How to Be a Man (Blog)

[Erin Pavlina]

Just for the record, regarding my mastermind group....

We don't sit around and share feelings. First we write down our intention like this for example: "I, Erin Pavlina, ask the Mastermind for support in being focused and clear as I set my goals this week." Everyone lists their intentions and we go over them and make sure the person is a vibrational match for this desire or if we can detect a block or a disharmony between what they say they want and how they actually feel about having it.

We reword a person's intention if necessary to make it more clear and concise.

In the beginning of a meeting we share our wins for the week. "This week my boss gave me a raise." Or "This week I learned to stand up for myself at a toastmaster contest." Etc.

We never share our problems. That's forbidden. We don't want the meeting to turn into a pity party. If someone is having a major problem they will bring it up after the meeting to those who are able to stay a little longer. Our meetings last one hour.

It's a very positive, uplifting, empowering experience.

[The Wise Turtle]

Since Steve brought fear into the conversation, I'd like so suggest that being afraid of something doesn't automatically make it a good thing! Being afraid of hurting someone else is a healthy fear that I'd certainly prefer that people, including men, respect.

So, perhaps I might rewrite Steve's version just a bit:

7. Face your fears.

For a man, being afraid of something is reason enough to take a second look.

I have a theory that there are always three options when confronted with something: go toward it, go away from it, and seek more information on it. And, in my experience (though I must confess, I am a woman, so this may not apply to you, if you don't want to be like me!) unless something is immediately dangerous (such as a large, fast moving truck, or a bucket full of poop and used heroin needles falling from the sky in your direction) then that third option, seeking more information, is a great one.

You can ask yourself, "Why am I afraid of this?" and you might come up with some good insight. You might still decide that whatever you fear is indeed something you want to avoid like the plague. But you also might discover that what you really were afraid of is change. And we all know that since change is inevitable, it's best to embrace it, and do whatever we can to make that change positive.

So yeah, it's fine to be afraid of sharp pointy things, but there's no point in being afraid of change.

Heh. Get it. No point!

Sorry, I get silly sometimes. I hang out with too many literary geeks, who's bad pun habits have rubbed off on me.

Peace, Love, and Bicycles,
Turil

[MsKarma]

Hi Erin - just to clarify, I wasnt referring to your Mastermind Group when I made my post. :-)

Just stating that, in general, I prefer male/female groups to female only groups.

[Plato]

Analysis leads to paralysis turtle! Analysing things you're afraid of makes them unbearable. How do you get into the cold sea? Do you dip your toe and draw out the "suffering"? NO! You jump right in!

Anyway, that's enough analysis from me!

[MsKarma]

Well ... I think separating the genders is not the wisest 'thing' to do ... we are all individuals.

[Spartan]

Originally Posted by MsKarma

Well ... I think separating the genders is not the wisest 'thing' to do ... we are all individuals.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Plato

Analysis leads to paralysis turtle! Analysing things you're afraid of makes them unbearable. How do you get into the cold sea? Do you dip your toe and draw out the "suffering"? NO! You jump right in!

Anyway, that's enough analysis from me!

We shouldn't be compelled to do things because we fear them. We should be compelled to do things because we want them.

Saying that we should do anything we're afraid of is very foolish. Fear is vital to our survival.

However, fear about non-survival related situations doesn't necessitate that we face that 'fearful' situation. For example, I may fear running naked down a busy street, however I have no desire to face that particular fear.

[Ninja]

I think the list of "how to be a woman" should be exactely the same... Values like courage and loyalty are things all humans should strive for, not just the male ones.

I for one, will not start whimpering and hide in my womanly tower waiting for some big strong man to rescue me, when confronted by an obstacle. I'll face my fear and kick its ass!(and then ask the big strong man out on a date, hehehe )

[Bitsy]

I think the woman's list needs to include an item that says something to the effect of "quit over-compensating for a perceived inferiority inherent in femininity by pretending to be tough, cool, butch, or some other way commonly perceived by society as masculine/unfeminine."

[Akashic_Librarian]

Nice one Bitsy. I really enjoy following this conversation because it tells alot about people. I personally still think that men and women have very different strengths, and just because Steve got there first with the Man list, doesn't mean that he's sexist, or stereotyping, he's a man, and all over the world Men read his blog, and Men connected with it. Whats the problem?

[Ninja]

Originally Posted by Bitsy

I think the woman's list needs to include an item that says something to the effect of "quit over-compensating for a perceived inferiority inherent in femininity by pretending to be tough, cool, butch, or some other way commonly perceived by society as masculine/unfeminine."

And what if they are not overcompensating but are just tough/cool/whatever by nature? Why can't a woman be 'tough' without it being perceived as overcompensating?

[JohnR]

The bravest thing a man can do is to sense, and act, on the "so-called" feminine qualities he experiences within himself.

