Define: Manhood

Discussions toward a better understanding of LDS doctrine, history, and culture. Discussion of Christianity, religion, and faith in general is welcome.
Thoughtful
Posts: 1162
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:54 pm

Re: Define: Manhood

Post by Thoughtful » Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:52 pm

Red Ryder wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:36 am
Hagoth wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:26 am
This is borne out by that fact that many cultures around the world in Asia, Africa, Polynesia, Native America... recognize more than 2 genders.
I'm going to admit I've never seen evidence of this in any issue of National Geographic. The photos might be taken through the lens of the photographer though! :lol:

Do you think their cognitive bias leans toward traditional masculinity which gets captured in the photos? Im extremely simplifying this based on mainstream photos of warrior tribes where the men hunt and the women breast feed the babies. Perhaps traditional narratives support the magazine sales commercialization requires.

Of course I also haven't seen an issue if National Geographic magazine in about 15 years so maybe I'm just not aware of gender fluidity as photographed in the Serengeti.
Actually, NatGeo discusses exactly that and other gender issues in Jan 2017

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/01/

User avatar
MerrieMiss
Posts: 580
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Define: Manhood

Post by MerrieMiss » Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:28 am

I don’t know exactly what Kish is asking for here, but this is a question I think about often. And I’ll put out a disclaimer right here that everything I am going to say has nothing to do with the fact that women are treated poorly in the church and even the greater culture has a way to go before they are seen as true equals to men. Just because I’m going to say there are damaging things done to men/boys does not mean I’m some kind of alt-right, pro-man, nutjob. (And for what it’s worth, I think it is a sad commentary on how society regards men in general that I feel it’s necessary to even say this.)

As a TBM I viewed masculinity as wearing a suit and tie, having a professional career, being an active Mormon in good standing. I’m not proud of it, but I was disappointed in my husband when we were first married because he did not fit my idea of what a man was – I expected him to be the religious leader in the home. I expected him to be more demanding/domineering (not that I think I really wanted that, that’s why I chose him, but I was certainly confused). I was disappointed he didn’t wear a suit and tie to work and that he would sometimes not wear a suit jacket to church. Today I have no idea what I believe masculinity is, which is why I typed a whole page of word vomit that I’m not going to post here: you’re welcome.

I am the only woman in the house – I have only sons. So I think about this a lot in the context of my children. I’m not sure that’s what the question is asking about, but boys become men, so I do think my response is at least related. Manhood and masculinity are so narrowly defined, not just in the church, but at least nationally, culturally, in the western world, however you want to phrase it. When women leave the church, there’s a noticeable difference between the way they are perceived and treated outside the church than in. With men I think the difference exists, but it is far narrower.

Women wear pants. Women have short hair. Women/girls can be “tomboys.” Girls can play, and are often encouraged to play with “boy” toys, like trucks and things. Women can be attorneys and politicians. And these things are all okay. Boys cannot wear skirts. They can’t like feminine colors. If they wear their hair long then they face some kind of discrimination for it – either being called a girl (which is of course derogatory and has it’ own set of issues) or they can’t hold certain positions in professions or positions of authority. Boys are not permitted to play with “girl” toys, like dolls. And being a “mama’s boy” is a bad thing, unlike being “daddy’s little girl.” Girls can be emotionally expressive and boys, not so much. A stay at home dad at the “mommy & me” group is suspect. And what of the man who wants to work with small children or in in-home health care? Of course there are exceptions. FLDS girls can’t have pixie cuts and little boys in Berkley play with cabbage patch dolls. I’m talking about the majority of the culture.

There’s a tendency to swing from one side of the pendulum to the other. After being in a male-authority-patriarchal religion it’s easy to point fingers at men. The impulse is to tell women and wives and daughters that they are important and valuable and do not need to be submissive – and I agree with that. But we leave the boys and men behind.

I wonder how I can help cultivate my boys to live in a world where they are so narrowly defined. The only answer I have for myself is to love and nurture who they are where they are, but I still worry. I wonder how their choices and personalities regarding how they view themselves as men will affect their jobs, their relationships, their standing in their communities. I wonder if the women they meet will be as kind and understanding of them as human beings as they themselves wish to be regarded. I see a lot of hurt down the road, hidden and subdued, pushed deep down inside of themselves because it simply isn’t appropriate for men to be vulnerable.

