Emasculation of Modern Man – A Tradeoff?
This is an interesting point that came up in yesterdays rather lively discussion and it’s something that has been irritating me for a while, so I think it’s about time we talk about it.
What Happened to All the Men?
Keeping in the spirit of items that seem to have become taboo to talk about, I want to bring up the issue of the modern emasculated man.
To say it bluntly, it seems that the modern industrialized societies are breeding emasculated men. This is not to say that there must be a difference between the basic human rights of men and women, because there simply isn’t. Women and men are all human and have the same natural rights.
BUT, there is a difference between what is male and what is female. There is a difference between what is masculine and what is feminine. It seems that these difference are not an issue we’re allowed to talk about.
There is a feminist movement, but there isn’t a masculinist movement. (I think a movement promoting either case is ridiculous)…to be clear, I’m not promoting the suppression of women’s rights. Like I said before, we’re all human and deserve the same right.
Traditionally and psychologically women are attracted to masculine attributes that we associate with a ‘man’s man’. Just like men are attracted to feminine women.
This doesn’t mean you cannot be sophisticated, well spoken, and it doesn’t mean you have to wear a hard hat to work and have callouses on your hands. It just means that you still need to be masculine.
This however seems to be harder to do than it sounds. So what is being masculine? Does it mean you have to be a cage fighther? Do you have to get your hands dirty at work? Do you have to be a soldier?
Is a man supposed to show sensitivity or not? Is he supposed to be a leader or take orders? Can he wear a suit to work or does he have to wear steel toe boots?
What is a man supposed to look like? A case can be made that as a man becomes emasculated from these other factors he also gives up on his body image.
I think the answer has to do with having strength in your own character and standing for something you believe in (including what you think a man should look like). This is something that is easier said than done and in our given societies it seems to be much easier to fall in line and to do as your told than it is to stand for something even if its not a popular stance.
The underlying issue of it all is freedom.
Freedom to have an opinion and act on it. Freedom to stand for something. Freedom to express your beliefs.
Given the structures that we’re constrained to live within, it is difficult to actually be who you really want to be without breaking some sort of rule, whether it is a social meme or some inane law. This renders many men nothing more than overgrown children constantly asking for ‘permission’ from their boss, government, and in some cases spouses (seriously asking if they can go out and play…), and getting scolded and further emasculated when they don’t do as they’re told. In this sense you could say the world is populated with few MEN and many BOYS.
A lack of freedom to think for yourself and express it is what I believe to be at the root of the modern emasculation of men.
The state apparatus is what I consider to be the biggest contributing factor to this problem as there is a law for just about everything and anything you can think of doing. On top of that there is an every increasing set of social definitions and patterns you are being forced to fit into…none of which you have chosen, all of which are being forced onto you.
We’ve got to get back to some middle ground where men can be men again without worrying about political correctness and having to take courses on gender roles in society.
The last time I checked I’m pretty sure women still like men who look and act like men.
So ladies, what do you want a man to be?
Fellas, what do you think it means to be a man?
John
26 Responses to “Emasculation of Modern Man – A Tradeoff?”
Leave a Reply
Blogs
Getting in your best shape for women
Building the perfect body for men
The most flexible diet you will ever find-
March 6th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
personally i think that a man is someone who is hard working, protects and provides for his family, takes responsibility for his actions, always looks for a way to advance in their career, and also i believe that having “old-fashioned” principles is important. That’s not to say go back to the way things were 50-60 years ago but have men re-adopt the principles that were the standard expectations of men.
March 6th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
I just think the bar for what people expect now-a-days has been lowered too far. Work is for Work, do everything else in your free time. I really don’t like seeing people wasting the business’s time and money on facebook or google or youtube. Do that on your own time, not your employer’s time.
March 6th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
sorry about the little rant kinda got off topic ^_^. I think that since some men are suffering from “learned helplessness” and they don’t think it’s possible to do what they have a passion for, so they accept their current situation and never move forward. Another problem is that a lot of people don’t actually take the time to figure out what they have a passion for and why they have a passion for it.
March 6th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
You see this a lot on sitcoms. The man is fat, stupid and lazy (yet, somehow still has a ridiculously hot wife). The wife is the smart and driven one that has a career and runs the family, too. I don’t have a problem with the wife’s role, exactly, but it’s just so out of whack with how things should be. Relationships are a partnership. They should be, on balance, 50-50. Not every issue is 50-50, but it should all balance out to be the same. There’s give and take.
I don’t know. It’s a strange dichotomy. It seems like women want their husbands to be sensitive and in touch with their feelings, yet when a masculine action hero is on TV or in a movie (think Russell Crowe, or Taylor Lautner if you’re slightly younger), women go nuts for them.
