How to Be a Man (Blog)

[DJCT]

Spartan, I see a lot of my former self in you. The two points you post above are a noble place to start from a logical perspective and I don't disagree. On a practical level however, those points probably aren't really going to get you far. It's not that they are or are not right, it's that they really don't matter. I know you will disagree and that's cool. When I was like you and nobody on the planet could reason with me. So I won't try to argue with you. I'm terrible at arguing anyway. You win

-

If I started seeing a girl and she wouldn't have sex after I saw her a couple of times I would not invest further time in her. Aside from enjoying sex and enjoying women that enjoy sex, I have many reasons for this approach.

There are many reasons she might want to wait until down the road. I respect that. It's not what I'm looking for though.

-

I read on another forum that relationships between men and women have become egalitarian rather than complimentary. I think this is a good observation. I feel egalitarian is considered PC while complimentary is often considered sexist, playing to stereotype, even slightly taboo. That's too bad.

-

I think Steve's article is a great start and am interested to read "How to Be a Woman".

- CT

[seeker5]

Ok, here is something I have been pondering for the last day or two. A lot of what Rose of Cairo wrote resonated with me.

Is it possible that we each have a fixed amount of energy, of both "masculine" (or as Rose says angular), and "feminine" (round) energies. That everyone has both of these, in fixed, but different amount. Now, I read in a book that 90% of men have mostly "masculine" energies, and 90% of women have mostly "feminine" energies. So what about the other 10%?

If that estimate is accurate, then perhaps the following is true:

Men who have mostly "masculine" energies would do better focusing on their "masculine" energies. When they try to repress their "masculine" energies, it does not increase their feminine energies, it simply repress the men. They may act weaker, more sensitive, maybe look more "feminine" outwardly, but they aren't really more "feminine". They are just weak and androgynes.

However, for the 10% of men who have more "feminine" energies then "masculine" energies, then focusing on their "feminine" energies does not repress their "masculine" energies - instead it allows them to fully use their "feminine" energies. For them, focusing on using their "feminine" energies, unlike the "masculine"-energies dominated men, enhances their life and how they feel in the world and what they can both give and receive in the world.

Is that possible? I can't say for absolute certainty as I'm new at all of this. However, I know I've been recently told by more then one person that I have more "feminine" energy then "masculine" energies, and when looking at the description of Yin/Yang, etc, I do feel a lot more comfortable expressing myself in Yin fashion (which is somewhat related to the western notion of "feminine" energy if I understand it correctly.) I'd never be called feminine in real life as people see me as mainly and masculine. So, while this is all new to me, I seem to oddly, feel much more comfortable with this "feminine" energy stuff for the past few weeks, despite being a man. If you had told me that six months ago, I'd probably have said "No way in hell!"

This is all just stuff I'm thinking outloud as I go on. I might be all wrong, and perhaps the amount of energies is variable and the only reason I have more "feminine" energy for now is because of my past. However, I doubt that. Still, I'm still going to be playing with this energy stuff, focusing on each one to see which is best for me.

Edit: Another thing I'm interested is in separating the true traits of energies of "masculine" and "feminine" from the sterotypes of women and men, if it's possible.

[Savage]

More than 50 submissions for "How to Be a Woman" were received. This community has practically written a book on the topic.

I should have the summary post online within the next day or two.

[Brutha]

But most of the post gave off a very selfish and egocentric vibe, in my opinion. If you put yourself ahead of your spouse and (especially your) kids, doesn't that makes you a bad father / husband?

Steve spoke about putting his purpose (for him: raising consciousness of as many people as possible) and values like truth ahead of his spouse and his kids. He didn't spoke about putting himself ahead.

No I don't, I'm explaining why an assertion that men are 'confident' is wrong.

Then you miss the point of Steves post. He didn't analyse people out there but spoke about ideals.
Very few people today have value that they would die for.
Not everyone is confident.

Steves point is that those mans that lack in those aspects should work on them.

Anyway, I'm not sure men or anyone should be anything, that implies our existence has an inherent meaning, yet 'meaning' is just a human concept, 'existence precedes essence'.

