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.

[Steve Pavlina]

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.