The most productive thing a woman can do is to experience, and act on, the masculine within her.

Men and women are different. It is empowering and proper to celebrate those differences. It is equally important to recognize that creation happens through the interaction of differences between us -- and also within us.

A truth is always true on all levels. That's how you know that something is true. So if you accept that creation results from the interaction of differences between men and women, then you must accept that creation is catalyzed also by differences within ourselves as individuals.

True creative living is sparked by an easy and powerful interplay between the masculine and feminine within each of us, and then extended outward as dominantly masculine or feminine individuals, where we create through the interplay of those outwardly expressed differences.

We should never forget that despite the desire to be a man, or to be a woman, we are also an integral part of each other in these ways.

John
Self Help for Sensitive Souls — Zen-Moments

[Rose of Cairo]

Originally Posted by cylon

Rose I stopped serious posting like three posts ago.

This thread is getting a little too intellectual for me.

I need to live less in my head and more from my....heart.

You're backing off! Come on, stand your ground! Be a Man! (#3, #4)

easy to tease you now.

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

I personally still think that men and women have very different strengths

I personally still think that all people have very different strengths. I'm not saying we're all exactly the same. Not at all. Some are naturally dominant, some like to follow, some focus a lot on their goals, some put their relationships first... My whole point is that the differences don't depend on the appearance of our genitals. Nor should they.

I suppose it's some energy thing. I'd love to know if it's more efficient to be energetically balanced, or to fully embrace our dominant energy mode. Also, which path is more fulfilling, and is the most efficient one also the most fulfilling one?

Looks like we cannot discuss this, so I'm just going to try it out for myself.

[Bitsy]

Originally Posted by Ninja

And what if they are not overcompensating but are just tough/cool/whatever by nature? Why can't a woman be 'tough' without it being perceived as overcompensating?

She can be, if it is really her authentic self. Most of the time, though, it feels contrived or like it's being flaunted for the specific purpose of causing people to believe she really is that way and to give off a feeling like "don't mess with me!". She has to know herself intimately and then be what she is, not feign being one way or another because of something society or someone else dictates or thinks, even if being that way means being ridiculed or thought badly of. It's the same if a woman is pretending to be more feminine than she naturally is. It's a question of knowing yourself intimately and then being that.

I feel that women, more than men, are responsive to superficial matters, like what others think and feel about them and end up donning facades or a certain personality to veil who they really are inside and so that they are perceived in the way they want others to perceive them, which is not their genuine selves, in fact, I think by doing that, they may even lose touch with who they really are inside, or may even don such a personality to avoid confronting themselves.

[Spartan]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

Nice one Bitsy. I really enjoy following this conversation because it tells alot about people. I personally still think that men and women have very different strengths, and just because Steve got there first with the Man list, doesn't mean that he's sexist, or stereotyping, he's a man, and all over the world Men read his blog, and Men connected with it. Whats the problem?

You, Steve or anyone else can't say with any credibility that men and women are inherently different in personality, behavioural characteristics or 'strengths'. Yes genetics plays a part in determining one's personality, but how big a part it plays is unknown. Whether being a specific gender has any bearing on personality is also unknown. I'd argue that environment plays a bigger role in determining someone's personality. And genetical factors other than gender determine someone's 'strengths'.

Thus, stereotyping or creating 'ideals' or whatever you want to call it can influence someone's personality in the sense that they become socially conditioned or feel pressured into conforming to the stereotype. This could be argued as negative, and pressuring someone to conform to a stereotype of masculinity/femininity becasue they are a man/woman is deemed sexist.

Thus Steve's article, titled 'how to be a man' implies that any behaviour contrary to that listed in the article is not 'manly'. This could be seen as imposing a stereotype of masculinity on men, pressuring them to act a certain way, and pressuring females to act contrary, which I consider to be sexist.

[Akashic_Librarian]

Actually Spartan, I happen to believe that no matter what I see, hear or read, I don't believe it unless it agrees with my common sense. So basically your telling me that I should ignore my common sense and instead trust some external measurment device on what truly is male or female.

Rose, maybe being male or female is more than just having a penis or vagina...maybe its something deeper. What then? Do we deny the parts of our brain we don't like? The parts that don't agree with the Politically correct gender equality world we live in, in other words...the world where we are all androgynous or deemed sexists by people like Spartan who doesn't show they understand the difference between sexism and differences in qualities.

[MsKarma]

People are different ... period. :-)

Now I think I have to move on to more productive matters ... as 'fun' as this discussion is!

[Spartan]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

Actually Spartan, I happen to believe that no matter what I see, hear or read, I don't believe it unless it agrees with my common sense. So basically your telling me that I should ignore my common sense and instead trust some external measurment device on what truly is male or female.