You argue in a place where there are people who consider everything that exist human concepts.
Pointing out that it is something is untrue because it is a human concept just doesn't cut it when the people you are discussion with see the existence of every physical object out there as a projection in their subjective reality with is human made.

Living conscious is about living with meaning. A lot of Steves blog is about finding meaning in life.

Realize that stereotypes are based on weak inductive arguments; they don’t define you or anyone else. They only serve to limit our range of behaviour and reinforce socially conditioned prejudices.

Have you heard of the Paradox of Choice?
Without a mental map of the world around you, you are unable to make decisions and the range of behaviour is very small.

[jamestl2]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Steve spoke about putting his purpose (for him: raising consciousness of as many people as possible) and values like truth ahead of his spouse and his kids. He didn't spoke about putting himself ahead.

OK, now I'm somewhat confused ,

If you're separating values and integrity from yourself, then how can you compare them so? Wouldn't it be like comparing apples to oranges? Why can't you still speak about integrity, raising awareness, etc. and still make your family your number one priority?

[cylon]

Originally Posted by seeker5

Is it possible that we each have a fixed amount of energy, of both "masculine" (or as Rose says angular), and "feminine" (round) energies. That everyone has both of these, in fixed, but different amount.

I don't think so. I believe if you're a man or a woman you are born with the potential to be 100% fully realized masculine energy if you're a man, or female energy if you're a chick. Now even though both sexes can have yin or yang energy, being a different gender, it's of a different kind. Feminine energy in a man is not the same as in a woman. It's the male version of whatever that soft intuitive stuff is.

Much of my life I had the feminine dominance (play on words) because that's what I believed I should do. I was a wuss.

Now my masculinity is bursting out, surprises me because it's been repressed so long. But if it's fixed then I'm the exception.

Why is it so important for some people that there be no gender distinction?

[seeker5]

Originally Posted by cylon

Why is it so important for some people that there be no gender distinction?

Why is it so important for some people to insist everyone of the same gender be completely the same?

[cylon]

Originally Posted by seeker5

Why is it so important for some people to insist everyone of the same gender be completely the same?

Where is this stuff coming from of people insisting others act a certain way?

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by cylon

I believe if you're a man or a woman you are born with the potential to be 100% fully realized masculine energy if you're a man, or female energy if you're a chick.

Pet peeve.

And just so you all can't say I never gave you anything:

Tests for Husbands and Wives - a set on Flickr

I know, I know everyone. It's off topic -- sorta. Forgive me?

[Lexilicious]

So my issue with number two, is not so much that a man have ideals that he values and follows through with, but what happens when those ideals are harmful to others, to me that would make them "wrong" but I know wrong is subjective. Yet, because those are what he values, he should stick to them-- even when following through would result in the death of his wife or children? What then?

If you care for an example of an ideal that would result in the death of an loved one, take Honor Killing. The Last Psychiatrist has a good write up about it. Does an Iraqi girl deserve to die because she had a crush on an American Soldier and her father's manhood depended on her death?

I generally agree that it is important for a man to have a purpose, and it is important for a man to value his own thoughts, feelings and ideals. However, studies have shown that marriages that last have men that respond to influence from their wives (and wives from their husbands). This doesn't make them weak necessarily, but being influenced by others does not seem to fit with #2, or am I missing something?

I also think that the men who do make their families and relationships important in their lives get pooped on a little by stating they are dishonest or weak. What if their purpose is to be a family man? Their ideals are to honor their wives and be good and present fathers to their children? Kids do better when their fathers are a part of their lives and they see and spend time with them.

I also think respecting yourself and following through with your values may be two different things. If you take number three, "be willing to fail" and surely at some point you will fail in upholding your values, if you do that should you think of yourself as weak? Or accept that you made a mistake and that is no reason to not continue respecting yourself? I.e. let's say your ideal is honesty, and you tell a lie to protect your wife, I don't think that means you hate yourself, or you are supplicating yourself to her.

