In your own words and eyes....

. . . I don't know what to make of finally being presented with a definition of "real man" that allows me to be one. Still, what do you make of someone who's more "real" as the opposite gender, or someone who isn't "real" by either standard?

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Some of this qualities are much more valuable than the others. Basically, yet again man is supposed to stand on his own while woman is nothing but an addition to him. Let's see

• Toughness - a useful quality for one to have. Not necessary positive with regards to others, but positive for improving one's own station
• Confidence - a positive quality useful for self
• Charisma - a positive quality useful to self
• Leadership - a positive quality useful to self
• Stoicism - neutral quality
• Achievement - positive and benefits self
• Protection of the family - positive and benefits others

• Nurturance - neutral, and benefits only others
• Empathy - positive, and benefits only others
• Subservience - very negative for self, but benefits others
• Vulnerability - negative and useless
• Home-making - neutral, and benefits others
• Beauty - positive, equal benefit for self and others. But useless
• Supporting the husband and the family - only benefits the others

See the difference between the number of positive and negative qualities. And that it seems that males are treated as persons in their own right while females - merely additions to other persons who exist to make their life better.

edited 12th Sep '11 10:22:40 PM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

In general, I think an accurate way of saying it is that femaleness is defined as "whatever's not maleness" - in short, to maximize alienation. Natural consequence of that is objectification becomes easy to rationalize.

edited 13th Sep '11 3:44:37 AM by SavageOrange

'Don't beg for anything, do it yourself, or else you won't get anything.'

Precisely.

And many men on the interwebz see women this way: a disposable servant to be discarded once their body is no longer suitable for sex; a being with no significance in and of herself, with two ears to listen for emotional support and three orifices for their penises' satisfaction.

Important Note: I am not saying this is the opinion of anybody in here, just saying I did come across men who saw women that way on the Internet, and not just once.

Actually, many men, especially masculinists, want their wives to be nothing more than subservient doormats, serve them, satisfy them in bed, never ask for anything and just be happy with being a guy's servant. This is also part of the fantasy behind Me Love You Long Time, since Asian women are often seen as inherently submissive, thus good service for white guys. Also the reason why Black women are almost always portrayed as unattractive harpies, mostly because they stereotypically refuse to be submissive. And That's Terrible.

Don't believe me? See how this commercial exploits what I just said. I think it speaks for itself.

edited 13th Sep '11 1:49:00 AM by Alrune

Disclaimer: I am not an expert on these matters, so don't interpret the following as a particularly strong statement of belief. But I think this bears mentioning here.

From a purely biological perspective, the "duty" of men and women is to produce and raise children. Clearly, the role of men in this process is quite different from the role of women, at least at the early stages. Now, beyond that, there is no obvious reason why there must be any further differentiation of sex roles in order to propagate the species — surely, a man need not be tough, confident, charismatic, etc., and a woman need not be nurturing, empathetic, subservient, etc. in order to have children?

And yet, it's well known that fertility rates are below replacement in most developed countries, and to what can this be attributed? Some suggest that the expanded role of women outside the family is part of the reason. How egalitarian can sex roles be, while still being sustainable in the long run?

Again, there's no way I can know the answer to that. If I had to give a definite opinion, I would just say: let people do what they want, and let evolution sort out the long-term outcome.

Want some reviews? Send us your stories!

I don't think 'expanded role of women outside the home' is the problem exactly; maybe more like 'expanded role of women outside the home and lack of a corresponding expanded role of men inside it'.

Be not afraid...

I find an explanation centering on the following more compelling:

• lifestyles in developed countries, while they may have more amenities, are more awkward, unnatural, and constrained than the simpler ones in relatively undeveloped countries, so there is a far greater undercurrent of discontent, depression, and other emotional manglings, none of which are inclined to encourage you to have sex, much less to have children.

'Don't beg for anything, do it yourself, or else you won't get anything.'

Sociologically, the social differences between male and female our constructions by society. While there be biologically differences that would effect behavior, in this society they are now limited to the reporduction process as the hunting-gathering style which encourage the social differnces in the first place is now being replace by milieneries of evolution, leading to industrailisation.

Still the upbringing has the impact. Boys are given blue action toys. Girls are given pink dollies. One can from this conclude that the gender roles soceity imposes on us is still ever present. Overcoming it will aid our evolution greatly.

I’m a lumberjack and I’m ok. I sleep all night and work all day.

Hilarious typo is hilarious. Did you mean millenia?

'Don't beg for anything, do it yourself, or else you won't get anything.'

Yes... I need to improve my typing...

I’m a lumberjack and I’m ok. I sleep all night and work all day.

Thing is, those "separate but equal" qualities ascribed to women are not,in fact, equal at all. It is nothing but a form of paternalistic prejudice, because qualities an "idea woman" is supposed to have still confer her lower status than man, and are used to justify that status. Some (longish and, honestly, quite boring, but this one could not find better) study on the subject http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0341/is_3_55/ai_58549256/pg_2/?tag=mantle_skin;content

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

My idea of real man/woman reads pretty straight as a description of a capable adult and good person in general, regardless of gender: integrity, compassion, temperance, dedication, maturity, wisdom, empathy, duty, and the ability to provide for others in some fashion.

That said, I understand and have encountered in my community the appeal to a masculine ideal, due to the feeling that modern boys/young men are falling short of maturity in some way. I think that, for much of western history, there was no such thing as a "real" woman. A good wife and mother perhaps, but the notion of tying a value judgement to womanhood was unheard of. If you had a vagina and simply made it to reproductive age, you were a woman. This is, of course, because women were regarded by patriarchal/kyriarchal society as less-than-adult. Thankfully, feminists have largely unraveled that idea, and women are now held to more appropriate, egalitarian standards for their ages.