Personally, I don’t see the modern man as being emasculated, unless it’s by his own choice. It IS possible to respond to a woman’s emotional needs and still be a B.A.M.F. It boils down to communication. If you and your woman know what each other’s emotional needs are, it really doesn’t take a lot of effort to fulfill them. And as a bonus, if you’re fulfilling her needs, she’ll be more than willing to fulfill yours, which pretty much makes you The Man. You can be that sensitive guy some of the time, and then turn right around and be her Kirk Douglas. If you’re willing to spend some quality time with your woman, you can get away with FAR more man stuff. A lot of people think it’s really complicated, but it’s not. It just requires the tiniest bit of effort for a big payoff.
March 6th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
I agree with andrew
March 6th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Not that I disagree, but just to look at it from the other side as well. Just think about how bad it’s been for women for literally thousands of years, and how bad it still is for hundreds of millions of women around the world, in the Middle East, Africa, etc. Being a second class citizen, being abused by one’s husband, being a baby-making machine, popping out 7, 8, 10 kids, standing by watching your husband running around with other women while you have to remain “chaste,” etc., etc., etc. Women have made gains in the Western World over the last forty years or so, but overall, women have it far, far worse than men do in most societies now, and certainly throughout human history. Again, not disagreeing, just wanted to put things in perspective.
March 6th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Oscar Wilde said it best, “To define is to limit”
You cannot label the definition of a man nor a woman pertaining to personality. There are full spectrums of each, from your sports watching, rye drinking men, to your sports hating appletini drinking men… both men. The alteratives only make these men less manly to those who have their own preconceived definitions of gender.
I personally think the positive nature of society is that men and women alike are now more able to be the person they truly are opposed to living their lives under the guise of what they believe they should be.
This is a similar discussion to the nature vs. nurture debate regarding homosexuality. Its been proven by science repeatedly that there is a definitive answer. There is a full spectrum of sexuality that goes from super straight to super gay.
I think to pigeonhole any gender as having a “type” is to overthink it.
March 6th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
good post.. agreed. being a confident man, not faking it, just being it and on your own path in life is critical IMHO…
here’s a funny clip relating to this.. not work safe btw.
http://natebloch.com/thedoctorvisit.html
March 6th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
AC,
Funny video.
JB
March 6th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
To further Andrews point, I always find it amusing when the man in the sitcom tries to better himself.
Be it better job, better body, better life.
it ALWAYS fails.
The message: Don’t even bother trying, only bad things can happen.
Sad.
B
March 6th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
@what Brad said
the image of the western male has been intentionally presented this way in media and commercials by the ad agencies.
It is because women are the buyers in the household. The ad people want a powerful female buying figure to dominate the household. This goes for buying small stuff like soap, ariel, etc as well as big stuff…
It is again, like in the case with the diet industry, because of… MARKETING
March 6th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
John, my favourite post by far on this site. Good stuff.
March 6th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
What it means to be a man today:
-Opressed
-Forced into a strict gender role
-constantly having one’s manhood (therefore humanity) questioned
-being worth( )less
What it SCHOULD mean:
Stop ……well telling me what to be and what to do! If I want to dedicate my evening to turning 3D rendered cute aliens into pulp with a chain gun on my computer screen and get aroused by it, I will!
If I want to go to ballet class wearing a pink tutu and tip toe to cascading harp solos, then I will!
When I harm someone you can criticize and judge me. Until then:
F.O.!
March 6th, 2010 at 7:20 pm
A man is simply a human being with a Y chromosome. Of course that Y chromosome brings with it an endless array of physical, emotional and social expectations, but at the end of the day, in the very first comment, James says “personally i think that a man is someone who is hard working, protects and provides for his family, takes responsibility for his actions, always looks for a way to advance in their career, and also I believe that having “old-fashioned” principles is important.” But, couldn’t you say the same thing, for any human being? That brings me back to the Y chromosome.
March 6th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Would anyone agree that most men (by the time they have a wife and kids) don’t have enough time to themselves to just be exactly what they are at the core. If anybody’s seen the TV series Dexter you’ll know it’s alot like that. Dexter is a great family man, works hard, a great brother and even has alot of personal issues like normal people but to the core he’s a killer (of the good kind). He has to stay true to what he is at the core. It’s the only time he feels good about himself when he can let go of all his worldly attachments and just be himself. His quote of ‘We are who we are’ is also true.
Now guys dont take this as a excuse to go murder someody but to me men don’t know how to break away from everything when they need to. Some men don’t know how to free themselves and become independent from time to time.
Man I feel like writing a movie analogy essay about Dexter now… The director is some genius.
March 6th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Strong. Both emotionally and physically (and look the part). Able to make some decisions (I don’t want to make them ALL) and make them stick (but also know when to let me have my way! lol).