While I don't want to be the center of a man's world, I want whomever I'm with to have goals, and values that don't require my input-- however I appreciate my input being sought and may offer it anyway. If number two is saying soething more like "if you cannot be a whole man on your own, what good are you to others?" that is somethign I can get more behind.

So, any one want to help clarify?

[Playlife]

I just read 2 "how to be women articles" too. Interesting to note that the articles seem to (me) to be about how to be a man, not a woman, or how to me a woman, not a man. I would have no problem with how to be a man, not a boy or somesuch. Like, how to be a mature person living consciously. Instead I see again some polarity thing, putting male and female against each other and far from each other. Sorry, no vote from me. At least it seems I do have a few allies so all is well.

[Bitsy]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

Pet peeve.

But aspiring, chicks are sooooo cute! In'it so cuddly, cute and fluffy?




But do you suppose the male ones can achieve 100% feminine energy too?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Bitsy

But aspiring, chicks are sooooo cute! In'it so cuddly, cute and fluffy?

I am not one of those, any more than Danger Man is one of these:

[cylon]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

Pet peeve.

Yeah, and believe it or not that's how I actually refer to them in every day life. "chicks, chicks, chicks!" I could have said women or girls, but this is the take yourself too seriously thread, so I had to leave it in.

[Bitsy]

Originally Posted by cylon

Yeah, and believe it or not that's how I actually refer to them in every day life.

ahaa...very classy...and I guess maybe very appealing to...females who think of themselves as cute, little, yellow, soft, fluffy, chirping balls of feathers

...suddenly all the things you have posted are beginning to fall into place for me

Originally Posted by cylon

"chicks, chicks, chicks!" I could have said women or girls, but this is the take yourself too seriously thread, so I had to leave it in.

Well, you got me to lighten up .
But seriously, can the male chicks also achieve 100% feminine energy?

[Playlife]

Originally Posted by Bitsy

But seriously, can the male chicks also achieve 100% feminine energy?

Yes?

I would say it's impossible to be 100% on either side.

[cylon]

Yes Bitsy, it is VERY CLASSY! That's the thing I keep saying. I'm a classy guy.

[Dannyboy1]

Watch Lars and the Real Girl. There's a great scene where Lars asks his brother, "How did you know when you were a man?" I don't want to misquote it, so I won't try, but the answer was amazing. Great movie, by the way. Everyone should watch it.

[Lexilicious]

I thought people might find this interesting, by way of MindHacks the 1930's Evaluation of Husband and wives with a merit and demerit rating scale. It is interest to see how nearly 80 years ago men and women's roles were defined. I find it interesting that not liking or wanting children earns one a demerit.

Things men are rated on-- Does he phone when he's late for dinner? Does he bring home guests without warning? Does he talk mournfully of his bachelor days regretting marriage? Does he compliment his wife? Is he an ardent lover, seeing to it that his wife orgasms in marital congress? Can he prepare his own breakfast?

Things women are rated on-- Does she wear red nail polish? Does she serve dinner on time? Does she put her cold feet on her husband to warm them up? Does she tell risque or vulgar stories? Is she true to her husband? Does she often comment on her husbands strength and masculinity? Is she active in a woman's group or an organization?




(as an aside, my father sent me an article suggesting that hillary lost because she was operating in a "masculine" energy-- thoughts on that?)

[Playlife]

Originally Posted by Lexilicious

(as an aside, my father sent me an article suggesting that hillary lost because she was operating in a "masculine" energy-- thoughts on that?)

Originally Posted by LA Times

Ironically, Clinton's problem today, Houston said, may be that Obama has given better voice to that new pattern of possibility -- that he embodies a more female, inclusive approach to problem-solving, while Clinton has become mired in proving herself capable of emulating the male model, which requires combat and the demonization of enemies.

And Obama more "feminine" energy?

[cylon]

Just don't call Obama a girl to his face.

[Rose of Cairo]

Originally Posted by cylon, about women

Lol. But think of how hot and bothered they'd be out of getting their emotions all worked up.

Originally Posted by cylon

Now my masculinity is bursting out, surprises me because it's been repressed so long. But if it's fixed then I'm the exception.

cylon, I think a truly masculine man doesn't need to pick on women about their emotionality, to repeatedly bring his sex drive and toughness out or to cite books with martial titles in order to back up his masculinity.

