What a real man is made of.....

[ECD]

You forgot to mention....

 

"They consciously feel that men shoud be their equals, emotionally in touch, and a friend; basically that of another female."

 

If a man acted like this towards a female he would surely never become anything more than a friend to her....

 

Also Athena, that was not ment to demean women by any means, and girls do give rather horrible advice to guys who inquire about what attracts them in all typicallity. No offense intended.....

 

On a further note this advice is given from the perspective of a guy, which females have a hard time understanding typically for the same reason that you don't understand why I wrote that girls give horrible advice when men inquire on what attracts them. Sorry if that seems complex, but I don't see any other way to explain it...

 

i read a portion of it, very well said

[Goddess4ever]

I think one of the biggest problems that arise in "gender discussions" is that we tend to look more at the differences than the similarities....and there is far more similarities than there is differences. I also see a dichotomy set up in this post where things are "feminine"...and other things are "masculine"....and while I cannot fault you for this (as you didn't invent it on your own)...you seem to have this "opposite sex" thing as a central idea. You also are laying too much of an emphasis on biological/genetic factors....rather than an equal distribution of biological AND social factors. Personally....I find so many men using the "biological" argument to justify the way they are. They are men, they have testosterone, it is hard-wired, it is evolution, etc, etc, etc.

 

Does this stem from the idea that "when I was a nice guy...it got me nowhere, because all these girls only wanted to date 'bad boys'"? I can tell you a big reason as to why this happens. People in general tend to attract those around them that justify their own beliefs. For example...if someone has a really low self-esteem.....they believe they are worthless etc, they will tend to attract those (not all the time) people that will act out their "unworthiness"...thus proving to themselves again that they are unworthy. It is a viscious cycle....you tend to see this with people that are in a pattern. You know...those people that have had 6 boyfriends, and all of them beat them. I am by no means saying this is the woman's fault...however, these patterns play out in many ways all the time. Or a woman who comes from a very patriachal or traditional family....may hold the same views. This does not mean that a man was "made" to dominate and a woman was "made" to be submissive.

 

Society has pegged certain qualities as "feminine" or "masculine"...like nurturing, ambitious, honest, manipulative, strong, weak, etc. We have reared boys a certain way, and we have reared girls a certain way....then some try to blame it all on genetics or biology...without looking at the social factors. For example...there were many studies done on how a person holds a newborn. The study concluded that girls were held more gently and fragily than boys were. So...as soon as they come out of the womb, we have given them a set of attributes decided by sex. We dress boys in blue and buy them trucks and cars...dress girls in pink and give them barbies and makeup. Then you have to factor in the media and the social learning theory.

 

We have given people stereotypical ways to view things, and they stick because we are all biased. If we see a man freak about his hair he is "gay"....and a girl is just being girly. These kinds of things have been driven into our heads since birth. We see more men being dominant, and because it is men who do this, we few it as natural....but a woman is "witchy"...sub the "w" for a "b". Being dominant isn't a "masculine" trait....it is a trait, plain and simple.

 

Don't get me wrong...I firmly believe that men have a harder time getting out of this stereotypical "box" than woman do. If a man does anything considered "feminine"...he is considered "gay"...and thus a deviant. Ironically we consider men with some feminine qualities gay (ie like a woman). I don't think that women attribute the things they "consiously" want to feminine qualities....they are qualities...and it is people/society that dictated the stereotype. I have found that men love it when they hear that I love video games, love to watch football and hockey...but they also love many of my "feminine" qualities too. Does this mean because I like sports they are dating a guy with breasts? Absolutely not. It is a balance. Those who subscribe to these rigid stereotypes are the ones who will end up together...the domineering man/submissive woman, The nurturing woman, and the emotionally unavailable man, etc.

 

I don't rule out biology completely....however, you come to the chicken or the egg syndrome. We don't know if it is our brain chemisty that dictates out behavior, or our behavior that dictates our brain chemistry. More things can be explained by social factors than biology in terms of behavior.

