How to Be a Man (Blog)

[Savage]

Use this thread to discuss the following entry from Steve Pavlina's blog:

How to Be a Man

[supertom]

I'm happy to know that im on the right track, i have to work on 7 thou.

I would put one more, "realise the space between stimulus and response" It adds to number 1, but its more "how to be a human"

[Tasaio]

I'm glad

"Join the military"

and

"Serve your country"

didn't appear on the list.

[supertom]

"He allows his sexual energy to explode through his heart, not just his genitals." LOL

[Dan.Linehan]

This is an excellent post Steve. Simply brilliant.

I especially liked this quote.

A man who claims his #1 commitment in life is his relationship partner (or his family) is either too dishonest or too weak to be trusted. His loyalties are misplaced. A man who values individuals above his own integrity is a wretch, not a free thinker.

[ericabiz]

I'm taking your "How To Be A Woman" submission request as a personal challenge. I'll post mine on erica.biz - Erica Douglass challenges you to change your life! by Tuesday. I already have a calendar reminder set!

-Erica

[Marth]

this helped me a lot, I've grown up with the thought that it you should hide your feelings, as if it were a thing to be ashamed of. I'm going to have to re-read this a couple times. The self-doubt section helped me a lot too, I guess in a way perserverence can counter self-doubt.

[Gujo]

Is developing self-control a specific trait of becoming a man or is this something that shows up throughout the list, specifically number 6?

[Argenberg]

Brilliant!

> So a man isn’t ready to live until he accepts that he’s already dead.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Argenberg

So a man isn’t ready to live until he accepts that he’s already dead.

I think this kind of mindset originates from the Homeric Greek philosophy... It basically says life is a stage for performing heroic deeds. Life is narrative for you to live out.

"Call no man happy until he is dead!" - Solon (one of the Seven Sages of the ancient world.)

Heroic deeds are very much a manly desire and the priority of a masculine man's life. This is why so many of us loved the film 300 so much.

Meanwhile it's been suggested that centering one's life around love of a special few people may be a feminine desire. I'm told "The Notebook" is a good example of this but I've never seen it.

[Akashic_Librarian]

Alot of psychological research has been done to suggest that a balance of masculine and feminine "qualities", I.E/ Adrogyny, is socially more useful. Also research suggests that in all countries around the world (independent of influence) have distinct (and similar) Female and Male roles. This would suggest that there is an innate Masculine and Feminine side.

However there is a lot of debate as to what causes this difference; Biological psychologist argue for a genetic determinist view, Freud goes for an anatomical-with-bits-of-social-influence determinism.

Another interesting theory is Kohlberg's Cognitive-developmental theory and he suggests we learn gender roles through the Social Learning theory which proposes we need reinforcement and modelling of the behaviour appropriate to us, but it doesn't explain why we act in certain ways WITHOUT influence, for example children who have not been influence by gender roles still play with sex-appropriate toys like boys to guns, girls to dolls.

All in all there really are no actual FACTS about why we behave as we do, it may be one single factor, or it may be an amalgam.

From my personal experience (which isn't much I have to admit) I believe that there is something, genetic or psychic, within us that gives us a sense (nothing tangible, but just a feeling) of what we are in terms of our gender.

[InterfaceLeader]

The traits commonly associated with masculinity aren't neccesarily common to all men, and the traits commonly associated with feminity aren't neccesarily common to all women. Ultimately we're individuals, and yeah, there ARE very manly men, and very feminine women, but there are also manly women, womanly men, and people on every continum in between.

People argue that in general women 'tend to be' one way and men 'tend to be' another, but there is a lot of gray areas where cultural conditioning plays a huge part. After all, whether we like it or not, men are raised with different toys, different 'colours' (blue), different expectations to women. Even in a very 'equal' family, there are still factors of outside media, school, peers, etc etc.

These things probably began because women had children and it made more sense for them to do certain activities, stick close to home etc etc.... but equally, you can argue that just because something made sense back then, that doesn't mean it makes sense now. I am a woman, but I am never going to have children, I am very goal orientated, and I'm not particularly interested in other people's feelings. This doesn't make me a MAN though, I am very much a woman, I enjoy being a woman, and there are some 'womanly' things I enjoy doing.

Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that you shouldn't 'try and be a certain way' because of your gender. Any men who like to put other people first and find themselves very good at defusing tense situations, making social networks and so on, should not try and work against these traits.

Surely personal development is about making sure your positive traits are accentuated, so if you are a people person, you don't try and become a lone explorer .... but neither do you spend all day gossiping around the water cooler. Instead you can channel that into something positive and worthwhile, whether it's persuading people to volunteer for good works, or getting people involved in the local community.

Equally, if you are a lone explorer/conquerer type, then trying to become a hostage negotiator is probably a bad idea. Instead you would try and do things that benefited from those traits.

I think it's very dangerous to start straying into 'feminine energy' and 'masculine energy' and all the rest of it. For many hundreds of years 'feminine' meant submissive, quiet homemaker in lots of cultures (depending on your social class, anyway). That WAS a bad thing, and damaged many women (and men).

Sure, there is yin and yang, and balance and it's good to have a couple that compliment rather than overlap or contradict, and different people behave in different ways.... but don't say it's because you are a man, or because you are a women.

After all, a woman might be 'hysterical because she's a woman' or she might have PTSD from being raped by her husband for seven years.

A man might be 'aggressive because he's a man' or he might be angry because he was beaten by his Dad when he was a kid.

Figuring out why we are the way we are is a really important step to self-understanding... and from understanding, we can advance and improve.

[cylon]

Steve this is a great entry. When not here I'm active on a men's board and I have to say your blog entry really sums up what we discuss there. I have linked this article there, so a lot of young (and not so young) men looking for direction are going to read it and get something from it.

There are a lot of men out there totally separated from their masculinity. They think it's wrong. That there is something wrong with their primal desires and instincts that they were born with as men.

This definitely comes out in our relations with women, and although you don't necessarily get into that too much here, I believe embracing your masculinity has the natural consequence of better relations with the opposite sex.

Many men today are unsure of who they are because they've been told masculinity is dangerous and from a different era. By following the principles you laid out we can move past that, embrace positive masculinity, and actually live the life that our deepest primal self is telling us, when we listen.

And THANKYOU for saying in your responses here that men and women are DIFFERENT, and that masculine energy is DIFFERENT from feminine energy. Because it is. It's why men and women are attracted to each other---because they are different.

[Spartan]

I must admit I found this particular article offensive, preachy and damn right sexist. The general tone made me nauseous with indignation. Steve sounds like some fascist dictator.

The premise behind this argument is ludicrous. Men don't need to be told 'how to be a man'. Men are men by definition!

Also, if you categorize people by gender and believe each category should act in a certain way, that's prejudice based on gender, i.e. sexism.

Steve, are you advocating sexism?

[hotwired]

Steve
This is amazing. I did the Sterling Men's Weekend back in 1999 and learned many of these things, and have had many of them pose a challenge to me. I am tingling right now with a "knowing". You've actually come along and bumped me a degree or two in a different direction. I needed to read this. Thank you. Nothing more eloquent than that. THANK YOU.
Ken LaVoie

[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 )

[Myrabeth]

Steve's post on 'How to be a Man' really spoke to me for the following reason: he speaks as an initiated man. Whether by actual initiatory process, or that he's just done so much work with the issues of initiation that he's transformed himself, I don't know. But from my perspective, here are the hallmarks of an initiated man:
clarity of thought and action
less fear of failure
lack of willingness to engage in heady debate
an understanding that the fear of death drives much behavior that is unproductive (from addictions to war)
less frightened of angry women/angry feminine energy
less needing to be right
less needing to be in competition, especially with other men

How do I know? I am in relationship with a man who has gone through a men's rite of passage (there are lots of different kinds, some include vision quests) and there are several men in my community who have also done this work. I find them the men that I choose to spend time talking with: they just are more real, honest and fun to be with than other men that I know (and love!). I love it that they can hug each other with great zest and caring!

There are some amazing programs that are doing initiatory work with youth of both sexes. Hats off to them--giving our youth more rites of passage than getting a car and/or getting laid, seems like some good work.

Thanks, Steve--don't know your path, but the world needs more of what you have to say, and give.