To be honest, I personally don't perceive you as very masculine. No matter how strained you play the Male, the vibes I keep getting from you are predominantly round, or to use your own labels, feminine.

Are you sure it's not your judgments about yourself ("I was a wuss") that are pushing you into trying to be what you are not?

[Brutha]

If you're separating values and integrity from yourself, then how can you compare them so? Wouldn't it be like comparing apples to oranges? Why can't you still speak about integrity, raising awareness, etc. and still make your family your number one priority?

There are cases when you have to make hard decisions. Say your wife murders someone out of greed.
The policy comes to your house and ask you about it.
Where do your priorites lie? With the truth or with loyality to your wife?

I don't think that telling the police that true story would be a selfish act. It just based on different priorities then telling them a lie to protect your wife.

Most people probably won't be faced to make a decision like this. Most people also won't be faced with choices between death and their purpose.
On the other hand that is what priorities are about. If it comes hard on hard how do you decide what value is the most important one.

If you care for an example of an ideal that would result in the death of an loved one, take Honor Killing. The Last Psychiatrist has a good write up about it. Does an Iraqi girl deserve to die because she had a crush on an American Soldier and her father's manhood depended on her death?

Honor killing is focused on the relationship between the loved one and the person doing the killing.
It comes from a certain loyality to the family and the honor of the family.
Steve argues that loyality to relationships (and loyality to family is a relationship) is misplaced.
I'm also not sure in whether the person doing the honor killing belief that the act will rescue the soul of the poor girl from enternal damnation.
If you kill for such a motivation it is techniquely an act of love.

I don't think that honor killing is motivated by a desire for truth or for archieving a given purpose but by loyality to some relationships.
Steve argues against the primary value of loyality to relationships.

I want whomever I'm with to have goals, and values that don't require my input-- however I appreciate my input being sought and may offer it anyway.

I don't think that seeking input is in conflict with what Steves is saying.

There are two ways to search input.
1) Searching input to strengthen the relationship with the person you are searching input from.
2) Searching input to make more effective decisions or to grow and be better at archiving your purpose.

As I understand a man who behaves according to Steves ideals may do a lot of 2) but not so much of 1).

I wouldn't go so far to say that nobody should value loyality as their top priority. On the other hand I don't see it for myself as the most important thing and I think the ideals that Steve proposes are in aligement with my own.

[Marco Polo]

Originally Posted by Rose of Cairo

cylon, I think a truly masculine man doesn't need to pick on women about their emotionality, to repeatedly bring his sex drive and toughness out or to cite books with martial titles in order to back up his masculinity.

To be honest, I personally don't perceive you as very masculine. No matter how strained you play the Male, the vibes I keep getting from you are predominantly round, or to use your own labels, feminine.

Are you sure it's not your judgments about yourself ("I was a wuss") that are pushing you into trying to be what you are not?

I agree... partially at least. Once we start equating "femininity" with cowardice (i.e. being a "wuss") we've missed the point. It starts looking like ad hominems, in other words weak brainpower.

A lot of men react to their feminine side, their "rounder energy", with contempt once they've identified it (even if it's clearly not dominant). So they rush like madmen to polarize the opposite direction, which is only counterproductive. Women are friggin excellent at picking up that "vibe" - or might we call it the location on the conscious-oriented/preconscious spectrum - the one that tells them that something is clearly off beat (excuse the stereotyping, but it's absolutely necessary).

I suppose there's an equivalent for this in women - excessive polarization or whatever you wish to call it - although I'm not sure if its equally common. You know better perhaps?

[Lexilicious]

[

QUOTE=Brutha;187253]There are cases when you have to make hard decisions. Say your wife murders someone out of greed.
The policy comes to your house and ask you about it.
Where do your priorites lie? With the truth or with loyality to your wife?

I don't think that telling the police that true story would be a selfish act. It just based on different priorities then telling them a lie to protect your wife.

