What does it mean to be a man?

[dad_o_six]

Excellent question.

For me, being a real man involves making tough decisions, and doing the right thing based on principles and not just pragmatism. Of course, I couldn’t do this without the wise counsel of my wife. I’m very fortunate to have a wife who allows me, nay insists, that I stand up and be man. Dear wife is convinced that God created men to be risk-takers and God created women to be security-seekers. These are not roles (modern concept) but natures (ancient concept), and of course they are complementary. The ancient Greek word for virtue is best translated as manliness, although character is acceptable. In accepting the modern concept of humanism/egalitarianism/feminism, the real danger is that neither man nor woman have the opportunity to fulfill their natures. If sex roles are merely parts played by the partners, then marriage is really nothing more than playing house. But if husband and wife interact according to their natures, then they can be truly married in their being.

A preemptive “Plu-ease!” goes here to throw back the Ozzie and Harriet stereotype. Try to think outside your culture and time in history. By the way, being a Christian also means to think like an ancient. We can quibble about the specifics of what it means to BE and man or woman, but as Christians we cannot simply dismiss the attributes as insignificant (hairy ape) or merely learned (gender roles). On some level, we as Christians have to accept that there ARE real and significant differences between man and woman.

 

[Salonika]

JohnAH:

Not that women should not work but their place is with the upbringing of children

JohnAH:

The ultimate expression of masculinity is fatherhood and the ultimate expression of femininity is motherhood

JohnAH:

There is strength in knowing who you are and proving you are something else is being afraid of who you are

These comments by JohnAH put me in a quandry and I suspect a number of other women and men who do not feel called to marriage and children.

You see in JohnAH’s scenario I fail in two ways - no ultimate expression of femininity and my job (which I have to have to live) does not involve teaching or some other job with children which he advocates.

Anyway would it be fair to children to have someone working with them who doesn’t have the personality to work with them?

Also if I took on the jobs you recommend then I am not being myself and being afraid of who I am.

Narrowing women and men’s choices is not the answer way to better male and female role models for children.

 

[whatevergirl]

Let’s not oversimplify it, at once what you are saying “if a man tries to model his life after Christ, that is most important” that is both simple and very complex with respect to how deep you want to go into it, of couse by narrowing it down to that, complex as it can be, complicated and convoluted it is not. For anyone person what that means is simple, but if you want to make a rule to apply to everyone then that can get quite complex, undersome conditions a thing may be permitted in another it may not; though it still goes down to just a few fundamental principles. So as you see, it is both simple and complex. Ok I’m just playing.

I hear ya. Human beings are simple, yet complex. I think more of what I was driving at is that men and women should seek their identities through how Christ sees them, and how they live their lives through Christ, and Christ through them…than how secular society ‘dubs’ them to fit into this or that round hole. Others don’t dictate to me who I am as a woman, or who my husband is as a man–God does. I think that there are secular differences between men and women–and sadly, there seems to be this blur that has happened over the decades, to where authentic womanhood and manhood is somehow being watered down to mean something else.

I’m sleepy now. I will be back soon enough to finish my thoughts in a more logical way. lol Night.

 

[Salonika]

Chevalier:

Brains are different. They say female ones are more advanced, while ours are bigger and heavier…. As for multi-tasking vs focus, sight range is the best difference. Women can handle more at the same time, we can handle one thing with more focus

Think there is a lot of danger in stereotyping in this way as with most stereotyping. There are always some exceptions. What about the male who has a “female” brain and the female (like me) who has a “male” brain.
Eucharised:

To follow in the footsteps of our Lord, Jesus Christ, is to not only be a man but to be the best of men … Jesus is the New Adam, Father of mankind. What better model of manhood is there……

Eucharised I’m not sure if you are meaning “manhood” to be mean male or being all of humanity regardless of gender. If male only is there a different role model for women?

sanctamaria17:

think people should concentrate on following God’s plans for their own lives and not worry so much about society’s (yes, society’s) own concepts regarding men and women. God calls some women to stay at home, some women to work (in varied kinds of work, from medicine, to military, to teaching, to business), some men to stay at home, and some men to work.

Well put.

whatevergirl:

You post very beautiful sentiments. Women and men can serve God in a variety of ways. If someone is called to serve in a particular way that you personally feel is not suitable for that gender, it really is just your opinion. We all have opinions. Opinions are not facts, though.