What happened with men and boys, however, is that somewhere along the line, people stopped holding us up to those same appropriate and egalitarian standards. I think it's that the focus had been on empowering girls and women for a few decades and the assumption was that boys would continue to grow into "real" men the same way we had for centuries. Instead, boys began take their ideas of what it means to be a man from overly macho or other theme park versions of men, and culturally, the idea of boys and men as underachievers began to take hold, such that now it seems like many young men aren't maturing as quickly as young women. Then again, I'm sure that the "not a real man" scare tactic has been used on the up-and-coming generation for eons.

...

That came out longer than expected...

**EDIT Also, I'm not trying to discredit feminism, if that is how it sounded.

edited 15th Sep '11 9:29:24 AM by sketch162000

The simple but inaccurate answer would be "any human being who identifies as such".

More accurately... "real man" is a term which denotes a number of related and overlapping archetypes, and the value of being a "real man" is disputed as much as the definition. Personally, I've always found the whole concept rather objectionable and offensive, for reasons which are, admittedly, somewhat personal in nature. I think that being an adult male human being should be sufficient to be considered a real man, and the idea that becoming a real man means you have to meet some standard is insulting to those who don't conform to the stereotype of how a real man acts. Being a man should be sufficient.

There's also the problematic question: if an adult male is not a real man, what is he? He's not a boy, a woman or a girl; these terms may be applied to him in a derogatory fashion, but society will not treat or perceive him as such. Furthermore, these insults strike me as unhelpful and potentially harmful, in part due to the sexist nature of some of them, but also due to the specific aspects of the "real man" archetype in our society. As not every trait associated with the real man is positive, and not every trait which disqualifies one from being a real man is negative, to categorise all adult male individuals who are not real men as some kind of underachiever strikes me as a very unpleasant and damaging practice.

Good question. Unlike with "real man", I don't think there's a very clear stereotype associated with the term in our society. I've seen it applied as both a term of empowerment and of objectification.

My personal feelings about the term "real woman" are much the same as my feelings towards "real man": it's problematic because of the implication that one can be an adult female human being but somehow not a real woman. Being a woman should be sufficient.

I don't think the idea of a "real man" or "real woman" is inherently tied to a particular era, though in practice the exact definitions of these terms vary from era to era and reflect the standards and worldview of the society of that time, so they're not timeless concepts.

They are frequently dismissed as outdated, perhaps erroneously, but they are also widely accepted.

Short answer: no. Longer answer: depending on the context, they can be either, neither or both of those things.

I don't think there is one single reason, though there could be a number of reasons why an individual might present that fact as negative. These could include: inability to understand the behaviour of people of the opposite sex, resentment of the opposite sex for the possession of traits which the individual lacks, and negative feelings towards traits displayed by or associated with the opposite sex.

Note also that this is not to be confused with individuals who have negative feelings regarding the assertion that males and females are different is an objective fact, which may stem from suspicion regarding the motivations of the one making the assertion, the perception that the assertion itself is sexist, or gender-related insecurities on the part of the individual in question.

I don't entirely agree. It's true that the assignment of gender roles to the male and female sexes transcends cultures, and it's also true that numerous traits are associated with masculinity or femininity in many cultures. I think this is in part due to the fact that there obviously are biological differences between the sexes, and these include mental and hormonal differences as well. With this in mind, it stands to reason that the average male will display certain traits and the average female will also display certain traits, that stereotypes have formed which exaggerate these tendencies, and that these stereotypes in turn influence the behaviour of the average male and female individuals, which in turn influences the stereotypes, and so on.

I think that accounts for the bulk of the similarities between the gender roles of different cultures, though additionally, different cultures influence one another.

Regardless, in practice, there is a great deal of variation between individuals of a given sex, and individuals that conform to only a few aspects of a given stereotype (gender or otherwise) are, I think, much more common than individuals that conform to all or most of them.

I don't agree that sex is a birth defect. It falls into another class of things, in which we could also place skin colour, hair colour, height and girth.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Thing is, people's place in life is not defined by their hair colour. Noone is trying to mold anyone's personality from birth into an acceptable form because of eye colour.

Sex should be treated the same. But it isn't, and probably won't be anytime soon.

Of course having genitalia is normal. Yet for some reason it motivates parents ad society to cripple children from birth.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Not to the same extent, but no, people do get treated differently and in some cases raised differently due to skin colour, height, build, etc. Maybe not eye or hair colour, not outside Nazi Germany, anyway.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

@Beholderess: But four women with black, brown, red, and blond hair all reproduce the same way. A man and a woman do not.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard

In what manner is reproduction relevant here?

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Man=Dominant Male hormones, male genitals, male body structure, male genes

Women=Dominant Female hormones, female genitals, female body structure, female genes

The end.

edited 16th Sep '11 12:17:26 PM by TheProffesor

@Bobby: We can't justly treat men and women identically, because they're different in life-shaping ways.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard

Meaning the shaping of their own lives, or the lives of their children?

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Yes. And because of that,the other 99.9% of their life when they are not actively engaged in reproduction should be sacrificed?

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

As we evolve we will get over the biological notions. We are advancing in research. Humans will evolve when they realise that difference of importance is not from biology.

I’m a lumberjack and I’m ok. I sleep all night and work all day.

This. So very much this.

Or, rather, well, they are - men on average are stronger and so got to subjugate women, but biology has no say in what should be.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Actully streath is not a issue. A woman can cause as much physical harm as a man.

I’m a lumberjack and I’m ok. I sleep all night and work all day.

Of course she can. It's just less likely to meet the one who can.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common