into it.
You likely have already guessed that I would think of it this way, but isn’t it just that “good people are worthy of respect”? Because it seems to me like if you try hard to take care of your family and do right by others, you’re a good person deserving of respect.
You know what I mean? If there’s no need for the trait to be exclusively masculine, then why do we do it? Translate “manly” into “worthy of respect”, that is. Is there some benefit to thinking about it in terms of masculinity rather than just in terms of goodness?
However, the phrase “manly” is referring to societal measures
they should have favorable societal traits and behaviors
Also, I do acknowledge this side of things. I wrote some thoughts about it in a reply to another comment in this thread, if you want to check that out. It’s an important point, and I don’t want you to think i’m just ignoring it. In summary, I think it’s kind of a bummer if in the end, manliness is just a tradition people feel compelled to participate in
You likely have already guessed that I would think of it this way, but isn’t it just that “good people are worthy of respect”? Because it seems to me like if you try hard to take care of your family and do right by others, you’re a good person deserving of respect.
You know what I mean? If there’s no need for the trait to be exclusively masculine, then why do we do it? Translate “manly” into “worthy of respect”, that is. Is there some benefit to thinking about it in terms of masculinity rather than just in terms of goodness?
You skipped the OTHER criteria I listed for being “manly” besides just “goodness”, that being: for a person that identifies with the biological reproductive role of a male.
However, the phrase “manly” is referring to societal measures
they should have favorable societal traits and behaviors
Also, I do acknowledge this side of things. I wrote some thoughts about it in a reply to another comment in this thread, if you want to check that out. It’s an important point, and I don’t want you to think i’m just ignoring it. In summary, I think it’s kind of a bummer if in the end, manliness is just a tradition people feel compelled to participate in
I’m not sure, but I think you’re hearing the “man” in “manly” and assuming the opposite would “woman”, “gay”, or “enby”. Not the case. The opposite to “man” in this case is “boy”.
We could dissect why “manly” translates to “being worthy of respect”, but that’s a tangent from your question.
I think this pretty much gets to the root of the friction I experience when this topic comes up. I wouldn’t mind digging into it.
Its the “man” vs “boy” part, as in, a sign of maturity, of coming of age where you stop being a young and selfish boy and can see where you are in the world and what responsibilities you have to yourself and those around you in society. Society has few expectations of responsibility for a “boy”. Responsibilities with weight go to those with maturity. Mature boys being men. Even the phrase “man up” usually means “to stand up and face the challenge instead of shying away”, or to take responsibility. A boy still be 40 years old if he doesn’t take up his adult responsibilities. At 40 years old he still wouldn’t be “manly”.
If you are taking exception with these phrases being associated with “man”, then your beef is really with the last 3000 or 4000 so years of history. The concepts of equality across genders and sexual orientation are relatively recent in the last 20-40 years. History doesn’t stop being history simply because we’ve evolved beyond some of our worst parts of it. We carry baggage for awhile as our language evolves to match our new values. Expecting language to change on a dime isn’t very realistic. We’ll need a few generations to die off and take this language with them.
Its the “man” vs “boy” part, as in, a sign of maturity, of coming of age where you stop being a young and selfish boy and can see where you are in the world and what responsibilities you have to yourself and those around you in society.
I’m not who you’re replying to, but I feel the same way as them. Take what I quoted from you above and replace man/boy with woman/girl. How is it any different? Maturity isn’t gendered. Taking on adult responsibilities isn’t gendered; heck you acknowledge that when you used the word “adult”, it’s right there in the language you used.
I’m not taking exception to thousands of years of history, because so many of the traits would still apply to both genders and aren’t about equality. Keep in mind that’s different than discussing gender roles which certainly have relevant history. But “taking care of your family” is a trait and women we expected to do that to. Just with different tasks. Same with being honest / honorable and just about any trait was practically speaking, non-gendered, but with gendered expressions of those traits.
I’d also say that if we don’t try to change our language, then it will never change. If we don’t immediately question questionable assertions, historically relevant or not, then it will never change. The best day to have questioned a definition of masculinity that isn’t actually gender specific was thousands of years ago, the 2nd best day is today.
I will say I DO get what you are saying about history. It isn’t lost on me how it has influenced cultural norms and language today. But I’m also saying that, ironically, if you isolate traits from expressions of those traits, even thousands of years ago I could make the same case that the traits weren’t actually gendered if dissected.
I’m not who you’re replying to, but I feel the same way as them. Take what I quoted from you above and replace man/boy with woman/girl. How is it any different?
You’re doing the same thing they did. You skipped the OTHER criteria I listed for being “manly” besides just “goodness”, that being: for a person that identifies with the biological reproductive role of a male.
Maturity isn’t gendered. Taking on adult responsibilities isn’t gendered
Agreed it isn’t, but for a person that identifies with the biological reproductive role of a male, there is a specific term for it: “manly”. Where did that come from? History.
With my explanation to that other poster, I’m more confused by your doubling down on it.
Here’s what I’m saying “With X,Y, and Z it equals ‘manly’”
You seem to be saying “Yes but if you remove X and Y, then why does the term ‘manly’ apply?”. I agree with you, it no longer does. You’re talking about something else at that point because you’ve removed characteristics that apply to the word “manly” so it no longer is that word.
I’d also say that if we don’t try to change our language, then it will never change. If we don’t immediately question questionable assertions, historically relevant or not, then it will never change.
No argument from me there. However it will be up to the very young generations growing up right now to change this. All the rest of us have grown up in a world of old definitions of masculinity. We can reject those and adopt the words, but we can’t erase our knowledge of them. Most of the adult generations alive today will have to eventually die off for these ideas to disappear from our society.
I will say I DO get what you are saying about history. It isn’t lost on me how it has influenced cultural norms and language today. But I’m also saying that, ironically, if you isolate traits from expressions of those traits, even thousands of years ago I could make the same case that the traits weren’t actually gendered if dissected.
I disagree. One of those specific traits is a person that identifies with the biological reproductive role of a male. If that trait remains, it cannot be ungendered. If you remove that trait, you’re not talking about the word ‘manly’ anymore.
man upboss up, gender neutral.