So here’s to my boys – if we can’t leave the church, perhaps I can at least mitigate the damage. You are more than a paycheck. You are more than some Mormon woman’s sperm bank. You are more than a cog in a corporate world. Your body is yours, and no one can tell you what to do with it. You are a sexual being and that is okay. You have feelings and emotions that are deserving of expression. You have a voice. You are deserving of friends, family, and community. A mission does not define you. Having the priesthood does not define you. You are worthy. You are loved.

User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 2235
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: Define: Manhood

Post by Palerider » Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:45 am

MerrieMiss wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:28 am
I don’t know exactly what Kish is asking for here, but this is a question I think about often. And I’ll put out a disclaimer right here that everything I am going to say has nothing to do with the fact that women are treated poorly in the church and even the greater culture has a way to go before they are seen as true equals to men. Just because I’m going to say there are damaging things done to men/boys does not mean I’m some kind of alt-right, pro-man, nutjob. (And for what it’s worth, I think it is a sad commentary on how society regards men in general that I feel it’s necessary to even say this.)

As a TBM I viewed masculinity as wearing a suit and tie, having a professional career, being an active Mormon in good standing. I’m not proud of it, but I was disappointed in my husband when we were first married because he did not fit my idea of what a man was – I expected him to be the religious leader in the home. I expected him to be more demanding/domineering (not that I think I really wanted that, that’s why I chose him, but I was certainly confused). I was disappointed he didn’t wear a suit and tie to work and that he would sometimes not wear a suit jacket to church. Today I have no idea what I believe masculinity is, which is why I typed a whole page of word vomit that I’m not going to post here: you’re welcome.

I am the only woman in the house – I have only sons. So I think about this a lot in the context of my children. I’m not sure that’s what the question is asking about, but boys become men, so I do think my response is at least related. Manhood and masculinity are so narrowly defined, not just in the church, but at least nationally, culturally, in the western world, however you want to phrase it. When women leave the church, there’s a noticeable difference between the way they are perceived and treated outside the church than in. With men I think the difference exists, but it is far narrower.

Women wear pants. Women have short hair. Women/girls can be “tomboys.” Girls can play, and are often encouraged to play with “boy” toys, like trucks and things. Women can be attorneys and politicians. And these things are all okay. Boys cannot wear skirts. They can’t like feminine colors. If they wear their hair long then they face some kind of discrimination for it – either being called a girl (which is of course derogatory and has it’ own set of issues) or they can’t hold certain positions in professions or positions of authority. Boys are not permitted to play with “girl” toys, like dolls. And being a “mama’s boy” is a bad thing, unlike being “daddy’s little girl.” Girls can be emotionally expressive and boys, not so much. A stay at home dad at the “mommy & me” group is suspect. And what of the man who wants to work with small children or in in-home health care? Of course there are exceptions. FLDS girls can’t have pixie cuts and little boys in Berkley play with cabbage patch dolls. I’m talking about the majority of the culture.

There’s a tendency to swing from one side of the pendulum to the other. After being in a male-authority-patriarchal religion it’s easy to point fingers at men. The impulse is to tell women and wives and daughters that they are important and valuable and do not need to be submissive – and I agree with that. But we leave the boys and men behind.

I wonder how I can help cultivate my boys to live in a world where they are so narrowly defined. The only answer I have for myself is to love and nurture who they are where they are, but I still worry. I wonder how their choices and personalities regarding how they view themselves as men will affect their jobs, their relationships, their standing in their communities. I wonder if the women they meet will be as kind and understanding of them as human beings as they themselves wish to be regarded. I see a lot of hurt down the road, hidden and subdued, pushed deep down inside of themselves because it simply isn’t appropriate for men to be vulnerable.