Rose, maybe being male or female is more than just having a penis or vagina...maybe its something deeper. What then? Do we deny the parts of our brain we don't like? The parts that don't agree with the Politically correct gender equality world we live in, in other words...the world where we are all androgynous or deemed sexists by people like Spartan who doesn't show they understand the difference between sexism and differences in qualities.

I don't even need to reply to this, since you have clearly misconstrued my post. Are you suggesting the existence of absolute 'truly male or female' characteristics (excluding primary/secondary sexual characteristics)? If so, what is your grounding for this claim? I don't consider it 'common sense' to make that distinction, considering the plethora of genetical and environmental factors that make up a person.

[MsKarma]

PS - if we utilise this male/female reasoning, I technically should not be able to read a map or do well at math either. Neither of which are true ... Sigh. Moving on ...

[Bitsy]

Originally Posted by Spartan

I don't consider it 'common sense' to make that distinction, considering the plethora of genetical and environmental factors that make up a person.

I really think AL might have meant to use the word "intuition" instead of "common sense." I think it's a feeling, something you just know and don't necessarily know why it's true.

I think there is a difference far deeper than body, superficial behaviors and personality which differentiates a man from a woman. I think the way they process information is different, I feel certain there is a difference in minds. This is an intuition, so I won't provide any proof (although I could send a resumé of all my other intuitions that have been correct )

Despite all of that, I really, really, really, really believe that any female who knows herself, for example, as deeply as I know myself, would never take issue with this...issue. I know who I am, I know how I am, I know what statements apply to me and which ones don't. I like how I am in this area of my life, I like the different qualities I have and enjoyments I have that are considered feminine and I like to be considered feminine, this is how I am and I like it. Whatever enjoyments or qualities I may have that may be considered unfeminine, I can't even think of any off-hand, but there must be, but I simply don't think of them as being masculine, but rather as being a part of me and if I like them, I like them and I like that part of me. So what is there to get offended at when I read Steve's article? Nothing.

Get to know yourself.

[Ninja]

Originally Posted by Bitsy

She can be, if it is really her authentic self. Most of the time, though, it feels contrived or like it's being flaunted for the specific purpose of causing people to believe she really is that way and to give off a feeling like "don't mess with me!". She has to know herself intimately and then be what she is, not feign being one way or another because of something society or someone else dictates or thinks, even if being that way means being ridiculed or thought badly of. It's the same if a woman is pretending to be more feminine than she naturally is. It's a question of knowing yourself intimately and then being that.

I feel that women, more than men, are responsive to superficial matters, like what others think and feel about them and end up donning facades or a certain personality to veil who they really are inside and so that they are perceived in the way they want others to perceive them, which is not their genuine selves, in fact, I think by doing that, they may even lose touch with who they really are inside, or may even don such a personality to avoid confronting themselves.

That's true... I used to be that way for a long time. I was the only one without a boybriend (enter teen angst and violin music) and started behaving in a ridiculous girly way to make myself look more 'womanly'. I've never been so unhappy in my life, because that was just not me. I'm a real tomboy, a tad thickheaded and have the grace of a granola bar. I wouldn't be caught dead wearing a skirt, can read a map better than most guys and math used to be my favorite subject at school. I'm still that way today, but though my mind is still far from feminine, my body has not stayed that way and now guys all but throw themselves at me, acting all ridiculous and 'macho' in a pathetic attempt to 'woo' me. ARGH!!!

All male inhabitants of the Netherlands: I do not want to date your jerky, testosteron oozing alter-ego. I want you. Just you. No one else.

[mlkirchw]

I really enjoyed this article but kept re-reading #2, "Put your relationships second.", over and over again. I just had a hard time making sense of it.

Steve writes, "A man who values individuals over his own integrity is a wretch..." seems to imply that I am either not "whole" or "complete" if I place my family first in my life, or that I am being immoral by doing so? The second definition doesn't seem to fit, but the first one also begs another question. What is to say that a man has to sacrifice part of his "wholeness" by putting his family first in his life. This assumes that men need to be somewhat selfish in life in order to be complete.

Personally this is hard for me to swallow. I accepted a lifelong commitment to my wife and to be a father. Within those commitments come a level of responsibility to each other and our children. If I don't put my wife, or children first most of the time, who will? Sure, I sacrifice freedom on some level but I made that choice, I accepted that responsibility in exchange for the joy of a loving relationship and fatherhood. To me, a man is exhibiting integrity when he lives congruent with the commitments he has made.

[Rose of Cairo]

Originally Posted by Bitsy

So what is there to get offended at when I read Steve's article? Nothing.

Just for the record, I'm not offended at Steve's article. I think he's wrong to equate people's biological gender with their dominant energetical mode. That's all.