Beth (aka Myrabeth)

[Corey]

I fail at 3-7. Oh well, such is life.

[Rachelle]

Originally Posted by Plato

I think this kind of mindset originates from the Homeric Greek philosophy... It basically says life is a stage for performing heroic deeds. Life is narrative for you to live out. ...

Heroic deeds are very much a manly desire and the priority of a masculine man's life.

Well, I personally find myself gravitating more towards setting the stage for performing 'heroic' deeds that affect and touch many, just not a few. Does that mean I have more masculine energy? Who knows.

I would say that, even though we *usually* have a distinct sex (i.e. one distinct set of genitals, unless of course you are a hermaphrodite or have had some kind of sex surgery), being a man or a woman is by no means a matter of black and white. We're all individuals who reside in the various shades of grey between both extremities of black and white.

[Plato]

Yeah, but if I understanf rightly, focussing entirely on one or the other is the most fulfilling way to be.

[24evita]

I guess I share a view common to very few in this conversation as I do not believe in separation or generalizing when it comes to the higher evolution of human beings.

I think the reason men would still get offended at feeling "wimpy" or women offended at being called "unfeminine" is because our egos are responding to what is considered normal in society.

We are the ones who instill in our baby boys from the beginning the idea of being "tough" and into girls "be a lady" and hence from the start beings on this Earth right now are not even fully able to express their true balanced and wholesome potiential.

It is ok for a girl to cry but heaven forbid a boy expresses his emotions. Likewise men are encouraged to embrace and express their sexuality openly whereas women are taught to repress theirs.

We have strongly ingrained this into society and I do not believe it has anything to do with the core of our nature. Sure there is masculine energy and sure there is feminine energy but many philosopher's and new age thinkers conclude that the reason our world is in such discourse today is due to the fact that there exists such a strong strereotype for men to be "men". Can you imagine how our world would be if men were more inspired and allowed to express their feminine energy. If we look deep enough to how we start bringing up boys and girls we should realize we are the ones who created this great division between the sexes, not nature.

So ultimately yes I agree with Steve when he says that perhaps the title should have been "how to use masculine energy" I think that would have been a bit better, but if we really want to start dropping the labels, the stereotypes and the separation then let us focus on " HOW TO BE A BEING".

[Rachelle]

Originally Posted by Plato

Yeah, but if I understanf rightly, focussing entirely on one or the other is the most fulfilling way to be.

I would respectfully disagree with this.
I know I would feel very unfulfilled if I focussed entirely on being "a woman" or on being "feminine".

I think it's up to each person to figure out and decide where along that black-grey-white scale they fit, and what is most fulfilling to them.

What is most fulfilling for one person may not at all be fulfilling to another.


I'm sure this can easily be tied in with the whole heterosexuality-homosexuality scale, as well. But that's a whole new can of worms.

[theonlyguy]

"A man doesn’t blame others for his relationship problems. When a relationship is no longer compatible with his heart-centered path, he initiates the break-up and departs without blame or guilt."

Where's the line for this, can you just leave committed relationships when they don't match your path any more? What if it's the man's wife or family?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Spartan

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.

That footnote is left as an exercise for the reader.

Note that I never said these traits don't apply to women as well. It would appear that notion came from you.

[Spartan]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

That footnote is left as an exercise for the reader.

Note that I never said these traits don't apply to women as well. It would appear that notion came from you.

Ok, I accept that. However, the title 'how be be a man' implies that the traits listed in the article are 'manly' traits.

Your article was titled 'how to be a man' implying that one must posses all traits listed in order to be considered a man, i.e 'one is a man if and only if one is xyz.'

Thus if one is xyz, then one can derive that one is also a man, and therefore not a woman.

Sorry, I'm just nitpicking now.

[mlkirchw]

I suppose I'm not familiar with anyone who would treat his family like a gang that he needs to be loyal to above all else. Is this your default understanding of how families normally behave?

I don't place family above the other values...they are on equal level and not mutually exclusive. I would never stand by and defend my son for bullying another child but instead integrate the other values you mention into a lesson for his growth. It is my understanding of the principles you speak of throughout this site that allow me to provide tremendous value to my family and honor my commitment to them. To me, one can be no better man in that respect.