Oh, that we could get to this and respect other peoples choices. and have ours respected,

dad_o_six:

For me, being a real man involves making tough decisions, and doing the right thing based on principles and not just pragmatism. Of course, I couldn’t do this without the wise counsel of my wife. Dear wife is convinced that God created men to be risk-takers and God created women to be security-seekers. These are not roles (modern concept) but natures (ancient concept), and of course they are complementary.

What about those of us who are not married? Are we to take on both roles? The one for our sex only?

 

[jman507]

I hear ya. Human beings are simple, yet complex. I think more of what I was driving at is that men and women should seek their identities through how Christ sees them, and how they live their lives through Christ, and Christ through them…than how secular society ‘dubs’ them to fit into this or that round hole. Others don’t dictate to me who I am as a woman, or who my husband is as a man–God does. I think that there are secular differences between men and women–and sadly, there seems to be this blur that has happened over the decades, to where authentic womanhood and manhood is somehow being watered down to mean something else.

I’m sleepy now. I will be back soon enough to finish my thoughts in a more logical way. lol Night.

OK I’m done “playing” now, I had my fun. I agree people ought to seek their identities through Christ, but the problem I have with your position is that we as Christians are not to act in a way independent of others. At the center of us, is that we are a social being; we have to act in communion with others. We can not only live measuring ourselves to Christ, but living as if Christ is in the others we relate too.

What that means is when we try to understand who we are and who we ought to be, we must do so with trying to grasp what it means who the other ought to be to as well, and how your relationships intertwine. Would you think you’d be a very good mother, if you never considered what you thought about what your child ought to mature to be. Would a priest ever be a really good pastor if he never thought about what both the church and the people of their parish ought to be.

I’ll agree that there has been a lot of rubbish lately about what what femininity and masculinity is. The answer for me is not to disregard it; it is to try to wrestle with it, to try to gain an understanding. Once you do that, then you really are ready to disregard ideas. If you look at it as a way of dictating what you should and should not do, you are looking at it wrong.

 

[jman507]

Oh, that we could get to this and respect other peoples choices. and have ours respected,

What about those of us who are not married? Are we to take on both roles? The one for our sex only?

I don’t think there was any mention of marriage of having a child changing a person’s nature, so I’m guessing it still holds true married or not. Again in any giving position, be it marriage, business, charity or sport, people often will take complementary roles, this may be explicit or implicit. I suppose if its an independent venture, then a person will have to cover all roles.

As far as the respecting other people’s choices, its not that I really disrespect or respect them generally. I want the other to pick the good over the bad. As far as their “fielder choices” I hope for them the best. What I would say is: was this a good fit? Was the outcome what you wanted? Did the people who depend on you get what they needed? I’m a pretty stubborn fellow, who has often times made moves that others didn’t see as the best choices, I had my reasons for making those choices. I don’t expect every decision somebody has made to seem the right one for me. They are on their own path, I wish them the best, and hope that they will learn and mature from what they have done. You can often redeem the bad, and the good can end up rotting.

 

[CWBetts]

Basilisk,
I’m not saying woman are not smart, but natural speaking, and numbers speaking men do push the envelope.

Heck if you look specifically into traits I would put women smarter than men. But men are brighter when it comes to figuring things out. I would put men as more goal oriented as complimentary to women being better at multi-tasking. It suits men to taking on hard jobs and women having a broader view of things like family.

Theology of the body clearly states that the sexes are equal and complimentary in their roles. But what people tend to miss is that each are better at certain things than the other thus “in their roles”.

Also - Women have better memories but men are better learners.
John

Do you have any sources for this stuff? I have been working as a math tutor at a University for the past 3 years. Most of my co-workers have been female, including a Biology/Chemistry double major and a Biology/Math double major! This is pure rhetoric and does nothing to define what makes a man a man, it only serves to attempt to perpetuate a false superiority over women!

 

[sanctamaria17]

AMEN!!!

Seriously, how much of this stuff is natural and how much of this is perpetuated by society? And even if something is “natural”, does it mean we need to act on it all the time? It’s “natural” for men to be promiscuous, does it mean they should be? As for the “better learners” comment, that doesn’t explain why most university students are now women? Obviously, women have to be good at learning, or so many of them wouldn’t be entering good colleges. And as for men being more goal oriented, you haven’t met me or my girl friends. I would think it’s because men are taught one thing and women are taught another. And those of us who do break out of these "roles’ (and those who don’t, by their own choice) are because we really don’t care what society says and we want to become the people that GOD INTENDED US TO BE and not who other people say we should be.

