At one time you could blame the feminists or political correctness – now the only ones to blame are the Prius driving, vegan, low-rise jean wearing “men”
~

James G’s last blog post: Motorcycles, The Old School Man Way.

But as far as defining a man by his ability to defend himself against physical attacks as well as verbal attacks, I wanted to know where men with disabilities measured up to your definition of manhood.

Sean Stephenson comes to mind– dude’s in a wheelchair, has a congenital condition that renders his bones soft and infinitely breakable. He’s about the size of a large baby. But he’s more of a man than most men 4 times his size.

Would he still qualify as a man for you? It would be interesting to hear your thoughts. Peace–

I’ve said this many times myself. But approaching combined with “best practices” on how to treat a girl can make a HUGE difference on how much more you get laid. There’s always a better way to accomplish a task, and game is just a manual on the most efficient way to get laid.

I still believe it’s success is largely owed to the fact that it forces men to approach. They probably would have done fine before, but didn’t have the balls to walk up and say hi. They then attribute their success to what essentially amount to self-help books.

That said, I may actually rethink my stance on the matter. There are obviously some really smart people here and I congratulate you on the intelligence of your arguments.

I gave credit where it was due and I think it’s fairly clear that I have an appreciation for the value of thinking and writing. I recommended a book to you written by a Harvard professor that examines the topic in great depth, and sung the praises of men who have balanced the pen and the sword. I have not advocated wanton thuggery.

However, the elevation of the importance of being an intellectual is a common, self-important vanity of intellectuals.

As a pal of mine has argued, “there is no argument you can make down the barrel of a gun that it will not refute.”

“Yes, physical strength is important, but paramount? The defining feature? Only a brute thinks this way – that is, only someone weak.”

This is so laughable. You are still using strength as a club to emasculate me for defining masculinity by strength. As the defining metaphor for manhood you cannot escape the primacy. Even in your defense of intellect you are saying, “See, I am stronger than you. You are weak.”

What thugs understand that intellectuals who have been indoctrinated by feminists (passive or active) do not is that masculinity must have strength as its root so that you can successfully inspire men to embrace other ideas.

There’s another excellent book called “What is a Man? 3,000 Years of Wisdom on the Art of Manly Virtue” that catalogs many of the intellectual virtues, many of them laudable, that (predominantly) Western men have attached to manliness. Without strength as I’ve defined it, they are merely pretty ideas. Heroic men, good men, wield their strength in alignment with virtue. Virtue informs and directs strength, and I would argue that it should. But virtue without strength is…a greeting card.

The snide comments demean you. I can easily characterize the way you elevate brute strength over intellect as a mere reflection of your own inadequacies, but what would be gained by that?

And argument needs to be argued on its own merits. A greater respect for intellect might have made you more appreciative of that fact.

Oh, and you didnt understand my strength and women comment – it was to point out that you cant locate true manliness in a form of power UNIQUE to men. Your response that men are on average stronger is to have completely missed the point of my comment.

Anyways, we simply dont see eye to eye on this one.

Physical strength has its place, but it is far from the core of masculinity, not its defining feature, and spending too much time cultivating it is pointless.

Its sad to me that youre so hostile to intellect – to the point of mocking me for being a *nerd* for elevating it above physical strength – and cling to a coarse and primitive form of masculinity which takes the one quality we share with animals, and the quality most prized by thugs and criminals, and makes that the defining feature of masculinity.

It is a coarse, brutal, and primitive vision that does a massive disservice to men. No, for me, psychological features like temperament and intellect will always count for more in defining masculinity.

Yes, physical strength is important, but paramount? The defining feature? Only a brute thinks this way – that is, only someone weak.

Because that is what a brute is – someone form whom physical strength forms the greatest form of power he knows.

Again, SOME physical stress is undoubtedly important, but it is far from paramount.

Even the Navy Seals dont stress it – they stress stamina, both mental and physical, and skill with weapons, and ferocity. The selection process for Seals doesnt even test for strength, but for psycholoigcal qualities.

Why? Because of the obvious truth that strength is of relatively trivial stature and easily built up if need be.

And I would never tell young boys not to aspire to physcal strength – I know I did when I was young – but I WILL tell young men who grow out of boyhood to aspire to higher levels of power. What is appropriate to boyhood – the realtively easy – isnt whats appropriate to adults.

A civilized society is precisely one which recognizes that men need to be mentally and psychologically strong – and that such a society will always defeat the merely physically strong. That is why Europe colonized Africa, and not the other way around.

Thanks for the tip on the Harvey Mansfield book – Ill check it out. You make some good points, but sadly you fall into the familiar pattern of crude anti-intellectualism and primitivism so prevalent amongst the advocates of *manliness*. Alas.

The strength training comment is an avoidance of reality, not a thoughtful observation. A rare woman can train to be stronger than many men who haven’t trained at all. Strength and womanhood aren’t mutually exclusive and I would never assert that they are, but on average untrained men are 50% stronger than average untrained women. If both groups were trained to their potential, strength would still, proportionately speaking, be attributed to men. I deliver exercise equipment to (many) women for a living, and they pay me to do it because in most cases they are really not built to push 300 pounds of steel up a staircase.