Sure. Even if she murders her rapist, telling the police is reasonable. If someone who wishes her harm comes to you looking for her, and you know where she is, are you going to tell them because you value honesty more than your relationship with your wife?

Honor killing is focused on the relationship between the loved one and the person doing the killing.
It comes from a certain loyality to the family and the honor of the family.
Steve argues that loyality to relationships (and loyality to family is a relationship) is misplaced.
I'm also not sure in whether the person doing the honor killing belief that the act will rescue the soul of the poor girl from enternal damnation.
If you kill for such a motivation it is techniquely an act of love.

I don't think that honor killing is motivated by a desire for truth or for archieving a given purpose but by loyality to some relationships.
Steve argues against the primary value of loyality to relationships.
I don't think that seeking input is in conflict with what Steves is saying.

What relationship is honor killing focused on? You are right, it isn't motivated by a desire for truth. However, it is motivated to uphold the principle of being an honorable man by maintaining an honorable family, which means controlling their behavior. The guy doesn't give a hoot about his relationships, he cares about whether or not his ideal is upheld. If the loyalty to the relationship were valued more than the loyalty to the ideal, the daughter would still be alive. There would have been required investigation rather than rumor.

I also believe it is not an act of love, but an act designed to avoid feeling shame that you, as a man, could not raise children that also lived up to your ideal of behaving honorably.

I wouldn't go so far to say that nobody should value loyality as their top priority. On the other hand I don't see it for myself as the most important thing and I think the ideals that Steve proposes are in aligement with my own.

[/QUOTE]

Yeah that's fair.

[Savage]

Erin and I finished reviewing all the "How to Be a Woman" submissions and picked our favorites. I'll post the results on Thursday.

There were 52 submissions total.

[luisgi]

I just want to say that sometimes you write about things that are currently happening to me when I have doubts on how to solve some "problems"(I think nothing in live is a real problem). As we say in Spain "you hit right on the nail" with this post in my life situation. Very nice post. Thanks. If you ever come to Spain please anounce it, I definitively would go and see your talk.

Best regards

[supertom]

you should ask the women you admire in your life to pick the "how to be a women"

[PerDev]

Excellent, Specially message about being proactive on expressing love - before its too late

[Brutha]

However, it is motivated to uphold the principle of being an honorable man

But he has different values about what it means to be a good man than Steve wrote about in his blog post

by maintaining an honorable family, which means controlling their behavior.

Exactly. Steve says a man shouldn't focus on his famaly with is a part of his relationships but about greater things.
Just because you have different values for your relationships than someone who would do such a thing, doesn't mean that this person isn't motivated by wanting to have a good relationship.
The father who honor kills his daughter is motivated by his ideal to be a good father.
If he didn't that high ideal of being a good father the chances for him to honor kill would be lower.

I also believe it is not an act of love, but an act designed to avoid feeling shame that you, as a man, could not raise children that also lived up to your ideal of behaving honorably.

If you think that it is about the feeling of avoiding shame it has nothing to do with the ideals that Steve in the thread.
Point seven is about accepting failure.
People who act out of shame or out of fear aren't in sync with those ideals.

I think that #2 really is a point in which there are differences between men and woman.

Sure. Even if she murders her rapist, telling the police is reasonable.

I you say you value your relationship with your wife above all else you wouldn't tell the police against her will.
Choicing to tell the police means that you prefer that act above your relationsip with your wife. If you would tell the police and you think that loyality to your relationship is your highest value that is what Steve considers dishonest.

Otherwise it depends on your values on whether killing a rapist is a right or wrong act. While I don't think it is right I can imagine scenarios in which other values than loyality would make me want to protect my wife.
I might for example want to protect a whistleblower even if that person has killed, because I value the advantage that the public gets from an esposed big scandel above the value of a life.

If someone who wishes her harm comes to you looking for her, and you know where she is, are you going to tell them because you value honesty more than your relationship with your wife?

In general I wouldn't tell a person who looks to harm another where the person he wants to harm is regardles of whether the person he wants to harm is my wife or a stranger.
It would be my value to protect my wife that motivates that action but the value of preventing harm.