femme guys (girlfriend, college, borderline, father)

[Dport7674]

Originally Posted by kmb501

Yeah, but a guy who did know the difference between Estee and Cosmo would be a step ahead of the rest. Well, I guess it's just me. I guess I like the Romeo (may-be-gay) ultra suave and sensitive types. The more non-traditional and soft, while still remaining charming, the better. The guy who doesn't chase after the girl, the one who makes her his world, the guy who tries to be a hero but makes himself so human in the process, the guy who is not afraid to just be himself, even if he does do "girly" things...yeah, that's a man in my book. It ranges from "Taming of the Shrew" to "nerdy kid next door," but I think the ones who know the most about women, their world, and their experiences are the most charming to me...

You're all over the place. The nerdy yet ultra suave and charming hero type doesn't exist. Those are movie characters you've seen.

[krmb]

Originally Posted by Dport7674

You're all over the place. The nerdy yet ultra suave and charming hero type doesn't exist. Those are movie characters you've seen.

You're entitled to your opinion.

[ocnjgirl]

Originally Posted by kmb501

I mentioned them because they seem to be in touch with women. Clark Gable as Rhett Butler was able to predict Scarlet's every move; Leo in Titanic was into art and music; Cary Elwes as Pirate Roberts was humble and caring, although swashbuckling and daring; Jim Parsons as Sheldon is sweet yet lovably clueless (not to mention OCD and quirky), and John Astin as Gomez Addams is seen as fun, charming, and non-conformist. These are not traits you would find in a typical (or should I say stereotypical) male role.

Rhett Butler was probably the most masculine character in GWTW, IMO he's the farthest thing from "femme". When he wanted to kiss Scarlett, there was no asking, he just picked her up and kissed her....he didn't care about social norms, he went after his goals, he was strong enough to hold his own with Scarlett and not let her be the boss, he knew how to protect his woman...all highly masculine traits. I think you're confusing masculinity with being a muscle bound meathead, it's not nearly the same. Most people in real life are combinations of masculine and feminine traits.

One of my favorite male movie characters is Jack Driscoll, the hero from King Kong. He had some traits that are considered more feminine, was in touch with his feelings, was affectionate, was verbally expressive....if he were just those things not balanced by masculine traits though he would be a "femme", but he also had highly masculine traits - he was not afraid to go after the ape to save Ann; even when the others went back to the ship, he said "I'm not leaving without Ann" and he plunged ahead knowing he was risking death to save the women he loved - that is masculinity at it's finest. That is the stuff that makes most women swoon.

I'm not sure why you think masculine equals bossy or aggressive, but it's not so.

[krmb]

Originally Posted by ocnjgirl

Rhett Butler was probably the most masculine character in GWTW, IMO he's the farthest thing from "femme". When he wanted to kiss Scarlett, there was no asking, he just picked her up and kissed her....he didn't care about social norms, he went after his goals, he was strong enough to hold his own with Scarlett and not let her be the boss, he knew how to protect his woman...all highly masculine traits. I think you're confusing masculinity with being a muscle bound meathead, it's not nearly the same. Most people in real life are combinations of masculine and feminine traits.

One of my favorite male movie characters is Jack Driscoll, the hero from King Kong. He had some traits that are considered more feminine, was in touch with his feelings, was affectionate, was verbally expressive....if he were just those things not balanced by masculine traits though he would be a "femme", but he also had highly masculine traits - he was not afraid to go after the ape to save Ann; even when the others went back to the ship, he said "I'm not leaving without Ann" and he plunged ahead knowing he was risking death to save the women he loved - that is masculinity at it's finest. That is the stuff that makes most women swoon.

I'm not sure why you think masculine equals bossy or aggressive, but it's not so.

The adjectives I can easily associate with "masculine" are big, brawny, ape-like, foolish, aggressive, authoritarian, bossy, violent, tough, rough, smelly, hairy, muscular, dirty, grimy, gritty, ignorant, hateful, old-fashioned, set-in-their-ways, patriarchal, domineering, inconvenienced, rebellious, lustful...

Sure, I've had men in my life who don't fit any of these stereotypes, but far too many at least attempted it!

To me, "feminine" is everything else that doesn't act like a sweaty football player, plumber, or angry manual tradesman, and men get more points the more in touch with women they are, as long as it's not taken to serious extremes, like to the point of stalking women. A man who is polite, shy, quiet, gentle, and witty, or a heterosexual guy who likes to hang out with the girls as just a friend and learn their ways, is a rare find indeed and would probably be welcome company, while the womanizing wolf or grouchy old bear would not at all be.