 

[jman507]

Do you have any sources for this stuff? I have been working as a math tutor at a University for the past 3 years. Most of my co-workers have been female, including a Biology/Chemistry double major and a Biology/Math double major! This is pure rhetoric and does nothing to define what makes a man a man, it only serves to attempt to perpetuate a false superiority over women!

Wow, do you have any sources that say when a person says that “in this aspect one is better than another, but in another the opposite holds true. They really are complements.” what that person really means is that a person is trying to say that they have a supority over another? I’ll see your rhetoric and raise you a hasty generalization.

 

[CWBetts]

All I am saying is some of the best students I know with regards to math and the sciences are women. I am not the one makinge generalizations. I am making observations of individuals. There are no “men’s jobs” and “women’s jobs” based on actual biology. These distinctions are fabricated by society.

 

[jman507]

AMEN!!!

Seriously, how much of this stuff is natural and how much of this is perpetuated by society? And even if something is “natural”, does it mean we need to act on it all the time? It’s “natural” for men to be promiscuous, does it mean they should be? As for the “better learners” comment, that doesn’t explain why most university students are now women? Obviously, women have to be good at learning, or so many of them wouldn’t be entering good colleges. And as for men being more goal oriented, you haven’t met me or my girl friends. I would think it’s because men are taught one thing and women are taught another. And those of us who do break out of these "roles’ (and those who don’t, by their own choice) are because we really don’t care what society says and we want to become the people that GOD INTENDED US TO BE and not who other people say we should be.

I think you are right in criticizing his idea when it comes to general apptitude. Deeper down, I think TOB is really relational and abstract. You are not exactly who you are, because of your aptitude; granted it will itself pin down a lot regarding your position in life. If you decide you want to mediate on the idea of at the time of your death, what would it mean to say, “I was the person who I ought; I was the person I ought to be with respect to God; I was the person I ought to be with respect to those who depended upon me.” Throw off your pride, and have confidence you know your situation. You don’t have to let someone knock you off your equilibrium.

 

[jman507]

All I am saying is some of the best students I know with regards to math and the sciences are women. I am not the one making generalizations. I am making observations of individuals. There are no “men’s jobs” and “women’s jobs” based on actual biology. These distinctions are fabricated by society.

Oh now, that sounds like a lot of rhetoric to me, about women having a false superiority over men. I’m calling in my hasty generalization. Kidding!

I would say there are no man’s jobs nor women’s jobs, I’m just saying there is going to be distinct ways of relating to them based on gender, though not limited to gender. You can add culture, social status, economic status, religion, family, personality, temperament. I don’t want to dilute it down to a point where gender is unimportant. It is important enough, for a person to reflect on it and to try to understand it and how it relates to their life, as well as how the opposite gender different. In the end, one can be obstinate, but the problem is the place were you refuse to look is a blind spot where you can disabled from fulfilling what you intend to do.

 

[Galnextdoor]

I wondered if this thread would end up being a who’s smarter or better thread. IMO arguments like the one that’s been going on are what has caused the crisis in the institution of marriage in the U.S.

Here’s my :twocents:

Men and women are equal in that we are both human beings and are created in the image and likeness of God. It is actually when man and woman are in the marital embrace that they most closely mirror the image of God. (Also when they take communion.)

Women and men are physically different. Comparing one to the other is like comparing apples to oranges. Both are fruits, but no one can present a reasonable argument that one fruit is superior to another.

The talents we are given do not define us as men or women. Just because a woman is good in math and science doesn’t mean she has a man brain.

It’s actually character that defines whether we have achieved manhood or womanhood, not how we use our talents.

If you are interested in learning about the physical differences in how a man uses his brain and how a woman uses her brain, you should watch some of the brain programs on the Science Channel. I’ve read some fantastic articles in science magazines while waiting in doctor’s offices as well. You could also search the internet.

Here is what the Catholic Church teaches and there are all kinds of scientific studies that back it up. Because of the testosterone levels in their bodies, men in general are wired differently than women. Hormones interact with the chemical processes of the brain causing men to approach the world in a way that is different from a woman’s approach. Neither way is a better way than the other. What is important is that both ways are given equal value and consideration if we want a well-balanced society.

JPII felt that it was important to have women in the math, science, and government fields as well as in other fields that have been traditionally populated with men. He said men and women’s approach to problems complement each other so it is necessary to have the ideas of both sexes represented in fields that were once only open to men. I believe that JPII also stated that it was through pride and arrogance that men had placed more importance on their work than the work that women do. So they often usurped the roles of power in society and repressed the woman to reinforce men’s own importance.

