3 ms·
Until mid 20th century, the definition of a man was very clear. While there were changes to customs and fashions across generations, the foundational precepts o
by glitchc 4y ago
Until mid 20th century, the definition of a man was very clear. While there were changes to customs and fashions across generations, the foundational precepts of the man as a protector and provider, which had been established since prehistoric times, were always enshrined in all cultures. Society has since dismantled those foundational precepts, but crucially, has not offered up a replacement for them. Without a foundation, the rituals and customs become hollow. They either become a cargo cult for some or lose meaning for others. As such, the identity of what it means to be a man is now fragmenting.
Many approaches have been proposed, none of the wrong in their way, and they all work for the ones proposing them. Yet none of them have been agreed upon as a commonly held definition of what makes a man. This is the crux of the problem.
Please note I've phrased this explicitly around the definition of the male gender. The statements do not imply any qualities about, or imbue any attributes on, any of the other genders. Let's keep the discussion civil and focused on men.
- elil17 4y agoI think you're speaking too categorically. We do know that many matriarchal cultures exist and have existed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy#History_and_distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy#History_and_distrib...). The degree to which these are truly matriarchal vs. simply egalitarian varies, but to say that male gender roles are historically universal universal is patently untrue. They are clearly culturally specific.
- glitchc 4y agoThat's a great point, but unfortunately a non-sequiter. In a matriarchy, men have less power in making decisions for the group, but are still responsible for protecting and providing. Putting it more plainly, even in a matriarchy, hunting, farming and fighting are activities predominantly relegated to men.
- elil17 4y agoI'm not sure I am going to articulate this in a way that is clear, but I think that hunting, farming, and fighting have a different cultural meaning in a patriarchal society vs. a matriarchal society. If the act of fighting is tied up with what it means to be a man, I think Englishman fighting and a Hopi man fighting can be said to be taking different actions for the purpose of what you are discussing. So even though Hopis and English people would say "men fight," they would still view that in a very different way/would not have the same definition of a man in their minds.
- krapp 4y ago>Many approaches have been proposed, none of the wrong in their way, and they all work for the ones proposing them. Yet none of them have been agreed upon as a commonly held definition of what makes a man. This is the crux of the problem. Maybe the problem is the belief that we must have one and only one definition of manhood to which all males should conform. Maybe we should realize the rituals and customs of masculinity are transitory, contextually and culturally fluid, and in a world no longer as rigidly bound by intersectional hierarchies, often not even necessary.
- glitchc 4y agoSure, that's what we have right now. And some men choose to tap out because they don't like any of the definitions on offer. It's the men who decide there's no point that the article really has a problem with.
- kneebonian 4y agoThis sounds like, "let people just live however they want to live and it will be okay" the problem with this sentiment is that it is causing exactly what we are seeing, an enormous number of young men just intend to play video games, watch porn, and smoke weed. They contribute nothing to society and get very little in return and we are starting to see the effects of that. The other side of that is how many people who choose to go that route have unintended effects on others. My own father decided that he want to live his life and reject his traditional role by leaving my mother and going out to party. Now you have six children who ended up without the things a father can provide in their lives. The problem is that with so much emphasis on the individual we have lost the importance of responsiblity.
- krapp 4y ago>This sounds like, "let people just live however they want to live and it will be okay" Less that (although yes) and more "let people define manhood however they like." That's an entirely different argument than individualism versus collectivism. Plenty of men have been bad husbands and fathers within the traditional framework of acting as breadwinner. A lot of men are simply assholes (no specific offense to your father, mine was little different.) That model of masculinity brings a lot of toxic elements with it, including the premise that men should be sexually promiscuous and aggressive, that it's simply in their nature. It often reinforces and, through popular media, commoditizes harmful behavior.