[Shidoshi]

Wow, this is a great discussion. In my opinion, even though it seems like a lot of these feminine and masculine traits are learned behaviors, men and women are biologically different from each other. We do have a lot in common, but I feel we NEED to have these differences in order to procreate successfully. Times are obviously changing rapidly, but evolution itself is a very long process. Regardless if these behaviours are hardwired or learned, they aren't going to change as fast as the world around us is. Even when women are interested in some of the same activities that men are, which are considered to be masculine, they are not seeing this activity through the eyes of a man. They appreciate it in different ways. I won't say that this is the case all of the time, but it seems to be pretty common place.

[Goddess4ever]

I think the thing to remember is being a human being isn't all about procreation. Some men have impotence problems or low sperm counts....some woman cannot conceive, carry a child, or miscarry. I do not view people with these problems as "biologically defective". Should they be dragged out into the street and shot? What about people of different sexual orientations....should they get this label as well? If the reason we are here is for procreation...then maybe people should stop...as the world is already overpopulated. If it is all about procreation....then we are the only species that kills each other off willingly....maybe that should stop too.

 

As far as being biologically different...there are very few differences. Yes, woman have to carry more fat in their bodies, only because they bare children. Height and weight are only roughly 60% genetic...that leaves 40% (approx) due to the enxironment/social factors. The fact being, is you could have two parents that are six feet tall....does that mean that their child will be? Maybe....but if you don't feed your kid, then they will be physically stunted...you could have all the genes in the world, but it wouldn't help that fact.

 

What I have a problem with is people using biological "reasons" to justify their own behavior. Even if you taking the old hunting and gathering societies.....if women didn't gather...no one would be here today. The men would go out and hunt....however, the time that it would take to find an animal to kill could take weeks or months. If women didn't gather...no one would have eaten. The point that I am trying to make is that we seem to be focusing on the differences of men and women in order to prove one is better than the other. WE are not judging both "masculine" and "feminine" qualities on an equal playing field...we are always trying to prove one is better than the other....and the truth be told....being ambitious is not BETTER than being nurturing....or the other way around. They are different "qualities".....but they should still hold equal weight in the world...and should be EQUALLY important. This goes for every other quality that we want to attach to women and men.

[sym666]

.. You know why she married him? Because of his intelligence, his sense of humor, his kindness. Not because she had some idea of his looks appearing dominating! ..

 

But the virtues you listed here actually seem to be related to dominating features of a person. And they are indipendent from the belonging race, of course.

So I don't know if I get correctly the sense of what Hero was saying about black people. Having natural better shaped bodies can raise DNA spread chances for sure. Males look at a feminine body and unconsciously try to figure how much the ratio between hip and waiste get close to 2:3 or whatever it is, and similar things will do women as well. But even tough I'm sure that we act by istincts at 90%, here human conscience plays a role, too. In other words I think that the physical analisys is the first level one.

[Goddess4ever]

sym666...you are correct with the hip-waist ratio. However, again....that ratio is going to apply to women that weight 100 pounds or 400 pounds.....and we all know how much most people view weight and attractiveness. Meaning...a 120 pound woman could have that "ideal unconscious biological attractiveness" ...or a 400 pound woman could have that exact ratio as well. The problem is, society and the media have told us what is beautiful....and many of these women don't fit that ratio.

 

There was also another interesting syudy done where they wanted to show how biology/instincts played a large part in determining what is considered attractive. Many believe that men look for "healthy" mates. In this study they took some women that had cancer (who were beautiful)....and some "average" looking women who were healthy. To the surprise of the researchers...most men chose the beautiful as the most attractice, and thus the most healthy, when in fact they had cancer. Again, these "instiacts" tend to be overruled by social factors.

[Derek]

Godess4ever,

 

I am attracted to how well spoken you are and how you are clearly intelligent and well read.

 

Does that make me a real man or an effeminate man or something?

We can't win for trying...

 

 

 

P.S. The nature/nurture debate can be argued both ways. Even after

"modern" psychology has experimented on children in the western world

since the 1970s, they still can't seem to eliminate the gender biases.

Girls are "girly" without any help from nurture. Sure you can give a girl

more choices, but the sad (or not?) thing is that they choose the Barbie of their own volition. Same with boys and trucks. All we have that is different in today's society now is more freedom of choice. What is kind of ironic is some women feel betrayed by the promises of 70s feminists with how their lives are in reality today. Men and women both seem to be less content than ever. Is too many choices a bad thing?