Why am I complaining, though? For all of our progress, it's still a man's world. While women may fantasize of having suave gentlemen who love them, boys fantasize about other things. It seems like real women are, strangely, not really welcome in a "real" man's world. Maybe that's why so many marriages end up not working out. I don't know. I just wish more guys would embrace their feminine side. Go see a romantic comedy or something. Stop acting like your woman is just there to make you a "ham sammach."

[ocnjgirl]

Originally Posted by kmb501

The adjectives I can easily associate with "masculine" are big, brawny, ape-like, foolish, aggressive, authoritarian, bossy, violent, tough, rough, smelly, hairy, muscular, dirty, grimy, gritty, ignorant, hateful, old-fashioned, set-in-their-ways, patriarchal, domineering, inconvenienced, rebellious, lustful...

Sure, I've had men in my life who don't fit any of these stereotypes, but far too many at least attempted it!

To me, "feminine" is everything else that doesn't act like a sweaty football player, plumber, or angry manual tradesman, and men get more points the more in touch with women they are, as long as it's not taken to serious extremes, like to the point of stalking women. A man who is polite, shy, quiet, gentle, and witty, or a heterosexual guy who likes to hang out with the girls as just a friend and learn their ways, is a rare find indeed and would probably be welcome company, while the womanizing wolf or grouchy old bear would not at all be.

Why am I complaining, though? For all of our progress, it's still a man's world. While women may fantasize of having suave gentlemen who love them, boys fantasize about other things. It seems like real women are, strangely, not really welcome in a "real" man's world. Maybe that's why so many marriages end up not working out. I don't know. I just wish more guys would embrace their feminine side. Go see a romantic comedy or something. Stop acting like your woman is just there to make you a "ham sammach."

None of those = masculine IMO. Maybe "macho" but not masculine. I kind of feel this post is almost "anti-male" as you seem to think feminine traits are the only good traits, and I think that's a shame, as there are many many positive masculine traits.

[krmb]

Originally Posted by ocnjgirl

None of those = masculine IMO. Maybe "macho" but not masculine. I kind of feel this post is almost "anti-male" as you seem to think feminine traits are the only good traits, and I think that's a shame, as there are many many positive masculine traits.

Isn't "men are bad guys" what the popular media usually goes for and encourages young men to become? Most men I've met are the "kings of their castles" but their wives are nothing more than lowly servants...

[Dport7674]

Originally Posted by kmb501

Isn't "men are bad guys" what the popular media usually goes for and encourages young men to become? Most men I've met are the "kings of their castles" but their wives are nothing more than lowly servants...

You obviously live in a backwards, creepy small town.

Imo, the popular media seems to push the 'Chandler Bing' type of image. And you can't get much more 'popular media' than Big Bang theory.

[Phil75230]

I haven't though deeply about what precisely "feminine" behavior traits consists of - beyond noticing (however semi subjectively) that certain activities, styles, mannerisms, behaviors, personal interests, etc correlate strongly with females AND also strongly and negatively correlate with males.

The problem with "femme man", and almost by implication "manly man" is that the definitions are vague at best, completely arbitrary at worst. Without a clear, sharp definition for "manly" and "femme", it's almost impossible to have a meaningful, fruitful discussion about the matter...almost.


However, I have thought deeply about what "manly" consists of, and find "masculinity" vague at best; especially the widespread pop culture sense of the term "real man"). Still, I do see some core consistency to it, and concluded that "manliness" is the combination of what I call the "Social Dominance" traits and the "Civilized / Humane" traits ("Civility" for short.

Social Dominance traits: High degrees of personal forcefulness, street smarts, social intelligence, assertiveness, courage, grace under pressure, charisma, a natural leader, etc. (AND not showing in abundance any of these trait's opposites)

Civility Traits: Kindness, consideration of others' feelings, open-mindedness, generosity, tolerance, compassion, sympathy, honesty, helpfulness to others most in need, etc. (or at the very least NOT displaying in abundance the opposite of these traits)

Both baskets of traits must be present to minimally qualify for a "real man" (for the sake of argument, I will assume that Social Dominance + NO displays of dominance's opposite + NO displays of civility's opposite minimally qualifies for a "real man"). Still, I grant that for a male to qualify an ideal "real man" he must qualify for both sets of traits AND possess none of their opposites in abundance. With that said, I'll go on.