That aside, I understand what you’re saying. In some sense, it’s very Bushido–or maybe I just think Bushido whenever I read the word “fortitude.” Samurai weren’t giant men but they were so ballsy they could cut their own stomachs open without so much as a grimace. Fortitude is definitely one of the key manly virtues.

I would actually recommend Harvey C. Mansfield’s “Manliness” (2006). He shares a lot of ground with you (and me) on the topic of manliness. He boils it down to “assertiveness.” I’m re-reading it now and while I would quibble with him on certain points, it is by far one of the best books on the topic.

However, I have to go after this statement:

“And manliness cant be located in forms of power unattainable by women – as that doesnt exist – but only in forms of power that are typically found in larger measure and better expressed in men. Perhaps that is physical, but since that is so trivial a form of power a real man would much rather develop other things.”

The first sentence is perfect and eloquent.

The second is bad form and pretty obviously an attempt to emasculate men who the majority of men would consider manly–presumably to place yourself above them as the REALLY real man. You’re not fooling anyone with this “revenge of the nerds” strategy.

I am comfortable associating manliness with strength while also admitting that I am not the strongest of all men or the manliest man in mantown. I am talking about strength in precisely the way I defined it, not just physical strength.

Some of the greatest, and manliest, of all men were both strong and smart. Plato was one heck of a wrestler. A large number of Navy SEALS also have PhDs or advanced degrees. Sir Richard Francis Burton comes to mind.

A civilized society fails its men when it fails to recognize the primacy of strength in the male identity. It succeeds when it recognizes the need for its male role models to be strong, and encourages them to be strong and just and smart.

If you think you can sell the idea that strength is unimportant to manliness to young boys and inspire them, you, along with a lot of feminists, are sorely mistaken.

____

“The cynicism that regards hero worship as comical is always shadowed by a sense of physical inferiority.”

- Yukio Mishima,Sun and Steel

An interesting and valubale distinction between power and peculiarly manly power, but not as stark as you seem to suppose – through strength training women can become stronger than most men, and indeed, any form of power can be attained by women.

However, you have helped me to refine my thinking on masculinity and forced me to a slight re-definition.

My primary point was that physical strength, while having some importance, should not be overemphasized to the point of making it a primary criteria of *manliness*. This line of thinking will elevate the brute and the savage to prominence.

I am much more partial to the view that manliness resides primarily in the psychological quality of having temperamental fortitude – or psychological *strength*.

I find *real manliness* quite compatible with a relatively low level of physical strength – because of dedication to other pursuits or perhaps, because of accidents – is a mentally tough man who is paralyzed not *manly*? I would say its ridiculous to say that philosophers, say, like Aristotle, or poets like Homer, would not be real men for failing to devote much time to developing their physical strength.

So perhaps I would now say that while rationality, intelligence, and forms of cultural or social power are not the basis of *manliness*, they are higher forms of power than physical strength and more worth spending our limited time on earth attaining, and that *manliness* is quite compatible with having a relatively low level of physical strength, and not investing great amounts of time in developing the ability to defend yourself.

I would now locate manliness primarily in a psychological quality of mind – *testicular fortitude*, as it were.

And manliness cant be located in forms of power unattainable by women – as that doesnt exist – but only in forms of power that are typically found in larger measure and better expressed in men. Perhaps that is physical, but since that is so trivial a form of power a real man would much rather develop other things.

But thanks for your clarifying comments.

Personally, I think there is more to life than getting laid. I believe that basing your life on the whims of girls is a sacrifice of freedom. In the end, you accomplish nothing except for a mere number. And this is how I justify my lack of success with women and remain truly happy pursuing other goals.

You obviously didn’t read the post I linked to, because it addresses your concerns.

When it comes to manliness, physical strength is the root of the metaphor from which all else flows, but yes, there are ways to exert strength and influence that don’t depend on physical strength. Dana White can buy, sell, ruin and lionize the Ultimate Fighters who depend on him for their bread. I was very careful in crafting my definition of strength.

Where discussions of manliness–specifically manliness–are concerned, if you stray too far from a strength grounded in physical reality as a base and start talking about abstract forms of strength, there is a point where you stop talking about manliness and are then talking about gender neutral definitions of power. Hillary Clinton and Oprah Winfrey wield power and influence, but they are not manly by any sane definition of the word. Perez Hilton probably wields more power than I do, but he is in no sense manly.

There is a difference between manliness and power.

Manliness is grounded in the physicality of men. That’s the only thing that separates manliness from other abstract qualities.

Mind you, also, that I am not making any hard and fast line between REAL MEN and other males. Manliness comes in grades, and men are more or less manly based on manly qualities they exhibit.

But I think your diminishing the value of money and wealth. Money gives you the means to provide the most essential needs for yourself including food, and shelter. Money also gives you personal freedom to pursue things such as travel, game, physical activities, and leisure. If you have money, you can essentially buy time for yourself to pursue things that can help build your character and help you become more of man.

The reason that things like money, wealth, and education aren’t seen as very important things in wealthy countries like the U.S. (and the women that live there) is because there is so much of it. It’s basic supply and demand. The more money there is, the less valuable it becomes.

But in countries where economic limitations are a reality, and things such as access to education are limited, these things are still seen as highly important.

I do agree though that money is not everything. A real man is well rounded in all aspects.

Dan DeLa Cruz’s last blog post: You Have a College Degree: So What?.