 

Anyway, there are clear differences in the sexes, how they handle language and spacial tasks and other things.

[Goddess4ever]

Derek,

 

I totally understand where you are coming from. The nature/nurture debate has been around for awhile....and most of the time they can't be proved either way. My mom shared an interesting story with me...about myself when I was 4 1/2. My brother was born when I was 4.5 years old. Soon after he came home...my mom told me that I wanted to be the "mommy". I apparently used to tell her to leave the room because I was the "mommy" today. She attributed that to me being female...which could have been the case. However, I brought up the example of the social learning theory. Children learn how to act by observing others...ESPECIALLY those who are the same sex. So when I was a kid, my mom took care of me, I watched tv commercials of barbie and other "girl" toys....all of these commercials only showed girls playing with them. I went to my grandma's house and helped her bake. I went to friends houses and saw how girls acted. All these can be attributed to adding to my "femaleness". All of these things play a part.

 

Boys grow up with "don't cry...be a man"...and they rarely see male figures cry (whether real or fictional), they see men being violent....and see men express frustration and anger. I am not saying that there are NO biological factors involved...it is just that we cannot isolate these factors without having social influences involved.

 

Like I stated before....I really do think men are more stereotyped negatively than women are. I have seen countless times...where a father would be walking along with his daughter...and being affectionate...holding her hand, giving her a kiss, or a hug....and then seeing everyone looking at them whispering....that it was inappropriate or bordering on molestation. It makes me very sad that people view men who show affection as gross, gay, or odd. I don't like how people feel that men are incapable or it is unnatural for a man to be caring, warm and compassionate. At both my grandparents funerals, I saw every man in the place crying....my uncles, my cousins, etc.

 

And when I think of me and my childhood...I think I got some very positive role models of both men and women. I was never told that I was acting inapropriate if I played street hockey or if I went inside and baked with my grandmother. Unfortunately....not a lot of people have had these experiences.

 

As far as the promises of the feminists of the 70's...I do see how some women feel betrayed. However, many people fail to see the benefits this has had for men too. There are of course men and women who feel betrayed by this, and it is very difficult for some to see why this was brought about (feminism) without anger or resentment. I blame some of this "thinking" on the media twistings...or the misrepresentations. In regards to relationships...I am sure that most people really like to share experiences with their significant other that are the same. How well are two people going to get along if one's passion is cars...and the other's is makeup. I mean really...using basic stereotypes....wouldn't a guy like to have a girl that is already interested in cars....or willing to learn from him? Wouldn't a girl like to sit down with a guy and talk about hairstyles? Like I said, I used basic stereotypes here...but I am sure people want to spend time together doing the things they like to do...whether it be hiking or amusement parks, or camping...whatever.

 

Thank you for your compliment! This doesn't make you anything except genuine, which I might add, is a very important quality to have.

[Hero_99]

sym666...you are correct with the hip-waist ratio. However, again....that ratio is going to apply to women that weight 100 pounds or 400 pounds.....and we all know how much most people view weight and attractiveness. Meaning...a 120 pound woman could have that "ideal unconscious biological attractiveness" ...or a 400 pound woman could have that exact ratio as well. The problem is, society and the media have told us what is beautiful....and many of these women don't fit that ratio.

 

There is some truth to this, but I think that there is s slight misunderstanding in concept.

 

The hip ratio of 2:3 is not static, but is representative of the amount of calories that a woman needs to substain and produce a healthy baby. When a woman has a ratio of about 2:3 she is advertising her fertility, not the fact that she is attractive.

 

So, in essense a hip ration of 2:3 is only advertising that a woman has good mating potential and not necessarily that she is physically attractive.

 

The hip ratio does of course play into the total of attractibility, which can be any number of things.

 

 

Also, as far as a 400 pound woman is concerned, a woman that size can not have a ration of 2:3. Considering her mating potential she has more than enough calories to produce a healthy baby, but I seriously doubt any sane or sober man lacking desperation would come close enough to a 400 pound woman to actually cause her to have any children for fear of his friends finding out.

 

I am sure you can clearly see by now that there are other factors to attractibility than just a waste/hip ratio.