So here’s to my boys – if we can’t leave the church, perhaps I can at least mitigate the damage. You are more than a paycheck. You are more than some Mormon woman’s sperm bank. You are more than a cog in a corporate world. Your body is yours, and no one can tell you what to do with it. You are a sexual being and that is okay. You have feelings and emotions that are deserving of expression. You have a voice. You are deserving of friends, family, and community. A mission does not define you. Having the priesthood does not define you. You are worthy. You are loved.
Thanks for this.
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

George Washington

Thoughtful
Posts: 1162
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:54 pm

Re: Define: Manhood

Post by Thoughtful » Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:01 pm

MerrieMiss wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:28 am
I don’t know exactly what Kish is asking for here, but this is a question I think about often. And I’ll put out a disclaimer right here that everything I am going to say has nothing to do with the fact that women are treated poorly in the church and even the greater culture has a way to go before they are seen as true equals to men. Just because I’m going to say there are damaging things done to men/boys does not mean I’m some kind of alt-right, pro-man, nutjob. (And for what it’s worth, I think it is a sad commentary on how society regards men in general that I feel it’s necessary to even say this.)

As a TBM I viewed masculinity as wearing a suit and tie, having a professional career, being an active Mormon in good standing. I’m not proud of it, but I was disappointed in my husband when we were first married because he did not fit my idea of what a man was – I expected him to be the religious leader in the home. I expected him to be more demanding/domineering (not that I think I really wanted that, that’s why I chose him, but I was certainly confused). I was disappointed he didn’t wear a suit and tie to work and that he would sometimes not wear a suit jacket to church. Today I have no idea what I believe masculinity is, which is why I typed a whole page of word vomit that I’m not going to post here: you’re welcome.

I am the only woman in the house – I have only sons. So I think about this a lot in the context of my children. I’m not sure that’s what the question is asking about, but boys become men, so I do think my response is at least related. Manhood and masculinity are so narrowly defined, not just in the church, but at least nationally, culturally, in the western world, however you want to phrase it. When women leave the church, there’s a noticeable difference between the way they are perceived and treated outside the church than in. With men I think the difference exists, but it is far narrower.

Women wear pants. Women have short hair. Women/girls can be “tomboys.” Girls can play, and are often encouraged to play with “boy” toys, like trucks and things. Women can be attorneys and politicians. And these things are all okay. Boys cannot wear skirts. They can’t like feminine colors. If they wear their hair long then they face some kind of discrimination for it – either being called a girl (which is of course derogatory and has it’ own set of issues) or they can’t hold certain positions in professions or positions of authority. Boys are not permitted to play with “girl” toys, like dolls. And being a “mama’s boy” is a bad thing, unlike being “daddy’s little girl.” Girls can be emotionally expressive and boys, not so much. A stay at home dad at the “mommy & me” group is suspect. And what of the man who wants to work with small children or in in-home health care? Of course there are exceptions. FLDS girls can’t have pixie cuts and little boys in Berkley play with cabbage patch dolls. I’m talking about the majority of the culture.

There’s a tendency to swing from one side of the pendulum to the other. After being in a male-authority-patriarchal religion it’s easy to point fingers at men. The impulse is to tell women and wives and daughters that they are important and valuable and do not need to be submissive – and I agree with that. But we leave the boys and men behind.

I wonder how I can help cultivate my boys to live in a world where they are so narrowly defined. The only answer I have for myself is to love and nurture who they are where they are, but I still worry. I wonder how their choices and personalities regarding how they view themselves as men will affect their jobs, their relationships, their standing in their communities. I wonder if the women they meet will be as kind and understanding of them as human beings as they themselves wish to be regarded. I see a lot of hurt down the road, hidden and subdued, pushed deep down inside of themselves because it simply isn’t appropriate for men to be vulnerable.

So here’s to my boys – if we can’t leave the church, perhaps I can at least mitigate the damage. You are more than a paycheck. You are more than some Mormon woman’s sperm bank. You are more than a cog in a corporate world. Your body is yours, and no one can tell you what to do with it. You are a sexual being and that is okay. You have feelings and emotions that are deserving of expression. You have a voice. You are deserving of friends, family, and community. A mission does not define you. Having the priesthood does not define you. You are worthy. You are loved.
Yeah this is hard. My son is loving, kind, shy, intelligent, talented, and empathetic. He is a feminist ally. As a straight white male, he does not fit the "boys will be boys" all testosterone and sports requirement of small town conservative america. Hes taking women's studies classes. Girls like him. Boys like him. But he doesn't have friends and doesnt quite know how to be around his peers. I think he will do very well socially as an adult, but in the meantime? It's hard.