Society subtly pressures people into using male energy as their dominant mode if they're men, and female energy if they're women. I don't think this is very efficient. For people who are already naturally functioning this way, it's not a problem, but for the others 1) it can be extremely disempowering and 2) why should they?

I just decided to rename those energies. Calling them "male" and "female" reinforces gender stereotypes I find limiting and don't agree with, so I chose other names for them. I'll call them "square energy" and "round energy". Maybe it's not very good words, but they translate what I feel when confronted to them.

I'm going to polarize square, then polarize round, and then try to keep both in balance, to find out what feels better for me.

In the past I was very unhappy not to be able to be a "real woman". I've tried to be more "feminine" but it didn't feel right at all. Then I accepted my "masculine" side and now I feel much, much better. Now I'm going to forget about man and woman and just concentrate on the energies. Looking forward to seeing what happens.

[Savage]

If you put your family first in your values hierarchy, you're saying that they come before all other loyalties, including commitment to truth, integrity, and unconditional love. You're saying you'd be willing to lie, cheat, and steal on their behalf if necessary.

Such a person can't be trusted. How can you trust someone who puts loyalty to individuals ahead of truth? It's like a member of the mob saying, "Ya gotta do dis for da family." Criminal gangs have similar loyalties.

A person who has no higher ideals than loyalty to family is a wretch.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Rose of Cairo

Just for the record, I'm not offended at Steve's article. I think he's wrong to equate people's biological gender with their dominant energetical mode. That's all.

Ironically, that reinforces point #3. ... "A man is willing to make mistakes. He’s willing to be wrong. He’d rather try and fail than do nothing."

Is it better to write a potentially wrong article like this, or is it to better to keep silent?

Do we experience more growth when we disagree or when we agree?

Keep in mind that in writing such articles and seeing the resulting feedback, I grow as well. And that in turn helps me refine ideas that I can share again in different forms. I think for all of us, the path of growth requires a willingness to risk being wrong in order to uncover greater truths.

[sidelko]

This blog post is a great summery of the book

The Way Of The Superior Man: A Spiritual Guide to Mastering the Challenges of Woman, Work, and Sexual Desire by David Deida

For the how to be a women, go read his Dear Lover book.

[Rose of Cairo]

I'm definitely very happy that you wrote this article, Steve. Disagreeing with you forced me to think about it and now I'm going to experiment with these energies. So you tremendously kicked my ass and I'm very grateful to you for that.

I know I'm being potentially wrong too, especially because I don't know much about energies. That's fine, because of #3. Nonetheless, I'll defend my viewpoint to the end, because of #4 and #8

[Spartan]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

Actually Spartan, I happen to believe that no matter what I see, hear or read, I don't believe it unless it agrees with my common sense. So basically your telling me that I should ignore my common sense and instead trust some external measurment device on what truly is male or female.

Just for the record, I'm saying you can't make those claims with any credibility, I'm not saying you should ignore your 'common sense'.

[Spartan]

Sorry Rose, but I don't like all this talk of 'energies'. The word energy used in this context only confuses people. Energy is a strictly scientific concept, thus talking about male/female energies is meaningless. Why not just use the word masculine/feminine? Instead of saying one possesses 'male energy', why not just say one possesses masculine traits (in the traditional sense)? There's no need to complicate things by adding the word energy.

[Paul C]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

If you put your family first in your values hierarchy, you're saying that they come before all other loyalties, including commitment to truth, integrity, and unconditional love. You're saying you'd be willing to lie, cheat, and steal on their behalf if necessary.

Such a person can't be trusted. How can you trust someone who puts loyalty to individuals ahead of truth? It's like a member of the mob saying, "Ya gotta do dis for da family." Criminal gangs have similar loyalties.

A person who has no higher ideals than loyalty to family is a wretch.

That actually makes a lot more sense now that you explained it in such a way. This sounds similar to the idea of not making your family your whole identity, because it can lead to being manipulated by them in ways they didn't either realise consciously (unless intentional, of course).

Which connects up to the explanation for why an individual shouldn't be given higher loyalty over Truth. An individual is prone to unawareness of his/her actions, while Truth just is and complete.

At least that's what I got out of this, my understanding feels a little more deeper now.

[Spartan]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

If you put your family first in your values hierarchy, you're saying that they come before all other loyalties, including commitment to truth, integrity, and unconditional love. You're saying you'd be willing to lie, cheat, and steal on their behalf if necessary.

Such a person can't be trusted. How can you trust someone who puts loyalty to individuals ahead of truth? It's like a member of the mob saying, "Ya gotta do dis for da family." Criminal gangs have similar loyalties.

A person who has no higher ideals than loyalty to family is a wretch.

Why is this line of reasoning only applicable to the male gender, as implied by your article?

edit: You should probably add a footnote, explaining that all of the traits listed could also apply to women.