In the end, the most "manly" says about a male (boy or man) is that he has high social dominance but not so uncivil that he inspires widespread loathing in others. We as a society seem to emphasis Social Dominance over Civility, sometimes well ahead of it even in settings that don't require Social Dominance. It seems we tend to see Civility as a boring but important add-on to "manliness" instead of a highly valuable trait in and of itself. This likely explains why so much of society slaps the "real man" label on moderately uncivil high dominance male (i.e. a "jerk" but still well short of a violent criminal) to be considered more respect-worthy than his opposite, a high civil but low dominance male (often considered a "nice guy"™ at best, an outright "wimp" at worst); or worse thinking the latter is more deserving of disrespect than the former.

However popular and widespread are these pop culture notions of “manliness”, they are incoherent at best, outright contradictory at worst.

Social Dominance, no matter how appealing or effective it is, tells us nothing about just how that male will use his dominance. It is used just as easily for bad, even evil, purposes as for good ones. Even if used for good, there is still nothing about using Socially Dominance for good that prevents one from using it for bad in another place or to another person, or even the same person at another time. If we insist that “real men”, by definition, do not habitually commit bad and especially evil acts, then we admit that some traits are indeed more important for “manliness” than Social Dominance. Otherwise why object to the claim that evil-doing high Dominance men do qualify for “real manliness” at all?

By contrast, a high Civility male (with or without Social Dominance) will, by definition, never habitually do unmistakably rotten things. Even when he does, he is quick to apologize to the offended person or group and accept any punishment he deserves. Thus, society usually considers even a low Dominance high Civility male who does 20 hours of humanitarian volunteer work per week better qualifying for a “real man” than an uncivil jerk who cheats on his spouse in a singularly committed relationship, dishonorable behavior barely avoiding violation of the law or formal ethics codes, abuses others in some way. This remains true even if that jerk does as much and identical volunteer work as the said other male, even so many of us don’t actually apply that standard at all times.

Hence, believing a high dominance jerk deserves more regard than a low Dominance high Civility male still works at cross-purposes to pop culture’s vague standards of “manliness": That Civility traits are indeed more important for “manliness” than Social Dominance traits.

Therefore, the “Social Dominance First” model of “manliness” has got to go. Only “Civility First” can be the source of any credible, coherent, and consistent definition of “manliness” that somehow might exist. To disagree is to be (frankly) either remain confused, wallow in denial, or just plain dishonest – unless we wish to say that a claim’s truth-value depends on the strongest individuals or groups present; in which case we presume a “might makes right” basis of social values that ultimately implies nihilism.

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by Davros

Girly men like me who live in the south are double SOL. The only place I've been where it seems like I'd have a chance with women is Colorado. The South and Central PA .... forgeddaboutit.

Try the South's "bohemian" enclaves, even in fairly small cities (Shreveport, Jackson, and maybe even Columbia SC*). IOW, the type of neighborhood in the central city that best withstood the 20th century "White Flight" phenomenon, where there's a food co-op, an independent coffee shop, a Peace & Justice center, a Unitarian Church, and perhaps even a pagan worship center too -- all within 10 blocks of each other! And where half the white middle class population consistently votes Democrat in Presidential Elections besides. In short, the sections of town where the hipsters congregate. Those types of areas tend to be the least macho-oriented areas of the metropolitan area (and even the state).

I'm not saying to be a hipster, or that you should stop (if you do) finding them annoying. This still does not change the fact that in my experience, the machismo is quite watered down compared to the surrounding area, or even most of the rest of the state for that matter. If you can't find it in medium-sized Southern cities, keep looking at progressively (pun intended) larger ones until you get to Atlanta or the Big Texas or Florida cities. After than, then you might look at Colorado, or perhaps the West Coast, and maybe even the Upper Midwest.

Central PA: Politicos describe PA as "Philadelphia in the east, Pittsburgh in the West, and Alabama in the middle" (although Pittsburgh, historically a heavily blue-collar town, is likely to still have a fairly strong macho streak about it. I've never been, but I would be surprised if that were not the case).

*I've never been to Columbia, and in SC in general, I only passed through it on 85. Even so, Columbia is certainly big enough to make me fairly sure it is worth giving a chance to. Especially if it's both a state capital and home of the state's flagship university, which has about 30K students IIRC.

[skywalker2014]

Women nowadays are attracted to the Christian Grey sadomasochist type in "Fifty Shades" but mainly because the guy is wealthy and good looking, the weirdo sex part is not that "important" if the guy has his own plane!

A man can be a gentleman...but not a "metro".