What does being a man mean to you?

[Perry Winkle]

Running 12 miles through 4+ inches of snow in sub-zero wind chills, while the wind blows stinging snow in your face, and loving every minute of it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

WTF? Are you saying a woman can't do that.
Say it ain't so, Perry, say it ain't so.

[Perry Winkle]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

WTF? Are you saying a woman can't do that.
Say it ain't so, Perry, say it ain't so.

Naw, that's not what I'm saying at all. Two women were right there with the rest of the guys.

Just because it's part of what being a man means to me doesn't mean it can't be part of what being a woman means to me. If you back up a step I believe such activities are part of what being a human means to me.

I don't know if that makes sense, I'm pretty sleep deprived.

Some of the best runners I know are women. In fact, the best woman runner I know beat the best male runner I know in a 50 mile race a few months ago.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yeah, OK, you're off the hook.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by toranokaze

Let me first speak to the nature of the debate of manhood and masculinity in the greater American culture.

This is a discussion that I have been intestinal involved in for the last 10 years. In general most of these discussions it are women talking about men with the occasional input from a man. Which is wrong, for you have one group talking about another group. It is as if you had white talking about what it means to be black or men talking about what it means to be a woman.

We need a closed debate and stand as men to define ourselves and what it that means in society.

In American society I have seen lack of value of masculine values, a lack of value of what men do, specifically fatherhood.


More on the question latter.

For most of western history it has been men defining both genders, both at an intellectual level and in terms of assigning value. The lack of value attached to 'fatherhood' is not a lack of value assigned to masculinity it's a lack of value assigned to parenting. Western culture has historically had a slightly schizophrenic approach to the concept of parenting/nurture, at least since the early modern period. It is venerated and yet removed from standard value systems: economically, parenting and nurture is least valued of all available skills in the modern world. Womanhood is most strongly connected in our minds with that skill. Indeed, it loses the name of skill when it is employed by a woman and becomes an expression of nature, a continuation of childbirth. Female nurturing is valued highly in the common imaginary, but it is without economic value. Male participation in that nurturing is not valued as highly, because men are expected to express their value in an economic setting.

Women discussing what it is to be male, indeed, defining that identity culturally, can be seen in two ways. Either it is a colonisation of an area they'd previously been excluded from, partly as an extension of the specialised 'women's studies' into a wider understanding of 'gender' in which the next generation of social academics reacted to the female-centric nature of our understanding of gender and focused instead on masculinity. This then fed into wider popular discussions and cultural preoccupations. Or, it is an extension of the female caring/nurture role extended out into a wider setting.

Worth noting, though, that the preoccupation with what it means to be a man and the sense of a loss of some masculine idyll is not a new phenomenon. Every so often that idea has surfaced, usually along with a cultural accusation of women and their feminising influence on men, or their unwillingness to maintain their own femininity, choosing instead to try and be pseudo-men.

The problem is that on the whole we rarely define gender in terms of what a man is, or a what a woman is, but rather what they are not. We form our ideas of gender in terms of oppositional poles.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Indeed, it loses the name of skill when it is employed by a woman and becomes an expression of nature, a continuation of childbirth.

I think this skill/ability is something that women have actively promoted, probably to compensate for the rarity of opportunities to succeed in the business world. With that world changing, it now continues by tradition, and at least has the divorce courts convinced it's true.

...or their unwillingness to maintain their own femininity, choosing instead to try and be pseudo-men.

As a result of trying to gain traction, and respect, in the business world?

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I think this skill/ability is something that women have actively promoted, probably to compensate for the rarity of opportunities to succeed in the business world. With that world changing, it now continues by tradition, and at least has the divorce courts convinced it's true.

I'd agree with that to an extent. The value of nurture has changed in recent history. What's intriguing, however, is that when nurture was seen as an exclusively female occupation divorce courts leaned heavily towards giving custody to the father. It is only in the last 30-40 years that women have been preferred in custody questions.

As a result of trying to gain traction, and respect, in the business world?

Partly that yes. But also partly women's participation in public discourse. Often you find that questions of gender become very prominent during times of economic upheaval, or at the advent of major technological change. As work and workplaces change, there is a new struggle to define them in gendered terms. It's fairly understandable that this would happen. Right or wrong, we tend to conceive of gender in hierarchical terms and work in gendered terms, and we assign a greater economic value to masculine skill. When the economic landscape shifts, for example with the introduction of new technology, that throws into question, potentially, the gender of the work. This is particularly acute when a technological shift has changed a job from heavy phyiscal labour, to lighter machine operation; or when a job which is primarily auxillary in nature starts to take on more dominant roles: the role of the nurse in western medicine has expanded from comfort-giving and bandaging, to minor diagnostic and even in some cases minor surgery (very minor, and mainly in the case of practice nurses).

This shift in nursing, intriguingly is mirrored by a subtle shift in its gender assignation: it is more acceptable now that there are male nurses. It is still, however, primarily auxillary to the role of Doctor, which we culturally still see as 'male', despite women's participation in that field. Consequently, we still have a slight cultural discomfort with the male nurse.

Currently a very interesting trend is happening within computing. The more highly technological the field, the more likely it will be coded male, at least at the higher levels. We are over a quarter of a century in to the true 'computer age' and our cultural markers for people who work within the computer industries, both hardware and software are overwhelmingly male. There have always been women working in the field, but it's only relatively recently that women have started to go into it in numbers that could change the landscape. It's quite interesting to watch that change.

K that turned out way more rambling than I'd intended...but in a nutshell, economic and technological changes of magnitude tend to enforce a redefinition, or reinforcement of gender identities, which is played out through workplaces and popular discourse.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by DanaC

K that turned out way more rambling than I'd intended...but in a nutshell, economic and technological changes of magnitude tend to enforce a redefinition, or reinforcement of gender identities, which is played out through workplaces and popular discourse.

My Doctor, Dentist, and Boss, are female. They all probably think I'm difficult.

[Gravdigr]

So far "being a man" means EVERYBODY I know asks me the questions. When I have a question, nobody knows nothing.

[toranokaze]

Originally Posted by Gravdigr

So far "being a man" means EVERYBODY I know asks me the questions. When I have a question, nobody knows nothing.

I will agree with that

[TheMercenary]

Everybody learns them as they enter service from day one. They do change about every 5 years and people try to redefine them. They are much different from the ones I learned back in the late 70's but they remain pretty close in intent.

These are the current ones:

Loyalty
Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your unit, and other soldier.

Duty
Fulfill your obligations.

Respect
Treat people as they should be treated.

Selfless Service
Put the welfare of the Nation, the Army, and your subordinates before your own.

Honor
Live up to all the Army Values.

Integrity
Do what’s right, legally and morally.

Personal Courage
Face fear, danger, or adversity both physical or moral.

[Pico and ME]

My Mom taught me all those values.

[TheMercenary]

The Army becomes the mother to many.

[glatt]

Wait a second, one of the 7 values that you are supposed to follow in the Army is to follow the 7 Values? Seems like there are only 6 values then, because it's sort of understood that the values are already there to be followed.

Overall, I like them. They are good values.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by glatt

Wait a second, one of the 7 values that you are supposed to follow in the Army is to follow the 7 Values? Seems like there are only 6 values then, because it's sort of understood that the values are already there to be followed.

Overall, I like them. They are good values.

I noticed that too, but I also agree, nevermind. Pretty good ethos for anyone, and especially for an army.