What is a man?

[qouigv93027]

The beautiful thing about living in a free society is that you can decide to be whatever you want (so long as it doesn't harm or infringe upon the reasonable rights of others), and decide to believe in whatever you want (same caveats).

That means we each define for ourselves what we believe to be a man vs. a woman. And we each decide for ourselves which ones we are (if either).

Chances are we will fall closely within society's average conception of the meaning, purpose, and responsibilities of each gender. And a lot of those will be emergent from tradition, as well as a little evolution and psychology. Some of these emergent schemas will be arbitrary.

But we can politely disagree with each other regarding what the gender means just like we'd disagree regarding any other nebulously undefined social and cultural construct. And likewise we should all be able to agree that it would be preposterous to define someone else's gender for them and presume we know better than they do, especially without complete mind-meld access to their life experiences and beliefs.

At the end of the day respectful coexistence and cross-cultural dialogue is the most fruitful approach.

 

[El_Machinae]

The premise of the question imposes a binary with clear differentiation between the two. Answering what a man should be inherently says what a woman shouldn't be. If a woman can and should also be those things, then that answer isn't what a man should be, but instead what a human should be. To answer the question earnestly requires exclusivity.

I disagree, because I disagree that it's an exclusionary binary.

What makes something a chair? What makes something a table? How can you call one thing a chair but the other thing a table? Imposing an exclusionary binary on the question just makes no sense. They're not opposites.

If it breaks when you sit on it, it's not really a chair. But 'being able to be sat on' is not exclusive to being a chair. "You can't sit on tables?" would be a weird comeback.

 

[Ajidica]

Er, nope, sorry.

A woman's bathroom at sporting events where there isn't a line?
That's rarer than a unicorn!

 

[IglooDame]

A woman's bathroom at sporting events where there isn't a line?
That's rarer than a unicorn!

No, I was more objecting on the basis that it (and seemingly this entire thread) is assuming a binary that doesn't necessarily exist (and my nonbinary grandchild will tell you so directly).

 

[amadeus]

Women should not be able to do this?

I do not necessarily hold it as an expectation.

 

[sophie]

A constantly moving series of nested dialectic relationships: within society, within the body, and within the self. Each relates to and affects the other synchronically, such that none can be defined except in relation to the other, while each in turn also relates to itself diachronically

 

[qouigv93027]

A constantly moving series of nested dialectic relationships: within society, within the body, and within the self as the self relates to society and to its body.

Ahh, I am a big fan of the dialectic!

 

[Evie]

A miserable pile of secrets.

An always lovely reference, but also a surprisingly on point observation. The expectations of masculinity toward not expressing your feelings, not confiding except in a romantic/sexual partner, etc, tend to result in men who have lots of things they can't tell others weighing on them, and who are miserable for it.

 

[Ajidica]

A constantly moving series of nested dialectic relationships: within society, within the body, and within the self. Each in turn relates to and affects each other synchronically, such that none can be defined except in relation to the other, while each in turn also relates to itself diachronically

New definition: being a manhuman means struggling to avoid falling asleep when reading this post.
EDIT: fixed.

 

[amadeus]

New definition: being a man means struggling to avoid falling asleep when reading this post.

Then call me Arnold Stallone Sinatra.

 

[emzie]

A constantly moving series of nested dialectic relationships: within society, within the body, and within the self. Each in turn relates to and affects each other synchronically, such that none can be defined except in relation to the other, while each in turn also relates to itself diachronically

I, too, watched 2001 on LSD.

 

[sophie]

New definition: being a manhuman means struggling to avoid falling asleep when reading this post.
EDIT: fixed.

 

[Ajidica]

View attachment 639308

To be clear, my objection is not to a discussion of gender, but rather to the obscurantist way you insist on framing it.
If you are going to talk about something that is as closely associated with being human as gender identity, surely one should try and sound, you know, human when talking about it.

 

[Kaitzilla]

A man is not an animal?
The box test usually gets passed.

The most interesting thing about people is that they spend their limited time on what they think is important.

I think about that a lot.

So, we tend baffle each other on priorities.

 

[sophie]

To be clear, my objection is not to a discussion of gender, but rather to the obscurantist way you insist on framing it.
If you are going to talk about something that is as closely associated with being human as gender identity, surely one should try and sound, you know, human when talking about it.

Gender is really fudging complicated dude, shockingly. What I gave is the most succinct answer I could.

I just think it’s pretty pathetic that a man whose sole contribution to the thread was a lame reskin of the Simpsons “white guys drive like…” joke feels so threatened by someone else talking about gender academically that he feels the need to randomly flame that person entirely unprovoked with a less sophisticated version of Matt Walsh’s whole schtick.

Like if you don’t care for what I have to say then simply don’t respond, or at the very least come at me with better material than that of a z-list transphobe.

 

[Ajidica]

Gender is really ******* complicated dude, shockingly. What I gave is the most succinct answer I could.

I just think it’s pretty pathetic that a man whose sole contribution to the thread was a lame reskin of the Simpsons “white guys drive like…” joke feels so threatened by someone else talking about gender academically that he feels the need to randomly flame that person entirely unprovoked with a less sophisticated version of Matt Walsh’s whole schtick.

Like if you don’t care for what I have to say then simply don’t respond, or at the very least come at me with better material than that of a z-list transphobe.

I call post boring and obtuse and you call me a transphobe?
High quality posting! Ten points to Gryffindor!

EDIT: On a more serious note; if you have something you want to have a conversation about, make it conversational. If you come in all neckbeardy and rocking the chairbrain meme its a bit rich to get all offended when you are called boring and obscurantist. (And sounds like something that might have been pulled from the Sokal affair.)

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: Hey guys, we don't need more bickering about one another.

 

[sophie]

Ahh, I am a big fan of the dialectic!

Me too! I think it’s a really useful tool for making sense of gender.

I, too, watched 2001 on LSD.

 

[Kyriakos]

If you were asked what is in a box, when told you cannot look inside yourself, you can imagine, theorize or take the person with the box's word for it. The more serious issue is that the person with the box isn't aware of what is there either; it's just that you are also physically separated from it while they are only mentally separated.
A good attitude, taking into account all this lack of positive knowledge, is to start wars online about who is more in the wrong.

 

[qouigv93027]

Me too! I think it’s a really useful tool for making sense of gender.

I think it's useful for a whole lot more things than just gender!! Ascertaining epistemologies and morality can be advanced significantly through the dialectic.