User avatar
Linked
Posts: 1533
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:04 pm

Re: Define: Manhood

Post by Linked » Fri Feb 22, 2019 11:04 am

MerrieMiss wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:28 am
I don’t know exactly what Kish is asking for here, but this is a question I think about often. And I’ll put out a disclaimer right here that everything I am going to say has nothing to do with the fact that women are treated poorly in the church and even the greater culture has a way to go before they are seen as true equals to men. Just because I’m going to say there are damaging things done to men/boys does not mean I’m some kind of alt-right, pro-man, nutjob. (And for what it’s worth, I think it is a sad commentary on how society regards men in general that I feel it’s necessary to even say this.)

As a TBM I viewed masculinity as wearing a suit and tie, having a professional career, being an active Mormon in good standing. I’m not proud of it, but I was disappointed in my husband when we were first married because he did not fit my idea of what a man was – I expected him to be the religious leader in the home. I expected him to be more demanding/domineering (not that I think I really wanted that, that’s why I chose him, but I was certainly confused). I was disappointed he didn’t wear a suit and tie to work and that he would sometimes not wear a suit jacket to church. Today I have no idea what I believe masculinity is, which is why I typed a whole page of word vomit that I’m not going to post here: you’re welcome.

I am the only woman in the house – I have only sons. So I think about this a lot in the context of my children. I’m not sure that’s what the question is asking about, but boys become men, so I do think my response is at least related. Manhood and masculinity are so narrowly defined, not just in the church, but at least nationally, culturally, in the western world, however you want to phrase it. When women leave the church, there’s a noticeable difference between the way they are perceived and treated outside the church than in. With men I think the difference exists, but it is far narrower.

Women wear pants. Women have short hair. Women/girls can be “tomboys.” Girls can play, and are often encouraged to play with “boy” toys, like trucks and things. Women can be attorneys and politicians. And these things are all okay. Boys cannot wear skirts. They can’t like feminine colors. If they wear their hair long then they face some kind of discrimination for it – either being called a girl (which is of course derogatory and has it’ own set of issues) or they can’t hold certain positions in professions or positions of authority. Boys are not permitted to play with “girl” toys, like dolls. And being a “mama’s boy” is a bad thing, unlike being “daddy’s little girl.” Girls can be emotionally expressive and boys, not so much. A stay at home dad at the “mommy & me” group is suspect. And what of the man who wants to work with small children or in in-home health care? Of course there are exceptions. FLDS girls can’t have pixie cuts and little boys in Berkley play with cabbage patch dolls. I’m talking about the majority of the culture.

There’s a tendency to swing from one side of the pendulum to the other. After being in a male-authority-patriarchal religion it’s easy to point fingers at men. The impulse is to tell women and wives and daughters that they are important and valuable and do not need to be submissive – and I agree with that. But we leave the boys and men behind.

I wonder how I can help cultivate my boys to live in a world where they are so narrowly defined. The only answer I have for myself is to love and nurture who they are where they are, but I still worry. I wonder how their choices and personalities regarding how they view themselves as men will affect their jobs, their relationships, their standing in their communities. I wonder if the women they meet will be as kind and understanding of them as human beings as they themselves wish to be regarded. I see a lot of hurt down the road, hidden and subdued, pushed deep down inside of themselves because it simply isn’t appropriate for men to be vulnerable.

So here’s to my boys – if we can’t leave the church, perhaps I can at least mitigate the damage. You are more than a paycheck. You are more than some Mormon woman’s sperm bank. You are more than a cog in a corporate world. Your body is yours, and no one can tell you what to do with it. You are a sexual being and that is okay. You have feelings and emotions that are deserving of expression. You have a voice. You are deserving of friends, family, and community. A mission does not define you. Having the priesthood does not define you. You are worthy. You are loved.
I'm not crying, you're crying. Thank you. This meant a lot to me as a father of 2 boys, and to the boy inside me.
"I would write about life. Every person would be exactly as important as any other. All facts would also be given equal weightiness. Nothing would be left out. Let others bring order to chaos. I would bring chaos to order" - Kurt Vonnegut

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests