How to Be a Man (Blog)

[Neutral]

People are disagreeing about things much more fundamental than Steve's article.

We all probably agree with the definition of a male. It's physical, a quantity.
We have no agreement with the definition of a man. It's a quality.

This conversation quickly devolved into debates over personal definitions of "man". Discussion is impossible.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Playlife

Of course it is. That's why I feel it's best to embrace both masculinity and femininity in oneself.

That's an interesting take, what I meant of course was men and women being together while acknowledging their differences.

I don't think it's wrong to embrace the strong and soft parts of yourself. I am not saying that, and the article did not say that either.

"Man is the out-breath of source energy. It is his job — his duty — to share his love with the world. He must wean himself from suckling the energy of others and become a vibrant transmitter of energy himself. He must allow that energy to flow from source, through him, and into the world. When he assumes this role, he has no doubt he is living as his true self.

We could say sharing love with the world is acknowledging that loving, kind part of yourself.

It's more polarity. No you're not 50/50 you're more likely one or the other.

[Playlife]

I can't breathe out all the time. I have to breathe in(deep) and then breathe out. Then repeat all over again millions of times.

I don't subscribe to any theory of polarization.

[cylon]

Wasn't a theory, just a word that means, you are more dominant in one of these apsects of yourself. It's just semantics.

And of course, it can change as well. Most of my life I would say I embraced the feminine aspects of myself, and denied the masculine. Now I'm more on the masculine side. And I'm not really denying the "feminine" part of myself (I need a better word lol, maybe yin yang is better here) becasue I still have those past experiences as part of me.

You kind of kind of keep the best parts, learn new lessons, and adapt as you go along.

[Playlife]

I know I probably am. Just like 51 is dominant over 49. And I suspect these "dominance ratios" tend to swing from one side to other sometimes too.

I just like my variety too much.

[standgale]

I have to admit that I find (some of) this thread somewhat insulting. It's all very well for people to talk about their personal experiences, but I don't think one can speak for others, which is what people are doing by saying that men and women are different in set ways, and that women are by nature a certain way.
Maybe one can generalise, but I don't like people saying "women are like <this>" when that doesn't apply to me - or some women I know. One can speak of one's experiences with women and men, but not say "women are <whatever>".
Although the "How to be a man" blog entry sort of repulsed me (meaning also that I did not identify), and I found it kind of ugly, despite being a woman I also get along better in groups of men than women. Steve's comment "I thought they spent too much time talking about their feelings and not enough time figuring out what to do and holding each other accountable for action." about the women's master mind group would apply for me too. Going to lunch with a group of women is a disaster for me and really hugely boring, whereas going to lunch or the pub with a group of all men, or men plus women similar to myself, is a social success and a pleasant experience. However, obviously, being female I've never experienced an all-male group, since if I'm there it's no longer all male.
Anyway, my point is, don't say "women are like <this>" because there are going to be a lot of women who are not.

I will be very interested to see if I have any kind of identification with the "how to be a woman" offerings. I think our idea of gender is either too limited - we should have more genders - or too specific - we should have greater "fuzziness". Or maybe re-examine the whole gender thing and make it personality rather than genital based. Or something. I get confused as to what exactly "gender" means I think.

[Spartan]

Originally Posted by Neutral

People are disagreeing about things much more fundamental than Steve's article.

We all probably agree with the definition of a male. It's physical, a quantity.
We have no agreement with the definition of a man. It's a quality.

This conversation quickly devolved into debates over personal definitions of "man". Discussion is impossible.

A 'man' is an adult human male (aged 18 years in some cultures, 21 in others). The quality of being masculine is what's open to debate. I agree that there are certain characteristics that have been traditionally thought of as masculine. However, I disagree that one should align his own characteristics to these controversial 'masculine' characteristics just because he's a man and wants to be accepted as a man.

edit: Anyway, being masculine just means one conforms to socially constructed patterns of how men are expected to behave. I don't want to be fettered by such social constructs or limit my range of behaviour to them.

[theknightwhosaysni-NI]

I liked this article a lot. Thanks Steve.

In my experience, it's only when I've embraced my masculine side (which did require courage) that I have been able to trully see the beautiful differences between masculine and feminine energy.
I've also found that embracing my masculine energy has an effect on the girls I am having a romantic relationship with. It often allows them to embrace their feminine energy and feel good about it, even if they have strong resistance about the concept of total similarity between genders.

We can argue a lot about is it good or bad to see differences between genders and to embrace them. Honestly, as a man, I have tryed to put more attention on my feminine side, and then tryed tu put more attention on my masculine side. Trying both have given me great insights. But I find more enjoyable to put more attention on my masculine side. As I said, it did require some courage not to feel guilt about it because I had conflicting beliefs on that topic, but it was worth trying.

[Rachelle]

Originally Posted by standgale

I will be very interested to see if I have any kind of identification with the "how to be a woman" offerings. I think our idea of gender is either too limited - we should have more genders - or too specific - we should have greater "fuzziness". Or maybe re-examine the whole gender thing and make it personality rather than genital based. Or something. I get confused as to what exactly "gender" means I think.

From my understanding, the term 'sex' refers specifically to one's biological makeup, reproductive organs, genitals.

The term 'gender' and 'sex' are often used interchangeably, but gender also has the definition of: "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex." Typically being a key word. Or maybe it should say stereotypically associated with one sex? That's an interesting thought.

So, if someone whose sex is male identifies more as "being a woman", then many (possibly including the male in question) would say that person's gender is female.

Words, words, word. Definitions, symantics. Language and communication are such interesting creatures. But sometimes words are too limiting.

Wiliam Blake said, "I must create a system, or be enslaved by another man's."
And since language is a type of system, I think sometimes we feel limited or trapped by its limitations.

[Rose of Cairo]

Originally Posted by cylon

Yes, I sure hope I attract a soft, gentle, loving, nurturing lady.

Of course you will, in your reality we're ALL like this by nature, no?

If I attract that I will be happy and hope you'd be happy for me.

Yes I'd be happy for you (am I not soft, gentle, loving and nurturing... )

Men and women react differently to the same things.

How someone reacts to something depends on the thoughts they have about this thing. Their belief system, their judgements about the situation, their values, their past experiences, etc. So yes, different people react to the same things differently. If you take two persons with the exact same thoughts about something, I bet they won't react differently because of their gender. I also don't think that men and women automatically have different thoughts about something just because of their gender. Or do you have a concrete example? Tell me one thing that makes all men react in one way, and all women in some other way?

And, please don't assume I mean it in a negative way.

I know you mean well I know you're not saying that men are better than women. You're just saying their behavior or function is different based on their gender, that's what I don't agree with.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Rose of Cairo

Of course you will, in your reality we're ALL like this by nature, no?

Hmm....

again it's my intention to attract a nurturing kind loving lady into my life.

As far as giving an example of a specific thing that a man and woman would perceive differently, I'm gonna pull out the obivious card and say sexual desire, and all the distinct behaviors that come out of that, some overlapping, but still uniquely male and female.

I can't speak of what it's like to be a woman since I have no experience with that. All I can do is list what I've learned from my own interactions and observations.

[Wilfred]

Perhaps the title of this site should be changed to 'Personal Development for Smart Men' since the 10 qualities Steve mentions is basically what this site is all about

[Rose of Cairo]

Originally Posted by cylon

As far as giving an example of a specific thing that a man and woman would perceive differently, I'm gonna pull out the obivious card and say sexual desire, and all the distinct behaviors that come out of that, some overlapping, but still uniquely male and female.

So? Could you be more explicit please? I don't see how men and women perceive sexual desire differently, or behave sexually in a different way.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Rose of Cairo

So? Could you be more explicit please? I don't see how men and women perceive sexual desire differently, or behave sexually in a different way.

Ok, hot chick at bookstore. I see her, she sees me, our eyes meet, she gets a little weak in the knees, it's on.

substitute me for a girl, most likely different scenario for her. Substitute her with a boy, definitely different scenario for me.

I could get more explicit but I prefer to keep it clean.

I know that's not what you meant but I'm feeling elementary.

[seeker5]

Originally Posted by cylon

Ok, hot chick at bookstore. I see her, she sees me, our eyes meet, she gets a little weak in the knees, it's on.

substitute me for a girl, most likely different scenario for her. Substitute her with a boy, definitely different scenario for me.

I could get more explicit but I prefer to keep it clean.

I know that's not what you meant but I'm feeling elementary.

That's not a difference that is applicable to all women and all men. Not all women will react that way toward you, and actually, probably only a small percentage of them will react that way toward you.

I can't make the blanket statement that some women would probably never feel that way toward a man (perhaps a woman who's never been weak in her knees could make this statement), but I could guess lesbians perhaps would never feel that way toward a man.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by seeker5

but I could guess lesbians perhaps would never feel that way toward a man.

Notice how I added that possibility. As far as every girl being attracted to me, of course not. Many if not most, but not every. That would be very presumptive of me.

[seeker5]

Originally Posted by theknightwhosaysni-NI

In my experience, it's only when I've embraced my masculine side (which did require courage) that I have been able to trully see the beautiful differences between masculine and feminine energy.

Would you be willing to describe the differences you see between masculine and feminine energy?

[martian]

I am very interested in learning more about number 6 "re-channel sex energy"

I have two reasons to be interested in this:
1) I have more sexual desire than my wife. This is something I have accepted in my relationship, but it can lead to frustration and pent-up desires. I would like to be able to reduce these negative emotions.
2) Steve seems to be suggesting that I can take this energy and use it for other pursuits. It would be great if I could make more progress in other areas of my life (spiritual growth, learning a new language) by using this source of energy.

Does anyone have any suggestions or resources for re-channeling sex energy? (Steve: would you consider making this a topic of a future post on your blog?)

Thanks.