[Hero_99]

.. You know why she married him? Because of his intelligence, his sense of humor, his kindness. Not because she had some idea of his looks appearing dominating! ..

 

But the virtues you listed here actually seem to be related to dominating features of a person. And they are indipendent from the belonging race, of course. So I don't know if I get correctly the sense of what Hero was saying about black people. Having natural better shaped bodies can raise DNA spread chances for sure.

 

 

I don't know if you read any of the previous post, but I got the black man senerio from a scientific journal printed in german. I chose to use that as an example because black men tend to have a lot of typically dominant masculine looking features.

 

I know that this isn't always the case, so I am not going to persue the issue further than stating that I blatently chose to use a black man as an example, and that's the only reason.

[Shidoshi]

I was wondering about your comment that "we" seem to be focused on the differences between men and women to prove one is better. Are you referring to people in general or the people participating in this discussion? I personally don't think that at all, and I value both traits equally because I believe we all have a little of both. At the same time, I cannot deny what I am presented with from day-to-day as I observe male and female behaviour, including my own. I know that everyone doesn't fit into these stereotypes, but I'd be hard-pressed to find more people who didn't. Maybe its my upbringing, society, etc., but I think the differences between men and women are very obvious. You may hear some women say they value "feminine" qualities in men, but most times their actions say otherwise.

[Hero_99]

I know that everyone doesn't fit into these stereotypes, but I'd be hard-pressed to find more people who didn't. Maybe its my upbringing, society, etc., but I think the differences between men and women are very obvious. You may hear some women say they value "feminine" qualities in men, but most times their actions say otherwise.

 

What actually attracts a woman and what women say attracts them can often be two diffrent things. Sometimes this has to do with the termology employed and that men and women have diffrent definitions from some of the same words.

 

For example,

 

A woman views a nice guy as a strong confident man who can act aggressive, but not so aggressive that she can't get close to him.

 

A man views a nice guy as a passive wuss that can't stand up for himself and couln't get to first base with a woman even if his life depended on it.

 

So, technically when a woman says she perfers nice guys she is teling the truth. She is saying this with the assumption that all men are strong in some sense. Women look at men and categorize them in terms oftheir strength.

 

And when a guy says that women perfer jerks he is also telling the truth, since in the male social structure the most successful men are the most aggressive ones. Men look at other men in terms of weakness and categorize them as such.

 

Yes, women also often become cofused and look for what's feminine in what they say attracts them. Women place a hugh emphasis on friendship, and when they describe the perfect man they also try to put him at some sort of level of friendship.

 

The problem is that men do not need friendship. Men place a hugh emphasis on the sexualpart of having a relationship, which means theyare fine with casual sex with a woman who he keeps as more of an aquaintance.

 

Now, I believe that in order for a men and women to be whole beings they must function together as a reliable unit for the sake of children.

 

However, the underlying cause is that women emphasise a great deal of friendship and little sex, and men emphasize a great deal of sex and a little bit of friendship. It's the balance that nature or whatever created us has installed into us to complement each other, and those that understand and follow the gudlines of nature will be blessed with a solid, healthy, relationship.

 

For more information on why this is true go to this link:

 

link removed

[Goddess4ever]

Shidoshi,

 

When I said "we" I was referring to people in general...not solely the people on this board. Sorry I didn't make that clearer!

 

And Hero...I am not completely disagreeing with your post. Again...as I stated before....you are taking only the biological/genetic/instinct ideas of men and women...and not taking into account social factors. Also...the "ideal" hip waist ratio for women to have is 0.70 (give or take a .01 point or two). So it is possible to have a woman with a waist of 50 inches, and hips that are 70 inches....this gives you a 0.71...which according to the evolutionary attractiveness/healthy "theory"...would be highly desireable. Evolutionary psychologists believe that one of the top reasons that a woman is a desireable mate for a man is that she is healthy, and thus be able to bear healthy, live children.....this ratio is considered healthy....even thought the person may weight over 300 pounds. That is why I mentioned the social factors....as you said "but I seriously doubt any sane or sober man lacking desperation would come close enough to a 400 pound woman to actually cause her to have any children for fear of his friends finding out". This simple example would give cause to add that it is not just biology that determines our mates.

[sym666]

sym666...you are correct with the hip-waist ratio. However, again....