A provider (but not to the degree that I just get to sit on the couch and eat bonbons, I have my own career and I’m not gonna be giving that up just cuz the guy can provide). But to me a man who provides safety, either physically or financially or emotionally, is a real man. The feeling of being ‘safe’ is bar none the biggest aphrodisiac …
Well, that and a guy who is competent. Show me a guy that knows what he’s doing with his job or hobby and does it VERY WELL and I’ll show you a turned on woman. Doesn’t matter what that job or hobby is, as long as he’s passionate about it and VERY good at it.
and all that, a gentleman to boot… Women’s Lib? BAH! Sure, we want equal pay but we still want to feel like a woman. Yes, we ARE all human beings, but we are also NOT the same gender. Men are definitely the physically stronger gender. Ladies, like it or not, its true. I love having doors opened for me (as a gentlemanly gesture, not because I’m incapable of doing it myself) or a man who knows to walk on the outside while walking down the street (again, there’s that safety thing).
Am I asking too much?
I’m gonna catch hell for this answer, I know…. but that’s what a man is to me.
March 6th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
John have you heard or read anything by David Deida?
He has an amazing book out The Way of the Superior Man
Among other interesting things it talks about masculinity and femininity and how they do not necessarily correspond to physical gender…some women are more masculine than their men and vice versa.
It encourages men to live their purpose and I highly recommend it to pretty much every guy on earth haha
March 6th, 2010 at 11:33 pm
In a man I like:
1. Confidence-but one has to know where to stop, cocky attitudes go too far and are a big turn off.
2. Conpetence-Jackie is SO right- no matter what it is, sports, music, hunting, work, anything, if you’re good at it, chances are we’ll be hooked on ya.
3. Intelligence-no need to explain that one.
4. Someone who looks appealing-have to be honest- You don’t need to look like a model, but if you are in good shape, it’s a really big plus for me, really big. I like a guy to look like he is strong enough to take care of me and protect me.
I also agree with Jackie on liking gentlemen. I think that guys nowadays are almost scared to be “gentlemen-ly” because some women have really voiced their opinions about opening their own doors and such. But I tell you, a guy from Atlanta, always refers to me as “M’am” and I giggle like a schoolgirl–every time! No one else talks like that around here!
For the record, I hate, hate, hate how men are portrayed on television. They’re always the stupid, bumbling idiots. I know if the tables were turned those kinds of shows wouldn’t last very long.
March 7th, 2010 at 10:32 am
Andy,
I’ve not heard of this, but thanks for the recommendation and I’ll take a look at it. I agree that the point of men (and women, all humans) is to live their purpose.
My hypothesis is that this becomes difficult to do given the structures we live within. In other words, you can live your purpose, but only if you can find a way to do so within the box you’ve been placed in.
I’m not saying it’s impossible, I’m suggesting it becomes difficult and can throw off our judgment of how things can be given artificial constraints that inhibit the true freedom we all deserve.
JB
March 7th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
I cant answer this question unless I know what Im doing with said man.
There are lots of different guys beyond simply man/boy.
My boss is a choshever mentsh. He is an excellent mentor, networker, provider for our lab. If anyone said anything remotely sexist/derogatory towards me, I *know* he will defend my honor, and its got shit to do with me/him being ‘feminists’. Hes nuts about his wife. He just rebuilt his kitchen (hes redone most of his house, by hand). Physically hes just pretty much generic American middle-aged male. Theres nothing remotely sexual about me labeling him a man, but if young boys emulated him, this world would be just lovely.
Then there are guys who are sexeh men. Adam Lambert is sex on a stick. Hes gay, but ‘For your entertainment’ is a womans f*cking fantasy, literally. God, or Freddy Mercury? You know youre gonna have a good time. On the opposite end of the sexy-man spectrum is young Arnold. 25-year-old Arnold, a plastic tarp, and a family-sized bottle of Hersheys syrup. Thatd keep me happy as a clam for several days… Holy crap, or 30 year-old Peter Steele… *feels faint for a minute* While these guys are unquestionably men, I couldnt imagine keeping them long-term. Need more substance than just sex.
And then theres the kind of man I personally want to spend the rest of my life with. Apparently these creatures are like unicorns, only existing as fictional characters in novels/movies/video games, but I keep looking for one irl anyway. HIV researchers are optimistic to a fault. *shrug*
March 7th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
I think modern emasculated man is similar to a declawed and toothless lion. If we look at men in history, we see individuals who were passionate about the things they did and were willing to die for what they believed in (which is very crucial in defining a man) examples include: Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Winston Churchill, Martin Luther King. We can see that these men were passionate and lived each day of their lives doing something they deeply believed in. I think that’s the missing piece. “Passion” raw, untamed passion…..think Kevin Garnett
March 8th, 2010 at 10:25 am
John, I think the man’s man is coming back. More fashion models and actors are sporting Brett Farve beards. I showed you that article that said that suits are being designed to emphasize the V-shaped physique of broad shoulders narrow waist. From firsthand experience I know that women respond best to bad boys.