[MsKarma]

I think most of the "be a man" blog post could be applied to women as well ... since we are more alike than different (and as mentioned - not all women have the same qualities as other women and not all men have the same qualities as other men)

[MsKarma]

I agree with StandGale ... hanging out with a group of women who wish to talk about their feelings does not sound like my idea of a good time! ;-)

[september]

I'm a little affronted. The surprise probably stems from the idea that my personal development really centers around developing many of these qualities, often speaking and thinking in the terms you use. Now, I'm a woman. I came onto the forums expecting a similar level of surprise that Steve would hold onto such primitive neo-Confucian conceptions of gender hierarchy. However, all I see is "embrace the polarity" posts and some schtick about how no men understand the "nature of women", and vice versa.

Are we really saying the #1 unique characteristic of being a man is "Making Real Decisions"? Really? Guess I'm stuck with making dinner again. Damn. I also always put my relationships second. To suggest women should do otherwise honestly leads me to conceive of your ideal world as one where men have special access to their private thought space whereas women, naturally, inherit the highest calling of nurturing "relationships". But some people enjoy being by themselves and not primarily prioritizing nurturing relationships, except within a strategic space or some other transactional space that is mutually advantageous to both parties. And many of these people are women. Calling such women "unnatural", or insisting that such women are not "real" women (in that they are not strongly associated with feminine energy) is not so much offensive as unreflective or inobservant. Or you've just been surrounded with low-conscious women, perhaps.

Trying to associate specific properties definitionally with normative terms (or quasi-normative, in this case -- "to be a 'man'" seems to imply aspiring to some virtuous state) involves committing the naturalistic fallacy insofar as one's goals can be quantified. While goals like "Face your fears" are a bit nebulous, they'll still fall victim to the open question argument. I won't go into it for seeming too high-brow, but we can go if Plato or someone else is up for it.

I think that perhaps this narrative of polarity-based thinking is coming to rule the personal development sphere in this community too much. Why not take off the polarity-blinders and re-open yourself to a less dangerously exclusionary method of focus? There are ways to narrowly focus one's interests and relationships, limiting information intake and targeting to excel, without adopting a cult-like set of ontological foundations that oversimplify rather than sharpen our understanding of one another as members of a species.

That's the physicalist's perspective anyway, I suppose. Perhaps I have just already re-directed my sexual energy toward assertion of being, confidence, and persistence -- and I realize that Steve's writing this post about men doesn't necessitate that I should shy away from having these characteristics. But it sure implies that I, as a woman, should have loftier goals that are unrelated. The characterization of woman as the moral sex analogizes in a frightening way to the characterization of homosexuality as "too unnatural" for a family structure. Correlation does not equal causation, and Spartan's posts about socialization are well-taken by me. It's incredibly easy to socialize cultures in any number of similar ways. A cursory examination of American Indian or matriarchal cultures betrays the fact that there are cultures which both respect gender differences and yet leave open the possibility of personal development in terms of strength, communication, politicking, courage, and any number of additional gender-limited skill bases in this culture.

I'm not angry, just disappointed. I thought that the discussion and culling of ideas would be richer in this forum. But all I see are one-dimensional avatars of "male!", "female!", and "grr i'm sensitive too!" PC posts, along with "rawr i'm tough too!" posts. For all your collective focus on growth, one would think this sort of thinking would have been transcended by now. I can't help but think there might be other healthy, productive, growing women reading this post who might be turned off personal development by attitudes like this.

Never thought you'd latch onto Randian gender ideals so strongly, Steve. The distinctions between male and female in Atlas Shrugged are so crude and burlesque, I thought they'd really be more laughed at than taken seriously. And this comes from someone who highly respects Rand's work... but sees it as seriously flawed in ways. Sorority girls shouldn't be the standard for female identification, folks. We don't all watch chick flicks and read Danielle Steel. It just seems that the majority of women who might have agreed with me have wisely taken their reading eyes elsewhere.

I mean this to be a thoughtful critique, which, while disrespectful at some points, is pointedly so, where I think the post and reaction to it are most lacking. Steve and Erin are worthwhile compatriots in the realm of personal development, and I hope this will inspire future reasoned disagreement with both me and Steve.

[xyz]

Steve

Erin is involved in a mastermind group that's all women. Erin loves it and gets a lot out of it. I once participated in the group for a few sessions last year, but I didn't like it. I thought they spent too much time talking about their feelings and not enough time figuring out what to do and holding each other accountable for action.

I just want to ask one question to you guys, "has any of you ever bothered to stop for a while and think why MEN have such a high rate of heart attack, blood pressure and ulcer?" Because in quest of being MEN they hardly dare to bare their feelings. And don't tell me that TRUE MEN don't even feel. They DO have feelings and they DO feel. But its soooo feminine to discuss the inner feelings.
So guys welcome to these diseases. We women are better off without those. Though I hope you families and partners too can say the same whom a TRUE MAN should always put to secondary. When you TRUE MEN are going to die well, get printout of these articles and books to see instead of the examples of secondary relationships. It will definitely provide more satisfaction on deathbed and help you TRUE guys / MEN die well.