The world will be out of kilter until we embrace our differences and celebrate that we are all equal in the eyes of God. Our basic physical differences include but are not limited to the fact that men have more testosterone than women. Testosterone produces more hair and muscles in addition to effecting the basic personality. Women with higher testosterone levels usually are stronger, hairier and more aggressive than woman who have lower levels of testosterone. That’s why testosterone levels are checked for in Olympic competition. (Remember the big, hairy woman who used to come from behind the Iron Curtain to compete in the Olympics. We always joked about how much testosterone they were getting. )

Anyway… I think it’s character that makes the difference between a real man and a male.

What makes up the character of a real man? What should men say or do to teach their sons what it means to be a real man?

 

[chevalier]

Think there is a lot of danger in stereotyping in this way as with most stereotyping. There are always some exceptions. What about the male who has a “female” brain and the female (like me) who has a “male” brain.

There is no stereotyping in accepting reality. Male brains are heavier. Female brains are more complex in certain areas. Men are more able to focus on one thing, women are better at multitasking (and even have a broader range of sight). A man will not have a female brain in the sense of it being lighter and having a couple of additional folds here or there and women will not have it heavier but with fewer folds in those places the same way that people violate common stereotypes about arts being a female field or science a male one.

What about those of us who are not married? Are we to take on both roles? The one for our sex only?

We just deal with our lives. Much of the talk about gender roles is social rather than theological, but certain core differences are real and actual. This doesn’t mean it’s wrong if a woman fixes cars or a man cooks food or makes clothes for a living. In fact, even more extreme examples are not necessarily bad. What is bad is when people allow their sexual identity to become messy.

 

[chevalier]

AMEN!!!

Seriously, how much of this stuff is natural and how much of this is perpetuated by society? And even if something is “natural”, does it mean we need to act on it all the time? It’s “natural” for men to be promiscuous, does it mean they should be?

That’s the kind of “natural” like homosexual dolphins. It happens in nature. Not the kind of natural like what is so ordered by natural law. In fact, we say monogamy is natural to humans, polygamy offends the natural law.

Besides, cheating figures are similar. The last data I came across showed 16% cheating rate for men and 17% for women. Some have also argued that women need a strong and healthy man to sire the children and a gentle, caring one to bring them up with, suggesting the two need not be the same person. In fact, women’s mating preferences change in the ovulation period, during which they are attracted to more masculine men. So, both genders are bound by the natural law to monagamous marriage and both have their own difficulties. Neither of them has it necessarily better or worse.

As for the “better learners” comment, that doesn’t explain why most university students are now women?

Agreed. However, for some of the majority the explanation may lie in such things as better social skills, less aggression (aggression complicates education), perhaps fewer attractive non-academic opportunities for women, but I’m not sure of the last one.

Obviously, women have to be good at learning, or so many of them wouldn’t be entering good colleges. And as for men being more goal oriented, you haven’t met me or my girl friends. I would think it’s because men are taught one thing and women are taught another.

Goal-orientation seems to be a cultural thing to me. It is found desirable by corporations looking for suitable hirees. They want people who are goal-oriented, self-motivated and willing to shed their last drop of blood for the employer while forbearing employee rights and tolerating harsh conditions and bad treatment. In short, corporations want to get much, give little. Goal-oriented like Saint Mother Teresa or goal-oriented like Saint Josemaria Escriva, that’s a good thing, although I’m not sure it plays well with any type of personality. The more competitive, sport-like, confrontational kind of goal-orientation is risky. Goals don’t justify means. And I will certainly not agree that women are less goal oriented than men. “Traditional” evolutionary views of female programming hold that a woman has had a lot of wiring done to her to make her look for a good progenitor for her children and/or a good father to look for them. What else is that than goal oriented? Evens out a male’s focus of a hunter on a prey, I suppose.

And those of us who do break out of these "roles’ (and those who don’t, by their own choice) are because we really don’t care what society says and we want to become the people that GOD INTENDED US TO BE and not who other people say we should be.

I agree that the society’s views and God’s ordering of the world are two different things and it seems to me that societal mores has a strong tendency for usurping some moral weight so as to inspire better obedience. I am not a fan of societal stereotypes and I do not consider myself a failure of a man just because I don’t do sports or drive a car. On the other hand, I do not think it’s fine for a man to be girly. Traditional roles are one thing, matters of gender identity are another.

 

[dad_o_six]

What about those of us who are not married? Are we to take on both roles? The one for our sex only?

Easy one.

First of all, your use of the word “roles” presupposes a modern way of looking at this situation. If you substitute the word “natures,” the answer is quite clear. You cannot BE both a man and a woman at the same time.