But I would also say that boyhood is being idolized. This article by George Will makes a strong case:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/234248
In 1956, the median age of men marrying was 22.5. But between 1980 and 2004, the percentage of men reaching age 40 without marrying increased from 6 to 16.5. A recent study found that 55 percent of men 18 to 24 are living in their parents’ homes, as are 13 percent of men 25 to 34, compared to 8 percent of women.
March 9th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
hey JB,
in regards to your prior post(s) about the possible connections between the modern ‘nanny’ state and the lack of personal responsibility and initiative that should be characteristic of men (of people in general, of course, but also men specifically), and then the possible connections between the nanny state and this corresponding lack of initiative in regards to health and body image, i am curious how you respond to this article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35770181/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/
about using increased taxes (i.e., government regulation) on certain ‘bad’ foods (as determined by a government agency) as a means to influence people’s food choices. the basic intentions behind policies like this seem good-hearted and genuine, but i am also puzzled – if not outright troubled – at the implication that because many people are not making the ‘correct’ choices – though, once again, defining what is good v. bad or healthy v. unhealthy is incredibly subjective to say the least – that the solution is for government to step in and mandate the correct food choices for everyone including those who do not have a problem with these foods. the article also mentions the subsidies that already exist, like for corn over-production, that encourage the production of high fructose corn syrup and other ‘bad’ foods, but it does not address how or why those supposedly bad policies initially began, or how or why they are almost impossible to end once they are in place.
still, this does raise the issue of private vs. public or collective goods (like roads, national defense, etc.), which is perhaps the primary rationale for government in the first place, and the question of is health a collective or a private good? and/or what about health of the population vs. individual health?
to the extent that health is a public or collective good – or the kind of thing that people have an incentive to not contribute and still enjoy the benefits (i.e., if enough other people are healthy enough to continue to work and to support me through paying taxes to the government which then provides for my care, then i don’t have to be as concerned with my own health), then many people would say because of the non-existence of a relevant market process that government must step in and incentivize the health and even fitness-related choices that maximize the overall benefit – otherwise, because of the free-rider problem, everyone suffers.
ideas?
March 9th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
as an extension of my previous post to this thread, and something that applies to your March 8th post (“Weight Loss – Does Your Doctor Know Best), is to consider who is providing the expert testimony and recommendations when government agencies decide what is or isn’t healthy or appropriate when it comes to fitness.
try this on for scary scenarios: given the current fitness and weight loss orthodoxies, what would a government suggested (or, gulp, mandated) workout program look like? imagine a diet/workout regimen required to qualify for health insurance…
March 13th, 2010 at 9:18 am
Jordan: “”Not that I disagree, but just to look at it from the other side as well. Just think about how bad it’s been for women for literally thousands of years”"
It has been much worse men for those same thousands of years. The theory of “opression of women” was invented by marxist proffessors who use women as driving vehicle for marxism.
First they tried to convince workers that they’re opressed by employers, and have been for “thousands of years”. That failed, and then they moved onto convincing women that they’re “historic victims”.
The way they accomplish this false history is by simple omission. They will for example give you all these horrible examples of how horrible life was for the average woman in say 1567, but they will omit that the AVERAGE man had a much harsher life. Women have always been more protected and lead less opressed, less harsh lives.
Another trick these people use is to compare average women with high-status men. Politicians do this when they want an excuse to take over some 3rd world country. They will show you “poor little women” live, but fail to show you their brothers lifes a much harsher life. They will present to you the average woman, and the male dictator, but not the 99% of victim men in that same 3rd world country who live a much harsher life than their sisters.
I’ve seen most women do this one. Whenever I see women complaining how hard life is for them, and how “men have it easy”… The pattern I’ve noticed is always the same. She’s comparing herself to the 5% of men on the top, while ignoring the 95% of men who are beneath her and enjoy less benefits than she does. But then again, most of us men are used to being invisible to women. We’re used to women using the word “men” to really mean “the hot guys” or “the high status guys”.
March 13th, 2010 at 11:33 am
Alek, I’m just a normal heterosexual guy who loves women. Whatever. I’m here to read and discuss weight loss. I probably shouldn’t have commented on this. I’m not interested in political arguments. We’re not going to convince each other of anything, so it’s totally pointless. I’ll just say that life would suck without women. That is all.