 

There was also another interesting syudy done where they wanted to show how biology/instincts played a large part in determining what is considered attractive. Many believe that men look for "healthy"....

 

Right, I've left aside the social aspects..Nothing to argue about it. If DNA is our harware, the culture is the (bugged )software we're going to install on ourselves. Someone please tell me where to find my patches

 

Instead I probably didn't understand well the thing about the sick women. Beauty can be a signal of healthy status, but there can be exceptions. If an illness is "silent", as many forms or cancer can be, how can I know that a person is sick? Maybe they wanted to discover if human beings have developed such a skill.

[Bjourne]

The thing about the hunter gathering society Godness mentioned is false. During that time both males and females took equal part in hunting and gathering. There was no division of labour between the genders.

 

It is funny that in our gender-based society we have so very hard to believe that it was like that.

[Hero_99]

The thing about the hunter gathering society Godness mentioned is false. During that time both males and females took equal part in hunting and gathering. There was no division of labour between the genders.

 

It is funny that in our gender-based society we have so very hard to believe that it was like that.

 

Actually, in a sense it is true.

 

Men and women both hunted and did whatever they had to do to survive. There was no immdiate split, though some job functions were performed more so by one sex than the other.

 

Yet, you can also still see the principle represented in the way that men and women shop for items. A man will always go straight for whatever his target item is and a woman will take a long time to choose between multiple items.

 

This stems from the aspect that the typical male mindset is quantitative and direct and the female mindset is qualitative and indirect.

 

So on this basis you both are correct.

[Shidoshi]

Question, if men and women shared some of the same roles when hunting and gathering, why are male physiques naturally stronger and more rugged? Is it because males did "more" hunting then gathering, and/or does it have something to do with say fighting and physical combat, be it war or friendly competition?

[Hero_99]

Question, if men and women shared some of the same roles when hunting and gathering, why are male physiques naturally stronger and more rugged? Is it because males did "more" hunting then gathering, and/or does it have something to do with say fighting and physical combat, be it war or friendly competition?

 

I think that men and women are capable of doing both hunting and gathering type activities, but one sex tended do various functions more than the other.

 

For example, men tended to do more hunting and type activities and women tended to do more gathering type activities. Though, there are a few exceptions to this rule in modern times.

 

Another reason is that pregenancy tends to be a big hinderance to a woman when it comes to collecting resources; this is why the duty has fallen to man to be the sole protector and provider for a woman. And because of the reproductive archetecture of a woman youthfulness is favored. Men do not retain this youthfulness in result to the amount of testosterone that floods their body and changes their body shape.

[Bjourne]

The thing about the hunter gathering society Godness mentioned is false. During that time both males and females took equal part in hunting and gathering. There was no division of labour between the genders.

 

It is funny that in our gender-based society we have so very hard to believe that it was like that.

 

Men and women both hunted and did whatever they had to do to survive. There was no immdiate split, though some job functions were performed more so by one sex than the other.

 

Wrong. This is the misconception i tried to put straight. Both men and females hunted and both men and females gathered berries. There were probably gender differences in those societies too, but not as significant as "men hunted, women breast-feed children".

 

Yet, you can also still see the principle represented in the way that men and women shop for items. A man will always go straight for whatever his target item is and a woman will take a long time to choose between multiple items.

 

Then I guess I'm very feminine male. I always ponder long and hard before I buy anything costly and I can spend 10 minutes deciding what kind of pizza I want. Your theory is wrong.

 

This stems from the aspect that the typical male mindset is quantitative and direct and the female mindset is qualitative and indirect.

 

Many, many species away you might have had a point. Yes, it makes sense for the boy fly to find and screw as many girl flies as possible. And it makes sense for the girl fly to only screw with the best boy fly. However, for primates many more variables become significant. For a male gorilla it doesn't matter how many children he gets if they all die before they can reproduce. thereforeeee it makes sense for him to protect the baby gorillas so that they too can reproduce and give him grandchildren. thereforeeee it is biologically favourable if both males and females are equipped with the "female" trait of caring for their children.

 

And so on. I'm NOT saying there aren't any biological differences between males and females, but I believe that in our society they are grossly overstated. Like are girls weaker because they are girls or is it because they never go to the gym to pump their muscles?

 

Look at female body-builders and you'll see what I mean. Yup the male bodybuilders would probably beat them but the differences aren't that big. And also remember that body-building is mostly about who can eat the most drugs and not get caught.

 

The best male sprinter run 100 m at 9.9, the best female something like 11.

 

Then something about females attraction to manlyness... Do females like guys with pimples? The more pimples the better? Or the opposite? Well, acne is in part caused by an overproduction of the MALE sex hormone testosterone. Doesn't make sense does it?

 

Well, females aren't at all attracted to what is manlyness. They are attracted to what they unconsiously BELIEVE are manlyness.

 

Just like anorexia isn't a femalyness but many males are attracted to underweight females anyway...

 

Another example. Women do not like beardy men. Well, some do but I believe most like males that shave. Why??? Beard is CERTAINLY a manly feature! The reason:

 

MEL GIBSON DOES SHAVE!!!!!!!

 

Aaaaaaaaah!!! Damn him! The reason for every womans attraction to Mel Gibson is tautological: Every woman loves Mel Gibson thereforeeee every woman loves Mel Gibson! Woman seem to have realised that there is no certain way to determine who will be their best partner so thereforeeee they just go for who everyone else thinks is their best partner.

 

However, Hero_99's advice might still be good, but not for the reason he gives. Instead being somewhat arrogant and dominating towards women is attractive because that is how all the Hollywood hotties act (in their movies).

[Hero_99]

Wrong. This is the misconception i tried to put straight. Both men and females hunted and both men and females gathered berries. There were probably gender differences in those societies too, but not as significant as "men hunted, women breast-feed children".

 

Right, and this is the concept that I tried to being to light. In fact, in the ape kingdom there isn't really such thing as an alpha/beta bias that humans like to emphasize; female Gorillas will mate with both small and large male gorillas. Now, whether a bigger gorilla will allow a smaller gorilla to mate, that is another story all together.

 

Then I guess I'm very feminine male. I always ponder long and hard before I buy anything costly and I can spend 10 minutes deciding what kind of pizza I want. Your theory is wrong.

 

You jumped the gun a bit quick, didn't you? If you would go back and read you will realize that I said that there are a few obvious exceptions.

 

And if you have to ponder 10 minutes over what you want on a pizza or whether you want to even order a pizza, you obviously don't have a lot of direct and active control over your own life begin with. Unless of course you are ordering with other people in mind.

 

 

 

This stems from the aspect that the typical male mindset is quantitative and direct and the female mindset is qualitative and indirect.

Many, many species away you might have had a point. Yes, it makes sense for the boy fly to find and screw as many girl flies as possible. And it makes sense for the girl fly to only screw with the best boy fly. However, for primates many more variables become significant. For a male gorilla it doesn't matter how many children he gets if they all die before they can reproduce. thereforeeee it makes sense for him to protect the baby gorillas so that they too can reproduce and give him grandchildren. thereforeeee it is biologically favourable if both males and females are equipped with the "female" trait of caring for their children.

And so on. I'm NOT saying there aren't any biological differences between males and females, but I believe that in our society they are grossly overstated. Like are girls weaker because they are girls or is it because they never go to the gym to pump their muscles?

 

Girls are weaker because estrogen does not cause them to grow large muscles.

 

One of the most noticeable effects of this is found in male to female transexuals who have had surgery and take medicine to remove the effects of masculinization and testosterone. They begin to lose fat in their face and stomach and their arm muscles weaken to an almost spegetti like state and everything goes south to the hips, just like a woman.

 

However, Hero_99's advice might still be good, but not for the reason he gives. Instead being somewhat arrogant and dominating towards women is attractive because that is how all the Hollywood hotties act (in their movies).

 

You are missing the point.

 

I do believe that it is better to be aggressive than passive, but I emphasize the assertive aspects found between aggressive and passive. Unfortunatelly, it is hard for women to discern between the passive/assertive/aggressive guys so they go for the most successful and aggressive one that is able to gather resources, but they fail woman in the long run because they lack self-control.

 

A man who is assertive is also aggressive, but aggressive in the best interest of those around him and will not harm anyone or anything that doesn't side aginst him.