Now, if you were a priest, the church or congregation would fulfill the female complementary nature. If you were a nun, Christ would be your spouse.

If you are a single person who has not taken religious vows, then often one’s mother or father, brother or sister, or platonic friend of the opposite sex can fulfill the complementary nature.

If you are married, these other opposite sex relations can be problematic to the primary complimentarity of your spouse, and this is why we break and cleave.

If you are married, but your spouse has poor judgment or is ungodly, then you can be in trouble. For Protestant women, they can lean on Christ to provide this complement. Protestant men in unhappy marriages, I think, are especially unfortunate. This is where the Catholic church is especially helpful, as we have Mary. This is also true of priests. The best priests I think have a special connection to Mary.

 

[chevalier]

If you are a single person who has not taken religious vows, then often one’s mother or father, brother or sister, or platonic friend of the opposite sex can fulfill the complementary nature.

If you are married, these other opposite sex relations can be problematic to the primary complimentarity of your spouse, and this is why we break and cleave.

I’m not sure it’s a good idea to have a chief opposite sex figure in one’s unmarried life. That could lead to skewed roles. People shouldn’t be replacement spouses to their children or parents and friends shouldn’t be something of a white marriage.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

I guess St. Joan of Arc wasn’t fulfilling her role as a woman? After all, she wore men’s clothing and went into battle. And St. Gianna Molla? She worked hard in university and became a doctor. Maybe she wasn’t fulfilling her role as a woman? And maybe the Church doesn’t seem to prescribe such superficiality to womanhood if these two remarkable ladies ended up as saints?

Amen, sistah! I’m minded of something in St. Edith Stein’s “Woman”, where she described how women’s basic vocation is motherhood, but (and I’m heavily paraphrasing this since I don’t have the book with me) this does not necessarily mean either having the proverbial pewful of kids or becoming a teaching Sister. It can apply to being a doctor or a lawyer or a university profession.

I doubt God looks at people and judges them on how truly masculine or truly feminine someone is. I doubt He cares if I wear pants or skirts, or how long a guy friend of mine (a black belt in Tae Kwon Do and training in a couple other martial arts) grows his hair. I think He looks at a person’s heart and sees how much they love their fellow man and how much they use the talents He gave them to do the most good.

 

[dad_o_six]

Not all relationships should be equated or substitued for each other. Family, friendship, marriage, and mysticism–these all lead to very different kinds of relationships. Each can have a different kind of complementarity. Perhaps the opposite or the distortion would be instructive. I know plenty of man-children who socialize almost exclusively with the boys. Some are married and I feel sorry for their wives. The opposite is also, it seems, increasingly true.

 

[mpernot]

I think you are right in criticizing his idea when it comes to general apptitude. Deeper down, I think TOB is really relational and abstract.

Theology of the Body is not as fluid as you make it sound here. It is hard to understand, but it not purely relational or abstract. The differences between male and female have to do with how we were created and what we were created for. Both sexes are equal in God’s eyes, but they are definitely not the same:

Eph 5:21-25 - "Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ. Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it:"

There is an analogy here that Pope John Paul II called the spousal analogy. As Jesus is to the church, so the husband is to his wife. How is Jesus related to the church? He “delivered Himself up” for her; He loved her so much that he was willing to be humilated, tortured, and killed for her. This is what men are called to do. How is the church related to Jesus? She honors and serves Him. This is what women are called to do. These roles were set forth by God, it is not our place to change them or distort them.

Notice also in verse 21 that St. Paul speaks of a mutual submission: “Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ”. This is also very important and relevant to all the back-and-forth discussions about the different historical roles of men and women. This surely doesn’t mean that all men have to behave differently from all women, but there are definite callings inherent in our sexuality. Note that God didn’t tell Eve that her punishment for original sin was that she would have to toil the earth - that was Adam’s lot (Gen 3:17-19). Eve’s punishment, aside from pain in childbirth, was that she would “be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee” (Gen 3:16). These roles were defined by God, and patriarchal family structure in the Old Testament was defined by God. These are facts, and this is what Theology of the Body teaches.

What about those of us who are not married? Are we to take on both roles? The one for our sex only?

There’s a spiritual fatherhood and motherhood that exists simply because we are made in God’s image for these things. This applies whether you are married, single, or celibate. God could have made us anything that He wanted, but “male and female He created them” to image His love. Males are made for fatherhood, whether they have biological children or not. Likewise, women are made for motherhood whether they end up bearing biological children or not. These are roles that we play in God’s plan based on what He made us for.